Test Server Pet Mitigation Parse thread.

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Daegun, Aug 1, 2014.

  1. Unsunghero Elder

    Would there be outrage? Yea probably for a while. But it didn't stop CC from becoming homogenous, maybe the tanks can get more dps to compensate. I don't think it's any coincidence that classes become more homogenous as the game goes on (which has downsides too) and people are needing to do more, with less
  2. Gnomeland Augur

    Because that is the baseline around which content is tuned.

    And I never said pets ought to equal warriors under defensive. I simply said that this is the only baseline that models practical peak tanking scenarios.

    All the hub-hub about pets outtanking warriors failed to produce a single parse of practical peak tanking. That is my issue.
  3. Gnomeland Augur

    Not when the data is used to argue that 'pets out tank warriors.'

    As I said, parses of passive mitigation are just that, and parses of passive mitigation for 5 minutes + active mitigation for 10 minutes are just that - parses of specific game mechanics.

    None of these parses accurately model practical tanking, so using them as such the way people have done is erroneous.
    Gyurika Godofwar likes this.
  4. Bashan Journeyman

    I will test more Wednesday afternoon. Also if those parses where not long enough or correctly situational I glad to let any of you parse with me on pet verse warrior tanking.

    Warrior on bristlebane
  5. feiddan Augur

    I've seen classes become more specialized now than there were in the past.

    Back in PoP (in my opinion, the glory days), DPS classes were ~200 DPS generally, rogues were ~250 DPS, warriors 160 DPS, and knights 140 DPS. Outside of "Defensive" or "Evasive," the only tanking gaps stemmed from AC softcap returns and armor type (this meant that knights were usually better at mitigating, because shields). A raid geared ranger mitigated than a group geared knight or warrior. Even a raid geared shaman might have mitigated better.

    Since then, the gap in passive mitigation has widened a bit, but not substantially. The chasm has come in the form of active use abilities - warriors are knights, designed for the tank role, have plenty while other classes (say, ranger and monk, who were both not-tanks but could-tanks) are left to pick the bones. DPS, likewise, has become what once was a blurry line (I saw a good warrior DPS as well as monks) is now bold.

    Lots of classes have gotten more novel CC tools, but most (all?) of those classes had rudimentary CC ability anyway. The game changed - mobs hit harder and faster, higher mob density, a huge shift in DI rolls against player tanks, and we got ability bloat all over.

    I miss being able to do more with less. I miss groups in Plane of Fire, where mobs were dangerous and it was true where only a plate tank would do yet just one tier lower in BoT a shaman could tank or seeing Druids tank in PoEarth-A. I miss working on VT keys in Ssra, where any melee could take on 2-3. I miss the early days of Classic, where any tank (rangers included) in banded mitigated the same. I'll admit that I miss Velious, when monks were too-good tanks (i.e., #1) because the way AC worked then.

    Point is, tanking and DPS used to be two branches of the same tree and it was often that classes could intermingle and hop from one to the next. Now, melee DPS or anyone else regardless of what armor they wear doesn't stand much a chance against non-trivial content…except pets. I miss when melee meant I was tough, and now that's been taken away from everyone and pet classes have been put on a pedestal as wondrous do-it-alls.
    Ghan likes this.
  6. Unsunghero Elder

    That's why I don't think there would be as much outrage as you think, as long as tanks still had their niche. Sure, no one likes the fact that there has been sharing of some abilities, just like no one likes the idea of mercs, even the ones using mercs. But I bet someone that had 10 years invested on their ranger didn't say "oh damn they just gave rangers better CC? This sucks!". And it was harder for other people to protest if other CC classes still had a niche and there was a need for it. If you could give dps classes a better ability to tank without them being able to completely replace tanks (which pets can't really do due to NPC code), then I don't think there would be "outrage"
    Gyurika Godofwar likes this.
  7. Delbaeth Elder

    Truly the very definition of farmed out is if a ranger can do it. Any real class should be indignant.
  8. Denial_Sinfae Augur


    What does that have to do with your pocket spell and its ability to tank.

