Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

[Goretzu]

Do you make this stuff up yourself or do you have a writer? Pure gold!

You know you should actually try READING what that MB post (and the parses) was all about (i.e. a seeming monk mitigation soft cap) before trying to be clever. ;)  :roll:

[Coprolith]

Given the recent warrior mitigation changes and the introduction of Berserkers (who currently out-tank AND out-dps monks)

i don't know about berserker dps, but you're going to have a very hard time getting me to believe that berserkers outtank monks. There's no good reason to assume that berserker mitigation and avoidance is any different then the other chain classes, and monks are well above those in the defensive order.

/hugs

[Xarilok]

Berserkers tank slightly better than rangers, as they have slightly higher skill caps.

What may have been alluded to was that "average" berserkers tank better than "average" monks...

Its MUCH easier to hit 3khp/1100AC as a berserker than it is as a monk, and, for lets say 100k in bazaar gear, the berserker will have a 1khp/300ac advantage over a 100k of bazaar gear monk.

I also doubt that a 4khp/1200AC berserker tank better than a 4khp/1200AC monk tho.

As for DPS...1k for a war marshalls bladed staff would be lucky to get you a wrappped velium brawl stick....obviously the berserker will do more DPS...with equal weapons, again, I am sure the monk would win.

[TerjynPovar]

You know you should actually try READING what that MB post (and the parses) was all about (i.e. a seeming monk mitigation soft cap) before trying to be clever. ;)  :roll:

You were trying to be misleading, same thing as you always do.

ALL classes have a Mitigation soft cap.  That's part of what the AC soft cap is!  (The other part being Avoidance, although both parse to cap aobut equally) This is not special to monks, nor is it in any way applied differently to monks than other classes.

This is just another attempt by yourself to have a "Woe is me" attitude regarding monk defense.  So, for once, post some facts, or shut the hell up.  You are wrong about monks, period, and the chip on your shoulder is so freaking large that if it grows anymore it'll throw the earth out of orbit.

Do I need to make this any more clear?

[Goretzu]

My you seem very upset for no particular reason (and you talk about a chip on my shoulder). :)

What exactly have I said that is 'wrong' about monks? (again I think you should read and understand that thread and what is is highlighting - given the triple whammy of base mitigation nerf, reduced AC on new itemisation AND a fairly low mitigation softcap for monks.)

Heh, of course if you just want to stamp your feet, hold your breath and call me pooy pants all day then by all means you're welcome to do so, if that's what makes you happy!   :P  :D

[xaoshaen]

Just to clear up a few common misperceptions...

From the way I remember the game "back in ye olden days" Monks initially had rather limited options in terms of the armor they were allowed to wear (in fact a full set of cured silk was considered "phat" for the mid-upper end Monk until long after Kunark was released).

Cured silk, like most monk armor sets, was never all that great for most slots. Most monks with the resources to do so opted for multi-class gear.

- An innate AC bonus table that grants monks better AC bonuses the closer to zero weight they are.

- An innate damage mitigation bonus [Value_Y]

These are actually the same thing.

- Reasonably high base HP

Actually, monks had fairly low base hit points, behind warriors and almost all the hybrids.

- The "Block" skill which on average fires significantly more frequently than the "Parry" skill.

Roughly twice as often, which at the time parsed to about 8% of the time for block and 4% for parry.

- The "Mend" skill which could back then instantly heal 50% of the Monk's HP with the press of a button.

Mend was always a 25% heal. It wasn't until you wasted 33 AAs in Luclin and PoP that a monk got a 55% chance to do a 50% critical mend.

Fast-forward a few expansions and you saw the game experience a vast amount of mudflation and de-itemization, the "bar" was raised in almost every area and monks were able to wear more and more armor and gain higher and higher AC to the point where the upper-end Monks could actually attain an AC total close (and in some cases superior) to that of the equivilantly geared warriors and knights (albeit it was more difficult to do so).

