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

SageMarrow

03-22-2005, 02:55 PM

<DIV>yes ae taunts and things of that nature are good but are underpowered in comparison to those the guardian gets. stone stance is nice as well, but also consider that you cannot taunt while using it... making it very useful for a situation in offtank where you pull a mob off a caster and need to hold it on you until MT can get it off you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just like our AE tuants, they are weaker than the ones a guardian receives and are great for holding second place in aggro when a guardian is present. i tested it for 5 hours straight tonight against a guardian who was 3 levels below me. no matter how hard i tried, i could not pull aggro off of him, instead i held a consistent 2nd place spamming everything i had, even group buffs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a taunt that can be used while stunned is more effective when a mob has cast a group mez or mez spell period and the MT cannot get to the mob because he cannot cast the spell. so in turn we get the target on us until the fight can be passed along.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FD is not very good for REALLY avoiding battles, but its great for wiping aggro after a rabid mob aggroes the caster and the MT is preoccupied with 4 other mobs, and you need to get aggro back where it belongs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and yes the developers have made it clear that we are tanks, but never in what capacity and definately not in comparison to the other tank classes. we tank just fine for the MOST part, but in comparison to an equally geared guardian we pale in comparison as far as aggro control, Hp, and AC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>on behalf of bruisers, i know for a fact that our skills are set up moreso for bodyguard than tank at all. all of our taunts include fears and things that accomodate managing a fight in spite of the MT doing his thing on his end, if a mob gets on a caster, we can fear it (provided it doesnt run into the walls, ) or we can mildly mez it until the MT gets control. we dont have 1 AE taunt without a fear or somn attatched except shout.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now provided the group buffs etc, we both agree that that is not thier intended use, it just happens to work, but on behalf of the guardian i grouped with through the entire adventure pack zone, yes he made my taunting ability look like childs play. he easily pulled aggro from me, even using my strongest taunts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So yes, we are ambidextrious in our approach, some skills can be used to compete in the core area of tanking, but others are directly for support IMO, and even still some other skills are useful in both situations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But if you asked me on a personal level if i felt as though we ever meant to be all out tanks on par with guardians in a different way, i would say absolutely not. we were meant to be versatile and able to go either direction. which is in turn is why i say that the devs are being forced to rethink the archetype system...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a shadowknight will never tank as well as a guardian, a monk will never tank as a well as a paladin, and a bruiser will never tank as well as a shadowknight. We have established that any change to a monks deflection and avoidance will more than likely over power the class back to pre agility nerf. If shadowknights are ever given the HP potential of a paladin through lifetaps, they would also be too powerful considering that one takes life to give life and the other simply is power consumption.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just as enchanters will never be able to fill a wizards roll of damage and a dirge cannot truly fill another scouts roll as dps. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so as much as we try to live this dream of equal but different, there can be no such thing and still maintain different classes. That would mean enchanters would have to have the damage capability of a wizard and a monk would have the same tanking ability of a guardian...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thus leading me back to my point that yes we are and can tank well, but we were not and neither were the other 5 subclasses built to tank exclusively. only 1 class was. the others are by products of the guardian design. different ways to achieve the same result persay... but in actuality - they didnt build the classes around the mobs, they built the mobs around the classes and the changes reflect as such.</DIV>

RadricTyc

03-22-2005, 07:00 PM

<P>Ugh I hate responding like I am about to, but your posts are always so scattered that you leave a responder little choice but to try to address your myriad issues. Especially when you skirt the initial request. The reason every post you make turns into a thread that is 100 freaking pages long is because you cannot focus on one issue at a time. You feel the need to muddy any discussion with 100,000 side issues in an attempt to stave off straightforward logic and reason.</P> <P>If you could have a discussion on a single issue at a time, you might actually get somewhere. But I think you, and maybe even gage relish the fact that while you are having your arguments, you dominate the focus of this board and you think that you have everyone's attention. The reality is that the more you bicker about 100,001 minor details and lose focus of the bigger picture, the more you lose your audience. </P> <P>People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating. </P> <P>If you want to discuss multiple unrelated issues, use multiple threads. My original request was: how are AoE taunts, single target taunts, defensive stances and buffs, and attacks while stunned NOT "really tanking oriented" as you put it. And it was actually a rhetorical question, since the only reasonable response is that they are. </P> <P>Besides, aren't you a bruiser sage? Why do you keep bringing bruiser experiences to the monk board and using them as proof that monks have the same issues as bruisers. Bruisers and monks have only 3 things in common: light armor, deflection, and brawler-class skills. After that any comparison between the two needs to be done with hard numbers involved. I don't like a bruiser telling monks that they cannot hold agro, since I really don't even know if the two have the same taunts. I don't mind disucssing monks with bruisers, or having discussions about things that the two in common, but I don't buy into the concept of a bruiser having the same experiences with combat arts without some hard, cold facts.</P> <P>You are a bruiser right?</P>

Velor

03-22-2005, 10:47 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> RadricTycho wrote:<BR> <P>People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating. </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I tend to agree with you. I tried to take a somewhat active role on these boards to help identify issues, concerns, etc of our class with hard and fast data to back them up. But not many seem interested in particpating in constructive stuff like that. They seem to be more interested in the "Tastes Great!", "Less Filling!" arguments that dominate every other thread. </P> <P>People complain that our Adept 3s are worthless, yet very few are willing to take the time to post their findings on this.</P> <P>People complain they take too much damage, but very few actually parse their fights and post the results.</P> <P>There's more but I digress. There are definitely some who I think make a strong effort in these issues but most couldn't care less. It's a shame too because as a community, we could do alot more to help improve our own class.</P>

NeVeRLi

03-22-2005, 11:28 PM

There are lots of parse results and lots of posts contain screen shots, maybe you should learn to use the search. At least Sage tried to address the issue at hand and the one this post is trying to discuss. <div></div>

MoonglumHMV

03-22-2005, 11:58 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> NeVeRLiFt wrote:<BR>There are lots of parse results and lots of posts contain screen shots, maybe you should learn to use the search.<BR><BR>At least Sage tried to address the issue at hand and the one this post is trying to discuss.<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>How exactly did Sage's first post 'address' the issue this post is trying to discuss? Looks like he went straight to the "Monks are 2nd tanks at best" card...he didn't even say anything about avoidance...

NeVeRLi

03-23-2005, 12:12 AM

<div></div>Do you feel we avoid better? I dont and on Highkeep server can show you that my lvl 44 monk cant tank or solo as good as my guardian friend who is lvl 44 and can solo ^^ two levels below him. I try this and I get ate up alive!! There aint no avoidance its me getting hit alot high damage... and the guardian just stands there and does not get hit and if he does its for low damage.Hell before these patches (where they nerfed AC and our resistances) I actually had him beat in AC cause he would not use a shield and would use his two- handed weapon, I had him beat in agility too. All he had on me besides mitigation was his very high defense skill. I just dont see monks avoiding. And as light armor wearing fighters we need to avoid! Its what are class is about and I just dont see it happening. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div><p>Message Edited by NeVeRLiFt on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:14 PM</span>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 12:22 AM

<P>No, we aren't.</P> <P>Numerous guardians have posted that most of their buffs increase their defensive skill, which increases their avoidance.</P> <P>IIRC they have one self buff that actually raises their mitigation (which is similiar to our stone stance I believe).</P> <P>So with defense = avoidance and guardians being the most defensive = who are the avoidance tanks again?</P> <P>In fact I found it humorous when I found a guardian saying that "buffing defense to 100% to avoid getting hit entirely" is a common strategy. When we could do that with agility we got nerfed.</P> <P>SoE needs to answer us now, because this is BS.</P> <P>They have better taunts, better armor, better mitigation, higher HP AND better avoidance?</P> <P>...</P>

NeVeRLi

03-23-2005, 12:28 AM

There you have it folks! PS: And if soloing blue con group ^^ monsters two levels below their levels is not proof something is up then I dont know what more you people want. Before the agility nerf monks could do this. Before nerfing the bard classes buff's so they dont stack bards could do this! Now bards and monks cant, and the other scout classes never had a chance in hell at it! This is just way wack.. I see Tyke the lvl 46-47 warlock/wizzard in EF all the time soloing lvl 47-49^^ monsters and that guy Westlake the lvl 50 lives there soloing the lvl 49^^. (is it fair warlocks can solo these? is this class balanced??) <div></div>

Ili

03-23-2005, 12:31 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>yes ae taunts and things of that nature are good but are underpowered in comparison to those the guardian gets. stone stance is nice as well, but also consider that you cannot taunt while using it... making it very useful for a situation in offtank where you pull a mob off a caster and need to hold it on you until MT can get it off you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just like our AE tuants, they are weaker than the ones a guardian receives and are great for holding second place in aggro when a guardian is present. i tested it for 5 hours straight tonight against a guardian who was 3 levels below me. no matter how hard i tried, i could not pull aggro off of him, instead i held a consistent 2nd place spamming everything i had, even group buffs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a taunt that can be used while stunned is more effective when a mob has cast a group mez or mez spell period and the MT cannot get to the mob because he cannot cast the spell. so in turn we get the target on us until the fight can be passed along.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FD is not very good for REALLY avoiding battles, but its great for wiping aggro after a rabid mob aggroes the caster and the MT is preoccupied with 4 other mobs, and you need to get aggro back where it belongs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and yes the developers have made it clear that we are tanks, but never in what capacity and definately not in comparison to the other tank classes. we tank just fine for the MOST part, but in comparison to an equally geared guardian we pale in comparison as far as aggro control, Hp, and AC.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>on behalf of bruisers, i know for a fact that our skills are set up moreso for bodyguard than tank at all. all of our taunts include fears and things that accomodate managing a fight in spite of the MT doing his thing on his end, if a mob gets on a caster, we can fear it (provided it doesnt run into the walls, ) or we can mildly mez it until the MT gets control. we dont have 1 AE taunt without a fear or somn attatched except shout.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now provided the group buffs etc, we both agree that that is not thier intended use, it just happens to work, but on behalf of the guardian i grouped with through the entire adventure pack zone, yes he made my taunting ability look like childs play. he easily pulled aggro from me, even using my strongest taunts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So yes, we are ambidextrious in our approach, some skills can be used to compete in the core area of tanking, but others are directly for support IMO, and even still some other skills are useful in both situations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But if you asked me on a personal level if i felt as though we ever meant to be all out tanks on par with guardians in a different way, i would say absolutely not. we were meant to be versatile and able to go either direction. which is in turn is why i say that the devs are being forced to rethink the archetype system...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>a shadowknight will never tank as well as a guardian, a monk will never tank as a well as a paladin, and a bruiser will never tank as well as a shadowknight.</FONT> We have established that any change to a monks deflection and avoidance will more than likely over power the class back to pre agility nerf. If shadowknights are ever given the HP potential of a paladin through lifetaps, they would also be too powerful considering that one takes life to give life and the other simply is power consumption.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just as enchanters will never be able to fill a wizards roll of damage and a dirge cannot truly fill another scouts roll as dps. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so as much as we try to live this dream of equal but different, there can be no such thing and still maintain different classes. That would mean enchanters would have to have the damage capability of a wizard and a monk would have the same tanking ability of a guardian...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thus leading me back to my point that yes we are and can tank well, but we were not and neither were the other 5 subclasses built to tank exclusively. only 1 class was. the others are by products of the guardian design. different ways to achieve the same result persay... but in actuality - they didnt build the classes around the mobs, they built the mobs around the classes and the changes reflect as such.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That was the most true thing I've heard in *all* of these stupid Monk tank threads that never seem to end. No matter what, we will *never* be on the same level as a plate tanker. That's the way it is. If you get lucky with avoidance rolls, and you don't get hit once for a whole eight hour exp party, that'll just mean later, when you're trying to do something like solo a grey badger, (No, I'll never let that go. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) you'll get waxed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ever play a paper and pen RPG? Where you need dice rolls to dodge attacks, and avoid and resist spells? Same principle, folks. There have been times where I've needed a *four* to escape death, and rolled a three with six sided dice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is *NOT* a reliable tank. It isn't. It doesn't matter what sort of spin you put on it, it doesn't matter if you never *ever* get hit when you're in your exp parties. The fact that it *can* happen makes it unreliable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Ilina</DIV>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 12:39 AM

<P>Some guardian comments about the changes:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>Hit L to see defense.. mroe defense = more avoidance, it is the guardian form of deflection buffs.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> English Da Guard wrote:<BR> <P> You realize he said he was self buffed. Heck I can add ~400 to my mitigation and over 7% to avoidance self buffed. Make sure you compare your numbers with his when he isn't buffed so it is apples to apples.</P> <P> I mean with a shield and self buffed I am basically 70% avoidance. That's from ~57% when not buffed and no shield.<BR></P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm at about 76% self buffed or so, with about 1775 mitigation. I'm not sure what his mitigation is, but I assume its over 2k.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> RafaelSmith wrote:<BR>These numbers really are starting to depress me.<BR><BR>At level 38 my mitigation shows something around 1800ish....when holding the mouse cursor over it it says i mitigate 49%. That seems low.<BR><BR>My avoidance is much higher than i expected...<BR><BR>So in essense I am a avoidance tank way before I am a mitigation tank. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So my mitigation is about on par with a lvl 38 guardian, which I would be ok with if my avoidance was better by the same amount, unfortunately, it isn't.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>Selff buffed I avoid 68% mitigate 73% (with uebr gear)<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So I have about a ~8% lead in avoidance over Tuna and his mitigation is ~50% better than mine. (estimates).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sazzabi8 wrote:<BR>I was showing 100% avoidance raid buffed today, with around 4300 mitigation at the highest.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Heh. The mitigation I'm fine with, that is *their* niche. 100% avoidance from a guardian seems a little crazy to me though. With stone stance I can reach this level of mitigation though (when grouped with two furies ~ haven't had a lot of time to test yet).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThramFalcox wrote:<BR> <P>If you add about 30 def from various sources, avoidance makes a huge jump into the 90% area. This confirms that defensive effects are magnified depending on the level of the opponent. With enough defense you can turn an even con opponent effectively gray thus the huge jump. Before 30ish (havent tested for the exact number) the jump is only a few %.</P> <P>Add enough defense and even yellows can't hit you...<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation.</P> <P>The way defense works right now is not only trivializing content, its blurring the skills that supposedly seperate the classes.</P> <P>(Note: I'm only using guardians as my example because they have a ton of defense skill buffs ~ please realize that just as agility affected every class, this defense skill problem does also. With the right group/raid setup you could theoretically buff up any classes defensive skill enough for them to become unhittable).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gilgalon wrote:<BR><SPAN>Is it just me or does anyone else think the above sounds like a bug? Defense modifies avoidance? </SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, its not just you. I personally wanna see what Moorgard says. Is this intended?</P> <P>Lastly:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belgorim wrote: <DIV>Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, <FONT color=#ffff00>since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes.</P> <P>Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right?<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></P> <P><BR><BR> </P>

NeVeRLi

03-23-2005, 12:39 AM

<div></div>You people dont get it. We are supposed to avoid... we are not avoiding! We the monks are getting hit more and taking more damage cause we the avoiding subclass archtype of the fighter wear light armor! The Dev's need to fix deflection and thats all we are asking. Thanks and have a nice day <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> @Gage Nice post Gage! <div></div><p>Message Edited by NeVeRLiFt on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:44 PM</span>

Ili

03-23-2005, 12:42 AM

<P>I think your last post says it all, Gage.</P> <P>If we weren't supposed to be as effective as a Plate Tanker, and we weren't supposed to out DPS a scout, where does that leave us?</P> <P>Yay, Hybrids! Can do both, but can't do either well!</P> <P>Things such as this aren't making it so exciting to play, anymore. :smileysad:</P> <P>-Ilina</P> <P>(edit) How exactly can deflection be fixed so that it's not overpowering? If we get to the point where we can say that we avoid 90% of attacks per battle, every battle, instead of migating them, we're going to have four fighter archetypes coming after us with torches and nooses.</P><p>Message Edited by Ilina on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:44 AM</span>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 12:44 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ilina wrote:<BR> <DIV>That was the most true thing I've heard in *all* of these stupid Monk tank threads that never seem to end. No matter what, we will *never* be on the same level as a plate tanker. That's the way it is. If you get lucky with avoidance rolls, and you don't get hit once for a whole eight hour exp party, that'll just mean later, when you're trying to do something like solo a grey badger, (No, I'll never let that go. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) you'll get waxed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ever play a paper and pen RPG? Where you need dice rolls to dodge attacks, and avoid and resist spells? Same principle, folks. There have been times where I've needed a *four* to escape death, and rolled a three with six sided dice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is *NOT* a reliable tank. It isn't. It doesn't matter what sort of spin you put on it, it doesn't matter if you never *ever* get hit when you're in your exp parties. The fact that it *can* happen makes it unreliable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Ilina <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Its a good point, but that's why there is a sliding balance between avoidance and mitigation (or at least, that's how its *supposed* to work).</P> <P>If you evade more you mitigate less, and rely on the mitigation to lessen the spikes.</P> <P>If you evade less you mitigate more, because there isn't any spikes really and this allows the damage you take to be manageable.</P> <P>This *should* in effect even out the damage taken over time, and allow both to be manageable by healers. Its also why there are wards/regens/reactives in this game, because each type helps in different scenarios.</P> <P>The reason we are seeing such an imbalance against raid mobs is because they avoid on par with us <EM>while</EM> having superior mitigation. Thus the damage taken over time is actually less, which is unintended.<BR></P>

NeVeRLi

03-23-2005, 12:49 AM

Now we are getting somewhere. I look forward to the dev's reply and answer to this. Ok so they cant fix deflection? Well then they can tweak our defense skill (this seems to be all the rage and helps guardians so much). Give us the option to use bucklers again or up our deflection skill by a few more points. As it stands we are just not avoiding like we should and Familymanfirst has the parses to show it as low as lvl 22 I believe it was. And my tests at lvl 43 shows its even worse! <div></div>

Grabaan

03-23-2005, 01:01 AM

<div></div>We really need dev input on this situation... I think splitting up AC into Mitigation and Avoidance proved what Gage, myself, and a few others around here have long suspected: <b>"Plate" classes avoid nearly as much as we do + they get the increased mitigation values we expect them to have based on their class descriptions</b> Now, assuming these numbers reflect reality as the game engine sees it, a plate tank avoids as much as an agile monk with shall we say "flexible" armor, all while in a hulking suit of heavy armor? Even my 4 year old niece knows that a big knight is not going to be able to move as fast. In my mind, a more reasonable range for a plate class would be similar mitigation to what they have now, but a 30-40% avoidance unbuffed, topping out at around 50% buffed. Keep us around the 77% we have now and maybe then we work out to be a bit closer to each other. However, no amount of avoidance is going to prevent us from the huge streaks of damage we're prone to, and if we avoided 100% of the time, it'd be unfair and downright not fun. I'm not sure what the solution is to this, or even if drastic changes are in order. Clearly a lot of our selfbuffs don't do nearly as much for us as guardians seem to, since our nice avoidance selfbuffs add mearly a percent to avoidance at best, while they achieve significant gains in both mitigation and avoidance from their buffs. What I'm really getting at is, for the high level monks around, despite our best efforts we go down quicker than most in raids as MT. We are trying to learn why and, if possible, overcome these issues through play style, equipment, and skill. However, it seems like the deck may be stacked against us for now, we simply cannot be as good on paper or in game if other classes can avoid just as much as us and absorb 50-75% more simultaneously <div></div><p>Message Edited by Grabaan on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:07 PM</span>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 01:09 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Grabaan wrote:<BR>What I'm really getting at is, for the high leves monks around, despite our best efforts we go down quicker than most in raids as MT. We are trying to learn why and, if possible, overcome these issues through play style, equipment, and skill. However, it seems like the deck may be stacked against us for now, we simply cannot be as good on paper or in game if other classes can avoid just as much as us and absorb 50-75% more simultaneously<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>True, but don't get too discouraged. Jez has tanked two x4s now. The Angler (who is easy) and the King in the CL instance. So it IS possible, its just still a little skewed as far as implementation goes.</P> <P>But, I have faith that this will all be looked into, because I can't honestly fathom that being on par with avoidance while having a 50~75% lead in mitigation is intended.</P> <P>Like I said, its about the balance between avoidance/mitigation.</P> <P>You need to think of it like this:</P> <P>Mitigation----------------------------------------------------Avoidance</P> <P>It should be nearly impossible to increase both to such levels that it trivializes content.</P> <P>When you start ramping up the avoidance, mitigation should suffer, and vice versa.</P> <P>Which, is why I believe they nerfed Shrug Off. Because it was adding like 48% avoidance at Master 1 <EM>and</EM> around 2000AC (mitigation).</P> <P>Unless I'm wrong, which is why I'd like Moorgard to say something.</P> <P>Monks = defensive brawlers = avoidance kings</P> <P>Guardians = defensive warriors = mitigation kings</P> <P>I don't think either of us should end up the best at both.<BR></P>

RafaelSmith

03-23-2005, 01:13 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <p>Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> What bonus is this you speak off? Cause after testing some things out after this patch almost all my buffes do nothing for mitigation like they do for avoidance. At level 38 With shield and self buffs I can pump avoidance up to almost 70% while at best I can pump mitigation up form 49% ubuffed to 54% or so. I bet if you took an equallevel SK/Pally/Zerker/Guardian each using equal armor and self buffs their mitigation would be almost identical. Hell even cleric mitigation is gonna be close but their avoidance will be quite abit lower. The truth is other classes do more for increasing my mitigation absorbtion % than I can do. Whats wrong is the Defense skill and more importantly its role in the game. It not only changes my avoidance it also shifts the effect con of mobs which if im correct makes all these "...against even con mob..." formulas invalid. Honestly this isnt what i had expected. When I chose a "Heavy Tank" i expected ubah mitigation with average avoidance...i.e i should get hit alot for a little...steady meat shield. Mitigation takes a very distant back seat to avoidance it seems... This is something that effects all fighters not just Monks/Guardians. </span><div></div>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 01:38 AM

<DIV>Heh, you know what, you may be right. When I wrote that I was thinking Moorgard had said that guardians have the best mitigation in the game, but then I remember him also saying in that zerker thread that the mitigation between the classes is identical.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since tower shields increase block (avoidance) and not mitigation, that would make it seem like all heavy armor wearers have the same mitigation?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hmm, that can't be right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Who knows, this new number is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is the post I was thinking about:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Moorgard wrote: <P></P> <DIV>Berserkers can wear the same armor and wield the same shields as guardians. <FONT color=#ffff00>There are no hidden mitigation bonuses for either class, so a berserker and a guardian of the same level, stats, and skills with the same armor/shield combo will have the same base avoidance and mitigation. Guardians have arts that give them increased defensive capabilities, while berserkers have arts that give them increased offense. That's the key difference between the two warrior classes.</FONT> Keep in mind that if you play a berserker and are not using a shield while tanking, you're missing out on a huge part of the tank's damage avoidance capability. Crusader and warrior classes are intended to use shields while acting as a tank. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <P>This statement worries me though:</P> <P>He is basically saying the only thing that makes the guardian class more defensive is their buffs, which by all the guardians statements effectively raise their avoidance, not their mitigation. In fact they rely on other classes to boost their mitigation.</P> <P>So therefore, the only thing that makes a guardian a "better" tank than a zerker (or anyone else) is the fact they can boost their avoidance?</P> <P>That is unless of course the warrior class gets a bonus to mitigation that the crusader class doesn't?</P> <P>*shrug*</P> <P>None of this makes any sense though, especially guardians seemingly relying on avoidance?</P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:40 PM</span>

Belgor

03-23-2005, 01:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>Some guardian comments about the changes:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belgorim wrote: <DIV>Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, <FONT color=#ffff00>since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes.</P> <P>Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right?<BR><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Ok, I am not a guardian, but I was writing on the guardian boards. I play a paladin, not that it matters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But I agree, and personaly I think that the ability to buff the defense-number should not exist at all. All buffs that increase defense should instead increase block/deflection or mitigation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason I think this is because defense is the primary means to trivialize grey content, which I have nothing against. This should in my opinion be a skill that is only based on your level, and thus is the same for all classes, giving a base avoidance versus lower level mobs, and 100% or close to 100% against grey mobs. Its when this skill can be altered through skills/spells that the balance is thrown out of whack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sure, it does not seem much to have +5 defense on a skill, since versus same level mobs, it only adds maybe 3% avoidance. But it gets game breaking when this same number increases the avoidance versus green level mobs by about 40% or whatever, and these buffs can then be stacked to do the same thing versus higher level mobs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If all abilities that currently add to defense instead add to mitigation or something like that, then we would not have these problems. At least if level of the mob affects mitigation and avoidance in the same way, which I am not sure it does, but I have no proof for or against it, since defense would probably ruin any tests we can do at the moment. (or well, I guess you could try it with two people with the exact same defense skill.)</DIV>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 01:47 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belgorim wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>If all abilities that currently add to defense instead add to mitigation or something like that, then we would not have these problems.</FONT> At least if level of the mob affects mitigation and avoidance in the same way, which I am not sure it does, but I have no proof for or against it, since defense would probably ruin any tests we can do at the moment. (or well, I guess you could try it with two people with the exact same defense skill.)</DIV> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I think that's a great idea. <BR>

Grabaan

03-23-2005, 01:55 AM

That would seem to alleviate the problem as we see it thus far, limiting their ability to increase their avoidance through defense. Good suggestion guys. I'm patiently awaiting some dev input on our discussions. <div></div>

bonesbro

03-23-2005, 02:36 AM

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 03:17 AM

<P>while thats a good suggestion, a perfect world would be thus.</P> <P><EM>A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage</EM></P> <P><EM>a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage</EM>.</P> <P>Thus creating two balanced styles, which would be fine= but something in the system or in the way they made the game doesnt illustrate that and would still be difficult to be made 'balanced in the same consistency" to the extent that mobs hit us 1/5 times or something which would end up too predictable IMO - but hey.</P> <P>So what is being suggested is change **other** classes buffs on the subject of raids to accomplish a more balanced approach to buff stacking of defense, that would provide mitigation as opposed to avoidance and deflection in other situations.</P> <P>And thus changing a guardians buffs to not effect defensive skill, but mitigation exclusively. (while guards would consider this a nerf), it still doesnt answer the question of scaling of avoidance.</P> <P>if a monk is level 50 and has 75% avoidance solo (which we can all say we level out around 70+% avoidance at all times). that means that to a level 49 mob we have 80% avoidance (persay) and to a level 48 mob 85% avoidance..on down the line to where we make ourselves unhittable. and eventually reaching 100% avoidance to a lower mob say level 45.</P> <P>now on the other hand, there is upward scaling as well, (aka where avoidance fails) </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>keep in mind the avoidance number is against a mob of<EM><U> Equal</U></EM> level.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>and keep in mind we are talking about a solo mob with no modifiers such as ^^s, named, epic, etc.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so take the same situation, level 50 monk with 75% avoidance fighting a level 51 mob solo. 70% avoidance, - level 52= 65% -53 - 60% and finally level 54- 55%.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>and that is before any modifiers are applied to the mobs, ( i dont think there are any level 51+ mobs walking around solo)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so this is so it seems where avoidance fails and mitigation picks up the slack... against a level 54^^^x4 named epic mob.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so place that in a true raid situation where we can achieve 100% avoidance, - 5% per level, minus named stats, minus epic stats, minus multipliers (^^^), minus group x4. and at the end of all that we are left with 45% avoidance and none of the mitigation in relation to a raid mob.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33><U>sound about right? </U></FONT></P>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 03:23 AM

<DIV>Radric Tycho:</DIV> <DIV>I am trying to understand how a full line of AoE and single-target taunts, several defensive stances, deflection, and attacks that can largely be used EVEN WHILE STUNNED, makes us not tanking oriented. <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Please explain how these skills are not tanking oriented</FONT>. Yes I have often wondered what our real intended role was. But usually the developers have made it very clear during those times.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</P> <P>That was your question to me, which i answered very well in my previous post and went down a list of skills that i know we share in common and some that are exclusive to monks. and to further solidify that i also threw in some extra girth to my line of thought on the subject. i answered the question directed at ME. and the post above this one - answered the question asked by the OP. </P> <P>so if you didnt grasp what i was trying to convey, i do apologize, but outside of the whacked off way that i type, it was very clearly presented.</P></DIV>

MoonglumHMV

03-23-2005, 03:47 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>while thats a good suggestion, a perfect world would be thus.</P> <P><EM>A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage</EM></P> <P><EM>a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage</EM>.</P> <P>Thus creating two balanced styles, which would be fine= but something in the system or in the way they made the game doesnt illustrate that and would still be difficult to be made 'balanced in the same consistency" to the extent that mobs hit us 1/5 times or something which would end up too predictable IMO - but hey.</P> <P>So what is being suggested is change **other** classes buffs on the subject of raids to accomplish a more balanced approach to buff stacking of defense, that would provide mitigation as opposed to avoidance and deflection in other situations.</P> <P>And thus changing a guardians buffs to not effect defensive skill, but mitigation exclusively. (while guards would consider this a nerf), it still doesnt answer the question of scaling of avoidance.</P> <P>if a monk is level 50 and has 75% avoidance solo (which we can all say we level out around 70+% avoidance at all times). that means that to a level 49 mob we have 80% avoidance (persay) and to a level 48 mob 85% avoidance..on down the line to where we make ourselves unhittable. and eventually reaching 100% avoidance to a lower mob say level 45.</P> <P>now on the other hand, there is upward scaling as well, (aka where avoidance fails) </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>keep in mind the avoidance number is against a mob of<EM><U> Equal</U></EM> level.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>and keep in mind we are talking about a solo mob with no modifiers such as ^^s, named, epic, etc.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so take the same situation, level 50 monk with 75% avoidance fighting a level 51 mob solo. 70% avoidance, - level 52= 65% -53 - 60% and finally level 54- 55%.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>and that is before any modifiers are applied to the mobs, ( i dont think there are any level 51+ mobs walking around solo)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so this is so it seems where avoidance fails and mitigation picks up the slack... against a level 54^^^x4 named epic mob.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so place that in a true raid situation where we can achieve 100% avoidance, - 5% per level, minus named stats, minus epic stats, minus multipliers (^^^), minus group x4. and at the end of all that we are left with 45% avoidance and none of the mitigation in relation to a raid mob.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33><U>sound about right? </U></FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well I submit this to you...Wouldn't mitigation scale upward and downward as well? If that's the case, then the imbalance still boils down to the fact that guardians can buff their avoidance to be = monks/bruisers that then gets scaled down the same as ours, while their mitigation scales down to say 50%, while ours scales down to say 15%. So the mitigation tank can avoid as much as the avoidance tank, but still mitigates 2-3x what we would. Now don't misread what my point is...I'm not saying that we should mitigate like them...but by that same token, they should not avoid like us.

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 03:58 AM

<P>well yeah, i understand what you are saying but this is what i see.</P> <P>mitigation is constant... meaning that even a little mitigation... will be present at all times until the mobs skill and level totally outclasses the mob.</P> <P>Avoidance is random(may proc- may not proc) so avoidance should be looked upon as a PROC in game persay....</P> <P>meaning that it has less and less chance to PROC a miss/block etc as a mob gets stronger. </P> <P>so yes, you are indeed correct considering that thier mitigation out classes ours in totality, and like i said.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>a</FONT><FONT color=#ffff33> perfect world would be thus.</FONT></P> <P><EM><FONT color=#ffff33>A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage</FONT></EM></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33><EM>a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage</EM>.</FONT></P> <P>and for that matter, means that guardians would not get a chance to be missed or blocked at all. they would just be standing meat shields with high ac and hp as "supposedly" intended. but thats not the way the game was made and i dont think it was "intended" that way either. They were meant to be exactly what they are. we are the anomoly in this equation. which is why we spend so much time arguing over the fact of if we are tanks or Dps. when the argument should really be what can we do to improve our present situation that places us in the middle of the end. </P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:59 PM</span>

FamilyManFir

03-23-2005, 06:30 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belgorim wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But I agree, and personaly I think that the ability to buff the defense-number should not exist at all. All buffs that increase defense should instead increase block/deflection or mitigation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>...<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You know, given the way that Defense scales, I have to agree with you on that. The scaling was probably done to make gray-con mobs trivial (if they can't hit you they can't hurt you) and red-con mobs lethal (if they can't miss you you're going to die). However, by creating buffs that affect Defense they're effectively graying out higher and higher conned mobs as the Defense value gets higher and higher.</P> <P>If buffs were changed to only affect block/deflection, parry, or mitigation (assuming that these traits aren't scaled the same way) that would go a long way toward balancing things out, I suspect.</P> <P><BR></P>

03-23-2005, 07:06 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>bonesbro wrote: <blockquote> <hr> RadricTycho wrote: <p>People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating. </p> <hr> </blockquote> <div><strong>Yes.</strong></div><hr></blockquote>I dont even read sagemarrows posts anymore, it is now at the point where i read the posters name before reading the content due to people going offtopic and ranting on multiple issues and confusing the post with their personal soapbox :> funnily I ended up doing the same to mama, who thankfully has become much more constructive recently :></span><div></div>

Moorgard

03-23-2005, 07:09 AM

<P>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</P> <P>Displaying mitigation and avoidance has indeed revealed a class disparity, because the tanks that are supposed to be avoidance based are, in certain cases, not avoiding as well as a tank that is meant to be mitigation based.</P> <P>It was never our intent that avoidance is a 100% thing, but that's basically how it is currently being used. This isn't just a problem with raid mobs, one that is present at all levels of play. There is, at every level range, a spot where you can select opponents that have little to no chance to hit you. Once again, that's not our intent.</P> <P>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</P> <P>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue.</P>

Jezekie

03-23-2005, 07:14 AM

It's nice to have some confirmation at least on what some of us around here have fealt for a long time. Hopefully we'll see a fix sooner rather then later <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 07:26 AM

praise the gods...

MoonglumHMV

03-23-2005, 07:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> praise the gods...<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>he likes to be called Moorgard... <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> LOL

Drevva

03-23-2005, 08:17 AM

while it is great that the devs are looking into avoidance vs mitigation, i do hope they keep in mind that many classes need avoidanceup to a point to be able to cast while in melee (healers etc..) It would be no fun, if there fix was to remove avoidance on a grand scale to many classes without chaning say chance to get a spell interupted. if every hit came through and then interupted any attempt at spell casting, well that would be no fun at all <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> drevva

Nerj

03-23-2005, 08:21 AM

<P>I have a real problem understanding why the DEVS are having such a problem with this. </P> <P>Guardian Tank takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 5 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 8 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P> <P>It would seems that armor mitigates some damage whille avoidence just keeps you from getting hit as often. The net result is the same 1000 points of damage.</P>

ArivenGemini

03-23-2005, 08:22 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>NeVeRLiFt wrote:Now we are getting somewhere. I look forward to the dev's reply and answer to this. Ok so they cant fix deflection? Well then they can tweak our defense skill (this seems to be all the rage and helps guardians so much). Give us the option to use bucklers again or up our deflection skill by a few more points. As it stands we are just not avoiding like we should and Familymanfirst has the parses to show it as low as lvl 22 I believe it was. And my tests at lvl 43 shows its even worse! <div></div><hr></blockquote> I doubt that bucklers are going to be much help.. my full tower shield on my 31 berserker gives me a whopping 5% increase in avoidance... And I suspect bucklers do more than a tad less.. He runs 50.5% ish avoidance and I think it was 65% mitigation at the moment... My level 26 monk on the other hand has a 72% avoidance and 35% mitigation... But I have noticed some of my defensive skills under serk do NOT change either avoidance or mitigation (specifically one that modifies parry) so I suspect some stuff is still borked... </span><div></div>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 08:28 AM

<DIV> <P>Nerjin wrote:</P> <P>I have a real problem understanding why the DEVS are having such a problem with this. </P> <P>Guardian Tank takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 5 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 8 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P> <P>It would seems that armor mitigates some damage whille avoidence just keeps you from getting hit as often. The net result is the same 1000 points of damage.</P></DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __</DIV> <DIV>while that seems simple enough, that would mean a guardian would get no avoidance at all, no block (useless shields) , no parry, no riposte.. and moorguard already said that they arent going to just scrap avoidance totally for some classes. that would really be as simple as allowing for no miss resulted by blocks and just making the shield useful for added defense(mitigation).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but i dont know, im not gonna argue with moorguard one bit - i will say one thing though = i hope this doesnt hurt more than it fixes for the game over all. be it guardians, bruisers. paladins, whoever...</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:30 PM</span>

Tatali

03-23-2005, 08:59 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div> <p>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</p><hr></blockquote>Is that why they were given a DPS skill (assassinate specificly) for their Bloodlines ability instead of a tanking one? Looks to me like the developers are pushing them to become a DPS class instead. </span><div></div>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 09:49 AM

<P>are you trying to get killed????? what are you thinking saying truthful things like that... take it back right away!!!!!!!!</P> <P>OOOOMMMGGGG!!</P>

RadricTyc

03-23-2005, 10:06 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>Radric Tycho:</DIV> <DIV>I am trying to understand how a full line of AoE and single-target taunts, several defensive stances, deflection, and attacks that can largely be used EVEN WHILE STUNNED, makes us not tanking oriented. <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Please explain how these skills are not tanking oriented</FONT>. Yes I have often wondered what our real intended role was. But usually the developers have made it very clear during those times.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</P> <P>That was your question to me, which i answered very well in my previous post and went down a list of skills that i know we share in common and some that are exclusive to monks. and to further solidify that i also threw in some extra girth to my line of thought on the subject. i answered the question directed at ME. and the post above this one - answered the question asked by the OP. </P> <P>so if you didnt grasp what i was trying to convey, i do apologize, but outside of the whacked off way that i type, it was very clearly presented.</P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>A taunt is a tank skill. A defensive self-buff is a tank skill. Deflection is a tank skill. Attacks useable while stunned are tank skills. We don't have to go into specifics of how precisely they work, or how well they work. We can look at these skills and say they are skills a tank would use. They are tank-oriented. If they do not suffice for tanking in some way then maybe there is a balance issue. But there is no way to look at an area-taunt and say: that's not a tank skill. This is what I am getting at.</P> <P>Since Moorgard has already asserted for the 100th time, that brawlers are tanks, I think that pretty much settles it anyway. It's too bad he has to make this statement every couple of months for people to believe it.<BR></P>

Kryog

03-23-2005, 10:47 AM

<P>I have to admit I was shocked to see my values earlier today. As a 39th level Guardian with a 40th Troubador in the group, with a wimpy tower shield and buffs, I was sitting at about 50% mitigation @ 39th with an avoidance factor of 70%. I think that is a tad too high. I think tops, I should cap out at 70%, but only if brawlers cap out around 90%. Since they only mitigate maybe 30% of the damage, tops. That 20% variance would be ideal to me.</P>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 10:55 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</P> <P>Displaying mitigation and avoidance has indeed revealed a class disparity, because the tanks that are supposed to be avoidance based are, in certain cases, not avoiding as well as a tank that is meant to be mitigation based.</P> <P>It was never our intent that avoidance is a 100% thing, but that's basically how it is currently being used. This isn't just a problem with raid mobs, one that is present at all levels of play. There is, at every level range, a spot where you can select opponents that have little to no chance to hit you. Once again, that's not our intent.</P> <P>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</P> <P>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks Moorgard, your input is appreciated, as always.<BR>

Grabaan

03-23-2005, 11:09 AM

Thank your for the swift response Moorgard. It is nice to know you are aware of the issue, and even better to know it is currently under discussion. I think we all understand this isn't an overnight fix, and we need to be patient and constructive about where things go from here. Most of us never doubted we are tanks, and have been doing so since day one. Good to know that the playing fields will soon be more even. <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 11:11 AM

<DIV>who said we werent tanks radric>??</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i merely said that in the presence of a better tank .... aka guardian... our taunts magically fit us in second place when spamming everything we have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>which is why i said in an OFFTANK role, the skills are very befitting. so that in case the tank cant get to the mob, we can handle it = which still equals tanking. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but sooner or later we will be on par with guardians and paladins the same... so dont worry about it anymore lol:smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

Morriz

03-23-2005, 11:25 AM

Food for thought, not for char grilling. <--- Level 43 Guardian, compared my avoidance/mitigation to a 41 Paladin in my guild. Both using similar equipment (Pristine Fulginate Armour, Equivalent shields - Slightly better than average Tower/Kite, Ebon one-handers etc.). I had 3% better overall mitigation than the Paladin unbuffed. We both had 61% (ish) Avoidance. Self buffed I have 7% better mitigation than he does. SELF BUFFED. Removing Defence buffs would mean that Guardians were merely the red-haired step children of Berserkers. Removing Defence Buffs would make Paladins like Guardians with Heals. There's a few schools of thought as far as the tank classes go and it would be pertinent and timely for the Dev's to tell us how they are trying to balance the classes. All our DPS/Damage/Avoidance etc. logging could be wasted if we're testing the wrong areas. Examples: Are the Dev's trying to balance the game so - Monks avoidance makes them on average an equal tank to a guardian (Extrapolated - Monks will spike damage some of the time, its unavoidable, no pun intended <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, but some of the time they can go a fight only being hit once). If so, Guardian DPS needs a buff. Essentially - no fighter class is intended to take any extra damage on normal exp mobs. Or, are the Dev's trying to balance the game so - A Monk tank does more DPS, thereby mobs (on average) die faster. But does however take extra damage. Essentially are they balancing it so, in order of overall Defence the tanks would be arranged - Guardian, Zerker, Paladin, SK, Monk, Bruiser. It is hard to say (I've been reading the site/boards from before beta, so no need to quote 800 Moorgard statements), as many of the Community Rep (Moorgard/Faarwolf) and even Dev posts are ambiguous and can be interpreted differently by different classes. An example being - Moorgard, a little higher up on the page said that Brawler sub-classes are meant to be tanks. Either of the aforementioned two schools of 'Fighter' tanking can lead to this. Until we know which, if any known to us, school of thought the Dev's are using, talk of Avoidance/Mitigation sliders is useless. Personal opinion - the sliders are FAR to simplified, they don't take into account DPS (It doesn't matter if that isn't a tanks primary job, DPS helps in holding agro and we still all contribute to it) or Utility (I played a Monk to 36, FD/Invis is a nice thing to have but I know it is far from being the end all. Similarly, Guardians get some very nice GROUP buffs in this department) <div></div>

Morriz

03-23-2005, 11:30 AM

Oh, on the subject of soloing blue^^'s. Tested it earlier, 43 Guardian (40% in) - My gear is listed on EQ2players, search me if you want to see, can solo them, JUST. Was down to 10% HP when it died, went OOM when the mob was at 60% health. It takes FOREVER to do it and the exp sucks. My monk can solo high green double ups realibly (as can my Guardian). Neither of them can be hit by these green^^'s. The green^^'s are much better exp overall too <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. <div></div>

psubull

03-23-2005, 11:41 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep. That's mainly how I play my bruiser.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>Displaying mitigation and avoidance has indeed revealed a class disparity, because the tanks that are supposed to be avoidance based are, in certain cases, not avoiding as well as a tank that is meant to be mitigation based.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I love seeing the new numbers for clarity. However, it's sad that I've seen self-buffed guardians with more avoidance than me.</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>It was never our intent that avoidance is a 100% thing, but that's basically how it is currently being used. This isn't just a problem with raid mobs, one that is present at all levels of play. There is, at every level range, a spot where you can select opponents that have little to no chance to hit you. Once again, that's not our intent.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well of course, that's why avoidance should and is shown as a percent. It's all about playing the odds with avoidance. But honestly, when a guardian can buff to 100% avoidance, I want to slap each dev twice for each percent higher the guardians avoidance is than mine, a bruiser. Where is the blocking % for brawlers? We are supposed to have the same avoidance/mitigation boost as a round shield equipped. Unfortunately, this is not the case.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Common fights a slaughter? My regular guardian gets hit AT MOST 3xs during a fight from any MOB except epic encounters 52 and up for VERY low damage. I get hit 8 to 20 times for close to half my HP. How hard is it to realize that this is a point in time where a nerf and a boost are needed. I mean, monks have dozens of busted skills, we have a whole lot of busted skills, and the ONLY changes were that thundering fists work and that shrug off got nerfed hardcore? Come on, do devs ever think of fixing old stuff before trying to add new stuff? I honestly don't think they play the game. I've got a proposition. Let them fly out to where I live. I'll buy them food, give em free room and board, and show them the game, explain what should and shouldn't work, and even help them recode it (non-sarcastic here).</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The only actions that the developers can take are ones that upset other people while finally making us breathe happy about the word "Tank." Lowering everyone's avoidance by a low, but reasonable amount, and raising a brawlers avoidance by about 12% would make it much better. I mean, I'm sitting on 71.3% unbuffed at 50, and still, a guardian with no buffs or shield gets hit less and for less damage in a fight against a lvl 49 solo bear in everfrost. This may seem like a drastic suggestion, but I'm pretty sure a good majority of people who pay attention to the monk and bruiser classes feel that it is a reasonable thing to do. Take this into consideration. Also, look at avoidance buffs. Shrug off Master 1's avoidance boost says it boosts target's avoidance by 52%. I've seen it boost someone's avoidance by .8% max. Perhaps there is a misplaced zero in the equation, but when I buff someone, who's unbuffed avoidance is rocking out at 44%, I should either see it at 67ish percent (if that is the way it is intended to work), or 96% if it's made to actually increase the percentage by 52% (Which makes perfect sense now that avoidance buffs cannot stack, and that it cannot be recasted until its duration and recast timers wear off). Our self buffs are doing little to nothing to add to our avoidance as well, also gaze at this.</P></DIV>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 12:12 PM

<P>psu bullet = i know you mean well, but you are gonna get us stuck in the scout archetype lol.</P> <P>If you think for a second that the "healthy balance" that some ***may*** think we need across the board is going to take well with the other 1000000 plate tanks... </P> <P>you are soorly mistaken, this will be just as big as the freaking crusader horse issue if by any chance word gets out that this all happened because of our tanking issue.</P> <P>the changes that will potentially ensue after these changes go into effect will effect EVERY class, meaning - changing some classes buffs, changing the way avoidance works entirely. etc.</P> <P>while it may be for the health of the game long term and all that good crap, you have been level 50 for how long? gage has been level 50 for how long? so if you do the math on that level... 3x as many players will be level 50 by the time this patch goes live. by the time they formulate a solution, figure out how to implement the solution, adjust the solution on every level, find the bugs in the solution, fix all the bugs in the solution, hope for efficiency.</P> <P>meaning what? peoples strategies and ideals will be even moreso set in stone between the entire month that it will take to make something of this magnitude into play, and even more players will have a legitimate experience based voice at which point as well.</P> <P>so keep in mind what you are asking for, aka suggesting on this. it has a medium/high possibility to cure the worlds ails, but an even larger possibility to start war of the worlds:eq2 class version.</P><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:14 PM</span>

Morriz

03-23-2005, 12:22 PM

First things first - Yes Monks/Bruisers need an avoidance upgrade. But - Guardians don't blink twice, wiggle their nose and have 100% avoidance. This is a few Guardians, in raiding guilds, with raid buffs, giving them over +30 Defence. I'd like to see some Brawlers/Crusaders with the same buffs to gauge how they effect them. The reason Guardians are saying this is because they get ONE personal buff that increases defence and crushing, piercing, slashing resistance. We also get 2 Group buffs that can buff defence. The personal buff we get does not fully stack with these group buffs. So as far as I can tell, any class can be buffed to the same level of Defence skill as a Guardian can. The only exception I can think of to this would be if you needed a specific 6 classes in one group, Guardian obviously being one of these classes with their defence buffs, to pull it of. <div></div>

Chanliang

03-23-2005, 12:39 PM

As it seems there is quite huge cap in efffectiveness of avoidance and mitigation. At 33 my mystic actually has about same mitigation (roughly 50%) as level 38 paladins/guardians due our AC buffs and why I can't take hits as well as them is simple. I have roughly 45% avoidance (block being 4.6%) and 5 level higher gaurd/paladins have 20% more avoidance and 8% more block. Simple fact is that at the moment best way to tank at the moment is avoidance backed up with high mitigation of course. Problem is that either mitigation or avoidance itself currently are not enough for tanking (at least most of the people see it that way I believe). If soe is going to make changes for example reduce defence buffing they of course should implement those as ac buffs but it needs to be lot cause 70% mitigation still ain't better if you have an option to avoid 70-80% coming hits for example. Also for fixing avoidance tanks avoidance (not sure what stats you have there) but brawlers base % should be higher than other tanks, build-in shield should block prolly about 10% at level 40+ and deflection should also be affected by agility like base and parry is. These things are quite hard to balance cause they'll need lot of testing but we'll see how it goes in a month I believe... <div></div>

Nuvi

03-23-2005, 01:18 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nerjin wrote:<BR> <P>I have a real problem understanding why the DEVS are having such a problem with this. </P> <P>Guardian Tank takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 5 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 8 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P> <P>It would seems that armor mitigates some damage whille avoidence just keeps you from getting hit as often. The net result is the same 1000 points of damage.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>thats not really the case tho,guardians avoid almost as many hits as brawlers,berserkers take quite a few more hits then guardian cause of our defence buffs,the numbers u gave altho im sure they arent based of any testing doesnt really show a class for what it is,cause berserkers take more hits the guardian.<BR>

Stra

03-23-2005, 02:15 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote: <p>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</p> <p>Displaying mitigation and avoidance has indeed revealed a class disparity, because the tanks that are supposed to be avoidance based are, in certain cases, not avoiding as well as a tank that is meant to be mitigation based.</p> <p>It was never our intent that avoidance is a 100% thing, but that's basically how it is currently being used. This isn't just a problem with raid mobs, one that is present at all levels of play. There is, at every level range, a spot where you can select opponents that have little to no chance to hit you. Once again, that's not our intent.</p> <p>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</p> <p>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue.</p><hr></blockquote></span> I smell a guardian nerf in the offing. This discussion makes me queasy. I can see spending half my time stunned now. <div></div>

RadricTyc

03-23-2005, 05:25 PM

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>between that fact and our skill base being not <STRONG><EM><U>really </U></EM></STRONG>tanking oriented at all times, does it ever make you stop and wonder what our REAL intended roll was?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>who said we werent tanks radric>??</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now I know why Gage feels the need to respond to everything you write.<BR></DIV>

Nerj

03-23-2005, 05:41 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Nerjin wrote:</P> <P>I have a real problem understanding why the DEVS are having such a problem with this. </P> <P>Guardian Tank takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 5 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 8 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P> <P>It would seems that armor mitigates some damage whille avoidence just keeps you from getting hit as often. The net result is the same 1000 points of damage.</P></DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __</DIV> <DIV>while that seems simple enough, that would mean a guardian would get no avoidance at all, no block (useless shields) , no parry, no riposte.. and moorguard already said that they arent going to just scrap avoidance totally for some classes. that would really be as simple as allowing for no miss resulted by blocks and just making the shield useful for added defense(mitigation).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but i dont know, im not gonna argue with moorguard one bit - i will say one thing though = i hope this doesnt hurt more than it fixes for the game over all. be it guardians, bruisers. paladins, whoever...</DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-22-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:30 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Hmm, how is that?</P> <P> How could someone in Heavy Armor avoid a blow? Armor reduces amount of damage done from hit, this won't change.Plus, a shield has an Armor rating, a weapon hitting a shield is not avoidance. If they want Mitigation add one more round with a miss for everyone then.</P> <P>Guardian avoids 1 hit takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 6 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 9 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P><p>Message Edited by Nerjin on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:24 PM</span>

NeVeRLi

03-23-2005, 05:43 PM

Thanks Moorgard. You know the first step to fixing any problem is to admit you have a problem, and I think you see now what alot of us have been saying. You got alot work ahead of you on this and I really think its gonna be hard to fix and balance. Moorgard come on Highkeep server and look me up, my names Kalidor. I want to show you these wizards/warlocks that are lvl 45-47 and are soloing group ^^ monsters that are lvl46-49^^. You nerfed bards hard IMHO and I hope you show them some love and fix what you did to them. In closing I would like to say I did even more testing in Permafrost tonight between a lvl 50 guardian and a lvl 50 monk. Same group only the main tanks switched out. I was lucky to see my friend on who is lvl 50 monk and as the lvl 50 guardian had to quit I talked the group into inviting the monk.... anyone who has been to PF knows the mobs there are lvl47-50^^ and seem to hit hard. With the guardian tanking we cleaned the place out and it was a cake walk, the guardian was always in the green with her hitpoints and was just awesome <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> it was fun and relaxing and everyone loved it. (I'm being honest here people) With the monk tanking it was pure hell, he went into the yellow and orange asap and could not hold agro to save his life and he was trying. He would lose agro so easy and then work to get it back. The healers had to work to keep him alive and unlike with the guardian we did not get much past the first spiral up ramp before the group called for an evac. With the guardian we took the place by storm and kill all the named ^^ and never had to worry about evacing or agro control. People I love my monk but this is just not right! For the record the monks avoidance was 78% and his mitigation was 1800 the guardians avoidance was 65% and mitigation was 3000. The group was made up of a mystic, wizard, ranger, templar and me so even thou we had no bard we was balanced and ready(who needs bards now anyway since they been nerfed so bad). I hate to do this but I know people are interested in seeing the toons involved so here they are. Level 50 Monk http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=111263110 Level 50 Guardian http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=141435110 <div></div>

Nerj

03-23-2005, 05:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nuvian wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nerjin wrote:<BR> <P>I have a real problem understanding why the DEVS are having such a problem with this. </P> <P>Guardian Tank takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 5 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 8 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P> <P>It would seems that armor mitigates some damage whille avoidence just keeps you from getting hit as often. The net result is the same 1000 points of damage.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>thats not really the case tho,guardians avoid almost as many hits as brawlers,berserkers take quite a few more hits then guardian cause of our defence buffs,the numbers u gave altho im sure they arent based of any testing doesnt really show a class for what it is,cause berserkers take more hits the guardian.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Correct, this is not based on testing just a simplification of how thing should work. Each class has there own specialty, Mages DPS - Fighters Tanking - etc., the first Archtype breaks down into how that specialty is implemented (High Mitigation - Low Avoidance, Medium Mitigation - Medium Avoidance, and Low Mitigation -High Avoidance). The final breakdown is Offence Vs. Defense skill sets ( Bruisers: More Offense Skill - Fewer Defense Skills, Monks: Fewer Offense Skill - More Defense Skills)</P> <P>Simple process, but obviously Not an easy one.</P><p>Message Edited by Nerjin on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:27 PM</span>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 06:26 PM

<P>radric... why does everyone take the time to single out everything i say....</P> <P>what does the word <STRONG><EM><U>REALLY</U></EM></STRONG>... mean to you? to me it implies, it can be used for that purpose but in some cases can be used for others.</P> <P>so instead of taking out the time to make me look like a fool as anyone who is a pro guardian monk tanking thingy seems to do... read the post and concentrate on the big issue.</P> <P>a solution that wont break this game to pieces and send everyone that isnt 16 years old running screaming for the hills...</P> <P>and i think a larger solution from the players involved is highly needed in comparison to a dev only solution... i trust their judgement, but more often than not, its apparent that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and it shows in the patches and nerfs and patches and nerfs before the bugs are even stomped out. </P> <P>its easy for the level 50's to say i want to tank like a guardian, and thats fine on every level all day everyday, but you also have to understand that YOU are not the only one playing this game. Not that most that post here would care as long as they achieved thier personal goals. Still you have to accomodate a couple hundred or even a thousand other people on this issue. Its not a dps thing or a tank thing. its a how do we <STRONG><EM><U>REALLY </U></EM></STRONG>(theres that word again) want this balancing to be done. </P> <P> Do you want a four cornered system where you either are or you aint and 6 classes can squabble over 2/24 or 1/6 slots? while everyone else gets free range at 22/24 and 5/6? Which seems okay for the average group... but come raid time. there will be alot more sad faces, quitters, and arguing to boot. so also consider that by the time this change goes into effect, there will more than likely be 3x as many level 50 players waiting around for raids and expansion time.</P> <P>Everyone isnt a die hard, and some players wont stay just because this is eq2 and thier playing experience relies heavily on thier reliability to remain with the game. And i for one am not in a great guild, and soloing isnt really all that great, i just left runny eye about an hour ago and only 4 people were in the entire zone, been that way all night. So with that being said, i dont want anymore players to leave than neccessary because MY personal play experience dependso on OTHER players to accomplish things. </P> <P>yet again, not that anyone <STRONG><EM><U>REALLY </U></EM></STRONG>cares in the monk forum, but guardians wouldnt have rolled guardians if they could tank in the same capacity, have fancy animations, and a bit more dps within a monk class. Tanking is an aquired taste, those that chose a guardian signed up to tank... nothing more nothing less. didnt expect anything fancy smancy or gimmicky about it. So keep in mind whatever change they make will matter MOUNDS, they are going to have to make either a gamebreaking decision or a archetype breaking one. id rather it be archetype before game breaking. and if anyone has a problem with that- sue me. </P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:41 AM</span>

ArivenGemini

03-23-2005, 06:54 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Kryogen wrote:<p>I have to admit I was shocked to see my values earlier today. As a 39th level Guardian with a 40th Troubador in the group, with a wimpy tower shield and buffs, I was sitting at about 50% mitigation @ 39th with an avoidance factor of 70%. I think that is a tad too high. I think tops, I should cap out at 70%, but only if brawlers cap out around 90%. Since they only mitigate maybe 30% of the damage, tops. That 20% variance would be ideal to me.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>My level 26 monk is sitting about 35% mitigation and 72.5% avoidance... guess I was right to pick agility as my focus <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span><div></div>

RafaelSmith

03-23-2005, 07:01 PM

For what its worth I justed wanted to chime in agine. The more and more I think about it I do believe that my Guardian buffs should not buff Defense to the degree they do. We should be masters of mitigation and our buffs should be along those lines. Of course before any changes in regards to mitigation/avoidance for tanks is made SOE really needs to first fix priests and healing. The problem currently is that my mitigation is essentially 0% when it comes to specials..if all the sudden I am not "avoiding" those specials like I currently do...its gonna be hard for priests as they currently are to keep me up. The majority of healing in this game doesnt handle huge spike dmg very well from what ive seen. They also need to look at non-melee mitigation...i.e magic, etc dmg cause as far as I can tell my resists/armor do nothing against those. IMHO The Priest Archetype is in far worse shape than the Figher. With the exception of a few raid mobs all fighters can tank effectively. From what ive seen (mostly from the viewpoint of my girlfriends Fury) at the higher levels priests are really way out of balance in terms of filling thier primary role. I really really hope SOE takes their time with all this...cause mitigation/avoidance/healing are the core of the game mechanics... I dont want to find outselvs back in EQ1 days where I need a chain of priests to keep me alive. <div></div>

Darkd

03-23-2005, 08:16 PM

My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such.

ArivenGemini

03-23-2005, 08:27 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. <div></div><hr></blockquote> When I play my monk I am the MT 85% of the time.. the only times I off-tank are when there is a higher level tank in the group. When I have played my inquisitor I usually prefer the highest level tank in the group to be MT unless he proves to be totally incompetant... and this means if the monk or bruiser is highest, they tank... and if the highest doesnt tank (while being competant) I wont be in the group... its easier for me to deal with keeping him alive.</span><div></div>

SageMarrow

03-23-2005, 08:50 PM

<P>i tank often, about 50/50.</P> <P>the only thing is that yeah, after the 2 months of class balancing act... there will be another 6 months of education of every single player that doesnt play his monk like a tank, and all the healers, and all the scouts. and everyone else in a group who should tend to nominate a MT out of the choices they are given. </P> <P>and even though some such as jezekiel get the chance to do so within raiding guilds and such, by the time in question roles around and we are all running around geity like small school girls because we are level 50... (before expansion 1 with more levels) - we still wont get the chance to raid tank either, because by then = some guardian with a full set of raid armor, every raid shield and raid weapon on the market in every type slashing piercing etc, that has done every raid in game 15 times, will be readily available...</P> <P>and all the bickering wouldve been for naught.</P> <P>but hey... on with the show.</P>

bonesbro

03-23-2005, 09:22 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. <div></div><hr></blockquote>I tank about a third of the time. While I do a good job at it, tanking is a lot of work and much more keyboard mashing and mouse movement - I won't tank for more than two hours a day. It's bad on my RSI. My alt is a Warlock for that reason <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span><div></div>

Uggok

03-23-2005, 09:33 PM

<DIV> <DIV>I am new to EQ2, but it seems to me that balancing mitigation tanks and avoidance tanks by raw damage taken over time still ends up giving avoidance tanks the short end of the stick.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a mob hits for 100 base and you have 200 hit points and a healer or two, it is much better to take these 10 hits:</DIV> <DIV>50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>than it is to take these 10 hits:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>0 0 0 0 100 100 100 0 0 0</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The mitigator took more almost double the damage of the avoider, but the mitigator's group won't wipe, but the avoider's group might well wipe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Streak damage always seems to make avoidance based tanks less valuable unless they avoid a lot more than a mitigator mitigates, especially on raids where you plan you healing to heal the worst possible round of damage. Like I said, I am new to the game, so there may be some mechanic I am not aware of that ameliorates this issue in EQ2.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

EvilIguana9

03-23-2005, 09:37 PM

[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] it. I wrote out a very long detailed and well thought out response. I was logged in to the forum. I hit post, it told me to login, ate up everything I had typed, and threw me into the forum main. There goes an hour of my life. <div></div>

ugl

03-23-2005, 09:40 PM

<DIV>Moorgard,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since you seem to have finally came out and decided your going to blow the lid off this can of worms, I am going to send this post to you. This way I will KNOW that you understand how balance works, and how it is perceived by the player base. My advise to you is to tread lightly on this issue, as a large portion of your player base resides in this archtype. Throw in the scout archtype, and your could very well end up with a lot of angry players. Nerfs/adjustments come with a price, and it looks like it’s a price your more then willing to pay judging from recent patches.</DIV> <DIV> <BR>Fighters are interested and balanced by 4 variables. How you adjust these 4 variables determines the “balance”. If you give one type of fighter a little more in one area, they need to be adjusted in one of the other areas to “balance” it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Tanking- Avoidance/mitigation, how its done doesn’t matter to us. The ability in totality to take a punch from mob is the prime interest of fighters. Tanking is a role reserved for only 1 class in most 6 man exp groups, as well as only 1 or 2 classes in a 24 man raid. Only 1 person takes a hit, and the tank is it. Very limited role, but a very important one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) DPS - Fighters are interested in DPS to help them fulfill roles in groups/raids, as there is such a small need for the tank Role. The ability to be taken into a group as a DPS/backup tank is not to be ignored. Without it, there would be a lot of tanks LFG, which there are right now. Please not, this also treads on the scout archtype, and bad adjustment here can be stepping on their toes, as most scouts have forgone tanking ability in order to be “the best” at DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) Taunting/Aggro management - All the tanking ability in the world means jack if the mob is not hitting the tank. Aggro management is a prime concern for a tank, the better it is, the more the rest of the group can pour it on the mob. If agro management is weak, then all the ability of #1 are moot. If you’re a invincible tank, you are worthless if you cannot control agro.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4) Utility > this area covers everything else. Raid buffs, damage spells, heals, wards, horses, mend, safefall, feign death, etc. One raid buff can make a tank worthwhile for raids, even with there shoddy DPS or no need for a second tank. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Balancing these 4 things between the fighter classes IS the definition of class balance. If you give a little bit in one area to one class, it has to be appropriated in another area. I REALLY hope you understand this </DIV> <DIV>The fighter classes as they are perceived now. NOTE: Most players playing now chose there class from the way it stands NOW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Guardian- The best at #1, secound best at #3, but the worst in utility and DPS of the fighter classes. If other fighters are equal at #1 and #3, yet are better at DPS and utility, the guardian class is null and void.<BR> <BR>2) Beserkers- Secound best at #1, but just by a slim margin. (guardians have a small edge on tanking compared to zerks) They tank almost identically to their guardian counterparts. At #2, DPS, they are also very good at it, stepping into scout damage territory with their ability to lay down heavy AE damage. Outdamaging monks/bruisers and some scouts in many situations. 3) Aggro management, they have a stranglehold on Aggro control, and are hands down the best at it, bar none. Utility, I am not sure about, but I believe they actually up the damage of those around them as well. Zerkers can fill the tank role easily in groups/raids, as well as fill the DPS role in group raids. [Removed for Content] you all were thinking when it comes to zerkers and balance I have no idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) Paladins- They come in tied at third place in tanking ability. (with their utility abilities however, they are very close to #1 at tanking) (see paladin boards for details) DPS is somewhat lacking, so I will put them beside guardians at the bottom of the totem pole for that. Not real sure what damage they can put out however. #3, agro control, is not a problem for them at all, although no where near as good as zerkers, they are very close if not equal to the guardian in this area. Utilities? This is where they really shine, with heals/wards/horses etc. Their utility is what lets them tank as well as guardians and zerkers, as wards/self heals make them as good as zerkers/guardians at their ability to take a punch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4) Shadow Knights> Very good at #1 (tanking) (tied with paladins, except when the paladins utilities kick in), Very good at #2 (DPS), but for god sakes could ya take a look at whatever utilities and such are broken with them? They have been begging you since they game opened up and you haven’t even thrown them a bone. SK are pretty much the same as a paladin in all areas, except their utilities and such are not near as good, which is why most of them are mad. You gave the Paladins rocking utilities, while ya gave these guys broken ones. Try and fix the anti paladin, ok? Throw em some love. Heals/wards > gimped lifetaps/ But, again, very viable at tanking and DPS, but maybe somewhat lacking in the utilities area.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>5) Monks> DPS on and in some cases more then scouts bretheren, while retaining tanking abilities on par with the other fighters. They can tank anything in the game quite well, with the exception of some epic mobs. With stacked defense buffs they can probably do this too. Nice utilities, including safefall, mend, Feigh death,etc. They are many times chosen for raids and groups for their DPS, but they can also fill the tank role quite well. Lots of flexability for them to find groups and raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>6) Bruisers> See monks above. Have slightly more DPS, and about the same tanking abilities. They are flexable, and can fulfill the tank or DPS spots in groups. Their DPS is stepping in the scout realm as well, and they are also able to tank anything in the game outside of epic mobs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, now that you know where it stands now, and seeing that your going to make some of these classes even MORE viable at #1 (tanking), you must also keep in mind where they stand at #2, #3, #4. Also, understand, the role of TANK only has 1 spot in a 6 man group, and maybe 2 spots in a raid. Healers got as many spots as they can fit in a raid, and two spots for most 6 man groups. DPS have 3 to 4 Spots in groups, and as many as you can squeeze into a raid. If your adjustments negates some of these fighters at fulfilling their possible roles as DPS, your are going to make a lot of competition for those limited amount of tank spots, while possibly negating their ability to fulfill the many available DPS spots. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Good luck on your “adjustments”, half of your player base will be watching this very closely. Not only the fighters, but the scouts as well. If one fighter can tank as well as another fighter, yet have MORE DPS/utility/agro control, you will have a unbalance. If some fighters can adequalty tank yet do DPS on par with scouts, you have a unbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Right NOW, you have glaring unbalance. Some of your fighters are very good at tanking, as well as DPS, agro control, and utilities. Others are only good in 1 or two areas. If you make all fighters are equal at #1 , they must also be equally balanced at 2, 3 and 4, or a combination of these. Also, I cannot stress this enough, there is a limited need for a tank in both groups, and even more so in raids.. They got ONE spot. If all fighters are only good at fulfilling the tank role, and not good at fulfilling a DPS role, your going to have a lot of people competing for that 1 and only perceived spot. Which means everyone that does not get that one spot are going to be standing at the docks with LFG on. When you open this can of worms, chances are (with your previous track record on balance, and as the balance is presently,) it is going to get very ugly</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by uglak on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:52 AM</span>

Death4

03-23-2005, 09:40 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>Some guardian comments about the changes:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>Hit L to see defense.. mroe defense = more avoidance, it is the guardian form of deflection buffs.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> English Da Guard wrote:<BR> <P> You realize he said he was self buffed. Heck I can add ~400 to my mitigation and over 7% to avoidance self buffed. Make sure you compare your numbers with his when he isn't buffed so it is apples to apples.</P> <P> I mean with a shield and self buffed I am basically 70% avoidance. That's from ~57% when not buffed and no shield.<BR></P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I'm at about 76% self buffed or so, with about 1775 mitigation. I'm not sure what his mitigation is, but I assume its over 2k.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>RafaelSmith wrote:<BR>These numbers really are starting to depress me.<BR><BR>At level 38 my mitigation shows something around 1800ish....when holding the mouse cursor over it it says i mitigate 49%. That seems low.<BR><BR>My avoidance is much higher than i expected...<BR>So in essense I am a avoidance tank way before I am a mitigation tank. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So my mitigation is about on par with a lvl 38 guardian, which I would be ok with if my avoidance was better by the same amount, unfortunately, it isn't.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>Selff buffed I avoid 68% mitigate 73% (with uebr gear)<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So I have about a ~8% lead in avoidance over Tuna and his mitigation is ~50% better than mine. (estimates).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sazzabi8 wrote:<BR>I was showing 100% avoidance raid buffed today, with around 4300 mitigation at the highest.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Heh. The mitigation I'm fine with, that is *their* niche. 100% avoidance from a guardian seems a little crazy to me though. With stone stance I can reach this level of mitigation though (when grouped with two furies ~ haven't had a lot of time to test yet).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThramFalcox wrote:<BR> <P>If you add about 30 def from various sources, avoidance makes a huge jump into the 90% area. This confirms that defensive effects are magnified depending on the level of the opponent. With enough defense you can turn an even con opponent effectively gray thus the huge jump. Before 30ish (havent tested for the exact number) the jump is only a few %.</P> <P>Add enough defense and even yellows can't hit you...<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation.</P> <P>The way defense works right now is not only trivializing content, its blurring the skills that supposedly seperate the classes.</P> <P>(Note: I'm only using guardians as my example because they have a ton of defense skill buffs ~ please realize that just as agility affected every class, this defense skill problem does also.<FONT color=#ffff00> With the right group/raid setup you could theoretically buff up any classes defensive skill enough for them to become unhittable). </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000><-If this is really your case, address this in your 2.5k posts of guardian trolling.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gilgalon wrote:<BR><SPAN>Is it just me or does anyone else think the above sounds like a bug? Defense modifies avoidance? </SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, its not just you. I personally wanna see what Moorgard says. Is this intended?</P> <P>Lastly:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Belgorim wrote: <DIV>Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, <FONT color=#ffff00>since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes.</P> <P>Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right?<BR><BR> <HR> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>The thing you cease to understand is you're 76% avoidance without a shield...You get to pound out awesome dps without having to worry about that crap. You avoid just as well, if not better. Spider's Stance buffs Defense by 15. That's THREE levels of defense if you couldn't count. Guardian buffs give roughly +14 - 15 Defense as well but the thing we have over you isn't class wise. It's Race wise. Most Guardians pick a race with +5 Defense racial trait, thus making us have a higher buffed defense. All the other defensive buffs come from other classes so I really cease to understand your argument.<BR><BR>If you're going to complain about avoidance why don't you post your Base Avoidance and compare it to a Guardians? If you forgot, Avoidance comes from Base, Shield, Parry, and Deflection. So if you scream nerf avoidance without looking at possibly Base's being too high, Parry buffs too high, shield bonuses too high, whatever, you, more so than already, look like a tool. Personally, I think you were just beaten with the jealous stick.<BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

potatotr0ll

03-23-2005, 09:58 PM

<P>I say this as a lvl 23 Guardian. Currently, at my level I know for a fact i'm not overpowered. THis is with self-buffs and being buffed by others. My monk, well same issue as everyone else. He gets pummeled constantly. </P> <P>Solution to Gaurdians: Limit how high Avoidance can get for plate-wearers. Increase Monk/Bruiser Deflection skill. THis way it wont be a massive nerf to Gaurdians and other plate/shield wearers, and will get them to a realistic level. As for Monk/Bruiser deflection, i just say give them the effectiveness of either a kite or tower shield of their level instead of a round shield. And maybe add a little bit more on top of that.</P>

Mie

03-23-2005, 10:13 PM

<P>ok, SOE giving themself trouble. No problem</P> <P>There have a Brusier weapon proc 600+ , now Brusier/Monk can tank , mend, dps, mez, fear, FD. </P> <P>Fine. At the day come, no value for all Heavy armor user to exist. SOE will know "Brewler are tank" is wrong.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

JuJut

03-23-2005, 10:19 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mielx wrote:<BR> <P>ok, SOE giving themself trouble. No problem</P> <P>There have a Brusier weapon proc 600+ , now Brusier/Monk can tank , mend, dps, mez, fear, FD.</P> <P>Fine. At the day come, no value for all Heavy armor user to exist. SOE will know "Brewler are tank" is wrong.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>?<BR>

Mie

03-23-2005, 10:20 PM

<DIV>It seem who cry out loud and clear , who won.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe brusier/monk should use a shield later. Oh wait , the SBS status overpower for brusier.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Velor

03-23-2005, 10:22 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR> <DIV>Moorgard,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since you seem to have finally came out and decided your going to blow the lid off this can of worms, I am going to send this post to you. This way I will KNOW that you understand how balance works, and how it is perceived by the player base. My advise to you is to tread lightly on this issue, as a large portion of your player base resides in this archtype. Throw in the scout archtype, and your could very well end up with a lot of angry players. Nerfs/adjustments come with a price, and it looks like it’s a price your more then willing to pay judging from recent patches.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>While I know the intent of your post is good, you come off a little condescending, which is kinda humorous given Moorgard's background.</P> <P>I think the 5+ years experience that he has as a player of Everquest as well as acting as a media correspondent for the game to a very popular website that he created from scratch proves that Moorgard does indeed know the game, know the company's philosphies, and knows how balance works in a MMO. Most importantly, I think he has a pretty good grasp of what is best for the long term health of the game.</P>

