A question to my fellow monks.

Discussion in 'Monk' started by ARCHIVED-Gaige, Mar 3, 2005.

  1. ARCHIVED-Dovifat Guest

    Tank

    That's what was sold to us from the early days of beta till now. Whoever wants Brawlers to be a damage/tank hybrid needs to go play EQ1 some more. EQ2 is and will be in essence a raiding game as well.

    Hybrids suck at raids. Even the two overpowered Hybrids in that three-letter-game are merely fillers in high end content.

    role in groups > uniqueness ( to keep it simple for you 1337s )
  2. ARCHIVED-FamilyManFirst Guest

    Sniper, I'll say it again. Please stop insulting people here. I appreciate that you're on "my side" but insults don't help the situation, they only make it worse.

    Sage, I believe you're wrong. Deflection was present and blocking attacks without a shield long before the devs boosted it to give it the "equivalent" of a buckler for Brawlers and a round shield for Monks and Bruisers. Refer to this excerpt from the Patch Notes of 12/16/04:

    - Increased brawler Deflection to provide the equivalent of always having a buckler equipped.
    - Increased monk and bruiser Deflection to provide the equivalent of always having a round shield equipped.

    They increased Deflection without altering shields for other fighters. Unless you can come up with a Dev post stating otherwise I believe that this proves that they can alter Deflection to improve or diminish Brawlers', Monks', and Bruisers' block rates without affecting other Fighters.

    Regarding your arguments about the abilities: yes, attacks can fail to hit. However, so can the Taunting Blow line of taunts for Guardians. That's a taunt tied to a blow; if the blow misses the taunt fails. As I demonstrated above Monks have both of the taunt lines that Guardians have which are straightforward, spell-like taunts. Between the Monks' taunts, their DPS, and their buffs (which Guardians have too), they are designed to gain and hold aggro, and they do a good job.

    The problem, if there is one (I think there is), with Brawlers and their subclasses has nothing to do with aggro control, it has everything to do with their defense.


    Edited for grammar.
    Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on 03-10-2005 10:29 AM
  3. ARCHIVED-SageMarrow Guest

    in essence - and comparison - yes it a problem with aggro control - on OUR part.

    either way - without the shield - there is no BLOCK skill. thats the point i was trying to make. for that matter we were given the ability to equip a shield in our off hand for what reason if we could already block attacks?? for that matter we would have had 2 blocks proccing at once right?

    they tied it to the tail end of the class itself - as opposed to us running around with it in our hands - nothing more - nothing less -
    and that makes perfect sense if you think about it - before we could actually equip a buckler - we didnt get blocks at all -

    when they let us equip the buckler - we got blocks, and deflection was the modifier for the shield so that we wouldnt have to have shields that scaled upward like Kite shields based on AC(whats the point in a buckler with 800+ac?).

    to keep the class flavor and dps consistency - they make us NOT have to equip the shields - and allow us to wear it in our class innately.

    i dont know if you played the game at release - but this was the case openly - naturally it was to allow us to pursue our fortune as tanks. but we didnt have a block skill at all before the shield equip ability was given/therefore yes our deflection is just our rendition of AC for our buckler. (for those of you who dont know - we were able to equip a physical shield at release)

    so now do you see my point? - they couldnt do it they way they planned because AC adds to the overall defense of the wearer. so that means 900+ Ac is 900+ ADDITIONAL defense...

    where as ours is supposed to be lower - but not pull from natural defenses as a plates would - but moreso from the modifier that is called deflection...to give the illusion of us actually BLOCKING attacks through our martial artistry

    aka - a block is a block -

    so yes maybe the theory of deflection twinking can be fixed - but a random number has the same consistency as a cup of water. none. so sometimes it will be impervious and other times be a curse... if not done PERfFECTLY. as our buddy gage stated long ago- its too easily overpowered as it is underpowered. if that makes sense - there is no way to perfect randomization as the two in essence are oxymorons.

    (perfection is as such which in this case is defined by a consistency - randomization in this situation is a negative - or imperfection.)

    you have to think on a video game level = these things are programmed from a list of PRE-created tools. very seldom do they gut a system to produce something left field or out of the ordinary along the lines to achieve a NEW result from the rest of the design.




    Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-10-2005 05:13 PM
  4. ARCHIVED-node101 Guest


    actualy water has a consistency and is very predictable, and so is computer code.
    Random number generation can be weighted within boundaries to become very easy to define an average result. As an example take a look at fruit machines, although they may seem totaly random to the casual onlooker they are infact very tightly controlled by the operators to give a set result over time.

