seriously?

[Ennoia]

Monks were way overpowered up through Luclin, especially with Black Pantherskin crafted gear. With their discs, if they had a Taunt ability, they could probably tank raid bosses with a CH rot from the get-go (STILL trying to figure out why Rangers got Taunt...), and even without it are able to tank in a pinch with good healers. They got a lot more love than other classes up until the mid-Luclin nerf that screwed their base mitigation and avoidance.

[Diggles]

rangers are 3/4ths warrior, that's why they got taunt

not like they need it with the massive aggro they produce from their epics

[Knuckle]

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

what's the point in being called p99 if you specifically and personally alter certain aspects that are knowingly different from classic. the majority of the fun in classic was finding sneaky ways to outsmart the devs and beat ridiculous raid encounters.
That being said you are going above and beyond the nerfs that classic smacked necro's with and are going to hamper the ONLY line of spells we can cast in raid content to acctually benefit a raid situation?
i'm not going to mention how a certain one of your suck buddies plays a monk so u specifically modify monk to be able to tank things WAY out of ther league.
It's a free server you banned cheaters awesome. thanks for the fun, but if things are going to continue turning into a kids fantasy play world i'll just go play WoW. so sad.

Personally, I am outraged that I can't exploit things from classic that we can use to our advantage since we have prior knowledge of what 1999 was like. Wait I just totally had a mindfuck, in order for it to truely mimic classic 1999 we would need to have our minds wiped of anything everquest and play it as if we were complete newbs.

[JenJen]

as per fucking usual knukle rapes the OP and this thread

Guineapig, award knuckle a forum title and close this piece of shit thread, stat!

[Diggles]

give the title to Estrang imo

[Chanur]

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

was lifetap ever unresistable?

Lifetap was a -200 resist check I believe, so basically unresistable.

[Cwall]

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

the majority of the fun in classic was finding sneaky ways to outsmart the devs and beat ridiculous raid encounters.

lol please tell me you really aren't this pathetic

[Bardalicious]

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

Personally, I am outraged that I can't exploit things from classic that we can use to our advantage since we have prior knowledge of what 1999 was like. Wait I just totally had a mindfuck, in order for it to truely mimic classic 1999 we would need to have our minds wiped of anything everquest and play it as if we were complete newbs.

Own't /thread

[Uthgaard]

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

Lifetap was a -200 resist check I believe, so basically unresistable.

It wasn't intentionally impossible to resist, but due to the dual components with no recourse file matching it, until around 2001, it was effectively impossible to resist, except outside the level limit. When I was reworking the spell file, all of the necros got very angry about the resist mods going back to the way they were originally. So I set off to find the real story behind it.

There was a lot of information, some of it conflicted. But my research pointed to that being the case. I went through webarchives of everlore, eq.castersrealm.com, and allakhazam, looking at the comments for each lifetap and duration lifetap individually, on each site.

Originally, the resist adjustment field was an unsigned int. That meant it couldn't hold a negative value. If you take a look at the older spdats, you'll see spells that were intentionally supposed to be hard to resist, like lures, used a negative value in the spacer before the damage value. (CHA is used by the source to say, go to the next line)

[Treats]

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

at nerfbat boy. EVERYBODY agrees original nerf bats sucked but going above and beyond that is insane.

at monk dude. Hit rates, skill checks, ac modifiers have been tweaked to allow monks to tank. i love monks but there seems to be a trending attitude towards certain classes that is NOT classic. Trying to dig up the original values now but a TON of info can simply be learned at monklybusiness.com both classic and present.

Oh you mean like this here? I love people that post and have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about.

Re: Feed back on soft cap

Kavhok
EQ Designer
Posts: 14

Your AC cap was lowered. That was absolutely and unequivocally a nerf. I didn't mean in any way to imply otherwise.

Let me give a more full explanation of what happened, though. Here's how the AC formula used to work before the patch immediately preceding PoP:

The AC from your items was added up, but the value used for it was hard capped based on your level. This was the same for all classes. Once you had 289 raw AC from items (or 385 as a cloth class, since they get less effect from item AC), that was it. More AC from items wouldn't do anything.

After this, it added your class bonuses (including the monk bonus, which is equivalent to your level + 5 in raw item AC), defense skill bonus, agility bonus, and the AC from spell buffs.

Total AC at this point was capped again, this time based on class. In the Kunark-era code, this was a hard cap, but sometime during Velious it was changed to a soft cap for melee classes only. The return was fairly small, though.


The pre-PoP patch did a few things:

- The cap on item AC was no longer used except at lower levels (twinking was a concern since that was before recommended level items were in heavy use).
- Shield AC was added to the class-based cap to give shields more viability
- Class AC caps were changed. Monks were lowered the most, but beastlords were lowered to the same level as druids (yes, they were nerfed too). Cleric and shaman caps were raised above druids. The caps generally followed the armor archetypes of plate/chain/leather/cloth.
- All classes were given returns on AC over the cap, not just melee classes. All casters and priests received the least, followed by the melee classes. Rogues got the same return as monks, as did berserkers when the class was added. Beastlords and rangers got slightly more, followed by bards, then knights, then warriors.

The overall goal was to make the average dps (including mitigation, avoidance, block/dodge/etc.) taken for melee classes to be approximately:
Warrior > Knight > Monk > Bard > Ranger = Beastlord = Rogue

Aggregate data from live servers at the time was taken to determine median-AC stats for each class. Parses were run against NPCs 3-4 levels lower, facing front. The characters had cleric AC and shaman agility buffs and faced the NPC. The results of the parse were consistent with statistical analysis of the formulas in code:

Class War Pal Mnk
Level 51 51 51
Raw Item AC 184 181 107
Agility 157 144 169
Dodge 3.4% 3.1% 4.4%
Block 0 % 0% 10.2%
Riposte 4.4% 3.9% 4.1%
Parry 5.2% 4.6% 0%
Skill Evasion 12.9% 11.5% 18.7%
Hit Rate 61.2% 61.3% 58.2%
Avg Hit 72.6 72.9 74.6
% Hits for Max 10.2% 10.5% 11.5%
Avg Dmg / Round 59.7 61.1 54.5
DPS 28.2 28.8 25.7


Class War Pal Mnk
Level 60 60 60
Raw Item AC 296 281 163
Agility 177 152 187
Dodge 4.3% 3.9% 4.9%
Block 0 % 0% 11.4%
Riposte 4.8% 4.3% 4.5%
Parry 5.8% 5.2% 0%
Skill Evasion 14.9% 13.4% 20.8%
Hit Rate 59.4% 59.7% 59.3%
Avg Hit 107.3 109.9 113.6
% Hits for Max 10.4% 11.7% 13.6%
Avg Dmg / Round 87.4 91.7 86.1
DPS 50.8 53.3 50


The problem was that the average plate-equipped warriors and knights had barely any lead on monks in mitigation, due to the monk bonus, but the monk still had the lead in evasion. Contrary to popular belief, this is what prompted the nerf to monk mitigation, NOT high-end monks being rampage tanks.

The changes had little effect on average level 51 warriors and knights, but since the average level 51 monk was over the new nerfed AC cap, it increased their average damage taken per hit and increased the percent chance of max hits (in the above example) to 13%. Monks who had better than this median AC were hit harder by the nerf since it lowered their effective AC even more. Level 60 monks with exceptionally high item AC (Ssra+) weren't hit quite as hard because the uncapping of item AC gave them more returns on AC over the class cap. The median level 60 changes looked like this (evasion, of course, remained the same):

Class War Pal Mnk
Avg Hit 106 108.9 121.3
% Hits for Max 9.8% 11.2% 18.4%
Avg Dmg 86.4 90.9 91.9
DPS 50.2 52.8 53.4


Several months into PoP, the nerf was partially repealed and the monk AC cap was raised to the same level as druids and beastlords. Their return on AC over the cap was left at the same level. The reasoning at the time was based on a number of factors: the percentage of hits for max made taking damage even more unpredictable and raised the likelihood of one-round deaths more than we wanted, median AC increased for nearly all levels 51+ due to the new armor in PoP and trickle-down of old armor into the economy, and other issues were brought up.


Addendum:

Why were monks below 1160 AC affected?

The AC number you see is a composite of mitigation and avoidance. Defense skill increases both mitigation and avoidance, so gaining skill levels 50+ makes both numbers go up. At level 51, before the mitigation changes, a monk with no buffs, 150 agi, and 163 raw item AC was at the original AC cap with a displayed AC of 985. The nerf made it so that same monk with 118 AC, or 914 displayed, was now at the soft cap. Any level 51 monk with more than that would've experienced the nerf to varying degrees.

http://www.therunes.net/forums/viewt...hp?f=15&t=7706