Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

[Goretzu]

Quote:
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, yes, yes and yes.  :P

It's a bonus you get for being Iksar.

Monk original mitigation was NOT a bonus for being a monk any more than warrior mitigation was a bonus for being a warrior.
It was the designed, intended and wanted level of mitigation.

You answered this question yourself with the BL example.

The only reason you continue with this silly example is monks is a combination of obsinacy and your adgenda.

But monks never had a mitigation bonus.

Iksar quite clearly DO have extra AC (above what other races get reguardless of class) simply for being Iksar.

Monks get the AC Bonus, but their mitigation was simply their mitigation, as it was for other classes.

Quote:
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.

I'm NOT.
You're the one suggesting it was 'bonus' is a retroactive sense to 'justify' the nerf.
I'm saying monk mitigation was at it's intended and designed level (no bonus) then it was nerfed do to other issues (as it was the easiest if not best way to correct them - still no bonus).
There is no and never was a bonus, you are the ONLY person I've ever heard try to claim there was. :)

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

Yes..... but monk mitigation was NOT a 'bonus' for ANYTHING it was just how they designed and intended monk mitigation to be (then the nerfed it for other reasons) - NO 'BONUS' THERE.

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

Really we both know you lost this argument and all credibility for it pages ago, just your stubboness refuses to let you admit it. :)

[Goretzu]

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?

That's just IT.

They DIDN'Tmitigate better than other classes in equiverlent gear.  The most they did was mitigigate the SAME as some other classes when BOTH were over the soft cap.

In this instance mokns still avoided a bit more.

THAT was the issue of the nerf (not that monks mitigate better than other classes).





It wasn't a monk mitigation issue really (that was just the easy and half-assed SoE way they took to 'fix' it).

It was a bad itemisation and mitigation CAP issue. (the cap & formula determining them was changed with PoP's release - even on old content IF they have high enough ATK to matter, new itemisation has also been changed to lower monk worn AC).

There was NO 'monk mitigation bonus'.

It it totally a figment of Cop's imagination. :)

[Goretzu]

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.

No they were nerfed, subtle but significant difference.

There was no ‘advantage’, there was an issue with high end gear and old formula (and low ATK mob) mitigaiton caps, which when BOTH a monk and a warrior were well over the monk mitigated as well (despite having much LESS mitigation AC – due to the cap issue), BUT the monk still avoided more.

That was the issue.

Nothing to do with a monk ‘advantage’ at all.

Just to do with mudflation, bad itemisation and old caps formulas (and low ATK on most older mobs).

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.

You DID. :)

You originally claimed monks ‘got a mitigation bonus in Kunark for their low AC”. :)

THAT is where you’re mitigation bonus idea came wrong.

It was totally wrong (monks got a bonus to damage in Kunark yes – as with the closed up skill caps class damage was coming together).

The was NO monk mitigation bonus in Kunark, there was only the original monk mitigation right up until the nerf.




Then you seem to have quietly ignored how wrong you were there and moved the ‘mitigation bonus’ on to another tack in an attempt to pretend you were on about that all along, I think. :)

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.

I said that BL mitigation was better, actually you’re right (I was wrong :)) it is the same I think (and I’m happy to admit that), your data and arguments convinced me of that.
However I did say was BL were in a stronger position than monks at the moment, and I’m fairly sure anyone that had played both monks and beastlords (as I have done) would agree.

Now he's trying to make it sound as if monks original mitigation wasn't an advantage at all.

As opposed to you who is trying to make it sound like it was ALWAYS a nerf waiting to happen! ;)

When it wasn’t, it was just their intended mitigation and it was only high end mudflation, soft cap and bad itemisation issues that got it nerfed, nothing to do with the level of mitigation itself, nor was it EVER regarded as a bonus by ANYONE, not the players, not VI, not SoE.

Not once have any of those referred to original monk mitigation as ‘bonus mitigation’, not once, ever!


Only Cop in 5 years of EQ has labelled it a ‘mitigation bonus’,  I think that should TELL you something. :)

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.

Of course original monk mitigation was a natural ability – how could the designed and intended level of mitigation be anything else?

This is why your claims are so strange, bizarre and silly.




This IMO only goes to PROVE you’re agenda, trying to change facts and language to make it seem like the nerf wasn’t so bad and was expected etc., etc.

When all that is, is pure propaganda. :(

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.

Heh personally I just think you don't like to admit when you’re wrong. :)

[Lorathir]

[Coprolith]

What's up with the triple posts every time anyway? You think up another not-so-clever-excuse every 10 minutes?

[Goretzu]

What's up with the triple posts every time anyway?

Just answering each post in a post to keep things clear to the best of my ability. :)

You think up another not-so-clever-excuse every 10 minutes?

You're just starting to sound bitter now. :(

[Coprolith]

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you, me getting bitter. No im no bitter, im sad. Sad because you're still droning up the same nonsense after page 4, sad because logic is still only a 5 letter word to you, sad because you wouldnt know the truth if it bit you in the ass and sad because i know next time someone brings up the words 'monk' and 'mitigation' you're gonna start all over again. Sad also that you're so sad that almost 2 years after the nerf you still cannot let it go and come here like a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, a monk pretending to be a member of the BL community, trying to spew your proganda that nobody gives a shit about because they know it isnt true, spamming posts and pm's.

Now go away, Nunyabizz

[Goretzu]

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you, me getting bitter. No im no bitter, im sad. Sad because you're still droning up the same nonsense after page 4, sad because logic is still only a 5 letter word to you, sad because you wouldnt know the truth if it bit you in the ass and sad because i know next time someone brings up the words 'monk' and 'mitigation' you're gonna start all over again. Sad also that you're so sad that almost 2 years after the nerf you still cannot let it go and come here like a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, a monk pretending to be a member of the BL community, trying to spew your proganda that nobody gives a shit about because they know it isnt true, spamming posts and pm's.

Now go away, Nunyabizz

Only when the make up nonsense like a 'monk mitigation bonus'. ;)



I'm quite happy playing my BL, but that still doesn't mean I can't, shouldn't, or won't correct willfully misleading and totally false anti-monk nerf propaganda (so just stop doing it and everyone will be happy). :)

[xaoshaen]

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.

I'm not sure where you're exping, but I know that at 1400 AC, I don't have much softcapped that I actually fight. The worst problem is that I can't softcap, no matter how much AC I pile on, since the monk softcap is lower than the mob's... I'm stuck around an effective 1350 AC, regardless of how much I gear up.

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.

This just isn't true. You need to compare a monk to a knight with similar gear: in Thep's case study the monk's gear (particularly the avoidance mods) gave him a significant advantage. Even if a monk were to take less damage/unit time than an equivalently geared knight, there's more to tanking than that: otherwise warriors wouldn't have needed the aggro generation upgrades they got.

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

I'm not arguing for leather classes to mitigate especially well. I'm arguing for toe-to-toe melee classes to mitigate well. I do think that the whole mitigation table setup is ridiculous. Cloth and Leather classes already pay (post-itemization fix) an AC penalty, this should be what differentiate armor types, in my opinion. Let a point of AC be the same regardless of what medium it comes from, simply make sure that you assign each type of armor a rational AC value (no more 60 AC leather pants).

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.

History doesn't bear this out. Knights were chosen over warriors as tanks to such a degree that the warriors were all but ignored during PoP for grouping, despite the fact that the warriors took less damage/unit time. Restoring monk mitigation will neither hurt nor help knights. The AC and aggro generation discrepancies mean that a monk is going to be an inferior choice of main tank. I do think that knights could use some work, but it's not the monks that are edging them towards irrelevance.

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.

The difference is, WoW did it in the beta where nobody has a right to expect any sort of consistency. Even this early, it's pretty easy to see that WoW will have significantly better class-balance than EQ has ever had, for one simple reason: fewer classes. I'm not making Blizzard employees out to be the Gods of All Which is Good and True in gaming, but they've been smart enough to set themselves a more achievable task. There's one melee class in WoW whose primary function is to bring the DPS, EQ has three. How do you differentiate three classes with the exact same primary function while keeping them balanced? If you find a way, email SOE because so far they're entirely clueless.

The classes in WoW certaintly aren't entirely balanced at this stage, but each class has a purpose that can be expanded on or contracted for the purposes of balancing the game without infringing on another class.

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.

Actually, one of the first things I talked about in this thread was the need for monks to have a unique role: they can't be an excellent DPS class or the rogues will have a fit, if they have the ability to take a few hits, hybrids kick up a fuss. This goes back to my EQ/WoW comparison: there are fundamentally too many classes in EQ, and not enough roles for them. Any sort of creative fix for monks will certaintly incite riots amongst some other class.

[TerjynPovar]

I won't use the word bonus so Goretzu doesn't go nuts again, even though it requires me to type a whole bunch of extra words which mean the same thing.  :roll:

Xaoshaen, you didn't really answer the real meat of my post anywhere in your response.  I'm not talking about the situation now, I'm talking about how it would have been had the mitigation table never been changed.

Why would it be acceptable for a monk to take hits better than a non-defensive warrior up through Tier 3 PoP(other than raid targets)?

I'm not sure where you're exping, but I know that at 1400 AC, I don't have much softcapped that I actually fight

At 1400 AC you have pretty much everything softcapped except for Tactics/Solusek Ro, Tier 4+ PoP, Hard LDoN, and GoD.  I realize you cannot softcap the higher end stuff, but that's not and has never been the thrust of this argument.

As for the Knight thing, Warriors didn't take that much less than Knights did.  Monks as they stand now, if they still had the old Mitigation tables, would have taken even less than warriors did.  At some point, they could so far outstrip Knights and Warriors that they would be tanking even if it was harder for them to keep agro than a Knight.

Everquest revamped class structure balance a few times during beta too, this shows nothing about how it'll be once the game is released.

I predict WoW is going to be a collosal flop.  It'll be huge at the start no doubt...but staying power is tougher.  Guess we'll see if it really happens, but the combination of people's insanely high expectations, + the Battle.net kiddies from Diablo 2/Starcraft/Warcraft, + how slow Blizzard is at releasing content seems ripe for the biggest game failure ever.

[Goretzu]

I won't use the word bonus so Goretzu doesn't go nuts again, even though it requires me to type a whole bunch of extra words which mean the same thing.

That's just it though:

'Removed bonus mitigation'

&

'Reduced/Nerfed original mitigation' or just 'post-nerf mitigation'

are 2 very different things.



The first implies it was a bonus that was given and then just taken away (which it wasn't it was designed and as intended and indeed FUNCTIONED as intended for a very long time) and then removed.


The second is what actually happened, monks mitigated as they'd been designed and then mudflation/itemisation and soft cap issues meant SoE decided to nerf it (without think it through very much - hence all the post nerf issues).


They are similar in meaning, but they not the same thing at all. :(

Like manslaugher and murder, the end results the same, but the justification (and potential concequences) are VERY different indeed.  :shock:  :)







The reason I think it's so important is that it's the base line for discussing pretty much any monk issue, if you start out with clearly biased terminolgy it's going to go no where quickly.

It's very similar to that mage article and thread in fact.

IF they'd said "Mage healing is a quite a bit behind BL's, we think Mages could use a boost in that area" it would have been one thing.

But it READ more like "BL's heal is too powerful, they should be nerfed".

The language used making all the difference.

[Aneya]

Actually, one of the first things I talked about in this thread was the need for monks to have a unique role:

Why is there a need for a unique role? In my experience, making a class the only one that can do something actualy degrades game play rather than enhance it.

Here are some examples.

Warriors tanking Raid mobs: No Warriors and a raid is at a severe disadvantage.
Clerics and Raid healing: No Clerics and a raid is at a severe disadvantage.
Rogues and doors: No Rogue and can't pass certain locked doors. --> Seb and Ssra
Chanters and Rathe: Not enougth chanter, can't kill rathe.

In my opinion, EQ has been moving into a direction where there is on average 3 classes that can fill any vital role and that is a good thing. People have a hard enougth time forming xp groups, why make it harder by forcing them to get certain classes.

[Goretzu]

Actually, one of the first things I talked about in this thread was the need for monks to have a unique role: they can't be an excellent DPS class or the rogues will have a fit, if they have the ability to take a few hits, hybrids kick up a fuss. This goes back to my EQ/WoW comparison: there are fundamentally too many classes in EQ, and not enough roles for them. Any sort of creative fix for monks will certaintly incite riots amongst some other class.

That's the problem for monks, and the reason why they'll probably never be fixed now, I think.

There's no where left for them to expand/excel without stepping on somone else's toe (it's similar for Bersekers as well).

It's difficult to see where you can boost monks without someone screaming blue murder! :)

[TerjynPovar]

The first implies it was a bonus that was given and then just taken away (which it wasn't it was designed and as intended and indeed FUNCTIONED as intended for a very long time) and then removed.

Just because it was intended and lasted a long time does NOT mean it was not a bonus.

What else would you call putting someone in leather on a plate class table?  How can you not think of this as a bonus?

If Beastlords were suddenly put on the plate table, what would you call this?  This is clearly NOT a nerf...and you'd refuse to call this a bonus, so what would you call it?

[Goretzu]

Quote:
The first implies it was a bonus that was given and then just taken away (which it wasn't it was designed and as intended and indeed FUNCTIONED as intended for a very long time) and then removed.

Just because it was intended and lasted a long time does NOT mean it was not a bonus.

What else would you call putting someone in leather on a plate class table? How can you not think of this as a bonus?

If Beastlords were suddenly put on the plate table, what would you call this? This is clearly NOT a nerf...and you'd refuse to call this a bonus, so what would you call it?

That's just IT.

Monks were NOT 'put on a plate (mitigation) table', as you say.

They were on a MONK mitigation table (probably more correctly a pure melee mitigation table), nothing to do with 'bonuses'.
That it was the same or similar to other classes does NOT make it a 'bonus' when it was the DESIGNED and INTENDED level of mitigation FOR the monk class.

Also the whole 'plate', 'chain', 'leather' mitigaiton thing is largely an invention of fairly recent times (although not as recent as the 'monk mitigation bonus' :)).




Yes, if Beastlords were suddenly PUT on to the current plate mitigation table that would BE a BONUS.


However IF Beastlords were designed 5 years+ ago to have that mitigation and then it was nerfed for other reasons, then NO that mitigaiton would NOT be 'bonus', only nerfed mitigation.



It's very clear, I don't see how people can have so much trouble understanding this very simple concept.



As I said it's like murder and manslaughter, both end up with a dead body, but the motivation, causes and concequences are very different.