Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

[Goretzu]

You might as well stop thinking, cuz you're not very good at it.

If the best you've got is just insults.  :roll:

As i said before, the confusion is all yours. We're well aware of this bonus.

Well you are as you made it UP! :)

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).

There was no such thing as a mitigation bonus (just endlessly repeating it doesn't make it so).

Monks were 'moved down the mitigation tables', make ALL their mitigation AC (including the AC from the AC Bonus, 'worth less'.

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.

NO.


Monks had (and have) the AC Bonus (which no one else had, but then no other pure melee's had a weight limit OR such low AC armour either).


But monks had NO 'mitigation bonus' they were simply on a higher mitigation table. (yes, yes I KNOW you're entire 'monks needed to be nerfed' argument utterly HINGES upon this 'monk mitigation bonus' idea so you'll cling to it, utterly wrong as it maybe until your dying day..... but that still doesn't make it correct!)

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

Yes but with said WEIGHT LIMIT it's much easier for a BL (or even a Druid) to wear much better AC gear (not to mention I currently have several nice AC gear choices on my BL that a monks just can't wear by class type itemisation never mind that it itd be WAY too heavy to wear anyway).

Actually I think you should maybe try living with a weight limit and see what it's like, not only in gear and weapon choices by also in what you can carry and what you can loot.

Plus let me ask you a question.

Which of Monks, Druids and Beastlord's are Pure Melee? ;)

[Goretzu]

Actually Cop, as this seems to be the crux of your issue, let me re-ask that other question:






If SoE decided that Beastlords were doing too much DPS at the high end and decide to rectify this by moving ALL Beastlords (from L1 to L65) DOWN several damage tables.


Should that change be REFFERED to as?


1. The Beastlord Damage Nerf.

or

2. The Beastlord Damage Bonus Removal.




Obviously given you're stance on monks your answer could only be 2. The Beastlord Damage Bonus Removal, right?

[TerjynPovar]

It is both, and anybody claiming differently is selling something.  (Let me spell it out for you:  YOU are trying to sell something.)

Nobody is claiming this wasn't a nerf.  NOBODY.

But monks had NO 'mitigation bonus' they were simply on a higher mitigation table.

Good lord, how many times will you repeat this?  THIS IS THE SAME DAMN THING.  ONLY AN IDIOT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE THE SAME DAMN THING.  THE SAME DAMN THING.

Are you Michael Moore?  I didn't think anyone could be as delusional as him, but you certainly work hard at it.

By the way, your use of colors really adds to your argument something that wasn't there before (/snicker).

[Goretzu]

You really should go back and check the history of Cop's 'monk mitigation bonus'.


Origninally he claimed monks were GIVEN said 'mitigation bonus' in Kunark (they weren't they did get their damage tables increased though) and then just had it removed just prior to PoP (actually after PoP according to Cop).

Now this is untrue, monk mitigation has only been nerfed, not boosted.

So the whole CONCEPT of calling it a 'mitigation bonus' was flawed, incorrect and maybe up by Cop in the first place!  :shock:


Calling it a 'mitigation bonus' is Michael Moore type propaganda ;), which is WHY it so incorrect to reffer to it as such.







(Also I do so enjoy your personal little jibes and insults though Terjyn, especially when it's all you've really got to say. ;))

[Vidyne]

Hes trying to say..

Monks from start of game, til now, have never been given a bonus to their base mitigation for anything they do.  Maybe it was a little high, maybe it wasnt, I dunno, I dont play a monk.  They were given a AC bonus though regarding their weight.  Issues with monks reaching the softcap and outtanking warriors, made SoE take action, and nerf how the monk mitigates ALL the time, his BASE mitigation, not the AC bonus they get from staying underweight.  It affected the lvl 1 monk with 15ac, and the lvl 65 monk in NToV gear with 1500ac(or whatever was comparable at the time)

They were only trying to nerf the 65 monk with 1500ac, not the 1 monk with 15ac... but both suffered, the 65 needed to, as he was overpowered tanking... the lvl 1 didnt.

