Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

[Goretzu]

Quote:
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.

Kavhok (I think) has mentioned that he is not happy with monks defense currently.

Whether this translates to SoE as a whole only time will tell.


Although they have changed the mitigation on the monk list from 'working as intended' (paraphrased but 'no change coming' basically) to 'under evaluation'.
Now this might just be PR, but we'll see I guess.


(of course this'll probably end up with monks getting nerfed further!  :lol: )

[Coprolith]

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).

I give up. You didnt even read the text you quoted. Logic bounces of you like light bounces of a mirror. You're absolutely right. If you mitigate exactly like the other leather classes after a nerf in your mitigation this does not mean you had a mitigation bonus pre-nerf. That's logic that is

You just keep believing that and keep droning up those lines. They've been so very succesful in getting the nerf reversed the past two years.

[Aneya]

Corp, I gave up on Goretzu a while back. He has posted what he has posted and the community is free to draw what ever conclusion they want.

[Goretzu]

If you mitigate exactly like the other leather classes after a nerf in your mitigation this does not mean you had a mitigation bonus pre-nerf.

Ah... I've finally worked out what you're on about (or at least on about now), I think.

It's just semantics, yes?




Originally you said:

While itemization was indeed at the heart of the problem, monks all across the board have profited from it. They had a mitigation bonus like warriors have today, not an AC bonus. That bonus applied to every monk regardless of gear.

Which is patently nonsense.
Monks had and have an AC bonus which similar to the Iksar racial AC Bonus.
Nor did they have a ‘mitigation bonus’ like warriors do today (they just had better mitigation, which ain’t the same thing at all).
Pre-nerf  monks mitigated at the same or very similar rate to pre-boost warriors (but of course had much less available mitigation AC).



But NOW what you're saying it that IF monks had their mitigation nerfed and now mitigate at the same rate as other leather classes, THEREFORE they had a ‘mitigation bonus’.

But this isn’t true.

Yes they mitigated better.
But NO it wasn’t ‘bonus mitigation’, or a ‘mitigation bonus’ it was SIMPLY the way they’d ALWAYS mitigated from the class conception, through 3 years live right till the mitigation nerf.

So yes monks had their mitigation nerfed and reduced, but no they never had their mitigation increased, nor ever had a mitigation bonus, they simply had what they were DESIGNED with, itemisation, several expansions worth of mudflation and the old soft caps were the issue.


Does that cover what you’re both talking about?

[Coprolith]

Ah... I've finally worked out what you're on about (or at least on about now), I think.
It's just semantics, yes?

Its not semantics. An AC bonus is fundamentally different from a mitigation bonus. An AC bonus merely moves you up the mitigation vs AC relation, whereas a mitigation bonus changes the mitigation vs AC relation.

And all i ever said was that monks must have had a mitigation bonus just like warriors have a mitigation bonus today. I never said monks' mitigation bonus was implemented in exactly the same way as the current warrior bonus. In fact I've said on more then one occassion that there's no way to find out exactly how the monks mitigation bonus was implemented but i guess you weren't listening again as usual. It may have been as simple that monks were on chain or plate mitigation tables, or it may have been something else entirely. But one thing is for sure, the AC vs mitigation relation for monks was changed fundamentally when the nerf hit.

But NOW what you're saying it that IF monks had their mitigation nerfed and now mitigate at the same rate as other leather classes, THEREFORE they had a 'mitigation bonus'.

But this isn't true.

Yes they mitigated better.
But NO it wasn't 'bonus mitigation', or a 'mitigation bonus' it was SIMPLY the way they'd ALWAYS mitigated from the class conception, through 3 years live right till the mitigation nerf.

Now who's trying to use semantics?

Bonus:
Etymology: Latin, literally, good
: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due

Monks had a bonus by definition, regardless of when it was implemented. They got something no other class had at the time, hardcoded into the combat engine; they mitigated better then you'd expect from their listed AC alone.

And you can remove the 'NOW' and 'IF' from your post. You're trying to make it sound as if this is not what I've been saying all along, and its not a question of 'if' at all.

[Kreseth]

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).

I realize Cop has tried pounding this idea into your skull but what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment.

There was a difference in mitigation tables between where monks were and where monks are.  Your AC explanation doesn't work.  If all monks had was an AC boost then they would have hit the hard, then later soft, cap with cheaper gear than other classes but uber monks wouldn't have tanked well because they still would effectively have lousy ac even if the number was well over the cap.  Gear wouldn't have helped because there was no +avoidance/mitigation gear to modify their defensive abilities.  All there was then was ac & HP and once you are over the AC cap there was just HP.  They changed mitigation tables.  You can run around screaming that there was no bonus, fine.  There clearly was a change to that factor however: monks don't mitigate as well as they did before they nerf.

