what is the defining ability of a monk ?

[Petit]

Hello, With the combat skills revamp I wonder what will be the defining role of the monk in a group A monk will never be choosen vs a guardian as a main tank A monk will never be choosen vs a dps class for its DPS Imho they need to imagine a real role for all the secondary fighter classes (monk, bruiser, sk, paladin, berserker) and define it quick. I am not sure this problem exists among the DPS (range, melee, nuke) and healers (ward, buff, heal) classes <div></div>

[MadLordOfMilk]

<span><blockquote><hr>Petitlu wrote:A monk will never be choosen vs a guardian as a main tank <hr></blockquote>Tell me a few things... </span> <blockquote>a.) Have you even <i>tested </i>the combat changes? b.) What makes you think that guardians will still be the "be all and end all" of tanking after this revamp? </blockquote> <div></div>

[Petit]

1/ because by definition Monk are supposed to have more DPS and less tanking, and (correct me if I am wrong) Guardian are supposed to have more tanking and less DPS. 2/ If I were a wizard, I would prefer a  guardian as protector instead a Monk No I am not testing the beta, but this board is not reserved to tester only   <div></div>

[MadLordOfMilk]

<div></div><span>If you're not testing the changes, tell me, how do you know that Guardians will be the optimal tank choice as they still are (and Monks are still decent tanks currently, just not against epics)? The way you're putting it, you're basically saying, "Monks are losing DPS and they still can't tank as well as Guardians," yet the problem in that is that, well, not only are the combat changes not even done yet, but there's no telling a monk's usefulness vs a guardian's usefulness as tanks (especially because we know nothing about the various raids and the like in DoF due to the NDA).<blockquote><hr>Petitlu wrote:2/ If I were a wizard, I would prefer a  guardian as protector instead a Monk<hr></blockquote>Elaborate please.</span><span><blockquote><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[NamaeZero]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Petitlu wrote:<BR>Hello,<BR><BR>With the combat skills revamp I wonder what will be the defining role of the monk in a group<BR><BR>A monk will never be choosen vs a guardian as a main tank</P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff>For a Raid? Certainly not at the moment, but the goal of these changes is to make Monks have advantages over Guardians in certain raid situations. In normal grouping, a Monk right now can be superior to a Guardian if the con is not yellow, orange or red. I know because I regularly fight white con stuff that doesn't even hit me for the entire battle.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff>And if you mean after the revamp? They aren't finished with all the changes yet, but it looks like Monk defences are getting even better. It's too early to make a blanket pronouncement like this. Not all the changes are even there.</FONT></P> <P><BR>A monk will never be choosen vs a dps class for its DPS</P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff>Obviously. We aren't a DPS archetype. We are merely on the high end of DPS for Fighters.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff></FONT><BR><BR>Imho they need to imagine a real role for all the secondary fighter classes (monk, bruiser, sk, paladin, berserker) and define it quick.</P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff>What makes Paladins, Bruisers, Shadowknights, and Monks secondary Fighter classes? I missed the part where they made us only second to Berzerkers and Guardians. My understanding is that we're all Fighters, and should be able to engage in our primary role with the same effectiveness, but by different means.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff></FONT><BR><BR>I am not sure this problem exists among the DPS (range, melee, nuke) and healers (ward, buff, heal) classes<BR><BR><FONT face=Verdana color=#66ffff>It doesn't exist for any archtype, to my knowledge. Mages are ranged DPS and quick damage masters. Scouts are melee and ranged DPS and utility masters. Priests are healing and buffing masters. Fighters are all aggro and tanking masters. That's some pretty defined roles, to me.</FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kota]

ok, seriously, if every class had a be-all-end-all defining role, there would be, what...24 defining roles ?  they made the archetype sytem for versatility.  in eq, you couldn't do much of anything challenging w/o a cleric.  this is the type of thing they were trying to get away from.  <div></div>

[Lareal]