Bonus implies you do something and receive a reward.
You stay under cap and receive more AC.
You are born an Iksar and get 50 more AC for race.
etc...
Base implies it applies to ALL, all the time.

Do they still tank fine?  Yeah they do ok
I just wanted to make his point a little clearer.
Some classes have issues ill admit, some classes are weaker than others ill admit, but talking about them here not doing much good.

[Coprolith]

If SoE decided that Beastlords were doing too much DPS at the high end and decide to rectify this by moving ALL Beastlords (from L1 to L65) DOWN several damage tables.

Should that change be REFFERED to as?

1. The Beastlord Damage Nerf.

or

2. The Beastlord Damage Bonus Removal.

That depends entirely on what our damage output is after the nerf. If it turns out that post-nerf we're still on the same damage table as the other melees then yes, we had a bonus to our damage table. We would have been doing more damage with our weapons then you'd expect from their stats when you compared it with other classes pre-nerf.

Here's a question right back atcha:

If your co-worker, who is exactly the same age and sex as you, has the same education and marital status as you, and does exactly the same kind of work as you, gets a higher wage then you do you call this extra wage
1) a bonus
or
2) the way it was meant to be

Call it realistic justification if you want, but there's absolutely no reason why one class should get more mitigation from the same piece of armor then another. The simple fact is that monks were consciously put on a higher mitigation table merely to compensate for the low AC value of their gear, something no other class got, and no monk had to work for to achieve. If that's not a bonus then i don't know what is

[Goretzu]

Vidyne explaines it very well, I think.

Quote:
If SoE decided that Beastlords were doing too much DPS at the high end and decide to rectify this by moving ALL Beastlords (from L1 to L65) DOWN several damage tables.

Should that change be REFFERED to as?

1. The Beastlord Damage Nerf.

or

2. The Beastlord Damage Bonus Removal.



That depends entirely on what our damage output is after the nerf. If it turns out that post-nerf we're still on the same damage table as the other melees then yes, we had a bonus to our damage table. We would have been doing more damage with our weapons then you'd expect from their stats when you compared it with other classes pre-nerf.

But that's just it, monks mitigation had been the same since conception (it was AS INTENDED), then there came other issues (due to itemisation and mudflation and at the time mitigation caps).
So they nerfed monk mitigation to fix this, not because monk base mitigation was too high as such, and not because it was deemed bonus mitigation.

So basically your answer (given the same context and standards as the monk nerf) would be to call it a 'Beastlord Damage Nerf', and NOT a 'Beastlord Damage Bonus Removal'.

Which is all I'm saying.
(and getting called all the names under the sun for saying it! :))

Here's a question right back atcha:

If your co-worker, who is exactly the same age and sex as you, has the same education and marital status as you, and does exactly the same kind of work as you, gets a higher wage then you do you call this extra wage
1) a bonus
or
2) the way it was meant to be

But that's NOT what happened with the monk nerf, which is why it can't and shouldn't be reffered to as a 'mitigation bonus'.

More like 2 people doing similar jobs, with similar wages (only one gets paid overtime [more item AC] and one gets more time in lue [more avoidance] instead).
Everything is fine, and there's a similar yearly increase in both wages.
Then eventually one of the wages rises over a tax band suddenly both are still doing similar jobs, and with the extra tax both are being paid the same but ONE still has more time off in lue.

The overtime paid employee complains, so the 'solution' is to reduced the time in lue's paid employee's basic rate, which pisses everyone off (except the employer).

Now that reduction in basic rate could NOT be called a removal of 'bonus' could it.

Call it realistic justification if you want, but there's absolutely no reason why one class should get more mitigation from the same piece of armor then another.

Heh, actually that's a MONK argument, why does a warrior wearing leather get more mitigation out of it than the monk (because of course mitigation is class based not item based, yet item AC is of course item based).

