Test Server Pet Mitigation Parse thread.

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

  1. feiddan Augur

    You're glancing at what I said, making strawman and ad hominem attacks rather than deal with what I presented.

    I fondly remember the old days, when most any class could tank, either through decent AC (for melee) or pets (for magicians and necros) - though pets had largely the same penalties then as now. Since then, the game has taken a drastic shift, where there are only a few classes really capable of tanking - half the tank-capable classes were shown the door a long time ago. Of all the DPS classes, pet classes alone have had the sole privilege to remain viable.

    I'm not sure the design called for this. It seems that pet tanking was way out of control (see the first posts by Aristo and Roshen), but where they should be fitting isn't up to me. If it's tanks > pets >>> DPS, tanks = pets >>> DPS, pets > tanks >>> DPS, tanks >> pets = DPS, tanks >>> DPS > pets, that's really not up to us - it's a design decision for the dev team.

    I want pets to remain decent tanks. I don't necessarily understand why they are far superior to other DPS classes (specifically, rangers and monks), other than this is the current status quo. I'd fit them somewhere in the middle of where they've been recently (Godmode/cheatcode status, perhaps superior to players within the tank archetype), and where they were at their most useless (my beastlord pet on Al`Kabor was not a better speedbump than a shaman pet). This is a big spectrum.

    I would like to see the gap lessened overall, to where we see tanks > pets = ranger = monk > other DPS where pets, rangers, and monks all achieve their tanking very differently but the tanklyish melee, who gear and aug up as tanks, have better-than-current survivability and melee as a whole are brought up a bit. If it were up to me (and it's not), melee who put in the work to max out their characters' ability (e.g., tank nonvisibles, high AC, solid heroic augs, progression AA's, etc.) to tank should begin to encroach on pet levels of tanking; pets would clearly tank better out of the box, since EM and AA make up the vast majority of their ability level. Melee would have a steep hill to climb, but they might catch up to pet levels. Right now, I see it's tanks > pets >>> DPS. It doesn't seem fair to me that pet classes are balanced well in terms of DPS (i.e., they perform quite well) and as an extra bonus they get a free bona fide pocket tank as well - every other class received restrictions on balance in terms of zero-sum that pet classes are largely exempt from. But hey, I don't make the decisions - this is just my opinion and yearning for what perhaps is an abandoned vision for the game's design.

    On Monday I ran the Rot2 mission, with a group-focused pet on the boss. Worked great. Seemed to take less damage then the raid-geared paladin. Certainly tanked better than any other DPS class (e.g., ranger or monk) - which seems to me to be a strong position. At the end of the day, I don't understand the hoopla, over than pets are being taken down a notch or two and the status quo has shifted a bit - pets are still in a good spot, albeit maybe not the great one they were even a month ago.
    Koryu, Xeladom and Dre. like this.
  2. Zellic Elder

    I have a tank mercenary... doesn't mean it should tank as well as a proper tank.
    Xeladom, Rouan and feiddan like this.
  3. Drayze Elder

    Pets don't tank as well as a proper tank. This has been shown already on these boards. DI distribution isn't the be all end all for tanking. PC tanks avoid much better than any pet tank which is why you see a pet get eaten much more on multiple adds vs. a PC tank. Avoidance is just as big a part of tanking as DI distribution and I think that point is being overlooked by the majority on these boards. Avoidance is also one of the reasons (besides dps) you see most wizzies and mages switching to 2hb vs 1hb/shield. Staff block aa's have a higher block percentage vs. shield block aa's for int casters.
    Raidian and Gyurika Godofwar like this.
  4. Raidian Lorekeeper

    What are these group things you speak of?
  5. Zellic Elder

    It's really not being overlooked, in fact it was rehashed over and over already in the initial megathread some weeks back. Every aspect of pet vs player tanking was analyzed and there really wasn't much room for interpretation of the many parses that were shown there. Some naturally did their best to discredit them, but facts are still always facts. There is of course a difference of opinion as to how well pets should tank.

