true double attack

[Braedan_VZ]

This prolly gets mentioned on occasion but clicky pet buffs are likely coming soon and we'll need an addition to the top 10.

We were given an ability weaker then one that was already established.  From the getgo that lacks sense.  Don't recreate the wheel.  Beastial Frenzy grants us double attack. Thats great and we all have it but why not just give us double attack?  Then you don't have to go around fixing things things tailored to double attack like ferocity on items just to allow it to work with us.

[janabell]

personally i think double attack would fix a rather large chunk of our DPS problems and it doesn't even have to be huge even a skill of 100 or 150 would put the beast lords back on line with DPS and keep us up there farly well, as for pets DPS thats a different issue.

how ever i don't think its every gonna happen i highly dought that SOE will give beast lords Double attack skill of any kind as they don't see us as a fast hitting class they might implement something that we hit harder rather then more time's, were more likely to see AA's that increase that or Ambidexterity

[Skratz]

And most likely everyone else will also get acces to the aa so we are still behind.

[Prelgor]

My impression was that giving us innate double attack would truly overpower our melee DPS.  Granted, our personal DPS lags significantly behind, say, a ranger.  Double attack would, let's say, double our DPS.  However, we ALREADY have approximately doubled DPS from our warder!  In my experience, at level 60, Binky does at least as much damage as I do, if not more.  When I'm soloing, Binky is usually only self-buffed and I typically have KEI and self-buffs.  If we're each fighting a different mob, he usually kills his before I finish mine. 

[bham]

Thats the problem. Beastlord DPS is about right for non-raid beastlords and beastlords who raid up until about the Time era. Any change to the beastlord class might fix beastlords at the mid- and high-end but it would overpower low-end beastlords. The changes need to be itemization for beastlords off raid mobs.

[Tastian]

Innate double attack would "fix" some issues, but it'd cause others and it'd have to be handled at the proper time.  A beastlord has a crazy power curve much different from almost every class in the game.  For example, at 60 with epics my warder was doing ~2X the damage I did without spells.  Now at 70 my pet is doing ~50% of the damage I am doing with spells(ish). 

Right now our AA grants us a 15% double attack.  Base double attack at 60 was ~60% as I recall, so gaining double attack would be huge.  Also understand that if we had normal double attack then obviously the BF AA would have to go away and our warders would have to see changes because at that point the only things that would seperate our melee dmg from say a warrior, monk, ranger, etc is innate triple attack and a few AAs.  We'd also see larger returns on some AAs such as combat fury and ambi.

Beastlords were balanced around not having double attack and we can still be balanced around that fact, but itemization, spell progression, and focus effect progression (pet focus, etc) have hindered how we make up for not having innate double attack.  With proper itemization and a few AA/spell tweaks our dps could be where it is supposed to be and we'd still retain a large amount of our uniqueness.

What giving us innate double attack would grant is less reliance upon dev understanding of the class.  If we simply had innate double attack then getting almost carbon copies of ranger 2h weapons wouldn't hurt so bad.  Getting tied in with monks on weapons wouldn't be an issue, etc. 

There are other issues that would come into play like when to add it and where and numerous other things.  *shrugs*  There are over a dozen totally different ways I could list to "fix" our dps, but until the devs agree with where we are at and say we need fixes there isn't anything more to do.  Right now I'm just trying to get them to understand where we stand so that DoD doesn't further the problem and hopefully offers some relief. 

[Bengali]

Bestial frenzy doesn't necessarily have to go away with an innate level of double attack, since the other melees/hybrids have their own AAs that increase double attack over and above whatever they get from their skill level (i.e., Ferocity).

Also, they don't necessarily have to change pets or other AAs.  Nothing says that they have to give DA that caps at 245 like everyone else -- they could do 200 or 150 or 100 or whatever number would be sufficient to make up for the damage that the pet used to provide but no longer does as we scale.

[Rhoam]

I dont think our dps is ok for non raiding beasts. My dps doesnt stack up to other non raiding classes atm for the content in oow and don really. I think we may be ok for content up to time in that progression. But when you factor in the advances that other melee get from oow and don spells and gear, we are not ok anymore. I know my guild is non raiding and that despite the fact that my gear surpasses alot of the members by far and I hav e around 200 more aa on average, my dps is way below the curve.

[Jkal_Shihar]

Seen alot of nice ideas here. One I really liked but cant find where I read it was something bout vicious strikes or some such. Pretty good thought of there and description.
Even this thread kinda hits it, be nice to get innate DA like say lvl 55 or 60 and maybe only max at like 100, 125 or somesuch.
I went on vacation last week  and we stopped by a friend of ours on the way home. He didnt know beastlords where this bad off on the dps scale. He plays a pally and in a pretty good raiding guild so he admitted to never really noticing much why alot of there bst's started dropping 2hnders and going back to H2H, 1hander weapons.
I sent him to this site to read up on the problems and he was impressed how seriously alot of us take our class.
He did agree, maybe we should get a innate DA later in lvl to compensate for lack of a true DA.
Me, personally would rather have something that is either innate or disc, it's getting old trying to grind for that one aa or two alot of times. Guess I like to help the little guy also <shrug>.
Oh well, just ramblin' on some thoughts is all  :-D

[Khayden]

They could use innate double attack to fix the DPS disparity if they use skill and level capping that are appropriate.  This would overpower the beast a bit at level 60ish, perhaps then they could tone down the warders at that level so that the beasts warder is always roughly the same %age of total dps and the curve is smoother.

Khayden

[Bengali]

The funny thing about double attack is that a lot of other players already assume that we have it.  In fact, I think a lot of people think of us as a "dps" class because they assume we have pretty good melee and a good pet on top of that.  If I had a nickel for every time one of my guildmates was leveling up a bst alt and asked me, "hey, what level do I get double attack?" I could retire to the islands.  When I tell them, "you don't" they assume that I'm just being a smartass. :)  It takes a while to explain that it's really only through an aa that we get it and even then it doesn't amount to a whole lot.

Also, I know a lot of people have been saying that at level 60 or thereabouts we'd be overpowered if we had some level of double attack which could very well be true.  I'm not so sure of that though.  We've kind of been assuming that to be the case but at least as for me, level 60 was a LONG time ago and the other classes have seen quite a few improvements since then.  Melees got a lot of discs added and they have weapons that are significantly better than what was available back when I was level 60 and holding my own against other melees.  Our equipment has improved also of course, but we don't gain as much from the higer ratio weapons as the other melees.

Anyway, that's just a long winded way for me to say that we can't afford to assume anything.  It should be checked at various levels, even the ones where people haven't been saying there's a problem, because they just might not know.

[Strigori]

If giving rangers innate tripples at 60 doesnt unbalance anything, than giving us innate doubles at 60 shouldnt either.  The power curver argument gets more and more pointless as the mudflation of weapons continue.  There are weapons easily atainable in ldon, don and ever the bazaar that are above and beyond what used to be in the raiding only loot area.  With recomended  and required levels on everything anymore,  there is a very good argument for us getting double attack in some fashion, and keepiong our AA as an increase to it.  Depending on the amount of double attack rate, it  could single handedly balance our dps out. 

[Prelgor]

Again, I am only level 60, so I don't have enough experience yet to grasp the whole picture.  However, sitting at level 60, I feel just fine.  Innate double attack would be gravy, not something I feel I need to "catch up" to others.  For a more concrete example, I have spent lots of time grinding in Acrylia Caverns (I need acrylia for my tradeskill habit, and the mobs are still mostly dark blue).  An equal level ranger friend recently came by for his own grinding/farming as I was on my way out.  After comparing notes, I found that I can keep a much larger section (almost twice the mobs, including two named spawns) clear before respawn than he can (one named, at best).  It's only a single data point, but I definitely didn't feel underpowered.  I don't know our relative gear quality, but we are guildmates with similar playtime patterns. 

The assertions that I have read here indicate that the DPS problems don't really start to exist until after 65 or something like Time+ progression.  It seems to me that the exact extent of the problem needs to be better defined to determine the most appropriate fix.  If all 65+ beastlords are falling behind in DPS, perhaps all 65+ beastlords should receive just enough innate double attack skill to make up for it.  If a level 70 non-raiding beastlord is about right, when compared to other level 70 non-raiding classes, then perhaps it is only raiding rewards that need to be adjusted, only for raiding beastlords. 

Just to stir the pot, I'll throw out another idea.  Perhaps we are overpowered at lower levels and we are being brought back to "where we should be" in the current endgame? 

Ours is an unusual class.  I might argue that we are more "hybrid" than any of the other classes (at least, up there with bards), in that we can potentially do so many things.  More than anything else, I would appreciate from the developers a clear statement as to what our class is "supposed" to be.  What are we supposed to be good at, and what are our limitations supposed to be?  Back to the main topic, I could accept a slightly lower DPS than other DPS classes, if it were balanced by greater utility.  I can't imagine that a level 60 rogue would ever solo in some of the places that I can. 

[Bengali]

Again, I am only level 60, so I don't have enough experience yet to grasp the whole picture.  However, sitting at level 60, I feel just fine.  Innate double attack would be gravy, not something I feel I need to "catch up" to others.  For a more concrete example, I have spent lots of time grinding in Acrylia Caverns (I need acrylia for my tradeskill habit, and the mobs are still mostly dark blue).  An equal level ranger friend recently came by for his own grinding/farming as I was on my way out.  After comparing notes, I found that I can keep a much larger section (almost twice the mobs, including two named spawns) clear before respawn than he can (one named, at best).  It's only a single data point, but I definitely didn't feel underpowered.  I don't know our relative gear quality, but we are guildmates with similar playtime patterns.

