Tank Balance - Berserker

Discussion in 'Berserker' started by ARCHIVED-Berendor, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. ARCHIVED-swampthing Guest

    Wasuna wrote:
    Because it's needed to make a fun game and allow people to play the class they want, not the class that's needed. These MMO's all suffer so much from the EQ1 legacy of the holy trinity and that NEEDS to go away. The problem with wanter to play a warrior is that the role has been pigeon holed into tanking when they should have the ability to do damage as well at the expense of survivability. The warrior class shouldn't have to be a whacking post for mobs that hits like a wet noodle. Many people want to play a plate wearing class that can actually do damage and not have to tank. In fact the whole tanking mechanic could go away as well.

    Secondly the problem with the holy trinity is once you have a tank you don't need another which makes playing a tank not fun since you are never needed as someone else always has your spot. If you only need one tank and a guild allready has one, what's the point of even joining? Now if you could do respectable damage in a DPS stance, and your presence there would buff the main tanks ability to take hits then having another warrior would be desirable. DPS and heals have always had it easy because you can always have more than one. Tanks don't. This is why tanks are "special" and the wizard isn't.
  2. ARCHIVED-LygerT Guest

    this sub-forum feels like a trailer park now and all the other tanks have parked on our "lawn".

    none of you are going to convince anyone that one idea is better than another. it's same people arguing now that have been for the past 2 years and NONE of you have changed your mind about any of it.

    except that now Tuor is competing with wizards for a tank spot where before it was against chain/leather wearers..
  3. ARCHIVED-Destraum Guest

    I actually don't think Zerks are that bad off atm. What I do see us needing desperately is an ability to handle non-trauma based AE's. Right now, the biggest issue we have is zero abilities to handle Arcane/Elem/Nox ae's and get one-shotted easily even with 33k+ resists. Chaos got a nice liitle adjustment for non-trauma AE's to it...but it just really isn't enough.
  4. ARCHIVED-Wasuna Guest

    Lyger@Permafrost wrote:
    If you think there is going to be a thread called Tank Balance in any of the fighter forums and the rest of the fighters aren't going to get involved then your crazy.
    You do have a good point that specific people are still firmly set in their opinion, one of which is me. If you review a bit you'll see that the by in large the Crusaders and Berserkers want DPS and the rest of us don't. That's an over simplification but it's kind of where we all stand.
    SoE has made huge mistakes in their handling of the fighter sub-class over the ~6 years the game has been out and it has given people the expectation that they have the right to get more than other sub-classes.
    My opinion is simple and is:
    • Every Sub-Class gets the same number of choices.
    • Fighters tank. If you are given the option to switch stances and rival T2 DPS then you now have more choices than any other sub-class which is not right.
    • If a fighter class wants to do good DPS and push the actual T2 DPS classes then they MUST give up their ability to tank raid mobs.
    It's simple, you get one job just like everybody else. Pick your job, do it and shut up. It's not that hard. It's what everybody else in the game does and it's why everybody has a fighter alt because SoE has given fighters a bit to much power in the game already and all the non-alt fighetrs can do is cry and moan about wanting more.
  5. ARCHIVED-LygerT Guest

    this game has 24 classes, that is twenty four! and about to get one more, and they each will have issues with balance every expansion.
    there simply isn't enough development time to devote to fixing everything that classes whine about because you will have one person ask for one thing and another ask for something else. who is correct? we were deemed an offensive fighter almost since creation, then we lost the offensive and gained little defensive but still deemed offtank where we don't even really shine in that respect with 3-4 other classes to compete against which have their own induvidual issues.
    it's going to be a neverending battle but i guess i'm the only one who seems to have accepted that and the single option to fix it.
  6. ARCHIVED-Wasuna Guest

    Lyger@Permafrost wrote:
    I agree with your statement.
    The biggest problem is that during developement of EQ2 the developers promised that all six fighter classes would be able to raid tank. This is becasue in EQ1 only the warrior was allowesd to raid tank for most things. Every once in a while you'd see a Paladin tanking but almost never a SK or monk.
    Then the developers found the error of their ways. Brawlers had too many neat abilities to be given full raid tanking ability. Berserkers had to much DPS, SK's did to much DPS also and Paladins had the ability to heal to well. Therefore Guardians were stripped of just about all of our DPS and utility tools in EQ2 beta but made rock solid and told to go tank.
    Then a monk named Gage went balistic on the forums right after release and since then we have had the never ending rage over tank balance. Since then ALL fighters have wanted to be able to raid tank but keep their own flavor. This means Paladins healing, SK/berserkers doing massive DPS, brawlers having their cool utility.
    I guess SoE decided to just rotate the tank position each expansion. I guess they have a table on their conference room wall showing which tank will be the most powerful when..
  7. ARCHIVED-Soul_Dreamer Guest

