The thing about VE is that total VE decays at a rate of 60 units per second. This can be tested easily by a WAR/MNK. They will get 1800VE from Provoke, 300VE from Boost #1, and 300VE from Boost #2. The total time to loose hate to someone with <60CE will be 40 seconds instead of 30 seconds with just Provoke.

-Ryoii/Nonomii

As far as I can tell, whether a spell resist, has "no effect", or lands - the enmity generated will be the same.

The only exception we've found to this is Bind - it seems to have some type of hate reset when "Bind effect wears".

We wouldn't be going after the "simplified model" for damage/cures; we would be going for the exact/actual calculation in this case since we have the numbers for just about everything else.

Our goal is going to be figuring everything out except the following 4 things first...

1) Damage you deal to an enemy
2) Damage you take from an enemy
3) HP you cure using cure 1-4 (-ga)
4) Distance loss

Those 4 things are probably the most complicated at the moment. There are some other groups working on these but Ashi and I probably won't post anything on that ourselves until we figure the rest of the 'basics' out. We already figured out most everything, just shoring up the spells and stuff.

As far as helping, you would need a 3 character team to do any sort of legit testing. The new information is a little more difficult to scheme, but we could definitely use help figuring out the spell CE and VE values. This is very simple to do (outlined in part3 and part4).

Best thing anyone could do to help us out right now is to pick a spell or ability not on this current list and find it's "CE" value - most of them will be 1 anyways. This way I can get it on the list. There are 360 non-damage/cure spells in the game right now and I've only gotten about 1/6th of those listed.

I'm positive aoe buffs generate less enmity but generate enmity per person they hit. This was very apparent when a bard would try to mazurka tank in a 3 man party vs a 6 man party. You can see that the aoe sleepga generate less emnity than the single target versions.

I just woke up, I'll try to get some people for testing later.

p.s. awesome tests!

Passive aggro and linking shouldn't generate any hate, since you're not actually on the mob's enmity list. It wouldn't hurt to check, but it's very doubtful that they do.

--Doval

From the notes written at the top of the table -

* Cumulative and Volatile Enmity values for ally target actions represent values for 1 target hit
- Multiply values given by number of players hit to calculate total CE and VE values
- Certain actions are single target only, but can be made multi-target by use of "Diffusion" JA

So yea the 300 VE number is for 1 player only. If you had a full 6 player party it would be 300x6=1800 = same as voke.

This is probably a troll comment, but I'm going to respond in case someone comes back to read the comments awhile from now and thinks I messed something up.

Invisible is not even listed right now. There is no way you could possibly make a comparison between Invisible and PLD 2hr on this table right now.

On a side note, if you used PLD 2hr, then waited 2 minutes, then had someone else use Invisible on the hate list already, yes Invisible would pull hate.

I believe part of the reason many blue mage spells seem to pull alot of hate is because many of them are multi strike, so not only does the mob take damage from each strike, they get a small amount of enmity from each one as well, similar to a paladin using vorpal blade over savage blade, more enmity becaue of more hits, and blue mage can tank using just it's damage spells

It would only give you that much CE and VE if you used Sentinel after pulling. If you use Sentinel before, of course the mob will generate no CE or VE to you because you haven't even been noticed.

The answer is it depends (obviously). There are 4 common tanking styles that people generally use -

1) DD Tank
2) VE Tank
3) CE Tank
4) TE Tank

DD tank refers to anything that uses damage as its primary source of hate. Most comment example of this is a merit party or say MNK tanking Salvage.

VE tank refers to the old school PLD/WAR. You're not doing damage, but you're constantly spiking VE using things like Flash and Provoke. Obviously this is not too commonly seen in endgame nowadays.

CE tank is anything that tries to cap CE at 10000 and maintain it; but cannot cap VE. RDM/NIN accomplishes this the easiest with all the high CE moves it has. I would say in true endgame, you'll want to do better than this.

TE tank will cap both CE and VE. VE is more difficult to cap and requires a constant spamming of high VE moves. CE just generally means you're not getting hit. RDM/NIN, PLD/NIN, and NIN/DRK can all reach this point without much issue if well played. PLD/NIN probably has the most difficult time doing this of the 3, but it is still generally the most stout tank.

As far as what is a good tank, if you're going for a perfect scenario on a wyrm, you want to TE cap. Doing this makes it impossible for anyone in the alliance to get hate off you unless they too are able to hit the TE cap (requires some really nasty DDs to do this). This is the basis behind how groups do Tiamat fights and spam the shit out of it for an hour and have no hate switches.

The key to turning your tank from something that caps only CE to one that caps VE as well is to break the VE decay rate of -60VE a sec (3600 a minute). Doing so means you are having a net gain of VE and you will eventually cap. NIN/DRK has the easist time doing this of the big 3. RDM/NIN does pretty well on this as well IF they spam blind (which many do not).

What are you basing those bar graphs on? Since you're coming up with a rough quantity for each bar, you would have to say how you were obtaining those numbers. Without that, you can't even say if it's inaccurate or accurate.

i not trying to show which tank is "better" :/ i trying to show people how easy it is for a particular tank to build CE and VE

I personally did not coin the phrases for CE, VE, and TE. I used the naming convention which is now popularized based on a translation of a well-known article in a JP magazine by Elmer the Pointy on BG forums.

The reasoning for this was to not force any more terminology on others. These names were best in my opinion since their terms were being thrown around on BG already, and were DIRECT translations from the JP magazine, which had already popularized those terms in the JP community. I just felt it made more sense to stick with it, especially, since the table is now offered in English and Japanese.

If you want to see the original coining of the names, it would be the JP names for them. Whether or not they are the best names is certainly up for debate, but as you mentioned, changing them now would be pretty difficult.

Basically, was not my call! I just went with what was being used. I personally am fine with the naming though.