Questions for those complaining about assassin dps.

[Aere]

   I have been reading on many different forms about how bad assassin dps is.   Or like the previous thread,   are assassins really worth it.   One of the major complaints is assassins verses fighter dps.   Alot feel we should out dps them hands down.

So that leads me to a very simplistic line of questioning.

 

   Which fighters are you actually talking about.   Do you inculde the entire line of fighters,  Gaurdians through Shadowknights here.   Or are you mainly talking about guardians and berserkers?   The reason i ask is simple.   Each figher has a different role.   Monks and bruisers are both classified as fighters.   But one of their primary roles is producing damage.   So do you include them when you are saying fighters way out dps us and this is wrong.  

 

 

  I personally believe soe has many things wrong with their train of thought.   Take the comparison between berks and guardians.    Traditionally,   bezerkers were mostly nomads.   The plainsmen and tribes people.   These fighters in these types of games are based alot the vikings,  the huns,   the american indian.   Great fighters who went into frenzies,  hoping and hollering during battle,   crazied states of mind to inflict not only more damage but not feel pain.   (till after the battle when they came off their high and the pain set in.)    They didn't wear plate armor,   or metal armor.   They wore furs,  and rags,   might have used a shield once in a while.    So to me,   bezerkers should put out just as much damage as us assassins.  I say instead of taking away their damage,   I would like to see the reverse.   Take away the armor and play them how they should be played.   With the veins pumping and a war song on their lips.    Leave the tanking to front line warriors..

 

  Now take monks and bruisers.   They are classified fighters but again,  there main role is offense.   They can tank if the person at the keyboard is real good.   I have a bruiser in my guild who has two sets of gear.  He switches sets,   one he wears for tanking,  the other he wears for dps.    When tanking he has almost 100% avoidance,   (and proves that bruisers can tank well if they can't get hit.)    Anywho these monks and bruisers are an offensive class,   so is it they you speak of that out dps assassins all the time and you say we should have higher dps.   Correct me if I'm wrong but that seems silly.   They should be putting out just as much dps as we do,  not less.  

 

  Now paladins and sk's are a bit tricker.    The good and evil opposites of one another.   Sk's more offensive,   paladins more defensive.  However I feel a great injustice has been done here to the paladin class.   Traditionally paladins were not only supposed to be the most intelligent of fighters,   (you can't possible expect a warrior with an intelligence of 3 to learn and memorize complex priest spells)  and put out more damage then regular warriors.    They after all are more intelligent and use higher and better tactics and training when in combat.    I feel soe has always done them a grave injustice.   They are just mostly good secondary tanks and mindless crusaders good at taking damage but with little offense.   Completely wrong in my book. 

 

  So with all that in mind,   which fighters are you actually talking about when making dps comparisons.    To me,  if you feel that assassin dps should far exceed all the fighter classes  your dead wrong.    With the exception of true "tanks" that is.  So if you say our dps should be much higher then Guardians,  and bezerkers,   (as soe has defined berks in this game)   then i agree with you.   though i'd much prefer no one get nurfed.   To me every class putting out maximum dps is much better then nurfing one and increasing another.   Things die faster and I live longer.   

 

  But if you believe that we should also out dps monks and bruisers,   here i think your dead wrong.   I personally believe their dps should be in line with ours.   The exact same,  no more,  no less.    I am an opportunist.   I like alot of people would love to see our dps increased.   Just because i'm greedy and would love to be putting out the highest dps possible.   but not because I feel we deserve it,   or just to be better then anything but mages. 

 

 So am i wrong here,   set me straight.   (just do it intelligently,   without name calling or profanity)

 

 

[Kizee]

---

Aereas wrote:

 

  But if you believe that we should also out dps monks and bruisers,   here i think your dead wrong.   I personally believe their dps should be in line with ours.   The exact same,  no more,  no less.    I am an opportunist.   I like alot of people would love to see our dps increased.   Just because i'm greedy and would love to be putting out the highest dps possible.   but not because I feel we deserve it,   or just to be better then anything but mages. 

 

 So am i wrong here,   set me straight.   (just do it intelligently,   without name calling or profanity)

 

---

Monks and bruisers are defined as "tank" classes and I believe that we should be doing more dame than them also. They have alot more utiltity (group buffs and can actually tank) than assassins do. The only thing that assassins bring to a group is damage and right now they are lacking in that department.

Also, predators are the only class that has to pay for thier damage (poisons and arrows) and still we fall behind in the DPS department. It just doesnt seem right to me.

 

 

[Putka]

that's right.. think about it. If you gave those fighters our damage, who would still invite you to their group? Why would they? The fighter will buff their offense, defense and will tank for them. And what will you do?

It's all about balance, if you give a class utility, you need to lower its damage. Also, I don't know why we should be penalized and required to be BEHIND the mob and sneaking, while those "offensive fighters" just dish out the exact same amount of damage from up front? no way

[Aere]

  Okay,  my last post for a while then i'm going to play for awhile. 

 

   Kizee,

 

      Yes,   monks and bruisers are defined as tank classes.   That's one of my  major points where soe has it dead wrong.   When have you seen a Shaolin Monk tank anything.   Or any of those for that matter.   A samurai warrior or a host of examples I could site along this line of fighting style.   When have you seen these types of fighters tank anything.    They don't,  period.   They use straight out attacks,  deciet,   and skill with their hands,  feet,   and simplistic weapons to defeat their foes.   If soe really needs to change something,   they need to change how these fighters are defined.   they should not be classified as "tanks"   having their tanking ability taken away and be a straight out damage dealing class like we are.  

 

Putka,

    I think your wron on we'd never find groups.   If fighters,   (i'm talking bruisers and monks here)   did the same damage as us,   we'd still be able to find groups.   It would come down to who really is better at the keyboard.   If a person seen lets say,   joe the bruiser looking for group at the same time sarah the assassin was,   the group would take the better person to fill their spot.    If said reputation was unknown,   they would take what was available to them.   Most people want to form groups as quickly as possilbe.   they don't want to wait 5 hours to form a group,  ( though i'm sure some dummies do).    They want to get to it as fast as possible.    This is also where guilds come in.   Most people i know are in guilds and look to guild groups first,  then go outside the guild when no one is available.    The really great players already know it isn't really the class that matters but the person at the keyboard.    They will take a great person who's class is lets say a monk,    over a person that is a wizard if they already know that person is superior in their class. 

