Main Menu

Monk vs. BST damage mitigation

Started by Razimir, July 04, 2004, 02:10:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elder Griksh

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.

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.
EQ Aneya 70 Beastlord Tarew Marr
EQ2 Evalin Swashbuckler Mistmoore

Coprolith

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.
Elder Coprolith III
Trollie ferrul lawd of 65 levels (retired)

Aneya

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.
EQ Aneya 70 Beastlord Tarew Marr
EQ2 Evalin Swashbuckler Mistmoore

Aneya

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.
EQ Aneya 70 Beastlord Tarew Marr
EQ2 Evalin Swashbuckler Mistmoore

Eatbugs

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.
Grimgrey Dorfeater
Troll Wildblood
Undivided Faith
Drinal

Coprolith

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
Elder Coprolith III
Trollie ferrul lawd of 65 levels (retired)

feralize

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....
[65 Feral Lord] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=750138" >Feralize (Iksar) 163aa : [65 Arcanist] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=758777" >Kikagoki (Froglok) 39aa : [62 Warlock] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=679674" >Bonekasta (Erudite) 29aa : [62 Warder] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=846383" >Traku (Human) 6aa : [56 Troubador] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=986526" >Twotonic (Vah Shir) 3aa : [51 Crusader] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=865632" >Ubinusan (Erudite) : [51 Brawler] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1045121" >Drolthar (Dwarf) : [44 Shaman] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=986554" >Jikkorak (Iksar) : [40 Druid] http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1045106" >Ceggan (Halfling)

Eatbugs

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.
Grimgrey Dorfeater
Troll Wildblood
Undivided Faith
Drinal

Noxdowne Draggout

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.

Banga

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.

Eatbugs

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
Grimgrey Dorfeater
Troll Wildblood
Undivided Faith
Drinal

Goretzu

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

Goretzu

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. :)

Goretzu

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.