Are Monks as avoidance oriented as implied by the dev's?

NeVeRLi · 03-22-2005, 12:21 PM

***I would love to see someone explain why Monks get hit more than Guardians***

I guess we aren't as avoidance oriented as is implied! I feel the dev's owe us an answer. From what I am seeing Guardians, Berserkers and Pally's are all showing 50-70% avoidance and mitigate roughly 50% of all dmg. And the Guardians have insane buff's for their defense skill. Dev's you nerf the bard classes so when are you gonna nerf the guardians? Is it to much to get our deflection working? Is it not enough we take double the dmg that guardians do and yet get hit more cause we can not buff our defense skill which seems to effect avoidance more than anything.

SageMarrow · 03-22-2005, 01:38 PM

between that fact and our skill base being not really tanking oriented at all times, does it ever make you stop and wonder what our REAL intended roll was?

Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-22-2005 12:38 AM

RadricTyc · 03-22-2005, 02:05 PM

SageMarrow wrote:
between that fact and our skill base being not really tanking oriented at all times, does it ever make you stop and wonder what our REAL intended roll was?
Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-22-2005 12:38 AM

I am trying to understand how a full line of AoE and single-target taunts, several defensive stances, deflection, and attacks that can largely be used EVEN WHILE STUNNED, makes us not tanking oriented.

Please explain how these skills are not tanking oriented. Yes I have often wondered what our real intended role was. But usually the developers have made it very clear during those times.

And to the original poster, we can buff our defense skill, spider stance buffs it by 15. Guardians can just buff it by more than that, that's part of the problem. Coupled with tower shields, massive defense buffs make them pretty impervious. I hate to call nerf on anyone and I won't. But I will say that they seem to avoid better than we. And that is something that should give the developers some concern.

SageMarrow · 03-22-2005, 02:55 PM

yes ae taunts and things of that nature are good but are underpowered in comparison to those the guardian gets. stone stance is nice as well, but also consider that you cannot taunt while using it... making it very useful for a situation in offtank where you pull a mob off a caster and need to hold it on you until MT can get it off you.

just like our AE tuants, they are weaker than the ones a guardian receives and are great for holding second place in aggro when a guardian is present. i tested it for 5 hours straight tonight against a guardian who was 3 levels below me. no matter how hard i tried, i could not pull aggro off of him, instead i held a consistent 2nd place spamming everything i had, even group buffs.

a taunt that can be used while stunned is more effective when a mob has cast a group mez or mez spell period and the MT cannot get to the mob because he cannot cast the spell. so in turn we get the target on us until the fight can be passed along.

FD is not very good for REALLY avoiding battles, but its great for wiping aggro after a rabid mob aggroes the caster and the MT is preoccupied with 4 other mobs, and you need to get aggro back where it belongs.

and yes the developers have made it clear that we are tanks, but never in what capacity and definately not in comparison to the other tank classes. we tank just fine for the MOST part, but in comparison to an equally geared guardian we pale in comparison as far as aggro control, Hp, and AC.

on behalf of bruisers, i know for a fact that our skills are set up moreso for bodyguard than tank at all. all of our taunts include fears and things that accomodate managing a fight in spite of the MT doing his thing on his end, if a mob gets on a caster, we can fear it (provided it doesnt run into the walls, ) or we can mildly mez it until the MT gets control. we dont have 1 AE taunt without a fear or somn attatched except shout.

now provided the group buffs etc, we both agree that that is not thier intended use, it just happens to work, but on behalf of the guardian i grouped with through the entire adventure pack zone, yes he made my taunting ability look like childs play. he easily pulled aggro from me, even using my strongest taunts.

So yes, we are ambidextrious in our approach, some skills can be used to compete in the core area of tanking, but others are directly for support IMO, and even still some other skills are useful in both situations.

But if you asked me on a personal level if i felt as though we ever meant to be all out tanks on par with guardians in a different way, i would say absolutely not. we were meant to be versatile and able to go either direction. which is in turn is why i say that the devs are being forced to rethink the archetype system...

a shadowknight will never tank as well as a guardian, a monk will never tank as a well as a paladin, and a bruiser will never tank as well as a shadowknight. We have established that any change to a monks deflection and avoidance will more than likely over power the class back to pre agility nerf. If shadowknights are ever given the HP potential of a paladin through lifetaps, they would also be too powerful considering that one takes life to give life and the other simply is power consumption.

just as enchanters will never be able to fill a wizards roll of damage and a dirge cannot truly fill another scouts roll as dps.

so as much as we try to live this dream of equal but different, there can be no such thing and still maintain different classes. That would mean enchanters would have to have the damage capability of a wizard and a monk would have the same tanking ability of a guardian...

Thus leading me back to my point that yes we are and can tank well, but we were not and neither were the other 5 subclasses built to tank exclusively. only 1 class was. the others are by products of the guardian design. different ways to achieve the same result persay... but in actuality - they didnt build the classes around the mobs, they built the mobs around the classes and the changes reflect as such.

RadricTyc · 03-22-2005, 07:00 PM

Ugh I hate responding like I am about to, but your posts are always so scattered that you leave a responder little choice but to try to address your myriad issues. Especially when you skirt the initial request. The reason every post you make turns into a thread that is 100 freaking pages long is because you cannot focus on one issue at a time. You feel the need to muddy any discussion with 100,000 side issues in an attempt to stave off straightforward logic and reason.

If you could have a discussion on a single issue at a time, you might actually get somewhere. But I think you, and maybe even gage relish the fact that while you are having your arguments, you dominate the focus of this board and you think that you have everyone's attention. The reality is that the more you bicker about 100,001 minor details and lose focus of the bigger picture, the more you lose your audience.

People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating.

If you want to discuss multiple unrelated issues, use multiple threads. My original request was: how are AoE taunts, single target taunts, defensive stances and buffs, and attacks while stunned NOT "really tanking oriented" as you put it. And it was actually a rhetorical question, since the only reasonable response is that they are.

Besides, aren't you a bruiser sage? Why do you keep bringing bruiser experiences to the monk board and using them as proof that monks have the same issues as bruisers. Bruisers and monks have only 3 things in common: light armor, deflection, and brawler-class skills. After that any comparison between the two needs to be done with hard numbers involved. I don't like a bruiser telling monks that they cannot hold agro, since I really don't even know if the two have the same taunts. I don't mind disucssing monks with bruisers, or having discussions about things that the two in common, but I don't buy into the concept of a bruiser having the same experiences with combat arts without some hard, cold facts.

You are a bruiser right?

Velor · 03-22-2005, 10:47 PM

RadricTycho wrote:

People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating.

I tend to agree with you. I tried to take a somewhat active role on these boards to help identify issues, concerns, etc of our class with hard and fast data to back them up. But not many seem interested in particpating in constructive stuff like that. They seem to be more interested in the "Tastes Great!", "Less Filling!" arguments that dominate every other thread.

People complain that our Adept 3s are worthless, yet very few are willing to take the time to post their findings on this.

People complain they take too much damage, but very few actually parse their fights and post the results.

There's more but I digress. There are definitely some who I think make a strong effort in these issues but most couldn't care less. It's a shame too because as a community, we could do alot more to help improve our own class.

NeVeRLi · 03-22-2005, 11:28 PM

There are lots of parse results and lots of posts contain screen shots, maybe you should learn to use the search. At least Sage tried to address the issue at hand and the one this post is trying to discuss.

MoonglumHMV · 03-22-2005, 11:58 PM

NeVeRLiFt wrote:
There are lots of parse results and lots of posts contain screen shots, maybe you should learn to use the search.

At least Sage tried to address the issue at hand and the one this post is trying to discuss.

How exactly did Sage's first post 'address' the issue this post is trying to discuss? Looks like he went straight to the "Monks are 2nd tanks at best" card...he didn't even say anything about avoidance...

NeVeRLi · 03-23-2005, 12:12 AM

Do you feel we avoid better? I dont and on Highkeep server can show you that my lvl 44 monk cant tank or solo as good as my guardian friend who is lvl 44 and can solo ^^ two levels below him. I try this and I get ate up alive!! There aint no avoidance its me getting hit alot high damage... and the guardian just stands there and does not get hit and if he does its for low damage.Hell before these patches (where they nerfed AC and our resistances) I actually had him beat in AC cause he would not use a shield and would use his two- handed weapon, I had him beat in agility too. All he had on me besides mitigation was his very high defense skill. I just dont see monks avoiding. And as light armor wearing fighters we need to avoid! Its what are class is about and I just dont see it happening. SMILEY

Message Edited by NeVeRLiFt on 03-22-2005 02:14 PM

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 12:22 AM

No, we aren't.