    Wasuna wrote:
    I really don't agree with these statements. Choosing to limit us to this one role of "Tanking" serisouly effects our raid utiltity.
    In a raid, you have between 1 and 4 "tank" spots, 2 is the norm for most fights. Healers between 6 and 8 spots usually, Buffers 8 spots. DPS fill in the rest.
    So, take the norms that you'll need for most fights, trash and EM stuff.
    6 spots for 6 classes (Healers)
    8 spots for 4 classes (Buffers)
    8 spots for 8 classes (DPS)
    2 spots for 6 classes (Tanks).

    The 2 most out of balance are fighters and buffers, frankly fighters have too few and buffers waay more than they need. In an ideal world you'd see something like the below.
    6 spots for 6 classes (Healers)
    4 spots for 4 classes (Buffers)
    10 spots for 8 classes (DPS)
    4 spots for 6 classes (Tanks).

    While still not ideal, the number of raid spots is more evenly distributed between the classes. To achieve this, changes need to be made to both the buffers and the fighters, because if no changes to fighters people will simply take more DPS. Since we're chatting about fighters I'm only really concerned about that part. IF our offensive stances allowed us to keep up in DPS with the likes of the swashy/brigand etc and we provided some sort of utility that was desirable also, then guilds may be encouraged to always raid with the 4 tanks that are needed in some encounters and not just use alts or have people sat out. Obviously in this offensive stance we should be so squishy as to not be able to tank anything, this goes for both the defensive and offensive tanks.
    The only other way to fix it is to change/add raid encounters that require more tanks, and lets face it, we all hate those gimmicy type of fights such as 3Mages/3Princes/Sisters etc and I don't believe SOE is capable of making interesting encouters that utilise lots of tanks on a regular basis.

    @Wasuna -
    It's not about wanting to do 2 roles just for the sake of it, it's that the only role we have is restricted to a very limited number of raid spots. If given this utility you won't suddenly see raids rolling with 6-8 fighters in place of Summoners/Roges etc. You may see though, 3-4 tanks being used in raids on a more constant basis. I simply don't understand why you think this is such a bad thing, the only reason you're giving is "We shouldn't do 2 things".... Priests DPS AND heal... why can't fighters DPS OR Tank?
  8. ARCHIVED-LygerT Guest

    or if you take your example, take consolidation into account you'd have:
    2/3 spots for 3 classes for fighters.
  9. ARCHIVED-Wasuna Guest

    Soul_Dreamer wrote:
    Your not looking at the other side. You only looking at this as a Fighter. I agree that 3-5 raid slots should go to fighters but the Fighter Sub-Class as a whole screwed that pooch years ago. Unfortunatly, the only answer most people can come up to 'fix' this problem is to give fighters more and more until raids just HAVE to have them or they are going to hold their breath and kick their feet until they get what they want.
    Fighters screwed the pooch years ago in DEMANDING that all six fighter classes be raid capable tanks. I fully understand that SoE promised that during EQ2 developement and really have been trying to make that happen ever since but it has screwed everything up. If your a raid capable tank that that is your JOB. It's not to add utility. It's not to add healing. It's not to add DPS. It's to TANK. People keep talking about flavor and six different ways of tanking.. bull... your all raid tanks.. it's what you DEMANDED so quit whining for more stuff.
    When I raided back at level 50 and on til level 60 there used to be 4-5 fighters in the raid. After they fixed the defense bug that fixed Guardians at the MT role many people raided with multiple fighters. Then fighetrs fought and complaind to become raid tanks and in essace got what they wanted.
    You don't get anything else. It's not fair to the healers, DPS and utility classes and if you want to do something else do EXACTLY what they did and roll an alt.
    You got what you asked for and if you ask for something different now then pick what you want to lose before you even ask for it.
  10. ARCHIVED-Bruener Guest

    Lyger@Permafrost wrote:
    Give up on that dream, its never going to happen. While it seems logical to some, it would kill this game easier than what Star Wars saw...
  11. ARCHIVED-Bruener Guest

