Navigation:    Home arrow Forum arrow Monk Discussionarrow Monk Generalarrow Monk Defensive Rating

User Menu

Welcome Guest.






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Main Menu

Home
News
Forum
Search

Class Info

FAQ
Abilities
Quests
Guides

Polls

What race will you be?
 
What's your favorite martial style?
 
User Info
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 01, 2008, 10:45:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News Box
Welcome to Vanguard Monks!

Key Stats
9260 Posts in 1001 Topics by 4091 Members
Latest Member: Rjhvukuj
Home Help Search Login Register
Vanguard Monks  |  Monk Discussion  |  Monk General  |  Monk Defensive Rating « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Monk Defensive Rating  (Read 485 times)
Xenophon
Desciple
**

Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 48


View Profile Email
« on: April 07, 2007, 10:29:17 AM »

Hey folks,  I just noticed something last night that I thought I should mention here:  Have any of you noticed your defensive rating stat seeming to be independant of your armor class?  I noticed this when I opened my inventory window and saw that with all the buffs I had (cleric and paladin) I had roughly 2200 armor class.  With this AC I had about 4400 defensive rating in tiger and harmoneous stance.  This is bad because with only my Aum Liat buff, I still have about 43-4400 defensive rating, though my armor class is only about 850ish.  With crane stance my defensive rating goes up to around 4650.

Also, another weird thing is that even though I've gotten several armor upgrades since then, I've had roughly 4000-4300 defensive rating since L25ish (I'm L36 now).

Has anyone else noticed this or am I just doin something wrong?
Logged

Vinjin
Master
***

Karma: +3/-1
Posts: 97



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2007, 10:53:25 AM »

The way I've understood this to work is that AC is essentially your overall mitigation ability, which largely comes from the equipment you might be wearing combined with additional factors, such as the archetype you're in as a class, to come up with the displayed number you see on screen. I suspect other mods, like Physical Absorption, are also part of this number as well.

On the other hand, Defensive Rating should take into account other defensive-oriented characteristics, such as dodge, parry and block. To me that made sense because the system allows the devs to control mitigation and avoidance separately from each other such that changes to one don't necessarily upset the balance between the two archetypes (defensives vs offensives).

Much of this is mostly theory mind you, but this issue was a very real problem back in EQ so it would make sense for them to design any new system with some of these concepts in mind at least.
Logged
Leishiu
Sensei
*****

Karma: +7/-6
Posts: 318



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2007, 11:09:25 AM »

The Defense value dervied from your evasion, mitigation, spell avoidance and spell mitigation - not only your armour class. This includes bonuses and penalties from buffs, debuffs, stances and what-not.
Since these are level vs. level compared, having about the same simply means you've maintained the same quality of gear the last 10 levels. If it had gone up you would have (quite likely) gotten better gear, if it had gone down you would (quite likely again) have gotten lesser quality upgrades (even though they are statwise superior, they are not level-level superior that the stat is actually presenting).
Dexterity appears to get a diminishing return on your parry/dodge as you gain level aswell (well, since it appears to be based on how close you are to your cap rather than your actual stat - you simply need more and more dexterity each level or it'll trail after - an overbuffed/twinked level 20 character with 360 dexterity would quite likely have maximum parry/dodge/crit - but you will have about half of it with 360 dex at level 40).
Logged

Leishiu ~ Halgar (or sommert)
Xenophon
Desciple
**

Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 48


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2007, 11:47:35 AM »

Ok, that makes more sense now.  Thank ya
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.1 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com