Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 401 to 440 of 637

Thread: Status Update

  1. #401
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    Soggie wrote (I have saved a backup copy of this post): <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ROFL, that's the stupidest thing i've read in a while.<hr></blockquote>



    Then he concluded by saying:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yeah, and I'm testing you to see how low your IQ actually was before you read my post. Sadly, you're around 0 now.<hr></blockquote>



    I note, with interest (and I do not further comment):<blockquote>Quote:<hr>b) Personal Attacks. You can attack what someone has to say, but you cannot attack the person saying it.



    an example:



    "What a stupid thing to say!" is ok.

    "You are stupid" is not.<hr></blockquote>



    Rule (2b) is a warning offense; 2 warnings = a ban according to the rules of this message board.



    I have juxtaposed 3 quotes; two from Soggie, and one from the Rules of this board. What actions or conclusions others wish to take or draw from this is their affair.



    Respectfully submitted,

    --Sensei Katriona Jones


    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=cat rinofluclin>Catrin of Luclin</A> at: 1/15/04 12:05 am

  2. #402
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    Soggie ... that's what, five posts now where you've failed to provide ANY evidence supporting your claim?



    Just one statement. One quote. One rumor. One SOE employee you can cite. ANY REFERENCE MATERIAL AT ALL. Deep background, speaking on condition of anonimity. Something. ANYTHING.



    You absolutely refuse to offer any insight, proof or evidence to your theory.



    Why? Because you have none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.



    You're full of it. And your theory is complete hogwash.



    You have nothing to support your claims.



    I've asked you simply ... provide some proof. Do you have ANYTHING?



    No?



    Then let it drop.






    </p>

  3. #403
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    Don't argue with Kender guys, they honestly believe they are right and no amount of proof for them will change thier position. Just accept that Soggie is this way and stop acknowledging his claims. It is futile. He didn't steal your item, he was merely holding it for you. Until you realize this, you will be forever doomed to argue circles with him. Just pat him on the head and tell him there is a dragon over the next hill.


    Tanix Tenderfoot </p>

  4. #404
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I've asked you simply ... provide some proof. Do you have ANYTHING?<hr></blockquote>



    His proof is rather simplistic actually...since the devs have not recinded the nerf, it must be there for a reason other than the ones that no longer apply. This unknown reason is his proof why the nerf is necessary...



    <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">




    </p>

  5. #405
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    A better site for Soggie



    I'm sure he will find many people there who 'think' as he does.


    Grazel Nukite, Transcendant

    Triage Quadbypass, Venerable Pumpkin

    Arron Uthmater, Impressario, 62 Concerts

    Valiant Elite, Druzzil Ro







    FREN</p>

  6. #406
    Guest

    Default nerf

    I think it is pretty obvious why SOE don't repeal the mitigation nerf completely... to save face. That's why they'll never do it, despite since fixing warrior taunt and mitigation. (and making mobs hit harder).



    Instead they offer us "non fixes" like this non-riposte thing... and I am very worried that it will be implemented since most here seem to like it.



    Please SOE, if you are going to implement this change, make it so that tanking monks get it as well. (I know they won't do that... spark a huge uproar from all the tank classes). I would be over the moon if a tanking monk got zero ripostes since I duo or group with casters 99% of the time. (or I did before substituting a mage for my monk 12 months ago)



    OR



    completely undo the mitigation nerf (won't do that either just so they don't have to admit they were wrong in the first place).



    But whatever SOE choose, I hope they implement a change that all monks will enjoy. I don't want to have the necessity of having both healer AND tank in the one group (as I do now).


    </p>

  7. #407
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: .

    Soggie's problem basically is a dogged and blind faith in the infallibility of SoE.



    "It's still there, therefore it must be right".



    It doesn't matter that we the players are attempting to provide feedback on the experience that we are having. Our experience must be invalid in order for Soggie to believe in his dogma "SoE can never be wrong".



    It doesn't matter that SoE has in fact quite provably been in error several several times.



    It doesn't matter that we the player base were the very first to notice some these problems.



    It doesn't matter that a feature actually exists in the game by which players can actually point out mistakes that SoE has made in their perfect game ( ever heard of /bug? ).



    In Soggie's world, SoE is simply infallible.



    They aren't humans with human foibles.



    They never have to make any sort of compromise to maintain the integrity of a game that has been expanded well beyond it's initial concept at least 7 times ( 2 level cap bumps, the creation and repeated expansion of an AA system, the creation of a whole new class and two new races ).



    SoE NEVER MAKES A MISTAKE, despite having admitted to having made several over the years.



    If you accept Soggie's dogma, then it's actually quite easy to understand the conclusions he comes to.



    If you really believe the psychotic hears voices, then it's easy to understand why he thinks he's Napolean as well.



    Neither one is right, but neither one is firmly grounded in reality either.



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



    Let's roleplay, Soggie.



    Let's imagine that SoE actually employs humans. You know, those imperfect creatures you occasionally meet out in the real world?



    The kind of folks that rarely but occasionally accidently tie their shoelaces in a knot sometimes or forget where they parked their car while they were at the mall.



