Analysis Monk vs Warrior

Monks damage versus Warrior damage, under the same circumstances, with similair gear.



Circumstances:

- Attack from behind

- No discs

- Use most damaging weapons



Similair Gear:

- Attainable from mobs at the same Tier level, by the same group of people.



Monk facts



- They got a better damage table (proof??)



- They generally get weapons with nice ratio's, but they're hard to get.



- Monks get Flying Kick, which is superior to the warrior Kick. It accounts for 5-10% of the Monk's damage (the more uber you are, the smaller that percentage as it doesn't scale well).



- Have a disc that lasts around 15 seconds that doubles their damage.



Warrior facts



- They generally get weapons with nice ratio's, but not as nice as a monks; however the best weapons usually do have lower delays than the best monk weapons.



- Warrior weapons are more common than monk weapons.



- They have a disc that lasts 3 minutes to enhance damage, good if not expected to tank. The information I could find is vague on this disc. But since it lasts so long, even a small damage increase (10-20%) would mean its superior to the monk disc with similair reuse time. I've heard figures quoted of 40% more damage.



Some Conclusions



- With the damage bonus on the primary hand, delay is king. Warriors have a far greater selection of low delay weapons than monks. Monks make up for that with higher damage weapons, but the end result is within 5-10% of each other (see weapons below).



- Monk weapons are rare; result, the average monk has crappier weapons than the average warrior.



- Monks have Flying Kick to do extra damage, however, this ability doesn't scale.



- Warriors generally attack from the front, lowering their dps in objective parses. A Warrior attacking from behind would get a significant boost (lowered ac, less ripostes, dodges and parries).



- Situationally (on Named mobs) Warriors using their 3 minute offensive disc would do significantly more damage than a Monk, even if the Monk used his/her disc.



Why do monks Solo better?



- Monks do a bit more damage than warriors, given they both have 40% item haste. Add the epic haste effect however, and Monks will do about 1.5x the damage of a warrior, resulting in a faster kill, and less damage taken. (It's not more than that, both attack from the front in these cases, so monk DPS will drop somewhat when soloing, versus group encounters or raids).



- Hitpoints regen at a fixed rate (given equal races/gear). The more hitpoints you lose, the longer your downtime. The faster you can kill, the less hitpoints you lose, the shorter the downtime.



- Monks generally have better regen due to the gear they use or race they play compared to Warriors. On top of that, Monks get Mend.



- Feign Death. It's something that's overlooked when soloing; Feign Death allows the monk to take riscs, riscs to find a good spot to solo, and to fight to the very last second and squeeze out a win.



- Stone Stance. A nice emergency disc that will recycle fast enough to be used almost every fight. It only lasts 10 seconds orso though, but helps prevent deaths without losing damage output.



This is why Monks solo better. It's not because they tank better, it's because they kill faster when solo, have better regen (especially with Mend taken into account) and have abilities more suited to soloing.



When not soloing however and the classes being put on equal footing (ie, use best weapons, attack from behind) with equal haste, you'll find that Monks and Warriors are really quite close to each other in damage. Monks are definitely not somewhere between Warrior and Rogue damage. They currently are far closer to Warrior damage than Rogue damage.. and now they're also far closer to Rogue tanking than Warrior tanking. This would seem unbalanced.



List of decent non-vulak NToV primary weapons



WAR Kreizenn's Flame, 12/17, procs 100 point dd

WAR Silver Whip of Rage, 13/19, procs 150 point rune

WAR Nevederia's Claw, 11/17

WAR Dagarn's Tail, 12/19, procs 51 point dd

WAR/MNK Dragon Rib Club, 12/17

MNK Baton of Flame, 13/17, procs 100 point dd

MNK Wurmscale Fistwraps, 14/18



List of decent Ssra primary weapons



WAR Acrylia Handled Broadsword, 16/19

WAR Bloodfrenzy, 16/20

WAR Hategiver, 15/19

WAR Blasphemous Blade of the Exiled, 13/17

WAR Braided Strands of Corrupted Mana, 12/16

MNK Savage Lord's Knuckle Dusters, 17/19

MNK Fangs of Vyzh'dra, 17/19

MNK Glowing Mithril Ulak, 17/20



Notice how close these weapons really are



Compare the best Monk weapon from here with the best Warrior weapon using this formula:



(2 * dmg + dmg bonus) / delay



dmg bonus is 11 at level 60 for these weapons.



NToV (except Vulak)

12/17 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 17 = 2.0589 (War)

13/17 : (2 * 13 + 11) / 17 = 2.1765 (Mnk), 6% more



Ssra

12/16 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 16 = 2.1875 (War)

17/19 : (2 * 17 + 11) / 19 = 2.3684 (Mnk), 8% more



Both classes have Triple Attack, and similair off handers, and similair skill caps. Also, the amount of ATK for Warriors and Monks is pretty similair (Monks having a slight edge of 20-30 atk, as long as the Warriors are not using too many AoB items).






http://www.xs4all.nl/~hjohn/swilvsign.jpg</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/umezu.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Mezu</A> at: 10/21/02 8:29:11 am

[Fopoodzo]

Nice comparison, you should send that into the Dev's corner.





I really do not think VI took into account at all how a 10-15% defensive (mitiagtion) nerf would affect the overall balance of warriors, monks and rogues.



Although they only nerfed defence (and mitigation at that) they also affected the whole offence/damage balance betweent the pure melees (and monks and some hybrids as well).


</p>

Monks have a weight restriction.



This should not be left out of any comparison as a Monks life pivots around it. Nearly every gear choice takes this restriction into account, and while many of us now take it for granted it is very real.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>

[ragnarz]

you are drawing these conclusions from what hard empirical evidence?



you have parses?

do you even have access to the gear?



since the last patch I have refrained from making a post on this board because of all the sensitivity. this one just bugged me. make something up, make it sound well thought out. grasp at straws. jeez.



here is a fact that the monk population of this board will endorse:

monks outdamage warriors in every situation, end of story. it is incontrovertible.



here is a fact that the monk population of this board probably will dispute:

the best geared monks come vey close to matching the best geared rogues in damage.



JUST SAY NO to whining



thx and have a nice day




Ragnarz (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=185923) - Warlord

Oppera (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=76844) - Bard

Reviviscence Guild (http://www.pawns-of-chaos.com/reviv/), Quellious Server
http://hackman94.20m.com/images/avatars/MightyThor2[1].gif


</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> you have parses?

do you even have access to the gear?<hr></blockquote>

The answer to both these questions would have to be "yes, I do".


</p>

Ragnarz>here is a fact that the monk population of this board will endorse:

Ragnarz>monks outdamage warriors in every situation, end of story. it is incontrovertible.



Now that's a nice statement - without any facts to back it up. This is the pot calling the kettle black.



I have plenty of parses where warriors are outdamaging monks in my guild. Only one of us monks don't have fangs of vhyd'dra btw, and he's using GMU/gharn/primal, so do think we have the right weapons to compare.



Ragnarz>here is a fact that the monk population of this board probably will dispute:

the best geared monks come vey close to matching the best geared rogues in damage.



Funny - our parses don't show that. Our rogues are about equal to monks when they can't backstab and have to use chaotic. But of course, since you were insinuating that the first poster was ill informed you will provide data to back up your own claims.



And while saying no to whining is a good idea, I also find it an excellent idea to say no to ill formed opinions based on claims based on imaginary facts.



Edit : Oh, I just realized you had a sig indicating you play a warrior. It all suddenly made sense.


<a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=3528">
Walkabout, Grandmaster Gecko</a>

The Companions (http://www.eqcompanions.com)

The Tribunal (http://www.thetribunal.org/)


Am I balanced yet ?</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/uwalkabout.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Walkabout</A> at: 10/21/02 9:58:07 am

[Wubao]

"- They generally get weapons with nice ratio's, but not as nice as a monks; however the best weapons usually do have lower delays than the best monk weapons."



Which weapons are we talking about? Because even the best warrior weapons in games have slightly worse ratios than those available to monks.



Warrior weapons are either equal to or slightly worse than monk weapons in regards to ratio and delay.



