The psychology of monking

Rarely has a thread made me so very, very thankful for Alesia and her friends.

Yes, we should take care about doing our own job. But what if our team mates does nothing constructive, but instead destructive? For example, a warrior aggroing all the groups in sight, instead of one at a time.

Let's flip it 180.

I, as a monk, run up to you, as a warrior, and use Heal Area to heal you.
Yes, I am doing my job, to heal you. But I am doing it in a way destructive to the function of a party, by healing the monsters next to me as well.
What would you do as a warrior? Shrug it off, and keep attacking? Or say "Look, mister monk guy. Stop healing the monsters for the damage I deal to them, or I will stop dealing damage."

Same situation for us. Our job is to keep your health up. If you do stupid things that works against our job of healing (taking much more damage than neccesary, by things such as using Frenzy while under aggro, or over aggroing), by having the heal we have just healed being taken away again, can you expect us to just shrug it off?

With my example from before:
If we do stupid things that works against your job of dealing damage (running up to the warrior and his aggro to use Heal Area, removing bleeding from another warrior instead of blind from your warrior), by having the damage you have just dealt being taken away again, can I expect you to just shrug it off?

Imagine if you were an employee at a bakery. Every time you would bake something, your boss would just throw it out the wastebin. By doing this, the shop will not earn money, and thus you will not get paid (=by the warrior being retarded, you will not be rewarded by completing the mission/quest). Am I supposed to accept that, or should I strike/quit?

_Zexion

@those of you pissed off about 'high and mighty' monks telling people what to do:

The interesting fact here is that all good players (and even most bad ones) will tell their team what to do, and will instruct or yell at people who deviate from what they consider to be acceptable behavior. This is independant of what class they play.

The reason this thread raised so much ire is because monks are in the unique position to actually *enforce* their demands, because they are the ones that primarily determine who lives and dies. Nobody gets pissed off when a ranger starts telling people what to do, because the ranger doesn't directly affect anyone else's gameplay. She can talk all she wants but everyone is at liberty to just ignore her. You think that ele standing in the maelstrom is going to listen to a necro telling them to move out of it? Heck no, because the necro can't actually do anything about it. But the monk *can* - by just letting the ele die. Unless you leave the group, you have to listen to your monks, because otherwise they stop healing and you spend your time kissing dirt.

The reason some of you are pissed off isn't because monks are telling you what to do - it's that they can tell you what to do and make it stick.

Wrong still on all counts.

1. I wasn't able to ecape the giants, like I said, I was trying. Why are you so fixated on this point? Either you believe me or you don't. I don't care.

2. I said I hated my one time experience monking in the underworld. I often help guildies by monking some of prophecies missions. I stated that I mostly monk THK, not only monk THK.

EDIT: Listen, my only point in all of this was, I believe a healing monk should keep his team alive if he can. Warn the one's that are making mistakes (hell it might be a 10 year old kid you're pug-ing with, give them a break). I don't think you should sacrifice your team or mission/quest to try to save one person. But if you can, keep them alive. What's so bad about that?

QFT

Some people actually think that monks should shut up, sit back and watch them play crappy builds whilst they get their teammates killed. Meanwhile you are the blame if they die. That's garbage plain and simple.

This actually reminds me of actual real life situations where the woman is told to "Shut up and do the housework".

I don't know about THK, but if you've ever had 2 or 3 FOW abyssmals w/ their KD on you, it's pretty hard to get away. The knockdown plus a bit of lagging and the lovely invisible collision geometry kill squishes pretty quickly.


No offense, having just done THK last night for the bonus w/ a random pug assembled from us nightowls in the district, both I and the other monk actually found the healing there horribly boring. Probably due our MM necro who pretty much is like having a prot monk on the team as well. But we pretty much just steam rolled thru the bonus, although I've also had groups in the past that simply don't output enough damage and we get overwhelmed. Now there's some good fighting hehe.

But everything I say comes from my own slant of monking for UW 90% of the time. I pretty much just hung out w/ pugs in uw while waiting for factions, finished factions, did some pvp, got bored and am now waiting for NF by monking uw/fow again. So yeah, grain of salt and all that.


