Why will Monks Tank better than Guardians?

[Poochymama]

<DIV>To be honest I dont even have a guardian so im not biased. I do have a bruiser and my friend has a monk. But the way it is on test servers right now and soon to be on the normal servers Monks tank better than guardians. They have around 42-45% mitigation and 85% avoidance, while Guardians have about 50% mitigation and 25% avoidance. [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]  5% more mitigation for 60% less avoidance this seems very unbalanced. Not to mention that Monks do twice as much dmg. LOUD NOISES!!!!!</DIV>

[Gaige]

Um, that isn't how it is on test, they took the combat changes back off for awhile.  But guardians should have way less avoidance.  That's by design. 

[Poochymama]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR>Um, that isn't how it is on test, they took the combat changes back off for awhile.  But guardians should have way less avoidance.  That's by design.  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yeah but if Guardians have way less avoidance than Monks, then Monks should have way less Mitigation than Guardians. LOUD NOISES!!!!!!

[Naldien-Rat]

<FONT size=2>You're odd, buddy.</FONT>

[Dr]

<P>i think a reason we will never tank better than guardians is because of the cool moves we get. i mean cmon, if to tank as good as guardians we have to get rid of FD, wind walk, or awsome [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] weapons, armor and fighting style. i dont think its even worth it. cuz if they didnt take that away and still made us as good as guardians, it would make guardians really nerfed, cuz they wouldnt be no. 1 choice as tank, and their moves would be very insuperior to brawler fighting style, crusader spells, and zerker DPS. but i dunno, i might have no clue what the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] is goin on <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>dryz</P> <P> </P>

[Cusashorn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Poochymama p wrote:<BR> <DIV>while Guardians have about 50% mitigation and 25% avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Good. Avoidance needs to be lower though.</DIV>

[Poochymama]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cusashorn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Poochymama p wrote:<BR> <DIV>while Guardians have about 50% mitigation and 25% avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Good. Avoidance needs to be lower though.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>You guys are selfish. Im not posting this because i have a guardian and want him to be uber. I dont even have a guardian. But this needs to be done for the good of the game. Let me put it to you in numbers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A mob hits you 100 times for 100 dmg unmitigated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is how the monk would come out of the battle he would avoid 85 hits take 15 hits ( 85% av) He would mitigate each of those hits down to about 55 dmg with (45% mit) taking a total of 15 hits for 55 dmg each for a grand total of dmg 825 dmg</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now lets take a look at the Guardian</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The Guardian would only avoid 25 hits with 25% av you he would take 75 hits total. Now he will Mitigate the hits to about 45 dmg with 55% mit. So he will get hit a total of 75 times for 45 dmg each. He would take a Grand total of 3375 dmg.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So monk takes 825 dmg and Guardian takes 3375 dmg. Does that seem fair?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention the monk killed his twice as fast so he took only half those hits.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the totals for dmg should look more like this</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guard=3375 dmg</DIV> <DIV>Monk =412  dmg</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And Guardians are supposed to be the best tanks. LOUD NOISES!!!</DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>Avoidance doesn't work that way.  Also our mitigation on test isn't 45%, although guardians buffed avoidance with the combat changes that were last on test was around 28%.</P> <P>But anyway, what is with this nonsense post in our forum?</P>

[-UGG-Andy]

<P>i guess its to give you something to reply too:smileytongue:</P> <P>Don't see the point on saying much about part of a combat change that was removed from test and will probably not make it to live in that form it was in anyway.</P>

[Vorham]

<P>monks/bruisers will never tank raid mobs over a plate class.  We have light armor... it will go like this:</P> <P>Avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, hit (healers heal), avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, hit (healers heal), avoid, avoid, avoid, hit(near full dmg), hit(near full dmg), DEAD brawler.</P> <P>bad avoidance streaks will ALWAYS happen, no way they won't... part of probability... but the consequence is, brawlers won't be raid tanks over plate unless there are special mobs made (rapid low damage strikes with procs or something similar)... but that's a gimpy gimmick method of having brawlers tank</P> <P>I like my bruiser how he is, a passable tank in exp groups, but mostly invited for his ability to crack skulls</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Vorham on <span class=date_text>06-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:30 AM</span>

[Jezekie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Poochymama p wrote:<div></div><div>And Guardians are supposed to be the best tanks.</div><hr></blockquote>No.</span><div></div>

[Moski]

<P>We do tank Raid Mobs</P> <P>We should tank raids Mobs</P> <P>And we will tank most of the Raid Mobs (if SOE manages to balance us)</P> <P> </P> <P>because we are fighter = tank</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[benba]

<P>Monk will never tank raid mob! We wear light armor, hello????? And our HP doesn't come close to that of a Guardian.</P> <P>We can avoid all we want, but all it takes is one high  for 8000k and we're dead. A Guardian buffed up to 11k can survive that.</P>

[Dr]

<DIV>we never SHOULD be able to tank as well as guardians, we have too much awsome [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] that if we could tank as well, it would offset it. if we wanna get rid of all our cool stuff that guardians dont have then it would be fair if we were as good as guardians. but i dont want to lose all the cool moves and skills we have thats the main reason im a monk, to kick [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], and look cool doing it!</DIV>

[Cusashorn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> benbang wrote:<BR> <P>Monk will never tank raid mob! We wear light armor, hello????? And our HP doesn't come close to that of a Guardian.</P> <P>We can avoid all we want, but all it takes is one high  for 8000k and we're dead. A Guardian buffed up to 11k can survive that.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That right there is the first thing we're demanding they balance out. If anything, a physically healthy martial artist should have *MORE* hitpoints than some walking wall of armor who's gonna die of a heart attack 40% earlier than his racial life expectancy because of it.</DIV>

[stfields]

<P>You can play number games all you want. Yes, even if monks did indeed take less damage over time than a guardian, guardians would still be better tanks in raids.  </P> <P>I feel confident enough in saying that we tank pretty well from monkhood till 50.  But, the underlying problem is spike damage.  What do healers do in raid circumstances?  They spam heal (reactives/wards/etc) the MT.  A guardian with 5+ mobs on him is always taking dmg.  However, even with all those reactives/wards up, they still take damage, since the damage comes in faster than the reactives can heal.  So, direct heals can make up the difference.  </P> <P>Us monks... we got a problem.  When we get hit, we get hit [Removed for Content]' hard.  So, let's say we have 7000hp buffed (just making up a number here).  We get smacked for 3000hp and the ward sucks up 1000hp, the reactives heals about 500ish leaving 1500hp that needs to be healed directly.  The guardian however will be taking consistent damage getting better use out of those reactives than monks do.  When I get hate from some of these 55+ raid mobs, they pack a wallop <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Hey, I'd love to tank raid mobs... but honestly, I don't feel we have the taunts to keep hate on a group of mobs like Guardians (and pallies do ok in my experience).  </P>

[NamaeZero]

<P>Maybe the solution to fixing Monks Avoidance vs. Mitigation raid issues would be as simple as doubling a Monks Health pool. Then Streaks won't be so bad, because we will have enough health to keep streaks from killing us. If this happened they could cut our Mitigation back to Guardian Avoidance levels (28%). We would be able to handle raid content then, but still be better for lower level content (since Avoidance works dramatically better if the con is white or less.)</P> <P>Then Guardians could have their high level 58+ raid mobs, while Monks would be much more effective at doing level 52 or lower raid mobs (since our avoidance and HP pool would make us more efficient at that level.) We would specialize, without making it impossible for Monks to tank in higher level raids or Guardians to tank lower level raids.</P>

[Moski]

<span><blockquote><hr>benbang wrote:<p>Monk will never tank raid mob! We wear light armor, hello????? And our HP doesn't come close to that of a Guardian.</p> <p>We can avoid all we want, but all it takes is one high  for 8000k and we're dead. A Guardian buffed up to 11k can survive that.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> This is plain simple wrong. We do tank raid mobs. At least some of us, like Jez, Gage some others and me. We do have some problems and we do worse than guardians. But thats not our fault. It is SOE´s Problem and they are aware of it. The Combat Changes will hopefully solve at least some of the problems (like buff stacking - 100% avoidance-plate-tanks) </span><div></div>

[ShashLigai]

<DIV>I know I'm a newbie and all (lvl 21 monk), but if I wanted to tank like a Guardian, I would have chosen a Guardian character.  IMHO there is a penalty for high avoidance and low mitigation, its getting the crap knocked out of you when you <U>do</U> get hit. I deal with it every time I play, those I group with know it and assist accordingly. I hope SOE doesn't change too much, I'm OK with balance, just don't turn my char into a guardian.</DIV>

[Edyil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ShashLigai wrote:<BR> <DIV>I know I'm a newbie and all (lvl 21 monk), but if I wanted to tank like a Guardian, I would have chosen a Guardian character.  IMHO there is a penalty for high avoidance and low mitigation, its getting the crap knocked out of you when you <U>do</U> get hit. I deal with it every time I play, those I group with know it and assist accordingly. I hope SOE doesn't change too much, I'm OK with balance, just don't turn my char into a guardian.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>At 37 I can agree with that.  However, it is rediculous how easily I get smacked down by an even con ^^ mob.  I have 80% avoidance and 45% mitigation (buffed).  Even using D specials the GF (Warden) and I can die in a matter of seconds to a ^^ even con mob.  An equally equiv geared Guard/Temp pair can win that same fight easily.  I know this is the case since there is a pair of that combo that hunts in the same zones as we do and are doing the same quests.  Seeing is believing.</P> <P>Now either we should be able to tank and win that fight on occasion, or they should lose that fight on occasion.  Neither is the case.  We always lose and they always win.</P>

[Faynne]

<blockquote><hr>Cusashorn wrote:<BR> <DIV>That right there is the first thing we're demanding they balance out. If anything, a physically healthy martial artist should have *MORE* hitpoints than some walking wall of armor who's gonna die of a heart attack 40% earlier than his racial life expectancy because of it.</DIV><hr></blockquote>Agree here, Monks should have some sort of health bonus for being the "Master of body and health" we are supposed to be.

