Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 361 to 400 of 637

Thread: Status Update

  1. #361
    Guest

    Default Re: ...

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ya know, Soggie, if you could only admit that your opinions were as weak as everyone else's ( if not weaker, in fact ), mebbe you'd have a leg to stand on.<hr></blockquote>

    I've already admitted this. I'm still waiting for you to.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Fact:

    SoE nerfed monks because we had access ( at certain levels of play ) to gear that gave us more AC than we were apparently supposed to have allowing us to mitigate at a better rate than they desired.



    Observation:

    The problem was not inherent in the class, but rather in the gear that the class could obtain.



    Supposition:

    SoE adjusted the class because it was easier than fixing the itemization.



    Fact:

    Since then, gear at those exalted levels of play has AC totals that are apparently more in line with the Vision(tm) yet is still superior enough to the problem causing items that few ( if any ) at that level of play still wear the problem causing items.



    Conclusion:

    The "fix" that was applied to an unbroken class to repair an issue with broken itemization is now, since itemization is no longer broken in our favor,





    wait for it...



    STILL PENALIZING THE CLASS.<hr></blockquote>

    Nice opinion.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Whatever game you're describing, it certainly isn't everquest. Itemization, warrior bonus, monk innate AC bonus and PoP content all exist in everquest.



    What game are you playing Soggie?<hr></blockquote>

    I never said these weren't part of EQ, in fact I said agreed that they were. However, neither you nor I know if those 3 pieces were the ONLY aspects that were looked at when they made the mitigation change. If you can prove, or get message by word of mouth/written statement from SoE, that those 3 specific elements of EQ are THE ONLY pieces to the puzzle, then I will agree with you. Don't bother posting the patch message that talks about these, because it doesn't say that ONLY they applied. It mentions them, but doesn't specifically say that nothing else was looked at to validate these changes.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think Soggie's poorly communicated point is that:



    Maybe there's some reason other than what SoE has told us was the reason for doing it in the first place for keeping the monk mitigation nerf in place.



    I, for one, certain hope so.



    Because given the reason that SoE gave us, and the observations that anyone with an IQ over 20 can make about the current game,



    THE NERF MAKES NO SENSE ANY LONGER.



    So either tell us why we're still being penalized or remove the penalty.<hr></blockquote>

    Nice going Sherlock. You finally understand.




    <div style="text-align:center">S O G G I E X A R C A T I O N

    65 Transcendant

    "Yo ho, Yo ho, the Pirates life for me!!"

    </div></p>

  2. #362
    Guest

    Default Re: ...

    Quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think Soggie's poorly communicated point is that:



    Maybe there's some reason other than what SoE has told us was the reason for doing it in the first place for keeping the monk mitigation nerf in place.



    I, for one, certain hope so.



    Because given the reason that SoE gave us, and the observations that anyone with an IQ over 20 can make about the current game,



    THE NERF MAKES NO SENSE ANY LONGER.



    So either tell us why we're still being penalized or remove the penalty.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





    Nice going Sherlock. You finally understand.



    What the...???



    So now you agree that there is a penalty but SoE just hasn't explained it to us yet, when every post you have made points to how the penalty really isn't a penalty but is proper and correct for monks? You double talk and bullshit so much, Soggie, my brain hurts trying to make sence of your crap. I love how you justify your half-assed conclusions by stating that anyone who disagrees with you has to have official word from SoE backing them up. So your point is..... gah!! My brain just melted. Nothing you say, ever, in the future will convince me that you are nothing but the very definition of a troll. I just feel bad for myself that it took me so much longer to see the light before most of the people on this board.




    </p>

  3. #363
    Guest

    Default .

    Soggie,



    Take scientific research, almost everything is "best guess" until a better "guess" comes along. Thinking up of a "good guess" is only 1% of the task at hand. When trying to support a guess, you need all the observations and tests you can get. Guesses in scientific research are carried on foundations of observations and facts deducten from them.



    The only thing i've seen from you are theories with no tests, numbers with no parses, arguements based on trust in the creator.



    You might just find the respect you appearantly seek if your conclusions where based on facts, deduction and observations without throwing any of these three magical ingredients out of the window to support your own theories, which carry no ground whatsoever but fantasy.



    My advice, spend a little less time announcing your theories and try to prove them for a change!




    </p>

  4. #364
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr> as opposed to a borderline hemophiliac that hits stuff. <hr></blockquote>

    Heh, I love that.



    On a seperate note, Soggie's digging for scraps now. He's given up on actual responses and has dropped off to one liners. Stop feeding him.



    Example?



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nice opinion.<hr></blockquote>

    This, after it was spelled out with the words of "Fact" and "Observation" next to it, possibly in a desperate attempt to drill through his thick candy shell and reach the creamy nougat center.


    <hr />
    <div style="text-align:center">I'm a male monk with a womanly attitude? WTF?! (click for Magelo)

    I love you guys! =)
    -Love, Kil

    "Classes are not that out of balance" - AbsorEQ

    </div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=kil ranian>Kilranian</A>* at: 1/14/04 6:30 am

  5. #365
    Guest

    Default ...back to the topic, please...

    Guys, can we keep this thread about what Kavhok orriginally posted, and ensure that our opinions are heard and considerred, as was invited by Kavhok's initial Gesture?



    The more this turns into a poo-flinging contest, the less likely it is that Kavhok (and/or others) will be back here to share more info on the Topic, or even keep up with the discussion.



    Soggie-Bashing has it's very own (quite popular) thread elsewhere.



    (-Incidentally, Soggie...can you take a hint? If I had a thread in a forum, several hundred posts long, heralding my stupidity and obnoxiousness, I would start some soul-searching, and maybe consider not posting things as dogmatic as what you do. Or maybe post a little less, or not at all...that's not a personal opinion. That's more or less an objective observation.)



    PS: Sorry...do what I say, don't do what I do.


    Brother Niteklaw Ahzi'Dahaka

    Transcendent

    Povar Tarew Alliance, Xev.</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nit eklaw>Niteklaw</A> at: 1/14/04 6:36 am

  6. #366
    Apostle Master Faned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>double riposte and return kick do not stack<hr></blockquote>



    Excellent, I just learned that my most useless AAs are that much more useless... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">




    <div style="text-align:center">Sensei Faned

    </div></p>
    Faned the Mad Monk

  7. #367
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: Status Update

    "However, neither you nor I know if those 3 pieces were the ONLY aspects that were looked at when they made the mitigation change. If you can prove, or get message by word of mouth/written statement from SoE, that those 3 specific elements of EQ are THE ONLY pieces to the puzzle, then I will agree with you. Don't bother posting the patch message that talks about these, because it doesn't say that ONLY they applied. It mentions them, but doesn't specifically say that nothing else was looked at to validate these changes."



    Soggie ... you're wasting time.



