Are Monks as avoidance oriented as implied by the dev's?

[SageMarrow]

<P>then you have never played along side a warlock above level 35...</P> <P>they can pull aggro from a guardian or even a zerker if they wanted too... scouts not as much - otherwise because they also have things that lower thier hate with the target. Morso than wizards...</P> <P>Otherwise, a guardian gets more forms of taunt, as well as Stronger taunts, they arent all the same. In normal situations holding aggro is trivial. You dont see problems holding aggro until you are in a fight with 6 mobs and a ++ boss mob. </P> <P>Thats when holding aggro counts in a regular six person group. AND becomes an actual task.</P>

[Nemi]

Yes, they can pull aggro from ALL fighters. Whats your point?I can still hold aggro for my group on multiple mob pulls, allowing them to do sustained and consistent DPS and even some burn. Is it easier for a Guardian? Sure, who wants to play the easy classes tho?All that matters to me is that I can do it, and that it's not because my wizards are sleeping.

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<p>then you have never played along side a warlock above level 35...</p> <p>they can pull aggro from a guardian or even a zerker if they wanted too... scouts not as much - otherwise because they also have things that lower thier hate with the target. Morso than wizards...</p> <p>Otherwise, a guardian gets more forms of taunt, as well as Stronger taunts, they arent all the same. In normal situations holding aggro is trivial. You dont see problems holding aggro until you are in a fight with 6 mobs and a ++ boss mob. </p> <p>Thats when holding aggro counts in a regular six person group. AND becomes an actual task.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> If the Guardian/Serker/Monk/Etc is doing their job right and the warlock regularly pulls agro then he isn't doing HIS job right.  It isn't a race to see who can get the most hate, it is a cooperative effort to take out the encounter... everyone in the group has hate management responsibilities.. and that includes the nukers/debuffers/healers/etc NOT using thier high end stuff right at the start of the encounter.. they have to scale up as the tank scales up his hate.... Anything else is asking for a party wipe... and one that isn't the MTs fault. </span><div></div>

[kerra]

Seems like this has turned into more of a "who can control hate" rather than an avoidance post.

[Azazel-Defia]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>FamilyManFirst wrote:<BR>Which has a high chance of going away once DPS is revamped to give Rogues higher DPS than <I>all</I> Fighters. It <I>will</I> happen.<BR><BR>LOL, Sage, you can't have it both ways. Either we do nice DPS from autoattack and Combat Arts (which you imply above since "more [Monks/Bruisers] play dps slots than tank") which, in turn, can and does assist in building aggro or our DPS sucks because our attacks are blocked/parried/missed "all day everyday" so we can't fill DPS slots, much less Tank slots.<BR><BR>I'm glad that you like tanking as a Bruiser. I'm glad that you like doing DPS too. However, Moorgard has pretty much flatly stated that your DPS days are numbered. Now stop trying to fight those, like Gage and me and others, who are advocating to make it so that you can tank all the way up to level 50 raid content, for pete's sake!<BR></P> <P>I'm betting that SOE is more concerned about the number of Rogues - an entire Archetype - who will quit if any Fighter subclass can continue to match Rogues' DPS than they are about the number of Monks and Bruisers - only one third of an Archetype - who will quit if their class is focused more on what the class was originally specified as: tanking.<BR></P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I am going to reply to your post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. Rogues will not necessarily have a higher DPS than <STRONG>all </STRONG>fighters even after a balance. The developers have stated they will look into damage balancing, that they will be comparing scout and fighter dps. Even though this is a huge backpedal from early release statements, any balancing of Fighter and Scouts as archetypes will not necessarily translate into changes for monks/bruisers. Even though every class stems from the same 4 archetypes, by sub-class each begins to deviate in it's own unique direction. It is highly possible that brawlers will once again deviate toward scout-like damage potential.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. Even though (like you) I have a hard time reading most of Sagemorrow's posts, I can easily see that in this case he can have it both ways. Dps role brawlers do not get blocked/parried/riposted. If any non-agro  holding melee in your groups has difficulty finding an unprotected flank to attack, someone is missing fundamental understanding of the game. Agro holding brawlers<STRONG> do</STRONG> get blocked/parried/riposted. Enemies have a constant chance to block/parriy/riposte any front side attack regardless of what class holds agro. Brawlers do not get any special advantages to avoid being blocked/parried/riposted, therefore when holding agro brawlers will not have a significant advantage over other classes in DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. I like to be MA with my monk too! I love that when I am on my guildmates dont have to wait for a different Fighter class to log on. However I dont want to become redundant. If you want to see my feelings on class balance research some of my other posts. In short, I dont want to compete with 1/4 of the server for 1/24 of the raid positions. I dont want to be changed so I am hopelessly outclassed at the other 23/24 raid positions. If we arent talking about raid events then this argument is moot. I can already tank everything in game up to gx2, when I am surrounded by a group of my guildmates. It may be more difficult than when our zerker is MA, but we win just the same. Why so many monks are resisting your good intentioned (if, in my opinion, misguided) desires to orient this class toward a lower damage potential, is that we enjoy being broad range contributors to our groups. I dont want to be forced to build a new guild around myself as the MA just so I can be part of high end raid content. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4. Rogues are not going to scream imbalance and quit if one sub-class of the fighter archetype has rogue-like dps. Well maybe they will, but it will be wrong and unfair. Somewhere in SOE, developers realize that the games longevity depends on a diversity of classes. If monks/bruisers are only useful as MAs yet there is a better MA available, fewer and fewer monks are going to be playing. If monks/bruisers somehow become the most effective MA, other Fighters are going to be played less. When the game becomes 4 classes and a raid mob, noone is going to play at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And finally monks were never originally specified as "tanks" (tank is one of the worst words I have ever seen coined). Monks were Fighters, and my monk fights very well tyvm. If you want to take up a fight, why not take up the fight to maintain our DPS or expand our utility. The fighter archetype as a whole needs to be redefined away from simple meatshield strategy. Each subclass needs other useful roles in order to be viable. Right now DPS is the monks only fallback. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Azazel- Nek</DIV>

[Owa]

<P>Well said, Mr Defiant. I wish I could have articulated my own views on the mechanics of being a fighter as impressively - unfortunately being a girl I don't really do logic, and will stick to making stuff up.</P> <P>Anyway, 5 stars! Again.</P>

[kerra]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Azazel-Defiant wrote: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And finally monks were never originally specified as "tanks" (tank is one of the worst words I have ever seen coined). Monks were Fighters, and my monk fights very well tyvm. If you want to take up a fight, why not take up the fight to maintain our DPS or expand our utility. The fighter archetype as a whole needs to be redefined away from simple meatshield strategy. Each subclass needs other useful roles in order to be viable. Right now DPS is the monks only fallback. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Azazel- Nek</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First off I gave you 5* on this post because it was so well written (((but))) I have to disagree with your last point because of this.</P> <HR> <P> Moorgard wrote:<BR></P> <P>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.<BR> <HR> <P><BR> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Azazel-Defiant wrote:<BR> Since I don't think we can ever be as good as plate tanks, just go ahead and make me DPS please. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>How about, no.<BR>

[Owa]

<DIV>It's not up to you is it, Gage? </DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>Nope, its not.  But SoE hasn't done anything but reaffirm our role as tanks.  The fact that they are looking into the descrepancy between scout/fighter damage proves that.</P> <P>/shrug</P> <P>Sorry if in my opinion I think its broken for us to take a group slot from another archetype.  I mean after all, they nerfed scouts when they could tank <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[Owa]