[Dandeli]

<DIV>I hope they dont change us too much in the direction of main tanks, I enjoy my damage. I have/had a guardian. Let them be the kings of tanking raids, thats not why I chose monk. If guardians way out damaged me, then I'd have a major problem. </DIV>

[zabor]

I'd really love tanking raid content, but I see why we shouldn't tank as good as a guardian.Playing a guardian is boring, playing a monk is great fun, so what's the point in having guardians if other classes can do the job just as good?I don't fear losing my place in raids. I got good dps, i can buff the mt's avoidance by 42%, and I have the only epic stifle in game.

[benba]

<P>let me clarify raid mobs. I mean real raid mobs such as Darathar that will tail whip you for 6k and then another 5k in 2 seconds span.</P> <P>I'm not talking about crap like King Drayek or the CL King  or those weakass  mobs for F & I and Deceptions where groups of 6 to 8 people can take them without even a chanter or bard.    </P>

[Parax]

<P>Well, I moved my 46 zerker and 50 alt monk to test server a couple months ago, or was it several <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. Anyhow, believe it or not, I tanked Drayek when they suddenly added uber monk mitigation into the factor. Needless to say I had 44.something % mitigation with a whopping, staggering 96% avoidance! How the heck that happened I don't know, but, our raid group took advantage of it and i was MT <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I rocked on the taking damage part and avoiding tons and tons of hits, my chat bar was full of miss, blocks, ripostes, more misses. But, in the end we wiped, I just could not hold aggro for very long, (about half way through fight lost it). I didnt use auto attack cause i was equiped with dual wield weapons and if I would've been riposted I would've been toast, those ripostes still take a good chunk of health away more so than the actual hit or combat art.</P> <P>But, the point is, it seems to be getting better for monks, although it could have been a fluke what happened, gonna try and do it again this weekend and see if we can re-produce what stats i had.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Paraxis wrote:<BR> <P>Well, I moved my 46 zerker and 50 alt monk to test server a couple months ago, or was it several <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. Anyhow, believe it or not, I tanked Drayek when they suddenly added uber monk mitigation into the factor. Needless to say I had 44.something % mitigation with a whopping, staggering 96% avoidance! How the heck that happened I don't know, but, our raid group took advantage of it and i was MT <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I rocked on the taking damage part and avoiding tons and tons of hits, my chat bar was full of miss, blocks, ripostes, more misses. But, in the end we wiped, I just could not hold aggro for very long, (about half way through fight lost it). I didnt use auto attack cause i was equiped with dual wield weapons and if I would've been riposted I would've been toast, those ripostes still take a good chunk of health away more so than the actual hit or combat art.</P> <P>But, the point is, it seems to be getting better for monks, although it could have been a fluke what happened, gonna try and do it again this weekend and see if we can re-produce what stats i had.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yup, test is a lot different for us.  You should've autoattacked though, bad decision on your part.</P> <P>What everyone fails to realize is that since launch guardians have been broken and overpowered (not really their fault) due to buff stacking and defense skill issues.</P> <P>Guardians have the best mitigation in the game, plus the highest HP.  They can also stack HP buffs, combined with how reactives heal (aggro goes to target not caster) lumped in with the +defense skill upping avoidance (guardians get the most group/self defense skill buffs) and then shields adding to avoidance = they MT almost entirely because of how good their avoidance is, with their mitigation/HP as a side factor.</P> <P>Almost all of which is unintended.  The buff stacking issue is already for the most part addressed on test, the way the +defense skill works is going to change with the combat upgrade.  So what you will end up seeing after the changes is guardians with very, very, very low avoidance, and very, very, very high mitigation.  You will see us with very, very, very high avoidance and very, very low mitigation.</P> <P>The HP will probably always be skewed towards the guardians, but that remains to be seen.  I think the difference will not be near as bad as it is now, since they are taking away the guardian class HP buff stacking.</P> <P>Last night I was in our MT group and I had around 7400HP and our Guardian had around 8100HP.  I had more HP than the SK who was also in our MT group, I think he had around 7000HP.  I didn't really look at avoid/mit numbers, sorry.</P> <P>But, again, the whole scenario from release until now has been pretty much broken.  Guardians right now are pretty similiar to how we were in January, when our avoidance could be so good that we couldn't get hit.  The same thing is happening to the guardian class, and because of the other things they benefit from over us (HP, mitigation) encounters become even more trivial.</P> <P>Right now on live I don't want to tank anything, it'd be futile.  My damage is too good, and the guardian's defense is untouchable.  Why mess with that?</P> <P>However, I will be looking forward to the (hopefully) change back to a more tank oriented role once the combat/spell changes go live.  But of course that, with anything, is something we'll all have to wait and see.</P> <P>But, I do believe the changes being made will close the gap between fighters, letting all of us tank again (maybe even some raid content) but of course guardians will always be the most defensive.  I don't have a problem with that, I just have a problem with them being supermen.  It isn't fair to any of the other fighter classes.<BR></P>

[IrulanDunedanc]

That explains the blue tights, red capes, and big S's I see on the tanks all the time. :smileytongue:

[ShashLigai]

thanks Gage

[bonesbro]

<P>We were doing Zalak last night and I pulled agro.  block 2300 parry 3200 block 3200 5800 (riposted charging tiger) dead.  A couple of good healers were keeping me alive, and I was in the MT group so I had a good set of buffs on, but the riposte for 5800 was at least 75% of my life.  I even switched off autoattack as soon as I pulled agro except to use my stun/stifles, but I ate a riposte on one of them and died instantly anyway.</P> <P>Heh, ripostes dropped two scouts while he was on me, so at least I can say we still tank raids better than scouts!</P>

[lagerone]

<P>In my opinion, and it is only that, Bruiser and Monks (as Gage incessantly posts on our boards speaking for the Bruiser class, I will no longer restrain myself) should absolutely NEVER tank raid mobs.  Maybe for a joke, yes.  But in practice never.  </P> <P>They should only be the main tank in groups when a plate tank is not available, or the plate tank is two levels below them.</P> <P>There are about 3-4 very vocal players who have reached the high end game who are now arguing for Bruisers and Monks to be turned into Light Armour Guardians.  Simply put these players are bored.  They believe that will have more fun if there existing classes are made into raid tanks.  These people have, by evidence of their posts on the boards, the ear of SOE.</P> <P>I am going to have my crappy two cents worth every time I see this raised on the boards.  As far as I am concerned my class "Bruiser" is working as intended.  When I created my character - after I stopped playing a Bezerker - I did not expect to tank raid mobs and I never want do.  If I wanted to be a Guardian..I would have rolled one, and for Gage, Jez, Moskito I suggest that is what you should do.  You will enjoy the end game more and you might stop pushing to destroy a class that is balanced and working well.</P> <P> </P> <P>I am sorry if I disagree with your views on the future of Brawlers.  </P> <P>I think the Brawler class plays exactly as I envisaged it when I chose to play it.</P> <P>A rebalancing of Brawlers to make us raid tanks is likely to make us either:</P> <OL> <LI>Broken to our advantage; in that we become the raid tank of choice,</LI> <LI>Broken to our disadvantage; in that we become poor-tanks <EM>and</EM> poor-dps</LI></OL> <P>I will go look for some fire resist gear in preparation for the raid-tank-cabal's response.</P>

[benba]

<P>Concur. If you want to MT raid mob,  you should have made a Guardian or re roll.</P> <P>Don't give me this crap about "SOE lied to me, they said all tanks will be equal. "</P> <P>Come on, read the description and you knew that Guardian would be MT.  Defensive and Heavy Plate.</P> <P>BTW, I  have a lvl 50 Guardian and I'm bored out of my mind with it and now playing a lvl 25 monk. I never expect to MT or don't ever want to MT. Been MTing for 5 years and just tired of it and having to make sure people follow my direction. Time for me to laid back and just enjoy the fun with my monk.</P> <P>I'm playing my monk for fun and to do DPS, not to MT.</P>

[Gaige]

<P>I made 50 in January.  I tanked almost the entire time.  I've spoke about tanking raids as a monk since January.  I assure you this is not an opinion I've suddenly found, or spoke about, or come across by boredom.</P> <P>I don't give a rats behind about the people who think I should reroll as a guardian if I want to be MT.</P> <P>Screw that.</P> <P>As for having the ear of SOE because of my post count, maybe.  But I also spoke to them in real life as well.  We've been able to tank since the island since release except for raids.  Why?  A few reasons, all of which are being addressed I hope.</P> <P>But anyway, good luck on your crusade.  I'll never stop playing my monk, or posting.  So just get used to it.</P> <P>Oh, and sorry if my posts on the bruiser boards offend you, not like Jezekiel needs my help anyway, he knows what is going on.</P> <P>IN SUMMARY:  QUIT TRYING TO TURN MY CLASS INTO A HALFASS DPS CLASS.  We are not scouts, we shouldn't be doing scout like damage, and I refuse to let the lazy players out there who don't want to tank nerf my class into either the EQ1 monk class or some [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] scout wanna be.</P> <P>Fighters are tanks.  If you don't like it reroll.</P> <P>If guardians were meant to be the only mt, they'd be the only fighter, and the other 5 would be scouts.</P> <P>Now, go DPS while you can, combat changes coming soon.</P>

[benba]

<P>keep dreaming. As long as we have the lower HP and lower mitigation, we'll never MT real raid mob that hit for 6k and 5k in 2 seconds span.</P> <P>And thank god!  I would be playing my Guardian if I wanted to MT.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> benbang wrote:<BR> <P>keep dreaming. As long as we have the lower HP and lower mitigation, we'll never MT real raid mob that hit for 6k and 5k in 2 seconds span.</P> <P>And thank god!  I would be playing my Guardian if I wanted to MT.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Who says all raid mobs have to hit for 6k and then 5k?</P> <P>Who says that guardians will be able to withstand the beatings they take now when they have less than 20% buffed avoidance after the combat changes?</P> <P>Who says we'll also have massively lower HP?</P> <P>As it stands I'm almost within 1000HP of Noah if I'm in our MT group.</P> <P>SOE needs to just tell us if guardians are the only MT, that way if that is the case, us other 5 wannabe's can be moved to the scout class.  I mean I'd love to have evac, pathfinding, and medium armor.  Let alone be able to wield sai's and the like.</P> <P>I will never understand why some of you want to try to be DPS, when SOE is flat out telling you that after the combat changes, the only scout we'll be able to outdamage, maybe, are the bards.</P> <P>You guys are just that keen and content on being totally halfass?<BR></P>

[Dovifat]

I'm not sure what the constant Gage and Jezekiel bashing is about. Reread some ( or in fact, pretty much any ) Dev post on the matter, it's SOE saying Brawlers are supposed to be tanks and fairly low on the overall DPS scale. Blaming that on some players won't get you anywhere. In fact, one could argue, that all of you disregarding improvements to tanking are severely hurting the class. DPS <i>will </i>be nerfed. That's been made very clear. I for one want something in return. How about you ? <div></div>

[benba]

<DIV>so why not just get rid of all the fighter subclass and have just one class if anyone can DPS and Tank the same? blah</DIV>

[bonesbro]

The devs have been fairly clear on this subject.  Monks are tanks, like all other fighters.  There are only two bugs in the combat system which prevent Monks from being as successful a raid tank as a Guardian: <ol> <li>Guardian buff stacking, allowing them to reach extremely high hp and Defense skill levels, allowing them to reach obscene avoidance levels while maintaining high mitigation </li> <li>Avoidance scaling worse than mitigation against higher level mobs</li> </ol> Basically, buff stacking has distorted the endgame scene to the point where guardians wear blue tights and an S cape, and in comparison to that no one else seems viable.  Sony has repeatedly stated that they are going to change #1.  I hope #2 is addressed as well. Furthermore, balance is not just dps vs. tanking.  Group utility does play a role.  Warriors and Crusaders have more significant group utility from buffs and spells than Brawlers.  We've got the same avoidance buff as all other fighters and the same +melee skills buff as all other fighters, and we can feign to rez.  After that, we just hit things.  And lets be clear, we're not the absolute top of the scale for melee raid DPS.  On a single mob fight, yeah, we do great, though others can come very close.  But break out the multi-mob encounters and we're third or fourth just in the fighters. Finally, the Big Patch is not only rebalancing skills, it's adding new skills and changing the effects on current skills.  It won't be a completely new game, but I recommend stuffing your class preconceptions under the mattress until we see what Sony's hiding under their kimono. <div></div>

[Owa]

<P>This is the kind of stuff I've been missing! Jesus these boards have been so dull lately....</P> <P>Now I've reached 50 and my guild hasn't got enough raid-ready characters, I need that 'good-old-days' shouting in these forums more than ever.</P> <P>Keep up the good work and NEVER agree! Sorry I can't contribute anything myself right now, but I'm planning on getting an opinion of my own soon and will be in the thick of things as soon as possible.</P>

[Edyil]

<P>For those of the opinion that Monks shouldnt tank, then dont.  Its that simple.  You can play a guardian and not tank.  Do it if you want.  I would rather have the ability to tank if want, if I can and if I am needed to do so.</P> <P>Once they fix the guard stacking issues and up the usefulness of our avoidance (I have over 80% now but the number seems meaningless), they need to add one more thing.....</P> <P>They need to give certain mob types an attack/skill/innate abilities that would negate mitigation or a portion of it.  Lets pick a class for an NPC.  Lets say Monk class NPCs.  All NPC monk class mobs will negate 85% of PC mitigation on all their attacks.  In addition, certain raid mobs will do the same.  The tanks mitigation will be 85% of their listed value.</P> <P>Now who do you want tanking?  The guardian or the monk/bruiser?  Well that would depend on whether you are fighting one of these mobs, wouldnt it?</P> <P>Likewise add/tweek mobs so that they ignore (some or all) avoidance.</P>

[bonesbro]

Anna, you should crusade to get us nukes like in the bloodlines video <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[benba]

<P>our  high avoidance is meaningless because Guardian can get to 100% avoidance in MT raid group. </P> <P>They need to increase our Mitgation because our body is our shield. Real life monk can deflect a sword coming at them for christ sake and this is a video game! Just because we wear light armor doesn't mean we shouldn't have high mitigation</P>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<P>I completely agree with Edyil about having the option to tank! People are allways complaining that monks will get 1 hit killed and stuff...so change the mobs then it's that simple...</P> <P>Mob A fights like a scout and deals heavy damage in single blows that are accurate and are near impossible to dodge..... let warriors tank these</P> <P>Mob B fights like a fighter, attacking in a furrious onsolaght of blows that bypoass armor, (think 5 hit combos that increase in damage by 50% with each succedding hit) monks can auto dodge the last 2 hits where as guardian wont be allowed to</P> <P>Mob C( c for caster = P ) is a nuker that deals massive spike damage that only a crusader using a self-only magic absobing ward can withstand</P> <P>Or make raids truely fun and have the raid target switch it's archetypal role every 25% hp</P> <P>100%= mob is cocky and uses accurate physcial strikes to deal heavy damage (scout mob) <warrior tank>[mage best attack]</P> <P>75%= reaslising that physical strikes arnt wokring the mob switches to magical assualts (mage mob)<crusader tank>[scout]</P> <P>50%= realizing he is getting hurt, the mob flys up (invulnerable) and begins to heal it'self while damageing the entire raid with moderate damage aoe smites (priest mob)<noone specificaly is tanking at this moment>[no one can hurt it till it's shot down, mage/scout have equil change once shot down] - this is where the raid has to do a specific task such as find and mount a stationary crossbow and shot mob down and beat it down to 25% hp in 2 min or it will fly up and repeat , and need to be shot down again</P> <P>25%= Desprit to stay alive, mob goes defensive, using flurries of attacks that bypass armor mitigation ( the 5 hit combos mentioned above) (fighter mob)<brawler tank>[scouts must use ranged CA's as mob uses Personal body AOE attacks that would crush them, Mage has damage advantage since mob is focusing on physical defense]</P> <DIV>Each stage has a best and a worst effective tank/damage dealer (and healer but i didnt go that indepth)</DIV> <DIV>This is the Perfect Balance that people are wanting in raid tanks, ether requitre a combo for a special multi stage fight or fights that cator to brawler or crusader. Also by diversifying damage dealing and healing types needed, it makes thje fight much more interesting as varriety will be the key factor.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Also... i think monks needs class specific armor (like the AQ armor) that adds to avoidance chance, and heavy duty bracer that add to block % and allow 2 hand bo staff to increase deflection chances, so that gear has a more meaningfull use for monks, but the down side to this is monks would have to have a lower default avoidance overall (maby 55%, but can increase up to sau 85%+ with good armor and such). Bracers are used for deflecting, they would be our equivilant to a shield, bo staff would be a great weapon for blocking blows, and brawler specific armor that's used to increase flexability and mobility would assist in our finess of dodgeing.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on <span class=date_text>06-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:02 PM</span>

[IrulanDunedanc]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> benbang wrote:<BR> <P>our  high avoidance is meaningless because Guardian can get to 100% avoidance in MT raid group.</P> <P>They need to increase our Mitgation because our body is our shield. Real life monk can deflect a sword coming at them for christ sake and this is a video game! Just because we wear light armor doesn't mean we shouldn't have high mitigation</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Blocking a sword bare-handed is NOT about mitigation. You said the key word yourself: deflect, i.e. avoidance.  Mitigation is about taking a hit and shrugging it off.  Avoidance is about not letting the hit land, whether by blocking (with a shield), parrying or dodging (a riposte is the follow-up attack to a parry, so I don't consider it a separate means of avoidance from parrying).</P> <P>Also, why should a bo be any better at deflecting than, say, a pair of batons?</P>

[Desulto]

<div></div>I think people are just saying avoidance should actually work.  I was anti-monk=tank, but I think I might understand better now.  Please correct me if I'm still wrong. A monk should be able to stand in front of [insert epic here] and hold aggro and survive by avoiding attacks. A guardian should be able to stand in front of [insert epic here] and hold aggro using taunts and survive by absorbing attacks. Is that right?  If so, how should a monk hold aggro?  More taunts? Taunting attacks?  Mooning?  Am I even remotely close to getting the picture? EDIT: I'm a really new monk, but I love it and am reluctant to have it change much, hence my previous anti-tank monk position.  Be gentle. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <p>Message Edited by Desultory on <span class=date_text>06-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:49 PM</span>

[benba]

that's my point, avoidance doesn't mean much.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Desultory wrote:<BR> I think people are just saying avoidance should actually work.  I was anti-monk=tank, but I think I might understand better now.  Please correct me if I'm still wrong.<BR><BR>A monk should be able to stand in front of [insert epic here] and hold aggro and survive by avoiding attacks.<BR><BR>A guardian should be able to stand in front of [insert epic here] and hold aggro using taunts and survive by absorbing attacks.<BR><BR>Is that right?  If so, how should a monk hold aggro?  More taunts? Taunting attacks?  Mooning?  Am I even remotely close to getting the picture?<BR><BR>EDIT: I'm a really new monk, but I love it and am reluctant to have it change much, hence my previous anti-tank monk position.  Be gentle. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes, that's pretty much the jist of it.</P> <P>Guardians/Zerkers with mitigation.</P> <P>Bruisers/Monks with avoidance.</P> <P>Pallys/SKs with heals/lifetaps.</P> <P>For the most general look at things.  Of course utility and damage is also a consideration, as is mob attack type and strategy, but for the most part you see what we are saying.<BR></P>

[lagerone]

<DIV>OK I am going to throw an idea around that maybe....just maybe...might resolve our problems.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently, Monks are a defensive brawler class and Bruisers an offensive brawler class.  However, these</DIV> <DIV>sub-classes are not markedly different or distinct.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The split between the two is defined by alignment - Monks in Qeynos and Bruisers in Freeport.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now for the sake of argument lets say that the alignment split was removed and you could be a </DIV> <DIV>Bruiser or Monk in either city.  Similar to Guardians and Beserkers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To further the argument lets say the focus on offense versus defense becomes more pronouced</DIV> <DIV>so that Monks have a significant increase in tankage and a reduction in DPS and Bruisers pretty</DIV> <DIV>much stay as they are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let say you get a one off choice to respec as a Bruiser or a Monk.  So there becomes a real</DIV> <DIV>difference between the two.  A real DPS Brawler class and a real Tankage Brawler class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This might address the substantial schism that has developed in the community between what a Brawlers' role is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your thoughts are appreciated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gaige]

I guess that'd work, if they moved the bruisers to the scout tree then.

[Jezekie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:I guess that'd work, if they moved the bruisers to the scout tree then. <div></div><hr></blockquote>*Jumps out from the shadows and yells BOO!, then stabs wildly with...fists*</span><div></div>

[lagerone]

<P>Gage, Jezekeill,</P> <P>Do you remember what Thumper told Bambi?</P> <P></P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by lagerone on <span class=date_text>06-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:38 AM</span>

[Edyil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Desultory wrote:<BR> I think people are just saying avoidance should actually work.  I was anti-monk=tank, but I think I might understand better now.  Please correct me if I'm still wrong.<BR><BR>A monk should be able to stand in front of [insert epic here] and hold aggro and survive by avoiding attacks.<BR><BR>A guardian should be able to stand in front of [insert epic here] and hold aggro using taunts and survive by absorbing attacks.<BR><BR>Is that right?  If so, how should a monk hold aggro?  More taunts? Taunting attacks?  Mooning?  Am I even remotely close to getting the picture?<BR><BR>EDIT: I'm a really new monk, but I love it and am reluctant to have it change much, hence my previous anti-tank monk position.  Be gentle. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR> <P>Message Edited by Desultory on <SPAN class=date_text>06-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:49 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That's about right.  Except not all mobs should be monk tankable.  Just like a Guard shouldn't be able to tank all mobs.  Everyone should have a role and equal value (subclass wise).  I don't need mitigation if my avoidance is working correctly.  The problem is that it doesn't.  </P> <P>If I avoid 80% of all hits, but get a bad streak of 2-3 hits in a row, then I'm dead.  Especially considering that 1 or all of those htis are specials.  Counter that by looking at a Guard that receives a streak of bad luck.  You really see no change or over-dramatic spike.  The Guard isn't dead.  Does that seem that it is by design?  No.  Obviously not since it has been stated otherwise.</P> <P>Keep in mind that everyone (relatively) agrees that a monk tank should be more stressfull on the healer.  But the mob should die much faster in compensation.  This doesn't happen either.  The amount of misses, dodges, and parries that a monk endures while facing a mob is way way way too high for the class design.</P> <P>Overall, I feel that all tank classes should tank the majority of NPCs equally.  All tanks should also have certain opponents that they simply cannot handle respectively.  As it stands now, some tank classes cannot handle most mobs while other tank subclasses handle all of them.</P> <P>Monks arent asking for the world.  Not even close.  We have a good definition of our role.  We'd just like to see it actually work as described.</P> <p>Message Edited by Edyil on <span class=date_text>06-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:35 AM</span>

[Owa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <DIV>OK I am going to throw an idea around that maybe....just maybe...might resolve our problems.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently, Monks are a defensive brawler class and Bruisers an offensive brawler class.  However, these</DIV> <DIV>sub-classes are not markedly different or distinct.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The split between the two is defined by alignment - Monks in Qeynos and Bruisers in Freeport.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now for the sake of argument lets say that the alignment split was removed and you could be a </DIV> <DIV>Bruiser or Monk in either city.  Similar to Guardians and Beserkers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To further the argument lets say the focus on offense versus defense becomes more pronouced</DIV> <DIV>so that Monks have a significant increase in tankage and a reduction in DPS and Bruisers pretty</DIV> <DIV>much stay as they are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let say you get a one off choice to respec as a Bruiser or a Monk.  So there becomes a real</DIV> <DIV>difference between the two.  A real DPS Brawler class and a real Tankage Brawler class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This might address the substantial schism that has developed in the community between what a Brawlers' role is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your thoughts are appreciated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I wanted to be a Bruiser for the added damage capability, but I couldn't face the betrayal quest, Freeport depresses me and all my guildmates were Qeynos-based. I think a chance to respec as a more defensive/offensive fighter would be interesting, if only 'cause I'm sick of being celibate.<BR>

[bonesbro]

Maybe we could be immune to ripostes?  Mobs with very high melee defensive skills would naturally be monk-tanked.  Or, um, they would be tanked by guardians without autoattack on, like they are now.  Hmm. <div></div>

[Armeng]

<span><blockquote><hr>Jezekiell wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Poochymama p wrote:<div></div><div>And Guardians are supposed to be the best tanks.</div><hr></blockquote>No.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>yes</span><div></div>

[Desulto]

<span><blockquote><hr>Armengar wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Jezekiell wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Poochymama p wrote:<div></div><div>And Guardians are supposed to be the best tanks.</div><hr></blockquote>No.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>yes</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>why?</span><div></div>

[Edyil]

<P>Just personal preference on Armengar's part.</P> <P>Some folks want to be rogues with FD.  Some want more flexibility.  Some want to tank any and all mobs as well as anyone else.</P> <P>The devs designed and described the subclass to us directly.  And that description was "equal but different" tank.</P> <P>I like it.  Others just want to do damage.  /shrug</P> <P>To each their own.  The up-coming (echo echo echo.....) patch will decide.</P>

[Armeng]

Only because he/she said no =p no other reason I'll vote for monk only epics it seems only fair, too bad the sk/pally favored boss mobs in EQ1 really never entered the picture I'll vote for crusader type only epics well by only I mean favored to that classes abilities But by moving up to tank epic mobs which is prefered to guardians atm I read, you should get a slap in the face on your dps down to same as guardians, with hate producing spells to compensate. <div></div>

[Armeng]

<span><blockquote><hr>Edyil wrote:<div></div> <p>To each their own.  The up-coming (echo echo echo.....) patch will decide.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>That too and it will decide whether I spend the ebon clusters I have on Imbued plate or Imbued weapons and imbued cedar bow =) </span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <P>Gage, Jezekeill,</P> <P>Do you remember what Thumper told Bambi?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What I said was nice, because its the truth. You do not want to be a tank class, you want to be a scout class; its quite obvious reading your posts.<BR>

[Poochymama]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eyes_of_Truth wrote:<BR> <P>I completely agree with Edyil about having the option to tank! People are allways complaining that monks will get 1 hit killed and stuff...so change the mobs then it's that simple...</P> <P>Mob A fights like a scout and deals heavy damage in single blows that are accurate and are near impossible to dodge..... let warriors tank these</P> <P>Mob B fights like a fighter, attacking in a furrious onsolaght of blows that bypoass armor, (think 5 hit combos that increase in damage by 50% with each succedding hit) monks can auto dodge the last 2 hits where as guardian wont be allowed to</P> <P>Mob C( c for caster = P ) is a nuker that deals massive spike damage that only a crusader using a self-only magic absobing ward can withstand</P> <P>Or make raids truely fun and have the raid target switch it's archetypal role every 25% hp</P> <P>100%= mob is cocky and uses accurate physcial strikes to deal heavy damage (scout mob) [mage best attack]</P> <P>75%= reaslising that physical strikes arnt wokring the mob switches to magical assualts (mage mob)[scout]</P> <P>50%= realizing he is getting hurt, the mob flys up (invulnerable) and begins to heal it'self while damageing the entire raid with moderate damage aoe smites (priest mob)[no one can hurt it till it's shot down, mage/scout have equil change once shot down] - this is where the raid has to do a specific task such as find and mount a stationary crossbow and shot mob down and beat it down to 25% hp in 2 min or it will fly up and repeat , and need to be shot down again</P> <P>25%= Desprit to stay alive, mob goes defensive, using flurries of attacks that bypass armor mitigation ( the 5 hit combos mentioned above) (fighter mob)[scouts must use ranged CA's as mob uses Personal body AOE attacks that would crush them, Mage has damage advantage since mob is focusing on physical defense]</P> <DIV>Each stage has a best and a worst effective tank/damage dealer (and healer but i didnt go that indepth)</DIV> <DIV>This is the Perfect Balance that people are wanting in raid tanks, ether requitre a combo for a special multi stage fight or fights that cator to brawler or crusader. Also by diversifying damage dealing and healing types needed, it makes thje fight much more interesting as varriety will be the key factor.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Also... i think monks needs class specific armor (like the AQ armor) that adds to avoidance chance, and heavy duty bracer that add to block % and allow 2 hand bo staff to increase deflection chances, so that gear has a more meaningfull use for monks, but the down side to this is monks would have to have a lower default avoidance overall (maby 55%, but can increase up to sau 85%+ with good armor and such). Bracers are used for deflecting, they would be our equivilant to a shield, bo staff would be a great weapon for blocking blows, and brawler specific armor that's used to increase flexability and mobility would assist in our finess of dodgeing.</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on <SPAN class=date_text>06-21-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>03:02 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So what most of you guys want is for every class to have a certain type of Mob that they are best at Tanking. I would be cool with this but what that would mean your dps would have to come down to be equal to that of guardians. Or else it would be unfair.<BR>

[lagerone]

