Insofar as pets and players are even capable of being talked about in the same breath, it certainly isn't to act as though they ought to be balanced according to the same standards. Player tanks have massive advantages in peak tanking, aoe aggro, and just the fact that they're able to tank for others in melee range. Till pets gain the same perks, it's not useful to talk about 'same rules.' No, the same rules do not apply to pets and players. Both in the positive and in the negative.
Pet owners have many many abilities to mitigate damage for their pets as well, many equal to what a tank gets. I would not have any issue with pets being able to tank with melee beside them, so long as they fix pet agro.
I do this all the time, we need the ability if we're going to have to use the earth pet with healing to tank to turn off its root. Or ensure that air pets can tank.
Sorry for not being able to post parses for several days, I will not elaborate on the why beyond simply saying I have not been available to post. I won't bother posting the necro/beastlord parses from the first round of changes on Test as the variables have changed. Below are extended parses (> 20 minutes for trash mob) of the earth pet at EM15 vs a "normal creature" in current content. Keep in mind the aforementioned quote from Aristo about target goals. EM15 Earth pet with certitude, all relevant aa, and burnout haste buff rk 2. No debuffs were used on the mob. Pet hold was on, no activatable or passive abilities from pet or owner - just raw mitigation. DI Spread: Round by Round: Total hits: 1737 "hits" Number of hits for DI 1: 775 "hits" for minimum damage In this case of pet vs a yellow con (lv 101-102 mob), earth pet is currently seeing minimum DI hits 44.6% of the time. Please feel free to reference Aristo's goal vision for baseline pet mitigation. Relevant changes between v1 and v2 changes on test server? Average DI spread is now slightly better. Average incoming dps is down from 7579dps to 7234 dps (just over 300 less incoming DPS thanks to a more favorable DI spread). EM15 Earth pet - same conditions vs Roon: DI Spread: RBR Total hits: 1339 "hits" Number of hits for DI 1: 380 "hits" for minimum damage In this case of pet vs named, not "normal creature" mob, earth pet is currently seeing minimum DI hits 28.4% of the time. It would seem that the present rendition of the tank pet is in line with the Developers' quoted target goals.
I wouldn't be surprised if an outpouring of comparisons with empirical evidence of realistic "active tanking" causes the developers to shift their stated goals. They already did on this most recent patch by giving EM-focusable pets a bit more AC when according to your initial paper-tank parses on test Earth pets still had 35%+ DI 1-5, and you concluded earth pets were still fine in their weakest implementation. Glad they didn't take it as fact Anything that discredits the viability of paper-tanking as the sole form of balancing is a victory in my book
I doubt their stated goals will change much. I would, however, expect hit point increases to the necro warrior pet in particular as well as bolstering of the various support skills the pet owner has to augment the defensive capabilities of their pets should they decide to use them for tanking ... getting us back to the whole 'be ready to spend more time actively supporting your pet' line of thought. Stated goals: 1. Pets continue to passively mitigate better than tanks - This remains true. 2. Pets tweaked to see minimum hits in the 35-40% range - This is currently the case. 3. Pets continue to avoid worse than player characters - This remains true. What I do not find stated anywhere in the goals is a direct comparison to the capabilities of a dedicated player tank. What I do see is an admission that content is balanced to these player tanks, and that pets were not working as intended or fitting this model. I think it's clear that everyone wants pet tanking to remain a viable, reasonable ... but balanced option for tanking. I personally have leveled, played, enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) all 3 pet classes. There has never been a push to surplant pet tanking - rather to bring it down from the stratosphere into the realm where the rest of us live and operate. Higher DI hits have to happen (previously they did not). And whoever is doing the tanking needs to be subject to spiking. Some classes (knights) overcome higher rates of spikes compared to warriors with their self healing. For pet classes, the new iteration of pet tanking will have to overcome that now very real spike potential with active intervention. You've got pet heals, be prepared to use them just as the knight has to heal himself. So yes, to repeat what I said above, I suspect the goals will not be shifted as it relates to armor class, DI distribution, and spike potential. What I do expect will likely happen is further tweaks to active intervention and defensive abilities to make sure that the pet owner is capable of keeping their pet alive to the extent that the development team intends. I also suspect that the necromancer warrior pet is due for some love in the form of raw hit point table increases to bring it up closer to where the earth pet currently is. I am very happy to see an outpouring of parsed data - I encourage people to continue doing so.
Considering variables a and b: ... If statement a.) is true, and if statement b.) were to be true than a = b Right? I believe that is correct, from a mathmatical standpoint If you hold to your first conclusion, that earth pets were fine in their WEAKEST initial implementation on test, which you had the parses to prove the DI 1 range, then I expect to see all further post-AC-buff tests from you to also report "everything's still fine"
They were fine on their initial change. They are better now, but ... if you really look at the data, at least for earth pet the changes between test 1.0 and test 2.0 aren't earth shatteringly different.
That's all I'm saying, I'm glad the devs didn't agree, despite having parses right there to prove it, that Earth pets were fine in their first implementation. it must mean they are looking at more than just passive mitigation when considering the overall value of a tank
All, I know that I am very late in the game concerning posting with regards to pet tanking but feel somewhat inclined to at least post a thought. I was a necromancer back in the days of really requiring a tank and real healer to accomplish things. There were more people playing than now of course. There were more healers but not enough tanks. With this in mind, I would log in and see my druid friend online invite and see what he wanted/needed to get done. Our guild was a casual and declining one so, as expected, there were no tank classes. As usual, I would bring my best pet and we would set off to get things done. Let me tell you the pain and length required. Some really standard/easy tasks would take weeks to get done. The end result was my druid friend drifted into the list of names of the "haven't logged in" for months. He eventually quit. I eventually changed into a tank, shadowknight. The idea of limiting our play styles just seems to be a bad decision. People have stayed with the pet classes for a reason. They enjoy what that class brings. They have made like friends who meshed together in order to progress and game. Did pet tanking get out of hand? I am unsure but, I can say that pet tanking had become pretty common place. Common place enough to probably be included in the likes of tanks for group spots. The changes are already in place or soon to be set. For the future, let us balance the tank lines to include them. Lets make it possible to have a mage pet, necromancer pet, or beastlord pet become the main tank in a group. Lets give those classes extra tools if needed to play those roles including allowing PCs to stand next to the pets while engaged. Let us support our fellow players who have chosen these classes so they can continue to enjoy their classes. Let them game their way! Pet tank supporter, Rykard Paladin of the 68th season E-marr
You have zero understanding of the parity between the pet classes, despite having 'leveled up and played' all three. Bringing necro war pet HP to earth pet levels instantly destroys the balance between mages and necros. Necros have superior swarm pets for tanking, a 70% slow, the ability to CC with root and mez, and single pull ability via FD and snare. Their active pet defense abilities aren't even weaker than a mage's. Give them comparable pets and necros instantly overtake mages in every single conceivable way. Bolstering of the various 'support' abilities won't happen. For one, Elidroth is in charge of AAs and I do not believe he's keen on releasing new AAs just because of a nerf; same for Aristo and spells. Tweaking the existing rune spells won't do diddly squat and on top of it won't happen because they overpower pets against raid targets. Base buffs to mage pet heals are never going to be sufficient b/c of lack of synergy with AAs. That leaves buffing Groundswell Stance as the only option for increasing active mitigation, which of course doesn't affect necro pets and BST pets. So at the minimum, 2-3 classes are going to remain broken, under the current change, for 3 months till the next expansion release. By then I'm pretty sure a lot of these players would have said bye to EQ.