<DIV> <DIV>Gage, you affirm that 'the fact that they are looking into the descrepancy (sic) between scout/fighter damage proves'  that Monks will have their damage reduced in order to gain better defense and compete equally as 'tanks' with the tin-can brigade. Possibly. But it <EM>could</EM> prove something entirely different -and I quote -</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>1. Rogues will not necessarily have a higher DPS than <STRONG>all </STRONG>fighters even after a balance. The developers have stated they will look into damage balancing, that they will be comparing scout and fighter dps. Even though this is a huge backpedal from early release statements, any balancing of Fighter and Scouts as archetypes will not necessarily translate into changes for monks/bruisers. Even though every class stems from the same 4 archetypes, by sub-class each begins to deviate in it's own unique direction. It is highly possible that brawlers will once again deviate toward scout-like damage potential.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, clearly this doesn't come from a developer, but it's still a valid and interesting point and not one to be dismissed without consideration. In my view, the brawler class is that of a fighter that can tank rather than a tank that can fight, and personally I hope SoE decide to let us flourish in that role. But who knows what they'll do? Someone's bound to be [Removed for Content] off whatever happens - and as long as it's not me, that's a chance I'm willing to take! :smileywink:</DIV></DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>I never said our damage reduced, I think they'll raise scouts.</P> <P>If our intended role is to do damage, then they should move us out of the fighter archetype, its pretty easy to understand.</P> <P>If we are intended to deal damage on par or barely below scouts, then we shouldn't be able to tank.  Why?</P> <P>Because when scouts could tank, they nerfed them.</P> <P>Besides his "subclasses stem in their own direction" view is flawed.  That is only accurate in games that are balanced by subclass, not in games balanced by archetype.</P> <P>If we "stem in our own direction of doing damage" then we aren't fighters.</P> <P>If we can tank and deal damage then we are unbalanced towards scouts.</P> <P>How is it hard to understand?</P> <P>There are 4 jobs in this game, not 24, and because of that subclasses do not go "in their own unique direction" they are simply there for flavor and style. </P> <P>So until SoE abandons the archetype system, the fact that we can tank and take a scout's role in group is broken.</P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>04-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:32 PM</span>

[Drevva]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I've taken my monk out of retirement to play a bit, and I too am curious what our role is to be. personally I have no problem with arch -types having some variability between them. In fact I would almost insist they do.  The key for me is to balance usefulness.  If one class tanks a bit better, then give the other more utility.    It seems the easiest way is to have a bit of gradation between them.  One might have the "tank" quality be one of these things that varies.  For purposes of example only!    Guardians are the best tanks, then crusaders, berserkers and then monks.  All can tank most things but Guardians have their nitch at the high end raid content.  But Monks are more flexible they can tank in most situations , but can also move to a dps role if needed.  Their strength is diversity. Same thing with mages, wizards/warlocks are pure dps, the enchanter group offer CC, buffs, utility.  By allowing some diversity between the arch types the game to me at least becomes better.  Let one class shine in certain situations, we don't all have to be the same to have value and be useful.  Not being able to tank the uber raid mobs as a monk is fine to me, let a guardian do it, I will use my buffs to help him tank better, while helping on dps and adds etc.  To me the trait of the monk or where we "shine " could easily be in our adaptibility.  For 95% of cases we can tank just fine, but have two tanks, we can easily move to a different role, dps or what have you.  Lean on the side of tanking vs dps, rogues can still do more.  But i can adapt to fill the groups needs.  To me that has value, and it seems to fit better what a monk would be any. Either that are start all in the same arch type as basically the same and allow training choices to actually define who we want to be.  Want to tank the best, you chose via training the ability to do that.  Want more dps you choose that, then our role is determined by us <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Drevva

[Owa]

<DIV>Gage do you <EM>really</EM> think that I don't understand your point? Plenty of people understand it with barely a flex of their synapses - after all, it is hardly the most complex of arguments. They just don't agree with your view. Understanding and agreement are not always to be conflated. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The poster has every right to articulate his views and we have every right to judge them without being constantly reminded of your own. Or do you think that repeating one's point <EM>ad nauseum</EM> is what this discussion is sorely lacking?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think it's nice to see a new contributor and a different angle once in a while.</DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>I do too, that's why I like our community.</P> <P>But my viewpoints aren't just mine, they are SoE's.</P> <P>About the enchanters only being CC/etc, you do realize they are upping their DPS right?  </P>

[Drevva]

Yes I do, They are upping their dps as it is woefully low now, but they still won't do the DPS of the warlocks/wizards , nor should they.  The Enchanter group brings  CC, some amazing buffs etc to the table, Yes they should still be considered a dps class but there is no need to make them as high of dps as the nukers.  They would be over powered because of their other abilities. Same thing with the pet classes (they are getting some love too).  They do decent dps, in terms of DOTs, pet dmg, buffs for the group and nukes,  they do it differently  and can't spam out the damage like nukers but they have a pet, this gives them alot of diversity in what they can do, (when they fix the pets) they can have a pet tank, or be DD, they can have a pet take adds etc.  No they don't do the raw dmg but they are dps and what they lack in damage they make up for in other skills. This is kind of my point.  I'm fine with my monk not tanking as well as a guardian, in fact I have no desire to,  as long as my other abilities make up for it.  Being able to switch between a light dps for instance would make up for a little bit worse tanking ability. Yes I can fill the archtype role, well in most cases but please allow some diversity between the classes of an archtype.  Let a guardian or perhaps another heavy armor wearer be the best MT against raid mobs, that doesn't mean a Monk can't also be heavily desired.  Let them make the main tank better, let them add a bit of dps if that is what is needed.  I know the flexibility for raids isn't as great as normal grouping, but I love non traditional groups. Finding how to make the pieces work together in new ways,   I've played in groups healer light, tank light etc.  All were fun. Maybe it is easier for mages to be balanced in this way as the secondary abilities are very useful and standard. Drevva

[Gaige]

<DIV>The problem lies in we can fill two archetypes roles.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can DPS in place of a scout, or tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But scouts can't tank, when they could, they got nerfed.</DIV>

[Drevva]

That is true, We shouldn't be able to fulfill two roles equally as well, nor two roles at the same time. I'm certainly not advocating we get scout dps, but have variation in the ultimate tanking ability and offset this in other abilities, increased dps, utility etc. Nothing to me says that all archtype tanks must tank equally well in all situations.  Let them all tank well in 90% of the situations and let that last 10% distinguish the classes. If folks are so narrow minded in grouping that their percieved notion of what is best preclude certain classes because they can't expand their view of how clases interact and play so be it, I wouldn't want to group with them anyway. But for others, they will view diversity as a way to have fun,   Take a monk and you have  tank, but can also take another tank and move the monk around.  The reality is , most of us spend our time in groups of size 1-6,   For the Raid encounters make it  so I can make the MT better, and move to what is needed. Drevva.

[SageMarrow]

<P>and yet again, </P> <P>A monk will never replace a bard, which is a scout, because of the utility he brings.</P> <P>A monk will never replace ANY scout in a dungeon crawl 27-50 (after they get evac).</P> <P>It wouldnt matter what happend, if they took scout dps into nothingness, and just made them debuffers and scouting machines... they still would not compete with brawlers for dps slots.</P> <P>Scouts - whether you believe it or not, are built on thier utility first as an archetype, then and only then - their dps. mages are the only class built around pure dps.</P> <P>So just because we can sit back and do damage doesnt mean squat about us taking a scouts place. Simply because a bard cannot be replaced by ANY class... for that matter gage you should have a problem with that as well correct?</P> <P>And nothing is wrong with his observation, whether or not SOE likes it = gage likes it - heck if i love it = it doesnt matter because brawlers will never be preffered Above or Near guardians, after we get past guardians - we still need have to compete with a paladins heals, a zerkers aggro control, and so forth.</P> <P>What dont you understand about fighting a losing battle? So when someone says they would rather be a semi tank - dps class, its because it MAKES SENSE. Not because its what we particularly WANT, or desire, because unless they make avoidance tanks mitigation tanks, it will never really matter... </P>

[sysr]