Which weapons have I missed?



-Wu


</p>

[LaotzuQigong]

Nice start... however, there's alot of stuff you don't take into consideration. I'll try to fill in the gaps and put it into better perspective...



"- They got a better damage table (proof??)"



This was posted by the Dev's during the infamous late Velious class balance discussions and posted in a patch message. This took place in 2000 or 2001, I forget exactly when.



"- Have a disc that lasts around 15 seconds that doubles their damage."



Not exactly, what Innerflame does is multiplies the base damage of the weapon x 4 for the duration of the disc, this will result in varying levels of damage increase depending upon the AC of the mob in question... for example, against very high AC mobs, the output jump is far larger than against low AC mobs.



"- Warrior weapons are more common than monk weapons."



Yes and no... warriors can wield a wider variety of weapons, but they have different maximum skill caps for some weapons than others. Not all weapons are equal in the hands of a warrior. A good example of this is Pierce vs Slashing weapons. Slash caps at 252 (1hd and 2hd) while Piercing caps at 240.



Also, for many warriors, for purposes of hate generation they will choose weapons with worse damage output in favor of heavy proccing.



"- Situationally (on Named mobs) Warriors using their 3 minute offensive disc would do significantly more damage than a Monk, even if the Monk used his/her disc."



Yes and no. Offensive warrior discs do similar damage output to monk output discs, however using this disc substantially lowers a warrior's damage mitigation, while the monk disc has no such downsides. That given, warriors do have a few more disc options than monks offensively.



"Also, the amount of ATK for Warriors and Monks is pretty similair (Monks having a slight edge of 20-30 atk"



Yes and no. Monks have an edge of 20 to 30 attack, until the monk gets the Epic. Epic adds a static 54 attack. 75 or 80 attack is very substantial in increasing damage output. Just compare the difference between having CoP or not having CoP. You'll see what I mean.



"NToV (except Vulak)

12/17 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 17 = 2.0589 (War)

13/17 : (2 * 13 + 11) / 17 = 2.1765 (Mnk), 6% more"



These two weapons aren't really a fair comparison, as by that stage most monks will have Primal or Priceless fistwraps or a similar weapon. Primal fistwraps are 15 20, which is substantially larger damage output than a 12 17 weapon... this not only outputs more damage against low AC mobs, but Significantly more damage against high AC mobs as the damage bonus becomes a larger factor.



"Ssra

12/16 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 16 = 2.1875 (War)

17/19 : (2 * 17 + 11) / 19 = 2.3684 (Mnk), 8% more"



Also an erroneous comparison. Due to the very high AC of Ssra and VT mobs, 17 19 will not produce 8 percent more damage, but more like 20 to 30 percent or more damage especially when combined with innate monk attack bonuses. In this scenario, having the higher minimum damage has a much larger impact.



"Compare the best Monk weapon from here with the best Warrior weapon using this formula:



(2 * dmg + dmg bonus) / delay

dmg bonus is 11 at level 60 for these weapons."



Using this formula will not yield any accurate damage predictions. When mobs start having increasingly high AC, then you need to start using DB+DI output to get anything near an accurate weapon damage prediction. This is why a Tstaff will get slaughtered by something like FoN/Primal on shrooms, but completely own FoN/Primal on a mob like XTC. You can't just make blanket damage predictions and expect them to hold up accurately.



Also, the number of available weapons to monks as they become ssra capable scales up quite smoothly, with a selection of weapons ranging from 14 19 to 15 18 without even hunting in Ssra. High damage weapons drop off a large number of mobs ranging from THO, to IV, to Tunare. NtoV weapons are largely out of date and not useful for realistic comparisons in and of themselves.



Warriors at the very top end do have access to these weapons, but they do not scale up as smoothly as monk weapon progression in the later stages of the game.



As for the availability of droppable weapons, yes there are more droppable weapons available to warriors (almost inevitable given the large range of usable warrior weapons), however many of these that are considered realistically usable are also similarly rare and expensive as weapons used by monks.



With the exception of the Tstaff, Khashek's Khatar, GIU, and a handful of others... there just aren't that many expensive monk usable weapons.



Meanwhile, you could look at the line of warrior weapons and find many examples of weapons that cost 20K to 100K or more, not even considering uber rare weapons like the Sceptre of Destruction.



All in all, at the late stages of the end game, you will probably see monks in the 20 to 30 percent more damage range, until you reach the late stage super high AC mobs. At this point, monk damage can far exceed warrior damage under some circumstances... especially when weapons such as Caen's come into play.



Does warrior DPS come anywhere near to the balance espoused by Verant so long ago? (100, 120, and 140?) Not really. Rogues with top end weapons will usually blow all other classes out of the water (160 to 200) until you reach super high AC mobs, where the disadvantage of 1hders is extremely evident. At this point, the advantage of backstabbing with a 15 20 1hder is severely mitigated.



To be honest, I'm not sure it's really possible to balance damage across all levels of the game. The mechanics of the Damage formulas used by the game do not scale especially well. You might have 100 120 140 at some stages of the game, but with some mobs designed specifically to be "melee resistant" this scaling pretty much goes completely out the window.



In an effort to keep scaling, Verant has implemented insane weaponry to try to preserve the balance on some of the higher end encounters and zones, however this only throws some of the lower end encounters and zones out of balance. For example, if you achieve 100, 120 and 140 on mobs like CT and Ssra, then this tends to skew balance on lower end encounters where mobs have lower AC. The places where this imbalance becomes most evident are those raid mobs like Yelinak, Tormax, and other mid-level encounters. It is here that DPS can appear to be out of balance.



Imho, I don't think DPS is actually out of balance at appropriate stages of gear for the most part (exempting certain insane AC mobs), however, when gear is far beyond the design of the encounter, DPS can then become heavily skewed. IE, a level 60 Ssra player is imbalanced when the raid being done was designed for Velious era weaponry. And it is here that class DPS advantages become heavily exaggerated.



Just my 2cp.



LaotzuQigong

60 Grandmaster

Legendary

The Tribunal


</p>

[Shidosha Yasnaki]

The fact that fleshgrinders exist at all is kinda rediculous =)



tradable warrior 12/19s w/75hps and a 160dd proc. That's better than some ntov weapons, and anyone over lvl 51 who spends some time in the bazaar trading up can get it. Monks have nothing NEAR that good that is tradable (don't even mention scepters of destruction)


<center>
<a href=http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=35354>Brother Shidosha

60 Skeletal Grandmaster

Unity, Prexus
</a>
</center>
</p>

[Harbromme]

Sorry, still laughing hard right now.

There is a reason why warriors are usually labeled meatshields with defensive disc.

If you take a warriors aggressive disc (level 60/3 minutes duration/30 minutes reuse) as an example how a warrior can outdamage monks its about the worst example.

I think i have used it exactly 3 times so far and that was on raids on named mobs with large hp pools (Dozekar and on 2 WToV named mobs) where i was not in the tank rotation (rare).

Disadvantages:

- only max hit of weapon is increased by 30 percent, meaning on a high AC mob you will still hit for min damage most of the time.

- Your damage taken increases by the same 30 percent.

No big deal if your main tank can hold aggro.

I remember when i used aggressive on Dozekar, he turned, i got 2 ripostes for 2500 damage total and was eaten afterwards due to low health aggro(was at 60 or 70 percent health when he turned).

Usually he hits for 900 max.

And about availabilty of warrior weapons.

Since bazaar was introduced i have seen a fleshgrinder exactly once for sale and that was for less than 5 minutes.




<a href=http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=65418>Gnomb Goodbasher level 60 troll warrior</a>
<a href=http://www.divinelegend.com>Divine Legend - Terris Thule</a>
</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "- They got a better damage table (proof??)"