Not to single you out, but this is just the type of analysis that we should be wary of.  Did you do more damage than the ranger, or did you just have less downtime because you took less damage (from slowed mobs) or had more mana regen or you were just plain more efficient?  To put it another way, I may be able to keep more of AC cleared than my rogue friend, but that doesn't mean in any way that I do more damage than he does.  :)  Technique is a large factor in those types of things.  Also, if you don't know the relative gear quality between you and your friend, then you don't know if the comparison is fair.

Don't get me wrong, it very well could be that things are just fine at your level.  I just think we need to collect some serious data on it.

Ours is an unusual class.  I might argue that we are more "hybrid" than any of the other classes (at least, up there with bards), in that we can potentially do so many things.

I'd say it differently, personally.  I think we are more "hybrid" than any other class because of the *source* of our abilities -- no other class is as dependent on melee, spells AND pet as we are.  But I don't actually think we do that many things that other classes can't do, and we aren't anywhere near the same league as bards. 

[Prelgor]

Not to single you out, but this is just the type of analysis that we should be wary of.  Did you do more damage than the ranger, or did you just have less downtime because you took less damage (from slowed mobs) or had more mana regen or you were just plain more efficient?  To put it another way, I may be able to keep more of AC cleared than my rogue friend, but that doesn't mean in any way that I do more damage than he does.  :)  Technique is a large factor in those types of things.  Also, if you don't know the relative gear quality between you and your friend, then you don't know if the comparison is fair.

Don't get me wrong, it very well could be that things are just fine at your level.  I just think we need to collect some serious data on it.

Oh, I agree, my example was far from ideal and lacks some necessary data.  If my gear, skill or buffs were vastly better than his, nothing else I say matters.  On the face of it, I think the example points to me clearly being more capable than the ranger.  If I could eliminate the other variables (gear, buffs, raw skill - everything but what the class can do innately), then I don't care why he was less capable.  He took enough damage or dealt it out more slowly enough to kill less quickly over an extended time (not just a single "burst" fight).  I think this is a fair (albeit poorly defined) way to compare classes, since it operationally combines not only raw DPS but overall utility.  As you state, your rogue friend may deal more damage, but you can keep more things dead.  In this scenario, your beastlord is more effective than his rogue.  Granted, this is not the optimal use of the rogue's talents, and perhaps a group with a beastlord would stack up differently against an identical group including a rogue.  Rogue DPS is better than ours, but does it fail to be enough better such that a beastlord is more useful in the average group?  I don't think I'll meet too much disagreement, if I assert that DPS is not the only measure by which we should be balanced. 

In any event, you're right.  My data is insufficient for drawing conclusions.  Sadly, that's all I have. :)  What would adequate data look like?  What is the right metric to use? 

I'd say it differently, personally.  I think we are more "hybrid" than any other class because of the *source* of our abilities -- no other class is as dependent on melee, spells AND pet as we are.  But I don't actually think we do that many things that other classes can't do, and we aren't anywhere near the same league as bards. 

It was pointed out to me recently that shadowknights have all the same DPS components that we do (nuke, DoT, melee, pet), albeit at a lower level.  Rangers also have them all, minus the pet.  Bards are especially unusual for any number of reasons.  We are like bards in that we are good, or at least passable, at many things - Slow, Haste, healing, DPS, stat buffs, mana regen buff, HP buff, and off-tanking (two mobs at once!) even!  I don't mean to set us (or anyone!) up for a direct comparison specifically with bards, since that would be both difficult and not my intended point. 

A problem in balancing beastlords is deciding how "good" we need to be.  Clearly we shouldn't Slow or DPS as well as classes that are dedicated to primarily that job, but how much worse should we be?  For example, bards can slow, but no one would ever turn down a shaman because they already have a bard to take care of slow.  Beastlords can functionally replace a shaman on Slow and buff duty well enough that I have heard tell of groups that don't bother to invite a shaman, in favor of another DPS class, when they already have a beastlord.  Obviously, this is not true of all groups, let me hasten to add.  However, how far back should our "second best" status in many areas be to ensure that the sum of the parts both does not exceed any other class and is great enough that the class is desired?  One also hopes that widespread perceptions among players mostly match reality...  Pondering this question makes my head hurt, but it seems to be necessary to evaluate our overall position. 

If it is not apparent from what I write, I have recently had conversations with people who feel that beastlords are overpowered.  I am struggling to find a metric whereby I may objectively decide if this is true.  I certainly don't feel underpowered, at least not at level 60, with my current gear and tactics.  There is no single area in which we exceed another class, but our strength is in having so many different tools in our toolbox.  How do you evaluate whether two "second place" > one "first place"?