Curse

Neo-LD · Jun 05, 2005, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoDiamonds

I'm sorry, I was unclear. Rephrased: Why are taking an incredibly defense stance on one side of this issue and outright insulting the other side? You reply as if I called your momma fat when I said a class besides monk can also be a good healer. (I'm not even sure it was me personally, there have been a number of people on both sides of this issue, whatever issue it might actually be.)

I never actually meant *you* and *me* specifically, which was very bad word choice on my part. I apologize.

OK. That's a weird way to state it, but I believe I understand your point. I happily accept that you would LIKE primary monks to be better healers than any secondary monks. Trying to play a healer with an Elmo can't threaten game balance much.

At no point was I (or anyone else, as far as I could tell) suggesting ArenaNet change things so that ElMos heal better than they currently do. THAT could threaten game balance.

It's one thing to state how you would like game design to be (in theory), and another to say how things actually are (with the current game rules and balance as actually implemented, which could include any number of bugs of any kinds, including design bugs).

I would like world peace (at least for a while). It would be folly for me to state that there IS world peace.

In the same manner, saying that Elmos cannot heal as well as monk primaries is wildly different than saying Elmos *shouldn't* be able to heal as well as monk primaries.

If we're talking about game design, let's talk about game design. If we're talking about exploiting an existing set of rules to minimax and beat up others (whether they be humans or electronic monsters), well, let's do that. As a third option, we can even talk about whether or not the reality (the current game rules etc.) match up to the goal.

If the goal is for primary monks to clearly outclass secondary monks in healing, so be it. (Obviously each person has their own goals in mind, AND how they would go about it.)

Disliking an existing class because it doesn't fit in with the idea of how you would like the game to work is ... well, it's mostly irrelevant. I don't like war, but asserting that it doesn't exist doesn't help anyone.

Way too much having been said, on to your design goals:

Hmmm, I'm sure there are many who would disagree that ranger primaries are shunned. In fact, I've seen a number of posts where other people have stated that Ranger seems to be the most common profession. (I'm not claiming that myself, but it IS what I've seen people say.)

Also, while I realize that ArenaNet is wisely trying to balance things effectively for competitive play, you are simply wrong in that there would be no point to a monk. Even if only for Role-Playing purposes, the monk would still be used quite a bit. (And to say that there's no point for a class when it would be an extremely popular secondary class seems to be missing at least part of the point.)

That said, I don't really disagree with you that perhaps Monk primaries should be the best healers in the game. I'd have to think about it more, but since the Monk primary attribute is exclusively about healing, it would be foolish for them to not be superiour. (I don't know if it's actually TRUE, but it seems like a fine goal at least on some level.)

I am at least glad you believe reality to fit in with your design goals. =)

I'm far more skeptical, but it will all come out in the wash (and an awful lot of playtesting).

I hope that ArenaNet keeps a lot of statistics. For the game in general, and especially "competitive" play, so they can see what's actually working and what isn't. Still tricky, since humans are fickle and popularity contests matter, and there's still some skills that are going to need to exist largely to make PvE players happy that shouldn't really be powerful in PvP. And since to a decent extent the game is RockPaperScissors based, what's seen as "good" by the players should always be shifting in response to other player's builds. (i.e. If all-monk healer teams are becoming really popular, you could expect that Mesmers would start getting more popular after that... after which you might see Rangers getting popular as a counter to Mesmers, etc.)

I disagree with your playstyle in general (the idea that everyone should conform to the currently accepted "best" builds, because experimentation and personal playstyle are very important, amongst other things), but it's your perogative. I also don't know if you are talking about PvP or PvE, but it probably doesn't matter.

One random last thought (which anyone should feel free to answer, of course):

You state that monks cannot be effective smiters, etc. (Debatable, but let's accept it as Simply True.)

Is there another class which is better at smiting?
Presumably, monks should be the best smiters. Or are ElMos better at it, or MeMos? (or whatever!)
If so, is that a design flaw, since smiting is a monk skill?

For disliking "me vs you discussions" you have a lot of spunk. Laying aside many of the abstract situations and theorycraft that you like to employ, I will lay out for you very simply a comparison between a Mo/Nec and an El/Mo.

Quality of Spells:
Mo/Nec has Divine Favor, which puts him UNDENIABLY ahead in this category. Free HP is a good thing. It DF also gives him access to prot spells, which are a realm lost to El/Mos. Prot spells are (debatably) better than healing spells. Divine Favor also gives the Mo/Nec access to some of the most important spells a monk can have, like divine boon and signet of devotion. Again, the ElMo cannot use any of these for lack of DF.