Prior to the nerf it was the case (which caused the issue along with higher avoidance and the caps at the very high end), after the nerf no longer the case.

The simple fact is that monks were consciously put on a higher mitigation table merely to compensate for the low AC value of their gear, something no other class got

This is another incorrect assumption.
Monks got the AC Bonus to compensate for their low AC gear, the mitigation table had nothing to do with it.

The mitigation table was simply a fact, that monks were DESIGNED to mitigate as well as they did.

They weren't on their original mitigation table as a 'bonus' anymore than any other class was one theirs.  It was THIER designed mitigation table/level, that it was or was not the same as other classes was also by design. (not as 'a bonus')


Hell just look a pre-50 skill cap, monks were MILES ahead of every other class (both offensively AND defensively), with Kunark that gap closed and in most comparable cased disapeared (hence the reason they were given a better damage table) - and why? Due to programing limitations not game or class design.
Are monks now suffering from a skill cap penalty?

and no monk had to work for to achieve. If that's not a bonus then i don't know what is

Well monks do have to work for their bonus, the AC Bonus that is (as their 'mitigation bonus' is a figment of your imagination).

[Khayden]

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).

There's an awful lot of room in between monks and rogues in terms of DPS.  Monks could get a significant upgrade here spread evenly over the levels of play and gear without knocking rogues off the top spot.  I would think it worthwhile revisiting this, especially since there are many angles you could play with the whole martial arts idea.

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.

Yes, I tend to agree.  I'd just say that beasts are meant to be better soloers than monks, and monk soloing could be improved enough without increasing their mitigation.

Khayden

[Goretzu]

Quote:
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).


There's an awful lot of room in between monks and rogues in terms of DPS. Monks could get a significant upgrade here spread evenly over the levels of play and gear without knocking rogues off the top spot. I would think it worthwhile revisiting this, especially since there are many angles you could play with the whole martial arts idea.

Yep there's even an argument with the current state of the game and classes to say that monks should be very close to rogues indeed.  It's just that rogues, of course, wouldn't like that. :)

Trying to take monks down a different path (making them able to do their DPS from the front, maybe even getting a bonus for DPS from the front) is probably going to cause less upset, but on the other hand it's much more difficult to see where that path can go.

Quote:
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.


Yes, I tend to agree. I'd just say that beasts are meant to be better soloers than monks, and monk soloing could be improved enough without increasing their mitigation.

Oh without a doubt.
The problem isn't that other classes are better at soloing.

It's that monk soloing WAS reduced a lot. (i.e. could solo at X rate then couldn't do it anything like as well) add to this the pure melee solo issue past L60 and it gets pretty nasty.

Which was a bit of a blow to many people as monks were a capable if not great solo class (it'd would be IMO very comparable solo-wise to if SoE suddenly decided to remove Beastlord slow - I know I'd be furious. :))

The problem is re-increasing solo ability is also likely to infinge on other aspects, again making it a tricky one.

[Vidyne]

Worker X and Worker Y get paid 6.00 and 6.00 respectively as wages/hr

Worker X finally starts to work as long as worker Y per week and starts to make the same money as him(Monks attaining high AC)

Worker X also gets a bonus for keeping his office tidy(weight cap)

Supervisor Z thinks worker X gets paid too much now, since he can work just as long as Worker Y, and get bonuses too, but Worker Y's job title is higher and deserves more.

Supervisor Z instead of taking away X's bonuses, instead cuts his wages to 5.15 an hour, and leaves the bonus.


Is only way I can explain it trying to make his more clearer.
Im not for either side, just trying to get both sides to understand each other.  Right now one is an orange and the other is an apple.