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote: <p>Scouts - whether you believe it or not, are built on thier utility first as an archetype, then and only then - their dps. mages are the only class built around pure dps.</p><div></div><hr></blockquote>Please dont talk if you dont know [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] about what you are saying.  The only utility that the Preditor line of scouts add is Pathfinding and Evac (wizzys and i believe furys, maybe its warden, get evac aswell).  Preditor are pure melee DPS. Every mage in the game buffs group resistences to one thing or the other. This is highly desired when raiding.... Fighting a Wizard mob have a wizard in your MT group to give him resistences against the mobs spells.  Very useful.  Besides bards, other scouts do not buff any resistences. Scouts have to use postitioning, going in and out of stealth, moving back and forth for ranged attacks (at least ranger), purchasing posions and arrows (costly).  FIghters dont have any of these restrictions.  They are pretty much ready to go whenever wherever.  And they should not come anywhere near the scout (except maybe bard) dps. As to the original topic No.  defence = avoidence.  guardiens = defence. guardiens = avoidence.  Needs to be changed.</span><div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<P>how many ways to say duh...</P> <P>i know that but i was making a point. Trust me when i say that i know what EVERY class is capable of and not capable of.  Pathfinding and evac and Sneak cannot be done without in the way that SOE has designed the dungeons. There are no safe spots in dungeons anymore (for the most part). There are no - "Go Pull" demands on tanks in most situations, the group moves with the tank.</P> <P>So with that being said, we tend to forget that the first time through a dungeon it isnt wise to just pull what you can see from a vantage point in which you wont get aggro before being prepared, which is where ALL scouts become necessary through the use of sneak. Why does everyone lose sight of the intention of what a scout REALLY is = ITS TO SCOUT!!!! with the subclass being an offset of that type of scout they wish to be.</P> <P><EM>An assasin isnt a melee damage super hero that wades through fights with a big axe - hes a silent killer that is build around stealth and speed to make kills, just a fancy name for a scout that kills for a living. Even bards fit that same scenario, they are travelling song weavers that make magical music based upon thier travels. Basically a scout that makes magical songs to aid in battle. </EM></P> <P>Not to mention disarming traps on chest that can immobilize a group in the wrong places and even rip up to 2000+ hp in some cases.</P> <P>I was referring to scouts as a whole, and BTW predator types do get a few debuffs, nothing to brag about = but they are there and every stackable debuff on a mob helps. And thats not even throwing bards into the mix.</P> <P>So while it may take a scout a bit more effort to achieve MAXIMUM dps through equipment purchases and poisons. That is more than a trade off for what we call Fighter class *utility*.</P> <P>And fighters are not ready to go whenever wherever, we have to stay on top of gear at all times in all places, if a scout wants to walk around in crap armor and focus strictly on adepts and arrows he can and it wont be any reflection on his job porformance. So that too balances out perfectly.</P> <P>As far as mages resistance buffs meaning anything at all, resistances dont equal spell mitigation, they will soon - but right now they dont. A caster mob doesnt do melee damage for 600pts AND cast for 1500pt nukes. They do either one or the other and if the cast gets off, there is VERY little chance for an all out resist- saying as though the only time i see them is when im 5 levels above the mob and its green by a very thin margin. Thats why brawlers rely on interrupting the target so much so that they cannot cast spells, or at least this is the way that i fight caster mobs and is the reason why i have gone entire fights without a level40^^ warlock goblin getting one spell in and consequently not taking ANY damage. </P> <P>But at the same time i have been hit by a level 40 Warlock ^^'s Nil distortion that did 2248dmg to me at level 38, and instakilled me. So do you see the point? resistances are nice - but not until you reach massive amounts that can only be achieved by having 1 of each mage in group, aka a raid.</P> <P>So now before you stick your head into the tail end of this argument, know who you address and read thier previous post before you take a blanket approach to what you THINK they think, and what you THINK they know or dont know. A guide we should all take into consideration. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[SniperKitty]

Once again for the ignoramouses... <font color="#ffff00" size="7">FIGHTERS TANK. SCOUTS STAB. PRIESTS HEAL. MAGES NUKE.</font> That is, in essence, what you do in this game.  Learn it, love it, frakkin' live with it already and stop trying to frak up the archetype system you morons.  If a member of any ARCHETYPE can fulfill the duties of another ARCHETYPE, they are too strong and need to be nerfed. The exception being comparitive DPS between scouts and mages. <div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<P>sniper if you dont quit you psycho chick, i feel sorry for your boyfriend. jezus</P> <P> </P>

[Vigh]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR>Once again for the ignoramouses...<BR><BR><FONT color=#ffff00 size=7>FIGHTERS TANK.<BR>SCOUTS STAB.<BR>PRIESTS HEAL.<BR>MAGES NUKE.</FONT><BR><BR>That is, in essence, what you do in this game.  Learn it, love it, frakkin' live with it already and stop trying to frak up the archetype system you morons.  If a member of any ARCHETYPE can fulfill the duties of another ARCHETYPE, they are too strong and need to be nerfed. The exception being comparitive DPS between scouts and mages.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>mature adults                            discuss things </P> <P>kids                                            stubbornly yell something they picked up</P> <P>below average IQ people          call others morons</P> <P>...</P>

[Drevva]

<div></div> I would also suggestion snipperkitty hasn't played 2/3s of the mage classes *smirk* Unless of course pet control, crowded control , debufs, etc.. fall under the category of nuke Edit:  I also wanted to add that if this game ever gets distilled down to sniper's synoposis it won't be real fun to play. Drevva <p>Message Edited by Drevva on <span class=date_text>04-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:40 AM</span>

[SageMarrow]

well its what SOE is trying to do... mages are all getting dps increases... so soon they will all **nuke** . Most of us are just hoping and praying that they change their minds about some things

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Drevva wrote:<BR> <BR><BR><BR>I would also suggestion snipperkitty hasn't played 2/3s of the mage classes *smirk*<BR><BR>Unless of course pet control, crowded control , debufs, etc.. fall under the category of nuke <BR><BR>Edit:  I also wanted to add that if this game ever gets distilled down to sniper's synoposis it won't be real fun to play.<BR><BR>Drevva <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So that's why they are upping enchanter and summoner DPS?<BR>

[Owa]

<P>Ooh! Ooh! Sniperkitty's back. Thank goodness! I've almost spent all the advance from the first edition of 'Sniperkitty's Book of Zen'.</P> <P>Can we kick it up a notch for the sequel though? The publishers are on me about using '[Removed for Content]' too much. Gonna have to try harder. Oh, and there's talk of a mini-series...</P>

[Drevva]

<blockquote> <hr> Drevva wrote: I would also suggestion snipperkitty hasn't played 2/3s of the mage classes *smirk*Unless of course pet control, crowded control , debufs, etc.. fall under the category of nuke Edit:  I also wanted to add that if this game ever gets distilled down to sniper's synoposis it won't be real fun to play.Drevva <hr> </blockquote> So that's why they are upping enchanter and summoner DPS? Yes of course , uping those classes DPS makes them pure nukers, nothing but nuking,  Yep they are going to up the DPS right there up with Wizards and Warlocks.   Fast and furious nuking *smirk* Can we be clear, that uping DPS doesn't make  these classes nukers.  Yes they are dps classes no one said they are not, but they will not be full on nuker , blast blast blast classes.  You get that?  There dps is being adjusted.  They will not get the nukes of the wizards warlocks. You see Dear Gage. Nuking implies fast casting DD spells,  The above post that I was responding to had listed mages as nukers , you know as in that is all they do? It seems pretty obvious to me, and I suppose others who think things through, that a summoner will never have the DD spells of a wizard, they have this thing called a pet.  They get buffs for the pet, they get dots, they get some nukes.  I think there are many here that can't grasp that there can be variation and gradation in a classes ability.  Wizards/Warlocks almost pure DD, enchanters are dps but more finesse, they get crowd control and some utility with a bit less DPS and maybe DOTs verses full on DD power.  Pet classes also are dps classes, yet they don't tend to lay it all on in one spell, you take the pet, the Dots, some nukes.  The fix of adding  dps to these classes is just uping them up, They will still give a bit of DPS to the wizzies but they have others things to offset that. I think that is what some folks just don't get it on this thread.  The exact same principle that they use on the mage classes, balancing dps with pets, crowd control, utility spells and full on nuking power is what they should do with the tank classes.  Yes all can tank, but to differnet degrees and effectiveness, give one a boost here, give one something else there. You see if they didn't think this they might as well of just had 4 classes , fighter, priest, mage, scout, alll scouts are exactly the same.  But they realized that is boring and most don't like it. All fighters fall in the arch type of figher, this means there are some major similarities, but there are differences they are not identical. Drevva <div></div>

[Gaige]

