The story of the new paladin..

Gaige wrote:

I don't think I've ever been on a raid without a shadowknight. Sometimes 3. Maybe you just suck?

Bruener wrote:

Or maybe you're just an idiot.

Rahatmattata wrote:

I dissagree, if indeed his guild is on top of progression first of all he has my respec as that is no mean feat and secondly what he says carries some merit, if he isnt top of progression then please continue cos I cant be arsed to check it.

This post has moved: /eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=445320&post_id=5417516 Please do not bypass the filter as it is against the forum guidelines. Thank you!

Kahling@Kithicor wrote:

You really shouldnt bother responding to him since hes a troll. Just look at the majority of his posts and you'll see I'm right. Rhat is likely some guardian running around in a mix of treasured and legendary gear wondering why he keeps getting his *censored* handed to him in the Library and why people don't want to group with him cause with his apprentice taunts he can't hold hate. It’s funny cause the guild I'm in is also pretty high up on the progression list and we also use a guardian MT and have used a Guardian MT since before ROK. Hes also the one saying that guardians still have super low DPS when the fact is our guardian MT after the change was doing well over 30k and before the change was competitive with the other tanks. Guys like him cry a lot because they suck at their class. Just cause you've played a class for a long time doesnt mean you know how to play it. I'm betting he's like a particular Zerker on AB who always cried about other tank classes in channel and when you grouped with him you would find out that it was him who sucked and not the class.
The truth of what Bruener has to say is as easy as clicking on his name. He is a member of Azure Skies which is indeed at the top of the progression list. Guys like Rhat can't see past their own suck.
*Wrote "censored" instead to comply with the rules. *

Oh, Brownie's guild uses a guardian. All must be well and balanced then. Or, if you'd like me to enteratain your fallacy I can do that, but your assertion goes down in flames. Cuz you see... there are guilds that are "better" than Brownie Waffle's guild that don't use a guardian at all. So apparently, according to your lologic, guards aren't this special beastly tank that you seem to be trying to convice the game mechanics developer of in hopes that whatever OP easy class you play remains unbalanced.
Also, I don't see how me sucking or not sucking at playing a zerker has anything to do with guardians though. You lost me on that one. First, you assume I play a guardian, and you would be wrong. Second you assume I have terrible gear, and you would be wrong. Third you assume I don't know how to play eq2 and tank, and you would be wrong. Forth you assume even if all the above was true that I could not compare my character to similarly geared and skilled players of other tank classes and see glaring imbalances, and you would be wrong.
I'm gonna assume you're just another crusader on a crusade to tell everyone, "Tanks are balanced, and if you think they aren't you obviously suck"... cuz it's much easier to throw out fail over-used one-liners than to actually back up your garbage with supporting evidence. Save yourself some wear and tear on your keyboard next time and just type l2p, cuz it's much quicker and has the same significance and impact as your long-winded empty nothings.

When one resorts to personal attacks it only means they lost all bases for their argument and trying to deflect.

Toranx@Crushbone wrote:

Or the alternate, you're not killing the same thing I killed, your opinion is baseless.
Either seems to be the defacto response when someone defends a baseless arguement.

"I don't think I've ever been on a raid without a shadowknight. Sometimes 3. Maybe you just suck?" - Rhat
"Or maybe you're just an idiot." - Rhat
You 3 guardians show up on all crusader threads and talk smack to try to lock them and then have the audacity to talk about personal insults? If you have'nt noticed thats all Rhat does. He shows up on a thread and comments with one line calling someone an idiot. I read quite a few of his comments before stating what I did. He claimed on page one not to have even read this thread but made a comment anyway.
When people from top progression guilds say "we've used a Guardian MT since before TSO maybe the issues with guardians are not that bad" and someone else just berates them for telling the truth who's argument is baseless?

I've already given tons of supporting evidence in hundreds of posts. I'm not going to copy and paste a couple thousand lines of text in every post I make. The overall summary is crusaders are overpowered. This is not an opinion, it's fact based on thousands of pieces of real evidence presented from hundreds of players over the last 2 years. It's all here on these forums. You can deny it, and claim it's not so, but that doesn't change reality.
Guardians are an obselete class that are moderately useful for 1 thing. 1 thing that can also be done by any other plate tank. 1 thing that is done by a tiny fraction of the player base.

I think crusaders should be immune to strikethrough provided they are in defensive stance and knight stance is not on.

BChizzle wrote:

...
oh yeah like THAT isn't overpowered...

Boli32 wrote:

How would it be overpowered?

BChizzle wrote:

Are you on crack?

BChizzle wrote:

By itself yeah that would be overpowered. However, making the paladin immune to strikethrough when using "stonewall" while in defence stance would not be. That would be 8 seconds of immunity and equal a stoneskin. For the harder mobs it would give a reason to use the defence stance sort of. Right now it kinda sucks to pop Stonewall and get stuck right through it by raid mobs.
I could really care less about that though. I would like to see them fix our heals so that they are useful again. Right now our heals are aweful. A big part of our defence got the crap nerfed out of it. SOE said they were considering making changes to our heals and we need that sooner wrather than later.

Toranx@Crushbone wrote:

Brawlers have immune to strikethrough and more avoidance abilities and higher avoidance and it isn't overpowered. It wouldn't be OP in any way, empowering doesn't mean overpowering.

No it will be overpowered... there is NO WAY crusaders will gain strikethrough immunity whist warriors (guardians) do not.
Honestly it would be better to have defensive stance where you are immune to things like strikethrough, knockback and have an increased resistance to stuns, interrupts, stifles, dazes etc... but as of right now just gifting crusaders immunity to strikethrough is waaaaay too much Overpowering; with or without knight's stance (which I reallly wish people will stop ruddy mentioing.. just give out more and more easily obtainable twohanders so we CAN DPS without a shield).
Indicentally fun fact pallys defensive stance is called knight's stance also making your orginal statement a never ending logic loop

Boli32 wrote:

Paly full on defensive no KS wearing a shield still isn't more defensive then a full on defensive guardian.

BChizzle wrote:

Since the heal nerf full defensive pally is no where near a full defensive guard as we have no reliable way to deal with spike damage we may take *slightly less* damage generally but that isn't what kills you... the double attack and AoE close together is what makes Boli go splat.

Boli32 wrote:

You are just proving my point.