Forums » The Monk

Monk is not a puller ????

    • 431 posts
    May 6, 2020 5:18 PM PDT

    The issue with monk pulling was that I found it viable more for raids than exp groups. I say this because in exp groups, especially when AA's were introduced, it was about exp speed and efficiency. When you have a Monk pulling, this meant one of the DPS left group (the Monk) and had to pull often and at times, they would try and split pull. This required time. Not to mention competing with other groups, you wanted to bring as many back to camp as you could or lose to competing pulls.

    Here's where the efficiency drops. If that Monk is pulling to a group with no real CC, it's usually 1 or 2. This means that Monk has to leave camp, not contribute to the groups DPS and go and find another mob to bring back before that mob dies. That's usually not the case as you end up searching while the group is twiddling their thumbs. If you pull 3-5 or more mobs to camp, then CC them and take them one by one, you allow that Monk to remain in camp and kill, speeding up the kills and preventing the need to run out to pull more after each is killed. You could even charm one or confuse it and aid the group in DPS.

    Yes, Enchanter, Cleric and Shaman have Pacify lines and that can trivialize split pulling from Monks, and yes, in EQ, a high enough Charisma negated critical fails, but in Pantheon, like in EQ, if you want to push efficiency, you'll still want to bring as many to the camp as you can. With mana regen and mana replenishment as well as slows and CC, healer mana won't be an issue with that kind of action. 

    It's this reason I don't see monks as being useful for pulling nearly as much but instead, like in EQ, perhaps more for raids. In exp groups, they would and should be mainly used for DPS. 

    Remember, it's about exp efficiency. While any composition and function can work, they can have drawbacks. It's this reason I HOPE the developers don't emphasize Monk balance on the precept that they have FD. I want to see Monks strong enough in their chief role being DPS with the ability to play avoidance and having self-preservation without it being diminished because FD feels like a powerful tool within a group's efficiency when of course it's actually a detriment.

    Honestly, I wished Monks had more Bruiser type abilities where they could debuff a target and its performance. That would aid the group most and fits within the style of martial combat.


    This post was edited by Janus at May 6, 2020 5:21 PM PDT
    • 1788 posts
    May 7, 2020 2:18 AM PDT

    Janus said:

    The issue with monk pulling was that I found it viable more for raids than exp groups. I say this because in exp groups, especially when AA's were introduced, it was about exp speed and efficiency. When you have a Monk pulling, this meant one of the DPS left group (the Monk) and had to pull often and at times, they would try and split pull. This required time. Not to mention competing with other groups, you wanted to bring as many back to camp as you could or lose to competing pulls.

    Here's where the efficiency drops. If that Monk is pulling to a group with no real CC, it's usually 1 or 2. This means that Monk has to leave camp, not contribute to the groups DPS and go and find another mob to bring back before that mob dies. That's usually not the case as you end up searching while the group is twiddling their thumbs. If you pull 3-5 or more mobs to camp, then CC them and take them one by one, you allow that Monk to remain in camp and kill, speeding up the kills and preventing the need to run out to pull more after each is killed. You could even charm one or confuse it and aid the group in DPS.

    Yes, Enchanter, Cleric and Shaman have Pacify lines and that can trivialize split pulling from Monks, and yes, in EQ, a high enough Charisma negated critical fails, but in Pantheon, like in EQ, if you want to push efficiency, you'll still want to bring as many to the camp as you can. With mana regen and mana replenishment as well as slows and CC, healer mana won't be an issue with that kind of action. 

    It's this reason I don't see monks as being useful for pulling nearly as much but instead, like in EQ, perhaps more for raids. In exp groups, they would and should be mainly used for DPS. 

    Remember, it's about exp efficiency. While any composition and function can work, they can have drawbacks. It's this reason I HOPE the developers don't emphasize Monk balance on the precept that they have FD. I want to see Monks strong enough in their chief role being DPS with the ability to play avoidance and having self-preservation without it being diminished because FD feels like a powerful tool within a group's efficiency when of course it's actually a detriment.

    Honestly, I wished Monks had more Bruiser type abilities where they could debuff a target and its performance. That would aid the group most and fits within the style of martial combat.

     

    I do believe this is much anticipating later stages of the game. Firsthand character will not have the mana regen geared players had in AA farm groups. Many exp groups had to be limitated by healer's mana, and monk splitting there was usefull to ensure there was no excessive pressure on the healer and no accidental pulls that might lead to a wipe. It was also usefull for scouting and splitting named and bringing them back to the camp.

    I do feel speaking of raw efficiency is a bit early as we do not know how mana will replenish (oustide of PA footages where it seem to be slow), neither how much enchanters will be avaliable (I have the memory I didn't have an enchanter in a group more than 1/3rd of the time), which means hard and solid control will be an issue there and prepairing pulls will be worthwhile.

     

    There is also no clarity buff yet, and enchanter has to blast to actively replenish his group's mana, that also implies :

    1) You can't benefit of an enchanter's mana buffs whitout beeing grouped with

    2) The enchanter's mana will be an extension of the healer's mana. The more he uses for mezzing, the less he can use to ensure healer do not run out and the pace can flow.

     

    It might be more a question of balance here, especially if you consider buffs and such draining mana everytime they have to be replenished, while in EQ having FT items + clarity x was a common thing during velious and made mana way less precious.

    • 431 posts
    May 7, 2020 3:14 AM PDT

    A bit of a preface but please understand, this is my critical assessment as I want what's best for this class. The end of my post addresses this.