    I'm curious though, why would you say avoidance has any bearing on a pets ability to tank multiple adds? Aside from air pet, which stuns primary target of course. I would think it'd be the other way around really, since players presumably cannot block, parry and riposte being hit from behind, thus negating some of their avoidance advantage, whereas pet will still have their superior innate mitigation? Well, the one that used to be superior but clearly isn't anymore.
  6. Drayze Elder

    I remember those days too and I agree those were good times. I also remember the times after that when group content started hitting so hard that you had to have a tank and a cleric to get anything done. If you didn't have that your group folded up and it was a waste of a day.

    In fact, I believe that is the reason mercs were invented. Let's be honest here...giving players more ways to complete group content in a game that appears to be losing more players then gaining is the way to keep this game going. If group content ever got back to a point where you couldn't complete it without a paladin/SK/warrior and a real cleric you would lose a large portion of the player base. Especially in this day and age where a majority of players seem to want things in easy mode all the time.

    On a side note I do wonder....had mercs never came about and it was a cleric/mage duo taking down group content would there be as much of an uproar as we have now towards pets? It seems the term molo automatically assumes that a mage/necro/beast did it solo.
    Gyurika Godofwar likes this.
  7. Drayze Elder

    Most tanks that I have grouped with maneuver so they aren't getting hit from behind by adds. Thus their avoidance isn't negated as you put it.
  8. Ineptocracy Leader Elder

    Well Molo means merc solo so....
  9. feiddan Augur

    Definitely, I agree you.

    Content being balanced around clerics (only) was brutal. It wasn't fun to need one cleric OR two of the "lesser" priests - it made groups brutal. Maybe in raid gear you could sometimes skimp by with just a shaman, but without a rezzer in the group you hoped nothing went wrong.

    Mercs changed the dynamic of the game in so many ways. Depending on who you ask, merc tanks are a godsend or a terrible waste of a group spot. Cleric mercs can usually suffice. DPS mercs aren't great, but they're better than an empty group slot and good enough to warrant the exp penalties.

    I don't want to see the game balanced around a small number of players put on a pedestal, whether that be clerics or warriors or knights or even (gasp!) pets. I'm happy to enjoy the challenge of group missions (Rot2, Argin2 are fantastic) - those needing player heals and tanks is a good move IMO because it keeps the events from being too easy. Most content, however, should be open to a larger number of players and playstyles - molo, 2box (with 2 mercs), nontraditional groups (pet tanking, ranger tanks, chanter tanks, what-have-you). Keeping these two elements in balance is a tricky part, and I think game design and balance is pretty good right now overall.

    I don't have a problem at all with solo classes being able to solo. I don't take offense to the relative power boost these solo classes have taken on with the advent of the molo reality - it's a natural extension. Necromancers and magicians stick out to me as classes that ought to be good soloers. The tricky part is when the mechanics that allow them to solo are translated and carried over into other aspects of the game that it becomes obvious they have too much power in one specific area. Tricky part is how to make magicians and necromancers good soloers (i.e., not much, if any, less effective than they are now) without pets being so strong that they might be better than tanks - that takes imagination on the part of the devs and might be more work for the playerbase.

    Solo classes should be able to solo and nontraditional groups should be encouraged - I think mercs help with these. Great! Pets shouldn't be gutted, but they might need some tuning to keep them in line with the design for the class and in light of the relative stagnation of player mitigation and the growing chasm that exists for mitigation between tanks and DPS. Pets should be somewhere in between tanks and DPS - where exactly we place them is a matter of degree.
  10. Roshen Brand Manager

    feiddan likes this.
  11. Zellic Elder

    Ah yes, true that.
  12. Dre. Altoholic

    Good vs bad is not a function of whether it supports your opinion.
    The thing is, we know exactly how activated abilities modify base values. Once you have these the base values, modeling "practical tanking" is a very simple matter.

