The Beastlords' Den

Everquest 1 => The Campfire => Topic started by: Razimir on July 04, 2004, 02:10:46 PM

Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Razimir on July 04, 2004, 02:10:46 PM
IIRC there has been several discussion about this topic. Anyone who can point out me one? One of our guild monk claimed that bazaar geared bst out tanked (damage mitigation wise) him in BoT (Time/Ikkinz geared monk). They both had maxed defencive AAs etc. The statement was based on cleric word: 'bst needed less healing' and monk's claim that monks got 200 - 300 ac penalty which bsts doesn't have. I can't believe the statement. I think, the consensus on BST board is that Monk vs. BST damage mitigation is equal? I'd appreciate if anyone got parsed info about the topic.

-Raz
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Choppin on July 04, 2004, 03:55:00 PM
the only explanation I can give is that the bst slowed and the monk could not, thus the cleric had to heal the bst less... if anything I think we take more damage vs unslowed
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Vidyne on July 04, 2004, 04:39:52 PM
Who was slower when the monk was tanking?
If it was a shaman/enchanter, some usually dont slow til around 90% or even 80%, this alone will cause the monk to need more healing.

Most beasts I know, pull with slow, and it usually lands... as you can see, this alone would make up for alot of the difference....
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Bengali on July 04, 2004, 04:42:10 PM
The Steel Warrior has some tanking parses: http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5868

Monks came out ahead of beastlords when both had Time gear, so I can't see how a bazaar bst could outtank a Time one.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Tastian on July 04, 2004, 04:47:07 PM
http://p201.ezboard.com/fmonklybusiness43508frm2.showMessage?topicID=1259.topic

Is a parse of a bunch of different classes.  Beastlords take more damage than all but pure casters.  What WEAPONS were being used?  There's a huge difference between a fully defensive AA'd beastlord with 15% double attack using a SoFW and a monk with max offensive AAs and rapid strikes, etc DW'n 20 delay weapons.  Ripostes can make a huge differance againist already slowed mobs.  

I'm simply going to say the cleric was wrong.  If nothing else the monk should have had tons more hps and had much more efficent CH's landing on him.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Razimir on July 04, 2004, 04:55:40 PM
Slow thing was the one I was thinking of too. Monk used prolly SoT, dunno about the beasty. Thanks for pointing out parses.

-Raz
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 04, 2004, 05:14:42 PM
Gotta love parses, especialy when a druid takes less damage then a beastlord! :P

I'm not exactly where I saw it but I once saw that monks mitigation was parsed to be equal or above chain class mitigation. So from a mitigation point of view a monk should take a lot less damage compared to a beastlord who is on leather class mitigation.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 04, 2004, 05:22:00 PM
QuoteThe statement was based on cleric word: 'bst needed less healing'

You should have slapped your guildmate immediately after he said that.  :wink:

You cannot, repeat cannot, derive any conclusions from that statement. The amount of healing you need isnt equal to damage mitigation, its equal to the mobs dps, and depends on
1) your avoidance
2) your mitigation
3) mob being slowed, and what slow%
4) mobs getting stunned part of the time
Here's the thing: #3 and #4 have by far the biggest effect on the mob's dps. When you're gonna do a class comparison, you have to eliminate any variation in 3 and 4, as was done in the parses linked in the replies before me. Once you're looking at pure avoidance and mitigation, monks beat BSTs hands down.


Quoteand monk's claim that monks got 200 - 300 ac penalty which bsts doesn't have.

Rubbish. Monks do not get a AC penalty. They used to have a mitigation bonus instead of a penalty, and it was that bonus that was removed. All leather classes mitigate the same, all chain classes mitigate the same, and all plate classes except warriors who get a bonus mitigate the same.

/hugs
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Yllandra on July 04, 2004, 07:46:09 PM
Another thought would be our warders.Was the warder on the monk's mob? Or just the beasts mob? Relic does help a bit =p In one of my recent guilds, a ranger was complaining the same thing, that a beast with less ac than him could tank better than him. I pointed out the warder, and he said "oh... I didn't realize that" heh.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Tastian on July 04, 2004, 07:54:13 PM
Hehe I can't help but chime back in here real fast.  "Bst needed less healing" is such a low information statement.  Maybe you weren't killing as fast, maybe beastlord was slowing mobs different, maybe monk had krieger and beastlord had a lesser.  

Seriously though in a spot like BoT you have no problem CH'n.  Most clerics "might" get 3-4k (ish) Ch's on a bazaar geared beastlord beastlord.  On a time monk you could easily get 7k CH's in a spot like that if you wanted.  Just the extra hps of the monk alone give him a huge edge in healing efficency in that situation.  Not to mention mend.  If monk really did have an SoT that's even less healing needed for the monk.  

Basically what it comes down to is even if the cleric were right in eyeballing the fact he was healing the beastlord less there's still over a dozen different variables that could account for that situation happening.  However, standing in front of the same unslowable/unstunable mob AA for AA, gear for gear the monk will take less damage.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Eatbugs on July 04, 2004, 11:17:43 PM
QuoteThe statement was based on cleric word: 'bst needed less healing'

Very funny stuff.  I run into this misconception fairly often - because I do normally need less healing than Monks.  Why?  Because I slow mobs on incoming.  In general, if a Monk is tanking the mob hasn't been slowed yet - if it has been slowed, the Monk generally doesn't have enough aggro to be tanking until the mob is about 1/3 down in health.

So yes, I tank 65% slowed mobs much better than Monks tank unslowed mobs.  :P
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Tabytha on July 05, 2004, 12:43:05 AM
Being that the monk has higher offence skills like duel wield and double attack....especially double attack, wouldnt that meen that they are swinging there weapons alot more then us hence taking more riposts then us, hence taking more hits then us, hence needing more healing?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Namog on July 05, 2004, 02:00:02 AM
I have parsed in the past and Monks/BSTs actually do about similar dps. (Note: When i say BST I include warder, BST, spells, etc)

I have elemental gear and parse around 150sh..about the same as other monks with similar gear/AAs.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Bananea on July 05, 2004, 05:03:14 AM
I was the beastlord used in Iamthep's parsing, this was directly after I had returned to the game after like 3 quarm kills. The druid was a VERY well equipped druid and had about 3 months of Time gear on me.

Anyways, your cleric was wrong.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 05, 2004, 02:56:36 PM
From: http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5868
QuoteSo if we look at this we see that warrior > monk > Paladin > shadow knight > ranger > rogue > beast > cleric > shaman > druid.

I have a question for Bananea. Was this before or after they nerfed Monk Mitigation. Because that parse shows that monks take less damage than Paladins  and that we come dead last among melees. If this is after the monk mitigation nerf any monk claiming bsts tank better has no ground to stand on.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Bengali on July 05, 2004, 04:56:06 PM
It was after.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 06, 2004, 01:30:46 AM
It was over a year after.

Monk Mitigation nerf went live October 16th, 2002...a day which will live in infamy (Will they ever stop whining about it?  Inquiring minds want to know.)

I wish they'd done these parses pre-nerf so the monks would realize that it wasn't really cool that they outtanked everybody except defensive warriors, so they'd shut up about it.

Wonder how many hours it'll be before a monk pops his head in and calls me a liar.  My bet is on 3 hours tops.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Eatbugs on July 06, 2004, 03:10:04 AM
I'm going to call you a liar right now!

Well, not really.  Nerfing Monk mitigation across the board when the problem was itemization was a silly way to handle it, though.  The best-geared Monks (the ones the nerf was aimed at, the only ones who had the AC to out-tank Warriors) felt the least effect from it, while the mid-to-lower geared Monk was toast.  

All in all, it wasn't a terribly successful (or intelligent) way to handle the problem.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Vidyne on July 06, 2004, 03:13:24 AM
My hearing was they outtanked everyone, that like you said... only a Warrior WHILE in defensive, could outtank a monk.  That with the release of high AC in Velious, Monks attained AC equal to Warriors, and since all defense was done the same, Monk had same AC as warrior + higher block/dodge/etc....
So monk tanked better than anything, except a warrior in defensive.


I know 2-3 monks that are ele geared and by FAR outtank me in a group.
I know a Ranger that outtanks me, so Monks better not be saying we outtank them in baz gear while they are in time.
The Truth probably is that like has been said here... the bst was slowing on inc, while the Monk had his mob slowed around 90% or less, thus giving him 7-8 more hits on him id say, then the bst.

Cleric probably saw this as the monk mitigating less..  Monk's HP drops 50% in first few seconds, and bsts's only drops to 80%.  What the cleric probably didnt see was the Bst's mob was slowed.

Just my opinion.. /shrug, *goes back to playing*

Truth of the matter is, that a Warrior's hp is even going to drop faster than a Bst's on an unslowed mob vs a slowed one.
Slow is an awfully powerful tool....
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 06, 2004, 06:27:40 AM
QuoteWell, not really. Nerfing Monk mitigation across the board when the problem was itemization was a silly way to handle it, though. The best-geared Monks (the ones the nerf was aimed at, the only ones who had the AC to out-tank Warriors) felt the least effect from it, while the mid-to-lower geared Monk was toast.

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.
Before beastlords came into existence, monks were pretty a much a class on their own when it came to gear. Most of their armor was silk, not leather. Wu's fighting armor (total AC of the whole set: 54) was considered good for a casual monk. As a result, monks were so far behind the other melees that they got chewed up by mobs, so SOE threw them a a bone in the form of a mitigation bonus.
When Luclin came out, itemization for monks changed drastically. All leather has been DRU MNK BST since then, and there was a large number of ALL/ALL gear with high AC for the high-end players. It was still difficult for a casual player to reach the soft cap back then, but monks really caught up with the other melees during SoL. And when PoP came out, AC took another leap for everyone, letting more and more monks reach the soft cap for AC in xp groups, where they still had the benefit of their mitigation bonus that other classes didnt have.
Today, even casual monks/bsts can easily obtain 1100AC which is enough to tank in any xp group outside GoD. High-end leather classes are well over 1600AC. When SOE nerfed the monks mitigation they knew that this day would come sooner rather then later. Even casual monks had already caught up with other casual melees due to the new itemization so there was no more need for the mitigation bonus at all.

/hugs
Title: :(
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 12:58:23 PM
QuoteWhile 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.

And was paid for in reguard to a VERY tight weight limit.

A limit which is still in force despite the fact itemisation has been re-adjusted AND the monk AC bonus now doesn't exist (it shows the numbers, but in reality does nothing).

And it was an AC bonus, not the same thing that warriors currently have at all.  Go over weight and the AC bonus was reduced.


QuoteBefore beastlords came into existence, monks were pretty a much a class on their own when it came to gear. Most of their armor was silk, not leather. Wu's fighting armor (total AC of the whole set: 54) was considered good for a casual monk. As a result, monks were so far behind the other melees that they got chewed up by mobs, so SOE threw them a a bone in the form of a mitigation bonus.


Please stop with this silly changing of EQ history.

Please go to a monk site and ask WHEN the monk AC bonus appeared.

You're just making this up to support your own suprious conlusions.


Wu's armour didn't appear until just before Luclin, long, looooooong after Original EQ, Kunark and even Velious (only the boots and maybe cloak were considered great, in all other slots something better was readily avalibile for the casual monk).

The monk AC bonus has been in as long as the monk weight limit (do you know how long THAT has been in ;)).

Please stop talking out of your posterior.


QuoteWhen Luclin came out, itemization for monks changed drastically. All leather has been DRU MNK BST since then, and there was a large number of ALL/ALL gear with high AC for the high-end players. It was still difficult for a casual player to reach the soft cap back then, but monks really caught up with the other melees during SoL. And when PoP came out, AC took another leap for everyone, letting more and more monks reach the soft cap for AC in xp groups, where they still had the benefit of their mitigation bonus that other classes didnt have.

The monk migagtion nerf took place BEFORE PoP (about 2-3 weeks before release of PoP actually).

PoP gear also REDUCED monk AC (although upgraded most everyone else) if they upgraded from old gear to PoP gear of a similar level.

And it was PoP gear that really introduced the '1 size fits all' concept, which resulted in some case with monks having more Wis and +mana on their gear than Sta and hitpoints  :shock: (wis and mana having NO use for monks, but Sta and hitpoints still being very useful for BT's and Druids).

Luclin was the nadir of high AC all/all gear and high AC monk gear.



Will you please STOP with your blantently WRONG misinformation, it's silly.




If you're worried about monks, use data, just making up incorrect nonsense like this is pointless. :(
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 06, 2004, 02:21:03 PM
Sooooo predictable  :roll:
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 02:22:47 PM
And yet which of us is RIGHT. ;)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 02:25:59 PM
Indeed have I said above that the mitigation nerf was wrong?

Or that it should be repealled?

Nope.

All I've done is pointed out the fallicies in your nonsense. :)


Say what you want, just get it RIGHT.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 06, 2004, 02:40:23 PM
Funny that you should mention data instead of making up nonsense G, aren't you the guy that so desperately refuses to accept the parsed results from your own monk community? Who send me pm after pm with ridiculous notions on how bad monks take damage compared to bsts?

Maybe i should publish the contents of those pm's here and then we'll have a talk about who's spewing nonsense and misinformation?

As anyone here can testify, i always base my statements on actual data, and not the 'cleric needs less mana when bst tanks' kind of data either, but real data.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 06, 2004, 03:20:35 PM
Goretzu is half right one one point. PoP did not universaly raise ACs for all clases. It did for Chain and Plate but compared to Luclin, Silk and Leather have stayed the same or dropped a bit.

This has brought Monks more inline with other leather classes AC wise. I see no problem with that.

I'm tempted to ask Corp to air Goretzu's dirty laundry but that would not be polite.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 03:35:10 PM
QuoteFunny that you should mention data instead of making up nonsense G, aren't you the guy that so desperately refuses to accept the parsed results from your own monk community? Who send me pm after pm with ridiculous notions on how bad monks take damage compared to bsts?

Maybe i should publish the contents of those pm's here and then we'll have a talk about who's spewing nonsense and misinformation?

As anyone here can testify, i always base my statements on actual data, and not the 'cleric needs less mana when bst tanks' kind of data either, but real data.


I'm not questioning your parsing am I?
Only your incorrect assertations in that post (none of which I notice you've corrected me on), because they are plain wrong.





If you really want to get into personal attacks instead of facts, well that my freind is up to you, but if that's just your best rebutal of what I said above well..... whatever.  :roll:
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 03:40:54 PM
QuoteGoretzu is half right one one point. PoP did not universaly raise ACs for all clases. It did for Chain and Plate but compared to Luclin, Silk and Leather have stayed the same or dropped a bit.



Aneya if I'm wrong fair enough, I'm wrong, but all that I pointed out with Coprolith's statments was as far as I am aware and remember incorrect.


There's a lot of decent arguements against buffing monk mitigation in this thread, but that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to just state incorrect things like they were fact to further justify it. :(


If monk mitigation is fine then the facts (and data) should be enough, no need to further embellish things IMO. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 04:02:47 PM
QuoteQuote:
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.  


And was paid for in reguard to a VERY tight weight limit.

A limit which is still in force despite the fact itemisation has been re-adjusted AND the monk AC bonus now doesn't exist (it shows the numbers, but in reality does nothing).