Azazel-Defia

03-23-2005, 11:08 PM

<P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR> <DIV>available DPS spots. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Good luck on your “adjustments”, half of your player base will be watching this very closely. Not only the fighters, but the scouts as well. If one fighter can tank as well as another fighter, yet have MORE DPS/utility/agro control, you will have a unbalance. <FONT color=#ffff00> If some fighters can adequalty tank yet do DPS on par with scouts, you have a unbalance.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by uglak on <SPAN class=date_text>03-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:52 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I wanted to point out that this part of your post is not necessarily the truth. Damage is the most far reaching ability in the game, for any one group, Archetype, or class to hold the title "Absolute Best" at this is what causes imbalance in the game. As you correctly stated, damage is the ability that gets players the majority of spots in a group or raid.</P> <P>In fact if fighters were closer in DPS to scouts the distribution of desired classes would come closer to being balanced. Instead of the pass/fail choice system that exists now. Example:</P> <P>Generic Fighter001 (LFG) lvl 40</P> <P>Generic Scout001 (LFG) lvl 40</P> <P>Conversation in Group -"Who does more damage?"......."Scout."...."By Far."......."Get the Scout."........Conversation ends, decision time =5 seconds.</P> <P>Example 2, Fighter DPS is more respectable compared to the scout.</P> <P>Conversation in group- "Who does more damage?"......."Scout"......"It's close." ....."Hmm"........ Conversation continues- "Do we need an off tank?"......."Extra evac is always good." ...... "The group buffs the fighter has may be useful." ....... " Doesn't that scout's attacks have debuffs? That could help." ...."Pick one and let's go."</P> <P>In example 2 the final decision on who gets a spot in the group is going to rest on the unique needs of the group, and it could even be based off personal preference of the players. If we assume the main defining abilities of a class are , damage absorption, healing, utility, damage then we can determine what abilities will define roles in groups. </P> <P> Spot 1 Main Tanks- Will always be chosen on damage absorption.</P> <P>Spot 2 Main healers- Will always be chosen on healing ability.</P> <P>Spots 3-4- Are chosen by a comparison of the combination of healing, utility, and damage. With each ability being considered nearly equally.</P> <P>Spots 5-6 Are chosen by a comparison of the combination of healing, utility, and damage. With damage being by far the most important. If a class cant put up respectable damage numbers they will never be considered for these last two spots. Despite their incredible healing and utility, priests do not get these last two spots, they get spots 2-4. </P> <P>Kinda off topic but I wanted to point this out and help add some to your argument, which I like. Check out my balance post in this same forum and you will see our thinking runs a similar course.</P> <P> </P> <P>Azazel </P> <P>Nek</P>

potatotr0ll

03-23-2005, 11:09 PM

<P>I think one of the main issues to this whole thing is the way that everything is tied together. As seen in last week's patch where they reduced the mob's offensive abilities between lvls 15-31, they figured out that AC was linked to a mob's offensive abiltiy of the same level. The implementation of the combat system in general is completely messed up. I know that at the time coding was being done, it all looked like a good idea, but not much thought of future problems was put into it it seems. </P> <P>Basiclly, like Moorgard stated, if any kind of stat is shifted in the current setup, it will shift something else to "balance" it back to way it currently works. It seems that way too many things in the combat system are linked. This brings me back to my thoughts on the fact that mobs are not on an even playing field as players. If a lvl 15 warrior mob has around the same HP, Defense, and damage capabilities as a lvl 15 warrior PC, then they would not need to implement an odd combat system such as this.</P> <P>I do realize that people want this issue addressed, and it will be in due time. I know this is a lingering issue, I have a monk and a guardian. But honestly, I say revamp the whole combat system, otherwise we will keep running into these such problems. Balance the mobs to the PCs, not Balance the PCs according to some random number, and a mob's damage capability for that person's level.</P> <p>Message Edited by potatotr0ll on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:10 PM</span>

EvilIguana9

03-23-2005, 11:19 PM

<div></div><p>/off-topic</p><p>Plate armor does indeed add to ones ability to avoid damage in reality.<span> </span>What plate armor does is make a number of attacks that could have been painful or potentially fatal, essentially worthless versus the knight.<span> </span>The enemy combatant has fewer avenues of attack against the armored knight because he must change his tactics to focus on going after the weak points in the armor, such as the neck, the visor, or joints at the shoulder and knees.<span> </span>It’s a lot harder to hit these points so he will miss more often.<span> </span>Furthermore, attacks that would have lacerated or sheared off skin now glance harmlessly across the steel plating, effectively negating them.<span> </span>Not to mention the fact that the armor does not prevent the knight from using his sword and shield to block attacks just as well as anyone else on the battlefield.<span> </span>A suit of plate armor weighed maybe 50 lbs, and only slightly limited freedom of movement.<span> </span>It worked well until gunpowder based small arms became commonplace.</p><p>/on-topic</p><p>D&D actually handled monks and fighters the opposite way that EQ 2 does.<span> </span>Fighters typically had higher AC which negated attacks completely, but monks had some innate damage reduction, IE mitigation, to make up for their inability to wear armor.<span> </span>It wouldn’t be too out of character to suggest that monks, who can punch solid metal or stone without breaking their knuckles, can mitigate damage to the rest of their body the same way.<span> </span>After all, they are not merely frail humans anymore, monks are every bit as magical as a sorcerer, they just happen to channel the energy into themselves rather than outward.</p><p>However, I propose a different solution that differentiates the fighter class tree along some well defined strengths and weaknesses.<span> </span>My version is as follows:</p><p>Start off by setting all fighters to have the same unadjusted avoidance and mitigation.<span> </span>From there specific abilities will augment this.<span> </span></p><p>Warriors – Warriors are the vanilla tank so to speak.<span> </span>They receive an innate bonus to their mitigation over other fighters.<span> </span>They are endurance tanks because their skills are efficient and reliable, if not necessarily flashy or instantaneously powerful.</p><p><span> </span>-Guardians receive abilities that help them protect their group from attack</p><p><span> </span>-Berserkers receive abilities that enhance their group’s ability to deal damage</p><p>Crusaders – Crusaders augment their ability to tank with relatively powerful spells and combat arts.<span> </span>Using these skills they can exceed the effectiveness of other fighters for as long as their power pool lasts.<span> </span>Without the use of their skills and spells they are at a slight disadvantage, so running out of power, being stunned to a point where they can’t cast much, or being stifled limits their effectiveness.<span> </span></p><p><span> </span>-Paladins receive heals and defensive buffs for themselves and their groups.</p><p><span> </span>-Shadow knights use lifetaps and stat debuffs on the enemy</p><p>Brawlers – Brawlers excel at avoiding attacks, including special and magical abilities.<span> </span>They get a bonus to their avoidance and the focused will necessary to avoid detrimental effects such as spell damage, stuns/knockdowns, stifling, etc.<span> </span></p><p>-Monks have skills that allow them to better shield themselves and their groupmates from harmful effects.</p><p>-Brawlers focus on combat abilities that interrupt, stun, stifle, or otherwise degrade the enemy’s ability to fight.</p><p>I just don’t want to see my overall effectiveness as a paladin change much.<span> </span>I think paladins are pretty much right where we need to be as far as general utility goes.<span> </span>Can solo well, but not ridiculously well, can tank just fine for groups, but not too fine.<span> </span>Hopefully we can move other classes to a point where they feel comfortable with their abilities as well.<span> </span>The only hitch in my class definition plan is that it requires some thought in assigning abilities to mobs.<span> </span>There have to be different types of fights out there to give the different classes opportunities to shine.<span> </span>For most situations any fighter can fill the role just fine, they’ll just take a bit more damage in some fights and a bit less in others.<span> </span>Raid encounters tend to push the limit to the point that you’d want to develop a strategy around the class best suited for the type of encounter: warriors for long fights with melee mobs, brawlers for encounters heavy on enemies with special attacks, and crusaders for short intense battles and those where their abilities will not be impeded.<span> </span>Crusaders will probably be the trickiest to balance overall because there is a very fine line to balance power with limitations.<span> </span>If the encounters are hard enough that no crusader no matter how skilled can get any necessary spells off then it doesn’t matter how powerful they are.<span> </span>On the other hand if the spells are too powerful then any time the crusader can cast he could trivialize the encounter.<span> </span></p><div></div>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 11:20 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Darkdog wrote:<BR>My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</P> <P>Or maybe you could just uninstall the game.</P> <P>This is the first time I've ever seen anyone refute a dev's statement about our role.</P> <P>We aren't scouts, thanks.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 11:23 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR> <DIV>1) Guardian- The best at #1, secound best at #3, <FONT color=#ffff00>but the worst in utility and DPS of the fighter classes.</FONT> If other fighters are equal at #1 and #3, yet are better at DPS and utility, the guardian class is null and void.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Exaggerate much? Guardians have some of the best offtank buffs in the game and when dual wielding and actually using combat arts, your DPS is not that horrible.</P> <P>I know you want your utility and DPS to be observed that way of course, but its about time to just give it up.<BR></P>

Shadow Sc

03-23-2005, 11:24 PM

<DIV>wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area?</DIV> <DIV>If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 11:29 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shadow Scar wrote:<BR> <DIV>wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area?</DIV> <DIV>If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Where did Moorgard say we are getting the tanking ability of guardians? He didn't.</P> <P>As it stands guardians are using our ability (avoidance) more than we are.<BR></P>

kerra

03-23-2005, 11:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shadow Scar wrote:<BR> <DIV>wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area?</DIV> <DIV>If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I would trade it in a second. They can have the dps if I could tank a Epic raid mob. <p>Message Edited by kerra on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:33 AM</span>

ugl

03-23-2005, 11:33 PM

Azazel <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with you. A DPS fighter could have equal damage to a scout, and a scouts much desired utilites could balance that out.</DIV> <DIV>(Tracking, invis, group invis, and evac are very desired by groups)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Too bad solid posts on topic of the discussion will be clouded with Gage "one liners" throughout this thread.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

03-23-2005, 11:35 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR>Azazel <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with you. A DPS fighter could have equal damage to a scout, and a scouts much desired utilites could balance that out.</DIV> <DIV>(Tracking, invis, group invis, and evac are very desired by groups)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Too bad solid posts on topic of the discussion will be clouded with Gage "one liners" throughout this thread. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Nah. I just hate that you guys try to play off your DPS (plenty of guards have parsed consistently over 100 in offtank roles) as totally worthless. Its supposed to be the lowest in the archetype, but the difference in DPS done does not equal the difference in tanking ability at all.</P> <P>Besides our DPS is our trade off for a lack of taunts, not mitigation.</P> <P>Oh, and you guys get VERY good off tank buffs that buff up the MT. In fact some of the best in our archetype. It just appears that some are broken, or that since guardians hardly ever do anything besides MT they don't know how good they are.</P> <P>With Shrug Off being nerfed your buffs just became that much better.</P> <P>In fact I was tanking last night with a 50 guardian buffing me and I was doing a much better job than w/o his buffs.<BR></P> <P>I mean, look what you guys get:</P> <P></P><SPAN class=style5> <HR> Sentinel </SPAN>20 Allows guardian to sometimes absorb all damage a nearby ally would otherwise take. <P></P><SPAN class=style5>Allay </SPAN>21 Allows a guardian to sometimes parry or block damage directed at his target. The guardian must remain nearby. <P></P><SPAN class=style5>Call of Command </SPAN>24 Increases parry skill of party. <P></P><SPAN class=style5>Battle Cry </SPAN>26 Increases the groups armor class and grants an increase in stamina. <P></P><FONT color=#ffff00><SPAN class=style5>Never Surrender </SPAN>32 Allows guardian to shield their ally from attacks and increases their parry skill. </FONT> <P></P><FONT color=#ffff00><SPAN class=style5>Safeguard</SPAN>Protection 34 Allows a guardian to sometimes absorb all the damage a nearby ally would have taken.</FONT> <P></P><SPAN class=style5>Commanding Presence </SPAN>40 Increases the group armor class, hit points and stamina <P></P><SPAN class=style5>Guardian Sphere </SPAN>Protection 50 Allows the guardian to sometimes absorb damage dealt to the group. <HR> <P>So to say you have the "worst" utility is certainly stretching it on your part. You have buffs that make the MT way better as well as helping to protect and increase the defensive capabilities of the entire group.</P> <P>You also have your fair share of Combat Arts designed to do damage (including AoE's). You have a few slows and debuffs, you can dual wield...</P> <P>I don't see your class being tank or useless, sorry.</P> <P>In fact the two I highlighted while on a monk/bruiser would almost certainly make them an excellent tank, raid or otherwise. <P>Do you even realize how much that would help to lessen the spikes we take? <P>Those two spells, especially the one where you take the ENTIRE brunt of the damage are worthless when you are MT. <P>So while you guys have no problem with the bruiser class using Shrug Off on you, you have a problem returning the favor in an OT role yourself?</P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:55 AM</span>

RadricTyc

03-23-2005, 11:39 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>radric... why does everyone take the time to single out everything i say....</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Because you respond to every post with meaningless and incorrect statements, perpetually. People are calling you on it. Case in point, your next statement.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>SageMarrow wrote:<BR></P> <P>what does the word <STRONG><EM><U>REALLY</U></EM></STRONG>... mean to you? to me it implies, it can be used for that purpose but in some cases can be used for others.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG>re·al·ly</STRONG><BR><I>adv.</I></P> <OL> <LI>In actual truth or fact: The horseshoe crab isn't really a crab at all.</LI> <LI>Truly; genuinely: That was a really enjoyable evening.</LI> <LI>Indeed: Really, you shouldn't have done it.</LI></OL> <P><A href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=really" target=_blank>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=really</A></P> <P>Sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what it means, not me.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>SageMarrow wrote:<BR>So keep in mind whatever change they make will matter MOUNDS, they are going to have to make either a gamebreaking decision or a archetype breaking one. id rather it be archetype before game breaking. and if anyone has a problem with that- sue me. </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I think you're full of crap. Nothing has to be broken. If one player wants to run around in gleaming platemail with enormous shields, swingling a firey longsword, while another wants to use his bear fists while wearing robes, that is a matter of taste, and certainly not a matter of breaking the game or even the archetype if the two are equal in stature. </P> <P>Honestly what difference does it make who is the tank for a raid? Why would you stop fighters from being the tank for a raid? Why would you even suggest that one subclass should be THE ONLY subclass to be able to perform this role? Let's make templars the only healer for raids, no one else gets to come. Let's make wizards the only nukers. Let's make assassins the only melee DPS. Boy! these sound like GREAT ideas.</P> <P>You need to realize that allowing only one class to perform a single function in the game is ITSELF GAME BREAKING! Conversely, I will agree that people need to be able to fill more than one role so that no one is pigeon holed. This includes Guardians. Guardians should have the ability to do DPS if they are not tanking. And so far as I have seen, they can. If it needs to be upped a little bit, fine. But using that "we have low DPS" card to maintain the top tank spot is just asking for more arguments. Fighters should be valuable for the tank-buffs and damage they bring to a group, assuming they are not the main tank.</P> <P>No fighter should ever be gated from fighter content. Since they are tanks, any fighter should be valuable as a tank, even in raids. </P>

kerra

03-23-2005, 11:59 PM

<P>Seems that no one has said TY to Neverlift for starting a forum that actually brought some positive attention to the Monk forums. </P> <P>Neverlift good job bro thank you this should be a good move in the right direction for our class. </P>

Wilin

03-24-2005, 12:33 AM

<DIV>Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the guardian can turn the monk into a super tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back.</DIV>

Gaige

03-24-2005, 12:40 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wilin wrote:<BR> <DIV>Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series<FONT color=#ffff00>. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, <FONT color=#ffff00>monks need guardian buffs to tank well.</FONT> What is the problem?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the <FONT color=#ffff00>guardian can turn the monk into a super tank.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>See, I knew guardians like you exist.<BR>

FamilyManFir

03-24-2005, 12:53 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Wilin wrote:<div></div><div> ... Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem?</div> <div></div> <div> </div>...<hr></blockquote>Nice post, Wilin. Thoughtful and polite. Just want you to know I appreciate that. <span>:smileyhappy:</span> I think that it should work this way: <font color="#ffff00">Guardians need their buffs to tank well. Monks need their buffs to tank well.</font><font color="#ffff00"> </font><font color="#66ff00">Guardian buffs will make a Monk tank even better. Monk buffs will make a Guardian tank even better.</font><font color="#66ff00"> </font> As it is, a Guardian can tank really well by him/herself. A Monk needs a Guardian to be able to tank really well. IMHO that's not right.</span><div></div>

ArivenGemini

03-24-2005, 12:55 AM

<span> <blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <p>Those two spells, especially the one where you take the ENTIRE brunt of the damage are worthless when you are MT. </p> <hr></blockquote> To be honest, they have great utility to me... I like to intervene/ward/etc the healers and if possible the v light armor wearers in my group... simply so that if an add comes along on them I have more time to peel it off them while fighting their hate on the creature... if I have an off tank in the group I want them doing the same on the ones I cant get covered.. this tactic has helped me as MT on more than one occaision..</span><div></div>

ArivenGemini

03-24-2005, 12:58 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Wilin wrote: <div></div> <div>Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series<font color="#ffff00">. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation.</font></div> <div></div> <div> </div> <div>This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, <font color="#ffff00">monks need guardian buffs to tank well.</font> What is the problem?</div> <div></div> <div> </div> <div>In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the <font color="#ffff00">guardian can turn the monk into a super tank.</font></div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back.</font></div> <hr> </blockquote>See, I knew guardians like you exist. <div></div><hr></blockquote>The guardian group with in my guild has decided he likes the DPS from behind mode and makes me tank whenever I am playing one of my fighters.. even with them a few levels lower than him.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> he has been doing it to our palidan too... but when you look at his 45-70dps at level 35 which is competing for second with our rangers (at the same level) and our warlock when he slacks off.... its pretty effective.. Personally I would RATHER he tank since he is higher in level and we can pull tougher stuff.. but I wont force him to play how he doesn't want to play.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span><div></div>

Darkd

03-24-2005, 01:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Darkdog wrote:<BR>My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</P> <P>Or maybe you could just uninstall the game.</P> <P>This is the first time I've ever seen anyone refute a dev's statement about our role.</P> <P>We aren't scouts, thanks.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am the one that is laughing I have yet to see these 2 classes step up to the plate and tank in any group I have been in. Also the few times these 2 classes have been asked to tank they have also laughed and clearly stated they were not a tank.

ArivenGemini

03-24-2005, 01:15 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</p> <p>Or maybe you could just uninstall the game.</p> <p>This is the first time I've ever seen anyone refute a dev's statement about our role.</p> <p>We aren't scouts, thanks.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>I am the one that is laughing I have yet to see these 2 classes step up to the plate and tank in any group I have been in. Also the few times these 2 classes have been asked to tank they have also laughed and clearly stated they were not a tank. <div></div><hr></blockquote>When I am playing my monk I regularly tank.. vast majority of the time.. even sometimes when a higher level tank of a different sub-class is in the group (depending on their desires).. as a general rule of thumb I want the highest level tank as MT... Also I have another tank in our guild that is a monk, who tanks regularly for us... and he does a fantastic job..</span><div></div>

Sunth

03-24-2005, 01:21 AM

<P>Before you decrease the ability of other tanks to avoid hits. Please consider that Bezerkers and Guardians have no other utility other than dealing damage and taking damage. Brawlers on the other hand can go invisible and feign death. If Brawlers are given equal ability to tank should they not also have equal ability to deal out damage? What about giving Bezerkers and Guardians Feign Death?</P> <P>Part of the problem I've noticed with my own character is that my agility is my highest stat. Thats unusual for a class thats trying to get high Mitigation, but until the patch Monday, Agility increase had the most affect on my total AC therefore I usually ended up with items of high agiliity. Since there is no primary stat for mitigation there is nothing to add to equipment to increase this number like there is with agility and avoidance. </P> <P>It is good to see that new items are coming into the game that will increase Crushing, Slashing, and Piercing resistances as this should be another form of mitigation/avoidance.</P>

ArivenGemini

03-24-2005, 01:33 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Sunthas wrote:<p>Before you decrease the ability of other tanks to avoid hits. Please consider that Bezerkers and Guardians have no other utility other than dealing damage and taking damage. Brawlers on the other hand can go invisible and feign death. If Brawlers are given equal ability to tank should they not also have equal ability to deal out damage? What about giving Bezerkers and Guardians Feign Death?</p> <p>Part of the problem I've noticed with my own character is that my agility is my highest stat. Thats unusual for a class thats trying to get high Mitigation, but until the patch Monday, Agility increase had the most affect on my total AC therefore I usually ended up with items of high agiliity. Since there is no primary stat for mitigation there is nothing to add to equipment to increase this number like there is with agility and avoidance. </p> <p>It is good to see that new items are coming into the game that will increase Crushing, Slashing, and Piercing resistances as this should be another form of mitigation/avoidance. </p><hr></blockquote>My berserker has more than just hitting and getting hit.. I have group buffs, wards to help mitigate damage on another party member and truly phenominal agro control... I cant keep as good a control over mobs with my monk as I can with my serker.. </span><div></div>

Inv

03-24-2005, 01:35 AM

Looking at the new avoidance and mitigation ratings was depressing. many tanks running near the same avidance of many brawlers with a large chunk more mitigation. Very lame actually been beaten in avoidance by 1 plate tank so far in a grp and I have a rather high agi LOL but hopefully they will find some way to level the playing field some <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

MoonglumHMV

03-24-2005, 01:38 AM

I think everyone needs to get out of the finger pointing or nerf calling or whatever mode. The changes that Moorgard is talking about are game wide changes...effecting everyone, not just guardians or monks. The fighter archtype needs to get together and form our stance on this before the changes move from being 'talked about' to being 'implimented'...then it will be too late...

ArivenGemini

03-24-2005, 01:47 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Invic wrote:<div></div>Looking at the new avoidance and mitigation ratings was depressing. many tanks running near the same avidance of many brawlers with a large chunk more mitigation. Very lame actually been beaten in avoidance by 1 plate tank so far in a grp and I have a rather high agi LOL but hopefully they will find some way to level the playing field some <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote> Yeah, I haven't been beaten in avoidance yet.. yet.. by people I group with.. but whats depressing is the shallow amount that agility is making for me at the upper end... a change ot 9 agility only moves avoidance about 2% <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> What I find really wierd is at level 26 I have 72% avoidance.. but i am seeing some level 50 types talking about 78-79% avoidance. I realize this is probably appropriate in that it is relative to mobs at our level.. but I would expect someone with twice the levels over me to haev more than 6-7% difference in avoidance.</span><div></div>

Wilin

03-24-2005, 02:00 AM

<DIV>Agreed, the changes that Moorgard is proposing constitute a sweeping rebalancing of the combat system since it's based largely on the Defense skill now. It's akin to throwing a stacked deck of cards up into the air and then restacking them to see what you have afterwards. Maybe it's better than before, maybe not. Everyone is probably better off if the monk community just shoots to get some improvements and everyone else (fighters especially) try to help them out. Otherwise, we may end up with something bizaare like ogre rangers being the best tank in the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh and I have 61% avoidance at 36th Guardian self buffed with all app4-adept1, tower shield, and human racial trait. (if anyone was keeping score)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Wilin on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:06 PM</span>

SomeDudeCRO

03-24-2005, 02:25 AM

"With the monk tanking it was pure hell, he went into the yellow and orange asap and could not hold agro to save his life and he was trying. He would lose agro so easy and then work to get it back. The healers had to work to keep him alive and unlike with the guardian we did not get much past the first spiral up ramp before the group called for an evac" Oh, come on now, its not that bad. I've tanked that place ad nosium, sometimes with groups of 4 and never had an issue. I'm not sure what your monk or you group was doing, but you should be able to do much better. <div></div>

IvarIronhea

03-24-2005, 02:26 AM

<P><SPAN class=style5> </P> <HR> <P><EM>Sentinel </EM></SPAN><EM>20 Allows guardian to sometimes absorb all damage a nearby ally would otherwise take. </EM></P> <P></P> <P><EM><SPAN class=style5>Allay </SPAN>21 Allows a guardian to sometimes parry or block damage directed at his target. The guardian must remain nearby. </EM></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <P><EM><SPAN class=style5>Call of Command </SPAN>24 Increases parry skill of party. </EM></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <P><EM><SPAN class=style5>Battle Cry </SPAN>26 Increases the groups armor class and grants an increase in stamina. </EM></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><EM><SPAN class=style5>Never Surrender </SPAN>32 Allows guardian to shield their ally from attacks and increases their parry skill. </EM></FONT></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <P><EM><FONT color=#ffff00><SPAN class=style5>Safeguard</SPAN>Protection 34 Allows a guardian to sometimes absorb all the damage a nearby ally would have taken.</FONT> </EM></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <P><EM><SPAN class=style5>Commanding Presence </SPAN>40 Increases the group armor class, hit points and stamina </EM></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <P><EM><SPAN class=style5>Guardian Sphere </SPAN>Protection 50 Allows the guardian to sometimes absorb damage</EM> <EM>dealt to the group.</EM> </P> <HR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sentinel - does not take into account our mitigation. We eat full damage when it works. Swallow 2 barrages(one on yourself and the one you "absorbed") and it can lead to a corpse. Also, a 3 minute buff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Allay - decent one here. Lasts 3 minutes. Takes concentration. Doesn't register on the new avoidance stat. Bugged? I've seen it work. Takes possibl 2 to 3 hits in a typical fight.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Call of command - raises defense skill not parry skill. The skill you've been beating the wardrums to get nerfed. Play a guardian much?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Battle Cry - lasts 38 seconds. Refreshes in a minute. AC buff is minimal. Huge aggro pull. Play a guardian much? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Never surrender - cookie cutter to monk martial discipline. We get 2 or 3 points of parry(doesn't stack with one of our other buffs). You get skill in tranquility. It's a wash, they both have roughly the same avoidance buff. Also, a 3 minute buff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Safeguard - same as sentinel.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Commanding presence - same as battle cry.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, where is this vaunted utility? Sentinel and it's line are much worse than taking a secondary healer(any healer, including paladin). The others are mirrored by all the other classes(ie Never Surrender to Martial Discipline to Aegis of Hope for paladins).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, Gage, you want cookie cutter tanking, you also get cookie cutter DPS and cookie cutter utility. This is balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

03-24-2005, 02:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IvarIronheart wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN class=style5></P></SPAN> <DIV>So, where is this vaunted utility? Sentinel and it's line are much worse than taking a secondary healer(any healer, including paladin). The others are mirrored by all the other classes(ie Never Surrender to Martial Discipline to Aegis of Hope for paladins).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, Gage, you want cookie cutter tanking, you also get cookie cutter DPS and cookie cutter utility. This is balance. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Where is our "vaunted utility"? The only thing we have that you don't that is really worthwhile is FD. But its useless on raids and in most group scenarios.</P> <P>Safefall? If its that important, ask for it. I don't see the big deal.</P> <P>Invis? Our invis is a power based mid range spell (30 to 40s). Its gray, and utterly useless at 50.</P> <P>So bascially you have a version of our MT buff, which is really all we have. Which I'm pretty sure all fighters have.</P> <P>So besides FD you have the same utility as us anyway.</P> <P>I do want balance, yup. Now that you mention it, cookies sound good too.<BR></P>

FamilyManFir

03-24-2005, 02:39 AM

Sorry, Wilin, it's too late now. The cat's out of the bag and the devs are talking. Personally I disagree with your analogy, though. The cards are stacked in one way now, yes, but the devs won't be throwing then up in the air and letting them fall at random. They'll be giving thought to any proposed changes and weighing them against other classes too. Myself, I don't think that sweeping changes necessarily need to be done. They may find that all they need to do is alter some buffs to affect different defenses, perhaps changing how those other defenses scale. For example: 1) Keep Defense's current scaling and values; 2) Change, if necessary, Mitigation, Parry, Block and Deflection to scale more linearly; 3) Change buffs to affect only Mitigation (Guardians and Berzerkers would get more of these), Parry (maybe Paladins and Shadow Knights could get more of these), or Deflection (Monks and Bruisers would get more of these). Just an idea. Who knows what they will do? I echo other comments here, though, in that I hope they playtest the heck out of it, with all 24 subclasses, to iron out any unexpected consequences before it goes live. <div></div>

einar4

03-24-2005, 02:39 AM

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</P> <P>Displaying mitigation and avoidance has indeed revealed a class disparity, because the tanks that are supposed to be avoidance based are, in certain cases, not avoiding as well as a tank that is meant to be mitigation based.</P> <P>It was never our intent that avoidance is a 100% thing, but that's basically how it is currently being used. This isn't just a problem with raid mobs, one that is present at all levels of play. There is, at every level range, a spot where you can select opponents that have little to no chance to hit you. Once again, that's not our intent.</P> <P>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</P> <P>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>This was actually an issue with the ranger hybrid class in EQ1 which was never really resolved directly, they basically had to be given detaunts and better armor drops to fix the issue. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The thing is, that as you get higher up in encounter levels, the Mobs hit harder as has been said in the quote. Now if the avoidance is basically on a flat curve, but damage on a higher curve, you can probably set up an equation to easily show that avoidance type fighters will basically take more damage as they and their encounters go up in level and difficulty. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> In other words, at level 20, one in ten blows will land, say for damage equal to 10% of the fighter's hitpoints. However, at level 30, one blow in ten might land for 30% of the fighters hitpoints.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So avoidance for these types has to have some kind of augmentation as the character levels to keep avoidance on the same (or better) curve as the average DPS of the monsters they will fight, especially since the higher level encounters are going to end up being more monsters than the lower level ones.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The tough part is that equipment-centric games have a huge variance, since some people are lucky, some people are not as up to date on what equipment they should have, while others buy massive amounts of platinum from plat farmers that are not kept in check by the Sony Corporation. Really hard to find a good control group to use in that case.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>addendum: </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> One idea may be to set a heuristic that heavier armor actually caps avoidance. This makes sense, as dodging in Teutonic full plate is "slighlty" difficult. So the light armor fighters end up with a bonus to avoidance while the heavy armor fighters still retain the basic avoidance but it cannot be augmented beyond a certain point. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by einar438 on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

-Aonein-

03-24-2005, 03:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Ariven wrote:</P> <P><SPAN>My berserker has more than just hitting and getting hit.. I have group buffs, wards to help mitigate damage on another party member and truly phenominal agro control... I cant keep as good a control over mobs with my monk as I can with my serker..<BR><BR></SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Ariven, where does a Berserker get wards? Cause i think i missed that ability over 45 levels somewhere, or maybe im bugged /shrug.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the end of the day, no matter what Devs do, Plate class tanks will still be chosen on Raid mobs for the simple fact, <STRONG><U>Mitigation</U></STRONG>. Priests arent going to struggle to keep a Monk / Bruiser alive just because he wants to gloat that he can tank Raid mobs, because if your fighting Herioc Riad epic mobs, then no matter how much Avoidance you have, you are still going to be hit because there attack rating is going to surpass the 100% avoidance you have. Later on, we are going to be coming up against mobs that have 7 - 8k melee damage, a Monk isnt going to be standing there taking that damage for the simple reason :</DIV> <OL> <LI>They dont get the HP a plate class gets.</LI> <LI>They dont get the mitigation a plate class gets.</LI> <LI>Avoidance is unpredicable, and a bad roll against your avoidance number will still wipe you out in 2 - 3 hits no mater how you look at it because you dont get the mitigation a plate class gets.</LI></OL> <P>Personally, i dont see what the problem is, i can selfbuff myself to 49% mitigation and around 63% avoidance with a sheild, with out a shield im 57% avoidance against a lvl 45 mob. So Berserkers are basically 50 / 50, where they should be. Guardians can get 75% mitigation and around the same avoidance, Monks / Brusiers can get 40% mitigation and around 75 - 80% avoidance as it is now, so all one has to do is run a parser with a Monk / Bruiser tanking, and set the parser to total hits missed, blocked, parried and see who comes out on top, and no it wont be a Guard or Berserker. Even the scout class can a higher Avoidance percentage then Plate class because of the amout of Agility they recieve. Any class on a raid can 100% avoidance, any class in a group can get 100% avoidance, its not just Guardians.</P> <P>Before they adjust anything, they <STRONG><U>NEED TO FIX COMBAT ARTS, ABILITIES, SPELLS</U></STRONG> before anymore nerfing, fixing or adjusting even happens, with all the broken spells and arts at the moment, no one knows if they are arthur or martha, and that is the <STRONG><U>BULK</U></STRONG> of the problem.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45h Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P>

-Aonein-

03-24-2005, 03:22 AM

<DIV>Sorry cut myself short, there is one way around fixing Plate class tanks, and that would be to remove some of the agility of our Armor and replace it with a higher Mitigation rating, that way we get hit more, we still mitigate damage just as well cause we are getting hit more but for less due to the higher mitigation value, and fix buff stacking, its that simple, they wouldnt even have to adjust NPC's.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Wilin

03-24-2005, 03:38 AM

FamilyManFirst, you have alot of faith in SOE's reshuffling capabilities.I'm not sure what "cat" is out of the bag. Monks need love?Based on the numbers posted above, avoidance progression for monks seems to be fubared if you only get 8% more in 24 levels. Maybe that's the only problem. Because looking at a 26 monk vs. 36 guardian, the monk has 11% more avoidance without the guardian buffs. That seems very reasonable especially for a monk that is 10 levels lower and can't even group for xp with a 36 guardian.Again, the monk is too low to group but has 11% more avoidance.