    There is no second gunman on the grassy noll. There is no magic bullet. There is no conspiracy. The reasons for the "nerf" WERE the reasons listed in the patch message. There is no super secret MAGIC reason for the nerf that they're not letting us in on. Alan and Scott have discussed in detail at fan faires the reasons for the change to monks. And it always came back to exactly what was posted.



    I'll take actual POSTED, OFFICIAL, DOCUMENTED reasons for such a change over your speculation and wild THEORIZING that some other magic secret reason exists.



    Why? Because the documented, patch message, actually exists. It's PROOF.



    Your theory that there is some other subversive reason has no data, no evidence, and nothing but pure conjecture to support it.



    The onus isn't on US to provide evidence to the contrary. It's on YOU. If YOU think there's some other reason OTHER THAN the stated reasons for the change ... PROVIDE proof.



    The lack of proof is NOT supporting your theory. It's disproving it.



    -Wubao


    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wub ao@monklybusiness43508>Wubao</A> at: 1/14/04 9:28 am
    Wubao Fist of Agnost the Indifferent!
    - Read My Articles
    - Follow my blog here
    - See my artwork

  8. #368
    Guest

    Default Re: ...back to the topic, please...

    I stated my opinion way early on...



    Even with this change if a monk is given a choice why melee from the front? As the Dev clearly stated you will not do more damage from the front but equal damage as if you were behind the mob.



    I'd prefer to give the tank an opportunity to hit a mob from the back if the mob is going to turn on me/aggro me. Plus if I'm aggro'ed I stop getting the damage bonus from the front anyway.



    Like I said, even with this change it makes no sense to attack from the front.


    FREN

    N00B Monk</p>

  9. #369
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    167

    Default too late

    It's way too late really..some good stuff came up early and pretty much covered it..then Soggie happened..



    We havent heard from them for a couple days so that tells me they have enough to go off and work with. Plus they never clarified our good questions..so..our work halts when we dont know the answers to how it works.



    Anyway Soggie Im feeling a little inferior today, can you make up a new imaginary speadsheet that makes me the best tank ever, Tops in DPS while tanking too..thanks.



    Sensei Brotor Tiller

    Rathe






    </p>
    All general statements are wrong.

  10. #370
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: too late

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Like I said, even with this change it makes no sense to attack from the front<hr></blockquote>



    Kavhok said that we would do more damage from the front. Thats why it would make sense. Quit thinking of ways to do it. Im sure they can figure that side of it out.


    <div style="text-align:center">



    My Stuff

    Transcendent

    Proud Member of Resilience</div></p>

    Stonefist Officer of Resilience

  11. #371
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    Kavhok SOE Employee Said:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The result is that the monk would do about the same damage from the front as from the back and, as long as he wasn't tanking, wouldn't take any riposte damage. Any thoughts on this one? <hr></blockquote>



    About the same is not = more damage.



    I believe that some members of this community are deluding themselves.



    It makes no sense at all to toe to toe from the front even with this change.


    FREN

    N00B Monk</p>

  12. #372
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: Status Update

    Miss this one?



    Kavhok



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We were thinking more that this would have some chance to double attack innately. Double-riposte and return-kick AA's would make a possible third attack. It would make the damage done from the front slightly more than the done from the back with AA's, a little less without them. <hr></blockquote>


    <div style="text-align:center">



    My Stuff

    Transcendent

    Proud Member of Resilience</div></p>

    Stonefist Officer of Resilience

  13. #373
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    I didn't miss it, the quote or the idea doesn't make any sense.



    Get these AAs and if you attack from the front you might do more damage than if you were behind the mob?



    That isn't a fix for anything as using the correct AAs from the back will blow away AA damage from the front.



    I applaud the attempts to give monks something but this is nothing to cheer about and it isn't an improvement.


    FREN

    N00B Monk</p>

  14. #374
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: Status Update

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr> believe that some members of this community are deluding themselves.<hr></blockquote>



    Good...just making sure you were reading the same thing I was. Makes me non-delusional.



    I couldnt help but think how awesome this would be as the gator in PoE ate me alive on ripostes and kept flipping. Or when RZtW turned on the raid and was enraged. Ever get the lag from that? Die instantly and the raid wipes on him when he is at 0%?



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That isn't a fix for anything as using the correct AAs from the back will blow away AA damage from the front.<hr></blockquote>



    How do you KNOW!? Let them figure out how we will do more damage from the front than the back regardless of AAs. If they give us a full attack round btw...all those other AAs that we currently use from the back would be used from the front as well as double riposte and return kick AAs. Imagine a full round landing...plus a wu chain...plus double riposte and a return kick that triggers another wu chain. That would certainly increase our dps.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I applaud the attempts to give monks something but this is nothing to cheer about and it isn't an improvement<hr></blockquote>



    This will give us a role in raids. Its a start...certainly not THE FIX. No more cornering mobs and destroying ranger archery. No more pushing mobs over the edges or into adds (that goes for xp groups as well)


    <div style="text-align:center">



    My Stuff

    Transcendent

    Proud Member of Resilience</div></p>

    Stonefist Officer of Resilience

  15. #375
    Ascendant Stone Fist Ancaglon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Antonius Bayle, Wind of Tranquility, London
    Posts
    1,575

    Default Re: Status Update

    I too am rather curious as to how this could be done... after all, by attacking from the rear you are denying the mob the use if its' own active defences (dodge/block/parry/riposte), wheras attacking from the front, even if ripostes were somehow reversed to being a hit back from ourselves, the other active defences are fully active. If they CAN do it, all well and good, but currently I don't see how, short of making our 'hit back through the riposte' automatically hit.


    </p>

  16. #376
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Status Update

    Tauzii, I'm not sure I understand.



    From the back, you do a certain amount of damage.



    When you move to the front, you do the same amount of damage minus what doesn't get through due to parry dodge and riposte. You also eat damage when you're riposted. I don't know if you can riposte a riposte currently.



    Under the new system, when you move to the front, you'd no longer eat riposte. Further, whenever riposted, you'd do new additional damage to the mob.



    The amount of new damage that you would do in that counter riposte would be specifically designed ( by the Devs ) to almost match the damage that you'd lose to dodge and parry unless you also had specific AA.



    With those specific AA, the amount of damage that you would do in that counter riposte would be specifically designed ( by the Devs ) to be at least slightly more than the damage that you'd lose to dodge and parry.



    That's the closest interpretation of what the Dev's have said they're looking at.



    Another suggestion is that we turn the mob's attack back on itself, inflicting on it the damage ( or some percentage thereof ) it would have inflicted on us.



    Another suggestion has been to have the mob's riposte attempt trigger a free full attack. Concerns over "infinite loops" fail to consider the pink mist clause. If a monk gets in an infinite loop, his DPS will skyrocket until he gets aggro at which point he's "pink mist" because then he's no longer riposte immune ( and he's tanking ).



    As a monk, what AA can you use from the back that you can't use from the front?


    Xaynn Bakkura

    Iksar Monk

    Just a Silly Gecko



    To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

    -- Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938



    <span style="color:purple;">Reverse the Monk Mitigation Nerf!</span></p>
    Xaynn Bakkura - 70 Monk, Stromm
    My Gimp Gear

    Panicking killed more toons than any mob ever did.
    And without a plan, all you got left to do is Panic.

    Know the Plan.
    Don't Panic.

  17. #377
    Apostle Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    300

    Default Re: Status Update

    Ok, let me open up a can of clarification here. What Kavhok said wasn't too difficult to understand. They want to open up monks to do damage from all angles. Now, the idea they are kicking around is a combo of riposte damage immunity and added DPS.



    When the mob ripostes on you it not only does no damage, but instead you get a free mainhand strike back that has an innate chance to fire DA, and which will stack with Double Riposte and/or Return Kick AAs. The idea here being to enable monks without those AAs to do a little less damage from the front, and to monks with those AAs to do more damage from the front.



    Honestly, it's a kickass idea. It gives value to long pointless AAs, and it gives monks a shiny new utility in groups and raids.




    ---

    I *am* the Chinpokomon master!</p>
    ---
    I *am* the Chinpokomon master!

  18. #378
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Status Update

    Schezar, as a software developer myself, I understand that the Devs can make anything happen, it just depends on how much one wants to pay and how fast you want it done.



    Having said that, and it's possibly just a case of semantics, how will the Double "Riposte" AA and "Return" Kick AA be used to modify this new free "attack"?



    What I mean is there is a very clear difference between an "attack" and a "riposte".



    If a mob riposte causes a monk "attack", how is this affected by monk "riposte" AA?



    Does the question make any sense?


    Xaynn Bakkura

    Iksar Monk

    Just a Silly Gecko



    To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

    -- Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938



    <span style="color:purple;">Reverse the Monk Mitigation Nerf!</span></p>
    Xaynn Bakkura - 70 Monk, Stromm
    My Gimp Gear

    Panicking killed more toons than any mob ever did.
    And without a plan, all you got left to do is Panic.

    Know the Plan.
    Don't Panic.

  19. #379
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Uk, Nottingham
    Posts
    115

    Default Re: Status Update

    Someone already said a riposte could be riposted earlier so...


    Xandria, Bard of 56 songs and proud officer of Guardians of Blood, at your service.



    Sauropod, Monk of 10 kata's.



    My pleasure and my duty.</p>
    Xandria, Bard of 63 songs,

    At your service, my pleasure and my duty.

  20. #380
    Enlightened Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    520

    Default Re: Status Update

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can see this being a huge boost to raiding monks.

    1) omg a stackable role

    2) omg a DPS boost



    For grouping monks ( when they aren't tanking )

    1) Positioning isn't normally a huge deal

    2) omg a DPS boost



    For duoing/tanking/soloing monks

    1) So?

    2) What DPS boost?<hr></blockquote>



    Yes. To make it truly useful for groups, it would have to either occur even when tanking or the boost to DPS would have to be huge (which would then impact rogues). Duos are pretty much out of luck unless the no-tanking restriction is removed.



    Honestly, I don't see the need for this restriction in the first place.



    All the reasoning we've used in the last x months for why the mitigation nerf should be repealed applies here too. Plate tanks now have such a substantial (and meaningful, thanks to PoP) AC/HP advantage over monks, that it's unlikely we could in any way be efficient as main tanks purely from a damage absorption perspective. Even if we could physically survive the beatings, we'd still have huge issues due to the inability to keep aggro -- a failing which was, until the addition of their incite line, directly responsible for warriors losing their role as main tank in xp groups, despite having some advantage over other plate classes in the AC/HP areas.



    I believe that giving monks super-riposte (regardless of their position on the hate list) would provide a decent niche for the class -- on raids, they could still be the primary positioners, which is what everyone here seems very happy about. But in xp groups, they would gain the ability to be adequate secondary tanks and decent 'any-angle' DPS. It's not something that makes a monk an absolutely, have-to-have class, but it gives us enough distinction that we may get invited over other DPS classes, provided the group composition warrants it.



    As an aside, if SOE were concerned about monks tanking in raid situations, (which I don't believe is viable anymore, for the reasons already mentioned, but I admit a certain level of ignorance about the raiding scene), you could put limits on when tanking + super riposte would occur. (For example, monks only gain the benefits of super riposte while tanking if the mob is lower level than they are... or x levels lower, or whatever)



    -S




    "Classes are not that out of balance" -AbsorEQ</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=san tino>santino</A> at: 1/14/04 2:31 pm

  21. #381
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>So now you agree that there is a penalty but SoE just hasn't explained it to us yet, when every post you have made points to how the penalty really isn't a penalty but is proper and correct for monks?<hr></blockquote>

    First off, I personally don't consider it a penalty - rather a change. His quote was on target, though, and I didn't want to mess with the exact words, unless I was forced to. Obviously I have to now, since you can't decipher it on your own. Very well, read his quote and replace "penalty" with "mitigation change." You asked for it, /sigh.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The only thing i've seen from you are theories with no tests, numbers with no parses, arguements based on trust in the creator.<hr></blockquote>

    If you look closely enough to the same arguments of my opposition, that is exactly what they have. I can agree that itemization, warrior bonus, and PoP content ARE in fact pieces to the puzzle concerning the mitigation change monks received. I CAN ADMIT THAT. However, I CAN NOT excuse those 3 to be the ONLY factors SoE used when they decided to have the mitigation change. I'll single out Xainn and Wubao (because I like their writing style) because they have avidly posted about this topic. However, they are simply speculating (opinion) that because these 3 elements of the puzzle ARE balanced (in their eyes), that the "nerf" is no longer needed (another opinion). They haven't provided ANY parses, any tests, and have simply put an somewhat reasonable theory on the MB table, and it has been welcomed. I can't understand why their "theory," which has no backing, no evidence, no ground is being taken more seriously than mine. The only thing I can conclude, after this much discussion, is that monks simply want everything. I mean, lets be honest about things, no one knows for sure why we got the mitigation change in the first place. You have ideas, and know some pieces to the puzzle, but lets make it very clear: YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EQ and SOE's CHANGES.