And it was an AC bonus, not the same thing that warriors currently have at all. Go over weight and the AC bonus was reduced.

Is simply stating that monks had and have a tight weight limit, which was supposed to balance their AC bonus. (imo removing this weight limit might be an issue now).

And that the monk AC bonus was NOT like the current warrior one, it increased with level and was actual bonus mitigation AC, which would be reduced by going over the weight limit (it still does for that matter only since the mitigation nerf it no longer exists apart from as pretty numbers on your AC screen - just as it would if suddenly BL's got +200 displayed AC that actually did nothing).



QuoteQuote:
Before beastlords came into existence, monks were pretty a much a class on their own when it came to gear. Most of their armor was silk, not leather. Wu's fighting armor (total AC of the whole set: 54) was considered good for a casual monk. As a result, monks were so far behind the other melees that they got chewed up by mobs, so SOE threw them a a bone in the form of a mitigation bonus.  



Please stop with this silly changing of EQ history.

Please go to a monk site and ask WHEN the monk AC bonus appeared.

You're just making this up to support your own suprious conlusions.


Wu's armour didn't appear until just before Luclin, long, looooooong after Original EQ, Kunark and even Velious (only the boots and maybe cloak were considered great, in all other slots something better was readily avalibile for the casual monk).

The monk AC bonus has been in as long as the monk weight limit (do you know how long THAT has been in ).

Please stop talking out of your posterior.

This idea that monks were 'given' a mitigation bonus late in the game (they were given slightly higher damage tables, yes), and then it was that mitigation bonus that was then taken away (with the implication that something was just removed when it was no longer needed).

Nice idea IF you want to justify nerfing monks, but just not true I'm afriad.

The monk AC bonus has been as intergral to the class as the weight penalty and indeed the intial large skill bonus monks always enjoyed in the orginal L1-50 game.


QuoteQuote:
When Luclin came out, itemization for monks changed drastically. All leather has been DRU MNK BST since then, and there was a large number of ALL/ALL gear with high AC for the high-end players. It was still difficult for a casual player to reach the soft cap back then, but monks really caught up with the other melees during SoL. And when PoP came out, AC took another leap for everyone, letting more and more monks reach the soft cap for AC in xp groups, where they still had the benefit of their mitigation bonus that other classes didnt have.  


The monk migagtion nerf took place BEFORE PoP (about 2-3 weeks before release of PoP actually).

PoP gear also REDUCED monk AC (although upgraded most everyone else) if they upgraded from old gear to PoP gear of a similar level.

And it was PoP gear that really introduced the '1 size fits all' concept, which resulted in some case with monks having more Wis and +mana on their gear than Sta and hitpoints  (wis and mana having NO use for monks, but Sta and hitpoints still being very useful for BT's and Druids).

Luclin was the nadir of high AC all/all gear and high AC monk gear.


The monk mitigation nerf took place BEFORE PoP, NOT after.  Monks already HAD nerfed mitigation by the time PoP went live, not after as was stated.

PoP gear did reduce monk AC (and hitpoints mostly) IF you went from the same level pre-PoP gear to PoP gear.  Which led to a lot of monks clinging to old gear until the really high end PoP gear was found.  By that time of course Warriors etc. had a good 400-500 AC gap over and above similarly geared monks.
It did NOT increase monk AC in actual terms, or indeed in relative terms when higher end gear was found.




That's all correct and true IMO and I was just setting the record straight.
I'm not saying anything else.





In fact if anything I think Coprolith's data and reasoning has conviced me that re-increasing monk mitigation is NOT the way forward for monks in EQ.
(but that doesn't mean he's right about the above.  :P )
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Dummkopf on July 06, 2004, 04:08:44 PM
While it is correct that ac for leather classes stayed the same or even declined a bit if you compare VT loot with Elemental you have to take into account that vt was the final zone and eles are not. With time gear available your average monk ac will be higher than it was in vt gear, and those zones are on par as far as progression goes. It is pretty easy to reach 1600-1700 ac with pop gear alone, my old lucling monk didnt reach that. Even better, with time gear you get shielding and avoidance, both boost mitigation and damage avoidance directly and have a nice impact on the ability to tank.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 06, 2004, 04:21:51 PM
Yep that's true to some degree.

But equally it's true of all classes and of mudflation throughout the expansions (some of the bazaar gear droping for BL's in GoD is true amazing).

But relatively warriors etc. have progressed just as much or more.  
Uber monks no longer have AC at Uber warrior levels, and even IF they did, the soft caps aren't the same (and indeed monks seem to have an AC soft cap as well if you look at the parses).


To suggest that PoP came out and monks instantly had better AC is wrong (never mind the mitigation nerf that happened just before it making it irlevenet anyway), for gear of directly comparable and achieve able level it dropped, but yes once high end gear was found of course monks eventually past their old AC, but only in newer high end gear, but equally relatively almost all other classes were doing this to a greater extent.





The suggestion that PoP made the monk issue WORSE (i.e. more unbalanced in the monks favour) is what I'm taking issue with, it didn't.


Never mind that the mitigation nerf happened before, not after.  Even discounting that PoP mobs, encounters and itemisation fixed most of the monk mitigation issues in new content and with new gear.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: a_moss_snake_001 on July 06, 2004, 04:41:20 PM
Both classes can obtain high AC, both classes have relatively high avoidance. I presume the soft AC cap for both classes is approx the same.

Monks have slightly higher base HP
Monks have slightly higher skill caps on avoidance skills

From the parsed data I would actually say Monks are in a decent position in the tanking foodchain even with their actual damage mitigation being low. IMHO: Avoidance > Dmg Mitigation.

Monks are not tanks, Beastlords are not tanks. Why is this even an issue for them? Be happy in your role.

The only thing that amuses me is that Rogues (a melee class with far more utility) consistently outdamage monks by a very large margin.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 06, 2004, 05:17:25 PM
Dummkopf, Luclin still provides the highest ac for monks in several slots. This of course doesn't mean best equipment, just highest ac.

Yttrium Wrapped Sleeves ac35 seru
Crimson Runed Mask ac 50 VT
Shadow Footpads ac 30 VT
Do`Vassir's Gauntlets of Might ac 40 NToV
Great Helm of True Vision ac 45 Ssra
Leggings of the Fiery Star ac 60 VT
Flayed Barbarian Skin Leggings ac 60 KD
etc.

With the exception of rings neck and earrings, PoP armor has 5 or more AC less than Luclin or Velious. But that is neither here nor there.

Goretzu if you are willing to discuss things without making inflamitory remarks I'm willing to debate your points.

From: http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5868
QuoteCLS  AC    SHLD AVD  DB   DI    AVG    MIT%  ATKS  HIT%  MISS% BLK% DDG% PRY% RIP% | DMG
MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
*MNK This is where I took 35000 copper to remove all monk AC bonus and tanked. It removed 219ac from my monk. Was it mitigation AC or avoidance AC or both? No one knows.

You claim that the monk AC bonus is just eye candy and has no effect. So I ask you. How do you refute the above parse which shows that the AC bonus clearly has an effect even while over softcap?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Khayden on July 06, 2004, 05:48:26 PM
QuotePoP gear did reduce monk AC (and hitpoints mostly) IF you went from the same level pre-PoP gear to PoP gear.

That seems a pretty non sensical statement since if gear had less AC AND HP you would be pretty silly to downgrade to it.

Vulak quality loot doesn't drop until you're up to the higher ssra mobs level in luclin.
VT Quality loot doesn't drop until tier 3+ mobs in PoP.
Time quality loot doesn't drop until well into GoD.

Expansions (those with raid content anyhow) have always overlapped in terms of loot quality, ie you won't replace the very best stuff from one expansion until mid way through the next one.  Equipment with both more HP and AC than VT wasn't all available from day 1 of PoP, but it hasn't been in any other expansion either.

HP became much more important to relative to AC for all classes except maybe tanks in PoP due to AEs on raid mobs and a huge increase in mob dps.  The change from the old "endurance marathons" of Luclin to the burn style of PoP was probably made to counter the huge power increases players got through level 65 and PoP AAs, and also to make encounters a bit more fun.  I think PoP itemisation switched the bias to HP>all to complement the style of fighting they were introducing.

If monks got mitigation nerfed just before PoP (have no idea when it was) then yes it would have seemed very harsh when looking at how hard PoP mobs hit compared to luclin ones.  But then monks were never meant to tank and SoE had to take a longer term view of it.

Monks could use a dps upgrade though IMO.

Khayden
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Felidae on July 06, 2004, 06:49:33 PM
Monk mitigation vs Bst mitigation.... to me there is some apples vs oranges here. The Beastlord cant FD (ultimate mitigation ;-)  and the monk prolly has no pet which can allow the bst to step back in a pinch.  And then the slowing issue...
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 06, 2004, 06:56:18 PM
Quote from: EatbugsI'm going to call you a liar right now!

Well, not really.  Nerfing Monk mitigation across the board when the problem was itemization was a silly way to handle it, though.  The best-geared Monks (the ones the nerf was aimed at, the only ones who had the AC to out-tank Warriors) felt the least effect from it, while the mid-to-lower geared Monk was toast.  

All in all, it wasn't a terribly successful (or intelligent) way to handle the problem.

I totally agree with this sentiment 100%.  They didn't handle it brightly.  And it went overboard.  But I'm pretty tired of hearing monks talk about how it was totally uncalled for.

I don't know what/how I would have fixed the problem honestly, which is one reason why I cannot necessarily quibble with it.  If they'd left it alone, Itemization would have made it go away for high end content, but why would it make sense for Monks to outtank even warriors against anything they had Soft-Capped even to this day?

And, funny enough, Goretzu was exactly who I was thinking of when I said a monk would step in and call me a liar.  Rather, he just ignored me...aww shucks.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 06, 2004, 08:52:04 PM
Goretzu, you keep trying to change the subject back to trivialities which you also completely distort, just like you've done before. It seems like the only 'data' you know anything about are calender data.

As for example
- You replied:
QuotePlease stop with this silly changing of EQ history.

Please go to a monk site and ask WHEN the monk AC bonus appeared.

You're just making this up to support your own suprious conlusions.

Wu's armour didn't appear until just before Luclin, long, looooooong after Original EQ, Kunark and even Velious

to this piece of text of mine:
QuoteBefore beastlords came into existence, monks were pretty a much a class on their own when it came to gear. Most of their armor was silk, not leather. Wu's fighting armor (total AC of the whole set: 54) was considered good for a casual monk. As a result, monks were so far behind the other melees that they got chewed up by mobs, so SOE threw them a a bone in the form of a mitigation bonus.

to which i reply: yes, thank you, im well aware when and where Wu's was put in. The only timeframe i gave was 'Before beastlords came into existence', i.e. before Luclin. I was merely pointing out how badly monks needed the bonus pre-Luclin. Monks were more of a silk class then a leather class.

- You also replied:
QuoteThe monk migagtion nerf took place BEFORE PoP (about 2-3 weeks before release of PoP actually).

PoP gear also REDUCED monk AC (although upgraded most everyone else) if they upgraded from old gear to PoP gear of a similar level.

And it was PoP gear that really introduced the '1 size fits all' concept, which resulted in some case with monks having more Wis and +mana on their gear than Sta and hitpoints  (wis and mana having NO use for monks, but Sta and hitpoints still being very useful for BT's and Druids).

to this:
QuoteWhen Luclin came out, itemization for monks changed drastically. All leather has been DRU MNK BST since then, and there was a large number of ALL/ALL gear with high AC for the high-end players. It was still difficult for a casual player to reach the soft cap back then, but monks really caught up with the other melees during SoL. And when PoP came out, AC took another leap for everyone, letting more and more monks reach the soft cap for AC in xp groups, where they still had the benefit of their mitigation bonus that other classes didnt have.

No, it was VT that introduced the one-size fits all. The problem with monks tanking too well already occurred at the end of the Luclin era, and it was clear at the time of PoP's release it would only grow further. I'm well aware that Oct 16 2002 is just before PoP's release. I also know that PoP had already been playtested for weeks and that the effect that PoP would have on monk tanking ability was well known at the time. Maybe the high-end monks lost some AC but they were well above the soft cap anyway. If they lost any AC at all, they gladly sacrificed it for the hp's they got in return. On top of that, the new AA skills LR and ID would put monks even further ahead of the pack.
You think the devs just came up with the idea of nerfing monks on a friday afternoon after a few too many beers or something? They don't make such a serious change on a whim. They, and everyone but the monk community, could see things needed to change at that particular time.


As for spreading misinformation:
You keep saying that the nerf involved removing an AC bonus and that im making the mitigation bonus up. Let's get one thing straightened out shall we:
Monks did not have an AC bonus removed on Oct 16 2002; their listed AC did not suddenly take a dive. The simple fact is that all leather classes mitigate the same way today; if you had 200 meaningless AC points listed in the UI (or whatever the number is) this would not be the case. A 1000 AC monk does not mitigate like a 800AC beastlord, that difference would be huge and show up instantly (200AC in this range gives changes in mitigation of 30 to 40 percent). In contrast, a 1500 AC monk would have noticed only 1 or 2 percent effect of the nerf because he'd still be above the softcap at 1300AC. Now that would have been injustice; the wrong people would have gotten hit hardest.
But nothing's been altered to the way AC works for monks. Monks got nerfed in their mitigation. That's not the same thing as AC. AC makes very little difference once you're past the AC soft cap, but a mitigation bonus does, and its this mitigation bonus that gave monks an unfair advantage compared to the other classes. And since monks still mitigate the same way as the other two leather classes, you can only conclude that they must have had a bonus to their mitigation, not AC, pre-nerf

That -200AC number, i don't know where it comes from but i can guess. It was parsed out as the equivalent change in AC that would give the same mitigation decrease by someone who was already at or above the soft cap. That number has then started to lead its own life, with people forgetting where it actually came from and what the boundary conditions for the number are.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Eatbugs on July 07, 2004, 05:07:51 AM
Hm, a point from your last post, Coprolith:

QuoteAC makes very little difference once you're past the AC soft cap

True as far at goes, but the AC soft cap is not a stationary target.  My understanding is that it varies with mob atk - which means additional AC can start making a big difference again if you're fighting mobs with higher atk. (Please correct me if I'm wrong - I stopped reading much about it a year or two ago, and my understanding therefore relies on some half-remembered parses from the Steel Warrior forums.) Those Time and GoD geared Warriors with 2k+ AC are getting full benefit from much of it, if they're tanking mobs that are a challenge to them.  The "AC soft cap" was a real issue in Kunark and Velious (and top end Velious-era Monks had reached it and exceeded it) - it's a much more situational issue now, and had already started to be that way at the time of the nerf.

The problem with the nerf (and I suspect the reason they eventually adjusted Monk mitigation upward again) was that at the same time they were nerfing Monk mitigation, they were fixing the itemization problem - Leather classes in PoP and GoD no longer have close to the AC of similarly-geared Plate classes, (even given the Monk AC bonus) and the AC soft cap is considerably higher in PoP and GoD than it was in Velious.

Applying a major across-the-board fix (one obviously intended to quiet the screaming from the plate classes) at the same time as a long term class-situational fix was going in was a mistake, and one they eventually had to correct somewhat for decent melee balance.

