I don't disagree with the need for changing the dps ranks, but of course I don't want fighters lowered so much just cause they can tank. Rogues bards enchanters summoners, even sorcs bring quite a bit grp utility. I disagree that bards and enchanters should outdamage brawlers, zerkers and SK, they bring so much utility to groups and raids. I completely agree that sorcs and preditors need to be on top, followed by rogues and summoners.
MrDizzi I appreciate the fact you are enititled to your opinion but yes/no do you play a high level Berserker? If not why the passion to "sort the class out"?
MG- who's now a full fleged dev- stated simply that all fighters are tanks but tank differently. Moorgard wrote: Fighters are tanks. They don't all tank the same, and tanking isn't all they do, but that doesn't change the core role all fighters share. While some might envision a different approach, that role isn't going to go away just because some might prefer a different take on certain classes. The combat revamp isn't just a changing of balance numbers; it is a reevaluation of abilities. For fighters, this means some expanded spell lines, some shifting around of abilities from one subclass to another, and changes to the way defensive buffs work. Right now, guardians are far and away the best tank due to a combination of their buff stacking and the way defensive buffs are seen in combat rolls. Both those aspects are changing. Think of the guardian's abilities as being spread around a bit to the other fighter classes. In no particular order (other than pairing subclasses of the same class), here are a few (but not all) of the ways tanks will be distinguished from one another after the changes take effect. Guardians will have the greatest capability to grant their defense to others. They also have a greater number of taunts. Berserkers will do more damage than guardians, especially when tanking. While they also have taunts, part of their taunting comes from the damage they do. Paladins have heals and a nice array of taunts. Shadowknights have lifetaps and higher damage than paladins. Monks excel in avoidance, and their ability to purge negative spell effects is being expanded. Bruisers mitigate a bit better and do more damage than monks, which again is the basis for part of their taunting ability. All fighters will have useful defensive and offensive stances that they can choose depending on their role in the group. Additionally, each fighter will gain a significant resistance to a particular type of damage, which should make different classes be desirable under certain situations. Again, this isn't about taking away tanking from guardians. I suspect after the revamp, in a lot of raid situations you'd still want a guardian as main tank. However, the changes should give more flexibility to other tank classes, and give situational advantages to each. Personally, I'm looking forward to that. Cant get more dead on specific than that now can you lol. Main problem i see with the fighter's roll is that it currently cant be shared. You can have 6 fighters in a raid, yet only one is allowed to tank? Lacks logic to me. If allowed to stack, these tanks could form a unit (limited by range, not by group, so as long as 6 fighters were in same raid and located near eachother, they could activate this unti tanking mode) that pools their aggro into a consolodated area that mobs hate list would register as "unit_of_fighters001" and all hate would go to there. Any incoaming direct damage would be split 6 ways, allowing for group healing to more efficantly heal incoming damage, allowing healers to heal longer, therefore giving the 12 DPS people more time to get the mob dead, and less likely a chance for them to gain aggro (since the unit now have x6 the tuanting power rolled into one) I dont know, to me one fighter being able to stave off the main assult of a dragon seems wacky, to me 6 people each taking a bit of this assult sounds more reasionable, with a personal healer for each. For this to work, changes to buffs need to be made obviously. Raid wide buffing of group buffs that cost concentration need to be allowed by right clicking the buff in maintained window then selecting "raid amplifiy" that will spredit to all 4 groups, but tha the cost of 5 concentration, so choose your best buff for the situation or keep your group (or targeted group) buffed with all your avalible buffs. Targeted group buff and targeted group heal need to be added options while raiding. If all 6 fighters group, increase their abilities with their non-concentration group buffs, then get multiple group buffs from the other groups, they can be made into a powerfull barrier between the mob and the other 3 groups. If healers can cast their group heals on the 6 fighters, they would recive maximum efficancy from their healing powers, and stacking a varriety of healers would provide the benefit of their special group heals (group reactive,regen or ward) to use the best heal to power ratio. If they allow different reactives from the two subclasses to both stack, as well as both regens of the two druids, and both wards of the two shamans to stack with eachother, then you would have 6 healers each using 6 different special group heals on the 6 tanks, and using group instant heals when these cant keep up. Varriety in raids would become a much better factor than trippling up on the same class. Well it's late and i ahve to go now, hope some of this amde sence, im only 1/2 coherant atm, and i need some sleep, so parden my presentation, but i hope you like the ideas atleast. Toodles! Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on 07-16-2005 12:20 AM
The idea of tank stacking is definitely attractive from a gameplay perspective, but I suspect it would require a =lot= of rewriting of code. Fact is, every single class provides DPS, even healers. For some classes, that's their whole identity (rangers and assassins are killers, plain and simple; if you don't believe it, do their hallmark quests). For others, it's something they do when they aren't filling their main role. Here are the flaws I see with current plans: A. Guardians will "share their defensive abilities" or what-not. Unfortunately, this isn't as useful as it sounds unless the Guardian is off-tanking. In a well-run group, the DPS and healing classes could be naked and it wouldn't matter, because they shouldn't get attacked. And if they do get attacked, whatever defensive benefits the Guardian offers probably aren't going to make that big a difference. So the Guardians' signature ability is only useful when they are using it to support someone else as main tank. B. Berserkers will do more damage when tanking. Again, this is when damage is -least- important, IMO. If a Berserker is at his best only when being main tank, that means Berserkers won't be sought out for any other role. So, if the main tank position is already filled, Berserkers are out of luck and just have to hope that someone will let them come along for the ride. It's either that or be main tank. Basically, if what Moorgard describes actually comes to pass, it will be a major role reversal: a Berserker main tank with a Guardian off-tank buffing will the the "optimal" setup. Frankly, I think that goes against the grain of both classes. Sure, most Berserkers probably think of themselves as tanks. But they also think of themselves as psychotic killing machines (*wink*). Guardians, OTOH, are almost all of the "tank" mentality. The changes Moorgard outlines may or may not be of benefit to Berserkers (depending on whether or not they =want= to tank), but they will force a lot of Guardians into a role they did not envision when they made their subclass choice. So no, I don't advocate that fighters have an on/off switch that turns them into top-notch DPS machines. Rather, I would hope that a brawler in offensive mode would be at the low end of tier 2 or the high end of tier 3 with defensive skills sufficiently reduced to match. A crusader in offensive mode would be a tier lower than that and the warriors would, as usual, straddle the crusaders, with berserkers ranked slightly higher than shadow knights and guardians slightly lower than paladins. Again, defensive abilities would be adjusted down, only when in offensive mode, to match the increased DPS. Yes, this arrangement would give fighters a bit more flexibility than the other classes, but it would compensate for their relative lack of utility (no escape, no tracking, no run buffs, moderate usefulness of their group defensive buffs) and their somewhat excessive numbers. It's a practical solution, it follows a precedent (summoners with offensive pets versus summoners with defensive pets), it somewhat matches current SOE thinking ("every fighter will have useful offensive and defensive stances"), and it would be relatively easy to implement (add a few combat arts rather than an entire new game mechanic). As for the original post, if I wanted pure DPS, I'd go with a scout or mage. In fact, I have: my highest-level character is a Ranger, who just loves when green mobs drop dead at his feet before they ever got to swing at him. But when I play my Berserker-to-be, I want to be a big, tough combat monster who can take a beating and dish one out. And that's mostly a matter of perception. I don't =need= the DPS of a Ranger, because I can tank way longer. As long as I see big orange numbers every 3.8 seconds, I'm happy ;^)
When i first looked at the classes in this game i knew hat i wanted to play. There was no ifs or buts. It was a berzerker. I've always loved the concept of a swing swinging pyschopath with a lust for blood and battle, but .....i also have always loved being a tank. The zerker combined these 2 game passions of mine. I've only gotten to lvl 31 with my iksar zerker, so i have no experience in anything higher than that. I know im no guardian when i comes to tanking.....well taking damage i should say, i would have to argue sometimes when it comes to those normal groups about whos the better overall tank.... But i dont mind taking more damage or being hit more, every hit upon me just fuel the fire within...the blessing of the zerking skill. I find the dps of the zerker class is its one main power when it tanks. It increases aggro upon us, the curren target dies faster lessening the load of the healer. The zerker in my opinion does not need a "tank mode", it has some abilities like that...which i never use.... It needs to be what its always been, a high damage dealing tank, lowering its dps and giving it a "tank mode", and especially making it a damage only class...just dosnt do the class justice.
No I dont play a berserker. No I am not passionate about the changes. Just noticed a lot of happenings that have flowed over to the swashbuckler and guardian boards and thought Id come here to try out an idea. I assume you are in total agreement that does not preclude me having an opinion or voicing potetial ideas for discussion. Actually the changes won't affect me one way or the other, and as long as something i done, I really dont care what. But a lot of zerkers seem to annoyed at losing their dps. So I just wondered if it might be possible to leave their dps and remove their tanking instead. Or even split the class in to so people can decide which path they want to follow. Was just an idea.
AFAIK, no one has really said berserkers are going to lose their DPS. Do you really know what being listed in Tier 3 means? I sure don't. How close is that to Tier 2? How far is it from Tier 1? I've seen it said time and time again, it will depend on how you play your class. Are you familiar with any of the berserker combat arts or buffs? After just hitting level 41, I can tell you that I have ONE high damage CA. It's on a long re-use timer as well (I know there will be more in the levels to come). It doesn't come close to a mage's uber nuke in damage, or what a scout can dish out. So where does my damage come from if not my CAs? It's the buffs, and without the ability to tank, they'd be meaningless.
I honestly didn't read the rest of this post and it's responses, solely because I just woke up. Due to that, if I repeat things that have already been said. I apologize. =) Personally, I love my class and role as a berserker just as it is right now. Originally, I expected myself to be more of a DPS class then a tanking class. If only because like you said, when I envision a Berserker....I see a lunatic biting off the tip of his sheild and spitting it at people. Even so, at this point in the game, it would cause way too much mayhem to change the class. People that chose to be a Berserker so that they could tank, would get the shaft. While others who wanted DPS, would find themselves getting pummeled by mobs. I could see, possibly a lowering of mitigation, allowing the dps to go up or even remain as it stands....erm...well....yeah...I'm a little too tired to really get my thoughts straight. So, I'll just say this and shut up. Lol When it comes down to a lvl 50 guardian or a lvl 50 Berserker, the guardian normally takes the role of main tank. While the Berserker gets placed as a support or secondary tank. Their buffs and dps make them optimal for as much, so in a sense. Things are set up the way I feel they were most likely meant to be. Only downside being the amount of DPS a zerker can put out against a large group. Some of our AoE attacks are frickin nasty. By the way, what's a sheild? I think that I've heard of one before.....just...not really sure...*Goes to get some coffee.* Oh yeah, others may not like your post. But I think exploring all angles is a good thing. It's nice to keep your mind open to new ideas and possibilities, though I would've left out a few of those comments. Someone may take it offensively and throw rocks at you....or even his mug. =)
So should sony split the berserker into 2 classes and allow berserkers the option to choose which 'path' to follow? I mean then the berserkers who really wanted dps could go one way, and the tanks could go the other. Is it an option? Message Edited by MrDizzi on 07-18-2005 08:04 AM
*sigh* In this hypothetical situation, what does a zerker who chooses DPS gain with the loss of tanking? You would need a completely different line of CAs. Basically, you're talking about a two-handed axe wielding scout without any utility. How about the whiny scouts get to choose a path to follow instead? You can increase your DPS by giving up all of your utility and avoidance. Did you read my earlier response? You do understand where a lot of the berserker damage comes from, right? AoE's do help a lot. If you use a parser, it'll make a zerker shine. However, what about single mobs? Does that low damage 100-150 melee AoE parse as high as the mage's 1500 blast on a single mob? No. Not even close. Yet, some feel the need to nerf the zerker's AoE's so they parse better when dealing with grouped mobs. Boo hoo. Get over it. Learn what the parser is actually telling you. For those that think berzerkers needs a good nerfing, what do you think will happen when we start doing less damage? You're shiny parser will tell you how much more uber you are at killing? Guess what. We keep aggro by dealing damage. You'll have to restrain yourself from outdoing us. Sounds fun, eh?
I see your'e point and if utility was even remotely useful to gaining a group Id agree with you. But its not. Everyone knows that including sony. A swashbuckler joins a group and he is DPS - no arguments, no discussion, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Its not like I see "/ooc group looking for one more, utility class 40+" very often Myself personally would like them to totally change the 'utility' role to be a neccessary one. But it just wont happen. They cant make 99% of groups need group invis. They cant make 99% of groups require pick locks to open chests. They cant make 99% of groups require tracking. Utility will never be a requirement for group position the way tanking, healing and dps are. People would go beserk if all groups required a scout to open loot chests, or tracking was required to find ALL nameds. Utility will never be a primary role. I wish it would. I truly do. But it wont. So we have to deal with the realities on the ground. Primary roles are those roles required by a group to combat heroics and epics. Thats just one of those conventional wisdom things that we all have to work around. You are not going to stop the slow tide of dps chars being retired and replaced with tank/dps chars with the promice of 'utility' in EQ2 as the current game stands. So back to realistic options: I feel beserkers should not be arbitrarily and summarily changed to a pure tank class because for many they played it because of its dps, not tank ability. They should at least get the option.