    Erroneous methods would be trying to reverse the process through short duration parses that are riddled with inconsistencies caused by activated abilities. Those are only viable as anecdotal evidence. You might as well just say "the tank/pet died" or "the tank/pet didn't die".
  13. gnomeboss Augur

    leave the pets where they were. boost pc tank archetype DI bonus across the board to make them superior to pets by whatever esoteric formula you have. halve pc tank archetype dps because tanks shouldn't be worried about dps anyway. devs are smart enough to include raw dmg procs on raid mobs at whatever intervals they want to compensate for the DI boost, which is only going to function against melee. next problem?
    Raidian likes this.
  14. gcubed Augur

    You are never going to this, again. Most high end rangers and monks already are close to the top of where they can be for tanking. Gearing isn't the problem, it is other things. The most significant reason my ranger cannot tank, isn't because his DISPLAYED AC is 800 to 1000 less than the DISPLAYED AC of your typical high end group tank, but because his REAL AC is somewhere around 2000 less than than typical high end group tank. Sure there are other factors such as discs and AA's.

    The good ol' days you are talking about comes from a time when the main advantage the 'tank classes had was where their AC softcap sat (higher than everyone else's, but back then the real AC difference was somewhere around 100 to 150). While it is true that the softcap still plays a part (nobody would get excited over Shield AC if it didn't), the most significant difference is returns on AC above softcap. When you have mobs that are designed to peal the armor off of someone with 4000 real AC, then having 2500 real AC just insures that average hit is pretty close to max hit.

    If SOE were going to change that dynamic, then they should have changed it back around the DoDh timeframe. It is waaaaaay to late to do it now. SOE simply won't, and to be honest, can't boost everyone up to near knight levels without seriously destabilizing the game.
    feiddan likes this.
  15. strongbus Augur

    they can't do this. they have said they use what the tank classes can handle for their baseline on how hard mobs hit.(think it was this thread or one of the other ones on these changes) So if they boost pc tanks to pet levels they would be over powered for the content. Meaning they would have to boost the mobs as well. Its easier for them to just drop the pets down. It was stated when they did round 2 of the changes. They want a sweet spot between pets being so powerful that a pet class can afk while pet kills mobs and pets being so weak that a pet class can only spam heals and do no dps.
  16. Raidian Lorekeeper

    Do you seriously think this will be implemented properly the first time? Not likely, it will take time and in that time pet classes will be broken. Do you think it will destabilize the lower level game? Has that even been considered? That's why its a poor idea to nerf to try to fix a fundamental problem.
  17. strongbus Augur

    Never said i agree with it. just that this is what was post by soe as to what their plan was. As to if it work 1st time? I don't think so there will be lots of stuff to deal with. The fact is that each of the 3 main pet classes have different types of moloing tactics. Because of this I think instead of hitting them all like they are they need to tune each pet based on how each class xp.
  18. Raidian Lorekeeper

    I agree with that, at least its substantive. Take 6 months, fully flesh out the changes and their far reaching impacts to the game. Then take an informed approach. The shotgun hits the target but it's never as efficient as a well aimed bullet.
  19. sojero One hit wonder

    Yes, that is the reason they are there. Then you take a tank that knows his class and has more than just CA/CS + shield block aa, and you get a better tank.

    As to the others saying about DI values vs avoidance.

    Look at the DI hits that have been shown in the graphs, really look at them. The DI hits go from 2k to 14k.

    I would much rather take 80% dI1 with 15-20% avoidance to equal 6k (3xdi1) to 10k (2xdi1 + much high di) damage, than to take 2 DI10+ for 14k+. even with multiple targets, the avoidance is still not allowing you to bring those DI values down, thus even avoiding still 50% of the time your still taking larger spikes.

    DI is not the only part of damage, but DB is so small these days that it really is the majority of the issue. they are trying to find the fine line that taking low di = taking less hits, so that the pets take more hits with less occasional spikes, while tanks still take the spikes but less hits.

    This is also the justification by which sk/pal get heals but take higher di hits because they can heal themselves. Pet owners can heal their pets, thus the same rules apply. Wars take less max di, and have innate mitigation, but have no way to heal.
    feiddan likes this.
  20. Raidian Lorekeeper

    By this logic then, since pet classes will be spending their time healing instead of DPSing, their heals need to be bumped WAAAY up, and the pet's DPS needs to be bumped up to where it would be if the pet class could DPS but cant any longer. I just don't see this happening, it fundamentally changes who those classes are far too much.