Curse

The Gilded · Jul 19, 2005, 05:31 PM // 17:31

This is a copy of the suggestion letter I sent to ArenaNet. I felt I would share my suggestion with everyone else, and see what sort of respone I got. I felt that, maybe, if there was enough support, a change could be made to Guild Wars to correct a terrible wrongdoing and set the balance of party creation equal to all included members.

The Monkunist Manifesto
"I love this game, however I do have one question. Are there any plans for an update that may help reduce the amount of sway healers have over the success of a party? I have been playing this game for quite awhile, and I have found that a "monk aristocracy" has grown out of the low amount/high demand market teams have for the class in missions and in PvP. In my opinion, the monk class should never have been designed in the first place, because it allows too much for one member of the party to have control and, essentially, be incredibly picky and rude to other players, while other players are fearful of retaliation because, if the monk leaves, the party disentigrates. Honestly I am not angry or irrational, it is my opinion and the opinion of many others that the monk class, in a party atmosphere, holds too much control over the party, and it makes it unfair to the other members, especially the other mages which often get overlooked in favor of a monk. For the sake of making the game more balanced, more skills should be given to the other mage classes to make them compete with the monk's healing abilities. This would also encourage more smiting and protection monks. Thank you for your time, and please contact me at my email address, I would love to hear from you about this. Thank you very much for reading this and I appreciate the time and effor you put into this game. It is truly a gem."

Basically, I feel that if Guild Wars truly wants to break the mold of MMORPGS, it will remove or modify the infamous monk class (or white mage or healer or whatever MMO class title it is given) and give all mages equal opportunity to thrive and develop more interesting and diverse parties. Ok, I'm off my soap box, I gave up my .02, and I tip my hat to Karl Marx (and no, I'm not a communist). Thank you for reading.

Epinephrine · Jul 19, 2005, 05:45 PM // 17:45

I think that the monk class is fine the way it is. I think that jerks will always exist, and that people who refuse to play their role in a team will always exist. Even if all roles were the same; all warriors for example, if there were missions of significant difficulty so that you needed all players working to gether to succeed the same difficulty will pop up.

The only way to eliminate it is to make missions easy enough to win that even a griefer can't make you lose. And that's just pointless. Leave monks as they are - they are important, but no more so than any other component of a team.

Honestly, it sounds like you don't play a monk and resent that people choose a monk over you. I don't play a monk, but my characters are generally appreciated by any group I play with, as I contribute toward our basically inevitable victory. Monks are great, but without damage dealers, tanks and disruption your group is shot in the foot.

I will agree that it is unfortunate that so many people think a monk is essential to the point that they will not do a mission without three (3!) monks. I laugh; while they look for the 3rd monk at Elona's (Bwahahahaha) I'll beat it with henchies using no self healing other than my Troll's Unguent and Alesia for support. One problem is that lousy players compensate by loading up on Monks - this gives them a safety net. A good group needs much less monk assistance as they suffer less damage and control the enemies better.

As for the monk leaving, if the monk needs the mission he'll stick it through, unless you are jerks/useless. I've yet to have anyone ditch me because they felt they were too important. I've had a guy leave after a bad battle in which we nearly wiped out, and completed the mission down a man, but that's what happens - people evaluate their odds of succeeding in the group and make a choice - I can't really blame him for leaving, we fell apart in that fight. Afterwards we huddled up, talked over what went wrong, and did the rest flawlessly - but I can see bailing if you think the group is going to waste an hour of your life. The monk has no more sway than anyone else; if your main damage source leaves you have to evaluate if you can still deal enough damage to do things, and how to adapt - focussing on healing and improving your focus fire works. If a monk leaves you have to figure out how to reduce damage taken and spread it around - and probably how to kill faster, to make sure you get through.

Kuku Monk · Jul 19, 2005, 05:49 PM // 17:49

I agree somewhat. However, I don't think there is that much of a reliance on monks... As a Me/E I only have 1 or 2 viable healing options that I currently know of (illusion of weakness and ether feast). Other than that I'm screwed. So it would be nice to have a stronger healing spell (only for use on yourself).

InFeStEd · Jul 19, 2005, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I think that the monk class is fine the way it is. I think that jerks will always exist, and that people who refuse to play their role in a team will always exist. Even if all roles were the same; all warriors for example, if there were missions of significant difficulty so that you needed all players working to gether to succeed the same difficulty will pop up.

