Are Monks as avoidance oriented as implied by the dev's? - Page 3

RafaelSmith · 03-23-2005, 07:01 PM

For what its worth I justed wanted to chime in agine. The more and more I think about it I do believe that my Guardian buffs should not buff Defense to the degree they do. We should be masters of mitigation and our buffs should be along those lines. Of course before any changes in regards to mitigation/avoidance for tanks is made SOE really needs to first fix priests and healing. The problem currently is that my mitigation is essentially 0% when it comes to specials..if all the sudden I am not "avoiding" those specials like I currently do...its gonna be hard for priests as they currently are to keep me up. The majority of healing in this game doesnt handle huge spike dmg very well from what ive seen. They also need to look at non-melee mitigation...i.e magic, etc dmg cause as far as I can tell my resists/armor do nothing against those. IMHO The Priest Archetype is in far worse shape than the Figher. With the exception of a few raid mobs all fighters can tank effectively. From what ive seen (mostly from the viewpoint of my girlfriends Fury) at the higher levels priests are really way out of balance in terms of filling thier primary role. I really really hope SOE takes their time with all this...cause mitigation/avoidance/healing are the core of the game mechanics... I dont want to find outselvs back in EQ1 days where I need a chain of priests to keep me alive.

Darkd · 03-23-2005, 08:16 PM

My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such.

ArivenGemini · 03-23-2005, 08:27 PM

Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such.

When I play my monk I am the MT 85% of the time.. the only times I off-tank are when there is a higher level tank in the group. When I have played my inquisitor I usually prefer the highest level tank in the group to be MT unless he proves to be totally incompetant... and this means if the monk or bruiser is highest, they tank... and if the highest doesnt tank (while being competant) I wont be in the group... its easier for me to deal with keeping him alive.

SageMarrow · 03-23-2005, 08:50 PM

i tank often, about 50/50.

the only thing is that yeah, after the 2 months of class balancing act... there will be another 6 months of education of every single player that doesnt play his monk like a tank, and all the healers, and all the scouts. and everyone else in a group who should tend to nominate a MT out of the choices they are given.

and even though some such as jezekiel get the chance to do so within raiding guilds and such, by the time in question roles around and we are all running around geity like small school girls because we are level 50... (before expansion 1 with more levels) - we still wont get the chance to raid tank either, because by then = some guardian with a full set of raid armor, every raid shield and raid weapon on the market in every type slashing piercing etc, that has done every raid in game 15 times, will be readily available...

and all the bickering wouldve been for naught.

but hey... on with the show.

bonesbro · 03-23-2005, 09:22 PM

Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such.

I tank about a third of the time. While I do a good job at it, tanking is a lot of work and much more keyboard mashing and mouse movement - I won't tank for more than two hours a day. It's bad on my RSI. My alt is a Warlock for that reason SMILEY

Uggok · 03-23-2005, 09:33 PM

I am new to EQ2, but it seems to me that balancing mitigation tanks and avoidance tanks by raw damage taken over time still ends up giving avoidance tanks the short end of the stick.

If a mob hits for 100 base and you have 200 hit points and a healer or two, it is much better to take these 10 hits:

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

than it is to take these 10 hits:

0 0 0 0 100 100 100 0 0 0

The mitigator took more almost double the damage of the avoider, but the mitigator's group won't wipe, but the avoider's group might well wipe.

Streak damage always seems to make avoidance based tanks less valuable unless they avoid a lot more than a mitigator mitigates, especially on raids where you plan you healing to heal the worst possible round of damage. Like I said, I am new to the game, so there may be some mechanic I am not aware of that ameliorates this issue in EQ2.

EvilIguana9 · 03-23-2005, 09:37 PM

[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] it. I wrote out a very long detailed and well thought out response. I was logged in to the forum. I hit post, it told me to login, ate up everything I had typed, and threw me into the forum main. There goes an hour of my life.

ugl · 03-23-2005, 09:40 PM

Moorgard,

Since you seem to have finally came out and decided your going to blow the lid off this can of worms, I am going to send this post to you. This way I will KNOW that you understand how balance works, and how it is perceived by the player base. My advise to you is to tread lightly on this issue, as a large portion of your player base resides in this archtype. Throw in the scout archtype, and your could very well end up with a lot of angry players. Nerfs/adjustments come with a price, and it looks like it’s a price your more then willing to pay judging from recent patches.

Fighters are interested and balanced by 4 variables. How you adjust these 4 variables determines the “balance”. If you give one type of fighter a little more in one area, they need to be adjusted in one of the other areas to “balance” it.

1) Tanking- Avoidance/mitigation, how its done doesn’t matter to us. The ability in totality to take a punch from mob is the prime interest of fighters. Tanking is a role reserved for only 1 class in most 6 man exp groups, as well as only 1 or 2 classes in a 24 man raid. Only 1 person takes a hit, and the tank is it. Very limited role, but a very important one.

2) DPS - Fighters are interested in DPS to help them fulfill roles in groups/raids, as there is such a small need for the tank Role. The ability to be taken into a group as a DPS/backup tank is not to be ignored. Without it, there would be a lot of tanks LFG, which there are right now. Please not, this also treads on the scout archtype, and bad adjustment here can be stepping on their toes, as most scouts have forgone tanking ability in order to be “the best” at DPS.

3) Taunting/Aggro management - All the tanking ability in the world means jack if the mob is not hitting the tank. Aggro management is a prime concern for a tank, the better it is, the more the rest of the group can pour it on the mob. If agro management is weak, then all the ability of #1 are moot. If you’re a invincible tank, you are worthless if you cannot control agro.

4) Utility > this area covers everything else. Raid buffs, damage spells, heals, wards, horses, mend, safefall, feign death, etc. One raid buff can make a tank worthwhile for raids, even with there shoddy DPS or no need for a second tank.

Balancing these 4 things between the fighter classes IS the definition of class balance. If you give a little bit in one area to one class, it has to be appropriated in another area. I REALLY hope you understand this

The fighter classes as they are perceived now. NOTE: Most players playing now chose there class from the way it stands NOW.

1) Guardian- The best at #1, secound best at #3, but the worst in utility and DPS of the fighter classes.   If other fighters are equal at #1 and #3, yet are better at DPS and utility, the guardian class is null and void.

2) Beserkers- Secound best at #1, but just by a slim margin. (guardians have a small edge on tanking compared to zerks) They tank almost identically to their guardian counterparts. At #2, DPS, they are also very good at it, stepping into scout damage territory with their ability to lay down heavy AE damage. Outdamaging monks/bruisers and some scouts in many situations. 3) Aggro management, they have a stranglehold on Aggro control, and are hands down the best at it, bar none.   Utility, I am not sure about, but I believe they actually up the damage of those around them as well.   Zerkers can fill the tank role easily in groups/raids, as well as fill the DPS role in group raids.    [Removed for Content] you all were thinking when it comes to zerkers and balance I have no idea.

3) Paladins- They come in tied at third place in tanking ability. (with their utility abilities however, they are very close to #1 at tanking) (see paladin boards for details) DPS is somewhat lacking, so I will put them beside guardians at the bottom of the totem pole for that. Not real sure what damage they can put out however. #3, agro control, is not a problem for them at all, although no where near as good as zerkers, they are very close if not equal to the guardian in this area. Utilities? This is where they really shine, with heals/wards/horses etc. Their utility is what lets them tank as well as guardians and zerkers, as wards/self heals make them as good as zerkers/guardians at their ability to take a punch.

4) Shadow Knights> Very good at #1 (tanking) (tied with paladins, except when the paladins utilities kick in), Very good at #2 (DPS), but for god sakes could ya take a look at whatever utilities and such are broken with them? They have been begging you since they game opened up and you haven’t even thrown them a bone. SK are pretty much the same as a paladin in all areas, except their utilities and such are not near as good, which is why most of them are mad. You gave the Paladins rocking utilities, while ya gave these guys broken ones. Try and fix the anti paladin, ok? Throw em some love. Heals/wards > gimped lifetaps/ But, again, very viable at tanking and DPS, but maybe somewhat lacking in the utilities area.