    "Many exp groups had to be limitated by healer's mana, and monk splitting there was usefull to ensure there was no excessive pressure on the healer and no accidental pulls that might lead to a wipe'

    It's less of an issue with mana regeneration. From the most effect on the healers mana to the least, it was CC, Slow past 65% (If kills are consistent) and then Clarity. All together it allowed them to heal with effectiveness that easily outclassed standard function by more than 200-450%. Every group I was in where the Monk pulled and that was maybe 5-10% over my eight years, I would tell them to pull multiples of 3+. This was because with me you didn't have an issue with healer mana. The ultimate issue is always in that Monk not providing consistent DPS (slower kills) for the group and having massive downtime due to having to pull more, split or wait on respawn because they decided to pull 1 or 2 and the other groups stole the other spawns in that respective camp. Once the group was comfortable, I would then charm one, then speed lock the multiples, get the first slowed as my charmed pet and group dropped the first, then moved on to the next one by one which would be pre-slowed. Doing this 1 or 2 at a time dropped group efficiency of experience by more than half, at times more than 75%. We aren't in 1999-2001 anymore, people will get whatever composition they can and playstyle to maximize their total potential as a group.

    "neither how much enchanters will be avaliable (I have the memory I didn't have an enchanter in a group more than 1/3rd of the time)"

    Going by polling and if the Bard is in prior to release, the numbers should be very different from EQ Live. In Pantheon, 10.78% vs 4.43% for Enchanter numbers vs Monk or 20.15% vs 4.43% with Bard and Enchanter vs Monk which is higher than the required 16.67% meaning every group would effectively have a Bard or Enchanter. But I agree, numbers could change in release, but this is already a good showing where there likely won't be issues. My position is to have monks be more DPS focused and wish they had group assist function like debilitating attacks and debuffs along with their DPS.

    "There is also no clarity buff yet, and enchanter has to blast to actively replenish his group's mana"

    They had it for a while. Most every stream had the buff from the group's Enchanter.

    "The enchanter's mana will be an extension of the healer's mana. The more he uses for mezzing, the less he can use to ensure healer do not run out and the pace can flow."

    Mezzing as it was shown isn't that mana intensive. Along with the mana regeneration and mana replenishment from the nuke, they also have a spell which can pull about 25% of their mana pool from their target over 4 seconds regardless if it's a caster or not. This has a 1 minute recast and is similar to Theft of Thought in EQ that cost something like 5 mana and pulled 400 mana instantly. They won't really have mana issues, but again, the mana replenishment isn't the only factor that goes into aiding a healer's mana but also Melee Slows, Melee Damage Flat Rate Reduction Spell, CC etc. These abilities combined can double and even triple a Healer's efficiency.

    My only major concern is in FD pulling, which is looking to be similar in it's lack of efficiency for Pantheon. I fear it will play into the Monk's role which would stymie it in an applied situation because the Developers are considering their function and their balance on paper.

    If it remains as is, FD pulling won't only be trivialized by Pacify pulling from three different classes (Enchanter, Shaman and Cleric) like it was in EQ, but it will be trivialized by groups that look to have a healthy supply of Enchanters/Bards to choose from. This is why the Monk needs to balance their use without having FD applied. I dont want to see the class diminished, especially since it's the lowest selected for play. I want to see that number increase since I feel as though the direction is what is giving players that hesitation for the class. That and the dual role of DPS and Off-tanking which feels like another, 'class of two roles, being crappy in both'.

    Now, I know you don't like applying min/maxers or effiency hawks into class balance and you love the idea of the DPS class that can also tank, but in this case, when and if FD is applied in a group and the Monk is also only a poor tank and a sub-optimal DPS, they'll find less demand in a group and people will be less willing to play them. If somehow, they can DPS as well as other DPS classes and or Tank as well as Tank classes, that's when you run into complaints from Rangers and Rogues particularly. 


    This post was edited by Janus at May 7, 2020 3:26 AM PDT
    • 1788 posts
    May 7, 2020 1:57 PM PDT

    I do not disagree with most you have said, and I am not willing to quote everything and answer to each fact specifically thus I'll be summing up a global answer:

     

    Yes, and no. Some things can be anticipated, some can be drawn from PA streams, some can be taken from experience, but nothing we have seen is yet polished to the point it is optimized and balanced. It is just functionnal.

     

    I agree as a monk during some of my EQ time (Rogue>monk>warrior I played the most), some of the fastest exp groups had enchanters and even then I was still pulling. As you pointed out, monk DPS was not shinning in EQ, and thus due to my ability to split, run, and at that moment even pacify (PoP skill or something), I was simply not a loss chain pulling because my group was killing so fast it didn"t matter. I even sometimes ended too far to get exp, a shame.

    That was PoP era and I never myself saw groups that fast before gear was clearly ehanced in too many directions but it might just be me, as I was young and a slow leveler.

    I am also not willing to reduce the monk to "hit, FD, bring mob to group and go away" because it's even more binary than the enchanter and even if you can find satisfaction in it, it gets boring overtime, I just like to have the option to. Just like as you pointed, I want to have the option to taunt and offtank an ennemy if it release pressure or avoid a wipe somehow, or even tank a bit in experience groups if no tank show around. But again that doesn"t mean I want to the monk to be a subpar DPS  for that.

     

    I would just take actual numbers cautiously, they aren't final, they can change and even after release they can still change if classes are over or underpowered.

    On the same side, I'd take stats from poll with a grain of salt : Theses are forums with a lot of EQ veterans that remembers their fondest memory as bard swarming or enchanter charm kiting, that generate a lot of desire to play such classes but if they are weak outside of group content due to beeing controllers/buffers, many people won't level them past lvl 20 (especially new players) and the numbers will probably fall quite a bit. Support classes are rarelly fitting everyone and it requires a specific mindset to accustomate to it.

