Enmity change suggestions

[Viridiana]

Where do you get that number for provoke II, and no I dont want a % or a point for point system. None of the skills that produce extra enmity have a number to them. Also a gladiator AA against an NM meant for L50 players wouldn't get past 15, The only WS that can be done to get above 200 is Riot Blade. And like I said, % does nothing but cause decimals and complication.

It's from the same site I linked to earlier: http://kanican.livejournal.com/54373.html

And, yes, you're basically asking for a larger percentage base. If you'll note, moving Intimidate/Out of Sight to 33% effects instead of 10% effects has the exact same effect as your system.

ETA: And what's this about no WS other than Riot Blade going above 200? I have no idea wth you're talking about there. . .

[Reika]

You would have to play Gladiator VS an NM meant for L50 players to know what i'm talking about with damage. making intimidate/out of site 33% doesnt do the same thing. % has little impact on smaller numbers and major impact on large numbers. And like I said, unless they put #'s on the skills that livejournal isnt proving much anything in my eyes.

The system I imposed works great with actually using the traits and adding materia to become better at holding or avoiding enmity. I've already done tanking under the current without using intimidate and saw no change.

Until they put a number on the skills in-game, that list is speculation. What isnt speculation is that the current system is point for point and OOS/Intimidate is 10 not 10%. And if you read what I wrote at the bottom, the number can be changed. If it is indeed .75 per 1 point then the number can be raised. But I will wait for a dev or mod to tell me the patch notes were wrong or incomplete and that they forgot the % symbol next to all the enmity adjusters first.

[Viridiana]

You would have to play Gladiator VS an NM meant for L50 players to know what i'm talking about with damage. making intimidate/out of site 33% doesnt do the same thing. % has little impact on smaller numbers and major impact on large numbers. And like I said, unless they put #'s on the skills that livejournal isnt proving much anything in my eyes.

The system I imposed works great with actually using the traits and adding materia to become better at holding or avoiding enmity. I've already done tanking under the current without using intimidate and saw no change.

Until they put a number on the skills in-game, that list is speculation. What isnt speculation is that the current system is point for point and OOS/Intimidate is 10 not 10%.

That list is damn-well tested. Go out and try their numbers for yourself.

Okay, under your system, a GLA does 50 attacks of 9 damage each, for a total of 50x9x40=18,000 enmity. A healer casts Cure II for 900 HP healed for 1x900x20=18,000 enmity. You really think that 450 damage should equal 900 healed in terms of enmity?

Under a system where healing is 1:1 and Intimidation and Out of Sight are 33% bonuses, a GLA does 50 attacks of 9 damage each, for 50x9x4/3=600 enmity. A Healer casts Cure II for 900 HP healed for 1x900x2/3=600 enmity. You really think that 450 damage and 900 healed should be the same enmity?

In case you didn't catch that, your system and a system with Intimidation and Out of Sight doing 33% instead of 10% are identical for all intents and purposes. I say again: All you're doing is buffing Intimidation/Out of Sight/materia. You're not actually changing how anything else works at all.

And you never answered my question about whatever it was you were saying about Riot Blade. . .

[GreyJorildyn]

I'm sorry OP but your argument lost weight somewhere between "you would need to be 50 GLA against NMs to understand" and "that list is speculation".

[Reika]

I see this is just becoming a troll fest in this, especially by not reading the whole suggestion. The amount of time it takes for a gladiator to do 50 auto attacks, given that skills and other abilities delays auto attacks as well, is much greater than the time the time it takes a healer to cast more than 1 cure II. the number is at the bottom for 8x50 = 400 enmity. a cure II can generate more than that under the system I imposed. You were just blinded by the 400 damage I put in as an example. That is damage with 3000tp Riot Blade and raging strike/ferocity II against one monster. It obviously varies depending on what monster you're fighting, and a lot if you're trying to test it on weak monsters. But if you like things the way they are, just say you like things the way they are. this is my suggestion. Add your suggestions if you like without trying to say my 'argument' lost weight like I am arguing with anyone.

And yea... Provoke II + Disorient II w/ + '20%' enmity according to that journal would be 821 Enmity and Cure III for 900(.75 per point apparently) w/ -'13%' enmity according to that journal would be 558 enmity. If you try to start out a battle with Provoke II + Disorient II and then you let someone else cure III you before you cure yourself, you will lose enmity just like that. So I have to disagree with that list's numbers. Before Materia, PII+DII would = 752 and Cure III for 750 would have been 489 enmity, which obviously wasn't the case since PII and DII combo was never enough to stop the first cure III, or any Cure's that followed afterwords, from overpowering the tank, which is why people resorted to using cure II and having the tank heal him/her self first, since cures are the greatest enmity generators. Those numbers were tested a lot in 1.18 and were proven wrong a long time ago. It still holds true for 1.19.

[Viridiana]

I'm pretty sure Provoke II + Disorient II will hold aggro off of a single 900 HP cure. Seriously, go try it. . .

[Fiosha_Maureiba]

Figured I post this here in an enmity change topic than make a separate topic.

My concern with enmity mostly stems from Conjurer Curaga enmity.

Example: Party of eight, faces off against eight enemies at the same time.

Marauder does his double cone attack and Storm's Path, building up enmity on five separate targets based on the damage he's done, more enmity if he criticals, less enmity if he misses and such.

Conjurer runs up, does a single target heal on an ally. That ally is on the list of all enemies, conjurer has just built up his enmity toward all enemies based on that heal.

the problem example: Conjurer runs up, does an area heal which affects all allies in the target area. It never misses. There is no reduced potency for increased number of targets healed. Whether an ally is healed or not, the enmity generated is the same to the enemy. For each party member targeted, enmity is multiplied, not just against one enemy, but against all enemies pursuing the party. Even worse when a critical heal goes off against an ally that doesn't need it.

From an enemy perspective, it makes perfect sense for them to band together and go after the high powered healer that just healed everyone. I just wanted to put this example out there for the developers to consider when modifying hate. Whether this means I've set in motion a nerf in Curaga (i.e. more targets = less HP) or an enmity debuff (if you're not hurt, it doesn't count toward enmity), I don't know.

[Viridiana]

Or just the way it used to work: if you weren't damaged, you didn't get healed. . .