<P>Thank you for the keen insight, but let me explain to you what I meant.</P> <P>SniperKitty is a little more abrupt than most, but the point is the same.</P> <P>Mages fill a casting DPS role for groups.  Their different utility notwithstanding, the mage subclasses have to be able to fill a casting damage dealing role for groups.  This is their job.  Since some of the classes have lackluster DPS but vaunted utility, you quite often will find that if a wizard leaves a group, an illusionist does not deal enough damage to be an adequate replacement, thus you have little to no archetype interchangeability.</P> <P>Broken.</P> <P>They are, of course, not raising summoner and enchanter damage to make them pure nukers, and I never said so.  I was merely implying that they were being adjusted so as to adequately fill the role of caster damage for a group, as they should.  Of course their utility should be used as leverage in the amount of damage done, but that doesn't remove them from their job.</P> <P><img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <DIV>As for the totally overused and utterly ridiculous "if the classes aren't different, you might as well only have 4!!"  Um, let me tell you something, if four classes are the best at their job, and you have 20 half [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] hybrids, you'll essentially have 4 classes anyway, with some who are used for one buff, some for one debuff, some for one spell, and some not at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll take the boring, everyone can fill the primary role of the archetype and insure group usefulness over being half [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], thanks.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>04-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:01 PM</span>

[Nerill]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll take the boring, everyone can fill the primary role of the archetype and insure group usefulness over being half [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], thanks.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>[Removed for Content]</P> <P>You and the 10 others left playing such a narrow-minded boring Diablo clone.</P> <P>Yeah, SOE needs to make all classes the same with different skins. Oh boy ! What fun that would be! /rolls eyes<BR></P>

[Drevva]

Gage,  I understand what you are saying, and you have a point.  Certainly you are entitled to your opinions <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> For me though, I like variety,  Rather than have 4 classes that work and all that, I want  to have 20.  I can deal with the flux while they fix them and get things adjusted.  I'm an optimist and assume they will be.    While the statement (regarding might as well have 4 classes) might be overused it is far from ridiculous. To many myself included class diversity is an important part of the game.   I dont' want my monk to be like the other figher types,  No major things, as I have said maybe very the 10% of what makes a fighter. I guess it boils down to we all want different things for our class, each person of course is entitled to that.   We can only voice our wishes and see what the Devs give us, and then decide to play or not. Drevva

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Drevva wrote:<BR><BR>I guess it boils down to we all want different things for our class, each person of course is entitled to that.   We can only voice our wishes and see what the Devs give us, and then decide to play or not. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yup.<BR>

[SageMarrow]

Well gage do you at least see what most people are talking about outside of your own views? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a strictly PvE game, there is no such thing as overpowered and most dont care what another class does or doesnt have unless its something as extreme as the [Removed for Content] crusader horse...heck that made everyone do a double take...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now do you see what you always say that i **assume**? i know what you are going to say as far as *well thats the way SOE wants it**, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BUT</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>outside of your personal view, do you see my point? No one wants to play that kind of game. Thier class and thier online persona is all that they have. Instead of being corralled into 4 classes  = we are corralled into four JOBS..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Whats the diffference presented there? If you want to play a monk and be successful in a group you HAVE TO TANK??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage, who do you know outside of yourself that would play a game like that? Honestly. More and more people are coming out of the woodworks to say that they dont want to play a game like that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and yet again= just for the record.... (Another one of my CRAZY assumptions was right)</DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>I know plenty of people who want to play a game like that.  I see posts about it all the time.  Some of us like the archetype system Sage.  No, its not 10, like you think.</P> <P>Where do you think the priest rebalance came from?  Or the enchanter/summoner changes?  Etc, etc.</P> <P>The game is what it is, and I doubt the archetype system will ever change.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>Gage im not trying to argue about this or anything for that matter but you are having a hard time couting as of late.</P> <P>The numbers on the post about who wanted to tank or dps were apparent, you denied those.</P> <P>The number of players who say that they dont want to play a generic *flavor* system and its not going to cut it on the fun side, you are denying those now.</P> <P>As i know that you would rather die before you say Sage was right, on any issue for that matter.</P> <P> (just like i said that it would require an overhaul to balance the classes that way, and what are we experiencing right now??? hmmm i dont know, sounds like an overhaul to me)</P> <DIV>And just as well im sure that you would also say that everyone who doesnt like the archetype system should quit and go play a game that suits them a bit more. But im sure EQ2 wouldnt be a happy place after something like that occured.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why do you think that SOE brushes all the crap around the table to no end and never comes out and says what players REALLY need/want to know...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>Are all classes going to be balanced in the way that they will all be carbon copies of one another and merely skins and animations.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff>I know you may word it a bit more eloquently, but thats the bottom line to me. There are no race particularites, no class particularities, no alternate particularites (armor,mounts, alternate advancement).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What the heck is left gage???  outside of the class you play apparently not much...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[SniperKitty]

Once again... here are the classes I play: Warden 39, Monk 25, Paladin 25, Dirge 24, Defiler 23, Illusionist 20, Rogue 18, Warrior 13. I know PLENTY about each archetype and different roles that different classes and sub-classes fulfill within those archetypes.  <font color="#ffff00"> </font><font color="#ffff00">"The number of players who say that they dont want to play a generic *flavor* system and its not going to cut it on the fun side, you are denying those now." - SageMarrow</font> Let me point out some numbers to you.  The number of people that post on these forums is SMALL compared to the number of people in game.  Just think about this... if all those people in game are happy with their class, with the archetype system... why would they come to the forums to listen to you rant and whine in your incoherent typing? They don't.  They stay in game and enjoy the balance inherent in the archetype sytem.  It's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that the archetype system is a success and will be here to stay, no matter how much you idiots whine about it. <font color="#ffff33">"Are all classes going to be balanced in the way that they will all be carbon copies of one another and merely skins and animations." - Sage <font color="#ffffff"> </font><font color="#ffffff">I certainly hope so.  It'd make the game balanced for everyone so that when they choose their base archetype, they know just what their role will be throughout the entire game.  Fighters tank, scouts stab, priests heal, and mages nuke.  That is, in the most simple of terms, what the archetype system is about.  If your class/sub-class cannot perform that most basic of functions, that class/sub-class is broke and needs to be fixed.  If your class/sub-class can perform that function in addition to the function of another archetype, that class/sub-class is also broke and needs to be nerfed.  We all saw scouts get whacked with the nerf bat when they were tanking better than tanks at the higher levels.  If scouts could tank, do damage, and have their utility, what would be the point of ever playing a true tank? </font></font><div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>Let me point out some numbers to you.  The number of people that post on these forums is SMALL compared to the number of people in game.  Just think about this... if all those people in game are happy with their class, with the archetype system... why would they come to the forums to listen to you rant and whine in your incoherent typing? They don't.  They stay in game and enjoy the balance inherent in the archetype sytem.  It's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that the archetype system is a success and will be here to stay, no matter how much you idiots whine about it.<BR>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hmmmm, im sure thats why we are having this discussion about brawlers that dont want to be fulltime tanks and enjoy the dps....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If SOE makes monks and bruisers TANK ONLY tanks, then you will see a problem with players and thier class. Right now the players are getting exactly what they expected out of the brawler branch of classes.</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>04-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:44 AM</span>

[Velor]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:  <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a strictly PvE game, there is no such thing as overpowered and most dont care what another class does or doesnt have unless its something as extreme as the [Removed for Content] crusader horse...heck that made everyone do a double take...<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>:smileysurprised:</P> <P>Good grief. This is about one of the most inaccurate statements I have ever seen used to describe a MMO. Amazing.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>hmm, how about because you can just make the mobs stronger at will...??? OR because you can change mobs' strength and ability, duh.</P> <P>its <FONT size=5><STRONG><EM><U>PvE</U></EM></STRONG></FONT>, you can make a [Removed for Content] turtle jump hoops and fly if you wanted to, you could make every single mob a struggle to kill.. or just scale things in each respect so that just because one thing is powerful, that classes weakness shines just as brightly.</P> <P>So while a monk does great dps while tanking and remains fragile, and a guardian does little or no dps while tanking and has 5500 HP unbuffed and scrap the UBER defense all together.</P> <P> If they take out all these [Removed for Content] marathon fights it would work just fine... </P> <P>but im sure you cant think like that...and apparently neither does SOE.</P> <DIV>have a nice day..:smileyhappy:</DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>04-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:35 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>04-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:36 AM</span>

[Brew01]

