Is monk vs warrior dps really classic right now?

[joppykid]

Monks are supposed to out DPS warriors by ALOT. Why is this hard to understand? The monk could be using 2 cracked staffs and out dps you. Quit wasting your time parsing and roll a monk if its such a big deal lol.

[Elements]

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61654

See the 8th post by Gmal for an idea of monk vs rogue vs warrior damage at end game. Probably more valid than random warrior in random gear vs random monk in random gear in dreadlands.

[Szeth]

Originally Posted by Elements [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

post by Gmal more valid

No.

[webrunner5]

Originally Posted by joppykid [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Monks are supposed to out DPS warriors by ALOT. Why is this hard to understand? The monk could be using 2 cracked staffs and out dps you. Quit wasting your time parsing and roll a monk if its such a big deal lol.

A monk at level 50 bare handed, h2h, will outdamge a Warrior at level 50 with good weapons. Duh. A warrior even live is no DPS machine. They are a Meat Puppet. And dam good at that. It could be worse. You could be a Paladian on DPS against non un dead.

[Ssleeve]

I think what irritates the OP is that @ 50 MNK are also tanking better then WAR which is pretty retarded.

[Kender]

Originally Posted by Ssleeve [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think what irritates the OP is that @ 50 MNK are also tanking better then WAR which is pretty retarded.

and also classic

[Splorf22]

The level of reading comprehension on these forums is just 0. How can you read post titled "Is monk vs warrior dps really classic right now" and think "I know, that guy is pissed about warrior vs monk tanking!" ? Or maybe, just maybe, the post is about warrior vs monk dps!! And how I'm really curious how the devs decided that classic monks did TWICE the damage of classic warriors, i.e. based on what parses?

I already knew that monks were OP in classic EQ. My main is an enchanter; I thought I'd do something a little different. If you have a class that takes 10% less dps than warriors, does 30-50% more, and has mend/fd/hide/sneak . . . that class is OP. If you give them all that and they do more damage than rogues as well. . . why would anyone play anything else?

Now maybe Orruar is right and all i have to do is equip my staff of battle and I'll get +50% dps. It doesn't jive with what I've seen so far, but hey my human brain is faulty. I'll have to try to get the numbers sometime.

But all of this ignores the point that I'm trying to make here, which I will restate because some of the people here don't get hints unless they are applied with a sledgehammer: is it really classic for monks to do so so so much damage than warriors?

[Treats]

This is what Verant had intended I guess. Unsure when these changes were applied though ;/

Melee Damage Output Class Comparison

What we did was NORMALIZE damage output for all melee classes based on existing damage output of Warriors.

We looked at what a Warrior can do at 60th level in terms of damage per second, minute, and fight, with a wide range of gear. Once we got a solid set of numbers for that, we made adjustments to other classes as needed.

We wanted the Knight classes to do roughly 85% of the damage a Warrior does, so we put them on the same damage table, and made adjustment to 2h weapons and how 2h damage bonuses work. With the changes on test, they are there. Prior to the changes, they were doing 70-75% of the damage a Warrior does.

We wanted monks to outdamage a Warrior, currently they were at ~110%, which we felt was not high enough considering the disparity in HP. With the addition of triple attack and a better damage table, they are now at 120% at 60th.

Rangers we wanted closer to Warriors, even with the last changes, they were roughly at 90%. Giving them triple attack brings them up closer to 95%. With proper use of spells they can get right at 100%. Giving them another 10 points of defense was the real change here, 200 defense meant they were taking a lot more hits, and more damage per hit, than other melee classes. 10 points gives them better survival chances, but still not as good as the Warrior, SK or Paladin. Those three classes still have superior AC and HP and Defense.

Bards are now at 65% of the melee damage of a Warrior. Before the changes that are on test, they were at 40%. I don't think anyone will dispute that Bardic melee was just too low.

60th Rogues are STILL doing 140% of a 60th Warrior in a group, and around 100% if they are not able to backstab. Those numbers are fine, some would say they are more than fine

Rogue: 140%

Monk: 120%

Warriors: 100%

Paladin/SK: 85%

Bard: 65%

It really looks from your parses like the Monk has spell haste. He didn't have Robe of the Whistling Fists or Epic?

[travatron]

I think what everyone is saying is: put up or shut up. You're saying that's not like it was in classic EQ, everyone else is telling you it is.

Unless you can prove you're right, it's going to stay the way it is now, because this is based around classic EQ's mechanics. The devs here aren't worried about class balance, they're worried about authenticity. Whether it's OP or not is irrelevant.

[Splorf22]

That post is from the end of velious class discussions, right? That would seem to indicate that monks were barely outdamaging warriors at all. Look, I don't have legit data from 2000. All I'm saying is right now monks are outdamaging ragebringer rogues at L50 (yes every rogue on the server by now has a ragebringer) while warriors do half as much. I find it really hard to believe that's classic.

Another parse, this time from SolB: my dps is even worse here because most of the mobs were higher level bats and bugs and I spent a decent amount of time stunned. Also in this post Wonderr and I were mostly in the front while Trevelain is in the back. And somehow my guild has utterly failed to get my warrior twink a Jagged Blade of War. So I don't actually consider these numbers that outrageous.

Trevelain: 50 Half-elf Rogue with Ragebringer
--- DMG: 87021 (50.82%) @ 32 dps (30 sdps)
--- DMG to PC: 5465 @2dps

Sakuragi: 49 Iksar warrior, Sarnak Warhammer/Wurmslayer mostly
--- DMG: 42400 (24.76%) @ 14 dps (14 sdps)
--- DMG to PC: 32839 @11dps

Wonderr: 50 barb warrior, Zealot's Incarnadine Sword, no haste
--- DMG: 36273 (21.19%) @ 12 dps (12 sdps)
--- DMG to PC: 25177 @9dps

@treats: He had haste originally (was doing over 40 dps) then it dropped. That was where I began the parse. He was wearing the fungi tunic the whole time and I did not see a ton of annoying bard particle effects.

@travatron: If you people were actually reading what I was writing, you would know that I am aware that classic monks are somewhat overpowered. This is my twink, if he is a little underpowered for Naggy/Vox I don't really care. Besides, as you say classic is as classic does. What I am saying is that the current disparity is just so insane, any normal person would think it is unlikely to be classic. Now maybe it is, but if so I'd like to see how and why the devs decided to make it this way.