Maybe we should be tanks.

Just a few early morning thoughts. I was reading the post on why these few monks in these few situations got to tank (very good post by the way, if someone can link to it would be great). Also, in the same post explained all other nerfs this patch, all for same reason. My question, and concern about the game, is that why in these very few fights where time is the major factor shouldn't we be able to tank? Isn't this game an evolving game? Isn't a game of strategy? What strategy is ALWAYS send in the meat tank? Wow! There are a few very rare instances where a better strategy is to actually send in a monk. Oh my, we had to think that one through. The fact that verant has decided that the meat tank will always be has just taken a lot of fun of triing to figure out strategies for those Uber mobs from the people who live for figuring out the best way to take those mobs.



Latomi


</p>

The whole ethos of monks is that they are innately very strong both offensively and defensively. Unlike a warrior who has a metal shell round a soft inside, the monk has a lighter shell but a much harder inside. This should give them similar abilities to tank although they are achieved in different ways.



This is how i understand monks as a class in RPGs. Not all RPGs implement them in this way but the original Dev Team appeared to have done this and this was followed up until the very latest incarnation of the Dev Team which has gone for a complete volte face.



You need some mechanic to balance this, however and the original Dev Team chose to balance this equality of tanking, while the monk does more damage by giving the monk two VERY severe penalties - a significant experience penalty (and warriors a 10% bonus) and the weight penalty (which is utterly crippling for non-twinks and it is a horrendous mistake to balance a class based on twinking).



The thing is, if you don't agree with this argument, if you are of the school where RPG monks are weak as putty in the face of a mob, now is not the time to make the argument. The decision was made four years ago and imlemented over three and a half years ago. You can't make such fundamental changes so late in the day.



To change this now is the most idiotic change one can possibly imagine.


</p>

I was thinking pretty much the same thing.



Warriors, rogues, and monks are the only three pure melee classes in the game. I *should* fight better than a hybrid with a book full of spells. When I say "fight", I don't mean just doing damage, I mean taking it too.



From early on, monks were meant to have incredible damage avoidance skills and low AC. Our method of fighting was to get hit less. Today's mobs hit much harder and that original balance of avoidance vs. mitigation is overwhelmed by heavy DPS. We didn't notice because of the increase in monk AC items. We began to rely on mitigation as well. We actually were balanced until this nerf.



Warriors should and do have better mitigation and two or three times the hitpoints. Warriors should always tank better. But monks should have remained excellent fighters. Now, unless you have 1500AC, we are gimped rogues.




</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Warriors should and do have better mitigation and two or three times the hitpoints.<hr></blockquote>



Heh, dunno how to respond to that. Somehow 8k warrior, 6500-7k monk doesnt fit into that whole 2-3X thing.



Saying that maybe monks should be tanks in boss encounters is like saying "maybe warriors should outdamage monks in boss encounters" How would you feel about that?


</p>

I didn't say monks should be tanks in boss encounters, I said warriors should always tank better. Somehow you confuse two conflicting sentences.



The 8Khp warrior vs. the 7khp monk is a whole different world to me. I live in the 6khp warrior vs. a 3khp monk world. But somehow I get to write the check for the ALL/ALL god-loot problem and the people in that other world remain status quo.



Regards,

Utal


</p>