You can't do this, because they aren't the same thing. Both of them are not necessarily meant to be able to complete the same content, especially given different group setups. They need to be individually tuned to be able to tackle the intended level of content, not tuned against eachother. For instance, tanks have never been able to "tank" as well as a good pet group. Looking at it from your perspective, that means tanks have always been underpowered.
Very good point, it is very complicated. Hence why I said, the most accurate would be parses of "tiers" of active defensives, starting with the weakest (that are usually available the most often) and adding a new active defensive onto each parse, until you have one with all of them. Same with pets. Lots of testing, I can only hope the developers are doing it. it is their game after all....
Tanks vs a "good pet group"? As in a group vs 1 person? You've lost me buddy... seems like you're reaching here
Multiple pet groups have been able to tank things much better than plate tank-based groups since EQ's inception. If we're benchmarking tanking methods against eachother, that means plate tanks have been underpowered for fifteen years. That is the problem with benchmarking against other classes instead of focusing on whether the intended role can be done in the intended content.
lol don't make groups out of all tanks! This is silly. Of course the group composition matters. This has nothing to do with the topic. I'm outtie for now
A group with all tanks would be a very poor composition. There are different varieties of groups with different strengths. Groups based around a plate tank is one type of group. It isn't the best solution for tanking something really nasty, but it is a very popular choice. A pet group is another option. A kite group is another option. Using a single pet to tank is yet another option, or maybe basing your group around charm pets. The point is that comparing each of these to eachother to determine if they're "good enough" is meaningless. Comparing them to the content and what they can/should be able to accomplish is what matters.
This has more to do with named being gimped down to nothing more then glorified trash mobs otherwise its too complicated for "the casuals". FYI I DON'T RAID. Not so much that some classes are to powerful. yes pets are a bit to strong. yes raid toons can do amazing things. yes currently most named are only that in namesake otherwise people complain its to hard. there are plenty of ways to make named hard enough that mages and necros can't molo or 2 box them but then you alienate half the population since they can't handle it.
Tank classes have ever been able to redirect complaints about their own massive advantage in soloing/moloing vs. other classes to pet classes. Whenever I see these balance discussions, that's what I think about - how is that tank classes, especially hybrids, have been able to maintain their incredible 'imbalance' in soloing/moloing without a peep from the other classes? Well, one way is to redirect the complaints to pet classes...
I do think the parses being listed are biased. They deflate the risk on Tank Classes by completely removing all active abilities. This in turns inflates the pet to tank power ratio. If an abilities is up 100% of the time, it MUST be factored into the DI distribution. Other abilities must be factored in by thier percentage of time kept up. Who tanks a mob as a warrior without Field, or Stalwart on? Or something? I suspect what is going to happen is that Pets should be nerfed 10% compared to Active but will be nerfed 20% because they are being compared to passives.
No the parses represent a biased baseline, because that baseline doesnt exist in the Game. No one tanks that way.
this thread is not about who tanks best when. this thread is about pets b4 and pets now, anything els is unrelated and only way to get a good read on this is to do a base parse vs old and new data without the skills that screw the picture invloved no runes/vies no aa other then passive once ect ect. get a base line and compare
Passive mitigation changes are one of the easiest parses to do with DEV SIMULATIONS. As a senior software developer, I have no clue why EQ devs are not capable of instantly generating hundreds of hours' worth of player parses with a simulator. Active ability usage, yes that's hard to parse because it's a function of player behavior and players are capable of coming up with rotations that you did not think existed, but passive changes...? Why do we even need this thread? Were I a dev, what I rather want to know is how players with active abilities are able to perform vs. mobs, not what the effects of my passive changes were...
What good is that baseline? What if I had a 500,000 absorb rune that fired every swing? But only 4000ac. Baselines mean very little at this point. And I know pets have good active defenses too, to play devil's advocate. I'm not attacking tanks. I'm saying paper afk tanking is pretty worthless
/sigh I'm interested in seeing the Beast and Nec before and after parses (or did I miss them somewhere?). Since activated abilities have not changed the baseline is the best way to compare before and after. We could add in ice flame eminence, for example. But why? It won't help determine the extent of the change. The warrior/sk/monk/etc parses are for a point of reference. Everyone knows tanks have tons of activated abilities. No one "fooled" the devs; the devs *made* them. These parses are informative. We all know there are no activated abilities included. If anyone is drawing the conclusion "OMG pets are still uber," that's another story. But Daegun is providing informative before and after parses so we can all get a decent idea of the change. The discussion of how one thinks these should be parsed is moot. We need to understand the changes, if you want to have a debate over them there's a 27-ish page thread to do so. Something numerical is a lot better than all this arguing about how it possibly maybe should/could be done over many scenarios. I for one am very greatful since I have no computer access and can't test the changes myself.
