The whole idea is to NOT have you in that position. Sure you can do it with a more careful raid with hate transfers and buffs, but the raid should want to have a MT type class in the position instead of you. Just like they wouldn't want a SK in the MT position because of his lack of temps and survivability tools. The same reason that a Brawler is ultimately the best CC tank because of their self sufficient temps and snap capabilities. Really the idea is get you out of the mindset that your class is the optimum choice for MT/OT and instead start thinking of your class in the CC/ET position. If what Maergoth is saying is true, which I believe to be the case, than how do you discourage from using Brawlers as MT/OT and encourage raids to utilize them as the CC/ET?
Even if Brawlers are not Preferred for MT or OT brawlers still need to be able to perform that role on an as needed bases... all raid Long. But i am not convinced that just making Guards better suited for the Content that is "Not Being Designed for them" would 1s again bring them up into the main MT slot.
It's not about being the BEST. It's about it still being reasonable and possible. SKs will absolutely be able to MT, because the lack of saves won't matter because you'll have brawlers right? And if a brawler isn't available? SKs still have the saves they do, and can stand in regardless. You don't have to screw over your entire raid force to get an SK into that position, but you will to get a brawler in there. About the only way to ensure absolute class role adherence to crusaders and warriors is to remove all of their saves, and severely limit their snaps, because keeping the status quo unfairly penalizes brawlers.
SKs will be able to MT.. but there will be adds not getting AOEd and demolished if he's busy on the named. See how this works? Preferred roles. You're grossly underestimating brawler aggro, hate transfers, temp buffs, coercer tricks and the fact that people AREN'T going all out burning the named all the time. Most of the time they're fighting adds or doing something else.
And brawlers will not be able to MT. Regardless of adds, dps, saves, anything. See how that works? You want loose roles for warriors and crusaders, but absolute roles for brawlers. Double standards ftw.
I'll laugh if they remove Reckless, then basically just give Brawlers auto-Reckless when not tanking (without the inc damage penalty).
I hated Recklessness as an idea. It made many "poor" tanks think they were DPS and caused so many problems. When they lose DPS as Duele said, they would gain Threat procs/bonus's to keep aggro through their temps so they may do their job. It's not to prevent them from tanking, its to discourage them from full-time tanking. The alternatives as have been pointed out are both flat nerfs to bralwers. - Buff the other "MT" classes so they perform better and are more desirable - Reduce Brawlers ability to MT (because both classes can) to the point that other classes are more desired. Either way isn't really fair to brawlers, either class of them. They need a defined roll because the alternatives are harsh. If nothing is done however well, the Warrior class is left in the dark as the MT-Warrior (Guardian) performs less than the MT-Brawler (whichever). Same for Zerkers who are outperformed by Crusaders... that or I just haven't seen a good Berserker in years. Warriors would be polarized rolls. Guardian = MT Berserker = OT If you try to make a Guard OT or ET they probably could, but worse than the tanks intended for it. You could have a Berserker MT, though they wouldn't be suited for it. Essentially putting a tank in a roll it's not meant for will yield a weaker result. Maybe not an impossible result, but a weaker one.
You are so full of it. You have made your eq2 life on being a 3rd tank, you were never good enough to MT even when SK's were OP and there was no need for a OT because SK's could tank everything. This whole emergency tank role you cry about is the only role you know how to play. If brawlers were the 3rd tank you would be out of a raid spot, as would Maer since that is what he usually was as well when I raided with him. Basically you are trying to push brawlers into a role you already fill.