[Coprolith]

Heh, actually that's a MONK argument, why does a warrior wearing leather get more mitigation out of it than the monk

Well now we're getting somewhere. A better question would be: why not create a single mitigation table and let all the differences in mitigation be determined by AC value only (making the listed AC value a lot less ambiguous in the process). I can't be sure, but i can think of one or two reasons. The first one is that the difference between high-end and casual player defensive capabilities would go thru the roof. Secondly i think they knew from the beginning the necessity to put a class dependent cap on mitigation, otherwise every class would reach 100% of the max possible mitigation eventually, wiping out most of the differences between the classes.
SOE's solution, to make class dependent mitigation tables, sounds like a compromise between flexibility and programmatic ease on the hand and realism on the other. Yes, it means plate classes mitigate better wearing leather armor then leather classes do, its a weird but necessary consequence of make sure the classes mitigate differently at all times. It is of little practical importance. Plate classes are not expected to wear leather because they can, and do, wear plate. So putting them on the highest mitigation table to make sure they mitigate better then the other classes even above the soft cap makes sense.
Similarly, the chain classes are on their own mitigation table because they are expected to wear chain armor. And today, all the leather classes share their own mitigation table as well, which begs the question: why were monks the only exception originally?

Now explain to me why monks' weight restricted AC bonus is called a bonus, Iksar racial AC bonus is called a bonus, the current warrior mitigation bonus is a bonus, but the monks original higher mitigation table is not a bonus but 'working as intended'. Why did monks need both an AC bonus and a higher mitigation table in the first place? Answer: because otherwise monks would have gotten get smeared into a pulp every battle because of their low AC in the early days of EQ. The way i see it, both the higher mitigation table and the extra AC monks got for having low weight were put in for the same reason, to give monks a reasonable survival probability in a fight. So why is one a bonus and the other not?

[Goretzu]

Well now we're getting somewhere. A better question would be: why not create a single mitigation table and let all the differences in mitigation be determined by AC value only (making the listed AC value a lot less ambiguous in the process).

That is actually close to how monks (at least) functioned before the nerf (and before the itemisation and cap issues).

I can't be sure, but i can think of one or two reasons. The first one is that the difference between high-end and casual player defensive capabilities would go thru the roof. Secondly i think they knew from the beginning the necessity to put a class dependent cap on mitigation, otherwise every class would reach 100% of the max possible mitigation eventually, wiping out most of the differences between the classes.
SOE's solution, to make class dependent mitigation tables, sounds like a compromise between flexibility and programmatic ease on the hand and realism on the other. Yes, it means plate classes mitigate better wearing leather armor then leather classes do, its a weird but necessary consequence of make sure the classes mitigate differently at all times. It is of little practical importance. Plate classes are not expected to wear leather because they can, and do, wear plate. So putting them on the highest mitigation table to make sure they mitigate better then the other classes even above the soft cap makes sense.
Similarly, the chain classes are on their own mitigation table because they are expected to wear chain armor. And today, all the leather classes share their own mitigation table as well, which begs the question: why were monks the only exception originally?

Yes it’s a work related issue, SoE freely admits that a better way then nerfing monk mitigation would have been to re-itemise things (or re-classify ALL/ALL and reduce AC on some monk only items).  However this was too much work so they took the easy (but untested and ill-thought out option) instead.

Now explain to me why monks' weight restricted AC bonus is called a bonus,

Because it only exists IF you keep your weight below the limits.

Iksar racial AC bonus is called a bonus,

Because it’s something you get just for being Iksar.

the current warrior mitigation bonus is a bonus,

Because it’s above their original mitigation values, but you’d hardly say they had a mitigation penalty for 4.5 years UNTIL they got it would you?

but the monks original higher mitigation table is not a bonus but 'working as intended'.

Yes as designed, as intended, as WAS for 3 years +.
Suggesting retroactively it was a ‘bonus’ simply because monk mitigation was reduced for other reasons is silly.

If EQ had been shut down in Luclin it would never have been changed.
If they’d rolled the mitigation formula/cap changes out with Luclin rather than PoP it’d most likely have never been changed.
If they’d re-itemised instead it’d never been changed.