    Not often, mind you, but it happens. They're human.



    Imagine these normal, intelligent but imperfect humans trying to build on and expand what other normal, intelligent but imperfect humans built before them.



    Imagine them looking at an entire world of magic and combat and bringing their own ideas into this already living breathing ( figuratively ) evolving entity that is EQ.



    Maybe their ideas are different than some or even many of the ideas of those that were there creating before them.



    Now imagine that these humans find a problem in this game. Something isn't working the way they think it should be.



    Being intelligent types, they'll probably try to figure out how it happened. Because if they do that, they might find an obvious solution. It's almost axiomatic that if you know how something got broken then you can find the best way to fix it.



    Now say they found out that it got broken by a long string of other mistakes made by those that came before them.



    Mebbe those guys shouldn't have made all that monk wearable gear have such nice AC values.



    Mebbe those guys shouldn't have had so many items with nice AC values wearable by monks.



    Now they're faced with a choice:

    Do we fix all these items? ( wow... that's a lot of work... )

    Or do we look for an easier solution? ( because... ya know... that's a LOT of work up there... )



    One of these well meaning, thoughtful, intelligent humans says, "Hey guys, considering how much work it would be to change the entire item database, keeping in mind as we go thru it that one of the downsides of being a monk is that they should really have comparatively crappy gear... How bout instead of all that, we just tweak monks a bit so it isn't such a problem? I mean we have this new expansion to work on and the deadline's coming, we can only devote so much time to this. What do you think?"



    And they vote and the majority wins and the "easy fix" is implemented.



    And work progresses on PoP.



    And they remember the lesson they learned from having to make that tough decision they just made and they say, "Hey, let's not get in that position again, guys.... Let's make really sure we keep the AC on the monk gear lower than the AC on the warriors and the knights. I for one don't ever want to go through THAT again."



    And they do.



    You see, what these well-intentioned, intelligent, thoughtful but all too human folks did is...



    THEY FIXED THE SAME DAMN PROBLEM TWICE



    And the rest of us...



    Well, most of us...



    We noticed.


    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.

  8. #408
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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).<hr></blockquote>

    ROFL, that's the stupidest thing i've read in a while. First off, are YOU on test server? If you are, are you "testing" the mitigation change vs itemization vs PoP content vs Warrior bonus? If so, i'd like to see your work. I'd like to see your results. I'd like to see every ounce of your so-called test. You aren't testing anything. You are playing a game, disagree with a change that's made, and are bitter about it enough to cause a ruckus. LOL, you are testing, rofl. Yeah, and I'm testing you to see how low your IQ actually was before you read my post. Sadly, you're around 0 now.



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

    That's exactly what I'm saying. They will make the necessary changes at the necessary times. However, at the moment, the reversal of the mitigation nerf is only necessary in your eyes; not theirs. If SoE finds it necessary to reverse the nerf, it will be done. As of now, it hasn't been. Give them time to correct their mistake. If they can read (oh yeah, if they can read 10,000+ posts), they know the view of the majority of monks. If they find it necessary to reverse it, then will, in whatever time frame they see fit.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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".<hr></blockquote>

    Let's take a look at some of the other examples you will probably try to use as counter arguments. Shaman alchemy was said to be working as intended, and eventually got fixed because it was complained about. The shaman alchemy problem was a problem from the start. They didn't change alchemy for a reason, and then reverse the change. It was bugged from the start. In essence, alchemy had one variable - Alchemy, does it work or not. One variable = easy to balance. Fix it or leave it broke. They fixed this.



    Mage pet weapons/quadding was also brought up as "working as intended." Again, it was a problem on its own. The only variable - Mage pets, do they quad or not when given weapons. Again, one variable = easy to balance. Fix it or leave it broke. They fixed this too.



    Sounds the same as mitigation nerf, right? Not quite. The "nerf" was done to help balance the game against itemization mainly - among other reasons, I'm certain. The mitigation changes had multiple variables; mitigation, itemization, PoP content, warrior effectiveness, etc among others. Multiple variables = harder to balance. You can't simply say, "Fix it or leave it broke," because YOU don't know if it's fixed or broke as it is. However, they obviously saw something broke, which is why they made a partial repeal. Why not make a full reversal, though? Maybe because they saw it was broken, and have now fixed it. Partial repeal may = fixed.



    However, this isn't exactly what you want, so you keep crying.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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).<hr></blockquote>

    Good point, so let them. Stop the harassment (yes, it IS harassment by many of you), and let them do their job. Give your input (once) and leave it at that.



    Seriously, most of the people voicing out about the nerf are the same people that fill out multiple All-star ballots for sporting events just so they will get their way - i.e. seeing their favorite star play in the game, rather than voting on someone who deserves the spot.



    If there truly are enough people in opposition of the nerf, and SoE truly does look at PR as a reason to make changes, then let the numbers speak for themselves. Don't try to taint the results, by flooding the forum w/ the same ole sob story.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Soggie ... that's what, five posts now where you've failed to provide ANY evidence supporting your claim?<hr></blockquote>

    Hmmm, 5 posts compared to everyone elses posts? I think the odds are in my favor now.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You absolutely refuse to offer any insight, proof or evidence to your theory.



    Why? Because you have none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.



    You're full of it. And your theory is complete hogwash.



    You have nothing to support your claims.



    I've asked you simply ... provide some proof. Do you have ANYTHING?



    No?



    Then let it drop.<hr></blockquote>

    My sentiments exactly!



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>His proof is rather simplistic actually...since the devs have not recinded the nerf, it must be there for a reason other than the ones that no longer apply. This unknown reason is his proof why the nerf is necessary...<hr></blockquote>

    Exactly. Most people won't accept this as proof, though. However, my proof is no more fallable than everyone elses speculation as to how they feel EQ needs to be balanced, either. We're all spouting off fallacies, with no real proof to back it up.






    <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>

  9. #409
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sounds the same as mitigation nerf, right? Not quite. The "nerf" was done to help balance the game against itemization mainly - among other reasons, I'm certain. The mitigation changes had multiple variables; mitigation, itemization, PoP content, warrior effectiveness, etc among others. Multiple variables = harder to balance. You can't simply say, "Fix it or leave it broke," because YOU don't know if it's fixed or broke as it is. However, they obviously saw something broke, which is why they made a partial repeal. Why not make a full reversal, though? Maybe because they saw it was broken, and have now fixed it. Partial repeal may = fixed.<hr></blockquote>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?



    BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY REASON THEY'VE EVER GIVEN



    It can't be about PoP, Soggie.



    PoP DIDN'T EXIST



    It can't be about the warrior mitigation boost, Soggie.



    THAT CAME OVER A YEAR LATER



    But I'm curious, Soggie...



    How do you know?



    Where's your lead...



    Where's your clue...



    Or as Wubao has asked several times,



    Where is your proof?


    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.

  10. #410
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Quote:

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

    His proof is rather simplistic actually...since the devs have not recinded the nerf, it must be there for a reason other than the ones that no longer apply. This unknown reason is his proof why the nerf is necessary...

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



    Exactly. Most people won't accept this as proof, though. However, my proof is no more fallable than everyone elses speculation as to how they feel EQ needs to be balanced, either. We're all spouting off fallacies, with no real proof to back it up.<hr></blockquote>The reason most rational people won't accept your proof, Soggie, is because it's not proof.



    It's called faith.



    Faith is not proof, unless you believe.



    If you believe, then it's all the proof you need.



    Unlike you, the majority here don't believe that SoE is incapable of ever making a mistake.



    Further, we ( the majority here ) actually believe we've found yet another of their mistakes.



    If you truly wish this topic to be dropped, Soggie, why don't you quit trying to convert us to your faith?


    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.

  11. #411
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Stop the harassment (yes, it IS harassment by many of you), and let them do their job.<hr></blockquote>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.



    Do us all a favor, and purchase and use a dictionary before you ever attempt to use a word with 3 or more syllables, Soggie.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Give your input (once) and leave it at that.<hr></blockquote>Wow... the irony...



    You're not only a troll, Soggie, you're a blatant hypocrite.


    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.

  12. #412
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: .

    Did it ever once occur to you, Soggie, that the reason the partial repeal happened was due in any part to the uproar that happened here when we the players noticed ( at least some of us noticed, anyway ) how it affected our gaming experience?



    Or is your position that infallible SoE put in the "correct" fix originally, then put in a "more correct" repeal later, with absolutely no feedback from the player community?



    After all, feedback is harassment, unless it's completely complimentary, right?



    "Thank you, Sir, may I Please Have ANOTHER?"



    Ring any bells?


    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.

  13. #413
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: .

    And this bears repeating ... since Soggie seems to think I have no "facts" to back me up ... here are the FACTS of itemization.



    In Velious monks had THESE:



    Flayed Barbarian Skin Leggings

    LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM

    Weight: 0.0 Size: TINY

    Slot: LEGS

    AC: +60 Str: +10 Dex: +10 Sta: +10 Agi: +10 HP: +100

    Classes: Monk

    Races: All Races

    Slot 1: Type 7



    And Warriors had THESE:



    Ancient Wurm Hide Greaves

    LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP

    Weight: 0.0 Size: MEDIUM

    Slot: LEGS

    AC: +46 Sta: +10 Fire Resist: +15 HP: +50

    Classes: Beastlord Ranger Shaman Druid Cleric Paladin Shadowknight Bard Monk Rogue Warrior

    Races: All Races

    Slot 1: Type 7



    or THESE:



    Greaves of the Deep Sea

    LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP

    Weight: 2.5 Size: MEDIUM

    Slot: LEGS

    AC: +44 HP: +55

    Classes: Cleric Paladin Shadowknight Bard Warrior

    Races: All Races

    Slot 1: Type 7





    Effect: Enduring Breath

    1: Water Breathing(1)



    Or, Myrmidon's pants quested through HoT.



    In an environment like THAT, the penalty makes sense, since the monk pants are extremely superior to the warrior pants. And since a lot of monks wore ALL/ALL items, meaning they were wearing the SAME items that warriors themselves were wearing or competing for. (NOTE: Monks can wear the Ancient Wurm Hide Greaves).



    That environment no longer exists.





    NOW you have THESE for Monks:



    Ton Po's Leggings of Composure

    LORE ITEM MAGIC ITEM NO DROP

    Weight: 0.5 Size: MEDIUM

    Slot: LEGS

    AC: +29 Str: +25 Dex: +15 Sta: +15 Agi: +15 Fire Resist: +30 Disease Resist: +30 Cold Resist: +5 Magic Resist: +5 Poison Resist: +5 HP: +155

    Classes: Monk

    Races: All Races

    Slot 1: Type 7





    Effect: Aura of Valor

    2: Increase Hitpoints by 4 per tick

    3: Increase ATK by 40



    Type: Worn

    Level for Effect: 65





    And THESE for Warriors:



    Raex's Greaves of Destruction Lucy's Entry

    MAGIC ITEM NO DROP

    Weight: 10.0 Size: MEDIUM

    Slot: LEGS

    AC: +70 Str: +25 Dex: +20 Sta: +15 Agi: +10 Fire Resist: +5 Disease Resist: +5 Cold Resist: +5 Magic Resist: +30 Poison Resist: +30 HP: +165

    Classes: Warrior

    Races: All Races

    Slot 1: Type 7



    Effect: Aura of Valor

    2: Increase Hitpoints by 4 per tick

    3: Increase ATK by 40



    Type: Worn



    The warrior usable item is superior in hit points and armor class.



    Classes that can equip plate mail armors have superior armor class and hit points available to them over classes like monks that can only equip leather/cloth based armors.



    The problem's been fixed.



    The ALL/ALL armor issue that the monk penalty was designed to address (and I am paraphrasing Alan there), no longer exists.



    SOOOOOO ...



    Unless you plan to start giving monks 125 AC breastplates and 100 AC pants in the next expansion, I'd say the "nerf" has outlived it's usefulness.




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

  14. #414
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: .

    Not once did they mention there were other reasons, because ...



    and wait for it ...



    THERE WERE NO OTHER REASONS.



    Prove that there were.



    I've PROVEN the reasons stated for the nerf. I've shown you the exact statements made.



    PROVE THERE WERE OTHER REASONS, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.



    Show me one comment from ANYONE to indicate there were OTHER reasons.



    Just one.



    You have nothing.



    We have an entire FORUM full of commentary stemming from comments made by people who make this game and update it.



    You've got nothing.



    Prove it Soggie.



    I've PROVEN itemization was the stated reason for the nerf.



    I've also PROVEN that itemization is no longer a factor as it was when the nerf happened.



    Where's your proof?






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

  15. #415
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: .

    What's most funny is, I bring quotes, item descriptions, patch messages to the table.



    You bring tales of apples.



    You're pathetic Soggie. It's gut check time now. Put up some EVIDENCE, or shut up.






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

  16. #416
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: .

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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??<hr></blockquote>If I can sit here and say, "It's dark outside where I am" ( because it's 1:22am ) then you can sit there and say, "It's light outside where you are" and we can both be right, Soggie. Don't you see it?



    And I NEVER said the "three aforementioned elements of the mitigation change were the ONLY reasons for it".



    Quite the contrary, I've maintained all along that itemization was the only reason for it.



    The difference is, as Wubao so kindly provided a copy, the KNOWN FACTS support my opinion.



    Only your immovable faith in the infallibility of SoE supports yours.<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And in the majority of MB monks' case, it's greed/ego.<hr></blockquote>And you have the gall to call for bannings? After characterizing the majority of this posting community as being nothing more than greedy or egotistical?



    Hypocrite.<blockquote>Quote:<hr>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??<hr></blockquote>If I were the only one supporting my position, if I were flying in the face of the known facts, if I were disregarding every opinion except my own unsubstantiated one...



    Well, that would be pretty damn arrogant of me. So arrogant, that conscience would probably compel me to apologize for being such as ass. If I were behaving that way.



    So, Soggie, when can we expect your apology?<blockquote>Quote:<hr>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.<hr></blockquote>Speaking of a Clue...



    It's really not just a board game you know, Soggie.



    You should seriously consider investing in one for yourself.



    You've done little in your past 100 posts but address yourself to this one specific issue ( namely "What nerf?" ).



    You've done so with sarcasm ( poorly executed ), derision ( nothing like having a fool call you foolish ), pomposity, arrogance, superciliousness, and a simply detestable and wholly unwarranted air of some strange kind of moral superiority.



    Get yourself a nice 10" clue, Soggie, place it upright in your swivel chair, sit on it, embrace it intellectually as only you can, and report back to us, please.






    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. #417
    Guest

    Default heh

    Whoever likened soggie to arguing with a religious zealot is soooooooooooooo on target.



    It isn't so! - world

    Yes it is! I believe it is! - zealot

    It isn't so! We have proof! - world

    Your proof holds no water! I believe in my opinion! - zealot



    I swear that should qualify as a state of mental illness.



    - Ssarvhok






    </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ssa rvhok>Ssarvhok</A> at: 1/15/04 2:50 am

  18. #418
    Guest

    Default .

    Not Again. Not this. Not here. Wrong thread guys!



    The arguments are morbidly interesting, much in the way that Jerry Springer is interesting. Yet you obviously have a difference of oppinion that is not likely to be resolved here and now.



    The three of you are more than capable of creating a far more apropriate venue for your argument in its own thread. Or you could do us all a favor and find a way to exchange Email addresses and have it out to your hearts content.



    Whatever you decide, consider that your local audience here has heard your best arguments, and has already formed thier opinions on the subject. All that is left is personal attacks and semantic bickering.



    Please consider your fellow monks. This is exactly the sort of drivel that may keep information like this from reaching us in the future.


    </p>

  19. #419
    Guest

    Default Re: .

    Soggie just stop it, you never had any solid arguments and you never will, and when someone does bring up a good point you simply close your eyes and say NOT TURE ,ALALALAA, I am right your wrong!



    Well that't not an argument, we are still waiting for you to bring anything solid other than making a fool of yourself.


    </p>

  20. #420
    Apostle Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    287

    Default Re: Status Update

    Soggie,

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I completely agree. Let's stay focused, and stop this mitigation talk. It's unnecessary for monks survival (no pun intended).<hr></blockquote>

    why don't you take your own advise and just STFU

    look at this thread, where did the problems start? When YOU started posting SHIT Soggie, yes YOU


    Sensei Chasak DaCrazy

    Iksar Transwhateverit'scalled of Bertoxx Server





    "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change; courage to change the things i can; and wisdom to know the difference."</p>
    Sensei Chasak
    (was) of Bertoxx Server

    "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change; courage to change the things i can; and wisdom to know the difference."

  21. #421
    Enlightened Grandmaster Wubao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: Status Update

    "Please consider your fellow monks. This is exactly the sort of drivel that may keep information like this from reaching us in the future. "



    I agree. I'm sorry for the innanity of it all and my role in this. I truly didn't want it to end up in this thread.



    However, on the bright side, I pretty much think the developers got what they were looking for out of our "response" to the proposed ideas about 300 or so posts ago.



    So I wouldn't worry too much about the back end of this thread derailing.


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

  22. #422
    SkyKungfu
    Guest

    Default Re: Status Update

    Nice list of mistakes Wub <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> Unfortunately, like everything else, its just a waste on this ...



    Anyone that plays this game, knows very well, how many times they made a mistake and for how long they use to refuse that it's not working as intended and finally fix it. Once every monk stops to complain about being screwed with this unneeded nerf theres no chance in hell anything will change.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr> think it is pretty obvious why SOE don't repeal the mitigation nerf completely... to save face.<hr></blockquote>



    Sorry, but if thats really their goal, they will fail very, very bad. I don't blame them to much for doing the nerf, it was a mistake, ok, but it's human nature that mistakes happen. BUT I blame them for refusing to fix it since 16 months now. This ignorance of their customers makes them loose their face in the short run, and loose a lot of money in the long run.



    Sky


    </p>

  23. #423
    Enlightened Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    554

    Default Re: heh

    You guys really should learn to ignore Soggie. If you feed a troll they stay around, if you starve it they leave for somewhere else.



    Zadkiel.


    </p>

  24. #424
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: how

    /em seconds Wubao's last post.



    I apologize for having my usual rabid reaction to anything I can interpret as blind unsubstantiated faith.



    I'm not yet a cynic, I simply always have a burning desire to know on what basis someone else's faith is founded, having lost my own in so many things so many times in this life.



    /bow


    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>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=xai nn>Xainn</A> at: 1/15/04 7:29 am
    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.

  25. #425
    Guest

    Default Re: heh

    Beware Soggie fundamentalists packing explosives near your gate!!!




    "Classes are not that out of balance" -AbsorEQ</p>

  26. #426
    Guest

    Default Re: SOE Infallibilty

    /ignore soggie...



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>One of the ideas brought up by some players that seemed solid was a way to make monks better at dealing melee damage from any angle. When a monk is fighting from the front, but not tanking, he wouldn't be riposted. When the NPC would have riposted, the monk will instead attack it. 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>



    How about unlinking a second special attack? So we can use Flying kick AND Eagle strike for instance? Both can fire wu's.



    Or a single high damage attack, only usable in the front?



    Maybe give monks riposte avoidance? I mean, when i can look a man in the eye, i can predict his moves and deflect incomming attacks.



    This would make monks a great combatant from all sides and not touch the tanking issue. Also with Dragonpunch and a Pullback skill, a monks new role would be positioning with the least risk.




    "Classes are not that out of balance" -AbsorEQ</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gre yborne25>greyborne25</A>* at: 1/15/04 10:03 am

  27. #427
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    167

    Default how

    Well..how do we get rid of him now? It's too late to just ignore him..he is now the hugest Troll I have ever come accross.



    Soggie, I wish there was something I could write that would help you to realize you are just wasting your time and pisssing of a whole crowd of people. Just enjoy your opinion on your own. Whether we believe you or not shouldnt matter, just move on.