--Kresth

[Goretzu]

Its not semantics. An AC bonus is fundamentally different from a mitigation bonus. An AC bonus merely moves you up the mitigation vs AC relation, whereas a mitigation bonus changes the mitigation vs AC relation.

Yes but that's just stating the obvious.
Monk have and AC bonus (which is obviously worth less now) tied to their weight limit.

The migitation nerf was a negative change in the mitigation vs AC realtion, it was nerf, but it was never a mitigation bonus as it had ALWAYS been that way.

You can't call the mitigation that monks ALWAYS had a 'mitigation bonus' unless it was improved at some time, not as it was designed and implemented.

The latest warrior change is a 'mitigation bonus' of a sort to their mitigation, but to say monks had a mitigation bonus (when it was always the same) as it was nerfed is fallicous in the extreme.

And all i ever said was that monks must have had a mitigation bonus just like warriors have a mitigation bonus today. I never said monks' mitigation bonus was implemented in exactly the same way as the current warrior bonus.

But monks did not, they had a better base mitigation (which they'd always had) and which the NERF reduced, but to say that remove base mitigation was 'bonus' is spurious in the extreme.

In fact I've said on more then one occassion that there's no way to find out exactly how the monks mitigation bonus was implemented but i guess you weren't listening again as usual. It may have been as simple that monks were on chain or plate mitigation tables, or it may have been something else entirely. But one thing is for sure, the AC vs mitigation relation for monks was changed fundamentally when the nerf hit.

Yes they were on a higher mitigation table (same as warriors I believe), but that still does NOT make the NERFED mitigation (the reduction in base mitigation/mitigation table if you will)  'bonus mitigation', or a 'mitigation bonus'.

It's just means monk ORIGINAL, STANDARD, INTENDED mitigation was nerfed (after 3 years due to other considerations).

Calling it a 'mitigation bonus' is a HUGE misrepresentation (to justify it I guess).

**Quote:
But NOW what you're saying it that IF monks had their mitigation nerfed and now mitigate at the same rate as other leather classes, THEREFORE they had a ‘mitigation bonus’.

But this isn’t true.

Yes they mitigated better.
But NO it wasn’t ‘bonus mitigation’, or a ‘mitigation bonus’ it was SIMPLY the way they’d ALWAYS mitigated from the class conception, through 3 years live right till the mitigation nerf.  **


Now who's trying to use semantics?

You, I'm just trying dismantle yours. :)

Quote:
Bonus:
Etymology: Latin, literally, good
: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due

Monks had a bonus by definition, regardless of when it was implemented.

No they didn't, they had their INTENDED mitigation, their DESIGNED mitigation, it was only sloppy itemsation and mudflation (after 3 years of havig said mitigaition that cause an issue).

They got something no other class had at the time, hardcoded into the combat engine; they mitigated better then you'd expect from their listed AC alone.

No they had the SAME mitigation table as other classes, that's not a 'mitigation bonus', that just the mitigation and mitigation table they were DESIGNED and IMPLIMENTED with.


Now the AC Bonus, yep that's something no other class has, and yes the weight limit that's something no other class has as well.

Monk mitigation... that was just pure melee mitigation as intened by VI when the made the game and class. :)

This 'mitigation bonus' idea is just a very recent fabrication of your own.  :shock:

And you can remove the 'NOW' and 'IF' from your post. You're trying to make it sound as if this is not what I've been saying all along, and its not a question of 'if' at all.

Well I think I'd got what you're saying now straight.

Unfortunately it's still NOT correct. :)

[Goretzu]

There was a difference in mitigation tables between where monks were and where monks are.

Yes that it what the mitigation nerf was/did.  No one is disputing that.

Your AC explanation doesn't work. If all monks had was an AC boost then they would have hit the hard, then later soft, cap with cheaper gear than other classes but uber monks wouldn't have tanked well because they still would effectively have lousy ac even if the number was well over the cap. Gear wouldn't have helped because there was no +avoidance/mitigation gear to modify their defensive abilities. All there was then was ac & HP and once you are over the AC cap there was just HP.

Again yes, but monks of course do have an AC Bonus, which is no worth as much post nerf.

But the mitigation nerf was a change to monk base mitigation (a lowering of the mitigation 'table' if you will).

But there's still no monk 'mitigation bonus', only the mitigation they always HAD that was nerfed.

They changed mitigation tables. You can run around screaming that there was no bonus, fine. There clearly was a change to that factor however: monks don't mitigate as well as they did before they nerf.

Grief I've never disputed this, you're arguing with YOURSELF here :), or at least you're cetainly not arguing with me about this.