Actually, pre-Kunark monks had the potential to have one of the highest ACs in the game. A monk was the first player to break the 1k AC mark. It wasn't until Kunark brutalized the class and turned it into a twinkfest that monks got slapped with low AC.

This effectively made Monks (especially Iksars) the best melee tanks in the game as long as they could hold aggro. Basically they were Warrior+DPS without a Taunt button and with slightly lower HP. This REALLY pissed the warriors and knights off and they were up in arms about it for a long time.

Actually, due to the hit point disparity, and the lack of any form of snap aggro, monks never came close to being the best tanks in the game. It wasn't until PoP, with the better hit point buffs and significantly better, commonly available, mana regen for healers, that the former factor was diminished... and by then monks were no longer tanks by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as being "warriors + DPS", who do you think does more DPS with equivalent weapons, a warrior or a monk?

Sooo, the devs studied the situation for a while and decided the best course of action was to remove the greatest contributing factor in Monk tanking ability.. the mitigation bonus [Value_Y]. Good idea yes, but they also screwed this up badly when they did it and for a brief time Monk mitigation was a bad joke. However a short time later they raised the mitigation value for monks a little more and currently they are in-line with the other leather classes at around Value_X (though some seem convinced that Monks mitigate at a value less than this). This is what  the older Monks refer to as the great "NERF".

As I said before, it wasn't just a mitigation nerf. They also fixed the itemization issue and installed a punitive AC softcap.

Realistically, monks weren't "nerfed" per se they simply had an old legacy bonus taken away from them that was giving them an unfair advantage in a role they were never meant to fufill. I think they left the other things in (AC bonus table and Block > Parry) so that they wouldnt totally screw the low-mid end Monks who didnt have access to the best of the best gear and thus weren't part of the problem.

Except that they did totally screw "average" monks... at the time the nerf hit them harder than it hit the high-end monks. It's easy to dismiss the monk AC bonus as an outdated, 'legacy bonus' until you actually look at the monk's role throughout EQ.

So when you see Monks in threads asking for the "nerf" to be reversed they are effectively asking for their old mitigation bonus back. Should this happen in modern day EQ where mobs quad for 1200+ in single group encounters? Well thats not my decision and its hard to say how it would affect the fragile class balance as it stands right now. Given the recent warrior mitigation changes and the introduction of Berserkers (who currently out-tank AND out-dps monks) I am certainly not against it, though the knights may complain..

In all honesty, restoring monks to a standard mitigation table wouldn't really change much. It just gets rid of an unecessary penalty. Monks still won't have the AC or the Hit Points to compete with plate tanks. What really needs to be fixed is the AC softcap which is downright silly. All the problem ever required was an itemization fix, which was effectively accomplished during PoP.

What monks need more than anything else is a class-defining role. Right now they're pretty much second rate DPS and hard-LDoN pullers. Fortunately, Blizzard seems to be handling class balance much more intelligently. There are still strong classes and weak classes (at the moment), but each class brings something special to the group.

[Coprolith]

- An innate AC bonus table that grants monks better AC bonuses the closer to zero weight they are.

- An innate damage mitigation bonus [Value_Y]

These are actually the same thing.

No they're not. Haven't you been following the thread? An innate AC bonus will do nothing for you once you're past the ac soft cap, whereas an innate mitigation bonus always gives benefits regardless of AC.
If all monks ever had was an innate AC bonus, then it could never have been the high-end monks that were tanking too well. It would have been the non-uber monks being able to tank as well as the ubers because of their bonus, in which case the nerf was doubly deserved and the non-uber monks have absolutely no right to complain they were hit hardest.

The only thing that fits the available data is that monks had a mitigation bonus which was removed with the nerf

As I said before, it wasn't just a mitigation nerf. They also fixed the itemization issue and installed a punitive AC softcap.

Punitive softcap? Its the same as the other leather classes, nothing punitive there.

