Consolidated thread about Combat and Spell changes for the Monk class...

[Gaige]

<DIV>Figured I would get this started.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since I have a toon on test, and 13b moved these changes there I will try to answer any and all questions I can.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also feel free to talk about all the changes here, positively or negatively, etc etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><3</DIV>

[zabor]

gnah you were 2 mins faster <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Gaige]

<DIV>Here is a list of the new CAs and their effects, from Quiet Purity to Flying Dragon, with a few others, and all the new ones:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><IMG src="http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9817/eq20001839dc.jpg"></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><IMG src="http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7879/eq20001846ey.jpg"></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><IMG src="http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/5530/eq20001851ab.jpg"></DIV> <P>And here is the new 3 page Persona Screen:</P> <P><IMG src="http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8706/eq20001866du.jpg"></P> <P> </P> <P><IMG src="http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4606/eq20001874rk.jpg"></P> <P> </P> <P><IMG src="http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8329/eq20001885fc.jpg"></P> <P> </P> <P>Overall I like the new combat and spell changes, although they take a lot of getting used to.  </P> <P>If you have any additional questions, feel free to shoot me a tell or reply here, and I'll try to respond as best as I can.</P> <P>Whoops, I forgot spider stance:</P> <P><IMG src="http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/514/eq20001899qk.jpg"></P> <P> </P> <P>Also, just fyi as of right now the % avoid chance given by TV does *NOT* upgrade as you increase spell quality, its still 28% at master 1, although deflection given is 6.8 I believe.</P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:25 PM</span>

[Cwi]

<div></div><p>What does the “resist chanced decreased by x%” mean on the various CAs?</p><p>Underneath the resist chance some CAs say “Under certain conditions.” Under what conditions?</p><p>Does Freezing Palm no longer damage the Monk as well as the target? (What about the rest of that line?)</p><p>Did we lose the Stun on Lunging Mongoose?</p><p>Did we lose the Agi debuff from Waking Dragon?</p><p>Does Shocking Hand take concentration? If so, how much?</p><p>Is it possible to resist the Stun from Stone Stance?</p><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --> <!-- [endif] --></p><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cwiyk wrote:<BR> <P>What does the “resist chanced decreased by x%” mean on the various CAs?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I think it means that the mob only has like a 61% chance to resist the effect.  Such as if the mssg says "resist chance decreased by 39%" the mob has a 61% chance of resisting the effect of the art.  This isn't fully tested by me yet though, just speculation.</FONT></P> <P>Underneath the resist chance some CAs say “Under certain conditions.” Under what conditions?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I'm pretty [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] sure that means it doesn't effect Epic Mobs.  Not tested yet.</FONT></P> <P>Does Freezing Palm no longer damage the Monk as well as the target? (What about the rest of that line?)</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No, it no longer costs health to use Freezing Palm.</FONT></P> <P>Did we lose the Stun on Lunging Mongoose?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes.</FONT></P> <P>Did we lose the Agi debuff from Waking Dragon?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes.</FONT></P> <P>Does Shocking Hand take concentration? If so, how much?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No.</FONT></P> <P>Is it possible to resist the Stun from Stone Stance?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I believe so, because if you look at Dev Fist its a 110% chance to not resist, which to me reads as you will always get stifled when you use Dev Fist.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Gaige]

<DIV>Oh yeah I forgot Control Breathing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its a 1 conc permanent buff now that ups the "monk" or "tranquility" skill or whatever by like 8.3 or something at adept 1.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All of the traits are broken and unchanged.  They will be addressed after the subclasses are all taken care of afaik, this includes creature masteries and stuff like Phin's Mountain Haven.</DIV>

[Cwi]

<div></div><p>I forgot a couple <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Do we no longer have a CA to increase our Crush and/or Fist that does not require concentration?<span></span></p><p>Does the regular damage portion of <span> </span>CA’s with Stun, Stifle, etc. land on Epic targets now, even if the Stun, Stifle, etc. does not land?</p><div></div>

[Grabaan]

Excellent info so far. Can't wait to see how everything flows together. Glad to see Winding Dragon made useful. Though spider stance seems like it will be a good balanced choice for many scenarios. How are hastes stacking now? Does the little window still work to check the haste value? I'd be interested to see how that works. <div></div>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>OH HELL YEAH</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <LI><FONT color=#ff0000 size=2>Brawlers can now deflect, parry, and riposte attacks from any direction, not just the front.</FONT></LI> <UL></UL></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=2></FONT></P> <HR> <P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>That alone is worth any damage decrease they hand us.  Now we get to be just like all our favorite movie martial artists! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P>

[Mala-Shea]

<P>Well, I'm disgusted. I'm now just a tank, and a USELESS one at that. I dont want to tank raid mobs and now any diversity that our class had, is gone. Believe me, if you had a hard time finding a guild as a monk now, forget about it. Hmmm...maybe theres a new mob that you need a monk for...big f*&&ing deal...pfft...skip it and get the other 30 epics,...oh stifles? Bring a coercer, they got clarity too and now do more damage. </P> <P>I'm not Gage, I have no desire to tank raid mobs or be the ultimate shirtless tank. I want diversity, to take training choices or improve attributes to set my monk up for what I want, so then maybe Gage can make his 75^^^x4 raid tank and I can stick with my a s s kickin' mofo. As of big 13,  I am now relegated to JUST being a f*&^ing tank. </P> <P>I am absolutely considering deleting my character...they just took a bad mofo and cut his nuts off.</P> <P>Combat changes?   ,I,,</P> <P>Heroes Fate</P> <P>Slappmasterjoe</P> <P>Grobb</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mala-Shea wrote:<BR> <P>Combat changes?   ,I,,</P> <P>Heroes Fate</P> <P>Slappmasterjoe</P> <P>Grobb</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Have you even played the combat or spell changes yet?  No.  I didn't think so.<BR>

[Doug]

<DIV>After you get a chance to play more, please give us your opinion on whethor or not these changes will hurt Monks or help us - Literally from the standpoint of how well we do in combat, but also how well the class becomes perceived as a tank in the community.  I am concerned that we are realy being reduced to the pure tank role, and losing the ability to fill in other roles in a group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like being able to cut it as a tank, but also do enough DPS to be welcomed in groups that already had a tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hopefully we aren't passed over for guardians even moreso now is what I guess I am trying to say.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fill us in when you get the chance.</DIV>

[Siberia2]

<div></div>All in all, the changes seem great, imo. I'm not big on the whole tanking thing, but it will be an interesting and welcomed change(Typically DPSing). Glad to see that we are finally getting an upgrade to Windwalk, and various others. Although the damage was lowered it seems that it might not actually be<i> that much </i>lower.. Some minor tweaks and those arts would rock. Oh, and btw, the description of Shocking Hand says it only works unarmed.. I certainly hope this means with a fist weapon.. does it? <div></div><p>Message Edited by Siberia275 on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:00 AM</span>

[Reposa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Siberia275 wrote:<div></div>All in all, the changes seem great, imo. I'm not big on the whole tanking thing, but it will be an interesting and welcomed change(Typically DPSing). Glad to see that we are finally getting an upgrade to Windwalk, and various others. Although the damage was lowered it seems that it might not actually be<i> that much </i>lower.. Some minor tweaks and those arts would rock. <u><b>Oh, and btw, the description of Shocking Hand says it only works unarmed.. I certainly hope this means with a fist weapon.. does it?</b></u> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Siberia275 on <span class="date_text">08-05-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:00 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Not really sure, I've played around with this, and it really sucks.  Unless they make it to where we can hit epics and named mobs barehanded, this makes no sense.. I was fighting a Fire Toad in Lavastorm, and tried it, I kept getting.. IMMUNE, IMMUNE!  Kind of pointless atm, I hope this gets looked at before the changes go live.</span><div></div>

[diamondma]

<div></div>guys honestly i dont think its going to take away from dps by a huge ammount im sure gage can tell us but from what i see long as u have some good weaps our raid dps might just go up now that our haste stacks. whats up with the two chances to stifle on silent fist now does it only try to stifle once or does it actually try twice like the ca shows? all in all i like the look of whats to come but imma with hold my final judgement till i get to play my monk with the cc's and see how things go. thanks for postin the info gage and watch out for janey the mankiller =x <div></div><p>Message Edited by diamondmage on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:34 AM</span>

[Sa'meria]

Thanks for all the screenshots of the CA's, From the descriptions I think I'm goign to like the changes, Might have to level a scout or mage for DPS but non-the-less I think I'll likie the monk chagnes to defense. Maybe that [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] WoF wont take me out on the first hit now. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>

[Skha]

Hmmm a question. On the screenshot you posted, you have almost 45% mitigation. Is that with some mitigation buff? How many pieces of fabled/legendary gear? <div></div>

[Germo]

Is the range on "heal" the same, or is it longer? <div></div>

[RipFlex]

<P>Well, I was wondering will a slow 2-H Weapon still be a tad more effective when used for Tanking than 2 fast DW weapons?  Why I ask I know monsters repost more if you attack more and with 2 weapons, or has the combat system changed that?</P> <P>Yes I'm one of the few Monks that likes showing up the other Tanks I can hold my own, infact I use alot of Defensive combat skills than any offensive when tanking.  I only go Dual Weapons and turn up the OFFENSIVE skills being Support DPS.</P> <P>Maybe I'm weird... seems to me the ones really complaining are the ones like Heavy DPS.  Too bad they do not realize there's more to a Monk than raw DPS?</P> <P>*shrugs*</P> <P> </P>

[Lebr]

<P>Thanks for the info Gaige</P> <P>/bow</P>

[Germo]

Does stifle, stun, root, blah blah blah show up in the maintained window? Under the poisons section of the update, it says they will show in effects window. Would be cool if secondary effects did too. <div></div>

[Alaile]

<P>Thanks for this information! </P> <P>Is anyone testing this having trouble keeping agro at all?</P>

[shaolen]

Thanks for taking the time to post this info Gage.

[Owa]

<P>Thanks for the information, Gage.</P> <P>As a DPS-er I'm slightly concerned about some of the changes, but overall things look interesting, especially the three PROPER discrete stances for offense, defense and 'balanced'.</P> <P>However, just to be on the safe side (in case our DPS gets <EM>too</EM> low) I'm starting a Bruiser. There's no info on their boards regarding the revamp as yet, so do <EM>you</EM> have any idea what's in store for them/me?</P>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>Any changes to Lu Sun's Stifling Kick we should know about?</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Siberia275 wrote:<BR> All in all, the changes seem great, imo. I'm not big on the whole tanking thing, but it will be an interesting and welcomed change(Typically DPSing). Glad to see that we are finally getting an upgrade to Windwalk, and various others. Although the damage was lowered it seems that it might not actually be<I> that much </I>lower.. Some minor tweaks and those arts would rock. Oh, and btw, the description of Shocking Hand says it only works unarmed.. I certainly hope this means with a fist weapon.. does it? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It is only unarmed.  You can only cast the buff with your primary and secondary slots empty.  The icon will stay up if you equip a weapon after you cast the buff, but it will NOT proc.</P> <P>I've been submitting a lot of /feedback for this so hopefully it'll see some changes still before it goes live.</P> <P>I did forget to put a pic up of both control breathing and the upgrade to Wind Walk, which is Wind Travel, my fault ;p</P> <P>Nice write up so far Ledbetter, good stuff. </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> annaspider wrote:<BR> <P>Thanks for the information, Gage.</P> <P>As a DPS-er I'm slightly concerned about some of the changes, but overall things look interesting, especially the three PROPER discrete stances for offense, defense and 'balanced'.</P> <P>However, just to be on the safe side (in case our DPS gets <EM>too</EM> low) I'm starting a Bruiser. There's no info on their boards regarding the revamp as yet, so do <EM>you</EM> have any idea what's in store for them/me? <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I haven't spoken to him today, but late last night Jezekiel was still building his new computer and installing windows onto it.  I'm sure he'll post their CAs today, but if he doesn't I'll try to figure out their changes.</P> <P>I do know however, that their DPS has dropped a lot too, although its a bit higher than ours.  They are also hella hard to beat in duels <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>The training have *NOT* been finished yet, so their descriptions are off and a lot of them don't even work.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Skharr wrote:<BR>Hmmm a question. <BR>On the screenshot you posted, you have almost 45% mitigation. Is that with some mitigation buff? How many pieces of fabled/legendary gear? <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In that photo I'm wearing all rare armor with the exception of a fabled bp, the Woven Flesh Vest; and treasured boots, the enchanted leather ones.  They raised mitigation across the board or something I believe.</P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:28 AM</span>

[Dfoley3]

Hey gaige, few request padrae. 1) any way u can link a pic with just brand new skills 2) a pic with all our stances, (since dragon stance is now apparently useful) 3) possibly a link to toughness and face of the mt (if u have em adept 3) since i use them all the time when i tank <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dfoley323 wrote:<BR>Hey gaige, few request padrae.<BR><BR>1) any way u can link a pic with just brand new skills<BR>2) a pic with all our stances, (since dragon stance is now apparently useful)<BR>3) possibly a link to toughness and face of the mt (if u have em adept 3) since i use them all the time when i tank<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I think this is what you wanted <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P><IMG src="http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/37/eq20001915vt.jpg"><BR></P> <DIV><IMG src="http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/7122/eq20001907iy.jpg"></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:31 AM</span>

[Bildorm]

<DIV>So far i like what i see in those changes.  But a question for Gaige or any others that have had a chance to try out the new chages...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How well does the flow of the fighting go now?</DIV> <DIV>How about the 'intsa' casting of the CA's?</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bildorm wrote:<BR> <DIV>How well does the flow of the fighting go now?</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Its cool, but a bit hard to get used to.  Its a lot slower combat than on live currently.  All in all though I do like it more, the more and more I play with the new system.  It'll just take awhile for it to be second nature like playing Gaige on live is now.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How about the 'intsa' casting of the CA's?</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Well... this is cool and crappy all at the same time.  Cool because if the mob needs to be stifled, by God you can stifle them NOW.  Crappy because you (I at least) end up using power way faster and if you do like 3 or 4 CAs in a row you can totally miss out on the animations...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>which sometimes screws me up and has me scrolling my combat log to make sure I did an Icy Talon or Lunging Mongoose, because they overlap each other so fast sometimes you just look like you are auto attacking.</FONT> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Cuz]

<FONT color=#ffff00>Cool because if the mob needs to be stifled, by God you can stifle them NOW.  </FONT> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yay we only need skill or reflex, not clair-voyance.</DIV>

[Doug]

<P>Gage, do you think now Monks will be looked for as the main tank in a group just as equally as a guardian?</P> <P>I am concerned that bias will still remain that monks are not as good a tank as guardians, thus completely ruling us out of groups now given our DPS is lower.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dougyb wrote:<BR> <P>Gage, do you think now Monks will be looked for as the main tank in a group just as equally as a guardian?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Groups yes, positively.  Raids, I'm still not sure, I'm still testing those and most are broken or not working correctly.  So time will tell.</FONT></P> <P>I am concerned that bias will still remain that monks are not as good a tank as guardians, thus completely ruling us out of groups now given our DPS is lower.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>We can't control bias, only play with the tools given us.  IMHO the tools are being made better which can only be a good thing.  While we won't outdamage scouts, our damage is far from horrible, and I don't think you should be concerned with monk disirability.</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[grumm]

<P>Thanks for all the info, keep it coming :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Have they changed the weapons yet on Test?  I was wondering specifically if Anvilpaw's Mace has changed at all?</P>

[Gaige]

I'll ask Gary (guildie who has one) and let you know.

[Cisgo]

<P> I don't play on test, so I wont pretend to know how these things work. But, looking at the listed spell changes I see that the spells that I felt were most valuable have been reduced. In my opinion Silent Fist and Trans Vision were our 2 big raid spells , both have been reduced. I also see Sacrifice has been changed to 1 intercept with a 30 sec. recast. </P> <P> Now with our dps reduced, our stifle ability reduced, ability to protect MT reduced, this is not a good thing for raid situation. It seems we are trading our main raid abilities to be better group tanks.  I wasn't one of the monks beating drum to be a MT.  Instead I appreciated what we did bring to group and raid.  To me, it seems now we have been lumped into an MT pile now, and still will not be considered for that role in raid unless a certain mob will dictate monk as MT.  Duel welding monks, without the shield, mitigation, and health wont be chosen over plate classes in the eyes of most players for raid tanking. So "I" don't think tanking situations will change, but our role in raid has been reduced from what I see from spell changes.</P> <P> Some positives..mend. Would say new invis, but have to see what a master/adept3 does 1st.</P> <P>  </P>

[Gaige]

<P>Keep in mind that "under certain conditions" means if one monk has a mob stifled, you can still use silent fist for the dmg portion, just the stifles do not stack.</P> <P>Also as far as TV is concerned, fighter target avoid buffs were lowered across the board.</P>

[Germo]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <p>Keep in mind that "under certain conditions" means if one monk has a mob stifled, you can still use silent fist for the dmg portion, just the stifles do not stack. </p><hr></blockquote> Ummm, wouldn't it be better if silent fist just didn't cast in that situation? I mean 144 power for 156-256 damage is a little steep. I'd rather get the "spell wont stack" message and save the power.</span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Germork wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>Ummm, wouldn't it be better if silent fist just didn't cast in that situation? I mean 144 power for 156-256 damage is a little steep. I'd rather get the "spell wont stack" message and save the power.</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Opinions vary, but a lot of feedback has been given for months where being able to use a skill that another of the same class has used be available.</P> <P>This will also likely effect master quality spells also, as now if a monk has used a master quality spell and you try to use the same spell of a lower quality tier, you won't be able to use it.</P> <P>Now you should be able to.<BR></P>

[Cisgo]

  I don't see much info about taunts. If you wanna be MT this is a main concern. Especially with the fact that people will be spamming the CA with insta cast now. I am curious if Agitate Spirit is still worthless compared to Lu'Sun. Also, about the new 15% proc. taunt...try selling that to a raid on your pitch to MT over a guardian. As far as I can tell monks still will not be best taunters in game, but again I am not on test.

[Kota]

i'm a bit concerned about all this.  just at a glance, it seems as if we've been dumbed down a great deal.  i mean, equip your rgf, or whatever you use, and click your lil stifle when it pops.  those number on the ca's almost seem as if you'd be wasting your effort to click half of them.  kinda like playing an extra warrior in eq.  auto atk and click slam every few seconds.  as far as tanking, i don't think much will change in ppl minds.  we still have low hp and mitigation, which makes it brutally unforgiving to stand us in front of a mob that hits in the 1000's.  imo ppl will see us as a leather armor class with no shields.  i'm not trying to bit** and moan, but i'm really concerned with my ability to get into raids after this.  as it stands now, the raid leader sees me as dps.  (yes i know, if i wanted to play dps i should have rolled a scout, but i made a monk, and i get in where i fit in)  is he gonna pick me up as a quasi-tank ?  i dunno.  i guess i'll just have to wait and see, but ppl are already suggesting i switch my warden to my main.  that's kinda funny, cuz they hinted at a warden nerf with that "ballancing" statement.  /shrug <div></div>

[Nemesis465]

Originally I was against the changes, and hated giving up my DPS, but with all the new skills and goodies they're giving us, I find it hard to complain. <div></div>

[Dfoley3]

A few things to note about these changes. Weapon dr now takes top priority.  No longer is there an unfair advantage to using a 3.8 second delay flail and saying its top dps simply because you can time your arts, as now all arts are instant cast.  This means a pair of dual weilders with a competative combine ratio can own up to straight melee auto attack dps without the penalty of potentialy losing 3-4 hits per CA you use.  So while many of the attacks may seem to do far less dmg now, and they do.  Basicly what they did from my understanding is just removed the dmg modifier to CA from str.  As far as tanking goes, i see great promise in the upgraded stances and mitigation values of armor.  As gaige said hes mostly t5 rare gear and has 44% mitigation.  Stances adding 560 mitigation vs all physical damage at adept 1 also leaves much promise to the adept 3 and master 1 versions (and soon master 3).  With a good chunk of fabled armor (about 8 ) i top out at 2050 mitigation (i beleive thats 39%) and 82% avoidance.  So with the changes i suspect ill be well over 55% mitigation but at a loss of avoidance down to about 72%.  The goodie spells are the ones to look for; Upgrades to face of the mt, winding dragon now being our prime defense stance, upgrades to dragon stance (which now adds a 15% to proc large amounts of hate) and you come out with a monk who can self buff + 1300 mitigation with adept 3s/masters and who can proc 500 + pts of hate every other swing with a flail.  As well as the lil goodie of 360 degree block potential rocks. While we still will be "tanks without a shield".  We get bonuses such as inate shields, the ability to tank with weapons such as the ancient combine great flail (+8 parry, 500 hp proc 200 to most resists) without losing 20% avoidance but while increasing the procs of hate from our secondary agro stance. Lastly, the ability to add 28% of OUR avoidance to the MT makes brawlers the top choice for dodge buffing a MT.  28% of 70 is much larger then 28% of 40-50%. As far as less hp, i wouldnt worry about that.  If you choose +hp % trainings, you should be able to competatively compare hp to most unbuffed guardians.  That is, similar amounts of fabled, and close stamina, and your hp shouldnt be drasticly off.  Self buffed on live i pus 4700 hp with tank gear on, granted i dont have the + hp buffs of guards. <div></div>

[Nefari]

Gage, any new ranged attacks?  We still stuck being the only archetype incapable of hitting from outside an epic's AoE? <div></div>

[Cuz]

What about defensive procs, like sanguine imbued, is it on hit still?

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dfoley323 wrote:<BR>A few things to note about these changes.<BR><BR>Weapon dr now takes top priority.  No longer is there an unfair advantage to using a 3.8 second delay flail and saying its top dps simply because you can time your arts, as now all arts are instant cast.  This means a pair of dual weilders with a competative combine ratio can own up to straight melee auto attack dps without the penalty of potentialy losing 3-4 hits per CA you use.  So while many of the attacks may seem to do far less dmg now, and they do.  Basicly what they did from my understanding is just removed the dmg modifier to CA from str.  <BR><BR>As far as tanking goes, i see great promise in the upgraded stances and mitigation values of armor.  As gaige said hes mostly t5 rare gear and has 44% mitigation.  Stances adding 560 mitigation vs all physical damage at adept 1 also leaves much promise to the adept 3 and master 1 versions (and soon master 3).  With a good chunk of fabled armor (about 8 ) i top out at 2050 mitigation (i beleive thats 39%) and 82% avoidance.  So with the changes i suspect ill be well over 55% mitigation but at a loss of avoidance down to about 72%.  The goodie spells are the ones to look for; Upgrades to face of the mt, winding dragon now being our prime defense stance, upgrades to dragon stance (which now adds a 15% to proc large amounts of hate) and you come out with a monk who can self buff + 1300 mitigation with adept 3s/masters and who can proc 500 + pts of hate every other swing with a flail.  As well as the lil goodie of 360 degree block potential rocks.<BR><BR>While we still will be "tanks without a shield".  We get bonuses such as inate shields, the ability to tank with weapons such as the ancient combine great flail (+8 parry, 500 hp proc 200 to most resists) without losing 20% avoidance but while increasing the procs of hate from our secondary agro stance.<BR><BR>Lastly, the ability to add 28% of OUR avoidance to the MT makes brawlers the top choice for dodge buffing a MT.  28% of 70 is much larger then 28% of 40-50%.<BR><BR>As far as less hp, i wouldnt worry about that.  If you choose +hp % trainings, you should be able to competatively compare hp to most unbuffed guardians.  That is, similar amounts of fabled, and close stamina, and your hp shouldnt be drasticly off.  Self buffed on live i pus 4700 hp with tank gear on, granted i dont have the + hp buffs of guards.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That is an excellent post, very insightful and well written.  Nicely said.  I'm glad our community has so many active and contributive members.  Its great to be a part of something like this <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>As for the Transcendant Vision comment that is a very good point which I think a lot of players miss.  The new description on the spell is a lot more descriptive and what it does is allow the target of the buff to use YOUR avoidance stats up to 28% effectiveness via melee damage.</P> <P>So, say you cast this on the MT of your raid who has 65% avoidance or something.  You get set up in your defensive/tank setup with lots of agility gear, etc etc.  Say you are hovering around 80% avoidance in the MT group.  I'm fairly sure that after the revamp we will have the highest avoidance period, even compared to bruisers.  So the mob does a crushing attack against the MT that hits for say 7k dmg or something.  The attack will roll against the guardians avoidance numbers and if he fails to avoid he has a 28% chance to use your avoidance against the mobs attack.  Through my time in FoH and experimentation etc, this is an invaulable tool, and Noah loves it.  Even though the proc chance is being lowered, we still benefit from the highest avoidance post revamp AND the skill adds deflection which helps our avoidance even more.  So keep in mind if you have TV up you really should focus on your own defensive setup, to make TV work that much more, even if you have to sacrifice some DPS to do so.</P> <P>Also, I'll post some pics from a newer Gaige, with more fabled and some other things.  I did choose all stamina traits and %HP, so I normally have more HP buffed than most other fighters in our raid, save guardians.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nefarien wrote:<BR>Gage, any new ranged attacks?  We still stuck being the only archetype incapable of hitting from outside an epic's AoE?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>No, at least not yet and I'm pretty sure the ranged component of Focused Strike was removed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But, if you find yourself in a raid where you need to attack via ranged and not joust, I would seriously try to invest in fulginate stars.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They cost a little over 3gp a stack, so they are very expensive, but with fulginate stars and my t5 rare pouch I'm able to do 200 to 375ish ranged damage; versus the 20 to 40 I do with iron stars.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I would never recommend always using fulginate, as that's pretty crazy, but if you are in a lot of raids where you guild is using ranged strategies, they are more than worth the investment.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:03 AM</span>

