Are they really going to nerf monk DPS?

[Amphibia]

I don't know exactly where this comes from, but I just saw a discussion in the biggest channel on Splitpaw, where they said that monks, bruisers and berserkers could expect a huge DPS-nerf in near future. Og course, I'm not do not understand all aspects of making this game, balancing classes etc, but to me this sounds like bad news....<div> </div><div>When I play my monk, I very often get the role as DPS in a group. Actually, I made my character a monk BECAUSE of monk's DPS....</div><div> </div><div>My impression is that there are way too many tanks in this game, espesially at higher levels. The good thing is that many of them also works OK as DPS. If they take that away, I'm afraid it will be hard for many tank types to find group, as a group usually only need 1 tank... <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div>

[Siberia2]

    The Tanking and DPS subject on these boards is a bit of a touchy subject <span>:smileytongue:</span>.. but I certainly hope they won't destroy our class. A nerf,  after the combat balancing patch, is inevitable I think, considering how many other classes complain about fighter (Berserker/Brawler) DPS. Taking away my DPS or limiting it, but leaving my ability to tank the same, would be quite unbalancing. Leading back to the Argument that if I can't tank as well as a Guardian I should do more Damage than them, which right now, I do.     Right now using Buffs to my full extent, a Marran Cudgel and Ironfist knuckler's Proc and Haste, aswell as with all my attacks I am still outdamage by scouts, if not slightly, then by quite a bit. Mages are still far ahead, usually pulling out 20 - 70k Above me. As far as Tanking goes, my Character Make-up is for DPSing, not tanking(Str Load), but I can take a hit.  My argument is that if I play as a DPS Melee then I should have a DPS Melee class DPS. Although being a fighter and possessing some tanking ability somewhat nulls that arguement... I dunno, it's a rough subject.     I think the patch will touch all classes with balancing either way. I'm still quite unclear as to the patch and whether it is even scheduled, but let us hope thay this game wont end up as SWG did... <div></div>

[bonesbro]

<P>Our DPS will almost certainly decrease.  This is an assumption based on repeated developer posts and the overall archetype design.</P> <P>We should still do viable DPS (likely more than the direct DPS done by bards/enchanters, definitely more than any priest) but we are expected to do less than the direct DPS done by sorcs/summoners/rogues/predators, and less than the aggregate direct+indirect DPS of bards/enchanters.</P>

[Gaige]

In the simplest terms you gain DPS by giving up defense, and we certainly have a lot more defense than some of the classes we are outdamaging, and exceptions that bonesbro mentioned aside, I feel we'll be realigned as part of the cc/spell changes to show that.

[Nazo]

Yup so that you will be able to compete for that 1(one) spot of MT in raids by giving up the 6-7 DPS spot in raids. Great trade off isnt it...

[Jezekie]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Nazowa wrote:Yup so that you will be able to compete for that 1(one) spot of MT in raids by giving up the 6-7 DPS spot in raids. Great trade off isnt it... <div></div><hr></blockquote></span>Future raids will be built around having multiple tanks in action hopefully. Until then you can do tank rotation, so if you have say 6 active fighters, Fighter A tanks first, then next encounter Fighter B tanks, and so on.<p>Message Edited by Jezekiell on <span class=date_text>06-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:06 PM</span>

[Edyil]

<P>LOL</P> <P>Some folks are so cynical.</P> <P> </P> <P>Anyway, if they were smart *coughcough*.....   all they would do is drastically increase the effectiveness of the stances.  An offensive stance would reduce avoidance by 60% and mitigation by 50% while increasing to-hit, damage and attack speed.  A defensive stance would increase mitigation by 20% and increase avoidance/dodge/parry/ripo by some large and meaningfull number while decreasing attack speed and to-hit probability (we are spending more time deflecting afterall).</P> <DIV>It would be set so a simple mistake, like having an offensive stance up by accident while attacking a blue non-named non-heroic mob when out goofin around, would result in death (or a good run to escape).</DIV>

[bonesbro]

<span><blockquote><hr>Edyil wrote:<p>Anyway, if they were smart *coughcough*.....   all they would do is drastically increase the effectiveness of the stances.  An offensive stance would reduce avoidance by 60% and mitigation by 50% while increasing to-hit, damage and attack speed.  A defensive stance would increase mitigation by 20% and increase avoidance/dodge/parry/ripo by some large and meaningfull number while decreasing attack speed and to-hit probability (we are spending more time deflecting afterall).</p> <div>It would be set so a simple mistake, like having an offensive stance up by accident while attacking a blue non-named non-heroic mob when out goofin around, would result in death (or a good run to escape).</div><hr></blockquote>Well, the counterargument to that is: if fighters can switch between full tank and scout-dps just by using a stance, then why be a scout?</span><div></div>

[Edyil]

<P>Who said we can do scout DPS?  The mean is no buff.  No buff is between high end TANK DPS and low end TANK DPS.  D Buffed puts you at low TANK damage.  A Buffed puts you at high TANK damage.</P> <P>What does this have to do with scouts?</P>

[OgApostrap]

They are lowering the dps of everything in the game if I remember right.. npcs and such as well, so fights are longer and more meaningful. This might help monks be more effective tanks, when npc dmg is cut down to that of old player dmg or something..

[FamilyManFir]

Moorgard, in his marvelous inspecific way <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, sort-of addressed this issue today <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&amp;amp;amp;amp;message.id=2770 8#M27708" target=_blank>here</a>. The gist I've gotten from dev posts is that, yes, all Fighters are going to see a DPS nerf to some degree. Moor's point here is that this is not happening in a vacuum. Practically everything is changing and a DPS nerf may be accompanied by something that offsets it. For example: (Note, I have seen <b>nothing</b> to indicate this is happening! This is just a for-the-sake-of-argument example) what if you lost DPS but gained more stuns, stifles, and interrupts? Or, what if you lost DPS but gained buffs (along with other Fighters) that made the Tank of a group/raid 25% better defensively (allowing Fighters to "stack," as it were)? Personally, I have great hopes for the Big Combat Revision, but I admit I'm biased as I play(ed) my Monk as a Tank, not as DPS. Edited for formatting.<p>Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on <span class=date_text>06-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:15 PM</span><p>Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on <span class=date_text>06-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:15 PM</span>