FamilyManFir

03-24-2005, 03:41 AM

Aonein, he may have used poor wording, but Infuriation and Vehemence are protective buffs (granted, not Wards, but certainly buffs that help ward away attacks from vulnerable party members). Moreover, I disagree with you that Mitigation is the be-all and end-all best attribute of a Tank. Number one is aggro management, number two is damage dissipation; whether that dissipation is through Mitigation or Avoidance is irrelevant. Where you can get into a debate is on damage spikes, and you bring up a valid point on the degree of damage dealt by raid and (future) high-level mobs beyond 50. I honestly don't know what they're going to do to deal with that, but deal with it they must or else repudiate their own Archetype system, which I don't believe they'll do. They may be going in the right direction with this most recent post by Moorgard; more frequent, lighter hits would be easier to manage along those lines than hits of higher and higher impact. Changing how various defensive abilites scale and how they're buffed also may help a great degree along those lines. I will agree with you, however, that Combat Art and Spell issues need to be fixed before radical adjustments are made (for all that I want my monk fixed and I want it NOW!). It's tough, if not impossible, to judge the impact of major changes against broken abilities. <div></div>

ArivenGemini

03-24-2005, 03:44 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:<blockquote><hr><p>Ariven wrote:</p><p><span>My berserker has more than just hitting and getting hit.. I have group buffs, wards to help mitigate damage on another party member and truly phenominal agro control... I cant keep as good a control over mobs with my monk as I can with my serker..</span></p><hr></blockquote><div>Ariven, where does a Berserker get wards? Cause i think i missed that ability over 45 levels somewhere, or maybe im bugged /shrug.<hr></div></blockquote><div>I am referring to Intervene. It is one of those tomato tohmahto pronouciation thing.. it is a ward to me because that is how I think of it...</div></span><div></div>

Damari

03-24-2005, 03:45 AM

<P>Just a thought, couldn't you just add a negative avoidance value to heavy armor? In all D&D games ever created, the heavier the armor, the less dexterity bonus was received, especially for plate and heavy plate etc. Therefore the heavy armor classes still have their high mitigation but a more 'appropriate' avoidance, while the light armor classes will still have the higher avoidance.</P> <P>Leave the medium, light and very light as it is.</P> <P> </P> <P>Just a thought.</P> <P> </P> <P>Damari</P>

Wilin

03-24-2005, 03:45 AM

Be careful what you wish for...good luck. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

FamilyManFir

03-24-2005, 03:54 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Wilin wrote:FamilyManFirst, you have alot of faith in SOE's reshuffling capabilities.I'm not sure what "cat" is out of the bag. Monks need love?Based on the numbers posted above, avoidance progression for monks seems to be fubared if you only get 8% more in 24 levels. Maybe that's the only problem. Because looking at a 26 monk vs. 36 guardian, the monk has 11% more avoidance without the guardian buffs. That seems very reasonable especially for a monk that is 10 levels lower and can't even group for xp with a 36 guardian.Again, the monk is too low to group but has 11% more avoidance.<hr></blockquote>Willin, because it's measured against an "average mob of the same level," <font color="#ff0000">Avoidance should stay largely the same between level 20 and level 50</font>. The only things that will change it are higher Agility, a better shield (for plate tanks), and buffs gained at higher levels that increase one of the three defensive skills: Defense, Parry, and (for Brawlers) Deflection. Level itself has nothing to do with it. The "cat" that's out of the bag is that Guardians, who are supposed to be masters of Mitigation, are instead using Avoidance to accomplish one of the primary tasks of their role: damage dissipation. Indeed, from Moorgards post, it appears that <i>all</i> classes are relying more on Avoidance than Mitigation to survive which was apparently not SOE's intention. FWIW I am <i>not</i> all that confident in SOE's "reshuffling abilites" but I give them credit for the best of intentions. I certainly expect them to <i>try</i> to do their best to balance any change that they make.</span><div></div>

-Aonein-

03-24-2005, 04:17 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FamilyManFirst wrote:<BR>Aonein, he may have used poor wording, but Infuriation and Vehemence are protective buffs (granted, not Wards, but certainly buffs that help ward away attacks from vulnerable party members).<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Infuriation and Vehemence add Avoidance percentage to the avoidance number in your Persona Window, but at the moment its bugged and not adding anything to the number. Infuriation and Vehemence are for when a Berserker isnt tanking, thay add us a chance to Berserk and a extra bit of a Avoidance to the Main Tank. In my honest opion, i think the number it adds is far too high, here look this is what i get :</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>Infuriation Adept I</U></STRONG> :</DIV> <UL> <LI>Increase Avoidance of target by 35%</LI> <LI>Casts Berserk on caster. On successfull attack this spell has a 10% chance to cause berserk.</LI></UL> <P>I dont have Vehemence yet, but its basically the same with a higher avoidance percentage, if you ( Berserker ) are tanking and lose agro during a fight, this spell is useless to try and cast on someone cause it takes so long to cast it you could of gotten agro back by the time the buff hit the person.</P> <P>One thing people have gotta remember, whats the point of agro control with out the ability to tank OR survive the agro in the frist place? Tanks = Mitigation, Tanks dont = Avoidance, which is why i think SoE screwed up putting Monks / Brusiers in the fighter class.</P> <P>Here is something for people to endulge in, SoE built and designed EQ2 from feedback they recieved from EQ1 players, all the feed back they gathered over the years is what you see here today, the reason Brawler is in the Fighter archtype is because of all the whiners from EQ1 playing monks and being Tank wanna be's, but wanted to have high DPS also. Of course, they never got it on EQ1, but they implemented it here, just HO's were orginally planned for EQ1, and a number of other ideas that they use here were canned for EQ1 and implemented here instead.</P> <P>Now lets take a look at the new Bloodlines adventure pack, Monks get a upto 5k damage melee damage spell that is on a 5 min counter, reguardless of what it can be used on, you still got it, easy solo kills or no arrow kills. Now look at what a Berserker gets, i get a 3 min 162 damage shield implying that yes i have to be hit, then when it wears of, <STRONG><U>I DIE</U></STRONG>, then to top it off, its on a 1 hour reuse timer, its basically utterly useless. Not sure what a Guardian gets, but if its anything like Bersekers, then i need say no more.</P> <P>So once again, Moorgard countuines to fuel the fire, while he states that Brawlers are indeed tanks, but hey, lets give them uber DPS skills that they can use to waste any solo or no arrow con mob every 5 mins, the Bloodline art is a perfect example plus you out DPS all other Fighters in that range, and lets make them more on par with the rest of the tank class. Lets give Plate class tanks a poxy damage shield, cause hey, there suppose to be hit, but lets put it on a 1 hour reuse timer and how can we add some spice to it.........I know, lets make it kill the tank when it wears off........:smileyindifferent:, not even remotely funny. So basically, there implying that yes you are DPS that can tank.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P>

Gno

03-24-2005, 04:55 AM

Among our several characters my wife plays a Monk (who duos with my Templar) while I play a Guardian (who duos with her Conjurer or Warden). When my Guardian duos with the Conjurer, I die quite easily, thank you very much. Those characters, among others, are presently in their mid 20s. We each play 30-45 hours a week, as we have since release, and also keep traders up whenever the servers are. My strongest desire regarding whatever actions are taken to "balance" classes is that they not be driven primarily by problems perceived at the top levels and in raiding content. Players like my wife and I are not likely to ever play in those circumstances. That's not to say we won't be playing a lot for a number of years. Rather, that we are far more likely to have 16 characters in their mid to late 40s and all the artisan classes maxed before we even consider anything more than occasional, casual raiding. We played about the same about in EQLive for two years before getting any character to 65. A significant part of why we switched to EQ2 was that so much of the changes to EQLive were driven by a loud, vocal minority of end-game raiders. I wish those level 45+ players the best and hope that SOE keeps them happy. I do not want their satisfaction with EQ2 to come at the expense of my wife's and my own. Selfish? Sure. We play the way we enjoy. However, I would certainly not want changes made to the game that delighted me but infuriated raid-oriented players. I respectfully suggest that only simplistic, knee-jerk reactions lead to situations like that. If a proposed solution negatively impacts some players to benefit others, I suggest that more thought and resources should be applied to come up with a more appropriate solution. Additionally, I personally find the whole argument about which class can or can't get a place in a group based upon the abilities of some other class as worse than irrelevant. That whole approach toward grouping is a large part of why grouping holds less interest to me than duoing or soloing. I enjoy grouping just fine if the people are out to have a good time, going toward some goals and seeing what we can do with whoever we have. If the group is all priests, or all monks, so what? If players perceive that they can't enjoy playing EQ2 that way, then as far as I'm concerned EQ2's broken. If Monks, or any others, have trouble getting in groups, then their class issues need to be addressed, but not by breaking some other class. In my experience the "holy trinity" is more evil than holy and the same goes for the "perfect group." To each their own.<div></div>

FamilyManFir

03-24-2005, 04:57 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:<div> Infuriation and Vehemence add Avoidance percentage to the avoidance number in your Persona Window, but at the moment its bugged and not adding anything to the number. Infuriation and Vehemence are for when a Berserker isnt tanking, thay add us a chance to Berserk and a extra bit of a Avoidance to the Main Tank.</div><hr></blockquote>I think that that was Ariven's point; Berserkers have utility beyond aggro management and getting hit, this is one example. </span><span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:<div>One thing people have gotta remember, whats the point of agro control with out the ability to tank OR survive the agro in the frist place? Tanks = Mitigation, Tanks dont = Avoidance, which is why i think SoE screwed up putting Monks / Brusiers in the fighter class.</div><hr></blockquote></span>With good Avoidance a Tank can survive the aggro just fine. Tanks <> Mitigation, Tanks = Damage Dissipation, by whatever means available. Case in point: right now, <i>most of the Damage Dissipation of high level plate tanks comes from Avoidance</i>, not Mitigation. Take away half of Guardians' and Berserkers' Avoidance and watch the players scream (justifiably). I have to admit, IMHO, SOE did Monks no favors with their new Bloodlines Combat Art. This looks more properly like a Bruiser-type skill. However, I stand by my statement that Monks are Tanks, Monks are supposed to be Tanks, and Monks are supposed to be Tanks equally effective at "Tanking" as Guardians. Moreover, all the statements by devs and all the actions by SOE save this one, I believe, back me up. Edited for clarity. <span></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:00 PM</span>

Gaige

03-24-2005, 05:18 AM

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Here is something for people to endulge in, SoE built and designed EQ2 from feedback they recieved from EQ1 players, all the feed back they gathered over the years is what you see here today, <FONT color=#ffff00>the reason Brawler is in the Fighter archtype is because of all the whiners from EQ1 playing monks and being Tank wanna be's</FONT>, but wanted to have high DPS also. Of course, they never got it on EQ1, but they implemented it here, just HO's were orginally planned for EQ1, and a number of other ideas that they use here were canned for EQ1 and implemented here instead.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Do you enjoy being a close minded, trash talking elitest?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So it was "whiners" and "wanna be's" who got the monk/bruiser class put in the fighter tree?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I mean, it couldn't have been "whiners" who got their avoidance nerfed in EQ1 in the first place, coud it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We aren't trying to take your job, we are trying to be able to do ours.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Besides, right now you are doing our job with such high avoidance. Leave the avoidance tanking to us.<BR></DIV>

Troodon

03-24-2005, 05:29 AM

A plea to the developers: In ballancing of Brawler and Warrior, Mitigation and Avoidance, please remember there is another group whom will be caught in the crossfire, the third member of the Fighter trinity: the Crusader. Anyway, thank you for taking a time to look at Fighters, hopefully after the dust has settled no one will feel slighted and Brawlers will again be able to share the mantle of the principal role of the Fighter archetype, the tank. C'est le vie. <div></div>

FamilyManFir

03-24-2005, 05:43 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>TroodonIE wrote:A plea to the developers: In ballancing of Brawler and Warrior, Mitigation and Avoidance, please remember there is another group whom will be caught in the crossfire, the third member of the Fighter trinity: the Crusader. Anyway, thank you for taking a time to look at Fighters, hopefully after the dust has settled no one will feel slighted and Brawlers will again be able to share the mantle of the principal role of the Fighter archetype, the tank. C'est le vie. <div></div><hr></blockquote>True, TroodonIE, but it goes even farther than that. Other entire Archetypes need to be considered, as any significant changes will spill over directly into Priests (how will it affect the classes' specialty healing spells?), Rogues (will any changes alter their ability to handle the damage that mobs hand out?) and Mages (if mobs hit faster for less damage does that mean more spell interrupts when the mob's engaged with the Mage?). I certainly hope, and expect, that the devs are talking about all these issues (they'd better, since we've now alerted them with these posts! <span>:smileyhappy:</span>). My primary concern is that they may not take the time to <i>thoroughly</i> test out any changes, with all 40 Archetypes, Classes, and Subclasses, at all levels (well, at least midway through each tier and at level 50). Moreover I am worried that too many Spells and Combat Arts are broken at this time to properly judge any large change like this one. We'll see.</span><div></div>

Ughor

03-24-2005, 06:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <HR> In closing I would like to say I did even more testing in Permafrost tonight between a lvl 50 guardian and a lvl 50 monk. Same group only the main tanks switched out. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Testing, how was this a test?</P> <P>- It was a Perma run that lasted all of 15 mins, so your sample size was insignificant.</P> <P>- You weren't in control of any variables or factors whatsoever.</P> <P>- None of the participants, especially the tanks themselves were informed of this supposed test.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> With the monk tanking it was pure hell, he went into the yellow and orange asap and could not hold agro to save his life and he was trying. He would lose agro so easy and then work to get it back. The healers had to work to keep him alive and unlike with the guardian we did not get much past the first spiral up ramp before the group called for an evac. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Absolute ROFL, I haven't laughed this hard in such a long time. Ok lets answer your observations step by step...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- I went into the yellow once and orange once, both on seperate occasions from adds and lucky mob hitting streaks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- We had a level 48 Mystic as our healer, (Note the singularity, that's correct 1 healer, not plural healers as you incorrectly state), that was randomly and sporadically casting wards on me. And guess what, yup you guessed it, both times I was in the yellow or lower I was tanking 2 level 49 ^^ mobs with no wards and no heals apart from my own mend until the Mystic woke up about half way through the fight and started using her normal [Removed for Content] heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- I have taken you on Perma runs on at least one ocassion before Kalidor and I find it somewhat farcical that you would use an aborted 15min run where obviously the Mystic wasn't doing her job as factual data and a "test run that you organised" to back your own opinions as solid data. You know as well as I do that with a solid healer of any type doing their job properly I eat up Perma alive, I have single handedly tanked Gyrok an x2 in Perma with a group of 5 and our guild's level 48 Mystic and funnily enough just about every other x2 in game with our normal guild group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- I only lost agro once, on the final fight with the adds. So I am not sure where you get "he would lose agro so easy and then work to get it back" from, but that is absolute BS and we both know it. And I would dispute me losing agro in this last fight anyway, considering the adds agroed the healer because she hadn't stayed behind me like I had forewarned everyone at the start.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- The simple fact is that when I tank there are only 3 ways I can lose agro, an add agro's another party member or a party member agro's a mob before I have taunted it. Which is what happened in this case. Or finally a DPS class like a Wizzie goes nuke happy, in this case I usually let them tank for 2-3 hits so that the message sinks in.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> With the guardian we took the place by storm and kill all the named ^^ and never had to worry about evacing or agro control. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <P>- On the previous run that I took you on through Perma, how many hours solid did we experience, quest and killed names? It was a 4-5 hour run from memory, I took you and the rest of the group to almost every part of Perma, each time running through all the named and their PH's each time returning to the statue room for statue quest updates. And I also seem to remember you and the rest of the group saying that was the best xp and Perma run you had ever seen.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> For the record the monks avoidance was 78% and his mitigation was 1800 the guardians avoidance was 65% and mitigation was 3000.<BR>The group was made up of a mystic, wizard, ranger, templar and me so even thou we had no bard we was balanced and ready(who needs bards now anyway since they been nerfed so bad). <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <P>- The avoidance has already been addressed by Moorguard, so there's no need for me to comment on these figures.</P> <P>- And serious ROFL's once again! The group had 5 in it, not 6, but 5. The 5 were myself, you, a Wizard from my guild, the Mystic and the Ranger. There was no Templar, there was in fact an empty spot that the Swashbuckler I was helping earlier in Everfrost was supposed to fill shortly after we started. Really now, if you're going to make statements and report conclusions based on these supposed "test runs" you perform, you should at least get all the facts correct.<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> I hate to do this but I know people are interested in seeing the toons involved so here they are.<BR><BR>Level 50 Monk<BR>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=111263110<BR><BR>Level 50 Guardian<BR>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=141435110<BR> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I am quite happy with my stats and achievements, so thanks for the free publicity...note the just over 100 deaths and 350+ mobs killed per death statistics, pretty funny stats given that I have a) tanked my entire career from level 1 to 50, b) been level 50 since early January, c) tanked everything in game up to x2, usually in a single group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In summation I actually agree with some of what you are saying about Monk tanking and avoidance in particular, but don't act as if it is something you have single handedly discovered and that it is going to be your golden shining 15 minutes of fame. The Monk community has known about the avoidance issues basically since day 1, ever since Gangsterfist and Gage started posting in the forums about their tanking results. I myself knew about it even before then, being someone who logged and parsed every single type of encounter, (defensively and offensively), in game with a huge number of different setups with my self buffs, group buffs and equipment. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We all knew this new display of avoidance was finally going to wake SOE up to the issues we have raised since late November of 2004 about Monk avoidance, some like to post factual data in the forums, some like to rant and rave, and finally other johnny come lately's like to jump on the dead horse bandwagon and beat their chests furiously screaming "look at me, look at me". Which type are you?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. I am the type that actually uses /feedback and /bug every day, I don't have time to post on the forums usually.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S.S In future please refrain from using my toon in any of your so called "test runs", I would also think that getting the toon's permission before posting garbage like this in the future would be good form <3</DIV>

Ili

03-24-2005, 06:16 AM

<DIV>What blows my mind...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What cooks my noodle...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What is the most *incredible* thing about thes Monk/Guardian debates is...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why do people bring in FD and Invis into the equasion? Every time. I swear. It's like, they see some Monk running around using FD in every group they're in, or something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yeah, Monk invis isn't so great. While I won't give up my phenomonal DPS (laugh) for those two arts, I would give them up for the ability to know that I can tank for a party without the possibility of getting wiped from really crappy luck, thanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Ilina</DIV>

Mie

03-24-2005, 06:18 AM

<DIV>Thats enough. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The vision is very clear. We are going to see a superman. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hope gaga know where get that weapon that can proc 600+ damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Almost forgotten , if they want tank so much, remove their build-in shield let them use a shield off hand.</DIV>

Ili

03-24-2005, 06:22 AM

<DIV>(Edited because I forgot about Fist weapons. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I've been at work all day, leave me alone.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Ilina</DIV><p>Message Edited by Ilina on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:23 PM</span>

Owa

03-24-2005, 06:24 AM

'They'? Who's 'they'? The devious International Monk Confederacy bent on world domination and committed to spoiling EQ2? Come on. <p>Message Edited by annaspider on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:28 PM</span>

Tatali

03-24-2005, 06:29 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>FamilyManFirst wrote:<span>True, TroodonIE, but it goes even farther than that. Other entire Archetypes need to be considered, as any significant changes will spill over directly into Priests (how will it affect the classes' specialty healing spells?), Rogues (will any changes alter their ability to handle the damage that mobs hand out?) and Mages (if mobs hit faster for less damage does that mean more spell interrupts when the mob's engaged with the Mage?). I certainly hope, and expect, that the devs are talking about all these issues (they'd better, since we've now alerted them with these posts! <span>:smileyhappy:</span>). My primary concern is that they may not take the time to <i>thoroughly</i> test out any changes, with all 40 Archetypes, Classes, and Subclasses, at all levels (well, at least midway through each tier and at level 50). Moreover I am worried that too many Spells and Combat Arts are broken at this time to properly judge any large change like this one. We'll see.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>It extends even further still, changes were made as a "lets see if this works to fix the problem" and now to remove those would be called a nerf. For example, the issue was warriors were still tanking far better than brawlers. As we can see now, the reason is both warriors and brawlers were getting their avoidance raised to the point where they were almost equal, yet warriors had the mitigation to back up the hits that went though making them superior tanks. Solution: increase mitigation on light armor. Now, they see clearly that everyone was playing the roll of an avoidance tank, not just brawlers, they're looking at bringing the game back to "warrior mitigates, brawlers avoid". How is the light armor mitigation bonus going to play into all this? Are brawlers going to be given "less" avoidance than was planned for? Is light armor going to be "nerfed" to bring it into line with the new methods? I'm not here trying to say, "omg, nerf leather" just saying its another thing that changed without really fixing the problem. I'm sure brawlers saw that, they still got hammered more than warriors. Somehow its going to need to be addressed when the changes come along. Also, what happens with caster mobs who got the new nuke bonuses that sorc's got? This was another case of mobs being boosted up before they uncovered the real problem was sorc spells were just too weak to begin with. Now, mobs got the same percent increase to what was "balanced" turn them into deathtouch casters. Its good to see SOE is willing to look at the changes. I've had guildmates leave over these sorts of issues becuase some people could tank a mob naked and it not matter due to avoidance buffs. To them, it just made the game too stupid to play when gear didn't matter much at all, only what buffs you had.</span><div></div>

Ughor

03-24-2005, 06:29 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SomeDudeCRO wrote:<BR>"With the monk tanking it was pure hell, he went into the yellow and orange asap and could not hold agro to save his life and he was trying. He would lose agro so easy and then work to get it back. The healers had to work to keep him alive and unlike with the guardian we did not get much past the first spiral up ramp before the group called for an evac"<BR><BR>Oh, come on now, its not that bad. I've tanked that place ad nosium, sometimes with groups of 4 and never had an issue. <BR><BR>I'm not sure what your monk or you group was doing, but you should be able to do much better.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>The monk, as in me was doing just fine...I have cleaned Perma out literally hundreds of times, 95% of the time as MT. Neverlift aka Kalidor decided he was going to beat his dead horse with some nonsence that would bring him closer to the day when he can proclaim that he single-handedly fixed Monk avoidance.</P> <P>P.S. My guilded Wizard evaced us out after he saw what was happening and apologised to me profusely for the poor standard of the group he had invited me to and particularly for the Mystic's poor form. Meh...you do someone a favour and this is what happens :/</P> <P> </P> <P>Ughor, level 50 Monk, Highkeep.</P>

-Aonein-

03-24-2005, 06:31 AM

<P>Ok here is a scenario that might work, but first, Gage, your a idoit. You havent even played EQ1, you've no idea what your even talking about, here let me enlighten you, what You and you elitest monks want here, is what monks have been striving for on EQ1 for the past <STRONG><U>3 years</U></STRONG>. We have supplyed enough argumentive information and parse data to make your eyes bleed, so spare me your view on a game you yourself havent even played. By the way, monks are finally getting what they been striving for in dribs and drabs over the last 3 years, just now, but its a little too late after losing 90% of the monk community, plus the game is basically a ghost town now.</P> <P>Now, let me ask the Fighter archtype there views on <STRONG><U>Defense</U></STRONG> skill. Now to me, Defense should add to Mitigation, it makes sense, Defense = Mitigation, not avoidance, the word Defense makes me think of Mitigation. Now when you look at it this way, if Devs changed Defense to add to Mitigation, that leaves us with Block, Parry, Agility for Avoidance, which is basically all we need right? But, if Avoidance is still too high after Defense gets converted into Mitigation, then what about removing some Agility of our Plate armor and converting the Agility they take, into extra Mitigation supplied by the Armor itself. So lets look at it this way :</P> <OL> <LI>Defense instead of adding too Avoidance, gets converted into Mitigation reducing our avoidance and increasing our mitigation.</LI> <LI>If Avoidance is still too high, remove some, not all, Agility from Plate Armor and replace it with extra added Mitigation values to the same peices it was taken from.</LI> <LI>This leaves us with increased Mitigation, a large amount of Avoidance adjusted, and there is no need to adjust NPC damage output, cause the extra Mitigation we recieve from Defense and Armor, will make up for the amount of times we will get hit now, Simple?</LI></OL> <P>Now if they do this, is there a reason to go all out and change NPC damage output and get all crazy and have to do a massive game breaking change? I dont think so. Now after these changes lets look at it like this keep in mind im only going to refer to Fighter class since this is all to do with us :</P> <P>Guardian : Mitigation 75% Avoidance 20% ( No Shield )</P> <P>Berserker : Mitigation 65% Avoidance 30% ( No Shield )</P> <P>Paladin / Shadow Knight : Mitigation 55% Avoidance 40% ( With Shield )</P> <P>Monk / Brusier : Mitigation 35% Avoidance 75% ( Which is basically what Monks / Brusiers are now anyway )</P> <P>Now dont get me wrong im not saying this is what the values should be, this is just a indication of what it could look like, and i think its a much easier, cleaner and neater way at adjusting things then having to do a whole game revamp, a whole game revamp seems a little far fetched to me, and i feel it will do more bad then any good.</P> <P>Now if they do the above, which i turely hope they do, then all they would have to fix and adjust now is buff stacking, which in my honest opion, THEY NEED TO FIX COMBAT ARTS, ABILITIES, SPELLS first before doing any thing drastic, i am going to keep hammering this home till something gets done about it, cause this could be the whole reason it *LOOKS* like Guardians are getting missed so much, and also keep in mind, ANY class can get 100% avoidance, which brings me back to the point of Buff stacking. But on a final note, i still believe and feel that Defense skill should add to Mitigation, it just makes sense.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P>

Gaige

03-24-2005, 06:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> annaspider wrote:<BR> 'They'? Who's 'they'? The devious International Monk Confederacy bent on world domination and committed to spoiling EQ2? Come on. <P>Message Edited by annaspider on <SPAN class=date_text>03-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:28 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>HAHAHA ROFL!</P> <P>That sounds like a case for Austin Powers.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-24-2005, 06:42 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Ok here is a scenario that might work, but first, Gage, your a idoit. </P> <P>Now, let me ask the Fighter archtype there views on <STRONG><U>Defense</U></STRONG> skill. Now to me, Defense should add to Mitigation, it makes sense, Defense = Mitigation, not avoidance, the word Defense makes me think of Mitigation. Now when you look at it this way, if Devs changed Defense to add to Mitigation, that leaves us with Block, Parry, Agility for Avoidance, which is basically all we need right? But, if Avoidance is still too high after Defense gets converted into Mitigation, then what about removing some Agility of our Plate armor and converting the Agility they take, into extra Mitigation supplied by the Armor itself. So lets look at it this way :</P> <OL> <LI>Defense instead of adding too Avoidance, gets converted into Mitigation reducing our avoidance and increasing our mitigation.</LI> <LI>If Avoidance is still too high, remove some, not all, Agility from Plate Armor and replace it with extra added Mitigation values to the same peices it was taken from.</LI> <LI>This leaves us with increased Mitigation, a large amount of Avoidance adjusted, and there is no need to adjust NPC damage output, cause the extra Mitigation we recieve from Defense and Armor, will make up for the amount of times we will get hit now, Simple?</LI></OL> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First: You're not your.</P> <P>Second: I already posted about the defense skill in the combat forum.<BR></P>

SageMarrow

03-24-2005, 07:10 AM

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>radric... why does everyone take the time to single out everything i say....</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Because you respond to every post with meaningless and incorrect statements, perpetually. People are calling you on it. Case in point, your next statement.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>SageMarrow wrote:<BR></P> <P>what does the word <STRONG><EM><U>REALLY</U></EM></STRONG>... mean to you? to me it implies, it can be used for that purpose but in some cases can be used for others.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG>re·al·ly</STRONG><BR><I>adv.</I></P> <OL> <LI>In actual truth or fact: The horseshoe crab isn't really a crab at all. <LI>Truly; genuinely: That was a really enjoyable evening. <LI>Indeed: Really, you shouldn't have done it.</LI></OL> <P><A href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=really" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=really</FONT></A></P> <P>Sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what it means, not me.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>SageMarrow wrote:<BR>So keep in mind whatever change they make will matter MOUNDS, they are going to have to make either a gamebreaking decision or a archetype breaking one. id rather it be archetype before game breaking. and if anyone has a problem with that- sue me. </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I think you're full of crap. Nothing has to be broken. If one player wants to run around in gleaming platemail with enormous shields, swingling a firey longsword, while another wants to use his bear fists while wearing robes, that is a matter of taste, and certainly not a matter of breaking the game or even the archetype if the two are equal in stature. </P> <P>Honestly what difference does it make who is the tank for a raid? Why would you stop fighters from being the tank for a raid? Why would you even suggest that one subclass should be THE ONLY subclass to be able to perform this role? Let's make templars the only healer for raids, no one else gets to come. Let's make wizards the only nukers. Let's make assassins the only melee DPS. Boy! these sound like GREAT ideas.</P> <P>You need to realize that allowing only one class to perform a single function in the game is ITSELF GAME BREAKING! Conversely, I will agree that people need to be able to fill more than one role so that no one is pigeon holed. This includes Guardians. Guardians should have the ability to do DPS if they are not tanking. And so far as I have seen, they can. If it needs to be upped a little bit, fine. But using that "we have low DPS" card to maintain the top tank spot is just asking for more arguments. Fighters should be valuable for the tank-buffs and damage they bring to a group, assuming they are not the main tank.</P> <P>No fighter should ever be gated from fighter content. Since they are tanks, any fighter should be valuable as a tank, even in raids. </P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33> First off radric, i nor anyone else is here anylonger to argue. i will say a few things and move on.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>multiple healers arent needed on raids to heal. they are needed for buff stacking first, then healing second.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If you think im full of crap, then explain to me what a nerf is??? to you its a monk being able to tank raid mobs, to a guardian its called being broke,</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so pull out your dictionary for that one. and you yourself said, whats the difference in who tanks for a raid? lol= you contradict your own statement- if that was truly the case = then you would be satisfied sitting behind the epic mob punching it in its tail... right? and we can drop the whole arguement, they can give us some better taunts and fluff our aerses under the table right? wrong.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>So get off my case, do you want to know why i dont have any backup or following on this? Its because rude MOther *** like gage, sniperkitty, you, and a few others not to name names, ran them off because they cant even get word in without people shoving "moorguard wrote:' down there throats.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>We read it and we know what the hell it says, but apparently your precious moorguard didnt think there was a gap in between the fighter classes at all until they separated the numbers, and magically there was this big revalation that there is a problem. So all of you pro=tank monks and whoever else can keep slobbing up moorguard, but moorguard knows what he is told, and does not program anybody's code in game. he tells us what THEY tell him to tell us.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Which also seems to illustrate why he has showed a lack of patience as of late. all his post entail something that results in "please put out the fires and go back in your homes". Just because he re=itterates that monks brawlers are tanks, that doesnt entail anything regarding in what capacity, in regards to other classes in the same archetype, what they are doing to change it, what they EVEN THINK they are gonna do to change it. The are just as screwed over on this game as we are and if you dont believe it and think its a myth, look at the economy - look at tradeskilling - look at the approach to nerfs and patchs and nerfs and patchs -before anything is fixed. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so if you think im full of [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] - thats fine - i dont care = but you and your group of ignorant fan boys can have this game after they screw the system up even more and we can all come back and play 3 years from now when the get crap back in order. And anyone with EQ1 backgroud and anyone with SENSE about what soe does and is capable of will tell you the exact same thing, any day , all day , everyday. </FONT></P> <P>And that last paragraph is crap that ive said LONG time ago, so why would you flame me and then turn around and agree with my point...that make little or no sense,</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:15 PM</span>

Onion

03-24-2005, 07:19 AM

<P>Wow Kalidor. Give me a break dude. </P> <P> </P> <P>For one... You quoted as saying there was no change in the group, and being there, i can say this is wrong. For one, when the monk (ughor) tanked, we had 1 healer. Where as when the guard tanked, we have two healers. That proves that your test was inacurate and NOT the same other than the tanks.... </P> <P> </P> <P>Next time, as Ughor said, please do not use his name in your post, and make sure your data is correct BEFORE posting stupid comments that are obvioulsy false and easily proven wrong. </P> <P> </P> <P>THANKS.</P>

MoonglumHMV

03-24-2005, 08:52 AM

<FONT color=#ffff00 size=4>FOR THE LOVE OF ANYTHING HOLY CAN WE POSSIBLY HAVE A THREAD DISCUSSING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T END UP IN A NAME CALLING, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG, GOD AWFUL [Removed for Content] CONTEST!!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?</FONT> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EDIT: My apologies to anyone offended by this. This started off as a decent discussion for about 2 pages or so, then about the last 4 gave me a migrane....</DIV><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:55 PM</span>

Noah

03-24-2005, 08:57 AM

<P>Did some number hashing... looks like everything is working fine unless people just want to see a larger gap in numbers for their own self ownage..</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=9111" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=9111</A></P>

Belce

03-24-2005, 09:05 AM

<P>One of the important things to keep in mind is that the all sub classes are equal was also qualified with each sub class has a unique role or a sitiuation they do best at. If what you want is an exp group and need a tank, any of the six types will fill in just fine and if you add a second they can all play a support role just fine. Pointing to special situations, like epic raids, and pointing out that another class fullfills role x better than yours does is an indication that the arch type balancing that we have has been done correctly. </P> <P>Lets make four groups for a lvl 54x4 target. Possiblely we could have someone from each sub class represented to create this raid. Any buff possible is available to us, equipment, quality of combat arts/buffs are equal, lets say master for all and all with best equipment. </P> <P>Does the fact that assigned roles within that group when varied indicate that class x is broken because that situation is harder when they have that role? no.</P> <P>Can you contribute positively to your group's exp play? Then you are fulfilling your role and you are balanced.</P> <P>Do you have a positive role to play in special epic raid content, does your presence make a difference? If yes, and it is yes, then you are balanced. </P> <P>I haven't encountered a class that can't contribute well to an exp group and I haven't encountered a sub class that doesn't have a valid job in a raid and makes a difference. </P> <P> </P>

IvarIronhea

03-24-2005, 12:02 PM

<DIV> <DIV><EM>Why do people bring in FD and Invis into the equasion? Every time. I swear. It's like, they see some Monk running around using FD in every group they're in, or something.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>And yeah, Monk invis isn't so great. While I won't give up my phenomonal DPS (laugh) for those two arts, I would give them up for the ability to know that I can tank for a party without the possibility of getting wiped from really crappy luck, thanks.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These things are brought up for an obvious reason. If you want to tank <STRONG>exactly</STRONG> the same as a defense orientated class, sacrifices need to be made. There is no point in playing a class if another class clones all their functions <STRONG>and</STRONG> has added tools for other situations. Utility must match and DPS must match if tanking is to match <STRONG>exactly </STRONG>and all classes are to remain desirable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, I don't want safe fall or FD or invis or the bruiser/monk heal lines(though it must be noted these heal lines are never addressed in the utility arguments).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>If tanking becomes cookie cutter</EM>, they should be removed from the brawler line. Feel free to remove the guardian sentinel line while you're at it(and your sacrifice line by the by).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In addition, SOE must thoroughly test the DPS and make sure it is equivalent amongst all of the fighter classes. Killing an encounter faster does lower the damage you take, believe it or not. If you feel, and SOE finds, that you cannot maintain aggro with your lowered DPS, there is an easy solution. Add "taunting cobra" or somesuch and be done with it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The "equivalent tanking" threads are going to be addressed. It is only fair that it be addressed fully. Four tank classes doing exactly the same, just pick the one that suits your fashion sense. Is this not what you wanted?</DIV></DIV>

Ili

03-24-2005, 12:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IvarIronheart wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV><EM>Why do people bring in FD and Invis into the equasion? Every time. I swear. It's like, they see some Monk running around using FD in every group they're in, or something.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>And yeah, Monk invis isn't so great. While I won't give up my phenomonal DPS (laugh) for those two arts, I would give them up for the ability to know that I can tank for a party without the possibility of getting wiped from really crappy luck, thanks.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These things are brought up for an obvious reason. If you want to tank <STRONG>exactly</STRONG> the same as a defense orientated class, sacrifices need to be made. There is no point in playing a class if another class clones all their functions <STRONG>and</STRONG> has added tools for other situations. Utility must match and DPS must match if tanking is to match <STRONG>exactly </STRONG>and all classes are to remain desirable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, I don't want safe fall or FD or invis or the bruiser/monk heal lines(though it must be noted these heal lines are never addressed in the utility arguments).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>If tanking becomes cookie cutter</EM>, they should be removed from the brawler line. Feel free to remove the guardian sentinel line while you're at it(and your sacrifice line by the by).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In addition, SOE must thoroughly test the DPS and make sure it is equivalent amongst all of the fighter classes. Killing an encounter faster does lower the damage you take, believe it or not. If you feel, and SOE finds, that you cannot maintain aggro with your lowered DPS, there is an easy solution. Add "taunting cobra" or somesuch and be done with it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The "equivalent tanking" threads are going to be addressed. It is only fair that it be addressed fully. Four tank classes doing exactly the same, just pick the one that suits your fashion sense. Is this not what you wanted?</DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thanks for quoting me there, turbo.</P> <P>But I think that you, and every other non brawler class that posts here thinking we want the world doesn't seem to understand something. We don't want the world. We want what's promised. Gage has said it. Sage has said it. I've said it. Even SniperKitty has said it, in her own twisted, close minded way.</P> <P>And you know what? A Guardian that has an avoidance of 50-60% when a Monk has a consistent 75%, is broken. Because we don't migate like they do. Utility? Feh. Invis. I can invis. It's useless at fifty. It's usless for me now at 40 for the most part. It's not a valid arguement. Especially considering that our DPS advantage *isn't that great*. It's been proven over and over. That Beserker will out DPS me quite a bit at higher levels, and guess what? If he gets hit a few times, he doesn't get dropped on a bad roll of +to hit/+to evade/block/parry/dodge/riposte/whatever.</P> <P>Do I want the Guardian's MT spot in a raid? Nope. Do I want to be MT in an exp party? Not especially, to be quite honest. Do I enjoy my role as Offtank/DPS? Sure do. I don't mind it one bit. But everyone isn't like me. Moorgard even just said it. We're tanks. Tanks.</P> <P>I just don't understand why people get in such a hissy fit about the idea of someone who isn't a Guardian wanting to be able to tank a raid mob, I honestly don't. The fighter archetype is there for soaking up damage for the most part. Scouts can't do that. Mages can't either. And Priests can't. Why can't a monk or a Bruiser be as good a tank as a plate boy in any given situation?</P> <P>Oh. That's right. Because my DPS is 300 a second, and a Guardians is 25. Right? /sarcasm off.<BR></P> <P>-Ilina</P>

IvarIronhea

03-24-2005, 01:00 PM

<DIV> <P><EM>And you know what? A Guardian that has an avoidance of 50-60% when a Monk has a consistent 75%, is broken. Because we don't migate like they do. Utility? Feh. Invis. I can invis. It's useless at fifty. It's usless for me now at 40 for the most part. It's not a valid arguement. Especially considering that our DPS advantage *isn't that great*. It's been proven over and over. That Beserker will out DPS me quite a bit at higher levels, and guess what? If he gets hit a few times, he doesn't get dropped on a bad roll of +to hit/+to evade/block/parry/dodge/riposte/whatever.</EM></P> <P><EM></EM> </P> <P>Look a few posts up. Noah parsed damage between a bruiser and guardian, equivalent agi/gear. No noticeable difference in damage taken. Comprehensive parses have never come from the brawler tanking alarmists that I have seen. Neverlift provided a "test" which was blown apart by the monk involved, bad healer was the cause. Gangstafist provided one example of how he just couldn't tank a raid NPC. One of his guildies posted on the thread(in testing feedback, you can find it if you want) that said he died due to his poor aggro management and getting knockbacked out of heal range by the NPC.</P> <P>Can brawlers tank raid NPC's? I don't know, I haven't tested. I also haven't posted countless alarmist threads throughout multiple forums. Some of the most vocal people here haven't even attempted a raid npc(due to guild levels, their own level, or whatever) and yet are thouroughly <STRONG>convinced</STRONG> they will fail.</P> <P>We have indication that SOE will be overhauling tanking. The alarmists have gotten what they wished, attention on what could be a non issue(many monks have tanked just fine to 50 afterall).</P> <P>I just want to ensure the <STRONG>entire</STRONG> equation is looked into. Your utility(this includes FD, safefall, invis and emergency heals by the way) must be addressed when compared to other tanking classes. It may not help you tank, but it does make your class a better option for play. DPS must also be addressed. Even if the disparity <EM>isn't that great, </EM>it is still a disparity. Afterall, I've never seen any great disparity on the tanking abilities of the fighter archetype, apparently, others have.</P> <P>I'm not throwing a "hissy fit." I'm just ensuring all aspects of the fighter classes are addressed.</P></DIV>

SageMarrow

03-24-2005, 02:01 PM

<P>i will throw in this as another poster said a bit earlier to allieviate the speculation presented by noahs post. its solid but heres the flaw.</P> <P>300 HP. for a monk and guardian.</P> <P>guardian takes damage</P> <P>50 50 50 50 50 50 </P> <DIV>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thats the case and can easily be healed in excess with reactive heals and such.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>monk takes damage </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>0 0 150 150 0 0 </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thats the case and can not be as easily healed in most cases and equals a dead monk. potential grop wipe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which in turn is what makes the damage read out understandable but still inconsistent to the point where it cannot function *in comparison*.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now at that point keep in mind that the analogy of the system is further offset because monks and guardians dont have as much hp to equal that same equation, which is another problem, but still not the point here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(just on a side note, i saw some level 40 gloves that had +1 deflection +1 parry on them... they may be adjusting the issue in that way as well)</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:04 AM</span>

SageMarrow

03-24-2005, 02:01 PM

<DIV>double post sorry</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:01 AM</span>

Nuvi

03-24-2005, 03:22 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nerjin wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nuvian wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nerjin wrote:<BR> <P>I have a real problem understanding why the DEVS are having such a problem with this.</P> <P>Guardian Tank takes 10 hits for 100 each.</P> <P>Berzerker avoids 5 hits and takes 5 hits for 200 each.</P> <P>Monk avoids 8 hits and takes 2 hits for 500 each.</P> <P>It would seems that armor mitigates some damage whille avoidence just keeps you from getting hit as often. The net result is the same 1000 points of damage.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>thats not really the case tho,guardians avoid almost as many hits as brawlers,berserkers take quite a few more hits then guardian cause of our defence buffs,the numbers u gave altho im sure they arent based of any testing doesnt really show a class for what it is,cause berserkers take more hits the guardian.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Correct, this is not based on testing just a simplification of how thing should work. Each class has there own specialty, Mages DPS - Fighters Tanking - etc., the first Archtype breaks down into how that specialty is implemented (High Mitigation - Low Avoidance, Medium Mitigation - Medium Avoidance, and Low Mitigation -High Avoidance). The final breakdown is Offence Vs. Defense skill sets ( Bruisers: More Offense Skill - Fewer Defense Skills, Monks: Fewer Offense Skill - More Defense Skills)</P> <P>Simple process, but obviously Not an easy one.</P> <P>Message Edited by Nerjin on <SPAN class=date_text>03-23-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>11:27 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>the big difrence betwen guardians and berserkers isnt the mitigation tho,it is the avoidance the defence buffs causes,high defence buff=avoidance im not sure how it impact mitigation but it does impact avoidance,specialy on low blue,green mobs which totaly grey out skill wise,but the balancing like you said doesnt seem to be an easy prosses. <p>Message Edited by Nuvian on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:27 AM</span>

RadricTyc

03-24-2005, 05:20 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote: <DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff33> First off radric, i nor anyone else is here anylonger to argue. i will say a few things and move on.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>multiple healers arent needed on raids to heal. they are needed for buff stacking first, then healing second.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If you think im full of crap, then explain to me what a nerf is??? to you its a monk being able to tank raid mobs, to a guardian its called being broke,</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so pull out your dictionary for that one. and you yourself said, whats the difference in who tanks for a raid? lol= you contradict your own statement- if that was truly the case = then you would be satisfied sitting behind the epic mob punching it in its tail... right? and we can drop the whole arguement, they can give us some better taunts and fluff our aerses under the table right? wrong.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>So get off my case, do you want to know why i dont have any backup or following on this? Its because rude MOther *** like gage, sniperkitty, you, and a few others not to name names, ran them off because they cant even get word in without people shoving "moorguard wrote:' down there throats.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>We read it and we know what the hell it says, but apparently your precious moorguard didnt think there was a gap in between the fighter classes at all until they separated the numbers, and magically there was this big revalation that there is a problem. So all of you pro=tank monks and whoever else can keep slobbing up moorguard, but moorguard knows what he is told, and does not program anybody's code in game. he tells us what THEY tell him to tell us.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Which also seems to illustrate why he has showed a lack of patience as of late. all his post entail something that results in "please put out the fires and go back in your homes". Just because he re=itterates that monks brawlers are tanks, that doesnt entail anything regarding in what capacity, in regards to other classes in the same archetype, what they are doing to change it, what they EVEN THINK they are gonna do to change it. The are just as screwed over on this game as we are and if you dont believe it and think its a myth, look at the economy - look at tradeskilling - look at the approach to nerfs and patchs and nerfs and patchs -before anything is fixed. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so if you think im full of [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] - thats fine - i dont care = but you and your group of ignorant fan boys can have this game after they screw the system up even more and we can all come back and play 3 years from now when the get crap back in order. And anyone with EQ1 backgroud and anyone with SENSE about what soe does and is capable of will tell you the exact same thing, any day , all day , everyday. </FONT></P> <P>And that last paragraph is crap that ive said LONG time ago, so why would you flame me and then turn around and agree with my point...that make little or no sense,</P></DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:15 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow that was one of the most ignorant pieces of writing I have ever seen. In every paragraph you demonstrated a complete lack of reading comprehension and inability as a writer. You are arguing points I never made. And worst of all you are assuming like you always do, that you know better than the rest of us, better than even Moorgard! </P> <P>Come down off that horse man, you don't even <STRONG><U>REALLY</U> </STRONG>know how to ride it.</P>

Velor

03-24-2005, 06:29 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>First off radric, i nor anyone else is here anylonger to argue. i will say a few things and move on.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>multiple healers arent needed on raids to heal. they are needed for buff stacking first, then healing second.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If you think im full of crap, then explain to me what a nerf is??? to you its a monk being able to tank raid mobs, to a guardian its called being broke,</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so pull out your dictionary for that one. and you yourself said, whats the difference in who tanks for a raid? lol= you contradict your own statement- if that was truly the case = then you would be satisfied sitting behind the epic mob punching it in its tail... right? and we can drop the whole arguement, they can give us some better taunts and fluff our aerses under the table right? wrong.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>So get off my case, do you want to know why i dont have any backup or following on this? Its because rude MOther *** like gage, sniperkitty, you, and a few others not to name names, ran them off because they cant even get word in without people shoving "moorguard wrote:' down there throats.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>We read it and we know what the hell it says, but apparently your precious moorguard didnt think there was a gap in between the fighter classes at all until they separated the numbers, and magically there was this big revalation that there is a problem. So all of you pro=tank monks and whoever else can keep slobbing up moorguard, but moorguard knows what he is told, and does not program anybody's code in game. he tells us what THEY tell him to tell us.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Which also seems to illustrate why he has showed a lack of patience as of late. all his post entail something that results in "please put out the fires and go back in your homes". Just because he re=itterates that monks brawlers are tanks, that doesnt entail anything regarding in what capacity, in regards to other classes in the same archetype, what they are doing to change it, what they EVEN THINK they are gonna do to change it. The are just as screwed over on this game as we are and if you dont believe it and think its a myth, look at the economy - look at tradeskilling - look at the approach to nerfs and patchs and nerfs and patchs -before anything is fixed. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>so if you think im full of [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] - thats fine - i dont care = but you and your group of ignorant fan boys can have this game after they screw the system up even more and we can all come back and play 3 years from now when the get crap back in order. And anyone with EQ1 backgroud and anyone with SENSE about what soe does and is capable of will tell you the exact same thing, any day , all day , everyday. </FONT></P> <P>And that last paragraph is crap that ive said LONG time ago, so why would you flame me and then turn around and agree with my point...that make little or no sense,</P></DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:15 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>There are alot of prize winning posts in this thread but this one is quite possibly the crown jewel of them all. I laughed multiple times as I read it.</P> <P>Classic. :smileyvery-happy:</P>

Kince Stouthea

03-24-2005, 08:38 PM

<P>The more and more I read posts about guardians and monks the more I get sick. This dosnt seem to be a problem with broken classes, but a matter of a broken mob system. Avoidance and mitigation is about useless when a mob uses special attacks Guaridans just happen to take less damage from them when they hit which is (roughly) 80% of the time. </P> <P>Since monks have less mitigation they take more damage. I dont think mitigation should be change nor should avoidance be changed, I think mobs specials should have their chance to hit looked at vs avoidance that is what needs fixing.</P>

Geothe

03-24-2005, 08:46 PM

<P>Posted this is another thread. thought i would here as well:</P> <P> </P> <P>"Honestly,</P> <P>Who cares about "raid" situations.</P> <P>Everything is skewed to the extreme there because of the insane amount of buffs recieved.</P> <P>Also, and more importantly, High end raids are something that 99% of the players wont even take part in regularly, if at all! Everything seems fine and balanced in a single group format currently, which is fine and dandy with me. If some people have their panties in a wad because they cant do something the way they like at the high end game.. why go and screw over the other 99% of the game that is happy with the way things are now. Talk about selfish."</P>

Velor

03-24-2005, 09:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Geothe wrote:<BR> <P>Posted this is another thread. thought i would here as well:</P> <P> </P> <P>"Honestly,</P> <P>Who cares about "raid" situations.</P> <P>Everything is skewed to the extreme there because of the insane amount of buffs recieved.</P> <P>Also, and more importantly, High end raids are something that 99% of the players wont even take part in regularly, if at all! Everything seems fine and balanced in a single group format currently, which is fine and dandy with me. If some people have their panties in a wad because they cant do something the way they like at the high end game.. why go and screw over the other 99% of the game that is happy with the way things are now. Talk about selfish."</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Forget this particular thread for a moment if you want but there are much bigger issues here with this involving more than just a few bruised egos. The fact that some players have been able to tank the absolute hardest mobs in the game <STRONG>completely naked with with nothing equipped except weapons</STRONG> indicates that there are some serious and fundamental flaws in the game right now regarding damage mitigation and avoidance. It may be specific to certain mobs, to certain parts of the game, at certain levels, to certain lcasses or any or all of the above. The point is that things like this show that there are still issues to be addressed and if nothing else, I would like to see that explained and/or resolved.</P>

Diabol

03-24-2005, 11:09 PM

If monks are made to tank as well as my berserker, then my berserker better be made to dps as well as a monk while using my shield. Oh, and I want something to offset FD and mend too. There has to be balance.

Ili

03-24-2005, 11:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kince Stoutheart wrote:<BR> <P>The more and more I read posts about guardians and monks the more I get sick. This dosnt seem to be a problem with broken classes, but a matter of a broken mob system. Avoidance and mitigation is about useless when a mob uses special attacks Guaridans just happen to take less damage from them when they hit which is (roughly) 80% of the time.</P> <P>Since monks have less mitigation they take more damage. I dont think mitigation should be change nor should avoidance be changed, I think mobs specials should have their chance to hit looked at vs avoidance that is what needs fixing.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I think this could be the best solution ever presented.</P> <P>-Ilina<BR></P>

SniperKitty

03-25-2005, 12:29 AM

sidgb

03-25-2005, 01:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</P> <P>Displaying mitigation and avoidance has indeed revealed a class disparity, because the tanks that are supposed to be avoidance based are, in certain cases, not avoiding as well as a tank that is meant to be mitigation based.</P> <P>It was never our intent that avoidance is a 100% thing, but that's basically how it is currently being used. This isn't just a problem with raid mobs, one that is present at all levels of play. There is, at every level range, a spot where you can select opponents that have little to no chance to hit you. Once again, that's not our intent.</P> <P>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</P> <P>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>We bat this around in the Guardian section for 15+ pages for weeks until it gets locked only to have Moorguard provide a sympathetic post for monks when the subject finally seems to be dying down.</P> <P>Grats Gage and the supermonk clan. I smell a guardian nerf in the works so you can tank equally.</P> <P>Guardians are so gonna be screwed.<BR></P>

SageMarrow

03-25-2005, 01:13 AM

<P>okay, well sorry if i come across side ways at times, but answer a few questions for me about class balance and the class in general... anyone available to do so, just a few questions, looking for solid solutions. thanks.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>1), Wards, how do you make wards scale to accomodate a raid mobs damage without making them the "kings of soloing"?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>2.) Classes, how do you make classes unique and able to do the same JOB effectively, without giving them the same exact skills in the same exact consistency that are required to do a given JOB to the highest efficiency?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>3.) How if at all, would avoidance ever match up with mitigation considering the inconsistency of avoidance given that it is random?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>4.) How do you fit an enchanter into a group setup so that he can fill a wizards roll in all totality and still remain the class as an enchanter?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>5.) How do you make mobs skills and attacks scale so that they are not underpowered and overpowered in the same right which creates some trivial encounters and some slaughters?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>6.) How do you make offensive based classes as effective as defensive based classes considering all the ways that offense can be inhibited, (which is also neccessary for a balanced and complete encounter system), such as block, parry, riposte, misses, and resist, where as defence cannot be(aka heals, wards, pure defensive capability)?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>7.) If one class is supposed to be offensive and the other defensive versions of the same class, then how do you make classes like a fury have the offence of the class, but not give them substantial dps, but still not give them the same capability as thier sister class (warden) as far as wards and heals and not make the classes overtly the same at doing thier JOB?</FONT></P> <P>Now all of these are linear questions with very complicated answers, some have no answers. It is situations like these that drive me to the conclusions that it seems as though i *assume* all the time. The game itself is full of enigmas like these and problems that cannot be handled out side of overpowering someone or nerfing someone else so that the whining can stop. Either we will be the same or we will be different, and allow the players to play what class they desire to play.</P> <P> Its totally circular and can not end until each and every class is given the same attention that the graphics engine was, only problem with that is that most players dont have another 2 years to wait. Thats not a pot shot at SOE, its the truth. These are very complex matters and IMO will be gamebreaking for those who are/have/and will be rooted in thier gameplay style and approach to eq2. Which doesnt make it right, but reality still remains outside of the online characters we play. </P>

FamilyManFir

03-25-2005, 01:59 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>IvarIronheart wrote:<div><p>Look a few posts up. Noah parsed damage between a bruiser and guardian, equivalent agi/gear.</p></div><hr></blockquote>Read his post. Noah parsed nothing. He wrote down some stats, based on, IMHO, <b>in-</b>equivalent gear, and computed the results that should be seen. Because Noah believes, as many do, that Guardian vs. Monk equates to Defense vs. DPS he skewed his calculations. He took a Guardian without a shield, for one, thus artificially reducing his Avoidance. Also, I consider his Avoidance number suspect, as I have read many posts of Guardians with Avoidance in the high-60s and low-70s. How they got there I don't know. I know I'll never convince Noah, but once again, <b>Monks do NOT trade Defense for DPS, they trade TAUNTS for DPS.<i> </i></b>If you want to re-run Noah's calculations take a fully-buffed level 50 Guardian <i>with a Tower Shield</i>, Pristine Teak at the least, and look at his/her Avoidance and Mitigation %. Then take a fully-buffed level 50 Monk with a 2H weapon (standard config for tanking) and look at his/her Avoidance and Mitigation %. Then re-run Noah's numbers. Even then you won't have a true picture, though. The Avoidance and Mitigation % numbers are vs. <i>solo mobs of your level.</i> We're not seeing problems with these. Where high-level monks are seeing problems is vs. Heroic and Epic mobs of levels higher than they are. This is where the Avoidance scaling problem is rearing its ugly head. This is also where Guardians are relying on <i>Avoidance</i>, <b>not</b> Mitigation, to do their tanking job. This is why the devs are looking, hard, at how things are working. Bluntly, I expect a level 50 Monk to have the same damage dissipation as a Guardian. I do <i>not</i> expect a Guardian to have the same DPS as a Monk. They shouldn't; they get extra Taunts instead.</span><div></div>

Geothe

03-25-2005, 02:05 AM

<P>"<STRONG>Monks do NOT trade Defense for DPS, they trade TAUNTS for DPS"</STRONG></P> <P>On the contrary, one could argue that in fact monks DO trade Defense for DPS and trade TAUNTS for other abilities such as FD, Invis, etc.</P>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 02:09 AM

<P>Yeah, Noah and I have argued this up and down in-game, we just have different opinions.</P> <P>Plate tanks are avoiding to much, especially in the high end. They are relying on avoidance to tank raid mobs. That is broken.</P> <P>Besides why would he run a "test" w/o a shield equipped? Shield = necessary for guardians to tank AND one of the biggest increases in their avoidance.</P> <P>I assure you that he is smart and understands the game, he doesn't think monks should be MT though, which is why he always refutes to the DPS differences.</P> <P>The problem lies in the fact that a lot of guardians/plate tanks just do not feel brawlers should tank at all. They view it as their job, their "turf".</P> <P>Because of that a lot of these discussions will never solve anything, as it isn't a matter of balance to them.</P> <P>Not all guardians/plate tanks feel like that, and I'm not saying they do. But you can tell from the posts that there are a few who totally believe that monks have no business tanking anything, especially raid mobs.</P>

MoonglumHMV

03-25-2005, 02:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Geothe wrote:<BR> <P>"<STRONG>Monks do NOT trade Defense for DPS, they trade TAUNTS for DPS"</STRONG></P> <P>On the contrary, one could argue that in fact monks DO trade Defense for DPS and trade TAUNTS for other abilities such as FD, Invis, etc.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That seems to be the general opinion of quite a few people, but I think that logic is flawed a little. One of the main jobs of a tank (no lets not rehash this whole debate again!!) it so maintain aggro. You generate hate through taunts...you generate hate through DPS (along with other skills like group buffs, etc...) that's an even trade off, one hate generation for another.</P> <P>What is the purpose of trading taunts for FD & Invis?</P>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 02:12 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Geothe wrote:<BR> <P>"<STRONG>Monks do NOT trade Defense for DPS, they trade TAUNTS for DPS"</STRONG></P> <P>On the contrary, one could argue that in fact monks DO trade Defense for DPS and trade TAUNTS for other abilities such as FD, Invis, etc.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong.</P> <P>I WISH they would shut the servers off right now and remove invis and mend from our spell list. They are THAT useless. If you are going to die, mend isn't going to save you, unless you are solo'ing.</P> <P>Invis IS WORTHLESS PAST 40. IT IS USELESS. IT HAS NO PURPOSE AT ALL. IT ISN'T EVEN PART OF THE RAID EQUATION.</P> <P>We are far from the only class with FD, in fact SKs have a better version.</P> <P>We do NOT trade DPS for defense, we trade it for taunts.</P> <P>What is the best fighter class for DPS? Bruiser? Look at their taunts, they SUCK. Most add fear. They are horrible.</P> <P>Now, look at your taunts.</P> <P>Thought so.</P> <P>But please, shut the servers down and give the guardian class our invis spell. Please.</P>

FamilyManFir

03-25-2005, 02:12 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Diaboliq wrote:<div></div>If monks are made to tank as well as my berserker, then my berserker better be made to dps as well as a monk while using my shield. Oh, and I want something to offset FD and mend too. There has to be balance. <hr></blockquote>Nonsense. You already have plenty of DPS, particularly when fighting multiple mobs. Moreover, you already have something to offset FD and Mend <i>as well as</i> any higher DPS that the Monk has. Every time you Berserk you build aggro, and you can Berserk quite a lot. I know; I'm playing a Berserker right now. Monks have to work a lot harder than you to build and maintain aggro; they can do it, but it takes thought and skill. So, in conclusion, you've got great damage dissipation, great DPS vs. multiple opponents, and great aggro tools. Monks have great DPS and some okay utility spells. Boy, sounds balanced to me! (/sarcasm)</span><div></div>

IvarIronhea

03-25-2005, 02:32 AM

<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Also, I consider his Avoidance number suspect, as I have read many posts of Guardians with Avoidance in the high-60s and low-70s. How they got there I don't know.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>How about we take a bruiser's logging of the numbers? Jezekiell posted his mitigation/avoidance as 37.7%/76.3% and the guardian as 49.9%/56.1%. These appear to match Noah's "suspect" numbers no?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The whole "I have read" or "well a guildie/friend/roomate said" arguments are a touch played out.</DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Monks do NOT trade Defense for DPS, they trade TAUNTS for DPS.</EM></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is, quite frankly, your perception of the situation. Matching a percentage of DPS to a a certain taunt value is convoluted and makes balancing single group/solo/duo play skewed. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remove all DPS disparities and tack a hate component onto your cobra line. Call it "taunting cobra" and "enticing cobra." There you go, you have the exact same taunting abilities of a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, utility must match. Remove feign death, safefall, invisibility, and emergency heals. Guardians can give up their "protect" lines, though brawlers should loose their versions(sacrifice) as well if that's the case.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, match tanking. Play with the avoidance and mitigation numbers till the monk alarmists are satisfied.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There, you have balance, pretty dull, but balance none the less.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you want to buff brawler tanking even more, and yet retain DPS and utility edges, that is not balance. That is attempting to grab an edge in solo/duo/groups while claiming you are balancing raid encounters. Encounters which very few, including the most vocal proponents of "tanking balance," have even participated in.</DIV>

SageMarrow

03-25-2005, 02:35 AM

<P>holding aggro CAN be hard if you are unorganized and have a hundred things going on at once. but generally speaking, its not hard - a brawler type just has to get a jump on the hate building before the other classes.</P> <P>i dont even have anything past app 2 taunts and tanked in and out of runney eye at level 37 without any aggro holding problems, so holding aggro isnt always a big problem or even that significant for that matter, a swashbuckler can hold aggro from other classes if he wanted to with a well placed sneak/backstab. taunt combo.(yes swashbucklers do get taunts, and they can wear shields too..=) .</P> <P>so keep in mind that im a bruiser, i still have to use slurred insult app 2 and shout.. doesnt matter what adept-lol - i got it at level 15 or something. but its what i use when tanking and dont have any aggro problems until someone buffs or cast during the pull...</P> <P>So i dont think thats really the best argument either, in essence it makes sense= but in game it can be done without.</P> <P>EDIT: now if they take aggro off of buffs, then we have another issue and mobs running all over the place. :smileysad:</P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:38 PM</span>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 02:41 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IvarIronheart wrote:<BR> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>Now, utility must match. Remove feign death, safefall, invisibility, and emergency heals. Guardians can give up their "protect" lines, though brawlers should loose their versions(sacrifice) as well if that's the case.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You know all those posts by guardians about "choosing the class based on skillset"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well guess what, you guys get the protection/allay line as your utility.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You bring the best target/group defensive buffs to the group, period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can make any tank better, by a long shot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your intervene upgrades make every other fighters laughable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By choosing the most defensive tank you chose that utility.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We get DPS for a lack of taunts, FD for who knows why (SKs get it too, ands it better imho), mend which is okay I guess, and invis which is worthless.</DIV>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 02:42 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>holding aggro CAN be hard if you are unorganized and have a hundred things going on at once. but generally speaking, its not hard - a brawler type just has to get a jump on the hate building before the other classes.</P> <P>i dont even have anything past app 2 taunts and tanked in and out of runney eye at level 37 without any aggro holding problems, so holding aggro isnt always a big problem or even that significant for that matter, a swashbuckler can hold aggro from other classes if he wanted to with a well placed sneak/backstab. taunt combo.(yes swashbucklers do get taunts, and they can wear shields too..=) .</P> <P>so keep in mind that im a bruiser, i still have to use slurred insult app 2 and shout.. doesnt matter what adept-lol - i got it at level 15 or something. but its what i use when tanking and dont have any aggro problems until someone buffs or cast during the pull...</P> <P>So i dont think thats really the best argument either, in essence it makes sense= but in game it can be done without.</P> <P>EDIT: now if they take aggro off of buffs, then we have another issue and mobs running all over the place. :smileysad:</P> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:38 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You use app2 lvl 15 taunts and try to talk about tanking ability? HAHAHAHA.<BR>

MoonglumHMV

03-25-2005, 02:46 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>holding aggro CAN be hard if you are unorganized and have a hundred things going on at once. but generally speaking, its not hard - a brawler type just has to get a jump on the hate building before the other classes.</P> <P>i dont even have anything past app 2 taunts and tanked in and out of runney eye at level 37 without any aggro holding problems, so holding aggro isnt always a big problem or even that significant for that matter, a swashbuckler can hold aggro from other classes if he wanted to with a well placed sneak/backstab. taunt combo.(yes swashbucklers do get taunts, and they can wear shields too..=) .</P> <P>so keep in mind that im a bruiser, i still have to use slurred insult app 2 and shout.. doesnt matter what adept-lol - i got it at level 15 or something. but its what i use when tanking and dont have any aggro problems until someone buffs or cast during the pull...</P> <P>So i dont think thats really the best argument either, in essence it makes sense= but in game it can be done without.</P> <P>EDIT: now if they take aggro off of buffs, then we have another issue and mobs running all over the place. :smileysad:</P> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-24-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>01:38 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You use app2 lvl 15 taunts and try to talk about tanking ability? HAHAHAHA.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Gage, come on...you know SageMarrow only tanks 5% of the time...or was it all the time...or was it 50/50...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>edit: Sorry Sage...for some reason I must be feeling like a smart-[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] today...no offense intended....must be the idiots I deal with at work <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Maybe I shouldn't post anything after like 3:00 my time.....</DIV><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:50 PM</span>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 02:50 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MoonglumHMV wrote: <P>Gage, come on...you know SageMarrow only tanks 5% of the time...or was it all the time...or was it 50/50...</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's right.</P> <P>He tanks all of the time, which is 50 percent of his play time. Right?</P> <P>I forget.<BR></P>

SageMarrow

03-25-2005, 02:55 AM

<P>well i tanked all through runny eye through and through last night with those exact same 'useless" taunts and didnt lose aggro once, and later that same night - when the group switched around, i strapped on my BRAWL ADEPT 1, and played dps just fine as well.</P> <P>i didnt have one issue at all tanking last night, simple as that, and even if i did have anything beyond app2's as a bruiser, it wouldnt matter anyway because i cant use the level appropriate taunts that ARE adept 1's in a proxy aggro zone can i since they have FEARS built into them...</P> <P>so take your time sweet heart, it will be okay... and try thinking before you let the diahrea come out of your mouth. thanks:smileyhappy:</P> <P> </P>

Noah

03-25-2005, 03:19 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>Yeah, Noah and I have argued this up and down in-game, we just have different opinions.</P> <P>Plate tanks are avoiding to much, especially in the high end. They are relying on avoidance to tank raid mobs. That is broken.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>I agree here. What you and I both talked about was a shift in avoidance for mitigation to cause a noticible difference in tank styles. Say decrease the guardians avoidance down to 40pct (parry, block, riposte are included in this number... since everyone has the skill it is gonna happen) and increase mitigation to 90 pct. Now make a bruiser at 80 pct avoidance and the mitigation the same as it is now (40ish) and we might see a difference in how people tank. This are rough numbers and not needed to be quoted and ripped apart... just giving the jist of it.</FONT></P> <P>Besides why would he run a "test" w/o a shield equipped? Shield = necessary for guardians to tank AND one of the biggest increases in their avoidance.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Actually, my biggest increase to avoidance is the AGI I have. I built a tank around AC/ AGI ... people will tell you raid buffed my HPS totally suck but my AC / Avoidance is thru the roof. Perhaps and adjustment to the AGI on equiptment could help. More AGI on Light armor (since it is easier to avoid stuff when not wearing a tin can) and much less AGI on plate stuff. Make sence in real life that I cant dodge / miss while wearing 150lbs of armor.... right? And Shield is NOT necessary to tank ... its just and option that classes have to use. Many situations I have taken off my shield to enjoy the increase dps of DWing.</FONT></P> <P>I assure you that he is smart and understands the game, he doesn't think monks should be MT though, which is why he always refutes to the DPS differences.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Never said they should not be MTanks. I would love to see more classes as MTanks and they probably can be. As far as DPS being used as the *agro* of a person, come on... DPS is the main role of scouts and wizards - so they are suppose to use dps for agro too? Give the monks/bruiser some *agro* skills that dont have any dps on them and do some ninja like moves like backflips and triple sowcows.... I would love to see action like that while mobs are beating on the MonkT.</FONT></P> <P>The problem lies in the fact that a lot of guardians/plate tanks just do not feel brawlers should tank at all. They view it as their job, their "turf".</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Fix my *guard* skills and I will have something else to do. Nothing would make me happier if they allowed us to mitigate for OTHER people. As it is, these skills are junk and we resort to smashing our Taunts because the DPS we have is hugely sub par. Put 2 monks and 1 guardian in a group as DPS... or 2 guardians and 1 monk... you tell me who is gonna take the most damage group wise at the end.... how much you wanna bet it is the 2 guardian 1 monk group. Why? Cause the mob will be DEAD x5 faster.</FONT></P> <P>Because of that a lot of these discussions will never solve anything, as it isn't a matter of balance to them.</P> <P>Not all guardians/plate tanks feel like that, and I'm not saying they do. But you can tell from the posts that there are a few who totally believe that monks have no business tanking anything, especially raid mobs.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>A few things that help this are people like you Gage. The man that steps up and tanks that stuff anyways.... There should be more people like this getting good data and really testing things out and not just posting to be on the band wagon. I love talking with Gage (at times we get in heated discussions and I wanna ......) and he brings up some great points to talk about. I think some of the people out there get a bit dramatic about it and one sided (monks and guardians both). I try to open my mind a lot and see it from the other side, even pondering rolling a bruiser ;p. I think in the end decreasing the guardians avoidance will help ... and increase the avoidance of a monk type will be key... at the same time, mitigation of hits will need adjustment (like moorg said, mobs hit Hard and more hits on any class will cause issues..)</FONT></P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 03:41 AM

Excellent post Noah, five stars from me too.

Stormewol

03-25-2005, 03:49 AM

<FONT size=2> <P>As a bruiser who enjoys tanking I can say this much, we do give up a lot in the way of taunting ability for our "DPS" as it were. Bruisers especially get a group taunt with, IMO, the very undesirable effect of fearing the targeted mob <B>every time </B>it’s used. Having a fear is nice to have. Having to fear when you just want to generate agro can be annoying or dangerous and in some places you risk getting the encounter bugged when the feared mob runs into a wall never to be seen again.</P> <P>So while the Bruisers and Monks may get more DPS, they DO lose out on the number of taunts, and the taunts we do have suck. At level 35 I routinely spam cast my level 10 training AE taunt (8 sec recast timer) just because it doesn’t fear.</P> <P>Also, remember, that while we tank a lot of our DPS is lost is made much more ineffective. The Bruiser 100 Hand Slap for example launches a series of 8 attacks, however if one misses, they all miss./ It’s not uncommon that while tanking for the series to stop after the first or second hit. I’m not complaining about this, just pointing it out.</P></FONT>

Chanliang

03-25-2005, 04:00 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:The problem lies in the fact that a lot of guardians/plate tanks just do not feel brawlers should tank at all. They view it as their job, their "turf". <div></div><hr></blockquote> I think you are actually wrong, guardians just want to be the best MT (raid) cause least in theory they're build like that. I'd bet my month salary that majority of guardians aren't and will not be annoyed/angry if every other figther type can tank as well as long as they do it best as a trade-off dps vs. berserker/monk/bruiser dps and crusader healing/utility. Issue really is that we need some balance between tanking ability and dps and make it such way the all can perform they're job to a degree. Of course you'll get angry and personal attacking posts if you just want to reduce avoidance of guards, brawlers gaininig more and still having way better dps. </span> <div></div>

Gaige

03-25-2005, 04:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Chanliang wrote:<BR><SPAN>I think you are actually wrong, guardians just want to be the best MT (raid) cause least in theory they're build like that. I'd bet my month salary that majority of guardians aren't and will not be annoyed/angry if every other figther type can tank as well as long as they do it best as a trade-off dps vs. berserker/monk/bruiser dps and crusader healing/utility. Issue really is that we need some balance between tanking ability and dps and make it such way the all can perform they're job to a degree.<BR><BR>Of course you'll get angry and personal attacking posts if you just want to reduce avoidance of guards, brawlers gaininig more and still having way better dps.</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As I've stated I feel our DPS is for lack of taunts, not tanking ability.</P> <P>I think plate avoidance should be lowered, and their mitigation increased, yes.<BR></P>

SageMarrow

03-25-2005, 04:05 AM

so quick question, does it matter that either way the tanks still wont be equal so to speak?

Nemi

03-25-2005, 04:05 AM

The biggest disparity I see is this: Mobs damage-output scales higher than tanks hps as you go up in levels. SoE design "hard" mobs by upping the damage they do per swing. Mitigation will always reign supreme in this situation and this is why avoidance tanks are broken. SoE should focus their balance on making clerics = warriors, shamans = brawlers and druids = crusaders. This fixes the priest classes too. Each Fighter type should be tied to a healer type. Even tho they are just know somewhat, they should focus their efforts to really make a match. Give Monks the ability to use mitigation with wards, but not warriors or crusaders perhaps. Maybe too drastic, but something should be done to align the fighters and priests. <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-25-2005, 04:09 AM

<P>thats a good idea but they are trying to avoid uprooting a class i would presume, in a long fight, a paladin can out heal 4 out of 6 healers.</P> <P>with that being said, paladins are the ones that throw off that equation. and given that the number of a certain type of tank in game will always be present - that puts the tank in question at a disadvantage if his particular healer type isnt available which is often the case, and even still, the fact still remains that it would be hard to balance a class against another and still keep them useful in other situations...</P> <P>its crazy = i know.</P>

FamilyManFir

03-25-2005, 04:55 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>IvarIronheart wrote:<div><em></em> </div><div><em>Also, I consider his Avoidance number suspect, as I have read many posts of Guardians with Avoidance in the high-60s and low-70s. How they got there I don't know.</em></div><div><em></em> </div><div>How about we take a bruiser's logging of the numbers? Jezekiell posted his mitigation/avoidance as 37.7%/76.3% and the guardian as 49.9%/56.1%. These appear to match Noah's "suspect" numbers no?</div><div> </div><div>The whole "I have read" or "well a guildie/friend/roomate said" arguments are a touch played out.<hr></div></blockquote>True, it's always better to have first-hand data, but I don't <i>have</i> a Guardian, much less a level 50 one, to work from so I <i>have</i> to work from others' data.Consider this post <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=4&message.id=9438">here</a>.These are numbers coming from Berserkers, unbuffed. They range approximately from 55% to 63%. Toss in a buff of +15 Defense and I can easily see how these numbers get up to the high 60s and low 70s. So exactly what did Noah do to get his Avoidance numbers for his Guardian?BTW, allow me to apologise to some degree. I do not mean to attack Noah's integrity. From his post in this thread it is clear that he tries to keep an open mind about things, even if he gets passionate at times. <span>:smileyhappy:</span> I call into question his <i>post</i>, however, since it doesn't jibe with other posts I've seen with other hard numbers. Moreover, the post seemed to directly attack some strongly held opinions of mine so I counterattacked, perhaps a bit too passionately myself.<blockquote><hr><div><em></em> </div><div><em>Monks do NOT trade Defense for DPS, they trade TAUNTS for DPS.</em></div><div><strong></strong> </div><div> </div><div>This is, quite frankly, your perception of the situation. Matching a percentage of DPS to a a certain taunt value is convoluted and makes balancing single group/solo/duo play skewed.<hr></div></blockquote><div>True, but I was not trying to match a percentage of DPS to a certain taunt value. I was, and I do, maintain that it's a much more direct comparison to relate Taunts to DPS: one is direct hate creation, one is indirect. Trying to relate DPS to Defense or Defense to Utility is much more awkward and results, IMHO, in class imbalances within an Archetype whose two primary roles are aggro management and damage dissipation.</div><blockquote><div> </div><div><hr>Remove all DPS disparities and tack a hate component onto your cobra line. Call it "taunting cobra" and "enticing cobra." There you go, you have the exact same taunting abilities of a guardian.</div><div> </div><div>Now, utility must match. Remove feign death, safefall, invisibility, and emergency heals. Guardians can give up their "protect" lines, though brawlers should loose their versions(sacrifice) as well if that's the case.</div><div> </div><div>Now, match tanking. Play with the avoidance and mitigation numbers till the monk alarmists are satisfied.</div><div> </div><div>There, you have balance, pretty dull, but balance none the less.<hr></div></blockquote>That's the sameness that you and many others decry and I agree, let's not go there. So let's reverse it. Play with the avoidance and mitigation until damage dissipation is equivalent (it'll never be exactly equal, but we can get close). Give Guardians their "protect" lines and their group defensive buffs (although those buffs should probably be changed to affect skills other than Defense); give Monks their utilities. Take away from Monks the extra Taunt line that you propose and give them DPS. Presto! balanced classes.<div></div><blockquote><div><hr></div><div>If you want to buff brawler tanking even more, and yet retain DPS and utility edges, that is not balance. That is attempting to grab an edge in solo/duo/groups while claiming you are balancing raid encounters. Encounters which very few, including the most vocal proponents of "tanking balance," have even participated in.</div><hr></blockquote>Monks get an edge in DPS, Guardians get an edge in Taunts. Each dissipates damage equally well, Guardians primarily through Mitigation, Monks primarily through Avoidance. Monks get some personal utility spells, Guardians get some group utility and protection spells. I fail to see how this is imbalanced, either in raids or in "regular" gameplay.</span><div></div>

-Aonein-

03-25-2005, 07:09 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Velorek wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Forget this particular thread for a moment if you want but there are much bigger issues here with this involving more than just a few bruised egos. The fact that some players have been able to tank the absolute hardest mobs in the game <STRONG>completely naked with with nothing equipped except weapons</STRONG> indicates that there are some serious and fundamental flaws in the game right now regarding damage mitigation and avoidance. It may be specific to certain mobs, to certain parts of the game, at certain levels, to certain lcasses or any or all of the above. The point is that things like this show that there are still issues to be addressed and if nothing else, I would like to see that explained and/or resolved.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Its called buff stacking. Plain and Simple, but SoE will not fricken address and FIX COMBAT SKILLS, ABILITIES and SPELLS. So they stuff around playing with other things, stabbing in the dark, hoping they hit a nail on the head blind folded.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <SPAN class=date_text>03-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:15 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>03-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:16 PM</span>