[MadBarman]

I just wanted to ask a quick question. I am on test myself so I am going to try and test this myself but I'm only level 12. The Martial focus line of spells are now constant and use 1 concentration. What I want to know is the effect. Its says it increases the effectiveness of our CA's by raising our fighter and brawler skills. Has anyone noticed any change in our CA's? If skills no longer grow with level how does an increase in the skill the work off help? Does it just mean it has a better chance of landing on mobs that are a higher level than the brawler/monk? <div></div>

[alch]

Im looking at making a monk vs a bruiser, really more for roleplay type reasons. My main focus i want to be on 2handed weapons, it appears with a monk this is a good weapon choice (except a few raid exceptions due to mob immunities) for the monk it appears they get bonuses for fighting totally unarmed which to me is a little boaring. can you give me some insight about how the monk does now and in the combat changes with 2 handed weapons vs say a brusier?  thanks!

[Cwi]

<div></div><p>I feel that Brawlers' intended role in Eq2 <u>was</u> adequately explained before release. However, at release and up until today Brawler’s have not been performing that intended role due to game mechanics. I’m really sorry to everyone that grew accustomed to the role that Brawlers have been filling since release. And I can understand how those people must be feeling betrayed and outraged right now.</p><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --></p><span>That doesn’t change the fact that the combat revamp is coming and, if its done right, it will put Brawlers in the role the developers always intended them to fill. Unfortunately, we (myself included) will have to either adapt or find something new.</span><font face="Century"><span></span></font><span></span><div></div>

[Ribbitz]

<P>Well, like I said. I frequented the website slightly prior to release and after. I read the instruction manual. I read the in game information that was presented to me as I developed and picked my class.</P> <P>I missed the memo that said I was supposed to be a tank and nothing but.</P> <P>In fact, if memory serves, most of the information available in class descriptions talk about monks toning their body for rapid, accurate strikes. And the bruiser being described a juggernaught pummeling their enemies into submission.</P> <P>Not sure how that sounds like a tank either <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P>In my opinion this a re-vision. But if theyre going to change the rules, don't force a change on people. Thats how I kinda see it. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[mellowknees72]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <DIV>Oh yeah I forgot Control Breathing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its a 1 conc permanent buff now that ups the "monk" or "tranquility" skill or whatever by like 8.3 or something at adept 1.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All of the traits are broken and unchanged.  They will be addressed after the subclasses are all taken care of afaik, this includes creature masteries and stuff like Phin's Mountain Haven.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I use Control Breathing alot currently -- if it now takes up 1 concentration, are some of our other abilities that work well together (i.e. self-buff takes 3 conc, and then sacrifice/intervene line takes 2) going down in the number of concentration slots they use?

[getzbu]

First, big thanks to Gage for all the info. Secondly, in no way do I believe that monks are broken except perhaps in terms of DPS. A slight dps nerf to bring our overall dps just under that of scouts, with perhaps a corresponding increase in mitigation, would not have been unwelcome. That is certainly not what this CC is. No, monks are not raid-level MTs. Never have been, and, if we were to continue the way things are, never will be. I don't have a problem with that. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice the ability to tank epics in exchange for the higher dps and overall flexibility that I currently enjoy. /* Disclaimer: No, I have not played the changes. I'm going to give my opinion anyway. Feel free to argue, as I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.  If someone who HAS played the changes would like to respond, I'd be delighted to hear it. Fo Serious. */ Further, I don't think for a second that the CA changes Gage has kindly provided for us, or the changes mentioned elsewhere, will permit us to tank the same high-level epics other fighter classes can. Not a chance in hell. Based on my own experience with epic mobs (which, while not complete, is also not inconsiderable) I'd say one of two things would have to happen: - Brawlers get avoidance in excess of 100% - Brawlers avoidance stats are not affected by mob level. (i.e. 80% avoidance is 80% avoidance, be the mob 50 or 57) I've seen no discussion of either of those options, and In fact the big combat changes post very clearly emphasized that avoidance and mitigation would scale with mob level. (I freely admit I don't spend a crapload of time on the forums. Apologies if I missed something.) Having read all the posts and CAs and whatnot, I can't honestly say I'm happy. I think this is overkill and will remove flexibility and usefulness from what is currently a flexible and useful class. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right I won't bother to reroll. <div></div>

[WhiteLig]

<span><blockquote><hr>getzburg wrote:First, big thanks to Gage for all the info. Secondly, in no way do I believe that monks are broken except perhaps in terms of DPS. A slight dps nerf to bring our overall dps just under that of scouts, with perhaps a corresponding increase in mitigation, would not have been unwelcome. That is certainly not what this CC is. No, monks are not raid-level MTs. Never have been, and, if we were to continue the way things are, never will be. I don't have a problem with that. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice the ability to tank epics in exchange for the higher dps and overall flexibility that I currently enjoy. /* Disclaimer: No, I have not played the changes. I'm going to give my opinion anyway. Feel free to argue, as I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.  If someone who HAS played the changes would like to respond, I'd be delighted to hear it. Fo Serious. */ Further, I don't think for a second that the CA changes Gage has kindly provided for us, or the changes mentioned elsewhere, will permit us to tank the same high-level epics other fighter classes can. Not a chance in hell. Based on my own experience with epic mobs (which, while not complete, is also not inconsiderable) I'd say one of two things would have to happen: - Brawlers get avoidance in excess of 100% - Brawlers avoidance stats are not affected by mob level. (i.e. 80% avoidance is 80% avoidance, be the mob 50 or 57) I've seen no discussion of either of those options, and In fact the big combat changes post very clearly emphasized that avoidance and mitigation would scale with mob level. (I freely admit I don't spend a crapload of time on the forums. Apologies if I missed something.) Having read all the posts and CAs and whatnot, I can't honestly say I'm happy. I think this is overkill and will remove flexibility and usefulness from what is currently a flexible and useful class. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right I won't bother to reroll. <div></div><hr></blockquote>The nature of avoidence and the effect of AGI will be changing with this patch, it will not be as easy to hit the cap as it has been, and it will be even harder for plate classes to hit it.  In terms of mit it will be going up all around.  As for our offense, its way too high, usually falling right below Wizard/Warlock and sometimes even competitive with them.  The only way to retain class balance is to take a chunk out of our defense or our offense and I hardly think our defense can afford that.  Like it or not, we are fighters, and the overall nature of fighters is suppose to be a balance of offense and defense.  Yes we are different from other fighters, but we are still part of the fighter base class so it makes sense to share basic underlying characteristics with other fighters.  Even if it was not clear we were intended to be tanks from the start, as our chars gain new abilities and levels there are very distinct signs that of what our class was intended to be.  Our various taunts were given to us so we could manage agro, we get several short term mit/deflection/defense raising abilities, and we have stances that are intended to help us maximize our offensive/defensive potential (because as a balanced offense/defense class, we need a way to tip the scales in one way or another depending on the situation). I think am taking, and think we all should, a wait and see attitude about this. I have my hopes and my doubts, but It would be best to reserve final judgement for when we have experienced the full effect of the combat changes in there most complete form.  Lastly, sony is doing this change because they know there is a clear imbalance, not because a few of us felt we would rather be tanks than dps, many changes have occured in this game that I was opposed to but they happened despite my opinion because they were beneficial to the playerbase as a whole.  I strongly advise you to give the changes a chance before deciding whether to quit or reroll.  </span><div></div>

[Sysiphus7]

<P>These changes look awesome. Thanks gaige for the post. </P> <P>I love the 'Instant' casting times on spells. I can see a lot of folks making 16 line script files with a 'BURN' macro to unleash all these CA's at once. I wonder if that works. </P> <P>In the games current form I find myself using less and less CA's as my auto-attack melee damage with haste is doing more damage than the CA with its cast timer. </P> <P> </P> <P>BTW Guk.Gage = my 29 Gnome warlock, PWNED!</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sysiphus7 wrote:<BR> <P>BTW Guk.Gage = my 29 Gnome warlock, PWNED!</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, someone told me you did that right after I left or something <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>

[Kackor]

Ive been playing my monk since launch and have been very happy with him. I can MT with the best of them with a good healer. Soloing and Douing are great and I like the utility of the class. Only thing he cant do well is tank epic mobs and I never had a problem with that. A monks main way of holding aggro is its damage, thus monks/brusers do more DPS then the rest of the fighter classes. From what I can see, there are no new taunt or CA's that add hate, so Im not sure how making monks tougher will make them better tanks...But, that not the real reason for the CU anyway. IMO SOE needed a way to slow folks down so they dont run outta content so soon, thus keeping the monthly income going. You all know as well as I do, that all the folks that hit 50 in the first 3 months and have killed every mob and completed every quest are ready to go and will prolly burn thru DOF inna couple months. If you look at the overall changes to all classes you'll see what Im talking about. Power regen spells and ablities are all going down, while CA take more power to use and cast faster. They are lowering the overall DSP, so now it takes longer to kill anything. If all the changes they are making are trully needed and are they way the game was meant to be, why did they wait almost a year to do something about them? You feel like your paying to Beta Test. And Honestly, how can you expect to have such major changes to a game that folks have been playing for so long and not make them upset or even mad. I for one am not going to get the new expantion until I see how the CU plays out, monkey or no monkey.Kakarot50 MonkKithikor<p>Message Edited by Kackorat on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:59 AM</span>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>- Fighter spells and combat arts have received a balance pass. In general, Fighter combat abilities have been made more efficient, either by reducing their power cost or increasing their damage. Please examine your spells and arts, as some effects have changed.</p><p>This is part of an <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=1631#M1631">update note</a> posted today for combat revamp. Also consider that while Fighter damage has been reduced, Scout and Mage damage has been increased. It’s too early to know if they are lowering the overall DPS.</p><span>And for new taunts, our existing Dragon Stance CA and its new upgrade Dragon Advance use 1 concentration point but give us a chance to proc a taunt. The numbers are being adjusted as evidenced by Gaige’s screenshots, but the average amount of taunt per strike seems pretty good at this time. I am in agreement that they need to give us better tools for getting group agro.</span><div></div><p><span>I do empathize with everyone that has grown accustomed to the role Brawlers have been filling since release. I can understand the feelings of people who thought our current role was our intended role. There isn’t much we can do but adapt or find something new.</span><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:49 PM</span>

[bonesbro]

Improved efficiency pleases me.  We need to be able to hang in the fight taunting and doing damage to hold agro.

