EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Fighter's Arena > Monk
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2012, 02:29 PM   #1
Shredderr

Loremaster
Shredderr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 182
Default

Looks like brawlers and guardians got some force taunts for pvp except us. all heals are lower and potency no longer affects the size of our only heal ? the mit increase looks like every class got a form of it and we lost our ST immunity on our def stance...

__________________
Revrand 92 monk Nagafen

Knowall 92 mystic Nagafen

Shredderr 92 wizard Nagafen

Shredderr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 03:32 PM   #2
The_Cheeseman

Loremaster
The_Cheeseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,285
Default

Nope, you're entirely sober. Brawlers got the shaft with this update. The end of our Flavor of the Month era is fast approaching.

__________________
The_Cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 04:11 PM   #3
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

My Inq in quested gear has more Mit then my Monk in D stance and all Defensive gear.... nice days SMILEY
__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 05:43 PM   #4
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

Wow so plate armor has more mit than leather?

/bizoggle

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 06:43 PM   #5
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

Well since the reasoning for Nerfing the Brawlers D Stance and removing the Strikethrough Immunity was that "the Brawlers Mit has gotten up to the Mit of the plate tanks then we don’t need the ST Immunity". Since the Mit of the Heroic/quested geared Inq in plate armor in O stance has almost 2k more Mit then my Monk in all raid gear, AA's for Mit, and Geared for Mit. you cannot have it both ways ether the Plate's have more mit and Brawlers still need ST Immunity or we have Similar Mit?
__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 06:58 PM   #6
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Well since the reasoning for Nerfing the Brawlers D Stance and removing the Strikethrough Immunity was that "the Brawlers Mit has gotten up to the Mit of the plate tanks then we don’t need the ST Immunity". Since the Mit of the Heroic/quested geared Inq in plate armor in O stance has almost 2k more Mit then my Monk in all raid gear, AA's for Mit, and Geared for Mit. you cannot have it both ways ether the Plate's have more mit and Brawlers still need ST Immunity or we have Similar Mit?

All Fighters received the same nerf to mitigation, while gaining 5% damage reduction on thier Defensive stance.

Healers received an increase to the mitigation on their buffs.

Sounds like you are stretching the truth anyway.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 11:26 AM   #7
Zivgar

Loremaster
Zivgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 132
Default

Since monks are avoidance tanks you should look at your 90% avoidance compared to that same Inq. Wha? not even close.

As a Guardian when I am in D-Stance and a monk in my guild is in D-Stance I have about 2k more Mit than him, while he has about 10% more avoidance than me.

I agree they should not have removed ST immunity from brawlers D-Stance.

I agree that they should have given other tanks ST immunity on Temp buffs.

Brawlers are avoidance tanks and when they are in D-Stance they should be the best at it and imo having an immunity to ST is a big part of that.

I possible compromise could be that while a brawler is in D-Stance that ST only does half damage or 25% damage. Something like that.

Zivgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 11:42 AM   #8
Shredderr

Loremaster
Shredderr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 182
Default

thank you for that I agree we should have our immunity to strikethough since we are avoidance tanks .... something to make our class unique. Aggro is key to tanking and number 1 to being a tank while survivability toughness being second imo. Real nice to get beat on and cause it to hold aggro then seeing stoneskins proc to take the damage but we dont have it like that . I rolled a monk to be the highest dps tank class as a sacrifice to wearing plate and being the softest of all tanks but we cant even claim that title. Why invite a monk for the tougher named since all have strikethough but can now wear plate. And I dont raid so 90% avoidance is a bit much I think I have about 80% while the mitigation doesnt seem to make me feel plateish ....these days you need stoneskins deathsaves and ST immunity. TBH Tsunami doesnt even feel like it does much anymore not like when 60 was the cap.

__________________
Revrand 92 monk Nagafen

Knowall 92 mystic Nagafen

Shredderr 92 wizard Nagafen

Shredderr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 11:53 AM   #9
alabama

Loremaster
alabama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 182
Default

The_Cheeseman wrote:

Nope, you're entirely sober. Brawlers got the shaft with this update. The end of our Flavor of the Month era is fast approaching.

hah. coming from the guy who read someone elses post on flames, bandwagoned the joint then went around for a month in the test forums telling everyone how none of the changes would be felt by brawlers. priceless.

__________________
Smokejumper: "The monthly subscription fee means players can expect a lot of new content from us. And I say a lot - I really mean that. This is something that we feel obligated to the players, because they are paying monthly sub fee."

alabama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 01:25 PM   #10
Zyek

Lord
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 20
Default

I don't know about being nerfed to be honest ;p

In reckless stance I can output more than T1 dps.. I like it!

I scored a 422k on a 45 sec fight ;p It was funny at the raid yesterday I was having a blast muahaha!