    I've admitted I've been wrong about things, and have opened my eyes/ears to possibilities that others have thrown onto the table - why can't you afford me the same respect? I've listened to comments many of you have said, and have changed my ideas/theories/opinions more towards the mainstream - why can't you do the opposite? Admit you don't know everything. You can continue the speculation, but stop presenting it as though those 3 elements of EQ are the END-ALL elements for the mitigation change, because I am pretty sure they aren't.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My advice, spend a little less time announcing your theories and try to prove them for a change!<hr></blockquote>

    Going along with what I just wrote, I'll ask you the same. If the rest of MB will stop speculation as fact, then I will stop mine too.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's way too late really..some good stuff came up early and pretty much covered it..then Soggie happened..<hr></blockquote>

    I think the mitigation talk came before I posted. I'm just trying to help get this thread back on track. Kharvok doesn't wanna see you guys crying.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There is no second gunman on the grassy noll. There is no magic bullet. There is no conspiracy. The reasons for the "nerf" WERE the reasons listed in the patch message. There is no super secret MAGIC reason for the nerf that they're not letting us in on.......I'll take actual POSTED, OFFICIAL, DOCUMENTED reasons for such a change over your speculation and wild THEORIZING that some other magic secret reason exists.

    <hr></blockquote>

    So I see you still think you know everything. You're proving you're a lost cause now. As I said, those official documents, as you put it, never said those 3 were the end-all factors in the change. Furthermore, it is only your opinion that those 3 factors have been altered back to the exact same degree as the mitigation change hit us. It isn't fact. It isn't written. You are paraphrasing, and interpretting incorrectly.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Guys, can we keep this thread about what Kavhok orriginally posted, and ensure that our opinions are heard and considerred, as was invited by Kavhok's initial Gesture?<hr></blockquote>

    I completely agree. Let's stay focused, and stop this mitigation talk. It's unnecessary for monks survival (no pun intended).






    <div style="text-align:center">S O G G I E X A R C A T I O N

    65 Transcendant

    "Yo ho, Yo ho, the Pirates life for me!!"

    </div></p>

  22. #382
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: Status Update

    "As I said, those official documents, as you put it, never said those 3 were the end-all factors in the change."



    Soggie ... keep it very simple then.



    Show one SHRED of evidence ... anything ... that would lead someone besides YOU to believe there was a different reason besides those posted by official employees of SOE.



    You see, when an investigative journalist follows a "lead" that means there's an actual "LEAD" that's being followed.



    What's your LEAD in thinking the change was made for any other reason than the official ones posted?



    So far you've offered nothing other than a stupid, juvenile, MAYBE.



    In other words, Soggie ... you're the one that says there is another reason for the change.



    PROVE IT.



    Keep it simple and PROVE IT.



    "Furthermore, it is only your opinion that those 3 factors have been altered back to the exact same degree as the mitigation change hit us. It isn't fact. It isn't written. You are paraphrasing, and interpretting incorrectly.""



    It's not my opinion. It is fact.



    Itemization is easy to prove. The warrior mitigation bonus is easy to prove. PoP content ... it exists. You can prove yourself against PoP content right now. Just log on. Zone into Bastion of Thunder and stand up to a Kriger.



    On my side is ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Things you can measure. Quotes you can reference made by employees of the company.



    On your side is what?



    Again ... PROVE IT Soggie.



    Or continue to make yourself look stupid.



    Either way, it'll be entertaining.






    </p>
    Wubao Fist of Agnost the Indifferent!
    - Read My Articles
    - Follow my blog here
    - See my artwork

  23. #383
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Status Update

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can agree that itemization, warrior bonus, and PoP content ARE in fact pieces to the puzzle concerning the mitigation change monks received. I CAN ADMIT THAT. However, I CAN NOT excuse those 3 to be the ONLY factors SoE used when they decided to have the mitigation change.<hr></blockquote>The only one of those reasons that was given as a justification of the nerf was the itemization.



    PoP happened a couple months after the nerf.



    Warrior bonus happened over a year after the nerf. At the time of the nerf, warrior bonus was suggested as an alternative to the nerf.



    They nerfed our entire class's mitigation based on upper end itemization alone. That's the only reason they've ever given us after being asked several times by numerous people and they've given it several times in several different forums, from the original patch message to interviews at fan faires.



    They're fairly consistent about why they did it, Soggie.



    And we said, "WTF?". Why not fix itemization? Why not give warriors a boost?



    And then they changed upper end itemization.



    And we said, "WTF?!".



    And then they gave warriors a boost.



    And we said "WTF?!?!".



    And then you come along and try to get us to buy off on the idea that they may have some super secret heretofore unrevealed plethora of other considerations for retaining this "quick fix", simply because they're SoE and it would apparently shatter your brain if it even attempted to hold the thought for a split second that maybe, contrary to their well known omniscience and omnipotence, THEY ACTUALLY FOOKED UP.



    Despite the fact that they actually had to roll some of their original fix back because ( to paraphrase them ), it didn't affect their intended target in the way that they intended.



    And we looked at you like you were from Mars,

    and we said "WTF?!?!?!".



    And you have the gall to stand there, playing victim and acting hurt, and say with a perfectly straight face, "Guys, why won't you take me seriously?"



    /bonk Soggie

    /bonk Soggie HARD


    Xaynn Bakkura

    Iksar Monk

    Just a Silly Gecko



    To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

    -- Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938



    <span style="color:purple;">Reverse the Monk Mitigation Nerf!</span></p>
    Xaynn Bakkura - 70 Monk, Stromm
    My Gimp Gear

    Panicking killed more toons than any mob ever did.
    And without a plan, all you got left to do is Panic.

    Know the Plan.
    Don't Panic.

  24. #384
    Apostle Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    300

    Default Re: Status Update

    Xainn, I'll use Occam's Razor here. I'll bet they just make the new Anti-Riposte attack run a roll on Double Riposte and/or Return Kick, and add that in to the new Anti-Riposte.



    They said they want to give it a chance to automagically double attack, and that DR and RK would be an additional hit on top of that if it fires.



    Ultimately, if they can get it right, and it ends up being more DPS from the front with full DR, then it's a step towards balance. In one change they address quite a few concerns for grouping/raiding monks. It negates regular riposte damage, while adding DPS and it allows monks to become the primary positioners.



    Hell, I wouldn't be surprised with this going into place that there will be new encounters designed around that idea. In order to kill Mob X you have to keep it in tiny Area Y.




    ---

    I *am* the Chinpokomon master!</p>
    ---
    I *am* the Chinpokomon master!

  25. #385
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Status Update

    I can see this being a huge boost to raiding monks.

    1) omg a stackable role

    2) omg a DPS boost



    For grouping monks ( when they aren't tanking )

    1) Positioning isn't normally a huge deal

    2) omg a DPS boost



    For duoing/tanking/soloing monks

    1) So?

    2) What DPS boost?


    Xaynn Bakkura

    Iksar Monk

    Just a Silly Gecko



    To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

    -- Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938



    <span style="color:purple;">Reverse the Monk Mitigation Nerf!</span></p>
    Xaynn Bakkura - 70 Monk, Stromm
    My Gimp Gear

    Panicking killed more toons than any mob ever did.
    And without a plan, all you got left to do is Panic.

    Know the Plan.
    Don't Panic.

  26. #386
    Guest

    Default Re: ...

    Quote Schezar

    ---------------

    Illydth, take a chill and reread.

