BST Update Controversy

Midterms, midterms, and more midterms. I have been dealing with a hectic schedule as of late, but with the new BST update around the corner, I am shocked at how negative the community reaction has been.









Moreover, many players believe "Ready" will damage BST PT and solo aspects, and their main concerns seem to be:

a) "Ready" will replace "Sic" for jug pets, limiting the WSs they can use at 100 TP.
b) The charge system, at one charge per two minutes, is too costly.
c) Good WSs should not require a full six minutes to use.

All three concerns seem rather unfounded. Even if jug pets had a smaller WS subset, I would much rather choose the WS than have one chosen at random. Using Funguars as an example, limiting the 100 TP choices to "Frog Kick" and "Spore" lets you spam WSs freely instead of worrying whether the next WS will be a breath/AoE move.

On the other two factors, too many BSTs feel that three random WSs is better than at least one guaranteed WS. Unfortunately for them, not all WSs have an equal chance of occurring, and as an experiment, try summoning an Amigo Sabotender and document how often it uses "1000 Needles" (my average is about once per three jugs).

Even if the probability of performing a WS was inversely proportional to the total number of WSs, in a six-minute interval, pets with 4+ moves would average a 3/n* (where n is an integer ≥ 4 equal to the total number of WSs) chance of using that WS under "Sic" compared to 1.0 chance under "Ready." Since most BSTs use Crabs or Funguars (pets with 4+ WSs) given the cost of other jugs, "Ready" becomes much more beneficial to the average BST.

In conclusion, let us wait until after the update to blame the developers for poor decision making. There is always time to sic angry pets on them afterward.

*2010 EDIT: The probability above is incorrect. Over a six-minute interval, the probability of seeing a particular WS (at least once) with a 1/n chance of occurring per "Sic" is 1 - [n - 1/n]^3 (for n>1). As such, "Ready" would have be more effective than "Sic" for any n≥2.

n = 1; "Sic" Probability = 100% [P = 1/n; 3 uses]
n = 2; "Sic" Probability = 87.5%
n = 3; "Sic" Probability = 70.3%
n = 4; "Sic" Probability = 57.8%

n = 1; "Ready" Probability = 100% [1 - 3 uses depending on WS]
n = 2; "Ready" Probability = 100% [1 - 3 uses depending on WS]
n = 3; "Ready" Probability = 100% [1 - 3 uses depending on WS]
n = 4; "Ready" Probability = 100% [1 - 3 uses depending on WS]

Pet: Defense Bonus

Today's post summarizes my Beast Bazubands testing and attempts to answer the following questions:

a) Is Pet: Defense Bonus equal to Pet: DEF+10?
b) What does the Augments "Call Beast" effect do?
c) Are there any hidden effects from using the gloves?


Experiment#1: Comparing Pet: Defense effects

To form a basis for testing, I decided to pit a level 68 Wajaom Tiger (from the Wajaom Woodlands) against level 65 (72 exp) Lesser Colibris and obtained the following data:

Damage taken without items: 53-85
Damage taken with Pallas's Shield: 46-79
Damage taken with Beast Bazubands: 47-81

Notice that the shield and gloves provide a remarkably similar effect for my test Tiger; however, if a Lesser Colibri has 253 DEF at level 65, then increasing the Tiger's defense by 5% could equate to adding just over 10 DEF.

In order to differentiate between a +10 and +5% DEF bonus, I decided to test for differences using the level 1 (or -1) Rabbits outside San d'Oria. Since low-level Rabbits should have an extremely low Defense, increasing the value by 5 percent should be negligible whereas increasing it by 10 should be more profound.











While this table is not an exhaustive proof by any means, there is almost no way a +5% Defense increase on a level 1 monster could be the same as DEF+10.

Conclusion: The "Defense Bonus" should be DEF +10, similar to giving a pet the initial "Defense Bonus" trait.


Experiment#2: Testing the Augments "Call Beast" effect

Assuming the Augments "Call Beast" effect was similar for both the Monster Gloves and Beast Bazubands, I needed some way to determine a jug pet's level. To do so, I brought some Funguar Familiars to the Boyahda Tree and noted the total damage they took from a parser:



















Using ratios, I then calculated each Funguar's approximate HP, but I soon discovered a wide range of values. To better approximate the values, I decided to attack targets that could not damage my Funguars as much, and by attacking Ahriman, I could also determine whether my pets spawned at level 75.






*Indicates the same jug pet

As long as I did not include data where pets took DoT damage, I ended up with three distinct HP values to differentiate my Funguars with:

Lvl 73 (around 3030 HP).
Lvl 74 (around 3080 HP).
Lvl 75 (around 3130 HP).

Using the data above as a basis, I tested my Beast Bazubands in Besieged and found:











Conclusion: With the gloves, my Funguars were spawning 0-1 levels under the cap instead of the usual 0-2, so I believe the Beast Bazubands provide a similar effect to those found in the Monster Gloves.


Experiment#3: Revisiting the Pallas's Shield














Seven months ago, I decided to track down a Hocho for my Cooking mule, and ultimately, I was unsuccessful. However, while I was in the Temple of Uggalepih, I decided to bring Lia and Snippy along, and I might have had ulterior motives for bringing Lia.














Motives such as snapping fan-service photos before Sozu Sarberry popped. If you happen to know Sozu well, then you know just how awful its 2hr can get, and supposedly, even fire-resist gear does not help any because "Mijin Gakure" deals non-Elemental magic damage. As such, I equipped as many Damage/Magic Damage Taken items that I could find, hoping that my pet could trigger Sozu's 2hr from afar.

Sometimes it worked:




Sometimes it did not:





But you might have noticed something strange.








And I am not referring to how I replaced Snippy with Funguar Familiars.

In all the pictures above, my pets downright resisted "Mijin Gakure" whereas my NPC and I took a lot more damage on average. While there has been a picture of Pallas's shield reducing Kirin's "Astral Flow" to zero, it seems that the shield also reduces non-Elemental magic damage as well!

Conclusion: While inconclusive, the testing suggests that the Pallas's Shield also reduces magic damage to some degree.