  Most high end players are clichish and have tight nit groups anyway.   So it doesn't matter what class you play,   if your not in the click,   or your reputation not known,   your not getting in anyway.  Regardless of your class.  

 

 Now it's play time.  

 

[Vladdax]

the thing is ALL fighters are tanks. Like you said in your post, your bruiser can get almost 100% avoidence and they can tank jsut fine most of the time with lower avoidence. Add that to taunts and fighter buffs if they did the same dps then why at all bother grouping with a scout? If they had simmilar dps then i'm afraid  they'd have to loose taunts, buffs and builtin defection skills. The 3 things needed for a successfull group. Tanking, healing and dps with utility only being usfull if it improves one of those things. Why would people choose a class that's 90% dps and 90% tank over a class thats 90% dps and 10% tank? It'd be an outcry if assassins could heal almost as well as inquisitor or if a fury could mez and breeze and out dps a chanter.

[Nightwa]

Well A.) You say part of a tanks job is to produce damage. That is not correct. A tank has two jobs, 1. Take damage and 2. Maintain aggro. Part 1 is done in various ways, a guardian takes more hits but mitigates better, the monkies take way less hits but get hit hard. Part 2 can be done easily by raising hate on taunts and making sure your tank has adept 3 or master taunts. Tanks only need enough dps to be able to solo which with thier damage avoidance/mitigation bonuses, should be easy.

and B.) I  think people make things too literal about this game, lets stop comparing things in eq2 to actual history or other fantasy worlds, they have enough issues trying to balance the classes, much less whether or not they are accurate representations of what each of us feels a berserker may be like. In the beginning they said they wanted a draw for one of each class; 1 priest 1 fighter 1 mage 1scout, to be the perfect group no matter which of those subs you had. The way things are right now youd be better off with 2 fighters, 2 mages, 2 priests. That is a perfect group post 40. Scouts are not needed late because sks, wizzies, druids, can all evac; sow upgrades with ppl so it's better than pf, wizzies, warlocks, bruisers, monks, and bezerkers out dps us; and theyve yet to fix the emote:track so why even bother having a scout? That is what were upset about.

Message Edited by Nightwasp on 04-18-2005 05:55 AM

Message Edited by Nightwasp on 04-18-2005 06:07 AM

[Sarevh]

---

Aereas wrote:

 

   Which fighters are you actually talking about.   Do you inculde the entire line of fighters,  Gaurdians through Shadowknights here.   Or are you mainly talking about guardians and berserkers?   The reason i ask is simple.   Each figher has a different role.   Monks and bruisers are both classified as fighters.   But one of their primary roles is producing damage.   So do you include them when you are saying fighters way out dps us and this is wrong.  

 

---

Mage > Scout > Fighter > Priest As it has been said before Assassins and Rangers should be able to out DPS all fighers because we have ZERO utility. All if the figher classes have usefull group buffs as well as better Damage rating weapons as well as HIgher avoidance, More mitigation And access to Piercing/Crushing/Slashing weapons SoE needs to do to us what they did to Wizards and Warlocks. And from what i know EQ wasn't set in a medieval time and EQ2 lore doesn't seem to come from anything medieval as well. The only similarities that the class names have between this game and History are their names.

[Aere]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vladdax,

the thing is ALL fighters are tanks. Like you said in your post, your bruiser can get almost 100% avoidence and they can tank jsut fine most of the time with lower avoidence. Add that to taunts and fighter buffs if they did the same dps then why at all bother grouping with a scout? If they had simmilar dps then i'm afraid  they'd have to loose taunts, buffs and builtin defection skills.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

   

  I agree with you here when you say they should lose have to loose taunts,  buffs,  etc.   This is has been one of my main points.   Not all fighters should be classified the same.  When i see people complaing about being out dps'd by fighters,  these are the main two fighter types they are talking about.   (I personally fell if an assassin is getting out dps'd by guardians,  bezerkers,  and sk's,  need to seriously  reroll another class.)    I have said it once,  i will say it again.   Bruisers and monks should not be "tanks" in the traditional role.   They should lose their taunts,  buffs,  and anything that even remotely makes them a tank and become a straight out offensive class like rangers and assassins.    Nothing is ever gonna change my mind on that fact.  So if i do happen to get out dps'd by them,   i don't lose sleep over it.   To me,   they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.   They just need to lose the taunts,  etc.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nightwasp;

Well A.) You say part of a tanks job is to produce damage. That is not correct.

I  think people make things too literal about this game, lets stop comparing things in eq2 to actual history or other fantasy worlds, they have enough issues trying to balance the classes, much less whether or not they are accurate representations of what each of us feels a berserker may be like.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

    I disagree with you on both points here.   I believe a tank should be able to do damage.   Other wise why bother giving them weapons in the first place.   Just let them stand out there in front of the mob with just armor,  hitting taunt the entire time.   As i've said before,   no one is going to convince me that a 200 + pound warrior wielding a giant battle axe with the strength to boot isn't capable or shouldn't do damge a certain amout of damage.  

 

 Secondly,   about lets stop comaring to actual history or fantasy worlds.   I hate to disagree,  but if I'm paying close to 20 bucks a month I feel the right to hold them to certain standards.   Especially since there character models are based on that lore.  Others feel the same way.  