<P>Sage you are wrong.  You will never be able to change the Archtype system, get over it and reroll a scout. I'm not going to be fancy or show you how your wrong, I'll leave that to you. Also don't take credit for the changes that are up and coming.  It seems to me they are being done for reasons that Gage has said over and over again. You are a simple person with simple ideas to what a game should be, if you want a game with ONE main tank go play EQLive. If you really want to help out do us a favor and leave this game for another mmorpg. If anything you could at least go rant on the brusiers forum and leave us monks alone. </P> <P>One more thing, as far as the Numbers of people who want to tank or dps I'm sure if one of your important polls could get every monk to vote it would be a close 50/50 so that point is mute and has no bearing on weather the class should be changed.  Leave it up to what SOE wants and the devs implament. So far it looks like your losing this battle, perhaps you should Email SOE and annoy them.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>lol, thats funny brew, players that never post thier opinions here leave in hordes from this game, where they go is not important, its why.</P> <P>while im sure you cannot see past your fanboi'ism. Thats fine because im sure you are also the type that would play a gnome guardian...</P> <P>Either way, the fact still remains, just because you like being wanted and accepted because you may have self esteem issues in real life and dont have any friends so you live your social aspirations through an online game... thats fine. </P> <P>But i dont, ive said a billion times that i play alot of games both console and online, and quite frankly im not impressed here. IF you are then fine. but do me one favor and tell me one thing that EQ2 has that hasnt been done before and better?</P> <P>Mentoring? aka - powerleveling? lol come on now = </P> <P>/pizza? thats insulting considering the problems with health in america not to mention the ones in game = but im sure you use it often...</P> <P>As i have also said often brew, they shouldve called this game something else besides everquest 2 and you wouldnt be hearing my mouth right now. maybe Fantasy Island wouldve worked or who knows, but if it wasnt called Everquest 2 i wouldnt have played it. Simply Put.</P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>lol, thats funny brew, players that never post thier opinions here leave in hordes from this game, where they go is not important, its why.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Yes, in hordes.  Why I just read they are closing all but one server, since only sixteen people play this game now. </FONT></P> <P>while im sure you cannot see past your fanboi'ism. Thats fine because im sure you are also the type that would play a gnome guardian...  <FONT color=#ffff00>Sage, that's why I enjoy your posts, you are so open minded.  Its not like you want races tied to classes like that other game... oh snap!</FONT></P> <P>Either way, the fact still remains, just because you like being wanted and accepted because you may have self esteem issues in real life and dont have any friends so you live your social aspirations through an online game... thats fine.  <FONT color=#ffff00>O_o  Sage its apparent that you are losing your edge.  Resorting to insulting the guy's real life.  Let me explain something to you, Sage The Great, you know nothing about his real life.  Its all assumption and presumption.  You can not infer ANYTHING about someone's real life by posts on a message board, period.  So this statement makes you look like an even bigger [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] than previous ones, which of course I thought was impossible.</FONT></P> <P>But i dont, ive said a billion times that i play alot of games both console and online, and quite frankly im not impressed here. IF you are then fine. but do me one favor and tell me one thing that EQ2 has that hasnt been done before and better?  <FONT color=#ffff00>Do you know what makes less sense than liking this game?  Not liking this game and paying to post on the forums, like you do.  Why don't you go play some of those other games that do impress you, and leave this trashpile to us?</FONT></P> <P>Mentoring? aka - powerleveling? lol come on now = <FONT color=#ffff00>Yeah its power... oh wait, no it isn't.  </FONT></P> <P>/pizza? thats insulting considering the problems with health in america not to mention the ones in game = but im sure you use it often...  <FONT color=#ffff00>Wow, this was a great line.  First, its insulting because of obesity in American.  Then its insulting because they added it (in beta) and haven't fixed the *real* problems (like that whole archetype system thing) in the game.  Then you go on to insinuate that he is fat.  Nice work!  Sage, do you realize that your posts remind me of stuff I read when I used to teach high school kids about computer hardware?</FONT></P> <P>As i have also said often brew, they shouldve called this game something else besides everquest 2 and you wouldnt be hearing my mouth right now. maybe Fantasy Island wouldve worked or who knows, but if it wasnt called Everquest 2 i wouldnt have played it. Simply Put.  <FONT color=#ffff00>I've already said this, but knowing you wouldn't have played it if it had a different title makes me REALLY wish it had a different name.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Velor]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>hmm, how about because you can just make the mobs stronger at will...??? OR because you can change mobs' strength and ability, duh.</P> <P>its <FONT size=5><STRONG><EM><U>PvE</U></EM></STRONG></FONT>, you can make a [Removed for Content] turtle jump hoops and fly if you wanted to, you could make every single mob a struggle to kill.. or just scale things in each respect so that just because one thing is powerful, that classes weakness shines just as brightly.</P> <P>So while a monk does great dps while tanking and remains fragile, and a guardian does little or no dps while tanking and has 5500 HP unbuffed and scrap the UBER defense all together.</P> <P> If they take out all these [Removed for Content] marathon fights it would work just fine... </P> <P>but im sure you cant think like that...and apparently neither does SOE.</P> <DIV>have a nice day..:smileyhappy:</DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>04-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:35 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>04-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:36 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ahh yes. The famous "content for classes" argument.</P> <P>/sigh</P> <P>First off, how do you tailor content towards specific classes when the classes themselves aren't finished being balanced in the first place. The game is not even 6 months old in a life cycle of at least 3 years. They are obviously still tweaking the foundation for the players and for the game. And they will continue to do that until they have some semblance of balance. </P> <P>Secondly, you have no idea what content is planned for the future. I've witnessed Sony come up with some incredible encounter designs over the years. They can only build upon that knowledge and they will. Any EQ1 vet from PoP on can attest to that. But there's no point putting that stuff out there now when the foundation for the game isn't completely set yet.</P> <P>This post just goes to show how clueless you really are with this stuff. Here we are debating the imbalance of sub-classes and you want to inject a post about how things will all be fixed if they simply make encounters shorter. :smileyvery-happy: </P> <P>Clueless indeed.</P><p>Message Edited by Velorek on <span class=date_text>04-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:20 PM</span>

[Brew01]

<DIV>Sage how do you know what people are doing who don't post on these forums?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lol what is wrong with a Gnome Guardain perhaps if you would lighten up a bit you wouldn't be such an aggressive poster. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I play to have fun, I play with my wife as a casual gamer and unlike you I have a lot of people that like and want to group with me. I'm sorry if you can't find that nich on your server. If you had a toon on Blackbarrow I would invite you to group with me and my friends, because we have a lot of fun doing basic quests and HQ.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have never power gamed I have never /OOCed for a grind group yet I'm lvl 44. IMO this game is tailored more for the casual gamer. I'm not saying the game should be this way, to me it just seems that it is. I hope SOE can make the end content a bit more enjoyable and still keep the casual feel. Its a thin line to walk but its a risk SOE has decided to take. Time will tell if they get it correct or flop the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EQ2 has a lot of different people wanting a lot different things, SOE will never make us all happy. I wouldn't be upset if you just gave your opinions, but you don't you try VERY hard to prove everyone else is wrong and what you say is Gospal. Myself I want what Gage wants which is a Monk who can tank all content. From what DEVs say SOE wants the same thing. Perhaps if you took a step back and just had fun you wouldn't be constently fighting with what SOE has said from the start. A brawler will be >>>>>>A TANK<<<<<<<</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff00ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff00ff>sage</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff00ff>"but do me one favor and tell me one thing that EQ2 has that hasnt been done before and better?"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff00ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>The Archtype system....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just to entertain your remarks about my personall life I'm currently in the Navy so being "Fat" is not an option. My social life is pretty good I have a lot of friends from work and the many places I've visited on my Ship. So now that we know I'm not socialy inept perhaps we can continue to talk about how unhappy you are with a game you pay to play.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Brew01 on <span class=date_text>04-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:54 AM</span>

[Nemi]

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<div></div> <div> </div> <div>Hmmmm, im sure thats why we are having this discussion about brawlers that dont want to be fulltime tanks and enjoy the dps....</div> <div> </div> <div>If SOE makes monks and bruisers TANK ONLY tanks, then you will see a problem with players and thier class. Right now the players are getting exactly what they expected out of the brawler branch of classes.</div><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class="date_text">04-03-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:44 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Brawlers will always have a DPS edge over other fighters, but personally I'll be surprised if its as large as it is at present. And no, players aren't getting exactly what they wanted, or there wouldn't be such an argument. The simple fact is: Your [Removed for Content] brawlers are not a DPS class. Hey thats fine, but what do you think your chances of getting SoE to move Brawlers out of the fighet archetype and move them into the scout? Exactly, so either put up or shut up. </span><div></div>

