Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

[Coprolith]

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.

[Goretzu]

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.

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?).

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.

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

[Coprolith]

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.

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.

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.

[Goretzu]

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:

[a_moss_snake_001]

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.

[Goretzu]

Question: 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. :)

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.