The only way to eliminate it is to make missions easy enough to win that even a griefer can't make you lose. And that's just pointless. Leave monks as they are - they are important, but no more so than any other component of a team.

Honestly, it sounds like you don't play a monk and resent that people choose a monk over you. I don't play a monk, but my characters are generally appreciated by any group I play with, as I contribute toward our basically inevitable victory. Monks are great, but without damage dealers, tanks and disruption your group is shot in the foot.

I will agree that it is unfortunate that so many people think a monk is essential to the point that they will not do a mission without three (3!) monks. I laugh; while they look for the 3rd monk at Elona's (Bwahahahaha) I'll beat it with henchies using no self heling other than my Troll's Unguent and Alesia for support. One problem is that lousy players compensate by loading up on Monks - this gives them a safety net. A good group needs much less monk assistance as they suffer less damage and control the enemies better.

agree 100%

If you want to supplement, make yourself an ele monk or necro monk or something like that.

Age · Jul 19, 2005, 06:16 PM // 18:16

I play Monk primary and I don't agree as sometimes we Monks aren't treated very well like the rest of the team.It is as if we were nurses getting ordered around it is heal me heal me all the time.We are the only one who know our build or how to play Monk some pay it better than others it depends on your specialty same as other classes.We are the last to get any droppings and even then we must watch our energy as we don't have a whole lot to work with.

monkeyink · Jul 19, 2005, 07:37 PM // 19:37

I just can't get behind this argument. If you worry that the monks you invite into your party are going to bail on you, start taking the henchmen instead. It is my opinion that if you can't sustain your own health bar under at least moderate attack then you are doing something wrong, regardless of your class. Sure, the monk is there to heal but if you are getting attacked by 2 minotaur and you lose 1/4 of a bar of health every 2 seconds you are doing something VERY VERY wrong.

There was a very good topic about a week ago about how SO MANY character builds are so focused on damage that they forget to bring along the essentials. Every build should have the following:

1 Hex OR Condition removal spell (do your research as to which will be more useful in the area you are venturing into).
1 Healing spell to cover your own a$$ when things start getting rough.
1 Resurrect Signet.

Of course, good armor will make you the monks best friend but not everyone can afford that for every character.

I feel that if you are THAT dependant on a monk then you aren't fulfilling your own roll within a party and the monk will probaly be better off with another group anyway. All that said though, some monks REALLY REALLY suck and like I said before, grab the henchmen instead =]

duverga · Jul 19, 2005, 07:45 PM // 19:45

So you said "Monkunist Manifesto" instead of "plz nerf monks" and thought it was something new? This topic has been done to death and tossing in a pretentious neologism doesn't make it any fresher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gilded

For the sake of making the game more balanced, more skills should be given to the other mage classes to make them compete with the monk's healing abilities.

They did this already. It's called a secondary profession. The unwillingness of teams to accept an E/Mo or N/Mo as a healer is a defect in the players, not the game.

Epinephrine · Jul 19, 2005, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeyink

Every build should have the following:

1 Hex OR Condition removal spell (do your research as to which will be more useful in the area you are venturing into).
1 Healing spell to cover your own a$$ when things start getting rough.
1 Resurrect Signet.

I can't possibly agree with you. Res signet is debatable - I have often not brought a res signet along, with the group's approval - the res signet may be useful, but if my mesmer is the last one standing I really doubt I'll be rescuing the party with it. I'm more effective with another spell in there to shut down damage before it happens - believe me, one fewer earthquake > a res signet.

Hex or condition removal is good, but that's not my job. If I have room in the build that's fine, but many areas don't really require much that way anyways. Not all class combos even have an option for one of these! Neither my Necromancer or Ranger has either hex or condition removal and never has, but is a valuable part of any party.