5) Monks> DPS on and in some cases more then scouts bretheren, while retaining tanking abilities on par with the other fighters. They can tank anything in the game quite well, with the exception of some epic mobs. With stacked defense buffs they can probably do this too. Nice utilities, including safefall, mend, Feigh death,etc. They are many times chosen for raids and groups for their DPS, but they can also fill the tank role quite well. Lots of flexability for them to find groups and raids.

6) Bruisers> See monks above. Have slightly more DPS, and about the same tanking abilities. They are flexable, and can fulfill the tank or DPS spots in groups. Their DPS is stepping in the scout realm as well, and they are also able to tank anything in the game outside of epic mobs.

Ok, now that you know where it stands now, and seeing that your going to make some of these classes even MORE viable at #1 (tanking), you must also keep in mind where they stand at #2, #3, #4. Also, understand, the role of TANK only has 1 spot in a 6 man group, and maybe 2 spots in a raid. Healers got as many spots as they can fit in a raid, and two spots for most 6 man groups. DPS have 3 to 4 Spots in groups, and as many as you can squeeze into a raid. If your adjustments negates some of these fighters at fulfilling their possible roles as DPS, your are going to make a lot of competition for those limited amount of tank spots, while possibly negating their ability to fulfill the many available DPS spots.

Good luck on your “adjustments”, half of your player base will be watching this very closely. Not only the fighters, but the scouts as well. If one fighter can tank as well as another fighter, yet have MORE DPS/utility/agro control, you will have a unbalance. If some fighters can adequalty tank yet do DPS on par with scouts, you have a unbalance.

Right NOW, you have glaring unbalance. Some of your fighters are very good at tanking, as well as DPS, agro control, and utilities. Others are only good in 1 or two areas. If you make all fighters are equal at #1 , they must also be equally balanced at 2, 3 and 4, or a combination of these. Also, I cannot stress this enough, there is a limited need for a tank in both groups, and even more so in raids.. They got ONE spot. If all fighters are only good at fulfilling the tank role, and not good at fulfilling a DPS role, your going to have a lot of people competing for that 1 and only perceived spot. Which means everyone that does not get that one spot are going to be standing at the docks with LFG on. When you open this can of worms, chances are (with your previous track record on balance, and as the balance is presently,) it is going to get very ugly

Message Edited by uglak on 03-23-2005 08:52 AM

Death4 · 03-23-2005, 09:40 PM

Gage-Mikel wrote:

Some guardian comments about the changes:

TunaBoo wrote:
Hit L to see defense.. mroe defense = more avoidance, it is the guardian form of deflection buffs.

English Da Guard wrote:

You realize he said he was self buffed. Heck I can add ~400 to my mitigation and over 7% to avoidance self buffed. Make sure you compare your numbers with his when he isn't buffed so it is apples to apples.

I mean with a shield and self buffed I am basically 70% avoidance. That's from ~57% when not buffed and no shield.

I'm at about 76% self buffed or so, with about 1775 mitigation. I'm not sure what his mitigation is, but I assume its over 2k.

RafaelSmith wrote:
These numbers really are starting to depress me.

At level 38 my mitigation shows something around 1800ish....when holding the mouse cursor over it it says i mitigate 49%. That seems low.

My avoidance is much higher than i expected...
So in essense I am a avoidance tank way before I am a mitigation tank.

So my mitigation is about on par with a lvl 38 guardian, which I would be ok with if my avoidance was better by the same amount, unfortunately, it isn't.

TunaBoo wrote:
Selff buffed I avoid 68% mitigate 73% (with uebr gear)

So I have about a ~8% lead in avoidance over Tuna and his mitigation is ~50% better than mine. (estimates).

Sazzabi8 wrote:
I was showing 100% avoidance raid buffed today, with around 4300 mitigation at the highest.

Heh. The mitigation I'm fine with, that is *their* niche. 100% avoidance from a guardian seems a little crazy to me though. With stone stance I can reach this level of mitigation though (when grouped with two furies ~ haven't had a lot of time to test yet).

ThramFalcox wrote:

If you add about 30 def from various sources, avoidance makes a huge jump into the 90% area. This confirms that defensive effects are magnified depending on the level of the opponent. With enough defense you can turn an even con opponent effectively gray thus the huge jump. Before 30ish (havent tested for the exact number) the jump is only a few %.

Add enough defense and even yellows can't hit you...

Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation.

The way defense works right now is not only trivializing content, its blurring the skills that supposedly seperate the classes.

(Note: I'm only using guardians as my example because they have a ton of defense skill buffs ~ please realize that just as agility affected every class, this defense skill problem does also. With the right group/raid setup you could theoretically buff up any classes defensive skill enough for them to become unhittable). <-If this is really your case, address this in your 2.5k posts of guardian trolling.

Gilgalon wrote:
Is it just me or does anyone else think the above sounds like a bug? Defense modifies avoidance?

No, its not just you. I personally wanna see what Moorgard says. Is this intended?

Lastly:

Belgorim wrote:
Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit.

If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess.

That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes.

Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right?

The thing you cease to understand is you're 76% avoidance without a shield...You get to pound out awesome dps without having to worry about that crap. You avoid just as well, if not better. Spider's Stance buffs Defense by 15. That's THREE levels of defense if you couldn't count. Guardian buffs give roughly +14 - 15 Defense as well but the thing we have over you isn't class wise. It's Race wise. Most Guardians pick a race with +5 Defense racial trait, thus making us have a higher buffed defense. All the other defensive buffs come from other classes so I really cease to understand your argument.

If you're going to complain about avoidance why don't you post your Base Avoidance and compare it to a Guardians? If you forgot, Avoidance comes from Base, Shield, Parry, and Deflection. So if you scream nerf avoidance without looking at possibly Base's being too high, Parry buffs too high, shield bonuses too high, whatever, you, more so than already, look like a tool. Personally, I think you were just beaten with the jealous stick.

potatotr0ll · 03-23-2005, 09:58 PM

I say this as a lvl 23 Guardian. Currently, at my level I know for a fact i'm not overpowered. THis is with self-buffs and being buffed by others. My monk, well same issue as everyone else. He gets pummeled constantly.

Solution to Gaurdians: Limit how high Avoidance can get for plate-wearers. Increase Monk/Bruiser Deflection skill. THis way it wont be a massive nerf to Gaurdians and other plate/shield wearers, and will get them to a realistic level. As for Monk/Bruiser deflection, i just say give them the effectiveness of either a kite or tower shield of their level instead of a round shield. And maybe add a little bit more on top of that.

Mie · 03-23-2005, 10:13 PM

ok, SOE giving themself trouble. No problem

There have a Brusier weapon proc 600+ , now Brusier/Monk can tank , mend, dps, mez, fear, FD.

Fine. At the day come, no value for all Heavy armor user to exist. SOE will know "Brewler are tank" is wrong.

JuJut · 03-23-2005, 10:19 PM

Mielx wrote:

ok, SOE giving themself trouble. No problem

There have a Brusier weapon proc 600+ , now Brusier/Monk can tank , mend, dps, mez, fear, FD.

Fine. At the day come, no value for all Heavy armor user to exist. SOE will know "Brewler are tank" is wrong.

?

Mie · 03-23-2005, 10:20 PM

It seem who cry out loud and clear , who won.

Maybe brusier/monk should use a shield later. Oh wait , the SBS status overpower for brusier.

Velor · 03-23-2005, 10:22 PM

uglak wrote:

Moorgard,

Since you seem to have finally came out and decided your going to blow the lid off this can of worms, I am going to send this post to you. This way I will KNOW that you understand how balance works, and how it is perceived by the player base. My advise to you is to tread lightly on this issue, as a large portion of your player base resides in this archtype. Throw in the scout archtype, and your could very well end up with a lot of angry players. Nerfs/adjustments come with a price, and it looks like it’s a price your more then willing to pay judging from recent patches.

While I know the intent of your post is good, you come off a little condescending, which is kinda humorous given Moorgard's background.