"There was no need for a OT" Wat. TSO was DEFINED by the necessity for an offtank. Every mob had 100000 adds. If you're going to make Ad hominem attacks against Duele (Whom I don't even particularly care for) you still might want to mention your own credentials. There's room for 3 tanks on pretty much any fight. Some of them require 4. In no way would anyone be put out of a raid spot by any of this. In fact, with brawlers able to DPS better when not tanking, they would basically be freeing up the main tank role and acting as a DPS class in the mean time. It's like having a full time reckless tank, without the defensive penalty.
there can not be 1 blanket solution to this problem. there MUST be a directed aprock. just saying Brawlers Just have there dps Nurfed by 50% when tanking, is not a dissected solution, its an idea. A. How exactly would monks need to be changed to not OVER Shadow the Guard and Pally for the MT position? B. How exactly would monks need to be changed to Not be desired for a OT position? C. How exactly would Bruisers need to be changed to not OVER Shadow the SK and Zerker for the OT Position? D. How exactly would Bruisers need to be changed to not be desired for the MT position? E. How exactly would Guards need to be changed so they can fulfill their MT Position? F. How exactly would Zerkers need to be changed so they can Fulfill their OT position? the CC/ET tank role should not be a Specialty. if you want to encourage Brawlers to not be needed as much then there are the questions i think need to be Answered. Not how can we nurf Brawlers so they can not MT or OT at all.
Even if you gave guardians complete invulnerability, they would not be the choice for main tank. Even if you made it to guardians could never lose aggro, they would not be the choice for main tank. Some guilds would, but anyone who cares whatsoever about minmaxing will take the tank that can do the job, and do the most damage while doing so. That's how you know the issue lies with DPS and utility. Right now, for almost all intents and purposes, brawlers are both of the above. Sustained aggro hasn't been an issue in this game since.. ever. It's all about snaps (Which brawlers coincidentally have twice as many of as any other class in the game). As for survivability, there are no mobs in game right now that a brawler can't tank. Survivability isn't a grey area. You either can, or you can't. Taking slightly more or slightly less damage is irrelevant. Either you live, or you don't. And brawlers currently live on every fight just fine, some of which NO other tank can do. The reason I'm lumping brawlers together right now is because there is practically no difference between brawlers right now. We use both interchangeably, with little to no difference. I'm not saying one isn't better than the other, but I am saying that in utilization and ability, they are both about the same. Hell, both of your prestige sides are almost identical.
You can't just ignore parts of an argument you don't like. As I pointed out that forces brawlers to use their temps in order to maintain a reasonable level of hate generation. No other tank has to do that. No other tank has to sacrifice their emergencies (oh but hey, you want an entire tank archetype dedicated to that AND keep you own emergency temps, really fair huh) to perform a basic tanking function. OT isn't restricted to mass adds with low health. OT refers to anything the MT isn't holding. Any encounter with 2 mobs that can't be simultaneously tanked requires an OT. So your claim that guardians cannot OT is absolute bull. So too is your claim zerkers can't MT. The only classes not able to MT would be brawlers, because of an extreme lack of sustained hate generation.
Probably because they haven't even started on their 'buff crusaders' campaign to make them the MT of choice. Step 1: nerf brawlers.
The reason for putting it on temps is the Brawlers if indeed this is their "dev intended" roll aren't supposed to tank for the whole fight. Place a restriction on the DPS drop that only drops DPS if they target is Epic that should remove the issue in Heroics. The big question is how do you discourage sustain-tanking without making them unable to tank? If you have an answer to that one please let me know. Thus far Maergoth has given probably the most reasonable suggestion yet. - Lower DPS when tanking - Raise Threat when Tanking (Duele I think also agreed with this, as did you Malleria) And yes I know that OT can mean any of those rolls, typically the OT is the "Add Tank" or the "Weaker Named" tank. In the instance of two named that is essentially double MTing. I did not say they cannot do the jobs their counter-archetype does better. I said they would do lesser degrees of that job. By that merit a Guardian can OT adds or a 2nd named, just perhaps not as well if he is doing Adds. He could OT a 2nd named just fine as the Guardian is the single target MT class. Crusaders are all about versatility. Jack of all trades, master of none. Brawlers are the flipside that Warriors are. High damage and control but not able to tank what a Warrior does for extended periods. I knew brawlers who quit in DoV because they didn't want to be the full-time MT.
