Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email? 		July 02, 2024, 12:20:11 pm *

Login with username, password and session length

User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 02, 2024, 12:20:11 pm

Login with username, password and session length

EZ Server Tools

EZ Server Downloads

Useful Links

Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »
Print
Author Topic: Monk Epic Effects  (Read 22401 times)
swamphy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 252


View Profile
« on: June 04, 2010, 10:19:26 am »
Once again, I am showing my noobiness by asking what I do not know...

Can anyone tell me exactly what the monk epic effect does?? (specifically the 3.0 effect).

Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but I have not found the specifics. All I know is, when I click my 3.0 it makes a visual effect, spams the message "creature immune to stun portion of this effect" and I see some messages that say soemthing about "300 pt non melee damage" or something along those lines.

DPS seems to go up when clicked.

The item description says something about stunning the target and increased run speed when being attacked from behind. Very vague.

What is the actual effect taking place? Is it Haste? Is it proc damage?

Also, is there a difference in effect between 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0? or is just the recast delay reduced?

Thanks.
Logged
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2010, 05:32:07 pm »
To me, the spell effects on the 3.0 is largely useless. It is supposed to up your hp by a percentage but it is only client side. For instance, my hp is 79, but when I right click it goes up to 96k... but my hp stays at 79k of 96k. I can't be healed to my maximum hp thus making it only client side. The stun is useless because end game everything is immune to stun. The 3.0 is also supposed to reduce innerflame from 22 minutes to 14 minutes. That however does not work either. The 300 dd proc might be part of the stun. I just haven't fooled with it because of the disappointment of the rest of it not working.

Incidentally, the hp issue and the innerflame not being reduced are an emu issue and not an ez issue as far as I know. I know on other servers it has not worked for me. The stun does not work because if it did then you'd have bards running all over owning up the whole server.
Logged
Reed
Legend
*******
Posts: 1193



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2010, 06:15:05 pm »
Quote from: Xiggie on June 04, 2010, 05:32:07 pm
The stun does not work because if it did then you'd have bards running all over owning up the whole server.

Yep, instead its warriors...
good trade off
Logged
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2010, 08:08:27 pm »
Actually, I am talking to a degree that would severely warp the server. Granted I think warriors are over powered right now and should lose the aoe dd effect on the anger aug, (and keep the aoe anger part). What I am talking about though is a 30k bard walking into PoD and tanking T2 bosses. Now that would be server breaking.
Logged
Reed
Legend
*******
Posts: 1193



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2010, 08:31:45 pm »
server breaking is how us EZ folks like it i guess.

as for the DD being taken off warrior augs, i would much rather see other classes get augs to suit the warrior ones. obviously without anger effect
Logged
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2010, 08:49:49 pm »
I would rather see the warriors loose the dd until T3, knight classes get the dd in T1/T2 and get an upgrade in T3/4. Only warrior would get the hate component though. I think that would be balancing and progressive. Don't want to make knight classes tank better than warriors but pushing their dps pass warriors a little would help I think.
Logged
talanos
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2010, 09:53:48 am »
Quote from: Xiggie on June 04, 2010, 08:49:49 pm
I would rather see the warriors loose the dd until T3, knight classes get the dd in T1/T2 and get an upgrade in T3/4. Only warrior would get the hate component though. I think that would be balancing and progressive. Don't want to make knight classes tank better than warriors but pushing their dps pass warriors a little would help I think.

Why should the knights do more damage than the warriors?  Warriors can only tank and dps.  SKs can FD, heal, have a pet, dot, etc.  Pallies can heal better than any other hybrid.  I'd rather see the tanking side of it balanced more, rather than the DPS.  It seems fair that if you roll a plate tank, you should be able to tank - maybe not exactly as well as a warrior, but closer wouldn't hurt and would just open up more group configs.  But let warriors have their DPS advantage over knights since they don't have any of the other utility those classes can bring.
Logged
Gencat
Newbie
*
Posts: 22



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2010, 01:51:18 pm »
There isn't a server where a knight can equal a warriors dps, and there really shouldn't be. Knights are more back up tanks when things get ugly than dps. Paladins are supposed to excell at undead fights but well they dont get that here, and sk's are supposed to be able to get agro in a matter of seconds to pick up adds or get the named if the tank goes down but that doesnt work here either. Knights are NOT supposed to be able to outdps a warrior, any of the parses from live or other emu's on a 50 man raid a knight would not be in the top 10. Whereas there are generally 1-3 warriors on it at any given time.

But here on the ez server when they cant do many of the things they are supposed to be able to do, giving them a proc on their wep to cause no hate but maybe a 1k dd would be nice, just so they arent completely useless but asking to bring them over warriors dps is silly.

But back on topic to answer the OP's question the monks epic is SUPPOSED to give you a small percentage of your hp as a buff for 30 seconds while having a 300 dmg stun proc added to it. When fleeing from mobs it was useful, on live gave you a small runspeed boost that could sometimes save ur life when fd didnt Tongue. It's passive is supposed to reduce the timer on innerflame from 23 min to about 14 but that doesnt work here either. All in all the effects on most things are broken.
Logged
No picture, no catchy sig line ... sux being me Sad
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2010, 04:08:19 pm »
The reason I suggested making them more dps than warriors is because of practicality on EZ. What I mean by that is what role can they play with our current set up without fundamentally changing things too much. Right now the hate component on warrior augs snatches up agro from bosses and their adds quite quickly. I have heard many complaints from knight classes about trying to get agro from a warrior. The only solution to that is to have single target hate augs or a second set of epics with IV hate augs in them. Then you can have the knight classes baby sit the adds while the main mob is killed. Thing about that is though, why? Why do that when the warrior can just use hate V augs and tank it all. I know my warrior at 110k can tank 3 Kronos + 2 gold dragons + 1 mini just fine. And he did it without stone wall at that. So why make the fight more complex just to have someone off tank? It just doesn't make sense.

So, what role can you give them? Backup healer? Unless that pally can group heal crit for 40k+ I would rather give the spot to a cleric. Oh wait, they can off tank when the warrior can't tank them all! That doesn't happen very often at all. Certainly not enough to warrant an official position of off tank. And when it does happen, I would much rather have another warrior off tanking, even with less hp than a knight class because of stonewall.

All I could think of is dps class. Why not push them pass warriors? Because it doesn't exist on any other server? Hell we have plenty of that here on EZ. Find another server with a bst with a pet that out dps's a mage pet. Find another server with a warrior that out dps's a monk/rogue. I am sure there are others but those are the two main ones I can think of right now.

Pushing knight class dps beyond warriors would make me want one in my group.
Logged
Reed
Legend
*******
Posts: 1193



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2010, 05:12:31 pm »
If knights were more dps than warriors, they would just replace warriors.

AoE hate spells and single target hate spells + more DPS > warrior AoE hate proc+ dmg.

only incentive to play a warrior at that point is for boxing and laziness *shrug*
Logged
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2010, 06:12:20 pm »
I beg to differ. I think warriors are played because they tank better than any other class, not because of the dps factor. Before the sorc charm was giving warriors this crazy dps warriors were still number 1 for tanking. As for an sk's aoe spells and what not, you have to have someone dedicated 100% of the time on the sk to snatch up the adds as they come out. That or you have someone using a mac just so they can have a half tank up there where a warrior would do a better job.

Fact is, just because you up knight dps pass warriors that will not make them tank better than a warrior. It will just mean that instead of a second or third warrior in your group you will mix in some knight classes. Isn't that the goal?
Logged
talanos
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2010, 10:39:07 pm »
I'm sorry for continuing the off-topic warrior vs. knight debate, but it seems that we've answered the OP's question and the viability of knights for dps and tanking is still a thriving debate.

Xiggie, I see your point.  But what I am saying is that it makes more sense to try to balance tanking potential instead of dps potential, as between warriors and knights.  If a group is looking for a tank, they should be able to take a warrior, sk, or paladin and get the job done with relatively the same degree.  Any balance changes, in my mind, should go towards that goal.  Again, what I'm saying is not to make the knights the "off-tank" of choice, because as you say, what's the point of an off-tank.  It's to make the choice between tanks more even so that knights have a role to play alongside warriors.  But the warrior's advantage should be dps, because the sk and paladin bring heals and defensive spells to the table. 

As I see it, making knights do more damage just puts them in competition for group spots with about 10 other classes, while leaving warriors as the only choice for viable tank.  Making knights better tanks opens up some viability for different group make ups by expanding the tank role, without diluting the already large pool of dps characters.
Logged
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2010, 01:17:42 am »
I do understand what you are saying, and like the logic from it. However, with the knight classes not having stonewall there is pretty much no way they are going to be able to compete with warriors unless they are given about 25% more hp (guestimate) than warriors. If that happen, can you imagine the uproar. These are just some of the examples I was refering to with practicality and fundamental changes.
Logged
Murrjok
Guest
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2010, 04:29:02 am »
Why not just add Paladin and Shadowknight to the useable classes for Stonewall Def disc in the spellfile?
Logged
Xiggie | Stone
Legend
*******
Posts: 2119



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2010, 05:30:55 am »
Because warriors would then want some of the knight classes spells. That would be blending the classes together too much. If you give stonewall to knight classes you may as well give it to bards and monks too. And then you would need to give wars, bards and knights innerflame. Stonewall is a warrior ability and should remain so imo.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
« previous next »
�
Jump to:  

Search

Recent

Stats

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 65023
  • Total Topics: 5057
  • Online Today: 108
  • Online Ever: 8678
  • (December 19, 2022, 02:32:09 pm)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 94
Total: 94
TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc