Would there be less Fighter hate if...

Discussion in 'General Fighter Discussion' started by ARCHIVED-Tekadeo, Jun 27, 2012.

  1. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    ...as someone suggested, Fighters were given more Utility instead of Recklessness? Serious, I'm very curious.
    Right now we have 8 slots in a raid taken by 4 utility classes, and only 3 slots taken by 6 Tank classes. Since there are 25% more fighter classes, shouldnt we hold 25% more positions? So from that aggregate 11 spots after Healers and """pure""" DPS classes, there should in theory be lets just say 6 fighters and 5 utility? Or better yet one of each and another "pure" DPSer?

    Perhaps if each fighter could get a revamp (or additional stuff) to their raid buffs to compensate:
    Crusaders could give significant potency, noticeable healer help and major raidwide power procs,
    Warriors could give raidwide threat transfers and dehates, crit bonus and HP/mit buffs, and
    Brawlers could give raidwide damage/taunt procs and flurry.

    I wouldn't mind this really now that I look at it, as long as the bonuses we give would be worth taking a couple extra fighters over a couple bards/enchanters.
    Face it, players think the parse is sacred, and though shalt not outparse the parsers. And plus most people don't even want to play their utility classes, at all. So I could see a lot less uproar over this monster that has caused these forums to go nuts...
    Think about it and get back to me.
  2. ARCHIVED-Fairin Guest

    thou shalt not take my bards slot
  3. ARCHIVED-Novusod Guest

    No thanks. Save the Revamps including recklessness for EQNext. Eq2 is 8 years old so these class roles should be set in stone by now. Learn the lessons and move on.
    If there are too many fighters than maybe they should not make so many fighter classes to begin with. Changing fighters into DPS or utility can only be handled by making an entirely new game. Start thinking about EQNext beta and leave Eq2 alone.
  4. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Novusod wrote:
    Really? This is your response? It's backwards thinking like this that makes a game become stagnant and for players to leave-- "Ah no why change anything, ever? It's been dumb for this long, why stop now?"
    That is plain ignorant to me. I actually see more upside to utility than this Recklessness idea. You wouldn't have to sacrifice your tanking ability for more utility, I would imagine. And at the end of the day, we are all tanks.
  5. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Fairin wrote:
    In this proposal, there would still be 5 slots available for bards/chanters. If you can't crack that list then be less bad at barding.
  6. ARCHIVED-Pattywak Guest

    With your reasoning, we should have a slot for every class... that's NOT how MMOs work, especially at high-end. This game isn't about everyone getting to do whatever they want, the classes in this game are niche classes.

    If you want to bring utility to the raid, there are classes for that, if you want to DPS, there are classes for that. Making tanks bring more than tanking to the raid is breaking that balance. There are 25 classes and each has a role, why are we changing up those roles after 8 years? As Novusod said, it's a little late in the game for that. I think Recklessness is even straying a bit too far, but it will help PuG raids be able to do a bit more (and maybe the most casual guilds). Yes a game can become stagnant, but changing up how the classes work in this game is not the answer, evolve the classes with-in their roles to suit the content and that's all you need to do.

    If you really want a game where each class has multiple roles it can possibly fill in a raid, WoW does a decent job and Rift is fantastic, but that's just not the style of EQ2.
  7. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Ferk@Butcherblock wrote:
  8. ARCHIVED-Pattywak Guest

    If we were to try and get all 24 spots for different classes, it would not fit into a cohesive raid.

    There are 6 tanks, their job is to take damage and deal a bit back. There are ZERO fights that call for any more than 2 or maybe 3 people to be holding agro and taking damage, but you think that we should make room for 6? That's doubling up two groups with two fighters for what reason?

    One of each scout (not counting BLs right now) is reasonable, each scout bring something different to how they deal damage, or help others deal damage for the bards. Content, however, is set up to have a bard in each group (btw why would you ever want two Troubadors when a Dirge will help more than one archtype and bring the same DPS)?

    Fitting in each healer class, ok but some are far better than others. Take Templars in their current state as an example, why bring one when you can have more DPS, better Curing, and a solo healer to make room for more T1 DPS classes?

    One each of Mages? Alright, but I'd rather have more than one Coercer, and if we can get a few solo healers then additional T1 damage is always better.

    Here's the thing, it's not about the fact that we have 24 spots and 24 classes (BLs being such a late addition has changed this to be even worse), it's about how SoE designed the class structure, the raid structure (4 groups of 6 members), and most importantly the content. Aside from Rift, no other game has a break down of Fighter, Scout, Mage, Priest quite the way EQ2 does. Sure you could put EQ1, WoW, or SW:ToR classes into these categories, but that's not the way their games are designed. I would gladly take 2 Warriors, 2 Crusaders, and 2 Brawlers into a raid IF EQ2 was designed, from the beginning, for that set up. But that's not how it has EVER been and it's far too late into the game's life cycle to change that, especially mid-expansion cycle.

    My argument is not that one spot for each class in the game is something the game shouldn't have, but rather than with the age of the game, the amount of content out, and the class design since launch (each archtype being built for one purpose and one purpose only) that the idea of making Fighters viable utility, DPS, or hell, even healers, just is not what should be happening in the game at this time. The whole idea of classes filling more than one role is extremely successful in other games, but as Novusod said, don't do that to an 8 year old game, do it to the one you have in development and leave this one the way it has been since the beginning.