 (00:45) a Doomscale mortifier: 3125431 Beastlord-Claw of Khati Sha-706788Monk| 422529Assassin | 364684Necro | 360453Beastlord | 253210

Timewarp + Combat Mastery + Dragon fire + Reset Dragon fire and do it again! just that was like 200-300k .. oh yea did i say i almost went ld too :p

Zyek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 01:30 PM   #11
meidang

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3
Default

Okay for all those who cant read Monks do wear leather yes, but we are Chain Miti not leather, if you take the 2 sec required to read Monk myth it is a 20% miti boost,  So this Plate vs leather crap is just that, Crap,,  also if you really want to keep Plate and Brawler tanks in their Own catagory , I demand right now that ALL Plate tanks be dropped to a Max Avoidance of 50% self buffed,

Back during RoK xpac Plate tanks were offered the ability to gain 60-70% avoidance and in group/raids they could get up to 75-80% avoid,, And that still holds true to today ( if you spec an gear for it),,  If Brawlers cant have 70% -75% miti due to us being avoidance tanks, why the heck can a Mit tank have our avoidance,  personally i see all plate tanks do just as well as my monk when it comes to tanking an aggro ( if not it's because they the person suck and not the class) what they seem to lack the most is DPS,,

I tend to outparse equally geared plate tanks, but as far as incoming damage in grp/raid it seems to be less then 1% difference, i really think the main reason for all this is Solo content,  yes i tend to out solo Plate tanks but hey this is a MMO not a solo player game,  Solo content should never have a large impact on grp/raiding, as far as i can see Recklessness isnt near as soft as people claim,  i swap back an forth from offense to reckless an my Miti an Avoid dont really change , i seem no less soft then running standard Offense,  but i get this massive Dps boost, Tues the 24th, i raided UD as OT an ran Reckless on trash,

i did die twice but i feel if i was just running my standard offense i would have died as well, what i did notice is on the 1st set of Drakes i normally pull around 200k dps, well this time i pulled 564k dps, i instantly though wow nerf bat incoming again, ( yes i expect to see reckless nerfed soonish)  out of all the upate stuff , the only thing that pisses me off is the nerf to our deathsave and losing black widow for recklessness which the more they ( SoE) plays with it they crappier the trade off with be,  Once again it's really Plate versus Chain, you want to talk about leather talk to a druid

meidang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 04:37 PM   #12
Shredderr

Loremaster
Shredderr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 182
Default

hmmm well nice to hear that about the new stance ... But are we still a desirable tank now with our loss of ST immunity ? were you tanking ? or did they bring you as dps ? I have a wiz if I wanna dps I can play that . I really rolled the monk cause I want to tank as one and sony said we were viable as one at the outset of release. What can we do better than other tanks that make us desirable as a tank ? And you mean to say SK's are no longer out dpsing all other tanks even zerkers now ? I mean I dont raid only group so my facts are admittedly heroic maybe things are diff in a raid IDK. But ST made us comparable to plate tanks and I guess the plate tough guys cried long enough ... they got their way they have far more mit without having to cast temps as well as having the same amount/kind of avoidance as us ...

__________________
Revrand 92 monk Nagafen

Knowall 92 mystic Nagafen

Shredderr 92 wizard Nagafen

Shredderr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 06:21 PM   #13
Zyek

Lord
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Monks can tank just fine... people complaining about it is because they have no clue how to play the class.

Only reason why I ended up playing my tank was because they needed a 3rd tank for a pull. Since majority of the time i wasnt tanking I dps'd ;p and oh boy was I supprised.

Btw... Mend and our heals are pretty much useless in raids any how.. We still have our death save, and stone skins..

Zyek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 10:47 AM   #14
The_Cheeseman

Loremaster
The_Cheeseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,285
Default

alabama wrote:

hah. coming from the guy who read someone elses post on flames, bandwagoned the joint then went around for a month in the test forums telling everyone how none of the changes would be felt by brawlers. priceless.

I bandwagoned nothing, and I still believe that monks are fine. However, it is true that we certainly did get nerfed the hardest in this update, and I fully expect additional nerfs in the future, precisely because I think we're still doing pretty darn well compared to a few of the other fighters. The perception of these and possible future nerfs will likely end the flavor of the month period for monks, as clueless players flee what they believe is a sinking ship.

But please, feel free to presume and generalize about my opinions further.

*EDIT* And there it would seem that FotM status may soon pass back to SKs, if the uber AoE DPS they can output in Recklessness doesn't get toned-down. Nothing attracts the lemmings like big AoE parses.

__________________
The_Cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 08:24 PM   #15
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

We are fine for tanking, however, there are some serious balance issues with plate tanks being able to use recklessness with a shield, with shield values being higher than our base block, and with our lack of heals compared to other tanks.  Those need to be addressed or people will stop playing monks.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 09:36 PM   #16
The_Cheeseman

Loremaster
The_Cheeseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,285
Default

Don't even get me started on Recklessness. The entire concept is nonsensical, and will cause far more balance issues than it was assumedly intended to solve. I have yet to seriously try to analyze the effects of Recklessness on fighter balance, because I keep hoping SOE will admit their mistake and remove it.

__________________
The_Cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 10:44 PM   #17
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

The_Cheeseman wrote:

Don't even get me started on Recklessness. The entire concept is nonsensical, and will cause far more balance issues than it was assumedly intended to solve. I have yet to seriously try to analyze the effects of Recklessness on fighter balance, because I keep hoping SOE will admit their mistake and remove it.

It isnt going anywhere.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 02:40 PM   #18
Shredderr

Loremaster
Shredderr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 182
Default

BChizzle wrote:

We are fine for tanking, however, there are some serious balance issues with plate tanks being able to use recklessness with a shield, with shield values being higher than our base block, and with our lack of heals compared to other tanks.  Those need to be addressed or people will stop playing monks.

 Thats it right there and I dont think Monks have ever really been fotm tbh. Sk's have been holding that down a while. Its just that monks finally became viable recently and with the shock many people rolled one. However they learned still that it takes timing and careful use of temps at the correct time to truly shine as one. Other tanks complained because they believed that because they wear plate they are true MT's and Monks should have to beg for a raid spot as OT and support dps.

__________________
Revrand 92 monk Nagafen

Knowall 92 mystic Nagafen

Shredderr 92 wizard Nagafen

Shredderr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.