Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

[Chasom]

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.

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.

[TerjynPovar]

Parses please?  Every parse I've seen shows that monks softcap varies with target, same as every other class.

[Coprolith]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Goretzu]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Goretzu]

"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:

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 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.

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.

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. :))

[Chasom]

.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.

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.

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.

[Coprolith]

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.

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

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.

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

You 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.

[Xarilok]

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.

[Chasom]

#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.

[Xarilok]

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.

[Chasom]

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.

[Goretzu]

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.

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'.

[Goretzu]

Posted: 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).

[Coprolith]

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.

[Goretzu]

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).