    It is only a law of averages they are working with, while yes it is all too easy to tip the balance either way I can not believe given the correct testing that it is beyond them to find the balance. The problem I face as a monk (I can't talk for bruisers I've never played one) is not from mellee hits but from magic hits where my lesser hit points to a plate tank makes a large difference, A nuke for 2000 or so can easily put me near to death when only seconds ago I was sitting happily with yellow health. Having said that It does not make my job as a tank impossible, It needs a more alert healer but as many have said that I have grouped with although they need to be more alert they do not find it as hard as some of them thought it would be as some times they are simply idling waiting for me to get hit. Of course this only relates to normal grouping, a raid situation is a different matter, In this case I simply can not take the damage being done and no amount of avoidance is going to stop a hit that kills in one blow.
  5. ARCHIVED-SageMarrow Guest

    of course they could do that what you say -

    you can place boundaries on the low and the high of the scale in which it can or cannot -

    with this being the scale


    <----------------------------->

    and in stead of having stretching arrows we do this

    <----->

    so that the margin of error / taking a hit - is adjusted -

    that is perfectly fine - but grping isnt in question as of now - because our dps/time/damage taken is fine for average grouping and exping -

    this will not be in question unless our dps in changed - then we will require more defensive abilities on the archetype level to compete with plate tanks for the 1 sole tanking spot in groups and raids. given our limited dps and utility in groups without the dps we have currently. (which we have been round and round about already) so say its fact for this scenario)

    so on the other hand, about the HP and such -
    thats just another loop we have to jump through to get to a balance - be it close to guardians or closer to scouts.
    so dont panic when people suggest a complete class overhaul... deflection fixing would not address all of our issues unless its as good as the deflection/agility was pre agility nerf...and if we tanked in that capacity - i doubt anyone would complain about ANTYHING AT ALL.
    Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-10-2005 06:18 PM
  6. ARCHIVED-node101 Guest

    When DPS of scouts is adjusted we will not be viable DPS compared to scouts or mages.

    so....

    Without a modification to the way we can take large hits we will have no role in raids at all.

    which part of the above sentence don't you understand?
  7. ARCHIVED-bonesbro Guest

    You are wrong. We could block attacks, without a shield, on day 1 of release. I am pretty sure that we could not equip shields on day 1 of release. That was added in a hotfix a week or two after release, and there was outcry because they were making us equip a shield for better defense when our deflection skill should have been the defense we needed. Scroll to nearly the last page of messages on this forum and you will find discussion.
  8. ARCHIVED-FamilyManFirst Guest

    Sage, if you want to try and rebut me, either come up with new examples or try and refute my logic. Just stating, "it a problem with aggro control - on OUR part," says nothing but that you've run out of arguments. If that's true and you still disagree with me, fine, we can agree to disagree; however, I believe I've proven you wrong.

    It was a kluge fix to improve our defense. The devs decided that our Avoidance was a little low, even with the inherent Deflection ability to block attacks, so they gave us the ability to equip a shield to buff it up a bit. Later, in the January 9 Big Patch, they increased Deflection by the "equivalent" of a round shield.

    Several points:
    1) Yes, I've played the game since release.
    2) At release Brawlers and Monks were able to equip buckler shields. They also had the Deflection skill. Monks have always had the ability to block attacks.
    3) In a small patch on December 3, 1994 Monks and Bruisers were upgraded to allow them to equip round shields in addition to bucklers. Then, in the January 6, 1995 Big Patch, Deflection was increased (not "improved" or "modified") to provide the "equivalent" of a shield, buckler for Brawlers, round for Monks and Bruisers; at the same time, the ability to equip a shield was removed from all 3 classes. This clearly implies that Deflection was always able to block attacks with or without a shield; the shield just made it better.
    4) I'm afraid, however, that while I'm pretty certain that I was blocking attacks, without a shield, from the release of the game, I don't have any old logs to prove it (I've only started logging fairly recently). Gage, Gangster, or any other vet, can you dredge up any old logs from before Jan. 6, 1995 that show you blocking without a shield?

    Nevertheless, Sage, your argument still doesn't hold water. If, as I believe, Deflection is a shield-equivalent skill unique to our class that allows for us to Block, or it's some modifier to an "inherent shield" that we were given on Jan. 9 (to "upgrade" the shield as we level), the fact is that it is still unique to Brawlers, Monks, and Bruisers. They can change Deflection and it won't have any effect on the other Fighter classes.