    Why the best tank in the game for a side by side comparison? Why not a Ranger?

    What makes pet users think their pocket pet should jump over every other pure DPS, hybrid, and light tank, and go straight to the warrior-- pinacle of pure tanking in EQ?

    It's... a... pet.
    Xeladom and Delbaeth like this.
  9. Drayze Elder

    So because every melee class can't tank non trivial content then noone except paladin, sk and warrior should be able to? I guess that explains your position on pets....

    I do have a question for all of those against pets tanking current content. Why, since the existence of EQ have pet classes had access to a "tanking pet" in their spell book? Could it be because they were made to tank?
    Raidian and Gyurika Godofwar like this.
  10. Delbaeth Elder

    And clearly you should do it needing no more than a spell, an ear and some AAs. These things should trump farming the best gear and augs. A spell obtained early in the expansion should stand head and shoulders above the full set of gear farmed all through the expansion. And it should all be zero consequence. Dead pet? Next!

    Sign me up. It makes perfect sense.
  11. Ratbo Peep Augur

    I'll say it again.
    I have no problem with Pet Classes having pets that can tank well. Never did.
    However, if your pet is the MT of your group (in current content) - you're not DPS anymore - your time is better spent healing your pet.
    That's called "balance" and "choices" on how to play.

  12. Ratbo Peep Augur

    In the long haul - it's meaningless.
    Everyone I've ever seen abandon a Tank class, to get a Mage instead - was gone in 6 months or less and amounted to "less than 0" in the bigger picture.
    There is no "I Win EQ" button. :D
  13. Tulisin_Dragonflame Augur

    It isn't really as simple as an on/off switch of DPS or tanking, though. It is a spectrum. For instance, with one pet class you might need to devote 50%+ of your spellcasting to pet tanking activities, but with 3 pets tanking you might only need to devote <10% due to economies of scale. Through teamwork, you get more total output. Plate tanks don't really allow this kind of collective tanking action, but pets benefit from it and create efficiencies that aren't possible with player tanks.
  14. Delbaeth Elder

    It matters. It cheapens everyone else and it excludes people from groups. The first and most important thing is giving everyone a chance to be in the group and do something useful. The social element of bringing people together is the chief virtue Everquest ever had amid its myriad flaws.
    sojero likes this.
  15. Piemastaj Augur

    Even if we were forced to fully gear our pets, you would still be unhappy. Because with that we would also need to infringe on the areas where pets lack like holding aggro over PCs in range.

    Pretty much a no win situation for pet classes.

    Your upset, we get it. You would be upset even if pets could merely tank for 10 seconds. The bias is real...
  16. Tulisin_Dragonflame Augur

    There's a difference between creating opportunities to benefit from teamwork and forcing people into a particular play style. Nobody is entitled to a group, and if a group doesn't want to play a certain way then it isn't going to help the game to force them to do so.
  17. Delbaeth Elder

    Edit seems broken so I will expand in a new post.

    Pets should be able to tank for players. Forbidding this throws people out of groups. Melees aren't useful in pet tanking groups so they get excluded. Participation and fun times are the first goal of the game or should be. Those pets should be second rate tanks like monks and rangers but workable. Workable for real groups with all classes able to be protected by the tanking pet, all classes able to group up and work together.
  18. Tulisin_Dragonflame Augur

    How do you reconcile this with pet aggro, though? One reason mobs go after melee-range players even though they aren't at the top of the aggro list is that pets have incredible aggro generation.
    Xeladom likes this.
  19. Delbaeth Elder

    Its just numbers to tune. NPCs have different hit distributions from players so their aggro and melee damage have different relationships. Fudge it up to give them appropriate levels of aggro and call it a day. Yes, it is work for devs, everything we call fun is work for devs.
  20. Siddar Augur

    I miss plane of fire when you could just snare a castle 2 mob and kite it tell it was dead for huge amount of exp.

    Now a days the exp gain maybe a bit faster then Fire but relative to other classes necromancer exp rate has fallen off dramatically.