|
|||||||
| Notices |
 |
| Thread Tools |
03-20-2009, 09:06 PM
|
#1 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11
|
ARE brawlers going to get back our auto AE? The prock on offensive stance? The change to meditative healing?
__________________
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 09:11 PM
|
#2 |
|
General
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 132
|
testcopy is open agin copy over or make a toon and cheack it out if ya have and it was reverted and your asking if its gonna go back in then ignore my reply
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 09:14 PM
|
#3 |
|
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Pwn Pwn Pwn
Rank: CEO
Loremaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,370
|
Torque89 wrote:
The answer is no. Monk keep being worst in aoe aggro = worst tank choice of TSO heroic instances; full of multiple mobs encounters. Monk keep being worst survivability of all fighters due to our incompetive meditative healing = worst tank in raid. Monk keep being worse (finally, not worst) dps fighter, lower than sk, bruiser and zerker = why do you even have a monk class in eq2? |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 09:36 PM
|
#4 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
|
Couching@Crushbone wrote:
That is incredibly negative considering its been less then 24 hours since they rolled stuff back. |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 09:45 PM
|
#5 |
|
Developer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 672
|
As I said last week in the bruiser thread, the fighter changes were all done in conjunction with each other. Since we are reverting it that means certain parts that players may have liked are not going in. Once we figure out a plan to reintroduce them then we can discuss adjusting these abilities again. |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 09:49 PM
|
#6 |
|
General
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 132
|
some of the changes that went in in the idea of balnce not with the focus of hate changes should be adressed and pushed in before the fighter revamp hate changes no need for some of the issues need to be put aside
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 10:18 PM
|
#7 |
|
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Pwn Pwn Pwn
Rank: CEO
Loremaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,370
|
Aeralik wrote:
It looks like you didn't even realize what the problem is. The problem is class balance of fighters is broken on liver servers. At the moment, some classes are overpowered in every aspect and some classes are worse in every aspect on live servers. You can spend time in the future fighter revamp but you also have to fix the broken classes, either overpower or uderpower on live servers. Because gaming experience of playing monk is very very frustrated in TSO;worst aoe aggro/dps, worst survivability and very bad single target dps of all fighters. I wish you can understand it's 4 months after TSO released. If you refuse to address the monk issues, you are telling us monk is done in tso. |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 10:27 PM
|
#8 |
|
Journeyman
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2
|
You are not a tank. You are a scout with more hp and a little utility. WAKE UP! |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 10:47 PM
|
#9 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
|
Aeralik wrote:
Not sure what to say to this, however, if you think it is a good idea to not do anything for monks before your grand plan part 2 goes into effect you haven't learned anything. Brawlers have gotten the short end of the stick this expansion. Unlike your massive nerfing to the other classes with your other changes, for brawlers you were actually strengthening us and many of us were looking forward to the changes because we are way underbalanced against other tanks. It was a step in the right direction TBH, please don't take two steps back instead of the only one step back you need to take. You should also think of the other classes you have been neglecting that REALLY need it for example necros. I understand it might be a bad idea to start poking your fingers in holes to stop a leak in a dam, but that doesn't mean a little duct tape here and there isn't a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
03-20-2009, 11:20 PM
|
#10 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 624
|
BChizzle wrote:
You know, I really respect you guys for backing away from the fighter revamp as it stood and deciding to take another look at it. With the amount of time and energy that went into the changes that were on test, it cannot have been an easy decision to make. Further, I really agree that at least one of the problems (threat not scaling with DPS) that you are seeking to solve is a real one that should be addressed in a comprehensive and thoughtful way. That said, you need to recognize the situation you have created, particularly for brawlers. 1. You broke the primary play style and raid role for brawlers in the end game. In ROK, brawlers were competitive with rogues (behind, but competitive) in dps, had good raidwide buffs and enough utility and snap-aggro tank potential to have a viable spot in raid forces. You made the decision to move all "fighters" back to their "primary role" of tanking, designing the brawler TSO AAs and itemization with a huge slant toward tanking and giving rogues fantastic dps AAs and items. There is now a huge and fundamental gap. In ROK, a brawler could sometimes get all the stars to line up and actually beat equally geared and buffed rogues. Usually not, but every once in a while. Now that will NEVER happen. Further, you nerfed the monk raidwide buff, further decreasing our desirability on raids. 2. You didn't go nearly far enough in buffing brawlers' tanking abilities to make us competitive raid tanks. Lots of nice tanking AAs in both brawlers' TSO trees. The itemization, however, is largely still hybridized and not good enough for defense. As I have posted elsewhere, hybrid gear is a terrible idea for a hybrid class. The end result is that we are more survivable than we have ever been. And orange raid bosses eat us for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The avoidance mechanic and mobs tuned for plate tanks with high avoidance means dead leather wearers. That simple. 3. You have taken a LONG time with the follow up changes to balance fighters. We are now a third of the way through this expansion, and you are asking a lot of us to be content playing classes that are mid-revamp. So, I agree with Couch and BChizzle - by all means take your time and get the overall revamp right. But there are some changes that are not revamp dependent and that are needed NOW or SOONER in order to bring a semblance of balance. Down the road, it would really help if you would include in the promised give and take an overall vision of what you expect the various classes' roles to be. Right now, brawlers live in the dark nether world of hybrid classes that are 70% as good at each role. That is not a viable class design. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 12:06 AM
|
#11 |
|
General
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 79
|
Aeralik wrote:
Im sorry, I dont think your understanding anything about how our class works...I wonder if you have ever played one... FIRST OF ALL...Every BRAWLER is crying out and trying to communicate with you, yes I said COMMUNICATE but i guess the letter was false, seems you cant communicate with us at all... From what ive seen and contributed in post, WE ALL NEED HELP NOW! Like you help your scouts asap! Fighter changes were about hate and stances YOU SAID IT YOURSELF! Not about dps or aa fixes which our class needs now! I am still waiting for a straight answer from you. It sounds like to me we arnt important enough to be fixed you brush us away to go tweak scout problems. Thanks! Bye! |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 12:28 AM
|
#12 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 695
|
Marlea wrote:
OK. If we are scouts, why do our CAs not even reach that of bards? Why is our epic 2.5 instead of 4.0? Why can't we even reach 2/3rds of a (good) rogue's dps? (And if we do reach it, it's not over by much)
__________________
Buffratx - 92 Beastlord - AB Buffrat - 92 Troubador - AB Arbitrat - 92 Berserker - AB Guarddog - 92 Warden - AB |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 12:43 AM
|
#13 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 166
|
Shotneedle wrote:
Sure, you can have my dps once I have your hp, avoidance, and survivability in general.
__________________
Koldsteel Bladestorm 90 Assassin Tyranny Oasis |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 01:06 AM
|
#14 |
|
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Pwn Pwn Pwn
Rank: CEO
Loremaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,370
|
Darchon6 wrote:
Oh really? Pointing to some fighters who can deal more dps than swashy in single or aoe fights. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 01:20 AM
|
#15 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 128
|
Marlea wrote:
Monks were like scouts in EQ1. So when they were classified as tanks in this game I was very disappointed. Anyone remember the quote from one of the devs in EQ1 that monks were the "Kings of Damage Dealers" or something to that effect. Ahh those were the days... |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 01:38 AM
|
#16 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 624
|
Couching@Crushbone wrote:
Feeding trolls seldom has good results . . . |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 04:52 AM
|
#17 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 284
|
Aeralik wrote:
It would be truly helpful if you would explicitly and succinctly tell us all what you envision brawlers to actually be (currently - with the understanding that future fighter changes may either build upon or shift this vision as the fighter changes are redefined later). As you can clearly see on this forum, there's quite a bit of confusion and disagreement. They are often called 'DPS fighters' (that can be out-dps'd by other fighters without much difficulty), 'avoidance tanks' (that don't excel at avoiding incoming damage of higher level mobs) and numerous definitions in between (ie. hybrids). However, with such a vast array of obstacles that prevent any of those roles from being fulfilled proficiently compared with other fighters... there is obviously a need for clarification from you even if brief. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 06:01 AM
|
#18 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,077
|
Couching@Crushbone wrote: The problem is class balance of fighters is broken on liver servers. Thats what the fighter revamp was about, and as I said many times, was an improvment over what is on live. You have the fighters that were complaining over insignificant details to thank for this (with the exception of zerkers, they still needed adjustments), and because of that whining, all fighters will now need to wait weeks, probably months, before getting the fixes they should have by now.
__________________
The superior man knows what is right. Confucius |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 07:52 AM
|
#19 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
|
Noaani wrote:
You are absolutely incorrect here. The broad stroke of the brush that was administered by the devs changing the fundimentals of tanking across the board and the methodology behind those changes was a complete and foolish mistake. This is proven substancially by their retreat and reset. At this point in the life of this painting broad sweeping strokes are absolutely not whats called for instead what we should be seeing are touch ups to the final product. You know these guys might have had to eat some crow this week, but they made the right decision. However, turning around and making the same mistakes over again negates any gains they might make. I just hope they realize that Aeralik might have have picked up the crayons in his post here instead of the paint brush. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 11:04 AM
|
#20 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,077
|
BChizzle wrote: You are absolutely incorrect here. The broad stroke of the brush that was administered by the devs changing the fundimentals of tanking across the board and the methodology behind those changes was a complete and foolish mistake. This is proven substancially by their retreat and reset. And yet we have posts from 4 of the 6 classes affected stating that they want the chages sent live anyway. Could probably start one up for guardians without more than a few posts saying otherwise. Go figure.
__________________
The superior man knows what is right. Confucius |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 11:44 AM
|
#21 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
|
Noaani wrote:
Actually monks just want the ae auto attack dmg proc and meditative heal fix, which honestly have little to do with the vision which was presented to us on tanks holding agro through taunts. The dmg proc was for our offensive role, ae auto attack has been asked for since EoF, and meditative heal is an aa which needs to be fixed. Go figure. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 12:43 PM
|
#22 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 258
|
BChizzle wrote:
Agreed. There were good things happening with the fighter revamp, but you will notice that none of the classes here want all the changes to go through. They're just rooting for the positive ones they did like, and arguing that those should stay in. In the case of brawlers, I can see why, since honestly, we're far below the desirability of the four other fighter classes at the moment and as far as nerfs went, it's not like our class was really on the recieving end of any - but then, it's not like we're asking to keep all the changes either. Crusaders seem to be rooting mostly for keeping their positive changes while - strangely - not mentioning keeping the nerfs as well. That's the subject of the current "keep crusader changes in" thread and to be honest, while I can sympathise, I don't think it too reasonable. My personal take on the changes is that they were helping brawler and in particular monk desirability on raids, but were pulling the brawlers further out of their element. We should not be buffed to be a comparable tank to a guardian, and as we very clearly saw with tSO launch, it's just never going to happen. So instead of bringing us closer and closer to that, still failing to provide a defined role for the class because another will do the job better, they should work on making us brawlers again. Which is to say, we should stay between a tanking and a DPS role, viable for both, but best at neither. Then, restore utility to our class (unnerf the monk raidwide effect to begin with) to make the class desirable compared to the rogue or plate tank the raid could bring instead.That also happened to be the official explicit vision of this fighter revamp (the second part) when it started. Then, underway, execution turned out to be something very different, hence the backwards lack of improving AoE autoattack, lack of attention to the tSO tree, loaded much too heavily in a tanking direction to the point where we cannot buy all the tanking abilities anyway, lack of care that monks are getting haste on their set items now, which we have no use for and much, much more.In conclusion: No, I don't think the fighter revamp was a good solution for brawlers. But it was a clear improvement over the laughable state of the class we find on the live servers now. This is just my take on things, of course. On a different note:Yes, we were asking for changes made since tSO launch. However, if you look at the monk forums, you will notice that the old "current monk issues" thread had not been updated since mid-RoK (July or August as I recall) and that no