[Fleaba]

<P>I think what Gage is just trying to say in general here is that if they "balance" things one way. There will only be a few different classes actually played in this game and everything else will be subpar. Monks are tanks and that is it.....the discussion started out as an avoidance thread. Lets keep it as that. </P> <P>Keep your cool Gage and don't let these other peeps get under your skin. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I've enjoyed reading this thread and have found a new respect for some of the players out there with there intelligent discussion. </P> <P>Just picture Jet Li when you think monk. <A href="http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/DEFGH/Hero/images/main-page.jpg" target=_blank>http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/DEFGH/Hero/images/main-page.jpg</A></P> <P>Picture Bob Sapp when thinking of a bruiser. <A href="http://ko.sherdog.com/graphics/fighters/sapp_01_small.jpg" target=_blank>http://ko.sherdog.com/graphics/fighters/sapp_01_small.jpg</A>  </P> <P>And in my mind I think brick wall when picturing a guardian. And brick walls don't avoid many hits last time I checked...but can get hit a lot before they go down. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <A href="http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Miscellaneous/PittedBrickWall_g.jpg" target=_blank>http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Miscellaneous/PittedBrickWall_g.jpg</A></P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by vcjester on <span class=date_text>04-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

[SageMarrow]

<P>brew01, now that was a highly respectable post.</P> <P>Just one simple thing. </P> <P>Now most of you may not know where i stand in game or how i play. The thing that most tend to miss in this argument is that i never said i dont want to tank, that i want to do dps, or that i want anything of the sort. I said the system is blown because of more reasons than class balance. Because of things like avoidance being random and a nice portion of the player base being partial to guardian/paladin types tanking.</P> <P>That will never change. A guardian will always be the most defensive tank. no debating that. So in competition with them is not where i want to find my place on a raid. For the MT spot that i wont get. </P> <P>I just finished tanking varsoon, all of nek castle, and a few peices of CT yesterday. Ive tanked RE through and through for 8 levels straight. So i know my class and i know how to play it. I just dont think that i will ever be chosen over a guardian type to tank a raid. Just as i dont want to be some 3rd wheel junkie who they let tank the raid because they got it down to a science.</P> <P>In my guild and any other guild that i may choose to join, im going to be next to last in tanking. which is why i would rather have another direction taken with the brawler branch. Which is why i say increase dps and cut power cost. As a bruiser im using shout and slurred insult at level 40. Both of which are level 20 and below taunts. </P> <P>While i know that monks have less gimmick based taunts, the fact still remains that in a pure grouping environment and a pure raid environment, we have no edge and tend to look like tough scouts in comparison to an equally geared guardian.</P> <P>This is the point im trying to make, i dont care how SOE balances the game, as you said, thats a risk SOE chose to take and i personally think that the glass is half empty - NOT = half full, but that is my personal opinion. </P> <P> </P>

[Azazel-Defia]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Azazel-Defiant wrote:<BR> Since I don't think we can ever be as good as plate tanks, just go ahead and make me DPS please. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>How about, no.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I just wanted to point out to anyone reading this thread that this post by Gage-Mikel is a blatant fraud. He did not quote from the post I made in this thread, or from any post I have ever made. He invented the quote from me in a disgusting attempt to bolster his own arguments. I think that was out of line, and it severely damages this persons credibility. I would suggest to anyone that reads his posts to take the time to fact check his information, especially quotes from other players. If this is his standard tactit he has no place on this board any longer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For anyone else I feel the need to clarify my position on classes. I see classes as a combination of basic attributes. A short list would be- Damage mitigation, Damage Avoidance, Damage inflicting, Base Hps, Utility, and Healing. At each stage in a characters development they make choices that sacrifice some of these attributes for others. To explain my position completely I would have to break down each of the three critical stages of development. In general I feel that monks have made enough sacrifices in Damage Mitigation, Damage Inflicting, Base Hps, Utility, and Healing that it is not unusual to expect that monks will receive very high ratings in Damage Avoidance and Damage Inflicting. Since that makeup in skills give monks the ability to fulfill two roles in groups successfully, they can still compete for the available group and raid slots. A comparison would be paladins, if Paladins sacrifices in damage, Hps, and avoidance are offset by their utility and healing bonuses, they will also have many roles available and still compete for positions. I do think monks need to be adjusted. The Paladin sacrifice in avoidance was made by using Kite shields rather than Tower shields. Recent comparisons of monks vs tower shields show that monks actually must have made sacrifices in avoidance as well. To me this shows some imbalance since monks have already sacrificed so much. I do not see any reason for monks to be lowered any further in any category if our avoidance is simply "fixed" to what it should be.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Azzel -Nek</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Azazel-Defiant wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>I just wanted to point out to anyone reading this thread that this post by Gage-Mikel is a blatant fraud. He did not quote from the post I made in this thread, or from any post I have ever made. He invented the quote from me in a disgusting attempt to bolster his own arguments. I think that was out of line, and it severely damages this persons credibility. I would suggest to anyone that reads his posts to take the time to fact check his information, especially quotes from other players. If this is his standard tactit he has no place on this board any longer.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>HAHAHAHAHA!  Yes, I am a fraud.  It's true.  Also, when I quoted you and changed your statement I deleted the original post from this very thread, so that no one could see it.</P> <P>I don't need to bolster my own arguements, everyone on in this community knows where I stand.</P> <P>I did it to be funny, which it obviously was because I got this great response from you!</P> <P>O_o oh no, my credibility is gone, I was going to use it for a nice plasma tv too <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>You're right, since I quoted you and changed what it said, I should be sent to forum prison, what a horrible person am I.</P> <P>To show that I have reformed, I will paste in his unedited quote here:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Azazel-Defiant wrote:<BR> <DIV>I am going to reply to your post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. Rogues will not necessarily have a higher DPS than <STRONG>all </STRONG>fighters even after a balance. The developers have stated they will look into damage balancing, that they will be comparing scout and fighter dps. Even though this is a huge backpedal from early release statements, any balancing of Fighter and Scouts as archetypes will not necessarily translate into changes for monks/bruisers. Even though every class stems from the same 4 archetypes, by sub-class each begins to deviate in it's own unique direction. <FONT color=#ffff00>It is highly possible that brawlers will once again deviate toward scout-like damage potential.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. Even though (like you) I have a hard time reading most of Sagemorrow's posts, I can easily see that in this case he can have it both ways. Dps role brawlers do not get blocked/parried/riposted. If any non-agro  holding melee in your groups has difficulty finding an unprotected flank to attack, someone is missing fundamental understanding of the game. Agro holding brawlers<STRONG> do</STRONG> get blocked/parried/riposted. Enemies have a constant chance to block/parriy/riposte any front side attack regardless of what class holds agro. Brawlers do not get any special advantages to avoid being blocked/parried/riposted, therefore when holding agro brawlers will not have a significant advantage over other classes in DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. I like to be MA with my monk too! I love that when I am on my guildmates dont have to wait for a different Fighter class to log on. However I dont want to become redundant. If you want to see my feelings on class balance research some of my other posts. In short, I dont want to compete with 1/4 of the server for 1/24 of the raid positions. I dont want to be changed so I am hopelessly outclassed at the other 23/24 raid positions. If we arent talking about raid events then this argument is moot. I can already tank everything in game up to gx2, when I am surrounded by a group of my guildmates. It may be more difficult than when our zerker is MA, but we win just the same. Why so many monks are resisting your good intentioned (if, in my opinion, misguided) desires to orient this class toward a lower damage potential, is that we enjoy being broad range contributors to our groups. I dont want to be forced to build a new guild around myself as the MA just so I can be part of high end raid content. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4. <FONT color=#ffff00>Rogues are not going to scream imbalance and quit if one sub-class of the fighter archetype has rogue-like dps. Well maybe they will, but it will be wrong and unfair.</FONT> Somewhere in SOE, developers realize that the games longevity depends on a diversity of classes.<FONT color=#ffff00> If monks/bruisers are only useful as MAs yet there is a better MA available, fewer and fewer monks are going to be playing. If monks/bruisers somehow become the most effective MA, other Fighters are going to be played less. When the game becomes 4 classes and a raid mob, noone is going to play at all.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>And finally monks were never originally specified as "tanks" (tank is one of the worst words I have ever seen coined).</FONT> Monks were Fighters, and my monk fights very well tyvm. <FONT color=#ffff00>If you want to take up a fight, why not take up the fight to maintain our DPS or expand our utility.</FONT> The fighter archetype as a whole needs to be redefined away from simple meatshield strategy. Each subclass needs other useful roles in order to be viable. <FONT color=#ffff00>Right now DPS is the monks only fallback. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Azazel- Nek <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So as you can see the reason I summarized his quote is obvious.  He states that he doesn't think think outdamaging scouts would be wrong (it is), he states that we were never specified as "tanks" (we were, like 200x, even in THIS thread) and he insists that DPS is our only fall back.</P> <P>He, like Sage, feels we can't compete with plate tanks as tanks, and doesn't want to have to build a guild around himself to tank, so he'd rather the devs focus on our damage, because of his perception.</P> <P>In short, he is misinformed, which isn't my fault, but it sure is funny.<BR><BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>04-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:48 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>Which is why i say increase dps and cut power cost.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>YES, UP OUR DAMAGE, HAVE IT COST LESS TO DO DAMAGE, SO THEREFORE WE DO EVEN MORE DAMAGE.</P> <P>Because we are monks/bruisers, of the brawler class, WE ARE DAMAGE DEALERS!</P> <P>Uh, no.</P> <P>GET. OVER. IT.</P> <P>We aren't, we won't be.</P> <P>Sage you admitted in your own posts you don't like tanking, think its boring, hate doing it.  Everything you condone shifts the brawler subclasses into the scout tree (higher DPS and more utility).  You offer no real fixes, just other worldly ideas that aren't even reasonable, which all fall back on one thing:</P> <P>Increased brawler damage.</P> <P>I'm sorry, but no.  This isn't just me saying it either, it's SoE.</P> <P>I'm sorry that your bruiser will never be what you want him to be, but there is nothing you can do about it.</P> <P>Oh, and I still love how you use 20 level old taunts, you great tank you!<BR></P>