    And by the way, EQ2 is FAR more successful than most people give it credit for as far as MMOs go.
  9. ARCHIVED-GrandMasterUb Guest

    for something like this to work you'd need a specific buff for each fighter subclass or possibly by general class. each buff would need to morph the fighter to a specific task. IE warriors buff would design zerkers/guards to replace MT / OT dirge slots. thus the buff would need to provide things specificalky wanted in a tank group. increased survivability, greater threat control, possibly power or damage procs/buffs. etc for other fighters in similar roles. the idea has potential but i dont think soe has the time or desire to do it right
  10. ARCHIVED-Thetmes Guest

    Putting a Zerk and a Guard in the same group actually works rather well btw. The both gain some surviablity due to group buff procs and the guard gains some DPS. The problem is a dirge helps the Guard or the Zerk more than they help each other. However that is the job of the Dirge so all is well. A few years ago I suggested the idea of a 24 class raid and yes it can be done takes longer to clear the content though. While I understand that at this point in EQ2 trying to ""balance"" things to make a 24 class raid the best way to do it would be almost impossable. I would not mind if the Devs maybe put in bonus stuff for guilds that clear content with 24 class. Maybe better drop rates for the harder to get gear or a raid wide buff that is only up when 24 unique class's present that reduces raid wide damage by x% or grants x% potancy or something that would possably make it worth it to take 24 diff class but not unbalance things from what we have now.
  11. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    That wouldn't be even close to practical.
    Spread the utility out, make us interchangeable. I really like this idea the more I think about it.
    I know it is silly to think that SoE can completely reverse fields after something is on test, but really -really- making us interchangeable with Utility classes makes a whole lot more sense than making us interchangeable with DPS classes simply because of the lack of balance and raid slot proportions that are afforded chanters and bards.
    6-8 healers
    4-6 tanks
    4-6 chanters/bards
    Fill the rest with Rogues/summoners/sorcs/preds/BLs as you see fit.
    I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, just attempting to fix some much-needed balance of class desireability.
  12. ARCHIVED-GrandMasterUb Guest

    Tekadeo wrote:
    They've scrapped changes before... altho I wouldn't expect a replacement for a few years. And tbh this "fighter revamp" is a single buff. It probably took all of 10 minutes to code. Its identical across all fighters... Its not really much of a revamp.
  13. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:
    I know, but it took them what 3 years to come back with a replacement after the scrapping? I wish they would've taken feedback from that time and used it here. I know I have suggested the Fighter Utility many times over the years.
  14. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Anyone else see a downside to this? Is it overpowering fighters too much? Maybe turning their current group/raid buffs into actual worthwhile buffs, but giving them single target maintainable buffs (that can't be used on self, like the old Battle Cry) that they can spred around similar to BC, UT, PLink, EV.
    IDK I'm just spitballing here, but I honestly believe this would be a better option than Recklessness atm.
  15. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Gonna post here again although no one else seems to love my awesome idea for dispersing the arbitrarily overpopulated and overrepresented utility classes. No, I don't think you need eight raid spots while tanks get three.
    Fighters:
    Multiple single target buffs they can't cast on themselves, only group members.
    Fighters provide hate gain and transfers to other tanks. Fighters shall be solely responsible for their aggro.
    Reckless Stance goes in the trash can.
    All current fighter temps on test that gain strikethrough immunity stay. Berserkers still need something here though since they are the only fighter without a strikethrough immune temp buff to call their own.
    Offensive Stances has 20% more damage, 20% more incoming physical damage. 1min recast.
    Defensive Stance has +100% to taunts and 5% damage reduction

    Bards/Chanters:
    All group buffs become raidwide buffs.
    No bard/chanter debuffs can stack. Increase bard debuffs or change encounters to compensate.
    Single target buffs cannot be cast on self, silly dirges.
    Illy and Enchanter need to buff martial classes more betterer
    I was going to say add more DPS to utility classes, but tbh I have seen what great ones can do and I think it would be crazy. Even still, maybe give them more, I'm not sure
  16. ARCHIVED-Yimway Guest

    Conceptualy replacing recklessness with watered down (but stackable) versions of the single target bard/chanter buffs is a more palletable sollution.
    In that they don't replace utility, they augment it, or they might fill a slot when no utility logs in.
    I still in principle do not like any class being able to jump the defined roles in eq2 unless all classes can do it. Opening that door I feel will be catostrophic in the long term. But SoE doesn't think in long term about anything.
  17. ARCHIVED-Regolas Guest

    It's definitely doable and not that hard to do. Rangers have a short duration buff called Focus Aim that's pretty useless at top level, BUT it provides bonuses to the group but not the ranger. (it provides different even worse improvements for the ranger casting it). Having this kind of group buff, that doesn't provide the buff to the caster, will mean its viable to have 2 fighters in a group in a raid, if you can't find a dirge.
  18. ARCHIVED-Regolas Guest

    Without making fighters better at soloing.
  19. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Atan@Unrest wrote:
    I agree but after all---aren't fighters just Utility anyway? Isn't holding aggro and taking hits our sole reason for being in a raid? I think splitting those 11 current Utility slots (4 chanters, 4 bards, 3 tanks) more evenly would make sense for the game. Two chanters, two bards, four or five fighters balances out more, and if you want you can fill more DPS slots.
  20. ARCHIVED-Tekadeo Guest

    Regolas wrote:
    Honestly I think this is what people are most worried about. Fair enough, but we are already the best soloers I think.
    Would make more sense if group zones required someone to have 3 players to zone in or a raid to have 8 to zone in.