Soul_Dreamer wrote: Make it work like this: Multiple fighters in raid reduces a target's multi attack chance. Since all mobs have frontal arc damage, the mob has to focus on more targets so he uses aoe auto instead of multi attack. It makes sense from a physics standpoint, but idk if u could actually implement it. I'm also not a fan of artificially forcing a raid to do anything. But 4 fighters should be the norm, at minimum. OOO! On a similar thought, when facing a single target a Berserker should be able to focus his AoE auto attack into more multi attack! Kind of like the Warlock mythical. Unlikely, but it's a thought!
The Fighter community asked for years that all fighters be viable raid tanks. That had to be accompied with an adjustment of the classes to be in line with game balance. SoE made a HUGE mistke with TSO and SF. They boosted some of the fighetrs up to be able to tank better and did not adjust their ability to do DPS or their utility. It's not fair to give fighters the option to choose to stand in front of the mob and also have the option to do nice DPS. No other class in the game has that choice. Fighters do NOT derserve to have it either. I'm not trying to be flippant or degrading, but if you want to do DPS then you either get to make a new class that can NOT tank or you need to ask to have your Fighter class changed so that you can do DPS but your tanking ability is reduced. I look at this as a sum total game. Tanking is 1, DPS is 1 and Utility is 1. Everybody gets one point to spend. Choose wisely becasue you only get one point. Period. As soon as the Assassin can do all of their DPS from in front of the mob then Fighters will NEVER be needed again. Be careful what you wish for becasue imf fighetrs get to do good DPS then my wizard better be able to tank and then I don't need a fighter in any group I form.
Wasuna wrote: Your thought process is off the charts bad. Guess what? Utility classes get to DPS well. Some Healing classes get to DPS well. Some DPS classes tank *very* well depending on the zone/encounter, even raids. It should be an option, always. As a Tank, if I want to do more DPS and take more damage as a result, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO. Aggro should be the same either way. You are thinking too much in absolutes. NO tank on these boards thinks they should to T1 DPS, but T2 shouldn't be out of the question. This game depends on DPS way way way too much for you or anyone to act like some classes -shouldn't- do good DPS. Wasuna wrote: Anyone can tank the easy group zones already bro. Ranger Dirge Wizard...happens daily. You still need a Fighter for harder zones and raids, just like Fighters need T1 DPS to kill things before people start dying from <insert random effect>. And if the game were more flexible in the manner you suggest, I truly believe it would be a lot more fun game for grouping especially. If a wizard could sacrifice 40% of his DPS for 40% more survivability, then yeah I'm all for it. That's really all I ask for as a Fighter.
if they simply adjusted the stances to be more desirable you wouldn't have this discussion about DPS and tanking. as of now most fighters still have to DPS to generate hate, meaning they will be offensive for as long as possible until it is necessary to switch to have a miniscule bump in survivability. as of now, on this forum, the BERSERKER forum, there is almost zero benefit from switching to defensive stance. also remember that fighters also need to be able to solo, because out of group who is going to drag us around to help us level each expansion before asking for a tank for their group? that is one reason why the previous tank revamp flopped, because the choices to do average dps in order to manage hate was taken from us, and survivability wasn't touched at all. going forward it gets more of a pain in the rear to be a tank, and then there are people advocating that we shouldn't even do moderate dps. as of now, we are doing moderate to below moderate DPS so why are we still arguing that point? i think our DPS is fine where it is, we can still solo ok but aggro is taking a beating unless in a stacked group because some DPS classes are quadrupling our DPS. but i simply don't know why they won't touch the taunt values, all while focusing on modifying our taunt procs when we are hit, as if it is our job to want to be hit to generate hate.. we have 3 active taunts, which we have had for ages +1 and we actually LOSE aggro over hitting those abilities versus even the weakest of combat arts.
Wasuna wrote: You are wrong. And again it is this mentality that is a huge part in why DoV is so boring and a pain for Fighters and why groups are having a hard time finding them. People don't want to play the Fighter alts they rolled. You make it sound like SF was such a mistake when in fact it is the best xpac this game has ever had for Fighters. As I have stated before raids actually wanted to keep a 4th Fighter around because they weren't looked at as a liability on DPS too much. You somehow translate that as meaning Fighters were OP'd. I don't see how raids still not wanting to give up more than 4 spots can mean the classes are OP'd? I mean raids bring 4 Inq alone in todays game....but Fighters getting decent DPS to get a total of 4 spots is just so OP'd for some reason. So yeah, you are wrong as a lot of people are pointing out to you. And as far as stances...get rid of them. All they are is yet another way to try and force Fighters to be unflexible and 99% of the time they can't balance them. EDIT: To add that no, Fighters should not be doing equal DPS to T1 when equally geared and equal player skill. However T1 DPS should not be doing the ridiculous DPS they do in relation to everybody else, a 20-30% gap is understandable...a 100-200% gap is just ridiculous and a huge part of the problem.