    Why would you want to be such a thorn in a group of people's side? Dont answer...



    Sensei Brotor Tiller

    Rathe


    </p>
    All general statements are wrong.

  28. #428
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: how

    Please ignore Soggie. I havent read any of his posts since he came up with the monk mitigation post. He hasnt been here long enough to see the hours upon hours of parsing thats been done to prove our case. When I see his name on a post I skip over it...dont even read it. Move on people. Im surprised at you Wubao. This guy isnt worth your time. Ignore him. Talk about that possible changes and how we can get this to work.


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



    My Stuff

    Transcendent

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

    Stonefist Officer of Resilience

  29. #429
    Guest

    Default Re: heh

    Seriously listen to Zadkiel on this. I know its entertaining to try and best this guy, its like being the one to climb Mt. Everest as a quadriplegic. However:



    -When Soggie attacks, he claims you are trying to read into SOE's reasons for nerfing us.



    -When Soggie defends, he claims you aren't reading into SOE's reasons for the nerf.



    Do you really think he isn't aware that his arguments completely contradict each other? He doesn't care, friends.



    A person like this won't shut up because they don't need to make sense to be successful. Success for him is to keep you fighting with him. I mean seriously, on no thread he's trolled has he ever answered a challenge for proof.



    In fact, his whole "SOE did it like this so it must be right" attitude is persona, not real! Haven't you guessed yet that this whole stance is calculated to inflame us? Can you think of a better way to instantly make the people who frequent this board throw off their gloves and get ready to brawl?



    See Soggie for what he is. Because he sees himself quite clearly, he is aware going in that his arguments are swiss cheese. He also sees that what perpetuates his trolling isn't the strength of his arguments, its the tactics he uses and the subject matter he addresses, and its effects on a captive audience.



    His arguments are the intellectual equivalent of a five year old sticking his tongue out at you. What are you really gonna do to stop it?



    PS Tanix I still love your kender references.






    Lindo - 65 Monk.</p>

  30. #430
    Guest

    Default SOE Infallibilty

    I'm relatively new to the monk community. I played a ranger for the first few years, and had a monk alt that I played once I hit 60 and before aa's. Having experienced the life of a high level ranger during the Kunark era, I think I can shed a little light on this for the troll.



    Pre kunark defense caps were pretty even, though pre-kunark monks had the highest skill caps overall.



    ranger- 200 defense

    warrior - 210 defense

    paladin - 210 defense

    monk - 230 defense

    druid - 200 defense



    Then Kunark and 10 more levels had it looking like this:



    ranger - 200 defense

    warrior - 252 defense

    paladin - 252 defense

    monk - 252 defense

    druid - 200 defense



    rangers went from being a capable tank, to having no ability to tank what-so-ever. We were basically druids with worse spells, and better melee. We generated huge agro, with no method (other than death) to get rid of it. Ranger gating was the term people used for dying, and it was a bad time for being a ranger.





    Over at the Glade we had trolls like Soggie who would tell us they do just fine, and the defense caps dont matter, you just have to controll your agro. No matter how much evidence was presented to them that SOE messed up and should have given us a defensive cap adjustment with kunark, like every other melee class got, they believed that SOE had a new vision for rangers, and that we should just adjust. The rest of the community felt differently.



    Well today, rangers have a 240 defense cap and spells to help with agro generation. SOE admitted that rangers were taking too much of a beating and adjusted things accordingly. This of course was a few years after the fact, but they did finally admit they messed up.



    The parallels with whats going on with the monks are eerily similar. It feels like deja vu all over again. Right now the entire monk class community is arguing to reverse a change to a classes defensive abilities to restore some fun and desirability to the class. And of course there are the trolls who are contrary, well, just because they can be. When presented with mountains of evidence, they stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes and say over and over "working as intended, working as intended, la la la la la." No ammount of reasoning or evidence will dent their thick skulls, cause they will be contrary no matter what the issue is. They enjoy stirring the pot.



    So let Soggie be the troll that he is. All of the very well researched posts defending against him are wasted on him. He wont change his mind, no matter what.



    We need to keep hammering this message home to SOE, cause they have proven that they do eventually listen. Arguing with Soggie only detracts from that and doesnt sway his obviously purposeful contrary position one bit. Hes just doing it because its fun for him to get everyone so worked up. Leave him be and he will go away...


    </p>

  31. #431
    Ex-Druid Monk-in-Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: SOE Infallibilty

    I do have a slight hope that SoE will view the arguments against Soggie's stance favorably.



    Some are fairly well articulated and contain much relevant data.



    /shrug


    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.

  32. #432
    Guest

    Default Re: how

    Nod,



    Like many attention vampires, they do or say just about anything to get attention, even if it is negative. Yes, they know if they proceede in a certain action, the will be rewarded with attention. This is most often learned behaviour, not malicious.



    In our oversized trolls case, he partly really believes that because something is, it is right. One wonders why he crusades then, if he is so willing to accept what is and what is given to him. So be it.



    But ya, as a board, we have all spent far too much time and effort devoting to him. Starvation is the only solution. I declare our troll unnamed and invisible. I suggest yall follow suit.


    My feet hurt.... WITH DESTINY!</p>

  33. #433
    Guest

    Default Re: SOE Infallibilty

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>* 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.<hr></blockquote>

    Just like you Wubao, my evidence is inside their patch message. Evidence = SoE never states that the reasons mentioned above are the ONLY reasons these changes were made. You haven't proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there aren't alternate motives for SoE implementing the change. You have lost your case, just like you would in a court of law. If there is ANY doubt in the minds of the "jury," whether it be 1 person or entire populus, then you haven't proven anything. This isn't a very tough thing to understand.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And I NEVER said the "three aforementioned elements of the mitigation change were the ONLY reasons for it".



    Quite the contrary, I've maintained all along that itemization was the only reason for it.<hr></blockquote>

    You've maintained that there was ONLY one reason for the nerf, but you haven't proven it, beyond a reasonable doubt. See above statement.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And you have the gall to call for bannings? After characterizing the majority of this posting community as being nothing more than greedy or egotistical?<hr></blockquote>

    What comes around finally goes around.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If I were the only one supporting my position, if I were flying in the face of the known facts, if I were disregarding every opinion except my own unsubstantiated one...



    Well, that would be pretty damn arrogant of me. So arrogant, that conscience would probably compel me to apologize for being such as ass. If I were behaving that way.<hr></blockquote>

    lol, so now arrogance is only limited to one specific person, lol. First off, your counter arguments aren't based off of known facts. You are incapable of proving something doesn't exist (other reasons for the nerf). Instead, you claim that the supposed known facts ARE the only reasons for the nerf, which any knowledgable person will tell you is bad logic. Hence the red/green apple analogy. What, are you two years old? Did you miss your learning window growing up? If you don't see it, it must not exist?? Out of sight, out of mind isn't a common trait shared by most adults IRL. Certain MB posters excluded.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You've done so with sarcasm ( poorly executed ), derision ( nothing like having a fool call you foolish ), pomposity, arrogance, superciliousness, and a simply detestable and wholly unwarranted air of some strange kind of moral superiority.<hr></blockquote>

    Rubber.....glue.....something like that. Funny how everything you just described reflects perfectly off of the majority of my opposing posters. Thanks for putting everyone in their place.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Soggie wrote (I have saved a backup copy of this post):

    Quote:

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

    ROFL, that's the stupidest thing i've read in a while.

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







    Then he concluded by saying:

    Quote:

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

    Yeah, and I'm testing you to see how low your IQ actually was before you read my post. Sadly, you're around 0 now.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<hr></blockquote>

    Hey, he provided the numbers, and his opinion on the matter. I just played along with it.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Quote:

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

    b) Personal Attacks. You can attack what someone has to say, but you cannot attack the person saying it.



    an example:



    "What a stupid thing to say!" is ok.

    "You are stupid" is not.

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







    Rule (2b) is a warning offense; 2 warnings = a ban according to the rules of this message board.<hr></blockquote>

    Can we put this in play, mods? Please??



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Soggie just stop it, you never had any solid arguments and you never will,<hr></blockquote>

    That's how I feel about the people trying to persuade the Devs about monks current situation. Our community self-appointed each other as experts on the inner workings of EQ, and act like they are proving everything they say. If you look closely at any of the debates posted with me involved, and read them (despite how much you disagree with me), you'll notice that none of your so-called-arguments are no more than speculation due to lack of information. They don't know everything, so they need to stop acting as if they do.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>why don't you take your own advise and just STFU<hr></blockquote>

    Actually, the thread derailed when someone decided to throw a personal attack at me for my opinion/feedback to the devs. I don't see how I am at fault.



    ``Troll? lol, i'd expect a lot more from a long time member of the monk community, shared with me back in the Dojo days, Zadkiel. I guess expectations aren't acheivable on MB nowadays. hell, monks can't solo, right??



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Soggie, I wish there was something I could write that would help you to realize you are just wasting your time and pisssing of a whole crowd of people. Just enjoy your opinion on your own.<hr></blockquote>

    I suggest the same thing to everyone else.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you really think he isn't aware that his arguments completely contradict each other?<hr></blockquote>

    This is hilarious! At first, you claim that SoE constantly messes up and can't be trusted, and therefore you can't have faith in them. Then you get asked to prove something, and you refer back to SoE as your proof. As I continually say, how can you sit there and not see the double standard in progress? It's ok for you, but not for me. Simply...hilarious.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>See Soggie for what he is. Because he sees himself quite clearly, he is aware going in that his arguments are swiss cheese.<hr></blockquote>

    This is where you don't see it. My arguments are here to spark interest and shed light on the situation at hand. A light that many of you don't acknowledge is there. You are set in your opinions about the nerf. You can't prove that they are right, but you think you have enough "evidence," if you can call it that, to justify the reversal. However, you are blind to the light that there may be other reasons for the nerf. Reasons you can't disprove vs reasons you can't prove. But, you still approach every post, every dev, every feedback, as though you know exactly how the game is supposed to run. You don't, so stop acting as though you do.



    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well today, rangers have a 240 defense cap and spells to help with agro generation. SOE admitted that rangers were taking too much of a beating and adjusted things accordingly. This of course was a few years after the fact, but they did finally admit they messed up.<hr></blockquote>

    Let happen what happens.




    <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>

  34. #434
    Guest

    Default Re: SOE Infallibilty

    <blockquote>Quote:<hr>However, you are blind to the light that there may be other reasons for the nerf.<hr></blockquote>



    There is NO evidence of any other reasons except for the ones mentioned numerous times by the devs. There isn't even any speculation as to what other reasons there could be, not even by you. So, using your court and trial analogy, the jury must come to a decision beyond a REASONABLE doubt, NOT beyond any doubt. Is there a chance there are other reasons for the nerf? yes. Is there a reasonable chance there are other reasons for the nerf? no.



    You are the only person on here who believes there are other reasons, unless you can speculate as to what the reasons are, and provide some sort of evidence/proof to legitimize your speculation, then it is meaningless.



    I can theorize that Jupiter is made entirely of Hawaiin Punch...can I be disproven beyond any doubt? no (at least until we go there <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> ). Can I be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt? yes.


    </p>

  35. #435
    Apostle Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    287

    Default Re: SOE Infallibilty

    bann him = problem solved



    i just hope we gonna see some changes on the 10th of February, from there we can build something up


    Sensei Chasak DaCrazy

    Iksar Transwhateverit'scalled of Bertoxx Server





    "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change; courage to change the things i can; and wisdom to know the difference."</p>
    Sensei Chasak
    (was) of Bertoxx Server

    "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change; courage to change the things i can; and wisdom to know the difference."

  36. #436
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Uk, Nottingham
    Posts
    115

    Default Re: SOE Infallibilty

    No reason to call for a ban, if Soggie does something that warrants that the Mods will do so.



    Calling for bans is not the way to go.


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



    Sauropod, Monk of 11 kata's.



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

    At your service, my pleasure and my duty.

  37. #437
    Monk Disciple
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    167

    Default turn attack back

    I think the best idea to come out of this thread was the idea of our super-riposte using the mob's attack against himself.



    There are already self buffs casters can get that have a chance to reflect a spell back onto the caster. Spells usually carry a bigger punch then melee, so it couldnt be seen as overpowering IMHO.



    It would be a viable alternative to fighting in the rear if I can use a mobs attack against himself occasionally.



    yah.



    Sensei Brotor Tiller

    Rathe






    </p>
    All general statements are wrong.

  38. #438
    Guest

    Default Re: turn attack back

    What other reason could there be?



    Even if we took less damage over time than a knight we still don't have a taunt button. Which is quite important for breaking mezzes. Or spells to quickly and RELIABLY generate taunt. I remember in PoNightmare when I broke the mez of a chanter that had also tashed and slowed the mob. The mob was at 30% health from JUST me attacking it, before it turned onto me. And the enchanter just stood there while my shaman torped him.



    I can keep a mob on me just fine IF I am the first one too it. But doing time trials and if a tank goes down, I can pretty much kill the mob before it will stop beating on that tanks cleric and turn onto me. By that time the one on the MA is either dead or the BL or ranger has stepped in to tank it.



    The biggest problem is EQs shitty combat system. They pretty much have an even distribution of hits capped at each end. So you get spikes at both (or one) min and max hits. This makes monks very poor tanks due to how spikey we are. If they had a guassian (bell curve) distribution then taking 10% more damage over time (including our block) compared to a knight would be fine. As it is the extra damage we take comes from the spike at maximum damage. And since many mobs hit for 1k+ it means we are highly unreliable as a tank. I would go so far as to say unusable unless our hp is far and above the maximum hit of the mob. This of course also depends on if the mob dualwields or not.


    </p>

  39. #439
    Guest

    Default Re: you misunderstand

    No, enrage is an auto-riposte. We're not talking about initiating our own attack ala riposte, we're talking about reflecting the mob's own blow against it.



    Mob skill checks etc complete, dmg calculated to a blow for 600.

    Monk fails dodge and block checks.

    Monk obtains a successful riposte check.

    Monk now makes a check for successful "counter".

    If counter check succeeds, the mob takes xx% of its original 600 damage attack.



    If we were just talking about getting enrage well hell, we have that via whirlwind and we don't have to be low on health to do it either <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">


    Lindo - 65 Monk.</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub147.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thu los>Thulos</A>* at: 1/15/04 2:26 pm

  40. #440
    Guest

    Default Re: turn attack back

    Thank you Buhd, giving us a new "Counter" skill for us which reflects the mob's own damage upon itself is the one idea we mustn't lose from this thread. Props to Cuthul for proposing it originally. It fits right in with what Kavhok mentions in the beginning regarding finding innate skills for us as a source of balance.



    I mean seriously, even in groups, people would want that. Not to mention it falls right in line with SOE's desire for people to be taking on tougher opponents rather than bottom feed. And suddenly enrage would turn the monk into burst dps.



    I think its absolutely brilliant and I hope to god they see this.


    Lindo - 65 Monk.</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
  •