    Edited for layout.
    Message Edited by FamilyManFirst on 03-11-2005 10:13 AM
  9. ARCHIVED-RadricTycho Guest

    The fix for deflection effectiveness should be this simple formula:

    Let SF = shield factor of the brawler
    Let D = deflection skill value of the brawler

    SF = 4*D - 100

    For example at level 42 my deflection is 210:

    SF = 4*210 - 100 = 740

    I would have the equivalent of a 740 shield factor tower shield on at all times. At level 10 a brawler has a deflection of 50:

    SF = 4*50 - 100 = 100

    Every 20% towards next level we would gain 4 shield factor. At level 50 we would have a shield factor of 900. This should compensate us fairly well for our lack of mitigation. I have a feeling that right now things work fairly well at lower levels, largely because the main job at those lower levels is to hold aggro, mobs just don't dish it out they way the 50+ raid mobs do. If our deflection is not scaling our blocking potential as high as this, it should.

    Also, casters wreck us, does AC mitigation help against spells? Do plate tanks have it easier or is our spell mitigation purely based off of our resistances to the different kinds of damage attacks (heat, cold, magic, etc.)? If it's not based off of these values, we need better chances to avoid spells too. Right now I can't even get away if I have enough spell casters nuking me. DOTs and roots and such hit EVERY single time. Yes they have a disadvantage in health usually, but that doesn't matter when they can nuke the pure crap out of you. NPC casters are a tad overpowered in the solo game.
  10. ARCHIVED-SageMarrow Guest

    ok family lets say you win - on the blocking issue - either way.

    if we could block without a sheild then something in my head says that we should block 2x as much. but we know thats not the case or - it may be the case but its still not enough.

    otherwise = the shield factor is a mute point - because its still just as random as the modifier being deflection - unless - which cant be perfected - only managed within a given range of pass or fail per level range.

    and as i explained here....it answers many of the questions that you requested in your rebuttle...

    http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=11608

    so with the above post the point in relativity to this -----

    as opposed to taunts dps based aggro can be inhibited in a NUMBER of ways...

    if damage doesnt register neither does aggro / hate... which proves my point that NO = we dont build hate as good as the other classes saying as though dps based aggro building and subpar taunts - OVERALL - we will never generate the same aggro as a single strike 500+ nuke (sk and pals) or a taunt that generates 600+ hate in a single cast. many high level GUARDIANS have said that they cannot hold aggro with a good warlock in groups because they overpower everything Drastically. as well as every other tank type in game - so with us being the lower arche of aggro holding - we shouldnt expect our damage to compete - aggro management is almost in essence a competition - one that slows down the fight if the wrong rabbit is being used.

    that means that the same lvl 50 warlock cannot utilize his max dps capability because he may beat you in the aggro building race that we get a slow start into on mobs with massive amounts of HP. (grpx3 epix etc.)
  11. ARCHIVED-FamilyManFirst Guest

    Well, I think that we should, indeed, block much more often than a Warrior with a tower shield, seeing as we're only protected by Light armor, for all that the Mitigation of said Light armor has been improved. It's still not as good as Heavy or Vanguard armor, nor should it be. Our Avoidance should make up for that.

    Moreover I don't believe that it's as hard to manage as you might think. There are lots of ways to manage random number generation to change the frequency of what numbers come out. As a simple example take a random number from 1 - 100. Run it as a straight random-number and there's an equal chance of any number between 1 and 100 to come out. However, if you instead create two random numbers from 1 - 50 and add them together you get a bell-shaped curve of numbers betwee 2 and 100 with the most frequent results being 50 and 51. There are other ways, too, to create random numbers that truly are random but with different probabilities of any given number being the result.

    Regarding the aggro issue, first off we don't have sub-par taunts. Our taunts are the same as a Guardian's taunts in effectiveness and level. Protect (lvl 50 Guardian taunt) and Agitate Spirit (lvl 50 Monk taunt) create the same hate in the mobs. The difference between Guardians' aggro creation and Monks' is in the extra Taunting Blow line that Guardians get and the damaging attacks that Monks get. If a mob can't be hit neither of those aggro creation methods will work. Guardians have an edge over Monks in that a single successful Taunting Blow-type attack will create more aggro than a single successful damaging Combat Art of a Monk; Monks have an edge over Guardians in that most Monks will have higher Agility than Guardians allowing Monks to land more attacks.

    I still think that Monks' Avoidance of attacks needs tweaking up a bit although I'm reconsidering in light of some tests that I ran comparing my Monk and my Berserker (I should be publishing those results soon).