Mitigation and Monks

[Frodlin7th]

I've seen it, you've seen it, we've all seen the moronic statements howled in protest by pre-menstrual monks about how their mitigation makes their class unplayable. Often they'll use the data by Thepp to show how "bad" they have it, and make asinine statements such as:

"A druid with less AC tanks the same as we do"

and

"A Cleric outtanks us"


These are flat out idiotic statements, but I know why they're made. Lesser minds take Thepp's data, and apply only the "Hits landed" chart to their experience in EQ and go "SEE!?! THAT IS WHAT I MEAN!!!"

There is CRUCIAL data that is missed out on in the charts from Thepp's data, and I've made a spreadsheet which puts the data back in where it belongs.

Combat works like this in EQ:

Either an attempted hit misses or doesn't miss. Potential hits that are avoided with special skills like Dodge, Block, Parry, and Riposte need to be calculated not as "missed" but as "Non Miss, Zero hit". In other words, there are 21 values on the damage curve, beginning with zero, NOT 20, beginning with 1, and that special avoidance skills are really "100% mitigation" for purposes of displaying tankability and damage taken.

When the data is presented with this value correctly displayed, the outcome isn't nearly as "outrageous" for monks, and it shows why a monk when taking a hit worse thn others still takes less damage than others.

Have a look and you'll see... this is how tanking data should be presented. I used Thepp's data, and the charts are at the bottom.

Tanking Data

[Phantron]

People seem to overlook that let's say you always get hit for max, but you only get hit for 10% of the time, that makes you a much better tank than anyone else is right now, by far.

[lamini]

great chart frodlin

[Battleblade]

Frodlin,

kk, I looked and read and thought a bit and I think I've got it. Monks avoid a LOT of damage. More often than not they aren't hit for damage. Therefore given the reduced chances of being hit and the fact most hits are for low values, the chances of a monk being pulped by a mobs are significantly lower than for a tank. In turn, tanks are significantly less likely to be pulped than the other listed classes.

Specifically, claims that a Druid with less AC than a tank does a better job tanking are clearly mistaken and you've done a great job showing why.

While you didn't directly address the claim that Rangers and Monks tank like Knights, I assume that only when (for mobs not studied) mobs have a high DB value (quite rare I assume), have high attack and therefore tend to hit more often for max and/or are hasted do things like mitigation and max HP's become major factors. So, a Monk could have reasonable HP's but vs. such mobs a Knight would out tank him because of a Monk's lower mitigation (?). Assuming Rangers can reach Knight-like HP's, I'm guessing lower AC and therefore lower mitigation would limit their effectiveness (?)

Appreciate the effort. Thanks a bunch.

BB

[Redcloud]

Frodlin, your chart is mainly irrelevant to the problem, let alone your missguided derogatory comments .

Your chart shows that a similarly geared high end war takes close to no max damage while a monk takes about 13% (counting 500+ hits).

There lies the problem mainly:
it's a lot easier to kill a monk than any other tank class, because of streakiness.
By the very nature of the RNG, avoidance with no valid mitigation to back it up makes healing a lot worse than on any other melee class.
It boils down to a predictable healing pattern and if you ever had to heal a tanking monk, you should know that as soon as you are actually tanking something on par with the character level of gear (not some trash a caster could tank), the monk is the most inefficient melee class at it.

Mess with your number as much as you'd like, that won't change the fact.

If you were in good faith, you'd aknowledge at least that. One can hope...

[Demorgoth]

Originally Posted by Redcloud

it's a lot easier to kill a monk than any other tank class,

Any other tank class? Since when were monks included in the term 'tank class' ?

Hey, look on the bright side - at least you have a defensive based discipline that Knights yearn for so deeply

[Frodlin7th]

Irrelevant to the "problem"? Actually, the "problem" is that monks think there needs to be a change to their mitigation without any alteration to their avoidance, so it's quite relevant.

[Glatius2]

it's a lot easier to kill a monk than any other tank class, because of streakiness.

Actually I would say that the real problem is that many Monks think of their class as a tank class. Well, if they were in fact a tank class, then they'd have reason for complaint. But in as much as most people who aren't Monks think of the class as a DPS/pulling class that shouldn't be tanking, there seems to be a perception problem. Throw in the fact that the SoE devs have come along and reinforced the majority perception that Monks aren't a tank class, you begin to wonder why those who play Monks are still tied into this blatantly wrong perception.

Want to be a tank? Roll up a Warrior, Shadow Knight, or Paladin. End of story.

[Balkins]

i see all the nubmers but not really sure what it all means...

[Ugnok]

Funny thread...too bad none of ya play monks at lvl 65.

In reality...based off of reading there...none of them want to be tanks. They want to pull w/o dying. I could see how that would be nice. Remember that this class never could tank like us. Remember that this class used to be a decent offtank. Remember that this class used to be the in-between of the warrior and rogue classes of the pure melee. Certainly have lost their niche. They arent the best pullers and certainly arent even top 5 dps. What is their role and dont BS the crowds for your own agenda. Try being openminded. Note...This is my 2nd account and Ive been playing since 2000. Wifey deleted my old warrior.