So by your logic, then since nukers have the best aoe damage for that aggro that no one should bitch if they are using firestorm or any other aggro dispersing skill. Or eles that cast maelstrom on aggro'd warrior enemies can do whatever the hell they want, because damn it, that's their job and they can play however they want.

Seriously although there are stereotyped roles for every class, it's the flexible teams that succeed where others may fail. Sure in some areas rangers are useful for pulling out smaller patrols to take out, but then really anyone w/ a long bow and an evasive skill could do that. But then there are some areas where such ranger pulling is ill-advised, such as hard hitting Bladeds in UW, or groups of mesmers/monks in FOW which when pulled in such a fashion are no longer tightly packed, making destroying groups w/ 2-3 shadow monks much tougher via aoe spells.


--
Unfortunately everyone seems to be focusing on the omg, those monks AREN'T healing when they could have aspect of this.

But the CONVERSE is also true! It's exactly the same tactic and reasoning behind it, but to hopefully elicit a different effect from a player.

Say for some reason your warrior has lost aggro, and 60% of the mob have decided to focus on your resident necro. He's soft and somewhat squishy and that -15% dp sure makes him look tasty! Would you want him to die just because the AI is attacking him? perhaps not heal him because the "fool" isn't running?

As a monk I would say no (I would not let him die - added for the benefit of Master Fuhon as I wonder if he read beyond this sentence). This is the guy you want to keep healed, in fact you want his hp at a psychological level so that he won't break and run. Generally w/ most players if you keep their hp around 80% - 90% they will hold their position. Because you know what will happen if he starts running or moving right? That 60% of the mob that's aggro'd him will break and start whacking the rest of the squishies standing around him trying to cast their nukes or whatever. Ever seen an ele finish their meteor shower right as someone moves and all the monsters run off and retarget? And SS is oh so effective on running mobs. What does more damage? Firing barrage at an enemy aggro'd on one target, or at a few enemies all chasing different squishies?


I'd say for every player I might heal just a little less there's an equal player who I will heal just a little more. Maybe they're a horrible player, maybe they do next to no damage, or maybe I can't stand the player, but hey, if they are holding aggro and making it easier for my team to make short work of the enemy, that player is gonna get those extra heals to keep him fixed in place.

And what caster here doesn't start running when their health reached 15% or less? I know I do. It's a reflex action. But when I see that meteor shower start falling on the position I just left, I'll run right back into the nuke, hopefully pulling any mobs on my tail w/ me.

I found playing my Assassin frustrating in places - I was still generally the most knowledgeable and competent player on the team, but I'd cop a lot of flack for making tactical suggestions since it was generally accepted that 'sins have no moral authority.


@ Sinican: Are you familiar with the phenomenom of aggro "leapfrogging"? This usually happens when the ranger pulls. What tends to happen is that mobs who are aggro'd to the ranger will then shift to lower armour targets in the backline as soon as said ranger retreats to maximum bow range. That is why it's preferrable to have a warrior pulling with a longbow whenever possible...

I play monking along with other professiosn and in HIGH-end PvP/PvE and normal PvE/RA there seems to be a difference.

In HoH and High-End PvE (like the Deep) monk are demanded to do their job the best of else the team will lose. In HoH if an infuser isn't infusing in time he is kicked very often.

In PvE/RA everyone will take a monk and be accepting of it and rarely comment on a bad job unless they are doing a really bad job ("it's not my fault I got distracted by taht R3 Bambi emote").

Most often when I monk in RA I get more good feedback then idiots running around saying HEAL ME HEAL ME! However in HA when I tried an infuser for the first time to try it out I got flamed a little when we faced B-spike and lost.

Advice: Ignore the idiots and concentrate on the postive stuff.

BTW notice this whole WAMMO vs Monk thing is being talked a lot.

lol. when i monk, even at the slightest of abuse, i just leave. i play the game to enjoy it, not to be abused.
i won't even bother to talk or anything, just map out.