<DIV>Gage: <EM>"What I said was nice, because its the truth. You do not want to be a tank class, you want to be a scout class; its quite obvious reading your posts."</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <UL> <LI>I want to be the class I am right now, a Bruiser.  </LI> <LI>I am not trying to change what I am.</LI> <LI>Brawlers have been a high-DPS, light-tankage class since the game launched.</LI></UL> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But it looks like SOE will redefine the class as part of their mega-overhaul.  It will be interesting to see the outcome.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I played quite a few toons to finally decide on the class/sub-class I wanted long term before I decided on Bruiser.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did you, Gage?</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Poochymama p wrote: <P>So what most of you guys want is for every class to have a certain type of Mob that they are best at Tanking. I would be cool with this but what that would mean your dps would have to come down to be equal to that of guardians. Or else it would be unfair.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Listen Poochy the Unwise:</P> <P>On a Zek raid a few days ago, Sigon a lvl 50 guardian in FoH parsed 214dps while I parsed 241dps.</P> <P>That is a 27DPS difference.</P> <P>Minimal, at best.</P> <P>Now, Sigon routinely tanks and offtanks 53 to 58+++ x4 mobs.</P> <P>Do you think I can do that?</P> <P>No.</P> <P>Now shut up, your ignorance is getting on my nerves.<BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <DIV>Gage: <EM>"What I said was nice, because its the truth. You do not want to be a tank class, you want to be a scout class; its quite obvious reading your posts."</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <UL> <LI>I want to be the class I am right now, a Bruiser.  </LI> <LI>I am not trying to change what I am.</LI> <LI>Brawlers have been a high-DPS, light-tankage class since the game launched.</LI></UL> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But it looks like SOE will redefine the class as part of their mega-overhaul.  It will be interesting to see the outcome.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I played quite a few toons to finally decide on the class/sub-class I wanted long term before I decided on Bruiser.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did you, Gage?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, monk in beta (almost), monk since release.  Its all I want to play.</P> <P>Reading your posts you've played exactly two classes:  Berserker and Bruiser.</P> <P>You played your Berserker until they got nerfed from being amazingly overpowered, and even as you decided to reroll you posted in the Berserker forum about how you wanted to play a fighter that had high DPS (either a SK or a Bruiser) and you were very adament about not playing a scout class.</P> <P>My question is why?</P> <P>Do you like being able to tank and outdamage almost an entire archetype built on melee dps?  You know having your cake and eating it too?</P> <P>My posts have been the same, pretty [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] much, since launch.  Have yours?</P> <P>You've already been fickle and rerolled because the fighter class isn't what you are looking for, how many more fighters will you play before you learn that the gameplay you seek is in the scout archetype?</P> <P>Some of your favorite quotes I've read, haha.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <DIV>I need to reroll now but i'm not sure what class to pick - what is now the highest DPS fighter class?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Would it be Bruiser or Shadowknight (and no, I dont want to play a scout)?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What is now intended to be the highest DPS fighter - I do not want to make another mistake.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alucia</DIV> <DIV>25 Beserker</DIV> <DIV>Najena</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <DIV>I swear, I ride the waves of nerfdom.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>After the zerker-nerf I stopped levelling my Zerker to roll a Bruiser...then the agi-nerf!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wouldn't recommend a Zerker anymore.  They used to be a high damage tank now they</DIV> <DIV>are just Crusaders with a bad temper. :robotmad:Card<BR>Najena</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>LoL.  Always trying to be a fighter that does high DPS.  First you were the overpowered zerker, riding on their broken, ridiculous DPS while still being able to tank, and then sadly, when that class was fixed you fled to bruisers, and have been riding their overpowered DPS as well.</P> <P>Now, not content to play a scout like you should, you run around ranting, bringing up me like my opinion is new, trying to ridicule those of us who have been warning you about this since release, and basically crying like a spoiled [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] kid.</P> <P>Get over it.  Go play a scout.</P> <P>High damage fighter isn't what you want, you want to be a scout who can tank.  You want to be overpowered.  Well, imho, you aren't wanted here.<BR></P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>06-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:56 PM</span>

[Dovifat]

<span><blockquote><hr>lagerone wrote:<ul><li>Brawlers have been a high-DPS, light-tankage class since the game launched.</li></ul><font color="#ffff00">Brawlers were the preferred raid tank at some point actually. Ever heard of the infamous agility nerf ? </font> <div> </div> <div>But it looks like SOE will redefine the class as part of their mega-overhaul.  It will be interesting to see the outcome. <font color="#ffff00">They will shape the class according to their original vision. </font> </div> <div> </div> <div>I played quite a few toons to finally decide on the class/sub-class I wanted long term before I decided on Bruiser.</div> <div> </div> <div>Did you, Gage? <font color="#ffff00">If you put that much effort in choosing your class, you must have known this was coming. </font> </div><hr></blockquote> I have no idea why everyone is acting like this damage order was some huge suprise. The only change in the "vision" since early beta is that scouts are a dps centered class instead of a utility class now. And that's very old news as well. Devs were pretty vocal about their intentions, can't blame them for suddenly changing their mind and outlook on brawlers. Instead, many of you chose to just ignore the many hints and open announcements of the coming adjustments. </span><div></div>

[Reposa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dovifat wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>lagerone wrote:<ul><li>Brawlers have been a high-DPS, light-tankage class since the game launched.</li></ul><font color="#ffff00">Brawlers were the preferred raid tank at some point actually. Ever heard of the infamous agility nerf ? </font> <div> </div> <div>But it looks like SOE will redefine the class as part of their mega-overhaul.  It will be interesting to see the outcome. <font color="#ffff00">They will shape the class according to their original vision. </font> </div> <div> </div> <div>I played quite a few toons to finally decide on the class/sub-class I wanted long term before I decided on Bruiser.</div> <div> </div> <div>Did you, Gage? <font color="#ffff00">If you put that much effort in choosing your class, you must have known this was coming. </font> </div><hr></blockquote> I have no idea why everyone is acting like this damage order was some huge suprise. The only change in the "vision" since early beta is that <b>scouts are a dps centered class instead of a utility</b> class now. And that's very old news as well. Devs were pretty vocal about their intentions, can't blame them for suddenly changing their mind and outlook on brawlers. Instead, many of you chose to just ignore the many hints and open announcements of the coming adjustments. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Brawlers are utility?  Uh.. anyway.. I started this on a recent post.. it seems developers really couldn't find a spot for Brawlers.. so they just happened to throw us in the "fighter" archtype.  Really though, when you think of a Monk, do you think of a tank, or do you think of a class thats pumping out well above average DPS? Monks shouldn't be tanking, sure we should have decent tankability, like bards, but our "utility" is our DPS.  Scouts (excluding bards) actually provide a lot more utility than brawlers do.  I have a 46% avoidance buff, that rarely blocks anything these days with the level 56-57 gx encounters out there.. where as scouts have sick mitigation debuffs, tracking, pathfinding, invis, and group invis in the case of rogues. I really don't see how brawlers should be grouped with bards and enchanters, and I don't see any reason why a brawler should tank anything, just because we have taunts, does not make us a tank, especially since it's EXTREMELY hard to avoid these new 56-57 gx mobs.  Don't forget, heh, rogues have taunts too, doesn't mean they should be tanking now does it?</span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<P>We are tanks, despite *your* opinion, and I was assured at FF that avoidance would be changed to be a legitimate means of defense, period.</P> <P>Now, I'm sure you want to be DPS, but so do many others; unfortunately for you, the true melee DPS in this game belongs to the scouts.  Our DPS will be average, at best (just as the scale shows us) with our main DPS advantage being in that we can do all 3 damage types.</P> <P>Avoidance tanking is/will/should be our forte though, especially after the plate tank's mitigation nerfs happen.</P>

[Reposa]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<p>We are tanks, despite *your* opinion, and I was assured at FF that avoidance would be changed to be a legitimate means of defense, period.</p> <p>Now, I'm sure you want to be DPS, but so do many others; unfortunately for you, the true melee DPS in this game belongs to the scouts.  Our DPS will be average, at best (just as the scale shows us) with our main DPS advantage being in that we can do all 3 damage types.</p> <p>Avoidance tanking is/will/should be our forte though, especially after the plate tank's mitigation nerfs happen.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I have no gripes with being able to tank, but will the "combat changes" change the way we avoid?  If a guardian gets hit 10 times for 100 damage a hit, will brawlers get hit 1 out of 10 times for 1k damage?  Note, it's A LOT harder avoiding something that;s 6-8 levels higher than you, TV Master 1 blocks maybe 0.05% of the hits on these new field mob encounters, when it used to block probably about 5-10% depending on the encounter. I honestly wouldn't mind being able to tank at the loss of DPS, but the way we tank is with our avoidance, and the way it stands now, it's nearly impossible to avoid Gx mobs.  Plus, on another "why monks can't tank" subject.. we don't have shield factor, therefore, when tanking, to get the best possible stats, we will probably have to dual-wield, in-turn doubling out chance of getting riposted. Will we get buffs in-line with Warrior and Crusader buffs?  Is our loss of DPS contributed to some more mitigation, avoidance, stat-mod buff lines? I haven't seen much on this, and only recently became interested because of the T3 DPS we'll be doing.. so enlighten me on what they plan to give us that will allow us to actually tank Gx mobs.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Reposado on <span class=date_text>06-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:15 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<P>We have deflection, which is similiar to our shield factor, and it will probably seem even more so when plate avoidance is lessened.</P> <P>A major part of the combat changes is how the +defense skill works.</P> <P>Also as a part of the combat changes, is a total spell revamp which will change the way a majority of the spells scale, and possibly according to Locke change some spells outright (so it may resdistribute the rather defense heavy spells some classes get).</P> <P>Also, as of now avoidance is key to tanking raid mobs, its just that raid mobs hit too hard, too often; and guardians huge avoidance coupled with their amazing mitigation and levels of defense makes our avoidance look miniscule in comparison.</P> <P>So, looking at the system right now, sure its hard to imagine a monk ever tanking raid mobs; then again I remember January.</P> <P>I for one only know bits and peices of what I heard from numerous devs at the Summit and Fan Faire, but I am eagerly awaiting to see how the changes play out on test, and I'm optimistic as of now to what the future holds.</P> <P>And, about your comment in being interested in tanking now that you've seen where our DPS will end up:  I kind of figured, now maybe you guys will understand why I've been preaching about getting better at tanking for months.</P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>06-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:22 AM</span>

[Dovifat]

<span><blockquote><hr>Reposado wrote: <span>Brawlers are utility? </span><div></div><hr></blockquote> No, they aren't you already conveniently bolded the passage, i was clearly talking about <b>scouts. </b> As to your twisted reasoning about Brawlers not being able to tank because of ripostes, you already realized dual wield will yield many more chances to be riposted. Logical conclusion: use a 2hander. Those couple stats you miss don't really make a difference.</span><div></div>

