Curse

Guizzy · Sep 26, 2005, 01:57 PM // 13:57

This controversial post will most likely attract the flames of many conservative members of the Guild Wars community, but I will go ahead and reveal the terrible conspiration, led by Wa/Mo (which I affectionnately call Whammos) and Mo/--.

I will explain it quite simply in one sentence...

NO, WE DO NOT NEED 2 MONKS OR 2 TANKS!

Some will call this heresy, but I'd ask you to think about this. If we replaced the monk with an air ele spiker or a interrupt mesmer, or a curse necro, or an interrupt ranger, what would happen? Maybe the creature that was intended to score the damage that would have to be healed will die before it became a problem. Maybe the extremely damaging spell that the mob is about to cast would be interrupted by that extra ranger or mesmer before it took off.

All in all, the extra damage/utility of an added damage dealer, or an interrupter, or a snarer, a trapper or a curser is as good an addition to a team as a second monk.

Hell, you could probably do without one at all if your team is half competent.

The same goes for Warriors. Especially Whammos. "But we need to control aggro!". Bullshiat. A good Water Elementalist (and other snarers) can snare incoming enemies. And a mostly offensive group would have no problems killing them before controlling their aggro even becomes a problem.

NO class is needed twice. It's a lie spread by monks and warriors that like being the only focus of a group. Warriors espcially. They enjoy having 2 monks because it makes them feel invincible. Well guess what? Your invincibility takes up 3 slots in our party, 3 slots that could be doing damage to the enemy.

And while we're on the subject, I'd like to talk about monks. It's kind of a taboo, but... Most of you suck. Really, really badly. You don't hear it very often because most people are afraid to lose their precious monk. But they rarely even bother to manage their mana, they often heal non priority targets, run away at the first sign of trouble (dooming the rest of the team, which has become dependant on them to a quick death). It's not because you are healing us rather than doing damage that you don't need to be as good at it than we are at our jobs.

The general rule is that you will find the better players at higher level playing Necros, Rangers and Mesmers, because only the most persistent and dedicated players will go through the chore of finding the elusive groups that will accept them.

PS: I'm not saying monks and warriors are useless, only that it's a lie that they are more needed than ANY other class.

Theus · Sep 26, 2005, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Are you talking about, PvE or PvP..or both?

Aetherfox · Sep 26, 2005, 03:19 PM // 15:19

depends what the scenario is. most missions in the game are ridiculously easy with a full group - running a suboptimal group config and winning with it is hardly cause for celebration. yes you can win dunes of despair with 8 air elementalists... yay we didn't use a warrior or monk.. so???

try running the mission with only 4 players. then you realise that you can't kill the enemy as fast as before, you need a tank (warrior) and you need heals (monk) to keep up. lesson : more challenging circumstances force you to make use of resources more efficiently. less challenging circumstances allows downright inferior strategies to flourish.

yes this game is deliberately easy : good, it encourages innovation and creativity in forming teams. yes we don't need either monks or warriors to win missions, perfectly true. but don't kid yourself - the "optimal" party configuration for any mission will usually include a few monks and at least one tank. try farming sorrows furnace with a 3/4 man group and i am pretty sure that you will have at least 1 warrior and at least 1 monk, and that no other class can fill their role. well maybe an e/mo healer and a r/w tank could work as well...

and choosing the lesser of two evils -> a bad interrupter ranger / mesmer being 1 second slow will not stop the enemy damage or spells, while a bad monk will still heal 1 second after you take the damage, but still in enough time before you die, and a bad warrior will still strike the enemy for damage and tank for you.

i play my monk and love it, both in pvp and pve. yes most monks suck big time. i know, because i heal alongside them. sometimes in a party with 2 monks the other one leaves : i tell the group not to worry because he wasn't doing anything useful, and we proceeded to clean up sorrows furnace without casualties with me being at almost full energy the whole time.

Ollj · Sep 26, 2005, 04:13 PM // 16:13

ballanched team for the win.
therefore no primary class more than twice and every primary class at least once.

Savio · Sep 26, 2005, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theus

Are you talking about, PvE or PvP..or both?

PvE probably, unless the "creature" and "aggro" he talks about are the Ghostly Hero.

Who said you need more than one Warrior? PUGs? I usually am a Warrior, and when I form my groups I demand no other tanks unless a friend is with me. I control aggro just fine.