new posts had been made there at all since sometime December.So we left the developers to gather their own impressions from scattered threads like this one. The results were, predictably, scattered and did not manage to address the fundamental problems of the class, because each thread would either get too unwieldy, or be about a singular problem out of the (sadly) vast amount we currently face as a class. Now, we have confirmation that the developers are actually watching said class issue threads on the class forums. Let's make sure they know exactly what is wrong and what needs fixing this time, by giving structured and easily accessible feedback.They say they're now listening, so let's make sure they've no reason not to hear the message. This is not an attempt to stifle this thread at all, PLEASE keep going and get these changes implemented as soon as possible. I'm just saying, previous structure of feedback being what it was, we're giving the devs too many opportunities to get confused at our feedback. If we want this done right, we need to remove that shortcoming - then when they fail to adjust the class accordingly, the error isn't going to be on our end.
__________________
--- Eilien, 80 monk of Soulforged, Antonia Bayle. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 01:49 PM
|
#23 |
|
Server: Lucan DLere
Loremaster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,910
|
Couching@Crushbone wrote:
Yes but this is what we get when we do ill planned phased changes. Basically it looks like this is what happened (omitting the stuff that was given to the SK). "hmmmm how do I get tanks to be taunt bots and stuck in defensive stance? Well first I'll take this stuff and throw a bone here and there to make em happy. Then I'll sit down and actually think about what to do to bring them up." 4 months later "oh the ideas we came up with didn't work on test? Okay back to the drawing board, but we can't roll back live or NO ONE will be able to tank a TSO heroic instance." Basically they did a classic "tear it down to build it up". Problem is they did not tear down and then build up right away. Bad planning before bad coding. Gotta love it.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 02:49 PM
|
#24 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
|
Siatfallen wrote:
Dude, u approached me and asked for help creating a "current monk issues" list and I pretty much wrote your whole thread for you. You did this saying some Red Name on this board approached you of all people regarding why there was no current issues for monks on our board. What you fail to realise is the reason why nobody was bothering with it was because we aren't being listened to. And your claim that devs weren't getting feedback is completely incorrect. I spent a lot of my personal time in BETA spelling out every single problem we still have and I PM'ed it to both the itemization guy and Aeralik. Now I dunno if they read it, because they clearly did everything exactly opposite to what my main suggestions were but I am sure they get alot of PM's and they were probably too busy you know with other things, but hey its their choice end of the day. So they are getting plenty of feedback, they just are choosing not to act on it. They have had the message for a long time and it has been loud and clear. Honestly, as a monk it just feels like our class (and bruisers) get the short end of the stick over and over again. And its not that complex of stuff. Hey you made the Justice charm have shield % why not give it deflection chance too so all tanks can make use of it, hey maybe do the same thing when you thought up the Anashti ring, hey we are putting haste on your set gloves everyone should be happy about that right? It is neglect plain and simple, please someone explain to me why Plate tanks can wear a Helm 3 BP's, Wrists, Pants, Shield/Secondary or avatar items and brawlers get a fist and 2 BP's. Please tell me why we didn't have any items that dropped off Tangrin last expansion. The treatment screams of fairness. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 03:10 PM
|
#25 |
|
Server: Lucan DLere
Loremaster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,910
|
BChizzle wrote:
