We all know our class is a tank class. I've stated that I personally would give up DPS in order to have better tanking ability. I'm a monk who wants to be the MT always, even in raids. As it stands now we do good DPS (better than some scouts even). Would you willingly give up damage dealing ability for increased defense/deflection/tank ability? Would you give up say, icy talon for another buff to increase defense/deflection? Would you suffer a lower overall auto attack damage in order to be able to reliably tank Venekor? Well?
To make this VERY clear. Would you be willing to DPS exactly as well as a Guardian to be able to tank as well as a guardian.
No. If I'd wanted to play a guardian, I'd have played a guardian. There has to be a spectrum of variation for the class model to have meaning. If all tanks were equally capable at everything, it would be pointless to have more than one tank class. The archetype model followed by EQ2 (fighter, mage, priest, scout) takes a middling approach--all members of an archetype can perform that archetype's core functions, and within an archetype there is a measure of variation (too little variation, if you ask me). The problem faced by this model is where to draw the line between variation and homogeneity. Make the classes too similar and people complain that they aren't unique. Make them too different and they complain that they can't adequately perform their core function. Gage is essentially asking to make monks more like guardians. No thanks. If you want to be the main tank all the time, then be it. If you feel you can't do this to your satisfaction with the tools provided to a monk, don't ask that they alter monks; play a guardian.
Me personally? No ...I picked the Monk precisely because it has the best fighter dps. However,I would like our agility improved somewhat to lessen the gap between avoidance and mitigation tanks. And don't listen to the nasty minority of posters who tell you to stop 'whining'. I don't necessarily agree with all your views but I find them thoughtful and believe that you have every right to state your opinions! I was following the 'Guardian Envy' thread on the Guardian boards and a lot of useful information was shared, often with courtesy and/or good humour. However, for the life of me I can't understand why some people feel the need to stifle others' viewpoints. The whole point of these boards is to air your opinion - not to prevent people from doing so. I let myself get angry with some rather unpleasant Pallies and it just descended into a shouting match. Lesson learned - don't insult the insulters. They don't care what you say anyway - and the intelligent, fair-minded people who read and post here will likely not be able to see the Argument for the arguments.
Well...no. Personally, I would rather it stay as it is. If it was ONLY giving up Icy Talon for another defensive buff I might say yes, but if we're talking a general nerf of our DPS across the board to Guardian levels, no thanks. I like being a damage machine too much I understand your point regarding tanking on raid mobs, but I prefer being able to fill several roles in a party over being a meat shield.
I can't believe that after the 300+ posts in the "Guardian Envy" thread that this is still what you think our (with exceptions noted) stance is. I'm just speechless....
Personally I say I prefer to tank overall. BUT this will never happen and my faith that them bringing that into line equal is not going to happen. If we go that route then we will be worhtless dps and a sub par tank. I personally think as it was setup we should take a bit more dmg then a gurdian for example at the exchange for dps. Only trouble is the problem with Mobs skill attacks landing way to often causing us to dip well below the tank level of other tanks. Think if these attacks were leveled out or are avoidance deflection checks aginst them are improved we will always be life spiking mess. For me I am 50/50 its managable now. One thing to keep in mind is that once the healer aggro issues are corrected you will see us pull back on DPS as we will over aggro easier. This due to the fact that reactive heals and wards are giving credit to the tank not healer for aggro making it so we can dps more. But due to the lack of deaggro ablilitys we will have to scale down. Our dps is dependant on the tanks aggro generation you lower that and we get lowered. Scouts have deaggro skills and this fix should bring otehrs more into line. Wizards will get bumped down from ungoldy dps also I hope by this and bring everyone better in line with each other. But all in all I don't trust they could fix us to that level without making us obsolete tottally.
Speechless is probably how you should remain with regard to certain posters, Moon! They either cannot comprehend what you say or they don't want to hear it. Either way it's a waste of your time trying to conduct any reasoned dialogue with some people. Just reply to the intelligent posts and let the others dissolve in their own bile
That's really a loaded question. Personally i'd be willing to go either way. I'd prefer to either tank as well as a scout and do great DPS or tank as well as a guardian and do guardian DPS. Either way works for me, this mediocre at everything stuff isn't really my cup of tea. I have found that my AC is consistantly as high or higher then paladins/SKs lately and I hold agro better if that's any consolation.
Here is how the monk is balance Vs a guardian (or any other plate tank really) Monks have: Superior DPS Superior deflection Inferior HP Inferior Mitigation Guardians have: Inferior deflection (they are suppose to at least) Inferior DPS Superior Mitigation Superior HP That is how its balanced. Now if they could only balance out the damage taken then we could drop this argument b/c monks could be used as main tanks.
We would have better defense if they reduced the concentration reqs of some of our buffs. I mean come on, my shaman can throw on Spirit of the Badger, Spirit of the Bull, Ursine Edler, Courage. So the shaman can buff, AC, HP, Str, Stam, and HP + Str again with their 5 concentration. We get to put on Swooping crane and Tranquility (only 33 atm and only if you actually do it). Woopity doo.
I am pleased with "we trade off taunts for dps". Losing more DPS would make me sad. It's already very difficult to get a group; groups that already have a Fighter don't want another one, because their damage output sucks and the group will suffer. I am firmly of the opinion that we will never be changed to tank as well as a guardian, so I don't even want to try. If we do 10% more damage than a guardian and tank 10% worse, we will always be the last choice anyway.
