A large contradiction...

[Ribbitz]

<DIV>Everyone who has read the class descriptions of the monk can see its offensive in nature, being accurate and swift and cunning. That has been argued with the fact its just a fantasy description and holds no merit. Fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone that played EQLive knows most classes are following a simular path they followed in that game in their EQ2 counterparts, just with the new system - but in heart a simular role. Monk being the one difference here now, as monks were certainly strictly DPS in EQLive. The arguement to that has been "this is not EverQuest 1". Sigh, fine I suppose.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, the arguement thus far that has dominated the developers statements have been "fighters are tanks and thats that - all fighters should be tanks, thats the point of being a fighter and thats their role". Here's a quote from the latest developer journal:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>QUOTE:</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#9933cc><STRONG>Class Diversity</STRONG> </FONT></DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT color=#9933cc>First and foremost, we want to ensure that each class has a fun and fulfilling role to play. </FONT></P> <P><EM><FONT color=#9933cc><U>In addressing Class Diversity, we wanted to place a greater emphasis on people's final Subclass selection, focusing less on Archetypal roles than previously</U>.  As one example, very few people start a new game and think to themselves, "I want to be a Generic Mage!"   That's a fun stage to grow through, but not a destination in itself. </FONT></EM></P> <P><FONT color=#9933cc><EM>If a person wants to be a Necromancer, they want to be a Necromancer</EM>.<EM>  There are certain images that conjures up.  <U>The same thing applies when you say the word "Enchanter" to someone who is familiar with EverQuest</U></EM>. <EM> It's our responsibility to ensure that the expectation is met, and the absence of certain abilities is not jarring.  </EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#9933cc>In some cases, we've added entirely new spell lines to classes, and in others we've made them the game-wide experts in existing lines, where previously everyone in their archetype may have had an approximately equal ability.  For other classes, we may have just bumped an emphasis slightly in one direction or another. </FONT></P> <HR> <P>As you can see, according to this developer journal the point of this update is to bring back the spirit of EQ1 (see the Enchanter comment, when I think monk from Eq1 I did not think tank. Sorry!). Plus, diversity among the standard archtypal roles than previously. Well previously our classes had a bigger difference in role! We were DPS and not nearly as good at tankin' as some of the other classes. Now we're all watered down generic tanks.</P> <P>While I can't say how things will end up totally by tomarrow, since I havent touched beta since that aweful patch a few days ago that just totally blew the game into oblivion (which I hear is fixed now, thank god). I do know however, every post prior to this journal said 'fighter is tank, scout is dps, etc etc' making me feel like everything that is monk is just fluff on top of a generic 4-class system. Thats how beta fealt too, to be honest - with some people getting a little deversity - we fighters really didn't. It still boiled down to 'which was the best tank' - not 'all fighters are different roles' - we were all tanks.</P> <P>Just thought I'd point that out, because I totally agree with 99.9% of what I read in this journal - but all the dev posts prior to that were saying something TOTALLY different, so I have to wonder if all the developers involved are even on the same page with this combat update. Had this guy written the design document and it had been stuck to entirely I would be TOTALLY for these combat upgrades. But I feel, from experience, more watering down of class roles was done than actually making them more unique - and every developer again, prior to this journal, has basically said that with their 'fighter = tank' theory.</P> <P>I am looking forward to the CU tomarrow, don't get me wrong. I wish what this journal had said was the case and not so much a contradiction against everything else posted to the public previously, but regardless I may still have fun with these changes. I will merely adept and continue to enjoy the game in my new role (hopefully! As long as I'm not totally useless, hehe). I just did ever-so-much enjoy my more traditional EQ monk role of beating the hell out of a mob with my wicked kung fu, while maintaining some small level of personal survivability over utility or group buffing</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Ribbitz on <span class=date_text>09-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:48 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<P>Monks were originally supposed to be tanks in EQ1, and only got their mitigation nerfed after a bunch of complains, as far as I've read.</P> <P>They recently been given that mitigation back, also.</P>

[Lareal]

Monks in EQ1 were not tanks for the most part Gaige. Uber Monks with some amazing gear eventually became able to Tank well, and that was the original justification given for the nerf. Problem was it didn't affect those Uber monks as hard as it hit the rest of us. And that nerf happened several years after EQlive release btw. The rest of us did ok in XP groups, but I never even heard of a  group saying"We need a tank, Invite that Monk", SKs, Pali's, Rangers, Warriors were tanks for 99% of the game. <div></div>

[Prothos]

<P>In velious/luclin Mnks could tank in EQlive after that I heard a nerf hit I had left before the nerf happened.  But a War was the main tank 90%of the time and plds/sks were the other 10%.  Sks and plds mainly tanked xp grps also not raid targets.  And no one would have invited a mnk in EQlive to be the MT.  </P> <P> </P> <P>Its just the view people still see EQ2 as if it was EQlive and its a misconseption.  Mnks and Bruisers are labled as DPS almost always.  </P> <P> </P> <P>I enjoy my role when playing a DPS and if the MT leaves its also nice to beable to take over for a bit till we can get a new Guardian/Zerker.</P>

[Cisgo]

   As a monk from EQ1 beta, back at start of 1999, I can tell you monks were not tanks, nor were they meant to be. They were lite armor DPS. Due to certain items at that time (which were not meant to be worn by monks), some evolved into a more tanking role, still they were pullers and not the tank of choice.

[bonesbro]

We were pretty good tanks pre-Kunark, and still adequate tanks through Kunark.  Not great, but good enough that the group could still play without a plate tank. <div></div>

[Xxooo-Coav]

<P>From what I saw of monks (my best friend who got me into EQ1 was a monk), they couldnt tank. At the time, it was like saying a druid could be a groups main healer.</P> <P>Now, the druid eventually were given the ability to main heal (not so much in large scale raids, but in groups), however, I never saw a monk tank anything after Howling Stones. Even then, he was a manasink.</P>

[Ribbitz]

<DIV>monks were defenitely, from start to finish, more designed to be DPS and pullers than tanks. They accomplished those roles extremely well, monks DPS was awesome. Never did they accomplish tanking to a degree of a tank class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also note, that as soon as players found a way to tank - it was removed, it was NEVER intended an EQLive monk tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That wasnt the only point of my post though, the primary point isn't to compare EQLive to EQ2 - Although he did say they should have the same roles, as with the enchanter example - but it was to point out he wanted to bring diversity among the main classes (monk, paladin, shadowknight, guardian, etc) but all other dev posts generically say 'fighter = tank'. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's a mixed message that confuses me slightly - As there is no diversity in the later.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do wish there was a way to make both sides happy, I just don't feel it's justified to change the old for those of us happy with our monks. Regardless, again - I will likely very much enjoy tomarrow's update and have fun with the game. I just, however, will not have as much fun as if it were an update that left me in the role I desired when I created my monk to begin with. I made my monk from knowledge of the game as it was, from knowledge of the instruction manual, and my past experience with EQLive monk. Had someone told me 'they're going to get a total change and become a generic fighter' I may or may not have made one, I don't know.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To me, fighters seem amazingly watered down (Which is a shame, since that dev journal made the live update sound so amazingly great - unfortunately those of us that played beta and read other dev posts know that isn't really the case). We seem to all play the exact same role now, nothing too specialized and unique about us <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anywho, look forward to everyones war stories tomarrow. Gluck to everyone <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Ribbitz]