I think the 5+ years experience that he has as a player of Everquest as well as acting as a media correspondent for the game to a very popular website that he created from scratch proves that Moorgard does indeed know the game, know the company's philosphies, and knows how balance works in a MMO. Most importantly, I think he has a pretty good grasp of what is best for the long term health of the game.

Azazel-Defia · 03-23-2005, 11:08 PM

uglak wrote:

available DPS spots.

Good luck on your “adjustments”, half of your player base will be watching this very closely. Not only the fighters, but the scouts as well. If one fighter can tank as well as another fighter, yet have MORE DPS/utility/agro control, you will have a unbalance. If some fighters can adequalty tank yet do DPS on par with scouts, you have a unbalance.

Message Edited by uglak on 03-23-2005 08:52 AM

I wanted to point out that this part of your post is not necessarily the truth. Damage is the most far reaching ability in the game, for any one group, Archetype, or class to hold the title "Absolute Best" at this is what causes imbalance in the game. As you correctly stated, damage is the ability that gets players the majority of spots in a group or raid.

In fact if fighters were closer in DPS to scouts the distribution of desired classes would come closer to being balanced. Instead of the pass/fail choice system that exists now. Example:

Generic Fighter001 (LFG) lvl 40

Generic Scout001 (LFG) lvl 40

Conversation in Group -"Who does more damage?"......."Scout."...."By Far."......."Get the Scout."........Conversation ends, decision time =5 seconds.

Example 2, Fighter DPS is more respectable compared to the scout.

Conversation in group- "Who does more damage?"......."Scout"......"It's close." ....."Hmm"........ Conversation continues- "Do we need an off tank?"......."Extra evac is always good." ...... "The group buffs the fighter has may be useful." ....... " Doesn't that scout's attacks have debuffs? That could help." ...."Pick one and let's go."

In example 2 the final decision on who gets a spot in the group is going to rest on the unique needs of the group, and it could even be based off personal preference of the players. If we assume the main defining abilities of a class are , damage absorption, healing, utility, damage then we can determine what abilities will define roles in groups.

Spot 1 Main Tanks- Will always be chosen on damage absorption.

Spot 2 Main healers- Will always be chosen on healing ability.

Spots 3-4- Are chosen by a comparison of the combination of healing, utility, and damage. With each ability being considered nearly equally.

Spots 5-6 Are chosen by a comparison of the combination of healing, utility, and damage. With damage being by far the most important. If a class cant put up respectable damage numbers they will never be considered for these last two spots. Despite their incredible healing and utility, priests do not get these last two spots, they get spots 2-4.

Kinda off topic but I wanted to point this out and help add some to your argument, which I like. Check out my balance post in this same forum and you will see our thinking runs a similar course.

Azazel

Nek

potatotr0ll · 03-23-2005, 11:09 PM

I think one of the main issues to this whole thing is the way that everything is tied together. As seen in last week's patch where they reduced the mob's offensive abilities between lvls 15-31, they figured out that AC was linked to a mob's offensive abiltiy of the same level. The implementation of the combat system in general is completely messed up. I know that at the time coding was being done, it all looked like a good idea, but not much thought of future problems was put into it it seems.

Basiclly, like Moorgard stated, if any kind of stat is shifted in the current setup, it will shift something else to "balance" it back to way it currently works. It seems that way too many things in the combat system are linked. This brings me back to my thoughts on the fact that mobs are not on an even playing field as players. If a lvl 15 warrior mob has around the same HP, Defense, and damage capabilities as a lvl 15 warrior PC, then they would not need to implement an odd combat system such as this.

I do realize that people want this issue addressed, and it will be in due time. I know this is a lingering issue, I have a monk and a guardian. But honestly, I say revamp the whole combat system, otherwise we will keep running into these such problems. Balance the mobs to the PCs, not Balance the PCs according to some random number, and a mob's damage capability for that person's level.

Message Edited by potatotr0ll on 03-23-2005 01:10 PM

EvilIguana9 · 03-23-2005, 11:19 PM

/off-topic

Plate armor does indeed add to ones ability to avoid damage in reality. What plate armor does is make a number of attacks that could have been painful or potentially fatal, essentially worthless versus the knight. The enemy combatant has fewer avenues of attack against the armored knight because he must change his tactics to focus on going after the weak points in the armor, such as the neck, the visor, or joints at the shoulder and knees. It’s a lot harder to hit these points so he will miss more often. Furthermore, attacks that would have lacerated or sheared off skin now glance harmlessly across the steel plating, effectively negating them. Not to mention the fact that the armor does not prevent the knight from using his sword and shield to block attacks just as well as anyone else on the battlefield. A suit of plate armor weighed maybe 50 lbs, and only slightly limited freedom of movement. It worked well until gunpowder based small arms became commonplace.

/on-topic

D&D actually handled monks and fighters the opposite way that EQ 2 does. Fighters typically had higher AC which negated attacks completely, but monks had some innate damage reduction, IE mitigation, to make up for their inability to wear armor. It wouldn’t be too out of character to suggest that monks, who can punch solid metal or stone without breaking their knuckles, can mitigate damage to the rest of their body the same way. After all, they are not merely frail humans anymore, monks are every bit as magical as a sorcerer, they just happen to channel the energy into themselves rather than outward.

However, I propose a different solution that differentiates the fighter class tree along some well defined strengths and weaknesses. My version is as follows:

Start off by setting all fighters to have the same unadjusted avoidance and mitigation. From there specific abilities will augment this.

Warriors – Warriors are the vanilla tank so to speak. They receive an innate bonus to their mitigation over other fighters. They are endurance tanks because their skills are efficient and reliable, if not necessarily flashy or instantaneously powerful.

-Guardians receive abilities that help them protect their group from attack

-Berserkers receive abilities that enhance their group’s ability to deal damage

Crusaders – Crusaders augment their ability to tank with relatively powerful spells and combat arts. Using these skills they can exceed the effectiveness of other fighters for as long as their power pool lasts. Without the use of their skills and spells they are at a slight disadvantage, so running out of power, being stunned to a point where they can’t cast much, or being stifled limits their effectiveness.

-Paladins receive heals and defensive buffs for themselves and their groups.

-Shadow knights use lifetaps and stat debuffs on the enemy

Brawlers – Brawlers excel at avoiding attacks, including special and magical abilities. They get a bonus to their avoidance and the focused will necessary to avoid detrimental effects such as spell damage, stuns/knockdowns, stifling, etc.

-Monks have skills that allow them to better shield themselves and their groupmates from harmful effects.

-Brawlers focus on combat abilities that interrupt, stun, stifle, or otherwise degrade the enemy’s ability to fight.

I just don’t want to see my overall effectiveness as a paladin change much. I think paladins are pretty much right where we need to be as far as general utility goes. Can solo well, but not ridiculously well, can tank just fine for groups, but not too fine. Hopefully we can move other classes to a point where they feel comfortable with their abilities as well. The only hitch in my class definition plan is that it requires some thought in assigning abilities to mobs. There have to be different types of fights out there to give the different classes opportunities to shine. For most situations any fighter can fill the role just fine, they’ll just take a bit more damage in some fights and a bit less in others. Raid encounters tend to push the limit to the point that you’d want to develop a strategy around the class best suited for the type of encounter: warriors for long fights with melee mobs, brawlers for encounters heavy on enemies with special attacks, and crusaders for short intense battles and those where their abilities will not be impeded. Crusaders will probably be the trickiest to balance overall because there is a very fine line to balance power with limitations. If the encounters are hard enough that no crusader no matter how skilled can get any necessary spells off then it doesn’t matter how powerful they are. On the other hand if the spells are too powerful then any time the crusader can cast he could trivialize the encounter.

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 11:20 PM

Darkdog wrote:
My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Or maybe you could just uninstall the game.

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone refute a dev's statement about our role.

We aren't scouts, thanks.

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 11:23 PM

uglak wrote:

1) Guardian- The best at #1, secound best at #3, but the worst in utility and DPS of the fighter classes. If other fighters are equal at #1 and #3, yet are better at DPS and utility, the guardian class is null and void.