[Nefari]

<div></div><div></div>Gage, just to make sure I've got this.... From the pics it looks like we still have 4 stun/stifles?  Palm-Tiger-Cobra-Talon?  And, any new info on the "under certain conditions" ?  Epics immune, or epics can resist? Only stun I saw we lost was Mongoose...and who really cares.  Will mess up my solo CA chains a lil but, not too much.  If those 4 land on Epics...sweeeet. What effect is Wisdom having on us?  With the new Control Breathing... Losing interrupt on Infuriating Calm kinda bites :/ Keep the great info flowin! <div></div><p>Message Edited by Nefarien on <span class="date_text">08-11-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:38 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Nefarien on <span class=date_text>08-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:38 AM</span>

[PsyKr]

<DIV>And our DPS?<BR>It lookes like we are getting royalled screwed over here. AT the moment, im a very good tank and the best melee DPS. How is the DPS with all this new BS they bringing in? we still highest in melee?</DIV>

[Owa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nefarien wrote:<BR> Gage, just to make sure I've got this....<BR><BR>From the pics it looks like we still have 4 stun/stifles?  Palm-Tiger-Cobra-Talon?  And, any new info on the "under certain conditions" ?  Epics immune, or epics can resist?<BR><BR>Only stun I saw we lost was Mongoose...and who really cares.  Will mess up my solo CA chains a lil but, not too much.  If those 4 land on Epics...sweeeet.<BR><BR>What effect is Wisdom having on us?  With the new Control Breathing...<BR><BR>Losing interrupt on Infuriating Calm kinda bites :/<BR><BR>Keep the great info flowin!<BR> <P>Message Edited by Nefarien on <SPAN class=date_text>08-11-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:38 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Nefarien on <SPAN class=date_text>08-11-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:38 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Maybe I missed a meeting or something - but why did this post merit a 1-star? (Yes I know it doesn't matter, but still...)</DIV>

[bonesbro]

<span><blockquote><hr>PsyKrow wrote:<div>And our DPS?It lookes like we are getting royalled screwed over here. AT the moment, im a very good tank and the best melee DPS. How is the DPS with all this new BS they bringing in? we still highest in melee?</div><hr></blockquote> If you don't see the balance problem here ("very good tank and the best melee DPS"), then yes I suppose that this "BS" would appear to "royally screw us over."</span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PsyKrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>we still highest in melee? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>No, and we never should have been.<BR>

[Nefari]

Heh I got one-starred?  I didn't even notice.  The star system is completely [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] and unnecessary...I don't even pay attention to it. <div></div>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><font color="#ffffff" size="2"><span></span></font><blockquote><hr>PsyKrow wrote:<div>And our DPS?It lookes like we are getting royalled screwed over here. AT the moment, im a very good tank and the best melee DPS. How is the DPS with all this new BS they bringing in? we still highest in melee?</div><hr></blockquote>"<font size="2">Brawlers do have a defined role in our game: they are tanks. Their method of tanking is based on avoidance and deflection rather than mitigation. Brawlers do more damage overall (both through base damage and arts) than other fighters. They are not intended to compete with scouts, though, nor do scouts compete with them as tanks.</font><font color="#ffffff" size="2">" </font><font color="#ffffff" size="3"><font size="3"><font size="2"><a target="_blank" href="message?board.id=5&message.id=1088&query.id=0#M1088">Moorgard Dec 6, 2004</a>How is the dps with all this new "BS"? If the Devs balance things correctly, it will be right where they always intended it to be. Higher than the four plate class Fighters, but lower than Bruisers and lower than Scouts and Mages.</font></font></font><div></div><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:22 PM</span>

[PsyKr]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PsyKrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>we still highest in melee? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>No, and we never should have been.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Thats all well and good coming from you.. everyone knows you pride yourself on being a tank. But fact of the matter is, most people chose monk because they are supposed to be the best at DPS.</P> <P>Just look back at Everquest 1: Monks were the 2nd best damage dealers to wizards, which should be the same in this game. This is complete BS if we get out damage nerfed and our tankinga bility upped because fact is we'll NEVER tank raid mobs. That will ALWAYS be reserved for a guardian. Our taunts suck and with lower damage thered be no chance for us to hold agro.</P>

[MadLordOfMilk]

<img src="http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4793/dragonadvancetypo5vk.jpg"> Took that from Gaige's big screenshot. Notice the effect says "Casts Dragon Dance" and the skill name is "Dragon Advance" - typo? <div></div>

[Moski]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PsyKrow wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Just look back at Everquest 1: Monks were the 2nd best damage dealers to wizards, which should be the same in this game.</BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Maybee you will someday notice, this is not EQ1</DIV> <DIV>Maybee you want to ignore statements from the Game Designer and several Bralwers since beta that a Brawler is not a dps class but a tank class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But hey, thats your fault, not ours. If you are not happy with your class choice, choose another. (probably mage or scout if u wanna be dps)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kackor]

Moskito wrote: Maybee you will someday notice, this is not EQ1 Maybee you want to ignore statements from the Game Designer and several Bralwers since beta that a Brawler is not a dps class but a tank class. But hey, thats your fault, not ours. If you are not happy with your class choice, choose another. (probably mage or scout if u wanna be dps)Fanelia50 Bruiser___________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____Its this kinda attitude that really burns those folks that like the game the way it is. Alot of us spent several months(not to mention paying SOE the entire time) getting our characters to 50 and getting the gear we wanted for them, ect. Now we are being told that "Hey, we're sorry, but, this isnt what the game was suppose to be like or the way it was suppose to work", and we're just suppose to say sure "no problem, I'll reroll a new toon and spend several more month working it up"? Get real! Telling someone to reroll after they spent all the time and afford onna toon is ignorant and just the kind of comment that you would expect to hear from a Fanboy type. Why was the game released if it wasnt ready? Why were'nt things fixed sooner? Why were'nt we told these important facts to begin with? Why should we pay to beta test? Questions that I dont think that we'll likely to get an answer to. Its kinda like the whole Froglok thing, if that knew about it, why not tell your customers? So down the line there wouldnt be such an uproar when SOE decided to change everything. I for one will not be pre-ordering the new expantion, as I want to see if the game is still fun for me before I give SOE anymore money. I would encourage anyone else that doesnt like the direction of the dicussed changes to do the same. I am hopeful that SOE wont totally mess up the game and that it still will be enjoyable. But, Im prepared to move on if not. Kakarot50 monk

[zabor]

<blockquote><hr>PsyKrow wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PsyKrow wrote: <DIV>we still highest in melee? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>No, and we never should have been. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> Thats all well and good coming from you.. everyone knows you pride yourself on being a tank. But fact of the matter is, most people chose monk because they are supposed to be the best at DPS.</P> <P>Just look back at Everquest 1: Monks were the 2nd best damage dealers to wizards, which should be the same in this game. This is complete BS if we get out damage nerfed and our tankinga bility upped because fact is we'll NEVER tank raid mobs. That will ALWAYS be reserved for a guardian. Our taunts suck and with lower damage thered be no chance for us to hold agro.</P> <hr></blockquote> hey i played guildwars and i like being a healer, so monks should be healers in EQ2, too! don't listen to the devs, they are liars! ah yeah, Kackorat, the statement by MG was on december 6th, so you knew for 9 months that you are supposed to be a tank, and now you are complaining that your time was wasted?<p>Message Edited by zaboron on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:51 PM</span>

[dirtylo]

In EQ1 it was easily Rouge, Wizard and then Monk. In a long fight a monk could out DPS a wizard only because they would go OOP quicker. So the whole "let's follow in the footsteps on EQ1" idea doesn't really suite me. Overall I am mixed though on the combat changes. Right now my monk can tank XP groups with no problem and also out DPS rangers and assasians in many cases. I saw someone post a thread that talked about how our DPS is too high that we are not balanced with scouts since thet do not compete with us for tanking and I have to agree. My main issue is I am getting all these tanking abilities now but can I really raid tank on a steady basis. Why would I want to though if the Guard is just as able to tank those mobs as the monk tank? I think we all picked our class on newb island and when we picked a fighter we thought tank. I want the ability to tank but I have that already. I want the ability to DPS for end game content where a guard will almost always stand tank. From the sounds of the combat changes though from everything I am hearing it almost sounds as though we went from having our own nice little niche in the fighter class, to being the red headed step child that wears leather armor. Basically I just want to know why the heck we can't get a defined role for our class yet. I thought I had found mine finally and now it's all getting mixed up. I want what Gage wants and that is the ability for the monk to be a real tank and get beat on by raid mobs. Does anyone really think a monk tank is going to be in front of Darathor though?  I think that spot will always be reserved for a guard. <div></div>

[Cwi]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>PsyKrow wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <blockquote> <hr> PsyKrow wrote: <div>we still highest in melee? <hr> </div></blockquote>No, and we never should have been. <hr> </blockquote> <p>Thats all well and good coming from you.. everyone knows you pride yourself on being a tank. But fact of the matter is, most people chose monk because they are supposed to be the best at DPS.</p> <p>Just look back at Everquest 1: Monks were the 2nd best damage dealers to wizards, which should be the same in this game. This is complete BS if we get out damage nerfed and our tankinga bility upped because fact is we'll NEVER tank raid mobs. That will ALWAYS be reserved for a guardian. Our taunts suck and with lower damage thered be no chance for us to hold agro.</p> <hr></blockquote></span><font color="#ffffff" size="2">"</font><font size="2">We did not design brawlers/monks/bruisers around the EQ monk class. Are there similarities? Sure, especially in the names of certain skills. But mechanically, our games work very differently. You shouldn't base your assessments of brawlers in EverQuest II around preconceptions carried over from EQ. ...  </font><font size="2">Brawlers do have a defined role in our game: they are tanks. Their method of tanking is based on avoidance and deflection rather than mitigation. Brawlers do more damage overall (both through base damage and arts) than other fighters. They are not intended to compete with scouts, though, nor do scouts compete with them as tanks.</font><font color="#ffffff" size="3"><font size="3"><font size="2">" <a target="_blank" href="message?board.id=5&message.id=1088&query.id=0#M1088">Moorgard Dec 6, 2004</a> In the revamp we're getting a CA that procs a taunt. The numbers are being balanced but the average taunt per strike ratio looks very nice. I do hope they give us better group taunting ability though. </font> </font></font><span><blockquote><hr>Kackorat wrote:Moskito wrote: Maybee you will someday notice, this is not EQ1 Maybee you want to ignore statements from the Game Designer and several Bralwers since beta that a Brawler is not a dps class but a tank class. But hey, thats your fault, not ours. If you are not happy with your class choice, choose another. (probably mage or scout if u wanna be dps)Fanelia50 Bruiser___________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____Its this kinda attitude that really burns those folks that like the game the way it is. Alot of us spent several months(not to mention paying SOE the entire time) getting our characters to 50 and getting the gear we wanted for them, ect. Now we are being told that "Hey, we're sorry, but, this isnt what the game was suppose to be like or the way it was suppose to work", and we're just suppose to say sure "no problem, I'll reroll a new toon and spend several more month working it up"? Get real! Telling someone to reroll after they spent all the time and afford onna toon is ignorant and just the kind of comment that you would expect to hear from a Fanboy type. Why was the game released if it wasnt ready? Why were'nt things fixed sooner? Why were'nt we told these important facts to begin with? Why should we pay to beta test? Questions that I dont think that we'll likely to get an answer to. Its kinda like the whole Froglok thing, if that knew about it, why not tell your customers? So down the line there wouldnt be such an uproar when SOE decided to change everything. <hr></blockquote></span>I would have to be a Dev to answer questions like those you present, because only the Devs can explain why they've allowed the game's mechanics to perform the way they do for so long. The fact that so many players have grown accustomed to the role Monks currently perform, and grown so opposed to the idea of Monks being able to tank as well as any other fighter, is a testament that the combat revamp should have been implemented a long time ago; or even better, that the game should not have been released until the game mechanics worked according to the Dev’s intentions. <span><font face="Arial">It is regrettable that the Devs have taken so long to make the mechanics confirm to their intentions. I do empathize with everyone that enjoys playing their Monk (or Bruiser) the way they are and don’t want to see them change. That doesn’t change the fact that anyone that currently plays a Monk has had the ample evidence presented to them since pre-launch from the Devs about the intended role for Monks.</font> </span><span><blockquote>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________I for one will not be pre-ordering the new expantion, as I want to see if the game is still fun for me before I give SOE anymore money. I would encourage anyone else that doesnt like the direction of the dicussed changes to do the same. I am hopeful that SOE wont totally mess up the game and that it still will be enjoyable. But, Im prepared to move on if not. Kakarot50 monk<hr></blockquote></span>Thats the best attitude towards these changes I can recomend for anyone that isn't looking forward to them. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:09 PM</span>