Quantity of spells:
A category governed by ability to spam. The ElMo does have a much larger maximum mana pool, this is true. ElMos also can use Ether Prodigy to spam even more. However, Mo/Necs can cast spells just as often and for just as long a time due to Offering of Blood. While the ElMos mana can hover at 50, the Mo/Necs will hover at ~20, but they will still be casting sells at the same rate. Hence, this category is even.

Practicality for PvP:
How do people die in competitive PvP? Nukes and conditions. "DoT" Attrition is not very effective. How does one deal with nukes? Heal more in a shorter amount of time. Conveniantly, Mo/Necs can use DF and Divine Boon, while ElMos cannot. How does one get rid of conditions? Well, the prot line has many skills that can totally refute conditions (draw conditions, mend ailment, mend condition) Also conveniantly, Mo/Necs can use prot spells effectively. ElMos cant.

For me, there are way too many "Mo/Necs can" and "ElMos cant" for me not to say: Mo/Nec > ElMo.

As for "who is the best smiter", that is not the way things are divided up. They arent "who is the best marksmen" or "who is the best curse guy". They are divided into who is the best at melee damage, ranged damage, tanking, saving people, etc. Multiple classes can be good at certain things. For example, Sniper Rangers, Lightning, Water, Earth, and Fire Elementalists, Death, Blood, and Even cursing Necros, and smite monks all fall into the "ranged damage category. Undoubtedly, not all of those equally good at ranged damage.

It is ironic that most people's perception of perfect game balance invovles all builds being equally good, weather they be a monk/Ele that wants to burn things, or the rock-solid lightning mage currently used by most PvP teams. This is not game balance. Like I have said before, not all builds are created equal. Otherwise this would not be a game of skill.

JoDiamonds · Jun 05, 2005, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Neo-LD: In my last post, I never made any claims about which class was actually the best healer. You can feel free to keep harping about it, but I don't care and that certainly had little do anything I was trying to say. So no offense, but I'll just ignore the rest, since you are mostly repeating yourself, and I did read it when you said it last time.

(Also, is it bad that I have spunk, or good? I can never figure that out. Anyway, as I already said, I don't actually dislike you vs. me per se, and I apolized for badly wording it last time.)

Also, you seem to be back to talking about how the game is, not how it should be. I'm sorry if you don't actually like to talk about theory, but it's confusing if you sound like you are talking about one but mean the other.

What makes you say that most people's perceptions of perfect game balance involves all builds being equally good? That would be stupid, and obviously isn't the way game actually works, either.

It's definitely and obviously true that not all builds are created equal, and they shouldn't be. If my eight skills are from eight different attributes, obviously it's going to be fairly ineffective. I think it's also true that this is a good thing, and having all builds be equal would just suck.

Since you lump all ranged attacks together, and don't think Monks can be effective smiters, do you feel that Smiting is a useless attribute? i.e. Anything that a smiter can do, there's another class that can do it better?

Maybe smiting is too weak, if it turns out that in reality no one should play it. In which case Arena Net SHOULD make it stronger, or take it out of the game, right?

I don't know if you understand that I'm really asking because I'm curious about the answer, not because I'm trying to put you on the spot or anything. I'm curious about ANYONE'S answer. This is where I feel you are getting pretty defensive. I have *never* once claimed that Monks aren't the best healers (they are), but you repeatedly defend that position as if someone insulted your sister's honor. I've tried to make the claim that Elmos can heal effectively. You haven't denied this, instead you just keep saying, "MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD". OK, your dad can beat up my dad. Could you admit that my Dad doesn't suck? ;-)

JoDiamonds · Jun 05, 2005, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Also, if other people are getting annoyed, or if the admins feel this is too flamewarlike, please let me know however you want and I'll just shut up. Sorry if that's the case!

Neo-LD · Jun 05, 2005, 06:28 PM // 18:28

I never talked about your parents. Lol j/k.

ElMos dont suck. Happy? They can heal very well. Good enough to keep most teams alive. They are in fact much easier *less likely that you'll screw up* than regular monks. My dislike for ElMos sprouts from... I call it a "rivalry" with a "friend" who is convinved that he does a better job than I do when our PvP team goes to HoH. If I was in charge, I would like to change him (or at least his spot on the team) to a regular monk healer, but thats currently not my call.

Ive voiced my opinion. Its not my job nor desire to convince everyone that Im right. (Ive been wrong before, but not often)

Anyways if it works for you go ahead. One of the greatest elements of this game is how many ways there are to play any given class.

I dont think this was a flamewar or anything. It was a debate. Its healthy for the community, otherwise everyone would go around agreeing with eachother, sometimes reassuring eachother's stupidity. lol. So in a totally-not-condescending-but-in-a-sportsmanlike-tone-of-voice---gg.

SisterMercy · Jun 05, 2005, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote: