Armor that monks should have or look like anyways

[ZL_Osi]

<DIV><IMG src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/zlosiris/mokkkkkk111111222222.jpg"></DIV>

[Yojimbo99]

<P>hrmm i not saying the  hair band 80's glam stuff is the best but why would i want to dress up as a tin can ?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Oh yeah  i dont ... hence the monk choice with the sexy moves</P> <P> </P> <P>Rolangard; Slayer of Fairies</P> <P>toxx's favorite lvl 50 barbarian monk</P> <P><Lex Talionis> Grand Master</P>

[NamaeZero]

<P>This is the armor from the Tombs of Night expansion, right? Marr stuff?</P> <P> </P> <P>Looks terrible in person... you can't see it in the picture here, but it makes your chest and leg areas semitransparent, and for some reason, your shoulders and arms go all grey.</P>

[Alluna E]

<DIV>I really dislike the look of that armor and would not recommend it for a monk.  Just my personal opinion though.</DIV>

[Rigpa]

<DIV>Sorry , but really don't like the look . Monks have their own unique look , where "less" is actually "more" . After the comming update and all , I'll consider us towel wearing guardians with slicker moves :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Leave the plate looks to those who really need them   </DIV>

[Lebr]

For me "less equals more" for a monk or any brawler type. I would prefer to only have leg and wrists graphics, they should let us have an option to /hide the other junk.

[RyanTSi]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> NamaeZero wrote:<BR> <P>This is the armor from the Tombs of Night expansion, right? Marr stuff?</P> <P> </P> <P>Looks terrible in person... you can't see it in the picture here, but it makes your chest and leg areas semitransparent, and for some reason, your shoulders and arms go all grey.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>i posted some pics of that here <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=grph&message.id=14172" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=grph&message.id=14172</A></DIV> <DIV>im not sure what causes it but most of the people i talked to said it looked normal to them, and it looks fine in my inventory screen so im not sure what the deal is with that.<BR></DIV>

[Ner]

<DIV>WOW!! u are all clueless he is saying that is the armor monks should have because if SoE wants to make use tanks then give use plate armor not no leather stuff to tank with or give us DPS and take tanking away. is what i am geting </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I started a monk in the beging of EQ2 thincking they were DPS and i was also geting told that they were better DPS at higher lvls then Bruiser so i was like ok so i did the betray quest and everything then when i get to lvl 30 some how i end up being a tank just caz i am in the fighter class thats BS damit SoE stop making the Brawlers a lost class...</DIV>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>If you started a Monk thinking their role was dps then you can't blame the devs for your mistake. Monks are a sub-class of Fighters and thus exist to tank. All sub-classes of an archtype are supposed to fill the primary role of that archtype. The key is that they perform that role through different methods and in some cases they perform other roles a little better or a little worse than their archtype typically does. The Devs have always emphasized that sub-classes exists to give players choices in how to perform their archtype’s role. This is the way the Devs have explained the archtype system since pre-launch, and they have continued to stand by this explaination. Its true that since launch Monks have not been performing their archtype role to the same degree that other sub-classes have, such as Guardians. I can’t explain to you why the Devs took this long to make the game conform to their original plan, only they can. I’m just trying to show that everyone that believes their Monk’s role is being changed without warning and without reason hasn’t done their research. <span>I do empathize with everyone that has grown accustomed to the role Brawlers have been filling since release. And even though I disagree with them, I can understand the feelings of people who thought our current role was our intended role. </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. We will have to either adapt or find something new. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:41 AM</span>

[Dandeli]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cwiyk wrote:<BR> If you started a Monk thinking their role was dps then you can't blame the devs for your mistake. <BR><BR>Monks are a sub-class of Fighters and thus exist to tank. All sub-classes of an archtype are supposed to fill the primary role of that<BR>archtype. The key is that they perform that role through different methods and in some cases they perform other roles a little better<BR>or a little worse than their archtype typically does. They have always emphasized that sub-classes exists to give players choices in <BR>how to perform their archtype’s role. <BR><BR>Its true that since launch Monks have not been performing their archtype role to the same degree that other sub-classes have, such as<BR>Guardians. I can’t explain to you why the Devs took this long to make the game conform to their original plan, only they can. I’m just trying to show <BR>that everyone that believes their Monk’s role is being changed without warning and without reason hasn’t done their research.<BR><BR><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<BR>people who thought our current role was our intended role. </SPAN>That doesn’t change the fact that the combat revamp is coming and, if its done right, <BR>it will put Brawlers in the role the developers always intended them to fill. We will have to either adapt or find something new. <BR> <P>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <SPAN class=date_text>08-14-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:16 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Why blame the dev's? I never seen a dev say monks were DPS, please link it over to me.<BR>I remember players saying they were dps, and for the the time they said it, they were right.<BR>The manual, the website, everything says Monks are tanks. Blame the players</P> <P>Osiriq, stop embarresing our server. If you wanna wear plate, be a guardian. I prefer the pajama fighter look, one of the top reasons I chose monk. <BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Dandelize on <span class=date_text>08-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:33 AM</span>

[Cwi]

Dandelize I believe you misread my post. =) I am saying the Devs stated we were fighters and that fighters are tanks. I'm saying he <u>can't</u> blame the Devs for starting a Monk thinking they were dps. <div></div>

[Owa]

I suspect the OP was being ironic, what with the focus on tanking and all...

[Ner]

<DIV>HAHA wow just caz we in the fighter class we are tanks haha we are in teh fighter class well maybe caz ahh we fight wow thats a hard one to figure out there aint it. but no alot of ppl thinck just caz monks are in the fighter classs and all the other fighters are tanks so that makes us tanks could it be posable that SoE had not clue were to stick monks so they stuck them there caz they are fighters and monks should not be tank along with bruiser keep it how it was in EQ1 monk are DPS not no paper tank that doges hits wow monks in EQ1 did that and look there DPS..</DIV>

[bonesbro]

Actually, Monks _were_ tanks in EQ1, till warriors complained and they got the crap nerfed out of them. <div></div>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Neroc wrote:<BR> <DIV>HAHA wow just caz we in the fighter class we are tanks haha we are in teh fighter class well maybe caz ahh we fight wow thats a hard one to figure out there aint it. but no alot of ppl thinck just caz monks are in the fighter classs and all the other fighters are tanks so that makes us tanks could it be posable that SoE had not clue were to stick monks so they stuck them there caz they are fighters and monks should not be tank along with bruiser keep it how it was in EQ1 monk are DPS not no paper tank that doges hits wow monks in EQ1 did that and look there DPS..</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Run on sentence?<BR></DIV>

[Cwi]

<div></div><div></div><font size="3"><span></span></font><blockquote><hr>Neroc wrote:<div>HAHA wow just caz we in the fighter class we are tanks haha we are in teh fighter class well maybe caz ahh we fight wow thats a hard one to figure out there aint it. but no alot of ppl thinck just caz monks are in the fighter classs and all the other fighters are tanks so that makes us tanks could it be posable that SoE had not clue were to stick monks so they stuck them there caz they are fighters and monks should not be tank along with bruiser keep it how it was in EQ1 monk are DPS not no paper tank that doges hits wow monks in EQ1 did that and look there DPS..</div><hr></blockquote>Actually, the Devs have always stated that Monks are tanks because they are in the Fighter archtype. I submit the following quotes to support this statement.<font color="#ffffff" size="3">"</font><font size="3">To be clear once again: brawlers are intended to be tanks.</font><font color="#ffffff" size="3">" <a target="_blank" href="message?board.id=6&message.id=13301&query.id=0#M13301">Moorgard March 22, 2005</a></font><font size="3"><span></span></font><font color="#ffffff" size="3">"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="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1&query.id=0#M1">Moorgard Nov 9, 2004</a></font><font color="#ffffff" size="3">"</font><font size="3">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="3">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">" <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=5&message.id=1088&query.id=0#M1088">Moorgard Dec 6, 2004</a></font></font><p>Message Edited by Cwiyk on <span class=date_text>08-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:03 PM</span>

[Mala-Shea]

<P>Yes...blah blah blah...monks/bruisers tanks....blah blah blah...scouts dps...blah blah....thats what is intended.</P> <P>Then why do I regularly out-parse swashies, assassins...(yes....assassins), and even <EM><U>warlocks</U></EM> on single target encounters?</P> <P>I LOVE my monk just the way he is....a bad [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] mofo...can i tank all the raid mobs...no...should I be able to just because I'm a fighter class? NO....I wear leather....not plate. It's just unrealistic and idiotic that I should be mitigating dmg with my cowboy chaps and a leather vest.</P> <P>Smash mobs faces in? Busting bones with our fists and feet? Absolutely! Damaging with sheer physicality and power? Seems more like it, at least more believable than taking a stomp from Vas'Gok while wearing a tea towel.</P> <P> </P> <P>Slappmasterjoe</P> <P>50 Monk</P> <P>Grobb </P> <P> </P>

[Cwi]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Mala-Shea wrote:<p>Yes...blah blah blah...monks/bruisers tanks....blah blah blah...scouts dps...blah blah....thats what is intended.</p><p>Then why do I regularly out-parse swashies, assassins...(yes....assassins), and even <em><u>warlocks</u></em> on single target encounters?</p><p>I LOVE my monk just the way he is....a bad [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] mofo...can i tank all the raid mobs...no...should I be able to just because I'm a fighter class? NO....I wear leather....not plate. It's just unrealistic and idiotic that I should be mitigating dmg with my cowboy chaps and a leather vest.</p><p>Smash mobs faces in? Busting bones with our fists and feet? Absolutely! Damaging with sheer physicality and power? Seems more like it, at least more believable than taking a stomp from Vas'Gok while wearing a tea towel.</p><p>Slappmasterjoe</p><p>50 Monk</p><p>Grobb </p><hr></blockquote></span><p><font face="Arial">I would have to be a Dev to answer questions like "why do monks out dps swashbucklers if we're not supposed to be dps," 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.</font></p><p><font face="Arial">Should Monks be able to mitigate damage as well as a Guardian? Absolutely not. Neither the Devs nor I have ever stated that they should. The Devs <u>have</u> repeatedly stated that all subclasses of an archtype should be able to perform that archtype's role equally well. That means the Devs do believe that Monks should be able to tank as well as Guardians, even against raid mobs. The key is that subclasses are supposed to perform their archtype's role through different means. Guardians were intended to mitigate well and avoid poorly, while Monks were intended to avoid well and mitigate poorly.</font></p><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><div></div>

[KeenaMoonphy]

<DIV>/wrinkles her nose.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Eww, no thank you. Might interfere with my range of motion and flexibility.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Less is DEFINATELY more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>:smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mala-Shea wrote:<BR> <P>Then why do I regularly out-parse swashies, assassins...(yes....assassins), and even <EM><U>warlocks</U></EM> on single target encounters?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because the game is majorly broken and is undergoing a rather massive revamp in an attempt to rebalance the classes.<BR>

[Lebr]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mala-Shea wrote:<BR> <P>Then why do I regularly out-parse swashies, assassins...(yes....assassins), and even <EM><U>warlocks</U></EM> on single target encounters?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because the game is majorly broken and is undergoing a rather massive revamp in an attempt to rebalance the classes.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Then it will get another revamp for the stuff this revamp breaks, then again again............................................. ...........Its the SoE way

[Zetnorr]

<span><blockquote><hr>Neroc wrote:<div>HAHA wow just caz we in the fighter class we are tanks haha we are in teh fighter class well maybe caz ahh we fight wow thats a hard one to figure out there aint it. but no alot of ppl thinck just caz monks are in the fighter classs and all the other fighters are tanks so that makes us tanks could it be posable that SoE had not clue were to stick monks so they stuck them there caz they are fighters and monks should not be tank along with bruiser keep it how it was in EQ1 monk are DPS not no paper tank that doges hits wow monks in EQ1 did that and look there DPS..</div><hr></blockquote><font size="4"><b><font color="#cc0000">Is  English  your  1st language ? If  it  is you  do  a very  poor  job !</font></b></font></span><div></div>

[Almeric_CoS]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lebru1 wrote:<BR><BR>Then it will get another revamp for the stuff this revamp breaks, then again again............................................. ...........Its the SoE way <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Yes, maybe, and you know why?  Because there's <STRONG>no such thing</STRONG> as a finished MMORPG.  You either keep evolving, or you go out of business.</P>