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

lmao
You and the 10 others left playing such a narrow-minded boring Diablo clone.
Yeah, SOE needs to make all classes the same with different skins. Oh boy ! What fun that would be! /rolls eyes

Gage, I understand what you are saying, and you have a point. Certainly you are entitled to your opinions

For me though, I like variety, Rather than have 4 classes that work and all that, I want to have 20. I can deal with the flux while they fix them and get things adjusted. I'm an optimist and assume they will be. While the statement (regarding might as well have 4 classes) might be overused it is far from ridiculous. To many myself included class diversity is an important part of the game. I dont' want my monk to be like the other figher types, No major things, as I have said maybe very the 10% of what makes a fighter.

I guess it boils down to we all want different things for our class, each person of course is entitled to that. We can only voice our wishes and see what the Devs give us, and then decide to play or not.


Drevva

Yup.

Well gage do you at least see what most people are talking about outside of your own views?

In a strictly PvE game, there is no such thing as overpowered and most dont care what another class does or doesnt have unless its something as extreme as the friggin crusader horse...heck that made everyone do a double take...

now do you see what you always say that i **assume**? i know what you are going to say as far as *well thats the way SOE wants it**,

BUT

outside of your personal view, do you see my point? No one wants to play that kind of game. Thier class and thier online persona is all that they have. Instead of being corralled into 4 classes = we are corralled into four JOBS..

Whats the diffference presented there? If you want to play a monk and be successful in a group you HAVE TO TANK??

Gage, who do you know outside of yourself that would play a game like that? Honestly. More and more people are coming out of the woodworks to say that they dont want to play a game like that.

and yet again= just for the record.... (Another one of my CRAZY assumptions was right)

I know plenty of people who want to play a game like that. I see posts about it all the time. Some of us like the archetype system Sage. No, its not 10, like you think.
Where do you think the priest rebalance came from? Or the enchanter/summoner changes? Etc, etc.
The game is what it is, and I doubt the archetype system will ever change.

Gage im not trying to argue about this or anything for that matter but you are having a hard time couting as of late.
The numbers on the post about who wanted to tank or dps were apparent, you denied those.
The number of players who say that they dont want to play a generic *flavor* system and its not going to cut it on the fun side, you are denying those now.
As i know that you would rather die before you say Sage was right, on any issue for that matter.
(just like i said that it would require an overhaul to balance the classes that way, and what are we experiencing right now??? hmmm i dont know, sounds like an overhaul to me)
And just as well im sure that you would also say that everyone who doesnt like the archetype system should quit and go play a game that suits them a bit more. But im sure EQ2 wouldnt be a happy place after something like that occured.

Why do you think that SOE brushes all the crap around the table to no end and never comes out and says what players REALLY need/want to know...

Are all classes going to be balanced in the way that they will all be carbon copies of one another and merely skins and animations.

I know you may word it a bit more eloquently, but thats the bottom line to me. There are no race particularites, no class particularities, no alternate particularites (armor,mounts, alternate advancement).

What the heck is left gage??? outside of the class you play apparently not much...

Once again... here are the classes I play:

Warden 39, Monk 25, Paladin 25, Dirge 24, Defiler 23, Illusionist 20, Rogue 18, Warrior 13.

I know PLENTY about each archetype and different roles that different classes and sub-classes fulfill within those archetypes.
"The number of players who say that they dont want to play a generic *flavor* system and its not going to cut it on the fun side, you are denying those now." - SageMarrow

Let me point out some numbers to you. The number of people that post on these forums is SMALL compared to the number of people in game. Just think about this... if all those people in game are happy with their class, with the archetype system... why would they come to the forums to listen to you rant and whine in your incoherent typing? They don't. They stay in game and enjoy the balance inherent in the archetype sytem. It's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that the archetype system is a success and will be here to stay, no matter how much you idiots whine about it.