dosent matter no one has that so no need to bring that up again its a b4 pet adjustment vs new pet adjustment
First off, there is only 1 parse in existence with activated abilities at all anyway. And yes they have. NTTB got boosted, warriors tanking AA's got boosted (dunno the details, but it was mentioned in the locked thread), there has been changes, dunno for knights. To play devil's advocate, mages got a boost too in the form of a random reflected pet heal. Baseline parsing is better than nothing. but not much better in my opinion. Sure, no one has a 500,000 point rune, but when I was reading the warrior vs. knight tanking debates a few months back, EVERYONE was talking about activateable defensives, especially self healing. it matters mages can keep frenzied burnout up, what, like 1/3 of the time? That's an ac boost, how do you "superimpose" that?. Oh and mage's prism skin is the reason mage pets are hanging in on the test server and necro pets are getting steamrolled. But apparently we only should look at these activatable abilities in a vaccum? And not compare? Or just pretend they don't exist? and warriors and knights be like "oh yeah, test those things. And compare to each other if you want. But don't look at ours. Because ours are gooooooood"
EM15 earth pet against a Frost Giant Captain in EW. Burnout rank 2 and symbol with swords. Edit to add: This is with all pet aa's done but nothing was activated (ie, no fortify, no frenzied, etc.). Tanking summary for: Kabaner --- Total damage: 2537349 --- Avg hit: 3461 --- Swings: 1041 --- Defended: 191 (18.3%) --- Hit: 733 (70.4%) --- Missed: 117 (11.2%) --- Accuracy: 86.2% --- Dodged: 30 (3.4%) --- Parried: 34 (3.6%) --- Blocked: 88 (8.5%) --- Riposted: 39 (4.2%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%) Kabaner - vs - A frost giant captain Hit..........Count..........Percentage Attempts 1041.......... 100% Missed ...117 ............11.24% Dodged ..30 ..............2.88% Parried ...34 ..............3.27% Blocked ..88 ..............8.45% Riposted 39............... 3.75% Absorbed. 0............... 0% 1213........ 31.............. 2.98% 1214......... 4............... 0.38% 1216......... 2............... 0.19% 1221......... 1............... 0.1% 1228.......... 1............... 0.1% 1236........... 1.............. 0.1% 1242......... 1............... 0.1% 1441......... 1............... 0.1% 1516......... 1............... 0.1% 1623....... 294............. 28.24% 1634......... 1............... 0.1% 1731.......... 1.............. 0.1% 1738.......... 1............... 0.1% 2028........... 9.............. 0.86% 2034........... 18........... 1.73% 2444.......... 29............. 2.79% 2542.......... 2............... 0.19% 2856......... 23............. 2.21% 3055.......... 3.............. 0.29% 3266.......... 30............ 2.88% 3579........... 1...............0.1% 3676.......... 25..............2.4% 3797............ 1............. 0.1% 4088............. 23.......... 2.21% 4498............. 19.......... 1.83% 4595.............. 2............ 0.19% 4909............. 20........... 1.92% 5109.............. 3............ 0.29% 5320.............. 24.......... 2.31% 5322.............. 1............ 0.1% 5411............. 1...............0.1% 5629 ............1............... 0.1% 5730............. 20.............1.92% 6136.............. 1.............. 0.1% 6141 .............21............. 2.02% 6466 .............1................ 0.1% 6552........... 20................1.92% 6649............ 1................. 0.1% 6963............ 12 ...............1.15% 7162............. 2 .................0.19% 7373 ............22 ................2.11% 7676............ 1 ...................0.1% 7686............ 1 ...................0.1% 7694............ 1....................0.1% 7781............. 1.................. 0.1% 7784............ 14 .................1.34% 7876 .............1 ...................0.1% 8182 ............1 ....................0.1% 8195 ...........10................... 0.96% 8605 .............4 ...................0.38% 8703 .............1 ....................0.1% 8821 .............1 ....................0.1% 9016 ............5..................... 0.48% 9216 .............1 ....................0.1% 9427 ............10................... 0.96% 9651 .............1 .....................0.1% 9729 .............2..................... 0.19% 10243 ..........1 .......................0.1% 10756 ..........1 ........................0.1% 10774 .........1......................... 0.1%
This is an air pet, EM15 with all pet AA's done. Only buff was burnout rank 2 and heals. Equipped with fire proc swords. Tanking summary for: Gobanab --- Total damage: 1510783 --- Avg hit: 4291 --- Swings: 524 --- Defended: 118 (22.5%) --- Hit: 352 (67.2%) --- Missed: 54 (10.3%) --- Accuracy: 86.7% --- Dodged: 25 (5.8%) --- Parried: 25 (5.2%) --- Blocked: 45 (8.6%) --- Riposted: 23 (5.1%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%) Gobanab - vs - A frost giant savage Attempts 524 100% Missed 54 10.31% Dodged 25 4.77% Parried 25 4.77% Blocked 45 8.59% Riposted 23 4.39% Absorbed 0 0% Hit # Percentage 1481 9 1.72% 1482 2 0.38% 1487 2 0.38% 1493 1 0.19% 1506 2 0.38% 1509 1 0.19% 1979 133 25.38% 2478 18 3.44% 2977 19 3.63% 3476 13 2.48% 3976 11 2.1% 4475 13 2.48% 4974 14 2.67% 5473 10 1.91% 5972 12 2.29% 6471 12 2.29% 6970 8 1.53% 7469 19 3.63% 7968 7 1.34% 8467 13 2.48% 8967 8 1.53% 9466 5 0.95% 9965 3 0.57% 10464 7 1.34% 11462 10 1.91%
I'm sorry but I was refering to pet activated abilities, since they haven't changed to my knowledge since he last did the parse. I'd love to see some active parses, but from a players perspective a base parse is a good way for me to see what changed. Quite frankly I think it's very hard to compare tanking between pets and players because they are fundamentally different. I'd love to see some people try to get real activated parses, but it's hard to draw conclusions (DI spread is obviously not everything).