Why not the dmg dealer that wasn't doing good got kicked? because their mistake cannot be seen easily i guess. And one reason is that someone have to be blame for something and monk is the most obvious target. Or, maybe u are playing with those noobs that will behave like those "Heal me wtf monk" kind of players. It easy to notice when you did not infuse in time, its hard to see that a warrior fail to distracting blow a metoer shower. Pvp is always best played with friends or guildmates

Well maybe because in RA, it is good to have a monk anyway.

true, now with the new -10ar weapon mod, i guess i will stay away from monking as much as i can, lol

Heres an idea, quit acting like your some big shit because your a monk and just do your job. If someone is annoying you turn off team chat and just do your job. Seriously any retard and their grandma can play a monk as well as *most* of the people that post in this kind of thread. Its not like your that monk on iQ or WM that make people think twice before bringing a spike group against you. Quit being such headcases and just do your job... or as my coach always says, control what you can control.

Sometimes you can't keep them alive, and you know you won't be able to keep them alive, or you know that keeping them alive will cause much more pain for the entire party. There is no hard and fast rule here where you can just say "You must act to keep everyone alive no matter what" and expect anyone with monking experience to take it seriously. You can say "You should keep everyone healthy to the best of your ability" and I'm sure you'd get more agreement.

When I've monked, I've never tried to take control of the party, to give people orders, to withhold healing as a means of coercion. I have, however, been yelled at because a warrior got aggro and then ran through the backlines (thus chaining aggro to the casters). I've been yelled at in Boreas Seabed when the party was focused on the kraken and ignored its spawn while it tore up both myself and the other monk. So the warrior dies and yells profanities at us for not healing him when we were kiting a monster we could not kill around and asking someone to take it off our hands so we could do our jobs.

I've seen a few monks get abusive and nasty in parties, but seeing how much abuse is directed at monks in parties, I can't say I'm surprised. The most abusive monk I ever teamed with was in FoW, and the party was incapable of following simple directions - as on both tries going in, they chained aggro back to the ghost in the entrance area and thus got us wiped. While the monk said some incredibly nasty things, I can't really say I blame him.

The second most abusive monk was just plain stupid. He would run in circles while demanding blood ritual, stand inside chaos storm and cast, then complain that we were running out of energy, and then finally rage quit after yelling at us about a wipe, even though she caused the actual wipe by aggroing three groups at once. This all happened in Thirsty River.

To be honest, I find the attitudes expressed about monks in this thread to be more appalling than any attitudes expressed by monks.

Back at you, mang. Shut up about the monks and do your job. If you don't like what monks might be saying, turn off team chat.

If you're 'trying out' infuser you should do it with a guild team, and make sure everyone knows you're not experienced. For serious HA teams, the infuser *must* be good, period.

Infuser is an extreme example, because good infusing is *hard*, and incompetence is extremely visible. The fact that it's easily one of the most critical positions on the team doesn't help either. If you were playing any other kind of monk the team probably wouldn't be quite as harsh.

That's exactly the point of this thread. The Monk players aren't bitching, they're talking about control.

As I said before, arrogance is in my nature, I just happen to play a monk every now and then, coming across as one of those arrogant monks. In all seriousness though, my attitude is no different than when I'm playing my Ranger, Necromancer, Warrior, Assassin or Mesmer.

As an Assassin, I prefer to stay right in the backline, dishing out as much damage and combos as possible, hoping I'm not noticed enough to start taking damage, if I am, I use return to get back out.

Ranger, I vary between Thumper and some other build, which I'll either be in the midline or charging up just in front/behind the Warriors depending on what the mob consists of.

Warrior, I'll take frenzy and a cancel stance, I'll frenzy when holding aggro DEPENDING on how much damage I'm actually taking, how long I'll keep the aggro and how competent I've seen the monk behind me perform.

As a caster, I'll stick to the mid line and do whatever I'm doing at the time, keeping an eye on the battlefield and the party bar to asses a possible pre-kite (Playing a Mesmer to Legendary Survivor teaches you that important tactic).