"Are all classes going to be balanced in the way that they will all be carbon copies of one another and merely skins and animations." - Sage
I certainly hope so. It'd make the game balanced for everyone so that when they choose their base archetype, they know just what their role will be throughout the entire game. Fighters tank, scouts stab, priests heal, and mages nuke. That is, in the most simple of terms, what the archetype system is about. If your class/sub-class cannot perform that most basic of functions, that class/sub-class is broke and needs to be fixed. If your class/sub-class can perform that function in addition to the function of another archetype, that class/sub-class is also broke and needs to be nerfed. We all saw scouts get whacked with the nerf bat when they were tanking better than tanks at the higher levels. If scouts could tank, do damage, and have their utility, what would be the point of ever playing a true tank?

Let me point out some numbers to you. The number of people that post on these forums is SMALL compared to the number of people in game. Just think about this... if all those people in game are happy with their class, with the archetype system... why would they come to the forums to listen to you rant and whine in your incoherent typing? They don't. They stay in game and enjoy the balance inherent in the archetype sytem. It's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that the archetype system is a success and will be here to stay, no matter how much you idiots whine about it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hmmmm, im sure thats why we are having this discussion about brawlers that dont want to be fulltime tanks and enjoy the dps....

If SOE makes monks and bruisers TANK ONLY tanks, then you will see a problem with players and thier class. Right now the players are getting exactly what they expected out of the brawler branch of classes.
Message Edited by SageMarrow on 04-03-2005 03:44 AM

:smileysurprised:
Good grief. This is about one of the most inaccurate statements I have ever seen used to describe a MMO. Amazing.

hmm, how about because you can just make the mobs stronger at will...??? OR because you can change mobs' strength and ability, duh.
its PvE, you can make a friggin turtle jump hoops and fly if you wanted to, you could make every single mob a struggle to kill.. or just scale things in each respect so that just because one thing is powerful, that classes weakness shines just as brightly.
So while a monk does great dps while tanking and remains fragile, and a guardian does little or no dps while tanking and has 5500 HP unbuffed and scrap the UBER defense all together.
If they take out all these friggin marathon fights it would work just fine...
but im sure you cant think like that...and apparently neither does SOE.
have a nice day..:smileyhappy:
Message Edited by SageMarrow on 04-03-2005 10:35 AM
Message Edited by SageMarrow on 04-03-2005 10:36 AM

Sage you are wrong. You will never be able to change the Archtype system, get over it and reroll a scout. I'm not going to be fancy or show you how your wrong, I'll leave that to you. Also don't take credit for the changes that are up and coming. It seems to me they are being done for reasons that Gage has said over and over again. You are a simple person with simple ideas to what a game should be, if you want a game with ONE main tank go play EQLive. If you really want to help out do us a favor and leave this game for another mmorpg. If anything you could at least go rant on the brusiers forum and leave us monks alone.
One more thing, as far as the Numbers of people who want to tank or dps I'm sure if one of your important polls could get every monk to vote it would be a close 50/50 so that point is mute and has no bearing on weather the class should be changed. Leave it up to what SOE wants and the devs implament. So far it looks like your losing this battle, perhaps you should Email SOE and annoy them.

lol, thats funny brew, players that never post thier opinions here leave in hordes from this game, where they go is not important, its why.
while im sure you cannot see past your fanboi'ism. Thats fine because im sure you are also the type that would play a gnome guardian...
Either way, the fact still remains, just because you like being wanted and accepted because you may have self esteem issues in real life and dont have any friends so you live your social aspirations through an online game... thats fine.
But i dont, ive said a billion times that i play alot of games both console and online, and quite frankly im not impressed here. IF you are then fine. but do me one favor and tell me one thing that EQ2 has that hasnt been done before and better?
Mentoring? aka - powerleveling? lol come on now =
/pizza? thats insulting considering the problems with health in america not to mention the ones in game = but im sure you use it often...
As i have also said often brew, they shouldve called this game something else besides everquest 2 and you wouldnt be hearing my mouth right now. maybe Fantasy Island wouldve worked or who knows, but if it wasnt called Everquest 2 i wouldnt have played it. Simply Put.