Exaggerate much? Guardians have some of the best offtank buffs in the game and when dual wielding and actually using combat arts, your DPS is not that horrible.

I know you want your utility and DPS to be observed that way of course, but its about time to just give it up.

Shadow Sc · 03-23-2005, 11:24 PM

wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area?

If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right?

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 11:29 PM

Shadow Scar wrote:

wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area?

If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right?

Where did Moorgard say we are getting the tanking ability of guardians? He didn't.

As it stands guardians are using our ability (avoidance) more than we are.

kerra · 03-23-2005, 11:32 PM

Shadow Scar wrote:

wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area?

If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right?

I would trade it in a second. They can have the dps if I could tank a Epic raid mob.

Message Edited by kerra on 03-23-2005 10:33 AM

ugl · 03-23-2005, 11:33 PM

Azazel

I agree with you. A DPS fighter could have equal damage to a scout, and a scouts much desired utilites could balance that out.

(Tracking, invis, group invis, and evac are very desired by groups)

Too bad solid posts on topic of the discussion will be clouded with Gage "one liners" throughout this thread.

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 11:35 PM

uglak wrote:
Azazel

I agree with you. A DPS fighter could have equal damage to a scout, and a scouts much desired utilites could balance that out.

(Tracking, invis, group invis, and evac are very desired by groups)

Too bad solid posts on topic of the discussion will be clouded with Gage "one liners" throughout this thread.

Nah. I just hate that you guys try to play off your DPS (plenty of guards have parsed consistently over 100 in offtank roles) as totally worthless. Its supposed to be the lowest in the archetype, but the difference in DPS done does not equal the difference in tanking ability at all.

Besides our DPS is our trade off for a lack of taunts, not mitigation.

Oh, and you guys get VERY good off tank buffs that buff up the MT. In fact some of the best in our archetype. It just appears that some are broken, or that since guardians hardly ever do anything besides MT they don't know how good they are.

With Shrug Off being nerfed your buffs just became that much better.

In fact I was tanking last night with a 50 guardian buffing me and I was doing a much better job than w/o his buffs.

I mean, look what you guys get:

Sentinel 20 Allows guardian to sometimes absorb all damage a nearby ally would otherwise take.

Allay 21 Allows a guardian to sometimes parry or block damage directed at his target. The guardian must remain nearby.

Call of Command 24 Increases parry skill of party.

Battle Cry 26 Increases the groups armor class and grants an increase in stamina.

Never Surrender 32 Allows guardian to shield their ally from attacks and increases their parry skill.

SafeguardProtection 34 Allows a guardian to sometimes absorb all the damage a nearby ally would have taken.

Commanding Presence 40 Increases the group armor class, hit points and stamina

Guardian Sphere Protection 50 Allows the guardian to sometimes absorb damage dealt to the group.

So to say you have the "worst" utility is certainly stretching it on your part. You have buffs that make the MT way better as well as helping to protect and increase the defensive capabilities of the entire group.

You also have your fair share of Combat Arts designed to do damage (including AoE's). You have a few slows and debuffs, you can dual wield...

I don't see your class being tank or useless, sorry.

In fact the two I highlighted while on a monk/bruiser would almost certainly make them an excellent tank, raid or otherwise.

Do you even realize how much that would help to lessen the spikes we take?

Those two spells, especially the one where you take the ENTIRE brunt of the damage are worthless when you are MT.

So while you guys have no problem with the bruiser class using Shrug Off on you, you have a problem returning the favor in an OT role yourself?

Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on 03-23-2005 10:55 AM

RadricTyc · 03-23-2005, 11:39 PM

SageMarrow wrote:

radric... why does everyone take the time to single out everything i say....

Because you respond to every post with meaningless and incorrect statements, perpetually. People are calling you on it. Case in point, your next statement.

SageMarrow wrote:

what does the word REALLY... mean to you? to me it implies, it can be used for that purpose but in some cases can be used for others.

re·al·ly
adv.

In actual truth or fact: The horseshoe crab isn't really a crab at all.
Truly; genuinely: That was a really enjoyable evening.
Indeed: Really, you shouldn't have done it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=really

Sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what it means, not me.

SageMarrow wrote:
So keep in mind whatever change they make will matter MOUNDS, they are going to have to make either a gamebreaking decision or a archetype breaking one. id rather it be archetype before game breaking. and if anyone has a problem with that- sue me.

I think you're full of crap. Nothing has to be broken. If one player wants to run around in gleaming platemail with enormous shields, swingling a firey longsword, while another wants to use his bear fists while wearing robes, that is a matter of taste, and certainly not a matter of breaking the game or even the archetype if the two are equal in stature.

Honestly what difference does it make who is the tank for a raid? Why would you stop fighters from being the tank for a raid? Why would you even suggest that one subclass should be THE ONLY subclass to be able to perform this role? Let's make templars the only healer for raids, no one else gets to come. Let's make wizards the only nukers. Let's make assassins the only melee DPS. Boy! these sound like GREAT ideas.

You need to realize that allowing only one class to perform a single function in the game is ITSELF GAME BREAKING! Conversely, I will agree that people need to be able to fill more than one role so that no one is pigeon holed. This includes Guardians. Guardians should have the ability to do DPS if they are not tanking. And so far as I have seen, they can. If it needs to be upped a little bit, fine. But using that "we have low DPS" card to maintain the top tank spot is just asking for more arguments. Fighters should be valuable for the tank-buffs and damage they bring to a group, assuming they are not the main tank.

No fighter should ever be gated from fighter content. Since they are tanks, any fighter should be valuable as a tank, even in raids.

kerra · 03-23-2005, 11:59 PM

Seems that no one has said TY to Neverlift for starting a forum that actually brought some positive attention to the Monk forums.

Neverlift good job bro thank you this should be a good move in the right direction for our class.

Wilin · 03-24-2005, 12:33 AM

Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation.

This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem?

In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the guardian can turn the monk into a super tank.

I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back.

Gaige · 03-24-2005, 12:40 AM

Wilin wrote:

Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation.

This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem?

In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the guardian can turn the monk into a super tank.

I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back.

See, I knew guardians like you exist.

FamilyManFir · 03-24-2005, 12:53 AM

Wilin wrote:
... Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem?

...

Nice post, Wilin. Thoughtful and polite. Just want you to know I appreciate that. :smileyhappy: I think that it should work this way: Guardians need their buffs to tank well. Monks need their buffs to tank well. Guardian buffs will make a Monk tank even better. Monk buffs will make a Guardian tank even better. As it is, a Guardian can tank really well by him/herself. A Monk needs a Guardian to be able to tank really well. IMHO that's not right.

ArivenGemini · 03-24-2005, 12:55 AM

Gage-Mikel wrote:

Those two spells, especially the one where you take the ENTIRE brunt of the damage are worthless when you are MT.

To be honest, they have great utility to me... I like to intervene/ward/etc the healers and if possible the v light armor wearers in my group... simply so that if an add comes along on them I have more time to peel it off them while fighting their hate on the creature... if I have an off tank in the group I want them doing the same on the ones I cant get covered.. this tactic has helped me as MT on more than one occaision..

03-23-2005, 07:01 PM	#61
RafaelSmith Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,808	For what its worth I justed wanted to chime in agine. The more and more I think about it I do believe that my Guardian buffs should not buff Defense to the degree they do. We should be masters of mitigation and our buffs should be along those lines. Of course before any changes in regards to mitigation/avoidance for tanks is made SOE really needs to first fix priests and healing. The problem currently is that my mitigation is essentially 0% when it comes to specials..if all the sudden I am not "avoiding" those specials like I currently do...its gonna be hard for priests as they currently are to keep me up. The majority of healing in this game doesnt handle huge spike dmg very well from what ive seen. They also need to look at non-melee mitigation...i.e magic, etc dmg cause as far as I can tell my resists/armor do nothing against those. IMHO The Priest Archetype is in far worse shape than the Figher. With the exception of a few raid mobs all fighters can tank effectively. From what ive seen (mostly from the viewpoint of my girlfriends Fury) at the higher levels priests are really way out of balance in terms of filling thier primary role. I really really hope SOE takes their time with all this...cause mitigation/avoidance/healing are the core of the game mechanics... I dont want to find outselvs back in EQ1 days where I need a chain of priests to keep me alive. __________________

03-23-2005, 08:27 PM	#63
ArivenGemini Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,260	Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. When I play my monk I am the MT 85% of the time.. the only times I off-tank are when there is a higher level tank in the group. When I have played my inquisitor I usually prefer the highest level tank in the group to be MT unless he proves to be totally incompetant... and this means if the monk or bruiser is highest, they tank... and if the highest doesnt tank (while being competant) I wont be in the group... its easier for me to deal with keeping him alive. __________________

03-23-2005, 09:22 PM	#65
bonesbro Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 651	Darkdog wrote:My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. I tank about a third of the time. While I do a good job at it, tanking is a lot of work and much more keyboard mashing and mouse movement - I won't tank for more than two hours a day. It's bad on my RSI. My alt is a Warlock for that reason __________________ Legond of Najena, Monk Ancient.

03-23-2005, 09:40 PM	#69
Death4 Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 37	Gage-Mikel wrote: Some guardian comments about the changes: TunaBoo wrote: Hit L to see defense.. mroe defense = more avoidance, it is the guardian form of deflection buffs. English Da Guard wrote: You realize he said he was self buffed. Heck I can add ~400 to my mitigation and over 7% to avoidance self buffed. Make sure you compare your numbers with his when he isn't buffed so it is apples to apples. I mean with a shield and self buffed I am basically 70% avoidance. That's from ~57% when not buffed and no shield. I'm at about 76% self buffed or so, with about 1775 mitigation. I'm not sure what his mitigation is, but I assume its over 2k. RafaelSmith wrote: These numbers really are starting to depress me. At level 38 my mitigation shows something around 1800ish....when holding the mouse cursor over it it says i mitigate 49%. That seems low. My avoidance is much higher than i expected... So in essense I am a avoidance tank way before I am a mitigation tank. So my mitigation is about on par with a lvl 38 guardian, which I would be ok with if my avoidance was better by the same amount, unfortunately, it isn't. TunaBoo wrote: Selff buffed I avoid 68% mitigate 73% (with uebr gear) So I have about a ~8% lead in avoidance over Tuna and his mitigation is ~50% better than mine. (estimates). Sazzabi8 wrote: I was showing 100% avoidance raid buffed today, with around 4300 mitigation at the highest. Heh. The mitigation I'm fine with, that is their niche. 100% avoidance from a guardian seems a little crazy to me though. With stone stance I can reach this level of mitigation though (when grouped with two furies ~ haven't had a lot of time to test yet). ThramFalcox wrote: If you add about 30 def from various sources, avoidance makes a huge jump into the 90% area. This confirms that defensive effects are magnified depending on the level of the opponent. With enough defense you can turn an even con opponent effectively gray thus the huge jump. Before 30ish (havent tested for the exact number) the jump is only a few %. Add enough defense and even yellows can't hit you... Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation. The way defense works right now is not only trivializing content, its blurring the skills that supposedly seperate the classes. (Note: I'm only using guardians as my example because they have a ton of defense skill buffs ~ please realize that just as agility affected every class, this defense skill problem does also. With the right group/raid setup you could theoretically buff up any classes defensive skill enough for them to become unhittable). <-If this is really your case, address this in your 2.5k posts of guardian trolling. Gilgalon wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else think the above sounds like a bug? Defense modifies avoidance? No, its not just you. I personally wanna see what Moorgard says. Is this intended? Lastly: Belgorim wrote: Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit. If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess. That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes. Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right? The thing you cease to understand is you're 76% avoidance without a shield...You get to pound out awesome dps without having to worry about that crap. You avoid just as well, if not better. Spider's Stance buffs Defense by 15. That's THREE levels of defense if you couldn't count. Guardian buffs give roughly +14 - 15 Defense as well but the thing we have over you isn't class wise. It's Race wise. Most Guardians pick a race with +5 Defense racial trait, thus making us have a higher buffed defense. All the other defensive buffs come from other classes so I really cease to understand your argument. If you're going to complain about avoidance why don't you post your Base Avoidance and compare it to a Guardians? If you forgot, Avoidance comes from Base, Shield, Parry, and Deflection. So if you scream nerf avoidance without looking at possibly Base's being too high, Parry buffs too high, shield bonuses too high, whatever, you, more so than already, look like a tool. Personally, I think you were just beaten with the jealous stick.

03-23-2005, 09:58 PM	#70
potatotr0ll Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 70	I say this as a lvl 23 Guardian. Currently, at my level I know for a fact i'm not overpowered. THis is with self-buffs and being buffed by others. My monk, well same issue as everyone else. He gets pummeled constantly. Solution to Gaurdians: Limit how high Avoidance can get for plate-wearers. Increase Monk/Bruiser Deflection skill. THis way it wont be a massive nerf to Gaurdians and other plate/shield wearers, and will get them to a realistic level. As for Monk/Bruiser deflection, i just say give them the effectiveness of either a kite or tower shield of their level instead of a round shield. And maybe add a little bit more on top of that. __________________ ================================================== ======== Gusty - Bruiser - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server Fazzel Bazzfazzel - Coercer - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server Kilimar Cruor - Berserker - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server Fusty Brummajum - Brigand - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server

03-23-2005, 08:16 PM	#62
Darkd Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 140	My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such.

03-23-2005, 08:50 PM	#64
SageMarrow Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 958	i tank often, about 50/50. the only thing is that yeah, after the 2 months of class balancing act... there will be another 6 months of education of every single player that doesnt play his monk like a tank, and all the healers, and all the scouts. and everyone else in a group who should tend to nominate a MT out of the choices they are given. and even though some such as jezekiel get the chance to do so within raiding guilds and such, by the time in question roles around and we are all running around geity like small school girls because we are level 50... (before expansion 1 with more levels) - we still wont get the chance to raid tank either, because by then = some guardian with a full set of raid armor, every raid shield and raid weapon on the market in every type slashing piercing etc, that has done every raid in game 15 times, will be readily available... and all the bickering wouldve been for naught. but hey... on with the show.

03-23-2005, 09:33 PM	#66
Uggok Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2	I am new to EQ2, but it seems to me that balancing mitigation tanks and avoidance tanks by raw damage taken over time still ends up giving avoidance tanks the short end of the stick. If a mob hits for 100 base and you have 200 hit points and a healer or two, it is much better to take these 10 hits: 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 than it is to take these 10 hits: 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 The mitigator took more almost double the damage of the avoider, but the mitigator's group won't wipe, but the avoider's group might well wipe. Streak damage always seems to make avoidance based tanks less valuable unless they avoid a lot more than a mitigator mitigates, especially on raids where you plan you healing to heal the worst possible round of damage. Like I said, I am new to the game, so there may be some mechanic I am not aware of that ameliorates this issue in EQ2.

03-23-2005, 09:37 PM	#67
EvilIguana9 General Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 477	[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] it. I wrote out a very long detailed and well thought out response. I was logged in to the forum. I hit post, it told me to login, ate up everything I had typed, and threw me into the forum main. There goes an hour of my life.