And who said you need more than one Monk? I prefer having two just because I don't bother to bring a self-heal anymore, although without two monks I will. Most casters with Monk secondary can heal decently enough for PvE anyway. And up until the final missions Monks really aren't needed as self-heals can carry you through.

Balanced team? Eh. I did Thunderhead Keep once with 3 Rangers, 2 Warriors, a Mesmer, and 2 Monks, one of which was nuking for some odd reason.

If you're having problems with PUGs, make the group yourself and do some form of interviewing. There's a thread somewhere about it but I have class in 20 minutes, and it's about 15 minutes away. And the weather sucks right now

Guizzy · Sep 26, 2005, 10:01 PM // 22:01

I'm talking about both PvE and PvP.

The interrupt example is flawed, because a monk healing 1 second too late might mean your death as well.

I'm all for balanced groups, and that means that no class is required more than once. Period. I've seen lone healers keep 8 players alive quite often, because enemies were quickly dispatched. And as for choosing the lesser of two evils, good monks are hard to come by, as the good ones are already taken. Good rangers, mesmers and necros, on the other hand, are plentiful. They are always picked last. Just try it: say "Group looking for ranger" (or necro, or mesmer). You'll get tons of answers. Try them, most will be much better players than the average monk, and you'll find the game going quite smoothly.

And for PvP, no a "couple" of healers is not needed either. Think about the damage THEIR healer would have trouble dealing with if you took an additional ranger. Think about the shutdown a mesmer could do on him. Think about the curses their monks would be trying to keep up with if you tried a necro. An extra hand doing damage or causing disruption can be worth much, much more than just "more" monks. Best group I played with were mixed groups. Most did not have 2 warriors, and some did not have 2 monks. When you have one of every class, then you can get 2 monks if that's your fancy. But keep in mind that it's NEVER a necessity. You can always get 2 rangers, 2 necros, 2 eles, 2 mesmers.

I usually make my own PUGs, but I always have trouble making a good group because of the misconceptions this conspiration is spreading. When I manage to get diverse group, I always get people asking stuff like: "Ditch the ranger, get a third monk! We need three monks for this mission!", or "Get another tank!". Even many good players believe this, it's so infuriating.

Aetherfox, I've done missons with less than full groups. And it's easy too, with adequate partners. Even without monks and tanks. You CAN kill enemies quickly, if you don't take 2 of your slots for suboptimal damage-dealers. Also, the so-called "optimal" setup you're talking about is exactly what I'm up against. It's a goddamn dogma! No even bothers trying to argue it, while there is plenty to argue against it. Why get a tank when the enemy can be slowed to a point it's no longer able to get in melee range? Why heal when you can kill the enemy or interrupt him before he deals that damage?

Try 4vs4 PvP. Best group I've played there was: me (Fast Casting Water Ele), a Ranger, a Necro and a IW Mesmer. No monk. No secondary healer. Anyone getting in our path was dispatched so quickly it never was a problem. I slowed warriors before they treathened the ranger and necro, the IW ran to them and kicked the hell outta them. Necro, Ranger and I jumped right on their spellcasters, regardless of monks. With called and concerted attacks, we could manage to kill anyone in less than 5 seconds regardless of the efforts of monks. Enemy rangers were usually left last, because of their relative sturdiness and slightly lower damage output. I've also had good groups with monks and tanks, but never as good as the preceding group. Lesson? Even with only 4 person, monks and warriors are not necessarly a given.

Now, for tombs group, I do not argue a monk is needed. But EVERY class is needed there. And you have enough slots to get them all. 2 monks, however, is usually seen as necessary, which it is not. I've rarely been far in the Tombs (mostly because I play with PUGs, thanks to my guild not being very keen on PvP), but group that went the furthest had one monk, two warriors, two rangers, one mesmer, me (back then, I was Inspiration / Earth) and one necro.

The holy MEW (Monk - Elementalist - Warrior) trinity will fall one day!

One and Two · Sep 27, 2005, 03:21 AM // 03:21

You need to chillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~~~~~

I play a monk, and I get groups through thunderhead keep, being the only monk
People acted if I was god....lol

as for energy management, STOP aggroing when i tell you "I have 1 out of 50 energy!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guizzy

Even many good players believe this, it's so infuriating.

You haven't played with good players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guizzy

Now, for tombs group, I do not argue a monk is needed. But EVERY class is needed there. And you have enough slots to get them all. 2 monks, however, is usually seen as necessary, which it is not. I've rarely been far in the Tombs (mostly because I play with PUGs, thanks to my guild not being very keen on PvP), but group that went the furthest had one monk, two warriors, two rangers, one mesmer, me (back then, I was Inspiration / Earth) and one necro.

Youre a newb to tombs. You practically admit it right there. So dont make any generalizations about it.

Anyway, I'm probably done for PvE, but seriously, get some sleep.

QuixotesGhost · Sep 27, 2005, 03:30 AM // 03:30

The biggest problem is that most PvE players don't understand any sort of damage mitigation beyond "Tank, Heal, or Kill Them First."

Aetherfox · Sep 27, 2005, 04:13 AM // 04:13

Guizzy : a bunch of skilled players, as you mentioned yourself, can complete a mission with the build you mentioned. or rather, complete any mission with any build you give them. this proves nothing.

i realise of course that it is difficult for me to prove that having a warrior and a monk is the optimal team for playing missions, but i shall attempt to later anyway.

i play tombs a fair bit as well as team arenas. in tombs i have run groups that run 3 monks as standard and regularly win and hold halls. i have run iway groups that run 0 monks as standard and win halls. pvp is different because your optimal setup will depend on the opponents you are facing, so i guess we shall restrict this discussion to pve.

as for your argument in pvp (which i shall cover here for completeness sake) -> this game, and indeed almost all games, are designed such that healing and hex removal are stronger than damage and hexes in general. consider word of healing, practically instant cast and potentially heals almost 200hp for 5 mana -> what damage source can match that for 5 mana... and if you run life barrier or bonds, the massively reduced damage that you provide your team far outweighs the damage you could do being an additional damage dealer.

healing is more efficient than damage, which is why healers will always be needed in an optimal party. of course you can't win if you have all healers, which is why you need a balance, and in a 8 man party balance is usually found with 2 or 3 healers.

Quote:

Why get a tank when the enemy can be slowed to a point it's no longer able to get in melee range? Why heal when you can kill the enemy or interrupt him before he deals that damage?

what you are trying to get across here i think is that it is more efficient to counter the enemy rather than using brute force method to kill them (out damage their healing, and outheal their damage is what current dogma states).

this is true, and congratulations on trying to play the game the samrt way. unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of lugging along every single counter in the book. only 8 skills, remember. especially so when teams attempt to farm sorrows with only 3 members. your so called "counters" like snares and interrupts, will be only useful some of the time, whereas almost every situation can be solved with the careful application of brute force.

so you bring snares and interrupts... oh no the rangers in sorrows are level 24, do huge damage, interrupt our spells with savage shot, cause bleeding with melandrus arrows which we can't remove since we don't need a monk. let me clarify. a monks secondary can heal and remove conditions and hexes. the question is, if you clearly need heals and condition / hex removal, is running a secondary monk more efficient or primary monk more efficient for this purpose? if you don't need hex removals and mend conditions and healing i would like to see how long your group holds up under bleeding, phantasm, crippling anguish and life siphon.. all long duration degens. and hey, mesmers don't count as real hex removal since their recycle time on their removals are roughly twice as long as the ones monks carry.

you bring interrupts... and oh good you interrupt 2 hydras from casting meteor shower. congratulations unfortunately the other 4 hydras cast their meteor shower just fine because you didn't have 6 interrupters on your team... oops your snares lie useless in your skill bar...

you could run a team with a nice total of 8 hex removals but there are some monster mobs that don't use hexes. same for enchantment removal. same for anti warrior snares.

---

a w/mo can certainly setup to do huge damage even as a primary tank. you could, for example, run 11 smiting, and ask the friendly monk to run bond and balthazars spirit on you while you aggro all the enemies. then switch on balthazars aura, symbol of wrath, shield of judgement.. soak up lots of energy, cyclone axe, switch on bonettis, recycle your spells. i highly doubt you can do any better than that at dealing out and receiving damage. say you send in a ranger into that situation with mesmer backup, it's not going to look pretty.

---

Iraqalypse Now · Sep 27, 2005, 04:49 AM // 04:49

monks can do a lot more than simply apply healing per second to party members... they can actually reduce or eliminate the damage they take as well through the magic of enchantments... I healing seed the guy with all the aggro on him... now he gets healed by a rediculous amount that increases when more enemies attack him!!! gg

If mesmers are generally proactive counters, then monks are reactive ones. In many situations, it is better to run reactive counters than proactive ones. Like in HoH, it is lots more efficient to put a spellbreaker on the ghostly hero than to try and shut down enemy casters, and in tombs in general, spellbreaker is more efficient at protecting your smiters from diversion spam/enchant destruction than a mesmer would be.