Ahh yes. The famous "content for classes" argument.
/sigh
First off, how do you tailor content towards specific classes when the classes themselves aren't finished being balanced in the first place. The game is not even 6 months old in a life cycle of at least 3 years. They are obviously still tweaking the foundation for the players and for the game. And they will continue to do that until they have some semblance of balance.
Secondly, you have no idea what content is planned for the future. I've witnessed Sony come up with some incredible encounter designs over the years. They can only build upon that knowledge and they will. Any EQ1 vet from PoP on can attest to that. But there's no point putting that stuff out there now when the foundation for the game isn't completely set yet.
This post just goes to show how clueless you really are with this stuff. Here we are debating the imbalance of sub-classes and you want to inject a post about how things will all be fixed if they simply make encounters shorter. :smileyvery-happy:
Clueless indeed.
Message Edited by Velorek on 04-03-2005 02:20 PM

Sage how do you know what people are doing who don't post on these forums?

Lol what is wrong with a Gnome Guardain perhaps if you would lighten up a bit you wouldn't be such an aggressive poster.

I play to have fun, I play with my wife as a casual gamer and unlike you I have a lot of people that like and want to group with me. I'm sorry if you can't find that nich on your server. If you had a toon on Blackbarrow I would invite you to group with me and my friends, because we have a lot of fun doing basic quests and HQ.

I have never power gamed I have never /OOCed for a grind group yet I'm lvl 44. IMO this game is tailored more for the casual gamer. I'm not saying the game should be this way, to me it just seems that it is. I hope SOE can make the end content a bit more enjoyable and still keep the casual feel. Its a thin line to walk but its a risk SOE has decided to take. Time will tell if they get it correct or flop the game.

EQ2 has a lot of different people wanting a lot different things, SOE will never make us all happy. I wouldn't be upset if you just gave your opinions, but you don't you try VERY hard to prove everyone else is wrong and what you say is Gospal. Myself I want what Gage wants which is a Monk who can tank all content. From what DEVs say SOE wants the same thing. Perhaps if you took a step back and just had fun you wouldn't be constently fighting with what SOE has said from the start. A brawler will be >>>>>>A TANK<<<<<<<

sage
"but do me one favor and tell me one thing that EQ2 has that hasnt been done before and better?"

The Archtype system....

Just to entertain your remarks about my personall life I'm currently in the Navy so being "Fat" is not an option. My social life is pretty good I have a lot of friends from work and the many places I've visited on my Ship. So now that we know I'm not socialy inept perhaps we can continue to talk about how unhappy you are with a game you pay to play.
Message Edited by Brew01 on 04-03-2005 11:54 AM

Brawlers will always have a DPS edge over other fighters, but personally I'll be surprised if its as large as it is at present. And no, players aren't getting exactly what they wanted, or there wouldn't be such an argument.

The simple fact is: Your pissed brawlers are not a DPS class.

Hey thats fine, but what do you think your chances of getting SoE to move Brawlers out of the fighet archetype and move them into the scout? Exactly, so either put up or shut up.

I think what Gage is just trying to say in general here is that if they "balance" things one way. There will only be a few different classes actually played in this game and everything else will be subpar. Monks are tanks and that is it.....the discussion started out as an avoidance thread. Lets keep it as that.
Keep your cool Gage and don't let these other peeps get under your skin. I've enjoyed reading this thread and have found a new respect for some of the players out there with there intelligent discussion.
Just picture Jet Li when you think monk. http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/DEFGH/Hero/images/main-page.jpg
Picture Bob Sapp when thinking of a bruiser. http://ko.sherdog.com/graphics/fighters/sapp_01_small.jpg
And in my mind I think brick wall when picturing a guardian. And brick walls don't avoid many hits last time I checked...but can get hit a lot before they go down. http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Miscellaneous/PittedBrickWall_g.jpg

Message Edited by vcjester on 04-03-2005 01:44 PM

brew01, now that was a highly respectable post.
Just one simple thing.
Now most of you may not know where i stand in game or how i play. The thing that most tend to miss in this argument is that i never said i dont want to tank, that i want to do dps, or that i want anything of the sort. I said the system is blown because of more reasons than class balance. Because of things like avoidance being random and a nice portion of the player base being partial to guardian/paladin types tanking.
That will never change. A guardian will always be the most defensive tank. no debating that. So in competition with them is not where i want to find my place on a raid. For the MT spot that i wont get.
I just finished tanking varsoon, all of nek castle, and a few peices of CT yesterday. Ive tanked RE through and through for 8 levels straight. So i know my class and i know how to play it. I just dont think that i will ever be chosen over a guardian type to tank a raid. Just as i dont want to be some 3rd wheel junkie who they let tank the raid because they got it down to a science.
In my guild and any other guild that i may choose to join, im going to be next to last in tanking. which is why i would rather have another direction taken with the brawler branch. Which is why i say increase dps and cut power cost. As a bruiser im using shout and slurred insult at level 40. Both of which are level 20 and below taunts.
While i know that monks have less gimmick based taunts, the fact still remains that in a pure grouping environment and a pure raid environment, we have no edge and tend to look like tough scouts in comparison to an equally geared guardian.
This is the point im trying to make, i dont care how SOE balances the game, as you said, thats a risk SOE chose to take and i personally think that the glass is half empty - NOT = half full, but that is my personal opinion.

I just wanted to point out to anyone reading this thread that this post by Gage-Mikel is a blatant fraud. He did not quote from the post I made in this thread, or from any post I have ever made. He invented the quote from me in a disgusting attempt to bolster his own arguments. I think that was out of line, and it severely damages this persons credibility. I would suggest to anyone that reads his posts to take the time to fact check his information, especially quotes from other players. If this is his standard tactit he has no place on this board any longer.

For anyone else I feel the need to clarify my position on classes. I see classes as a combination of basic attributes. A short list would be- Damage mitigation, Damage Avoidance, Damage inflicting, Base Hps, Utility, and Healing. At each stage in a characters development they make choices that sacrifice some of these attributes for others. To explain my position completely I would have to break down each of the three critical stages of development. In general I feel that monks have made enough sacrifices in Damage Mitigation, Damage Inflicting, Base Hps, Utility, and Healing that it is not unusual to expect that monks will receive very high ratings in Damage Avoidance and Damage Inflicting. Since that makeup in skills give monks the ability to fulfill two roles in groups successfully, they can still compete for the available group and raid slots. A comparison would be paladins, if Paladins sacrifices in damage, Hps, and avoidance are offset by their utility and healing bonuses, they will also have many roles available and still compete for positions. I do think monks need to be adjusted. The Paladin sacrifice in avoidance was made by using Kite shields rather than Tower shields. Recent comparisons of monks vs tower shields show that monks actually must have made sacrifices in avoidance as well. To me this shows some imbalance since monks have already sacrificed so much. I do not see any reason for monks to be lowered any further in any category if our avoidance is simply "fixed" to what it should be.


Azzel -Nek

HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am a fraud. It's true. Also, when I quoted you and changed your statement I deleted the original post from this very thread, so that no one could see it.
I don't need to bolster my own arguements, everyone on in this community knows where I stand.
I did it to be funny, which it obviously was because I got this great response from you!
oh no, my credibility is gone, I was going to use it for a nice plasma tv too
You're right, since I quoted you and changed what it said, I should be sent to forum prison, what a horrible person am I.
To show that I have reformed, I will paste in his unedited quote here:

So as you can see the reason I summarized his quote is obvious. He states that he doesn't think think outdamaging scouts would be wrong (it is), he states that we were never specified as "tanks" (we were, like 200x, even in THIS thread) and he insists that DPS is our only fall back.
He, like Sage, feels we can't compete with plate tanks as tanks, and doesn't want to have to build a guild around himself to tank, so he'd rather the devs focus on our damage, because of his perception.
In short, he is misinformed, which isn't my fault, but it sure is funny.

Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on 04-03-2005 03:48 PM