Monks still won't have the AC or the Hit Points to compete with plate tanks. What really needs to be fixed is the AC softcap which is downright silly

Monks already had the AC and the hp's to compete with plate tanks 2 years ago otherwise you wouldnt have been nerfed in the first place.
Monk mitigation today is exactly where it should be: at the same level as the other leather classes. You get your advantage from avoidance, plate classes get the advantage from mitigation. No leather class should be able to stand in as MT and do a better job of it then a plate class, yet even today monks take damage just as well as knights, have a defensive disc that knights lack, and an ability to pass on tanking duting to another by FD'ing if the need arises.

Fortunately, Blizzard seems to be handling class balance much more intelligently.

Fine, go there then and take every other mnok with you that still complains about this after almost years

[Aneya]

Why do you consider it a punitive softcap? Before softcaps everyone had hardcaps. Now ac over softcap gives leather classes next to  nothing but its still more then what we get before. The next question would be is the softcap lower than the old hardcap if that is so then yes monks got nerfed from a softcap perspective otherwise softcap actualy improves the situation.

[Goretzu]

Monks already had the AC and the hp's to compete with plate tanks 2 years ago otherwise you wouldnt have been nerfed in the first place.

The issue was not that monks had equal AC to warriors, but rather they could get (with good enough gear) above the mitigation caps and therefore mitigate the same as warriors.

Monks had higher avoidance so in these specific situations did take damage better (same mitgation, higher avoidance = better taken DPS than a warrior.  Which isn't the same as 'tanking' as such but in some situations was - although this is actually very difficult to achieve these days with the formula changes that when live with PoP).


Mostly warriors still 'tanked' better due to taunt and the extra hit points (and of course in defensive situations).

But it was deemed the monks should be nerfed (actually the warriors who originally RAISED this issue, didn't want monks nerfed but rather wanted soft caps raised and warrior mitigation give a bonus - both of which happend... eventually).


Ironically (but not unexpectedly by most people other SoE who were familiar with it) the mitigation nerf did nothing to fix warriors, and in fact warriors probably had their hardest time post-monk mitigation nerf in PoP.
As Pallies and Sk's quick and reliable agro eclipsed warriors in a way monks could never have done.

In the end this was of course fixed with the warrior mitigation change and the endurance based agro ability, both of which now finally have pretty much fixed warriors.   8)  :D


What they are going to do about monk issue (if anything) is harder to say.

[xaoshaen]

No they're not. Haven't you been following the thread? An innate AC bonus will do nothing for you once you're past the ac soft cap, whereas an innate mitigation bonus always gives benefits regardless of AC.

People have been referring to the monk AC bonus as both a mitigation bonus and an AC bonus. Monks never recieved any sort of superior mitigation bonus like the one that warriors recently picked up. The monk AC bonus for much of EQ's history was used to compensate for low AC values on gear, allowing monks to approach the softcap.

If all monks ever had was an innate AC bonus, then it could never have been the high-end monks that were tanking too well. It would have been the non-uber monks being able to tank as well as the ubers because of their bonus, in which case the nerf was doubly deserved and the non-uber monks have absolutely no right to complain they were hit hardest.

Sorry Cop, but this makes no sense. There're no logical grounds to suggest that an innate AC bonus prevented high end monks from tanking too well. Similarly, an innate AC bonus doesn't mean that your average monk can somehow tank as well as an uber monk: the combination of low AC gear and a bonus doesn't somehow equal the combination of high AC gear and the same bonus, unless the former value manages to cap you. To date, there has been no data to suggest that this is the case.

The only thing that fits the available data is that monks had a mitigation bonus which was removed with the nerf

Actually, there's been nothing to date to suggest that monks had a bonus... simply that they were on the same baseline as other toe-to-toe melee classes, which made sense given their role within the game.

Punitive softcap? Its the same as the other leather classes, nothing punitive there.