Even with good monks, a newb team in PvE will still likely fail... and although monk's are essential per se, they are much more efficent at countering damage than many other classes (healing seed again as an example).

QuixotesGhost · Sep 27, 2005, 06:18 AM // 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

If mesmers are generally proactive counters, then monks are reactive ones. In many situations, it is better to run reactive counters than proactive ones. Like in HoH, it is lots more efficient to put a spellbreaker on the ghostly hero than to try and shut down enemy casters, and in tombs in general, spellbreaker is more efficient at protecting your smiters from diversion spam/enchant destruction than a mesmer would be.

Commenting on PvE, in my opinion it's far better to run a mix of both then trying to load up on reactive. I've had more success with groups that run 2 monks and a mesmer than those that run 3 monks.

Resourses get wasted becuase they step all over each others toes. Plus it's generally better to deal with spike damage proactivly than reactivly. The whole point is to kill a target before you can react. 3 monks can't react any faster than one.

One and Two · Sep 27, 2005, 08:03 AM // 08:03

Please don't talk about PvP, OP. You're blissfully unaware of FotM even, it seems.

PvE...most newbs need the damn monks. Ah...reality shock, no?

Guizzy · Sep 27, 2005, 01:16 PM // 13:16

I am aware of FotM, but I don't consider it in my argument because it's merely a fad that will dissappear with the next nerf round, and is irrelevant for such. But 2-3 monks, 2-3 tanks and "get an ele or one of the 3 looser classes for the two last slots" groups never go out of style, and it's exactly what I'm up against.

Groups such as the ones I am suggesting once were FotM; spiker groups. But they quickly went out of style. Some time ago, air eles were everywhere. Nowadays; they are getting rarer (while water eles are getting more popular). Not because they were inefficient, but because it was easy to predict. A good group that mixes curses, poison, spike damage, AoEs, knockdown skills, enchants stripping and brute-force warriors, but uses it for damage on a single target will see that target go down faster than you can imagine, be it a warrior supported by 3 monks.

As for being proactive rather than reactive, I consider it's a great thing. Of course healing is more powerful than damage; but the effect of swift and efficient damage shuts down the need for being reactive, while constantly healing will still require you to kill the enemy somehow. And nukers can exceed the healing capacity of a monk quite quickly when used intelligently.

Quote:

But calling them out like that is, dare I say, provocative, at best... Good luck playing the game with no monk support.

Never suggested I'd play without a monk when there are 8 slots. Only said that 2 monks is never a necessity, and that the second slot could be just as well used by other classes.
just as well. Not as a "build" group. Not as a special group to give myself more of a challenge. But these groups simply work. They work much better than groups with 2 tanks and 3 healers (who take an insane time at doing missions, because their crappy damage output is not large enough).

Quote:

you bring interrupts... and oh good you interrupt 2 hydras from casting meteor shower. congratulations unfortunately the other 4 hydras cast their meteor shower just fine because you didn't have 6 interrupters on your team... oops your snares lie useless in your skill bar...

Quote:

Or taking on small mobs of no more then 3 at a time...

Regardless of if I am farming or not; I always hit enemies in the groups they come in. If you consistantly aggro more than one group; then you've got some crazy Leeroy Jenkins running around, and you should boot him. If you are attacked by 6 hydras, you've got a problem that is far beyond not having enough healers. Enemies come as individual groups; kill them as such. And I've farmed with groups of 3 (one monk but no tank. Well, we were 4 and we had a tank, but he quickly left). That's an atypical group. And it worked out quite well.

Quote:

what you are trying to get across here i think is that it is more efficient to counter the enemy rather than using brute force method to kill them (out damage their healing, and outheal their damage is what current dogma states).

No, it's not what I'm trying to get across here. I'm all for brute-force (in PvE, anyways)! But what I'm saying is that brute force does not require any more tanks and healers than it requires necros, rangers and mesmers. A NPC monk won't stop casting if you backfire on him, so that's great damage. A ranger can do some wicked damage with that bow of his. And what about necros running putrid explosions in the middle of enemy groups? Isn't that quite some amazing brute force? And elementalists! Fire and air are ridiculously high damage, earth has these wicked powerful AoEs (and Obsidian Flame!) and Water has many AoEs that can prep the enemy for more free shots. And some warriors that are geared towards damage and knockdown make for some great damage; and that helps much more than throwing another "meat-shield" into the melee. Heck, even smiters are welcome!

I know that I don't get far in the tombs, but as I said; I can only play with PUGs, and the best ones I found were atypical groups. Must be meaning something, don't you think?

Ollj · Sep 27, 2005, 01:46 PM // 13:46

You always need 3 monks for the simple reason that they have a strong union.
If you have only 1 monks in your team they will just let you die on purpose, and NOT because one monks may not be enough, so you better bring a monk mate in the team, too.

easy as that

kawaii_bat · Sep 27, 2005, 01:47 PM // 13:47

The bestess best team i have *EVER* ever had the pleasure of being in was comprised of:

2xW, 1xMo, N, 2xE, R, and a Me.

I mean think about it:
2 warriors,
1 Prot-monk/R (me

)
a battery/minion Necromancer,
a fire Elementalist
a healing elementalist (E/Mo with like 97 energy!)
a interupting Ranger
and a backfire Mesmer

Instant [email protected]! We owned the place like you could not have beleived your eyes! I should have filmed the thing.

bling blang blong

no healing monsters, no spells, no monsters getting past tanks.
All in all the tanks really tanked, the nuker really nuked the interupters just stopped everything and I protected the bejesus out of the tanks while the E/Mo topped it off and healed the rest while occasionally nuking.

Really a group should have 1 of each proffession with them. It adds to the variety of situations they can face. Whenever a party member dies in there, another can easilly take his/her place until the end of the battle.

Yukito Kunisaki · Sep 27, 2005, 02:57 PM // 14:57

I'm truely impressed by these teams that can get by 8v8 using just one monk. Seriously. They must have been Godly skilled in order to withstand punishment from teams doing energy denial and interruption and hex lockdowns and wild condition spreading and... Well the list goes on...

To do that using only ONE monk with just 8 skill slots is uncanny... Wow...

Either that or the teams you fought against must really, really REALLLYYY SUUUUCCCKKK!!!

If you had a team with one highly skilled monk vs. a team with 2 monks of equal skill level as the one monk [using more diverse skills], then the team with at LEAST two monks should win...

My assumption here is that you fought teams of complete and utter morons who don't know how to coordinate an advanced assault on a team's backbone... [their monk...]

Guizzy · Sep 27, 2005, 04:08 PM // 16:08

That's exactly the point! In such groups, healing is NOT the backbone. Thus the time they waste trying to get at the lone monk is time the damage-dealers have to utterly destroy the enemy one by one, regardless of class or priority.

Because that's what is usually boils down to; target priority. A typical priority list is, unless I'm mistaken, as such: incoming mesmers, healer/protector, remaining mesmers, eles (air/fire being even more pressing, water being slightly less, then earth), necros, rangers, smiters, warriors. But with a damage dealing group, you don't need to hit priority targets. Your damage is so high in such a short amount of time, that you can kill tanks as soon as they get in range, keeping your characters out of their ranged spellcasters. If you try to wander in, then yes, you are going to be raped, because the damage will spread out across all of the soft juicy targets you are, and the monk won't be able to heal everyone. But if you keep it focused in a spearhead assault. PRESTO; you kill each of them in a succession.

What I'm talking about, here, is a barrage of pain (isn't there a necro spell like that?!?) even a buffed warrior can't get past (and with water eles slowing them; it's even more painful)

audioaxes · Sep 27, 2005, 05:36 PM // 17:36

ofcourse you "can" win with countless combinations of teams with skilled players but it goes without saying that taking 2-3 monks with you is the easiest and most fail proof way to go about it. Can you blame anyone for wanting the sure-fire 2 monks, 2 tanks, and a nuker as the core of their team?

Arturo02 · Sep 27, 2005, 06:40 PM // 18:40

conspiration, bestess...

it's more gooder!!

kawaii_bat · Sep 27, 2005, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukito Kunisaki

I'm truely impressed by these teams that can get by 8v8 using just one monk. Seriously.

To do that using only ONE monk with just 8 skill slots is uncanny... Wow...

Either that or the teams you fought against must really, really REALLLYYY SUUUUCCCKKK!!!

Actually this would be PvE. Many assume in PvE a perfect 8/8 team is 4xW , 2xMo, 2xE But really one of each really is nice.

I never said it was PvP lol