This was posted by the Dev's during the infamous late Velious class balance discussions and posted in a patch message. This took place in 2000 or 2001, I forget exactly when.<hr></blockquote>

I know it was posted. But I have never been able to see any difference. Things Verant says are not to be taken as proof.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Also, for many warriors, for purposes of hate generation they will choose weapons with worse damage output in favor of heavy proccing.<hr></blockquote>That's assuming you are tanking, I didn't say that. Warrior skill caps are mostly irrelevant. The weapons I listed are not piercers.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Yes and no. Offensive warrior discs do similar damage output to monk output discs, however using this disc substantially lowers a warrior's damage mitigation, while the monk disc has no such downsides. That given, warriors do have a few more disc options than monks offensively.<hr></blockquote>Mitigation is irrelevant when you are geared to do damage and thus attacking from behind. The 2 offensive discs for warriors last 3 minutes, which is substantially longer, enabling them to do more damage for a longer period of time.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Yes and no. Monks have an edge of 20 to 30 attack, until the monk gets the Epic. Epic adds a static 54 attack.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the 20-30 atk benefit was WITH Monk epic running, and all raids bufs you can get. Warriors then only miss like 20-30 atk versus a Monk (well I do anyway). Don't forget Warriors can get some buffs which Monk epic will overwrite that give them ATK.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "NToV (except Vulak)

12/17 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 17 = 2.0589 (War)

13/17 : (2 * 13 + 11) / 17 = 2.1765 (Mnk), 6% more"

These two weapons aren't really a fair comparison, as by that stage most monks will have Primal or Priceless fistwraps or a similar weapon. Primal fistwraps are 15 20, which is substantially larger damage output than a 12 17 weapon...<hr></blockquote>

No it's not actually, it depends on what mobs you fight. Disregarding the Primal Avatar proc, 12/17 and 15/20 are practically equal in primary hand (and I'll add, on regular xp type mobs, which is what you'll be fighting the most).



I've not compared every weapon out there, because it is not needed. When both Monk and Warrior gear themselves up for similair type mobs with similair level gear, you'll find the difference in damage the weapons can generate is small.



If you want to make a comparison for a different situation (ie, high AC mobs in luclin), then feel free to do so and collect a list of weapons that Monks and Warriors have access to do maximum damage to those specific types of mobs; don't include any ultra rare weapons, because monks get lots of those and they're just not realistically obtainable. Please realize what small amount of monks are actually fighting these encounters and how relevant those results would be.



Just because in some situations there are better weapons to be used doesn't invalidate my point.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> To be honest, I'm not sure it's really possible to balance damage across all levels of the game. The mechanics of the Damage formulas used by the game do not scale especially well. You might have 100 120 140 at some stages of the game, but with some mobs designed specifically to be "melee resistant" this scaling pretty much goes completely out the window.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I agree. The scaling is not very consistent, which is why I'd like to see it addressed. Rogues only doing 1.4x Warrior btw, is a bit unrealistic, they do far more really.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The places where this imbalance becomes most evident are those raid mobs like Yelinak, Tormax, and other mid-level encounters. It is here that DPS can appear to be out of balance.<hr></blockquote>

Or in xp groups. Balancing us against high AC mobs in Luclin is silly; it's such small portion of the game that it is beyond ridiculous. I don't care if War/Mnk/Rog may do the correct amount of damage on the high AC mobs 1% of the server fights, I want it balanced accross the board. That's clearly not the case atm.



Swilv.




</p>

[Shidosha Yasnaki]

Harbromme/Gnomb -



I don't know about your server, but on mine there are generally around 2 fleshgrinders for sale constantly, at generally about 40kish, less than a fungi.


<center>
<a href=http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=35354>Brother Shidosha

60 Skeletal Grandmaster

Unity, Prexus
</a>
</center>
</p>

[LaotzuQigong]

Well, my post was merely to inform that there are many factors involved in the balancing issue that need to be considered, and that they need to be considered. As for your comments...



"I know it was posted. But I have never been able to see any difference. Things Verant says are not to be taken as proof"



This was discussed heavily and parsed by monks here on MB at the time of its implementation. The increase in DPS was something on the order of 5 percent iirc. I assume you were not present at the time that these parses were posted and discussed.



"Actually, the 20-30 atk benefit was WITH Monk epic running, and all raids bufs you can get. Warriors then only miss like 20-30 atk versus a Monk (well I do anyway). Don't forget Warriors can get some buffs which Monk epic will overwrite that give them ATK."



Any attack buff that does not stack with epic will not stack with eachother. Even taking a buff like Grim Aura into effect (only 10 attack or so), you're still talking a 40 to 45 advantage in attack. Also, monks recieve an innate attack bonus. If you really want a better idea, compare a monk's base attack with a warrior's base attack before epic and buffs when stats are maxed at 255 and factor out AoB items (many of which are usable by both classes).



"No it's not actually, it depends on what mobs you fight. Disregarding the Primal Avatar proc, 12/17 and 15/20 are practically equal in primary hand (and I'll add, on regular xp type mobs, which is what you'll be fighting the most)...



...Or in xp groups. Balancing us against high AC mobs in Luclin is silly; it's such small portion of the game that it is beyond ridiculous. I don't care if War/Mnk/Rog may do the correct amount of damage on the high AC mobs 1% of the server fights, I want it balanced accross the board. That's clearly not the case atm."



No, this doesn't affect only 1% of the mobs. You don't need to be fighting a raid mob to see the impact of high ac... just go to The Deep and start fighting some of the beetles, or fungal guys, or Ssra where AC is very high. When you factor Luclin Xp zones into the equation you will see a huge difference between 12 17 and 15 20.



That the dps is skewed when you bring top end NToV and Ssra weaponry into old world and velious/kunark zones shows only that the gear is overpowered for the encounters, not that there's an inherent balance at relatively similar levels of gear. That includes mid-level luclin weaponry that is currently being used in Velious, Kunark and old-world for experience groups.



A better basis for comparison would be primal 13 20 1hs and primal 15 20 fistwraps. This is a much better indication of where Verant wanted DPS to land on equivalent mobs. And even there, you'll see severe skewing as AC rises and falls from mob to mob.



That being said, I'm not trying to say that there are not imbalances in DPS or that there are, just that taking such a limited scope in examining the DPS model won't really give an accurate method of comparison. It's like statistics... you can make the numbers show anything you want if you omit enough information.



LaotzuQigong

60 Grandmaster

Legendary

The Tribunal


</p>

You Forgot that most monk SoL Monk weapons have a nice 100-150 DD, while most warrior weapons have None, or one designed for aggro (and less skills to prevent overaggroing, and the ones with the nice damage procs are generally usable by all non monk dual wielders, signicently lowering the chance for a warrior to have that, (NM that fact that drops off of considerably harder mobs) while monkweaps that drop are mnk or mnk bst only, and drop off of lot easier Creatures


</p>

Thanks Laotzu for your insight.



I really appreciated your synthesis.



/bow warriors in here who could finally aknowledge VI past shortcomings and hence drop the ball if they have enough honnesty to do so.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/uakra.showPublicProfile?language=EN>akra</A> at: 10/21/02 4:02:06 pm

Zeb must suck for drop rates then. The rate of entry of GMU (3 on server), Horns of chaos, GFoA is insanely small. Fangs of Vyzh'dra are the only "common" drop monk weapon i've heard of bar caen's.


Sensei Lucsa Kurobuchi (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=195825)

Crusaders of Plilo (http://www.raarcentral.com/)</p>

Since Laotzu seems to know jack and shit I wouldn't put too much weight into what he says.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Ssra

12/16 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 16 = 2.1875 (War)

17/19 : (2 * 17 + 11) / 19 = 2.3684 (Mnk), 8% more"



Also an erroneous comparison. Due to the very high AC of Ssra and VT mobs, 17 19 will not produce 8 percent more damage, but more like 20 to 30 percent or more damage especially when combined with innate monk attack bonuses. In this scenario, having the higher minimum damage has a much larger impact.<hr></blockquote>

Any jackass can tell you that when you are fighting high ac mobs with a one hander the delay matters more than the ratio. As an example, lets say you are fighting a super high AC mob. so much so that all hits are completely mitigated. You can do the following every delay of 16 (modified by haste) "12 12 1 1" or you can do the following every delay of 19 (modified by haste) "13 13 2 2". In such a case the 16 delay weapon will do more damage. Of course at such extremes the proc will become a significant factor in damage.



I will contend that if a warrior wanted to do pure damage and completely disregard any tanking ability he could match a monks damage using offensive over a period of time of greater than 10 minutes.



As it stands now, most monks are outdamaging warriors by 30% on raids. That isn't out of line when you consider warriors are not there to do damage and will often decrease their damage in order to do their jobs.


</p>

[Wubao]

"Any jackass can tell you that when you are fighting high ac mobs with a one hander the delay matters more than the ratio. "



If that's the case then ... just use epic fists.



Pretty damn good delay on them.



-Wu



EDIT: Also, my super secret SNEAKY tech for you if you ever wanna put this theory of yours into action: USE A KERRAN FISHING POLE in your next Luclin raid. See how that does. Pretty good delay on it for a 1hb.



:P


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showLocalUserPublicProfile?lo gin=wubao>Wubao</A> at: 10/21/02 7:47:15 pm

[Jinpo]

Hey warriors, I'll tell you what--I'll trade you my flying kick for your measly 2-6 point kick with stun.



Deal?


<html><body>
<table BORDER COLS=1 WIDTH="250" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" ><tr><td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"><font size=1>Diciple Jinpo Cai'Feng (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266967)</font>
<font color="#000099"><font size=1>52nd Echelon Drunken Ashen Monk</font></font>
<font color="#000099"><font size=1>Officer, The Legion of the Bear</font></font>
<font color="#000099"><font size=1>Saryrn</font></font>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"><font color="#000099" size="2">"Water can flow, or water can crash. Be like the nature of water."</font>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

As it stands now, most monks are outdamaging warriors by 30% on raids. That isn't out of line when you consider warriors are not there to do damage and will often decrease their damage in order to do their jobs.

<hr></blockquote>



Well one or two of them are there to tank, the rest are there to do damage.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>

Don't forget warrior offensive skills cap at 250, whereas monk skills cap at 252.



Just another thing to add to the "comparison"


<table border="0">
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<font face="Verdana" size="2">Veteran Dinian Scalebane (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=7584)

</font><font face="Verdana" size="1">
A Warlord of Endorean (http://www.endorean.com/)</font>
</td>
<td width="25"></td>
<td>

<font face="Verdana" size="1">
Sugarfoot (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=101967) -
Cleric

Decimus (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=188477) -
Disciple</font></td>
</tr>
</table></p>

[LaotzuQigong]

"Since Laotzu seems to know jack and shit I wouldn't put too much weight into what he says...



Any jackass can tell you that when you are fighting high ac mobs with a one hander the delay matters more than the ratio. As an example, lets say you are fighting a super high AC mob. so much so that all hits are completely mitigated. You can do the following every delay of 16 (modified by haste) "12 12 1 1" or you can do the following every delay of 19 (modified by haste) "13 13 2 2". In such a case the 16 delay weapon will do more damage. Of course at such extremes the proc will become a significant factor in damage."



Tell you what Brudda Thep. Why don't you go parse a fight on Arch Lich, Crypt Guardians, or XTC and tell me what your parses say. Put up any 1hd combo in game short of fangs/gmu or fangs gharn against a t-staff, IFS, Shovel, etc and then you can come tell me that 1hd fast delay weapons outdamage 2hders.



If you have a better set of 1hd weapons than what I use (fist of nature/primal fistwraps) and come up with different numbers on your parses, I'll be happy to concede that I'm wrong.



Also, pure speed doesn't necessarily translate when comparing 1hders. The minimum hit on main hand is not 1s, 2s, but is actually based on the base damage bonus of the weapon. In offhand, it would be pure delay as damage bonus doesn't enter into the equation. There is also an integer function which brings rounding into the equation when calculating effective delay. IE, 8.9 delay = 8.6 delay. So, unless you're actually calculating effective delay of the weapon, your assumptions are flawed.



Feel free to further enlighten us on your extensive knowledge of combat mechanics.



LaotzuQigong

60 Grandmaster

Legendary

The Tribunal


</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

Don't forget warrior offensive skills cap at 250, whereas monk skills cap at 252.



Just another thing to add to the "comparison"

<hr></blockquote>



The difference between 250 and 252 aint even worth thinking about, I doubt whether its enough to shift any parse even by a little.



I tell you what is worth bringing into the consideration, Warriors max out STR an awful lot easier than Monks... on a raid were pretty much all melee are capping STR that doesn't matter, but there's many many situations where a Warrior is going to be bulking up their attk way more than the Monk with their STR.... and that will shift a parse.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/ucarnagh.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Carnagh</A> at: 10/21/02 10:27:06 pm

You guys might be interested in some parses our guildleader Ainmer (60 Warrior - VERY well equipped) did on our VT fights one night.... Monks are still doing substantially better damage than warriors... now why rogues are asking for a nerf to monk damage from these numbers I'll never know but...



<blockquote>Quote:<hr> TVK data, top damage dealers by class:



Rogue - Skylan, 99,087 dmg, 95.74 dps (% damage from backstab - 37.7)

Monk - Mabasrn, 62,267 dmg, 56,19 dps (% damage from kick - 7.5)

Warrior - Ainmer, 47,600 dmg, 44.62 dps (% damage from kick - 1.3, % of triple attack/flurry fired - 6)

Shadow Knight - Dagin, 41,018 dmg, 36.92 dps

Ranger - Rakassan, 39,609, 36.07 dps

Paladin - Raymondt, 32,018, 29.16 dps

Mage pet - Vartik, 29,241, 32.31 dps

Bard - Equable, 18,531, 16.88 dps

Beastlord - Maynarrd, 18,378, 16.88 dps



Couple things to note about this fight - Raymondt and Dagin stopped at some point to fight adds, so their damage is skewed lower than it should be. Skylan was using Khal/RB, Mabasrn was using bane mace/Cursed fang, and I was using SoS.



Here's an interesting parse of TXD. We corner pinned him so it's a good comparison of fighting from the front.



Monk - Arhiss, 46,888, 62.02 dps (% of damage from kick - 5.2)

Rogue - Pokn, 40,140, 50.68 dps (% of damage from backstab(chaotic stab) - 19.6)

Warrior - Glubber, 37,936, 46.15 dps (% of damage from bash, .6, % of hits triple attack fired - 2)

Ranger - Uanwean, 33,015, 46.76 dps

Paladin - Raymondt, 32,053, 38.90 dps

Shadow Knight - Dagin, 29,108, 35.37 dps

Mage Pet - Jabn, 22,542, 27.36 dps

Beastlord - Maynarrd, 18,313, 22.72 dps



Glubber doesn't have flurry, so you can see that triple attack really accounts for very little. He does wield a bane 2hs (70/40), and the next closest warrior not using the bane 2hs did 33,482 dmg, 40.10 dps. Pokn was wielding Burrower spine.



Finally, here's a parse of Baby Aten -



Rogue - Jamdread, 87,878 dmg, 112.95 dps (% dmg from backstab - 38.77)

Monk - Arhiss, 72,297 dmg, 92.69 dps (% dmg from kick - 6.8%)

Ranger - Kitae, 45,832 dmg, 58.24 dps

Warrior - Ainmer, 45,013 dmg, 57.14 dps (% dmg from kick - 2.2%, % hits triple attack/flurry fired - 7%)

Shadow Knight - Dagin, 37,663 dmg, 48.41 dps

Mage Pet - Xekn, 28,353 dmg, 41.27 dps

Bard - Equable, 26,914 dmg, 34.77 dps



In the parses where we see rogues able to backstab, we see these kinds of results fairly consistently. <hr></blockquote>



Note: most of our monks are wielding very similar weapons in VT -- most being Fangs / Great Mace of Slaughter on Greater Akhevans, and Fangs / take your pick of offhand on blobs.



To see the whole whinefest in all it's glory, see here: pub146.ezboard.com/fthesa...=1&stop=20 (http://pub146.ezboard.com/fthesafehousethebackroomsecretsspoilers.showMessag eRange?topicID=12108.topic&start=1&stop=20)




<a href ="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=30050"><center>Arhiss Razorscales<a>


<center>Grandmaster - Tholuxe Paells




<a href ="http://www.kupoflux.com"><center>Kupo Flux<a>


</p>

[Wubao]

"where a Warrior is going to be bulking up their attk way more than the Monk with their STR.... "



ATK boost?