Velor

03-25-2005, 07:37 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Velorek wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Forget this particular thread for a moment if you want but there are much bigger issues here with this involving more than just a few bruised egos. The fact that some players have been able to tank the absolute hardest mobs in the game <STRONG>completely naked with with nothing equipped except weapons</STRONG> indicates that there are some serious and fundamental flaws in the game right now regarding damage mitigation and avoidance. It may be specific to certain mobs, to certain parts of the game, at certain levels, to certain lcasses or any or all of the above. The point is that things like this show that there are still issues to be addressed and if nothing else, I would like to see that explained and/or resolved.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Its called buff stacking. Plain and Simple, but SoE will not fricken address and FIX COMBAT SKILLS, ABILITIES and SPELLS. So they stuff around playing with other things, stabbing in the dark, hoping they hit a nail on the head blind folded.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <SPAN class=date_text>03-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:15 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <SPAN class=date_text>03-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:16 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Uh, I know what it is called genius, but what you need to understand is that buff stacking is primarily the root of this entire problem because they stack too well. Cases like the one I point out prove that. I mean, do you actually think it was designed and intended for a naked character to be tanking Darathar? Of course not. It was even stated earlier in this thread that the fundamental difference between Guardians and Monks are the buffs that Guardians get and with buff stacking in general. Those buffs don't scale the same way for Monks like they do for Guards, nor do Monks get those kinds of self buffs to begin with.</P> <P>Sony got overzealous with handing out buffs in the design of this game and now they're trying to figure out how to scale back. It's why Agility and Strength were tuned down. It's why Bards have been tuned down. Buffs were simply providing too much benefit and were too easy to get or utilize. Unfortunately, the same issue is at the center of this debate we have here regarding Guardians, Monks and every other fighter class and needs to be addressed.</P> <P>I agree that many of our Adept 3 spells need to be fixed but most of those focus on DPS increases, which is the last thing Sony wants to do to us. At least not until they get the whole Scout DPS > Fighter DPS part fixed the way they want.</P><p>Message Edited by Velorek on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:40 PM</span>

IvarIronhea

03-25-2005, 12:17 PM

<DIV><EM><STRONG>These are numbers coming from Berserkers, unbuffed. They range approximately from 55% to 63%. Toss in a buff of +15 Defense and I can easily see how these numbers get up to the high 60s and low 70s. So exactly what did Noah do to get his Avoidance numbers for his Guardian?<BR></STRONG></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>Avoidance is raised ~2% for +20 defense from buffs. If you, however, add dirge/troubador/mystic/fury/guardian buffs, the number skyrockets once you have buffed yourself ~40 to 50 defense over your level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any class can do this. These are all group buffs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><STRONG>Trying to relate DPS to Defense or Defense to Utility is much more awkward and results, IMHO, in class imbalances within an Archetype whose two primary roles are aggro management and damage dissipation.</STRONG></EM></DIV> <P>DPS ends an encounter faster. Ending an encounter faster leads to less damage taken. This is a direct, unarguable correlation. The only variation is in how much DPS you add to the group average. In raids, it is not a huge amount, in single groups it is quite noticeable. </P> <P>Equalize the DPS to guardian levels to even the equation.</P> <P>Remove the Utility, it's a wildcard that makes an archtype more desirable in specilized circumstances.</P> <P>Equalize tanking numbers to appease those not satisfied with their tanking.</P> <P>That is balance, that is what the most vocal claim as their goal.</P> <P> </P> <P><EM><STRONG>Play with the avoidance and mitigation until damage dissipation is equivalent (it'll never be exactly equal, but we can get close). Give Guardians their "protect" lines and their group defensive buffs (although those buffs should probably be changed to affect skills other than Defense); give Monks their utilities.</STRONG></EM></P> <DIV>The only notable logging of damage I've seen so far brings bruisers to within 1% of a guardian, damage taken over time. Can someone provide better parsing?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anecdotal evidence does not work by the way. Everytime I've seen a story of how hard it was for this class or that class it's been largely due to player skill and error or biased to promote an agenda.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our protect lines are of little value at all. They do not take into account our mitigation, only the mitigation of the person being "shielded." They can also be matched by the monk skill sacrifice. Having 4 or 5 in the same skill line does not make us any better at this function if they do not work and also copy the same(unstackable) effect.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We also get an "add avoidance" type of line. So do brawlers. Bruisers, arguably, had the best of that line, though this may have changed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, you have a matching skillset to guardians <STRONG>and </STRONG>you have utility(FD, mends, invis, safefall).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remove the utility.<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Monks get an edge in DPS, Guardians get an edge in Taunts. Each dissipates damage equally well, Guardians primarily through Mitigation, Monks primarily through Avoidance. Monks get some personal utility spells, Guardian</EM>s</STRONG><EM><STRONG> get some group utility and protection spells. I fail to see how this is imbalanced, either in raids or in "regular" gameplay.</STRONG><BR></EM></DIV> <DIV>Guardians get 1 single target taunt, 1 group taunt, and one line which is a small attack that adds hate. Monks get 1 single target taunt and 1 group taunt and a DPS edge.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The DPS edge ends an encounter faster thereby less overall damage to the tank. That is how it is unbalancing. More taunts do not end an encounter faster. More taunts can arguably be said to drag a fight on. A taunting tank is not doing DPS. The tank will take more overall damage if tanking skills are equal but the encounter drags on longer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remove the DPS edge, add a taunt number to one of your low damage attacks. You have the exact same taunting abilities of a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've already addressed the "protect" skills above. It must also be noted that monks can buff the offense of a group much in the way a guardian buffs defense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Claiming a vast imbalance in the raid setting then asking for a buff to your class(or a nerf to another) while still maintaining an edge for single groups and soloing is not asking for balance. It is asking for just the opposite.</DIV>

MoonglumHMV

03-25-2005, 07:45 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IvarIronheart wrote:<BR> <DIV><EM><STRONG>These are numbers coming from Berserkers, unbuffed. They range approximately from 55% to 63%. Toss in a buff of +15 Defense and I can easily see how these numbers get up to the high 60s and low 70s. So exactly what did Noah do to get his Avoidance numbers for his Guardian?<BR></STRONG></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>Avoidance is raised ~2% for +20 defense from buffs. If you, however, add dirge/troubador/mystic/fury/guardian buffs, the number skyrockets once you have buffed yourself ~40 to 50 defense over your level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any class can do this. These are all group buffs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><STRONG>Trying to relate DPS to Defense or Defense to Utility is much more awkward and results, IMHO, in class imbalances within an Archetype whose two primary roles are aggro management and damage dissipation.</STRONG></EM></DIV> <P>DPS ends an encounter faster. Ending an encounter faster leads to less damage taken. This is a direct, unarguable correlation. The only variation is in how much DPS you add to the group average. In raids, it is not a huge amount, in single groups it is quite noticeable. </P> <P>Equalize the DPS to guardian levels to even the equation.</P> <P>Remove the Utility, it's a wildcard that makes an archtype more desirable in specilized circumstances.</P> <P>Equalize tanking numbers to appease those not satisfied with their tanking.</P> <P>That is balance, that is what the most vocal claim as their goal.</P> <P> </P> <P><EM><STRONG>Play with the avoidance and mitigation until damage dissipation is equivalent (it'll never be exactly equal, but we can get close). Give Guardians their "protect" lines and their group defensive buffs (although those buffs should probably be changed to affect skills other than Defense); give Monks their utilities.</STRONG></EM></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>The only notable logging of damage I've seen so far brings bruisers to within 1% of a guardian, damage taken over time. Can someone provide better parsing?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anecdotal evidence does not work by the way. Everytime I've seen a story of how hard it was for this class or that class it's been largely due to player skill and error or biased to promote an agenda.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our protect lines are of little value at all. They do not take into account our mitigation, only the mitigation of the person being "shielded." They can also be matched by the monk skill sacrifice. Having 4 or 5 in the same skill line does not make us any better at this function if they do not work and also copy the same(unstackable) effect.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We also get an "add avoidance" type of line. So do brawlers. Bruisers, arguably, had the best of that line, though this may have changed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, you have a matching skillset to guardians <STRONG>and </STRONG>you have utility(FD, mends, invis, safefall).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remove the utility.<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Monks get an edge in DPS, Guardians get an edge in Taunts. Each dissipates damage equally well, Guardians primarily through Mitigation, Monks primarily through Avoidance. Monks get some personal utility spells, Guardian</EM>s</STRONG><EM><STRONG> get some group utility and protection spells. I fail to see how this is imbalanced, either in raids or in "regular" gameplay.</STRONG><BR></EM></DIV> <DIV>Guardians get 1 single target taunt, 1 group taunt, and one line which is a small attack that adds hate. Monks get 1 single target taunt and 1 group taunt and a DPS edge.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The DPS edge ends an encounter faster thereby less overall damage to the tank. That is how it is unbalancing. More taunts do not end an encounter faster. More taunts can arguably be said to drag a fight on. A taunting tank is not doing DPS. The tank will take more overall damage if tanking skills are equal but the encounter drags on longer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remove the DPS edge, add a taunt number to one of your low damage attacks. You have the exact same taunting abilities of a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've already addressed the "protect" skills above. It must also be noted that monks can buff the offense of a group much in the way a guardian buffs defense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Claiming a vast imbalance in the raid setting then asking for a buff to your class(or a nerf to another) while still maintaining an edge for single groups and soloing is not asking for balance. It is asking for just the opposite.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Just to make sure you know, if you are referring to the post I believe you are from Noah, that was not an actual in game log or parse...it was just plugging numbers into an equation based on the avoidance/mitiagate numbers that are now shown.</P> <P>I've said before equal tanking does not mean equal results. You can play with the numbers all you want to get it where the different fighter classes are all based on dismissing X percent of the damage (by different combinations of mitigation and avoidance). If on average all fighters dismiss the same amount of incoming damage, that's equal tanking. But the in game results will not be the same due to the streaky nature of the brawlers higher avoidance, while the plate classes are more constant with their steady mitigation. Yes, over the long haul of say a 6 hour parsing session, the numbers should be fairly equal, but while the plate tanks will be steady at that number (or close to it) the avoidance tanks will be all over the board.</P> <P>Another thing that needs to be looked at is the MOBs specials. I couldn't take it, so I downloaded combat stats and am going to try to get some parses myself if I can figure it out <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, but the one set of results I've seen show that MOB specials hit for approx 40% less than what avoidance numbers indicate (i.e. the character had high 70's avoidance and the specials were only avoided 37% of the time)...if that's truely the case, then that's another thing that can be tweaked to give mitigation tanks that edge in consistancy. If those higher damage attacks hit more often, which kind of makes sense to me at least, that would only add to the streakyness (is that a word?!?! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) of the avoidance tanks.</P> <P>And just one more thing, and those 'most vocal' people that you mention please let me know if I'm misunderstanding what your stance is, but it's been said several times by almost everyone that 1-50 thing are balanced pretty good as far as the numbers go...it could probably be tweaked to have the plate tanks mitigate more and avoid less, which I would think the plate classes would be all for as it would only make you all that more consistant. And as far as raids go, I think most would only like to be an option as MT on the raid, or have a chance to succeed as MT on the raid.<BR></P>

i3ry

03-25-2005, 10:04 PM

You guys make it sound like monks do 500 more dps than guardians do. Get real. <div></div>

Wiou

03-25-2005, 11:40 PM

its a lot closer than ppl think <div></div>

FamilyManFir

03-26-2005, 12:59 AM

<blockquote><hr>IvarIronheart wrote:Avoidance is raised ~2% for +20 defense from buffs. If you, however, add dirge/troubador/mystic/fury/guardian buffs, the number skyrockets once you have buffed yourself ~40 to 50 defense over your level.Any class can do this. These are all group buffs.<hr></blockquote>According to <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=4&message.id=9441#M9441" target=_blank>this post</a> Guardians can self-buff 23 points of Defense. This is almost 5 levels of difference. If this doesn't bump Avoidance against a "normal mob of equal level" up past 70% then something is wrong with SOE's calculations. According to my <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=37232" target=_blank>own carefully-controlled, hand-parsed tests</a> an unbuffed Berserker with a shield has an Avoidance between 76% and 82% against a non-Heroic mob 3 levels lower than the Berserker.No other class can self-buff their Defense this high. Indeed, several Berserkers are complaining that one of their Combat Arts is badly broken because it doesn't stack the way that Guardians' Combat Arts do.<blockquote><hr>DPS ends an encounter faster. Ending an encounter faster leads to less damage taken. This is a direct, unarguable correlation....The DPS edge ends an encounter faster thereby less overall damage to the tank. That is how it is unbalancing.<hr></blockquote>This is true, however the argument doesn't hold water. The DPS edge that Monks have over Guardians isn't <i>that</i> big, especially when tanking in a group. Under those circumstances the damage that kills the mob comes from the Mages and the Rogues; the additional damage that a tanking Monk contributes (over what a tanking Guardian would contribute) is not significant. If a Monk could end a fight in 1/2 the time, or even in 3/4 of the time I'd concede your point, but that's not the case.<blockquote><hr>The only notable logging of damage I've seen so far brings bruisers to within 1% of a guardian, damage taken over time. Can someone provide better parsing?<hr></blockquote>Once again, as I said in the post you replied to, as another poster said above, <b>Noah's post neither logged nor parsed anything</b>. He took some Mitigaton and Avoidance numbers from the Persona screen of two characters and plugged them into formulae. I dispute the conditions he gathered the numbers in and I think it biased his results.<blockquote><hr>Anecdotal evidence does not work by the way. Everytime I've seen a story of how hard it was for this class or that class it's been largely due to player skill and error or biased to promote an agenda.<hr></blockquote>Ah, then since you are commenting so knowledgably about Monks I take it you play one? <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><blockquote><hr>Our protect lines are of little value at all. They do not take into account our mitigation, only the mitigation of the person being "shielded." They can also be matched by the monk skill sacrifice. Having 4 or 5 in the same skill line does not make us any better at this function if they do not work and also copy the same(unstackable) effect.We also get an "add avoidance" type of line. So do brawlers. Bruisers, arguably, had the best of that line, though this may have changed.So, you have a matching skillset to guardians <STRONG>and </STRONG>you have utility(FD, mends, invis, safefall).Remove the utility.<hr></blockquote>Guardians get DOTs that Monks don't, they get Power draining attacks that Monks don't, and they get more debuffs than Monks. You're begrudging us an Invisibility that is useless past 40, a Safe Fall that is rarely if ever used, and FD? Come on!Regarding the Mend line, you must have forgotten that Monks actually get significantly less Health than Guardians.<blockquote><hr>Guardians get 1 single target taunt, 1 group taunt, and one line which is a small attack that adds hate. Monks get 1 single target taunt and 1 group taunt and a DPS edge.<hr></blockquote>Actually you're forgetting Hold The Line. Moreover I've become fairly convinced that the Taunting Blow line gives Guardians a slight edge over Monks in aggro management. That's okay, I'll take a Monk with a little higher DPS instead of a Guardian with a little better aggro management; that's how the whole "flavor" thing works with this Archetype system.<blockquote><hr>Remove the DPS edge, add a taunt number to one of your low damage attacks. You have the exact same taunting abilities of a guardian.<hr></blockquote>Why would I want that? That's making the classes identical, not equivalent. As I've stated, I don't want them identical.IvarIronheart, I don't want Monks to be better than Guardians, I want them to be equivalent. I want both Guardians and Monks to tank equally well in most situations, albeit differently; on occasion, a Guardian might work a little better, on occasion, a Monk. I particularly want the skill of the player to be the most important determinant of who's the better tank, <b>not the subclass</b>. Moreover I want this to apply across the board, both in soloing, regular grouping, and, yes, raiding. I don't think it's too much to ask, since it's only what SOE promised us from the beginning. I also don't think its unachievable, although it won't be all that easy.<p>Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on <span class=date_text>03-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:00 PM</span>

Geothe

03-26-2005, 01:01 AM

<P>"Guardians can self-buff 23 points of Defense"</P> <P>I'm pretty sure that does include the +5 Def that comes as a RACIAL TRADITION.</P> <P>I mean.. you wouldn't want to go around spreading deceptive and inflated information now, would you?</P>

FamilyManFir

03-26-2005, 01:12 AM

<blockquote><hr>Geothe wrote:<P>"Guardians can self-buff 23 points of Defense"</P> <P>I'm pretty sure that does include the +5 Def that comes as a RACIAL TRADITION.</P> <P>I mean.. you wouldn't want to go around spreading deceptive and inflated information now, would you?</P><hr></blockquote>Read the post. According to the link I read it came from Call Of Protection (+15) stacking with Return To Battle (+<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.15 + 8 = 23Add in a Racial Tradition of +5 Defense and you get <b>28</b> points added to Defense, thus graying-out a white-con mob. That should push Avoidance into the high 90s given how Defense scales, although I haven't seen any posts that specifically say what a level 50 Guardian's Defense is when fully self-buffed.

SageMarrow

03-26-2005, 05:16 AM

<DIV>You guys make it sound like monks do 500 more dps than guardians do.<BR><BR>Get real.<BR>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>look at the skills please. most if not all of guardian and especially berserker skills that are combat arts all have hate building built into them, so that they cannot spam all they have in an attempt to achieve maximum dps, because they will PULL AGGRO, which is pointless. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>They cannot achieve full dps potential and still allow the MT to do his job. A crucial part of being off tank is convincing yourself NOT to taunt,,, which they cannot do.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>by this logic a guardian technically cannot use his combat arts and anything from there on out is dependant on his autoattack ability.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>So put the guardian dps argument to rest. Now if we are to be on par with timefighting/damage taken ratio... it would be a better idea to balance it on that level of giving more dps then right? leave us with the tankability we have now, and give us a 50% chance to counter attack for riposte damage on any miss block parry that we receive, that would increase our frontal dps and fix the lack of **tankability** and cut down the refresh timers on our combat arts, so that we can keep up with dps in spurts.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>that would definately balance the tanking / damage taken /time fighting ratio. and give a concurrent spot for buffs and dps in raids... but that wouldn't help the raid tanking argument, but it would definately make brawler type the optimum tank in fast paced experience groups in exchange for the ability to tank raids, which is an awesome trade off IMO.. </FONT></DIV>

ArivenGemini

03-26-2005, 05:35 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<div>You guys make it sound like monks do 500 more dps than guardians do.Get real._____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________</div> <div> </div> <div><font color="#ffff33">look at the skills please. most if not all of guardian and especially berserker skills that are combat arts all have hate building built into them, so that they cannot spam all they have in an attempt to achieve maximum dps, because they will PULL AGGRO, which is pointless. </font></div> <div><font color="#ffff33"></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffff33">They cannot achieve full dps potential and still allow the MT to do his job. A crucial part of being off tank is convincing yourself NOT to taunt,,, which they cannot do.</font></div> <div><font color="#ffff33"></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffff33">by this logic a guardian technically cannot use his combat arts and anything from there on out is dependant on his autoattack ability.</font></div> <div><font color="#ffff33"></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffff33">So put the guardian dps argument to rest. </font></div><hr></blockquote>Not to be contrary here Sage... but as a berserker I have offtanked and done my best to contribute to the DPS equation in that position... and doing DPS with hate generating attacks as a berserker is NO DIFFERENT than doing dps as an extreme hate generating wizard, warlock etc... you simply behave in a similar manner and start slow and ramp up as the MT builds and maintains agro... it isn't a race to see who can build hate the fastest.. it is a coordinated effort to remove the encounter... and using the same methodology with my serk that I have used with my DPS class alts I can go full throttle with all my attacks and full buffs (including serk) after the MT has built agro just as easily.. and I do so.. And I dont hesitate to say that my agro generation is more than a guardians.. so if -I- can do it.. so can a guardian.</span><div></div>

SageMarrow

03-26-2005, 05:59 AM

<P>well okay let me clarify my point... </P> <P>in a dps parse, you try to achieve the maximum dps over the course of the entire fight with everything openly available to you.</P> <P>now to clarify one more thing,</P> <P>that means with skills that have hate built within them, you build hate 2x in one attack. once with the damage done, then again with the **taunt** effect of the attack. where as other classes when attacking only get the single hate build of attack damage which isnt very powerful in comparison to a taunt spell. trust me i know, im a bruiser, and i have to spam half a combat bar in order to take aggro back when all my taunts and group buffs arent refreshed... where as a berserker or guardian can cast one spell and take aggro from anything anywhere at adept levels.</P> <P>so yes, when achieving accurate parse numbers you put out the fastest most potent damage that you can in a given amount of time. So when trying to get accurate parse numbers on a warrior type, and them using everything they have from start to finish of the fight, they WILL pull aggro at some point during the fight...</P> <P>Just the same concept with a warlock, if they throw everything they have in rapid succession in which to achieve an accurate parse of their maximum average dps, the WILL pull aggro at some point during the fight.</P> <P>so while strategy may be actually in game, parse numbers have to be based upon a classes maximum damage per second by everything available to them in a given period of time. </P> <P> </P> <P>EDIT: and that includes every buff that increases dps, every haste buff availble to an individual class, and anything else that would be considered **boosting** to ones damage capability.</P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:02 PM</span>

Snikey

03-26-2005, 09:44 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>We do NOT trade DPS for defense, we trade it for taunts.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>(Speaking from a guardians stance I presume)--^</P> <P>Gage with all your debate for "equal but different", especially vs. raid mobs.. It seems like you are missing something. You'd like the final result to be even numbers for damage taken from both monk and guardian at the end of an idenentical fight, be it by misses... or by mitigation. And you talk about monk DPS(while tanking) (requirement for monk aggro) being the balance to Guardian taunt. I'm not making a arguement for, "look at monk dps" But I'm tring to point out while tanking guardian dps goes down significantly when MT. Those taunts do only that... add hate... is not double edged aggro as what monks do.</P> <P>When speaking about dps there are 2 sides, dps taken and given. The guardian class was designed to use temporary dps(given) sacrafice buffs to lower dps(taken) and rely more on party members to get the job done. Are you saying the sacrafice in DPS while MTing shouldn't yield results, while the monk inharent dps for aggro should not be a factor at all when it comes down to dps(taken)?</P> <P>**edit spelling</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Snikey on <span class=date_text>03-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:53 PM</span>

i3ry

03-26-2005, 10:12 AM

Err, an offtank using his combat abilities that generate hate (earlier someone said the only hate generation for guardians is taunt, aoe taunt, and one other one) is going to pull agro from a guardian using those same abilities PLUS their taunts? <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-26-2005, 10:37 AM

<P>lol, theres no point in argueing about the issue with 2 guardians in group, and even then it will be dependant on who has the higher adept version, so in essence,,,,</P> <P>but in regards to a berserker, yes a zerker can steal aggro from a MT'ing guardian, and a guardian can steal aggro from a zerker in general terms, provided that a MTing warrior will recieve parries blocks riposte and all that good stuff.</P> <P>where as the opposite is doing all out damage taunting etc.</P> <P>ive tried it in game with some friends but either way, pure dps is hard to pull aggro by when one player already has a mob locked in, (aka established aggro)</P>

-Aonein-

03-26-2005, 11:24 AM

<DIV> <P>Plate Class's <STRONG><U>DO NOT</U></STRONG> get invited to groups for DPS or group Utility. Monks / Brusiers have the best of both worlds, they can tank, just like Gage has pointed out all the way to lvl 50, they can also tank lvl 54 <STRONG>^^^</STRONG> group x2 and x3 encounters, and if Gangsterfist didnt postion himself poorly when he tryed to tank that <STRONG>^^^</STRONG> group x4 mob, he may well have tanked it too 0 hp, also isnt there screen shots on the Bruiser forum of a Brusier tanking some lvl 54 <STRONG>^^^</STRONG> group x4, pretty sure it was The Angler, and Monks / Bruisers can also do upto 200 DPS, just like Gage himself has stated. So, Gage has said he can do 200 DPS when he wants to, and he tanked all the way from lvl 1 - 50, and Monks and Bruisers from these forums have posted screen shots and information about tanking plenty of raids.</P> <P>Guardians do 80 - 100+ DPS, Berserkers do 100 - 140 DPS, Monks do 160 - 200+ DPS, Bruisers can easily constantly do 200+ DPS if they have a good enough tank to hold agro off them cause alot of there combat arts have taunts tied into them, and no this isnt in a Tanking point of view, this is a DPS point of view, so yes, the disparity between Monk / Bruiser DPS to Guardian DPS is a huge difference, not just a small one. Berserkers / Monks / Bruisers all get a self haste, Guardians do not which is the reason for the large gap in DPS values.</P> <P>Monks are more damage oreintated for a number of reasons. Monks get more offenisve skills then any other fighter, and they out damage the rest of the fighter class by a significant amout when in DPS mode. With Everburning Flame and all your offensive Direct Damage arts that you get which total more then Guards and Berserkers, a good monk who knows how to play a DPS role can easily push out 200+ DPS. All someone has to do is look up the amount of offensive Direct Damage arts the Monks get, and you can clearly see that with a Self haste + all the high damage arts you get, you can clearly see that Monks are very very DPS oreintated. </P> <P>For those wondering, Everburning Flame / Fire is a self haste for monks which add 46% haste. I dont see Guardians getting any self haste combat arts and they get no where near as many high damage combat arts that Monks / Bruisers / Berserkers get. Guardians get like 2 - 3 high damage attacks that get upgraded over the course of 20 - 50, thats it, the rest are just Defensive group and self buffs, and Single target NPC debuffs that just happen to have a low direct damage effect tied into them, a Guardian casting these arts is acually losing DPS for the time he has to stand there and cast these plus taunt.</P> <P>Ill say it again, people need to learn about the archtypes in there entireity's before rambling on about stuff they know nothing about.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P></DIV>

SageMarrow

03-26-2005, 01:25 PM

<DIV>aonein-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> well i will say this much, im honestly tired of debating the obvious and trying to instill my beliefs and common sense deductions into others who have no desire to see any point of view outside of thier own. Now on the same token, i am also tired of seeing this debate across 8 different threads, 2 being in every fighter subclass forum at the least. So honestly SOE needs to clean up this mess one way or another, simply put. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> If the classes were meant to be simply a means to an end to do a set job and no real differences in ability were to be present, then that needs to be said so that players can make decisions that reflect the choice given to them, either to stay or leave. While this wouldnt be best for business on the financial end, it definately would be thier best move as far as credibility. i often speak on behalf of what i see in game, the players i converse with, especially the ones that dont read these boards and play the game as it goes and only show their heads long enough to comment on a change once it has taken place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> While many players would stay and adjust, some have rooted themselves to an individual character and enjoy role play and other things of that nature that tend to equate to having fun. Others have 10 different characters and play like there is no tommorow as long as they have vitality left on a character, which must equate to fun for them as well. No matter what player type, it still needs to be verbalized as to how they invision the class balance to go so that players like myself and the role players, and the players with attatchment to thier characters can decide if eq2 is the game for them instead of just leaving us/them on a string in anticipation of the next big patch that will turn the game upside down.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> It isnt a far stretch to say that most that chose the brawler class didnt know what exactly they were signing up for. Gage himself was even a dps'ing monk before a friend of his educated him about tanking. (he said it himself). since im a bruiser, what effects monks, will also effect us, and thats why i voice my opinion about this subject. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i dont want to see enchanters doing 300+ dps, not because i think they shoudlnt, but because there are other ways to balance things of that nature and make each class individualistic and different beyond this blanket Fighter=tank mentality. It just means we have 4 archetypes and the rest is just fluff and fashion. while i know most of you wont be able to comprehend what im saying that are deeply involved in this argument and some have a personal vendetta against me for my beliefs, im sorry for that - i dont know how else to say what i say...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:28 AM</span>

Snikey

03-26-2005, 02:46 PM

<DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Snikey on <span class=date_text>03-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:44 AM</span>

-Aonein-

03-26-2005, 07:01 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>aonein-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> well i will say this much, im honestly tired of debating the obvious and trying to instill my beliefs and common sense deductions into others who have no desire to see any point of view outside of thier own. Now on the same token, i am also tired of seeing this debate across 8 different threads, 2 being in every fighter subclass forum at the least. So honestly SOE needs to clean up this mess one way or another, simply put. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> If the classes were meant to be simply a means to an end to do a set job and no real differences in ability were to be present, then that needs to be said so that players can make decisions that reflect the choice given to them, either to stay or leave. While this wouldnt be best for business on the financial end, it definately would be thier best move as far as credibility. i often speak on behalf of what i see in game, the players i converse with, especially the ones that dont read these boards and play the game as it goes and only show their heads long enough to comment on a change once it has taken place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> While many players would stay and adjust, some have rooted themselves to an individual character and enjoy role play and other things of that nature that tend to equate to having fun. Others have 10 different characters and play like there is no tommorow as long as they have vitality left on a character, which must equate to fun for them as well. No matter what player type, it still needs to be verbalized as to how they invision the class balance to go so that players like myself and the role players, and the players with attatchment to thier characters can decide if eq2 is the game for them instead of just leaving us/them on a string in anticipation of the next big patch that will turn the game upside down.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> It isnt a far stretch to say that most that chose the brawler class didnt know what exactly they were signing up for. Gage himself was even a dps'ing monk before a friend of his educated him about tanking. (he said it himself). since im a bruiser, what effects monks, will also effect us, and thats why i voice my opinion about this subject. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i dont want to see enchanters doing 300+ dps, not because i think they shoudlnt, but because there are other ways to balance things of that nature and make each class individualistic and different beyond this blanket Fighter=tank mentality. It just means we have 4 archetypes and the rest is just fluff and fashion. while i know most of you wont be able to comprehend what im saying that are deeply involved in this argument and some have a personal vendetta against me for my beliefs, im sorry for that - i dont know how else to say what i say...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace</DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-26-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:28 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I fully understand how you feel also Sage, and im sure Majority of the others see and feel the same way, its a select few that seem to create alot of noise, especially when all people want is simple conversation or a level headed debate with out it turning into a flame war.</P> <P>Its good to see other Brawlers who think about other class's before themselves though and do some homework on how other class work in partical, and not just theroy. Monks just have to learn one way or another that there trade off is DPS for tanking ability, not taunts for tanking ability, but they can succesfully do both where no other fighter can. </P> <P>Brawler is the <STRONG><U>ONLY</U></STRONG> class that can be invited to a group for DPS <STRONG><U>OR</U></STRONG> Tank.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P>

Gaige

03-26-2005, 08:31 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Snikey wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <P>(Speaking from a guardians stance I presume)--^</P> <P>Gage with all your debate for "equal but different", especially vs. raid mobs.. It seems like you are missing something. You'd like the final result to be even numbers for damage taken from both monk and guardian at the end of an idenentical fight, be it by misses... or by mitigation. And you talk about monk DPS(while tanking) (requirement for monk aggro) being the balance to Guardian taunt. I'm not making a arguement for, "look at monk dps" But I'm tring to point out while tanking guardian dps goes down significantly when MT. Those taunts do only that... add hate... is not double edged aggro as what monks do.</P> <P>When speaking about dps there are 2 sides, dps taken and given. The guardian class was designed to use temporary dps(given) sacrafice buffs to lower dps(taken) and rely more on party members to get the job done. Are you saying the sacrafice in DPS while MTing shouldn't yield results, while the monk inharent dps for aggro should not be a factor at all when it comes down to dps(taken)?</P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Anyone who knows how to play the game on a hard mob will NOT spam combat arts while main tanking.</P> <P>This is no different for a monk.</P> <P>I conserve my power, using mainly my silence and my taunts, period.</P> <P>I'm not doing 150dps and tanking, I'm doing under 100. Ensuring that I have power to continously cycle taunts and group buffs. My pure melee DPS is a bit higher than a guardian while tanking, by design. Because I do not have the taunts and hate generating abilities that a guardian has.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-26-2005, 08:37 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Plate Class's <STRONG><U>DO NOT</U></STRONG> get invited to groups for DPS or group Utility.</P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong. I've played with plenty of SK and Pally offtanks, plenty of zerkers got invited even though I was MTing and I've even played with guardian offtanks.</P> <P>When I was grinding if they were higher lvl, then I deferred tanking to them and played offtank.</P> <P>But I've seen plenty of plate tanks get invites to a group with one tank already.</P> <P>Besides, the archetype balance should go both ways, in tanking ability and utility. The point of the system is desirability and ease of group formation. By limiting supposedly 4 classes in your opinion to being able to only contribute in one way, they'd be limiting the scope and ease of use of the system.</P> <P>If you honestly feel this way, feedback it. Just as all fighters should be balanced as tanks, they should be balanced as desirable offtanks also. Obviously with the guardian skewed towards a more defensive role.</P> <P>As for your little "quotes" of me, I do enjoy how you take everything out of context. I also enjoy how you make everything your and other classes are capable of as dismissal, for a variety of reasons. All of which, coincidentally, suit your arguement.</P> <P>The simple fact is that I do not do 200 dps on average. But thank you for trying to say I do <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

Velor

03-26-2005, 09:59 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>For those wondering, Everburning Flame / Fire is a self haste for monks which add 46% haste.... </P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong. At level 50, Everburning Fire (Adept 1) gives 36% haste, Adept 3 gives 40% and Master 1 gives 48%. Most players will have Adept 1 or even lower, some will have Adept 3 and a very rare few will own the Master 1 version.</P> <P>You'll probably say I'm nit-picking but being off by as much as 10% is quite a large amount, IMO. :smileywink: <BR></P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Ill say it again, people need to learn about the archtypes in there entireity's before rambling on about stuff they know nothing about.</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Better to educate the one who doesn't know anything about it than to beat your head against the wall arguing with the one who <STRONG>thinks</STRONG> he knows what he's talking about. :smileyvery-happy:<BR></P>

SageMarrow

03-27-2005, 03:46 AM

<P>valorek,,,, totally missed the point brother.... so busy trying to say AHA, I GOT YOU!!!. you missed the entire point.</P> <P>haste buff = dps increase... NO MATTER WHAT PERCENT</P> <P>so while you dip your head in to push around the BS, stick to topic and provide some vertical input (That means UPWARD POSITIVE), of quit taking up thread space, we are trying to get on the down slope... quit making this issue rise with flames..</P> <DIV>and gage, given the classes available to me in a given time, i dont EVER pick up a guardian first if im in group, i dont EVER pick up anything in heavy armor and THEN say - lets look for more, afte we have one plate tank in group... we are done, then its off to look for a healer, and thats ONLY if im not in the mood to MT.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now after we get 5 players in group, a wiz, a scout, a healer or 2, THEN AND ONLY THEN, i look for buff stacking, and think what would be best for me and my group, do we have more wizards or scouts, is there a bard available?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>scouts equals zerker - haste buffs, i dont HAVE TO TANK</DIV> <DIV>wizards equals guardian - defensive buffs, i dont HAVE TO TANK</DIV> <DIV>paladin, last choice</DIV> <DIV>shadowknight, way last choice...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and i know you hate this word, but that to is <FONT color=#00cc00 size=5>Common Sense.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:51 PM</span>

Nemi

03-27-2005, 06:56 AM

Every Fighter deserves the right to tank every mob in the game and succeed. Bottom line.No one subclass should have exlcusive rights to certain mobs. For those that can't see the imbalanced there, then there is little point in discussing talk of balance, damage absorbed or whatever other detail.