It was only nerfed because of mudflation and mitigation caps (and the superior avoidance once past them).

It was nerfed but never boosted.
So there are TWO levels of monk mitigation:

1. Original and intended.
&
2.    Nerfed/Reduced.

Why did monks need both an AC bonus and a higher mitigation table in the first place?

The AC Bonus was because monks were PURE MELEE, but got VERY low AC gear.

The mitigation table was because their were PURE MELEE and designed from the out set to be ABLE to take a beating (not as much as a warrior mitigation-wise, because the warrior had more worn AC by far (not to mention hits quite quickly), but equally the monk had much better avoidance and much higher skill caps).

It was only mudflation and itemisation (and reaching the old soft caps) that caused the issue.

Answer: because otherwise monks would have gotten get smeared into a pulp every battle because of their low AC in the early days of EQ. The way i see it, both the higher mitigation table and the extra AC monks got for having low weight were put in for the same reason, to give monks a reasonable survival probability in a fight. So why is one a bonus and the other not?

Because one was just the BASE mitigation, the intended mitigation.
The other was a BONUS for staying under weight – go enough over weight and it is gone.

Warrior mitigation prior to the last change was not bonus mitigation nor in fact ‘penalised mitigation’ (going by your definitions), it was just ‘warrior mitigation’.

Same with monks. They just had their intended and designed level  of mitigation.
Only they also had/have the AC Bonus which did make up for the low AC gear.

[Coprolith]

Because it's something you get just for being Iksar.

No no no and no. By your own reasoning, its because they designed Iksars that way, it was intended as it was there from their first appearance.

You, sir, are measuring with two different standards.

Yes as designed, as intended, as WAS for 3 years +.
Suggesting retroactively it was a 'bonus' simply because monk mitigation was reduced for other reasons is silly.

Suggesting it wasnt a bonus just because you didnt know about it then is silly. When you got it is irrelevant. Why you got it is the only measure. Iksar got their AC bonus to compensate for not being able to wear most of the existing high AC armor, monks got a AC bonus and a mitigation bonus to compensate for not having any high AC items at all

But please, do keep on repeating yourself. Maybe after a while you start believing it yourself

[mythral]

does it really matter what the hell its called?

monks back in the day mitigated damage BETTER than other classes in equivalent gear(the reasons for this, at the time were justified and not imbalancing), which back then was mostly silk armor. this to me implies monks had a BONUS to their mitigation that noone else had. what is hard to understand?

fast forward, that "bonus" was removed, or monks were "nerfed" to mitigating damage the same as other classes in equivalent armor type, which by then was leather.(they may have been nerfed to even inferior mitigation and then had part of it removed, i seem to recall taht happening) the reasons for this were taht they were tanking vastly better than designed.

call it the monk mitigation bonus, or "the way monks were designed to mitigate in original EQ", its refering to the same thing.

now, what does ANY of this matter NOW? in todays EQ monks and beastlords mitigate damage the same, what is the problem? is that not how it should be?

[Coprolith]

No, in the bigger picture it does not matter at all what its called. In the big picture, monks just had a natural advantage taken away.

But it matters to me because Goretzu claimed i made it all up instead of just following the available data thru to its logical conclusion. Almost 2 years after the nerf, Goretzu is still so disgruntled about it that he uses every opportunity to make it look as if the nerf was worse then it really was, ignoring all logic, reason and data in the process. Not too long ago he claimed beastlords defensive capabilities were much better then those of monks instead of the other way around, but he seems to be cured of that. Now he's trying to make it sound as if monks original mitigation wasn't an advantage at all.
Taking away a bonus/advantage/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is still a nerf, but not so severe as being nerfed in a natural ability. The monk mitigation nerf falls in the first category, not the latter.

Its all beating dead horses anyway, but as long as people like Goretzu keep boring us with unjustified "woe is us" routines i'll keep fighting them every step of the way.