Consolidated thread about Combat and Spell changes for the Monk class...

Should the devs turn a blind eye to what they consider huge imbalances in game mechanics? No, of course not.
Should they have fixed said imbalances long before now? Yes, of course.
Is it inappropriate and unfair to introduce such sweeping "fixes" long after most players have made large investments of time and effort into their characters? In my opinion, Yes.
Should we receive some sort of compensation if we're unhappy with the changes to the characters we've worked so hard on? Yes.
Will we? Of course not.
Therefore, should the devs suck it up and do a better job before release next time, and bloody well leave us the hell alone? BINGO!

Ok - but even if everything you say is 100% true, that doesn't suggest a different course of action than what the devs are currently doing. It just lets you feel better about complaining about it.

"Devs should do a better job next time". Ok, check. I think everyone agrees with that. But things is what they is, so do you have any suggestions for changes to this rebalance?

Okay, I am not very well versed on how to use these forums so this may look kind of funny. However, I was just reading through Blackguard's latest post on the "running list of beta combat/spell updates" and in it they speak about attributes and it looks like they are removing the str vs agi and int vs wis portion of the revamp. However, he also says the following in the post, "- Increasing your Agility improves your avoidance and no longer mitigates your opponent's Strength bonus." and a little further down "The effectiveness of Strength, Agility, Intelligence, and Wisdom buffs has been increased. The effective cap is set at 10 times the character's level. For example, a level 30 fighter will receive an increasing melee damage bonus up to 300 Strength, while a level 40 wizard will receive an increasing bonus to spell damage up to 400 Intelligence." So now for my question:
This sounds like they are removing the soft cap of 100 where upon reaching that number in live the effectivness of adding to the attribute drops signifcantly and are changing the cap to the character's lvl times 10. So I am wondering if one's avoidance goes up at the same rate untill you reach this new limit or is the old soft cap still in place? Thanks for anyone who spends the time checking this out for me.

"Therefore, should the devs suck it up and do a better job before release next time, and bloody well leave us the hell alone? BINGO!" There is my suggested course of action right there. Leave us alone.
I've said repeatedly that I'm not against having our DPS nerfed a bit. I can concede that we're a bit overpowered in that area. But a radical reconstruction of the class this late in the game isn't fair to us at all, and I'm not going to lose sleep if some devs have to spend a couple nights crying into their beer because their vision for my class wasn't realized. I'm not as good a tank as a guardian. I don't WANT to be as good a tank as a guardian. If I did, I would have played a guardian. I wanted to play a high-damage martial-arts class, so I played monk. Now that I've put all the time and effort in to get my monk to where he is, I don't really want him to change. He's fine how he is.

Funny, after all the time and effort I've put into my monk where he is, I do want him to change. Go figure.

i have usually read the boards , i dont get some people most of the time..

a year ago i started my monk because it was in the archtype tree of the fighters to have a Tank , due to imbalances and inherent flaws in the system i wasnt able to do this , so i ended up with half a tank and dps .... not what i signed up for ...

i am glad they are balancing this and i can tank with my flavor , a monk ...not a gaurdian because that isnt me , if monks where in the dps tree i would have played a ranger and i wouldnt have asked myself the question , why am i tanking like a wet paper bag ...

i think it took em way to long for this , but i dont think this game isnt going anywhere any time soon , best fix whats broke before they pile expansions upon expansion.

The new changes intrigue me. Earlier, they put the soft cap in on Agility (for instance) because monks and non-monks alike were using Agility buffs to become totally unhittable.

Now there will be a hard cap of 80% avoidance.

But since that's an 80% cap against any given mob, that means we could buff agility to 500 and have an 80% chance to evade attacks from a mob 20 levels higher than us...might be fun