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Sarvehok,

As it has been said before Assassins and Rangers should be able to out DPS all fighers because we have ZERO utility. All if the figher classes have usefull group buffs as well as better Damage rating weapons as well as HIgher avoidance, More mitigation And access to Piercing/Crushing/Slashing weapons

SoE needs to do to us what they did to Wizards and Warlocks. And from what i know EQ wasn't set in a medieval time and EQ2 lore doesn't seem to come from anything medieval as well. The only similarities that the class names have between this game and History are their names.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

   Assassins and rangers should not be able to out dps all fighters.   Guardians,   berks,  sk's,  and pally's  yes.   Bruisers and monks no.   Again,  I truely believe they should take away their taunts,   and their tanking ablities and make them straight out offensive classes.   They should not be tanks in the traditional role.  I do agree with you that we should have access to all the same types of weapons.  

 

 You are correct when you say EQ wasn't set in medieval times.  The lore however was obtained from other records and known facts based on these types.   Other wise,   a monk wouldn't be a martial arts specialist.   How can you say they didn't take their information gathered about these types from history or other known facts.   With some minor self interpretations,   every class save one closely represents known historical lore.    Warriors,  Knights,  Paladins,  Druids,  Monks,  Shamans,  Rangers,   swashbucklers,  brigands,  rogues,   all actually existed in history.    The only class that i know that really didn't exsist in one form or another and actually didn't exsist in history was the Shadow Knight.   That is total fantasy,   (thought i could be wrong)

 

  If you take a deep look at the classes,   they do try to put alot of realism into them.    A shaman is what,   a medicine man,   or a fanatical priest.   There are many known historical tribal shaman from africa just as an example.   So i disagree with you here.   This lore not only comes from history,   fact or fiction,   but other sources as well.   

 

[Putka]

Well that's just not going to happen. There are 4 archtypes in the game, and all classes in a given archtype are supposed to be equally capable of performing their role in groups. This was stated by SOE a hundred times.. both brawler classes are tanks, they will not lose the ability to taunt or to effectively evade attacks because then they just wouldnt go under the Fighter AT anymore. That's just how the game is designed..

[Vladdax]

Heres the trouble Aereas, you say you dont mind being out dps'd by a brawler because you think they should be a dps class and loose the taunts but the core archtype system says they are tanks and unless that whole system is reworked that is what they are supposed to be.  Throughout pre-beta, beta and so far in live it's always been stated that any sub-class can do the main role of their archtype to an equivilent level. I suggest you take up your issues with the brawlers and ask them to petition to become a new melee dps archtype rather than telling scouts "jsut deal with it". Do we really need another melee based dps anyway? Especially one who can use slashingpiercing and crushing? I've seen plenty of tanks, yes even bezerkers (who can do decent damage buffed and on not mt duty) and sk's too who've out dps'd me when a mob is highly resist to my slashpiercepoison or im dotted and can't stealth reliably.

[Trei]

["...Each figher has a different role.   Monks and bruisers are both classified as fighters.   But one of their primary roles is producing damage. ..."] "Producing damage" is just their sub class flavor, not primary role. Flavor as in the feature that differentiates them from other types of tanks. They should be outdamaging other tank subclasses yes, but most definitely not vs scout subclasses. ["...   So with all that in mind,   which fighters are you actually talking about when making dps comparisons.    To me,  if you feel that assassin dps should far exceed all the fighter classes  your dead wrong.    With the exception of true "tanks" th ..."] Your words came across to me as this: The monks/bruisers should have DPS on par as assassins, because they are offense oriented. The assassins should not tank as well as monks/bruisers because they are tanks and the assassins are not.

Message Edited by Trei49 on 04-18-2005 10:39 AM

[Bobbubski]

---

Aereas wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There are many known historical tribal shaman from africa just as an example.   So i disagree with you here.   This lore not only comes from history,   fact or fiction,   but other sources as well.   

 

---

for my own edification... what are these other sources?  i thought fiction & non-fiction covered all bases?  :smileyvery-happy:

 

 

as noted above, i agree that focus should be turned to dealing with class balance before attention is turned to purely cosmetic issues such as historical/fictional basis for characters. 

[InuyMa]

Wow. I'm surprised alot of you took the time to type out such long replies to such horribly flawed logic. I would've called him a troll right off the bat and accused him of being a BNet Kiddy trying to cause trouble on the EQ2 boards. It's simple, if you have more utility, more tanking, and the same dps, my class doesn't need to exist. How you don't reallize that, I will never know.

[Mordock of the Highwynd]

I agree with InuyMarr.  Aereas's idea is too goofy to merit more than a few lines.  The gripers (sometimes I am one, but sometimes I get tired of reading the gripes) have a clear problem with a workable solution that fits with Sony's stated game concepts.  There's no way Sony is going to shift bruisers and monks into the scout category.

Maybe necromancers should be priests because they are calling on the powers of dark gods--or they mostly did in literature?

Julian Granger (Juliun)

Antonia Bayle Server

The Discipleship

[A]

Well, I can certainly welcome the monks and bruisers to join the scouts family since I can kind of imagine *hard* that they can scout due to the agility. But, use your imagination further now, you have a scout class that out-dps, out-tank, out-buff the assassin class... We should all just assasinate each other and call it a day then (may take a while though thanks to the 1 hour timer).

"It is all about ther person in front of the keyboard etc...?" This type of argument is weak. Just throw the same person to play monk and assassin, and see what happens.

In all humble opinion, if the monk/bruiser class ever join the scouts archtype, they should probably be doing dps between the rogues and the bards if they want to maintain their ability to tank and buff. But then, they would probably be complaining about why they wear leather.

-aph

[NuclearWinter1]

As someone said before, it's all about balance.  In order for something to be truely balanced there has to be some kind of estimated formula.  Right now the brawlers out damage, out tank, and have more utility than us.  We, as assassins, have only two utility spells, pathfinding and escape, both of these belong to all scouts.  Also most of out damage dealing attacks are situational, meaning we must be either behind the opponent or in stealth.  I don't think these limitations should be eliminated however, I kind of like them because they're what makes this class fun, and I actually feel like an assassin.  I think with these circumstances we should be just under sorcerers in DPS, because they get a lot of damage, some utility, not many limitations to their skills, and can cast them farther away.

[Klip]

I noticed you started a new thread, so I thought I should come over and have another argument(with good intentions, mind you).