[Kota]

i think mages out dps'd monks in eq also <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PsyKrow wrote:<BR> <P>Thats all well and good coming from you.. everyone knows you pride yourself on being a tank. But fact of the matter is, most people chose monk because they are supposed to be the best at DPS.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Who says we are "supposed" to be the best at DPS?  Certainly not SOE.</FONT></P> <P>Just look back at Everquest 1: Monks were the 2nd best damage dealers to wizards, which should be the same in this game. This is complete BS if we get out damage nerfed and our tankinga bility upped because fact is we'll NEVER tank raid mobs. That will ALWAYS be reserved for a guardian. Our taunts suck and with lower damage thered be no chance for us to hold agro.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>This isn't EQ1.  Monks got nerfed hard in EQ1 when they could tank, which lead to their role as FD pullers.  A tactic which SOE never intended to be used, but let the monks keep because they killed their mitigation so bad.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>As for "never tanking raid mobs" I and others already have, so you're wrong.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I hold aggro just fine, and its better after the revamp.  YOU just probably don't know how to play as a tank, you'll have to learn I assume.</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kackorat wrote:<BR>Its this kinda attitude that really burns those folks that like the game the way it is. Alot of us spent several months(not to mention paying SOE the entire time) getting our characters to 50 and getting the gear we wanted for them, ect. Now we are being told that "Hey, we're sorry, but, this isnt what the game was suppose to be like or the way it was suppose to work", and we're just suppose to say sure "no problem, I'll reroll a new toon and spend several more month working it up"? Get real! Telling someone to reroll after they spent all the time and afford onna toon is ignorant and just the kind of comment that you would expect to hear from a Fanboy type. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I've been talking about us being broken since release, as have others including devs.  Too bad you refused to listen because you wanted the best of both worlds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've been gearing my toon as a tank, upgrading him as a tank, and wanting to play him as a tank since release.  I did play him as a tank to 50 but not much lately.  I've been paying for this game for as long as anyone has, so what makes your viewpoint right, and mine wrong?  What makes your money more important than my money?  What makes the time you invested, more important than the time I invested?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We are only telling people to reroll because if you want to be mainly a DPS class, monk is certainly not the best choice after the revamp.<BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:49 PM</span>

[Kasandria]

Pardon me but I should have rolled my toon up nine months ago based on what SOE might or might not change down the line?  EXCUSE ME? Based on who's trackrecord of doing changes and doing them well?  Certainly not SOE's...  I chose my toons based on what was the current and immenent expectations.  Also, why didn't you pick a plate class if you wanted to tank?  I picked monk because it was flexible to the situation.  I really liked that.  And, I really do NOT want to have to relearn combat all over again.  I think SOE mistakes how the community feels basing it's decisions on folks who are on test.  People who go to test by definition want to try different things out constantly.  SO they are polling a group that's been preculled for those that think changes in general are OK.  I just do not understand why anyone wants to change so many classes to fit into ONE slot in a group.  Maybe as many as two or at most three slots on a raid.  Perhaps you could explain to me even if we stood a chance of being chosen over a plate class what purpose that would serve?  With lousy DPS now why bother taking us at all?  to cast one buff?  Oh my how exciting.  NOT.  Healers stack, I can see having lots of different types of healers.  DSP stack, I can see having lots of different DPS.. but until TANKING stacks, not just a little mitigation but actual tanking.. then this change will within months drop the number of overall players playing these classes because they will have no purpose.  I also agree with the poster that said that they did this to slow progression down.  There's no other explanation for why DPS is dropping on many classes.  Except perhaps my other theory that goes along the lines of people protecting their jobs by insisting that changes are needed... <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kasandria wrote:<BR>Pardon me but I should have rolled my toon up nine months ago based on what SOE might or might not change down the line? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Change happens in MMOs, its a given.  Especially in regards to broken things and where balance is concerned.  I'm sorry if you didn't take any of the numerous discussions since beta into effect about monks not being a DPS class.</P> <P>But the information has been there since prior to release.</P> <P>I'm not sure why so many people refused to believe it, especially since developers were saying it.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:19 PM</span>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Considering EQ2 is a SOE game I can certainly understand the logic of choosing a class based on the way they perform at the time of character creation rather than on how the Dev’s say they’re supposed to perform <i>but to do so was a calculated gamble</i>. It seems quite a few people made that gamble and feel they lost. All I can say about that is one should never bet more than they are willing to lose.</p><p>Those who picked to play Monks to be tanks rather than plate-wearing fighters did so based upon the concept of archtypes and sub-classes as it was explained by the Devs since beta. <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=19986&query.id=0#M19986">(Dev quotes about this subject)</a> They’ve always explained that all the sub-classes of an archtype should be able to perform that archtype’s main role equally but through different means. Guardians were meant to be high mitigation and low avoidance while Monks were meant to be high avoidance and low mitigation. Thus far the game mechanics have prevented most Monks from tanking as well as plate-wearing fighters because avoidance is so hard to balance, but its something the Devs are still determined to work out.</p><p>The combat revamp wasn’t started because of a polling of players from the Test server. It was started because the Devs, along with players from all servers, recognized that the game’s mechanics simply were not working as the Devs had always stated they should.</p><p>The purpose of having six sub-classes of every archtype to perform the same role has been explained since Beta by the Devs as offering players a choice in how to perform those roles. It is true that this works well for the Priest, Scout and Mage archtypes because of the number of people are needed to fill those roles in a group or raid situation. And it’s true that there aren’t currently many situations which call for more than a few tanks in group or raid situations. Whether or not the Devs recognize these facts and provide means for extra Fighters to be substantially useful on raids will indeed likely have an effect on the number of players that choose to play Fighters.</p><p>About DPS, all I’ve seen has shown that its being adjusted to the intentions the Dev’s had all along; that being Mages > Scouts > Fighters > Priest. For many Fighters, if not all, that means a decrease, drastically so in some cases. Meanwhile Mages and Scouts are supposed to be getting a DPS boost. Overall the numbers I have seen are not supporting the claim of overall DPS decreasing. If there are numbers that support this claim then certainly post them.</p><p>I don’t agree with the Dev’s ideas and decisions about a lot of things in EQ2, but I have to say that through this combat revamp they are at least attempting to fulfill their stated intentions.</p><div></div><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:23 PM</span>

[RipFlex]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> getzburg wrote:<BR>First, big thanks to Gage for all the info. <BR><BR>Secondly, in no way do I believe that monks are broken except perhaps in terms of DPS. A slight dps nerf to bring our overall dps just under that of scouts, with perhaps a corresponding increase in mitigation, would not have been unwelcome. That is certainly not what this CC is. No, monks are not raid-level MTs. Never have been, and, if we were to continue the way things are, never will be. I don't have a problem with that. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice the ability to tank epics in exchange for the higher dps and overall flexibility that I currently enjoy.<BR><BR>/* Disclaimer: No, I have not played the changes. I'm going to give my opinion anyway. Feel free to argue, as I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.  If someone who HAS played the changes would like to respond, I'd be delighted to hear it. Fo Serious. */ <BR><BR>Further, I don't think for a second that the CA changes Gage has kindly provided for us, or the changes mentioned elsewhere, will permit us to tank the same high-level epics other fighter classes can. Not a chance in hell. Based on my own experience with epic mobs (which, while not complete, is also not inconsiderable) I'd say one of two things would have to happen:<BR>- Brawlers get avoidance in excess of 100%<BR>- Brawlers avoidance stats are not affected by mob level. (i.e. 80% avoidance is 80% avoidance, be the mob 50 or 57)<BR>I've seen no discussion of either of those options, and In fact the big combat changes post very clearly emphasized that avoidance and mitigation would scale with mob level. (I freely admit I don't spend a crapload of time on the forums. Apologies if I missed something.)<BR><BR>Having read all the posts and CAs and whatnot, I can't honestly say I'm happy. I think this is overkill and will remove flexibility and usefulness from what is currently a flexible and useful class. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right I won't bother to reroll. <BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have to agree with him on the Point of Avoidance, we DEPEND on this as much as the Guardian depends on Mitigation.  You forget that yes the monster higher level than you as a Guardian your Mitigation of you PLATE declines some... but Our Avoidance is our shield, making that less effective means Monsters esp. Epic mobs almost ignore Avoidance when it's nerfed down and we get hit HARD with our Mitigation being at best at the level of LIGHTs --> we pay more for the hit and get more hits and until LU 13 we currently only get all of our Defense infront of us - we get completely surrounded let's say linked mobs of 9 and a named... go chase your Shard.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least these changes allows to be more effective... but still I hope our Avoidance as good as a Guardian's Mitigation, we are DODGE tanks after all?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kasandria]

Thank you for your reasonable response but I'm sorry to disagree that I was taking a 'gamble'.  I was working with what was actual.  And, quite frankly, I shouldn't have to troll the boards to discern some possible change almost a year later.  If you wanted to be a tank , then going with a class that may or may not ever have been remade was a gamble on your part. (I'm not saying that makes you a bad person but I think you were looking at the situation backwards). >>I don’t agree with the Dev’s ideas and decisions about a lot of things in EQ2, but I have to say that through this combat revamp they are at least attempting to fulfill their stated intentions.>> This is where I get really angry (not at you).  They should have created their 'stated intentions' before they rushed the game into production.  I worked in online games for years.  I know they evolve and change but they don't just throw the whole thing out and redo the combat engine and call it the same game a year after it starts!  THATS rediculous.  That is unprofessional.  And I maintain that it's both short sighted and make work to keep their jobs.  And honestly it's all moot.  Because the bottom line is that since they still have never even attempted to explain how tanks will stack and yet they plow ahead with this consolidation of tank types.  I anticipate the fun going out of playing my monk rather quickly.  And isn't that what this is supposed to be? :/  or maybe somewhere in all their concern with changes for some higher vision they forgot all about the fun factor. <div></div>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">I completely agree that the in-game and manual’s descriptions should have better explained the Dev’s intended roles for the various sub-classes. A player shouldn’t have needed to search through the forums for Dev’s statements to gain a full understanding of their intentions for Monks. And if a new player asked the average experienced player what a Monk’s role was in EQ2 they most likely wouldn’t have been told “Monks are fighters and all fighters are supposed to be tanks.” While all of these things are true, it’s also true that the Dev’s had stated Monk’s role and that information was there for anyone that looked. </font><!-- [endif] --></p><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">Choosing the Monk class for the role of tanking was indeed a gamble. I doubted that it was going to be implemented well, either at release or later through changes. And I still have doubts about just how well Monks will be accepted as tanks after the revamp considering mitigation is more reliable than avoidance. While speculating that the Dev’s would make Monks tank as well as they stated they should was a gamble it was also a gamble to speculate that Monks would not be changed to fit the Dev’s stated role, to speculate that they would continue to perform their current and actual existing roles of moderate tanking and good dps’ing. </font><!-- [endif] --></p><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">But that’s not why I chose a Monk. I chose one because I played a Monk in EQ1, even though I knew EQ2 monks were not going to be the same. I gambled that Monks would have some role in EQ2 but I didn’t care what that role would be; just that I’d be able to get groups and be wanted on raids. As long as I’m still able to get groups and be wanted on raids after the revamp I’ll be happy. </font><!-- [endif] --></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">The concern about how many spots will exist in groups or raids for Fighters after the revamp is a valid one. The usefulness of multiple tanks in a group or on raids has been debated since pre-launch and as pointed out will become even more of an issue after the revamp due to our decrease in DPS. Since I have don’t play on Test and have not seen any information posted by testers about this concern, I can’t tell whether the Dev’s are handling it with the importance that its warrants. If any testers or Dev’s could inform us how or if this matter is being addressed I’m sure many of us would appreciate it.</font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font></p><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:09 AM</span>

[Noo]

<FONT size=2> <P>All i can say about the whole Monk discussion is that i am kinda happy that some ppl that played monks for a while now decide to quit or rerole after the coming changes. On our Server there arent a lot lvl 50 Monks and the more Monks quit the more unique the Monks will be that stay and try to make the best out of their class, whatever that means. I played a Monk 5 years in EQ1 and am playing a Monk since Beta in EQ2. If there is one thing i have learned about SOE, it is that they try to balance all Classes so that the majority is satisfied if it does not hurt the gameplay of all players.</P> <P>If these changes mean that the majority of Monks isnt satisfied and we realy are of less value to a group then all other Fighters then i can tell you, SOE will come along with more changes. But it will take some time, time to realise what has to be done or even if something has to be done at all. Too bad that all those Monks that did not even try the new changes cause they arent in the Beta but talk about quitting are gone then. I for my part love it to be one of a few and never would like to be one of the mass. So i go on playing a Monk whatever gona come, cause i know SOE will find a fair way for me to have fun.</P></FONT>