    ---------------

    I should take a chill and re-read...Ok, <deep breath, clears the mind>. Ok, lets do this then.



    From the prior message:



    Quote

    --------------

    The mitigation nerf is the main thing keeping us from being balanced, honestly.

    --------------

    Can you please define to me how this doesn't say the mitigation nurf is the main thing keeping us from being balanced?



    Ok, I read the rest, and I get your point...don't bother jumping down my throat on it, I DO get what you're trying to say.



    A few posts up from yours had it right.



    The mitigation nurf reversal has nothing to do with balance. In and of itself, there is pretty much nothing that the mitigation reversal does to make me wanted in groups, or on raids. Monks can't quad, monks can't do damage while not getting hit...this means that effectively we will never be able to solo to an extent that it's efficient xp so that's not really a balancing factor for us either.



    It's not about balance, and I wished to God people would stop referring to the mitigation nurf as THE balancing factor. You can argue it as *A* balancing factor when looking class to class, but seriously with our possition in the game today, it's a small one. The bottom line is the vision is that we arn't supposed to get hit. We shouldn't be in a situation where we do get hit. We should be ahead of the mobs on pulls, we should be avoiding their hits when we can, we should be doing damage to them without taking any in return. In essence, mitigation should be meaningless to us.



    The mitigation nurf is about a thousands of character wide collective nerve tromping.



    What Sony did with the mitigation nurf is found our last nerve and tapdanced on it. The biggest problem with the mitigation nurf is *IT'S DEMORALIZING*. Game play aside, it's been brought up over and over again. We're the only class in the game with a developer given penalty. We're the only class in the game that does something intentionally less effectively as a class as a whole than everyone else of the same calibur.



    The mitigation nurf hurt our prides more than our characters. It was a big middle finger form the Sony Development staff to their customers. More than anything else it said "you guys arn't worth the time to fix right, we don't like you, we never have, and we honestly don't give a shit about you, your money, your fun, your effort, or whether your class even exists in the next year or not. You guys simply arn't worth fixing it right."



    This isn't balance, this is pride. And it's SO MUCH WORSE because of it.



    A nurf to lull on bards is a nurf to a spell...one spell, for a good reason. The nurf to monk mitigation was a nurf to all monks for admittedly bad reasons. It has a touch of being personal.



    It's that touch of being personal that has us all still pissing about it almost 2 years later.



    Quit calling it balance, and call it what it really is.



    A personal affront to you as a customer of SOE.






    Tsarakien Roycroft

    Monk GrandMaster of the Fourth Celestial Circle (64)

    Master of the Celestial Fists

    Prexus Server

    Alliance of the Griffin

    My Magelo: http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=352669

    ----

    This opinion brought to you by the letter A and the number 3. It's given to you free, and probably worth every penny you paid for it.</p>

  27. #387
    Apostle Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    300

    Default Re: ...

    Illdyth, once again you misread. There's a reason why I used a paragraph, so go ahead and reread the full damn thing.



    Reversing the mitigation nerf is a big step towards balance. Both because of the PR, which you nicely covered, and because it would reopen soloing as a way of getting non-efficient xp when groups aren't around or you just don't want one.



    It's not enough by itself, but with the changes to FD and the current topic and the lull, it's getting us closer.




    ---

    I *am* the Chinpokomon master!</p>
    ---
    I *am* the Chinpokomon master!

  28. #388
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: ...

    Schezar, with all the other changes which have nerfed soloing exp, I don't know that even if we could do it whether we would or not.



    Having the option would be preferable to sitting on our butts LFG, however.



    ( Before they even start, shut up with the "make your own group" suggestions, pse. Like duh already. ( This is not directed at you, Schezar, but at the inevitable brain surgeons that will offer that as the end-all-be-all of monking problems ) ).



    Further, I don't think simply reversing the nerf would be enough to make soloing viable again post-60.



    Illdyth, damn well said, damn well.


    Xaynn Bakkura

    Iksar Monk

    Just a Silly Gecko



    To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

    -- Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938



    <span style="color:purple;">Reverse the Monk Mitigation Nerf!</span></p>
    Xaynn Bakkura - 70 Monk, Stromm
    My Gimp Gear

    Panicking killed more toons than any mob ever did.
    And without a plan, all you got left to do is Panic.

    Know the Plan.
    Don't Panic.

  29. #389
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    51

    Default Re: Status Update

    Kavhok, thank you for posting and for working on our class.



    I like the Fd mem wipe idea and the riposte thing sounds like a good idea also. Keep up the good work <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)">



    Soggie, I am not going to blast you or even argue with you about the mitigation nerf, I just 100% dis agree with you and from what I have seen you will never change your mind on the matter.



    There was many many parses done when the change came and even with out them I felt the change first hand myself and I didn't like it then and I dont like it now.





    Kavhok Thanks for staying in contact with the monk community, we do appreciate the give and take with you.






    Catterly
    Transcendant
    my lamer shiznet


    </p>

  30. #390
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    "My PROOF is the FACT that the mitigation change IS STILL IN EFFECT. Until they reverse it entirely, then you have NO PROOF to back up your speculation. You can't beat the proof of existance."



    That's not proof Soggie.



    You are making a bold inference from a state of the game.



    Our proof that the mitigation nerf was targeted at specific things in game comes from the STATED OFFICIAL WORDS of SOE employees.



    Not only in the patch message, but in Alan's message PRIOR to the patch ... as well as Scott Hartsman's posts ON THIS VERY MESSAGE BOARD ... Scott Hartsman's words at Fan Faire's ... AS WELL AS Alan's statements regarding the partial REPEAL of the nerf.



    Every single one of those statements keeps in line with the STATED PURPOSE of the nerf.



    You say that it was done for a different reason.



    So in essence you aren't disagreeing with me. Or with the MB community. You are disagreeing with Scott Hartsman, Absor, and the DEV TEAM.



    Prove it Soggie. Just give one statement ... one piece of evidence that the nerf exists for any OTHER reason than the reasons stated.



    Otherwise, go troll somewhere else.






    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wub aogoldenarmz>Wubao Goldenarmz</A> at: 1/14/04 8:05 pm

  31. #391
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    A great place to start your research Soggie:



    pub147.ezboard.com/fmonkl...43508frm17



    A forum you obviously have absolutely NO FAMILIARITY with.






    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wub aogoldenarmz>Wubao Goldenarmz</A> at: 1/14/04 8:10 pm

  32. #392
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    First point I'd like to add, is that my IQ dropped by 50 points purely from reading your post soggie, congrats.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>SoE needs to change mitigation, even though SoE is the one that develops the game, simply because we feel everything mentioned in the patch (except monk mitigation) is balanced. We know what balance is, and SoE doesn't. We don't actually make or program the game, but we know more than SoE.<hr></blockquote>



    Whats even more funny, is you actually think thats funny.



    Why do food companies have food testers/tasters. Surely they are the ones that make the food, therefore by your reasoning, are the ones that know how it tastes and if it tastes good.



    WE, as monks, are the TESTERS for this game we call everquest. WE know what tastes good, we are the ones that spend (too many) hours playing this game. We test this game ALOT more than the poeple who make it.



    Why do you think they come here to post new ideas, why do you think there is a TEST server (don't know if it should really be called a test server... but thats for another thread).



    Thats too funny.



    Ya'know, that is actually your last ever post that I am going to read. I'll let others have the joy of correcting / slagging you off.


    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tul gin>Tulgin</A> at: 1/14/04 8:53 pm

  33. #393
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    Nah, we couldn't solo anything worthwhile even with the nerf removed. If I was SoE I would remove the nerf just because it is an embarassment to the company. They were so clueless about their game that they gave reason for the fix that, in as short as a month, would be addressed. Obviously some sort of miscommunication was going on.



    The mitigation nerf didn't make that much of a difference. Sure when you regen 5dps adn the mobs you fight are doing 7dps and then go to doing 8 dps it looks really bad. (2dps to a 3 dps deficit makes it look like you take 50% more damage.) Anymore it just wouldn't make a difference. Most exp mobs in PoP will be doing 100-200dps unslowed. Removing the nerf won't change that.



    The nerf, in the current state of the game, just adds insult to injury.


    </p>

  34. #394
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In other words, Soggie ... you're the one that says there is another reason for the change.



    PROVE IT.



    Keep it simple and PROVE IT<hr></blockquote>

    My PROOF is the FACT that the mitigation change IS STILL IN EFFECT. Until they reverse it entirely, then you have NO PROOF to back up your speculation. You can't beat the proof of existance.



    So, if you believe you are all-knowing. You believe in your heart of hearts, that the nerf was wrong, and it has been compensated in other areas of the game, WHY IS IT STILL IN EFFECT?



    The only answer you can come up with is: SoE is a bunch of idiots, which doesn't quite cut it as a strong ground to hold. And furthermore, if you intend to use that ground as your defense, I highly doubt SoE will favor it, since it obviously makes them look bad.



    Straight up - The mitigation change is still there. <span style="text-decoration:underline">You haven't proven anything.</span> And your speculation is just that - <span style="text-decoration:underline">speculation, not fact</span>.






    <div style="text-align:center">S O G G I E X A R C A T I O N

    65 Transcendant

    "Yo ho, Yo ho, the Pirates life for me!!"

    </div></p>

  35. #395
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Utterly amazing, Soggie...



    How do you know that the only variable they had to balance with alchemy was alchemy? How do you know?



    How do you know that the only variable they had to balance with mage pets dual wielding was were they or not? How do you know?



    How do I know that the monk mitigation nerf was only about itemization?<hr></blockquote>

    I don't. I just use the same logic you do. In this case, if you are right, then I am right. If you admit you're wrong, then I can easily admit I'm wrong.



    If you can sit there and say that the 3 aforementioned elements of the mitigation change were the ONLY reasons for it, then I can sit there and say that Alchemy itself was the only reason for the error in alchemy. It is a 2-sided coin, don't you see it??



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The reason most rational people won't accept your proof, Soggie, is because it's not proof.



    It's called faith.<hr></blockquote>

    And in the majority of MB monks' case, it's greed/ego.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Further, we ( the majority here ) actually believe we've found yet another of their mistakes.<hr></blockquote>

    So I have faith in someone/thing else. You have faith in yourself, concerning a matter you only have a glimpse of knowledge about - how arrogant is that??



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Providing feedback about a class on that class's class specific board which until recently wasn't even apparently being visited by representatives from SoE is harassment... interesting.<hr></blockquote>

    No, expressing yourself to a specific target once, and then continually expressing that same opinion again and again/etc, especially in the harsh manner that many of MB's members have done, is a FORM of harassment. Clue in on it, before you start judging.








    <div style="text-align:center">S O G G I E X A R C A T I O N

    65 Transcendant

    "Yo ho, Yo ho, the Pirates life for me!!"

    </div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sog giearcation>SoggieArcation</A> at: 1/14/04 11:01 pm

  36. #396
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: .

    Here's what Soggie absolutely refuses to acknowledge (I transcibe the ENTIRE patch message, because oftentimes people forget two very important facts ... one being that the monk nerf was also part of a larger SET of nerfs, and the other being that the OTHER nerfs were all done to balance the upcoming planes of power expansion but nowhere in the monk portion is that mentioned as the motivation ... it's ALL motivated by itemization issues and the perceived weakness of PLATE-TANKS ... which anyone not named Soggie would now recognize as no longer being in effect):





    Development Update, Game Balance



    Just like everyone else, we're people. People make mistakes.



    Some mistakes aren't that unbalancing and are safe to keep in the game and work around. Others can sometimes yield gameplay that turns out to be even more fun than developers even imagined, as ingenious adventurers discover unrealized potential in their abilities. Yet others, even the best-intentioned ones, can cause an entire style of gameplay to shift dramatically in a direction that no one particularly enjoys.



    Unfortunately, today, we need to address a number of the latter kind. For that, we sincerely apologize. It is absolutely our fault that certain abilities have been allowed to grow out of control.



    In our last letter, we stated that our goal for large scale battles in EverQuest was never one of endurance contests. We'd prefer to actively return to the type of battles that everyone feels are more fun - Battles that require tactics and skill, as opposed to attendance and endurance.



    Due to some specific abilities as they exist today in EverQuest, this unfortunately isn't possible. The mathematics simply cannot be made to work. In extreme cases such as that, the abilities themselves must be altered.



    It isn't possible, for example, to ever make another fast-action, do-or-die-quickly style encounter as long as Manaburn exists in its current form, unless it is targeted solely at an entire group of people who have this ability, as it will otherwise be trivial to those who do.



    Likewise, it isn't possible to create encounters that must be completed in a certain amount of time due to mana consumption, when Rods of Mystical Transvergence provide an essentially unlimited source of mana. Every challenging encounter must also be challenging for the massive raid of people who have infinite mana, and the encounter then becomes undoable to those who do not have the infinite supply.



    Hypothetically, the only alternative to changing abilities such as these would be to inflate every other class up to the same tier of relative power (be it damaging power, or mana regenerative power), then inflate the rest of the world to compensate for the sudden rash of new found power. Drastic, world-wide changes of that sort, however, are a guaranteed way to do more harm than good.



    The time has come to address these abilities. Fortunately, after doing so, EverQuest as a whole, and the encounters in Planes of Power, will be able to be tuned for forces who are interested in active participation in the game, as opposed to those forced to sit through yet another 45 minute encounter with a single NPC, as became the norm in Luclin.