[woo]

<P>gage.. why do you bother arguing with morons?</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> woode wrote:<BR> <P>gage.. why do you bother arguing with morons?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm, that's a good question.  It's my guilty pleasure <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>

[RadricTyc]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> woode wrote:<BR> <P>gage.. why do you bother arguing with morons?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm, that's a good question.  It's my guilty pleasure <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Apparently you haven't heard of the whole "bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience" issue. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[SageMarrow]

<P>Thats real cute, </P> <P>you totally ignored my entire post and everything that i wrote. as ive said many times, i like tanking - i just wish it were more involved. Its enought that you are subject to spending 10 levels in 1 zone outside of quest runs, So since you cant comprehend common sense.</P> <P>you never comment on the entirety of peoples post. You have guardian envy and wont rest till you become one- SO i say stick to your guardian envy thread...</P> <P>And MR WOODE.... did gages post address this?: </P> <DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Just one simple thing. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Now most of you may not know where i stand in game or how i play. The thing that most tend to miss in this argument is that i never said i dont want to tank, that i want to do dps, or that i want anything of the sort. I said the system is blown because of more reasons than class balance. Because of things like avoidance being random and a nice portion of the player base being partial to guardian/paladin types tanking.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>That will never change. A guardian will always be the most defensive tank. no debating that. So in competition with them is not where i want to find my place on a raid. For the MT spot that i wont get. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>I just finished tanking varsoon, all of nek castle, and a few peices of CT yesterday. Ive tanked RE through and through for 8 levels straight. So i know my class and i know how to play it. I just dont think that i will ever be chosen over a guardian type to tank a raid. Just as i dont want to be some 3rd wheel junkie who they let tank the raid because they got it down to a science.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>In my guild and any other guild that i may choose to join, im going to be next to last in tanking. which is why i would rather have another direction taken with the brawler branch. Which is why i say increase dps and cut power cost. As a bruiser im using shout and slurred insult at level 40. Both of which are level 20 and below taunts. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>While i know that monks have less gimmick based taunts, the fact still remains that in a pure grouping environment and a pure raid environment, we have no edge and tend to look like tough scouts in comparison to an equally geared guardian.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>This is the point im trying to make, i dont care how SOE balances the game, as you said, thats a risk SOE chose to take and i personally think that the glass is half empty - NOT = half full, but that is my personal opinion. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _</FONT></P> <P>Of course his post doesnt, so instead of riding gages urination spout, read...</P> <P>Its fundamental.</P></DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>The rest of your post doesn't matter because its more of the same.</P> <P>Your solution to tanking is: increase DPS and cut power cost.</P> <P>LOL!</P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>AND those level 20 taunts i use are the same ones that jez used WHILE tanking raid mobs give or take one or two, something you cant seem to do, you almightee tanking monk you!!!</P> <P>Maybe if you get out of that robe you can try your hand at one. For that matter as well, why did you even buy the robe gage if you planned on tanking forever into the sunset??? </P> <P>But im sure that you have a great explanation for why you dont even have a full set of augmented armor...</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>AND those level 20 taunts i use are the same ones that jez used WHILE tanking raid mobs give or take one or two, something you cant seem to do, you almightee tanking monk you!!!</P> <P>Maybe if you get out of that robe you can try your hand at one. For that matter as well, why did you even buy the robe gage if you planned on tanking forever into the sunset???</P> <P>But im sure that you have a great explanation for why you dont even have a full set of augmented armor...<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I didn't buy the robe.  I was the leader of the group who got the server first robes on Guk.  I found out about them from IckyScarab before they were nerfed, his group got game wide firsts.  My friend Diminisher beat me to the loom in RoV and actually got the server first.  Talthos, Nalla and I forget who else was with us.  I use it because it looks cool with the hood up, matches my maces and the power regen is nice.</P> <P>I don't use it when I'm tanking, nor my jboots.  I use my enchanted leather boots and ancient leather tunic.  Ancient Leather tunic has better stats than rare, but about 40 less mitigation, a decent trade off.</P> <P>I don't have a full set of rare augmented armor for the reasons I've always discussed.  I think investing 7pp+ into rare armor when the first 21% into expansion you get they are blue is stupid.  I like to grind, I like to power through levels, as soon as expansion hits, I will cap as soon as possible.  Since I'm not in a die hard raid guild I don't have access to a lot of free/low DKP rares like some people do, and with the current market prices on Guk, I choose not to buy them.  /shrug</P> <P>I have the pants because the first stone I mined after patch I got a luminous and my friend found a pelt on the blackmarket broker for 20g.  Another good friend of mine did the combine for 2.5g.  So I figured the imbued pants were worth 22.5g.<BR></P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>ok so while we are on the track of you actually providing useful discussion let me try my luck:</P> <P>Do you believe monks and bruisers will be widely accepted as viable MT's for raid content even when a Guardian or defensive tank is present?</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>ok so while we are on the track of you actually providing useful discussion let me try my luck:</P> <P>Do you believe monks and bruisers will be widely accepted as viable MT's for raid content even when a Guardian or defensive tank is present?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>/shrug.  Depends on the scenario.  Do I think that in every raid the guardian should be the go to guy?  Not really.  Do I think that raids should be called if plate tank isn't around?  Nope.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think raids should present different strategies needed for success.  I don't think having four must have classes and 20 filler classes is up to snuff.</DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<P>ok and i agree about the classes all being needed and interchangeable.</P> <P>But most guilds are not comprised of only  24 players. Usually, even raiding guilds, have upwards of 50+ members. Out of the players on, saying as though the majority of the classes played are guardians and paladin, (there are character class numbers in one of these threads), </P> <P>So it can be easily **assumed** that the likely hood of thier being no plate tanks available to raid is slim to none, saying as though there are 4 plate tanks and 2 non plate tanks (avoidance based).</P> <P>And in the same respect, a guild that was not originally built around an avoidance based tank doing the raid tanking, it would be harder to achieve the required components needed to raid with a monk as the forefront thereof as opposed to the loose form fitting raids with a more defensive and consitent tank.</P> <P>Would you agree?</P>