    Wasuna wrote:
    You are being extremely narrow visioned, and that is the real big problem with the EQ2 player base when it comes to Fighters.
    Every single class in this game has more than a single role. Its been like that for a long long time. Did you know when grouped with an Assassin they give me a buff that does my 2nd most DPS? They are buffers. They are utility because of that buffing capability (hate transfer?). Healers don't just heal/cure, they also provide massive DPS/survivability buffs and debuffs on mobs. Healers are huge utility outside of their "role". I mean we can go on about every single class in this game with how much they bring.
    For Fighters their utility is CC. There is no reason that they can not be the masters of that CC while bringing good DPS. That is all they have. Their buffs are mediocre and pale in comparison to any other class that gives decent buffs. We saw great Fighter DPS in SF and what did it produce? Still no more than 4 Fighters in a raid. It didn't matter that Fighters could rival T2 DPS easily and sometimes push T1 if they were slacking. Raids still only brought 3-4. You can break on down to Heroic content too. Rarely in SF did you have a group take more than 1 Fighter. You still had to have your healers, your buffers, and your DPS classes (that bring a lot more than just DPS).
    Really all you have to look at is history. SF had Fighter DPS rival rogues consistently. Raids still only brought 4 and groups still only brought one. That is not OP'd.
    I want to point out a main difference as well in my thoughts versus some of the others here. I think stances are a terrible idea and just another way to take flexibility away from Fighters. There should be no stances. Hence, a Fighter tanking should still have real good DPS. It solves the stupid hate issues that Fighters have in this game right now where for some reason even though it is the only utility they really have they still have to rely on other classes to do their job. Transfers/siphons should be removed from the game (so glad they just added another one to Troubs to help fighters!!! Dumb). Fighters should be self reliant on their hate besides +hate gain buffs and forms of procs that are beneficial to Fighters.
    This anti-DPS Fighter belief is a joke and does not have any place in a game where all classes work a ton outside of a single role.
  12. ARCHIVED-Boli32 Guest

    tbh the game woudl be a *lot* healthier if:
    SKs were more DPS/mage buffage and could only really tank instances NOT raids (i.e. herioc mobs and easy epics)
    Zerkers were more DPS/scout group buffage and could only really tank instances NOT raids (i.e. herioc mobs and easy epics)
    Brawlers werre merged and they had great snap agro, lots of immunities, but really really bad maintained agro and suvivbility BUT they were the only class which could add additional avoidance onto the MT. (i.e. CC tanks)
    and Pallys / Guards were balanced between each other one being more spell based the other more melee; but both viable MTs.
  13. ARCHIVED-Gungo Guest

    Bruener wrote:
    Fighters have some of the better utlity. You are completely marginalizing your buffs/debuffs as you ALWAYS do. Everything you write is about undermining your own abilities and overcompensating others. All of a sudden apply poison makes assassins a utlity class but abilities such as deathmarch, some of the most powerful raid wide buffs, and multiple group buffs/procs are mediocre utility.
  14. ARCHIVED-Gungo Guest

    Boli@Splitpaw wrote:
    I agree w the cavaet that sk/zerkers had more aoe ability/dps so they were a more ideal offtank.
    There are quite a few abilites they could use to differentiate offtanks from maintanks.
    One being target locks are generally viable for offtanks but not maintanks.
    Two being stoneskins are more useful for a maintank who needs to absorb large single hits and avoid buffs/small amount of longer duration damage reduction is better for offtanks who need to absorb multiple smaller hits.
    The problem with this approach is everyone cries when someone gets something they dont have and everyone ends up with the same abilities in the end.
  15. ARCHIVED-Bremer Guest

    Boli@Splitpaw wrote:
    Yeah, a lot healthier.I can see Paladins and Guards allready marching on a parade of joy, because all their defensive buffs get changed, so that they won't work on anything below a 50 % max health hit, they can no longer wear a shield in heroic zones and get a buff that drains 10 % of their health every second, if their target is not epic to prevent them from stepping in the rightful domain of the heroic tanks.
    And then they change, that a Fury and Inquisitor can no longer heal a group on raids, only in heroic instances, they change Troubadours and Coercers, so that they can't support a heroic group, only a raid group, they change that Summoner can no longer deal damage on raids, only in heroic zones, they make Rangers and Brigands heroic only damage dealer and then everyone will be happy.
  16. ARCHIVED-Bruener Guest