Malleria, you do realize that Holy Ground is a temp, Sigil of Heroism is a temp, Grave Sac is a temp, even Furor has aggro attached to it. They're all required for holding aggro to the same extent that brawler temps would be. And yes, guardians can offtank. They're not particularly good at it, but they can do it. Zerkers can main tank. They're not particularly good at it, but they can do it. We're not talking about basic tanking function. Consider this: There aren't many fights where you have 2 mobs that need to be held the whole time. Almost every fight in the game is tanked as follows: Named (Pally/Guard), Adds(SK/Zerk), special add/memwipe(Bruiser/Monk). Those are basically the roles that need to be filled. Unfortunately, there are an uneven number of archetypes, so the distribution just has to be like that. Unless you make Bruisers a truly AOE tank class, which is a much larger and pigeonholing change than just modifying damage output. There are a couple exceptions, but even fights like pirate kings have no sustained aggro requirement. It wipes so often it's all about snaps and temps. Otherwise, I'd have no problem doing it, and that's certainly not the case.
Just because I don't have a plan you think is better doesn't make Maer's a good one. You (and Maer) keep referring to tanks being able to do things outside their role, just not as well as others. You yourself just admitted it would make brawlers UNABLE to perform a role. You can't have it both ways. Either every tank archetype has a role they are simply UNABLE to perform, or none of them do. Maer's suggestion is unfairly biased against brawlers. Guardians, Zerkers, SKs and Paladins will be able to perform as an emergency tank, because they all have snaps and saves. Brawlers will be unable to perform the MT role because they won't be able to hold agro without severely hampering the raids dps. But here's another scenario for you. Brawler takes over tanking, uses their temps to avert whatever mechanic is requiring a brawler. MT takes it back over. Then the MT dies suddenly. Brawler goes to take over... oh crap, no temps means no hate. Mob runs around owning half the raid while the Brawler stands there helplessly.
Shoot, I must've forgotten about all those hate buffing temps brawlers have. Wait, no I didn't, because just about every non-snap/non-defensive temp a brawler has is a dps temp, and you're advocating cutting those in half. If paladins had to regularly use Faith, Legionnaire's Conviction and Stonewall to hold agro, I'd agree with you. If SKs had to sacrifice Bloodletter charges to hold agro, I'd agree with you. They don't. So I don't.
That is not how hate works, for starters. Furthermore, leaving yourself without anything to fall back on would be hilariously dumb. Especially since brawlers have SO MANY buttons to press. You can't balance around bad. "just about every" temp is not every temp. Even if you DID need aggro components added to your temps, you wouldn't be "sacrificing them" to hold aggro. You'd be using them to survive, holding aggro in the process.
In the emergency tank role yes. In the 'still viable to tank if needed' role you wouldn't be using them to survive, you'd be using them to hold agro. But ok, lets get into specifics. What temps would you assign such hate increasers to for a bruiser?
This thread is such a joke. So now Maer wants every encounter to be the same too with an MT and OT needed and this mythical emergency tank as well. How exciting. I can't wait to not play this crappy game Maer has in mind. The best part is that you guys are using snaps to justify having a brawler in raid yet any tank can hold agro without the use of snaps and even have other classes snap it to them. Here is the basic fact since you guys are throwing all the BS all over the place - if you feel like your tank class isnt doing enough dps then ask for more dps rather than a brawler nerf (even though its pretty clear from Maers streams that tank dps seems pretty aligned.) - if you feel like your tank can't tank a certain way effectively then ask for your tank to be buffed in that way - stop crying and trying to create imbalances for a game that should be better balanced, putting one tank archetype in a specific roll and not being able to do other roles is the definition of imbalance. - basically if you aren't a brawler go to your own thread and talk about the issues you have with your class instead of bleeding you really bad ideas all over a brawler thread.