On the other hand, whining endlessly about it now that it's been readjusted to reasonable levels (Monks are tanking pretty well in parses these days) is a bit obsessive.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: rigeld on July 07, 2004, 08:42:16 AM
Quote from: Aneya
From: http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5868
QuoteCLS  AC    SHLD AVD  DB   DI    AVG    MIT%  ATKS  HIT%  MISS% BLK% DDG% PRY% RIP% | DMG
MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
*MNK This is where I took 35000 copper to remove all monk AC bonus and tanked. It removed 219ac from my monk. Was it mitigation AC or avoidance AC or both? No one knows.

You claim that the monk AC bonus is just eye candy and has no effect. So I ask you. How do you refute the above parse which shows that the AC bonus clearly has an effect even while over softcap?

Or, you can quote the entire table,

[code:1]CLS  AC    SHLD AVD  DB   DI    AVG    MIT%  ATKS  HIT%  MISS% BLK% DDG% PRY% RIP% | DMG
WAR  2271  15%  0    87   21    223.3  71.1  2573  48.9  42.2  NA   4.2  5.9  5.3  | 109.2
WAR  1380  0%   0    102  21    273.2  64.5  1854  48.1  43.1  NA   4.9  5.9  5.5  | 131.4
MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
MNK  1331  0%   0    102  22.1  317.4  54.0  2550  46.8  42.1  10.4 4.5  NA   4.4  | 148.4
MNK  1063  0%   0    102  22.1  344.4  52.5  2883  46.7  41.0  11.9 4.4  NA   4.6  | 160.8
RNG  1728  2%   10   100  22.1  292.1  59.5  2359  48.5  43.5  NA   4.2  6.0  4.0  | 141.7
RNG  1308  0%   0    102  22.1  316.4  54.2  2026  51.6  40.6  NA   3.6  5.6  4.0  | 163.3[/code:1]

The weighted down monk, that loses 200 AC, takes 4 DPS more.  A huge loss in AC for negligible damage difference.  In fact, the average hit goes up by 2, within the margin for error.  Basically, the 200 AC difference did absolutely nothing for this monk.  Grats him on spending DKP.


[code:1]MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
MNK  1331  0%   0    102  22.1  317.4  54.0  2550  46.8  42.1  10.4 4.5  NA   4.4  | 148.4
[/code:1]

I pulled those two lines out because the original poster of the parses made a point that a lot of people are missing about the monk AC softcap.  At 1331 AC, with no avoidance items, Brodda took an average hit of 317.4.  At 1854 AC with 60 avoidance, he took an average hit of 311.  Thats bazaar gear to Time+ gear.  From bazaar to time is a 6 hp average hit difference?

Lets look at warriors:

[code:1]WAR  2271  15%  0    87   21    223.3  71.1  2573  48.9  42.2  NA   4.2  5.9  5.3  | 109.2
WAR  1380  0%   0    102  21    273.2  64.5  1854  48.1  43.1  NA   4.9  5.9  5.5  | 131.4
[/code:1]

The Time+ warrior in the parse had 15% shielding, and took an average hit of 223.  The bazaar warrior (Im assuming not so greatly equipped.. my buddy who is a 58 pally in crappy gear is almost 1300 ac buffed) took 273 as an average hit.  Theres a difference worth pointing out.


Now, I guarantee someone will point at the DPS taken figures and say that monks tank as well as warriors.   The reason we dont is streakiness.  Anyone who has ever fought General Rapeme - errr Reparm knows that if the mob gets a lucky streak on a poorly resisting (or mitigating) tank, the tank is going down no matter what.  Healers dont like to heal a streaky tank.  Ive tanked for groups and had barely any healing for an hour or so, then WHAM 2 mobs in a row and the cleric is oom because I took so many max hits.


Quote from: CoprolithNo, it was VT that introduced the one-size fits all.

http://lucy.allakhazam.com/item.html?id=31385
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/item.html?id=31319
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/item.html?id=31318

And according to the people who wrote the game, it started before Kunark (from http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/articles.jsp?id=52118 )

QuoteThis, of course, caused its own series of problems of how to adequately reward the person behind the character.  It did not take long for universally equippable items (ALL/ALL items) to be considered by and large as "Monk Loot," as far back as before the launch of Kunark

BTW, according to that patch message, if monks are mitigating as well as beastlords, it needs to be fixed.  We should be with rangers and rogues.

QuoteWhat we are primarily striving for is maintaining the defensive order of the Plate classes being able to take the most punishment, followed by the Chain classes and Monks.


Quote from: CoprolithIn contrast, a 1500 AC monk would have noticed only 1 or 2 percent effect of the nerf because he'd still be above the softcap at 1300AC. Now that would have been injustice; the wrong people would have gotten hit hardest.

Wow.. youre serious?  The wrong people DID get hit the hardest.  I suggest you go
here (http://p201.ezboard.com/fmonklybusiness43508frm17.showMessage?topicID=801.topic) and read that thread.  The ubers barely noticed the nerf.  There are still some people who say "What nerf?"  People like me, who zone into a train in BoT and see 583 583 583 332 583 583 before I get control and FD noticed it.[/url]
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 07, 2004, 01:35:21 PM
QuoteBTW, according to that patch message, if monks are mitigating as well as beastlords, it needs to be fixed. We should be with rangers and rogues.

Quote
What we are primarily striving for is maintaining the defensive order of the Plate classes being able to take the most punishment, followed by the Chain classes and Monks.

The patch message speaks of the defensive order, not just mitigation. Defensive order to me is the combined effect of mitigation and avoidance (and possibly hps). According to the parses, monks (at least, monks in high end guilds) are still well above the chain classes to this very day and in fact equal to the knights (except for hps).


QuoteThe ubers barely noticed the nerf. There are still some people who say "What nerf?" People like me, who zone into a train in BoT and see 583 583 583 332 583 583 before I get control and FD noticed it
That thread you referred to doesnt say much. I see Absor stating that
QuoteRight now it seems to be having too much of an impact on Monks who aren't the top 5%. We'll be going back and looking into it some more.
but if there is a follow-up to that statement i can't find it the 8 pages of monk outrage that followed afterward, nor any data on the actual effects of the mitigation nerf on monks across the board. Quoting a string of max hits isnt very helpful. An ubermonk may still havent had many max hits after the nerf but that doesnt mean the average damage he took changed less then that of a casual monk. But unless SOE comes forth and gives the inside scoop there's no way to know exactly how the mitigation change was implemented because there are no detailed studies on it pre-nerf to compare with. It would not surprise me at all to learn that the way the change was implemented did indeed have a bigger impact on the 'bottom' 95% istead of the top 5%. Then again, since its been more then 1.5 years since that post and i have heard of a follow-up, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that after further testing the difference was imagined either.

/hugs
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Fibbs on July 07, 2004, 11:54:14 PM
I'll make this debate simple,

Parsing or not the base Monk defence skills are superior to a Beastlords in every way, these are further enhanced with AA's. If not the skills are not working as intended. Therefore something the monk community needs to raise with the devs not us.

To me parsing mitigation and defence is is a variable and a random based statistic. Meaning you can debate it till the cows come home.

Equipment will always tip the scales, this has been the case in ALL expansions right back to the relase of EQ. yes back then 20hp gear made the world of difference.

Skill of the player throws all that out the window......

If there is any class that needs a defensive boost its Rogues, but that's a debate for their boards not here.

Enjoy

Fibbs
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Kreseth on July 08, 2004, 01:18:43 AM
Rigeld, that parse shows that ac above the softcap against what I assume is the same mob, does next to nothing.  Obviously if that is the case then going from 1800+ac to 1600+ac by increasing weight & losing the monk defensive bonus you should see very little difference.  In other words, if I read that right, it doesn't prove a thing about monk defense.  Do a similar parse with someone at 1200ac dropping to 1000ac & see how it works out...then submit bugs if there is an issue.  BTW, adding 60 avoidance shouldn't change damage per hit, that's why it's avoidance.  Adding to mitigation would help in that area.  I noticed that, according the table, the monk parsed without the avoidance boost was hit about 46% of the time & the monk with only 41%...so again no problem if I'm reading the chart correctly.

--Kreseth
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 08, 2004, 06:16:18 AM
QuoteTo me parsing mitigation and defence is is a variable and a random based statistic. Meaning you can debate it till the cows come home.

Mitigation and avoidance are not variables, they are a function of your AC and defensive skill numbers, and governed by a strict set of mathematical rules. With proper parsing you can reduce the random variation to the point where you can see those equations. Discussing those parses is essential.

QuoteSkill of the player throws all that out the window......

Skill of the player has nothing to do with his mitigation or avoidance. The stupidest Ebayer mitigates just as well as the most seasoned veteran player if their gear is equal
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Banga on July 08, 2004, 08:36:47 AM
Skill in EQ?  Why are the people who can't understand statistics the same who believe there is skill in EQ?   EQ is not a skill based game, it is a statistical game.

EQ is the computer game equal of the card game War.   There are a few player controllable inputs, but those are very limited.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Hereki on July 08, 2004, 09:18:41 AM
Of course there is "skill" in EQ.  Skill is in choosing and managing your encounters according to your other known attributes.  To say that there is no skill is to misunderstand the game just as much as what you are criticising.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Elder Griksh on July 08, 2004, 11:23:55 AM
You have to remember that statistics can show or disprove anything you want them to, it's all about presentation of the data and sample sizes. For a solid conclusion to be drawn from all of the above analysis I think that further prasing needs to be done and not just on a level 65 monk with time gear, but right from a lower level.

By understanding the mechanisms that the game uses we can improve how we play the game and understand where we can make a difference. Talking about these finer points of the mathematics and statistics can show us where WE can make improvements and where SOE has/need to make improvement.

Yes EQ is a mathematical game based on statistics and probability, but at the same time as Hereki says, there is a Skill on how to best play those statistics and probabilities. By understanding how the game works, we as players improve because we understand the limits and constrains applied to our toons and therefore allow us to try new things.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 08, 2004, 02:35:45 PM
[code:1]
CLS  AC    SHLD AVD  DB   DI    AVG    MIT%  ATKS  HIT%  MISS% BLK% DDG% PRY% RIP% | DMG
WAR  2271  15%  0    87   21    223.3  71.1  2573  48.9  42.2  NA   4.2  5.9  5.3  | 109.2
WAR  1380  0%   0    102  21    273.2  64.5  1854  48.1  43.1  NA   4.9  5.9  5.5  | 131.4
MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
MNK  1331  0%   0    102  22.1  317.4  54.0  2550  46.8  42.1  10.4 4.5  NA   4.4  | 148.4
MNK  1063  0%   0    102  22.1  344.4  52.5  2883  46.7  41.0  11.9 4.4  NA   4.6  | 160.8
RNG  1728  2%   10   100  22.1  292.1  59.5  2359  48.5  43.5  NA   4.2  6.0  4.0  | 141.7
RNG  1308  0%   0    102  22.1  316.4  54.2  2026  51.6  40.6  NA   3.6  5.6  4.0  | 163.3
[/code:1]

Quote from: rigeld
The weighted down monk, that loses 200 AC, takes 4 DPS more. A huge loss in AC for negligible damage difference. In fact, the average hit goes up by 2, within the margin for error. Basically, the 200 AC difference did absolutely nothing for this monk.
You claim that an increase of 2 points on damage in average hits is withing the margin of error. Prove it. No where in the original post does he state that the margin of error is so large. In fact if the margin of error were so large the whole parse should be invalid.

If you did a straight line approximation between the following 3 lines, taking into accound additional shielding and avoidance, the values line up quite nicely. So I still maintain that 200 AC over softcap has an effect, despite a small one, on mitigation.

[code:1]MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
MNK  1331  0%   0    102  22.1  317.4  54.0  2550  46.8  42.1  10.4 4.5  NA   4.4  | 148.4[/code:1]

Sorry you fail to prove that AC has no effect, please try again.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 08, 2004, 04:33:59 PM
QuoteYou claim that an increase of 2 points on damage in average hits is withing the margin of error. Prove it. No where in the original post does he state that the margin of error is so large. In fact if the margin of error were so large the whole parse should be invalid.

Aneya, clearly you're not very knowledgeable about statistics theory otherwise you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. But fine, you want proof, you get proof. Basic statistics theory will give you the uncertainties for these parses. The samplesizes are given so there's nothing in the way of estimating the errors.
The 95% confidence interval of the hitratios for instance is 2*sqrt(p*(1-p)/N), with p the hitratio and N the number of attacks. At roughly 2500 attacks per test and an average p of ~0.45 that evaluates to roughly 2 percentpoints. I.e. when the warriors hitratio is listed as 48.9%, there's a 95% chance that the real hitratio lies between 46.9 and 50.9%.
What this means is that for the 2 warrior tests, the result 48.9% and 48.1% are not statistically different. The next two monk results, 41.1 and 42.0% are not statistically different. But the difference between warrior hitratio and monk hitratio is statistically speaking very significant.
The error in average damage is of the same order of magnitude as the hitratio. Althought you'd need to know the exact damage distribution to calculate it exactly, i can garantee you that it will in fact be around 3%. In other words, the 95% confidence interval of the average damage will be roughly within +/-9 pt from the listed values. This means there's no statistically significant difference between the values listed in the second table. Only when the monk drops to 1063AC (in the first table) do we see a significant change in the average damage.

To say that if the margin of error is so large it invalidates the whole parse is downright nonsense. Not seeing any significant change past the soft cap is an extremely important result by itself. In general it means you can  stop worrying about your AC and concentrate on other stats, but in this particular case it also means that the fact that all the classes parsed here have different AC values has no bearing on the class comparison whatsoever. You'd get the same results if all the classes had exactly the same AC, so no one can complain that the parses shown here aren't a fair representation of a class comparison above the AC soft cap


QuoteIf you did a straight line approximation between the following 3 lines, taking into accound additional shielding and avoidance, the values line up quite nicely. So I still maintain that 200 AC over softcap has an effect, despite a small one, on mitigation.

No one has claimed that AC has over the softcap has no effect, just that its statistically insignificant even within a sample of this size. You simply cannot prove that AC > soft cap has no effect, because you can never get infinite accuracy in a finite sample with random variation. You could proof there is effect if it showed up with statistical certainty in a larger sample size. Unfortunately, in order to get a statistically significant difference of 2 pts to show in a parse, you'd need to increase the sample size by about a factor 100. If parses of 250k samples per test are necessary to show a effect, then its safe to say that the change in mitigation for AC > soft cap can be considered to be negligible.

There's no point in doing a straight line approximation between the 3 points, because the uncertainty of the data will make the uncertainty in the slope and intercept of the straight line many times larger then the actual values themselves.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 08, 2004, 06:56:44 PM
Corp, I will admit I am no expert at statistics. What I was trying to do was to get these AC has no effects for monk people to provide irrefutable proof that their possition is correct. Their possition is that the change is statisticaly insignificant. Therefore. AC has no effect. In my opinion, they make an implication that is incorrect.

I like you have been argueing that it has a very small effect. However small the effect is, it is still non-zero. Therefor their argument that AC has NO EFFECT cannot possible be true.

There is a HUGE difference between non-zero and no effect. My beef is that monks have been saying that AC has no effect when in fact it does. If they really beleive that it has no effect they would not bother with ac over 1300 there is no need it has no effect.

Read the pro monk post carefully, unless they have edited them they still say either that AC over softcap has no effect or that they have 200 phantom ac that has no effect. They claim we spread lies and yet their statements are false too. If they were willing to say it has negligiable effect I would not argue with them.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 08, 2004, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: Goretzu
A limit which is still in force despite the fact itemisation has been
re-adjusted AND the monk AC bonus now doesn't exist (it shows the numbers, but
in reality does nothing).

Quote from: rigeld
Basically, the 200 AC difference did absolutely nothing for this monk.

Both these statements deal with absolutes. It is statements like these from the monk community that I have a problem with.

I know full well that a straight line approximation between 3 points is virtualy useless. It has as much validity as the previous two statements on AC. I was trying to bait them because I know they can't justify their statements.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Eatbugs on July 08, 2004, 07:27:35 PM
QuoteSkill in EQ? Why are the people who can't understand statistics the same who believe there is skill in EQ? EQ is not a skill based game, it is a statistical game.

I'm assuming you're either being ironic or you don't have a short list of people you'd rather group with.  (And a longer list of idiots you'll never group with again.)

Skill/game knowledge makes a fairly large difference in EQ.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 08, 2004, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: EatbugsSkill/game knowledge makes a fairly large difference in EQ.

True, but it's totally irrelevant to mitigation and avoidance, so can we please close this part of the discussion?

Quote from: AneyaHowever small the effect is, it is still non-zero. Therefor their argument that AC has NO EFFECT cannot possible be true.

Sorry Aneya but you're thinking too much in terms of proving or disproving and are thereby making an issue of something that's trivial. Nobody is trying to 'prove' that AC above the soft cap has no effect at all, and in fact this is impossible to prove this as i pointed out earlier. You are arguing with the pre-conception that it is absolutely certain that there is a effect, however small it may be, and according to the devs, that's true. But a statistical investigation should never be done with proof or disproof in mind, that way lies misinformation and general badness. You should do the measurements, apply the statistics to the data without any pre-conceptions of what the result should be, and only then you start drawing conclusions. If you follow the rules of statistics strictly then you're not allowed to say it either exist or not, only that the effect cannot be shown with statistical significance. But we'd never get anywhere if followed those rules strictly. That's like saying that it hasn't been proven that smoking is bad for your health. Strictly speaking thats correct, it has not been proven with 100.000000...% certainty. But its so extremely unlikely that smoking is not bad for your health that for all practical purposes it has been 'proven'.
The same applies here, when we say 'AC above the soft cap has no effect' it means 'AC above the soft cap has no significant effect' or 'for all practical purposes AC above the soft cap has been proven to have no effect'.

Really, you're seeing issues where none exist. "AC above the soft cap has no effect" is a good description of the effect of AC above the soft cap in these parses.

/hugs
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: feralize on July 08, 2004, 11:51:08 PM
Quote from: BangaSkill in EQ?  Why are the people who can't understand statistics the same who believe there is skill in EQ?   EQ is not a skill based game, it is a statistical game.

EQ is the computer game equal of the card game War.   There are a few player controllable inputs, but those are very limited.

Perhaps what you do in the game requires no skill but most of us like to challenge ourselves from time to time....
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Eatbugs on July 09, 2004, 12:40:46 AM
Quote from: Coprolithit's totally irrelevant to mitigation and avoidance, so can we please close this part of the discussion?

Agreed, I just hate watching that one pass by.

This thread has become a technical argument over how to interpret statistics, and I'm not qualified to argue much in that area.  It appears to me that recent parses of how much damage each class is taking overall with high end equipment are sufficiently long to support the view that Monks tank pretty well these days - the upgrade to their originally-nerfed mitigation looks like it was well calculated.  (Which is not to say that I think the original nerf was a good idea, or well done.)

Frankly, I see no problem with Monks tanking as well as the Knight classes, and I'm a former SK.  Monks are great at feigning off aggro, but while they can eventually get aggro through DPS, they make lousy tanks simply because they have no reliable way to instantly pull aggro.  Monk mitigation and avoidance is mainly used while pulling or accidentally grabbing aggro - I see no problem with them being able to tank well in those circumstances.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Noxdowne Draggout on July 09, 2004, 02:00:48 AM
I brought up AC a few months ago and I was reminded that Beastlords are not meant to be tanks.

So I looked into what we were supposed to be and when I figure that out I will try to let you all know.

We have crappy AC, we have average melee dps, we have a decent pet, we can slow and help with mana regen, we can stat buff to a point, we have shit for dots and nukes.

Am I complaining?

No actually I am not, I knew this before I made a Beastlord and the reason why I made one has rung true a hundred times over:

We can get groups anytime we feel like it because of our utility.

I wouldn't trade our utility for the ability to tank better than a monk, why would I?

If I wanted to be a great tank I would have been a warrior.

Yes I wish I had more AC for the times when I duo with my cleric buddy, but to make 3% aa exp per kill duoing compared with 5% experience per kill in PoEa......there just isn't much reason to want what the monks have in the form of tanking ability.

Nox

p/s I don't complain that my 4door family car doesn't accelerate or handle like a Porshe either.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Banga on July 09, 2004, 03:37:05 AM
Let me expand a bit more on my "skill" definition.  EQ is dumbed down so someone with little skill is not at a major disadvantage to someone who has skill.  IE:  Nerfs.  You develop a strategy using your tools at hand to beat a developers sense of how an encounter should be done, and they change the encounter or your class.   This is a constant in the MMRPG realm.  

I would consider a game like chess to be pure skill and at one extreme.  I would consider a games in the RTS genre like Starcraft to require a lot of skill.    FPS games such as counterstrike or planetside require skill.   EQ "skill" is more based upon time spent developing your character and farming items.  Following the leader.   Doing a bit of reading and staying up to date on your class and the encounter.     No true gamer considers online MMRPG's to require much skill.  

Sorry to burst your bubbles guys.

Cop btw you're a genious.   You guys attempting to argue with him, you're WAY WAY WAY out of your league.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Eatbugs on July 09, 2004, 05:30:53 AM
QuoteEQ "skill" is more based upon time spent developing your character and farming items. Following the leader. Doing a bit of reading and staying up to date on your class and the encounter. No true gamer considers online MMRPG's to require much skill.

I'll take my rant on this topic to the rants forum and leave it out of this thread.  :P
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 09, 2004, 08:10:47 AM
Quote
And, funny enough, Goretzu was exactly who I was thinking of when I said a monk would step in and call me a liar.  Rather, he just ignored me...aww shucks.



Heh that was just TOO obviously a troll I'm afraid.  :P


I think you know as well as anyone that all monks didn't out-tank everyone but defensive warriors all the time.  Maybe 1% of monks did 5% of the time (only when agro and hits weren't an issue). :)

Sorry I didn't rise to it and spoiled your fun. :(  
I'll try to do better!  :D
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 09, 2004, 08:32:01 AM
QuoteDummkopf, Luclin still provides the highest ac for monks in several slots. This of course doesn't mean best equipment, just highest ac.

Yttrium Wrapped Sleeves ac35 seru
Crimson Runed Mask ac 50 VT
Shadow Footpads ac 30 VT
Do`Vassir's Gauntlets of Might ac 40 NToV
Great Helm of True Vision ac 45 Ssra
Leggings of the Fiery Star ac 60 VT
Flayed Barbarian Skin Leggings ac 60 KD
etc.

With the exception of rings neck and earrings, PoP armor has 5 or more AC less than Luclin or Velious. But that is neither here nor there.

Yep this is pretty much the case, although in reality thise AC items were no long worth what they were pre-mitigation nerf either, as they were now on the new monk AC table.

But also if you notice most of this items (Barb legs being on notable and insane exception - it was said at the time they were discovered how insane the AC was) are all/all, or all but pure casters/all etc.

Which was the problem that lead to the mitigation nerf, seriously bad itemisation (which wasn't really an issue outside of the Uber game and Uber twinks - both of which are the exception and not the rule).

They fixed itemisation (on PoP and beyond gear), they also raised soft caps making the AC issue further irellevent, but then on top of that they also nerfed monk base mitigation (when really a soft cap or just removal of such things as mitigation AA's from monks would have hit the area that was the problem and hit the actual monks that were supposed to be the target).





QuoteGoretzu if you are willing to discuss things without making inflamitory remarks I'm willing to debate your points.

Heh, yes sorry, but Cop uses that kinda strong and combatative language all the time, so I guess he can handle it. (first thing he ever said to me was to call me crazy). :)

He even does it to you:

"Aneya, clearly you're not very knowledgeable about statistics theory otherwise you wouldn't have posted such nonsense."

So I don't think suggesting he's talking out of his posterior when he clearly IS doing so is really exactly inflamatory, its just like for like.




QuoteI was trying to bait them because I know they can't justify their statements.


Heh, mind you when you make statments like this I guess you're not one to talk. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 09, 2004, 09:42:20 AM
QuoteGoretzu, you keep trying to change the subject back to trivialities which you also completely distort, just like you've done before.

Look I’m NOT the one saying the monk AC bonus was not and AC bonus, but a warrior type mitigation bonus, which was ‘given’ to monks (rather than being integral) in Kunark (a damage table bonus was) and then ‘just’ taken away when it wasn’t needed anymore. :)

Nor am I the one saying that PoP boosted monk AC to the point were it had to happen (the nerf happened BEFORE PoP, it was ONLY ever tested on mathematical models it was NEVER actually play tested, and with the new itemisation monk AC  [not to mention MUCH higher soft caps] was reduced both directly [in comparable gear level] and relatively compared to other classes.

You’re the one coming out with this, which is totally wrong and very misleading.


QuoteIt seems like the only 'data' you know anything about are calender data.


Which is MORE than you do it seems. :)




QuoteAs for example
- You replied:
Quote:
Please stop with this silly changing of EQ history. Please go to a monk site and ask WHEN the monk AC bonus appeared. You're just making this up to support your own suprious conlusions. Wu's armour didn't appear until just before Luclin, long, looooooong after Original EQ, Kunark and even Velious


to this piece of text of mine:
Quote:
Before beastlords came into existence, monks were pretty a much a class on their own when it came to gear. Most of their armor was silk, not leather. Wu's fighting armor (total AC of the whole set: 54) was considered good for a casual monk. As a result, monks were so far behind the other melees that they got chewed up by mobs, so SOE threw them a a bone in the form of a mitigation bonus.


to which i reply: yes, thank you, im well aware when and where Wu's was put in. The only timeframe i gave was 'Before beastlords came into existence', i.e. before Luclin. I was merely pointing out how badly monks needed the bonus pre-Luclin. Monks were more of a silk class then a leather class.

Heh you weren’t aware of when Wu’s was put in a couple of weeks ago. ;)
You said it was in a Kunark until I corrected you.

But yes it was Luclin (or really silly itemisation in that expansion) that really caused the monk issue.

But this idea that monks were ‘thrown a bone’ in the form of a mitigation bonus is totally incorrect.

Monks never had a warrior type mitigation bonus, the had (have in some respects) an AC Bonus (tied directly to staying under their weight limit) which functions more like bonus worn mitigation AC rather than like the warrior bonus.

This was ALWAYS in existence, right from release.  VI or SoE never decided monks weren’t mitigation well enough and gave them a mitigation bonus.
Monks were originally intended to be low worn AC class, and so the AC bonus went hand in hand with that.
It was only bad Luclin All/All itemisation combined with old soft caps that caused the issue, neither of which is an issue in PoP and beyond, most as soft caps are now well beyond the reach of the most uber monks and new itemisation has put huge AC differences between Monk and plate classes (and not just warriors).

So monks were not given something which was then ‘just’ removed.
They HAD something since conception and then were nerfed due to lazy itemisation and mudflation past old soft caps.




Quote- You also replied:
Quote:
The monk migagtion nerf took place BEFORE PoP (about 2-3 weeks before release of PoP actually). PoP gear also REDUCED monk AC (although upgraded most everyone else) if they upgraded from old gear to PoP gear of a similar level. And it was PoP gear that really introduced the '1 size fits all' concept, which resulted in some case with monks having more Wis and +mana on their gear than Sta and hitpoints (wis and mana having NO use for monks, but Sta and hitpoints still being very useful for BT's and Druids).


to this:
Quote:
When Luclin came out, itemization for monks changed drastically. All leather has been DRU MNK BST since then, and there was a large number of ALL/ALL gear with high AC for the high-end players. It was still difficult for a casual player to reach the soft cap back then, but monks really caught up with the other melees during SoL. And when PoP came out, AC took another leap for everyone, letting more and more monks reach the soft cap for AC in xp groups, where they still had the benefit of their mitigation bonus that other classes didnt have.


No, it was VT that introduced the one-size fits all. The problem with monks tanking too well already occurred at the end of the Luclin era,

Yep VT had lot of All/All gear (which was part of the problem), but you said all leather has been Dru/Bst/Mnk since Luclin, when it really became the staple in PoP, and in fact was probably accountable for the intial (andn then relative) monk drop in monk AC and hits with post-PoP gear.
Not to mention monks sometimes being stuck with more Wis and +Mana (totally and utterly USELESS for monks) on their gear than Sta and Hits (as good for Bst as for monks and still VERY useful for Druids).


Quoteand it was clear at the time of PoP's release it would only grow further.

If they’d followed the same pattern as Luclin, yep.

But they DIDN’T.

They changed/fixed itemisation AND soft caps, also the harder hitting mobs made agro much more of an issue, and of course monks have no spells or taunt with which to gain agro making them risky tanks in many situations (even IF, which they no longer did of course, deal with damage better).


QuoteI'm well aware that Oct 16 2002 is just before PoP's release.

So why did you say: “And when PoP came out, AC took another leap for everyone, letting more and more monks reach the soft cap for AC in xp groups, where they still had the benefit of their mitigation bonus that other classes didnt have.

When you knew monks had been nerfed BEFORE PoP, not after?





QuoteI also know that PoP had already been playtested for weeks and that the effect that PoP would have on monk tanking ability was well known at the time.

Actually according to SoE this was that case, they were terrified that monks would be uber in PoP.
However this IMO just goes to show how clueless these new devs were at the time, as PoP fixed monk itemisation, increased mob soft caps beyond the reach of monks and the extremely hard hitting mobs made snap and reliable agro and total hits VERY important (which monks were not at the top of the list for, agro-wise a long way down) – in fact this caused the issue with WARRIORS until SoE gave them a mitigation bonus and some nice reliable agro to complement taunt.
So there was no way monk were going to trivialise PoP content (and beyond).

They might had more issues with older content but that was NEVER a reason SoE gave for the nerf, not even once.


They also admitted that they’d never actually tested the monk nerf under live conditions to see how it worked versus mobs (old or new), it was simply the product of some testing on a mathematical model that they rolled live without ever actually playtesting. :\


QuoteMaybe the high-end monks lost some AC but they were well above the soft cap anyway.

Yep and the rest of monkdom was not, but THEY were nerfed anyway.
It’s no secret that the mitigation nerf hit those that least needed it (those that in fact didn’t need it at all) by far THE hardest.


QuoteIf they lost any AC at all, they gladly sacrificed it for the hp's they got in return.

With better gear, initially that dropped too, but AGAIN non-uber monks did not.


QuoteOn top of that, the new AA skills LR and ID would put monks even further ahead of the pack.
As I said just above, changing monk AA’s would have been THE way to fix monks (along with new itemisation and new soft caps which went in anyway), as they wouldn’t have directly effected the non-uber monk (AA’s could have been refunded), but WOULD have hit the Uber monk where the issues lay.


QuoteYou think the devs just came up with the idea of nerfing monks on a friday afternoon after a few too many beers or something? They don't make such a serious change on a whim. They, and everyone but the monk community, could see things needed to change at that particular time.

Actually that may be said in jest but basically that is probably closer to the truth than you seem to imagine.

They admitted later that they’d only done a bit of ‘testing’ on purely mathematical models, that they’d never actually tested it AT ALL in live conditions!!!




Lets be honest this IS how SoE operate.
The whole Melee openings system for example, that appeared out of no where, was touted as the fixed for Everything TM, and then disappeared without trace (baring warrior agro ability).

Or the way they decided to hideously nerf and basically totally change Berserkers just prior to releasing them live (despite the fact they were well liked as the were in Beta and currently have may issues created purely by the last min nerfing session).

SoE tend to take the easiest route, NOT the best route.

Look at zoning pets, BL’s were promised them, got a pathetic version, then got those basic zoning pets removed, and now it looks like everyone is getting them (which IS a good thing, but the palaver to get there is what I’m talking about).



QuoteAs for spreading misinformation:
You keep saying that the nerf involved removing an AC bonus and that im making the mitigation bonus up.

Monks have their AC Bonus EFFECTIVELY removed.
I.e. a pre-nerf monk without their AC bonus is about the same as a post-nerf monk with it.

The bit you ARE making up is that VI/SoE added it when needed (late in the game) and just took it away later.  They didn’t it was always there, integral like the weight limits (they did boost monk damage in this way however, just not defence), they just decided to nerf monk base mitigation because of sloppy high-end itemisation and mudflation effects on old lower soft caps.




QuoteLet's get one thing straightened out shall we:
Monks did not have an AC bonus removed on Oct 16 2002; their listed AC did not suddenly take a dive.

Yep the listed numbers stayed the same, the effective AC (and mitigation effect of said AC) to a dive.


QuoteThe simple fact is that all leather classes mitigate the same way today; if you had 200 meaningless AC points listed in the UI (or whatever the number is) this would not be the case. A 1000 AC monk does not mitigate like a 800AC beastlord, that difference would be huge and show up instantly (200AC in this range gives changes in mitigation of 30 to 40 percent). In contrast, a 1500 AC monk would have noticed only 1 or 2 percent effect of the nerf because he'd still be above the softcap at 1300AC. Now that would have been injustice; the wrong people would have gotten hit hardest.

The wrong people did get hit the hardest, those with the LEAST AC felt it the hardest.



QuoteBut nothing's been altered to the way AC works for monks. Monks got nerfed in their mitigation. That's not the same thing as AC. AC makes very little difference once you're past the AC soft cap, but a mitigation bonus does, and its this mitigation bonus that gave monks an unfair advantage compared to the other classes. And since monks still mitigate the same way as the other two leather classes, you can only conclude that they must have had a bonus to their mitigation, not AC, pre-nerf

Where is the data for this ‘mitigation bonus’, the data above (being one example) you yourself say is not conclusive about anything.

Monks got a base mitigation nerf, yes, they did not however have a warrior type mitigation bonus (it was/is more like the Iksar racial bonus).

If you can prove monks had a mitigation bonus and NOT an AC bonus then please do so.

QuoteThat -200AC number, i don't know where it comes from but i can guess. It was parsed out as the equivalent change in AC that would give the same mitigation decrease by someone who was already at or above the soft cap. That number has then started to lead its own life, with people forgetting where it actually came from and what the boundary conditions for the number are.

It originated I believe from parses showing a monk needed about 200 extra displayed AC to mitigate the same as before the nerf on the same mob.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: rigeld on July 09, 2004, 11:30:57 AM
Quote from: Aneya[code:1]
CLS  AC    SHLD AVD  DB   DI    AVG    MIT%  ATKS  HIT%  MISS% BLK% DDG% PRY% RIP% | DMG
WAR  2271  15%  0    87   21    223.3  71.1  2573  48.9  42.2  NA   4.2  5.9  5.3  | 109.2
WAR  1380  0%   0    102  21    273.2  64.5  1854  48.1  43.1  NA   4.9  5.9  5.5  | 131.4
MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
MNK  1331  0%   0    102  22.1  317.4  54.0  2550  46.8  42.1  10.4 4.5  NA   4.4  | 148.4
MNK  1063  0%   0    102  22.1  344.4  52.5  2883  46.7  41.0  11.9 4.4  NA   4.6  | 160.8
RNG  1728  2%   10   100  22.1  292.1  59.5  2359  48.5  43.5  NA   4.2  6.0  4.0  | 141.7
RNG  1308  0%   0    102  22.1  316.4  54.2  2026  51.6  40.6  NA   3.6  5.6  4.0  | 163.3
[/code:1]

Quote from: rigeld
The weighted down monk, that loses 200 AC, takes 4 DPS more. A huge loss in AC for negligible damage difference. In fact, the average hit goes up by 2, within the margin for error. Basically, the 200 AC difference did absolutely nothing for this monk.
You claim that an increase of 2 points on damage in average hits is withing the margin of error. Prove it. No where in the original post does he state that the margin of error is so large. In fact if the margin of error were so large the whole parse should be invalid.

If you did a straight line approximation between the following 3 lines, taking into accound additional shielding and avoidance, the values line up quite nicely. So I still maintain that 200 AC over softcap has an effect, despite a small one, on mitigation.

[code:1]MNK  1854  2%   60   100  22.1  311.0  55.0  3476  41.1  47.2  12.0 5.4  NA   4.7  | 127.8
*MNK 1635  2%   60   100  22.1  313.2  54.5  2923  42.0  46.8  11.6 4.9  NA   4.7  | 131.5
MNK  1331  0%   0    102  22.1  317.4  54.0  2550  46.8  42.1  10.4 4.5  NA   4.4  | 148.4[/code:1]

Sorry you fail to prove that AC has no effect, please try again.

Okay, I misspoke.  AC over the softcap has little effect.  Sorry for misleading you into thinking I believed otherwise.  My using absolutes was for simplicitys sake and I will try to steer clear from it in the future.

Kreseth, Brodda did parse a monk at 1331 AC and 1063 AC against these same mobs (HoH guardians iirc) and the results are there.  the 300 AC difference is about 12 DPS and 27 average hit.

So 1063-1331 is a 27 avg hit difference.  1331-1635 is a 4 avg hit difference.  AC softcap makes little difference?

And yes, because of the softcap, a lot of monks dont care about thier AC and go HP-STA-Everything Else-AC in priority of determining if a piece of gear is an upgrade.  The only reason I wanted the Barbarian Leggings is because theyre 100HP pants.  If they nerfed them down to 20AC Id still wear them without a single complaint.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 09, 2004, 12:45:02 PM
QuoteThe wrong people did get hit the hardest, those with the LEAST AC felt it the hardest

Emphasis should have been on "felt". In game perceptions aren't proof of anything and turn out to be plain wrong 9 out of 10 times.

QuoteMonks got a base mitigation nerf, yes, they did not however have a warrior type mitigation bonus (it was/is more like the Iksar racial bonus).

If you can prove monks had a mitigation bonus and NOT an AC bonus then please do so.

How hard can it be to understand?

1) Monks mitigate the same way as the other leather classes post-nerf, ergo they must have mitigated better pre-nerf.

2) Iksar bonus is straight AC, and we've already established that the monk mitigation nerf was not because of a straight AC nerf because listed AC did not change.

3) The monk nerf also wasn't a shadow AC nerf, i.e. subtracting a value of 200 from the monk's AC internally without changing the listed AC, because this would lead to monks also having an apparent soft cap 200 pts higher then the other classes which is not the case.

Once you've eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth. If it couldnt have been an AC bonus, then it must have been a mitigation bonus. What form that bonus had (a fixed number or a percentage or a combination) we'll probably never know, but it was there. There's no way around that conclusion.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 09, 2004, 03:56:58 PM
QuoteQuote:

I said:  Monks got a base mitigation nerf, yes, they did not however have a warrior type mitigation bonus (it was/is more like the Iksar racial bonus).

If you can prove monks had a mitigation bonus and NOT an AC bonus then please do so.



You said: How hard can it be to understand?

1) Monks mitigate the same way as the other leather classes post-nerf, ergo they must have mitigated better pre-nerf.

Yep.

Quote2) Iksar bonus is straight AC, and we've already established that the monk mitigation nerf was not because of a straight AC nerf because listed AC did not change.

Yes, but the two are not related (nice attempt though :)).  
The Iksar bonus is AC like the monk AC bonus and unlike the warrior mitigation bonus.


Quote3) The monk nerf also wasn't a shadow AC nerf, i.e. subtracting a value of 200 from the monk's AC internally without changing the listed AC, because this would lead to monks also having an apparent soft cap 200 pts higher then the other classes which is not the case.

Nope it was similar to the warrior mitigation bonus, it was that mitigation AC did less post-nerf.


QuoteOnce you've eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth.

That is true, but that's NOT what you've just done. :)

QuoteIf it couldnt have been an AC bonus

None of what you have just said is relevent to that in the slightest, only all you've mentioned is what the NERF was, NOT what the monk AC Bonus is/was.

Quotethen it must have been a mitigation bonus.

It was/is an AC Bonus like the Iksar bonus (although there's an interesting question, does a racial AC bonus = class type AC, I'd expect so for simplicities sake).

QuoteWhat form that bonus had (a fixed number or a percentage or a combination) we'll probably never know, but it was there. There's no way around that conclusion.

Yep, as an AC Bonus, which isn't the same thing as the warriors get now, nor is it the same thing (only opposite) as the mitigation nerf (it would have needed to be a direct 200 AC reduction for it to be that).

You're adding 2+2 and coming up with 36.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 09, 2004, 04:48:05 PM
QuoteNone of what you have just said is relevent to that in the slightest, only all you've mentioned is what the NERF was, NOT what the monk AC Bonus is/was.

Yes i did, you just don't understand a word of what im saying nor do you appreciate the meaning of the parses.
If monks had an AC bonus pre-nerf, then it must still be there. You simply cannot explain the data by saying that it was an AC bonus that was taken away. The only way to explain the data is by a direct change in the way mitigation works for monks at the heart of the combat code.

You keep demanding proof of something that can no longer be proven, while at the same time you can't give a single argument that holds up to scrutiny yourself. Show me one shred of evidence or give me one possible explanation of how an AC bonus and subsequent nerf can explain the available data and then we'll talk again, because as it stands right now, the only logical conclusion is that the nerf was based directly on your mitigation, not your AC.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Maulx on July 09, 2004, 04:59:31 PM
It has been my experience with message boards that the person who uses CAPS to make a point is always right.  :wink:
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 09, 2004, 05:05:33 PM
rigeld thanks for the reply. For the most part your post was well formulated. I just had to nit pik that small point because it was prone to perpetuate misconceptions.

Now if only I could untangle the mess Corp and Goretzu are in.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Vidyne on July 09, 2004, 05:24:31 PM
Read and skimmed... lotta arguing...

just from looking and trying to compromise...

It looks like monks had an AC BONUS and still do?
It looks like SoE countered the bonus with a nerf to how monks mitigate dmg overall, nothing to do with taking away the AC bonus?

Does SoE do this alot?

If my weapon swung too fast.... and messed up, and gave me alot of dps.. theyd just make the weapon lower your attack by 500 instead of just upping the delay on it?

Just observations of an outsider.

Or were there two different nerfs to hit monks?
/shrug... im confused...
I feel like someone turned me into an ogre...
okie..
*Bashes topic with club* j/k
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Kreseth on July 09, 2004, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: VidyneRead and skimmed... lotta arguing...

just from looking and trying to compromise...

It looks like monks had an AC BONUS and still do?
It looks like SoE countered the bonus with a nerf to how monks mitigate dmg overall, nothing to do with taking away the AC bonus?

Does SoE do this alot?

If my weapon swung too fast.... and messed up, and gave me alot of dps.. theyd just make the weapon lower your attack by 500 instead of just upping the delay on it?

Just observations of an outsider.

Monks have always had an AC bonus to compensate for their weight restrictions.  Always have, still do, always will.  Monks used to mitigate damage better than they do now & once their AC started getting insanely high thanks to All/All gear in velious & luclin they became very, very good tanks.  This was nerfed because they weren't supposed to be good tanks.

If a weapon swung too fast & generated lots of DPS they'd just nerf the shit out of the weapon.  Try equipping a moss covered twig in your primary hand & let me know how that goes ;)

--kreseth
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Tastian on July 09, 2004, 05:48:33 PM
"Try equipping a moss covered twig in your primary hand & let me know how that goes"

I lost my moss twig primary the sametime I lost wurmslayer in range slot.  8(  So frustrating lol.  Still <3 mah twiggy twig though.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 09, 2004, 05:50:08 PM
QuoteYes i did, you just don't understand a word of what im saying nor do you appreciate the meaning of the parses.
If monks had an AC bonus pre-nerf, then it must still be there.

And it is, in... displayed numbers at least, just not in effect (that is it still exists, but it is effected by the base mitigation nerf just like the rest of monk mitigation AC, that is it is effected by the BASE mitigation nerf).


QuoteYou simply cannot explain the data by saying that it was an AC bonus that was taken away.

I'm not (I've explained where that comes from), that it was effectively taken away (pre to post nerf), there is a subtle but large difference.

But that has nothing to do with proving it was or is a warrior type monk mitigation bonus rather than an Iksar-esq AC bonus.


QuoteThe only way to explain the data is by a direct change in the way mitigation works for monks at the heart of the combat code.

Which again is about the NERF, not the AC Bonus.

I'm not talking about the nerf, I've said all along that was a base mitigation nerf (which is part of what made it such an issue, it hit monks from L1-65 or 60 at the time as L65 didn't quite exist then).

You seem to be taking one argument and applying it to something else entirely here.  :?




QuoteYou keep demanding proof of something that can no longer be proven, while at the same time you can't give a single argument that holds up to scrutiny yourself.


I'm not the one that erroeously claimed the monk AC Bonus was in fact a warrior type mitigation bonus, you are.
Yet there is no proof to support this claim (anymore than there was that monk's were given said 'mitigation bonus' rather than ALWAYS having had their AC Bonus since class conception).

QuoteShow me one shred of evidence or give me one possible explanation of how an AC bonus and subsequent nerf can explain the available data and then we'll talk again, because as it stands right now, the only logical conclusion is that the nerf was based directly on your mitigation, not your AC.

Yes the NERF was based up a base mitigation change - I've never said othewise.


But you were claiming (among other things) that the monk AC Bonus was like the current warrior mitigation bonus, rather than like say the Iksar AC bonus (but with the weight limit added).

Which is what I'm talking about (and you were I thought, orginally at least, who knows now :)).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 09, 2004, 06:34:28 PM
One last time then. An AC bonus and a mitigation penalty simply do not cancel out above the soft cap. If you agree that the nerf was a mitigation penalty, then you cannot escape the conclusion that monks had a mitigation bonus pre-nerf.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 09, 2004, 07:09:11 PM
Monks had an Iksar style AC bonus (i.e. extra AC for staying under their weight limit) prior to the nerf (and still do), but not an inherent base mitigation bonus along the lines of the current warrior setup.

The nerf was not a removal of the AC Bonus (although in many cases it was effectively this) but rather a base mitigation nerf, a mitigation penalty if you will.

The AC Bonus is still there it just doesn't do as much as it once did, as is the case with the rest of monk mitigation AC (due to the mitigation nerf), there also seems to be a monk mitigation softcap in addtion to said base mitigation nerf.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: xaoshaen on July 09, 2004, 08:53:19 PM
What hurt monks wasn't simply the mitigation nerf. It was the combination of itemization fixes (which needed to be done), the mitigation nerf (which was a bit silly), and an artificially lowered AC softcap (which was outright stupid).

You'll note that in the posted parses, the plate classes showed significant mitigation gains from raising their AC, while the monk did not. As Coprolith points out, this in and of itself, does not demonstrate a universal softcap. However, taken in conjunction with other datasets, which indicate similar damage interval distributions on mobs ranging from EP mobs to Quarm, it's a pretty compelling picture. Even more dishearteningly, monks recieve far less benefit for AC over their softcap than plate classes recieve for going over their (much higher) softcap. It's pretty easy to examine if you want to, Cop. Grab a monk and have him tank some mobs
in Earth for a while, then check the damage distribution with 1350 versus 1500 AC. If your results are anything like mine were, they'll look surprisingly like Brodda's results. I couldn't find a mob where raising my monk's ac past 1350-ish really helped, though I didn't parse anything in GoD or Time, and had to rely on Brodda and Arlos for data.

My Beastlord's AC never got past 1100-ish, so I didn't have a good opportunity to see whether or not the 1350-ish cap was in place for all leather classes, or just monks.

Yeah, monks whined a lot. Funnily enough, rogues whined a lot shortly after release, and Rangers whined a lot during Kunark.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 09, 2004, 09:09:42 PM
Quotemonk mitigation softcap
:roll:

Do you make this stuff up yourself or do you have a writer?  Pure gold!
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: a_moss_snake_001 on July 09, 2004, 10:13:29 PM
The way I look at it we have three "leather" classes. Monks and Druids were both in the original game and Beastlords came along much later in the Luclin expansion.

If I have read this board and others correctly and understood the parses then Druids and Beastlords would appear to have exactly the same base damage mitigation value -- if you take a DRU and a BST of equal AC with no AA's and no PoTime/GoD effects they will mitigate to the same max damage value and the same average damage per hit taken (over time) when tanking the same exact creature in exactly the same circumstances - ie. no debuffs, both facing the mob from the front etc. Lets call this mitigation value: [Value_X].

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). This was due primarily to the Verant team and their Vision(tm), who back then were very much into strong "themes" for each class and were trying to make the Monk class feel like their real world counterpart -- incredibly quick and punishing melee combatants who don't wear heavy armor or anything that would hinder their movements.

Obviously being relegated to armor that gave such a low total AC didn't really help a monk survive too well in melee combat, so to offset that somewhat they threw monks a few bones in the form of:-

- 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]

- Extremely high "Dodge" and "Riposte" skill values.

- Reasonably high base HP

- The "Feign Death" skill which can lose or significantly lower the monks place in the mobs aggro list.

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

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

And thus Monk class survivability was maintained.

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).

This in itself might not seem such a big deal if you didnt take into account that the Monks, as well as now having the same AC as the warriors also STILL had those old legacy bonuses back from when their armor was reallly lame (Block was and still is better than parry, they still got the AC bonus table and they still had a melee mitigation bonus above and beyond that of the other leather wearing classes).

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.

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".

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.

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..

PS: I am aware that a lot of other small changes took place including itemization fixes and AC softcap tweaks but I have never really studied those so I can't really comment on them. Perhaps they were necessary also, perhaps they weren't.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 10, 2004, 08:50:05 AM
QuoteDo 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:
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 10, 2004, 09:54:12 AM
QuoteGiven 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Xarilok on July 10, 2004, 08:59:54 PM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 10, 2004, 10:53:01 PM
Quote from: GoretzuYou 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?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 11, 2004, 09:44:24 AM
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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: xaoshaen on July 12, 2004, 02:34:06 PM
Just to clear up a few common misperceptions...

Quote from: a_moss_snake_001

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.

Quote
- 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.

Quote
- Reasonably high base HP

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

Quote
- 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.

Quote
- 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 12, 2004, 04:45:00 PM
Quote
Quote- 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

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteMonks 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.

QuoteFortunately, 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 12, 2004, 06:02:30 PM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 12, 2004, 06:36:10 PM
QuoteMonks 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: xaoshaen on July 12, 2004, 07:34:00 PM
Quote from: Coprolith
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: xaoshaen on July 12, 2004, 07:35:05 PM
Quote from: AneyaWhy 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 12, 2004, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: xaoshaen
Quote from: AneyaWhy 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
QuoteThe 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 12, 2004, 10:26:38 PM
Rearranged a few things and cut a few points I don't really have comments on.

Quote from: xaoshaenPeople 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.

QuoteI'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.

QuoteThat'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.

QuoteMonk 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.

QuoteAh, 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.

QuoteAlready 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 12, 2004, 10:41:41 PM
QuoteThere'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.

QuoteActually, 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?

QuoteI'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.

QuoteThat'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.

QuoteMonk 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?

QuoteAh, 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.

QuoteAntiquity 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 12, 2004, 11:38:37 PM
QuoteYou 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).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 12, 2004, 11:43:16 PM
QuoteQuote:
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: )
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 13, 2004, 07:04:08 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 13, 2004, 03:17:39 PM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 13, 2004, 03:55:57 PM
QuoteIf 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:

QuoteWhile 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?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 13, 2004, 06:30:34 PM
QuoteAh... 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.

QuoteBut 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?

QuoteBonus:
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Kreseth on July 13, 2004, 07:57:05 PM
Quote from: Goretzu
QuoteYou 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 13, 2004, 10:33:13 PM
QuoteIts 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.


QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteIn 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

**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
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).

QuoteThey 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:


QuoteAnd 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. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 13, 2004, 10:44:24 PM
QuoteThere 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.


QuoteYour 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.


QuoteThey 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 13, 2004, 10:48:54 PM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Rhaynne on July 13, 2004, 10:56:42 PM
Quote(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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: a_moss_snake_001 on July 13, 2004, 11:45:08 PM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Khayden on July 14, 2004, 02:50:15 AM
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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 14, 2004, 05:42:34 AM
QuoteI 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 09:44:49 AM
QuoteThis is why people are saying you are doing nothing but arguing semantics.

Er.... I said that!  (about Cop) :)



QuoteAnyone 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.




QuoteThey 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).


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

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



QuoteCall 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.)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 09:53:40 AM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 10:03:02 AM
QuoteYou might as well stop thinking, cuz you're not very good at it.

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




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

Well you are as you made it UP! :)


QuoteThe 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'.

QuoteThis 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!)




QuoteMonks 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? ;)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 10:09:39 AM
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?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 14, 2004, 10:37:48 AM
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.

QuoteBut 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).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 10:55:36 AM
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. ;))
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Vidyne on July 14, 2004, 11:49:45 AM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 14, 2004, 01:26:15 PM
QuoteIf 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 01:56:05 PM
Vidyne explaines it very well, I think.



QuoteQuote:
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! :))






QuoteHere'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.


QuoteCall 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.

QuoteThe 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?


Quoteand 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).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Khayden on July 14, 2004, 02:04:19 PM
QuoteGetting 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.

QuoteAlso 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 02:15:48 PM
QuoteQuote:
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.



QuoteQuote:
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Vidyne on July 14, 2004, 03:13:02 PM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 14, 2004, 05:51:05 PM
QuoteHeh, 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?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 14, 2004, 11:21:49 PM
QuoteWell 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).


QuoteI 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.




QuoteNow 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.

QuoteIksar racial AC bonus is called a bonus,

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


Quotethe 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?

Quotebut 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.


QuoteWhy 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.


QuoteAnswer: 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 15, 2004, 04:40:17 AM
QuoteBecause 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.

QuoteYes 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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: mythral on July 15, 2004, 05:51:38 AM
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?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 15, 2004, 08:06:13 AM
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 15, 2004, 09:59:28 AM
QuoteQuote:
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.




QuoteQuote:
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. :)


QuoteIksar 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.

QuoteBut 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. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 15, 2004, 10:06:06 AM
Quotedoes 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. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 15, 2004, 10:23:24 AM
QuoteNo, 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).



QuoteBut 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. :)



QuoteAlmost 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.



QuoteNow 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. :)


QuoteTaking 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. :(


QuoteIts 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. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Lorathir on July 15, 2004, 10:49:29 AM
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks2.jpg)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 15, 2004, 01:00:44 PM
What's up with the triple posts every time anyway? You think up another not-so-clever-excuse every 10 minutes?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 15, 2004, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: CoprolithWhat'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. :)

Quote from: CoprolithYou think up another not-so-clever-excuse every 10 minutes?


You're just starting to sound bitter now. :(
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 15, 2004, 06:35:27 PM
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
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 15, 2004, 08:59:12 PM
Quote from: CoprolithYeah 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). :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: xaoshaen on July 16, 2004, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: TerjynPovarItemization 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 16, 2004, 02:40:55 PM
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)?

QuoteI'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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 16, 2004, 03:48:47 PM
QuoteI 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Aneya on July 16, 2004, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: xaoshaenActually, 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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 16, 2004, 03:54:35 PM
QuoteActually, 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! :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 16, 2004, 05:58:05 PM
QuoteThe 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?
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 16, 2004, 07:04:22 PM
QuoteQuote:
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.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 16, 2004, 07:19:54 PM
So you are just spewing 100% semantic BS, and have been the whole time, and now you admit it.

I repeat, just because it was intended and as designed does NOT mean it was not a bonus.

Take the monk's extra AC.  It was in from the beginning, was intended, and yet you've referred to it as a bonus!  Why?  It was a natural ability specific to monks, clearly not a bonus.  Yet even you yourself call it a bonus.

Oh well, at best you are a hypocrit, at worst an idiot.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: a_moss_snake_001 on July 16, 2004, 07:35:54 PM
You know, this highly semantical "discussion" could go on forever and prove nothing.

The end result was Monks now take more dmg from mobs and thus can't tank with the big boys now, relegating them to a support dps role with the additional ability to pull effectively. Thats where they should be and thats the areas they should shine in, end of story.

Since GoD was released i've heard endless whines by various classes about their inability to tank the new mobs and you know I am TIRED of it, Sony/Verant intended 3 classes by design to tank in this game with the main one being Warrior. Grab one of those tank classes head to GoD, control your soddin aggro and do what your good at.

If monks want improvements ask for more DPS and more pulling utility as its THERE your getting left behind and you SHOULDN'T be. Don't ask for more tanking ability as your simply not going to get it, even if you so call "justify" it by asking for a "nerf" to be reversed.

And if you want to solo don't play a pure melee class.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 16, 2004, 09:20:45 PM
QuoteSo you are just spewing 100% semantic BS, and have been the whole time, and now you admit it.

No sematics is CALLING it a 'bonus', you can just about stretch 'pseudo-truth' to get away with it... well not really, but it's being tried. :)

QuoteI repeat, just because it was intended and as designed does NOT mean it was not a bonus.

IF it was a bonus yes (like say the AC Bonus - which is a bonus for staying under weight).
But as it never was a bonus, never was intended as a bonus, has never in the history of monk mitiagtion, or EQ, even been refered to as a 'bonus'... except by Cop and in this thread :).
It can be safely said it was NOT a bonus.

It was just original monk mitigation, that was 3 and a bit years later into the game nerfed for other reasons.


QuoteTake the monk's extra AC. It was in from the beginning, was intended, and yet you've referred to it as a bonus! Why? It was a natural ability specific to monks, clearly not a bonus. Yet even you yourself call it a bonus.

You get bonus AC for staying under the weight limit.
It was intended to compensate for low worn AC on monk gear.
Take your pick.

Now contrast that to original monk mitigation, there is NO bonus there, only what was given.


QuoteOh well, at best you are a hypocrit, at worst an idiot.

Heh, I dunno why you repeatedly resort to name calling so easily  :roll: , or rather I guess I do, it seems you've got nothing else. :(
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: mythral on July 16, 2004, 10:04:25 PM
i can summarize almost this whole thread:

2 + 2 = 4

2 x 2 = 4

discuss how they are different!
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Rhaynne on July 16, 2004, 10:17:47 PM
Quote from: mythrali can summarize almost this whole thread:

2 + 2 = 4

2 x 2 = 4

discuss how they are different!

lol.  Too true.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 16, 2004, 11:16:08 PM
That's an awesome comparison!

I've been beat down.  I give up.  Why, just yesterday I saw a level 65 monk take over 10K from an orc pawn and die!  They obviously need to be restored to pre-nerf status, to combat this horrible injustice.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Katonis on July 17, 2004, 08:30:45 AM
It seems rather simple to me.  In early EQ monks were designed to be good damage dealers that did not need much in the way of gear.  As such there was little gear around for them.  The problem was that is reality this itemization meant a monk would get torn to shreds so they were given a mitigation bonus over there original mitigation so they could survive to some degree.

Enter Velious with its fundamental shift in itemization.  This shift brought higher end gear that was All/All and eliminated the old itemization problem that would cause monks to be shredded, but only among higher end monks.  Lower end monks still suffered from weak itemization.  With the itemization issue eliminated higher end monks no longer needed the old mitigation boost to survive, but now that boost along with current items made monks the tank of choice.  

This brought forth the infamous "nerf" which I see in reality as the removal of a bonus that had outlived its usefulness among higher end monks.  The removal was poorly implemented since mid and lower end monks still suffered from the old itemization problems.  The issue was corrected with higher end monks but hit lower end monks to hard.  

Fast forward a couple of years.  Thanks to mudflation the poor itemization issues that lower end monks used to face have been worked out of the game.  We have the GoD expansion in which most mobs are designed to only be tanked by a plate tank.  Chain class tanks can do in an emergency but still leads to very close calls.  Monks which mitigate like true leather class ever since the "nerf" are being ripped to shreds on pulls.  

The thing is a druid or beastlord pulling would get shredded even worse on the same pulls.  Beastlords and druids should mitigate worse than monks because we have lower skill caps.  A beastlord can last longer than a monk only in a case where they can slow a mob.  If the mob is not slowed a beastlord will go down faster than a monk.  A druid is even worse off and will go down faster if they get hit.  They have to pray the plate tank gets agro back or they evac is time.  

I do not believe monks are going to get there old mitigation bonus back.  They are going to have to accept the fact that if they get hit they are going to get hit almost as badly as the other leather classes in general melee.  I do think something needs to be done to allow monks to survive pulls better.  

I think that GoD gives a good idea of something that might able to be implemented in some forms for monks.  The mastraqs in GoD can up their melee mitigation by a lot when they get low on hp.  Perhaps monks could get an AA to do something similar when they get low on hp.  Such an ability would require limitations though.  Maybe limitations like the monk has to have a dangerously low percentage of hp, or see if the monk has auto attack on or not.  You might have this ability cancel out when the monks FDs no matter if it is successful or not.  

I think this could fit into the idea on a monk that has trained his body and spirit to push past normal limits.  A lot like the idea behind the discipline that a melee has to take less damage.  The difference is the monk calls upon an inner strength that no other can match in dire situations that would make others would fail.

I think is this were implemented as an AA it might need to be focused at those that need it most, which is pullers in higher end PoP, hard LDoNs most of GoD, and probably most of OoW.  I am not sure how to accomplish this other that mak it a high level, decently costed, and probably tied to certain requiesites.  Honestly details like this are best left to those that know monks and not guys like me.  I think such an ability could be easily abused but if properly implemented could do wonders for the monk class.  

Just my 2cp.

Kat
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 17, 2004, 09:18:31 AM
QuoteIt seems rather simple to me. In early EQ monks were designed to be good damage dealers that did not need much in the way of gear. As such there was little gear around for them. The problem was that is reality this itemization meant a monk would get torn to shreds so they were given a mitigation bonus over there original mitigation so they could survive to some degree.


You're confusing base mitigation with the AC Bonus here.

Monks were NOT and I repeat (because people seem incapable of grasping this concept) were NOT 'given' a 'mitigation bonus' over their original mitigation because of low AC (they only ever HAD their 'original mitigation' level and then it was nerfed).


IF they HAD been then yes you could call it a 'monk mitigation bonus'.



But monks have only ever had 2 levels of mitigation in EQ.

1. Their ORIGINAL and INTENDED mitigation (for 3 and a bit years).

&

2. Their nerfed mitigation (for nearly 2 years now).










Now the AC BONUS, yes that was given to offset the lower worn AC.
But monk mitigation was just as intended. :)

Monks were INTENDED to have pure melee mitigation (not this recent leather mitigation idea) and the amount of mitigation controlled through worn mitigation AC, which warrior always had MUCH more of until the mudflation and mitigation cap issue - well the still had it then in fact just the caps made it irelevent.

There was not (and certainly is not :)) ANY 'monk mitigation bonus'.


It never existed,
It doesn't exist.
And the only way you might say it could exist would be if monks were given some bonus mitigation in the future.

It's just something Cop made up when he stated monks were GIVEN a mitigation bonus in Kunark (they weren't they were given a DAMAGE BONUS :) - monk mitigation has only been changed once when it was nerfed).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 17, 2004, 09:23:27 AM
Quote from: KatonisI do think something needs to be done to allow monks to survive pulls better.

Well the ability to dodge blows from behind would fall under that heading.

But the general idea is right. If my main was a monk, I'd see if SOE would warm up to an ability similar to AD&D's reflex save vs. spell to improve further on that instead of the pointless complaints about their mitigation. They're never going to get their mitigation bonus back.

/hugs
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 17, 2004, 09:23:39 AM
Quotei can summarize almost this whole thread:

2 + 2 = 4

2 x 2 = 4

discuss how they are different!

What I'm saying is: 2+2=4



What the 'mitigation bonus' terminology is saying is: 2+2+1=5 (the +1 being the IMAGINARY and NON-EXISTANT 'bonus' that never existed).  :shock:

And as it has never actually existed it's is actually saying: 2+2=5 (which is obviously totally incorrect).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 17, 2004, 09:28:25 AM
QuoteBut the general idea is right. If my main was a monk, I'd see if SOE would warm up to an ability similar to AD&D's reflex save vs. spell to improve further on that instead of the pointless complaints about their mitigation. They're never going to get their mitigation bonus back.

Yep I think if they're ever going to boost monks it'll have to be in other ways.

However pretty much all ways that actually would viably upgrade monks would tred on someone else's toes, so it's difficult to see where it could happen.


It think it's unlikely that monks will get thier original mitigation back (never mind this imaginary 'bonus mitigation' ;)), although the mitigation nerf, itemisation changes, mitigation cap formula changes and class soft caps are I think hitting the same areas overly hard.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 17, 2004, 10:08:08 AM
Keep it up Nunya. Not only are your replies very entertaining but who knows, maybe you'll convince someone else with your proof by repeating increasingly loudly method.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 17, 2004, 03:49:00 PM
Heh, so clearly and concisely explaining why it's untrue is wrong?

As opposed to the completely making stuff up method of 'proof' that the 'monks got a mitigation bonus in Kunark' arguement relys so completely upon. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Katonis on July 17, 2004, 05:10:35 PM
Ok call it what ever you want from the early game.  I really do not think it matters except monks mitigated better in worse gear than other classes could.  This was needed since better gear flat did not exist.  Happy?

What does matter is the itemization in Velious caused a fundamental shift in the game.  This shift worked alright with the current system for the most part but it lead to an overpowering of monk tanking abilities.  The system that was in place was designed for monks that had no gear or gear with extremely low ac.  This was no longer the case in Velious with high end monks gaining access to All/All high hp/AC gear.

The entire mitigation system of game was changed.  It was to harsh to begin with but after some tweaking did what it need to do at the high end.  The main problem was it hit lower monks to hard because they simply did not have the same gear available to them that higher end monks did.  They were still working in gear back from Kunark and original EQ.

In the end I do not think it matters what monks HAD.  I do not think they are going to get it back in the form it was.  What I do think monks should strive for is something like I mentioned.  A situational ability that would solve many of the issues they have with getting shredded by hard hitting mobs.

Cop:  You are right that blocking blows from the back falls into this category.  =)  I personally do not think it is enough since I have watched monks pull in time and GoD.  I was simply trying to come up with a way for monk mitigation to go up during a pull that is going south without raising their base mitigation again.  

I think that any form of base mitigation increase is going to nothing but lead the original problem all over again.

Kat
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 17, 2004, 06:12:54 PM
QuoteI personally do not think it is enough since I have watched monks pull in time and GoD. I was simply trying to come up with a way for monk mitigation to go up during a pull that is going south without raising their base mitigation again.

I didn't say it was Katonis, merely pointing that things have already been done in that area and in fact i encouraged monks to focus in that area. Pulling ability is a welcome utility to any group or raid so I have absolutely no problem with monks being the best at pulling. Its been awhile since I played my monk, so im not up-to-date with the current issues on it, but if the general opinion is that monks could use some help there then im all for it. Unlike mitigation changes, additional tools for pulling won't upset the class balance as long as there are alternative classes in case a monk is not available, but which come at the price of not being so reliable.


Quote from: NunyabizzAs opposed to the completely making stuff up method of 'proof'
I did not 'make stuff' up. I've made one mistake and one mistake only in this entire argument. When i first realized the implications of the MB parses i recalled seeing a patch message stating monk's defense has been upgraded. My mistake was in not verifying this. There were in fact several melee balancing patches shortly after Kunark was released, but it was rangers that got a small upgrade in some of the defensive skills caps, dodge or somesuch, and monk got an upgrade to their damage table, not mitigation table. I have no problem in admitting this mistake, as it changes absolutely nothing. It only means that the monk mitigation bonus (oops whatamisaying, sorry, the monks purrrrfectly natural higher mitigation table) had been there from the beginning. Everything else I've said is based on the available data and pure deductive reasoning and absolutely true until proven otherwise by equally good data and reasoning, neither of which you possess.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Chasom on July 17, 2004, 08:39:59 PM
QuoteAt 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.

On the SK boards, AC has shown to give measurable returns well over 1800ac versus HoH mobs and over 2200ac versus higher end PoP and GoD.  Monk AC stops showing measurable returns over 1350ac.  There are top end monks with 1800+ac that mitigate like their lower end bretheren with 1400ac.

This is a lot of the reason that monks are upset.  Their AC progression basically stops at 1350ac.  They can add HP and worn shielding/avoidance effects, but their base mitigation will effectively be behaving as if they had 1350ac.  Warriors and knights are not inhibited by such a low sofcap as thier AC still shows returns well into the 2k range.

Monks are a melee class.  There is little provision for ranged damage so a monk has to be up close and personal to get it done.  Incidental aggro, ripostes, rampage, etc are facts of life.  Taking max hits because of a ridiculously low softcap can get old after a while.

Argue the semantics all you want, but combine a reduction in mitigation and a low cap on AC with a class that is GOING to get hit regularly and you will get some greatly discontented people.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: TerjynPovar on July 17, 2004, 09:28:46 PM
Parses please?  Every parse I've seen shows that monks softcap varies with target, same as every other class.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 17, 2004, 09:37:43 PM
QuoteOn the SK boards, AC has shown to give measurable returns well over 1800ac versus HoH mobs and over 2200ac versus higher end PoP and GoD. Monk AC stops showing measurable returns over 1350ac.

This has been quoted before, its a reply from one the Devs on the issue of shields and AC softcap:

QuoteThe 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.

Pay attention to the last part: class affects the percentage return for AC over the soft cap. That's why the plate classes still notice a small effect above the cap. For leather classes the effect is even smaller and gets completely buried in the statistics.

I.o.w. this issue is not monk specific. It applies equally to beastlords and the chain classes as well. The "greatly discontented people" are discontent only because they are not getting the special treatment anymore. Boohoohoo, cry me a river.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 18, 2004, 10:44:27 AM
QuoteOk call it what ever you want from the early game. I really do not think it matters except monks mitigated better in worse gear than other classes could. This was needed since better gear flat did not exist. Happy?

Yep the thing is the monk AC Bonus and the orignial level of monk mitigation (the mitigation table if you like) are quite seperate (if related) things.

They are related but not the same and did not have the same reasoning for existance.

Monk mitigaiton level was intended and THEN the AC Bonus was the 'balance' factor.

To call it a 'mitigation bonus' fallicously implies it was the other way around (that the mitigation was only ever there as a 'bonus), when it was NOT, it was as designed and intended.

That's the issue that is so totally incorrect. :(

And it's a pretty important issue to get straight when talking about the monk nerf.





QuoteWhat does matter is the itemization in Velious caused a fundamental shift in the game. This shift worked alright with the current system for the most part but it lead to an overpowering of monk tanking abilities. The system that was in place was designed for monks that had no gear or gear with extremely low ac. This was no longer the case in Velious with high end monks gaining access to All/All high hp/AC gear.

Yep Velious started the issues, but it was really Luclin that was the issue, gear had mudflated, caps were still on the old formula and high end monks could get above the mitigation caps (and although warriors etc. still HAD a lot more mitigation AC it was pretty worthless due to the cap issue).

The thing now is of course that monks were nerfed in base mitigation, then were nerfed in new itemisaiton (relatively new monk gear has a lot less AC) and class based soft caps seem to have appeared (with do vary by mob but equally do seem to follow a pattern of high and low - and therefore make even reasonably high AC somewhat pointless for monks).
That probably wouldn't matter to monks IF they were a pure DPS like Rogues (but then they'd need the raw DPS), but as they are still supossedly in-between warriors and rogues in the pure melee setup that's a lot of hits all going in to monk mitigation.


I doubt they'll change monk mitigation, although at least one Dev had stated he feels monks are not where they should be defensive-wise (although that may not be mitigation-wise of course).

But it's difficult to see where they can go.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 18, 2004, 10:58:27 AM
Quote"Nunyabizz"


Heh, how long did it take you to think that one up.  :lol:
Or did you get a passing small child to help you with it?  :wink:
I'm cut to the very marrow by it! /sob  :cry:


QuoteI did not 'make stuff' up. I've made one mistake and one mistake only in this entire argument. When i first realized the implications of the MB parses i recalled seeing a patch message stating monk's defense has been upgraded. My mistake was in not verifying this. There were in fact several melee balancing patches shortly after Kunark was released, but it was rangers that got a small upgrade in some of the defensive skills caps, dodge or somesuch, and monk got an upgrade to their damage table, not mitigation table. I have no problem in admitting this mistake, as it changes absolutely nothing.

It was from that you got the 'monk mitigation bonus' language.
Now you admit the actually idea (of monks getting a ‘mitigation bonus’ in Kunark) was a mistake and incorrect.

But the very language is also a mistake and incorrect, because by referring to it as a 'mitigation bonus' your still doing you're very best to cling to the 'monks only got a bonus removed' argument/agenda that you originally had.

This obviously is not the case and as I said your 'mitigation bonus' label and implications is like 2+2=5.


QuoteIt only means that the monk mitigation bonus (oops whatamisaying, sorry, the monks purrrrfectly natural higher mitigation table) had been there from the beginning. Everything else I've said is based on the available data and pure deductive reasoning and absolutely true until proven otherwise by equally good data and reasoning, neither of which you possess.

But it's exactly upon logic that calling it a 'monk mitigation bonus' is so totally ludicrous.

Your 'deduction' and 'reason' goes along the lines of:

'Fish have scales, so do lizards..... therefore all lizards are fish and live in the water'. :)

Yes the data (that both have scales is right) it's what you're doing and implying with it that's so far off base.




(unless I misunderstand you and you're saying original monk mitigation was the correct and intended level of mitigation for monks and was in no way a 'bonus' despite what you insist on calling it – in which case I guess we agree, sort of. :))
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Chasom on July 18, 2004, 08:11:38 PM
Quote.o.w. this issue is not monk specific. It applies equally to beastlords and the chain classes as well. The "greatly discontented people" are discontent only because they are not getting the special treatment anymore. Boohoohoo, cry me a river.
You know, you might try making your points without the asinine and inflammatory comments.  At one point in this, people were trying to have a reasonable discussion until it became a flurry of I'm right and you are wrong.
QuotePay attention to the last part: class affects the percentage return for AC over the soft cap. That's why the plate classes still notice a small effect above the cap. For leather classes the effect is even smaller and gets completely buried in the statistics.
Maybe you should pay attention.  If a HoH mob is still showing linear returns on AC values approaching 2k, then the AC isn't softcapped.  Thats just HoH.

Essentially, your saying that its perfectly fine for a plate class to have an effective 650+ AC OVER a leather class BEFORE their sofcap kicks in and then have BETTER returns on their AC over that softcap?  I think your dislike of monks has overwhealmed your ability to reason.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 18, 2004, 08:40:00 PM
QuoteMaybe you should pay attention. If a HoH mob is still showing linear returns on AC values approaching 2k, then the AC isn't softcapped. Thats just HoH.

Wrong. It means the AC isnt hardcapped. Read the whole quote for chrissakes:

QuoteThe 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.

The soft cap is the point where you get diminishing return. Diminishing returns <> no return

QuoteYou know, you might try making your points without the asinine and inflammatory comments

I was, until a certain disgruntled monk started accusing me of 'making things up' while ignoring the facts presented to him. Im sorry, but when (former) monks come trolling the beastlord board about a nerf that happened 2 years ago, i don't see any reason to remain civil. Lets not forget that this entire thread started when a unsuspecting beastlord was fed a load of drivel about how monks got a 200-300 AC penalty which beastlord didnt get. And he was not the first to hear something like that. For some reason the fingers are always pointed to BSTs when other class' woes are discussed.
Monks today mitigate every bit as good as beastlord, and that is fact. It was not me started the 'woe is us' routine and barrage of silly excuses of why monks supposedly have it so much worse then other classes, but anyone trying to pull that kind of crap of here can count on finding me in his/her path.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Xarilok on July 18, 2004, 08:46:32 PM
Wow...and all this time, I always thought monks were NOT tanks...guess I was wrong, and they should have the best mitigation in the game, since they are obviously supposed to, being a plate class with taunt and aggro-gaining skills like incite and stuns...