[carling1]

<DIV>Nicely said whatever they do to my monk ill always play him cant help it kung fu rules <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Giage is it true that all avoid and mit are capped to 80% after the new patch that kinda sucks in a way for the grp buffers cos i can hit 83.1% avoid with just my fury taggin along <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> and hitting stone stance and face of mountain together also pushes me up over 80% mit granted it cant be sustained but i kinda feel for the buffers if its gonna be a case of ok im at 80% mit and 80% avoid u can go away now and fetch some dps in.</DIV>

[Kota]

i was just wondering if anyone knows how the skill lvls of old and new skills are going to work.  are they getting reset to app1 because they are pretty much completely different ?  i assume the all-new ones will be app1, and alchemists will just have the recipes inserted into their books.  then ppl will loot an ad1 and charge a billion plat for the first couple months.  i'm just pinching pennies, becaue i have 49 warden (50 in a week) that i hafta keep up with also.  i don't wanna upgrade dragon stance or anything else if it's going to be wasted.  ppl are getting crazy with t2 and t3 rare prices.  <div></div>

[Noo]

<P>I dont think SOE gona dump all CAs to AP I  :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>I think you gona keep the lvl of what you got the CAs atm and the new ones gona be AP I, else i will go berserk. I have 11 Master 1 lvl 40 + and they are expensive <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P>Noogi</P>

[AntLi]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Bildorm wrote: <div>How well does the flow of the fighting go now?</div> <div><font color="#ffff00">Its cool, but a bit hard to get used to.  Its a lot slower combat than on live currently.  All in all though I do like it more, the more and more I play with the new system.  It'll just take awhile for it to be second nature like playing Gaige on live is now.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>How about the 'intsa' casting of the CA's?</div> <div><font color="#ffff00">Well... this is cool and crappy all at the same time.  Cool because if the mob needs to be stifled, by God you can stifle them NOW.  Crappy because you (I at least) end up using power way faster and if you do like 3 or 4 CAs in a row you can totally miss out on the animations...</font></div> <div><font color="#ffff00"></font> </div> <div><font color="#ffff00">which sometimes screws me up and has me scrolling my combat log to make sure I did an Icy Talon or Lunging Mongoose, because they overlap each other so fast sometimes you just look like you are auto attacking.</font> <hr> </div></blockquote> <div></div><hr></blockquote> Slowing the pace of combat  is a huge step in the wrong direction imho. I really hope when it's done they keep the pace it's at now. I</span><div></div>

[getzbu]

With regards to the whole "the devs have been saying this for a while now", I'm afraid I simply don't consider that argument to be valid. As stated in other posts above: - You can't expect the average player to read the dev boards, particularly when they've just started playing and are deciding what class to play. Do some people do this? Sure. Is it reasonable to EXPECT it of them? No. - If the classes weren't what the devs wanted them to be, then the game should have spent longer in beta. Period. Market forces are not my problem, and I don't particularly feel that the time and effort I invested in my character should be jeopardized because Sony was worried about WoW. Sony made its bed, and now it should lie in it and work with what it has. Another point that I don't see made often is this: Monks can tank just fine. For everything up to green epics, I can tank just as well as anyone. Can I tank "real" epics? No. Does this bother me? Not especially. If we really are too powerful in terms of DPS, then fine, tap us with the nerf bat and give us a little more avoidance or mitigation. But don't radically change our class on us because you were in a hurry to release. <div></div>

[Nefari]

From everything I've read in this an other threads, I don't feel our class is being radically changed at all.  Our SPELL set is being changed, yes, but we're still going to be a higher DPS/lower tanking fighter class. The DPS nerf is upsetting, yes, but...really, deserved.  Monks, Bruisers and Zerkers were all doing WAAY more dmg than they really should have been. <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> carling1 wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Giage is it true that all avoid and mit are capped to 80% after the new patch <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes.  But the window currently only shows your avoid/mit to even con solo mobs.  So even though your window may be showing 80% avoid, if you are lvl 50 and tanking a lvl 55++ heroic mob, you certainly would no be benefiting from 80% avoidance against that mbo.  The display for mitigation and avoidance will be changing yet again I believe. </P> <P>As for spell levels:</P> <P>If you have lunging mongoose master 1 it stays master 1 with the new description and ability, if it is an entirely new spell, such as jolting hand, then you get it at app1, as you would any new spell.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:36 PM</span>

[Kota]

page 26 of the instruction book that came with eq2: "fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while while keeping their allies from harm" <div></div>

[Cwi]

<div></div><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">Should any MMORPG be released so different from its Developers’ intentions that it requires a revamp as massive as EQ2 is receiving? No. However, if a game is released in such a state should its Developers turn a blind eye to what they consider huge imbalances in game mechanics? I don’t believe so.</font><!-- [endif] --></p><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">The claim that "the devs have been saying this for a while now" was made to counter the claim that the Devs are changing the Monk class without warning and for no reason. The “no warning, no reason” claim cited the vague in-game and manual class descriptions. Another supporting statement was that the Dev’s complete description of the Monk class’s role was only posted on the forums, someplace the average new player does not go to find basic information such as “what role does this class perform.” These supporting claims are factual but do not make the “no warning, no reason” claim true. Although some players were ignorant to their existence, the Dev’s statements explaining the roles for the Monk class have existed since pre-launch.</font><!-- [endif] --></p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>The existence of these statements and the disparity between them and the actual performance of the Monk class is the reason that Monks are being changed in the combat revamp and is the warning that has existed since launch that such a change could be forthcoming.</span></font><font color="#ffffff" face="Arial" size="2">"Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<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 equally 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." <a target="_blank" href="message?board.id=faq&message.id=1&query.id=0#M1">Moorgard Nov 9, 2004</a></font><font size="2"><span>As a Fighter sub-class a Monk's main role is supposed to be tanking. When a Monk can perform that role equally well as any other Fighter sub-class then it could be said Monks can tank just fine, because until then they are not doing so by the Dev’s definition.</span></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font><div></div>

[carling1]

<DIV>Thanks for the info gaige <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Nasyr24]

I will never understand guys like Gage that drive at full throttle towards a sheer and shout "YIPIIIIIIIIIIIII THIS WILL ROCK !!!"MeuchelmausLVL 50 BruiserValor<p>Message Edited by Nasyr2412 on <span class=date_text>08-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:26 PM</span><p>Message Edited by Nasyr2412 on <span class=date_text>08-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:26 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nasyr2412 wrote:<BR>I will never understand guys like Gage that drive at full throttle towards a sheer and shout "YIPIIIIIIIIIIIII THIS WILL ROCK !!!" <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Um... wha?<BR>

[NamaeZero]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nasyr2412 wrote:<BR>I will never understand guys like Gage that drive at full throttle towards a sheer and shout "YIPIIIIIIIIIIIII THIS WILL ROCK !!!" <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Um... wha?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You're getting a buzzcut, maybe? A really exciting one?

[Kasandria]

Sheer means clif or edge, precipice, drop off, fall, sharp decline I know people who don't care whether something is good or bad as long as it's new or exciting, other personality types have innate desires to please authorities which drive them.  I try not to judge anyone based on their personality alone.  There  are days when I wish they couldn't vote howerver..   }<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[enfield]

<P>Gaige question about the stifles.</P> <P>Are they showing up on out mantained spell bar and how long are they lasting with the combat revamps</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Thx</P> <P>Brendel</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> enfield2c wrote:<BR> <P>Gaige question about the stifles.</P> <P>Are they showing up on out mantained spell bar and how long are they lasting with the combat revamps</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I'll have to get on and check this out for you sometime today before work, because my maintained bar is normally under my raid window ;p<BR>

[grumm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> enfield2c wrote:<BR> <P>Gaige question about the stifles.</P> <P>Are they showing up on out mantained spell bar and how long are they lasting with the combat revamps</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Thx</P> <P>Brendel</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am not Gaige, but I can tell you that the stuns, stifles, debuff, etc. do show on the maintained spell bar.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> grummit wrote:<BR><BR>I am not Gaige, but I can tell you that the stuns, stifles, debuff, etc. do show on the maintained spell bar. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>

[getzbu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Cwiyk wrote:<p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">Should any MMORPG be released so different from its Developers’ intentions that it requires a revamp as massive as EQ2 is receiving? No. However, if a game is released in such a state should its Developers turn a blind eye to what they consider huge imbalances in game mechanics? I don’t believe so.</font><!-- [endif] --></p><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --><font face="Arial" size="2">The claim that "the devs have been saying this for a while now" was made to counter the claim that the Devs are changing the Monk class without warning and for no reason. The “no warning, no reason” claim cited the vague in-game and manual class descriptions. Another supporting statement was that the Dev’s complete description of the Monk class’s role was only posted on the forums, someplace the average new player does not go to find basic information such as “what role does this class perform.” These supporting claims are factual but do not make the “no warning, no reason” claim true. Although some players were ignorant to their existence, the Dev’s statements explaining the roles for the Monk class have existed since pre-launch.</font><!-- [endif] --></p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>The existence of these statements and the disparity between them and the actual performance of the Monk class is the reason that Monks are being changed in the combat revamp and is the warning that has existed since launch that such a change could be forthcoming.</span></font><font color="#ffffff" face="Arial" size="2">"Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<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 equally 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." <a target="_blank" href="message?board.id=faq&message.id=1&query.id=0#M1">Moorgard Nov 9, 2004</a></font><font size="2"><span>As a Fighter sub-class a Monk's main role is supposed to be tanking. When a Monk can perform that role equally well as any other Fighter sub-class then it could be said Monks can tank just fine, because until then they are not doing so by the Dev’s definition.</span></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font><hr></blockquote>Should the devs </span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">turn a blind eye to what they consider huge imbalances in game mechanics? No, of course not. Should they have fixed said imbalances long before now? Yes, of course. Is it inappropriate and unfair to introduce such sweeping "fixes" long after most players have made large investments of time and effort into their characters? In my opinion, Yes. Should we receive some sort of compensation if we're unhappy with the changes to the characters we've worked so hard on? Yes. Will we? Of course not. Therefore, should the devs suck it up and do a better job before release next time, and bloody well leave us the hell alone? BINGO! </font></span><div></div>

[bonesbro]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> getzburg wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>Should the devs </SPAN><SPAN><FONT face=Arial size=2>turn a blind eye to what they consider huge imbalances in game mechanics? No, of course not. <BR>Should they have fixed said imbalances long before now? Yes, of course. <BR>Is it inappropriate and unfair to introduce such sweeping "fixes" long after most players have made large investments of time and effort into their characters? In my opinion, Yes. <BR>Should we receive some sort of compensation if we're unhappy with the changes to the characters we've worked so hard on? Yes. <BR>Will we? Of course not. <BR>Therefore, should the devs suck it up and do a better job before release next time, and bloody well leave us the hell alone? BINGO!<BR></FONT></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Ok - but even if everything you say is 100% true, that doesn't suggest a different course of action than what the devs are currently doing.  It just lets you feel better about complaining about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Devs should do a better job next time".  Ok, check.  I think everyone agrees with that.  But things is what they is, so do you have any suggestions for changes to this rebalance?</DIV>

[Nydysean]

<P>Okay, I am not very well versed on how to use these forums so this may look kind of funny.  However, I was just reading through Blackguard's latest post on the "running list of beta combat/spell updates" and in it they speak about attributes and it looks like they are removing the str vs agi and int vs wis portion of the revamp.  However, he also says the following in the post, "- Increasing your Agility improves your avoidance and no longer mitigates your opponent's Strength bonus." and a little further down "The effectiveness of Strength, Agility, Intelligence, and Wisdom buffs has been increased. The effective cap is set at 10 times the character's level. For example, a level 30 fighter will receive an increasing melee damage bonus up to 300 Strength, while a level 40 wizard will receive an increasing bonus to spell damage up to 400 Intelligence."  So now for my question:</P> <P>This sounds like they are removing the soft cap of 100 where upon reaching that number in live the effectivness of adding to the attribute drops signifcantly and are changing the cap to the character's lvl times 10.  So I am wondering if one's avoidance goes up at the same rate untill you reach this new limit or is the old soft cap still in place?  Thanks for anyone who spends the time checking this out for me. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR></P>

[getzbu]