Best to take an average monk....maybe 3500-4k hps unbuffed...that might be high even...1000-1200 ac maybe. Parse how well he does for us. Or take an average elemental geared monk vs a time geared monk. From what I understand of reading that board that the time geared monks are fine. The elemental geared monks and lower are totally broken. Hell...some of the time level monks are pissed as well...who can blame them. They supported us when we couldnt efficiently grab/hold aggro fast enough for our xp groups. They supported us when we got our mitigation boost...why not do the same for our fellow melee classes instead of whining?

[xao]

Well, now I've certaintly seen my moronic statement for the day. Frodlin went to all that work to lay out someone else's parsing, and then went ahead and made some completely useless conclusions.

You see, when you analyze data, you need to consider all the data, not just the pieces that would allow you to poke fun at people. Say, for example, the sixty points of avoidance that the monk in question had on his gear. Of course, Frodlin conveniently neglected to mention that, or the fact that the warrior had zero points. Never mind the other data that indicates monks do have a single innate avoidance advantage: block fires ~8% of the time, while parry works ~4% of the time.

Of course, over at Monkly Business people are used to Frodlin pole vaulting to half-assed conclusions. Guess that's why he didn't decide to display his "analysis" there.

[Kadd]

Therefore given the reduced chances of being hit and the fact most hits are for low values, the chances of a monk being pulped by a mobs are significantly lower than for a tank.

Do we even play the same game? I can assure you, mobs pulp monk much faster than any equally geared warrior.

[Shaiel]

Since when are monks supposed to grab/hold aggro? Their defensive abilities should reflect their roles. They have massive avoidance, which is what a puller wants. It also is better than high mitigation when you're trying to do damage and not take any (and not tank). Monks were Rampage tanks in Luclin, for crying out loud. They're a leather class with innate abilities that should make them be more like chain, not on par with plate.

I have no clue where this idea that they should be able to fill the role of a tank in a hard hitting exp group came from. Oh wait, monks used to be over-powered defensively and could pull it off before; that's where it came from. Did they get hit too hard with the nerf bat? Perhaps. But you can't argue that they weren't over-powered before the nerf.

They want to pull w/o dying.

And that's what their high mitigation allows them to do.

[Kadd]

Originally Posted by Shaiel

Monks were Rampage tanks in Luclin, for crying out loud.

Wow, we could rampage tank where where the max hit was what, 1200?

I have no clue where this idea that they should be able to fill the role of a tank in a hard hitting exp group came from.

I dont know of any monks that want to be tanks in hard hitting exp groups.

Oh wait, monks used to be over-powered defensively and could pull it off before; that's where it came from.

Oh you mean when most experience group mobs hit for less than 200, and where basically anyone could tank? Hi Fungus Grove and Velks. The release of PoP with the introduction of hard hitting mobs would have fixed any problem in defining the tank classes and also disallow monks for the most part to be viable tanks in exp group without a mitigation nerf ever happening. (Minus warrior's aggro problem, which was a separate issue.)

Seriously, anyone who thinks that monks could tank too well pre-PoP needs to pull their head out of their ass and remember back to the content. The reason monks, and other non-tank classes could tank was because of how weaks the mobs were. I wonder how many of the people nodding their heads in agreement about the monk nerf were PoP-babies and didnt even play Pre-PoP.

[Dobbanz]

We WERE a tank class. No, not the best tank class but we were capable of tanking most mobs when we had to in exp groups. Yes, some super twinked monks were better at tanking in karnors castle than an equal level, not so twinked warrior, so what? Our whole class was designed originally around being able to stand toe to toe with a mob and beat the ever loving daylights out of it. While being solo. We were the only melee class that could effectively solo past the low levels without being buffed and/or twinked. Gee, I wonder why this was the case? Maybe it was because we were designed to not get hit too often and when we DID get hit it wasnt for max damage every time like we were some sort of silk wearing caster class. I was able to solo at least partially effectively in level appropriate gear right up until I hit 52 pre nerf. I didnt see many warriors or rogues doing that. Now with the same gear a light blue drolvarg gives me a serious run for my money.

My point? Yes, we used to be a tank. Not as good as a plate tank but good enough to manage if we had to in groups. Good enough to be the off tank on raids in case an unmezzable got loose. We didnt have the ability to gain snap agro like a taunt, that was the main disadvantage, although our sheer damage output was enough to almost make up for that. No, reasonable monks dont want to be the main tank of choice for hard ldon missions or to tank quarm on raids, we just want what we used to have, the ability to take a hit without going splat. The ability to stand toe to toe with a fricking BLUE CON and be able to kill it without blowing a disc + mend while buffed by a bot. BTW, I doubt im remembered on this board but I used to be a regular poster on the original steel warriors board.

Traab "Love Machine" Fellhammer
Human Mob Compactor of the 52nd Cycle
And Almost Too Sexy To Live!