03-23-2005, 09:40 PM	#68
ugl Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 230	Moorgard, Since you seem to have finally came out and decided your going to blow the lid off this can of worms, I am going to send this post to you. This way I will KNOW that you understand how balance works, and how it is perceived by the player base. My advise to you is to tread lightly on this issue, as a large portion of your player base resides in this archtype. Throw in the scout archtype, and your could very well end up with a lot of angry players. Nerfs/adjustments come with a price, and it looks like it’s a price your more then willing to pay judging from recent patches. Fighters are interested and balanced by 4 variables. How you adjust these 4 variables determines the “balance”. If you give one type of fighter a little more in one area, they need to be adjusted in one of the other areas to “balance” it. 1) Tanking- Avoidance/mitigation, how its done doesn’t matter to us. The ability in totality to take a punch from mob is the prime interest of fighters. Tanking is a role reserved for only 1 class in most 6 man exp groups, as well as only 1 or 2 classes in a 24 man raid. Only 1 person takes a hit, and the tank is it. Very limited role, but a very important one. 2) DPS - Fighters are interested in DPS to help them fulfill roles in groups/raids, as there is such a small need for the tank Role. The ability to be taken into a group as a DPS/backup tank is not to be ignored. Without it, there would be a lot of tanks LFG, which there are right now. Please not, this also treads on the scout archtype, and bad adjustment here can be stepping on their toes, as most scouts have forgone tanking ability in order to be “the best” at DPS. 3) Taunting/Aggro management - All the tanking ability in the world means jack if the mob is not hitting the tank. Aggro management is a prime concern for a tank, the better it is, the more the rest of the group can pour it on the mob. If agro management is weak, then all the ability of #1 are moot. If you’re a invincible tank, you are worthless if you cannot control agro. 4) Utility > this area covers everything else. Raid buffs, damage spells, heals, wards, horses, mend, safefall, feign death, etc. One raid buff can make a tank worthwhile for raids, even with there shoddy DPS or no need for a second tank. Balancing these 4 things between the fighter classes IS the definition of class balance. If you give a little bit in one area to one class, it has to be appropriated in another area. I REALLY hope you understand this The fighter classes as they are perceived now. NOTE: Most players playing now chose there class from the way it stands NOW. 1) Guardian- The best at #1, secound best at #3, but the worst in utility and DPS of the fighter classes. If other fighters are equal at #1 and #3, yet are better at DPS and utility, the guardian class is null and void. 2) Beserkers- Secound best at #1, but just by a slim margin. (guardians have a small edge on tanking compared to zerks) They tank almost identically to their guardian counterparts. At #2, DPS, they are also very good at it, stepping into scout damage territory with their ability to lay down heavy AE damage. Outdamaging monks/bruisers and some scouts in many situations. 3) Aggro management, they have a stranglehold on Aggro control, and are hands down the best at it, bar none. Utility, I am not sure about, but I believe they actually up the damage of those around them as well. Zerkers can fill the tank role easily in groups/raids, as well as fill the DPS role in group raids. [Removed for Content] you all were thinking when it comes to zerkers and balance I have no idea. 3) Paladins- They come in tied at third place in tanking ability. (with their utility abilities however, they are very close to #1 at tanking) (see paladin boards for details) DPS is somewhat lacking, so I will put them beside guardians at the bottom of the totem pole for that. Not real sure what damage they can put out however. #3, agro control, is not a problem for them at all, although no where near as good as zerkers, they are very close if not equal to the guardian in this area. Utilities? This is where they really shine, with heals/wards/horses etc. Their utility is what lets them tank as well as guardians and zerkers, as wards/self heals make them as good as zerkers/guardians at their ability to take a punch. 4) Shadow Knights> Very good at #1 (tanking) (tied with paladins, except when the paladins utilities kick in), Very good at #2 (DPS), but for god sakes could ya take a look at whatever utilities and such are broken with them? They have been begging you since they game opened up and you haven’t even thrown them a bone. SK are pretty much the same as a paladin in all areas, except their utilities and such are not near as good, which is why most of them are mad. You gave the Paladins rocking utilities, while ya gave these guys broken ones. Try and fix the anti paladin, ok? Throw em some love. Heals/wards > gimped lifetaps/ But, again, very viable at tanking and DPS, but maybe somewhat lacking in the utilities area. 5) Monks> DPS on and in some cases more then scouts bretheren, while retaining tanking abilities on par with the other fighters. They can tank anything in the game quite well, with the exception of some epic mobs. With stacked defense buffs they can probably do this too. Nice utilities, including safefall, mend, Feigh death,etc. They are many times chosen for raids and groups for their DPS, but they can also fill the tank role quite well. Lots of flexability for them to find groups and raids. 6) Bruisers> See monks above. Have slightly more DPS, and about the same tanking abilities. They are flexable, and can fulfill the tank or DPS spots in groups. Their DPS is stepping in the scout realm as well, and they are also able to tank anything in the game outside of epic mobs. Ok, now that you know where it stands now, and seeing that your going to make some of these classes even MORE viable at #1 (tanking), you must also keep in mind where they stand at #2, #3, #4. Also, understand, the role of TANK only has 1 spot in a 6 man group, and maybe 2 spots in a raid. Healers got as many spots as they can fit in a raid, and two spots for most 6 man groups. DPS have 3 to 4 Spots in groups, and as many as you can squeeze into a raid. If your adjustments negates some of these fighters at fulfilling their possible roles as DPS, your are going to make a lot of competition for those limited amount of tank spots, while possibly negating their ability to fulfill the many available DPS spots. Good luck on your “adjustments”, half of your player base will be watching this very closely. Not only the fighters, but the scouts as well. If one fighter can tank as well as another fighter, yet have MORE DPS/utility/agro control, you will have a unbalance. If some fighters can adequalty tank yet do DPS on par with scouts, you have a unbalance. Right NOW, you have glaring unbalance. Some of your fighters are very good at tanking, as well as DPS, agro control, and utilities. Others are only good in 1 or two areas. If you make all fighters are equal at #1 , they must also be equally balanced at 2, 3 and 4, or a combination of these. Also, I cannot stress this enough, there is a limited need for a tank in both groups, and even more so in raids.. They got ONE spot. If all fighters are only good at fulfilling the tank role, and not good at fulfilling a DPS role, your going to have a lot of people competing for that 1 and only perceived spot. Which means everyone that does not get that one spot are going to be standing at the docks with LFG on. When you open this can of worms, chances are (with your previous track record on balance, and as the balance is presently,) it is going to get very ugly Message Edited by uglak on 03-23-2005 08:52 AM

03-23-2005, 10:13 PM	#71
Mie Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 65	ok, SOE giving themself trouble. No problem There have a Brusier weapon proc 600+ , now Brusier/Monk can tank , mend, dps, mez, fear, FD. Fine. At the day come, no value for all Heavy armor user to exist. SOE will know "Brewler are tank" is wrong.

03-23-2005, 10:19 PM	#72
JuJut Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 143	Mielx wrote: ok, SOE giving themself trouble. No problem There have a Brusier weapon proc 600+ , now Brusier/Monk can tank , mend, dps, mez, fear, FD. Fine. At the day come, no value for all Heavy armor user to exist. SOE will know "Brewler are tank" is wrong. ?

03-23-2005, 10:20 PM	#73
Mie Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 65	It seem who cry out loud and clear , who won. Maybe brusier/monk should use a shield later. Oh wait , the SBS status overpower for brusier.

03-23-2005, 10:22 PM	#74
Velor Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 166	uglak wrote: Moorgard, Since you seem to have finally came out and decided your going to blow the lid off this can of worms, I am going to send this post to you. This way I will KNOW that you understand how balance works, and how it is perceived by the player base. My advise to you is to tread lightly on this issue, as a large portion of your player base resides in this archtype. Throw in the scout archtype, and your could very well end up with a lot of angry players. Nerfs/adjustments come with a price, and it looks like it’s a price your more then willing to pay judging from recent patches. While I know the intent of your post is good, you come off a little condescending, which is kinda humorous given Moorgard's background. I think the 5+ years experience that he has as a player of Everquest as well as acting as a media correspondent for the game to a very popular website that he created from scratch proves that Moorgard does indeed know the game, know the company's philosphies, and knows how balance works in a MMO. Most importantly, I think he has a pretty good grasp of what is best for the long term health of the game.