    * Manaburn. In addition to the problem described above, this ability was never intended to be a way for small bands of high level players to hold hostage the advancement of larger numbers of more appropriately leveled people. While this was not the universal case, it has unfortunately happened enough across most servers to where it became a large concern in recent months. The concept of someone looking to complete their epic quest via teamwork and overcoming the odds, only to have their attempts obstructed, in some cases, by small teams of players looking to profit financially from their power, quite frankly, is not a behavior that we wish the game to reinforce.



    In the next patch, Wizards who have purchased Manaburn will find that their ability points have been refunded. Please make sure that you have fewer than 25 pooled Ability points.



    At that point, they will be able to purchase a new Manaburn if they choose, which has most of the power of the old one. However, the new Manaburn leaves a temporary effect on its target when used that does not stack with other Manaburns. The delay that we will be tuning on the Test Server soon will allow a single target to be manaburned no more frequently than once every minute.



    Hopefully, this will bring the ability back in line with the original intent -- A powerful ability that allows a Wizard to do massive short-term damage, but not a method for a group of wizards to destroy powerful creatures with zero risk.





    * Rods of Mystical Transvergence. The description above shows how this spell has perhaps singlehandedly altered the balance of the end-game encounter by turning it into an event where the largest challenge is setting up a timed rotation of Complete Healing. Once that is established, in many cases, the event is just as playable by leaving AutoAttack on, and wandering away to watch television. This does not make for stellar interactive content.



    We view Magicians as an excellent source of damage, especially with the many pet enhancements that have been made over the past year. To be honest, it is a more than a small shame that their full energies have been viewed as "needed" to be spent, full-time, purely on transferring their mana to others. Magicians are supposed to be the masters of elemental conjuration and highly respected as a damage-dealer, not the masters of mana transferrence.



    In the next update, Rods of Mystical Transvergence will be changed so that the spell summons an item that is still a valuable upgrade over the original Modulation Rod, yet does not provide an infinite amount of mana. The idea of sudden mana gain spells is only balanced if there is a net loss over time to counteract the rapid infusion. The initial version of the spell that we will be testing summons a Rod containing a single charge of 360 mana for 450 hit points, and can only be used by a person once each minute.



    In addition, the Rods themselves will be non-droppable, and spell will turn into a "target based summon," such that the Magician summons them directly onto the recipient, as opposed to having to hand them out manually or create a stockpile on the ground.



    Since there are definitely encounters in the game where this type of mana regeneration is mandatory for the encounter to be beaten by a reasonably sized force, a number of those encounters will likewise be re-tuned to shorten their duration, most frequently by lowering the hit points on the NPC in question.



    Again, our intent here is provide Magicians with a desirable secondary ability that would ideally be used before a battle, not an ability which essentially compels them to suddenly transform into a full-time support role, transferring their mana to others, as opposed to dealing damage.





    * Complete Healing. The concept of any class getting their single best, most efficient primary ability at level 39, has never sat well with most people. In the days of characters having a maximum of 2000-4000 hit points, the spell was absolutely not imbalancing. However, as time went on and characters progressed, now doubling that amount of hit points, it becomes obvious that the spell must be scaled back slightly.



    This spell has, over time, become the defining cornerstone of the Cleric class. As such, it cannot be altered significantly. Taking that into account, and given that those with the most hit points in EverQuest have yet to hit the full 10,000 HP cap of this spell, the spell will remain nearly as useful as it is today, by being reclassified as a spell that heals for 7,500 hit points, down from its current cap of 10,000.



    This will allow it to continue to be used as it has been in the past, while allowing for more dynamic types of heals to be introduced in the future. Making this change will allow us to providing more entertaining high-end encounters that require more active involvement than setting up a Complete Healing "Rotation" or "Chain," then repeating the same motions until the Large Thing you are facing, eventually falls down.





    * Monk Defense. Finally, the issue of defensive ability needs to be addressed with respect to Monks. Monks in EverQuest were originally intended to be a class with excellent offensive potential, both with and without equipment. This ability came at the expense of having only passable defensive abilities, partially in the form of an extremely small, restrictive selection of equipment from which to choose.



    This, of course, caused its own series of problems of how to adequately reward the person behind the character. It did not take long for universally equippable items (ALL/ALL items) to be considered by and large as "Monk Loot," as far back as before the launch of Kunark.

    Over time, Monks' defensive abilities had been tuned up to correct a perceived weakness. This, taken in combination with a few years of universally equippable, low-weight, high powered items entering the game, slowly transformed Monks into what is arguably the strongest defensive class in the game. Monks get hit less than any other class, and due to the tuning over time, no longer take appreciably more damage when they do get hit.



    This imbalance between the classes does need to be addressed in order for the Plate-wearing classes in the game to have their proper relative power. The Plate-wearing classes in the game take a serious penalty to their offensive abilities in order to defend as well as they can, and we cannot fix this problem solely by inflating their defensive abilities to compensate for this. Again, that type of change would harm EverQuest as a whole much more than altering the one class. Likewise, we have no desire to retroactively alter all of the equipment in the game that is contributing to this problem.



    Monk defense will be altered somewhat. It is no secret that in EverQuest, a character's Armor Class does not compare equally across different classes. (A Wizard with 1000 AC defends differently than a Warrior with 1000AC, for example.) It's not the most optimal system, for sure, but it is the one that many people have had much time to get used to. As such, Monk defense will be altered such that they may continue wearing the same equipment, however, they will get a decreased benefit to their overall ability to take damage.



    Again, we have no desire to make monks unable to take any type of punishment -- far from it. What we are primarily striving for is maintaining the defensive order of the Plate classes being able to take the most punishment, followed by the Chain classes and Monks. The latter being technically a Leather wearing class who will continue to make up the difference by being able to avoid more blows than the rest.



    In closing, we would like to again apologize for the amount of time that we've allowed these abilites to remain in their current state. With Planes of Power on the horizon, in order to make encounters that most people would consider "fun," these abilities and class attributes need to be brought back into line as sane upgrades and logical progressions, as opposed to their current manifestations.



    We appreciate the many well thought-out letters that have been sent in on these topics and more. As always, we thank you for playing EverQuest and look forward to seeing you soon in the Planes of Power.



    - The EverQuest Development Team









    April 8th, 2003





    ** Mitigation Change **



    We have evaluated the mitigation abilities of cloth and leather classes, and have made changes as appropriate. For the most part, this change is a reasonable improvement to the ability of monks to absorb damage. At some point in the future we may re-examine the mitigation abilities of chain and plate classes. At this time, and with this final round of changes to cloth and leather classes, we believe that something very close to the appropriate balance is in place.



    ...



    AbsorEQ

    Alan VanCouvering

    Community Relations Manager

    Everquest

    Posts: 21

    (11/14/02 5:32 pm)

    Reply

    From the D&P panel at Fan Faire





    Quote:

    With the change to Monks have they achieved the result you wanted?