Ah, so monk epic ... that's not raw atk?



:P

Wu


</p>

Get a better shaman. You can easily max out almost anyone with a halfway respectable unbuffed str now by using stacking str buffs. Not to mention STR makes a marginal difference compared to other ways of increasing dps. Not saying its not worth considering. I just think its not as important as you think.



-Flank



PS. Dont talk to me about PoP max stat increases. I'm not going to consider that relevant at this present since PoP only just released.


</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> There is also an integer function which brings rounding into the equation when calculating effective delay.<hr></blockquote>

This has been theorized to exist but I believe that delays after haste is applied are allowed to have tenths so that the effect of haste on differing delays is minimal. I haven't done parsing of this and we don't really have the tools to test this appropriately. (The only way this would make a significant difference is on fairly low delay weapons and logs only show to the nearest second. Very hard to get anything conclusive.)



<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Put up any 1hd combo in game short of fangs/gmu or fangs gharn against a t-staff, IFS, Shovel, etc and then you can come tell me that 1hd fast delay weapons outdamage 2hders.

<hr></blockquote>

I am not sure where you thought I was saying that one handers were better against these mobs than two handers. But feel free to read my post over again.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Also, pure speed doesn't necessarily translate when comparing 1hders. The minimum hit on main hand is not 1s, 2s, but is actually based on the base damage bonus of the weapon.<hr></blockquote>

Please, do continue to dig yourself into a hole. I really appreciate it. With a 15 damage one hander or better the min hit is 2 on the off hand. Thus that is where the 2s came from. The 13s are from the main hand with a 15 damage weapon. The 12s are the min for a 12damage weapon in main hand. With a 12 damage weapon the damage min is 1 in off hand.



Are there any more basic things about combat that you would like to be enlightened on Laotzu?



I really am leary of any parses that show only the top damage dealers of each class. There are many things that could have been done to easily scew the results. Like Furors parse showing the monk reaching rogue damage. Or course most people didn't read the fine print stathing that the monk had savagery the entire fight while the rogue did not. Little things like that tend to get overlooked in such cases. Usually there are ranges where most everyone in a class with similar weapons will land in. I am more interested in this range.



Of course that parse also shows that monks are doing 20-30% more dmaage except for the baby aten one. Where the monk probably has savagery, but who knows.




</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

"where a Warrior is going to be bulking up their attk way more than the Monk with their STR.... "



ATK boost?



Ah, so monk epic ... that's not raw atk?

<hr></blockquote>



Of course its additional attk... and? It's helps if you actually make a point rather that ask rhetorical questions that imply something that wasn't actually in my post.



Now, tell me how much STR is required to give the same amount of attk as the Monk Epic... then take a look at some Warrior profiles.



Then tell me what the difference is between "raw atk", and attk gained via STR... "raw atk" is an outdated term. The days of "STR doesnt do anything for your damage" are debunked.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

Get a better shaman.

<hr></blockquote>



Class balance isn't based upon what Shaman you have in your guild, whether you're in a guild, or whether you're in an xp group... stop thinking about just raids... stop just thinking about 60+, with lots of nice gear.



And we'll agree to differ on how effective STR can be on increasing damage... I'd suggest you dig around some of the posts on MB and Steel Warriors on the effect of ATTK on damage reagrdless of its source.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/ucarnagh.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Carnagh</A> at: 10/22/02 7:15:59 am

[LaotzuQigong]

Well, since you're wanting to talk about digging holes, let's take a look at the two parts of your supposed analysis...



"You can do the following every delay of 16 (modified by haste) "12 12 1 1" or you can do the following every delay of 19 (modified by haste) "13 13 2 2". In such a case the 16 delay weapon will do more damage. Of course at such extremes the proc will become a significant factor in damage"



First off, the example you give is a poor one. Main hand and offhand are exclusive events. Offhand delay is exclusive of mainhand delay. To change both Main and Offhand weapons, then hold that up and claim it's a decisive indication of results is misleading at best.



So, let's take a look at the real implication of your mechanics.



"With a 15 damage one hander or better the min hit is 2 on the off hand. Thus that is where the 2s came from. The 13s are from the main hand with a 15 damage weapon. The 12s are the min for a 12damage weapon in main hand. With a 12 damage weapon the damage min is 1 in off hand."



If we examine offhand exclusively, what you have with a 13 17 offhand weapon using your extreme (albeit unrealistic example, as when we refer to minimum hits we're usually referring to the first two quintiles of the damage spectrum), is a series of 1's at 17 delay. Compare this with a 15 20 weapon in offhand (slower delay, and arguably similar ratio) where you're doing a series of 2's at 20 delay.



Now let me see, if we factor out double attack for simplicity...



13 17 would result in ~ 35 hits at 1 in 60 s assuming 100% hit accuracy. This results in 35 damage per minute.



15 20 would result in 30 hits at 2 in 60 s assuming 100% hit accuracy. This results in 60 damage per minute.



100 percent haste would only double this to 70 versus 120 damage per minute.



Would this support your claim that delay is always the best choice? Obviously, there are multiple factors involved, so let's move on to the next example...



So let's take a look at your main hand mechanics.



13 17 would result in 35 hits at 12 in 60 s, or 420 dpm.



15 20 would result in 30 hits at 13 in 60 s, or 390 dpm.



Now, here you could make the argument that in your extreme example (100 percent absolute minimum hits) that damage output would be greater, except there isn't a mob in game where you would get 100 percent pure minimum hits. In the actual game, if you were to draw a histogram of hit distribution even against uber high ac mobs it doesn't work like this.



What you would see is something like 25 percent of hits in the first quintile, 35 percent in the second quintile, however you would still see 40 percent in the 3rd quintile of damage or above, with anywhere from 10 to 15 percent in the 4th and 5th quintile of the damage distribution.



Given this distribution, you could make the argument that damage would favor the lower delay weapon, however the end result is that any damage advantage you gain with moderately faster weapons will be minimal at best, and possibly offset by slower offhand delay in the scenario you give. This assumes that the ratio's are equivalent.



This of course is all conjecture. In-game mechanics can often lead to unexpected results.



Feel free to continue this discussion in a rational and constructive manner. I'll assume that's how you meant to contribute to this thread.



LaotzuQigong

60 Grandmaster

Legendary

The Tribunal


</p>

Laotzu>What you would see is something like 25 percent of hits in the first quintile, 35 percent in the second quintile, however you would still see 40 percent in the 3rd quintile of damage or above, with anywhere from 10 to 15 percent in the 4th and 5th quintile of the damage distribution.



Since you brought up creator and arch lich, look again, and use a histogram instead of guessing. I looked while we still did creator, and over 30% of my hits was for minimum and minimum+1. Arch lich used to be similar. I ended up using fist of glowing acrylia and horns of chaos for him, with dex at 255, because those procs matter far more than any ratio on the 1hander or 2handers I had.


<a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=3528">
Walkabout, Grandmaster Gecko</a>

The Companions (http://www.eqcompanions.com)

The Tribunal (http://www.thetribunal.org/)


Am I balanced yet ?</p>

Here is what you said



<blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Ssra

12/16 : (2 * 12 + 11) / 16 = 2.1875 (War)

17/19 : (2 * 17 + 11) / 19 = 2.3684 (Mnk), 8% more"



Also an erroneous comparison. Due to the very high AC of Ssra and VT mobs, 17 19 will not produce 8 percent more damage, but more like 20 to 30 percent or more damage especially when combined with innate monk attack bonuses. In this scenario, having the higher minimum damage has a much larger impact.

<hr></blockquote>This is complete garbage.



I included the off hand damage with a 12/16 and a 17/19 to show that there IS some advantage to the higher damage weapon but that it still isn't a big enough advantage to overcome the speed advantage of a 16delay weapon against high AC mobs.



lets look at a specific part of what you said.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Due to the very high AC of Ssra and VT mobs, 17 19 will not produce 8 percent more damage, but more like 20 to 30 percent or more damage <hr></blockquote>

See that "Due to" part? That makes it seem like the higher the AC of the mob the better that 17/19 weapon will perform over the 12/16 weapon.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Main hand and offhand are exclusive events. Offhand delay is exclusive of mainhand delay.<hr></blockquote> I know this. I was being generous to YOU and YOUR argument. If I really wanted to make you look bad I could have used a hate giver in that example for the off hand. Then warrior could get two 12 hits every 16 delay and two 2 hits every 19 delay compared to a monk getting two 13 hits every 19 delay and two 2 hits 18 delay (assuming they use a 15/18 in offhand.) This makes makes it even more obvious that the warrior weapons are superior against a HIGH ac mob.



Of course I am sure you will come back and say that doesn't matter because we have procs on our weapons. This is true.



But you still said

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Due to the very high AC of Ssra and VT mobs, 17 19 will not produce 8 percent more damage, but more like 20 to 30 percent or more damage <hr></blockquote>

Which obviously shows you have no idea what you are talking about.


</p>

[LaotzuQigong]

Well, I'll just address these one at a time...





"Since you brought up creator and arch lich, look again, and use a histogram instead of guessing. I looked while we still did creator, and over 30% of my hits was for minimum and minimum+1. Arch lich used to be similar..."



I did use a histogram and there was no guessing involved. I used approximations as there is a margin for error as with all sampling. Additionally, this is using the times that I have engaged, which was after Archlich and XTC ac was lowered. This may or may not have been the same one you did.



"Due to the very high AC of Ssra and VT mobs, 17 19 will not produce 8 percent more damage, but more like 20 to 30 percent or more damage especially when combined with innate monk attack bonuses...



Which obviously shows you have no idea what you are talking about"



Read the full context of the line. The only 17 19 weapon that I know of is the Fangs. They do proc an unresistable dd (as we both know), and monks do have an innate attack bonus and seperate damage tables which would result in a different distribution of hits than similar warrior weapons.



Perhaps I should have been more specific so that you fully understood what I was saying, that the Fangs will outdamage by substantially more than 8% in the hands of a monk than the examples that were being given.



Even if you were to factor out the proc, I would still wager that higher monk attack levels (aob and vengeance items being equal) combined with monk damage tables would still result in more than an 8% difference.



Your skill at nitpicking has increased! (1)



In the meanwhile, I suggest we get back to the original discussion, which is how do we really compare damage meaningfully between the two classes.



LaotzuQigong

60 Grandmaster

Legendary

The Tribunal


</p>

[Wubao]

"tell me how much STR is required to give the same amount of attk as the Monk Epic... then take a look at some Warrior profiles."



The last time I raided with my guild, I was at 255 STR.



So was the Ranger. So was the warrior.



The epic adds 20 STR as well as 10 to the other key stats.



I've seen warrior profiles, and I don't see what point you're trying to make at all.



Stats are pretty meaningless once they all get capped like that. And getting STR capped is NOT hard for warriors or monks.



Maybe now they mean a bit more with caps raised, but me and my friends aren't 61 yet.



-Wu


</p>

Laotzu



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

and monks do have an innate attack bonus and seperate damage tables which would result in a different distribution of hits than similar warrior weapons.

<hr></blockquote>



While we are supposed to have a different damage table (I've never had data to look at this), I have never heard about any innate attack bonus. Are you referring to higher weapon/skill caps ?


<a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=3528">
Walkabout, Grandmaster++ Gecko</a>

The Companions (http://www.eqcompanions.com)

The Tribunal (http://www.thetribunal.org/)


Am I balanced yet ?</p>

I never capped my str until i got avatar (primal).


Grazel Nukite, Grandmaster

Triage Quadbypass, Vicar of 60 Blueberries

Valiant Elite, Druzzil Ro

</p>

Besides, this whole argument is ridiculous --- someone's trying to prove monk do too much damage overall, by talking about weapons available to maybe 0.1% of monks? Um, yeah! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">


Grazel Nukite, Grandmaster

Triage Quadbypass, Vicar of 60 Blueberries

Valiant Elite, Druzzil Ro

</p>

That 0.1% of monks, fully decked in VT/vengeance gear, pissed off some 0.1% of warriors full decked in AC/HP VT gear.



And that 0.1% gear is probably the cause of the nerf we 100% need to deal with allthough with 99% chances not to reach that gear level anyway ever.



Solution: get rid of that 0.1% of warriors.



/sarcasm off


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/uakra.showPublicProfile?language=EN>akra</A> at: 10/22/02 2:41:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Of course that parse also shows that monks are doing 20-30% more dmaage except for the baby aten one. Where the monk probably has savagery, but who knows.<hr></blockquote>



Just for the sake of information, on Baby aten, I had Feral Avatar for most of the fight (2 doses) -- and I had savagery for part of the fight (1 dose) -- I did pop my disc when I had Savagery and Avatar... at which point my Atk will max out at 1735.




<a href ="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=30050"><center>Arhiss Razorscales<a>


<center>Grandmaster - Tholuxe Paells




<a href ="http://www.kupoflux.com"><center>Kupo Flux<a>


</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

The last time I raided with my guild, I was at 255 STR.

<hr></blockquote>



Wubao, you return to thinking just of those Monks in a situation were their STR is capped... I've read your posts, you aren't stupid, so I can only conclude you're deliberately ignoring the bulk of the game were Monks dont have capped STR either because they arent on a raid or they're level 30.



The issue of STR isn't a big one. The point I made was in direct reply to another post. I'll leave it to you to pick back through it as the point isnt worth belabouring.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>

.. insisting on comparing monks to warriors? VI is determined to make sure that monks can't tank. This makes the monk versus rogue comparison a MUCH more valid comparison. If monks are just another class that requires a meatshield in order to play the game, why should anyone play a monk over a rogue?


</p>

Here's a histogram of fighting AL, no idea whether his AC was changed with the mudflation-patch. Creator made an ever worse histogram, but I can't find the one I made and I'm not in the mode to make a new one. Either way, this is a high ac mob and the hit distribution here is fairly typical.



http://www.eqcompanions.com/items/WA/gharn_primal_AL.png






<a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=3528">

Walkabout, Grandmaster Gecko</a>


The Companions (http://www.eqcompanions.com)


The Tribunal (http://www.thetribunal.org/)



Am I balanced yet ?</p>

Then tell me what the difference is between "raw atk", and attk gained via STR... "raw atk" is an outdated term. The days of "STR doesnt do anything for your damage" are debunked.



Funniest statement I've seen in ages.



You can't do an analysis without controlled parses.


Luthair (http://) [60 Crusader]

Alakazaam (http://) [54 Magician]</p>

The same would go for yours Luthair.



Unless of course, you're here to teach us how atk from STR differs from 'raw atk'.


<a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=3528">

Walkabout, Grandmaster Gecko</a>


The Companions (http://www.eqcompanions.com)


The Tribunal (http://www.thetribunal.org/)



Am I balanced yet ?</p>

Luthair, if it's so funny, it should be trivial for you to explain the difference between "raw attk" and attk gained through STR.



Some of us are waiting and listening.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>

Well Carnagh, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. As you are the person in this thread implying the difference between STR and ATK is minimal, I and I'm sure many other people as well would be interested of seeing your proof.


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>

I don't think ATK gained from STR is any less effective than raw ATK. At the high end though most people do their parses with everyone at 255 in all melee stats. With POP that will be a bit skewed til we have the 65s doing parses with everyone at 355 in all melee stats.


Khumak

61 Warrior

Mith Marr

<Imperial Guardian>

Magelo: http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=85547</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

As you are the person in this thread implying the difference between STR and ATK is minimal

<hr></blockquote>



Well lets start with we have a stat called "Attack" and various ways in order to raise that stat.... there that's my claim.



If you wish to add further interpretation upon that statement, feel free to do so, but back it up when you do so.



I need make no further comment, as I'm not the one trying to infer a hidden mechanic in the ways in which ATTK are raised.



IF you believe that there are implications upon gameplay derived from the way in which one raises ATTK, I am genuinely open minded and interested to hear them. Through the thread all I have asked is for somebody to tell me what the difference is between ATTK raised by STR and ATTK raised by "raw attk"... I need no burden of proof in order to ask that question.



Are you able to answer that question or not?



Is anybody able to answer that question?



I'll make it easier for you... are you able to answer that question with only speculation and no proof?


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>

In this thread you made 2 claims;



1. "raw atk" is an outdated term.



and...



2. The days of "STR doesnt do anything for your damage" are debunked.



It is quite possible you didn't want to imply what you did but I doubt that, so I'm asking for clarification and proof, instead of blanket statements. I seriously doubt that anyone at this level of play is so ignorant of the current believes between ATK and STR, to simply take what you said as something other than implication that those believes are false. So instead of making innuendos and playing with words, can you actually give us anything solid? Or do you prefer to play with words?


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>

Zagarus,



On the contrary, it is people like yourself claiming that ATK that comes from boosting STR to 255 somehow differs from buffs directly boosting ATK.



The ATK meter goes up - you claim there's a magical difference between the two. You get proof, it's your claim.



Search for one of the posts I recently made in the general section for a parse where I was adjusting STR.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wal kabout>Walkabout</A> at: 10/23/02 2:48:19 pm

Just wanted to back up Arhiss's claims about what I guess we could call "uber high end" damage balance. My guild is relatively higher in count than monks, but we see the same net dps layouts, except when we can keep a mob away from a wall, then rangers with full archery aa can and do outdamage the monks. But on the whole you'll see:



Rogues > Monks >> Rangers/Warriors/Sks



On full guild parses I am commonly #2 in dps overall with great mace of slaughter in primary and glowing mithral ulak in secondary, having already procced avatar but no savagery. Attack is roughly 1468-1475 depending on buffs.


</p>

I was led to beleive that attack gained from strength raises the max hit, and direct atk (avatar and the like) makes it so you hit high more often (Shifts a histogram more towards max hit)






Madrone (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=50583) ~ Dorfen Crusader


Winter's Light (http://www.winters-light.com) ~ Drinal</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

It is quite possible you didn't want to imply what you did but I doubt that, so I'm asking for clarification and proof, instead of blanket statements. I seriously doubt that anyone at this level of play is so ignorant of the current believes between ATK and STR, to simply take what you said as something other than implication that those believes are false. So instead of making innuendos and playing with words, can you actually give us anything solid? Or do you prefer to play with words?

<hr></blockquote>



In the interests of expedient argument, I'll state I am that ignorant... I can't back up the claim that raising attk by 10pts via STR isn't different that raising attk by 10pts with "raw attk".



Your turn... can you demonstrate any difference raising attk by 10pts via STR compaired to raising attk 10pts via "raw attk"?



Oh and I also can't demonstrate that Geminis dont do more damage than Libras, but I can point you to the parse that Walkabout mentioned here (http://pub35.ezboard.com/fmonklybusiness43508frm1.showMessage?topicID=33644 .topic&index=1).


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=car nagh>Carnagh</A> at: 10/23/02 8:09:01 pm

[Wubao]

"Is anybody able to answer that question?"



IIRC Laoke did a lot of parsing in regards to STR and its affect on DPS and I believe did some stuff involving raising ATK with just atk boosting items and str boosting items.



Most of it was against the mist panther.



It was a whole series of threads from a few months ago.



-Wu


</p>

Also, please explain how having 5-10% less damage means you get 3k more hp?

*boggle*

*boggle*

*boggle*














</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Zagarus,



On the contrary, it is people like yourself claiming that ATK that comes from boosting STR to 255 somehow differs from buffs directly boosting ATK.<hr></blockquote>



I could be wrong but I don't think I made any claims.





EDIT: Have you made any tests regarding the difference of str and atk? Your tests with str show maybe a bit higher increase in damage than what other people have parsed before but other than that it didn't tell me anything new.


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=zag arus>Zagarus</A> at: 10/23/02 10:52:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Your turn... can you demonstrate any difference raising attk by 10pts via STR compaired to raising attk 10pts via "raw attk"?<hr></blockquote>



I haven't made any claims regarding the usefulness of STR and ATK. What I was curious about was the possible proof against the current believes.


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

I haven't made any claims regarding the usefulness of STR and ATK. What I was curious about was the possible proof against the current believes.

<hr></blockquote>



Ah, so you're just playing word games perhaps?



Care to explain how your contribution here is different from that of a Troll?



As for possible proof, do a trawl of MB, you'll find more parses more recent that the Old World Shaman parses done with Shaman melee an eon ago on which a lot of "recieved wisdom" is based.



Lastly I'd suggest that you familiarise yourself with the principle of Ocam's Razor (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html), before asking further that one prove that raising attk via STR is different than through "raw attk". It really is arse about face.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=car nagh>Carnagh</A> at: 10/24/02 12:36:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ah, so you're just playing word games perhaps?<hr></blockquote>



I believe I have been quite clear from the start that I'm interested of the proof you have to back up your claims you made in this thread. I, on the other hand, have made no such claims. Nor have I implied anything other than what the current on-going believes are.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Care to explain how your contribution here is different from that of a Troll?<hr></blockquote>



I wasn't aware that being curious is now same as trolling. I do apologize.





<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As for possible proof, do a trawl of MB, you'll find more parses more recent that the Old World Shaman parses done with Shaman melee an eon ago on which a lot of "recieved wisdom" is based.<hr></blockquote>



While it doesn't really matter, a lot of the parsing regarding ATK and STR were done by rogues and rangers and if my memory serves me right, Hobben has contributed quite a bit to these tests. As a matter of fact, there is, or atleast was a thread in rangers glade some time ago where the differences of ATK and STR were discussed and who knows, one might even find some data if one does some digging up. However, since to me it is pretty much irrelevant what you believe, I'm not going to dig up anything for you.


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

I wasn't aware that being curious is now same as trolling. I do apologize.

<hr></blockquote>



It's not the same... I'd still like to know how you regard yourslef as different from a Troll, as your posts aren't merely curious.



See you did make an assertion..



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

I seriously doubt that anyone at this level of play is so ignorant of the current believes between ATK and STR

<hr></blockquote>



...so by your own measure, now is the time for you to stop making broad sweeping claims, and back it up.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

However, since to me it is pretty much irrelevant what you believe, I'm not going to dig up anything for you.

<hr></blockquote>



So you are merely playing word games... please drive through.




<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=car nagh>Carnagh</A> at: 10/24/02 1:47:48 am

[Fopoodzo]

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Fleshgrinders at least allow your DPS to compete with epic monks/rogues and you'll hold aggro easier with them. I have zero issues holding aggro with my regular hunting group, which includes a monk with 15/19 and 15/18 weapons. <hr></blockquote>







pub14.ezboard.com/ftheste...4192.topic (http://pub14.ezboard.com/fthesteelwarriorthebunker.showMessage?topicID=4192 .topic)


</p>

You could have simply said, "no, I haven't done any tests, nor can I direct you to any tests regarding this matter" when I asked the first place - instead you get defensive and hope to accomplish god knows what by your mindless drivel.



btw. it's spelled Occam's razor, according to William of Occam (or Ockham). If you draw logical concepts into argument, you could atleast spell them right. Not to mention you should be very careful when applying logic into game mechanics, as dices may not favour you.



"Death to all fanatics" - how ironic.



Anyway, if you wish to keep arguing, feel free to do so by the nearest mirror, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun.


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>

btw. it's spelled "beliefs", according to Daniel of Webster. If you draw spelling into argument, you could atleast spell them right. Not to mention you should be very careful when applying grammar and spelling into game mechanics, as dices may not favour you.



I can't believe you are going to stoop to criticizing someone else’s spelling when you invented a new usage for the word "believes" and used it four times in the same thread.






</p>

[LaotzuQigong]

Well, here's how I think it works...



1) Attack is a derivative stat that includes strength in it's total value, you can see this by seeing attack go up with strength increases.



2) Maximum damage possible is a value partially derived from strength.



3) Attack itself does not affect maximum hit or hit probability, but instead affects the distribution of hits along the DB+DI curve.



Just my 2cp.



LaotzuQigong

61 Grandmaster (feels wierd typing 61 8P)

Legendary

The Tribunal


</p>

Skill raises also raise attack, so by your logic skill=str



There have been umpteen parses and all have shown pure ATK doing more than strength. You are the one making the claim contrary to evidence, not me.


</p>

So what if I misused a word? Atleast I didn't try to appear superiour by asking a person to familiarize himself with something that doesn't even exist. That is just ironic.


Gargol (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=288374)

60 dwarf rogue</p>

That's exactly the point. You did some google searches to give us not one, but two spelling variations of the guy's name so that you could then post a whole paragraph about your own superiority in relation to the bit about Occam's Razor, all the while making a 4th grade grammar error in post after post. *That* is ironic.



/grin






</p>

Luthair>Skill raises also raise attack, so by your logic skill=str



What happens when skill goes up ?



Luthair>There have been umpteen parses and all have shown pure ATK doing more than strength. You are the one making the claim contrary to evidence, not me.



Really. You know, the past two years I've seen so many myths posted here, and so many people defending those myths because it was 'the truth'. Common for almost all these 'umpteen parses' is they either don't exist or they were so poorly done they're completely useless. I give old myths excactly 0 credit. Now where is an URL to those umpteen parses of yours ? And don't give me a pointer to a level 47 shaman piercing Naggy, then adding 20 STR for second run please. The most amusing things that used to be said about STR was "well, it raises maximum hit but doesn't do anything to average damage". The statement is a contradiction by itself.



Instead of blatantly refuting the little test I did and the effect STR has, go do it yourself. Don't trust my parse at all. Them compare average damage gained from STR resulting in +100atk, and avatar.



This thread should be properly derailed by now.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wal kabout>Walkabout</A> at: 10/24/02 8:34:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

when I asked the first place - instead you get defensive and hope to accomplish god knows what by your mindless drivel

<hr></blockquote>



This is the sum total of what you can muster by way of an argument?



The reason why you were pointed to a basis for logic is that if you applied it you would be left having to conclude that the burden of proof is upon the person wishing to assert that there's a difference between raising attack via STR and with "raw attk".



Argument has been laid before you. Logic has been offered to you, a parse has been offered to you.... and the best you can come up with a blanket accusation of mindless drivel and spelling mistakes.



You're a Troll... go away. Or prove yourself otherwise. YOU are the person playing petty word games here.



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

"Death to all fanatics" - how ironic.

<hr></blockquote>



Doh! Ya think?


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=car nagh>Carnagh</A> at: 10/24/02 2:35:23 pm

If you want to know the difference between str and 'raw atk', look about 2 years back in the Shaman's Crucible. *Extensive* testing on the matter. Shamans had it figured out back then, and this testing is why they feel shaman buffs don't do enough.



I'll summarize the findings for you:



Adding strength does one thing, and one thing only: it increases your max damage hit. It doesn't increase your chances of hitting for max damage, or modal damage, or anything else. It *only* increases your max possible hit.



If you were to make a histogram of your hits over a long enough time, you get a graph with two peaks: one at your min damage, one at your modal damage. More of your hits that aren't modal or minimum fall between these two peaks than outside them (that is, there are fewer hits above modal than there are between modal and minimum).



Raising strength allows the game to redistribute the hits that do fall in the >modal range, but it does not generate more of them. I don't have a graph to show, but if you understand the concept, you'll realize that raising strength thus does not increase your dps to any significant degree.



Raising 'raw atk' (offense, skills, vengeance, aura of battle, and numerous buffs that add directly to atk) has a different effect, in addition to raising your max hit (up to the maximum possible hit you can have with a particular weapon at a particular level with a particular skill value for a particular class). It doesn't just give you a higher max hit; it also redistributes damage values (now this is the important part) ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE HISTOGRAM. You will have fewer min hits, about the same number of modal hits, and the ratio of (hits above modal)<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("> hits between modal and minimum) goes up. As you add more 'raw atk', not only will are you able to hit harder, you will hit harder more often.



THAT is the difference between strength and raw attack. All strength does is raise the max hit, which affects a relatively small portion of your possible hits, whereas raw atk both increases your max hit and increases your likelihood of hitting harder with every hit.



Wasn't this thread supposed to be about warriors vs. monks? /em wanders off....


Slithers Sa`angreal (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=249499), 57 Iksar Monk of Prexus
Proud Member of Azure Sky (http://azuresky.droz.net)




Koidoken Seadragon, 20 Friar of Guinevere


Member of Bound By Faith (http://www.geocities.com/boundbyfaith2002/)
</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

If you want to know the difference between str and 'raw atk', look about 2 years back in the Shaman's Crucible. *Extensive* testing on the matter. Shamans had it figured out back then, and this testing is why they feel shaman buffs don't do enough.

<hr></blockquote>



I read the tests on the Crucible at the time... performed almost exclusively using Shaman melee. And have read them several times since.



I also read the Paladin tests which were just as extensive a year later that showed that actually what the Shaman found didn't tally with what they were finding. They were the ones I think who first starting noting a shift in the distribution of modal to max, that did yield an increase in dps.



Most recent tests that I've seen over the past few months both on Monkley-Business do show a significant increase in DPS inline with what one would expect from a regular increase in attack.



Remember the original Shaman tests showed NO appreciable difference in DPS. There are several parses available that clearly show that increasing STR does increase dps.



So we have a choice of taking a look at parses performed on Monk melee in recent months. Or parses from on Shaman melee in the old world.



So no, myself and several other Monks do not think the Shaman had it right over 2 years ago when they tested their own melee. We could definately do with more parses on the matter like the one performed by Walkabout pointed to in this thread, but I've certainly seen enough in recent months to feel the old Shaman was at best flawed.



Also remember, that at the time Shaman were doing their study, any well informed Monk would tell you you were nuts if you didn't realised that DEX/AGL was the way to go. The study if I remember correctly was pre-Kunark.



If you wish to quote a pre-Kunark study on Shaman melee in preference, be my guest.


<hr />
<div>
Xarnak "Death to all fanatics" Clawfist (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266873), Iksar Monk of Xev.
</div>
<div>
Dubious member of Hawkestone (http://pub72.ezboard.com/bhawkestone).
</div>


<div>

"I stare, it stares back.

I long to know its feelings.

It demurs. Lunch, then."


</div></p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub35.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=car nagh>Carnagh</A> at: 10/24/02 10:44:41 pm

To get back to the original post of War vs. Monk



Monk on avg has slightly higher dmg. -- Usually when monk is behind the mob and keeping agro off himself.(Toe to toe lowers dmg because of riposte/dodge/parry/block)

Monk has better avoidance.

Monk has FD and Mend.

Monk has to worry about Weight. -- Monk @ lvl 60 can carry 22stones before taking AC hits.

Monk now take 100+ dmg hits from light blue mobs.

Monks have to fill the roll of cardboard tank when war/pal/sk is not present without the benefits dmg mitigation.(This is in reference to how Druids and Shaman got cheals to help fill in as clerics)

Monks on avg start with much less money because of inability to carry it around.

Monks have harder to get/rarer/more costly equipment/wpns until end game.

Avg. Monk of lvl 50 has highest ac item of 15(Robe of Lost Circle) to 21 (Fungal Tunic)

High End Monk 2hb wpns weigh 10stone or more because Verant wanted atk/dmg increase at cost of ac/def.





War has higher hp's.

War has more AC.

War has more Dmg mitigation.

War no weight limit. -- War can carry up to whatever his STR is w/ no AC decrease.

War now has better tanking abilities plus new /shield skill.

War can easily switch out carried equipment to make himself do more/higher dmg when another tank is present.

War can more easily find armour/wpns than monks until end game.

Avg. War of lvl 50 has AC items that range up to 45AC easily.

Only time War off/def capabilities change is when using discipline or deciding to reoutfit.



In the end atm Wars have it better off than most monks.

Either more dmg avoidance or more offensive capabilities should be looked into for monks.






</p>