03-23-2005, 11:08 PM	#75
Azazel-Defia Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 46	uglak wrote: available DPS spots. Good luck on your “adjustments”, half of your player base will be watching this very closely. Not only the fighters, but the scouts as well. If one fighter can tank as well as another fighter, yet have MORE DPS/utility/agro control, you will have a unbalance. If some fighters can adequalty tank yet do DPS on par with scouts, you have a unbalance. Message Edited by uglak on 03-23-2005 08:52 AM I wanted to point out that this part of your post is not necessarily the truth. Damage is the most far reaching ability in the game, for any one group, Archetype, or class to hold the title "Absolute Best" at this is what causes imbalance in the game. As you correctly stated, damage is the ability that gets players the majority of spots in a group or raid. In fact if fighters were closer in DPS to scouts the distribution of desired classes would come closer to being balanced. Instead of the pass/fail choice system that exists now. Example: Generic Fighter001 (LFG) lvl 40 Generic Scout001 (LFG) lvl 40 Conversation in Group -"Who does more damage?"......."Scout."...."By Far."......."Get the Scout."........Conversation ends, decision time =5 seconds. Example 2, Fighter DPS is more respectable compared to the scout. Conversation in group- "Who does more damage?"......."Scout"......"It's close." ....."Hmm"........ Conversation continues- "Do we need an off tank?"......."Extra evac is always good." ...... "The group buffs the fighter has may be useful." ....... " Doesn't that scout's attacks have debuffs? That could help." ...."Pick one and let's go." In example 2 the final decision on who gets a spot in the group is going to rest on the unique needs of the group, and it could even be based off personal preference of the players. If we assume the main defining abilities of a class are , damage absorption, healing, utility, damage then we can determine what abilities will define roles in groups. Spot 1 Main Tanks- Will always be chosen on damage absorption. Spot 2 Main healers- Will always be chosen on healing ability. Spots 3-4- Are chosen by a comparison of the combination of healing, utility, and damage. With each ability being considered nearly equally. Spots 5-6 Are chosen by a comparison of the combination of healing, utility, and damage. With damage being by far the most important. If a class cant put up respectable damage numbers they will never be considered for these last two spots. Despite their incredible healing and utility, priests do not get these last two spots, they get spots 2-4. Kinda off topic but I wanted to point this out and help add some to your argument, which I like. Check out my balance post in this same forum and you will see our thinking runs a similar course. Azazel Nek

03-23-2005, 11:09 PM	#76
potatotr0ll Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 70	I think one of the main issues to this whole thing is the way that everything is tied together. As seen in last week's patch where they reduced the mob's offensive abilities between lvls 15-31, they figured out that AC was linked to a mob's offensive abiltiy of the same level. The implementation of the combat system in general is completely messed up. I know that at the time coding was being done, it all looked like a good idea, but not much thought of future problems was put into it it seems. Basiclly, like Moorgard stated, if any kind of stat is shifted in the current setup, it will shift something else to "balance" it back to way it currently works. It seems that way too many things in the combat system are linked. This brings me back to my thoughts on the fact that mobs are not on an even playing field as players. If a lvl 15 warrior mob has around the same HP, Defense, and damage capabilities as a lvl 15 warrior PC, then they would not need to implement an odd combat system such as this. I do realize that people want this issue addressed, and it will be in due time. I know this is a lingering issue, I have a monk and a guardian. But honestly, I say revamp the whole combat system, otherwise we will keep running into these such problems. Balance the mobs to the PCs, not Balance the PCs according to some random number, and a mob's damage capability for that person's level. Message Edited by potatotr0ll on 03-23-2005 01:10 PM __________________ ================================================== ======== Gusty - Bruiser - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server Fazzel Bazzfazzel - Coercer - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server Kilimar Cruor - Berserker - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server Fusty Brummajum - Brigand - Wildfire Revolution - Butcherblock Server

03-23-2005, 11:19 PM	#77
EvilIguana9 General Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 477	/off-topic Plate armor does indeed add to ones ability to avoid damage in reality. What plate armor does is make a number of attacks that could have been painful or potentially fatal, essentially worthless versus the knight. The enemy combatant has fewer avenues of attack against the armored knight because he must change his tactics to focus on going after the weak points in the armor, such as the neck, the visor, or joints at the shoulder and knees. It’s a lot harder to hit these points so he will miss more often. Furthermore, attacks that would have lacerated or sheared off skin now glance harmlessly across the steel plating, effectively negating them. Not to mention the fact that the armor does not prevent the knight from using his sword and shield to block attacks just as well as anyone else on the battlefield. A suit of plate armor weighed maybe 50 lbs, and only slightly limited freedom of movement. It worked well until gunpowder based small arms became commonplace. /on-topic D&D actually handled monks and fighters the opposite way that EQ 2 does. Fighters typically had higher AC which negated attacks completely, but monks had some innate damage reduction, IE mitigation, to make up for their inability to wear armor. It wouldn’t be too out of character to suggest that monks, who can punch solid metal or stone without breaking their knuckles, can mitigate damage to the rest of their body the same way. After all, they are not merely frail humans anymore, monks are every bit as magical as a sorcerer, they just happen to channel the energy into themselves rather than outward. However, I propose a different solution that differentiates the fighter class tree along some well defined strengths and weaknesses. My version is as follows: Start off by setting all fighters to have the same unadjusted avoidance and mitigation. From there specific abilities will augment this. Warriors – Warriors are the vanilla tank so to speak. They receive an innate bonus to their mitigation over other fighters. They are endurance tanks because their skills are efficient and reliable, if not necessarily flashy or instantaneously powerful. -Guardians receive abilities that help them protect their group from attack -Berserkers receive abilities that enhance their group’s ability to deal damage Crusaders – Crusaders augment their ability to tank with relatively powerful spells and combat arts. Using these skills they can exceed the effectiveness of other fighters for as long as their power pool lasts. Without the use of their skills and spells they are at a slight disadvantage, so running out of power, being stunned to a point where they can’t cast much, or being stifled limits their effectiveness. -Paladins receive heals and defensive buffs for themselves and their groups. -Shadow knights use lifetaps and stat debuffs on the enemy Brawlers – Brawlers excel at avoiding attacks, including special and magical abilities. They get a bonus to their avoidance and the focused will necessary to avoid detrimental effects such as spell damage, stuns/knockdowns, stifling, etc. -Monks have skills that allow them to better shield themselves and their groupmates from harmful effects. -Brawlers focus on combat abilities that interrupt, stun, stifle, or otherwise degrade the enemy’s ability to fight. I just don’t want to see my overall effectiveness as a paladin change much. I think paladins are pretty much right where we need to be as far as general utility goes. Can solo well, but not ridiculously well, can tank just fine for groups, but not too fine. Hopefully we can move other classes to a point where they feel comfortable with their abilities as well. The only hitch in my class definition plan is that it requires some thought in assigning abilities to mobs. There have to be different types of fights out there to give the different classes opportunities to shine. For most situations any fighter can fill the role just fine, they’ll just take a bit more damage in some fights and a bit less in others. Raid encounters tend to push the limit to the point that you’d want to develop a strategy around the class best suited for the type of encounter: warriors for long fights with melee mobs, brawlers for encounters heavy on enemies with special attacks, and crusaders for short intense battles and those where their abilities will not be impeded. Crusaders will probably be the trickiest to balance overall because there is a very fine line to balance power with limitations. If the encounters are hard enough that no crusader no matter how skilled can get any necessary spells off then it doesn’t matter how powerful they are. On the other hand if the spells are too powerful then any time the crusader can cast he could trivialize the encounter.

03-23-2005, 11:20 PM	#78
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Darkdog wrote: My question is how often do Monks /Bruisers tank? Everytime I group with one they are always DD and when asked to tank they even state "I am not a tank". I think the best option would be to remove these subclasses from the Tank class and just except the fact that they are a dps class. Just because a developer invisions these 2 subclasses as tanks doesnt mean the community as a whole will accept them as such. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Or maybe you could just uninstall the game. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone refute a dev's statement about our role. We aren't scouts, thanks. __________________

03-23-2005, 11:23 PM	#79
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	uglak wrote: 1) Guardian- The best at #1, secound best at #3, but the worst in utility and DPS of the fighter classes. If other fighters are equal at #1 and #3, yet are better at DPS and utility, the guardian class is null and void. Exaggerate much? Guardians have some of the best offtank buffs in the game and when dual wielding and actually using combat arts, your DPS is not that horrible. I know you want your utility and DPS to be observed that way of course, but its about time to just give it up. __________________

03-23-2005, 11:24 PM	#80
Shadow Sc General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 11	wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area? If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right?