[Reposa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>We have deflection, which is similiar to our shield factor, and it will probably seem even more so when plate avoidance is lessened.</p> <p>A major part of the combat changes is how the +defense skill works.</p> <p>Also as a part of the combat changes, is a total spell revamp which will change the way a majority of the spells scale, and possibly according to Locke change some spells outright (so it may resdistribute the rather defense heavy spells some classes get).</p> <p><b>Also, as of now avoidance is key to tanking raid mobs, its just that raid mobs hit too hard, too often; and guardians huge avoidance coupled with their amazing mitigation and levels of defense makes our avoidance look miniscule in comparison.</b></p> <p>So, looking at the system right now, sure its hard to imagine a monk ever tanking raid mobs; then again I remember January.</p> <p>I for one only know bits and peices of what I heard from numerous devs at the Summit and Fan Faire, but I am eagerly awaiting to see how the changes play out on test, and I'm optimistic as of now to what the future holds.</p> <p>And, about your comment in being interested in tanking now that you've seen where our DPS will end up:  I kind of figured, now maybe you guys will understand why I've been preaching about getting better at tanking for months.</p><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class="date_text">06-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">02:22 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Well, yea, avoidance helps, but when I use TV these days, and ask the tank to look at his log and see how many times I've blocked, parried, and riposted for them, it's so much lower than it used to be, at times, especially on Darathar, it's almost non-existant... but I guess this all doesn't matter until the combat changes hit, so we'll see.</span><div></div>

[ZIMTOK]

<DIV>I got 2 words for everyone....Group Taunt.  We don't have any at the level 50 range.  We need atleast one.  If we don't get one then we will never be able to compete with other tanks.  So I'm reserving judgement whether we are a gimped class or not.  If we don't get a Group Taunt then we are gimped.</DIV>

[Edyil]

<DIV>I thought of something this morning as I was driving to work.  I'm going to take a stab at something and you folks can see if it makes sense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If I were going to fix Monk/Bruiser tanking without making them unhittable buff machines, how would I go about doing that?  I can nerf the mobs, but that would allow Guards to tank better and it would allow scouts to tank some things they shouldnt.  I could give Monks/Bruisers fixed avoid ratio's and fixed hit patterns.  In other words, I could disallow consecutive hits on an avoidance tank.  But that would take the randomness out of combat making it stale and boring.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is another way though.  A way which has already been documented as an up-coming change.  That would be to drastically slow combat down.   If the physical attacks happen at a slower rate, it would vastly reduce the stress put on healers to keep up with spike damage.  Especially for druid/shaman types.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[bonesbro]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZIMTOK wrote:<BR> <DIV>I got 2 words for everyone....Group Taunt.  We don't have any at the level 50 range.  We need atleast one.  If we don't get one then we will never be able to compete with other tanks.  So I'm reserving judgement whether we are a gimped class or not.  If we don't get a Group Taunt then we are gimped.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>We get a level 50 group taunt and a level 40 training taunt that is almost as good.  The 50 taunt is on the usual 30s recast timer, the 40 training taunt is on a 20s recast timer.

[ZIMTOK]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bonesbro wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZIMTOK wrote:<BR> <DIV>I got 2 words for everyone....Group Taunt.  We don't have any at the level 50 range.  We need atleast one.  If we don't get one then we will never be able to compete with other tanks.  So I'm reserving judgement whether we are a gimped class or not.  If we don't get a Group Taunt then we are gimped.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>We get a level 50 group taunt and a level 40 training taunt that is almost as good.  The 50 taunt is on the usual 30s recast timer, the 40 training taunt is on a 20s recast timer. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Oooops I forgot this was the Monk Board.  I'm a Bruiser and we dont have any group taunts..</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZIMTOK wrote:<BR> <DIV>I got 2 words for everyone....Group Taunt.  We don't have any at the level 50 range.  We need atleast one.  If we don't get one then we will never be able to compete with other tanks.  So I'm reserving judgement whether we are a gimped class or not.  If we don't get a Group Taunt then we are gimped.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>We get one at 50, and we get a trait group taunt with 20 second recast, adept 2 quality, at 40.  Which is white at 50.<BR>

[Nefari]

<P>Personally, I still use the 40th lvl training taunt at 50th...it's slightly less aggro and has no power drain on it as the 50th lvl does, but the 20sec recast is a HUGE HUGE advantage.</P> <P>I have very few problems holding aggro...and I'm far from uber.  Dunno why people say we have aggro issues.</P> <P> </P> <P>Nefalu </P> <P>50th Monk </P> <P>AB</P>

[NamaeZero]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nefarien wrote:<BR> <P>Personally, I still use the 40th lvl training taunt at 50th...it's slightly less aggro and has no power drain on it as the 50th lvl does, but the 20sec recast is a HUGE HUGE advantage.</P> <P>I have very few problems holding aggro...and I'm far from uber.  Dunno why people say we have aggro issues.</P> <P> </P> <P>Nefalu </P> <P>50th Monk </P> <P>AB</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm guessing... because they foolishly picked one of the other training choices?</DIV>

[Dovifat]

<span><blockquote><hr>ZIMTOK wrote:<div> Oooops I forgot this was the Monk Board.  I'm a Bruiser and we dont have any group taunts..</div><hr></blockquote> It's stated somewhere they'r going to change the way our taunts work. On epic encounters anything but shout and the lvl 10 training thing don't have any effect because of the fear component. After the revamp, the fear component still won't work on raid stuff, the taunt component will however. Meaning we can use Jeer/Boast/Abuse. I still hope we'll get an encounter taunt without fear though, it does fit the class but really causes way more issues than it has benefits. Maybe in the lvl 50-60 range..</span><div></div>

[Game]

<DIV>Personaly I would be happy if SOE brough balance to the fighter clases. May it be through nerfing or buffing us all as long as each fighter is a viable for raids/groups and there arent any major differences making some super man/woman and others useless then Im ok with it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Making all fighters usefull is what this really should be about and noone should be unhappy with their class IF soe can pull that off. Ofcourse some players will raise hell beacuse they might loose their god mode.</DIV>

[Poochymama]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Poochymama p wrote: <P>So what most of you guys want is for every class to have a certain type of Mob that they are best at Tanking. I would be cool with this but what that would mean your dps would have to come down to be equal to that of guardians. Or else it would be unfair.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Listen Poochy the Unwise:</P> <P>On a Zek raid a few days ago, Sigon a lvl 50 guardian in FoH parsed 214dps while I parsed 241dps.</P> <P>That is a 27DPS difference.</P> <P>Minimal, at best.</P> <P>Now, Sigon routinely tanks and offtanks 53 to 58+++ x4 mobs.</P> <P>Do you think I can do that?</P> <P>No.</P> <P>Now shut up, your ignorance is getting on my nerves.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P>So maybe an idea would be to "slightly lower" monks dps. And make monks tank equally to the plate tanks just on a different type of encouter? ehh? That way monks/bruiser could be the mt for certain encounters, and Guardians/Berserkers could Mt there certain type, and Crusaders get get their Mt roles. This would give all tanks a chance. That way all tanks would tank the same, just in different ways. So what im asking is would Monks and Bruisers be content with having their DPS "slighly lowerd" in order to tank on par with the plate tanks? <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

[Game]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Poochymama p wrote:<BR> </P>So maybe an idea would be to "slightly lower" monks dps. And make monks tank equally to the plate tanks just on a different type of encouter? ehh? That way monks/bruiser could be the mt for certain encounters, and Guardians/Berserkers could Mt there certain type, and Crusaders get get their Mt roles. This would give all tanks a chance. That way all tanks would tank the same, just in different ways. So what im asking is would Monks and Bruisers be content with having their DPS "slighly lowerd" in order to tank on par with the plate tanks? <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Some would be ok to loose dps for tanking and yet others wouldnt. Seems monk community is sort of like zerker one. Some people want more dps less tanking and others want the exact opposite.</DIV><p>Message Edited by GamerX on <span class=date_text>06-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:09 PM</span>

[bonesbro]

In general, most monks who are not willing to trade a lower DPS for increased tanking ability believe that we'll never get enough to be viable MTs.  Therefore, they'd be giving up DPS for no improvement. There are, of course, some folks who want to be pure DPS, and while I hope they continue to enjoy their class I think they've set themselves up for disappointment. <div></div>

[Ulkesh-Blackburr]

<P>I'm glad to know they are making avoidance a viable defense, as it was intended.  I just hope it scales appropiately.  Also, don't forget the 1st expansion is right around the corner!  Meaning(among lots of other things) the endgame scenario at 60 is going to be different than at 50.  I'm so stoked about the expansion!</P> <P>By the way, the person who started this thread seems a little off on their information.  Might want to recheck some of that.</P> <P>Oh, and it's futile to compare reality to a fantasy game.  If there was any reality to this at all no one would be tanking an animal anywhere near the size of a dragon.  It would be like a squirrel trying to absorb a train hit =p  One more quick thing on that note martial arts are only designed to combat people hehe.</P>

[psubull]

I've only read the first page of responses, so forgive me if what I'm trying to say has been covered already. With the combat changes, we can expect to see the following setups for this argument (speculation on information given to us by developers): Guardian: 50-60% mitigation.  20-30% avoidance Monk: 20-30% mitigation. 60-70% avoidance By the logic stated by the OP, this is unfair.  But when you look at it closer, you'll understand that it is only fair. With 100 hits for 100 damage each (unmitigated), you would have to do more complex formulas to factor in the avoidance and mitigation. Avoidance is on a hit-by-hit basis, meaning it is not a 100% set-in-stone thing.  If you have 70% avoidance, then when each attack is generated, you have a 70% chance of avoiding the attack.  It does NOT mean that in 100 attacks, you will avoid 70 of them (This assumption can only be made in situations where hundreds of thousands of attacks have been attempted during a fight, not hundreds.  So if you were to parse an entire month, sure, you would see 70% of all of the attacks avoided).  Because avoidance is not a sure thing, there could be times when the monk takes no damage and times when the monk takes devastating damage.  You can do a test situation by going out and buying a 4 sided die, and rolling it 100 times for 10 different test situations (use a die over a random number generator because random number generators are not TRULY random).  If it lands on 1, its a hit.  2, 3 and 4 are avoided attacks.  Do this and you will see that there are streaks of hits as well as streaks of misses. Mitigation is something you can rely on every time.  Every hit, it absorbs the set amount of damage that is thrown at it.  So a hit for 100, with 60% mitigation, would be a hit for 40 damage.  So if you are relying on mitigation alone for the 100 hits of 100 damage, you could take a guess at how much damage is coming your way. Do the math using my logic here in different situations as well.  Think about when multiple MOBs are in the picture, or when one big hitting MOB is in the picture.  Some situations will call for the security of a guardian, some will be better suited for a monk.  We need to wait and see, and get more people to go test it out. <div></div>