Again, before I start, you should know that there is a post on the "Class" section of the main page about scout balancing with a very long and nice argument on the same discussion. The post that I believe sums up all my own ideas is Tover's post. Here is a cut and paste.

Quote from Tover:

Point 1: Soloing
---------------------------
Scouts have no heals, do not tank well at all, can not root, have no 'combat usable - non fluff' pets, and due to combat restrictions can only use a very few of their weakest abilities when in front of a mob in melee range. This means that while soloing scouts take damage fast, and only do a fraction of their potential damage. Even as early as the 20's I'd seen Priests(yes priests), Fighters, and Mages solo mobs that would kick the tar out of my scout. It not hard to find posts by top lvl scouts giving evidence that the trend contiues to the end game, in fact they often testify to how it get's worse. In short, the scout architype is the weakest at soloing. Because of this you can also say that the scout architype is the most dependant on grouping.

 

 

Point 2: Group desirability
---------------------------
Groups need 1 tank, 1 healer, and 1 to 4 fillers. Many groups prefer 2 tanks, 2 healers, and 0 to 2 fillers. Groups want classes for the filler spots based on DPS and, in the specifc cases of Enchanters and Bards, utility. The devs design Mage dps the be greater then scout DPS. Mages also do not face the scout combat restrictions. Mages can do their job in front of a mob, though at times a little distance is required for that. This makes Mages more desirable for the DPS filler spots. Fighters can do comparable damage to scouts, and also do not face scout restrictions. Ontop of that it's not an issue if a fighter gets agro because it's the tank architype. Comparable damage, less restrictions, and safer for the group makes the fighter more desirable for even the filler spots in a group then scouts. Thus the list of group desirability goes Fighter > Priest > Mage > Scout. The scout architype is the least desirable for groups.

 

 

Point 3: Expense
---------------------------
The scout architype is the only architype that requires reagents to do their job. Some scouts require multiple reagents. Some scouts require very large quanties of one reagent. Scouts also burn power, thus are also the most dependant on having good 'read expensive' drink, and or power regen items(PGT, Manastone, and so forth) to do their job in a consistant manner without being a group burden in terms of downtime. Like all other architypes scouts must aquire gear and ability upgrades. The scout architype is the most expensive to play.

 

 

Point 4: Restrictions
---------------------------
The scout architype is the only architype that absolutly must get behind a mob 100% of the time to perform in a lvl appropriate manner. The scout achritype is also the only architype that must constantly move into and out of melee range. The scout architype is also the only architype that must spend time, and power out of direct combat using stealth/invis to setup their primary attacks. The scout architype is also the only architype that faces the potential problem of running out of reagents while hunting and no longer being able to do their job in a lvl appropriate manner. It is the only architype that must dedicate inventory space to preparation for doing their job on potentially long hunts at all times. The scout architype has the most restrictions.

 

 

Summary:
---------------------------
The scout architype is more dependant on grouping then any other achitype, less desirable for groups then any other architype, more expensive to play then any other architype, and faces more restrictions then any other architype.

End Quote

In all, I do agree that from a roleplaying standpoint, a monk would not be tanking against sword wielding barbarians, in the system of EQ2 they are classified as a fighter and have the capabilities of one. As you said, they have the choise of tanking, pumping up avoidance to high90s and not getting hit. They have the choice of pumping out damage as well. I think the problem here is not that the monk class can dish out good damage, but its that it can ALSO fill the vital role of tanking as well. As an assassin, we do not fill the roll of tanking, and do not have utility, and can ONLY dish out damage. If a monk can do the same amount of damage, and also fill other rolls to a better extent at the same time, what is there left for us to do? Someone pointed out that a monk can do 90% dps and 90% tank, assassin does 90% dps and 10% tank, and I do agree. Why would someone want to lose the 80% in tanking if they can get it? The class design(a tank that can do good damage) is not the problem, but the "good" damage is too good compared to other classes that are designed for damage only(ie assassin/ranger).

Wish I had  a little more time to add on my own ideas, but I'm in class again, I'll come back later to add more. I have yet to see a responce to Tover's post that made me say "ah! he's right!" So Aereas, I'm hoping you can.

[thirteenthse]

well hot *$%#&!, I thought I was gonna have to go ranting and raving, but I believe the guy above me just got it covered.

 

I really wanted to go ahead and ask a little bit of a question... is it strange that the only weapon imunities that I've seen so far are towards slashing and peircing weapons?  Which, if I do remember, are the only two weapons that assassins (as well as other scout classes) can use... In all honesty I have yet to see a single mob that is crushing ressistant...  crushing... wait isnt that the main weapon for brawler type classes?

 

So... wait... brawlers can raise their avoidance to almost 100%... the're are currently no mobs that are crushing ressistant... they can out dps most scout classes... AND they just recently recieved an ability that allows them to deal a MASSIVE ammount of damage to a mob right before they die...

 

*shrug* maybe its just me, but it sounds like someone out there in soe land doesnt like the scout class too much... and may like the brawler class a bit too much...

Message Edited by thirteenthseed on 04-18-2005 11:07 PM

[taa]

OP wrote:

  ' But if you believe that we should also out dps monks and bruisers,   here i think your dead wrong.  

 So am i wrong here,   set me straight.   (just do it intelligently,   without name calling or profanity)'

 

your wrong :smileywink:

 

[Gyilok]

"no one is going to convince me that a 200 + pound warrior wielding a giant battle axe with the strength to boot isn't capable or shouldn't do damge a certain amout of damage. "

 

yes its ok to do damage for them BUT: what if the 500 pound ogre scout takes his leafblade and sticks it up the mobs a**, would that be decent damage?