<span><blockquote><hr>bonesbro wrote: <blockquote> <hr> getzburg wrote:<span>Should the devs </span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">turn a blind eye to what they consider huge imbalances in game mechanics? No, of course not. Should they have fixed said imbalances long before now? Yes, of course. Is it inappropriate and unfair to introduce such sweeping "fixes" long after most players have made large investments of time and effort into their characters? In my opinion, Yes. Should we receive some sort of compensation if we're unhappy with the changes to the characters we've worked so hard on? Yes. Will we? Of course not. Therefore, should the devs suck it up and do a better job before release next time, and bloody well leave us the hell alone? BINGO!</font></span> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Ok - but even if everything you say is 100% true, that doesn't suggest a different course of action than what the devs are currently doing.  It just lets you feel better about complaining about it.</div> <div> </div> <div>"Devs should do a better job next time".  Ok, check.  I think everyone agrees with that.  But things is what they is, so do you have any suggestions for changes to this rebalance?</div><hr></blockquote>"</span><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">Therefore, should the devs suck it up and do a better job before release next time, and bloody well leave us the hell alone? BINGO!" There is my suggested course of action right there. Leave us alone. I've said repeatedly that I'm not against having our DPS nerfed a bit. I can concede that we're a bit overpowered in that area. But a radical reconstruction of the class this late in the game isn't fair to us at all, and I'm not going to lose sleep if some devs have to spend a couple nights crying into their beer because their vision for my class wasn't realized. I'm not as good a tank as a guardian. I don't WANT to be as good a tank as a guardian. If I did, I would have played a guardian. I wanted to play a high-damage martial-arts class, so I played monk. Now that I've put all the time and effort in to get my monk to where he is, I don't really want him to change. He's fine how he is. </font></span></span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> getzburg wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now that I've put all the time and effort in to get my monk to where he is, I don't really want him to change. He's fine how he is. </FONT></SPAN></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Funny, after all the time and effort I've put into my monk where he is, I do want him to change.  Go figure.<BR>

[Tilane]

<DIV>i have usually read the boards , i dont get some people most of the time.. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a year ago i started my monk because it was in the archtype tree of the fighters to have a Tank , due to imbalances and inherent flaws in the system i wasnt able to do this , so i ended up with half a tank and dps .... not what i signed up for ...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i am glad they are balancing this and i can tank with my flavor , a monk ...not a gaurdian because that isnt me , if monks where in the dps tree i would have played a ranger and i wouldnt have asked myself the question , why am i tanking like a wet paper bag ... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i think it took em way to long for this , but i dont think this game isnt going anywhere any time soon , best fix whats broke before they pile expansions upon expansion. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>The new changes intrigue me.  Earlier, they put the soft cap in on Agility (for instance) because monks and non-monks alike were using Agility buffs to become totally unhittable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now there will be a hard cap of 80% avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But since that's an 80% cap against any given mob, that means we could buff agility to 500 and have an 80% chance to evade attacks from a mob 20 levels higher than us...might be fun <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Cwi]

<div></div><p>I can’t agree with the mentality of starting a character expecting them to perform a role other than the specified role that character’s class was intended to perform as stated by the game’s Developers and then getting angry at the Developer’s when the character’s class is fixed to perform its intended role.</p><p>In previous posts it’s been shown when and where the Dev’s specified the Monk sub-class’s role in EQ2. Why would one start a character to perform any role other than their class’s intended role? The two reasons that have been presented so far are ignorance and obstinance.</p><p>I can empathize with those that were ignorant of the Dev’s intended role for the Monk sub-class. The manual’s and in-game descriptions of the Monk class only vaguely conveyed its intended role. The only place to find the clear and detailed explanation of the Dev’s intended role for the Monk sub-class was the forums, a place which many new players don’t think to look for such basic information. While the information wasn’t presented in an ideal manner it did exist, so ignorance of the sub-class’s role cannot be used as a reason to keep Monks the way they are.</p><p>As for the second reason of obstinance, some people understood the Dev’s intended role for the Monk class and yet chose to play a Monk to perform a different role. They willingly invested time into a character which they knew was not adhering to the Dev’s intentions. How then can this second group of people blame anyone but themselves for this investment now that the Dev’s are fixing Monks according to their originally stated intentions?</p><p>While the Dev’s can be faulted for taking this long to do it, they can’t be faulted for fixing a sub-class to perform the role it’s been intended to perform since pre-launch.</p><p><u>To get back on topic…</u></p><p>Gaige, a couple nights ago I asked if you thought Monks will be able to handle group taunting after the revamp. You answered that you did believe they would be able to. Could you elaborate some on your methods of doing so? This is one of my two concerns with the viability of Monk tanking after the revamp.</p><p>The other is the usefulness of “extra tanks” on raids. As others have expressed, I think it’s important for “extra tanks” to have a role on raids since Monks won’t be able to fall back on great DPS after the revamp. Could you elaborate on ways you’ve seen “extra tanks” be useful on raids after the revamp?</p><div></div>

[Padi]

<P>I don't really care what the dev's intentions were or what any person in particular want out of the different fighters, but in a game where there is only need for 1 tank in any group or raid (maybe a 2nd one in a raid to handle some of the smaller mobs around the boss), there are far too many classes to fill that role.</P> <P>Setting up 6 classes to be the MT is just asking for most of them to be out of a job with little else to contribute.</P> <P>Every group or raid is going to want more than 1 dps, and usually more than one healer, but there is no need for more than one MT.</P> <P>Having a classes that can tank well enough to get by in a group, and do good dps when not tanking and another 1 or 2 good classes at tanking, and perhaps another that can tank ok and backup heal gives a lot more veriety to the game.  It also prevents the problem of having too many useless classes.</P>

[Nemesis465]

What saddens me is the MT guardian in my guild is talking about rolling on light armor and medium armor just to have a set of each so we wont have to use other classes as tanks....... -.- <div></div>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>Pretty sure that's why there's offensive and defensive stances.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Would you rather they just had the 4 archetypes and left it at that?  There'd still be too many tanks in the world.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So what if our DPS is down a little?  We can go offensive, we can protect other tanks and make them more efficient, and we're even getting new group buffs, like HASTE.  What group won't want some extra haste for the other melees to go crazy with?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And really, if you have friends you play with, are they going to exclude you because your DPS got nerfed a bit?  Brawlers still have higher DPS than the plate tanks, and our tanking should work more reliably.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I tell ya what, if the combat changes lead to more scouts being created, I will be THRILLED.  My guild's scout population is pathetic.  But for me, if I'm not tanking I'll protect the tank, go offensive, and enjoy my other new abilities.  Go monks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemesis46567 wrote:<BR>What saddens me is the MT guardian in my guild is talking about rolling on light armor and medium armor just to have a set of each so we wont have to use other classes as tanks....... -.-<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Then he is an assface and should be kicked from the guild if he tries that.</DIV>

[grumm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Almeric wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemesis46567 wrote:<BR>What saddens me is the MT guardian in my guild is talking about rolling on light armor and medium armor just to have a set of each so we wont have to use other classes as tanks....... -.-<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Then he is an assface and should be kicked from the guild if he tries that.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Doing this to another guild memeber is one thing, but in open groups I fear this is going to happen alot.  I mean, they are giving plate wearers a reason to want to wear medium and light armor, especially if they have some great plate pieces that have huge mitigation.  What I think we might start seeing soon is lots Plate Wearers wearing chest & leg plate pieces, and the rest a blend of medium and light armor.</DIV><p>Message Edited by grummit on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:25 PM</span>

[Cwi]

- Mitigation values have been spread more evenly across armor slots. Chest and leg slots still provide slightly greater mitigation, though less than they did before. This should make it more beneficial to wear high-mitigation armor in every slot. <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=2961&query.id=0#M2961" target=_blank>Blackguard August 10, 2005</a> I hope this keeps plate-wearing fighters from rolling on Medium and Light armor. I also hope they do more to make the different Fighter sub-classes desireable as MTs than simply setting up one raid mob to be tanked using avoidance and another to be tanked using mitigation. I think its a step in the right direction, I just hope they go further. <div></div>

[HappyNin]

<div></div><div></div>The simple solution would be just to do something like this: Restrict the avoidance bonus of armor to the level you could get from the heaviest piece a person is wearing.  A guardian wearing two pieces of heavy vanguard will still have his freedom of movement restricted by those two pieces, whether the rest of him is covered in leather, cloth or nothing. So the plate tanks would have to choose to wear all plate for the mitigation or all light armor for the avoidance.  There would be no mish mashing of armor types in this system and would leave groups the option of having a monk as a tank, since I'm sure our avoidance would be higher than a guardian's would be if he were wearing a full suit of leather.  It could be done, and I believe this would be the easiest way to keep every tank in their designated armor/tanking style. Dunno if this has been offered before, but it's just an idea, and my 2cp. Eh.  I just figured that in order for this to happen, the avoidance/mitigation bonuses would have to be determined by armor SET, not individual pieces, so really, I'm not sure how this would work under EQ2's current equipment system. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><p>Message Edited by HappyNinja on <span class="date_text">08-19-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:28 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by HappyNinja on <span class=date_text>08-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:28 AM</span>

[MastikFantastik]

<P>Hello all.</P> <P>Being the ever curious person I am I read all the boards I can. I 'll start off with that I am a level 50 guardian, and I do MT raids time to time (not in a hardcore raid guild but we get by). Also I would like to say hi to Gaige, I haven't see you on the guardian boards in a bit thought you might be MIA.. hehe Even though you and I don't see eye to eye, we both want the betterment of our classes (sub class really) and the game so for that I really do respect you and your opinion.  </P> <P>I for one am not sure that all the changes are good are bad in the game.  </P> <P>But I do know that a simple fix (not sure how simple but being a coder myself I think it should be relatively simple) to the armor issue is make it more class dependant. Example: once you hit a certain level say 40 you can ONLY wear gear for you base class. So Brawlers 40+ can onlyu equip the Light armor and no very light armor that is level 40 and greater.  Same goes for all classes, like me being a guardian I can where what ever I want that is level 39 and below but post 40 I can only wear the gear that is above that.  I am not saying you can't wear an item that is lighter but below level 40 and I am level 50.. So I could wear (fictional item) The Cloth shawl of agility. level 38 item adds 30 agi  ac 1, sv magic -800 (yes neg 800). But there is an a better shawl out that is level 45. Leather Shawl of uberness. Adds 35agi 20ac, sv pois 100, sv magic 300 .. this is where the class resitrictor comes in.. I am 50 and can wear the cloth shawl and of a diff item, but that leather one I can't even though I am still the level.  Only leather wearers would be able to wear it. </P> <P>Just an idea following along the thought of trying to get rid of the mish mashing of armor types.</P>

[Gaige]

<P>I really think that almost all gear in the game should be class/subclass only like the stuff that drops in AoW.</P> <P>You'll get boots that are druid only, with druid stats.  A robe that is sorceror only and guess what, it has caster stats.</P> <P>Not only does this prevent other classes from dropping armor classes, it also ensures that the items you receive have stats benefiting your class.</P>

[Cwi]

<div></div><p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --></p><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->I think that’s a good idea, but it would only work out well if certain measure were taken. The problem would be when you would randomly get items for classes that your guild did not need. If it only happened a few times you could try trading your useless items with another guild to get things you wanted, or simply put them up for sale and have the guild bank buy items the guild wanted. Unfortunately the random number generator could cause a lot of problems. For instance, around 30% of all the Master spells/CAs our guild has gotten out of SotL have been for Bruisers and Shadowknights. Two subclasses represent roughly 30% of all the Master drops, and we don’t even have any of those classes.</span></p><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->I think one solution would be to set up NPC’s that would trade items from the same zone and tier for ones you had. If you had more Druid boots than you needed you could trade them in for Templar boots. If you had more Brawler weapons than you needed you could trade them in for Bard weapons. This would require some programming as I don’t think there is any such system at this time.<!-- [endif] --></span></p><span>I definitely think class specific armor would solve both the issue of plate-wearing tanks rolling on LA gear and armor having useless stats. I hope the Dev’s consider it.</span><font face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font><div></div>

[Kota]

restricting who can wear certain items would be a great start, but i don't see why they don't just make avoidance something that's based on class.  is an enchanter going to be better at avoidance than me because he's wearing a silk robe ?  <div></div>

[Lathani]