Self Heal is nice, but not necessary - having a way to help reduce damage is great though. I'd rather have a guy packing a good defensive stance or Throw Dirt for example than having a self heal that was inefficient. Again, it really depends on what the player brings to th game - if you are a rear line caster type that isn't suffering much damage and you have decent tanks that know how to keep aggro you don't need this - my Necro instead reduces the damage others take with Enfeebling Blood, Shadow of Fear and helps keep people healthy with a Well of Blood. I've had no complaints this way, despite not "healing" myself - but I do contribute to reducing damage. Likewise, my ranger can even step in to tank for the monk, allowing the monk to get away - blinding an opponent and then using a defensive stance to keep them busy is a fine approach and doesn't require "healing" - if you avoid 75%-90% of the damage that's better than healing 20% of it after it is dealt.

monkeyink · Jul 19, 2005, 07:55 PM // 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by duverga

They did this already. It's called a secondary profession. The unwillingness of teams to accept an E/Mo or N/Mo as a healer is a defect in the players, not the game.

WERD UP! Lol, I'm amazed at how many people ignore my E/Mo as the primary healer for their group. So what if I don't have any Divine Favor? I can go twice as long in a rough battle than any monk could since I've got all that extra energy to spend.

The Gilded · Jul 19, 2005, 08:02 PM // 20:02

I didn't write this with the intention of being accused of hating monks. I don't hate monks, in fact I play a monk for PvP. Basically, I was throwing my arms up for the other mages who I always see begging for groups in the later missions, such as eles and necros. Eles and necros are indespinsable, just as any other class. Also, there are so many people in this game that believe a group doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell if they dont have at least 3 monks, or if one of the monks drops randomly. I agree it is possible to maintain heal for yourself, you are preaching to the choir about those issues. Also, if you say that's why they made secondary professions, once again you are preaching to the choir. All of these ideas are concepts of the overall assumption that a majority of people playing guild wars believe monks are the most vital parts of teams, and it is not always true. For anyone who doubts this, go stand in a mission zone, ANY mission zone and I bet you will hear 20 calls for monks for every call for any other class. That is what I am arguing against. And, the 'monkunist manifesto' was simply for humor, not my way of disguising another nerf post. A good team can be good only if the people in the group have faith in the leader's build, and, for the most part, people have monks on their mind so much that unique and incredibly effective builds are ignored for the cookie-cutter build of 3 monks, 2 warriors etc etc. Thanks for your time again, and thanks for those replying to my post. I truly appreciate any and all criticism and/or applause.

monkeyink · Jul 19, 2005, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I can't possibly agree with you. Res signet is debatable - I have often not brought a res signet along, with the group's approval - the res signet may be useful, but if my mesmer is the last one standing I really doubt I'll be rescuing the party with it. I'm more effective with another spell in there to shut down damage before it happens - believe me, one fewer earthquake > a res signet.

Hex or condition removal is good, but that's not my job. If I have room in the build that's fine, but many areas don't really require much that way anyways. Not all class combos even have an option for one of these! Neither my Necromancer or Ranger has either hex or condition removal and never has, but is a valuable part of any party.

Self Heal is nice, but not necessary - having a way to help reduce damage is great though. I'd rather have a guy packing a good defensive stance or Throw Dirt for example than having a self heal that was inefficient. Again, it really depends on what the player brings to th game - if you are a rear line caster type that isn't suffering much damage and you have decent tanks that know how to keep aggro you don't need this - my Necro instead reduces the damage others take with Enfeebling Blood, Shadow of Fear and helps keep people healthy with a Well of Blood. I've had no complaints this way, despite not "healing" myself - but I do contribute to reducing damage. Likewise, my ranger can even step in to tank for the monk, allowing the monk to get away - blinding an opponent and then using a defensive stance to keep them busy is a fine approach and doesn't require "healing" - if you avoid 75%-90% of the damage that's better than healing 20% of it after it is dealt.

Fair enough, let me rephrase some of my comments:

1 Hex OR Condition removal spell in areas that are heavy on that kind of damage (do your research!) if your class has a skill like this available.
1 Healing spell OR Defensive/Counter skill/spell to cover your own a$$ when things start getting rough.
1 Resurrect Signet unless the party tells you not to worry about it.

I have to stand by the Rez Signet simply because if you ARE the last one standing you can do your best to rez the monk so he/she can handle the rest. It always sucks to see the two warriors standing around saying:

"You have rez?"
"No"
"You?"
"No"
"Damn"

lol.... 100% behind you on Defense and Armor though. Not taking damage in the first place is far better than relying on someone else to keep you alive.

AeroLion · Jul 19, 2005, 08:16 PM // 20:16

Your problem is with the player base, as you have stated in your follow up post. If so, then there is no reason why the monk class needs any modification.

The Gilded · Jul 19, 2005, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by AeroLion

Your problem is with the player base, as you have stated in your follow up post. If so, then there is no reason why the monk class needs any modification.

But if the monk class was modified it would remove the power they wielded over the groups, thus changing the player base's idea of a good party. OR if the other mage classes were given C average healing spells coordinated with thier own spells it would allow for, say, 1 monk and two other mages with decent heals/buffs so as to make it a more diverse group. Plus, its just boring to see three clones fighting with you on the battlefield.

I've partied and experienced a little bit of each class, and there are some amazing skills out there that are barely tapped because of party builds.

Epinephrine · Jul 19, 2005, 08:34 PM // 20:34

The fact is that so long as monks are the best healers they will be needed. Converting energy to damage (or negative damage) at a good rate both in terms of healing per energy and healing per second is the requirement in game. If monks are the best at it (and they should be, it's their job) then the job will be delegated to monks. Adding more self heals to other classes won't solve it, I'll still want my monk healing, as they are efficient. Energy and time are the constraints in battle - you wna to make the battle fast, to limit the damage done to you. You want to do damage to them and counter their damage, and in a finite amount of time there is a finite amout of energy available for this. Your damage should be dealt by the most efficient converters of time and energy into damage and your healing should be done by the most efficient converters of time and energy into neegative damage. End of story.

All the rambling off topic is about the same point - blindness is (or at least, can be) more efficient negative damage (damage prevention) than healing, thus a good move. Blowing a pile of energy on an inefficient self heal is a bad move. If you give other classes better self heals than the monk's heals it would eliminate the need for a monk, and then you my as well bury the class. If their heals are less efficient then they can rely on the monk.

The Gilded · Jul 19, 2005, 08:40 PM // 20:40

I wasn't suggesting self heals for the other classes, I was suggesting heal other type spells for the other classes. For example: Give a Necro a "vampiric kiss" (example name) skill which allows them to zap an enemies health and give some of it to all surrounding team members, in moderation. Of course it won't be as strong as a monks heal party, but it will fit into the characterization of a necro and serve as a C average healing spell that can give a necro a new way to assist the team. Just an example, others could be made for mesmer, ele etc.

Epinephrine · Jul 19, 2005, 08:49 PM // 20:49

But each class has ways to help the party, they are different - that's what makes the game work/fun. If all classes had all abilities it'd be repetitive/boring.

Healing others is a monk ability - the ranger has a bit of it with healing spring, the necro has a bit of it with blood well/well of power. Others do it by preventing damage - an elementalist has wards, a mesmer stops spells, a warrior gets in there and uses his higher armour to take hits for you, or shouts to bump up your armour and so on.

Just because players don't use the abilities doesn't mean they aren't there - healing spring is very effective, albeit small radius. I've actually done quests and missions with no monks, it can be done. Four rangers of reasonable level (all about right for it) did Althea's ashes, back when I was first levelling up. I recently ran Sanctum Cay with no monk in the party, and it was the easiest run I'd ever done - the 2 primary mesmers helped a ton, and the enormous damage output from the rest of the party, with damage reduction from wards and healing from blood wells. Something fun about getting to the beach with your smoke phantoms intact and 2 ghouls left.

mehoo · Jul 19, 2005, 08:57 PM // 20:57

I agree with the statement above that the current overdependence on monks is a compensation for lack of skill.

Sure monks are useful, important members of a team... but a team that WILL NOT RUN with less than 2 or 3 monks is simply a team of poor players. Each class does have some form of self and group healing and running without a monk is perfectly feasible if the team is willing to be inventive. Besides filling out your ranks with a wide variety of characters rather than loading up on monks gives you more strategic options for damaging and containing the enemy.

Muscling your way through the game using sloppy tactics and an obscene amount of healing is definitely one way to play. In fact it requires the least thought and seems to be the most popular way to play at the moment... however, it is still just one way to play. There are many others, and most of them are probably more enjoyable and more effective.