Lyger@Permafrost wrote: 100% for more exaggerated stances for everyone, not just Fighters. Fighters don't have anything to complain about when soloing, I think we are hands down the best. But I wouldn't suggest nerfing us here, just buffing others (or allowing them to spec) to solo more effectively, especially bards/some healers/assassins? Hate management shouldn't be an issue in either offensive or defensive stance: stance should only make you do more damage & take more damage OR take less less damage & do less damage. A Fighter shouldn't have as many issues with hate as they do right now, and it's why doing PUGs is hard. Of course you would need to develop encounters to actually need the increased defenses. One thing I liked about the aborted fighter change was it disabled Taunts in offensive stance...another thing I would suggest is to disable your defensive abilities in Offensive Stance too. AND give all fighters Strikethrough immunity on these abilities, defensive stance only. Tanking is stressful enough without overzealous a-hole DPS classes thinking it's fun to take aggro (which most DPSers do). There is a lot of stress involved with tanking, why should we do awful DPS too?
Soul_Dreamer wrote: THIS^^^^ This is good feedback and prolly the only changes needed (well strikethrough immunity on avoid buffs. ) The problem i see with fighter doing scout dps is this. Most Fighters already have ok heals, especially for heroic content, fighters already have ok utility, fighters obviously tank better and take less damage then other classes. And now you want them to dps as well as not just any scouts but the t1/t2 dps on top of all this. Thats the issue I see. newer games may have very close dps gaps but they also have mutli roles on ALL class types. They all tank, they all dps, they all heal, they all provide utility. There was a reason why fighters were soloing heroic content in SF and it was because they were OP. Very few other classes are able to solo heroic content. In PVP fighters also were godly OP in SF. To claim fighters are not OP with thier healing output and dps and tanking ability in SF is only because you were completely blind to the realities of every other class playing. A long time ago i suggested changing the fighter avoidance buff into a brawler avoidance buff, a crusader spell damage reduction buff, and a warrior physical damage reduction buff so they could stack. You should not be able to RECEIVE multiple buffs from the same class such as 2 warrior physical damge reductions on the same player. It would also make the other tank classes avoid buff a bit better to protecting thier target. But that wont fix any of the issues peopel have now. The only issue that needs to be fixed is the fact certain fighters do not have the tools for DOV content. Snaps and stoneskins/deathsaves.
Tekadeo wrote: 1. Wizards can't click a button and turn into a tank. Why should you be able to click a button and be a good DPS class? 2. Anybody that is past the zone in terms of gear progression can go back and tank it. Talathaion already tried that. If you agree with him then good for you. If your in a zone that is reasonable for progression for the g ear you have then you can NOT tank it as a DPS class unless you have a fantastic healer, which agro, the healer would be outside of their progression... Just becasue you want something doesn't give you the right to it.
Bruener wrote: Of course you think SF was a great expansion. Your an SK. Really, that's about all I need to say. Your DPS was through the roof and you could tank anything in the game. That was broken. Plane and simple. As for people pointing out that I'm wrong... no, they are pointing out that they want more than any other sub-class in the game. They want to do DPS and they want to be able to tank raid mobs. As far as I'm concerned, you can't have both and apparently SoE agrees due to the changes in DoV so.. you and all of them are wrong.. not me. As for your variance in DPS from DPS classes an tanks.. How much more damage does an Assassin tank over a tank if they get agro? I have actually looked at that with a friend of mine in our raid parses and the Assassin was taking something like 110% more melee damage from the named than my Guardian was. So the numbers make since and your just not looking at the whole picture. You have to look at both sides not just what you want. Children only look at what they want. Tanks tank, DPS DPSes and Utility Utilities. If you want to DPS then you have to give up your ability to stand toe to toe with the fighetrs that want to tank. I could care less what you choose. I'm happy with my Guardian.
Gungo@Crushbone wrote: What healing output? You mean the OP'd Stonewill gear that healed more than SKs or Paladins could combined by just having a few pieces? The proc that no longer is present on current gear because it was OP'd? Fighters can't even solo the hardest content. Certain healers are much better at that and were in SF too. PVP is another matter and EQ2 classes should never be balanced around PVP in PVE. EQ2 wasn't even designed to be a PVP game....and all of us on PVE really don't care how PVP works. PVP should be a completely seperate game. The reality is that Fighters doing T2 DPS would mean regularly wanting 4 Fighters in a raid. It would mean more people utilizing Fighters because they would be much more enjoyable to play. You might even find yourself in a group that had 2 Fighters..../GASP!!!!! SF where Fighter DPS was at T2 did not see them OP'd at all. Solo'ing an extremely easy Heroic zone that you are over-geared on is not OP'd.
Bruener wrote: Ho hum how quick you forget how OP your class was. Heal crits was nerfed in SF, as was % heals such as the zerkers ability that got neutered from PVP complaints. crusaders were topping the parse on some fights due to a op legionaries. There was a ton broken in SF. that got fixed in dov that had your class OP. But you keep claiming it was balanced simply because you look back with rose colored glasses and seeing your OP character topping parses. The ACTUAL reality of SF was high dps DID NOT mean more fighters on raids. All it did was make you feel better because YOU were playing an OP toon. But the REALITY was most fights only brought 3 fighters on raids and a handful of fights need 4 JUST LIKE todays raids. I dont care or think offfensive fighters pushing troubs/illy on parses is a huge issue but you keep hammering on about doing rogue + dps and nerfing T1 dps classes so your shadowknight can beat them on a parse. You just scream I want to play an overpowered class it isnt even funny. You honestly dont have a clue what balance is.
Wasuna wrote: Additionally, All Fighters have an offensive and Defensive stance, so SoE thinks we should make this choice between survivability and damage. As a Zerker I have a spell called Juggernaut that also is supposed to give me another way to do more DPS while taking more to balance it. So someone thinks the option should be there. You as a Guardian have means to modify and siphon hate by %-based margins. We don't. Just because you guys got fixed doesn't mean we shouldnt get balanced. I don't want to betray to a Guard to simply be able to maintain aggro. All tanks should be able to handle top tier DPS without handcuffing them to Dirges/Coercers...I don't see why you are getting so defensive over people wanting balance really.
Gungo@Crushbone wrote: I've seen him post a lot of misguided SK stuff, but I've never seen him post about doing rogue+ DPS or nerfing T1 DPS--unless he completely outgeared them or they were just not good players... Stop being so dramatic. I will say that if I as a Zerker go dual wield, offensive stance, MA gear, and Juggernaut up, then yes I should do as much DPS as a Rogue of equal gear. Because in that case I will be as squishy as a rogue. Ideally. I will also add that a Crusader's Knight Stance makes this a difficult conversation because of their DPS potential -while using a shield- This should never have been implemented, sadly for all. To do your max DPS you should have to drop your shield and use a 2Hander.
Gungo@Crushbone wrote: Ho, hum. How deluded you were in SF. I mean you didn't even recognize the potential of your own class at that point so I am not really suprised. Heal crits had almost no effect on me as a SK. As stated back than and something some people recognized is that Stonewill was what was doing all the Healing. As a SK I went from something like 120 hps from the Lifetaps that could actually crit while raid tanking end game content to like 60-70 hps from those same abilities. As a SK my biggest contribution to self healing was, and still is, done by abilities that weren't crit'ing back than anyway. A group regen'ing ward (that now is a joke of a size compared to hp pools) and Reaver that wasn't crit'ing anyway. As a SK that is expected to self heal more than 50% of my self heals came from wearing a couple pieces of Stonewill gear. LC. Yeah, it got nerfed. Too far obviously since they have already given some ground back on it. It was supposed to be a defensive ability, not an offensive ability....great they are finally getting it back in line to where it should be. Without LC, and not just Crusaders, could push out T2 DPS in SF. And amazingly even though you can sit back and claim that somehow that is OP'd numbers in raid set ups don't lie. Having T2 DPS as a Fighter did not generate any more raid spots according to you (although that is completely false coming from a guild that went to using 4 Fighters on almost everything in SF due to the CC capabilities it provided without a huge loss to DPS). How can you sit here and claim something is OP'd and than have know way at all to try and back that up. I mean the numbers weren't there at all. Offensive Fighters should be pushing Rogues constantly. A well geared Fighter should crush some DPS class that is slacking big time as well. Right now the numbers aren't even close to where they should be with how far T1 DPS classes have sky rocketed and how far Fighters have fallen behind. And yes, T1 is way way way too high right now, a gap that I heard 1st hand was not intended to happen. Really, you posting against Fighter DPS does not surpise me at all. At every single turn you have just been way off on the mechanics of the game and what should be done to help this game thrive. At times I wonder if you aren't really a worker for one of the competitors to SOE and you simply take a terrible stance every time to try and ruin this game.