I like how you are so quick to throw necros under the bus for a the extra things they can do while adamantly defending the god mode mitigation all pets used to enjoy over dedicated player tanks while ignoring everything that pet classes bring to the table over tanks. When was the last time you saw a tank legitimately go toe to toe with a pet class in raw dps? It's a little bit hypocritical don't you think? The key difference is that I appreciate the role of my identified archetype. You won't see me lobbying to match your damage output or pull mod rods out of thin air so that the balance between warriors and mages are balanced in every aspect. If the necro warrior pet is intended to tank, it should be balanced as such and the class be given the tools to do it. Their warrior pet has no more or less right to tank than your earth or air pet.
What's an 'identified archetype?' A concept you created to promote the vision of the game that best appeals to you? I don't recognize 'identified archetypes' and I certainly do not believe in your definitions of them, which are fundamentally biased towards the 'identified archetype' you put yourself in. Yes... In case you didn't understand, balance, insofar as it exists, doesn't start and stop at the level of 'archetypes.' There is also balance between archetypes. For example, the fact that under your vision, 'healing archetypes' and the bulk of 'dps archetypes' are literally incapable of matching up to 'tanking archetypes' in solo/molo progression and group interchangeability, because merc DPS and merc healers are competent while merc tanks are utter crap. Wait, isn't the fact that 'tanking archetypes' are the only 'archetypes' capable of being a viable group in and of themselves simply by popping a merc fundamentally imbalanced? Your answer: of course not. Your logic starts and ends at what's convenient for you and your class. Not asking for mage DPS and mod rods? That's similar to Bill Gates telling me that he's satisfied just being a few billion dollars richer. That's incredibly generous of you!
is thread isn't informative, and misleading. raw data doesn't fix any class's ability to play the game they started years ago. u cant make people swallow data like that and say its ok, believe me. The changes are purely wrong.
Level 100 Necromancer using level 97 warrior pet with EM15. Buffs include certitude rk 2 and sigil of the sundered Rk 2. Pet was given basic mage summoned gear only. Target: Yellow con trash mob for 20 minutes Mob was not debuffed, pet hold on, no buff vie/blocks etc DI Spread: Round by Round: Avoidance: These parses were just pulled off test (literally finished the fight < 3 minutes ago). Average incomming dps: 8074 Total number of hits: 1688 Total number of minimum hits: 38.1% Compare this to EM15 Mage earth pet receiving 44.6% minimum hits and average incoming dps of 7234 under identical conditions. Pair that with lower total hit point pools ... My recommendation would be to increase necro mitigation a bit to the 40-42% range and total hit point difference between EM15 mage earth pet and warrior pet to be at least cut in half. Of the 3 "tank" pets, especially considering heal capabilities and innate abilities of each pet, the necromancer is undeniably the weakest link and needs to be brought up to par with the rest.
Running passive parses on v2.0 of the necro rogue pet as we speak. As much as I would like to see the necro warrior pet boosted a bit (as stated above) this is still within the quoted "target" from Aristo of:
New Necromancer Rogue pet parses - EM15, max aa, basic summoned mage gear Buffs: Sundered rk 2 haste buff and cleric certitude: DI: RBR Avoidance Average incoming dps: 8055 (lol 20 dps LOWER than warrior pet) Total hits: 2090 Minimum DI hits: 781 % of hits for minimum 37.4% Compare to necro warrior pet who took about 20 more dps and had a whopping 0.7% fewer minimum hits. What this tells me is that those numbers are close enough and the parses are relatively short enough (only 20-25 minutes is not enough to iron out the RNG completely), that these pets are mitigating at functionally equal levels - does not appear to be in line with what the developers intended for pet to pet balance. I'd cite this parse as good grounds for the necro community to lobby for their warrior pet getting a mitigation boost (as well as hit point boost) to bring their "tank" more in line with the other pet "tanks" out there. Right now, the only real difference between the rogue and warrior necromancer pet are hit point pools.
(c) a triangle has 3 sides (d) a square has 4 sides if statement c is true and statement d is also true then c=d and triangles = squares. I suggest being more careful in the logic games.
Im not sure what Sebbina is trying to point out but I guess it is the fact that people are trying to set two things as equal while ignoring their inherent properties that preclude it. (3=4)