 

as it has been brought up several times  how the hell do you explain a fighter and a scout with exactly the same strength, same weapon, same level, same slashing/piercing have completely different (and not to the scouts benefit) damage on a weapon? bruisers and zerkers have a lot of their dmg from autoattack and do way more damage than a scout could with same str bonuses and similar weps

 

take a brawler with a royal great flail, or hell even a hieros crook which all will have anyway, when having a shamman and a bard friend he's gonna do as much damage with every swing as my 10 sec recast ca-s or more, and he dont even have to worry about positioning

Message Edited by Gyilok on 04-19-2005 01:10 AM

[Phr]

Well, I'm not an assasin - considering making one so I'm browsing the forum - but I have to reply to parts of this.

---

Aereas wrote:

Traditionally,   bezerkers were mostly nomads.   The plainsmen and tribes people.   These fighters in these types of games are based alot the vikings,  the huns,   the american indian.   Great fighters who went into frenzies,  hoping and hollering during battle,   crazied states of mind to inflict not only more damage but not feel pain.   (till after the battle when they came off their high and the pain set in.)    They didn't wear plate armor,   or metal armor.   They wore furs,  and rags,   might have used a shield once in a while.    So to me,   bezerkers should put out just as much damage as us assassins.  I say instead of taking away their damage,   I would like to see the reverse.   Take away the armor and play them how they should be played.   With the veins pumping and a war song on their lips.    Leave the tanking to front line warriors..

---

Some berserkers are like that sure, but not all - both in history and fantasy literature. Want a good example? Read Katherine Kerr's Deverry series. Rhodry is most definately a berserker, but he's also one of the most powerful nobles in a (reasonably) civilised society. Most of the time he's a normal person, but when he gets into battle he looses control and goes into a berserk rage. Equpiment wise, he wears chainmail (plate doesn't seem to exist in Deverry) and carries a shield. I'm not saying all 'zerkers are like that, but neither are they all nutty barbarians who wear furry y-fronts and litle else

 

 

---

Aereas wrote:

Now take monks and bruisers.   They are classified fighters but again,  there main role is offense.   They can tank if the person at the keyboard is real good.   I have a bruiser in my guild who has two sets of gear.  He switches sets,   one he wears for tanking,  the other he wears for dps.    When tanking he has almost 100% avoidance,   (and proves that bruisers can tank well if they can't get hit.)    Anywho these monks and bruisers are an offensive class,   so is it they you speak of that out dps assassins all the time and you say we should have higher dps.   Correct me if I'm wrong but that seems silly.   They should be putting out just as much dps as we do,  not less.

---

Why are monks offensive? I can see the reasoning behind bruisers, but monks? Watch some marial arts films. Most of the time, they are defensive. Yes, there are powerful attacks, but much of the time, good marial artists are blocking and dodging, before hitting a counter attack. Which is exactly what a tank should do. I'm really confused as to where the original idea of a monk being a DPS class comes from (don't say EQ1 - I thought the same back then). And if thats not enough, in fantasy world, the idea of having an agile lightly armoured person tank is even more sensible. What am I talking about? Well, in most fanatsy worlds (EQ2 included) there are a lot of large, strong creatures, eg giants and dragons, which are far more suited to be tanked by someone who can dodge that someone with lots of armour. Why? Let me give an example:Your fighting a dragon. Thats a 40ft long lizard. It's gonna be pretty *$%#&! strong. So it swings it's claw at the tank. Monk dodges it and counters with a quick strike from his bo - sure, it ain't gonna hurt the beast much, but it's gonna irritate it, which is exactly what a tank wants. The armoured guy stands there and takes the hit. He's got really really good armour, so even the dragon can't penetrate the armour. It's really really really good armour so the sheer impact doesn't hurt him either. But no matter how good the armour is, if a dragon hits you, you would go flying (if your armour was heavy enough to stop that, you wouldn't be able to move - in fact, it'd probably crush you if you tried to wear it). So while the monk continues to dodge around, making the dragon more and more enraged and focused on him, the plate wearer is picking himself up on the other side of the cave, and the dragon is eating his mates. Now I know this doesn't happen in EQ2 (I'm not suggesting it should either), but if you think about it, theres some good reasons why people in plate armour with big swords should be the DPS, and agile martial artists should be the tanks....

[Aere]

      Well I certainly opened a can of worms with this one.    Lets see here,

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- InuyMarr,

 Wow. I'm surprised alot of you took the time to type out such long replies to such horribly flawed logic. I would've called him a troll right off the bat and accused him of being a BNet Kiddy trying to cause trouble on the EQ2 boards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

  Usually I don't respond in kind to these types of attacks.   If you really must know,   I'm a 33 year old very educated man ( I hold a bach's  degree in criminal justice with a concentration in Behavioral Science.   I also hold a minor in history.   I can already answer your next flame before you do.   Why does a 33 year old man play video games.    My peers all engage is some time of game.   Me playing Eq,  is no different then my friends losing money at poker.    It also keeps me out of the local bar spending alot of capital on beer and pool.   Which would in turn cost me more money in divorce court.    You might even blame Atari for getting me addicted in the first place.   Yes,   I am part of that lost generation.   However still and educated one.   

 

  So whether you care to agree or disagree,  please if you can't formulate well thought out responses based on the inferences posted here,  both from me and others,  don't bother replying at all.   ( And i fully realize i set myself up here for another attack.   This is the only time i will address this,   I will not respond in kind to others.)

 

 

Moving right along,

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Aph,

"It is all about ther person in front of the keyboard etc...?" This type of argument is weak. Just throw the same person to play monk and assassin, and see what happens.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  I disagree with you here,  naturally.   This type of agrument is not weak.   In fact it's a predominate belief amoung many players.   Especially eq veterans.   First off,  unless i misunderstood your point,    A person is capable of playing alternate classes very well.  A really good player can play a monk just as well as a assassin or any other class.   

  

  I will not budge here.   True talent will always lie with the person at the keyboard.   Just cause they have the same exact gear,  be it the best gear in the game or not,   doesn't mean the person wearing it will be any good.   It will enchance their performance yes,   but still doesn't mean they will be good.   Natural talent is natural talent.   That will never change.   Take two track runners.   You can dress them up in the exact same shirt,  shorts,  or shoes,   however only one is gonna win the race.   (or tie,  i know that response was coming.)   

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Klipo,

 

Point 2: Group desirability
---------------------------
Groups need 1 tank, 1 healer, and 1 to 4 fillers. Many groups prefer 2 tanks, 2 healers, and 0 to 2 fillers. Groups want classes for the filler spots based on DPS and, in the specifc cases of Enchanters and Bards, utility. The devs design Mage dps the be greater then scout DPS. Mages also do not face the scout combat restrictions. Mages can do their job in front of a mob, though at times a little distance is required for that. This makes Mages more desirable for the DPS filler spots. Fighters can do comparable damage to scouts, and also do not face scout restrictions. Ontop of that it's not an issue if a fighter gets agro because it's the tank architype. Comparable damage, less restrictions, and safer for the group makes the fighter more desirable for even the filler spots in a group then scouts. Thus the list of group desirability goes Fighter > Priest > Mage > Scout. The scout architype is the least desirable for groups

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  

It's hard for me to debate with ya on this one,   cause i agree with 99.9 percent of your reply.   However this is the only one i can disagree with.    First,   even with the current situation,   I never ever have problems finding groups.   Here again I don't believe this is solely based on class.   Yes,   when looking for groups individuals grab the core classes they need.   Tanks,   healers,  etc.   However most good players look for something else as well when rounding out the group.   The individual talent and reputation of the player.    Monks and bruisers do have much more utility then assassins,   (thanks to those of you that pointed out the obvious,)   that's a given.  Though it's been my experience,  both in this game and it's predessor,   that matters little unless the person playing the class is any good.   For example,    if a group as a choice between a very good assassin and a very bad monk,  guess who they gonna pick.   Now if you come up agains another very good monk then you could be introuble.   Usually personal choice comes in here.  

  If your a really good player,   regardless of class,   you get placed on peoples friends list very quickly.   I will say it again,  I never have a problem finding a group when i want one.   ever.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Vladdax,

  Do we really need another melee based dps anyway? Especially one who can use slashingpiercing and crushing? I've seen plenty of tanks, yes even bezerkers (who can do decent damage buffed and on not mt duty) and sk's too who've out dps'd me when a mob is highly resist to my slashpiercepoison or im dotted and can't stealth reliably.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    

   If we really need another melee based dps or not,   isn't the issue.   Though I would certainly welcome them.   I still stand by my words and won't budge on this issue.   Monks and bruisers should not be tanks in the traditional role as eq has defined them.   They should be purely offensive.   I do agree with you on your next point and did indicate that in my initial post.   We should be albe to use slashing,  crushing,  and piercing.   Our weapons need a serious over haul,   both in what we have,  and what we should be able to use. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrox,

Some berserkers are like that sure, but not all - both in history and fantasy literature. Want a good example? Read Katherine Kerr's Deverry series. Rhodry is most definately a berserker, but he's also one of the most powerful nobles in a (reasonably) civilised society. Most of the time he's a normal person, but when he gets into battle he looses control and goes into a berserk rage. Equpiment wise, he wears chainmail (plate doesn't seem to exist in Deverry) and carries a shield. I'm not saying all 'zerkers are like that, but neither are they all nutty barbarians who wear furry y-fronts and litle else

Why are monks offensive? I can see the reasoning behind bruisers, but monks? Watch some marial arts films. Most of the time, they are defensive. Yes, there are powerful attacks, but much of the time, good marial artists are blocking and dodging, before hitting a counter attack. Which is exactly what a tank should do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

   I must admit I have never read Katherine Kerr.   I do provide historical and fictional references to back up what my own personal ideas of the authenticity of certain classes should be.  I am a lover of history and give small examples not to over draw my explinations or provide history lessons.   I do agree with you here,   there are always exceptions to every rule.   Those however are exceptions.   In our history bezerkers where vikings,  hunns,  the avisticots,   american indians,  etc.   That doesnt mean to say there are not exceptions to that rule.   I'm sure some chain mail weilding,   sword carying individuals adopted this method of fighting as well.   Though tactically it was primarily used by those i listed above. 

 

  Now fiction is a whole nother ball of wax.   The author is free to do whatever they wish with in the confines of their book.   The gut buster brigade is another perfect example of untraditional bezerkers.   Here we had dwarves dressed in full plate metal,   adorned by razor sharp edges.   They would train by throwing themselves into walls,   flipping themselves off ledges,   beating themselves to death.   If you read them novels,   did they stop to take the time to tank anything?   Heck no,   they would charnge blindly head first into battle and fling themselves on the enemy.   Hopeing to skew the enemy to shreds in an altered state of mind.

 

  Which brings up the point i was trying to get across.   Maybe i can explain it better this way.   How can a bezerker,   in the traditional sense,   tank anything.   He or she works them self up in such an altered state of mind,  such a frezy to disregard their own personal safety,   flinging themselves head long into the enemy,   how the heck are they gonna be conserned with anyone else's safety.   They do that by simply trying to kill as many enemies as quickly as possible to save their comrades lives.   They never take the time to stop and tank anything.  

 

  Yes,  some forms of martial arts are primarily defensive.   kendo,  akido,   and kenpo to name a few.   however my intital point was the damage they inflict.   They are capable of tanking for sure with their ability not to get hit.   But that was not their primary role.   They had only one thing on their minds,   to kill their enemy as quickly and as effencienty as possible.    Going with your logic,   assassins should well then be able to tank for the same reasons.   If an assassin and monk both have 100 percent avoidance,   why then shouldn't a assassin be capable of tanking.     Do not brigands get a taunt button?      And the reverse is true,    were not Ninja's  assassins?  

 

 

  Now,   for the rest.   I will not budge on this.   I still believe and always will that monks and bruisers should be purely offensive.  They shouldn't be tanks.   Yes i know that will never happen as one response indicated.   Another suggested improving over all class balance before cosmetic surgery.   Which i agree and disagree with both.   If they are going to fix something,   they should take the time to do it right.  Whatever that may entail varies between people,   but if your gonna fix something,   fix it right.  