Numerous guardians have posted that most of their buffs increase their defensive skill, which increases their avoidance.

IIRC they have one self buff that actually raises their mitigation (which is similiar to our stone stance I believe).

So with defense = avoidance and guardians being the most defensive = who are the avoidance tanks again?

In fact I found it humorous when I found a guardian saying that "buffing defense to 100% to avoid getting hit entirely" is a common strategy. When we could do that with agility we got nerfed.

SoE needs to answer us now, because this is BS.

They have better taunts, better armor, better mitigation, higher HP AND better avoidance?

...

NeVeRLi · 03-23-2005, 12:28 AM

There you have it folks! PS: And if soloing blue con group ^^ monsters two levels below their levels is not proof something is up then I dont know what more you people want. Before the agility nerf monks could do this. Before nerfing the bard classes buff's so they dont stack bards could do this! Now bards and monks cant, and the other scout classes never had a chance in hell at it! This is just way wack.. I see Tyke the lvl 46-47 warlock/wizzard in EF all the time soloing lvl 47-49^^ monsters and that guy Westlake the lvl 50 lives there soloing the lvl 49^^. (is it fair warlocks can solo these? is this class balanced??)

Ili · 03-23-2005, 12:31 AM

SageMarrow wrote:

yes ae taunts and things of that nature are good but are underpowered in comparison to those the guardian gets. stone stance is nice as well, but also consider that you cannot taunt while using it... making it very useful for a situation in offtank where you pull a mob off a caster and need to hold it on you until MT can get it off you.

just like our AE tuants, they are weaker than the ones a guardian receives and are great for holding second place in aggro when a guardian is present. i tested it for 5 hours straight tonight against a guardian who was 3 levels below me. no matter how hard i tried, i could not pull aggro off of him, instead i held a consistent 2nd place spamming everything i had, even group buffs.

a taunt that can be used while stunned is more effective when a mob has cast a group mez or mez spell period and the MT cannot get to the mob because he cannot cast the spell. so in turn we get the target on us until the fight can be passed along.

FD is not very good for REALLY avoiding battles, but its great for wiping aggro after a rabid mob aggroes the caster and the MT is preoccupied with 4 other mobs, and you need to get aggro back where it belongs.

and yes the developers have made it clear that we are tanks, but never in what capacity and definately not in comparison to the other tank classes. we tank just fine for the MOST part, but in comparison to an equally geared guardian we pale in comparison as far as aggro control, Hp, and AC.

on behalf of bruisers, i know for a fact that our skills are set up moreso for bodyguard than tank at all. all of our taunts include fears and things that accomodate managing a fight in spite of the MT doing his thing on his end, if a mob gets on a caster, we can fear it (provided it doesnt run into the walls, ) or we can mildly mez it until the MT gets control. we dont have 1 AE taunt without a fear or somn attatched except shout.

now provided the group buffs etc, we both agree that that is not thier intended use, it just happens to work, but on behalf of the guardian i grouped with through the entire adventure pack zone, yes he made my taunting ability look like childs play. he easily pulled aggro from me, even using my strongest taunts.

So yes, we are ambidextrious in our approach, some skills can be used to compete in the core area of tanking, but others are directly for support IMO, and even still some other skills are useful in both situations.

But if you asked me on a personal level if i felt as though we ever meant to be all out tanks on par with guardians in a different way, i would say absolutely not. we were meant to be versatile and able to go either direction. which is in turn is why i say that the devs are being forced to rethink the archetype system...

a shadowknight will never tank as well as a guardian, a monk will never tank as a well as a paladin, and a bruiser will never tank as well as a shadowknight. We have established that any change to a monks deflection and avoidance will more than likely over power the class back to pre agility nerf. If shadowknights are ever given the HP potential of a paladin through lifetaps, they would also be too powerful considering that one takes life to give life and the other simply is power consumption.

just as enchanters will never be able to fill a wizards roll of damage and a dirge cannot truly fill another scouts roll as dps.

so as much as we try to live this dream of equal but different, there can be no such thing and still maintain different classes. That would mean enchanters would have to have the damage capability of a wizard and a monk would have the same tanking ability of a guardian...

Thus leading me back to my point that yes we are and can tank well, but we were not and neither were the other 5 subclasses built to tank exclusively. only 1 class was. the others are by products of the guardian design. different ways to achieve the same result persay... but in actuality - they didnt build the classes around the mobs, they built the mobs around the classes and the changes reflect as such.

That was the most true thing I've heard in *all* of these stupid Monk tank threads that never seem to end. No matter what, we will *never* be on the same level as a plate tanker. That's the way it is. If you get lucky with avoidance rolls, and you don't get hit once for a whole eight hour exp party, that'll just mean later, when you're trying to do something like solo a grey badger, (No, I'll never let that go. SMILEY

) you'll get waxed.

Ever play a paper and pen RPG? Where you need dice rolls to dodge attacks, and avoid and resist spells? Same principle, folks. There have been times where I've needed a *four* to escape death, and rolled a three with six sided dice.

That is *NOT* a reliable tank. It isn't. It doesn't matter what sort of spin you put on it, it doesn't matter if you never *ever* get hit when you're in your exp parties. The fact that it *can* happen makes it unreliable.

-Ilina

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 12:39 AM

Some guardian comments about the changes:

TunaBoo wrote:
Hit L to see defense.. mroe defense = more avoidance, it is the guardian form of deflection buffs.

English Da Guard wrote:

You realize he said he was self buffed. Heck I can add ~400 to my mitigation and over 7% to avoidance self buffed. Make sure you compare your numbers with his when he isn't buffed so it is apples to apples.

I mean with a shield and self buffed I am basically 70% avoidance. That's from ~57% when not buffed and no shield.

I'm at about 76% self buffed or so, with about 1775 mitigation. I'm not sure what his mitigation is, but I assume its over 2k.

RafaelSmith wrote:
These numbers really are starting to depress me.

At level 38 my mitigation shows something around 1800ish....when holding the mouse cursor over it it says i mitigate 49%. That seems low.

My avoidance is much higher than i expected...

So in essense I am a avoidance tank way before I am a mitigation tank.

So my mitigation is about on par with a lvl 38 guardian, which I would be ok with if my avoidance was better by the same amount, unfortunately, it isn't.

TunaBoo wrote:
Selff buffed I avoid 68% mitigate 73% (with uebr gear)

So I have about a ~8% lead in avoidance over Tuna and his mitigation is ~50% better than mine. (estimates).

Sazzabi8 wrote:
I was showing 100% avoidance raid buffed today, with around 4300 mitigation at the highest.

Heh. The mitigation I'm fine with, that is *their* niche. 100% avoidance from a guardian seems a little crazy to me though. With stone stance I can reach this level of mitigation though (when grouped with two furies ~ haven't had a lot of time to test yet).

ThramFalcox wrote:

If you add about 30 def from various sources, avoidance makes a huge jump into the 90% area. This confirms that defensive effects are magnified depending on the level of the opponent. With enough defense you can turn an even con opponent effectively gray thus the huge jump. Before 30ish (havent tested for the exact number) the jump is only a few %.

Add enough defense and even yellows can't hit you...

Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation.

The way defense works right now is not only trivializing content, its blurring the skills that supposedly seperate the classes.

(Note: I'm only using guardians as my example because they have a ton of defense skill buffs ~ please realize that just as agility affected every class, this defense skill problem does also. With the right group/raid setup you could theoretically buff up any classes defensive skill enough for them to become unhittable).

Gilgalon wrote:
Is it just me or does anyone else think the above sounds like a bug? Defense modifies avoidance?

No, its not just you. I personally wanna see what Moorgard says. Is this intended?

Lastly:

Belgorim wrote:
Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit.

If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess.

That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes.

Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right?

NeVeRLi · 03-23-2005, 12:39 AM

You people dont get it. We are supposed to avoid... we are not avoiding! We the monks are getting hit more and taking more damage cause we the avoiding subclass archtype of the fighter wear light armor! The Dev's need to fix deflection and thats all we are asking. Thanks and have a nice day SMILEY

@Gage Nice post Gage!

Message Edited by NeVeRLiFt on 03-22-2005 02:44 PM

Ili · 03-23-2005, 12:42 AM

I think your last post says it all, Gage.

If we weren't supposed to be as effective as a Plate Tanker, and we weren't supposed to out DPS a scout, where does that leave us?

Yay, Hybrids! Can do both, but can't do either well!

Things such as this aren't making it so exciting to play, anymore. :smileysad:

-Ilina

(edit) How exactly can deflection be fixed so that it's not overpowering? If we get to the point where we can say that we avoid 90% of attacks per battle, every battle, instead of migating them, we're going to have four fighter archetypes coming after us with torches and nooses.

Message Edited by Ilina on 03-22-2005 11:44 AM

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 12:44 AM

Ilina wrote:

That was the most true thing I've heard in *all* of these stupid Monk tank threads that never seem to end. No matter what, we will *never* be on the same level as a plate tanker. That's the way it is. If you get lucky with avoidance rolls, and you don't get hit once for a whole eight hour exp party, that'll just mean later, when you're trying to do something like solo a grey badger, (No, I'll never let that go. ) you'll get waxed.

Ever play a paper and pen RPG? Where you need dice rolls to dodge attacks, and avoid and resist spells? Same principle, folks. There have been times where I've needed a *four* to escape death, and rolled a three with six sided dice.

That is *NOT* a reliable tank. It isn't. It doesn't matter what sort of spin you put on it, it doesn't matter if you never *ever* get hit when you're in your exp parties. The fact that it *can* happen makes it unreliable.

-Ilina

Its a good point, but that's why there is a sliding balance between avoidance and mitigation (or at least, that's how its *supposed* to work).

If you evade more you mitigate less, and rely on the mitigation to lessen the spikes.

If you evade less you mitigate more, because there isn't any spikes really and this allows the damage you take to be manageable.

This *should* in effect even out the damage taken over time, and allow both to be manageable by healers. Its also why there are wards/regens/reactives in this game, because each type helps in different scenarios.

The reason we are seeing such an imbalance against raid mobs is because they avoid on par with us while having superior mitigation. Thus the damage taken over time is actually less, which is unintended.

NeVeRLi · 03-23-2005, 12:49 AM

Now we are getting somewhere. I look forward to the dev's reply and answer to this. Ok so they cant fix deflection? Well then they can tweak our defense skill (this seems to be all the rage and helps guardians so much). Give us the option to use bucklers again or up our deflection skill by a few more points. As it stands we are just not avoiding like we should and Familymanfirst has the parses to show it as low as lvl 22 I believe it was. And my tests at lvl 43 shows its even worse!

Grabaan · 03-23-2005, 01:01 AM

We really need dev input on this situation... I think splitting up AC into Mitigation and Avoidance proved what Gage, myself, and a few others around here have long suspected: "Plate" classes avoid nearly as much as we do + they get the increased mitigation values we expect them to have based on their class descriptions Now, assuming these numbers reflect reality as the game engine sees it, a plate tank avoids as much as an agile monk with shall we say "flexible" armor, all while in a hulking suit of heavy armor? Even my 4 year old niece knows that a big knight is not going to be able to move as fast. In my mind, a more reasonable range for a plate class would be similar mitigation to what they have now, but a 30-40% avoidance unbuffed, topping out at around 50% buffed. Keep us around the 77% we have now and maybe then we work out to be a bit closer to each other. However, no amount of avoidance is going to prevent us from the huge streaks of damage we're prone to, and if we avoided 100% of the time, it'd be unfair and downright not fun. I'm not sure what the solution is to this, or even if drastic changes are in order. Clearly a lot of our selfbuffs don't do nearly as much for us as guardians seem to, since our nice avoidance selfbuffs add mearly a percent to avoidance at best, while they achieve significant gains in both mitigation and avoidance from their buffs. What I'm really getting at is, for the high level monks around, despite our best efforts we go down quicker than most in raids as MT. We are trying to learn why and, if possible, overcome these issues through play style, equipment, and skill. However, it seems like the deck may be stacked against us for now, we simply cannot be as good on paper or in game if other classes can avoid just as much as us and absorb 50-75% more simultaneously

Message Edited by Grabaan on 03-22-2005 02:07 PM

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 01:09 AM

Grabaan wrote:
What I'm really getting at is, for the high leves monks around, despite our best efforts we go down quicker than most in raids as MT. We are trying to learn why and, if possible, overcome these issues through play style, equipment, and skill. However, it seems like the deck may be stacked against us for now, we simply cannot be as good on paper or in game if other classes can avoid just as much as us and absorb 50-75% more simultaneously

True, but don't get too discouraged. Jez has tanked two x4s now. The Angler (who is easy) and the King in the CL instance. So it IS possible, its just still a little skewed as far as implementation goes.

But, I have faith that this will all be looked into, because I can't honestly fathom that being on par with avoidance while having a 50~75% lead in mitigation is intended.

Like I said, its about the balance between avoidance/mitigation.

You need to think of it like this:

Mitigation----------------------------------------------------Avoidance

It should be nearly impossible to increase both to such levels that it trivializes content.

When you start ramping up the avoidance, mitigation should suffer, and vice versa.

Which, is why I believe they nerfed Shrug Off. Because it was adding like 48% avoidance at Master 1 and around 2000AC (mitigation).

Unless I'm wrong, which is why I'd like Moorgard to say something.

Monks = defensive brawlers = avoidance kings

Guardians = defensive warriors = mitigation kings

I don't think either of us should end up the best at both.

RafaelSmith · 03-23-2005, 01:13 AM

Gage-Mikel wrote:

Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation.

What bonus is this you speak off? Cause after testing some things out after this patch almost all my buffes do nothing for mitigation like they do for avoidance. At level 38 With shield and self buffs I can pump avoidance up to almost 70% while at best I can pump mitigation up form 49% ubuffed to 54% or so. I bet if you took an equallevel SK/Pally/Zerker/Guardian each using equal armor and self buffs their mitigation would be almost identical. Hell even cleric mitigation is gonna be close but their avoidance will be quite abit lower. The truth is other classes do more for increasing my mitigation absorbtion % than I can do. Whats wrong is the Defense skill and more importantly its role in the game. It not only changes my avoidance it also shifts the effect con of mobs which if im correct makes all these "...against even con mob..." formulas invalid. Honestly this isnt what i had expected. When I chose a "Heavy Tank" i expected ubah mitigation with average avoidance...i.e i should get hit alot for a little...steady meat shield. Mitigation takes a very distant back seat to avoidance it seems... This is something that effects all fighters not just Monks/Guardians.

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 01:38 AM

Heh, you know what, you may be right. When I wrote that I was thinking Moorgard had said that guardians have the best mitigation in the game, but then I remember him also saying in that zerker thread that the mitigation between the classes is identical.

Since tower shields increase block (avoidance) and not mitigation, that would make it seem like all heavy armor wearers have the same mitigation?

Hmm, that can't be right.

Who knows, this new number is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].

Here is the post I was thinking about:

Moorgard wrote:

Berserkers can wear the same armor and wield the same shields as guardians. There are no hidden mitigation bonuses for either class, so a berserker and a guardian of the same level, stats, and skills with the same armor/shield combo will have the same base avoidance and mitigation. Guardians have arts that give them increased defensive capabilities, while berserkers have arts that give them increased offense. That's the key difference between the two warrior classes. Keep in mind that if you play a berserker and are not using a shield while tanking, you're missing out on a huge part of the tank's damage avoidance capability. Crusader and warrior classes are intended to use shields while acting as a tank.

This statement worries me though:

He is basically saying the only thing that makes the guardian class more defensive is their buffs, which by all the guardians statements effectively raise their avoidance, not their mitigation. In fact they rely on other classes to boost their mitigation.

So therefore, the only thing that makes a guardian a "better" tank than a zerker (or anyone else) is the fact they can boost their avoidance?

That is unless of course the warrior class gets a bonus to mitigation that the crusader class doesn't?

*shrug*

None of this makes any sense though, especially guardians seemingly relying on avoidance?

Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on 03-22-2005 12:40 PM

Belgor · 03-23-2005, 01:43 AM

Gage-Mikel wrote:

Some guardian comments about the changes:

Belgorim wrote:
Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit.

If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess.

That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes.

Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right?

Ok, I am not a guardian, but I was writing on the guardian boards. I play a paladin, not that it matters.

But I agree, and personaly I think that the ability to buff the defense-number should not exist at all. All buffs that increase defense should instead increase block/deflection or mitigation.

The reason I think this is because defense is the primary means to trivialize grey content, which I have nothing against. This should in my opinion be a skill that is only based on your level, and thus is the same for all classes, giving a base avoidance versus lower level mobs, and 100% or close to 100% against grey mobs. Its when this skill can be altered through skills/spells that the balance is thrown out of whack.