    • 431 posts
    May 7, 2020 5:37 PM PDT

    Monk DPS was really good, especially once Luclin rolled around. Even to the point where they were ecplising Rogues in a number of circumstances due to the end game gear of that expansion and with both with the proper AAs. GoD was peak performance before SOE addressed it and brought them within balance before Darkhollow.

    My issue with pulling and how it hurts efficiency was in Kunark and Velious mainly. It was later on as well, but I was pulling by PoP because I could split pull with a flawless pacify by that point and even use a timed release that was staggered so mobs auto pulled to the group. I did that so each break would bring chain aggro mobs and I can then charm and speed lock the adds as we take them on. Before that however, to maximize experience and run on par with healer mana, that required multiples per pull. Especially if you're competing with camp competition which looks to be the case in Pantheon as well. The one's who only single pull or pull maybe two, will lose out to the more efficient who can bring entire groups to the camp so they're no longer prey for those competing groups and their pullers.

    I agree, nothing is set in stone, but this is where I hope people can push in PA5 and Alpha to have the Monk have a purpose outside of leveling and not have off-tanking end up leading to a balanced reduction to their overall DPS. I can assure you, that will hurt their chances in a group, a group design that benefits from specialties.

    They run into a similar case as Druids in the Vanilla to Kunark era. 

    As for the statistics, we can talk about that another time. The demographics aren't quite disparate in such a nuanced way as what you detailed. Not only does the data not show it, it's oddly specific. I do agree however, with the concept of class or archetype fatigue or disinterest. One thing Enchanter and Bard was known for in EQ was having people try them as alts but never get past level 12-13 (Charm) and 29-30 (Clarity). Logging the people on Britlebane anyway, that was where the numbers almost self-partitioned into those two key level ranges. In that sense, we could see drops in numbers due to that. However, at more than 20% showing, even a 50% reduction would give easily a 150-200% increase in what we saw in EQ by Velious-PoP eras for level 50-65. Remember, you want to have a 16.67% showing minimal for each slot.

    • 1563 posts
    May 15, 2020 1:15 PM PDT

    I always considered "puller" to be the unrecognized 5th group role...that was primarily filled by monks (but also rogues in Pantheon with abilities like flash bomb...maybe bards depending on how VR implements them etc). In eq we also had sk's but it doesn't look like direlords will get FD or other aggro dropping abilities.  I get where you are coming from janus about the pulling role really only being required in raids and maybe that is why it wasn't considered as part of the quaternity?  

    I'm hoping...likely foolishly based on what we have seen...that standard exp mobs are difficult enough that a pulling class is beneficial and that spells like pacify can be resisted making them a second best type of option to having a pulling class.

    You did lose me a bit on this part:

     if you're competing with camp competition which looks to be the case in Pantheon as well. The one's who only single pull or pull maybe two, will lose out to the more efficient who can bring entire groups to the camp so they're no longer prey for those competing groups and their pullers.

    I get what you are saying but anyone can pull a group of mobs if there is competition for them.  The monk can do that as well as any other class.  I'm just hoping that in most cases pulling a group of mobs means death if you can't mitigate the aggro somehow.  We haven't seen aoe CC being as viable as it was in early EQ so I think that concern might be over estimated.


    This post was edited by philo at May 15, 2020 2:59 PM PDT
    • 431 posts
    May 16, 2020 5:51 PM PDT

    philo said:

    I always considered "puller" to be the unrecognized 5th group role...that was primarily filled by monks (but also rogues in Pantheon with abilities like flash bomb...maybe bards depending on how VR implements them etc). In eq we also had sk's but it doesn't look like direlords will get FD or other aggro dropping abilities. I get where you are coming from janus about the pulling role really only being required in raids and maybe that is why it wasn't considered as part of the quaternity?

    It wasn't necessary and that was because anyone could pull. Adds meant nothing and were actually wanted in that scenario as it meant much more efficient exp per hour as per the basis I described above. I'd like Monk to be used for a pulling purpose, but not be where they only pull. You still run into the issue of groups being drastically reduced in efficiency if they rely on a monk to pull. Groups who pull multiples will outclass those who use monks to spend time splitting pulls and only bringing 1 or 2 at a time.

    This is why I want monks to have a function in a group and in combat. Having an off-tank fucntion means they aren't tanks technically and the worrying part is, does that mean they won't be comparable DPS as other DPS classes? I said before and I mean it now, Monks will be rather lackluster in such a weak role if that's the case. Cant tank as well as tanks, can't DPS as well as DPS and their pulling actually reduces the efficiency of a group. Who would want one aside for mercy or if they're a guildy to drag along?

    I hope this is addressed in the game but I don't see a way to properly force content to be needing one to split pulling as the natural gravitation is in groups pushing the envelope and that means locking down multiples and keeping all the DPS in group there, doing DPS and with the adds being prepped, slowed and crippled so have very little effect on the tank, which in turn aids drastically in the Healer's mana.

    philo said:

    I'm just hoping that in most cases pulling a group of mobs means death if you can't mitigate the aggro somehow.  We haven't seen aoe CC being as viable as it was in early EQ so I think that concern might be over estimated.

    If the group doesn't have a control class, yes, that could very well be the case, but given the current toolkit with the Enchanter and hopefully the Bard using speed locking with single cast mez, the unresistable mez and even AE mez, confuse and charm, taking on multiple of 3-5 and even as much as 10 in skilled hands doesn't seem to be an issue. Particularly if you use the confuse and the charm as you can CC that one or two targets and use them to aid the group in DPS along with having the other adds locked down.

    In EQ, I never used the AE mez. Maybe a bit here and there but it was generally not as good and even impossible given the phases through the leveles and expansions where there was no AE mez variant. Single target, clicky mezes from Hammer of Delusions and Charm were the go to for CC of 3-5 or more targets quickly. The speed locking of adds, for instance, a train like in LCY of Karnors. Most I did there at one time using the single target mez was 13 or so as our group would then take them one at a time as I prepped each with slow (only used the 50% slow - Tepid Deeds- due to mana). Luckily a caster mob was in group so I could mana drain with Theft of Thought every two minutes. Ench seems to have the same spell in Pantheon but more potent and faster recast. That could change though.

    All in all though, relying on making Control near useless in their primary role just so Monks can pull singles which most groups would try to deviate from due to how poor it is on group efficiency doesn't seem like a good way to go about with the class. Add to that, when you are dungeon crawling, given the respawns and with the introduction of their random respawn and transient respawn, multiple adds are going to happen often enough. That can't be aided by a Monk unless they offtank a single add. But that's only one and at the detriment of the Healer's mana. Again, I want to see them more focus on DPS which is their primary role and have debilitating attacks like that of a Bruiser so they're wanted in a group. They can keep the off-tank capability but it shouldn't harm their ability to deal DPS comparably to that of another DPS.

    The current dynamic has me extremely worried and as I said, being as low as they are in the selection, they could use some assuredness from VR in their capability within their primary role as DPS. I'm hopeful it gets some love and their own video pronto because we have enough Enchanters, Bards, Healers etc, they need to show off some of the lower numbered class where people aren't sure where they fit. Monk is that class.


    This post was edited by Janus at May 16, 2020 5:53 PM PDT
    • 1563 posts
    May 17, 2020 9:58 PM PDT

    I just dont even know how to respond because ...you have a very different perspective of how things were.

    "In EQ, I never used the AE mez. Maybe a bit here and there but it was generally not as good and even impossible given the phases through the leveles and expansions where there was no AE mez variant."

    You never used ae mez? /boggle

    We have to understand that we are talking from a perspective of challenging content. You shouldnt have time to single cast 5 mez spells because you are dead by that time unless you are playing easy content...you talk about single target mezing 13 in KC using some hammer that I had to look up. I had to look it up because it came from Gates of discord but honestly thats when eq was past its prime. ....and you talk about grouping in KC with it?? KC was a ghost town by the time gates of discord came out. That was a lvl 50ish zone. You had gates of discord loot...in order for KC to be a challenging zone you would have had to have been 15 lvls lower and had multiple expansions of lesser gear. How is that even a consideration? Granted you are talking about a KC exp group anyway which, a lot of people grouped there when it released because it was known for easy/fast exp. Not exactly a good representation of challenging content anyway.

    There is a disconnect there somehow. I believe that disconnect is that you are coming at it from the perspective of the content being to easy imo.

    If that is the case then VR has failed in delivering as promised and we wont need to have this discussion.

    There is simply no way that single target mez works to mez 5+ mobs if you are doing hard content with 1 enchanter. When you see that pull coming the cleric should be camping and everyone knows it is a wipe before the battle starts. That is how I hope the difficulty is tuned.

    Thats ^ when the puller is necessary...which was the point of the whole conversation. 


    This post was edited by philo at May 17, 2020 10:03 PM PDT
    • 1788 posts
    May 18, 2020 5:59 AM PDT

    That might explain references I couldn't find back in my memory of grouping with an enchanter. Not discarding the whole argument ofc.

     

    I don't think monk need reduced DPS because he can offtank, the same paladin do not need to be a bad tank because he can heal or any crossover role here.

     

    But if a monk under cooldowns in more resistant than a tank with none, it's already good enough to alleviate some pressure in some situations.

    • 107 posts
    May 19, 2020 3:58 AM PDT

    philo said:

    I just dont even know how to respond because ...you have a very different perspective of how things were.

    "In EQ, I never used the AE mez. Maybe a bit here and there but it was generally not as good and even impossible given the phases through the leveles and expansions where there was no AE mez variant."

    You never used ae mez? /boggle

    We have to understand that we are talking from a perspective of challenging content. You shouldnt have time to single cast 5 mez spells because you are dead by that time unless you are playing easy content...you talk about single target mezing 13 in KC using some hammer that I had to look up. I had to look it up because it came from Gates of discord but honestly thats when eq was past its prime. ....and you talk about grouping in KC with it?? KC was a ghost town by the time gates of discord came out. That was a lvl 50ish zone. You had gates of discord loot...in order for KC to be a challenging zone you would have had to have been 15 lvls lower and had multiple expansions of lesser gear. How is that even a consideration? Granted you are talking about a KC exp group anyway which, a lot of people grouped there when it released because it was known for easy/fast exp. Not exactly a good representation of challenging content anyway.

    There is a disconnect there somehow. I believe that disconnect is that you are coming at it from the perspective of the content being to easy imo.

    If that is the case then VR has failed in delivering as promised and we wont need to have this discussion.

     

    There is simply no way that single target mez works to mez 5+ mobs if you are doing hard content with 1 enchanter. When you see that pull coming the cleric should be camping and everyone knows it is a wipe before the battle starts. That is how I hope the difficulty is tuned.

    Thats ^ when the puller is necessary...which was the point of the whole conversation. 

    Hi Philo.... I can say I have mezd more than five... however, it was when I was able to see it coming and I had room to make it happen... but I do agree it is not ideal to mez in singles

    • 431 posts
    May 19, 2020 6:18 AM PDT

    philo said:

    ...

    You never used ae mez? /boggle

    Yeah, you'd use it occasionally, but if you're in close quarters, you'll mez yourself, this is why one would be at a distance from the initial target when casting it. The issue is, some would resist, then you have multiples coming for you. It was also not a spell that functioned well past Velious as some expansions, the content was too high level for the AE versions and only single target sufficed. In general, it wasn't as useful due to the complications and you can speed lock with single target. I can get 5 mobs locked in about 12 seconds (You can negate Cooldown recovery using clickies) which is all the time I need since I won't be tanking them. Typically the Tank will be on them because the Tank always pulled in my groups or they will aggro on the healer for healing the tank. I just tab cycle my targets one by one speed locking them. 

    The trick here is if you get a resist and if it aggros you, you only have one to tank and Enchanters were designed to tank singles. We also have our PBAE stun line to easily handle a mob on us. In Pantheon, Enchanters have a few extra tricks to include a regenerating Rune skin. This will allow for tankiness in this area. When I said CCing 5+ targets with single target, that was much easier than you may think. I'm not sure if you played an Enchanter but I'm really not sure why you're surprised by any of this? A person who relies on ae mez for multiples is a terrible Enchanter. That or they're new or aren't used to the class.

    If you have to lock stuff down like that because a tank can drop in a split second from the adds, either you have a terrible tank, the power disparity curve is balanced for that by the developers or you can just cycle PBAE stuns. You don't need AE mez and again, that can cause more problems than it helps as the last thing you want to do as an Enchanter is have 2+ mobs on you because of a resist. This is why you want to use single target as the tank or other group members tank them.

    To add, Mezes have a Mem Blur component to them to include AE mez. If you end up getting the adds tashed and you continue cycling the AE mez, your tank will hate you for it. He'd never hold aggro.

    We have to understand that we are talking from a perspective of challenging content. You shouldnt have time to single cast 5 mez spells because you are dead by that time unless you are playing easy content

    This is challenging content. This was content of your level and of the current expansion. I played a single character, my Enchanter for 95% of my seven years from Beta till Darkhollow. This is going by content for each expansion. 

    ...you talk about single target mezing 13 in KC using some hammer that I had to look up. I had to look it up because it came from Gates of discord but honestly thats when eq was past its prime. ....and you talk about grouping in KC with it?? KC was a ghost town by the time gates of discord came out. That was a lvl 50ish zone. You had gates of discord loot...in order for KC to be a challenging zone you would have had to have been 15 lvls lower and had multiple expansions of lesser gear. How is that even a consideration? Granted you are talking about a KC exp group anyway which, a lot of people grouped there when it released because it was known for easy/fast exp. Not exactly a good representation of challenging content anyway. There is a disconnect there somehow. I believe that disconnect is that you are coming at it from the perspective of the content being to easy imo.

    I never said I used the Hammer of Delusions in KC. If I did, then that's my mistake but no, that's not what I used. Totally different expansions too. I used Entrall generally for KC as Dazzle was a waste unless you had to recycle the locks and wanted to push a staggered cycle or use on the caster for mana tap as it would be more efficient, but meant mentally setting that timer separate from the other Enthralls. 

    There is simply no way that single target mez works to mez 5+ mobs if you are doing hard content with 1 enchanter. When you see that pull coming the cleric should be camping and everyone knows it is a wipe before the battle starts. That is how I hope the difficulty is tuned.

    You really never played an Enchanter then and I don't see how it's possible you haven't been in a group with a good one. Have you never had them charming while mezzing? That added DPS helps a lot too as well as CCing a target as you then speed lock the others down. It isn't that difficult if you're not bad at it. And no, the cleric sholdn't be camping. If you had NO Enchanter or possibly Bard, then yes, I could see that but I feel like you're not seeing things from the point of view of a competent Enchanter.

    Thats ^ when the puller is necessary...which was the point of the whole conversation. 

    Again, it's not as you can still just CC the adds/ What world are you living in where an Enchanter can only take 1 or 2 adds? Honestly. This is getting a bit ridiculous and I don't mean to come off as insulting and if so, you have my apologies. BUt let's say somehow Enchanters are broken and can only CC as well as you described, we can then pull using pacify as you don't need LoS and I can bind sight a tank and cast at range. If your CHA is above 184 the critical fail on Pacify doesn't aggro the target and that's generally what I did in Velious to Planes of Power. I would at times be the groups puller for fun, although it was far more efficient to bring multiples in camp.

     

    MauvaisOeil said:

    I don't think monk need reduced DPS because he can offtank, the same paladin do not need to be a bad tank because he can heal or any crossover role here.

    Agreed, that's my fear though. In that because of their ability to tank, that may be an area they end up faltering in. I've always been a propnent for Monk DPS. In this sense, I see too many issues with them as pullers and I don't want their primary role as damage dealing to be hurt because of that nor their 'off-tank' secondary function. 


    This post was edited by Janus at May 19, 2020 6:27 AM PDT
    • 1563 posts
    May 19, 2020 7:06 AM PDT

    I'm going give you the benefit of your knowledge on the specifics of the enchanter spells as my enchanter was a lower lvl alt.  

    You do mention that it was not a spell that functioned well past velious...i would argue it was still heavily used during luclin but that is splitting hairs a bit I guess.  The thing is, kunark/velious are the expansions most people are referring to when they refer to early EQ.  I've heard some people include luclin. Just about everyone understands that by Pop the game had changed...not for the better is usually the opinion.  I have a hard time referencing anything after velious/ luclin as "the way it was in early EQ" personally (I quit during GoD but it had gone way down hill long before then) .  To reference anything after EQ s prime when it was popular and widely considered good seems like a poor frame of reference.

    ...but we are getting way off topic and nit picking about mezing.

    The point was that if content is difficult enough (if the mobs are tuned hard enough) then that split puller becomes more required.  

    With difficult mobs it slows down the pace of the game...which VR has stated many times they want to do. 

    With difficult mobs you cant pull 5+ and plan on surviving long with 1 CC class.  Maybe they have a high resist rate?  Maybe they hit to hard or to fast?  Could be some other ability...counter spell etc.  Maybe they simply arent CC able? (Though that is lazy design). There are a number of ways to tune things to offer difficulty and challenge.

    (Just for reference I also believe some mobs aggro should be tied together so they can't be split even with FD).

    These things make content challenging.

    So your alternative to having a puller is pulling with pacify.  I mentiomed above pacifiy/lull etc should be resistable making it the second best alternative to a split pulling class imo.  

    I still think one of the reasons why we disagree is I want content tuned to be more challenging than you do.  But it is more than that...

    Classes like monk (or sk in EQ...or it looks like rogue in pantheon) that have split pulling abilities should be a better puller imho. I feel that a CC class should not necessarily be the best puller.  Let them be the second best option (still good but not take the place of those other classes that are better equipped with pulling abilities).  . 

    I admit I may be putting to much emphasis on pulling as a role in a group?  Maybe that is another part of why there is some disagreement?

    If there is more emphasis on having a puller be required it solves the issue you mentioned of just pulling a huge group and bringing them to camp and CCing them all.  That should be a very dangerous/risky play style when we are talking about 5+ mobs...but as we both know, in many cases, in EQ the way it was tuned there was little risk in doing that.

    I'm all for making the puller matter...

    ...Slowing down the pace of play.  Nullifying your concern about camp monopolization where it is common place to pull a giant camp full of mobs and be able to CC them all with little risk.

     

    • 431 posts
    May 19, 2020 9:02 PM PDT

    philo said:

    You do mention that it was not a spell that functioned well past velious...i would argue it was still heavily used during luclin but that is splitting hairs a bit I guess.  The thing is, kunark/velious are the expansions most people are referring to when they refer to early EQ.  I've heard some people include luclin. Just about everyone understands that by Pop the game had changed...not for the better is usually the opinion.  I have a hard time referencing anything after velious/ luclin as "the way it was in early EQ" personally (I quit during GoD but it had gone way down hill long before then) .  To reference anything after EQ s prime when it was popular and widely considered good seems like a poor frame of reference.

    I get that but that doesn't change the fact that single target was generally better for standard play. AE mez was far more risky and the tank was usually the puller since the vast majority of groups didn't have Monks and very few had Monks and or SKs that wanted to split pull. I bind sight to the tank so i was in their eyes all the time if we don't have room respawn. If we do, I set another timer for that and pull out of the Tank's head before repop. During my time though I can select targets that he sees or even targets he doesn't see, I can even pacify from any place if within range and pre-select targets to lock the first mob before the others get to the camp. I then cycle through mezzing them. Tanks who listen will move back a bit each time and getting the 3-10 mobs locked generally works like that. I then let him know if there's a caster as that caster's mana will be used to remez targets. 

    As for Kunark and Velious, Facination was our upgrade to Mesmerization. Both are capped at level 55. For targets over that we used GoK which allowed for locking down post 55 and had a neg 10MR to it so it stuck a bit more reliably until we got our unresistable mez (also in Pantheon). The issue here is you had to decide which to use and if you have any 55+ targets, AE mez is a death sentence. This is why it was generally never used in challenging content. Single target was enough and even if I only used GoK, I could maintain about 6 in a pull while slowing as mana was far better once we moved into VoG and Shissar for hastes over the previous hastes that had high costs but very low durations. 

    The point was that if content is difficult enough (if the mobs are tuned hard enough) then that split puller becomes more required.  

    I doubt we'll see that. The reason being is groups may not require all four archetypes as you may have some that don't need healers, or tanks or DPS or Support/control. Generally however, being more of a group centric game, they will, for the most part, require them for challenging content. Monks aren't an archetype on their own, they're part of the DPS archetype. DPS is their job and they have a secondary job of Off-Tank. With only 4% of the playerbase wanting to be Monks and with 20% (more than the required 16.67%) wanting to be Bards and Enchanters, I doubt you'll see content require them. Will they help for a few situations within the pulling category, possibly. But if we're talking about splitting, we do have alternatives with Enchanters, Clerics and now even Shamans getting pacify lines. In general though, this is about efficiency as groups will demand it when people are comfortable both with the game and their classes.

    That efficiency requires the aforementioned dynamics and having a Monk outside of the group and wasting time splitting pulls so you get singles, just wont cut it, especially since I plan to Charm and Confuse two targets while locking another one or two down because I like prepping targets and using them for mana tapping.

    With difficult mobs it slows down the pace of the game...which VR has stated many times they want to do. 

    Yes, but difficult in what way? Currently they referenced Disposition which also hurts Monk pulling, Pacify pulling and even a disposition for mezzing (If that mob comes, Tank always attacks it first, rest get locked). They referenced content that has random and transient respawns, which means groups will be challenged and the 'camp' or place you;re at may not or will not be safe. This was used to emphasize the need for the Control archetype in a group. This is where the Monk Off-Tanking can shine although that causes the Healer to run into mana efficiency problems as they now have to heal two targets, the Tank, additional members if needed and the Off-Tank who likely can't tank as well as an actual Tank.

    With difficult mobs you cant pull 5+ and plan on surviving long with 1 CC class. 

    That wasn't the case in the streams with the Enchanters. THe good two anyway who did play. They locked down 3-4 targets. The one with Saicred, even David (Roenick) who was playing the class locked down the boss and the adds as they rezzed people back. Chris mentioned that may be something they address as they don't want Enchanters mezzing bosses.

    Maybe they have a high resist rate? 

    The only mobs as per disposition that will be resistant to mez and stuns are Deranged. The disposition prevents Mez, Charm, Confuse, Fear, and has an added function that it will turn and bolt causing aggro on adds at anytime during the fight. It's those two reasons if that Disposition comes, we target it first. The rest get mezzed. High resist rate will be an issue across the board, although Enchanters have an unresistable Mez called Enrapture and two MR reduction spells, one that also gives the Enchanter the MR they reduce on the target. The resist issue can be dealt with, but Disposition, you're right, plays into the challenge, but doesn't change the methods we use and have used in the past.  

    Maybe they hit to hard or to fast? 

    If they hit too hard for the Tank, I don't see Monks fairing too well. Remember, in most all groups the Tank will be pulling, so this will be the standard. YOu can't possibly think 16.67% of the population will be playing a Monk. That's what you want to see for one to be in every full group. 4% won't cut it so I doubt we'll see dynamics where a DPS class is depended on for the majority of content. It's something they have to consider and again, you have an entire archetype designed purposefully to handle many adds, far out classing classes that have more limited CC like Rogues. They can do two at a time, although incapacitates them and singles, one at a time. By that measure, you will have Enchanters at 4-5 times that as it's their primary role along with heavy Support. That's something else to consider, their capability on parity or required disparity with that of Rogue.

    Could be some other ability...counter spell etc.  Maybe they simply arent CC able? (Though that is lazy design). There are a number of ways to tune things to offer difficulty and challenge.

    Yup, Deranged being one of the many dispositions. There's one where FD won't function and a host of others. Although Deranged as I detailed above can easily be handled as it's not going to be common and you'll have one whereas you just mez, charm and confuse the rest.

    (Just for reference I also believe some mobs aggro should be tied together so they can't be split even with FD).

    That may be a disposition but I don't see all content to be like that. EQ2 started with that and tied difficulty to it so 3 mobs tied is similar difficulty to a single. The single had 3 dots, the 3 in a group were each 1 dot. That's generally how it went but it was recieved rather poorly. It made content feel plastic and artificial. It didn't bother the two Enchanter classes because those fights were easy, we locked two and killed each one, one by one. Seeing as they were each one dot, it was easy to kill as long as it was one at a time. That allowed super difficult content to be soloable by us and more so with a charmed pet that was permanent. I don't want to see that in Pantheon.

    So your alternative to having a puller is pulling with pacify.  I mentiomed above pacifiy/lull etc should be resistable making it the second best alternative to a split pulling class imo.  

    The issue here is this isn't about classes but Archetypes. Groups being reliant on a class as opposed to an entire archetype makes no sense, especially when so few plan to play it. This is why I've been lobbying to get the bard out asap and make sure it's made properly and not with how limited in the role it was in EQ leading to out of the box playstyles like soloing using swarm kiting and charm kiting. In EQ, Pacify was resistable and a resist had a critical fail chance off that resist. The lower your Charisma, the higher the chance. Post 184 the criticial fail was removed. This allowed Enchanters to pacify as much as they wanted with proper Charisma. That may or may not be the case in Pantheon. But again, that's one of about seven tools the archetype has to deal with adds and pulls or even when pulling themselves. Reliance though, as said above, on a single class outside of it's primary role that's technically DPS makes little to no sense. 

    I still think one of the reasons why we disagree is I want content tuned to be more challenging than you do.  But it is more than that...

    On the contrary, I want content to be more challenging because in EQ, doing my job became fairly easy after years of practice. It's a massive web you end up weaving and it was like art. After a while it flows like a painter's wrist once they develop the proper stroke and fluidity. Having random and transient respawn as well as Disposition makes not just pulling and CCing but also dealing with adds in camp at inopprotune times very exciting. On this area, we both want it to be challenging, you seem though to want Monks to be an Archetype among themselves and then for groups to rely on them as though 16.67% of the players will play it. That's just not realistic I'm afraid.

    Classes like monk (or sk in EQ...or it looks like rogue in pantheon) that have split pulling abilities should be a better puller imho. I feel that a CC class should not necessarily be the best puller.  Let them be the second best option (still good but not take the place of those other classes that are better equipped with pulling abilities).  . 

    We can, but we typically don't because it's inefficient when the Tank pulling is more efficient and overall a better option since they come to camp on him anyway. No having to toss the aggro to the Tank on pull. Remember, most groups use Tanks for their puller. In Pantheon that'll be the same case as 4%, hell, even if Monks numbers somehow double, that's not enough for groups. If we're discussing pulling, we should talk about all Tanks generally. Yes, Enchanter, Cleric and Shaman can pacify pull and it may be reliant on Charisma like in EQ, but it's not something we want to do.

    I admit I may be putting to much emphasis on pulling as a role in a group?  Maybe that is another part of why there is some disagreement?