 

   I still also believe tanks should be able to put out damage.   Your still not going to convince me that a 200 + individual weidling a hefty double bladed axe should not just have one singular role.   They should be able to put out very good damage as well.  Yes a 500 pound ogre scout with the same strength as a 500 pound ogre warrior is certainly capable of putting out the same damage.   Your comparing apples to apples here,   most scout's,   (and you can tell by the 4 million wood elf and dark elf scouts out there)   are much stronger.    Simply put in the easiest terms i can think of,   George Foreman is gonna put out far greater damage then sugar ray leanord,  pound for pound.   

 

  I also believe that those smaller races should never,  even with strength bonuses,   have the same strength as an ogre for example.   If an ogre has a natural strength of lets say 200,   and and elf has the strength of 70.    They are both at end game.   Both have head to toe gear that enhances their strength.    Even then they still shouldn't have the same exact strength.   Especially if they are wearing the same gear.   Lets say the elf is wearing gear that provides him with the bonus that tops his strength out at 300.   The ogre has the EXACT same gear,    and his strength caps out at 300?    This is silly,   shouldn't the ogres natural strength come into play making the smaller race 300 and the stronger race 310? Why is this suddenly lost in end game via a cap.   Granted there has to be a cap,  but the ogre should always be stronger then a human or an elf. 

[MaNiaGG]

In some way Aeraenas is right. When i started EQ2 (my first MMORPG, played MUDs before), I had in mind to play a character like conan or sth this way...big axe, nearly no armor, massive damage and being able to receive a good amount of damage before i die. So I started out as a fighter, becoming a berserker. And I had to learn that my role is only to take the damage, not to dash it out. With lvl 21 berserker I rerolled for an assassin, 'cause it just fits me more....like to hit hard etc. What I want to say with this is, we got to accept it like its programmed...fighters are the tanks, mages are the DD, ... scout are somewhere in the middle (where they shouldn't be imho, but thats another story ) And its programmed that all fighter-based characters are tanks, the guardian the best because he has the less damage output, coming up with the berserker, monks and paladin etc cause they have the best utility spells like heals. The question is: What have we assassins got? We cant tank, taunt nor do we have any goup buffs or sth... but all this was mentioned before and everyone of knows it. Its kinda weird And please axcuse my bad english

Message Edited by MaNiaGG on 04-19-2005 05:15 AM

[taa]

Aereas

 

First -you said 'Yes,   when looking for groups individuals grab the core classes they need.   Tanks,   healers,  etc.   However most good players look for something else as well when rounding out the group.   The individual talent and reputation of the player.   '

 

Reputation does count - but one flaw in EQ2 is no tank no healer = no grp that can take on harder content, access quests, go deep in to deungeons. I play 2 class's as mains my healer and assassin - my healer, log on, within 5, 10 min I have grp made, with people I know, from reputation, made up of guildess - with my assassin, same guild, same friends, still really hard to find grp - in fact 3 or 4 times the lenght to form grp. People dont care about scouts - as a healer, I finish a grp make friends, have 2, 3 tells the second I log. And this is not cuase I cannot play my scout well (at least I hope not).

 

Second - 'Now,   for the rest.   I will not budge on this.   I still believe and always will that monks and bruisers should be purely offensive.  They shouldn't be tanks. '

 

I understand the reasoning here. However, the game has not been designed to play like this. Monks and Bruisers still suffer from a rep of not being tanks to some people which is wrong. I have seen monks and bruisers tank better than any guardian or zerker - like you said, its not the class its the person who plays them.

 

BUT they are still tanks and here is why:

 

This is from eq2players.com - from SOE's own words: (if you wish the links I can share but its easy to find and hard to misread)

 

ON the fighter archtype: Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to protect their allies and keep their enemies at bay.  (AND) A fighter is a major component of any full group. They are best used as the focus of the enemy’s attention – taking hits that would kill weaker group members, and dealing solid damage in return.

 

ON the scout archtype: Through stealth and cunning, Scouts may infiltrate the enemy's camp or use the element of surprise for a devastating attack.    (AND) Practicing the arts of stealth and exploration, the scout is a valued companion and guide, able to infiltrate enemy positions and cause great suffering to their foes

 

You said: 'Now,   for the rest.   I will not budge on this.   I still believe and always will that monks and bruisers should be purely offensive.  They shouldn't be tanks. '

 

No they should not be tanks then but scouts :smileyhappy:

 

This all goes back to game design (like somone mentioned) and class balance. If we look at that from this perspective scouts need to be tuned (the devs have said as much). On my server their are only a 190 brigands - the number of the other (non scout)class's is triple that (at least that amount). Why is that? - on all servers scouts are the least played toons - why? cuase they are not desired for grps - big problem AND they can't solo.

 

again from eq2players.com:

Group Analysis
Scouts really shine in group combat situations. Content to let fighters take the heat, the scout is most comfortable surveying his opposition from its most vulnerable area: the back.

 

Here is what eq2players.com say about solo for scouts : Scouts are also fairly good at soloing. Their ability to dodge and parry attacks allows them to avoid being hit long enough for their high damage output to finish the job. (Which we cant use since our dmg comes from being in stealth by the way :smileysad:

 

This is our role (Scouts really shine in group combat situations.) - we should be able to fill that roll and contribute to the group. In particuler, like is being said all over these forums grps don't see scouts as useful. As a healer I have had to defend assassins and other scouts in grp from others saying they are useless. In fact I dont think scouts are useless in the state they are in now at all, but the mechanics and the perception of the archtype is hurting. This is the point people are trying to make on this forum.

 

Forget history or other context and think of the game mechanics and what people are trying to relate about scouts in general. They are under used, misunderstood and in the words of the devs need to be tweaked. This does not stop me from playing my assassin - I freakin love it! But finding a grp (remember I cannot effectivly solo) is painful.  Keep these in mind when your thinking about your posts. They make sense for what you are saying but are more philosophical to me than practical in terms of playing this game.