[woo]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>ok so while we are on the track of you actually providing useful discussion let me try my luck:</P> <P>Do you believe monks and bruisers will be widely accepted as viable MT's for raid content even when a Guardian or defensive tank is present?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>/shrug.  Depends on the scenario.  Do I think that in every raid the guardian should be the go to guy?  Not really.  Do I think that raids should be called if plate tank isn't around?  Nope.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I think raids should present different strategies needed for success.  I don't think having four must have classes and 20 filler classes is up to snuff.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>excellent point.<BR></P>

[Vigh]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>I think raids should present different strategies needed for success.  I don't think having four must have classes and 20 filler classes is up to snuff.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And you think by just having every subclass cut into the same cause of archtype and thus having 4 classes will accomplish this ?</P> <P>Sure it will make the numbers look more even cause you only get 2 must have classes and 2 filler classes.  Or you might end up that raid-leaders want maybe 2 tanks, 4 healers and 18 scouts+mages dps - say good bye to having a chance at the raid as nr3 of teh fighter class!</P> <P> </P> <P>Course that is assuming there are a lot of people available to raid - last raid i have been to (ok, was easy lowby CH raid) we had 5 healer, 1 scout, 3 mages and 15 fighters!</P> <P>I dont believe there are many even high level raids where you get a "perfect" raid-group thus i don't see a problem in making sub-classes more spread in their abilities.  <BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Vighor wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I dont believe there are many even high level raids where you get a "perfect" raid-group thus<FONT color=#ffff00> i don't see a problem in making sub-classes more spread in their abilities.  <BR></FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Unfortunately for you, SoE does; as this game isn't built on class jobs but archetype jobs.</P> <P>Besides, you aren't thinking about it clearly.  By not having classes so specific that they each perform an individual role, you don't need a "perfect" raid-group, most any will suffice, due to class interchangeability.<BR></P>

[froglockpalad]

<DIV> I have idea that all fighter classes and maybe scout classes but monks and briusers should get it more then the others tho random migation even tho you get hit doesn't mean you didn't avoid some of the damage. </DIV> <DIV>Becuase even if they get hit they take some lessened damage becuase of the way they let it hit them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just idea probly take awhile to code  but to balance combat classes its nessary to change the way combat works.</DIV><p>Message Edited by froglockpaladin on <span class=date_text>04-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:15 AM</span>

[Nemi]

There seems to be the misconception that avoidance tanks will never be as reliable as mitigation tanks and this is the argument to put Plate above Leather in MTing raids.The ONLY reason this is even remotely true is that MoB damage scales higher than player HPs. This is being examined by SoE. Personally I would like to see the following:1) The Train WreckThese MoBs hit HARD and slow, virtually never miss. Think dragon swinging its tail or claws, not much chance of avoiding that. This is where your mitigation tank shines, if you're gonna take the hit, you want to mitigate as much of it as possible2) Sting like a ButterflyThese MoBs hit hard and fast but at inaccurate. Best way to go toe to toe with one of these is to not get hit at all. Link the chance of the mob to hit based on your avoidance. 60% or less and this guy is going to tear you a new one, no amount of healing can keep up with his DPS. However get your avoidance up to the high 80's and your set, this guy just isnt that accurate.Of course the above assumes SoE fix avoidance for plate tanks.Its the over simplified SoE way of making high end mobs hard that causes the problems.

[Velor]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Nemi wrote:<BR>There seems to be the misconception that avoidance tanks will never be as reliable as mitigation tanks and this is the argument to put Plate above Leather in MTing raids.<BR><BR>The ONLY reason this is even remotely true is that MoB damage scales higher than player HPs. This is being examined by SoE. <BR><BR>Personally I would like to see the following:<BR><BR>1) The Train Wreck<BR><BR>These MoBs hit HARD and slow, virtually never miss. Think dragon swinging its tail or claws, not much chance of avoiding that. This is where your mitigation tank shines, if you're gonna take the hit, you want to mitigate as much of it as possible<BR><BR>2) Sting like a Butterfly<BR><BR>These MoBs hit hard and fast but at inaccurate. Best way to go toe to toe with one of these is to not get hit at all. Link the chance of the mob to hit based on your avoidance. 60% or less and this guy is going to tear you a new one, no amount of healing can keep up with his DPS. However get your avoidance up to the high 80's and your set, this guy just isnt that accurate.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Good suggestions for ways to diversify archetype tanking. They could also take a similar approach for other roles as well. They're already sorta on the right track from a DPS diversification perspective with attack immunities but that isn't a new concept. Still, ideas like this do help build the argument that the system can be enhanced to make classes more unique and required.</P> <P>However, while I like the suggestions, it's important to remember that diversification such as this starts moving away from an archetype system and more towards a sub-class system. And while that does make each class truly unique and needed, it also brings magnifies an exisiting issue for required classes. ("Sorry guys. We need a Brawler tank for Uber_raidmob_026 and none are on atm so the raid is called off"). I'm not sure Sony is ready or willing to do that. At least not yet when the game is barely 6 months old.  </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR><BR><BR>Of course the above assumes SoE fix avoidance for plate tanks.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As you stated, if they do plan to diversify tanking more evenly, this is where it starts. There's no reason at all to implement the suggestions above if plate tanks can achieve the same 80 or even 90%+ avoidance that Monks can achieve after buffs.</P> <P>Anyway, good post. 5 stars for you. :smileyhappy:</P>

[Amanojak]

<P>I don't know about all you guys, but all the epic raids I been to (7 total) has a guadian as the MT, not a zerker, not a pally or any other plates...but a guardian.</P> <P>So does this mean all the other platers (except guardians) has the same problem as us? i.e. they get ignored as being the MT for a raid?</P> <P>So will all the other plates get upgrades to their mitigation so they can all be as desirable as guardians when tanking raid mobs?</P>

[woo]

<P>i only raid when i can be main tank.. guess thats why iv only raided 4 times.  but i dont complain.</P> <P> </P> <P></tip toeing around the tanking debate></P>

[SageMarrow]

so woode you have been the raid MT as a monk before?

[Nemi]

<blockquote><hr>Velorek wrote:<P>Good suggestions for ways to diversify archetype tanking. They could also take a similar approach for other roles as well. They're already sorta on the right track from a DPS diversification perspective with attack immunities but that isn't a new concept. Still, ideas like this do help build the argument that the system can be enhanced to make classes more unique and required.</P> <P>However, while I like the suggestions, it's important to remember that diversification such as this starts moving away from an archetype system and more towards a sub-class system. And while that does make each class truly unique and needed, it also brings magnifies an exisiting issue for required classes. ("Sorry guys. We need a Brawler tank for Uber_raidmob_026 and none are on atm so the raid is called off"). I'm not sure Sony is ready or willing to do that. At least not yet when the game is barely 6 months old.  </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR><BR><BR>Of course the above assumes SoE fix avoidance for plate tanks.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As you stated, if they do plan to diversify tanking more evenly, this is where it starts. There's no reason at all to implement the suggestions above if plate tanks can achieve the same 80 or even 90%+ avoidance that Monks can achieve after buffs.</P> <P>Anyway, good post. 5 stars for you. :smileyhappy:</P><hr></blockquote>I agree with you. I'm firmly in the all fighters can tank all mobs. One possible solution is to pay more attention to MoB secondary attacks. As Monks can tank 1 to 50, this suggests that we can handle the DPS of 1-50 Mobs. Instead of increasing difficulty by how much damage the MoB does to the tank, increase difficulty by damage done to the WHOLE raid.This type of damage is independant of Tank choice, as all tanks will encounter the same issues.Fundamental problem with this genre of game is that its not difficult. MoB AI is extremely basic. It all comes down to a simple formula:Kill the MoB before your healers run out of power. This in turn leads you to realise that the more efficient the healing, the longer the fight goes on and therefore the more damage you inflict, ultimately hopefully, killing the MoB. This is turn leads to your tank being chosen for ability to lessen the healing requirement. And back to the start, with mob damage > player hps, mitigation tanks shine.Either they need to rethink this approach to toughening MoBs as suggested above or they need to create a raid class of mobs that is skewed to Avoidance tanks.

[IrulanDunedanc]

<DIV>If we wind up with Vex Thal, EQ2 style, I'm going to cry.</DIV>