Thats another good point to add too. Monks do not have anywhere near the taunting abilities other fighters get, which I assume is also another trade off from the DPS balance. I would not sacrifice anything my monk had for better tanking abilties unless it actually balanced out the classes. I want diversity. Monks should out dps all other fighters (except for bruisers) and they should avoid the most damage period. There are other factors that balacne this out. DPS, HP, AC, Mitigation, avoidance, defense, skills, taunts, etc. these all balance out our differences. Yes monks do more DPS, yes we have less mitigation and less hit points, but its not about being the best, its about balance. I tank with my monk and want to tank raid material, which now is near impossible with our class. This game was sold to me under the impression monks will be able to tank anything given the right tactics and right sitations. However, I find that to be completely untrue. If this is not the case then EQ 2 I guess is not for me. I will say I tried my best, pack up, and move on to something else. Simple as that. I would love to get a dev to respond to this archetype balacne tank issue just to get it over with, and so we can finally see who is right and who is wrong.
I like the idea of getting rid of a DPS skill for a defense/deflection/tank skill. But, odds are if this ever happened, it would be a 5 concentration buff that did almost nothing, or a buff that did some good, but lasts 10 seconds and has a cooldown time of 5 minutes. Ok, I am in a sarcastic mood, sorry. I honestly do not want Monks to be the exact same as a Guardian, but in different armor. But I would like to see a bit more tanking ability in Monks. Whether its innate, or by the useage of a buff/stance, I am not particular.
Hmm...I think they should do as promised and then lets go from there, I am not ready to give up anything until we see how this class is actually supposed to tank. How can something be fixed if in IMO it never worked properly in the first place? The stacked agility was a mistake (though i miss it) lets be honest, anyone could tank back then the cold hard truth is we were no better than scouts were, actually when agility was stacked/buffed they were better. Do these items first 1. Fix our deflection/avoidance so that we accurately determine how we tank. 2. Take away the un-godly deflection Guardians seem to have. (Or make it even; I hate to see any class Nerfed) Message Edited by kerra on 03-03-2005 04:09 PM
Well, yes, but I'd be a little unhappy about it. As bonesbro said, I am of the firm opinion that we trade off taunts for greater DPS, thus sacrificing DPS would reduce our ability to maintain aggro. If what I've read on some posts is true, namely that our DPS matches Rogues in many cases, then yes, I'd trade some DPS for incresed Deflection/Defense (not Mitigation). We're not supposed to have DPS that high. OTOH I'm laying my bets on a Guardian nerf in the next month or two. I've seen a number of anecdotal posts about Guardians and Berzerkers avoiding more attacks than Monks or Bruisers which is clearly a reversal of how it should be. Since SOE has shown a lot of stubborn refusal regarding restoring Monks' ability to avoid attacks after the Agility nerf I don't expect them to improve our Avoidance; I expect them to nerf plate tanks' (or perhaps just Warriors' and their subclasses') Avoidance instead.
Hmmm.. This is a hard choice.. Elevated (not best, just good) DPS is what Brawlers are known for. To reduce the DPS of a brawler and increase their tanking ability is would be to dramatically change the flavor of brawlers. Brawlers do lack in tanking ability, and as it has been pointed out, brawlers are fighters, and all fighters should be able to tank well, just differently. I would suggest a brawler buff, a stance if you would, that would dramatically reduce our dps, and increase our tanking abilities. However, something like this would lead one to ask: Why be a Guardian? If I can DPS better than a guardian, and tank as well as a guardian when I choose to do so, why be a guardian? I envision the Fighter world on a sliding scale: <-----D-E-F-E-N-C-E-------- ------O-F-F-E-N-C-E--------> A Guardian for example, would be all the way over to the left, while a Bruiser (a more offensive flavor of a monk) would be all the way over to the right. While other classes fall somewhere in between. There is also another factor to think of, and that's utility. For example, it's hard to compare the utility of a guardian to that of, say..a paladin. Paladins just have FAR more utility. So.. We have 3 'slider bars' per class that we must look at carefully. You'll notice, that in EQ2, unlike EQ1, Rouges are not the huge damage machines that they once were. They do good DPS, but they are top-of-the-line anymore. But comparatively, they have /alot/ of uility packed into them to help balance the fact. Brawlers have less utility, but more defense than a Rouge, and slightly less offence. Man, I am rambling.. Anyway, the point is. Brawlers have flavor, and to make them able to 'tank' as well as a guardian at a whim, would do away for the need for guardians. Furthermore, lowering their DPS and upping their tanking abilities to be equal to that of a guardians.. Well, once again, we are at "Why have two classes?" Yes, yes, I know, Monkfu and all that jazz, but from a raw game play perspective, there is little reason to have two if we make these two classes equal. Now, one could make an easier argument stating that our DPS should be upped, or make sure it is always in like with rouges, but where they get increased utility, we get decreased utility (already where we are at currently) and increased durability. I do not see brawlers as tanks, so much as a Hybrid Tankish Rouge.. Brawlers had to fall into a bucket somewhere, so they were lumped into the Fighter bucket. (In EQ1 a Monk was never really considered a Main Tank). I like the class the way it is. Maybe a 10% adjustment one way or the other. Perhaps slightly more DPS to make us more desirable to groups, or slightly more tankage to make us alot more durable DPS (and frankly, when it comes to raids, and everyone is OOM, brawlers are still /very/ solid DPS), but I'd disagree with taking brawlers, and pushing them more over to the left. I think that heavily detracts from the flavor of the class. My 2c.