I think Siatfallen tells you why though. I lurk in the brawler forums because in EQ1 I had two characters, a Shaman and a Monk, I liked monks but wanted to be a little different this time around. What I have noticed is that with the exception of the RoK monk issue thread what monks want is all over the place. Other communities for the most part have a united front but the Monk threads are all over the map. Zerkers as an example said "guards are tougher have more snap aggro tools and do almost as much dps as us. Please just give us a snap aggro tool and make us a little tougher so we are "balanced" again. With Brawler though some want to tank just as well as a Guardian (which to me would ruin the flavor of the monk class but whatever), some want to be tough dps, others want to be able to be an emergency tank with dps and utility, you name it brawlers want it. So rather than screaming fairness I think the issue screams timidity on the part of the devs. Often when you have 4 different view points complaining to you, you take the easyway out by annoying them all, rather than genuinely angering 3 points of view and having them yell to the heavens and back. Yes you /feedbacked various things. I can assure you that there were monks/brawlers /feedbacking things quite the opposite of you. I think if there was a consensus among brawlers with realistic goals in mind that was not like a year old things may be better for ya'll.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 03:14 PM
|
#26 |
|
Developer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 672
|
So as you can see this is one of those cases. Fighters have a number of issues on live and nobody is denying that. However, it was decided to start from from scratch. We realize this decision will not please everyone but going forward its best to come up with a new plan and work from there. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 04:08 PM
|
#27 |
|
General
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 79
|
Aeralik wrote:
All I have to say about that is............WOW You do a great job sir, keep bringing SoE to greatness.... |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 04:16 PM
|
#28 |
|
Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,424
|
You're still leaving us with a broken class...we have aweful AE aggro, aweful ST survivability, and less dps than classes like SK, zerker, and bruiser...so what exactly is our role now? Hell, with everything immune to peel nowadays we're not even a good choice as a third/snap aggro tank. We've hit the point where monk isn't a competitive choice for ANYTHING. Not as a raid tank, not as a raid offtank, not as a raid snaptank, not for instances, not as dps. This class needs some serious help. Those changes were important, sure it was on test and we're not entitled to have anything that shows up there...but we are entitled to have broken and imbalanced content that exists on live fixed. And monks (brawlers as a whole, to be honest) ARE broken. |
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 04:48 PM
|
#29 |
|
Server: Lucan DLere
Loremaster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,910
|
Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:
Yes you are right about some things Vinka but look at it in the big picture. This was not a Brawler or even Monk fix, this was an attempt at a fighter revamp. Apparently the Producer realized that at least the foundation of this revamp was broken if not the vision itself. Because this was a change that involved all fighters it had to be rolled back for all of them. Imagine if you will that they pushed the brawler changes live but not the other changes. They then come around and have a different idea for the foundation of the fighters. Do they go and not only change the other fighters but go and rechange the brawlers? This simply isn't how anything is built in virtual or rl. You don't "fix" a thing using one architectural plan when you know you will be "fixing" it again in the next 4 months using an entirely different plan. You throw the old plan out and start from scratch. Now maybe after stepping back they decide all of the fighters don't need a "revamp" that some do but others just need tweeks. Maybe they still decide to revamp fighters, whatever. The thing is these things need to be done in a logical fashion to avoid conflicts. Could you imagine the outcry if they were to push the brawler changes live based on the AE/ST pardigm and then in 4 months push a change based on Offensive/Defensive say? Brawlers would be SCREAMING "offensive plate tanks do more dps than we do." Ya'll need love but when this happens it needs to be done in a way that it sticks and things aren't being rebroken by the next fix.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
03-21-2009, 05:12 PM
|
#30 |
|
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Defiance
Rank: Member
Loremaster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 47
|
I personally am not happy about having to wait for changes the Monk class so obviously needs. But if they need more time to make sure they implement the correct changes, so be it. Hopefully when they get around to the next set of fixes on test it will include: The Meditative Healing Fix AE auto attack near 40% The revamp of our EoF endline AA's namely Crane Flock and Eagle Shriek being changed to something more useful The Proc on our Stances And Please fix our 5 set tso bonus so it does not proc a Detaunt That would be a good START.
__________________
|
|
|
|