A mitigation nerf (i.e. a negative change in mitigation tables) does NOT a monk mitigaiton bonus make (only in the eyes of those who want to couch in language that make it more justifiable - if you KNOW the HISTORY of this Cop orginally thought Monks DID get a mitigaiton BOOST/BONUS with Kunark).



No one is (or at least I'm not) saying monk base mitigation wasn't changed (that IS the ISSUE monks are STILL so annoyed about).

It's just Cop seems to be insisting the mitigation removed/lost was a 'mitigation bonus', when it clearly was not.

Monk mitigation was simply nerfed from it's original level, monks never had a 'mitigation bonus' thye just had their original (better) mitigation and the it was nerfed.

[Goretzu]

I think the confusion here is partly that some people don't seem to know monks have a weight limit and get and AC Bonus (with level) for staying under that weight.



The mitigation nerf (and the lost base mitigation - which is spuriously IMO being reffered to a a 'mitigation bonus') is a seperate, if of course closely related issue.

[Rhaynne]

(and the lost base mitigation - which is spuriously IMO being reffered to a a 'mitigation bonus')

This is why people are saying you are doing nothing but arguing semantics.

Anyone with an ounce of logical deductive reasoning can understand that damage mitigation is a function of the class of armor one wears - it is the ability of that armor to absorb damage.  By that reckoning, monks and druids pre Luclin and the advent of beastlords should have had the same mitigation.

They did not.  Monks mitigated better than they logically should have therefore had a bonus to their ability to mitigate damage or were placed on a table that was for a different class of armor.

That is where the concept of the mitigation bonus came from.

Call it tangerine pudding for all anyone cares, it's the same god damn thing.  Stop arguing just to argue.

[a_moss_snake_001]

From a beastlord's perspective I really don't see why Monks really -need- more mitigation than they already have. If we as beastlords can do just fine on raids with the exact same mitigation and monks have higher base HP and higher avoidance skills than we do then what justification can they give for needing more?

Monks are a primarily a support role DPS class, they rarely if ever tank (mainly because they SUCK at holding aggro), they don't gain a lot of bonus aggro in fights (unlike beastlords who use high-aggro spells and DoTs in addition to melee), they can "FD-->stand-up-->re-engage" at any point to lose a lot of their current aggro AND they have significantly higher avoidance abilities than we do (they DO tank better than we do and BOTH classes are toe-to-toe melee fighters). Everything about them smacks of a class that is designed to avoid taking damage entirely.

So what they need it for if they aren't getting hit anyway? pulling? Do they want to become a soloing class? (which is something even Warriors with their SUPERB ac/hp/mitigation still cannot do really well at).

Am I missing something here? Monks would be way better off asking for DPS upgrades instead of worrying about mitigation that most will never use.

[Khayden]

Monk roles:

1.  Pulling - I'd say this is their speciality even if not by original design.  Bards have encroached quite a bit on this but there's plenty of room really, not a glut of pullers that I've seen.  The situation was also improved alot with monks getting a form of lull.
2.  DPS - I think they could use slightly more here.  Rogues and rangers have more utility and more dps, and us beastlords are quite close.
3.  Tanking - They can tank in a pinch if fighting at their level (considering content vs gear/level) but not efficiently.  They can tank stuff below their level.  Pretty much the same as beastlords but with better avoidance due to being karate masters or whatever.

Frankly I have never understood the monk obsession with tanking.  The willingness to decimate any sort of attention the devs were going to pay the class by droning on about an issue that really isn't that big a deal is beyond me.  Their time would be better spent looking at the other two main roles they have IMO, and they probably went to the bottom of the "let's sort this out" pile because of the way they responded to the nerf.

Bottom line is no monk is ever going to be a preferred tank in a normal situation because they suck at holding aggro anyway, so why make such a big deal out of it?  I can understand being upset at losing ability, and I can agree that the nerf was poorly implemented.  But there comes a point when you've got to stop ranting and start being constructive and they didn't do that for a long time.

The nerf was badly done because it didn't seem to achieve it's objective which was to remove something from the top end monks - it removed it from the lower/middle part of the spectrum and the uber monks were barely affected.  I don't think anyone has disputed that really.  The original problem was caused by poor itemisation and would have faded with an expansion that had more sensible itemisation.  PoP didn't make insanely high AC items all/all and at the same time forced monks to upgrade those they had already.  (Think AEs in PoP and vastly increased mob atk and dps that make HP alot more valuable that it was relative to AC before.)

Monks shouldn't mitigate any better than other leather classes IMO.  They have better avoidance, and better dps (which should be higher I think).  They have more utility than warriors.  Monks can tank stuff that's below their level in the game easily already.  Why not build on the strengths of the class rather than trying to do something they're not designed to do?  This is the root of the hostility monks get when they talk about the nerf.  You can't have it all.

