Why tanks can never be balanced

And then there's the QQ'ing about the paladins QQ'ing. Its just a vicious cycle.

Maamadex wrote:

+1 maamadex... So I changed it, it was a bit dumb.

Boli32 wrote:

Sadly.....yes. Not much else left for a Guardian to feel good or even useful about besides being raid MT.

Draylore wrote:

Yep, Guards think they deserve the undisputed MT spot in raids. Meanwhile a large number of Guards that don't seem to understand that concept also think they should be just as good at everything else as the other fighters.
Changes coming in secured the MT spot for Guards easily unless raids want to do things harder with other tanks...big survivability advantages over other tanks now. And yet having a designated Guard spot in raids does not help Guards at the heroic level....so than other changes are happening to make them just as good at Heroic content.
Great, we head back to the 1 Guard and than 5 other fighters competing for 1, maybe 2 slots.

Bruener wrote:

So what.....Guardian is designed and built for one thing and one thing only....if he is not the obvious best at it then there is no point for the class to exist.
While the upcomming changes seem ok they are not of the magnitude you seem to think they are. Guards will still be at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to anything outside of raiding hard mobs. All the fighters will still be able to MT raids. The differences in things like DMG taken and such might just be a bit more noticable than they are now.....which is hardly at all.
Instead of asking for SOE to nerf/buff the fighters such that they are all the same so they can all fight for that one job......we should be asking for smarter/more diverse content that calls for multiple fighters of different types with unique abilities. Ask for content that doesnt require over half the raid being filled by healers/dirges.

Bruener wrote:

Ideally, paladins will be given the tools to compete for that MT slot as well. There are things that could be done to effect that result without also allowing them to surplant a healer in non-raid content.
That realistically leaves Sk/Zerk fighting for OT, and bruiser/monk fighting for avoidance lend / alt tank.
I'd prefer to see it go this way.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Brawlers in a non-tanking role give the least amount of lend since when we arent tanking we are dpsing and when we are dpsing we have no avoidance to lend, quit making up BS roles about things you arent smart enough to understand.

I can see things actually working out pretty well without any big class redesigns. Perfect balance is unrealistic, but if each class is desirable for something, then we're not doing too bad all things considered.

Draylore wrote:

What unique abilities? Every unique ability that I have ever had has been given to other fighters already because of whining/envy. Snaps do not count as a unique ability when having much higher TPS will get you the mob back just as fast and more consistently.

Dorieon@Guk wrote:

Exactly. This is why abilities like monk tsunami should have never been given to other fighters. It was unique to monks only and it should have remained that way. If any other fighter had envy because a monk had this ability shouldn't have complained that they needed it. Instead should have just rolled a monk. Problem fixed.
To late for that now.

BChizzle wrote:

I'm sorry to be blunt but a BS role is a player wearing leather being the MT for a raid hopping around doing flying round house kicks to the head of a dragon. In my mind that's just a stupid game mechanice when you have 4 plate classes to do that. Now, my opinion aside, SoE has descided that all 6 fighter classes can raid tank. Fine, it's their responsibility to make is so that all 6 are equally viable and balanced. So... SoE.. get to it!
Now we are back to the topic of this thread. Six fighters for one role in a 24 person raid will NEVER be balanced. Heck, even if brawlers weren't considered raid tanks then the 4 plate fighters left would NEVER be balanced when there is one MT role in a 24 person raid.
Adding more abilities to the fighters is just stupid. Fighers already can top the DPS and heal parse in heroic groups. Well, some can. I'm a Guardian so I can't do either.
Like said above, the game mechanics will determine who is marginally better than the rest at the job and that will be the MT of choice. All new raid guilds/organizations will run out and get one of that class to be their tank without consideration of anybody else. Then, all the other fighters will cry so much that their coffee cups at work never run out and SoE will throw in some minor tweaks that 100% change who is the favored MT.
Six classes for one role will NEVER be balanced.
Even if you think your leather should be as tough as my plate....

BChizzle wrote:

That doesn't change that the primary reason they are afforded slots is for avoidance lend or serving to fullfill specific scripted content. Our monk is expected to avoidance lend and defensively build for it when it matters, the rest of the time he's expected to be sudo t2 dps. Take the lend out, and we'd just bring more dps and maintain brawler alts.
Pre mit nerf, he serves a viable stand in for mt/ot as needed, post nerf, I have my doubts.

Wasuna wrote:

I'll bite, if dragons did exist would you think it more effective to put on football pads and stand there and get stomped on by a 10k pound dragon or would the better idea be to you know move out of the way? Hell elephants exists and are much weaker then dragons right how would a plate tank fare with an elephant, my bet would be on the tank that could get the f out of the way.
Your argument is complete nonsense.

I love it whenever someone brings out the "leather can't stop dragons argument". Apparently blocking a multi-ton monster's claw swing with your shield, that's reasonable and realistic, and with no knockback either!

BChizzle wrote:

Blanka pretty much hit the nail on the head here. The role you're describing just isn't a viable one. If we're to be valued for our avoidance lend then they either have to make all brawler block uncontested (as it is for plates) or else design content so that we'll be tanking already.

plate tanks don't have any uncontested avoidance. shield or no shield, there is still strike-thru.

Don't be pedantic. You know full well that contested vs uncontested refers to whether there's a skill/level comparison applied. That or you need to go read ge avoidance FAQ. The fact that the strikethrough mechanic needed to be implemented is just another example if how itemization has screwed up game mechanics though.

not being anything but honest. 'uncontested' is the wrong word to use in the description on shield blocking. strike-thru contests it, so it's not uncontested.

What, so are you asking for people to instead stop condensing it to "uncontested" and say "uncontested by skill and level" every time they refer to that mechanic? Not being anything but honest, why do all the stupid, childish and pedantic suggestions/complaints come from Nagafen?

Think he is right. Calling something uncontested wich actually isnt, is just wrong and misleads discussions. The only things ingame, that are really uncontested are brawlers block and guardians stoneskins.