    My issue is here and you disagree, which is fine. I know there won't be enough Monks for groups to be reliant on them. Even in EQ they were few and far between. Most groups I was in didn't have one. It's not just that being the reason I don't see FD pulling being used much but also because we have more functionality and tools in Pantheon than Enchanters did in EQ. Fewer tertiary tools from what we see thus far, but more function within the primary tools. I know Monks won't be asked to pull once groups are comfortable and know what is most efficient. Plus, with random and transient respawn, adds will be an issue regardless. 

    I want to see Monks be useful but that means what they do in their primary role. FD has a lot of uses outside of pulling and they have off-tank function but we both agree it may not be similar to actual Tanks. I don't want these two things to decrease their overall purpose for the group which is DPS. I even stipulated that I would love for them to have a detrimental support for the group in the form of debuffs through their moves. While that makes them look more like a Bruiser type class, it would really help them as I feel like they'll be sidelined for other DPS classes that are more capable in that Archetypal role.

    If there is more emphasis on having a puller be required it solves the issue you mentioned of just pulling a huge group and bringing them to camp and CCing them all.  That should be a very dangerous/risky play style when we are talking about 5+ mobs...but as we both know, in many cases, in EQ the way it was tuned there was little risk in doing that.

    Again, at only 4% of the player base, more than 4 times fewer than you need, being reliant on a Monk to pull isn't feasible or realistic. I don't see content being designed around something so flawed, especially when it's a single class and not an archetype. Even Enchanters alone aren't enough at 10-11% but that's why Bards need to be released so we eclipse that 16.67%. Currently on average of all polls at nearly 4k people questioned, Bard and Enchanter are around 20% which is more than enough to handle the function of that archetype.

    I'm all for making the puller matter...

    ...Slowing down the pace of play.  Nullifying your concern about camp monopolization where it is common place to pull a giant camp full of mobs and be able to CC them all with little risk.

     

    Most all pullers in groups will be the Tank, and that means adds and there's an archetype, an entire archetype designed just for that purpose. The other issue is, groups that want efficiency don't want to split pull singles. There's theory or desire and then there's practicality and realism. Would you want to wait around trying to find a class that only a minor number of groups can have, to then finally get it and kill fewer mobs than if the Tank pulled and Enchanter/Bard CCed and the Monk or other DPS remained in camp to DPS? Not only does it make no sense from a selection process but from a development process it's shooting yourself in the foot to create a design around the need of a single class that's one of 5 DPS as opposed to an actual role archetype it for that function.

     

    I'll end with this and reiterate, I want the Monk to be useful, but this is going about it unrealistically. The numbers won't allow them to design content to require a single class as content is based around the four archetypes of a groups. That means youhave to look at what the Monk has within the DPS role. They can FD to drop aggro during a fight, if they deal too much damage, or for doing so in a wipe where they can maybe pull bodies. They can off-tank but not nearly as well as actual Tanks. The problem here is, will these functions take away their primary purpose? Will their DPS suffer? This is something I want to see addressed, but I'll put $500 on saying that given how few will play Monks and the current design of the game, FD pulling won't be something we'll see much of, if at all. You will see pulling but primarily from Tanks since most all groups will have that archetype.


    This post was edited by Janus at May 19, 2020 9:03 PM PDT
    • 1788 posts
    May 19, 2020 9:25 PM PDT

    I didn't want to specifically quote you, but you mensionned twice or thrice the fact that monk, which will be played by a low amount of playerbase (on polls, so probably quite higher but sure not more than 1/12th), and shouldn't be relied on for pulling duty or necessary, that's true.

     

    Now it also has been mensionned that other classes including rogues seems to have ways of pulling, which might simply be a tool of the "melee damage dealer" category. Nothing set in stone and nothing beeing sure, but as the above everything is just theory because :

     

    1) This is obviously not EQ and while experience can be translated, it can work quite differently

    2) Everything is subject to change, at least on tuning, which might change an unresistable mez to a resistable one or make it's cooldown to be used scarcely, balance costs, etc...

     

    It's still uncertain to claim that an enchanter in pantheon will be able to lock X amount of targets or pacify/pull with the best efficiency because it was in EQ. The class will obviously be heavily inspired by EQ but it's not meant to be a clone and some of the EQ core enchanter features have already been changed (active mana group regen over passive buff, reduced charmed npc efficiency). We do not know if the resist debuff will be enough to cover base resist or specific resist, no info on reaching a charisma cap for zero critical failure, or if it will be scaling with level/target level).

     

    You are passionate about the class you played in EQ and you plan to play in pantheon which is good, I just think you take too many things from EQ as granted and as "obviously not an issue in pantheon". Perhaps the enchanter was a god tier class in EQ (I don't know it allways bored me to death and I never went past lvl 10, not fond of casters overall) like many claims. Perhaps it was simply having a higher skill ceiling due to the range of spells and possibilities it had. I simply doubt it will be as powerfull as it was, because role or not no group should rely on one class to go from "Low farm speed" to "Lightspeed farm speed", not mentionning bard here at least for now. Role balance is a good thing, but pidgeonholed into one single class it looks like forcing ways more than balancing anything (numbers on polls or not, I already said I do not trust polls over a selected community is it introduce a bias which is : Ex Eq players).

    I'm however not planning the class I want to play over suppositions,  the genre appeal me and the claimed balance inside performing as a role is enough for me not to worry much about anything.

    • 1563 posts
    May 21, 2020 7:57 AM PDT
    @janus
    TLDR...but I did scroll to the bottom.

    The first sentence of your last paragraph says:
    "Most all pullers in groups will be the Tank"

    That ^ is part of the problem.