<DIV>I wanted to also stress again a few factors:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I havent played beta since the horrid update. From what I did play of beta prior, the system is MUCH better and the game FEALT much better. The CU is likely going to be a major major major increase in enjoyment for us EQ2ers and monks for the fact its a better system. I'm not 100% sure of that being the case since that patch, but word on the street (er, in the forums) is it was corrected and the issues were resolved and its back to great fun.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, with that being said, the monks group role may or may not have been a major change. I don't know anymore than anyone will til tomarrow when our characters get switched over and we start experiencing the game from our original toons perspectives with the final version of the product.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I normally run with a Fury and play light-tank/DPS role or a guardian and a fury and play pure DPS role, behind the mob unleashing monkish pain. Killing stuff fast has always been my monks forte (and I accomplished the light tanking mainly because I had a fury healing me and I could still kill the mobs quick with stun tactics and getting behimd them unleashing full barrages of our lovely rapid swings tree line among our other big hitters).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My main fear is that when I run with the guardian and fury, I'm going to be a sub-par in that standard 3-way group rather than an essential DPS addition. Granted, if thats the case - I'll be able to tank much better in the monk/fury combo - But I still prefered wacking the mobs dead <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. Really, since I haven't logged into beta since the major changes (that went screwy) I'm not sure where our final DPS to tank ratio landed and I haven't seen any agreement on an answer to that kind of question. Also note, I didn't log in not because I was sour - but because I've been extremely busy with work and havent really got to play my live character all that much either in the past few weeks due to overtime and whatnot (which is nearly over, hurray for me).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anywho, wanted to clear that up so this wasnt mistaken as another thread saying the CU is crap and I want to keel things faster. I am likely going to enjoy the game much more on another level tomarrow, because the system is superior. I will simply miss my role if it changes too drastically and feel slightly less important in my guardian/fury/monk trio group nights if my DPS is more on scale with the guardians now and were both simply two tanks in a pod <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anywho, again - gluck to everyone tomarrow. Be sure to post some findings and whatnot or any neat monkish stuff you discover in DoF! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Hopefully all the hidden content and secrets will be revealed soon, so we can start getting DoF equipped <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Cwi]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Ribbitz wrote:<div><hr></div><div>QUOTE:</div><div><font color="#9933cc"><strong>Class Diversity</strong> </font></div><div><p><font color="#9933cc">First and foremost, we want to ensure that each class has a fun and fulfilling role to play. </font></p><p><em><font color="#9933cc"><u>In addressing Class Diversity, we wanted to place a greater emphasis on people's final Subclass selection, focusing less on Archetypal roles than previously</u>.  As one example, very few people start a new game and think to themselves, "I want to be a Generic Mage!"   That's a fun stage to grow through, but not a destination in itself. </font></em></p><p><font color="#9933cc"><em>If a person wants to be a Necromancer, they want to be a Necromancer</em>.<em>  There are certain images that conjures up.  <u>The same thing applies when you say the word "Enchanter" to someone who is familiar with EverQuest</u></em>. <em> It's our responsibility to ensure that the expectation is met, and the absence of certain abilities is not jarring.  </em></font></p><p><font color="#9933cc">In some cases, we've added entirely new spell lines to classes, and in others we've made them the game-wide experts in existing lines, where previously everyone in their archetype may have had an approximately equal ability.  For other classes, we may have just bumped an emphasis slightly in one direction or another. </font></p><hr><p>As you can see, according to this developer journal the point of this update is to bring back the spirit of EQ1 (see the Enchanter comment, when I think monk from Eq1 I did not think tank. Sorry!). Plus, diversity among the standard archtypal roles than previously. Well previously our classes had a bigger difference in role! We were DPS and not nearly as good at tankin' as some of the other classes. Now we're all watered down generic tanks.<span class="time_text"></span></p></div><hr></blockquote></span><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->I have to disagree with your interpretation of this quote as I think you're taking that one line out of context. I wouldn’t say the Dev meant “the point of this update is to bring back the spirit of EQ1.” More like part of the point of this update is to make sub-classes still perform their archtype role but with more individual flavor. Scott said “focusing less on Archetypal roles than previously” not “doing away with Archtype roles and making each sub-class a class in of itself” as was the case in EQ1.<!-- [endif] --></span></p><p><span>Archtypes are solid part of the "spirit of EQ2" and I see nothing in this dev's journal stating that the Archtype concept is being removed, nothing stating they no longer intend to make all sub-classes perform the role of their Archtype; I do see him state that they intend to make the methods the sub-classes use to perform that role more diverse, to make them perform that role with more flavor. A necromancer and an enchanter can use very different abilities and still perform the same archtype role, and I believe that’s what the dev was trying to communicate.<!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->I do agree with your belief that previously Monks did have a very different purpose than the plate-wearing fighters; but I believe that purpose was derived from players using the tools they had available to them, not from the developers intentions. I don't think the best method of creating diversity among the Fighter sub-classes it to make the plate-wearers the best tanks while making the leather-wearers a DPS class stuck in the wrong Archtype. Nor do I think all the Fighter sub-classes should be watered down and made into generic tanks. <!-- [endif] --></span></p><p><span><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas] -->I think diversity among Fighter sub-classes should mean they do the same jobs, equally well in most cases though some times better or worse depending on certain variables, through using various abilities to accomplish the same tasks. That last part I think is vital, and I think it’s where the developers messed up the first time around. I do think they made the sub-classes use various abilities, but I don’t think they balance them properly. I don’t think Monks should have been doing the amount of DPS that we were as long as we were a sub-class of Fighters, I don’t think Monks should have been as ill suited at tanking epic fights as we were as long as we were a sub-class of the Fighters, and I don’t think any one sub-class should have been always chosen as the best tank for every epic fight as long as there were six Fighter sub-classes.<!-- [endif] --></span></p><p><span>I don't know whether or not the developers have done a proper job of diversifying the Fighter sub-classes this time around. And I don’t really know whether or not the developers have some hidden plan to revert all EQ2 sub-classes back to their EQ1 roles. All I do know, until everything goes live and I can experience it myself, is that from everything I’ve read the Archtype system is still in place and that Monks may actually be filling their proper spot in the Fighter archtype due to the changes.</span></p><span></span><div></div>

[Vorham]

<P>I dunno if EQ1 monks were intended to "tank"... but in raid gear they did fine. Plenty of times would have Monk MT in AA exp groups in fire, earth, water and in places like Kod'taz/Barindu in early GoD.  Not sure what they doin now days tho. On raids they were generally pullers and decent melee dps.</P> <P>Was kind of what I was hopin for in EQ2 but seems they wanted us to tank a lot better and have less dps. I feel they took a step backward as far as class diversity, but I like my bruiser so Ill give the CC a shot.  I don't mind tanking, enjoy it in fact, but it really wasn't the raid role I wanted. </P>

[Nemi]

<DIV>Well in typical SoE fashion, you can read into that quote what you will.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Focusing on sub-class and less of archtype to prevent GenericMage/Tank/Scout/Priest comment can be read in many ways:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) The Guardian approach</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All fighters are now being remodelled on their subclasses and as such only the Guardian will be raid tank, the rest will be a mix of buff/heal/dps classes</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Nemi's interpretation</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All subclasses will have their own distinct flavour and will be unique in that. Monks will tank with avoidance, stuns, 360 parry and skills such as tsunami. Paladins will heal and ward themselves.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[RipFlex]

<P>Wow, is it only EQers believing Monks are not suppose to be tanks.  Strange, are there no room for Dodging Tanks?  I played othe MMOs not EQanything, and I made Monks with dodging abilities to avoid physical and Magical (including AoE) attacks... just when they fail they take most the damage.  In Ragnarok Online played an Assassin and a Monk that only gotten hit 5% of the time from anything but the last 4 Uber Boss monsters.  Sadly this is not so in EQ World, want to tank must buy uber expensive Boat Anchor armour and get hit all the time?   Why this relunctance to accept a Dodging Tank... why does this seem unfair to everyone?</P> <P>I'm just curious why this one track mind of what a Tank should be?</P> <P>In Dungeons and Dragons I can make a Tank from any type of Fighter type builds based on Avoiding the hits or Taking them or a Balance of both?</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by RipFlex on <span class=date_text>09-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:49 AM</span>

[Jobeson]

I tank all the time as it is before this update.  loot runs and such adds on a raid that get loose ect.  If they woulda made a monk a guardian from the get go it would be fine instead I make a character who is part a better tank than a dps class and less dps than a dps class fitting what I believe is a great roll for a monk.  Fitting the DESCRIPTION soe gave me when I rolled a monk back in the day.  Now they instead of slightly uping our tanking ability we are being turned into 100% tank with no dps.  It is not the class I made when I started.  It is not the class description I was givin.  Its not that a monk should never be a tank but that a year down the road they get rid of a class all together and put in a new one.  That is why I am [Removed for Content].  <div></div>

[RipFlex]

<P>Well I came to thinking... be nice to scale the Fighter Tankability and have it out in the open from DEVs that this group can do this and this group can do that so when looking for a Tank, people just fall to the "Better Safe than Sorry" Berzerker/Guardians.</P> <P>My general Idea :</P> <P>Monk/Bruisers  - Can Tank any x2 mobs </P> <P>Shadow Knight/Palladin - Can Tank up to x3 mobs</P> <P>Berzerker/Guardian - Can Tank up to x4 mobs</P> <P> </P> <P>This way the Population will know what the Fighter Archetype limits are and select the available Fighter Type than just Guardians (The preceived Safest).</P> <P>I picked the Monk because I did not want to do End Game Raids... but I still want to do Dungeon and Instanced runs like Nek Castle 2, Permafrost Runs, Runny Eye Runs, SE, CT... you know the Non-RAID instances where I can still get Master chest drops for time to time and have fun being MT, but yet not be center of Attention to all RAID content like I would be if I made a Guardian?</P> <P>May have limited Tanking ability but made up with maybe more damage and utilities?</P> <P>BTW I have done many x2 epics as MT and obtain the odd master 1s and Fabled item drops as well as Rare harvest drop substitudes without hitting the RAID mobs.  I find those runs with 1 full group just as exciting.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[bonesbro]

I think that the most interesting separation between the tanks is in their taunts.  The warrior specialty taunts give a chance to proc a taunt whenever they are hit.  That is best against a group of mobs, and provides the least value against a single target.  Our specialty taunt gives us a chance to proc a taunt whenever we hit a mob.  That should provide significantly more tauntage against a single target (because we're hitting more than we're being swung at, right?) but against multiple mobs our specialty taunt doesn't help much.  The crusader specialty taunt siphons agro from someone else.  I don't know enough about them to know how great that is, but it seems decent.  Also, they seem to have the best ways to generate cross-encounter agro by healing and warding. In a way, it's similar to the priests.  They've got some diversity in what their non-healing spells do (some have more buffs, or debuffs, or nukes/dots) but all of them have a few healing lines.  Their biggest diversity, at least as far as fulfilling their healing role, comes from their specialty heals.  Likewise, tanks are primarily defined by their ability to hold agro and to die slowly while holding it, and the most important part of holding agro will be our specialty taunts. <div></div>

[SniperKitty]

<div></div><hr><i><font color="#ffff00">Orginally quoted by: RipFlex</font></i><font color="#ffff00"></font><font color="#ffff00"></font><font color="#ffff00">My general Idea :</font><p><font color="#ffff00">Monk/Bruisers  - Can Tank any x2 mobs</font><font color="#ffff00"></font><font color="#ffff00">Shadow Knight/Paladin - Can Tank up to x3 mobs</font><font color="#ffff00"></font><font color="#ffff00">Berzerker/Guardian - Can Tank up to x4 mobs</font></p><hr><p>You're wrong.  That's not the way it should be.  It should be thus:</p><p>Fighter - Can tank any mob, solo to heroic to x2 to x3 to x4.</p>

[Xxooo-Coav]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR> <HR> <I><FONT color=#ffff00>Orginally quoted by: RipFlex</FONT></I><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>My general Idea :</FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Monk/Bruisers  - Can Tank any x2 mobs</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Shadow Knight/Paladin - Can Tank up to x3 mobs</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Berzerker/Guardian - Can Tank up to x4 mobs</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <P>You're wrong.  That's not the way it should be.  It should be thus:<BR></P> <P>Fighter - Can tank any mob, solo to heroic to x2 to x3 to x4.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I dont think he was saying it was right, he was saying that is pretty much how its been.</P> <P>Any White/yellow/orange/red con ^^ or higher would eat through my monk like nothing; as if my avoidance didnt mean anything.</P> <P>That is where a plate tank comes in. If they cant avoid, they can absorb much better than we can. </P> <P>If this changes with DoF, more power to us.  = )</P>

[Bladewind]

As far as diversity among archetypes, I'll agree with a few of the above posters and say that I read it as the archetype will still have the same function (in the case of fighters, tanking), but each class/subclass will tank in different ways - brawlers via avoidance, warriors via straight mitigation, and crusaders via mitigation and self-healing.  The diversity is not in the end function, but in the means of achieving the end function.  I did not read anything in the above developer quotes that led me to believe there is a new trend to revert EQ2 classes to EQ1 roles nor that the archetype philosophy, which has been in place since day one, is being removed.

[Ceist X'Ta]

The thing that has always killed me about tanking are the damage spikes. Its not to say that "our style" of tanking isn't good enough for raids, but that with our style of tanking has to come a different style of support. Your healers and such have to be prepaired for the 1 time in 10 you get hit, but that one time does 2/3rds your health in damage, vs a Guardian who may get 9 times out of 10, but only take 40%, 30%, or 20% of the damage you do. Oh and EQ1 Monks weren't tanks, even beta they weren't tanks, but with the right gear they could..<nerf>  and then they couldn't. <adjustment> then they could <nerf> then they couldn't.. <change> then they sort of maybe could, but were doing so much damage who the hell wanted to tank <span>:smileywink:</span> myself find no satisfaction in saying "I can Tank", to me just something you get stuck doing becuase no one else wants to.. i would much rather do damage.. <div></div>