Gaige

03-27-2005, 08:45 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR>Every Fighter deserves the right to tank every mob in the game and succeed. Bottom line.<BR><BR>No one subclass should have exlcusive rights to certain mobs. For those that can't see the imbalanced there, then there is little point in discussing talk of balance, damage absorbed or whatever other detail.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>QFE.<BR>

-Aonein-

03-27-2005, 08:51 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Velorek wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>For those wondering, Everburning Flame / Fire is a self haste for monks which add 46% haste.... </P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong. At level 50, Everburning Fire (Adept 1) gives 36% haste, Adept 3 gives 40% and Master 1 gives 48%. Most players will have Adept 1 or even lower, some will have Adept 3 and a very rare few will own the Master 1 version.</P> <P>You'll probably say I'm nit-picking but being off by as much as 10% is quite a large amount, IMO. :smileywink: <BR></P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Ill say it again, people need to learn about the archtypes in there entireity's before rambling on about stuff they know nothing about.</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Better to educate the one who doesn't know anything about it than to beat your head against the wall arguing with the one who <STRONG>thinks</STRONG> he knows what he's talking about. :smileyvery-happy:<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>I got too talking with a few monks today, the same ones who gave me the values from Everburning Fire, 2 had Master I's, one had Adpet III. Now on top of that Monks get group buffs that acually <STRONG><U>INCREASE</U></STRONG> Damage Per Second by 9%, Crushing, Piercing and Slashing by 10 skill points = 2 levels meaning you have a higher chance to hit ratio and it also adds 289 mitigation vs mental damage. This is a Group buff, not a self buff called Quiote Purity. Berserkers / Guardians cant increase Damage Per Second, Berserkers can increase Offensive skills, but not damage out put which is your damage per second, nor can a Guardian or a Pally or a SK.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>By the way Sage, thank you for being open minded and seeing the point i was trying to make, Vel u say that the difference in 10% is huge, so whats the difference in 36% on a Monk compared to a Guardian with no haste? Must be massive.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Gage wrote :</P> <P>Wrong. I've played with plenty of SK and Pally offtanks, plenty of zerkers got invited even though I was MTing and I've even played with guardian offtanks.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Thats because thats all was avaiable at the time when you blastered your way to lvl 50 in less then 2 months Gage, there was more Fighter class then anyother class cause people know ( its called common sense ) Tanks / Priests are the most needed class for a stable group. Like has already been said numerous amounts of times, Plate Class's <STRONG><U>DO NOT</U></STRONG> get invited to groups for DPS or group utility, unless there is nothing left to chose from and even then people hold off waiting for a more DPS orientated class to become LFG.</FONT></P> <P>When I was grinding if they were higher lvl, then I deferred tanking to them and played offtank.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Which is the way it should be.</FONT></P> <P>But I've seen plenty of plate tanks get invites to a group with one tank already.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Cause no one else was around OR they were guildies or friends.</FONT></P> <P>Besides, the archetype balance should go both ways, in tanking ability and utility. The point of the system is desirability and ease of group formation. By limiting supposedly 4 classes in your opinion to being able to only contribute in one way, they'd be limiting the scope and ease of use of the system.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The entire Fighter range can do the same job as each other in a more diverse way, for the simple fact is there isnt a Guardian LFG, there is Paladins, Shadow Knights, Monks, Brusiers, Berserkers who can all fill the the Tanking role and do just as good a job as a Guardian if not better in some cases due to some being more offensively orientated then defensive.</FONT></P> <P>If you honestly feel this way, feedback it. Just as all fighters should be balanced as tanks, they should be balanced as desirable offtanks also. Obviously with the guardian skewed towards a more defensive role.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I've no problem with my class besides Broken Combat Arts, Abilities and Spells, simple as that, im happy and content with the way we are designed to be played. No one needs to /feedback anything Gage, cause every other class is happy where they are except the 30% of monks who feel the need to tank like a Guardian in the form of Avoidance which you already do but because of buff stacking, <STRONG><U>ANY</U></STRONG> class can get 100% avoidance, not just Guardians.</FONT></P> <P>As for your little "quotes" of me, I do enjoy how you take everything out of context. I also enjoy how you make everything your and other classes are capable of as dismissal, for a variety of reasons. All of which, coincidentally, suit your arguement.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quotes of you are contradictments of yourself, nothing more, proving you dont understand the archetype system or understand why there is one and why the need for diversity in more ways then just Avoidance / Mitigation. People <STRONG><U>want</U></STRONG> the <STRONG><U>choice</U></STRONG> Gage, not to be the same reguardless of wether its in the form of Avoidance or Mitigation, each and every single class in the entire game trades off something with in their boundries to be better at one thing then the other, and visa versa.</FONT></P> <P>The simple fact is that I do not do 200 dps on average. But thank you for trying to say I do</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I never said that Monks do it constantly, i said <STRONG><U>Brusiers</U></STRONG> do it Constantly with Monks falling behind and doing 160 - 200 DPS, again Gage, trying to twist peoples words. A Decent monk who can play a DPS role and a Tank role will be the better player in the end for not relying on any one thing like all you wish to rely is Tanking which the other 70% of the monk class does not wish to do cause there happy having the <STRONG><U>choice</U></STRONG> of ethier DPS offtank <STRONG><U>OR</U></STRONG> Tank. Again, Diversity giving them not only a better chance of a group, but a more fun play style cause they fill 2 postions instead of one.</FONT></P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Nemi, here is the answer to your Theroy Nemi :</FONT></P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4810" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4810</A></P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4463" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4463</A></P> <P> </P> <P>Once a few monks get a chance to prove there salt on a raid, then we might start seeing some screen shots of Monks tanking some high end raids, seeing as Monks are suppose to be better Tanks then Brusiers i cant see any reason why a monk cant be replaced in those pictures, can you?</P> <P>Dont hate the player, hate the game.</P> <P>EDIT : Time for monks to hang up there picket signs, and start coming up with strats and raid formations to start assisting them in the same way Jez has done instead of crying about Guardians being this uber GOD when its all to do with <STRONG><U>BROKEN COMBAT ARTS, ABILITIES AND SPELLS</U></STRONG> and <STRONG><U>BUFF STACKING</U></STRONG>.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:01 PM</span>

Gaige

03-27-2005, 09:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>-Aonein- wrote:</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This is a Group buff, not a self buff called Quiote Purity. Berserkers / Guardians cant increase Damage Per Second, Berserkers can increase Offensive skills, but not damage out put which is your damage per second, nor can a Guardian or a Pally or a SK. </FONT>Quiet Purity is a group buff, it increases the offense of the group and our mental resistance.</P> <HR> <DIV> <P></P> <P>Gage wrote :</P> <P>Wrong. I've played with plenty of SK and Pally offtanks, plenty of zerkers got invited even though I was MTing and I've even played with guardian offtanks.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Thats because thats all was avaiable at the time when you blastered your way to lvl 50 in less then 2 months Gage, there was more Fighter class then anyother class cause people know ( its called common sense ) Tanks / Priests are the most needed class for a stable group. Like has already been said numerous amounts of times, Plate Class's <STRONG><U>DO NOT</U></STRONG> get invited to groups for DPS or group utility, unless there is nothing left to chose from and even then people hold off waiting for a more DPS orientated class to become LFG. </FONT>DO NOT! is a bold statement, because if just one on any server at any given time does, you are totally wrong.</P> <P>When I was grinding if they were higher lvl, then I deferred tanking to them and played offtank.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Which is the way it should be.</FONT></P> <P>But I've seen plenty of plate tanks get invites to a group with one tank already.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Cause no one else was around OR they were guildies or friends. </FONT>You assume a lot.</P> <P>Besides, the archetype balance should go both ways, in tanking ability and utility. The point of the system is desirability and ease of group formation. By limiting supposedly 4 classes in your opinion to being able to only contribute in one way, they'd be limiting the scope and ease of use of the system.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The entire Fighter range can do the same job as each other in a more diverse way, for the simple fact is there isnt a Guardian LFG, there is Paladins, Shadow Knights, Monks, Brusiers, Berserkers who can all fill the the Tanking role and do just as good a job as a Guardian if not better in some cases due to some being more offensively orientated then defensive.</FONT></P> <P>If you honestly feel this way, feedback it. Just as all fighters should be balanced as tanks, they should be balanced as desirable offtanks also. Obviously with the guardian skewed towards a more defensive role.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I've no problem with my class besides Broken Combat Arts, Abilities and Spells, simple as that, im happy and content with the way we are designed to be played. No one needs to /feedback anything Gage, cause every other class is happy where they are except the 30% of monks who feel the need to tank like a Guardian in the form of Avoidance which you already do but because of buff stacking, <STRONG><U>ANY</U></STRONG> class can get 100% avoidance, not just Guardians.</FONT></P> <P>As for your little "quotes" of me, I do enjoy how you take everything out of context. I also enjoy how you make everything your and other classes are capable of as dismissal, for a variety of reasons. All of which, coincidentally, suit your arguement.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quotes of you are contradictments of yourself, nothing more, proving you dont understand the archetype system or understand why there is one and why the need for diversity in more ways then just Avoidance / Mitigation. People <STRONG><U>want</U></STRONG> the <STRONG><U>choice</U></STRONG> Gage, not to be the same reguardless of wether its in the form of Avoidance or Mitigation, each and every single class in the entire game trades off something with in their boundries to be better at one thing then the other, and visa versa. </FONT>Which is fine, as long as those trade offs DO NOT make them unable to fill the primary role at any level.</P> <P>The simple fact is that I do not do 200 dps on average. But thank you for trying to say I do</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I never said that Monks do it constantly, i said <STRONG><U>Brusiers</U></STRONG> do it Constantly with Monks falling behind and doing 160 - 200 DPS, again Gage, trying to twist peoples words. A Decent monk who can play a DPS role and a Tank role will be the better player in the end for not relying on any one thing like all you wish to rely is Tanking which the other 70% of the monk class does not wish to do cause there happy having the <STRONG><U>choice</U></STRONG> of ethier DPS offtank <STRONG><U>OR</U></STRONG> Tank. Again, Diversity giving them not only a better chance of a group, but a more fun play style cause they fill 2 postions instead of one. </FONT>It isn't hard to play a DPS role. You drink good water, try having power regen items, upgrade your combat arts, and then push the correct buttons as much as you can. Its easy. Besides, EVERY class can do adequate DPS when they try.</P> <P>Wow another person spouting off stats. So you've spoken with 70% of the playerbase on every server playing a monk, and received their insight and opinions on the class? OH, you are exaggerating. Ok, just checking. I don't care what your presumed majority think, a lot of them probably come from EQ1, or view the monk as a DPS class. I've heard more than enough of that before. Just because they are ignorant and uneducated about the role of the class DOES NOT CHANGE THE ROLE OF THE CLASS.</P> <P>This whole "diversity giving them more chance of a group" is BS. Its utter 100% crap. There is NOTHING good about being subpar in everything you can do. Nothing. Its fine when you are grinding because groups are groups, if the mob dies and ppl get xp who cares. The END GAME also matters. The grind is just the path, the endgame is where a lot of players who are concerned with balance and group/raid desirability will end up. These are min/max and role scenarios, and I assure you, if your dps/tanking/utility is worse than a different class, you will NOT be needed. Period. So why waste so much time getting to 50. Its like "oh from 1 to 50 you can tank, at 50...well sorry".</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

-Aonein-

03-27-2005, 09:40 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <P> </P> <DIV> <P>You assume a lot.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Again Gage, common sense prevails in the end, not the vision of someone who all he has his sights on is being the first Monk to tank Darathar so he can spalsh the screen shot on the Monk forum. But it looks like Jez will beat you to that title seeing titles is all you care about.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quotes of you are contradictments of yourself, nothing more, proving you dont understand the archetype system or understand why there is one and why the need for diversity in more ways then just Avoidance / Mitigation. People <STRONG><U>want</U></STRONG> the <STRONG><U>choice</U></STRONG> Gage, not to be the same reguardless of wether its in the form of Avoidance or Mitigation, each and every single class in the entire game trades off something with in their boundries to be better at one thing then the other, and visa versa. </FONT>Which is fine, as long as those trade offs DO NOT make them unable to fill the primary role at any level. </P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>None of a monks trade offs are hindering them from filling ethier a Tanking role or a DPS role.</FONT></P> <P>isn't hard to play a DPS role. You drink good water, try having power regen items, upgrade your combat arts, and then push the correct buttons as much as you can. Its easy. Besides, EVERY class can do adequate DPS when they try.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Exactally, but some class are designed to more DPS then others by mechanics and design, no matter how hard some try, they will never do the same DPS or anywhere remotely in the same region as what a Monk / Brusier can.</FONT></P> <P>Wow another person spouting off stats. So you've spoken with 70% of the playerbase on every server playing a monk, and received their insight and opinions on the class? OH, you are exaggerating. Ok, just checking. I don't care what your presumed majority think, a lot of them probably come from EQ1, or view the monk as a DPS class. I've heard more than enough of that before. Just because they are ignorant and uneducated about the role of the class DOES NOT CHANGE THE ROLE OF THE CLASS.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>No Gage, your starting to stab in the dark, im talking about the 70% of people who said they wanted DPS first, Tank second on the poll Sage took.</FONT></P> <P>This whole "diversity giving them more chance of a group" is BS. Its utter 100% crap. There is NOTHING good about being subpar in everything you can do. Nothing. Its fine when you are grinding because groups are groups, if the mob dies and ppl get xp who cares. The END GAME also matters. The grind is just the path, the endgame is where a lot of players who are concerned with balance and group/raid desirability will end up. These are min/max and role scenarios, and I assure you, if your dps/tanking/utility is worse than a different class, you will NOT be needed. Period. So why waste so much time getting to 50. Its like "oh from 1 to 50 you can tank, at 50...well sorry".</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Monks / Bruisers can tank raids fine, you yourself praise Jez the Bruiser for his recent screen shots which i posted in the post above of him taking out a few high end lvl mobs, the problem is Gage, no one will give you a shot at the title, thats whats got your knickers in such a knot, even though you yourself know to well that with the right stratergy and raid formation, would be able to tank any encounter in the game, even Darathar.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Gage your assumptions on how people grind to geto end game is a very small and limited view on how people play the game. Do you think everyone plays to strive to geto end game and raid? EQ2 was designed from feedback from EQ1, and the main reason EQ2 one was designed was for casual gaming, John Smeadly himself stated that in a producer letter that the game is more designed around casual gaming because people dont have 8 - 12 hours to sit down and raid through massive amounts of content anymore like they used to be able to do. Even when you do raid something in this game, it takes on averge 30 mins to get everyone there and set up and another 15 - 20 mins to kill the mob, then they might hit one more after that which is the reason for 24 man / woman total raids, its a simple way of saying that the game isnt focused on raiding, its focused on casual gamers who more then liekly wont see the high end game material for another year which is the majority of EQ2 gamers.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>You have to remeber one thing Gage, the bulk of EQ2 gamers are casual gamers, not high end raiders, most people dont even care about raiding. Its a small percent that do like it, and even then most people dont even have a good enough computer to be able to raid or cant even afford one cause of the amount of lag it creates, see what im doing Gage, is called keeping a open mind, something i know now you are not able to do cause all you want to do is tank Darathar, and thats all you care about, so maybe after you mentor your lvl 30 guild all the way to lvl 50, they might let you try and Tank Darathar. Untill then Gage, this is my last post here, because its quite simple Gage, in the end, <STRONG><U>Common Sense</U></STRONG> previals, not the notions of a egotistical person hell bent on being the best and the first to do it. The game doesnt revolve around Monks, nor does it any class, Guardians included, there is just alot of stuff thats bugged and broken at the moment combat arts, abilities and spell wise.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Anyway Gage, Bruisers have proven that Brawlers can tank high end raid content, when Monks ( certain monks ) decide to put down the picket signs and start thinking straight, maybe they will have some screen shots to splash also, until then Gage, good luck on tanking Darathar when you get there, wish you and the rest of the monks all the best with it.</FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:46 PM</span>

Gaige

03-27-2005, 10:33 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <P> </P> <DIV> <P>You assume a lot.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Again Gage, common sense prevails in the end, not the vision of someone who all he has his sights on is being the first Monk to tank Darathar so he can spalsh the screen shot on the Monk forum. But it looks like Jez will beat you to that title seeing titles is all you care about. </FONT>Ha Ha. Yeah, because I started being pro-tank and vocal in the forums once I found out Darathar was in the game. LoL. OMG. You have found me out. I only seek the fame and fortune that will be heaped upon me once I tank Darathar :smileysurprised:</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quotes of you are contradictments of yourself, nothing more, proving you dont understand the archetype system or understand why there is one and why the need for diversity in more ways then just Avoidance / Mitigation. People <STRONG><U>want</U></STRONG> the <STRONG><U>choice</U></STRONG> Gage, not to be the same reguardless of wether its in the form of Avoidance or Mitigation, each and every single class in the entire game trades off something with in their boundries to be better at one thing then the other, and visa versa. </FONT>Which is fine, as long as those trade offs DO NOT make them unable to fill the primary role at any level. </P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>None of a monks trade offs are hindering them from filling ethier a Tanking role or a DPS role. </FONT>We have no DPS role, we aren't scouts. We offtank. Difference.</P> <P>isn't hard to play a DPS role. You drink good water, try having power regen items, upgrade your combat arts, and then push the correct buttons as much as you can. Its easy. Besides, EVERY class can do adequate DPS when they try.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Exactally, but some class are designed to more DPS then others by mechanics and design, no matter how hard some try, they will never do the same DPS or anywhere remotely in the same region as what a Monk / Brusier can. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>And, no matter how hard we try, once things are fully balanced, we will not outdamage scouts or mages. And, according to you and others we'll never tank as well as guardians. So, what are we for?</FONT></P> <P>Wow another person spouting off stats. So you've spoken with 70% of the playerbase on every server playing a monk, and received their insight and opinions on the class? OH, you are exaggerating. Ok, just checking. I don't care what your presumed majority think, a lot of them probably come from EQ1, or view the monk as a DPS class. I've heard more than enough of that before. Just because they are ignorant and uneducated about the role of the class DOES NOT CHANGE THE ROLE OF THE CLASS.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>No Gage, your starting to stab in the dark, im talking about the 70% of people who said they wanted DPS first, Tank second on the poll Sage took. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>That was 70%. I see. Even if it was 70%, the people on the forums are a vocal minority. So quoting his "poll" is as worthwhile as going into McDonalds and asking the 10 ppl in the dining room if they like big macs, and then using that to convey what the entire population thinks of Big Macs. Besides, you didn't say "70% of the people who responded to Sage's poll" you said "70% of the people playing monks".</FONT></P> <P>This whole "diversity giving them more chance of a group" is BS. Its utter 100% crap. There is NOTHING good about being subpar in everything you can do. Nothing. Its fine when you are grinding because groups are groups, if the mob dies and ppl get xp who cares. The END GAME also matters. The grind is just the path, the endgame is where a lot of players who are concerned with balance and group/raid desirability will end up. These are min/max and role scenarios, and I assure you, if your dps/tanking/utility is worse than a different class, you will NOT be needed. Period. So why waste so much time getting to 50. Its like "oh from 1 to 50 you can tank, at 50...well sorry".</P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Monks / Bruisers can tank raids fine, you yourself praise Jez the Bruiser for his recent screen shots which i posted in the post above of him taking out a few high end lvl mobs, the problem is Gage, no one will give you a shot at the title, thats whats got your knickers in such a knot, even though you yourself know to well that with the right stratergy and raid formation, would be able to tank any encounter in the game, even Darathar. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>OMG you found me out <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Gage your assumptions on how people grind to geto end game is a very small and limited view on how people play the game. Do you think everyone plays to strive to geto end game and raid? EQ2 was designed from feedback from EQ1, and the main reason EQ2 one was designed was for casual gaming, John Smeadly himself stated that in a producer letter that the game is more designed around casual gaming because people dont have 8 - 12 hours to sit down and raid through massive amounts of content anymore like they used to be able to do. Even when you do raid something in this game, it takes on averge 30 mins to get everyone there and set up and another 15 - 20 mins to kill the mob, then they might hit one more after that which is the reason for 24 man / woman total raids, its a simple way of saying that the game isnt focused on raiding, its focused on casual gamers who more then liekly wont see the high end game material for another year which is the majority of EQ2 gamers. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Ah ok. So what SoE says matters when it helps you, but not when it helps me. You do realize SoE also came up with this archetype system and every archetype being able to fill the primary role. (and no, they didn't say "except raids").</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>You have to remeber one thing Gage, the bulk of EQ2 gamers are casual gamers, not high end raiders, most people dont even care about raiding. Its a small percent that do like it, and even then most people dont even have a good enough computer to be able to raid or cant even afford one cause of the amount of lag it creates, see what im doing Gage, is called keeping a open mind, something i know now you are not able to do cause all you want to do is tank Darathar, and thats all you care about, so maybe after you mentor your lvl 30 guild all the way to lvl 50, they might let you try and Tank Darathar. Untill then Gage, this is my last post here, because its quite simple Gage, in the end, <STRONG><U>Common Sense</U></STRONG> previals, not the notions of a egotistical person hell bent on being the best and the first to do it. The game doesnt revolve around Monks, nor does it any class, Guardians included, there is just alot of stuff thats bugged and broken at the moment combat arts, abilities and spell wise. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes, once again my entire vendetta is to be able to tank Darathar. I haven't posted in this forum since RELEASE making monks more educated and advocating tanking. It was only after I found out about Darathar that I become driven to tank him, and focused only on that aspect of my gameplay. I realize that end game is minor, but that doesn't mean IT ISN'T HELD TO THE SAME ARCHETYPE STANDARDS.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ccff>Anyway Gage, Bruisers have proven that Brawlers can tank high end raid content, when Monks ( certain monks ) decide to put down the picket signs and start thinking straight, maybe they will have some screen shots to splash also, until then Gage, good luck on tanking Darathar when you get there, wish you and the rest of the monks all the best with it. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>No offense to Jez, but the angler was too easy (he isn't even in the game) and he's been tanked by a templar before. Now the CL instance that he also tanked I'm not familiar with, and I am proud of him. But please don't bring up the Angler. I mean guardians have made fun of that mob as being a low level x2 since he was introduced.</FONT><BR></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>

SageMarrow

03-27-2005, 04:49 PM

<DIV><FONT color=#66ccff>No Gage, your starting to stab in the dark, im talking about the 70% of people who said they wanted DPS first, Tank second on the poll Sage took..</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ccff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ccff>________________________</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ccff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Dont forget to include pollhe took as well...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>gage you are losing your footing in this, throwing out the "you assume alot." and things of that nature when you get backed down. The same thing you did in our debates when this thing first started. if you want to be tank all the time, go play either diablo or a guardian, there are your options, theres a thing called reality.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> not trying to be a butthead about this in the least, thats just the unfortunate ending here. Ive stopped reading your replies, not because i dont respect your opinion, but simply because you dont have anything profound or relavant to say anymore. At this point you are basically standing on your shouting stone shouting...without the purpose you once had, jez has done what you said could not be, the dps argument has been proven by even you yourself, and to end all of that, most players are happy to go on a raid and tanking isnt anywhere near a requirement.. we would like to think and hope and pray that they wont destroy this game by making us all the same but different but similar, but hey who knows what whacked of crap soe is trying to do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nemi:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Equal = equal</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Different = different</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(thats the only way that it can be spliced - there is no equal but different within the current setup or within anything they can do without starting from scratch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Offtank in 95% of situations = dps... you are not considered offtank until you are given something to do. and if your group is constantly having adds that you have to deal with individually, then either the group needs to slow down or the MT needs to get things under control. Offtank is a pleasure roll, its a title, just like calling a english teacher an Education Provisioneer in the spectrum of english studies..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>aka - english teacher. offtank = dps (until called upon) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and even if you dont make one attempt to get the add off the healer, it wont go on you if the group wipes, first it will be the MT for not calling evac or taking aggro back, and then the scout for not evacing fast enough...yet more of that good ole <FONT color=#00cc00 size=4>COMMON SENSE.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>:smileyhappy:</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:51 AM</span>

Nemi

03-27-2005, 06:08 PM

I have no idea where you stand on issues Sage, but I'll reiterate:All fighters should be able to tank EVERY mob in the game and succeed. Period.I really don't care what SoE give/take away from the monk class to achieve this. I chose Monk for 2 reasons -1) They are a tank class (I like to play Main Tank)2) I love the look and concept of the classI signed up to the vision that all subclasses fulfil the archetype role, as stated and restated numerous times by Moorgard. I do not want to be the BEST tank nor do I want to be BETTER than Guardians (whatever Best and Better mean), I just want to be the Main Tank for my guild (We have no Guardians as I was the 65 war in EQ1 for them).If SoE choose to abandon the archetype system, then I'll most probably find myself another game.<p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:08 PM</span>

NeVeRLi

03-27-2005, 11:25 PM

Just give monks heavy armor and we call it even :p <div></div>

Gaige

03-28-2005, 01:07 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#66ccff>Same old stuff.</FONT></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sage, I have nothing new to add because my stance will never change. I've wanted it since the beginning.</P> <P>I'm not like you, I don't flip flop around and come up with new "ideas" to make us better. Especially when 95% of your ideas equate to deferring the tank role to other classes and doing increased DPS.</P> <P>All these arguements are the same, and they are all tired and dumb. Nothing new is being added. I simply spoke about my feeling with the avoidance numbers before and after the change and here it is the same old tired arguement again.</P> <P>Just link me some comments/patch notes that show SoE is moving the brawler class away from a tank role, and then I'll shut up.<BR></P>

i3ry

03-28-2005, 03:15 AM

The +35% armor mitigation we received a few patches ago clearly shows Sony's push to have us as a dps class. <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-28-2005, 05:47 AM

<DIV>The +35% armor mitigation we received a few patches ago clearly shows Sony's push to have us as a dps class.<BR>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No that was just a bandaid to cure the ails of the the changes that had to be made for scouts to NEVER tank again because of the high agility, while our avoidance wasnt even a concern until a week ago when they split the number = how long of a time was it between the agility nerf to the mitigation increase? then again the time frame between the mitigation increase and the avoidance/mitigation split?, keep that in mind...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We stand on that 35% but also dont forget that heavy armor tanks also got a 11% boost on top of what they already had as well... Which still puts us WaY behind them saying as though we were technically coming from 0% and they were coming from 45%. And even still, one thing that im positive they knew all along was that avoidance was random and mitigation was a bit more consistent....right? right - cause moorgard had an entire post about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So while the patches may have been made in order to make us tank better, it in no way ever had any intentions of squaring brawles up with mitigation based tanks... just merely a bandaid = to ease the pain..</DIV>

Gaige

03-28-2005, 06:16 AM

<DIV>Ok, a band-aid or whatever, sure.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But how many patches or statements have been made to move us out of the tank role and into a DPS role, like you want?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh, and the agility nerf to mitigation increase wasn't very long at all.</DIV>

SageMarrow

03-28-2005, 06:35 AM

<P>anything beyond a day with a class being broken at its core function in a strictly PVE game is too long.</P> <P>No one said that i wanted us to be moved toward dps, but i did say that i dont want to be a lightly armored punching bag either that just sits there auto attacks and spams taunts as they refresh, thats not fun = and thats not why i played a bruiser.</P> <P>i said instead of trying to uproot the system, and making this a big debocle, they could make our tanking style a balance of dps/avoidance. to ensure kill speed as to take that inherent risk out of every fight against anything 1-2 levels above us. Which makes perfect sense to me, that will actually keep the fun in the class, </P> <P>because personally, when i tank- i dont do anything but sit back and press taunt, single target taunt, group buff, rinse repeat, usually dont have to worry about adds cause i know the zones i play in well, i use 1 combat art at best, eye gouge = -20 across all attacks, to ensure that i take the least amount of attacks possible. real simple equation. which gets boring after about 10 minutes... i dont see how a guardian does it honestly, which i why i have no problem with them living for the day to tank a raid, they deserve it IMO- cause they get nothing else. especially because they can be replaced in every other facet of the game.</P> <P>i said give us the ability to proc a high damage counter attack whenever a miss block or parry happens. which would build aggro across multiple mobs fights, it would shoot our dps through the roof WHILE TANKING. not at any other point, so that we can kill mobs faster in exchange for the risk involved in every fight that isnt green.</P> <P>So no, im not PRO dps - i enjoy tanking, but i would like to use my combat arts everyonce in a while without being a manasink and taking extra time between fights, ive tanked fights not even turning on auto attack plenty of times, just taunt taunt buff, repeat... </P> <P>I want to have a real feeling to my class, that it - nothing more. Im sorry if my IDEAS = arent to your likeing - but if you think about it - this would be perfect for siutations when you or jez or monkX want to tank, every time a miss block or parry comes in, you counterattack the mob for 600+ damage, now imagine how much more quickly things would go if you got a great string of rolls for about 6 minutes at that rate, simply because there is always a possiblity that for the next 20 minutes you may get hit 3 times back to back for 3000 damage, </P> <P>the mob will be weaker at which point that survival would be more of an option if anything else in heavy armor or even another brawler type could step up and play clean up. which further illustrates my point of /timefighting/damgetaken ratio that we should rely on, to keep fights as short as possible to compensate for the lack of ENSURED durabilty.</P> <P>i think thats a great trade off IMO.</P> <DIV>(edit: just on a side note in a real battle situation, would avoidance tanking be considered just running around the battle field while everyone chases it and kills it? lol = thats not how martial artist work, they duck and dodge and look for the best time to strike then strike with clean and effective counter attacks, so this would also embody how a martial artist actually fight, they dont fight one person and get smacked by the other 4- they fight 5 people at once by anticipating thier moves individually and striking back after they have successfully dodged an attack. watch a bruce lee movie or somn, even jean claude vandam would work, ill even go as far as Stephen Sagal, and we all hate his movies... or at least i do.)</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:48 PM</span>

Gaige

03-28-2005, 07:37 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>anything beyond a day with a class being broken at its core function in a strictly PVE game is too long.</P> <P>No one said that i wanted us to be moved toward dps, but i did say that i dont want to be a lightly armored punching bag either that just sits there auto attacks and spams taunts as they refresh, thats not fun = and thats not why i played a bruiser.</P> <P>i said instead of trying to uproot the system, and making this a big debocle, they could make our tanking style a balance of dps/avoidance. to ensure kill speed as to take that inherent risk out of every fight against anything 1-2 levels above us. Which makes perfect sense to me, that will actually keep the fun in the class, </P> <P>because personally, when i tank- i dont do anything but sit back and press taunt, single target taunt, group buff, rinse repeat, usually dont have to worry about adds cause i know the zones i play in well, i use 1 combat art at best, eye gouge = -20 across all attacks, to ensure that i take the least amount of attacks possible. real simple equation. which gets boring after about 10 minutes... i dont see how a guardian does it honestly, which i why i have no problem with them living for the day to tank a raid, they deserve it IMO- cause they get nothing else. especially because they can be replaced in every other facet of the game.</P> <P>i said give us the ability to proc a high damage counter attack whenever a miss block or parry happens. which would build aggro across multiple mobs fights, <FONT color=#ffff00>it would shoot our dps through the roof WHILE TANKING.</FONT> not at any other point, so that we can kill mobs faster in exchange for the risk involved in every fight that isnt green.</P> <P>So no, im not PRO dps - i enjoy tanking, but i would like to use my combat arts everyonce in a while without being a manasink and taking extra time between fights, ive tanked fights not even turning on auto attack plenty of times, just taunt taunt buff, repeat... </P> <P>I want to have a real feeling to my class, that it - nothing more. Im sorry if my IDEAS = arent to your likeing - but if you think about it - this would be perfect for siutations when you or jez or monkX want to tank, every time a miss block or parry comes in, you counterattack the mob for 600+ damage, now imagine how much more quickly things would go if you got a great string of rolls for about 6 minutes at that rate, simply because there is always a possiblity that for the next 20 minutes you may get hit 3 times back to back for 3000 damage, </P> <P>the mob will be weaker at which point that survival would be more of an option if anything else in heavy armor or even another brawler type could step up and play clean up. which further illustrates my point of /timefighting/damgetaken ratio that we should rely on, to keep fights as short as possible to compensate for the lack of ENSURED durabilty.</P> <P>i think thats a great trade off IMO.</P> <DIV>(edit: just on a side note in a real battle situation, would avoidance tanking be considered just running around the battle field while everyone chases it and kills it? lol = thats not how martial artist work, they duck and dodge and look for the best time to strike then strike with clean and effective counter attacks, so this would also embody how a martial artist actually fight, they dont fight one person and get smacked by the other 4- they fight 5 people at once by anticipating thier moves individually and striking back after they have successfully dodged an attack. watch a bruce lee movie or somn, even jean claude vandam would work, ill even go as far as Stephen Sagal, and we all hate his movies... or at least i do.)</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First you say tanking is boring, then you say you enjoy it.</P> <P>First you say you didn't sign up as a bruiser to spam taunts/group buffs (which is what tanking is), but then you say you aren't pro DPS.</P> <P>Sage maybe you don't even know what you want?</P> <P>Also the part highlighted is 100% absolutely overpowering.<BR></P>

Nemi

03-28-2005, 08:13 AM

You want huge DPS when tanking but normal DPS when offtanking? And you are the Guardians so called 'sane monk'.Jeez I have to wonder.

SageMarrow

03-28-2005, 08:44 AM

<P>whats wrong with that considering that we will never tank raids in the reliabilty that a guardian type provides, or get a paladins heals, or at the very least heavy armor.</P> <P>that wouldnt be overpowering, because it wouldnt make one bit of difference against a single pull, it would just give us an offensive purpose. outside of the time/consistent approach of having a guardian.</P> <P>guardian = consistency low kill speed</P> <P>monk = high kill speed low consistency</P> <DIV>instead of the standard approach to tanking IE: getting hit and trying not to get hit..</DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:46 PM</span>

i3ry

03-28-2005, 09:31 AM

Is it just me or does Sage have the writing ability of an autistic 2nd grader who drank 7 bottles of 'tussin? <div></div>

SomeDudeCRO

03-28-2005, 10:42 AM

It's not his writing competence which makes him dumb. <span>:smileytongue:</span> <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-28-2005, 11:54 AM

no act. my typing/comes from typing in a call center/ which ive said many times before/and which also equates to my crazy fast typing speed/ and if anth. else bothers you/ keep it to yourself/ thanks/ v27.