    Gungo@Crushbone wrote:
    Oh, you mean Brawlers obviously.
    Please enlighten me on how as a SK I have some of the better utility in this game? What, an 8% potency buff to the group? A little 1.7k regening ward to the group? Please explain how as a SK my utility buffs/debuffs even come close to touching healers/bards/chanters/rogues. Yeah, that Deathmarch that buffs people that are already way into their curves in cast speed and dps mod adding almost nothing in todays game is just so OP'd for that 10 sec of proc that you get on raids every 1:30. Wait, you must mean that 5% spell damage to the raid!!!!! Here is a fact, any healer alone will bring both more offensive and defensive utility to their group than any Fighter by a long shot...they do that while also doing their "primary" role of healing as well. There is no Fighter equivalent of Hemotoxin, Fanatical Devotion, VC, etc so please don't try to throw procs into the mix, all Fighter procs from buffs are junk. Once again you are wrong, and once again you are just supporting bad mechanics for Fighters.
  17. ARCHIVED-Gungo Guest

    Bruener wrote:
    my god could you undermine your class any more. First i was commenting on your comparison of assassin as a utility class right before you claimed sk had no utility based on Apply poison. You as a shadowknight have a group immunity which is one of the best parts about dm, you also give melee/casting skills, VERY LARGE amount of int and str to group, REUSE reduction, casting speed, potency, Dps, group lifetap, group regen ward, base spell damage, alot of stamina, strikethrough, accuracy and ability mod. I can 100% garauntee those group raid buffs from a shadowknight will add more dps to a raid then apply poison and by ALOT. I cant beleive you even think I am wrong when i have continously mopped the floor with your biased rants. My statement you quoted is 100% accurate you continue to compare classes while undermining your class and overevaluting other classes.
  18. ARCHIVED-Boli32 Guest

    Bremer wrote:
    Hardly....more concentrating the stoneskins and agro abilities on the pally/guard side.. and massively increasing the buffing power and DPS (both AoE and single) on the zerker/SK side. I've always been in the camp of no, everyone should NOT be equal; why should the offensive tanks who say they should *always do lots of DPS* get the same, or in some cases MORE defensive buffs than the classes who sacrifice a lot of DPS/buffs for the abilities. Likewise why should the more defensive tanks deal as much DPS as the more offensive ones?
    Zerkers / SKs should be based more on the herioc and multiple targets and bascially be ideal for instance tanks although lack the stoneskin abilities to survive long term against hard epics. Pallys/ Guards should be based more on the epic and single targets; will have significant problems in dealing with instances and multiple encounters but have the hate and defenses to deal with the toughest epics. That way either class is only a betrayal away.
    .... and the fury/inquisitor example is warped they already have a split the "can solo heal a dps group" to the "can heal a tank in group"; the only problems is the defensive healers (wardens/defilers/templars) don't offer enough to counteract their replacement in tank groups as well.

    Of course none of this is going to happen the only reason we are stuck with this is because it made the marketing easier and the old: fighter>cruasader>Paladin or fighter>warrior>zerker ideal; with 24 classes with you making a choice every 10 levels where you wanted to end up.
    Bards and chanters should have never been 2 classes; but you couldn't have a choice between a buffing mage and a DPS mage; likewise wizards and warlocks have been at each others throats for DPS potential for years; all of this stems from a poor marketing decision and we are stuck with 24 classes when there shoudl have been a lot less... my hope is EQ3 sorts this issue out before it goes live.
  19. ARCHIVED-Bremer Guest

    You want to go back to T5, where only Guards could tank raid mobs and even the most stupid Guard was still a better tank than the most skilled non Guard? And you think this completely stupid balance is "healthy"? Healthy balance would be, if all Fighters were more or less equally capable of doing any job.
  20. ARCHIVED-Boli32 Guest

    Bremer wrote:
    ....and if every tank could do every job perfectly....What's the point of rolling a more defensive tank if the offensive one could do the job just as well and give more DPS/buffs? ... that has been the continuing problem since they fixed the +defence bug as more offensive classes have had more and more tools to deal with tanking there is simply *no* need to bring the defensive ones... its an ongoing issue with healers as well.
    End of the day this game has too many classes so I say break up the fighters into offensive "instance" tanks; raid tanks, and CC tanks. with enough buffs and added DPS to the non MTing tanks to assure a regular rotation within a raid force.

Share This Page