Would there be less Fighter hate if...

All those ideas are crap, especially the notion of balance this game never had balance to begin with to keep saying it did is complete lunacy. If Sony actually cared they would listen they stopped listening years ago, it shows fairly well because every class forum and test discussion are filled with nothing but complaints. Just like wow's Eq2 doesn't have to try to be like Wow it already is the devs listen about the same there as here. As for Fighters lets take a look at them truthfully. Guardians and Berzerkers.... and paladins are the only three fighters who's main draw and gimmick are even intact. Monks Bruisers and Sk's had their draw ripped out long ago and don't even have a gimmick anymore. At one point in time Monks and Bruisers could viably do damage without a weapon equipped now all fighters do much the same unarmed. Sk's at one time where meant solely for utility,dps and off-tanking and even had a real pet, which is now a lvl 50 fluff pet. Eq2 is getting hard to care to even play with all the constant changes that take away the fun of said class. Also pvp can go die in a fire, I only play eq2 now because a friend plays it most korean mmo's have more class diversity at this point. Even eq1 has more fun content than eq2 because its classes are diverse and haven't left the bounds in which they where created to begin with.

Ikunai wrote:

Dude take a pill or something. This post couldn't be more useless..

All this class hybrid abilities bleeding over stuff is stupid. Bring bards and enchanters for utility, priests for healing, tanks for tanking, and dps classes for dpsing. The game has been successful for 8 years using this model, why f it up? Only room for 3 tanks in a raid? Too bad, suck it up.
In the 7 or 8 years I have played this game, I have raided with casual guilds, and hardcore guilds, and I have never failed to get a raid slot on any class I've played at end game... just sayin.

Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:

You must use a very unique definition of 'successful'.
Anywho, during development some Einstein at SOE came up with the brilliant concept of needlessly creating duplicates of all of the classes. EQ2 has been hamstrung by this ever since. With the addition of the Beast Lord class, which SOE swore up and down would never be added to EQ2, SOE has made very clear that they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in balancing the classes or making all classes equally desirable in end-game raiding. As if the constant FOTM swinging was not enough of a clue. The majority of the players wanting to play Fighters, and what seems like pretty much everyone having two Fighter alts, doesn't mean jack in San Diego.

ZachSpastic wrote:

My definition of successful means keeping the game up and running for 8 years while turning a profit. What's yours?

Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:

...While losing hundreds of accounts monthly due to lack of class balance and content.
This DPS stance is causing player balance (or at least perception of balance) to go to pot. Everyone hates it, including half the fighters I talk to.
They should have scrapped it and given us utility. It's a win-win. You know half the bards and chanters you play with absolutely HATE playing them, right?

Atan@Unrest wrote:

That is so true.
If someone absolutly want to raid and can't get a spot with their fighter, they should roll a desirable class and be good at playing it or, if they can't get in to any raiding guild, they should try form their own guild.
So there are other options.

Thorine@Oasis wrote:

This has been a problem for years though. Why should someone who is a good tank be forced to roll a "desireable" class to raid? This hurts the game in the long run because people can't gear up their tanks and don't get practice playing them. They have to play a bard or a chanter instead due to the arbitrary need for more and more utility.
I refuse to run PUGs with my DPS classes because most tanks are so poorly played and/or undergeared.
I still don't see a problem with tanks having more group utility to make them more raid-desireable (outside of straight DPS) as long as it doesn't make them better soloers. Maybe it's too late to go back on Recklessness, but I think the argument is there.

Novusod wrote:

eq2 has thrown everything at us, the idea that this game has EVER been set in stone in any way is a laugh and you know that. I know that you know that.

the fact fighters can solo better then every other class is why there are so many tanks and bad ones i hear some fighters in SS say this is the first time i have done a grp on there tank... the fact is there are somany tanks do to the fact it is 4x as easy to lvl a fighter then a mage or scout or and 2x as easyer then a hlr... a nec or conj can solo well but once they hit higher lvl they will fin that in endgame they are broke due to the fact that pets are useless in raiding do to ae-auto(a bigger problem imo then anything with fighters)what really needs to be done is NON-fighter classes need there survivability incressed so that if you do solo with a ranger or coecer lets say you can throw up a self heal or stoneskin and have as much fun soloing as a fighter and anyone with a pet needs it immune to ae-auto.

aeyinar wrote:

Summoner pets are useless in raid? Learn to position your pet man, that's a sad joke. If your pet has survivability issues, it's a problem between the keyboard and the chair.

I will agree that non-fighters could use more solo survivablity. Makes no difference to me. And I can agree this game needs all pets to be AoE immune as long as they aren't the target of the caster, but aoe-auto immunity is just dumb. Learn to control the thing for pete's sake.

I think pets should be able to survive aoe dots and dets and stuff... but anything that requires the raid to joust, your pet should have to joust too.

sorry i figured the other classes with pets had the same issues i di by the high number on death parses ....im a coecer so no aoe blocker on my pet that i can keep up 100%. my mystic has all the aoe blocker stuff how ever the pet is so weak it dies from a single ae auto attack from adds on doz fight in ud easy mode....

I guess, if anyone forces me to use an utility stance in a raid as a third tank, this would be the day, I stopped playing.

Cyrdemac wrote:

You are already utility boss. It's called Tank. And I didn't suggest a stance, I suggested bettergroup/target buffs.
The thread is a little outdated, they won't be getting rid of Reckless; but I still think the idea is valid and tbh a way better plan than Reckless ever was.
Increasing other peoples' DPS instead of our own would have been a million times more sane, and would've created a million times less bad feedback. Fighters are there to tank, and if they need more reason to ride along it should've been to take Utility roles instead of DPS roles--those spots are highly contested as is. However, making a Zerker or a Bruiser be a capable replacement for a scout group/off tank Dirge would be great and add more flexibility.