[Edyil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bonesbro wrote:<BR>In general, most monks who are not willing to trade a lower DPS for increased tanking ability believe that we'll never get enough to be viable MTs.  Therefore, they'd be giving up DPS for no improvement.<BR><BR>There are, of course, some folks who want to be pure DPS, and while I hope they continue to enjoy their class I think they've set themselves up for disappointment.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><BR>That is probably the most concise analysis of the division between monks to date.  Regardless of our future tanking abilities, ALL melee will be taking a DPS hit when this patch comes out.  That is a known fact.  <BR></P> <P>To what degree won't be known for quite some time since they will be slowing all combat down.  In other words, the effect might seem extreme at the start, but the mobs are doing far less DPS (will be taking a much bigger DPS hit than we will), so proportionally (and theoretically at this point), our DPS nerf will be minimal.<BR></P> <P>But again, even if they don't give us tanking, we are gonna get nerfed on damage.</P>

[ShashLigai]

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2></FONT></P> <HR> psubullet wrote: <P><FONT size=2>Avoidance is on a hit-by-hit basis, meaning it is not a 100% set-in-stone thing.  If you have 70% avoidance, then when each attack is generated, you have a 70% chance of avoiding the attack.  It does NOT mean that in 100 attacks, you will avoid 70 of them (This assumption can only be made in situations where hundreds of thousands of attacks have been attempted during a fight, not hundreds.  So if you were to parse an entire month, sure, you would see 70% of all of the attacks avoided).  Because avoidance is not a sure thing, there could be times when the monk takes no damage and times when the monk takes devastating damage.  You can do a test situation by going out and buying a 4 sided die, and rolling it 100 times for 10 different test situations (use a die over a random number generator because random number generators are not TRULY random).  If it lands on 1, its a hit.  2, 3 and 4 are avoided attacks.  Do this and you will see that there are streaks of hits as well as streaks of misses.<BR><BR>Mitigation is something you can rely on every time.  Every hit, it absorbs the set amount of damage that is thrown at it.  So a hit for 100, with 60% mitigation, would be a hit for 40 damage.  So if you are relying on mitigation alone for the 100 hits of 100 damage, you could take a guess at how much damage is coming your way.<BR></FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>If this is how it really works, then the formula is nerfed from the start. To be consistent with avoidance, 60% mitigation should mean that the tank's armor 'mitigates' the hit 60% of the time. The actual amount of damage 'mitigated' should be based on the type of armor and the location of the hit. In this way, armor wearers would have to repair their armor or its effectiveness is reduced. IMO this is the correct trade-off between monks, who don't have much armor, avoid hits but take nearly all the damage when they do get hit, and armor wearers who get hit alot, the armor absorbs the damage, but eventually has to be fixed or replaced.</DIV>

[NamaeZero]

<P>Another way to make Tanking work better for MT's using Avoidance would be to slow combat down (which is what SOE is planning) and/or allow for a short period of automatic or heightened dodging to occur after a hit. </P> <P> </P> <P>For example, say you have 50% Avoidance as a Monk, and you take a hit: for a few seconds, your Avoidance could climb to 80-95% or higher. This way Streaks would become much less likely, and the issue of Brawlers being in combat and never taking a hit (uber) would happen much less. This would also make Monks more suited for very fast attacking raid mobs, as the faster they were attacked, the more often they would recieve their higher Avoidance values.</P>

[Babayaaga]

<P>If I was to try to look at this from a logical perspective, here's how I see the Plate vs. Light Armour debate.</P> <P>Let's say Sir Lancelot was fighting Bruce Lee:</P> <P>----------------- Sir Lancelot -----------------</P> <P>Lancelot has a full suit of shiny plate that protects him from all kinds of damage, particularly slash/pierce attacks because solid sheets of metal is very hard to stick things through. The only way you can slash/pierce him would be through the weak points in his armour, like the underarms, groin, knee, elbow and neck areas. </P> <P>Lancelot's choice of weaponry incorporates a wide selection of huge, heavy weapons including flails/maces for blunt, longswords and claymores for slash, and lances for pierce.</P> <P>His weaknesses result largely from his armour and weaponry. He moves slowly and is weakened quickly if he lacks the stamina to maneuver with all of the weight he wears and weilds.</P> <P>----------------- Bruce Lee -----------------</P> <P>Bruce is wearing next to nothing. He's got bare feet, no shirt, and lightweight, flowing pants... the only purpose of his clothing is modesty. He is extremely vulnerable to every kind of attack provided he gets hit, which is why he choses the attire that he does. His armour is not what he wears... he is protected only by his skill to focus on avoiding all types of attacks... deftly and swiftly.</P> <P>Bruce's choice of weaponry is a lightweight but effective selection of blunt, slashing and piercing hand-held weapons, and featherweight staves and swords that allow him maximum maneuverablilty. </P> <P>Bruce's weakness lies only in getting hit. If/when he takes a hit, he is going to get hit very hard and perhaps perish from the blow.</P> <P>================================================== ====================</P> <P>So what happens when you pit these two off in an arena?</P> <P>The odds say it would more often result in a draw. Bruce could jump circles around Lancelot, thrusting in several attacks in the same time it would take Lancelot to take one deadly swing... but if that swing hits Bruce... Bruce could be dead in one hit.</P> <P>This analogy is what makes me think that both tank types... Plate and Light Armour... should be equal in terms "tankability". The problem is getting that to play out. Healing a Plate-tank is going to be much easier in that he will always get hit for a lot less than a light armour wearer. There is zero risk in a Light-armoured tank who never gets hit either (as we saw in the early days of EQ2). There has to be some risk in every situations, and you need to keep your main tank standing because when he/she goes down there's a good chance it's game over.</P> <P>Perhaps the problem doesn't lie with the fighter classes. I am more of the opinion that the problem lies with the Healer archetypes in the game right now. There should be a suitable healing strategy for every tank type... and I do believe it was intended to work that way but in actuality... it just isn't playing out that way.</P>

[Desulto]

Wow Baba...that was a great analogy. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Rothgard-san]

<DIV>I have no problem with my monk becoming more tank oriented - I wouldn't mind having my dps lowered with the trade-off of my tanking ability going up... to an extent. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, I have a problem with having Berserkers, Shadowknights, Paladins, Guardians, Monks, Bruisers being a tank class when they aren't actually tanking. A tank that isn't tanking won't be much use after these changes, and most raids seldom need more than 1 tank (2 for some raids). So I suppose this means I'll have to re-optimize my guild roster, by replacing the fighters with scouts? This is assuming of course that the actual difference in DPS will be overly significant between say, a Guardian compared to an Assassin. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently, our secondary tank (Guardian) does damage that nears the higher end scouts in the guild when he's going all out - this definately needs to change, but if they put our fighters on a completely different damage table (like eqoa for example, where warriors quaded for 50/hit, and rogues quaded for 400/hit) we'll definately have some people rerolling.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Rothgard-san on <span class=date_text>06-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:37 PM</span>

[Babayaaga]

Thanks Des <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[deaddeadde]

<DIV>basically offtopic, and probably mentioned before, but IMO a bump never hurts.. (and i took the 40 taunt, so it barely matters, but) the DPS bonus on our 50 taunt gets resisted every single round.</DIV> <DIV>that's ME, resisting my own buff.</DIV> <DIV>we've noticed this, yes?</DIV> <DIV>i shelled out for my lv 50 ad3s at 49, trying to motivate me to go faster.. that'll teach me.</DIV>

[psubull]

<span><blockquote><hr>ShashLigai wrote:<div></div> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <p><font size="2"></font></p> <hr> psubullet wrote: <p><font size="2">Avoidance is on a hit-by-hit basis, meaning it is not a 100% set-in-stone thing.  If you have 70% avoidance, then when each attack is generated, you have a 70% chance of avoiding the attack.  It does NOT mean that in 100 attacks, you will avoid 70 of them (This assumption can only be made in situations where hundreds of thousands of attacks have been attempted during a fight, not hundreds.  So if you were to parse an entire month, sure, you would see 70% of all of the attacks avoided).  Because avoidance is not a sure thing, there could be times when the monk takes no damage and times when the monk takes devastating damage.  You can do a test situation by going out and buying a 4 sided die, and rolling it 100 times for 10 different test situations (use a die over a random number generator because random number generators are not TRULY random).  If it lands on 1, its a hit.  2, 3 and 4 are avoided attacks.  Do this and you will see that there are streaks of hits as well as streaks of misses.Mitigation is something you can rely on every time.  Every hit, it absorbs the set amount of damage that is thrown at it.  So a hit for 100, with 60% mitigation, would be a hit for 40 damage.  So if you are relying on mitigation alone for the 100 hits of 100 damage, you could take a guess at how much damage is coming your way.</font></p> <hr> </blockquote> <div>If this is how it really works, then the formula is nerfed from the start. To be consistent with avoidance, 60% mitigation should mean that the tank's armor 'mitigates' the hit 60% of the time. The actual amount of damage 'mitigated' should be based on the type of armor and the location of the hit. In this way, armor wearers would have to repair their armor or its effectiveness is reduced. IMO this is the correct trade-off between monks, who don't have much armor, avoid hits but take nearly all the damage when they do get hit, and armor wearers who get hit alot, the armor absorbs the damage, but eventually has to be fixed or replaced.</div><hr></blockquote>With what you have said here has a few problems.  The first problem is that you have suggested that mitigation's percentage be a representation of how often one would mitigate the attack.  Were that true, and mitigation would function the same way as avoidance, why have mitigation and avoidance?  Why have more than one tank class?  Let's implement this suggestion, and then call the entire fighter tree "Tank," taking away all previously defined classess and subclasses.  There are advantages and disadvantages to having the system as it currently lies, but it is the only way to fit split-tanking in the flow of the game.  The second problem is the armor repairing.  There are many reasons that the dev team decided to, once again, keep items from being damaged in battle.  Ask them, not me.  But it wouldn't make it any more balanced because remember, our armor would take a lot less damage, thus needing repairs/replacement more often.  Just think of Norrath as the land of unbreakable equipment. The formula works to an extent currently, and will work even better when they figure out how to tweak their equations to represent the description I gave above. (side note:  something cannot be nerfed from the start.  It can be beefed up or nerfed after the start, but at the start, it is how it is.)</span><div></div>