Message Edited by taahl on 04-19-2005 07:01 AM

[Sarevh]

---

I still believe and always will that monks and bruisers should be purely offensive.

---

Show me a monk or bruiser that can't outdamage an assassin most of the time and ill show you someone who cant play their class.monks and bruisers ARE purely offensive at the moment. and their non-situational attacks and ability to use crushing damage are why there are many, many more of them than there are assassins or any other scout.Any brigand that uses his taunt in a group situation is a *$%#&!ing [Removed for Content] ill just leave it at that.And i do apprieciate your historical stance on what the classes should be doing bit this isn't a LARP (Live Action RolePlaying), its a computer game and as you said 

---

 Now fiction is a whole nother ball of wax.   The author is free to do whatever they wish with in the confines of their book.

---

SoE are the authors here. and this game is their book.

[InuyMa]

LOL I honestly can't believe he went through and gave me his resume. Sad thing is, that's exactly what the BNet kiddies do when I tell them their logic is flawed. "I'm not 12, I'm a 40 year old Doctor, and i'm very smart. You have no idea what you are talking about". LOL And honestly, this isn't about peoples opinions of what a Berzerker should be, or what an Assassin should be.  This is about what Sony made these classes to be, and then fitting them in within the game mechanics. Right now Sony says Bruisers/Monks are tanks, and Assassin's are DPS. Unfortunately they messed up fitting them into the game mechanics, so Monks/Bruisers are tanks with as much DPS as Assassin's, and Assassin's are fairly useless. But *$%#&!, I still can't believe you fell for that. Was I right about you being a Blizzard troll?

[Tazzrin]

Aereas wrote:

"If you really must know,   I'm a 33 year old very educated man ( I hold a bach's  degree in criminal justice with a concentration in Behavioral Science.   I also hold a minor in history"

 

  

 

   I seriously doubt this due to the massive amounts of spelling and grammatical errors in your posts. If you are a "very educated man" then post like one, and preferrably in our language so we all can better understand your posts. You lost me after awhile because I couldn't understand what you were trying to say due to so many errors Mr. College Guy.

[Ardsheal]

Well, I have an assassin, so I feel justified in posting on this subject.    And no, not a high level assassin either, I got abit discouraged from playing him with the 3+ hour wait time for groups.  Guilds help, that's for sure.  I don't know what kinda dmg output assassins do at high lvls, but I take most peoples words for it, and the arguments make sense.  I try to explain to people why assassins are gimped, that our dmg should be close ot a casters, and they argue "well...casters use magic, assassins use a weapon..."  Now maybe I'm misinformed, but since when did a bolt of lightining, a ball of fire, a huge fricking ice comet to the head, kill better than a stiletto to the heart, or a dagger severing a spine?  Maybe a sliced throat.  Dead is dead.  So I don't really buy that one.  Casters should do a little bit more dmg, for the simple fact that if they don't, they will all re-roll assassins (or scouts).  I like being the only assassin in a group, for the simple fact of the crappy stackability of CAs.  "This would not take effect"  Kiss my butt, I'm still hitting it with my weapon, dangit!  :smileymad: 

 

As for berserkers being brainless barbarins that flings a pile of feces and screams unintelligble words at an enemy before hacking them to pieces...Yeah...not problem there.  But whats wrong with the cold rage of hate?  A person so infused with hatred that they attack an enemy regardless of their own welfare?  Or maybe, the anger of an enemy hurting the berserker's friends?  (ie, group)  He goes into a rage and focuses his energy on the offending creature, or creatures.  I can buy that, and I'm poor as hell.  (but strangely enough, i can afford EQ2 every month, talk about a paradox)  Berserkers don't HAVE to be wild, crazy, naked people banging on bongos and shaking their klik-klax at people (like in Braveheart, love that movie :smileyvery-happy: )  But if you want to, then by all means, don some select pieces of leather armor, equip a hatchet or two, and get to work.  Just don't expect to live long.

 

As for monks...they come to mind as the you see in movies...insightful, wise,  tranquil...  They use their abilities to defend themselves.  Yes, there is the legend of Din Mok (I think it is called...the Touch of Death, plz correct me if I am wrong)  But they used it exceedingly sparingly.  Assassins, well, they used it whenever gold hit their hands.  Poison in a wine goblet, an arrow from a tree, a knife in the back.  Assassins are much more adept at killing than a monk.  Bruisers are a different story.  I think of them as streetfighting thugs.  Dirty fighting, sand throwing sons of *&^%$ that will do anything to take you down.  Should they hurt.  Yes, i believe so, same with the monk.  Should they out dmg an assassin?  Nah, I'd be much more afraid of poison in my food or a knife in the back than some thug calling me out to brawl.  At least then i could defend myse

 

In conclusion, I guess I tend to agree that assassins need some help, and that monks/bruisers should not do the nice dmg they do, although they most definitely should be at the top fo the fighter chain, just as assassins should be at the top of the scout chain (along with Rangers, of course).  No problem with casters doing a bit more dmg than us over all.  ANd that being a berzerker doesnt have to mean charging into battle with your winky hangin out.  I know some will disagree.  That's ok, what a great country we live in! 

Message Edited by Ardsheal on 04-20-2005 07:10 AM

[Tazzrin]

Ardsheal wrote:

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

"brainless barbarins that flings a pile of feces and screams unintelligble words at an enemy....charging into battle with your winky hangin out."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

 

Rofl...

[Russr]

actually the shaolin monks are peaceful and pacifistic, they really only use martial arts as a form of meditation and to better themselves. and when would a monk or samurai(or any honorable person for that mater) use deciet to win a fight? a monk would probly have a hard time with that since most true monks are sworn into a silent life and dont talk with outsiders. and what would happen if tanks had there tanking ability taken away? all hell would freeze over and any type of raiding would never be finished. if they were suppose to be defined as a damage dealing class they should of been stuck in the mage or scout type(even though i think these two should do almost equal amounts of damage) in the long run though i think it should go mages - = scouts >brawler>the other fighters>Priests with furies at the top dmg of priests