Cause when the game was created they were put into the tank class for balancing issues. Otherwise Queynos would have one real tank class and thats it, wouldnt be fair. Whatever you think berserker is, is not in this game. Deal with it.
LOL Espy, sorry man had to laugh. Was offered a job by a game company as a developer Dont really think me having an opinion about game mechanics would have been a problem. On the contrary, being able to analyse and consider new options is an asset. However back to the point, I appreciate that the original description of berserker was not what it will become. And I truly feel for you. Its a bummer that the berserker class is kinda losing its identity with a dps nerf. Hence the reason I was talking about making it a dps class instead. And please not, I was just chewing the fat with this idea. Obviously the idea has flaws as many of you identify your berserker as more of a warrior/tank (as per sony description) than my idea of the berserker (frothing madman). However in my defence many berserkers are using this identity of a berserker to defend their right to keep their current DPS status. Oh, and as for me having to 'deal with it', im not sure I see what I have to deal with. I didnt like them nerfing my templars lvl 50 spell, I didnt like them nerfing the crafter writs (which made me rich), and i probably wont like a thousand other things they do, and Im sure I will deal with it in the spirit it was meant. But this time its you that is getting hit by this change not me. Im sure it will affect my guardian too, but not to the same extent as berserkers. This is why im suggesting options for you to talk about, dismiss or otherwise rip apart. You know your class better than I ever could and I accept I am no expert. Im willing to accept that sonys fix for the current problems will be the right one. But it doesnt stop us talking about other options does it
As I've tried to point out, and I think it has been better stated in other threads, a lot of zerker damage is reactive (from buffs). This will only happen when zerkers are taking hits. Take away the mitigation, and you take away the ability to take the hits. They'd need a whole new line of abilities as the reactive approach simply wouldn't work anymore. Counter-strike for 150 damage? Bah. Is it worth it when the mob is hitting you for 300? Granted the counter-strike hit every mob in range in front of you, but they're all wailing on you. It really is a tank class. The description that MG gave of what a zerker will be like after the revamp is not too far off from what it is now. The DPS will come from the tanking ability. Sounds like reactive buffs still. How much will the DPS be affected? Can't even begin to guess. Someone mentioned an avoidance or agility penalty for wearing heavy armor. That seems like a reasonable trade-off. Would that not be the choice you're looking for? More options like this? Encumberance penalty, perhaps?
Hello all! I don't wish to start (or continue) a debate about different classes and who should do what under which class. I do wish to share this tidbit of information though, Especially with the folks at SOE... Berserk adj : in a murderous frenzy as if possessed by a demon; "the soldier went completely amuck"; "berserk with grief"; "a berserk worker smashing windows" [syn: amuck, amok, demoniac, demoniacal, possessed(p)] n : one of the ancient Norse warriors legendary for working themselves into a frenzy before a battle and fighting with reckless savagery and insane fury . Word History: When we say that we are going berserk, we may not realize how extreme a state this might be. Our adjective comes from the noun berserker, or berserk, which is from the Old Norse word berserkr, “a wild warrior or champion.†Such warriors wore hides of bears, which explains the probable origin of berserkr as a compound of *bera, “bear,†and serkr, “shirt, coat.†These berserkers became frenzied in battle, howling like animals, foaming at the mouth, and biting the edges of their iron shields. Berserker is first recorded in English in the early 19th century, long after these wild warriors ceased to exist. Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. We are not meat shields, we are killing machines!
Dictonary meanings are pointless dude. If your going for the realistic aspect, how does one fighter hld of a raging dragon? Shoudlnt it atleast take more than 1 person? Apparently not in eq2 or any mmo.....1 tank is all you need....which blows /cry Toodles! Ps: but seriously, dont focus on your name, focus on your archetype and class. Your a fighter that primarily defense, a warrior that defends by physical mitigation and guarding, and as a berserker your secondary ability is to deal good damage, while increasing your groups damage. Your sub-class doesnt define your roleina group, it mearly adds an extra level of ability for your character.
Why not be both have two sets of gear in your bag one for dpsing and one for tanking, that way there is no reason to be clumped into one mindset. On an off topic our dps comes from aoes without those we can do maybe 200 dps on a single raid mob. I have a hard time breaking 200 on Tremblar while using all my CA's and procs.
I think its pretty much been decided that no class will have two primary roles. Thats been discussed to death already i think.