I'm getting to the later mission (post-ascension, etc.) and I too am finding that there is a shortage of monks, and that monk players get special treatment, and my ele will not get accepted to a team that dos not already have 2 or 3 monks... this is disappointing to me, but i think the solution is not to change the way monks or the other chars operate... but rather to encourage players to change the way they operate. Monks are useful, but not absolutely necessary. A lousy party of 8 with 3 monks will indeed be monderately successful, but not nearly as successful as a good party of 8 with 1 monk.

silvertemplar · Jul 19, 2005, 09:03 PM // 21:03

I tend to agree with the original post, and the posts mentioning the playerbase. But must remember, blaming the playerbase will not help at all. Playerbase are NOT going to mysteriously change, in fact GW being a "short-term" game means it will CONTINUE to remain like this. [unlike in Everquest where people remain much longer to let the playerbase "mature" and "learn" ]. GW will ALWAYS have a "young" playerbase in PvE....[there just ain't that much to do, people will move on].

The real issue here is:

1. Warrior class is considered the "starter" class. So large majority WILL be playing a warrior.
2. It turns out warriors not only are good at surviving but they are fun to play too.
3. Other classes got alot of "tricks" meant for PvP, which tend to make them "novelty" classes in PvE.
4. The only class that truly compliments the POPULAR class [warrior] is the Monk.

So what do you get? 500 warriors , 10 monks. I believe it's THIS distortion resulting in Monks LOOKING "unbalanced". Basically the LACK of monks [or shall i say the OVERPOPULATION of warriors] places empasis on the monk-role to such an extend that
the team can live and die based on a single party member.

Now my conclusions are:

1. Modifying the Monk class will not change above scenario.(There will still be more warriors)

2. Modifying the Warrior to be less reliant on Monk will also not change above scenario, except that now there will be even LESS monks [because you won't need them at all]. Monk will join the other "novelty" classes basically.

3. Only thing that can change the scenario is LESS warriors and MORE monks. This is not going to happen with the current system. Most people will start with a warrior, finish the game. Then start a monk and then "rush" the game primarily to unlock the skills [probably avoiding PUGs and only playing with their guild].

theclam · Jul 19, 2005, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gilded

For the sake of making the game more balanced, more skills should be given to the other mage classes to make them compete with the monk's healing abilities. This would also encourage more smiting and protection monks.

Basically, you want to give healing and damage mitigation capabilities to the other casters? Mesmers have a very large number of ways to reduce the amount of damage that the enemy puts out. Necromancers also have ways of reducing damage, in addition to Well of Blood/Power, Blood Magic, Soul Feast and Taste of Death. Elementalists have Aura of Restoration, Ether Renewal, numerous Wards and Armors, and ways to inflict several conditions to reduce the damage enemies do. The fact is, all classes have good ways of surviving without Monks. People just don't choose to use them, instead focusing on offense.

Smiting Monks and Protection Monks are both very powerful. In fact, Protection Monks are sometimes more helpful to the party than Healing Monks.

Quote:

Basically, I feel that if Guild Wars truly wants to break the mold of MMORPGS, it will remove or modify the infamous monk class (or white mage or healer or whatever MMO class title it is given) and give all mages equal opportunity to thrive and develop more interesting and diverse parties. Ok, I'm off my soap box, I gave up my .02, and I tip my hat to Karl Marx (and no, I'm not a communist). Thank you for reading.

All mages do have the opportunity to thrive and interesting and diverse parties are already present. E/Mo can heal almost as well as Monks can. N/Mo are sufficient primary healers if your party decides to bring a few defensive spells. I think that this game would be less interesting if I wasn't given the option to play a build that is entirely based around healing or damage mitigation. It would certainly remove a whole suite of defense oriented team builds.

The Gilded · Jul 19, 2005, 09:29 PM // 21:29

I agree 100% with your argument, yet I have never actually been in a party in which that type of party situation occurs. In a perfect world, yes, that would be awesome to be a part of, but we definitely aren't in a perfect world. The guild wars designers made the game perfect, its skills are almost perfectly balanced for each skill, yet setting skills for utopia is just asking for people to imbalance the system. No one wants to play by the rules, right? Where's the fun in that?

So, in essence, I am mad at the players for allowing this sort of balance more than I am mad at the designers, because they cannot predict the patterns or flavors of the month that occur in the virtual world.

Edit: This post was aimed at Epinephrine. I had to make a run and when I came back to finish post other posts had been made that I didn't see.