The thing is, this is not about anyone forcing anyone to play a certain way or a particular build (as you've seen in my previous post, I'm dead set against someone playing a build that revolves around assisting someone maintain their own build). There is no RIGHT way to play this game (PvE), but there is definately a wrong way.

A caster standing in a clump of Maelstroms, throwing his energy away, wondering why they're dying is a bad way to play. A Warrior taking a massive beating then throwing up Frenzy is a bad way to play. a Ranger having fun with their longbow and seeing how much they can aggro onto the party is a bad way to play.

There is a distinct differrence between telling someone to get out of a Maelstrom, cancel that frenzy, stop aggroing under the threat of dying and telling someone what attributes and skills to run. When I party with someone, I don't give a shit what they run (unless of course I ask for a specific type of build, I expect them to run it when they get on the team). It can be some really wacked out build that is just strange. As long as it has some sort of method to its madness, some sort of logical sense to why they're using it and of course its played sensibly, I don't care.

you know the counter to all this....

if you really trully were a good monk you could compensate for bad players...

hell if the henchmen can do it why the heck cant any of you....

you all complain about this and that about how this player is playing wrong... yet henchis don't have a problem keeping people alive...

ive grown real fond of the henchi monks vs real monks... some of you have gone way overboard with this we need you crap... and not doing what even the AI can do and really what most players want outa a real monk vs an npc monk is to stay alive yourself and res dead members at more tacticle times...

its sad when half of you cant live up to even a henchi monk and all you want to do is blame the other players...

I already know not to take any player monks cept in missions that require the healing of non grouped players such as hatchery and other escort missions... otherwise once again you moaning groaning high and mighty monkeys are second to Tai and her crew...

keep on blaming everyone else because you cant live up to your own roles... even a shitty group can prosper with a decent healer...

I sure as hell dont need to put up with any of this bull shit from you monks in my groups... pull your stupid little games on me and see who gets the boot...

as far as elite missions go those arent what we are talking about in the first place if you pug elite missions you already know to expect failure 99% of the time and ur gambling because you have no other alternative... hell ill only goin on elites with people i know in the first place non of which come close to the arrogance most of you portray...

"I refuse to heal anyone who runs off on their own"
"I refuse to heal anyone attempts to tank unless they are w/*"

First things I would tell my teammates

I don't join PuG's to monk except in PvE. If people yell at me I calmly explain what they did wrong ( I don't make mistakes, and if I do I say sorry ) and if they keep yelling I leave.

In PvP I monk with my guild. once they yelled at me, I made them watch the observer mode 3 times until they all were convinced that I did the right thing, and now they don't argue when I say I did something.

Problem solved!

and you are a crappy monk... Tai plays better than you...

there is no room for people who don't play well with others in this game... its sick that people would invite you to a party because your a monk and think you would act like a healer but instead to get a big smack in the face from you dictating what happens to the group

they may as well eliminate the monk class completely so players like myself dont waste the spot on our groups where a henchi would fit much better

I'm seeing quite a problem with the side badmouthing monks from people trying to create hypothetical situations and stereotype the general population of monks. I'd heal the necro, and do you know why? Even if it was his fault for the aggro, its already too late and the survival of the players doing their jobs right hinges on this necro living (whos probably at melee range spamming dark aura sac skills to take aggro away). The necro has started a chain, if he dies, then the next caster will be taking hits, and pretty soon the melee will be on the monk. If you let the necro get properly two-shotted to death due to his stupidity (as long as he is still in the right place), then theres a chance that aggro refocuses on the warrior. Instead you heal, you blow through protective spirit and several secondary heals, and theres no guarantee that he runs despite the "facts" you claim about running at <80%.

I've seen rangers auto attack with a bow for a whole battle while taking hits at melee range (activating no stances or skills at all during the time frame). And yes, I had previously blown about 30 energy on him from protective spirit, and several consecutive dwaynas kisses and word of healings. Then came an Area of Effect spell, to which he also stood in for the full duration. Guess what? Let him drop, aggro refocused on someone who could tank it, and the group didn't wipe from me running out of energy. (1/6 person group with no support healing)

Don't make up hypotheticals about a group of people to justify your beliefs of why you don't like them. You have already dehumanized the people behind the character by thinking of them as healbots whose job is to make sure everyone survives. If you think some of us are willing to put up with the same abuse that you would give to your car, then I hope you get introduced to the "break from programming" that real people are capable of.

holy shiit... did you even read what i wrote? maybe read it again.. one part may be unclear i admit (maybe that's ALL you read.. let me go fix that now)... but umm... i pretty much said what you said with the same reasons given...

do even you know what "converse/conversely" means?

and no, i didn't quite mean that players start running when they're at < 80%, of course not.. but if you want to have a high chance that the necro would stay in place, >80% usually does it. casters have a much higher chance of running when they hit 40% or less

... and these aren't hypotheticals but situations I experience all the time when I monk. So common in fact that the examples I have used have happened exactly the same dozens of times with dozens of different pugs.


sheesh.. i tried to give an example of when I would put in extra effort healing and keeping someone alive, regardless of how they play.. and someone can read the complete opposite.. you just can't win lol

So it makes more sense to you that I should run off chasing a lone warrior to save him from near death away from the rest of my team? Why shouldn't I refuse to heal him? If an Ele runs into aggro and attempts to tank even after being told our heals are being exhausted thus rendering us unable to heal the rest of the team because we're focusing unneccesary attention on 1 target should I continue to heal him then? (and yes it does happen in PvE since not everyone is a pro infuser or what not to counter spikes) I'm not arrogant and no I'm not high and mighty because I use a monk. In fact I have 6 characters and been playing for a good 13 months now. So yes I can speak on both sides. Playing my Ele I would not tank in my party because I know what it's like to be the monk. I would not run away trying to take everything out on my own when I'm on my warrior. I would not be overzealous with my necro sacrificing my hp constantly with disregard to my monks energy. Even if the monks I play with are perfectly capable of handling any sort of damage I would not make life harder for them. I will help them help me.

I play very well with others. They know what to expect of me and they should know what I expect from them. It's a team game I already know that thank you very much.

I don't try to control the team when I monk. I'm there as support, not to lead. I will ping my energy to warn party members if a situation's getting too hot, or I need a rest before continuing. If someone runs on ahead, or in a different direction, I won't be abandoning the rest of the team to go and heal him. I heal those who I can reach and communicate with the team whenever possible.

There are very few instances when I've been provoked to a point that I won't heal an individual. There's only one case I remember in which I simply stopped following a party half-way through a mission and felt smug when they all got killed near the end. Only a couple of times when I've refused to res fallen party members, and advised others not to res them either (either because they're leeching, or have been a general nuisance for most of the quest, or are deliberately endangering the rest of the party...). I will not abandon an entire team because of one or two idiots.

I've been very fortunate in my monking experiences. I don't recall any abuse to my abilities, but have received many compliments on them. I am a good healer, if I can say that without sounding arrogant. I find monking a rewarding experience, but have some problems with the mentality that groups ALWAYS need a dedicated healer/protection monk for EVERY mission. Preferably two. If a team plays sensibly, works together and uses appropriate skills, the *need* for second-party healing can be greatly reduced. Have you ever monked for a team that never/rarely seems to need healing? It's like you're the safety net, instead of the hinge-upon-which-the-doom-of-the-team-hangs.

I recently took my elementalist through the last two Ring of Fire missions with a PUG. We couldn't find a monk for the second last mission, so we took a henchie and got through easily. We were so pleased with ourselves that we all agreed to do the last mission together. There was a PUG monk hanging around, so we replaced the henchie with her. At first we didn't do too well and there were several deaths. The only skills I remember our new monk using was Heal Party, Heaven's Delight and Rebirth--the latter of which she'd repeatedly use even in the middle of a heated battle. The little monk inside me cringed at this, and when I pointed out what she was doing in teamchat I got a 'STFU' from her. Wow. Ok... Happily, the team still got through the mission, despite losing our necro to an err7 half way through.

OR you can just say "why don't you infuse and I'll wave my axe around without interrupting the enemy spikes"?

You should perhaps try playing a monk... Do PUGs, don't hench. Play all the missions in both campaigns.

I'm serious. PUG everything. You might learn a thing or two - like just how effective the henchmonks really are compared to human players and what kind of treatment people like to shower upon monks.

Psychological tricks? Hmmm...

Player A: "Hey Healbot, what elite are you using?"
Healbot: "I brought Unyielding Aura, why do you ask?"

I'm suprised by what can test a PuGs mettle. Although most of the time I'm just encouraging everyone to finish the mission/goal.

My confusion was here. This statement makes no sense. The CONVERSE (from using the context of the way it was written) would state:

Everyone seems not to be focusing on the omg, those monks AREN'T healing when they could have.

Both of these statements being true would be a contradiction. Your previous two response in that post were also vague and gave no indication of a side. So I followed by making an interpretation of your story. And I also believe you have a problem understanding what I said.

I'd let the necro die, if I had the ability to process information in a split second (including knowing what skills everyone was using to cause the loss of aggro). I referenced the necro being killed "properly" in two hits. The necro surviving (long or short term) leads to a loss of energy group wipe. I'd heal him, because I'm human, and I make mistakes. And because my primary role as a monk is to heal first, think second. My reflexes react to seeing 3 mobs jump on him, and I don't think for a second that anyone is to blame. Then I realize that the game runs based on cold, calculated logic. People make mistakes and the mobs react to them (although mobs have godly interruption skills).

Don't waver to a point where you agree with both sides unless you plan on being a bad politician. I look through a person making a response to win favor, to see whether or not they really agree with points being made. Make it clear whether or not you are heal-botting or using psychology while monking; that's what this thread is all about.

I'll try to heal anyone depending on my prioritys. Sad you, fellow monk, are my first one. Oh well ....

I'll try to do my best and don't spam orders to ppl that probably know more than me, or just have made a mistake and know they have done one.

I'll try to be positive to my group and help and enforce the morale, esp. when someone dies,leaves or Err7

My fellow pug-ers are NOT MY HENCH. Good that heroes are comming in NF

I can stop healing someone, but just only if they drain my energy too much and risk the whole party.

As a monk my priority is the survival of the group which means I will heal everyone as long as the action is not putting global survival into jeopardy.

For example :

- A player stays into a damage over time area despite the fact it is not needed for him to do so -> I will heal that player as long as I can afford to, once the mana I use on him becomes more useful elsewhere I will stop.

- A player overextends and aggros several mobs doing so -> if the group of mob is manageable I will do my utmost to keep that player alive, if it isn't the case I will cut any healing from him because his dying while the group is still out of the mob's range is the best solution in some cases.

- The fighter equipping a vampiric weapon doesn't listen to a warning -> he will see his health decrease to around 50% before he is healed because it makes for optimum healing as no point of health regained is lost and this as long as I can afford it.

Don't misunderstand, I see myself as a ressource too and there will be cases where my survival in a retreat is seen as non optimal compared to the survival of several other members of the party in which case I will sacrifice myself.

The end result is that for the sake of the party surviving I adopt some of the behaviours mentionned here as being linked to psychological monking which leads me to believe the best methods are the same for everyone but the ideas behind their use might be different.

Does it really matter ? I don't believe so as long as your goal is the good of your party and not an illusion of power over it

Well, he wanted to try infusing, and you don't do that by waving around an axe. I was just saying that infusing is a bad example, and that I'm not surprised at his team's reaction.

If every spike could be shut down easily, nobody would need infusers. Maybe that's true at super high-level PvP, but in the r9+ groups I play with, I don't see that happening :P.

good for you!

you my friend would make a wonderfull addition to any party...

you dont "refuse" to heal people, you know your limits and you aren't trying to make a point... you do what is in your capabilities and know that sometimes people make mistakes...

At last, someone actually gets the point of what most of the monks are saying!
And in my experience, its not groups what fail and moan. Its the occasional bad player(s) what get themselves killed despite trying to heal them and then moan that the monks aren't doing thier jobs.

EDIT-> just something about monks 'ordering others'. Whats wrong with a monk (the only player who has to worry about damage TAKEN) telling the warrior that using frenzy doubles the damage taken, which in turn doubles the healing needed, which in turn doubles the energy used, which in turn means that the monk has to take double the energy breaks, which in turn makes everything longer etc ( I know, I know, its all approximately and the monk must actually be pretty poor to need lots of breaks for energy regen).

Other than verbal abuse, I never see a good reason to leave a party. Period. If I leave a party, I am of *less* use to them than a henchie healer which is pathetic.

I try to be understanding of other's builds. Tanking ele? Bad. Ele that throws on armor of earth before running up to fire off a phoenix? Not so bad.

I generally monk in a 1.5 aggro circle. If they runoutside of that tough luck. I shouldn't have to exuast my energy casting protection spells on a single target who goes and gets themselves killed.

Edit: This is a longer response similar to one I lost to a crash last night. My earlier advice still stands, though: Try monking for bad PUGs before insisting it should be done with a smile.

Turning it around: If you were truly a good player, you could compensate for bad monks. Why should the onus for compensating lie on the monk's shoulders?

They can't. Oh, they don't complain or ping when they're low on energy, or stop healing someone because that someone is a constant energy drain. That doesn't make them better than a human monk, although it may make them a better choice for bad players.

Henchmen can and do have a problem keeping people alive.

If you're a tanking warrior, and you're holding all the aggro, you get angry when the monk doesn't heal you in time to save you, right? Why should a monk sit back and let it pass in a similar situation where the tanking warrior pops frenzy and healing signet while the monk is trying to keep him up?

Well, if you feel that henchmen can keep bad players standing, and you use them by preference, I can see why monks wouldn't enjoy teaming with you.

The argument here is strange. Many of you seem to be insisting that monks, specifically, should be forced to put up with whatever the group throws at them, just because it's their job. I find this to be a patently ludicrous claim. If no other class has to put up with bull****, why should monks? It doesn't matter what class I play - display enough idiocy and I ragequit. I don't have time to **** around with morons. However, few people care when a warrior rages (who cares, it's just a warrior), but when a monk starts witholding heals, everyone is suddenly in uproar.

My original theory still stands. I think most of you target monks specifically because monks are in a unique position to enforce their demands. I further think that many of you have been the victims of this kind of 'psychological monking' and it pisses you off that someone else is able to control how you play the game. You don't care when it's some warrior telling you what to do, because you can just ignore him. But you *can't* ignore your monks, and that really irritates you.

As for being less use than a hench monk - if your definition of a good monk is one that will put up with whatever moronic **** you get yourself into, then by all means, please take the henchmen. Monks aren't there to serve you or do you favors. Piss them off, and they'll rage just like anyone else.

Ah, I see, that's what I get for not proofreading my posts heh. Well, all I wanted to say was that the opposite of what everyone seems to be focusing on (lack of healing in order to conserve energy and to encourage the said player to move out of aoe/stay back/stay safer) is also true. There are times when you want to treat a caster as you would a tank in order keep him from not moving and losing the current agro despite him being a larger energy sink. Because the alternative would be worse w/ hard hitting mobs. Not as much of a problem w/ things like skeletal beserkers though.

But everything is always dependent on current energy levels of course and priorities.



Eh, I guess I wasn't being clear enough then. I'm not sure what a "heal bot" is.. one who just automatically responds w/ a heal to any hp drop? Since I made the OP, I hope I know what I at least wanted this thread to be about lol.

Anyway, the "psychology" I use while monking is not to completely withhold heals or to use it as a "carrot and stick" to force my teammates to do what I want. It's a strategy rather like managing energy, you try to manage the group's aggro because it directly affects my healing and protection effectiveness as a monk. Just as the damage dealers manage aggro and against the mobs - eg. ranger kiting and pulling tight group into traps, or using traps/pbaoe to for the mobs away from the casters, or whacking on a beast as a war to get it's attention on you and off the backlines. It's the same thing, except monks manage healing on the team, except being actual human players their actions based on your heals are not as predictable as the game AI.

