pet vs our dps

[Tigrah]

I'm probably gimp, or just outa my mind, but when I did parsing not long ago, and my pet and I were split tanking db's in veksar. my pet was doing about the same dps as I was most of the time. Pet dps was almost consistantly 150, while my own dps ranged from 68-198

[laissez]

Yea the aoe ramp golems in anguish can kill a pet in 1 ramp, hell they can 1 round a well geared bst if the hits land right.  What i useally do is keep my pet on hold, since there aoe ramp is agro based and he doesn't even get touched.

[Vidyne]

Took them about two months or so ago, little while after the patch that gave us proc damage messages.

4minute parses on Katta bankers yield:

My own DPS(all offensive AA, Eth Dest and Epic 1.5)
220dps sustained over 4minutes
(chain nuking with 2 nukes, slow burn... would not last forever but last for a while)(may also include growl, I can't remember).


Pet DPS:
112melee dps
61 proc dps

Yalp(version 2.4) adds Pet proc dps to YOUR dps.
My pet had 112dps listed, and I had 61 "magic" dps listed.
I never touched the mob.  I checked in EQcompanion and found the parse to be 171dps

Full Burn for 1minute 10sec~ was:
485dps - 60dps for pet proc

Pet:
145dps(half the time he's not in disc)
Have to guess and say 60 pet proc dps

If you are using Yalp 2.4 or older, be sure to account for the pet's proc dps.
It is added to the beastlord's dps, and taken from the warder.  Thus this greatly increases the gap.

This is just for time geared though...  not sure on upper end pet focuses/etc... but  170~ dps vs my 220dps is pretty close.
Pet is Rashara with MoE focus.  Spirit of Oroshar, Epic 1.5 clicky, 68 haste...

Just saying be sure to check your parses in both EQcompanion and yalp....  as not sure if yalp has corrected this error.. and 60dps taken from pet and given to Beastlord tips the scales a bit.

*edit*

Seems I can't recheck those June 29th parses....
Bankers can't be attacked anymore in Katta.

Any ideas where to find a high HP mob that can't kill pet?  Grieg's end probably too short of a parse.

Boruk and Kaniz mobs in Torment produced:
Both mobs were killed in 2min 30sec, roughly.  one was 2min 31, the other 2min 35.

84 melee dps
55 proc dps

82 melee dps
47 proc dps

Coruse the pet was tanking them.
Rashara with Oroshar, Epic 1.5, Vitality, Haste, and MoE focus.

30 second burn was:

145 melee dps
52 proc dps

These were today, on the Kaniz mobs in PoTorment.

One solo fight..
1min 12seconds

Rake, 69 nuke, 65 GoD nuke
Epic 1.5 focus.

158 melee dps
102 proc/spell dps  (2 or 3 nukes)

Eth Destroyer can skew parses a little though I guess.
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:33 2006] a Kaniz hunter was hit by non-melee for 17 points of damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:34 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 750 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:36 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 1500 points of non-melee damage.(crit Time Lapse.. didnt use roar)
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:43 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 750 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:44 2006] a Kaniz hunter was hit by non-melee for 17 points of damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:49 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 125 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:42:55 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 125 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:01 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 125 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:03 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 125 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:04 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 1178 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:07 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 125 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:10 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 942 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:15 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 100 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:22 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 750 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:25 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 750 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:25 2006] a Kaniz hunter was hit by non-melee for 17 points of damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:26 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 750 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:28 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 125 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:29 2006] a Kaniz hunter was hit by non-melee for 17 points of damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:31 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 750 points of non-melee damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:42 2006] a Kaniz hunter was hit by non-melee for 17 points of damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:42 2006] a Kaniz hunter was hit by non-melee for 17 points of damage.
[Tue Sep 05 14:43:44 2006] Vidyne hit a Kaniz hunter for 250 points of non-melee damage.


260dps for me
145dps for pet
Roughly 60% me.. 40% him?

[hakaaba]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'll cry if after all the things done in the past that graph makes a dev go "omfg it's all so clear now".  8P

Then again, "hey this bst in my guild out tanks me" got ranger caps changed so who knows lol. 

Did we ever try "hey this shaman in my guild out tanks me"?

If it worked for rangers *shrug*

I assume the chart would at least do something to placate the bst bashers who actually don't understand the numbers :p


vidayn:

I assume since youre using ED that you fall somewhere between level 70 and time gear in "progression", so 60/40 sounds almost exactly right if you look there on the graph.

Tigrah:

Youre probably right about doing about the same dps as your warder.  Based on the fact that you're fighting in veksar, you're probably right at the point of progression where that's true. (a tad below level 70)

[Vidyne]

Yes, I was just pointing out the fact mostly that some people might be using yalp, and as far as I know, it adds the pet proc damage to the beastlord...  skewing the dps a little(tho the margin is still decent even with correct numbers).

400 sustained beastlord dps
90 sustained pet dps

Where the pet should be doing 130-140 on nonresistant mobs and yalp could be including the pet proc damage in with the beastlord.. hence it would more like:

350 beastlord
140 pet

Still a wide gap.. but /shrug.

Was just merely saying that if you see a pet dps number below 100... its likely wrong or could be on a resistant mob... as pet proc rates should shoot its dps over 100,  to the 120-140 range for sustained dps... on non resistant mobs.

Similar to Ethereal destroyer, over a third of the pet's damage comes from its proc.

That was all.  I know weapons scale greatly, where pet focuses do not.
Perhaps I should parse Allandu using Irionu only vs Rashara using Oroshar.
I doubt the difference would be more than 20dps though.


Also I merely wanted to give current figures for myself if they helped...

[Pakratz]

I totally agree with the numbers posted here , pet scalability sucks.  However, we need to be careful what we whine about.  If by a miracle our warder dps is upped to be scalable (ie 100+ dps added), then either our personal dps would need to be nerfed correspondingly or all other classes will start screaming.  Also, if our warder dps increases, you can bet mage and necro pets will also increase the same amount and either those classes will need to be nerfed or all other classes will start screaming.  The most likely outcome is either being ignored or having all pets scaled up by like 10dps, hardly worth the effort of complaining.

Also, the more dps our warder has, the more we become dependent on warder survivabilty, already a sticky issue.

IMO our dps is fine!!  Shocking I know.  The issue we have is lack of raid utility.  We have group utility (slow, backup buffs).  We solo ok.  It's in raids that we are useless outside of dps.  We are easily the most undesired of all classes on raids.  Have you ever heard a raid leader say "we could sure use a few more beastlord's for this event"?  I believe I've heard my raidleader say that about EVERY other class at some point or another.

IMO our top 3 issues should be 1)Raid utiltiy, 2)Raid utility, 3)Raid utiliy.   Ok and maybe defensive gimpness.  The other stuff we post about (ie spells targeting pet, not enough dps, pet survivability, etc, etc, etc) are all valid but they pale in comparison to our utter lack of raid utility.  A good raid utility would make up for most of these other issues.

On the subject of raid utility, another thing that makes us undesirable is the fact that pets do not have hold as a default state.  It's unfathonable to me that this is still the case!  BL & Mages are regularly getting called out for runaway pets and told to kill the pets.  Raid leaders I've encountered thru the years desire to have exactly 1 BL on a raid and prefer him to be petless.  A default hold toggle would be very easy to code, and i'm really surprised you all dont think this isnt a major issue.  Perception = reality and we're perceived as a dangerous class just for this issue.

[hakaaba]

A dev (Rashere?) has stated that they will not make hold automatic as pets are supposed to require effort to control/manage.  Besides, if hitting your pet hold hotkey isnt a mindless reflex by now, youre not using it enough :p  I think i'm wearing out my 9 key.

Also, i totally agree that necromancer and mage pets also scale poorly and require upgrades similarly to our pets.  You may have noticed that nowhere on my chart does it specifically mention beastlords.  Although, the exact details are that of a beastlord, the concept applies regardless of class.

Your other argument does not make alot of sense to me.  You claim that there is a legitimate problem with our class, but we should not bother attempting to remedy the problem because people will complain.  But people complain no matter what happens, so i do not see why we should let that affect our decision to pursue pet scaling or not.

They could certainly fix pet defensive scaling to a satisfiable degree without affecting our overall class balance hardly at all.  And there is nothing to say they have to keep beastlord dps exactly where it is.  You said yourself that there is an inherent risk in having more of our dps through the pet.  This inherent risk itself allows it to do more dps since there is a power vs. risk of losing that power tradeoff involved.