<DIV>I read this thread with a mixture of disbelief, humor, and disappointment.  I see people arguing designer intentions, manuals, and designated roles of 4 base classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think when the day is done, and the game is played the real question needs to be how well does my class work in the scheme of things.  The people that are arguing that the Monk should be moved towards main tank role with a resulting severe loss of DPS should really examine what the end result of that will be in terms of desirability of playing, especially as one nears the top 10 levels of the game.  Every raid and high end group I've seen is conditioned to pick a Guardian for the main tank.  Even if monks were completely even to the Guardian in sheer tank ability, it would take a lot of changing of mentality for it to affect our desirability for high end raids and groups.  Purely giving up DPS to make us a second choice tank isn't going to make Monk one tiny bit more fun to play that I can see, quite the opposite.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, if you can add some real utility so that the monk working in a group with a Main Tank Guardian to offset our loss of DPS then perhaps it is workable.  However, when the day is done, it takes a fair amount of utility to replace pure DPS.  It is no secret that the top guild/players/raiders look closely at DPS/TANK/HEAL numbers.  Aruging for the lowering of DPS to gain more tank ability is a very risky proposition.  You may win the argument based on initial developer desing concepts but lose the war of fun factor.  Noone likes to be a second fiddle.  Look at the Wizard vs. Warlock thing closely to see another iteration of this.  Another example.. I played Wizard in EQLive because I wanted to be the Master of Damage as the developers originally intended for that class description.  I saw rogues out damaging me consistently over the lengths of fights in the end game plus they had aggro avoidance and survivabilty far more desirous.  And lets not even talk about how superior magicians were to wizards in the end game of EQLive.  Second fiddle is not fun.  Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it.</DIV>

[Lathani]

<P>I should add this to my post above:</P> <P>Making 6 classes do the same thing works great for heals and DPS, as it is desirious to have more than one in each group for obvious reasons.  Having more than 1 tank per group CAN be useful, but only if for some reason the main tank is no longer doing his job.  So, the idea of 6 classes to do the same thing but using different means works out ok when you are talking the other trees, but not very well at all for the tank situation, especially considering how many fighter classes are populating the server.  I do suspect a substantial thinning of the fighter ranks if the changes go to live with the vision being related here.  I don't really see that as a positive thing, either.</P>

[getzbu]

<span><blockquote><hr>Cwiyk wrote:<div></div><p>I can’t agree with the mentality of starting a character expecting them to perform a role other than the specified role that character’s class was intended to perform as stated by the game’s Developers and then getting angry at the Developer’s when the character’s class is fixed to perform its intended role.</p><p>In previous posts it’s been shown when and where the Dev’s specified the Monk sub-class’s role in EQ2. Why would one start a character to perform any role other than their class’s intended role? The two reasons that have been presented so far are ignorance and obstinance.</p><p>I can empathize with those that were ignorant of the Dev’s intended role for the Monk sub-class. The manual’s and in-game descriptions of the Monk class only vaguely conveyed its intended role. The only place to find the clear and detailed explanation of the Dev’s intended role for the Monk sub-class was the forums, a place which many new players don’t think to look for such basic information. While the information wasn’t presented in an ideal manner it did exist, so ignorance of the sub-class’s role cannot be used as a reason to keep Monks the way they are.</p><p>As for the second reason of obstinance, some people understood the Dev’s intended role for the Monk class and yet chose to play a Monk to perform a different role. They willingly invested time into a character which they knew was not adhering to the Dev’s intentions. How then can this second group of people blame anyone but themselves for this investment now that the Dev’s are fixing Monks according to their originally stated intentions?</p><p>While the Dev’s can be faulted for taking this long to do it, they can’t be faulted for fixing a sub-class to perform the role it’s been intended to perform since pre-launch.</p><p><u>To get back on topic…</u></p><p>Gaige, a couple nights ago I asked if you thought Monks will be able to handle group taunting after the revamp. You answered that you did believe they would be able to. Could you elaborate some on your methods of doing so? This is one of my two concerns with the viability of Monk tanking after the revamp.</p><p>The other is the usefulness of “extra tanks” on raids. As others have expressed, I think it’s important for “extra tanks” to have a role on raids since Monks won’t be able to fall back on great DPS after the revamp. Could you elaborate on ways you’ve seen “extra tanks” be useful on raids after the revamp?</p><div></div><hr></blockquote>We never left the topic, Brice. Debating the pros and cons of the revamp is a part of this thread. I just happen to have nothing but cons to talk about. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The argument you've presented above reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (the book), particularly the portion where the main character finds out his house is about to be demolished. When he asks why he wasn't notified, he's told that the notice has been on file with the city for months and he could have looked at it at any time. Simply saying "the information was out there somewhere, so it's your fault for not knowing" is hardly a valid argument. When I purchase anything, be it an mmorpg or a blender, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a clear and accurate explanation of its functions. That was not provided in this case. If you bought a blender, and the "Low" and "Puree" buttons were wired to each other, the last thing you want to hear when you call the manufacturer is "Well, if you'd visited our website before using the blender, you'd have known about that." And yes, I am being obstinate, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If you feel you're being treated unfairly, then being obstinate is perfectly acceptable. </span><div></div>

[JudyJudy]

<DIV>First off...  GREAT information from Gaige and the other fellow monks that are testing the new combat revamp and keeping us updated.  Kudos to you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do have a couple of simple questions concerning weapons that I'm hoping you may be able to answer.  I've perused the thread and found no answer to my question, so I apologize in advance if I did miss something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The ever debate of DW vs. 2handed weapons - I'm sure we could connect each thread on this topic together and make a chain that would reach from here to the moon.  :smileyhappy:  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, my question is this:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>1.  Now that the CA's are insta-cast, have you noticed any significant advantage or disadvantage of DW vs. 2handed within the parameters of damage, ripostes, stat benefits, soloing, grouping, and raiding?</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM>2.  Are there certain situations now in which one is better than the other?  i.e.  Tanking vs.  Soloing.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I only ask as I'm about ready to level to 30 (and will most likely not hit 40 until after the revamp) and am wondering if I should invest in 2 oak weapons or 1 oak weapon.  I solo mostly, but enjoy tanking and support tanking.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by JudyJudy on <span class=date_text>08-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:27 AM</span>

[Gaige]

With instant cast ca's and our 360 degree deflection I haven't really seen any noticeable advantage anymore using 2h over DW.  I still use 2h when solo'ing and tanking if only because I have such a great 2h.

[Encantador]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>getzburg wrote:<BR><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>..........................................<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The argument you've presented above reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (the book), particularly the portion where the main character finds out his house is about to be demolished. When he asks why he wasn't notified, he's told that the notice has been on file with the city for months and he could have looked at it at any time. Simply saying "the information was out there somewhere, so it's your fault for not knowing" is hardly a valid argument. When I purchase anything, be it an mmorpg or a blender, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a clear and accurate explanation of its functions. That was not provided in this case. <STRONG>If you bought a blender, and the "Low" and "Puree" buttons were wired to each other, the last thing you want to hear when you call the manufacturer is "Well, if you'd visited our website before using the blender, you'd have known about that."</STRONG><BR><BR>And yes, I am being obstinate, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If you feel you're being treated unfairly, then being obstinate is perfectly acceptable.<BR><BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>A fairly good example. The blender is broke. It only sort of agrees witht he labelling. To find out what is wrong you would have to do some investigation. Rather than do that you get on with enjoying the fruits of using the blender.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why are you be upset that they are recalling the product and saying here have a brand new fixed blender ?<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Arrowheart]

<DIV>Couple questions about Silent Palm:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is it 2 seperate chances to stifle (ie possible to land the art but each stifle chance can be resisted)?</DIV> <DIV>Or after one stifle wears off the 2nd stifle attempts to take effect? (if this case each duration 10s?)</DIV> <DIV>And last has it been verified that it still (or no longer) works on epics?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks for taking the time to take and post all these screenshots.</DIV>

[carling1]

<DIV>Anyone have any idea when this patch may go live ? would be nice to get a week or so to get used to it before we go off into the desert <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Germo]

<span><blockquote><hr>carling1 wrote:<div>Anyone have any idea when this patch may go live ? would be nice to get a week or so to get used to it before we go off into the desert <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><hr></blockquote>request denied. Live update #13 will go live with the launch of DoF.</span><div></div>

[Almeric_CoS]

<DIV>No more Lu Sun's!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Training skills are being replaced <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will miss my precious stifle-kick.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/mourn</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[fre'do]

<DIV>this upgrade sounds sweet....i have not played monk long but i really like it...i love the idea that we will be more of a tank based on dodging...this sounds fun....now  only if they get non armor clothing and let us wear it and then that would be great.</DIV>

[stfields]

<P>I see we get a WIS buff in the revamp.  I hear that WIS will play a factor in mitigating spell damage.  If so, then that is good <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  What about INT?  I read on the SK forums that their new Harm Touch ability does some ridiculous damage when they buff their int.  No, I'm not jealous of their damage, but this guy said there is indeed a significant link between his INT and the damage from Harm Touch (and possibly other abilities).  </P> <P>Does any of our monk CAs fit into the "INT" picture?  For example, Storming Hydra is listed as magic damage (if I remember right).  That mean its damage is based on our INT now?  I certainly hope not <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>A question regarding the Everburning Fire/Flame/Blaze line of self-haste abilties:  They were all nerfed right?  Lower haste% than what we currently have on live servers?  What about the hp drain?  It used to be every 30s for a few hundred hp, but we could simply keep it on all the time if we chose (w/ no hp regen food).  Or if you were just standing around idle with the haste on, would it eventually kill you?</P> <P>I see Cloud Walk's description says it gives level 51 invis at Master I (from Gage's post).  I think Gage said he was able to invis past level 60 mobs.  Was he level 60 when he did this?  Does it only work up to level 60 mobs?  I'm not complaining, trust me.  I got no problems having Cloud Walk, as I missed the self-invis we had that was very [Removed for Content] compared to other classes.  Just curious if it is still as useful as Wind Walk was back when we were in our 20s/30s.</P>

[splen]

do you happen to have a screen shot of tranquil blessing i need to see if it got a revamp as well ^ ^ <div></div>

[Nefari]

I'm throwing out rumor since I'm not in Beta but... From what I have heard INT affects the dmg you do with spells, so it would affect an SK's Harmtouch but not, say, our Silent Palm, since it's a physical attack.  WIS dictates your spell avoidance (since Spell Avoidance has been removed as a characteristic on its own) and resists. Anyone have more solid info? Nefalu Bald Monk of Halcyon Affinity <div></div>

[Gaige]

<P>Wisdom just straight up does resists I'm pretty sure.</P> <P>Int does affect spell damage, but not CA damage.  I think STR affects CA damage but I'm not quite sure.</P>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->Gaige (or any other Beta monk), how bad are the following items affecting us on Beta?<!-- [endif] --></span></p><p><span>excerpts from <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=6144#M6144">today’s Beta notes</a>:<font size="2">- NPC auto-attack damage has been increased. NPC spell and combat art damage has been reduced. - The effects of wisdom and agility have been slightly reduced to be more comparable to the effects of other attributes. - The effectiveness of Defense skill buffs and debuffs has been reduced, while the effectiveness of Parry buffs and debuffs has been increased. This results in Defense, Parry, and Deflection buffs and debuffs having the same overall effect on avoidance. - Fighter defensive stances now provide less physical damage mitigation and have greater offensive penalties. - Fighter offensive stances now provide an increased bonus to offense and steeper defensive penalties.</font></span></p><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --></span></p><p><span>Yes, you really did read that right, and no <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=6168#M6168">its not a typo</a>. Fighter defense stances got doubled nerfed while NPC auto-attack damage got increased and the effect of Agility was reduced.</span></p><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --> Edit: meant to say "fighter defense stances" not buffs <!-- [endif] --></span></p><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] --> <!-- [endif] --></span></p><div></div><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:38 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cwiyk wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->Gaige (or any other Beta monk), how bad are the following items affecting us on Beta?</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I just posted all the new stances and personas, but I have to raid live right now, I can't test the other changes until after.  So I'll let you know if someone doesn't beat me to it.<BR>

[carling1]

<DIV>I have level 60 monk on beta and can honestly say the changes u just mentioned are minute so much so you probably wouldnt even notice, and as far as i know wis buffs our resist and as for intel it may have an effect on magic based spells but i havent looked into it as yet i do know however that when you buff intel it doesnt effect any of our stats.</DIV>

[Edyil]

<P>I havent found a good site that lists our new CAs so....</P> <P>Bump -</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>