Melee Readjustments - Discuss

[eviiedwin]

when i think of a monk i think of master of mind body and spirt using all that to be the best melee in front combat. I never heard of a rangers that was a master of weapons they have their bow for a reason.

You've never heard of Drizzt? =)

 

[Haisei]

Technically a ranger is a master of all his weapons.

 

[Nuncio]

when i think of a monk i think of master of mind body and spirt using all that to be the best melee in front combat. I never heard of a rangers that was a master of weapons they have their bow for a reason. And groups on the server none really have a problem getting in the group its finding one that has a spot open. I am lfg like almost all the time i don't see how this is gunna make everyone just wana group with rangers even more then they would now.

You don't think that any martial artist feels that way about their skills and tools?
Monks SHOULDN'T tank better than rangers. Rangers have taunt, rangers wear chain, rangers are tree-hugging warriors.
But monks do tank better, apparently, and thus, rangers should get some kind of kickback. Like increased DPS at lower levels.

 

[diolas]

when i think of a monk i think of master of mind body and spirt using all that to be the best melee in front combat. I never heard of a rangers that was a master of weapons they have their bow for a reason. And groups on the server none really have a problem getting in the group its finding one that has a spot open. I am lfg like almost all the time i don't see how this is gunna make everyone just wana group with rangers even more then they would now.

You don't think that any martial artist feels that way about their skills and tools?
Monks SHOULDN'T tank better than rangers. Rangers have taunt, rangers wear chain, rangers are tree-hugging warriors.
But monks do tank better, apparently, and thus, rangers should get some kind of kickback. Like increased DPS at lower levels.

Or spells?

 

[Wiz]

when i think of a monk i think of master of mind body and spirt using all that to be the best melee in front combat. I never heard of a rangers that was a master of weapons they have their bow for a reason. And groups on the server none really have a problem getting in the group its finding one that has a spot open. I am lfg like almost all the time i don't see how this is gunna make everyone just wana group with rangers even more then they would now.

You don't think that any martial artist feels that way about their skills and tools?
Monks SHOULDN'T tank better than rangers. Rangers have taunt, rangers wear chain, rangers are tree-hugging warriors.
But monks do tank better, apparently, and thus, rangers should get some kind of kickback. Like increased DPS at lower levels.

Or spells?

Spells are to compensate for tanking worse and monks' utility like FD.

Are you suggesting spells are there to compensate for their DPS being the same as monks? That is then based on the presumption that monks should be a better class in itself.

 

[Mager]

?

are Rangers a Hibyrid class? and aren't monks straight melee?

A ranger has the option to solo if he should desire with the use of snare and melee.... don't know that a monk would have that same option as we don't have snare and we don't have healing spells or movement increase spells. I'm not against a class getting improvements, I just think a monk should be more appealing to the group set up since they don't have the option to solo or be part of a range attack or pet group. Monks can tank but to be honest I was a paper tank to most all mobs untill I gained my combat agility and lighting reflexes.

I should think a Ranger would be appealing to people because they have many spells, can solo, melee, range combat and they have some really worthwhile AA's.

Monks have damage mitigation (rocks), good melee, FD, off tank with defensive AAs, and monk AA's in my opinion don't have much excitement.
EDIT - and don't forget about our weight restrictions to keep mitigation

Seems fairly balanced atm the moment and I'm not certain what the deal is with the newest focus on Monks are to ubber.... I blame Malssor and Injektilo for their advances!!!!!

My 2pennies
Cyrus

 

[Kasreyn]

Re: ?

are Rangers a Hibyrid class? and aren't monks straight melee?

This is a good point.

KAS

 

[Wiz]

It's not much of a point at all if you're arguing from a zero-sum point.

Rangers are a hybrid because they get spells.

They get spells because they don't get other things, like monks' tanking and monks' FD.

 

[Timir]

Ok maybe if u have monks triple attack with there offhand too and gave rangers triple attack with their main.. in no game do i expect a ranger to be doing more or same dmg then a monk with about the same weapons. I just dont' see the reasoning behind this...

 

[luciferblack]

Okay we rogues want triple attack too to make up for the fact that we get NO spells, NO FD, NO mend, NO tracking, NO big avoidance bonus, my bow skill maxed at 150, and thrown weapons are shit.

No?

Oh alright, never mind.

I'm gonna um...pick pockets...or locks...or my nose...

If rogues were superheroes we'd be Aquaman... he's damn useful...in very limited circumstances.

 

[Wiz]

Ok maybe if u have monks triple attack with there offhand too and gave rangers triple attack with their main.. in no game do i expect a ranger to be doing more or same dmg then a monk with about the same weapons. I just dont' see the reasoning behind this...

It's called balance.

 

[jlapier]

If rogues were superheroes we'd be Aquaman... he's damn useful...in very limited circumstances.

Aquawho? Oh hey wait a sec - do you know Batman? What's he like?

 

[luciferblack]

If rogues were superheroes we'd be Aquaman... he's damn useful...in very limited circumstances.

Aquawho? Oh hey wait a sec - do you know Batman? What's he like?

Why's everyone always ask about Batman? Doesn't anyone care about Aquaman? Oh no of course not...not until you're way out in the ocean and you need him to scout ahead or you're fighting some giant sea monster and you need him to control some sword fish to stab the beast into submission. No love for Aquaman...

...I hate Batman....

/cry

 

[Nuncio]

Re: ?

are Rangers a Hibyrid class? and aren't monks straight melee?

A ranger has the option to solo if he should desire with the use of snare and melee.... don't know that a monk would have that same option as we don't have snare and we don't have healing spells or movement increase spells. I'm not against a class getting improvements, I just think a monk should be more appealing to the group set up since they don't have the option to solo or be part of a range attack or pet group. Monks can tank but to be honest I was a paper tank to most all mobs untill I gained my combat agility and lighting reflexes.

I should think a Ranger would be appealing to people because they have many spells, can solo, melee, range combat and they have some really worthwhile AA's.

Monks have damage mitigation (rocks), good melee, FD, off tank with defensive AAs, and monk AA's in my opinion don't have much excitement.
EDIT - and don't forget about our weight restrictions to keep mitigation

Seems fairly balanced atm the moment and I'm not certain what the deal is with the newest focus on Monks are to ubber.... I blame Malssor and Injektilo for their advances!!!!!

My 2pennies
Cyrus

If monks are more deisrable in groups than rangers because rangers can solo, guess what?
Rangers will HAVE to solo. They wont GET groups. Period.

 

[Nuncio]

Ok maybe if u have monks triple attack with there offhand too and gave rangers triple attack with their main.. in no game do i expect a ranger to be doing more or same dmg then a monk with about the same weapons. I just dont' see the reasoning behind this...

Thats becsue you want the monk to be 'more uberer' than other classes.
You want to do more damage, tank better, and be able to FD.

/edit
You know, I should put this more plainly.
You get groups for one of 4 reasons.

1 You can tank
2 You can heal
3 You can DPS
4 You can CC

Any 'utility' brought to the table by any class that can do any of those 4 is a distant, distant second.
If a ranger can't DPS well, I'll take a monk. Period. Where does that leave the ranger? Especially since the monk can offtank if necessary where the ranger can't. A ranger can snare, yes, but so can the necro, druid, SK and wizard that are in my group, all of which do their main jobs better than ranger (whose main job is DPS). There has to be a reason to bring a ranger.

 

[diolas]

I've always thought a monks ability to tank was offset by the weight restrictions. It's not easy keeping below that limit, as every good monk knows. Rangers can track, and their spells/bows give them the ability to solo much better than monks.

Groups can be hard to come by sometimes, and it's not just because no one wants a ranger. For the sake of 'group' balance, I understand why you would want to make this change. For the sake of 'game' balance, I don't.

As a compromise, why not give them an improved chance to double attack? Or at least a much lower chance than monks to triple attack.

 

[Nuncio]

I've always thought a monks ability to tank was offset by the weight restrictions. It's not easy keeping below that limit, as every good monk knows. Rangers can track, and their spells/bows give them the ability to solo much better than monks.

Groups can be hard to come by sometimes, and it's not just because no one wants a ranger. For the sake of 'group' balance, I understand why you would want to make this change. For the sake of 'game' balance, I don't.

As a compromise, why not give them an improved chance to double attack? Or at least a much lower chance than monks to triple attack.

As I said before, you cannot use the reasoning "they can solo" to not make a class desirable in groups! When you do, you commit them to soloing ALL THE TIME.

And how is monks weight restrictions a trade off for their tanking ability? Maybe you've noticed that monk gear weighs less than other gear?
You could easily say "I've always thought that ranger gear itemization and the heaviness of their gear was a tradeoff for their ability to solo.." and be just AS accurate.
Which isn't very in this case.

You get groups for one of 4 reasons.

1 You can tank
2 You can heal
3 You can DPS
4 You can CC

Any 'utility' brought to the table by any class that can do any of those 4 is a distant, distant second.

 

[Wiz]

I've always thought a monks ability to tank was offset by the weight restrictions. It's not easy keeping below that limit, as every good monk knows. Rangers can track, and their spells/bows give them the ability to solo much better than monks.

Groups can be hard to come by sometimes, and it's not just because no one wants a ranger. For the sake of 'group' balance, I understand why you would want to make this change. For the sake of 'game' balance, I don't.

As a compromise, why not give them an improved chance to double attack? Or at least a much lower chance than monks to triple attack.

That would be relevant if monks didn't have a whole personalized selection of low-weight gear. It's part of what it's offset by, but not the entire thing.

I don't get what the issue of a level 40 monk doing only slightly more melee DPS than a level 40 ranger is.

I really don't.

 

[diolas]

Class pride Wiz. Anytime one class gains abilities of another class you can expect whining. Continuing with this discussion; the main reason I suggested improving the chance to double attack was that it would have no unexpected repercussions in the high end game. Melee master 3 would negate the bonus altogether.

 

[Wiz]

The high end AAed game isn't an issue, monks have better damage/melee AAs.

Rangers and Monks are both light tank/damage classes. There shouldn't be a huge gap between them, and I have yet to see a solid argument there should that doesn't boil down to 'monks should pwn'.