Sure, it does not seem much to have +5 defense on a skill, since versus same level mobs, it only adds maybe 3% avoidance. But it gets game breaking when this same number increases the avoidance versus green level mobs by about 40% or whatever, and these buffs can then be stacked to do the same thing versus higher level mobs.

If all abilities that currently add to defense instead add to mitigation or something like that, then we would not have these problems. At least if level of the mob affects mitigation and avoidance in the same way, which I am not sure it does, but I have no proof for or against it, since defense would probably ruin any tests we can do at the moment. (or well, I guess you could try it with two people with the exact same defense skill.)

Gaige · 03-23-2005, 01:47 AM

Belgorim wrote:

If all abilities that currently add to defense instead add to mitigation or something like that, then we would not have these problems. At least if level of the mob affects mitigation and avoidance in the same way, which I am not sure it does, but I have no proof for or against it, since defense would probably ruin any tests we can do at the moment. (or well, I guess you could try it with two people with the exact same defense skill.)

I think that's a great idea.

Grabaan · 03-23-2005, 01:55 AM

That would seem to alleviate the problem as we see it thus far, limiting their ability to increase their avoidance through defense. Good suggestion guys. I'm patiently awaiting some dev input on our discussions.

bonesbro · 03-23-2005, 02:36 AM

RadricTycho wrote:

People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating.

Yes.

SageMarrow · 03-23-2005, 03:17 AM

while thats a good suggestion, a perfect world would be thus.

A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage

a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage.

Thus creating two balanced styles, which would be fine= but something in the system or in the way they made the game doesnt illustrate that and would still be difficult to be made 'balanced in the same consistency" to the extent that mobs hit us 1/5 times or something which would end up too predictable IMO - but hey.

So what is being suggested is change **other** classes buffs on the subject of raids to accomplish a more balanced approach to buff stacking of defense, that would provide mitigation as opposed to avoidance and deflection in other situations.

And thus changing a guardians buffs to not effect defensive skill, but mitigation exclusively. (while guards would consider this a nerf), it still doesnt answer the question of scaling of avoidance.

if a monk is level 50 and has 75% avoidance solo (which we can all say we level out around 70+% avoidance at all times). that means that to a level 49 mob we have 80% avoidance (persay) and to a level 48 mob 85% avoidance..on down the line to where we make ourselves unhittable. and eventually reaching 100% avoidance to a lower mob say level 45.

now on the other hand, there is upward scaling as well, (aka where avoidance fails)

keep in mind the avoidance number is against a mob of Equal level.

and keep in mind we are talking about a solo mob with no modifiers such as ^^s, named, epic, etc.

so take the same situation, level 50 monk with 75% avoidance fighting a level 51 mob solo. 70% avoidance, - level 52= 65% -53 - 60% and finally level 54- 55%.

and that is before any modifiers are applied to the mobs, ( i dont think there are any level 51+ mobs walking around solo)

so this is so it seems where avoidance fails and mitigation picks up the slack... against a level 54^^^x4 named epic mob.

so place that in a true raid situation where we can achieve 100% avoidance, - 5% per level, minus named stats, minus epic stats, minus multipliers (^^^), minus group x4. and at the end of all that we are left with 45% avoidance and none of the mitigation in relation to a raid mob.

sound about right?

SageMarrow · 03-23-2005, 03:23 AM

Radric Tycho:

I am trying to understand how a full line of AoE and single-target taunts, several defensive stances, deflection, and attacks that can largely be used EVEN WHILE STUNNED, makes us not tanking oriented.

Please explain how these skills are not tanking oriented. Yes I have often wondered what our real intended role was. But usually the developers have made it very clear during those times.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____

That was your question to me, which i answered very well in my previous post and went down a list of skills that i know we share in common and some that are exclusive to monks. and to further solidify that i also threw in some extra girth to my line of thought on the subject. i answered the question directed at ME. and the post above this one - answered the question asked by the OP.

so if you didnt grasp what i was trying to convey, i do apologize, but outside of the whacked off way that i type, it was very clearly presented.

MoonglumHMV · 03-23-2005, 03:47 AM

SageMarrow wrote:

while thats a good suggestion, a perfect world would be thus.

A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage

a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage.

Thus creating two balanced styles, which would be fine= but something in the system or in the way they made the game doesnt illustrate that and would still be difficult to be made 'balanced in the same consistency" to the extent that mobs hit us 1/5 times or something which would end up too predictable IMO - but hey.

So what is being suggested is change **other** classes buffs on the subject of raids to accomplish a more balanced approach to buff stacking of defense, that would provide mitigation as opposed to avoidance and deflection in other situations.

And thus changing a guardians buffs to not effect defensive skill, but mitigation exclusively. (while guards would consider this a nerf), it still doesnt answer the question of scaling of avoidance.

if a monk is level 50 and has 75% avoidance solo (which we can all say we level out around 70+% avoidance at all times). that means that to a level 49 mob we have 80% avoidance (persay) and to a level 48 mob 85% avoidance..on down the line to where we make ourselves unhittable. and eventually reaching 100% avoidance to a lower mob say level 45.

now on the other hand, there is upward scaling as well, (aka where avoidance fails)

keep in mind the avoidance number is against a mob of Equal level.

and keep in mind we are talking about a solo mob with no modifiers such as ^^s, named, epic, etc.

so take the same situation, level 50 monk with 75% avoidance fighting a level 51 mob solo. 70% avoidance, - level 52= 65% -53 - 60% and finally level 54- 55%.

and that is before any modifiers are applied to the mobs, ( i dont think there are any level 51+ mobs walking around solo)

so this is so it seems where avoidance fails and mitigation picks up the slack... against a level 54^^^x4 named epic mob.

so place that in a true raid situation where we can achieve 100% avoidance, - 5% per level, minus named stats, minus epic stats, minus multipliers (^^^), minus group x4. and at the end of all that we are left with 45% avoidance and none of the mitigation in relation to a raid mob.

sound about right?

Well I submit this to you...Wouldn't mitigation scale upward and downward as well? If that's the case, then the imbalance still boils down to the fact that guardians can buff their avoidance to be = monks/bruisers that then gets scaled down the same as ours, while their mitigation scales down to say 50%, while ours scales down to say 15%. So the mitigation tank can avoid as much as the avoidance tank, but still mitigates 2-3x what we would. Now don't misread what my point is...I'm not saying that we should mitigate like them...but by that same token, they should not avoid like us.

SageMarrow · 03-23-2005, 03:58 AM

well yeah, i understand what you are saying but this is what i see.

mitigation is constant... meaning that even a little mitigation... will be present at all times until the mobs skill and level totally outclasses the mob.

Avoidance is random(may proc- may not proc) so avoidance should be looked upon as a PROC in game persay....

meaning that it has less and less chance to PROC a miss/block etc as a mob gets stronger.

so yes, you are indeed correct considering that thier mitigation out classes ours in totality, and like i said.

a perfect world would be thus.

A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage

a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage.

and for that matter, means that guardians would not get a chance to be missed or blocked at all. they would just be standing meat shields with high ac and hp as "supposedly" intended. but thats not the way the game was made and i dont think it was "intended" that way either. They were meant to be exactly what they are. we are the anomoly in this equation. which is why we spend so much time arguing over the fact of if we are tanks or Dps. when the argument should really be what can we do to improve our present situation that places us in the middle of the end.

Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-22-2005 02:59 PM

FamilyManFir · 03-23-2005, 06:30 AM

Belgorim wrote:

...

But I agree, and personaly I think that the ability to buff the defense-number should not exist at all. All buffs that increase defense should instead increase block/deflection or mitigation.

...

You know, given the way that Defense scales, I have to agree with you on that. The scaling was probably done to make gray-con mobs trivial (if they can't hit you they can't hurt you) and red-con mobs lethal (if they can't miss you you're going to die). However, by creating buffs that affect Defense they're effectively graying out higher and higher conned mobs as the Defense value gets higher and higher.

If buffs were changed to only affect block/deflection, parry, or mitigation (assuming that these traits aren't scaled the same way) that would go a long way toward balancing things out, I suspect.

03-22-2005, 02:05 PM	#3
RadricTyc Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 362	SageMarrow wrote: between that fact and our skill base being not *really* tanking oriented at all times, does it ever make you stop and wonder what our REAL intended roll was? Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-22-2005 12:38 AM I am trying to understand how a full line of AoE and single-target taunts, several defensive stances, deflection, and attacks that can largely be used EVEN WHILE STUNNED, makes us not tanking oriented. Please explain how these skills are not tanking oriented. Yes I have often wondered what our real intended role was. But usually the developers have made it very clear during those times. And to the original poster, we can buff our defense skill, spider stance buffs it by 15. Guardians can just buff it by more than that, that's part of the problem. Coupled with tower shields, massive defense buffs make them pretty impervious. I hate to call nerf on anyone and I won't. But I will say that they seem to avoid better than we. And that is something that should give the developers some concern.

