Agro is all messed up please fix!

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Dewey, Mar 30, 2019.

  1. Tatanka Augur

    LOL, it is, really?

    nice troll
  2. Dagum Journeyman


    Still no. It totally messes up everything. The player was "Dead" the group evac'd the player never did. We rezzed the player and she got summoned and died. Imagine sitting there with zero agro, rezzing a player and the mob not summoning you. Instead the mob just charges you and brings all it's little friends.

    If a rogue dies they do no damage. If a wizard dies, there's no damage. Iirc if a shammy dies and the group still has agro, the dot still does damage.

    You want to pad your parse numbers that honestly don't even matter? Then don't die.
  3. Bigstomp Augur

    Front loading a dots aggro would possibly play massive havoc with the tank/dps/healer/cc dynamic and how much aggro we generate. Essentially it would be giving dot classes a virtual (harm touch?) taunt button they really don't want.
    Barton, svann and Tatanka like this.
  4. Tyreel Elder

    Front loading agro would make dots near useless for several classes in groups yet still useful in raids leading to a wider raid vs group balance divide imo. Possibly harm aggro balance is a massive understatement.
  5. Yinla Augur

    NO, that is how many classes split mobs with snare.
    Fanra likes this.
  6. Tatanka Augur

    Not to mention it's exploitable as hell.

    "If anyone on their agro list evacs" etc.

    So, I can tag a mob your group is fighting, then evac, and now you have to re-aggro, debuff, DoT, snare, etc. Horrendously silly idea.
  7. Tappin Augur

    Can someone please explain the need for necros to continued to be parsed after death? If I die as DPS, my parse is decimated most of the time. The only times it's not, if lots of people die.
  8. Lianeb Augur

    This is really just an unintended consequence of trying to clean up the log file reporting of damage. Before when a caster of a dot died the damage would just go to unknown but still continue to tic. Right clicking on the effect would then show the caster as unknown. The dots don’t strip off the mob just because they died, just like slow doesn’t get removed when the caster dies or evacs. The difference is the next tic of a dot that is staying attributed to the caster when they reenter the zone is new Agro as dots generate Agro per tic, things like slow snare etc... don’t tic for more Agro after initial cast.
    Sancus likes this.
  9. Xyroff-cazic. Augur

    This doesn't sound like something that would enable absurd griefing at all!
  10. Tappin Augur

    If my monk dies during a raid, my DPS is going to be significantly lower than if I did not die. That holds true for almost all scenarios . It doesn't matter if the DoT continues after death, the person who dies shouldn't be getting credit for it. It simply does not make any logical sense.
  11. Tolzol Augur

    Your comparing apples and oranges your damage is front loaded necros is not. They casted the DOT therefore the damage should be associated to them whether they died or not.
    Daedly likes this.
  12. Sancus Augur

    Arguing about credit is fairly petty. The damage is being done, whether or not it shows up in GamParse. Whether or not the DoTs should stay on a mob is another matter entirely, but it would be illogical for damage done by a person to not count towards that person.
    Emarra likes this.
  13. Tappin Augur

    Necromancers are broken. Micromanaging the logs isn’t going to fix that issue. Allowing damage to to be counted after death just leads to inflated parses (who cares if you die, it’s irrelevant).

    Devs just need to fix necromancers as a class.
    Allayna likes this.
  14. Tatanka Augur

    This has nothing to do with necromancers (specifically). Over half of all classes have DoTs.
  15. Aelen Elder

    The distinction is that since DoTs take time to run, it takes X amount of time for the resources you invested in the DoT, time spent casting / mana / burn+aDPS counters, to be used.

    As a monk when you die you lose the capacity to do as much damage. You do not, however, have the mob go back in time and un-do part of the damage you already did with previous attacks.

    That makes the DoT becoming unassigned an additional weakness for DoTs on the mechanical side, and another reason they have to maintain overall superiority in efficiency when viewed in a vacuum. Smaller reason, for the same reason survival skills usually aren't a huge power budget piece in raids, but still sorta there.

    That said, I'd rather that weakness stayed to prevent additional problems with general playability rather than have it cleaned up, so I'm perfectly happy with it being reverted.

    Side not on the unassigned thing, I believe the reason this is not a matter of pettiness but of power is because when you remove the assigned players foci and other SPAs that need to be checked per tick, the power goes way down.
  16. Tappin Augur

    At this stage of the game it’s about removing variance, not added to it. Changing the way the log works, doesn’t change the amount of dps someone does. The only thing that it changes is cause people to do stupid things to inflate a parse, causing more variance.
  17. Emarra New Member


    This is one of the reasons I hate GameParse. People get so worked up over eeking out an extra 1dps or being worried that someone else might be doing a tiny bit more than they think is fair instead of paying attention and making sure the event is finished with a win. Who gives two shakes if you top the dps chart on a failed attempt?

    That said... Instead of worrying about how the remaining dps is reported after a death, FIX NECRO DOTS!! Assuming Daybreak really wants to make sure Necros get proper representation on parses. It's ridiculous that everyone else was boosted and here we are years later still waiting for our turn. Let us make up the DPS while we are alive. We can avoid death well enough that the amount of DPS we leave on the table after we die isn't that big of a deal.
    menown likes this.
  18. kizant Augur

    It's not an either/or situation. The dot revamp isn't slowed down by people with different responsibilities doing work in other areas. The issue here sounded like a good idea but it obviously had some bad side effects so they're taking it out/rethinking it. It's just how these things go sometimes. Not sure why it needed such a big discussion.
    Beimeith likes this.
  19. ShadowMan Augur

    Yes and No. It has been an either or situation with most of these other changes.

    It has been 3 years 3 YEARS for something that should have started with necromancers. Since that time easily 200 different changes have occurred in game. Yes many if not most of those were handled by others but tons if not the majority of them could have been time spent helping Aristo instead. He has to many hats and doesn't have time which has only gotten worse since this took so long. This never was sold as an exclusive to Aristo change, just being the spell dev it was assumed he was going do most of the work.

    It was a priority of the team right from the start. It being the number of dots being used and the debuff cap problem. The entire announcement was WE reviewed how dots work, WE want to improve them going forward, WE are going to do this for all dotting classes, and while everyone's changes won't be the same WE want everyone with dots doing more damage, ramping up faster, using more mana but more efficiently while using less debuff slots. Those WE's could have spent the hundreds of hours spent on other stuff over the past 3 YEARS to help Aristo instead even if it was just filling out spreadsheets for hundreds of dots based on his formula. So it very much so has been we can either do this thing OR help aristo. And for 200 things its been do the other thing instead every single time. Its time for the OR to be get whomever is needed to help Aristo finish this project in an intelligent manner that many have shared repeatedly.
    sauron3030 likes this.
  20. kizant Augur

    You can't say anything about priority or resource availability from those comments. All they did was acknowledge the problem and agree on a direction. And like I've said before, I'm sure they learned a lot from the experience they had with druids/shaman. Maybe it's harder than they originally thought to continue with necros. Things change. The only thing they did wrong was tell players about what they hoped to do way before they were prepared to do it.

Share This Page