What classes benefit most from gear progression

[Keebz]

Necros definitely Willsapper things solo—it's pretty neat.

For mage, however, I think you would maybe run into an issue with chain petting as now you have a slow proc into the mob. So maybe you'd have to adjust your strategy there a little.

You also don't have a great way of regaining hp quickly without gear / pots.

With avatar, you should proc pretty quickly though.

[Ennewi]

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

But we're talking pure itemization here, not skill.

Skill should not be involved in this at all. Two characters monk/warrior.

Face tanking. Auto attacking, ̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶c̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶e̶l̶e̶e̶ ̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶,̶ and letting RNG and mitigation sort the rest.

Which would win by how much?

I guess theres a reasonable argument to determine which class has the most game changing utility items, and how much benefit you get from those that you'd not already get from spellbook spells etc.

Warrior does have a lot of utility items that provide abilities that they don't get without gear, so that's a more robust discussion than just pure hp/ac/dps provided by gear.

But in the context of monk vs warrior, I am curious BIS in terms of raw DPS/mitigation, which one gets more benefit from the gear than the other.

I agree a monk can do more than a warrior, but that is because of FD and Mend and stuff. In fact if we were to remove disc/abilities and just do pure dps output from warrior vs monk and dps mitigation from gear... that would probably be more of a control than allowing mend/dics's because you can do those without gear.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010502...67753118.shtml

Pre-Velious and by no means definitive but, still, it's classic info from one of the household SOE names.

Friday, August 11th, 2000

Warriors vs. Monks
by Chris - 08/11/00 03:04 EST
...and the debate continues! Abashi did a test, read all about it below.
I'm about to take off, but I thought I'd drop by some data before I do.
I took a level 60 human monk and a level 60 human warrior with the same stats, equipped them each with an FBSS, and cast strength, dex, and SLTW on them.

With the monk, I tried 6 different weapons combos, starting at bare knuck, and ending with the top PoS weapon. (Didn't get into VP stuff which is better). With the warrior, I tried 5 different weapons combos, starting with dual SSoYs, and ending the the top PoS weapons. (Again, didn't get into VP).

Both PCs, at level 60, spawned an engaged a level 45 NPC (one on one with the NPC) for each test. As this is a test of offensive potential, the NPC was not allowed to fight back. Both PCs used 1 additional combat skill as often as it was available. Kick for the warrior and flying kick for the monk. Neither used any disciplines. It should be noted that since the NPC was not allowed to fight back, the warrior never entered berserk mode, which could sway results some in actual combat. I might run the tests over for the warrior while keeping him in berserk mode.

Results: The monk outdamaged the warrior given appropriate equipment in every case. The only time the warrior outdamaged the monk was when the warrior had his best weapon, and the monk his worst (bare knuck).

Matching up weapon-type for weapon type, the monks worst set (bare knuck) versus the warriors worst (dual ssoy's), the monk outdamaged the warrior by nearly 25%. Best versus best, the monks outdamaged by just over 25%. The lowest difference obtained for appropriate equipment was still a 20% surplus to monks. The worst armed monk versus the best armed warrior still favored the monk by 10%.

Of course, there was only one combat versus the NPC per PC per weapons combo, so those numbers will probably move a bit over several combats. As it is, it's a pretty good indicator that monks are doing fine, and yes, they rock

-Gordon

Related Links:
http://boards.station.sony.com/everq...ML/003665.html

Saturday, August 12th, 2000

More Monks vs. Warriors
by Chris - 08/12/00 15:48 EST
Abashi explained more about why he ran the test the way he did.
For the past several weeks, the complaints by monks here on the board (most of the complaints anyway) have been that they no longer outdamage warriors. The tests that I did were only to confirm that that wasn't true. Yes, I conceed that monks cannot takes hits as well as warriors, but that's never been where the disagreement has been. When people said, "Monks no longer outdamage warriors", I had to disagree, which is why I ended up testing it out. However, when people now say, "We can't take hits like a warrior", I agree with that.
Dealing out more damage than the warrior doesn't mean that you'll beat the warrior in a duel, nor that the ratio of damage dealing to damage taking capability is constant. The benefit of extra damage has more weight than the disadvantage of being defensively inferior.

I'm sure that some would say, "If a warrior can solo creature X in two minutes and be almost dead at the end, then a monk should be able to do the same in a minute and end up almost dead". This would be an example of constant ratio between offense and defense and the two classes. This however isn't the case. If the ratio were constant as suggested, there would, again, be no reason to have the warrior, because the monk's other skills would make them preferable in all cases. Not to mention, there's an added benefit any time a creature is killed faster than normal, a benefit that can't be measured directly against the power of the class, but more against its usefulness to the group. Would a group, for instance, like to kill things in 2 minutes and end up OOM and near death at the end? Or would the rather do it in 1 minute and end up the same way? They'd want it done faster in all cases. That's what monks and rogues add as melee classes.

Concerning everyone saying that the test wasn't "valid", I fully agree with that from a scientific standpoint. Many more combats would have to be carried out than the ones I could do over a couple of hours yesterday. To be honest, its not really my job to test things of this nature, I just do it as needed so I can speak with first-hand experience. Though the specific percentage point differences can't really be considered averages, I do think that the test fairly well answered the question: Do monks outdamage warriors?

There was one interesting thing in the test that I didn't mention in the post yesterday, concerning the one time that the warrior outdamaged the monk. The warrior was using his best combo out of the 5 weapon combos I tried, the monk his worst (bare knuck). The damage ratios were determined by seeing how long it took for the character to kill the NPC in question. The monk completed the task in under two minutes in every case but one, where it took 2:03. The warrior was over two minutes in every case, with its fastest time at 2:01. The monk's best time, by the way, was 1:30.

-Gordon

Related Links:
http://boards.station.sony.com/everq...ML/004016.html

[cd288]

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

I'd also like to add that chanters often pass as a class that don't need much gear but that's far from the truth. Not only you need a ton of CHA to get stable charms/lull but most of the cha gear is pretty lackluster in terms of other stats until you start raiding and getting higher end pieces. Until you have access to raiding gear it feels like all that CHA is stunting you. Not only we need CHA for charm/lulls/mez but we also need a lot of mana since our spells are mana hogs and extra HP since we get beat on a lot and have no other mitigation options gear wise. It is when you reach 210ish CHA and start to be ready to swap bland CHA pieces for actually decent gear that you realize your options are limited if you're not raiding. And even then, having one of the most expensive spellbooks kinda further delays even EC options.

For leveling I think you can get by easily and cheaply but when you start dabling in solo artistry stuff, the better your gear is the more options open up. Caster gear impacts are a lot more abstract than "numbers go up" but it is real.

I see your point overall but would just say you don't need HP when you have the rune line plus stuns.

[zelld52]

Monk the answer is monk.

[Rygar]

I'ma say rogue, they get the most benefit from a good primary (epic) and sets them up as DPS gods for both groups and raids. They literally jump intervals with a better primary and they don't need much else until raiding.