The story ends like this. Good players opt for henchy monks anyway... the only time good players play with pug monks is when the rest of the group doesn't want henchies. With the release of Nightfall, good players become non-existant in pug groups because of their ability to make good heroes.

Monks, your pug groups are going from bad to worse.

I've only read the OP's post, but this is what I do:

1. Verbal warning via chat if to alert the player to their problematic playstyle.
2. After the warning this player is de-prioritized from the healing queue.
3. Continued unwanted behavior (ie aggroing too much, running off) will result in me letting you die and not attempting to rez you even after the battle is complete.

If people don't like it then they're free to take a hench monk that does have a faster reaction time than I do, but does not always heal the right target/remove dangerous hexes/avoid aggro.

I would suggest looking up the term "straw man". No one, not one single individual, has suggested that monks should have to put up with anything and everything. What has been suggested is that it is not the place of the monk, or any other player, to be group dictator and determine how everyone else should play... OR ELSE.


A warrior raging and a monk refusing to fulfill their fundamental role in a group are two different things. This would be more akin to a warrior who decides they won't tank or, perhaps even closer, decides to draw agro on themselves and run in circles around the monk, claiming they are trying to teach the monk how to play.

For myself, you can be assured this is not the case. In well over a year of playing I have never partied with a human monk. In point of fact I only ever party with a couple of close friends, otherwise I hench. The reason for that being that I read way too many threads like this one back when I first started playing.

My definition of a good monk is one that keeps me alive through every mission in the game, not to mention Grandmaster Cartographer titles. Henchie monks have done that for me, sans the Napoleon complex, so in my book they're pretty darn decent.

I like the analogy of a monk being the group psychologist. Sometimes he gets a skilled group, and ends up getting a free ride through the mission. Most of the time, he gets players that he has to carry through a mission for them to make it. What we end up with is a group of players who have not progressed to the proper skill level sitting around trying to complete end-game instances. That's what heal-botting is; doing what your job is supposed to be without thinking of the consequences. As long as you get called a good monk.

I'm not surprised someone would find my perspective offensive, but it's similar to yours. When I monk, I start by topping off players with heals. When things get hectic, I maintain a health buffer so that no character can die in the amount of time it takes me to react. At certain points in missions, every heal I cast on a character is preventing an immediate death.

There is a such thing, as finding out that people react causally to certain situations, and using these tendencies to get the player to do the right thing. The player does the right thing, because you have tricked him into doing it. He will not know any better this time or the next. I understand that my behavior borders on crossing this line.

I let him die. He sits with the death penalty. Either he has been engaging in the process of purposely tanking the PuG (so his accumulation of death penalty makes him an easier threat to manage), or he is a human being capable of learning from his mistakes. I give him some advice "Stay back and work off the DP". His original behavior harms the team, but the more times he engages in it, the less chance he has to screw everyone else over because there is an associated consequence. I then heal him as I would a good player until his behavior once again threatens the whole team. Well, I did give this character a death, and you may think that this is the most extreme consequence of a situation. No questions about it, I'll let him know the mistake he made after he dies: "If you aggro, you better be able to tank it".

I don't know anything about the process of manipulating a player's health levels to force behavior much beyond giving them DP. I also don't let my anger get in the way of keeping someone alive, after they try to challenge me. Leaving a caster under fire at low health isn't something I'd ever consider. I let you drop when you become a liability because some groups of 6 are better than a group of 8. After that, people are free to rage quit, curse at me, or to play smarter. I like them being aware of what I'm doing, because it doesn't help them in any way if they don't know whats going on.

Like someone else has already mentioned, groups trust you to keep them alive. I trust them not to make the group fail the mission. I want the communication channels to be open so that players know what is going on. I'd rather give someone a death on purpose, than have a death happen by accident from something I was doing deliberately. Because either way the group needs to know.