I'd be interested in seeing some data on this. As I mentioned earlier, my Beastlord never got to the point where I could run a parse to see if he ran into a general softcap around 1350 AC.

Monks already had the AC and the hp's to compete with plate tanks 2 years ago otherwise you wouldnt have been nerfed in the first place.

That's fascinating, but largely irrelevant. As I mentioned, the problem existed because of itemization issues: monks were wearing gear with AC comparable to or superior to plate gear. In today's EQ this has been rectified. Check out the AC for well-geared warriors versus that of monks. As far as hit points go, even during Luclin, monks didn't have the hit points of plate tanks.

Monk mitigation today is exactly where it should be: at the same level as the other leather classes. You get your advantage from avoidance, plate classes get the advantage from mitigation.

Monk mitigation today, is woefully short of where it should be: at the same level as other toe-to-toe melee classes. If you want to utilize avoidance as a substitute for mitigation, than monk avoidance needs a significant upgrade.

No leather class should be able to stand in as MT and do a better job of it then a plate class, yet even today monks take damage just as well as knights, have a defensive disc that knights lack, and an ability to pass on tanking duting to another by FD'ing if the need arises.

Ah, yes the old "Leather classes can't tank" fallacy. It's easy to repeat, but there's no real justification for it, and by relying on it, you venture down a slippery slope of utilizing percieved realistic justification within a fantasy framework. If you choose to use this as a basis for removing monk mitigation, then you have to reduce plate avoidance to near zero, and make chain classes your preferred tanks... after all, that's how it played out historically.

Fine, go there then and take every other mnok with you that still complains about this after almost years

Already done, lad, already done. I did expect better from you than the time elapsed argument, though. Antiquity alone doesn't validate a thing. I'm sure you remember the old "Mage pets are working as intended" and "Alchemy is working as intended" routines. How about Ranger defense? It was broken for more than a full expansion as well, before it was finally fixed.

[xaoshaen]

Why do you consider it a punitive softcap? Before softcaps everyone had hardcaps. Now ac over softcap gives leather classes next to  nothing but its still more then what we get before. The next question would be is the softcap lower than the old hardcap if that is so then yes monks got nerfed from a softcap perspective otherwise softcap actualy improves the situation.

There was never an AC hardcap.

[Aneya]

Why do you consider it a punitive softcap? Before softcaps everyone had hardcaps. Now ac over softcap gives leather classes next to  nothing but its still more then what we get before. The next question would be is the softcap lower than the old hardcap if that is so then yes monks got nerfed from a softcap perspective otherwise softcap actualy improves the situation.

There was never an AC hardcap.

So Kavhok the EQ Developer is lying when he says the following?

http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showpost.php?p=114445&postcount=10

The cap on AC in the Velious era wasn't a soft cap; it was a hard cap that had been there from day 1. After a certain point, which differed for each class, the benefit of more AC didn't just diminish - it dropped to nothing.

The change I referred to, just before PoP, changed that from a hard cap to a soft cap. You get a percentage of the amount over that soft cap. Shields increase both your total and your soft cap, making them more effective than any other item with equal AC. Your mitigation AAs, level, and class also affect the cap and the percentage return for AC over it.

Separate from this, there are diminishing returns if your AC is much greater than the NPC's attack. This is due to the nature of the formulas that produce the probability distributions that have been well documented on this board.

Does that help?

- Kavhok, SOE

[TerjynPovar]

Rearranged a few things and cut a few points I don't really have comments on.

People have been referring to the monk AC bonus as both a mitigation bonus and an AC bonus. Monks never recieved any sort of superior mitigation bonus like the one that warriors recently picked up. The monk AC bonus for much of EQ's history was used to compensate for low AC values on gear, allowing monks to approach the softcap.

...

Actually, there's been nothing to date to suggest that monks had a bonus... simply that they were on the same baseline as other toe-to-toe melee classes, which made sense given their role within the game.