03-23-2005, 11:29 PM	#81
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Shadow Scar wrote: wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area? If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right? Where did Moorgard say we are getting the tanking ability of guardians? He didn't. As it stands guardians are using our ability (avoidance) more than we are. __________________

03-23-2005, 11:32 PM	#82
kerra Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 249	Shadow Scar wrote: wow lots of nice stats on monk vs guardian in the tanking area, But where is the stats on monk vs guardian in the dps area? If your going to get the tanking ability of a guardian you should also get the utility and dps of them as well right? I would trade it in a second. They can have the dps if I could tank a Epic raid mob. Message Edited by kerra on 03-23-2005 10:33 AM

03-23-2005, 11:33 PM	#83
ugl Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 230	Azazel I agree with you. A DPS fighter could have equal damage to a scout, and a scouts much desired utilites could balance that out. (Tracking, invis, group invis, and evac are very desired by groups) Too bad solid posts on topic of the discussion will be clouded with Gage "one liners" throughout this thread.

03-23-2005, 11:35 PM	#84
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	uglak wrote: Azazel I agree with you. A DPS fighter could have equal damage to a scout, and a scouts much desired utilites could balance that out. (Tracking, invis, group invis, and evac are very desired by groups) Too bad solid posts on topic of the discussion will be clouded with Gage "one liners" throughout this thread. Nah. I just hate that you guys try to play off your DPS (plenty of guards have parsed consistently over 100 in offtank roles) as totally worthless. Its supposed to be the lowest in the archetype, but the difference in DPS done does not equal the difference in tanking ability at all. Besides our DPS is our trade off for a lack of taunts, not mitigation. Oh, and you guys get VERY good off tank buffs that buff up the MT. In fact some of the best in our archetype. It just appears that some are broken, or that since guardians hardly ever do anything besides MT they don't know how good they are. With Shrug Off being nerfed your buffs just became that much better. In fact I was tanking last night with a 50 guardian buffing me and I was doing a much better job than w/o his buffs. I mean, look what you guys get: Sentinel 20 Allows guardian to sometimes absorb all damage a nearby ally would otherwise take. Allay 21 Allows a guardian to sometimes parry or block damage directed at his target. The guardian must remain nearby. Call of Command 24 Increases parry skill of party. Battle Cry 26 Increases the groups armor class and grants an increase in stamina. Never Surrender 32 Allows guardian to shield their ally from attacks and increases their parry skill. SafeguardProtection 34 Allows a guardian to sometimes absorb all the damage a nearby ally would have taken. Commanding Presence 40 Increases the group armor class, hit points and stamina Guardian Sphere Protection 50 Allows the guardian to sometimes absorb damage dealt to the group. So to say you have the "worst" utility is certainly stretching it on your part. You have buffs that make the MT way better as well as helping to protect and increase the defensive capabilities of the entire group. You also have your fair share of Combat Arts designed to do damage (including AoE's). You have a few slows and debuffs, you can dual wield... I don't see your class being tank or useless, sorry. In fact the two I highlighted while on a monk/bruiser would almost certainly make them an excellent tank, raid or otherwise. Do you even realize how much that would help to lessen the spikes we take? Those two spells, especially the one where you take the ENTIRE brunt of the damage are worthless when you are MT. So while you guys have no problem with the bruiser class using Shrug Off on you, you have a problem returning the favor in an OT role yourself? Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on 03-23-2005 10:55 AM __________________

03-23-2005, 11:39 PM	#85
RadricTyc Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 362	SageMarrow wrote: radric... why does everyone take the time to single out everything i say.... Because you respond to every post with meaningless and incorrect statements, perpetually. People are calling you on it. Case in point, your next statement. SageMarrow wrote: what does the word *REALLY... mean to you? to me it implies, it can be used for that purpose but in some cases can be used for others. re·al·ly* adv. In actual truth or fact: The horseshoe crab isn't really a crab at all. Truly; genuinely: That was a really enjoyable evening. Indeed: Really, you shouldn't have done it. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=really Sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what it means, not me. SageMarrow wrote: So keep in mind whatever change they make will matter MOUNDS, they are going to have to make either a gamebreaking decision or a archetype breaking one. id rather it be archetype before game breaking. and if anyone has a problem with that- sue me. I think you're full of crap. Nothing has to be broken. If one player wants to run around in gleaming platemail with enormous shields, swingling a firey longsword, while another wants to use his bear fists while wearing robes, that is a matter of taste, and certainly not a matter of breaking the game or even the archetype if the two are equal in stature. Honestly what difference does it make who is the tank for a raid? Why would you stop fighters from being the tank for a raid? Why would you even suggest that one subclass should be THE ONLY subclass to be able to perform this role? Let's make templars the only healer for raids, no one else gets to come. Let's make wizards the only nukers. Let's make assassins the only melee DPS. Boy! these sound like GREAT ideas. You need to realize that allowing only one class to perform a single function in the game is ITSELF GAME BREAKING! Conversely, I will agree that people need to be able to fill more than one role so that no one is pigeon holed. This includes Guardians. Guardians should have the ability to do DPS if they are not tanking. And so far as I have seen, they can. If it needs to be upped a little bit, fine. But using that "we have low DPS" card to maintain the top tank spot is just asking for more arguments. Fighters should be valuable for the tank-buffs and damage they bring to a group, assuming they are not the main tank. No fighter should ever be gated from fighter content. Since they are tanks, any fighter should be valuable as a tank, even in raids.

03-23-2005, 11:59 PM	#86
kerra Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 249	Seems that no one has said TY to Neverlift for starting a forum that actually brought some positive attention to the Monk forums. Neverlift good job bro thank you this should be a good move in the right direction for our class.

03-24-2005, 12:33 AM	#87
Wilin Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,151	Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation. This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem? In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the guardian can turn the monk into a super tank. I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back. __________________

03-24-2005, 12:40 AM	#88
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Wilin wrote: Monk avoidance is awesome in a group if there's a guardian in the group also. A guardian's buffs make a monk a better tank...period. Between the call series, do or die series, battle series, never surrender, and safeguard series. A Monk is a fantastic tank if the guardian is guarding him. Most of these add avoidance(to an already higher base avoidance on the monk) and mitigation. This seems to be more of an issue where the monks want to tank as well as a guardian without needing a guardian. Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem? In a group dynamic, if a group needs a tank and wants more DPS, they take a monk, if they want more tankage, they take a guardian, and if they want both dps and more tankage, they have to have 2 slots open in the group so that the guardian can turn the monk into a super tank. I don't have a problem buffing the hell out of a monk and watching him/her go toe to toe with something while I whip out the 2H/DW and rip into it's back. See, I knew guardians like you exist. __________________

03-24-2005, 12:53 AM	#89
FamilyManFir Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 499	Wilin wrote: ... Guardians need their buffs to tank well, monks need guardian buffs to tank well. What is the problem? ... Nice post, Wilin. Thoughtful and polite. Just want you to know I appreciate that. :smileyhappy: I think that it should work this way: Guardians need their buffs to tank well. Monks need their buffs to tank well. Guardian buffs will make a Monk tank even better. Monk buffs will make a Guardian tank even better. As it is, a Guardian can tank really well by him/herself. A Monk needs a Guardian to be able to tank really well. IMHO that's not right.

03-24-2005, 12:55 AM	#90
ArivenGemini Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,260	Gage-Mikel wrote: Those two spells, especially the one where you take the ENTIRE brunt of the damage are worthless when you are MT. To be honest, they have great utility to me... I like to intervene/ward/etc the healers and if possible the v light armor wearers in my group... simply so that if an add comes along on them I have more time to peel it off them while fighting their hate on the creature... if I have an off tank in the group I want them doing the same on the ones I cant get covered.. this tactic has helped me as MT on more than one occaision.. __________________