03-22-2005, 10:47 PM	#6
Velor Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 166	RadricTycho wrote: People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating. I tend to agree with you. I tried to take a somewhat active role on these boards to help identify issues, concerns, etc of our class with hard and fast data to back them up. But not many seem interested in particpating in constructive stuff like that. They seem to be more interested in the "Tastes Great!", "Less Filling!" arguments that dominate every other thread. People complain that our Adept 3s are worthless, yet very few are willing to take the time to post their findings on this. People complain they take too much damage, but very few actually parse their fights and post the results. There's more but I digress. There are definitely some who I think make a strong effort in these issues but most couldn't care less. It's a shame too because as a community, we could do alot more to help improve our own class.

03-22-2005, 11:58 PM	#8
MoonglumHMV Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 226	NeVeRLiFt wrote: There are lots of parse results and lots of posts contain screen shots, maybe you should learn to use the search. At least Sage tried to address the issue at hand and the one this post is trying to discuss. How exactly did Sage's first post 'address' the issue this post is trying to discuss? Looks like he went straight to the "Monks are 2nd tanks at best" card...he didn't even say anything about avoidance... __________________ Moonfire - 59 Ogre Monk Ziofan - 36 Dwarf Fury Peski 33 Ogre Coercer Theleb 24 Dark Elf Warlock Moonglum 24 Iksar Brigand Moonfire 12 Sarnak Berserker Moonfyst 19 Ratonga Bruiser

03-23-2005, 12:12 AM	#9
NeVeRLi General Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the shadows of the Megacorporations Posts: 113	Do you feel we avoid better? I dont and on Highkeep server can show you that my lvl 44 monk cant tank or solo as good as my guardian friend who is lvl 44 and can solo ^^ two levels below him. I try this and I get ate up alive!! There aint no avoidance its me getting hit alot high damage... and the guardian just stands there and does not get hit and if he does its for low damage.Hell before these patches (where they nerfed AC and our resistances) I actually had him beat in AC cause he would not use a shield and would use his two- handed weapon, I had him beat in agility too. All he had on me besides mitigation was his very high defense skill. I just dont see monks avoiding. And as light armor wearing fighters we need to avoid! Its what are class is about and I just dont see it happening. Message Edited by NeVeRLiFt on 03-22-2005 02:14 PM

03-23-2005, 12:22 AM	#10
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	No, we aren't. Numerous guardians have posted that most of their buffs increase their defensive skill, which increases their avoidance. IIRC they have one self buff that actually raises their mitigation (which is similiar to our stone stance I believe). So with defense = avoidance and guardians being the most defensive = who are the avoidance tanks again? In fact I found it humorous when I found a guardian saying that "buffing defense to 100% to avoid getting hit entirely" is a common strategy. When we could do that with agility we got nerfed. SoE needs to answer us now, because this is BS. They have better taunts, better armor, better mitigation, higher HP AND better avoidance? ... __________________

03-22-2005, 12:21 PM	#1
NeVeRLi General Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the shadows of the Megacorporations Posts: 113	*I would love to see someone explain why Monks get hit more than Guardians* I guess we aren't as avoidance oriented as is implied! I feel the dev's owe us an answer. From what I am seeing Guardians, Berserkers and Pally's are all showing 50-70% avoidance and mitigate roughly 50% of all dmg. And the Guardians have insane buff's for their defense skill. Dev's you nerf the bard classes so when are you gonna nerf the guardians? Is it to much to get our deflection working? Is it not enough we take double the dmg that guardians do and yet get hit more cause we can not buff our defense skill which seems to effect avoidance more than anything.

03-22-2005, 01:38 PM	#2
SageMarrow Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 958	between that fact and our skill base being not *really* tanking oriented at all times, does it ever make you stop and wonder what our REAL intended roll was? Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-22-2005 12:38 AM

03-22-2005, 02:55 PM	#4
SageMarrow Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 958	yes ae taunts and things of that nature are good but are underpowered in comparison to those the guardian gets. stone stance is nice as well, but also consider that you cannot taunt while using it... making it very useful for a situation in offtank where you pull a mob off a caster and need to hold it on you until MT can get it off you. just like our AE tuants, they are weaker than the ones a guardian receives and are great for holding second place in aggro when a guardian is present. i tested it for 5 hours straight tonight against a guardian who was 3 levels below me. no matter how hard i tried, i could not pull aggro off of him, instead i held a consistent 2nd place spamming everything i had, even group buffs. a taunt that can be used while stunned is more effective when a mob has cast a group mez or mez spell period and the MT cannot get to the mob because he cannot cast the spell. so in turn we get the target on us until the fight can be passed along. FD is not very good for REALLY avoiding battles, but its great for wiping aggro after a rabid mob aggroes the caster and the MT is preoccupied with 4 other mobs, and you need to get aggro back where it belongs. and yes the developers have made it clear that we are tanks, but never in what capacity and definately not in comparison to the other tank classes. we tank just fine for the MOST part, but in comparison to an equally geared guardian we pale in comparison as far as aggro control, Hp, and AC. on behalf of bruisers, i know for a fact that our skills are set up moreso for bodyguard than tank at all. all of our taunts include fears and things that accomodate managing a fight in spite of the MT doing his thing on his end, if a mob gets on a caster, we can fear it (provided it doesnt run into the walls, ) or we can mildly mez it until the MT gets control. we dont have 1 AE taunt without a fear or somn attatched except shout. now provided the group buffs etc, we both agree that that is not thier intended use, it just happens to work, but on behalf of the guardian i grouped with through the entire adventure pack zone, yes he made my taunting ability look like childs play. he easily pulled aggro from me, even using my strongest taunts. So yes, we are ambidextrious in our approach, some skills can be used to compete in the core area of tanking, but others are directly for support IMO, and even still some other skills are useful in both situations. But if you asked me on a personal level if i felt as though we ever meant to be all out tanks on par with guardians in a different way, i would say absolutely not. we were meant to be versatile and able to go either direction. which is in turn is why i say that the devs are being forced to rethink the archetype system... a shadowknight will never tank as well as a guardian, a monk will never tank as a well as a paladin, and a bruiser will never tank as well as a shadowknight. We have established that any change to a monks deflection and avoidance will more than likely over power the class back to pre agility nerf. If shadowknights are ever given the HP potential of a paladin through lifetaps, they would also be too powerful considering that one takes life to give life and the other simply is power consumption. just as enchanters will never be able to fill a wizards roll of damage and a dirge cannot truly fill another scouts roll as dps. so as much as we try to live this dream of equal but different, there can be no such thing and still maintain different classes. That would mean enchanters would have to have the damage capability of a wizard and a monk would have the same tanking ability of a guardian... Thus leading me back to my point that yes we are and can tank well, but we were not and neither were the other 5 subclasses built to tank exclusively. only 1 class was. the others are by products of the guardian design. different ways to achieve the same result persay... but in actuality - they didnt build the classes around the mobs, they built the mobs around the classes and the changes reflect as such.

03-22-2005, 07:00 PM	#5
RadricTyc Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 362	Ugh I hate responding like I am about to, but your posts are always so scattered that you leave a responder little choice but to try to address your myriad issues. Especially when you skirt the initial request. The reason every post you make turns into a thread that is 100 freaking pages long is because you cannot focus on one issue at a time. You feel the need to muddy any discussion with 100,000 side issues in an attempt to stave off straightforward logic and reason. If you could have a discussion on a single issue at a time, you might actually get somewhere. But I think you, and maybe even gage relish the fact that while you are having your arguments, you dominate the focus of this board and you think that you have everyone's attention. The reality is that the more you bicker about 100,001 minor details and lose focus of the bigger picture, the more you lose your audience. People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating. If you want to discuss multiple unrelated issues, use multiple threads. My original request was: how are AoE taunts, single target taunts, defensive stances and buffs, and attacks while stunned NOT "really tanking oriented" as you put it. And it was actually a rhetorical question, since the only reasonable response is that they are. Besides, aren't you a bruiser sage? Why do you keep bringing bruiser experiences to the monk board and using them as proof that monks have the same issues as bruisers. Bruisers and monks have only 3 things in common: light armor, deflection, and brawler-class skills. After that any comparison between the two needs to be done with hard numbers involved. I don't like a bruiser telling monks that they cannot hold agro, since I really don't even know if the two have the same taunts. I don't mind disucssing monks with bruisers, or having discussions about things that the two in common, but I don't buy into the concept of a bruiser having the same experiences with combat arts without some hard, cold facts. You are a bruiser right?