I can see some grounds for complaint from soloers, but then I'd say a pure melee was never going to be a powerful soloer, and perhaps a better way to address this would be to increase dps and look at improving mend and bind.  Mobs that die faster do less damage, bind can be used to recover, mend and FD for emergencies.  Also remember that many classes took a hit to solo ability due to PoP design.

Anyway, the argument over definitions of nerf/bonus is pretty pointless.  I'd just say that is the same kind of fanaticism over a single non-central issue that has only been to the detriment of monks for a long time.

Khayden

[Coprolith]

I think the confusion here is partly that some people don't seem to know monks have a weight limit and get and AC Bonus (with level) for staying under that weight.

...

Again yes, but monks of course do have an AC Bonus, which is no worth as much post nerf.

You might as well stop thinking, cuz you're not very good at it. As i said before, the confusion is all yours. We're well aware of this bonus. The question is are you aware that the AC bonus tied to the weight limit is still there, basically unchanged? It's value has hardly decreased at all. That depends on how the original mitigation bonus was implemented. If the mitigation bonus was a fixed amount, then the value of the AC bonus hasn't decreased at all. If the mitigation bonus was a percentage of total mitigation, then the value of the AC bonus has decreased only by this same percentage. We're talking about a difference between 100% effectiveness and 95% effectiveness here (order of magnitude).

This only makes the current situation more poignant; monks had 2 defensive bonuses no other class had, and only one of the two monk bonuses was taken away. Monks still have a natural advantage over the other leather classes from their AC bonus as long as they remain under the weight limit. And still they're wondering why they're not getting a sympathy vote.

[Goretzu]

This is why people are saying you are doing nothing but arguing semantics.

Er.... I said that!  (about Cop) :)

Anyone with an ounce of logical deductive reasoning can understand that damage mitigation is a function of the class of armor one wears - it is the ability of that armor to absorb damage. By that reckoning, monks and druids pre Luclin and the advent of beastlords should have had the same mitigation.

No you see you're looking BACK and trying to justify and re-classify something with hindsight.

Monks were never designed to mitigate like Druids (or obviously like BL's as the didn't exist), or like a 'leather class' (if anything monks were more a silk class in those days anyway.

This whole 'leather', 'chain', 'plate' thing is largely an INVENTION of the post-monk mitigaiton world.

Monks were designed as PURE MELEE with pure melee mitigation.


So monk were NOT intended to mitigate like Druids etc. (can I put this any more clearly?  :? ), they were intented to mitigate like monks, like purel melee.

So to refer to the removed base mitigation as 'bonus' is dishonest and incorrect.

It was intended to be at that level, it was just bad itemisation and mudflation that caused the issues  (which are explained above and have NOTHING to do with what you're talking about here) and caused the nerf.

They did not. Monks mitigated better than they logically should have therefore had a bonus to their ability to mitigate damage or were placed on a table that was for a different class of armor.

No they didn't.
They could simply reach the cap with good enough gear and once above it had the same mitigation and superior avoidance, which is WHY they decided to nerf monk base mitigation.
Yes it was probably the WORST way of going about it, but that is what they did.

They did NOT decide monks had too much base mitigation, they were looking at an easy way to fix the very high end issues (which were fixed with PoP AC formula changes, new itemisation and adjustments to warriors).

That is where the concept of the mitigation bonus came from.

Yes and it's a TOTALLY incorrect, misleading and fallacious one.

Call it tangerine pudding for all anyone cares, it's the same god damn thing. Stop arguing just to argue.

No that's just it, it's not.
(and if you read what Cop orignially said it's actually siginifcantly different to what he's saying now).

IF SoE decided BL's were doing too much damage at the higher end, and decided to more ALL BL's down a few DAMAGE TABLES.

Would and should that be refered to as the Beastlord Damage Nerf OR the Beastlord Damage Bonus Removal? :)


(I think that is very important point to clarify.)

[Goretzu]

Khayden's got the issue spot on there.

The (continuing issues) about monk mitigation are that IF monks must fight from behind (and without their old mitigation this 'best DPS from any angle' stuff is pointless) the are basically Rogue-lite's.
Getting more DPS is unlikely as the Rogue DPS is sacrosanct.
(actually a lot of people suggested a base damage buff to balance the base mitigation nerf at the time).
Which really only leaves re-increasing monk defence without recreating the end or Luclin issues (most of which have been solved in other ways now anyway).

Also soloing did take a HUGE hit with the nerf.
From a solo BL perspective imagine waking up one day to discover slow was GONE. That's about as hard as the intial monk nerf hit monk soloing.