Boohoo.  So your AC softcaps at 1350.  Oh nos!  Guess that means after you attain ~1400AC, you can focus all your upgrades on other things...like doing damage.

Personally, I think that monks do need one thing: Feign Death.  Yes, one that works, and not this so-and-so level 65 monk with maxed skills and 500AA has fallen to the ground crap.  FD should NOT fail for no reason, being casted on should NOT break it.  It should clear ALL agro, on any level mob.  There needs to be an additional skill, like FD, that FD's the monk, stands back up, and resumes attacking again, like rogue evade.  There is NO reason for a monk to lose 4-5 rounds of combat at a minimum just to shed agro.

Let me repeat...MONKS ARE NOT TANKS.  They should NOT tank like them.  MONKS SHOULD GET HIT HARD WHEN THEY TAKE AGRO.  They should wish to avoid agro, and not just keep tanking till the tank gets it back when they do get agro.

Monks should be the kings of pulling, and need some more help with thier lull line, longer duration and ability to split more than 2 mobs with it.  A "forgetfulness" skill would be nice too, like something, that when used on a mob, causes it to linger longer than its buddies when multiples are pulled, not rememebering where it came from or something.  That way, you can use it on a mob, pull a few, FD (and have it work) wait a few seconds, and have all but one walk off.  That would give monks a HUGE advantage in pulling.

Monks should be:

#1 in pulling
#2 in melee dps, behind rogues
#5 in total dps, behind rogues, wizzies, mages, and necros - tied with rangers
#3 in tanking, behind warriors, pal/sk, tied with berserkers/rangers (only due to higher block/dodge skill, should mitigate slightly poorer than chain, with higher dodge)

Right now, its more like:

#6 in pulling (#4 indoors, since druid/rangers suck indoors)
#4 in melee dps, behind rogues, rangers, and berserkers
#9 in total dps, behind rogues, wizzies, mages, necros, rangers, berserkers, and pretty much any other caster
#2 in tanking, behind warriors, tied with pal/sk

While its nice to be better at tanking, its also nice to be #1 at something, it get ya groups.

Every class in EQ is best at something:

Bard- best resist buffing, fitting any role
Beastlord- much like bard, can fill in for slower, tank or dps class, often all 3
Berserker- best at being a class that should never have been made
Cleric- best at healing
Druid- best at utility healing, ie when cleric level heals aren't needed, they can fit the bill, and do MUCH more than a cleric when not healing
Enchanter- best at CC, best haste
Necro- best at DoTs and sustained spell damage over long periods
Mage- best pets
Monk- should be best at pulling
Paladin- best at touching people in the wrong places! Say no to LoH.
Ranger- best with bows
Rogue- best melee DPS
Shaman- best slow
Shadow Knight- Should be best at keeping agro, paladins need nerfed, stun agro is bunny as is.
Warrior- best mitigation
Wizard- best nukes

Thats how EQ should be.  One should think 'We got a tank and a healer, and a slower...but that xxxx place is gonna be damn tough to split mobs in, so instead of a slightly higher DPS class, lets get a monk'

Right now, monks are too low of DPS, and take WAY TOO friggin long to split spawns to be useful.  I flat out refuse to do LDoNs with a monk pulling.  That is wrong, but I want to win, and monk pulling is just too slow for that.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Chasom on July 18, 2004, 09:29:24 PM
Quote#2 in tanking, behind warriors, tied with pal/sk
*giggles* a class with NO snap aggro ability and an effective AC cap of 1350 is hardly tied with knights in tanking.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Xarilok on July 18, 2004, 10:25:14 PM
Look here: http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5868

Warrior took 109DPS, Pal/SK 130....monk took.....127!! Thats less.  With a lower AC to boot.

Monks are currently second in tanking, due to much higher block skills.  Average hit was higher than on the pal/sk, but they avoided much more.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Chasom on July 18, 2004, 11:37:49 PM
And taking damage well is why warriors were out of a job right after PoP released?  There is a lot more to tanking than that.

Oh, btw, the SK had 7ac more.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 19, 2004, 08:35:15 AM
QuoteI was, until a certain disgruntled monk started accusing me of 'making things up' while ignoring the facts presented to him. Im sorry, but when (former) monks come trolling the beastlord board about a nerf that happened 2 years ago, i don't see any reason to remain civil.

Heh, hate to break it too you Cop, but you seem to always casually insulting and rather combative when someone doesn't agree with you.

And err... I corrected many wrong things you said in my first post on this thread, most of which you seem to have conceeded were incorrect.

And as to 'ignoring facts' where is ANY bit of proof that monks had a 'mitigaiton bonus' apart from your say so (which as I've mention came from a spurious belief about monks getting a mitigation bonus in Kunark which you now agree is wrong)?
They had their original mitigation which was obviously better than their nerfed mitigation (it wouldn't be nerfed otherwise :)), but  'bonus mitigation'?

It's only ever been mentioned in this thread (and that last thread about in the 'that mitigation bonus monks got in Kunark' sense - which was of course utterly false), no monk, no player (no matter how much they thought monks should be nerfed), no Dev, no SoE employee, no one else has ever mentioned a 'monk mitigation bonus'..... and I'm the one 'ignoring facts'!!!!!   :lol:  :shock:  :D  :o  :lol:


Monks had their original and intended mitigation table.
It was nerfed for mudflation, mitigation cap and bad itemisation reasons.
There never was, is or most likely ever will be a 'monk mitigation bonus'.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 19, 2004, 08:46:46 AM
QuotePosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 10:25 pm    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here: http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5868

Warrior took 109DPS, Pal/SK 130....monk took.....127!! Thats less. With a lower AC to boot.

Monks are currently second in tanking, due to much higher block skills. Average hit was higher than on the pal/sk, but they avoided much more.

If you look at the results in that first table though the only one that mitigates worse is the BL (and that has 400 less AC).
The difference is through avoidance and if I remember what Thep said about that the monk in question not only had the normal monk avoidance by a whole truck load of avoidance increasing abilities and items (which seems to be a normal path for high end monks given the mitigation situation).

Also as mentioned above you're right that in that case monks take damage well, but you can't really extrapolate that into better 'tanking' directly.

As it takes no account of hit point and most importantly agro.

Remember it took not only a genuine mitigation bonus of sorts AND some on tap faster reliable (spell-like) argo to rebalance warriors with Palies and SK's, despite the fact that warriors always took damage better than them (and usually had more hits), because of the agro issues (outside of defesive needed situations at least).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 19, 2004, 10:22:13 AM
First of all, the numbers in the last column are not true dps numbers, but the product of average damage * hit ratio. That still scales 1:1 with dps of course, so the numbers in that column can be considered a dps index number.

Secondly, the BL did not mitigate worse, nor did he mitigate better then the monk. That's pretty much the whole point of where this discussion started. You're looking at statistical variation. But the same is true for the monk at 1850AC and at 1330AC. The results would not have changed if the monk had 500AC less then the SK.

Finally, the +avoidance items do throw off the comparison but then again, the entire section on avoidance skills is screwy to say the least.
Just add up the hit%+miss%+blk%+ddg%+pry%+rip%. It should add up to exactly 100% but its always higher ; 101% for the DRU, the CLR and the SHM, 111% for the monk with +avoidance items, 109% for the monk without, and 106% for all the other melees.
Obiously there's a mistake somewhere in those numbers. While I do believe that the mistake was unintentional, it might very well make it look as if monks are taking more dps then they really do. That depends on where the error comes from. If the hit%'s are right and the others wrong then nothing changes to last column. In every other case the numbers in the last column do change, and you'll find that the monk numbers change more, and for the better, then the others.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 19, 2004, 10:38:23 AM
Yep there are definitely some issues there, and it's hard to draw too much from one set of parses.

Having said that, that cuts both ways.
Both in a +monk and -monk way. Which is what I was bringing up, the -monk to the +monk arguments.

Once you've got the +ve's and the -ve's (especially if there are uncertainty caveats around both) it's much more balanced than trying to present the +ve's as fact and just shrug off the -ve's as statistical variance or anomalies etc.

To say monks ‘tank’ better than Pal/Sk’s (just taking into account the damage taken) based solely upon those parses would be just as incorrect as saying monks tanked worse (just taking into account the mitigation).
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 19, 2004, 12:11:53 PM
There can always be errors in the analyses of experimental results. There are many sorts of errors, from statistical uncertainties which you can do nothing about except collect more data, systematic errors resulting from your equipment (in this case that would be something like a coding error in the parse program) to human errors in logic or even simple typos. Which is the very reason why experimental results (which is what parses are!) have to be published and discussed in the first place. Its no different from any scientific research. Its important to know what the errors are. Statistical variance is not trivial. If a difference in experimental results can be explained from the statistical variance of the experiments then you have no choice but to do so. You're not allowed to draw conclusions from those differences.

I do not shrug off the -ve's as you call them. I make a conscious analysis of the statistically significance of both the +ve's and the -ve's and treat both equally.

There are errors in this set of data, but that doesn't make the data is useless. Far from it. The mitigation data is completely independent from the avoidance data. There's no indication that there is an error in the mitigation data and until someone can show there is, all the deductions and conclusions drawn from it stand. And having established where the error in the avoidance data lies, we can deduce what its effect is on the other conclusions. And the effect is what i described in my previous post, namely that the picture for monks cannot get worse. It either remains the same, or gets better.

Error or not, at least its data. Imperfect data is still infinitely preferrable over the wild stories going around about monks defensive capabilities based on nothing but in-game perceptions alone (I remind you again of the very first post in this thread). The issue here is monks claiming to mitigate a lot worse then beastlords which is a load of BS. The bottom-line is that monk's defensive capabilities aren't nearly as bad as monks claim them to be. According to SoE 'vision', monks are supposed to be the equals of the chain classes in the defensive order. Well they certainly are that and more. Now you can discuss if that vision is right or not until your fingers start to blister from the typing as far as im concerned, but thats a topic for the monk boards and has no place here.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 19, 2004, 02:02:35 PM
QuoteThere are errors in this set of data, but that doesn't make the data is useless. Far from it. The mitigation data is completely independent from the avoidance data. There's no indication that there is an error in the mitigation data and until someone can show there is, all the deductions and conclusions drawn from it stand.

Yep and the data quite clearly shows monk mitigation is well down there.

As to avoidance it's higher, BUT it doesn't quantify the avoidance gear and abilities (much as it takes no account of hit points and such things as agro generation).

So generalisations about tanking (to which I was originally replying above) are not solid conclusions (as you must agree?).



QuoteNow you can discuss if that vision is right or not until your fingers start to blister from the typing as far as im concerned, but thats a topic for the monk boards and has no place here.

Yep that's fair enough, just so long as no one starts saying monks had a mitigation bonus. :)
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Coprolith on July 19, 2004, 06:39:15 PM
QuoteYep and the data quite clearly shows monk mitigation is well down there.

Its not 'down' there. Its right where it should be, next to beastlords and druids.

QuoteSo generalisations about tanking (to which I was originally replying above) are not solid conclusions

Not solid enough to say monks take damage just as well as the knights all the time, no, but there's enough substance to it to say they approach knight-level and leave the other melees behind them. Its certainly solid enough to say to say they can take damage pretty damn well and should stop complaining about the damn nerf.

QuoteYep that's fair enough, just so long as no one starts saying monks had a mitigation bonus.

Monks had a mitigation bonus, by the very definition of the word bonus.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 19, 2004, 08:08:57 PM
QuoteQuote:
Yep and the data quite clearly shows monk mitigation is well down there.



Its not 'down' there. Its right where it should be, next to beastlords and druids.

Yep it's fortunate monk spell casting is right up there with Druids and Beastlords, eh?
Otherwise monks might be pissed off and complaining!!! ;)  :lol:



QuoteQuote:
So generalisations about tanking (to which I was originally replying above) are not solid conclusions  


Not solid enough to say monks take damage just as well as the knights all the time, no, but there's enough substance to it to say they approach knight-level and leave the other melees behind them. Its certainly solid enough to say to say they can take damage pretty damn well and should stop complaining about the damn nerf.

It's not so much the nerf as the position (or lack of) in the game, or perhaps the effects of the nerf that really have nothing to do with the intentions OF the nerf.


QuoteQuote:
Yep that's fair enough, just so long as no one starts saying monks had a mitigation bonus.



Monks had a mitigation bonus, by the very definition of the word bonus.

Now you see you're talking out of your posterior again, monk never had, do not have and most likely never will have a 'mitigation bonus'.

Monks had thier original and intended mitigation... by the very definition of original and intended NOT a 'bonus'. ;)

They had an AC Bonus, but no 'mitigation bonus', only the mitigation table they were intended to have.

Anything else is just pointless hot air that smells slightly of lower intestine.  :lol:
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: a_moss_snake_001 on July 19, 2004, 10:33:04 PM
Question: If they were intended (tm) to have that mitigation table why were they subsequently placed on a lower mitigation table?

Working "as intended" is exactly that, if they had been "as intended" at all points in their evolution then they would not have been changed ;)

Obviously at some point that mitigation table became unsuitable for Monks in terms of class balance and the "intentions" SoE had for that class. Since they own the game they can quite freely decide where they want a class  to be (or not to be).

If players have REAL problems with any of those decisions and do not like the way a class is going then the answer is simple, either they play another class or they play another game. The choice is simple.
Title: Monk vs. BST damage mitigation
Post by: Goretzu on July 19, 2004, 10:54:33 PM
QuoteQuestion: If they were intended (tm) to have that mitigation table why were they subsequently placed on a lower mitigation table?

Because of 3.5 years of mudflation, increasingly bad itemisation (60AC legs!!!) and the limits of the old original mitigation caps.

There were reason for the change (some ok, some stupid), but that DOES NOT make it retroactively a 'bonus', it simply means it was nerfed. :)




QuoteWorking "as intended" is exactly that, if they had been "as intended" at all points in their evolution then they would not have been changed.

And it was working as intended for 3.5 years.
Even when monk mitigation was nerfed it was NOT monk mitigation that was broken it was the mitigation caps and the situtation where monks mitigated the same (for example, not using acutal figures just examples, monk had 1400AC, Warrior had 1600AC, but both are over the cap - now the monk and the warrior mitigate at the same rate despite the warrior having much more mitigation AC due to the cap, and the monk avoids more = mitigation nerf - as the easiest, if messiest, method avalible to SoE).

So again not 'bonus mitigation', just other issues causing a nerf to mitigation.



QuoteObviously at some point that mitigation table became unsuitable for Monks in terms of class balance and the "intentions" SoE had for that class. Since they own the game they can quite freely decide where they want a class to be (or not to be).

Yep and they nerfed it, but didn't retro actively claim it was just removing a 'bonus'. :)

QuoteIf players have REAL problems with any of those decisions and do not like the way a class is going then the answer is simple, either they play another class or they play another game. The choice is simple.

Heh, that's the choice people have made.  
Have you seen the monk numbers today compared to 2 years ago?
Not only have a lot changed toons, but a lot quit outright, which is why I think SoE may FINALLY be beginning to listen to monk issues.  
$$$>everything, after all.