Provoke - Analyzed

[Spider-Dan]

What a marvelous test you have designed!

How does this "test" remotely prove that Provoke subtracts hate from the THF... who has ZERO hate to start with? All that it proves is that using WAR's skills add to hate (but obviously, not if the mob hasn't aggroed anyone yet). So yay, if you use all your skills before you provoke/engage the mob, you have less hate than if use all your skills after you provoke/engage. Congratulations, welcome to last week.

If your theory was actually correct, all you would need to do is have a WAR and THF party up, WAR does provoke, THF does a small dmg offensive action (or Steal). Since Provoke "doesn't add hate" to the WAR, THF would have more hate, and mob would face THF, 100%. We all know your theory fails this test spectacularly.

And I like how you conveniently ignored the fact that if Provoke only subtracts from other party members' hate, and you can't go into negative enmity, the first person to attack a mob after a Provoke pull would ALWAYS gain aggro. I also liked how you slipped in that "Provoke only subtracts from others' hate, oh, but it resets your hate to some set number above zero." Yeah, in English, if you start out with zero hate, and then you "reset" to some number above zero, we just call that adding hate.

I also applaud your attempt to smokescreen the fact that if Provoke only subtracted hate from others, you could not pull mobs with it.

And finally, as I already said, if Provoke subtracted from hate, then if a mage pulled with a low-hate spell, WAR provoked and immediately died, the mob would just walk away, because the mage would have zero hate. OK.

So let's compare theories:

a) Provoke adds to hate. (Extreme's counterargument mysteriously absent)

b) Provoke subtracts from everyone else's hate, but never to zero or negative, and also sets you to some higher number of non-zero hate (but don't call it adding!). Oh, and we prefer to think of it as subtracting from everyone else, instead of adding to WAR, even though mathematically that produces the exact same result, since the mob attacks whoever has the most hate.

Hmm, tough choice.

P.S. Doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose to talk about "stupid NA newbies" when you've been playing the game for over a year, and still don't have a clue?

[Extreme]

You my friend, are ****ing retarded. Let me QUOTE it for you, since you obviously cant read it for yourself.

when your provoke, it reduces your partys hate A SET AMOUNT (not instantly to zero..) and resets your own hate value to some set # above 0.

Now lets see if I can explain it to you.. if it sets YOUR hate to some number ABOVE zero.. it has the ADD effect when you are SOLO. Thats why you can pull with it.

So lets see, that makes your entire last post.. worthless?

[Icemage]

WARNING: VERY LONG POST

I'm not sure if this is pertinent, but I have some first-hand experience with limited testing conditions that may shed some light on this discussion: i.e. How does enmity get assigned, how does it fade, and how long does it last?

I'm a WHM54/BLM28 so I do (on rare occasions) spend some time helping friends by powerlevelling their lower jobs past the "ugly" phase (10-15). Here are the results of what I find:

I can definitively tell you that the enmity generated by healing spells is NOT a direct relation to the amount of HP healed. Instead, there seems to be something like this happening:

One sample situation (which I actually did about a while ago at level ~40WHM):

Level 13 Galka Thief has 150 points of damage on him.

Situation A: I cast Cure, Cure, Cure, Cure, Cure while he continues to pull aggro, despite me being many levels higher. In almost all cases, I will not pull aggro until at least the 4th or 5th cure, and in fact may not pull aggro at all. Even a short amount of time where I do not cast any spells will make aggro revert to the THF.

Situation B: I cast Cure II, Cure II. If the fight has been going on for a while, I would only occasionally pull aggro away from the THF with the first Cure II. Usually the second Cure II will pull aggro onto me. Aggro will then stay on me for at least a 2-4 rounds, unless the THF pulls multiple criticals or gets a good result on a WS.

Situation C: I cast Cure III. 99% chance that I pull aggro. Even if the THF uses a good WS, and/or gets critical attacks, the monster will STAY on me even if I don't do anything but dodge attacks (with my relatively high Evasion). Even under repeated successful attacks from the THF, the monster will continue to attack me for at least 5-10 rounds.

More information:

When I use Cure III, I see this happening - it is VERY distinctive if you are looking for it.

Monster is attacking THF.
THF has lots of damage.
I cast Cure III. THF is now at max HP.
Monster turns towards me.
THF hits monster.
THF hits monster.
THF hits monster.
THF uses WS on monster. Monster TURNS towards THF for a SPLIT SECOND, then turns BACK to me and attacks me.
THF hits monster. No turn.
THF hits monster. Monster again TURNS towards THF for a slightly longer period, then turns back to me and attacks me.
THF hits monster. Monster turns again, slightly longer duration, and again attacks me.
THF hits monster, Monster turns and hits THF, then turns back to me.
THF hits monster. Monster turns and now continues to attack THF.

This is an interesting result, because it tells us several things (some of which we all know from experience, but I will expand on this):

- Enmity generated from damage is related to the amount of damage. The larger the amount of damage, the higher the amount of enmity. Witness the effect of the WS from the thief above.

- Enmity generated from healing is similarly related to the amount healed. The larger the amount healed, the higher the amount of enmity. Witness the effect of my Cure III spell.

- Performing any action which generates enmity produces a "spike" in the enemy's enmity towards you. Self-explanatory given above situation.

- Enmity stacks, and also fades. Notice how the THF can eventually gain the aggro from me because I do nothing else that generates enmity after casting Cure III.

- The fade rate for enmity is not linear. If it were, the monster would just switch from me back to the THF and stay there.

So the question becomes, how do we come up with a reasonable model for what the game is doing, numbers-wise, to explain why this is happening.

My current theory (still a theory, it's hard to prove conclusively), is that there are actually TWO elements to enmity: Immediate Enmity, and Residual Enmity, and that both elements stack and fade at different rates.

Icemage's Hypothetical Model of FFXI Enmity:

Total player hate for each monster = Immediate + Residual

Immediate enmity is what generates the large "spike" of actions like Provoke, Cure IV, Sentinel, Shield Bash, Ancient Magic, Benediction, Invincible, etc. My hypothesis is that Immediate enmity fades at a very fast rate (guesstimate, perhaps -20% of total each round, with perhaps a 10% further decrease for the "current aggro target").

Residual enmity is the amount of enmity which "persists" from that same action. This value seems to decrease at a much slower rate than Immediate enmity, perhaps -10% of the total each round, with again a 5% further decrease for the "current aggro target")

HYPOTHETICAL MODEL:

Using my above example with the Galka THF13 (using arbitrary numbers - I do NOT know what the actual values are, or even if I am right. I am using these percentages and numbers to illustrate my point):

THF has been fighting monster for a while while I do nothing but watch. Let's arbitrarily give him a "current value" of 30 Immediate, and 20 Residual enmity, for a total of 120 "enmity points."

I now cast Cure III. Let's say my 150-point Cure III generates 150 Immediate and 100 Residual enmity. My total enmity is now 250. The monster now turns to me, since I am higher on the total enmity list.

Monster attacks me. THF hits for 10, and gains 10 Immediate and 7 Residual enmity.

Recalculating our totals, we see the THF now has 40 Immediate + 27 residual (67 total). I am still at 150 + 100 (250 total).
If I lose 30%/15% and the THF loses 20%/10%:

Icemage: 190 total
-45 Immediate = 105
-15 Residual = 85

THF: 54 total
-8 Immediate = 32
-3 Residual = 24.

Monster targets: Icemage

--- Next round

THF misses:
+1 Immediate(33)
+1 Residual(25).

Icemage: 144 total
-32 Immediate = 72
-13 Residual = 72

THF: 48 total
-7 Immediate = 26
-3 Residual = 22.

Monster targets: Icemage

--- Next round

THF uses WS (Combo) for 25.
+25 Immediate (51)
+18 Residual (40).

Icemage: 111 total
-22 Immediate = 50
-11 Residual = 61

THF: 77 total
-10 Immediate = 41
-4 Residual = 36

Monster targets: Icemage

--- Next round

THF hits for 10.
+10 Immediate(51)
+7 Residual(43).

Icemage: 87 total
-15 Immediate = 35
-9 Residual = 52

THF: 80 total
-10 Immediate = 41
-4 Residual = 39
Monster targets: Icemage

--- Next round
THF hits for 10.
+10 Immediate (51)
+7 residual (46).

Icemage: 66 total
-11 Immediate = 24
-8 Residual = 44

THF: 82 total
-10 Immediate = 41
-5 Residual = 41
Monster targets: THF

---Next round
THF misses
+1 Immediate(42)
+1 Residual (42).

Icemage: 59 total
-5 Immediate = 19,
-4 Residual = 40

THF: 65 total
-13 Immediate = 29
-6 Residual= 36
Monster targets: THF

---Next round
THF misses
+1 Immediate(30)
+1 Residual (37).

Icemage: 51
-4 Immediate = 15
-4 Residual = 36

THF: 52
-9 Immediate = 21
-6 Residual= 31
Monster targets: THF

---Next round
THF misses
+1 Immediate(22)
+1 Residual (32).

Icemage: 44
-3 Immediate = 12
-4 Residual = 32

THF: 42
-7 Immediate = 15
-5 Residual = 27
Monster targets: Icemage

Bear in mind, this is not a perfect model(even in the unlikely event that I am correct about the method, I am sure my percentages in this example are off), but I think its certainly closer to what is actually happening than can be explained by the straight point/deduct everyone seems to think is happening.

Comments and discussion are welcome.


Icemage

[Extreme]

Just to sum up some of Icemages post, incase people didnt know. I thought most of this stuff was self-explanatory.

1- Damage to a monster causes the same amount of hate as a heal for the same amount. E.g. A cureII for 70 HP, and a 70 damage attack cause the same amount of hate.

2- Damage the monster inflicts on you counts as 'minus hate'. E.g. If you have 400 damage worth of hate on the target, and the target hits you for 100.. you now have 300 damage worth of hate.

3- If you cure for 0, the act of curing does generate limited hate, but not very much.

[Spider-Dan]

(emphasis added)

Originally posted by Extreme
Now lets see if I can explain it to you.. if it sets YOUR hate to some number ABOVE zero.. it has the ADD effect when you are SOLO.

Except that it still obviously has that "add effect" even when you're in a party, since you can still pull with it.

Still waiting for you to explain why in the world anyone should think Provoke subtracts from anyone else's hate pool,


Dan

[Icemage]

Beware reading too much into my example. I presented the numbers as a theoretical example, not as an accurate representation of actual mechanics. I provided them to show one possible interpretation/model of what I have empiricly observed.

(1) Healing is NOT equivalent to damage for aggro. I can cast Cure III with regularity and generally avoid aggro - this despite the fact that no one will be dealing anywhere near as much damage as I am healing (especially vs. crab-type enemies).

(2) Damage dealt to players does not, in any way shape or form reduce their enmity. I personally believe that whoever is the *current target* gets the extra enmity removed from their total, regardless of whether or not they actually get hit. You will still lose enmity at a faster rate even if you use abilities or skills to avoid hits/damage (Evasion, Perfect Dodge, Blink, Utsusemi, Stoneskin, Block, Guard, Parry, whatever).

(3) Agreed. Curing for 0 seems to generate the same sort of low-grade enmity that a missed attack does. By the same token, Benediction for 0 generates almost no aggro.


Icemage

[Extreme]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
(emphasis added)

Except that it still obviously has that "add effect" even when you're in a party, since you can still pull with it.

Still waiting for you to explain why in the world anyone should think Provoke subtracts from anyone else's hate pool,


Dan

*sigh*

Whitemage uses Benediction in the middle of a PT, and theres only two provoke people in the party. Since the whitemage is actually smart (aka not a n00b), he already has blink + stoneskin stacked, doesnt run away, doesnt cure himself. He doesnt get hit at all for any damage, since he does a good job with stoneskin management. Since the whm is not in any danger, the backup provoker just continues as usual. I provoke once, nothing. Wait the 30 seconds, and provoke again. I now have the hate.

Now if provoke only added hate, I would have MORE hate then the whm who just used benediction. However about 3 seconds after I provoke, the backup provokes himself, and easily takes the hate off of me. :angel:

Test if for yourself..

[imac2much]

Extreme, thanks for your analysis; much of what you said does make a lot of sense. However, I think there are a few fallacies in your explanation... not to say it is all wrong, but some of it doesn't make sense. For example...

You say that Provoke reduces a little hate from everyone and then raises your personal hate to a SET amount. You also say hate cannot be negative. If this were the case, then ANY other teammate would be able to draw aggro by Provoking any time after your own Provoke. As a Paladin, I am almost always the first to die because others cannot get the hate off me. There have been several instances where I did my normal routine, and after my last Provoke, let's say the monster used a big WS on me and I was dangerously low on HP. Then the DRK and/or SAM use Provoke on the monster to try to save me... but I keep the aggro, and end up dying. :sweat:

According to your explanation, this should not be the case... Since my hate went to a SET amount after I provoked, that set amount should then be lowered enough by the fact that I got hit for a lot of damage AND the provoke that the other person used right after. The only answer I can see to this is if, in fact, Provoke does vary from person to person... if so, then is it really CHR that affects Provoke? And are you saying then that the small differences in CHR between a DRK and a PLD will still keep all the hate on me even if the DRK uses Provoke, etc?

[Extreme]

Originally posted by imac2much
Extreme, thanks for your analysis; much of what you said does make a lot of sense. However, I think there are a few fallacies in your explanation... not to say it is all wrong, but some of it doesn't make sense. For example...

You say that Provoke reduces a little hate from everyone and then raises your personal hate to a SET amount. You also say hate cannot be negative. If this were the case, then ANY other teammate would be able to draw aggro by Provoking any time after your own Provoke. As a Paladin, I am almost always the first to die because others cannot get the hate off me. There have been several instances where I did my normal routine, and after my last Provoke, let's say the monster used a big WS on me and I was dangerously low on HP. Then the DRK and/or SAM use Provoke on the monster to try to save me... but I keep the aggro, and end up dying. :sweat:

According to your explanation, this should not be the case... Since my hate went to a SET amount after I provoked, that set amount should then be lowered enough by the fact that I got hit for a lot of damage AND the provoke that the other person used right after. The only answer I can see to this is if, in fact, Provoke does vary from person to person... if so, then is it really CHR that affects Provoke? And are you saying then that the small differences in CHR between a DRK and a PLD will still keep all the hate on me even if the DRK uses Provoke, etc?

Simple to explain imac.. the set # it raises your own hate to is greater then the amount of hate it reduces from everyone else. And yes, Provoke is effect by chr.. so its also possible that your provoke was simply stronger than the Sam's.

[Icemage]

There is absolutely no way this can be correct. If Provoke reset your enmity level to a set amount, then it would be pathetically easy for me to pull aggro away from any tank that has used Provoke by casting Curaga.

There are numerous occasions where I have cast Curaga for 92 HP on my entire party (552hp total) near the end of a battle in Kuftal Tunnel and not drawn aggro. By Extreme's model, this should, in fact, pull aggro on me every single time, since Provoke would "reset" the main tank's enmity - yet it clearly does not.

The only deduction to draw here is that Provoke, like other abilities, simply adds an additional "spike" to your enmity level, only without the need to deal damage.


Icemage

[Extreme]

Originally posted by Icemage
There is absolutely no way this can be correct. If Provoke reset your enmity level to a set amount, then it would be pathetically easy for me to pull aggro away from any tank that has used Provoke by casting Curaga.

There are numerous occasions where I have cast Curaga for 92 HP on my entire party (552hp total) near the end of a battle in Kuftal Tunnel and not drawn aggro. By Extreme's model, this should, in fact, pull aggro on me every single time, since Provoke would "reset" the main tank's enmity - yet it clearly does not.