You guys are sort of talking in circles.  Moving someone down from the plate mitigation tables to the leather mitigation tables is the same thing as removing a bonus.  No, monks didn't have a mitigation bonus exactly like Warriors get now, but there can be different meanings to "Mitigation bonus"...viewed from a Druid's perspective, Warriors certainly had a mitigation bonus, even back then.

I'd be interested in seeing some data on this. As I mentioned earlier, my Beastlord never got to the point where I could run a parse to see if he ran into a general softcap around 1350 AC.

I wish that the same people who did the original parse would post this sort of data as well, they did a big disservice to what they were trying to show by only expanding on Warriors, Rangers, and Monks...as this spreads the data across Plate/Chain/Leather, thus not allowing people to conclude the plate/chain/leather differences.

That's fascinating, but largely irrelevant. As I mentioned, the problem existed because of itemization issues: monks were wearing gear with AC comparable to or superior to plate gear. In today's EQ this has been rectified. Check out the AC for well-geared warriors versus that of monks. As far as hit points go, even during Luclin, monks didn't have the hit points of plate tanks.

Itemization is not the sole answer, and can't be, because otherwise monks would tank better than everybody except non-defensive warriors against stuff they have soft capped.  And given that "stuff they have soft capped" is up through PoP Tier 2 + LDoN normal for even bazaar gear monks...Sure, they don't have the hit points, but for most XP situations they don't need it...and they won't be tanking Raid targets regardless.

Monk mitigation today, is woefully short of where it should be: at the same level as other toe-to-toe melee classes. If you want to utilize avoidance as a substitute for mitigation, than monk avoidance needs a significant upgrade.

Significant upgrade?  They already tank second best against anything they have soft capped.  Who decided monks should be tanks?  Honestly, it is only by accident that they ever got viewed as such to begin with.

Ah, yes the old "Leather classes can't tank" fallacy. It's easy to repeat, but there's no real justification for it, and by relying on it, you venture down a slippery slope of utilizing percieved realistic justification within a fantasy framework.

There is no real justification for having leather classes tank/mitigate either.  So it's a slippery slope either way.

The real classes who get ignored in all of this are Paladins and Shadow Knights.  With the way classes stack up now they have it bad enough...if Monks had a bigger gap then they do those two classes would become completely irrelevant, and they are approaching it now.

Already done, lad, already done.

Heh, best of luck with Worlds of Warcraft, which has already nerfed to oblivian and restructed classes at least 3 times.  The fact is, nobody has any clue how good/bad it will be with respect to EverQuest's.

Monks need help right now, they have severe issues.  But why is it always tanking?  Why is that all that Monks ever consider?  Do what Warriors did with the Paladin/Warrior issue, come up with some genuinely creative ideas, circulate them, and you'll probably get a decent answer.  Rather than just continue to whine about a 20 month old nerf.

[Coprolith]

There're no logical grounds to suggest that an innate AC bonus prevented high end monks from tanking too well. Similarly, an innate AC bonus doesn't mean that your average monk can somehow tank as well as an uber monk

Oh yes there is. There has always been a cap on the usefulness of AC. First a hard cap, which was later changed to a softcap. A monk with high-end gear reaches this cap on gear alone, after which his innate AC bonus would be of no more use. A monk with average gear would never reach the cap on gear alone, but his bonus would take him over it. If we are to believe the monk community, this bonus was no less then 200AC (that's the number quoted as the effective decrease in AC after the nerf). The softcap pre-PoP was only around 1000-1100AC, so reaching it would've been a piece a cake even for a below-average geared monk. If this 200 pt bonus existed that is, which obviously it didnt.

Actually, there's been nothing to date to suggest that monks had a bonus... simply that they were on the same baseline as other toe-to-toe melee classes

Monks are on the same baseline as the other leather classes today, same soft cap, same level of mitigation, so they must have had a bonus compared to the other leather classes pre-nerf. How hard can it be to understand this? How many times do I have to explain this?