DarkangelCA

03-28-2005, 04:36 PM

<DIV>Tanking means taking damage wile dealing it, this is what a Knight/footman would do. Using shields and parries to avoid the heaviest blows and allowing their armor to soak up whatever blows they couldn't parry/block and praying they wouldn't take a fatal hit. They would lumber through their sword swings trying to connect with the opponent anyway they could. A Knight in heavy armor was not the most coordinated opponent on the battlefield, but one that could deliver a devestating weapon blow and had the staying power cause of their armor and stamina to take some heavy blows in return. This is the Guardian roll of Tanking.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks in reality were not what you would call a "Tank", a person who would stand there and take damage willingly. They were avoidance fighters, do whatever is necessary to stay out of harms way. While avoiding attacks they would retaliate hitting precise and critical areas and points on the opponents bodies. They would deal out fast strikes and powerful hits in rapid succession while putting their opponent back on their heels, then dancing in and out of combat range avoiding blows as they could. This is the Monk "Tank" style.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks should be all about avoidance, and their dps should be fairly solid, steady, and rapid in it's pickup. Guardians should be all about taking the dmg dealt with their dps slow and pondering in it's pickup, but heavy for a tank on a per hit ratio, seriously a fist can't cut a body in 2 like a partisan can, or even a good sword, though a stave/baton can shatter bones and be just as effective in other ways. As a Monk we shouldn't have the best of bother worlds, but a mediun inbetween, but imo avoidance should take precedence over DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If post is abit off, i'm writing this quickly from work at 3:30am, forgive me <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

Velor

03-28-2005, 07:02 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>valorek,,,, totally missed the point brother.... so busy trying to say AHA, I GOT YOU!!!. you missed the entire point.</P> <P>haste buff = dps increase... NO MATTER WHAT PERCENT</P> <P>so while you dip your head in to push around the BS, stick to topic and provide some vertical input (That means UPWARD POSITIVE), of quit taking up thread space, we are trying to get on the down slope... quit making this issue rise with flames..</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I haven't missed any points guy. I've read this thread and every other thread just like it since day 1, and I'm tired of debating it. Actually, I'm just tired of debating it with players who just can't see the bigger picture, don't understand long term vision, suffer from class envy, or are just trolling.</P> <P>Of course a haste buff is a DPS increase. Who disputed that? No one said that it wasn't. No one is stating that we don't get them. No one is stating that having a haste buff inherrently makes you a DPS class either. All I stated was the correct values for our haste buff and that a 10% difference in haste is very noticeable, even to the naked eye. In fact, haste is probably most effective when tanking since you're typically using fewer combat arts while doing so.</P> <P>The point of MY post above that you wanted to single out is that if you aren't accurate with your information, you lose credibility with any argument. This is probably why not many around here value your opinion. Not much of it is accurate.</P>

Velor

03-28-2005, 07:39 PM

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>By the way Sage, thank you for being open minded and seeing the point i was trying to make, Vel u say that the difference in 10% is huge, so whats the difference in 36% on a Monk compared to a Guardian with no haste? Must be massive.</FONT></P> <P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>To answer your question, yes. There is going to be a fairly big difference between someone with 36% haste and one without. But that isn't to say that the player without that haste can't be an effective tank without it either. They have many other buffs that offset this that other classes don't get.</P> <P>Haste is most certainly a DPS buff. I don't think anyone will dispute that. But haste only affects the rate of pure melee swinging. Combat arts are not affected by haste. So the more a player uses their combat arts, the less effective haste becomes. As a Monk in a DPS role, I usually spam my combat arts so when I do, I don't get the opportunity to maximize the benefit that haste provides me. Conversely, when tanking, I rely much less on combat art attacks and much more on standard melee swings, Taunts and only those buffs or arts that directly increase Threat, such as Taunts, Stuns, Stifles, etc. I don't think any of this is unique or exclusive to Monk tanking but I say it to provide a common reference. So in this case, haste provides a bigger benefit to me since I'm using my combat arts less. </P> <P>So on the surface, yes that's an advantage to Monks over Guards. There's no disputing that. But quantifying how much of an advantage it is is nothing that anyone can provide. There's just no way to do it that I can see. And the reality of it is that it's proving to be a very minor difference anyway. The logic goes that it's simply one of our abilities that helps us do our job, much the same way that Guards and every other fighter class get unique abilities to do their job. This totally jives with Sony's mission all along to say that all fighters can tank. The only problem is that these class abilities are proving to be imbalanced.</P> <P>Again, it's been stated that if a Guardian and a Monk were to tank with no buffs at all on, you usually won't see much of a difference between their efficiency. But when both are fully buffed using their own buffs and that of their group's, that's where the imbalance comes into play.</P>

Velor

03-28-2005, 08:04 PM

<P>Another thing that is off-topic but has some relevancy when discussing haste and its benefits...</P> <P>Haste is valuable in this game but it isn't anywhere near as vital as it was in EQ1. It's one of those factors that proved to be so game-defining that it often determined whether you won or lost before the fight even started. If you were an EQ1 vet, you know what I'm talking about. Things like Complete Heal, the 65% slow, achieving haste caps, necessary item progression such as Primals, previous expansion gear, etc. These were all factors that became critical to forward progression. Now I'm not saying that this was bad. Many people, including myself looked forward to some of that stuff, especially item progression which is probably one of the biggest reasons so many hardcore players were hooked.</P> <P>However, in going along with the mission statement for EQ2, it's obvious that you won't find too much of these things this time around. For instance, healers obviously have many heals at their disposal but they don't have a Complete Heal. Also, I'm not sure what the highest slow is in the game but the highest I've seen is around 8%, and many classes can get it. In fact, with dolls in the game now, every class can use this ability. I also don't know of any Complete Heal in the game either. Then there's item progression. Prismatics are nice but I don't see them as game-defining. I suppose we'll know when the first true expansion is released but again, I doubt it will require someone to farm Deception in order to progress through it. As for haste, Sony was fairly smart in the way they balanced it against combat arts, IMO.</P> <P>Again, I know it's off-topic but the point is that all of what we're discussing here is simply about the foundation for the game. They expect this game to have at least a 2-3 year life cycle so they're trying to be very cautious and judicious with almost every apsect of the game. Now more than ever is when they need to get things adjusted and corrected so they can add onto something solid down the road. Tanking is a very, very large aspect of the game. I personally would like to see the devs make a really hard focus on ensuring that everything involved with it is functioning the way it was intended. I honestly don't believe they are too far off but I also don't believe it's working the way it was designed to either. And IMO, the primary issue behind this is in the way buffs work. They just aren't scaling evenly across the 6 fighter classes.</P>

Velor

03-28-2005, 08:15 PM

<P>Oh and for the record, I personally have no problem playing a Monk either as a DPS class or a tank class. I just want our abilities to jive with what our designed role is.</P> <P>If Sony wants us to be a DPS class, fine. Then I would like to see many of our Adept 3 and Master 1 arts fixed and improved to help us maximize damage output. If Sony wants us to be a tank (which is what they've said they wanted), then improve the way we mitigate damage (there's no way for them to improve our avoidance so this is all that's left) and make our buffs more useful in achieving this. In return, I'm willing to sacrifice some of our damage output from our combat arts (note, I didn't say anything about changing our weapon ratios, skills, etc).</P> <P>I'm sure changes like this would require more discussion but my point is, I can adapt either way and be happy. Just be clear in the intent of the changes so it's easier for the playerbase to understand them. I'm tired of trying to explain my role myself.</P>

SageMarrow

03-28-2005, 09:39 PM

<DIV> <P>If Sony wants us to be a DPS class, fine. Then I would like to see many of our Adept 3 and Master 1 arts fixed and improved to help us maximize damage output. If Sony wants us to be a tank (which is what they've said they wanted), then improve the way we mitigate damage (there's no way for them to improve our avoidance so this is all that's left) and make our buffs more useful in achieving this. In return, I'm willing to sacrifice some of our damage output from our combat arts (note, I didn't say anything about changing our weapon ratios, skills, etc).</P> <P>I'm sure changes like this would require more discussion but my point is, I can adapt either way and be happy. Just be clear in the intent of the changes so it's easier for the playerbase to understand them. I'm tired of trying to explain my role myself.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______</P> <P>Now this- i agree with totally, they need to pick a side... change what needs to be changed- overhaul or whatever it takes, but the split isnt going to work between play styles unless they step up and say that its okay for a monk to not tank, just as its okay for a monk to tank... its the one fighter class that can be built either way. which i dont think will happen since they constantly repeat they want us tanking so hey...</P> <P> </P></DIV>

Kharza Xorlarr

03-28-2005, 11:33 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<div></div> <div><font color="#66ccff">No Gage, your starting to stab in the dark, im talking about the 70% of people who said they wanted DPS first, Tank second on the poll Sage took..</font></div> <div><font color="#66ccff"></font> </div> <div><font color="#66ccff">________________________</font></div> <div><font color="#66ccff"></font> </div> <hr></blockquote>I'm calling for a recount on that 70% number.. because I sure saw plenty of tank responses to your scientific poll. It seemed to me it came out to be more like 50/50. Kharza 42 Monk Mistmoore</span><div></div>

Gaige

03-28-2005, 11:49 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> SageMarrow wrote<FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Now this- i agree with totally, they need to pick a side.</FONT>.. change what needs to be changed- overhaul or whatever it takes, but the split isnt going to work between play styles unless they step up and say that its okay for a monk to not tank, just as its okay for a monk to tank... its the one fighter class that can be built either way. <FONT color=#ffff00>which i dont think will happen since they constantly repeat they want us tanking so hey...</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>They have, now you just need to accept it.</P> <P>Oh, and I'm waiting on the comments/patches that are moving us out of the tank role.</P> <P><BR> </P>

FamilyManFir

03-29-2005, 01:55 AM

<blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:Plate Class's <STRONG><U>DO NOT</U></STRONG> get invited to groups for DPS or group Utility.<hr></blockquote>How do you know? I take it that <i>you</i> don't get invited for DPS or Utility. Have you tried?Given a Guardian's defensive buffs <i>I'd</i> invite a Guardian along to help tank any day of the week. I recently was in a 3-person group with my Berserker, a Guardian and a Warden. We had a bad add and the group nearly wiped but we managed, by running, to lose the primary target and just had the add to deal with. I had the mob on me and was low on health when the Warden went OOP. About then the Guardain came back into range and I managed to tank that critter down to the ground because it stopped being able to hit me. Later I realized that the Guardian buffs probably came on-line and improved my defenses just enough.If Guardians aren't invited to groups for DPS or Utility then you guys just need to fight to educate the players just as we need to fight to educate them that Monks and Bruisers are TANKS!<blockquote><hr>Guardians do 80 - 100+ DPS, Berserkers do 100 - 140 DPS, Monks do 160 - 200+ DPS, Bruisers can easily constantly do 200+ DPS if they have a good enough tank to hold agro off them cause alot of there combat arts have taunts tied into them, and no this isnt in a Tanking point of view, this is a DPS point of view, so yes, the disparity between Monk / Bruiser DPS to Guardian DPS is a huge difference, not just a small one. Berserkers / Monks / Bruisers all get a self haste, Guardians do not which is the reason for the large gap in DPS values.<hr></blockquote>You have this all parsed, of course, to back up your claims, or can point to others' parses. Right? Are you sure this isn't based on anecdotes you've read on this board and the Bruiser board? Lord knows I've been called on the carpet for basing arguments on anecdotal evidence.<blockquote><hr>Monks are more damage oreintated for a number of reasons. Monks get more offenisve skills then any other fighter, and they out damage the rest of the fighter class by a significant amout when in DPS mode. With Everburning Flame and all your offensive Direct Damage arts that you get which total more then Guards and Berserkers, a good monk who knows how to play a DPS role can easily push out 200+ DPS. All someone has to do is look up the amount of offensive Direct Damage arts the Monks get, and you can clearly see that with a Self haste + all the high damage arts you get, you can clearly see that Monks are very very DPS oreintated.<hr></blockquote>(Sigh.) Monks do <i>not</i> get more offensive skills than any other Fighter; Bruisers, being the Offensive variation of Brawlers, get more offensive skills than Monks.Given this argument I actually went to the Classes page of EQ2Players and tallied up the offensive and defensive arts for Monks and Guardians. Some of the Arts were iffy; there are several that benefit both offense <i>and</i> defense, so to be consistent I put those in the offense column. Taunts I put in the defense column. For Guardians I tallied up 27 offensive arts and 26 defensive arts. For Monks I tallied up 31 offensive arts and 19 defensive arts (and 1 Misc.).Just based on this tally I can make several points: 1) Guardians have plenty of offensive arts to use when not in Tank mode. About half of them, in fact. 2) The difference between Guardians, with about a 50/50 split, and Monks, with about a 60/40 split, is quite consistent with the concept that <b>Monks give up Taunts for DPS</b>. Many of those offensive arts that Monks get have extra effects tied to them, such as stuns, interrupts, etc. that help to build aggro. 3) While Monks do have many offensive arts, I would argue that any class with over a third of their Combat Arts dedicated to Taunts and Defense is not "DPS oriented." You want "DPS Oriented" go look at the Swashbuckler, with an 80/20 split or the Wizard with a 60/15 split (another 25% of the Wiz spells are misc, including Power regen spells).<blockquote><hr>Ill say it again, people need to learn about the archtypes in there entireity's before rambling on about stuff they know nothing about.<hr></blockquote>I'll say it again, the Fighter Archetype that you're "rambling on about" is built around two core funtions: aggro management and damage dissipation. According to SOE's stated design intentions all Fighters should perform these funtions equally well, albeit differently.

SageMarrow

03-29-2005, 02:35 AM

<DIV>if you need to take a poll, ask players in game, and dont ask them some skewed version of what you want them to think...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ask them specifically,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33><EM>As a preference would you like to be a dps based class with tanking ability on the side? Or would you like to be a tanking class with dps as a subset, saying as though a guardians ability to tank would mean sacrificing the latter?</EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is the question... simple and easy... and i promise you will get those 70% numbers people are talking about. we did it twice in the forums alone, and pre-thread hijack by the protankers.. it was an overwhelming majority.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look back at the first 3-4 pages in both forums...it shows clearly before gage or anyone else dipped in and said a word.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and i dont want to be a dps class, i dont want to be in the scout tree- i already have a scout alt... i want to be a bruiser. Not a guardian wanna be, not a paladin wanna be, not an assassin wanna be, i want to be a bruiser, whatever sony thinks a bruiser should be, for good or bad, and if they envision the class totally left field from what ive put 40 levels and 60 bucks into as of yet, i wont play it. Not a complicated matter IMO.</DIV>

Gaige

03-29-2005, 02:44 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>if you need to take a poll, ask players in game, and dont ask them some skewed version of what you want them to think...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>ask them specifically,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33><EM>As a preference would you like to be a dps based class with tanking ability on the side? Or would you like to be a tanking class with dps as a subset, saying as though a guardians ability to tank would mean sacrificing the latter?</EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is the question... simple and easy... and i promise you will get those 70% numbers people are talking about. we did it twice in the forums alone, and pre-thread hijack by the protankers.. it was an overwhelming majority.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look back at the first 3-4 pages in both forums...it shows clearly before gage or anyone else dipped in and said a word.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and i dont want to be a dps class, i dont want to be in the scout tree- i already have a scout alt... i want to be a bruiser. Not a guardian wanna be, not a paladin wanna be, not an assassin wanna be, i want to be a bruiser, whatever sony thinks a bruiser should be, for good or bad, and if they envision the class totally left field from what ive put 40 levels and 60 bucks into as of yet, i wont play it. Not a complicated matter IMO.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>ROFL! You promise? So you know without a doubt, 100% that exactly 70% of the people out there playing monks want to be a scout who can tank? Ha Ha.</P> <P>Besides, DPS is a lack of taunts, not tanking ability.</P> <P>What fighter has the worst taunts (bruiser) what fighter does the best DPS (bruiser); what fighter has the best taunts (guardian) what fighter does the worst dps (guardian).</P> <P>Sage you are wrong. Your statistics are BS and wishful thinking. You have no idea what 1% of the people playing monks/bruisers want, let alone 70%.</P> <P>You've already PROVEN you don't want to be SoE's vision of a bruiser Sage, because SoE says they are TANKS FIRST.</P> <P>You admitted you don't even like tanking, you call it boring. You refuse to listen to SoE when they say we are tanks and you hold onto a thread hoping it will be changed if you post enough crazy ideas.</P> <P>Besides the straight forward question is:</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Do you want to be balanced as tank class or be aligned as a DPS class that will never outdamage scouts.</FONT></P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:45 PM</span>

SageMarrow

03-29-2005, 03:57 AM

<P>umm no, you missed the point, but trust me when i say that more play dps spots than tank...</P> <P>anyway...</P> <P>And dps is NOT a trade off for taunts, because DPS is useless while tanking, combat arts and auto attacks get eaten up by blocks parries ripost and misses, all day everyday. so what if i spam all of my combat arts in a fight, im wasting power because they just get sucked up in parries, (it happens all the time). Now unless they make DPS a TRUE trade off for tuants, by increasing the accuracy of combat arts or cutting power cost in half, so you can use them without fear of being not able to use the REAL taunts that we were given, be it they may be crappy (bruiser). but they exist none the less.</P> <P>I enjoy the concept of tanking, aka being the group leader and leading fights, keeping things in order, watching the backs and making saves for my friends, keeping pops on timers so we dont get jumped....(edit: especially since i tanked a nice portion of CT this morning and a bunch of crap with no problem just about an hour ago, eye glare lords, golems, did a good job against a frightfiend, avoidance worked surprisingly well, just didnt have the dps to take it down....at level 37 BTW.)</P> <P>All that i love. What i DONT like is the traditional approach to tanking. aka, stand there and taunt buff taunt buff. THAT- IS BORING, and in the exact same post you reffered to, i clearly said that i dont see how guardians do it for 50 levels and i honestly would let them have a raid mob in exchange...lol they deserve it for being one sided and flavorless. The only thing they got going for them is to be a meat shield, everyone else has somn unique that they can do to make it worth while.</P> <P>And no it wont change if i post enough CRAZY ideas, but it will change if a decent majority of players in the classes involved quit over it....</P> <P>now put that in your pipe and smoke it.:smileywink:</P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:03 PM</span>

FamilyManFir

03-29-2005, 04:46 AM

Sage, I almost never read your posts because they're so poorly written <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. This one I was able to wade through, though, so I'll reply:<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:umm no, you missed the point, but trust me when i say that more play dps spots than tank...<hr></blockquote>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.<blockquote><hr>And dps is NOT a trade off for taunts, because DPS is useless while tanking, combat arts and auto attacks get eaten up by blocks parries ripost and misses, all day everyday. so what if i spam all of my combat arts in a fight, im wasting power because they just get sucked up in parries, (it happens all the time).<hr></blockquote>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.<blockquote><hr>Now unless they make DPS a TRUE trade off for tuants, by increasing the accuracy of combat arts or cutting power cost in half, so you can use them without fear of being not able to use the REAL taunts that we were given, be it they may be crappy (bruiser). but they exist none the less.<hr></blockquote>(Sigh) Sage, once again you reveal a lack of knowledge about the Monk class. I repeat what I've told you before, <b>the Taunts given to Monks (and Bruisers) are <i>equally effective</i> as the Taunts given to Guardians (and Berserkers, etc.)</b>. Guardians get an extra line of Taunts, the Taunting Blow line, which are dependent on the blow landing, even as Monks' extra offensive Combat Arts (which build aggro more indirectly) are dependent on blows landing. I admit that I think that the Taunting Blow line gives Guardians an edge in maintaining aggro, but not that much of one.I seem to recall a post of yours I skimmed somewhere that stated that you couldn't pull aggro off of a Guardian even though you tried your hardest, spamming Taunts and buffs and specials. Well, if the Guardian got the initial aggro from the pull then what do you expect? I admit that they have an edge, though not a huge one, in maintaining aggro. Even if they didn't and their aggro generation was the same as yours, they would always have the aggro from the initial pull to keep them in the #1 spot. Go tank sometime and see if a Guardian can pull aggro from <i>you</i> with you spamming Taunts, buffs, and specials; and if s/he can, how quickly. Log it and post it and we'll argue about the details. Until then lay off this, "Oh, Brawler's Taunts are so inferior," schtick.<blockquote><hr>I enjoy the concept of tanking, aka being the group leader and leading fights, keeping things in order, watching the backs and making saves for my friends, keeping pops on timers so we dont get jumped....(edit: especially since i tanked a nice portion of CT this morning and a bunch of crap with no problem just about an hour ago, eye glare lords, golems, did a good job against a frightfiend, avoidance worked surprisingly well, just didnt have the dps to take it down....at level 37 BTW.)<p>All that i love. What i DONT like is the traditional approach to tanking. aka, stand there and taunt buff taunt buff. THAT- IS BORING, and in the exact same post you reffered to, i clearly said that i dont see how guardians do it for 50 levels and i honestly would let them have a raid mob in exchange...lol they deserve it for being one sided and flavorless. The only thing they got going for them is to be a meat shield, everyone else has somn unique that they can do to make it worth while.</p><hr></blockquote>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!<blockquote><hr>And no it wont change if i post enough CRAZY ideas, but it will change if a decent majority of players in the classes involved quit over it....now put that in your pipe and smoke it.:smileywink:<hr></blockquote>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.

SageMarrow

03-29-2005, 05:01 AM

<P>family man, okay - so you are right. It wont matter. it doesnt matter. read the dev tracker.</P> <P>SOE is making it so that enchanters dps like wizards, and conjurers are right next door...</P> <P>Priest will all heal the same, and so far and so forth.</P> <P>its just pretty much time some of us make our exit because there are 24 classes full of fluff, couldve left it at 4 classes and been done with it-</P> <P>congrats soe - you are trying to corner the market on casual gamers? LOL, what a joke.</P> <DIV>so it wont matter family man, you and gage and whoever else can play this that way, because before the priest and such, im sure we are first in line to be Lined up like bowling pins...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(edit: and those that havent already leveled all the way to 50... and those that are new will follow suit on the way out the door as word gets out that SOE's classes are "balanced" and the method they used to do it.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>read this: MMORPG.COM wrote</DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __</DIV> <DIV> <DIV><B>Are We Having Fun Yet?</B></DIV>The fancy graphics and the voice acting and the voluminous quests are important parts of the game, but they all take a backseat to one thing: fun. So the question becomes, "How fun is EverQuest II?" Sadly, the answer in this writer's opinion is, "Not very," or at least not nearly as fun as other games on the market today, including its predecessor. The success of the original EverQuest can be attributed as much to timing as anything else. When EQ was released, the internet was just starting to become prevalent as a consumer medium. First person perspective in gaming was hitting its stride and online play was becoming smoother and more realistic for games more complex than backgammon. Chat rooms and the social side of services like AOL were seeing huge jumps in popularity as the world was getting online. EverQuest took parts of all these phenomena and bound them into a fun online experience. But even if the game had been released a year later, people would have played it in droves because it was a doggone fun game. <P></P> <P></P><IMG height=1 alt="" src="http://www.mmorpg.com/images/spacer.gif" width=10 border=0><IMG height=10 alt="" src="http://www.mmorpg.com/images/spacer.gif" width=1 border=0>EverQuest II contains a lot of things that EQ just didn't or couldn't have, but it's missing something that's intangible. It's the part of EQ that made it so addictive that people would play for hours on end. It's what made websites like Allakhazam and Everlore and MMORPG.com so popular. It's what made dozens of other developers jump into the MMORPG genre with both feet in an attempt to duplicate EQ's success. It's not easy to put into words, but players know it when they experience it. There's something that's just not here, as if EQII is missing its soul. <P>It's not that the developers did a half-hearted job here. Not at all. The graphics engine is evidently capable of incredible things. The quests are involved and well-integrated into the story line. The dungeons are truly creepy and ominous. Regardless, the sum of the parts does not add up to a satisfying whole. There is a missing-the-forest-for-the-trees aspect to the overall game. It feels forced and artificial. It's a shame to say it, but it appears that after all the hard work and attention to detail, the team behind EQII forgot to include the fun.</P> <P>There is no arguing that EQII is something that many will love. It is a massive undertaking and is brimming with content and potential. The hype and the pedigree are a major reason for all the attention it is getting, but even if it had neither, it would be the recipient of numerous well-deserved accolades. Just releasing a game of this scale with almost no major issues is an accomplishment worthy of mention. EverQuest II will offer hours of gaming and adventure to those who find it to their taste. The question is exactly how many will absolutely love it. That will be answered in the months ahead, as players decide whether to keep playing or to discontinue and go back to EQ or to other games.</P> <P>Regardless, EQII will not be the worldwide sensation that EverQuest was. It's doubtful that any game will be able to duplicate that feat, but it's even tougher on one that bears the original's name. The success of EQ has given EverQuest II a huge headstart, but EQII must now captivate players on its own. That may not be as easy as many think. Only time will tell, and the ultimate judges will be the MMORPG playing population. It is they who will decide whether following the most wildly successful game in the genre's history is a blessing or a curse.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __</P> <P>Now if they think this form of "balance is going to bring them business, theyve got another thing coming, this certainly doenst make things more **FUN** do they?</P></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>03-28-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>04:10 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:10 PM</span>

FamilyManFir

03-29-2005, 05:41 AM

<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote: <P>family man, okay - so you are right. It wont matter. it doesnt matter. read the dev tracker.</P> <P>SOE is making it so that enchanters dps like wizards, and conjurers are right next door...</P> <P>Priest will all heal the same, and so far and so forth.</P> <P>its just pretty much time some of us make our exit because there are 24 classes full of fluff, couldve left it at 4 classes and been done with it-</P><hr></blockquote>Ah, hadn't seen that second post of Moorgards. I saw the first one but it didn't have as much info.Sage, you're missing the trees for the forest, so to speak. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want to see the Archetype system as having "only 4 classes" then you can. Certainly there are 4 sets of core roles. However I see 2 variations each of 3 very different ways of performing each of those 4 sets of roles, for a total of 24 interesting classes to play.<blockquote><hr><P>Now if they think this form of "balance is going to bring them business, theyve got another thing coming, this certainly doenst make things more **FUN** do they?</P><hr></blockquote>I think so. I think that this promotes grouping which, in my experience in EQ2, is much more fun than soloing. I think that the devs looked at EQ1 and other MMORPGs, learned some lessons about how players work with classes, and created this Archetype system that allows for groups to be easily formed and to readily work together.If you want to post articles, try <a href="http://eq2vault.ign.com/View.php?view=columns.Detail&category_select_id=30&id=330" target=_blank>this one</a> on for size. I'll quote one of the last paragraphs:<blockquote>I started my Sunday playing for myself, working on a quest for myself. I ended up spending five hours of my day helping two people who were trying very hard to become Qeynosians, and I had an amazingly good time doing it. I’m so glad there are games like EQ2 around, devoid of PvP, <b>with mechanics that support grouping</b>, so that I have a chance to play with other people and help them out. (emphasis added)</blockquote><i>That</i> is why I'm an advocate of the Archetype system, because it allows and even promotes groups to form, relatively easily, and have fun together.

SageMarrow

03-29-2005, 07:11 AM

<P>thats fine, which is probably why this works out for you. But personally if i want to be a good sumaritan, it wont involve helping someone in a videogame gain citizen[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]p.</P> <P>If thats the leg you stand on as why YOU like the game, then okay. I will mildly suggest a soup kitchen, a homeless shelter, an HIV support agency. But i wont force my beliefs on you.</P> <P>But i for one certainly dont pay money every month to help someone out, or to be a good group player, while im at it I might as well throw in a few Class House rock tapes while i play. I pay money and put time into a GAME because its fun, and unique, and different, and thoughtful. And at least challenging at best....</P> <P>This game presents none of those things, it gets more and more generic and **casual** by the day. EQ2 might as well quit advertising and concentrate on the only people who will play a game like this: Middle aged first time MMO players that want to be satisfied with simplistic ideas and calming gameplay after a long day at work, and take the MMORPG back seat as a flop...</P> <P>I just wish they hadnt used my favorite MMO's name and licensing to do it...Because for darn sure they suckered my into playing it...</P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:14 PM</span>

Gaige

03-29-2005, 07:15 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote: <P>This game presents none of those things, it gets more and more generic and **casual** by the day. EQ2 might as well quit advertising and concentrate on the only people who will play a game like this: Middle aged first time MMO players that want to be satisfied with simplistic ideas and calming gameplay after a long day at work, and take the MMORPG back seat as a flop...</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Two things:</P> <P>1) Goodbye. I'm sorry this game didn't offer the things needed to be enjoyable for you. Unfortunately there isn't a game out there that can please everyone. Its also harder when people have preconceived notions of how things should work based on past experiences. Hopefully you will find a game that suits you and is enjoyable for you for years to come.</P> <P>2) I'm not middle aged (well 28, but /shrug), I'm not a first time MMO player. So once again, your all encompassing estimations and assumptions fail to deliver.<BR></P>

SageMarrow

03-29-2005, 07:39 AM

<DIV>that was a directed statment or as we marketing types say, a guided audience, not an assumption....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But then again, you are the PRIME person talking about what isnt FAIR, so i dont doubt that it will effect you or those that constantly gripe about what isnt fair.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i dont know about you but i would rather please the interactive players that equal staying power, than basically please the **whiners** being everyone who is constantly concerned with what another class or player has access to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats all that this does, please players like you, players like sniper kitty, and makes life easy for themselves. just because a game has pretty graphics and loads of content. That does not make a game. I could go to every corner of every MMO available and not be impressed. Not because its not done well, not because it doesnt look good, but simply because until they implement mob AI, its all the same thing, all the same enemies, just a different skin to them, and some new pretty environments. That still doesnt equate to an enjoyable experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If i wanted to see breathtaking visuals and landscapes, i will go do it in real life...they do exist beyond the computer screen.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What makes you think that after they are done **balancing** the classes that everyone after you and a few others isnt going to corral themselves into 4 classes anyway? Trust me, they will. because it will be the mindset that if you are planning on doing your job in e q2 which directly equates to your number of group invites in a strictly PvE game...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They will pick one of 6 classes that can do the core function of the JOB the BEST. So while you think this will be a functional change that allows players to do different ways of aquiring one set goal, it wont matter because players will still actively put themselves as high on the totem poll as far as character creation to ensure a fun and positive environment which to play in.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which apparently equates to 4 classes, Templar, Guardian, Dirge, Wizard. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Nemi

03-29-2005, 08:36 PM

Bottom line sage, you came to EQ2 with your preconceived notions: Expecting Eq1 but with more polish. I played Eq1 for 5 years, played a 65 War in just about every zone of the game.For me, the developers took Eq1 and removed all the hassles that plagued it for the casual gamer. No cleric? No group. No Enchanter? No groupNo Warrior (or later Paladin)? No groupCleric died? Tough...wait for him to run back.Stuck at the bottom of a zone by yourself? Tough better hope you get your corpse back.Want to raid? Find 80 friends to get together.Hell levels? Feature.Lost a level? Shame.And many, many more.EQ2 created the archetype system which I LOVE. What you hate about it, I LOVE.You have 6 subclasses of flavour all able to do 1 job. I like crazy kung fu and tanking for my group, others like holy knights or evil warriors. Guess what? Each can play the class they are attracted to, and each can fulfil the GROUP role the class was designed for.This is a GROUP game, its not WoW single player MMORPG. The best thing about EQ1 was its group aspect, it just sucked you struggled to make one waiting on a single class.EQ2 still has it to a degree, but hybrids in EQ2 are not the space fillers they were in EQ1 and to me that is a great thing.

FamilyManFir

03-29-2005, 11:28 PM

<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:thats fine, which is probably why this works out for you. But personally if i want to be a good sumaritan, it wont involve helping someone in a videogame gain citizen[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]p.If thats the leg you stand on as why YOU like the game, then okay. I will mildly suggest a soup kitchen, a homeless shelter, an HIV support agency. But i wont force my beliefs on you.<hr></blockquote>Thank you for the insults, both direct and implied. Sure makes me more inclined to read your posts. (/sarcasm).However, you also completely missed the point. I used that article as an example, not of "how to play the game," but of how the Archetype system promotes and eases the formation of groups to accomplish goals. I never played EQ1 but according to what I've read, had this scenario occurred in EQ1, it would have stopped when the writer joined the group and the group members would have said something like, "Okay, all we need now is a Cleric and we can take things on." Not "a Priest" but, specifically, "a Cleric."<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow also wrote:What makes you think that after they are done **balancing** the classes that everyone after you and a few others isnt going to corral themselves into 4 classes anyway? Trust me, they will. because it will be the mindset that if you are planning on doing your job in e q2 which directly equates to your number of group invites in a strictly PvE game... They will pick one of 6 classes that can do the core function of the JOB the BEST. So while you think this will be a functional change that allows players to do different ways of aquiring one set goal, it wont matter because players will still actively put themselves as high on the totem poll as far as character creation to ensure a fun and positive environment which to play in. Which apparently equates to 4 classes, Templar, Guardian, Dirge, Wizard.<hr></blockquote>You just can't seem to wrap your brain around the idea that 6 classes could possibly perform a core role equally well, can you? What do you suppose people will do when <i>none</i> of the 6 classes that perform a core job function do it the best? When the Templar, the Warden, and the Mystic are all just as good at keeping the MT alive? Why, they'll choose what class to play based on how they like to play, and then they'll go out and find that they can solo or make or enter groups and have a fine old time playing with other people. If they choose to try a different class, even a different class within the same Archetype, they'll find that they can function just as well and have fun with that class too.It's <i>your</i> scenario, where there would be 24 different classes, each with different "niches" to be best at, that would end up with "Holy Trinity" problems, as people would, in spite of you, group classes together based on general funcions and then bless certain classes as being best at those general functions and refuse to group without those classes. That's what happened in EQ1 and that's what EQ2 is trying hard to avoid.<p>Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on <span class=date_text>03-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:29 AM</span>

burrito

03-30-2005, 02:50 AM

i wanna find the first thread where sage and gage started their first arguement

JuJut

03-30-2005, 02:58 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> burrito wrote:<BR>i wanna find the first thread where sage and gage started their first arguement <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>My money is on </P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=8560#M8560" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=8560#M8560</A></P> <P><BR> </P>

FamilyManFir

03-30-2005, 03:11 AM

Nah, that was just a skirmish. Looks like the real battle began about <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=7765&query.id=0#M7765" target=_blank>here</a>.Not quite sure why I looked that up except that burrito tweaked my curiosity.

RadricTyc

03-30-2005, 03:21 AM

<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT face=Verdana size=1>The whole tank argument runs along the lines of:</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#99ffff size=1>A place for everything.... and everything in its place.</FONT></P> <DIV><FONT size=1><FONT face=Verdana>I say this because on the one hand you have people like familymanfirst who believe that if you give every subclass a general, archetypical role, then anyone will have a role in a group, or a raid. <EM><FONT color=#99ffff>A place for everything</FONT>.</EM></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1>On the other hand you have people like sagemarrow who believe that if you give every subclass a specific role to play, they will have a role in a group, or a raid. <EM><FONT color=#99ffff>Everything in its place.</FONT></EM> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1>The question is: which is right? And another question is: What is the difference? </FONT></DIV> <UL> <LI><FONT face=Verdana size=1>In the first case your subclass is unimportant, call it fluff or customization. What really matters is your archetype; your purpose in the game and your balance relative to players of other archetypes is based on this. What the subclass gives you is a chance to say yes I am a mage but I like to use pets so I am a summoner. The subclass changes your style of game play but does not change your role. When groups go looking for someone to serve a role, they can choose any of 6 subclasses from a particular archetype and know that they serve that role well. They can choose the necromancer and know that at his core, he is a damage dealer and will suffice for that.</FONT></LI></UL> <P><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT> </P> <UL> <LI><FONT face=Verdana size=1>In the second case your subclass is where you define yourself. Up until that point archetype and potentially even class selections were minor consequences, your final choice of subclass is what defines your role in all groups. By choosing a particular subclass you have created not just a superficial customization of your character but have made a permanent and lasting choice about how your character is used in groups and where he/she fits in. You might be a buff subclass, or a DPS subclass, or an main healer subclass, or a tank subclass. Even within these generalizations there will be preferences for a particular role. When a group goes to pick the damage dealer, they will be looking for a Wizard, or an Assassin. They realize that a Necro could fill the role, but in their minds the necro is not on par with the usefulness of a Wizard for dealing damage. The necro gets chosen less for the idealized, crystalized roles and instead becomes filler. Since he is filler, he will not be chosen unless there is little choice.</FONT></LI></UL> <P><FONT face=Verdana size=1>So the problem is that in the latter case you create a conflict across subclasses within the same archetype for what role they fill. If not every sub-class has a well defined role, I.E. a hybrid class that balances maybe both defense buffs and damage dealing, they will probably rarely be chosen. The only scenario where someone would take a hybrid is when they already have some hybrids, and by continuing that trend they balance their defense and offense well.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Verdana size=1>Since people don't tend to like to ponder the complexities of what sort of support team a hybrid tank like a shadow knight will need, they will tend to leave the shadow knight to the support role instead of the tank role. At that point you have taken a class that by all rights was built to tank and pigeon-holed him into a support role simply because you are unsure of how to form a group that could support him as main tank.</FONT></P> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1>This is why the archetype system is the right choice. It says that you will never make a subclass decision that will take you away from your primary archetypical role. Instead you will just be customizing the "How" and not the "What" of your role. When a group faces a decision between the Wizard or the Necro, they will know that largely it makes no difference and that's when the player him/herself is what weights the decision. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1>The downside of the archetype system is that in any one archetype there can not be any major differences in how well a player does damage, or how well he heals etc. As soon as the differences get too major and are exchanged for strengths or weaknesses in other areas, you start to lose touch with the archetype. This means that no matter which subclass of priest I choose, I basically do the same thing as any other priest within a 10% +- margin of error. When the error grows to something like 30% you start seeing a difference in oppinion as to where exactly that subclass fits into a group. He starts to straddle possibly two archetypical roles and as such is less appreciated because he does nothing very well.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1>I think less diversity between classes in terms of what they bring to the table does start to reduce the flavor of what choices you make, but at the same time, I think relegating any one class to a filler role is 10 times worse. I hate to see people have to roll an alt simply because the subclass they chose just isn't generally useful based on the subclass selections the majority of other players have made.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=1>People should be chosen for groups based on who they are, and not what they are. The archetype system makes this possible at the expense of a little diversity.</FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by RadricTycho on <span class=date_text>03-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:25 PM</span>

RadricTyc

03-30-2005, 03:22 AM

<P>Ugh, stupid thing logs me out after a long post like that. I hate double posts! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Message Edited by RadricTycho on <SPAN class=date_text>03-29-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>05:22 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by RadricTycho on <span class=date_text>03-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:22 PM</span>

Gaige

03-30-2005, 03:49 AM

Excellent post RT. Nicely said. I agree and 5 stars for you.

NeVeRLi

03-30-2005, 05:14 AM

Good post. I'm very interested in seeing just how these next patches try to address these issues. I see alot more people openly talking about what we discuss here on the forums in chat channels. So the cat is out of the bag for sure. <div></div>

SageMarrow

03-30-2005, 05:43 AM

<P>okay, while all of that may be true...I may not like some things, but one thing i love is understanding people, and how they work.</P> <P>I dont always speak from my POV... There is a thing called real life. When people sign up to play these games, they sign up to play within a totally online persona. Alot of players are not concerened with what another class has. Alot of players just log on and play, no forum shout outs, not EQ2 players.com. Those things are in place for hardcore gamers who play often enough to even deal with things such as guild websites and screenshots of their personal characters. These are not characteristics of a casual gamer.</P> <P>From that same perspective of a **markerting** perspective, people need to understand that the way the classes are being built, its with good intentions and principle in mind. I agree in all totality with Radric's post. He is absolutely right in his descripstion of the system. </P> <P><STRONG><U><EM><FONT size=4>BUT</FONT></EM></U></STRONG></P> <P><FONT size=3>but that is not going to be how this game is viewed from 3rd party players, and those that want to come here and try this game out. Which is why I always refer to it as marketing suicide. If they announced that they were going to have 24 classes, that werent quite 24 classes but more like 6 subtypes of the same thing split 4 ways. First you wouldve asked yourself, huh? whats that mean? Then after someone explained it to you, you wouldve been like? Aww man, thats stupid, then why didnt they just make 4 classes and be done... </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>This is from 3rd party, its the same thing that anyone wouldve said with no prior knowledge of this game. You wouldnt be interested because is just sounds like another trap to get players, just like the mentoring system does...</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>This is the point that im consistently trying to make. Competition drives players, Fun drives players, detatchment from reality, drives players. Its the same reason why we go see movies, why we watch sitcoms, why we get drunk on weekends. This is all in an attempt to detatch from the world around you - at least for an hour - at least for a few minutes - at least for a weekend.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>While it may be a noble attempt, and sorry for the psychology and marketing lession, but the class system and the pretty graphics will NOT draw in players. They are too generic ideas that do not equate to fun, competition, or diversity.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>These things are required to make sales, these things are required to establish a sense of accomplishment.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>Thats what i have been trying to say . Thats great if you love it for the reasons i hate it, SOE just needs to understand that they are seriously hindering their gaming potential by trying to create heaven.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>in a moment, think to yourself, would you like to go to heaven if all you did all day was pray and go to church?? Some religious minded people would say yes, but without the opposite being hell, the rest of mankind would probably pick somn else if it was a choice...</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>Thats the same position that NEW players and others will be put in while playing this game. (think about it for a second)</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>people dont want to go into a world of fairness and likeability, people strive off thier differences from others. Its what pushes life through the hoops. If the only reason you signed up to play a game OR ANY game for that matter is to whine and bicker about what another class has or doesnt have, then this is the game for them... (trust me there is serious imbalance between the players that care and the players that dont.)</FONT></P>