The only deduction to draw here is that Provoke, like other abilities, simply adds an additional "spike" to your enmity level, only without the need to deal damage.


Icemage

You didnt read at all did you. This is a fact im not going to argue with you, but your misunderstanding something. It doesnt totally reset the tanks hate.. it adds to it by a set #, and reduces the partys hate by a set #.

Mulitiple provokes do stack, just the hate value wont be as high individually if you keep on provoking rather than use your skills. However since it also reduces others hate, it makes it more useful to lower theres more, rather then spiking yours so much. Your also forgeting about the accumulated damage hate one would aquire over an entire fight. If your hate is above the set # from zero that provoke would add.. your not going to LOWER your own hate back to that value.

Honestly.. its not a difficult concept.

[Icemage]

Since you are so fond of quoting, Extreme:

Posted by Extreme in this thread:

...when your provoke, it reduces your partys hate A SET AMOUNT (not instantly to zero..) and resets your own hate value to some set # above 0.

I am not the one who is misunderstanding. You are the one who is having difficulty committing thought into words. The above statement is BLATANTLY WRONG, and is what I was referring to in my last post.

If you can not figure out how to make a coherent statement without backing it up with some proof and staying consistent, perhaps you should back out of this discussion and leave it to those of us who can, instead of making unsupported claims with no sample data and muddying the waters in a misguided attempt to look smart.


Icemage

[Extreme]

*sigh*

I'm not going to argue with you, the above statement you quoted is when you have a hate of zero.. not when you already have some designed hate value. I said EXACTLY what i meant to. If all hate did was add hate, then at some point your hate would become so high it would be impossible to bring it off you.

Whatever, think what you want. Every Vet/JP player in the world knows the facts, there was a post exactly like this on the JP BB about a year ago.. and whaddaya know. Exactly what i've said this entire thread was proven right.

I'm done talking to you newbies, if your seriously stupid enough not to believe me then thats your own problem. I'm not going to waste my time and post fictional #'s, just to convince you what everyone else already accepts as fact. Have you noticed that not one experienced player besides me has entered this thread? They're probably laughing their asses off at you... it was my mistake that I actually tryed to HELP you.

Enjoy your misinformation, I'm done trying. You wonder why us importers put (Japanese)(Only) in our search comments? Well what do you expect.. you dont even know what ****ing provoke does.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Extreme
*sigh*

Whitemage uses Benediction in the middle of a PT, and theres only two provoke people in the party. Since the whitemage is actually smart (aka not a n00b), he already has blink + stoneskin stacked, doesnt run away, doesnt cure himself. He doesnt get hit at all for any damage, since he does a good job with stoneskin management. Since the whm is not in any danger, the backup provoker just continues as usual. I provoke once, nothing. Wait the 30 seconds, and provoke again. I now have the hate.

Now if provoke only added hate, I would have MORE hate then the whm who just used benediction. However about 3 seconds after I provoke, the backup provokes himself, and easily takes the hate off of me. :angel:

This is it? This is all you have?

After the huge post Icemage just made explaining why he thinks hate decreases over time (which you immediately followed, but clearly failed to read), this is what you come up with?

After 40+ seconds, the amount of hate the mob has has decreased to the point where one Provoke can take the secondary tank to the point of aggro.

So far, attempting to explain your theory in plain English (if that's possible), you're saying that Provoke subtracts a substantial amount of hate from all other party members, and adds a small amount to the provoker. There is a laundry list of situations in which that theory fails, many of which have already been cited in this thread, and promptly ignored by you.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Extreme
If all [Provoke] did was add hate, then at some point your hate would become so high it would be impossible to bring it off you.

Yeah, because hate never decreases, right?

Tell you what... instead of mindlessly championing your import Provoke theory, try to actually explain away the flaws in it.

Right now, the "addition-by-subtraction" theory has way too many flaws to even be considered. The plain old Provoke-adds-hate theory, coupled with decreasing hate over time, explains your situation without all the flaws of your theory.