03-22-2005, 11:28 PM	#7
NeVeRLi General Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the shadows of the Megacorporations Posts: 113	There are lots of parse results and lots of posts contain screen shots, maybe you should learn to use the search. At least Sage tried to address the issue at hand and the one this post is trying to discuss.

03-23-2005, 12:28 AM	#11
NeVeRLi General Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the shadows of the Megacorporations Posts: 113	There you have it folks! PS: And if soloing blue con group ^^ monsters two levels below their levels is not proof something is up then I dont know what more you people want. Before the agility nerf monks could do this. Before nerfing the bard classes buff's so they dont stack bards could do this! Now bards and monks cant, and the other scout classes never had a chance in hell at it! This is just way wack.. I see Tyke the lvl 46-47 warlock/wizzard in EF all the time soloing lvl 47-49^^ monsters and that guy Westlake the lvl 50 lives there soloing the lvl 49^^. (is it fair warlocks can solo these? is this class balanced??)

03-23-2005, 12:31 AM	#12
Ili Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 119	SageMarrow wrote: yes ae taunts and things of that nature are good but are underpowered in comparison to those the guardian gets. stone stance is nice as well, but also consider that you cannot taunt while using it... making it very useful for a situation in offtank where you pull a mob off a caster and need to hold it on you until MT can get it off you. just like our AE tuants, they are weaker than the ones a guardian receives and are great for holding second place in aggro when a guardian is present. i tested it for 5 hours straight tonight against a guardian who was 3 levels below me. no matter how hard i tried, i could not pull aggro off of him, instead i held a consistent 2nd place spamming everything i had, even group buffs. a taunt that can be used while stunned is more effective when a mob has cast a group mez or mez spell period and the MT cannot get to the mob because he cannot cast the spell. so in turn we get the target on us until the fight can be passed along. FD is not very good for REALLY avoiding battles, but its great for wiping aggro after a rabid mob aggroes the caster and the MT is preoccupied with 4 other mobs, and you need to get aggro back where it belongs. and yes the developers have made it clear that we are tanks, but never in what capacity and definately not in comparison to the other tank classes. we tank just fine for the MOST part, but in comparison to an equally geared guardian we pale in comparison as far as aggro control, Hp, and AC. on behalf of bruisers, i know for a fact that our skills are set up moreso for bodyguard than tank at all. all of our taunts include fears and things that accomodate managing a fight in spite of the MT doing his thing on his end, if a mob gets on a caster, we can fear it (provided it doesnt run into the walls, ) or we can mildly mez it until the MT gets control. we dont have 1 AE taunt without a fear or somn attatched except shout. now provided the group buffs etc, we both agree that that is not thier intended use, it just happens to work, but on behalf of the guardian i grouped with through the entire adventure pack zone, yes he made my taunting ability look like childs play. he easily pulled aggro from me, even using my strongest taunts. So yes, we are ambidextrious in our approach, some skills can be used to compete in the core area of tanking, but others are directly for support IMO, and even still some other skills are useful in both situations. But if you asked me on a personal level if i felt as though we ever meant to be all out tanks on par with guardians in a different way, i would say absolutely not. we were meant to be versatile and able to go either direction. which is in turn is why i say that the devs are being forced to rethink the archetype system... a shadowknight will never tank as well as a guardian, a monk will never tank as a well as a paladin, and a bruiser will never tank as well as a shadowknight. We have established that any change to a monks deflection and avoidance will more than likely over power the class back to pre agility nerf. If shadowknights are ever given the HP potential of a paladin through lifetaps, they would also be too powerful considering that one takes life to give life and the other simply is power consumption. just as enchanters will never be able to fill a wizards roll of damage and a dirge cannot truly fill another scouts roll as dps. so as much as we try to live this dream of equal but different, there can be no such thing and still maintain different classes. That would mean enchanters would have to have the damage capability of a wizard and a monk would have the same tanking ability of a guardian... Thus leading me back to my point that yes we are and can tank well, but we were not and neither were the other 5 subclasses built to tank exclusively. only 1 class was. the others are by products of the guardian design. different ways to achieve the same result persay... but in actuality - they didnt build the classes around the mobs, they built the mobs around the classes and the changes reflect as such. That was the most true thing I've heard in all of these stupid Monk tank threads that never seem to end. No matter what, we will never be on the same level as a plate tanker. That's the way it is. If you get lucky with avoidance rolls, and you don't get hit once for a whole eight hour exp party, that'll just mean later, when you're trying to do something like solo a grey badger, (No, I'll never let that go. ) you'll get waxed. Ever play a paper and pen RPG? Where you need dice rolls to dodge attacks, and avoid and resist spells? Same principle, folks. There have been times where I've needed a four to escape death, and rolled a three with six sided dice. That is NOT a reliable tank. It isn't. It doesn't matter what sort of spin you put on it, it doesn't matter if you never ever get hit when you're in your exp parties. The fact that it can happen makes it unreliable. -Ilina

03-23-2005, 12:39 AM	#13
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Some guardian comments about the changes: TunaBoo wrote: Hit L to see defense.. mroe defense = more avoidance, it is the guardian form of deflection buffs. English Da Guard wrote: You realize he said he was self buffed. Heck I can add ~400 to my mitigation and over 7% to avoidance self buffed. Make sure you compare your numbers with his when he isn't buffed so it is apples to apples. I mean with a shield and self buffed I am basically 70% avoidance. That's from ~57% when not buffed and no shield. I'm at about 76% self buffed or so, with about 1775 mitigation. I'm not sure what his mitigation is, but I assume its over 2k. RafaelSmith wrote: These numbers really are starting to depress me. At level 38 my mitigation shows something around 1800ish....when holding the mouse cursor over it it says i mitigate 49%. That seems low. My avoidance is much higher than i expected... So in essense I am a avoidance tank way before I am a mitigation tank. So my mitigation is about on par with a lvl 38 guardian, which I would be ok with if my avoidance was better by the same amount, unfortunately, it isn't. TunaBoo wrote: Selff buffed I avoid 68% mitigate 73% (with uebr gear) So I have about a ~8% lead in avoidance over Tuna and his mitigation is ~50% better than mine. (estimates). Sazzabi8 wrote: I was showing 100% avoidance raid buffed today, with around 4300 mitigation at the highest. Heh. The mitigation I'm fine with, that is their niche. 100% avoidance from a guardian seems a little crazy to me though. With stone stance I can reach this level of mitigation though (when grouped with two furies ~ haven't had a lot of time to test yet). ThramFalcox wrote: If you add about 30 def from various sources, avoidance makes a huge jump into the 90% area. This confirms that defensive effects are magnified depending on the level of the opponent. With enough defense you can turn an even con opponent effectively gray thus the huge jump. Before 30ish (havent tested for the exact number) the jump is only a few %. Add enough defense and even yellows can't hit you... Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation. The way defense works right now is not only trivializing content, its blurring the skills that supposedly seperate the classes. (Note: I'm only using guardians as my example because they have a ton of defense skill buffs ~ please realize that just as agility affected every class, this defense skill problem does also. With the right group/raid setup you could theoretically buff up any classes defensive skill enough for them to become unhittable). Gilgalon wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else think the above sounds like a bug? Defense modifies avoidance? No, its not just you. I personally wanna see what Moorgard says. Is this intended? Lastly: Belgorim wrote: Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit. If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess. That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes. Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right? __________________

03-23-2005, 12:42 AM	#15
Ili Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 119	I think your last post says it all, Gage. If we weren't supposed to be as effective as a Plate Tanker, and we weren't supposed to out DPS a scout, where does that leave us? Yay, Hybrids! Can do both, but can't do either well! Things such as this aren't making it so exciting to play, anymore. :smileysad: -Ilina (edit) How exactly can deflection be fixed so that it's not overpowering? If we get to the point where we can say that we avoid 90% of attacks per battle, every battle, instead of migating them, we're going to have four fighter archetypes coming after us with torches and nooses. Message Edited by Ilina on 03-22-2005 11:44 AM

03-23-2005, 12:44 AM	#16
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Ilina wrote: That was the most true thing I've heard in all of these stupid Monk tank threads that never seem to end. No matter what, we will never be on the same level as a plate tanker. That's the way it is. If you get lucky with avoidance rolls, and you don't get hit once for a whole eight hour exp party, that'll just mean later, when you're trying to do something like solo a grey badger, (No, I'll never let that go. ) you'll get waxed. Ever play a paper and pen RPG? Where you need dice rolls to dodge attacks, and avoid and resist spells? Same principle, folks. There have been times where I've needed a four to escape death, and rolled a three with six sided dice. That is NOT a reliable tank. It isn't. It doesn't matter what sort of spin you put on it, it doesn't matter if you never ever get hit when you're in your exp parties. The fact that it can happen makes it unreliable. -Ilina Its a good point, but that's why there is a sliding balance between avoidance and mitigation (or at least, that's how its supposed to work). If you evade more you mitigate less, and rely on the mitigation to lessen the spikes. If you evade less you mitigate more, because there isn't any spikes really and this allows the damage you take to be manageable. This should in effect even out the damage taken over time, and allow both to be manageable by healers. Its also why there are wards/regens/reactives in this game, because each type helps in different scenarios. The reason we are seeing such an imbalance against raid mobs is because they avoid on par with us while having superior mitigation. Thus the damage taken over time is actually less, which is unintended. __________________

03-23-2005, 12:49 AM	#17
NeVeRLi General Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the shadows of the Megacorporations Posts: 113	Now we are getting somewhere. I look forward to the dev's reply and answer to this. Ok so they cant fix deflection? Well then they can tweak our defense skill (this seems to be all the rage and helps guardians so much). Give us the option to use bucklers again or up our deflection skill by a few more points. As it stands we are just not avoiding like we should and Familymanfirst has the parses to show it as low as lvl 22 I believe it was. And my tests at lvl 43 shows its even worse!

03-23-2005, 01:01 AM	#18
Grabaan Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 135	We really need dev input on this situation... I think splitting up AC into Mitigation and Avoidance proved what Gage, myself, and a few others around here have long suspected: "Plate" classes avoid nearly as much as we do + they get the increased mitigation values we expect them to have based on their class descriptions Now, assuming these numbers reflect reality as the game engine sees it, a plate tank avoids as much as an agile monk with shall we say "flexible" armor, all while in a hulking suit of heavy armor? Even my 4 year old niece knows that a big knight is not going to be able to move as fast. In my mind, a more reasonable range for a plate class would be similar mitigation to what they have now, but a 30-40% avoidance unbuffed, topping out at around 50% buffed. Keep us around the 77% we have now and maybe then we work out to be a bit closer to each other. However, no amount of avoidance is going to prevent us from the huge streaks of damage we're prone to, and if we avoided 100% of the time, it'd be unfair and downright not fun. I'm not sure what the solution is to this, or even if drastic changes are in order. Clearly a lot of our selfbuffs don't do nearly as much for us as guardians seem to, since our nice avoidance selfbuffs add mearly a percent to avoidance at best, while they achieve significant gains in both mitigation and avoidance from their buffs. What I'm really getting at is, for the high level monks around, despite our best efforts we go down quicker than most in raids as MT. We are trying to learn why and, if possible, overcome these issues through play style, equipment, and skill. However, it seems like the deck may be stacked against us for now, we simply cannot be as good on paper or in game if other classes can avoid just as much as us and absorb 50-75% more simultaneously Message Edited by Grabaan on 03-22-2005 02:07 PM

03-23-2005, 01:09 AM	#19
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Grabaan wrote: What I'm really getting at is, for the high leves monks around, despite our best efforts we go down quicker than most in raids as MT. We are trying to learn why and, if possible, overcome these issues through play style, equipment, and skill. However, it seems like the deck may be stacked against us for now, we simply cannot be as good on paper or in game if other classes can avoid just as much as us and absorb 50-75% more simultaneously True, but don't get too discouraged. Jez has tanked two x4s now. The Angler (who is easy) and the King in the CL instance. So it IS possible, its just still a little skewed as far as implementation goes. But, I have faith that this will all be looked into, because I can't honestly fathom that being on par with avoidance while having a 50~75% lead in mitigation is intended. Like I said, its about the balance between avoidance/mitigation. You need to think of it like this: Mitigation----------------------------------------------------Avoidance It should be nearly impossible to increase both to such levels that it trivializes content. When you start ramping up the avoidance, mitigation should suffer, and vice versa. Which, is why I believe they nerfed Shrug Off. Because it was adding like 48% avoidance at Master 1 and around 2000AC (mitigation). Unless I'm wrong, which is why I'd like Moorgard to say something. Monks = defensive brawlers = avoidance kings Guardians = defensive warriors = mitigation kings I don't think either of us should end up the best at both. __________________

03-23-2005, 01:13 AM	#20
RafaelSmith Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,808	Gage-Mikel wrote: Which is certainly two things: 1) Overpowered (as was the agility thing) and unbalanced. WE are the avoidance tanks, plate tanks (especially guardians) get BONUSES to mitigation. What bonus is this you speak off? Cause after testing some things out after this patch almost all my buffes do nothing for mitigation like they do for avoidance. At level 38 With shield and self buffs I can pump avoidance up to almost 70% while at best I can pump mitigation up form 49% ubuffed to 54% or so. I bet if you took an equallevel SK/Pally/Zerker/Guardian each using equal armor and self buffs their mitigation would be almost identical. Hell even cleric mitigation is gonna be close but their avoidance will be quite abit lower. The truth is other classes do more for increasing my mitigation absorbtion % than I can do. Whats wrong is the Defense skill and more importantly its role in the game. It not only changes my avoidance it also shifts the effect con of mobs which if im correct makes all these "...against even con mob..." formulas invalid. Honestly this isnt what i had expected. When I chose a "Heavy Tank" i expected ubah mitigation with average avoidance...i.e i should get hit alot for a little...steady meat shield. Mitigation takes a very distant back seat to avoidance it seems... This is something that effects all fighters not just Monks/Guardians. __________________

03-23-2005, 01:38 AM	#21
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Heh, you know what, you may be right. When I wrote that I was thinking Moorgard had said that guardians have the best mitigation in the game, but then I remember him also saying in that zerker thread that the mitigation between the classes is identical. Since tower shields increase block (avoidance) and not mitigation, that would make it seem like all heavy armor wearers have the same mitigation? Hmm, that can't be right. Who knows, this new number is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. Here is the post I was thinking about: Moorgard wrote: Berserkers can wear the same armor and wield the same shields as guardians. There are no hidden mitigation bonuses for either class, so a berserker and a guardian of the same level, stats, and skills with the same armor/shield combo will have the same base avoidance and mitigation. Guardians have arts that give them increased defensive capabilities, while berserkers have arts that give them increased offense. That's the key difference between the two warrior classes. Keep in mind that if you play a berserker and are not using a shield while tanking, you're missing out on a huge part of the tank's damage avoidance capability. Crusader and warrior classes are intended to use shields while acting as a tank. This statement worries me though: He is basically saying the only thing that makes the guardian class more defensive is their buffs, which by all the guardians statements effectively raise their avoidance, not their mitigation. In fact they rely on other classes to boost their mitigation. So therefore, the only thing that makes a guardian a "better" tank than a zerker (or anyone else) is the fact they can boost their avoidance? That is unless of course the warrior class gets a bonus to mitigation that the crusader class doesn't? shrug None of this makes any sense though, especially guardians seemingly relying on avoidance? Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on 03-22-2005 12:40 PM __________________

03-23-2005, 01:43 AM	#22
Belgor Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 180	Gage-Mikel wrote: Some guardian comments about the changes: Belgorim wrote: Well, stacking buffs for the defense-skill has been around since launch, and it is the best form of protection, since you can get it to 100% and thus never get hit. If it was meant to be this way or not noone really knows I guess. That would equate to trivializing content, which any class who used to rely on agility can tell you, is a big NO NO in SoE's eyes. Hopefully all of us are just misunderstanding the new numbers.... right? Ok, I am not a guardian, but I was writing on the guardian boards. I play a paladin, not that it matters. But I agree, and personaly I think that the ability to buff the defense-number should not exist at all. All buffs that increase defense should instead increase block/deflection or mitigation. The reason I think this is because defense is the primary means to trivialize grey content, which I have nothing against. This should in my opinion be a skill that is only based on your level, and thus is the same for all classes, giving a base avoidance versus lower level mobs, and 100% or close to 100% against grey mobs. Its when this skill can be altered through skills/spells that the balance is thrown out of whack. Sure, it does not seem much to have +5 defense on a skill, since versus same level mobs, it only adds maybe 3% avoidance. But it gets game breaking when this same number increases the avoidance versus green level mobs by about 40% or whatever, and these buffs can then be stacked to do the same thing versus higher level mobs. If all abilities that currently add to defense instead add to mitigation or something like that, then we would not have these problems. At least if level of the mob affects mitigation and avoidance in the same way, which I am not sure it does, but I have no proof for or against it, since defense would probably ruin any tests we can do at the moment. (or well, I guess you could try it with two people with the exact same defense skill.)

03-23-2005, 01:47 AM	#23
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Belgorim wrote: If all abilities that currently add to defense instead add to mitigation or something like that, then we would not have these problems. At least if level of the mob affects mitigation and avoidance in the same way, which I am not sure it does, but I have no proof for or against it, since defense would probably ruin any tests we can do at the moment. (or well, I guess you could try it with two people with the exact same defense skill.) I think that's a great idea. __________________

03-23-2005, 01:55 AM	#24
Grabaan Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 135	That would seem to alleviate the problem as we see it thus far, limiting their ability to increase their avoidance through defense. Good suggestion guys. I'm patiently awaiting some dev input on our discussions.

03-23-2005, 02:36 AM	#25
bonesbro Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 651	RadricTycho wrote: People tend to glaze over when they see a thread that is full of both sides responding item by item to everything the other guy said. Especially when it is clear that they care more about winning the argument than having something constructive come of it. These volumes of pedantic bickering and argumentative babble are irritating to most of us, humorous maybe at first, but in the end irritating. Yes. __________________ Legond of Najena, Monk Ancient.

03-23-2005, 03:17 AM	#26
SageMarrow Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 958	while thats a good suggestion, a perfect world would be thus. A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage. Thus creating two balanced styles, which would be fine= but something in the system or in the way they made the game doesnt illustrate that and would still be difficult to be made 'balanced in the same consistency" to the extent that mobs hit us 1/5 times or something which would end up too predictable IMO - but hey. So what is being suggested is change other classes buffs on the subject of raids to accomplish a more balanced approach to buff stacking of defense, that would provide mitigation as opposed to avoidance and deflection in other situations. And thus changing a guardians buffs to not effect defensive skill, but mitigation exclusively. (while guards would consider this a nerf), it still doesnt answer the question of scaling of avoidance. if a monk is level 50 and has 75% avoidance solo (which we can all say we level out around 70+% avoidance at all times). that means that to a level 49 mob we have 80% avoidance (persay) and to a level 48 mob 85% avoidance..on down the line to where we make ourselves unhittable. and eventually reaching 100% avoidance to a lower mob say level 45. now on the other hand, there is upward scaling as well, (aka where avoidance fails) keep in mind the avoidance number is against a mob of Equal level. and keep in mind we are talking about a solo mob with no modifiers such as ^^s, named, epic, etc. so take the same situation, level 50 monk with 75% avoidance fighting a level 51 mob solo. 70% avoidance, - level 52= 65% -53 - 60% and finally level 54- 55%. and that is before any modifiers are applied to the mobs, ( i dont think there are any level 51+ mobs walking around solo) so this is so it seems where avoidance fails and mitigation picks up the slack... against a level 54^^^x4 named epic mob. so place that in a true raid situation where we can achieve 100% avoidance, - 5% per level, minus named stats, minus epic stats, minus multipliers (^^^), minus group x4. and at the end of all that we are left with 45% avoidance and none of the mitigation in relation to a raid mob. sound about right?

03-23-2005, 03:23 AM	#27
SageMarrow Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 958	Radric Tycho: I am trying to understand how a full line of AoE and single-target taunts, several defensive stances, deflection, and attacks that can largely be used EVEN WHILE STUNNED, makes us not tanking oriented. Please explain how these skills are not tanking oriented. Yes I have often wondered what our real intended role was. But usually the developers have made it very clear during those times. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____ That was your question to me, which i answered very well in my previous post and went down a list of skills that i know we share in common and some that are exclusive to monks. and to further solidify that i also threw in some extra girth to my line of thought on the subject. i answered the question directed at ME. and the post above this one - answered the question asked by the OP. so if you didnt grasp what i was trying to convey, i do apologize, but outside of the whacked off way that i type, it was very clearly presented.

03-23-2005, 03:47 AM	#28
MoonglumHMV Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 226	SageMarrow wrote: while thats a good suggestion, a perfect world would be thus. A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage. Thus creating two balanced styles, which would be fine= but something in the system or in the way they made the game doesnt illustrate that and would still be difficult to be made 'balanced in the same consistency" to the extent that mobs hit us 1/5 times or something which would end up too predictable IMO - but hey. So what is being suggested is change other classes buffs on the subject of raids to accomplish a more balanced approach to buff stacking of defense, that would provide mitigation as opposed to avoidance and deflection in other situations. And thus changing a guardians buffs to not effect defensive skill, but mitigation exclusively. (while guards would consider this a nerf), it still doesnt answer the question of scaling of avoidance. if a monk is level 50 and has 75% avoidance solo (which we can all say we level out around 70+% avoidance at all times). that means that to a level 49 mob we have 80% avoidance (persay) and to a level 48 mob 85% avoidance..on down the line to where we make ourselves unhittable. and eventually reaching 100% avoidance to a lower mob say level 45. now on the other hand, there is upward scaling as well, (aka where avoidance fails) keep in mind the avoidance number is against a mob of Equal level. and keep in mind we are talking about a solo mob with no modifiers such as ^^s, named, epic, etc. so take the same situation, level 50 monk with 75% avoidance fighting a level 51 mob solo. 70% avoidance, - level 52= 65% -53 - 60% and finally level 54- 55%. and that is before any modifiers are applied to the mobs, ( i dont think there are any level 51+ mobs walking around solo) so this is so it seems where avoidance fails and mitigation picks up the slack... against a level 54^^^x4 named epic mob. so place that in a true raid situation where we can achieve 100% avoidance, - 5% per level, minus named stats, minus epic stats, minus multipliers (^^^), minus group x4. and at the end of all that we are left with 45% avoidance and none of the mitigation in relation to a raid mob. sound about right? Well I submit this to you...Wouldn't mitigation scale upward and downward as well? If that's the case, then the imbalance still boils down to the fact that guardians can buff their avoidance to be = monks/bruisers that then gets scaled down the same as ours, while their mitigation scales down to say 50%, while ours scales down to say 15%. So the mitigation tank can avoid as much as the avoidance tank, but still mitigates 2-3x what we would. Now don't misread what my point is...I'm not saying that we should mitigate like them...but by that same token, they should not avoid like us. __________________ Moonfire - 59 Ogre Monk Ziofan - 36 Dwarf Fury Peski 33 Ogre Coercer Theleb 24 Dark Elf Warlock Moonglum 24 Iksar Brigand Moonfire 12 Sarnak Berserker Moonfyst 19 Ratonga Bruiser

03-23-2005, 03:58 AM	#29
SageMarrow Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 958	well yeah, i understand what you are saying but this is what i see. mitigation is constant... meaning that even a little mitigation... will be present at all times until the mobs skill and level totally outclasses the mob. Avoidance is random(may proc- may not proc) so avoidance should be looked upon as a PROC in game persay.... meaning that it has less and less chance to PROC a miss/block etc as a mob gets stronger. so yes, you are indeed correct considering that thier mitigation out classes ours in totality, and like i said. a perfect world would be thus. A guardian getting hit for a constant stream of mitigated damage a monk not getting hit often at all but when he does for full damage. and for that matter, means that guardians would not get a chance to be missed or blocked at all. they would just be standing meat shields with high ac and hp as "supposedly" intended. but thats not the way the game was made and i dont think it was "intended" that way either. They were meant to be exactly what they are. we are the anomoly in this equation. which is why we spend so much time arguing over the fact of if we are tanks or Dps. when the argument should really be what can we do to improve our present situation that places us in the middle of the end. Message Edited by SageMarrow on 03-22-2005 02:59 PM

03-23-2005, 06:30 AM	#30
FamilyManFir Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 499	Belgorim wrote: ... But I agree, and personaly I think that the ability to buff the defense-number should not exist at all. All buffs that increase defense should instead increase block/deflection or mitigation. ... You know, given the way that Defense scales, I have to agree with you on that. The scaling was probably done to make gray-con mobs trivial (if they can't hit you they can't hurt you) and red-con mobs lethal (if they can't miss you you're going to die). However, by creating buffs that affect Defense they're effectively graying out higher and higher conned mobs as the Defense value gets higher and higher. If buffs were changed to only affect block/deflection, parry, or mitigation (assuming that these traits aren't scaled the same way) that would go a long way toward balancing things out, I suspect.