I can’t agree with the mentality of starting a character expecting them to perform a role other than the specified role that character’s class was intended to perform as stated by the game’s Developers and then getting angry at the Developer’s when the character’s class is fixed to perform its intended role.
In previous posts it’s been shown when and where the Dev’s specified the Monk sub-class’s role in EQ2. Why would one start a character to perform any role other than their class’s intended role? The two reasons that have been presented so far are ignorance and obstinance.
I can empathize with those that were ignorant of the Dev’s intended role for the Monk sub-class. The manual’s and in-game descriptions of the Monk class only vaguely conveyed its intended role. The only place to find the clear and detailed explanation of the Dev’s intended role for the Monk sub-class was the forums, a place which many new players don’t think to look for such basic information. While the information wasn’t presented in an ideal manner it did exist, so ignorance of the sub-class’s role cannot be used as a reason to keep Monks the way they are.
As for the second reason of obstinance, some people understood the Dev’s intended role for the Monk class and yet chose to play a Monk to perform a different role. They willingly invested time into a character which they knew was not adhering to the Dev’s intentions. How then can this second group of people blame anyone but themselves for this investment now that the Dev’s are fixing Monks according to their originally stated intentions?
While the Dev’s can be faulted for taking this long to do it, they can’t be faulted for fixing a sub-class to perform the role it’s been intended to perform since pre-launch.
To get back on topic…
Gaige, a couple nights ago I asked if you thought Monks will be able to handle group taunting after the revamp. You answered that you did believe they would be able to. Could you elaborate some on your methods of doing so? This is one of my two concerns with the viability of Monk tanking after the revamp.
The other is the usefulness of “extra tanks” on raids. As others have expressed, I think it’s important for “extra tanks” to have a role on raids since Monks won’t be able to fall back on great DPS after the revamp. Could you elaborate on ways you’ve seen “extra tanks” be useful on raids after the revamp?

I don't really care what the dev's intentions were or what any person in particular want out of the different fighters, but in a game where there is only need for 1 tank in any group or raid (maybe a 2nd one in a raid to handle some of the smaller mobs around the boss), there are far too many classes to fill that role.
Setting up 6 classes to be the MT is just asking for most of them to be out of a job with little else to contribute.
Every group or raid is going to want more than 1 dps, and usually more than one healer, but there is no need for more than one MT.
Having a classes that can tank well enough to get by in a group, and do good dps when not tanking and another 1 or 2 good classes at tanking, and perhaps another that can tank ok and backup heal gives a lot more veriety to the game. It also prevents the problem of having too many useless classes.

What saddens me is the MT guardian in my guild is talking about rolling on light armor and medium armor just to have a set of each so we wont have to use other classes as tanks....... -.-

Pretty sure that's why there's offensive and defensive stances.

Would you rather they just had the 4 archetypes and left it at that? There'd still be too many tanks in the world.

So what if our DPS is down a little? We can go offensive, we can protect other tanks and make them more efficient, and we're even getting new group buffs, like HASTE. What group won't want some extra haste for the other melees to go crazy with?

And really, if you have friends you play with, are they going to exclude you because your DPS got nerfed a bit? Brawlers still have higher DPS than the plate tanks, and our tanking should work more reliably.

I tell ya what, if the combat changes lead to more scouts being created, I will be THRILLED. My guild's scout population is pathetic. But for me, if I'm not tanking I'll protect the tank, go offensive, and enjoy my other new abilities. Go monks

Then he is an assface and should be kicked from the guild if he tries that.

Doing this to another guild memeber is one thing, but in open groups I fear this is going to happen alot. I mean, they are giving plate wearers a reason to want to wear medium and light armor, especially if they have some great plate pieces that have huge mitigation. What I think we might start seeing soon is lots Plate Wearers wearing chest & leg plate pieces, and the rest a blend of medium and light armor.
Message Edited by grummit on 08-18-2005 05:25 PM

- Mitigation values have been spread more evenly across armor slots. Chest and leg slots still provide slightly greater mitigation, though less than they did before. This should make it more beneficial to wear high-mitigation armor in every slot. Blackguard August 10, 2005

I hope this keeps plate-wearing fighters from rolling on Medium and Light armor.

I also hope they do more to make the different Fighter sub-classes desireable as MTs than simply setting up one raid mob to be tanked using avoidance and another to be tanked using mitigation. I think its a step in the right direction, I just hope they go further.

The simple solution would be just to do something like this:

Restrict the avoidance bonus of armor to the level you could get from the heaviest piece a person is wearing. A guardian wearing two pieces of heavy vanguard will still have his freedom of movement restricted by those two pieces, whether the rest of him is covered in leather, cloth or nothing.

So the plate tanks would have to choose to wear all plate for the mitigation or all light armor for the avoidance. There would be no mish mashing of armor types in this system and would leave groups the option of having a monk as a tank, since I'm sure our avoidance would be higher than a guardian's would be if he were wearing a full suit of leather.

It could be done, and I believe this would be the easiest way to keep every tank in their designated armor/tanking style.

Dunno if this has been offered before, but it's just an idea, and my 2cp.

Eh. I just figured that in order for this to happen, the avoidance/mitigation bonuses would have to be determined by armor SET, not individual pieces, so really, I'm not sure how this would work under EQ2's current equipment system.
Message Edited by HappyNinja on 08-19-2005 12:28 AM
Message Edited by HappyNinja on 08-19-2005 12:28 AM

Hello all.
Being the ever curious person I am I read all the boards I can. I 'll start off with that I am a level 50 guardian, and I do MT raids time to time (not in a hardcore raid guild but we get by). Also I would like to say hi to Gaige, I haven't see you on the guardian boards in a bit thought you might be MIA.. hehe Even though you and I don't see eye to eye, we both want the betterment of our classes (sub class really) and the game so for that I really do respect you and your opinion.
I for one am not sure that all the changes are good are bad in the game.
But I do know that a simple fix (not sure how simple but being a coder myself I think it should be relatively simple) to the armor issue is make it more class dependant. Example: once you hit a certain level say 40 you can ONLY wear gear for you base class. So Brawlers 40+ can onlyu equip the Light armor and no very light armor that is level 40 and greater. Same goes for all classes, like me being a guardian I can where what ever I want that is level 39 and below but post 40 I can only wear the gear that is above that. I am not saying you can't wear an item that is lighter but below level 40 and I am level 50.. So I could wear (fictional item) The Cloth shawl of agility. level 38 item adds 30 agi ac 1, sv magic -800 (yes neg 800). But there is an a better shawl out that is level 45. Leather Shawl of uberness. Adds 35agi 20ac, sv pois 100, sv magic 300 .. this is where the class resitrictor comes in.. I am 50 and can wear the cloth shawl and of a diff item, but that leather one I can't even though I am still the level. Only leather wearers would be able to wear it.
Just an idea following along the thought of trying to get rid of the mish mashing of armor types.

I really think that almost all gear in the game should be class/subclass only like the stuff that drops in AoW.
You'll get boots that are druid only, with druid stats. A robe that is sorceror only and guess what, it has caster stats.
Not only does this prevent other classes from dropping armor classes, it also ensures that the items you receive have stats benefiting your class.

I think that’s a good idea, but it would only work out well if certain measure were taken. The problem would be when you would randomly get items for classes that your guild did not need. If it only happened a few times you could try trading your useless items with another guild to get things you wanted, or simply put them up for sale and have the guild bank buy items the guild wanted. Unfortunately the random number generator could cause a lot of problems. For instance, around 30% of all the Master spells/CAs our guild has gotten out of SotL have been for Bruisers and Shadowknights. Two subclasses represent roughly 30% of all the Master drops, and we don’t even have any of those classes.
I think one solution would be to set up NPC’s that would trade items from the same zone and tier for ones you had. If you had more Druid boots than you needed you could trade them in for Templar boots. If you had more Brawler weapons than you needed you could trade them in for Bard weapons. This would require some programming as I don’t think there is any such system at this time.
I definitely think class specific armor would solve both the issue of plate-wearing tanks rolling on LA gear and armor having useless stats. I hope the Dev’s consider it.

restricting who can wear certain items would be a great start, but i don't see why they don't just make avoidance something that's based on class. is an enchanter going to be better at avoidance than me because he's wearing a silk robe ?

I read this thread with a mixture of disbelief, humor, and disappointment. I see people arguing designer intentions, manuals, and designated roles of 4 base classes.

I think when the day is done, and the game is played the real question needs to be how well does my class work in the scheme of things. The people that are arguing that the Monk should be moved towards main tank role with a resulting severe loss of DPS should really examine what the end result of that will be in terms of desirability of playing, especially as one nears the top 10 levels of the game. Every raid and high end group I've seen is conditioned to pick a Guardian for the main tank. Even if monks were completely even to the Guardian in sheer tank ability, it would take a lot of changing of mentality for it to affect our desirability for high end raids and groups. Purely giving up DPS to make us a second choice tank isn't going to make Monk one tiny bit more fun to play that I can see, quite the opposite.

Now, if you can add some real utility so that the monk working in a group with a Main Tank Guardian to offset our loss of DPS then perhaps it is workable. However, when the day is done, it takes a fair amount of utility to replace pure DPS. It is no secret that the top guild/players/raiders look closely at DPS/TANK/HEAL numbers. Aruging for the lowering of DPS to gain more tank ability is a very risky proposition. You may win the argument based on initial developer desing concepts but lose the war of fun factor. Noone likes to be a second fiddle. Look at the Wizard vs. Warlock thing closely to see another iteration of this. Another example.. I played Wizard in EQLive because I wanted to be the Master of Damage as the developers originally intended for that class description. I saw rogues out damaging me consistently over the lengths of fights in the end game plus they had aggro avoidance and survivabilty far more desirous. And lets not even talk about how superior magicians were to wizards in the end game of EQLive. Second fiddle is not fun. Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it.