  I think it's a valid question. We currently have a valid role on Raids, we stifle better than anyone,  apparently that is changing. And just read that Pali's Rez is getting changed, for the good in small groups, but making it less than optimal for Raids.Yes, I know, "Final changes aren't done yet", blah, blah, I just hope SOE does have a plan for each class to give something unique to a raid. In another thread someone brought up a great point, Tanks don't stack. Yes it's good to have a few Tanks, to Off-tank, back-up tank, etc, but when you have a Good MT, back-up and maybe an off-tank, why bring any others? Healers stack, need quite a few of them, DPS stacks, need several, not so with tanks(if the CURRENT changes go in pretty much as is). All classes need something that they can do that is truly unique in a raid. Currently all the fighter classes can tank small group, and usually group x 2 content. On a raid, Monks can stifle/Deaggro chanters a bit, Palidins have great rezzes, Zerkers shield well + add to overall DPS nicely and can back-up tank pretty well. Not sure of SK/Bruisers because don't have many raiding with the guild. And just a side note, the whole "all in an archetype can fulfill the same role" argument doesn't hold water. People have brought up Chanters and Bards several times, but I haven't seen a single good argument that they fulfill their archetypes roles. Unless Chanters are getting Nukes to equal Wizzies in the revamp, and they and Bards start out-DPSing us then the one role archetype concept is a farce. We desparetly need Bards and Chanters, but we need them to fulfill the enhance others role, so unless they start a new archetype for them, they will never fulfill their archetypes role, and there is no reason for them to. Not saying that Bards and Chanters don't need a little tweaking, just that they aren't the Pure DPS of an Assassin or Wizzie, and I don't think we want them to be. <div></div>

[x0rtrun]

<div></div>Why does it seem like the devs are trying to cram us into their fancy design doc rather than make the game fun and playable? Why do all fighters have to be tanks anyway? Chanters and bards stick out in their archetypes like a sore thumb, why can't we? I'd rather have better defined stances that let me switch from a dps role to a tanking role and less dps in general while leaving everything else pretty much as is. Also, one thing that concerns me is that after the revamp there are going to be a whole lot more tanks around if all the fighters are going to be equally qualified tanks. The supply is gonna go up, and the demand will fall. No one wants me to tank as it is, there's always a plate class at hand. If it wasn't for my dps, I wouldn't have much of a role in groups. Am I going to have something that a guard/zerker, pally/sk doesnt? I'm really anxious to see what the changes bring. I just hope it doesn't make the game less fun. I like it how it is now. I'm comfortable in a dps role with light tanking on the side. I agree our dps is too high, I shouldn't out dps a wizzy, but with the dps of a chanter, what good am I going to be versus a guardian? And ok, what if the guardian isnt the be all end all tank after the update? are they going to get more dps to compensate? or are all fighters going to be the same vanilla tank? <div></div><p>Message Edited by x0rtrunks on <span class=date_text>08-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:29 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> x0rtrunks wrote:<BR> Why does it seem like the devs are trying to cram us into their fancy design doc rather than make the game fun and playable? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The game is broken, its being fixed.  The game is trivial, that is being corrected.  Many classes are useless, which is being addressed; many classes are overpowered, which is being addressed.</P> <P>You can think of it however you wish, but its opinion, not fact.</P> <P>Does change suck?  A lot of times.</P> <P>But this game desperately needs change.<BR></P>

[Nemesis465]

Key ability of the monk....... Is to wear sexy clothing and kick things in the face... yep that about sums it up <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Petit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemesis46567 wrote:Key ability of the monk....... Is to wear sexy clothing and kick things in the face... yep that about sums it up <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div><hr></blockquote> I could not agree more <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Therefore could we have a charm spell at higher level that will stun the ennemy either by envy of all these sexy moves or by fear ? I really fear the changes they are making, and my faith in Eq2 to design 4 really different tanks fun to play and equal needed in group is quite low ...</span><div></div>

[Noo]

<DIV>The main problem in my eyes is that there are a lot lvl 50 monks that never achieved knowledge about the power we already have before the coming changes. If you dont think that we are overpowered atm then i tell you, you never learned how to play your class. Of course, if i would think atm that monks are bad tanks and the only good thing we can do is DPS, then i would fear the changes maybe. But that is not the case. Monks can be pretty good tanks in normal groups + they do the dmg of an ranger. Now we gona get even better abilitys to tank and you want to keep your DPS as it is ? Fair ? NOT.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also why do all classes need their own definition ? You say we arent Tanks, we arent DPS, what are we ? I have no problem to be in the middle of these roles and am able to do a lot of things, just not as perfect as those who just can do one thing. If you want to be pure DPS, or pure Tank, then Monk is the wrong choice and you better start a new toon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Noogi</DIV><p>Message Edited by Noogi on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:07 AM</span>