[ShashLigai]

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> psubullet wrote:</DIV> <DIV>With what you have said here has a few problems.  The first problem is that you have suggested that mitigation's percentage be a representation of how often one would mitigate the attack.  Were that true, and mitigation would function the same way as avoidance, why have mitigation and avoidance? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Because IMO mitigation means that my armor takes the hit, avoidance means the hit never lands. A monk with light armor won't mitigate much. The avoidance/mitigation formula as you described it seems broken to me. If I understand what you said, 60% mit absorbs 60% of the damage, while 60% avoid has a 60% chance to avoid the hit. That just seems inconsistent to me.</P>

[40ma]

<P>admittedly i havent given this a lot of thought but it seems to me that if my avoidance is 70% and because it takes several thousand attempts of swinging at me for the 70% to show itself, why not make it so 70% avoidance shows it self after a few hundred hits? therotically wouldnt that help to make avoidance more stable or atleast less unstable? maybe then we wouldnt have these long streaks of getting our brains bashed in? </P> <P>i dont know what kind of coding that would take but knowing im gonna avoid 70-80% of all atks with in ie, 500 swings, should help me be a better tank dispite my low mitigation then all they have to do is implement a hard cap on avoidance to keep people from hitting 100%. something aroud 85-90%. </P> <P>also i gotta admitt, i dont wanna tank, never wanted to tank and didnt choose monk so i could tank, but i never expected to dish out dps higher then a scout either. i dont ever wanna tank a raid mob. if i did i woulda picked a guardian/zerker/pally. i like the idea of being able to dish medicore dps and slowly as the tanks die if im all thats left maybe then i can take or dodge a few hits buying my raid some valuable seconds to rez and get a tank back up to do his/her job. if that makes me unwanted then maybe i need a different guild cause last time i checked raids arent pu's leaving me at the mercy of people i dont know.</P>

[Alkoun]

<div></div><div></div><div></div>I'm not keen on the idea of making certain tanks better at tanking certain encounters. It pigeonholes your character to only doing certain raids. What if a Guardian needs to kill a raid mob that flurries for some quest, but was left out of the raid cuz the Monk makes a better tank for this specific fight? Or vice versa? Typecasting people limits their range of opportunities, which isn't fun for some.I made my Monk alt with the intention of being a tank, as it was described in the FAQs: <font color="#ffffff" size="3"><span></span>"Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role <u><i><b>equally</b></i></u> well.<span>  </span>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on." </font><font color="#ffffff" size="3"></font><font color="#ffffff" size="3">Making Monks better at tanking X raid mob and Guardians better at tanking Y raid mob isn't giving all tanks the equal opportunities we deserve. The <i>fighter archetype </i>is what makes us tanks, not the subclass. Question: Anyone know if/when these DPS changes are gonna go live? PS: My main is a 50 Inq and I have had maybe 2 or 3 XP grps with a Monk as a main tank. Reactives are a little weirder on them since they don't trigger them very often. I ended up just using direct heals most of the time while in those grps, but I could certainly keep them alive (most recent one was in Sol's Eye). It's not as simple as just recasting a reactive when it wears off but it certainly wasn't impossible to do.</font><div></div><p><span class="date_text"></span><span class="time_text"> </span></p><p>Message Edited by Alkoun on <span class=date_text>07-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:16 AM</span>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<P>They need to make x4 raids almsot require 6 tanks anf 6 healers and 12 mage/scout... maby not every raid but the truely challengin ones need this setup. 12 of the classes in this game are defense and 12 are offense. They should all have a role in a raid, mobs should hit hard enough that without 6 tanks dividing the damage amoungst themselves and without 6 healers healing them the raid should wipe. How would the dev's manage such a balanced feat?? Like this:</P> <P>Allow fighters to divide the damage of a single blow amongs themselves. I call it a Batalion. 2-6 fighters can join up and as long as they stay withina  certain radius as eachother, any direct hit that one recieves is divided amongst them so it can be healed easier than healing one persion taking amazingly high spike damage. Lets say a mob deals a deadly attack that does 10000 damage. One fighter might be serverly hurt or killing by this mightly blow, but insted, this is divided between the 6 fighters, each taking 1667 damage each, which would then be mitigated or avoided. This is how brawlers can effectively tank. If they dont dodge it, they wont get one hit killed, but if they do dodge it, it lowers the overall damage from that blow by 1667. Makes it less of a chance to block or die, but rather a "if you dodge it you save healers even more power", if they dodnt dodge it they will mitigate about 30% so thats around 1000, a ward + regeneration could easily cover this. A Heavy armor tank might mitigate this down 70% and recieve only 500 damage almost every time, making reactive heals cover this damage. </P> <P>I have ALLWAYS thought it sooooooo odd that you have the GINORMUSLY UBER DRAGON OF IMPENDING DOOM!.............. and only one persion bold enough <or stupid/recklace enough> to think that they and only they should be taking the hits. (Rambo anyone lol) But a batalion of fighters all shareing the damage and being healing by a squad of healers, eachwitha  tank to protect, has allways sounded better and imo adds much more balanced/reasionable idea for massive raiding. </P> <P>Currently you only need 1 fighter on a raid and this needs to change!! Dont give them dps that takes away the mage/scout roles, but insted </P> <P> <FONT size=5>let them ALL tank</FONT> :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>... and im not saying ALL raids MUST require 6 fighters and 6 priests.... but for balance sake, the truely end game hard core masterfull raids now and in future</P> <P> </P> <P>Also, it would be nice to make, like say on difficult x3 raids, make it where one class of fighter tanks it better than other, but the other 2 can tank it just not nearly as effective (aka will have to compensate by having more healers then that reduces overal dps ect... but not FORCING a specific tank)</P> <P>Another interesting thing for a x4 raid is 3 mobs that are ^^^ and each can only be tanked easily by a certain class of fighter :</P> <P>A magic wielding mob that uses heavy spell damage that requires a crusader's magical expertise to servive- lowest defense vs phys, best defense vs spell</P> <P>A deadly blade master mob that has 100% accuracy and deadly single attacks that requires a warriors mitiagion-medium def vs phys, medium def vs spell</P> <P>A enraged savage mob that has lower accuracy and deals flurry attack that cant be mitigated, but if avoided, the successive string of 10 blows stops, best def vs phys, worst def vs spell</P> <P>This makes all 3 types of tanking a nessessity, as with all 3 type of healing to counter each type of damage. Also, a good blend of casting and physical damage form scouts and mages will be needed, as well as classes that can open up spell and mitigation for the 12 dps classes to effecively attack the foes (Summoners and Rouges i would imagine getting this benefit of greatly owering defense) Enchanters and bards would greatly increase damage done by other while keeping a good constant personal dps just under that of the rouges and summoners, and sorcerors and predators would hammer it down hard with their best damage abilties (that are being enhanced) on the now weakened mobs (thanks to rouges and summoners). </P> <P>That is how I wana raid....with varriety bing a key. I want a raid of all of the 24 classes to be the most effective raid force in the game. Not saysing that doubleing or quientuppling up on the same class shouldnt work as the "perfect" raid set up is very rare, but i think that the 24 of all subclass varriety should be the most efficant, with varriables like palyer skill and gear aside.</P> <P>If anyone ahs some interesting ideas for Fighters in raids i would love to hear some, and not to toot my own horn, but i have yet to see an idea as effective as mine for what to do with all these wittle tanks scampering around asking "well..just [Removed for Content] am i supposed to do  Mr Raid leader??"</P> <P>Raid leader responds "Suck it up, soldier!! Now get in formation and go fight Random_epic_boss_01!!! Get in their and lookout for eachother."</P>

[Suraklin]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <DIV>OK I am going to throw an idea around that maybe....just maybe...might resolve our problems.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently, Monks are a defensive brawler class and Bruisers an offensive brawler class.  However, these</DIV> <DIV>sub-classes are not markedly different or distinct.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The split between the two is defined by alignment - Monks in Qeynos and Bruisers in Freeport.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now for the sake of argument lets say that the alignment split was removed and you could be a </DIV> <DIV>Bruiser or Monk in either city.  Similar to Guardians and Beserkers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To further the argument lets say the focus on offense versus defense becomes more pronouced</DIV> <DIV>so that Monks have a significant increase in tankage and a reduction in DPS and Bruisers pretty</DIV> <DIV>much stay as they are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let say you get a one off choice to respec as a Bruiser or a Monk.  So there becomes a real</DIV> <DIV>difference between the two.  A real DPS Brawler class and a real Tankage Brawler class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This might address the substantial schism that has developed in the community between what a Brawlers' role is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your thoughts are appreciated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I'd take the offensive brawler path if given that option. I hate being MT and with the DPS nerf coming during revamp my Monk is probably going to collect a lot of dust. Which doesn't bother me cause sounds like Necro is finally getting some loving. Dots will stack for summoner classes, our spells are supposed to do more damage, and pets are supposed to tank and DPS better. All pet group anyone??<BR> <p>Message Edited by Suraklin on <span class=date_text>07-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:39 AM</span>