    At this point we donít think that we have achieved what we wanted with Monks. Right now it seems to be having too much of an impact on Monks who arenít the top 5%. Weíll be going back and looking into it some more.



    We were really happy with the projected results our internal testing had for the changes, but that just didnít pan out when it went onto the live servers.



    Monks wonít be going back to the uber-tanks they were, but there will be more changes made to try to more accurately reflect our intent.





    There's not much more I can add on this until we get a chance to look into this thing further. But we are going to look into it, and we have been reading your comments.



    A



    -------------------------------------------



    Note the amount of references in the statement to ITEMIZATION ISSUES (they're bolded for your convenience).



    But I have no proof. Noooooo, not me. Soggie's right. It's some OTHER reason that the nerf happened.



    Nevermind what I say. Nevermind what the PATCH said. Nevermind what Alan said. Nevermind what Scott Hartsman said.



    We're all LYING.



    Soggie, though, Soggie's right. Always has been. Always will be.














    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wub ao@monklybusiness43508>Wubao</A> at: 1/14/04 11:01 pm
    Wubao Fist of Agnost the Indifferent!
    - Read My Articles
    - Follow my blog here
    - See my artwork

  37. #397
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    Wubao, not once in that entire post, did SoE mention that the ONLY elements behind the mitigation changes were stuff mentioned in the post. They mentioned specific reasons, but never said they were the ONLY reasons. I think we can agree that they are the largest reasons for the change, but I can't agree that they were the ONLY reasons for the change, otherwise, SoE would have said so. And they didn't, unfortunately for you.



    So, I ask again, where is your proof that other reasons for the mitigation change do not exist??



    Or better yet, in a room filled with red apples, where is your proof that green apples do not exist??



    Just step outside the box.......it's safe.





    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>After all, feedback is harassment, unless it's completely complimentary, right?<hr></blockquote>

    No, feedback is usually done once or twice, not 10,000 times, rofl. I would probably file a harassment suit if the same co-worker hit on me 10,000 times after I already told her to that I wasn't going to accept. I think SoE said they won't accept, so I'm just waiting for the suit.




    <div style="text-align:center">S O G G I E X A R C A T I O N

    65 Transcendant

    "Yo ho, Yo ho, the Pirates life for me!!"

    </div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sog giearcation>SoggieArcation</A> at: 1/14/04 11:09 pm

  38. #398
    Guest

    Default .

    SOE has lots of idiots working for them. Are they all idiots? No. However there are plenty of examples that prove they don't know what their plans are for the future. Do you realize they once allowed sow and jboots indoors, then later removed it because they felt it was too overpowering? So why 4 years later would they add it back in the form of AA if it was overpowering? They took something from us, only to give it back in the form of AA. So now we are over powering with AA? Is our AA overpowering? They don't always plan things well. Lately however as the dev's visisting us have shown, they are trying hard to clean up a mess that was spilled in the past. Maybe if we are reasonable and ask for a percent of the nerf to be changed they will listen.



    As it stands, the monk class being able to tank (at the time this was when I first started to realize why warriors were pissed) rampage in VT from boss mobs far better than a warrior wasn't balanced. Yes they broke one of our legs to keep us from running instead of simply tieing wieghts to our waists. What I'm saying is, they did go overboard with a fix, but a fix being needed was justified...at the time. It is hard to say through itemization if our prenerf state would still allow us to be better (on average) tanks than the designed tanking classes. I do have hope through the recent devs posting that they are going to consider some sort of nerf release, my guess is a percentage.


    </p>

  39. #399
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    I'll accept your ideas as proven, when SOE lifts the mitigation change. Until then, you're merely spouting off opinion/speculation.



    Vaguely written statements from SoE employees are not proof that something else doesn't exist. It is proof that what was mentioned is part of the equation, but it never says that those 3 alone are definitely the only reasons for the change. All it takes is reading skills.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you realize they once allowed sow and jboots indoors, then later removed it because they felt it was too overpowering? So why 4 years later would they add it back in the form of AA if it was overpowering? They took something from us, only to give it back in the form of AA. So now we are over powering with AA? Is our AA overpowering?<hr></blockquote>

    You're right. However, in that case it was their call. They saw that the game had evolved into something different than it was before. Heck, you said it yourself - "4 years later" they added it back.



    We're not talking about 4 years w/ the mitigation change. And they haven't fully reversed it yet, either, like they sorta did w/ run speed/jboots.



    I'm saying, let SoE do what they've always done. Mistakes, if the nerf was one, are a part of life. I assure you, if they made a mistake, they will reverse it. Until they do, I see it as something that is supposed to be there. But all this talk about "i have proof that the nerf doesn't need to be there" is crap. You have no proof, because the nerf is still there.



    Let's roleplay and say Wubao is right. Those 3 elements of balance are now fixed, but this nerf is still here. He says the nerf isn't necessary now, because its written by SoE that those 3 elements were the only reason for it in the first place. Having said that, why is the nerf still there? If SoE's only reasons for the nerf were those 3 elements, why don't they realize that those 3 elements are balanced, like you do?



    I don't think these "reverse the nerf" advocates really know what they're saying. Basically, they're saying: In multiple areas of the game, we know what is balanced, and SoE doesn't. SoE needs to change mitigation, even though SoE is the one that develops the game, simply because we feel everything mentioned in the patch (except monk mitigation) is balanced. We know what balance is, and SoE doesn't. We don't actually make or program the game, but we know more than SoE.



    Thats too funny.




    <div style="text-align:center">S O G G I E X A R C A T I O N

    65 Transcendant

    "Yo ho, Yo ho, the Pirates life for me!!"

    </div></p>

  40. #400
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't think these "reverse the nerf" advocates really know what they're saying. Basically, they're saying: In multiple areas of the game, we know what is balanced, and SoE doesn't. SoE needs to change mitigation, even though SoE is the one that develops the game, simply because we feel everything mentioned in the patch (except monk mitigation) is balanced. We know what balance is, and SoE doesn't. We don't actually make or program the game, but we know more than SoE.



    Thats too funny.<hr></blockquote>



    LOL, which is why it took them 1 year to do anything about melee balance. Up until a few months ago they didnt even admit how out of balance the classes were, hence the signatures of many in this community, compliments of Absor. How long did it take them to do anything about the bard lull, which they admitted was a mistake.



    How long were many mistakes in the game, even after being proven by the players to be mistakes, and it wasn't until the devs had time to test it that they admitted to it? Up until they tested it, it was always "working as intended".



    I think you don't know the power of PR. If they admit it's a problem then they have to committ resources to test it and maybe repeal it...maybe they already are planning are repealing it, or including the repeal as an AA (D'oh).



    Point being, the devs have made numerous mistakes in the past, and whitewashed numerous others until they could get around to addressing them. They haven't fixed the faction/charm exploit in Drunder yet, maybe that is working as intended too. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">




    </p>

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •