Pets taking way more damage since patch

Second of all, the spell is our 104 Earth pet like I said. I did not mention pet level I was showing cast level of the pet which is what applies to the conversation. Seeing as I used the 99 Earth pet as well, but there was no mention of that being level 100 at the time either?

The pets tank things, that is true. The rate at how they tank them is worse then before, which is also true. Settling for something being 'ok' is not fine after they inadvertently nerfed pets. So much so, that they are tanking on-par with a spot that was found to be too low and was adjusted multiple times. Which again is the issue, it took them multiple test patches to get pets to where they should be before this current patch.

Adding in your 2 cents is fine, but doing so while not understanding what is being put in front of you makes it seem like you do not understand the data at all.

Yes and you would be wrong again since em 20 did not make pet lvl 100 they remained lvl 99 .

As I said be for pets can still tank named ,and I am talking about TBM named ...

By the way I do also have a Mage she is out of practice for me but I will shake of the cobwebs and give her a spine hehehe

Yi min

And yet you do not acknowledge the fact that you can't comprehend the pet level I was referring to was the spell level and not the actual pet level lol.

Slows do impact tankiness though, which Magicians do not have access to. Pets can still tank, but blindly accepting a nerf is being dumb.

Be nice if you brought some actual numbers to the discussion instead of how you feel it plays out in a full group. Hearing about you though, I guess that would be too much to ask for....

It is not how I feel ,it is what I observing , and my knowledge of all 3 pet class ...I can kill any named from TBM in a group today, just like I could last week etc etc ...

Then maybe you should make a friend who can slow for you or an alt , or learn how to stack mage runes on the pet properly , and use Fortify companion ......


Yi Min

Slow in general has no real impact on a typical trash mob. The cripple line of spells has more impact, but most trash mobs shouldn't last long enough to see much benefit. Tanking a name isn't relevant unless you are dragging fights out - most people burn and as long as pet doesn't get one shot then life is good.

Pet's were nerfed - doesn't have to be game changing for it to hurt.

Which isn't the point, the point is the tanking statistics show the pets take more DMG because of a change that was done. No where did I claim they can not still tank, I said they tank worse. Which is proven multiple times here.

You can not seem to comprehend facts though. Not surprising considering you were the running joke in the Magician community. Not to mention a lot of what Magicians have today I helped put into place, so I infact know how to use those things better then most.

That is not the point, the point is stat consolidation should not have been a nerf to Pet tanking and the Developers should take a look at pet tanking again and make sure it is where it should be.

Until you actually provide something useful to the argument, not how you feel, then there isn't much more to be said. You're merely rehashing what you have said the last 3 responses, which does not do anything for the thread.

Agreed. Earth pet mitigation was nerfed a year ago pretty harshly...then again, and now maybe inadvertantly again! It is what it is. Dev's need to take a hard look at it.

The only joke here is the parsing you do claiming it has all the data and you don't even rune your own pet ,so let me list our runes so your pet wont take as much dmg , since you come here to whine about DMG and not once use Mage runes ...

Aegis of Japac lvl 104

Auspice of Enternity lvl 102

Companions Aegis AA 5/5

Fortify companion 29/29

Host in the Shell 3/3

Frenzied burnout 9/9

Next time you parse try adding in Mage runes for pet , now if you need me teach you more I will do so ...

Yi Min

.............. Gotta love the EQ forums.

If he used runes it would mess up the DI spread. The entire argument in the pet nerfs of 2014 was DI related.

What do runes have to do with anything? If the mob's damage is increased, then there will also be in increase in damage if the parses were done with runes running. It's just common sense.

The parses were done with all variables being equal so that means even if all the parses had runes the damage would still be noticeably more post patch. Less baseline mitigation results in increased DB and/or DI numbers. What are runes going to change?

if you don't use runes on fight named you should learn play Mage class much more better ...

This not equal parsing compare lvl 99 pet with 105 pet and also from 2 years ago , do you even know what we are talking about , I looks like you do not ..

And also this is about large spiking dmg , and you wont get that as much against a name if you know how stack our runes

Yi Min

He is fighting a named mob in CoTF Roon as a baseline for long parses. Because the mob is on a short 100% spawn timer. It has the high attack value of a named while being a melee only mob. It is also a very easy mob to find up allowing different people on different server to use the same named mob in their parses.

Also any information from a short parse would be dismissed by warriors and knights any DI contamination by runes would also get parse dismissed by the same.

Those were the conditions used in the original parses so they need to be used in the newer parses as well in order to draw useful conclusions. Your point that it leaves out runes is valid but that is side note that was done intentionally for other valid reasons when the original 2014 parses were done.

Not just affecting but flat out ruining them in some circumstances, there are a few events where not even auspice and blessing are keeping my pet alive. It's unreal now. The changes to melee definitely hurt but it feels like their spell mitigation is completely borked.

He clearly stated that he used all the same variables - pet level, EM, etc. so I have no idea what you're talking about.

The point of the parse was to find differences in DB and/or DI intervals and clearly there are differences. However, I'm sure you don't know exactly the importance of these numbers and they literally have no bearing on whether or not a person is using runes or not.

For the sake of parses, you want to have as little variable difference as possible, which is why you would not be running runes. It's a baseline parse to find out the base numbers used in mitigation formulas. If there is a change in the parse, then there is a change in the numbers used in the formula.

Which was completly wrong.
But not only knights have Devs ears with the big whinning threads campaigns they did, so they got massive overtuned proficiency, but they have Board moderator ear too it seems.
You can bet it's not because there is no freedom of speech on these boards that warriors will forget this massive actual tank archetype unbalanced state.
Knights can laugh all they want on this, things don't stay the same forever.

No one laughing here, War should have gotten a boost with knights but the problem is not the players here so blaming them is missing the point.
I am sure we all pretty sick and tired of this back and forth between nerfs and buffs because someone at the keyboard on the left coast cut a corner on testing.

See your still at it, has zero to do with this thread and should be removed.

#VastKnightWingConspiracy - alive and well!

Back on thread topic, Yimin arguing with RoI mages over the scientific method of parse data makes my head hurt. Don't get drawn in, mangs.

Hey its not my fault these Mage do not have the skills to keep a pet standing ...seems they want pet on auto , well sorry you must help you pet live , this is also Mage job ...learn your class , Mage far more then just DPS ...Mage a Tank and a Healer ...

I have zero issue with my pet tanking any mob in TBM trash or named ....be it on my Mage or Bst . I have not played my Necromancer in very long time I might take her out for a roll tonight ...

Yi Min