Soul_Dreamer's original idea for the Offensive and Defensive stances would work. Give Defensive stances the tools to more than make up for the loss on agro for going defensive. then cripple Offensive Stance so it can be used for some light tanking (Like a rouge can do) and give us the dps that should go along with that decrease in survivability. this should not make tanking easy mode but it should give more tools in agro and remove the current reliance on having a bard, coercer, and a hate transfer to be able to hold agro. using all 3 should still give more stable agro but not be forced to have it. there may be a probable with the OT staying at 2nd on the hate list using your idea here. also would a brawler gain hate off of avoided hits on the MT? i am thinking that may get some massive agro problems. i have seen some parses where i avoided more hits on the MT then the MT did for himself.... granted that was probably from mobs having too much Strikethrow.
Bruener wrote: Sunshine i was the one saying strikethrough immunity was a bad mechanic since it was introduced in SF. You were the one tryign to convince eveyr other fighter in tso shadowknights wer enot overpowered. We all see how that turned out. If someone in this conversation didnt have a handle on mechanics it certainly wasnt me.. You keep begging SOE to nerf assassins so your shadowknight has a chance to outparse them. Tell me how that works out for you. Edit: potential of my own class. You have no idea what you are talking about I never said brawlers were not fine in SF. In FACT it was the changes in SF that made brawlers OP in DOV. Very little had to do with DOV, but you keep saying SF was better yet it was Strikethrough immunity and a multiple trigger death save that we got in SF. DOV just added 45 secs to the duration of the death save thats the only brawler specific tanking improvement that made a difference in DOV. You are just to slow to understand that yet keep saying sf was balanced WHEN it clearly was unbalanced since SF. Want to know the biggest improvements brawlers got in DOV.... REUSE ON GEAR
Silzin@Crushbone wrote: It's just an idea, I'm sure they could cancel out hate from transferred avoidance. Do tanks have trouble staying second now.. nope, it doesn't matter if first place if 50% hate infront of you, if you're 1 position behind 1 snap will get you to the top. Also the OT's can be in of stance and will have a shed ton more DPS than the MT, which brings me to the below.. At it's most basic level in raids there are 2 types of utility 1. Survivability. 2. DPS. All heals, stoneskins, CA's, power feeds, basically everything contributes to one of these 2 things. An assassin can't parse with no power nor can he if the tanks are dead. An agro snap means DPS doesn't die, or people don't die. A heal/cure keeps people alive to DPS. Pretty much every ability comes down to DPS or Survivability at the end of the day. If fighters aren't contributing one of these 2 things at all times then they won't be wanted in raids. Since basically you only need 1 MT and 1 OT on most fights, those are really the only 2 who can contribute to the survivability or the raid. Which means, if other fighters aren't, or can't DPS then they aren't contributing anything, allowing fighters to choose DPS or tank allows them to contribute to the DPS of the raid and become useful. It's not a matter of no other classes can do this so we shouldn't be able to, it's a matter that the games mechanics and raid format only allows for a set number of fighters to do their primary role. In order to get more fighters into raids, they need to be able to contribute to the raid, so a secondary role is needed. SOE tried creating this role for the brawlers, snap/temp tank with DPS, it failed, the only way will be to allow fighters to DPS or actively contribute to the survival of the other tanks and/or raid. Give ALL Tanks DPS that falls between the rogues and the troubs. The "Offensive tanks" (Jesus I hate that term) should be a little higher than the defensive tanks. They can't be that much higher because at the end of the day all tanks need to be able to tank, the defensive ones just need to be a bit more specialist in it. In the same way, all tanks need to be able to DPS, the offensive ones just need to be a bit more specialist in it.
Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote: Fighter balance is probably the worst it's ever been, please stop posting. I'm starting to seriously think you're like a human version of the "Infinite monkey theorem", with enough time and enough random posts will Talathion make a good one?