I'd be interested in seeing some data on this. As I mentioned earlier, my Beastlord never got to the point where I could run a parse to see if he ran into a general softcap around 1350 AC.

You dont have to run parses that high. Just parse your monk in the same low AC range as your beastlord. You'll find that your monk mitigates exactly as your beastlord does (provided he has the same defensive AAs). Since monks also have the same level of mitigation as a beastlord above the cap, the cap itself must be the same.

That's fascinating, but largely irrelevant. As I mentioned, the problem existed because of itemization issues: monks were wearing gear with AC comparable to or superior to plate gear. In today's EQ this has been rectified. Check out the AC for well-geared warriors versus that of monks. As far as hit points go, even during Luclin, monks didn't have the hit points of plate tanks.

Bull. If itemization was the only thing at the core of the problem, then it would have applied to beastlords and every chain class as well. Yet strangely enough only monks got nerfed, and even stranger is that even post-nerf, you still mitigate exactly the same way as beastlords and druids. Did you ever wonder why only monks got nerfed? I'll tell you why, because it was the innate mitigation bonus that was giving monks their unfair advantage, not their gear.

Monk mitigation today, is woefully short of where it should be: at the same level as other toe-to-toe melee classes. If you want to utilize avoidance as a substitute for mitigation, than monk avoidance needs a significant upgrade.

Yeah i get that, you want to be the god amongst melee you once were. Hell-looo-oo? The combined effect of mitigation and avoidance of monks today is as good as that of the knights yet you do twice the dps. You even have a defensive type disc to make you withstand the initial onslaught of an unslowed mob that knights lack. I'll give you an increase in avoidance  so you can match warriors again if you take a reduction to warrior-level dps as well. If you want the same amount of hps as warriors as well that can be arranged, its only going to cost you your ability to Mend and Feign Death ok?

Ah, yes the old "Leather classes can't tank" fallacy. It's easy to repeat, but there's no real justification for it, and by relying on it, you venture down a slippery slope of utilizing percieved realistic justification within a fantasy framework.

Like heck there isnt. Realistic justification has nothing to do with. Its about class balance. You want more utility, you want more dps, you want more tanking ability. Well tough noogies, you can't have it all. If you want to be able to tank better then a knight, then you're going to have to sacrifice your dps and your utility. SOE thinks your defensive capabilities are balanced now, and almost everyone except monks agree with them, so unless you can come up with a new and really convincing argument that you're lacking in the defense department instead of droning up the same old lines you're shit out of luck.
Besides, you're the pot calling the kettle black. The only argument I've heard so far of why monks should be able to tank as well as warriors is a realistic justification. "We're martial art experts, we're supposed to be extremely hard to hit".
Your defensive capabilities are balanced. Accept it and move on. Get the devs to work on your class utility, which is the one area where monks seem to have really lost something lately.

Antiquity alone doesn't validate a thing.

No but the fact that no one, not SOE and not the other EQ communities, responds to your complaints does. The devs re-evaluate the classes constantly as time progresses, and they do listen to solid arguments. Heck they did re-evaluate the monk nerf, they just didnt change anything because apparently they didnt feel it was necessary. If nothing was changed, its because you haven't been able to come up with solid arguments for it.

[Goretzu]

You guys are sort of talking in circles. Moving someone down from the plate mitigation tables to the leather mitigation tables is the same thing as removing a bonus. No, monks didn't have a mitigation bonus exactly like Warriors get now, but there can be different meanings to "Mitigation bonus"...viewed from a Druid's perspective, Warriors certainly had a mitigation bonus, even back then.

The confusion here is that there was no 'mitigation bonus' (nothing like what warriors get now), monks had/have an AC Bonus (much like the Iksar racial AC bonus).

The nerf was a base mitigation penalty (from where it was before), but the AC Bonus remains (only with the base mitigation nerf reducing it's effectiveness, as well as on the rest).