I re-rolled a Warlock (CRUD!)

[bigmak20]

Yep.  What I really want to say would be faar-nerfed... kinda like how the warlock class was faar-nerfed. I figured Warlock was going to get batted some .. but geesh .. changing the class?  No longer the single target DD class?  AE specialist against epics and raids?  Now there's something you want to do... NOT!  Do the devs even play this game? Terribly sorry... can't even comprehend how annoyed I'd be if I'd played my new main warlock to 50. Time to dust off my other Alt... the wizard.  Maybe this is what SOE wants?  Everyone plays a toon in every class so they can play whichever is least gimped that month. Just remember SOE... when some competition comes out we won't be playing alts we'll be playing the other vendor's game. <div></div>

[Cecil_Stri]

<DIV>Warlocks weren't that nerfed.... Matter of fact alot of pleased with the changes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They are about the same as wizards now </DIV> <DIV><BR>Warlocks were brought down alittle and wizards increased alittle.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Middle ground is better then what they normaly do</DIV>

[bigmak20]

The coming down the DPS chain a little doesn't bother me... the AE specific stuff does.  I haven't been able to raid much (been on a few dozen raids -- don't go out much since no group cures) with my Templar... but here's what is said in almost EVERY SINGLE RAID when there are multiple MoBs: "DON'T AE" So that leaves a sickening feeling in my stomach when the class I re-rolled to is suddenly an AE focused class.

[Aeva]

<P>perhaps you haven't looked at the current raid mob situation, where 4 out of every 5 group x4 raid mobs are Immune to cold and highly resistant to heat or in some cases vise versa. only 1 in 10 are immune/resist to poison.  unless they are revamping that I wouldn't be to quick to jump ship on your warlock alt.</P> <P>sad thing about playing FOTM is your garrenteed to be upset more often than not.</P> <DIV>haha, just noticed you retired your 50 templar due to lack of group cures. templars (at least on live) are the only healers to get ALL types of group cures, yes you have to pick them as class traits, but your the only ones that get them all.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Aevarr on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:07 PM</span>

[Tanit]

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote: "DON'T AE"<hr></blockquote>You should blame your raidleader for not making use of the warlocks awesome ae.</span><div></div>

[Dystr]

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:The coming down the DPS chain a little doesn't bother me... the AE specific stuff does.  I haven't been able to raid much (been on a few dozen raids -- don't go out much since no group cures) with my Templar... but here's what is said in almost EVERY SINGLE RAID when there are multiple MoBs: "DON'T AE" So that leaves a sickening feeling in my stomach when the class I re-rolled to is suddenly an AE focused class. <hr></blockquote> who in the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] is telling warlocks not to AE????????  warlocks' AE is incredibly uber now, and after the revamp it will be even more uber.  ffs, i am a mezzer, and i cannot imagine mezzing raid mobs when warlocks can burn them down with devastation.  so, either 1.  your raid leader is a complete freaking nimcumpoop or 2.  youre lying.  </span><div></div>

[Splatterpunk28]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dystrax wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>who in the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] is telling warlocks not to AE????????  warlocks' AE is incredibly uber now, and after the revamp it will be even more uber.  ffs, i am a mezzer, and i cannot imagine mezzing raid mobs when warlocks can burn them down with devastation.  <BR><BR>so, either 1.  your raid leader is a complete freaking nimcumpoop or 2.  youre lying.  <BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you have advice to raid leaders on how to keep the mobs on the MT and not the warlocks?  I know I could unload more dmg if this wasn't an issue for us.<BR>

[bigmak20]

note that my raid toon is a templar.. but the raid instructions more often then not incluide "Dont AE".  You're telling me that's bogus... and frankly that's good news.

[Bloodtoo]

There will always be people who jump from one flavour of the month to the next questing to always play the most powerful class in the game.  <div></div>

[SalBlu]

<P>The reason for "NO AOE" is specifically to prevent overaggro to the person who is doing those types of spells.  This allows the MT to more easily hold aggro, and expend less power when throwing taunts.</P> <P>For us, we generally have up to 3 or 4 Chanters in our raids, so we utilize them to GREAT success.  They arent there just to throw the glowing ring around us.</P>

[Max122]

I really am excited to do tremendous amounts of damage in ae.  We will still do quite well on single targets just have to cast more spells is all.  I get tired of people complaining about being ae based more than DD wise.  If ya dont like it go be a wizard and let us true warlocks enjoy the class and still show up tops if not near tops in almost every situation dps wise.   If ya know how to play it wont effect things alot just will give us amazing ae power and boy I am looking forward to it.

[SalBlu]

Thats a very good outlook Max =)

[StevaiB]

<DIV>I don't know, my guild never tells Warlocks to not AoE since warlocks are encounter based AoEs. For example, in Zek, our MT holds aggro on the mobs (99% of the time) with 4 warlocks doing 450+ dps each :smileysurprised:</DIV>

[Nazo]

Yup if there ever was an encounter designed for Warlocks Zek is it ! I am sure there will be more in future.

[SalBlu]

Mmm.. The Tremblar zone is DEFINITELY AOE friendly.  You have to burn down those mob groups fast.

[Sokolov]

<div></div><u><b>Live Server Spell Sequence - Optimized for Single Target (Compiled By Cine/ILEE)</b></u> CoE @ 2½ sec + 97 power CM ad3 appx 600 dmg @ 2½ sec + 113 power Dev appx 3000 dmg @ 3½ sec + 258 power ND ad3 appx 1700 dmg @ 2½ sec + 196 power - 137 power DD M1 appx 900 dmg @ 2½ sec + 139 power - 59 power HVN appx 800 dmg @ 2½ sec + 101 power IF appx 600 dmg @ 2½ sec + 93 power CM ad3 appx 600 dmg @ 2½ sec + 113 power HVN appx 800 dmg @ 2½ sec + 101 power DD M1 appx 900 dmg @ 2½ sec + 139 power - 59 power ND ad3 appx 1700 dmg @ 2½ sec + 196 power - 137 power HVN appx 800 dmg @ 2½ sec + 101 power <span> Total Damage: 12400 Time Elapsed: 31 sec Power Consumption: 1158   Power Regened: 5 (ticks) * (35+12+5+7+7) Actual Power Loss: 827<b> DPS (damage per second): 400 PPS (power used per second): 827/31 = 27 power used per sec </b><b> DPP (damage per power) = 15</b> </span><u><b>Test Server Spell Sequence - Optimized for Single Target (Compiled by Sokolov)</b></u> <span>CoE (Max Health -390, assumed mob at full) @ 2.5s + 111 power AoE (1500 dmg: Reverse damage shield for spells 500 dmg x3, assumed instant) 1.5s + 147 power CM (Debuff) @ 1.5s + 39 power DEV (3400 damage = 850 x 4) @ 4.5s + 343 power ND (1200 damage) @ 3.5s + 168 power - 57 power ToS (770 damage: 110 + 110x6, assumed instant) @ 1.5s + 64 power DP (925 damage: 325 + 120x5, assumed instant) @ 2.5s + 108 power SF (600 damage as per ILEE) @ 2.5s + 81 power IF (800 damage) @ 2.5s + 125 power VI (50 dmg + interrupt) @ .5s + 6 power ToS (770 damage: 110 + 110x6) @ 1.5s + 64 power AoE (1500 dmg: Reverse damage shield for spells 500 dmg x3, assumed instant) 1.5s + 147 power CM (Debuff) @ 1.5s + 39 power ND (1200 damage) @ 3.5s + 168 power - 57 power Total Damage: 13105 Time Elapsed: 31 Power Consumption: 1496 Power Regened: 5 (ticks) * (25+12+5+7+7) Actual Power Loss: 1224<b> DPS (damage per second): 422.7 PPS (power used per second): 1224/31 = 39.4 DPP (damage per power): 10.7</b> ~ DPS over 31s = 5.6% increase Power used = 40% increase DPP over 31s = 29% decrease ~ Let's not spout garbage about being an AE only class, eh? </span><span>~ (editted for formatting) </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:07 PM</span>

[MilkToa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Max122 wrote:<BR>I really am excited to do tremendous amounts of damage in ae.  We will still do quite well on single targets just have to cast more spells is all.  I get tired of people complaining about being ae based more than DD wise.  If ya dont like it go be a wizard and let us true warlocks enjoy the class and still show up tops if not near tops in almost every situation dps wise.   If ya know how to play it wont effect things alot just will give us amazing ae power and boy I am looking forward to it. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Lol, I guess I missed the meeting where you were elected keeper of the warlock faith. In fact, you may have chosen the wrong profession, ever consider inquisitor?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Jaelis]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN>~<BR><BR>DPS over 31s = 5.6% increase<BR>Power used = 40% increase<BR>DPP over 31s = 29% decrease<BR><BR>~<BR><BR>Let's not spout garbage about being an AE only class, eh?<BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN>~ </SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So....if I'm reading this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, to get a ~5% DPS increase on a single target, we have to burn through ~40% more power?  That doesn't seem like a terribly good trade-off to me.  Is the AE boost we're getting that good?</P><p>Message Edited by Jaelis on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:52 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Jaelis wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div><span>~DPS over 31s = 5.6% increasePower used = 40% increaseDPP over 31s = 29% decrease~Let's not spout garbage about being an AE only class, eh?</span><span>~ </span> <hr> </blockquote> <p>So....if I'm reading this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, to get a ~5% DPS increase on a single target, we have to burn through ~40% more power?  That doesn't seem like a terribly good trade-off to me.  Is the AE boost we're getting that good?</p><p>Message Edited by Jaelis on <span class="date_text">08-15-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:52 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> It's not really a "trade off."  We are being nerfed, yes, but what is being nerfed is power efficiency, NOT single target damage potential.  Also remember that the entire system is changing, mobs have less HP in the test version than they do on live.  Fighter DPS has been nerfed all to hell, and many many skills across the board have had numbers, power cost adjusted.  The only class I can think of that is being "upgraded" is Rangers. As for numbers, using the same power as Live servers now, a warlock can expect to do approx 9000 damage instead of 12000.  However, I believe (but am not sure) that this can accomplished with fewer casts of spells. AEs have similiar DPP efficiency (~11) on SINGLE target mobs, but are obviously more powerful against multiple targets.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:09 PM</span>

[MilkToa]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jaelis wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN>~<BR><BR>DPS over 31s = 5.6% increase<BR>Power used = 40% increase<BR>DPP over 31s = 29% decrease<BR><BR>~<BR><BR>Let's not spout garbage about being an AE only class, eh?<BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN>~ </SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So....if I'm reading this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, to get a ~5% DPS increase on a single target, we have to burn through ~40% more power?  That doesn't seem like a terribly good trade-off to me.  Is the AE boost we're getting that good?</P> <P>Message Edited by Jaelis on <SPAN class=date_text>08-15-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:52 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It's not really a "trade off."  We are being nerfed, yes, but what is being nerfed is power efficiency, NOT single target damage potential.  Also remember that the entire system is changing, mobs have less HP in the test version than they do on live.  Fighter DPS has been nerfed all to hell, and many many skills across the board have had numbers, power cost adjusted.  The only class I can think of that is being "upgraded" is Rangers.<BR><BR>As for numbers, using the same power as Live servers now, a warlock can expect to do approx 9000 damage instead of 12000.  However, I believe (but am not sure) that this can accomplished with fewer casts of spells.<BR><BR>AEs have similiar DPP efficiency (~11) on SINGLE target mobs, but are obviously more powerful against multiple targets.</SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>08-15-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:09 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I hate to tell you this but unless they've changed the resistances of mobs your damage calculations are way off. Currently, I use chaotic maelstrom and curse of  emptiness to debuff any mob of consequence. The current chaotic maelstrom at adept 3 debuffs for 1106 poison/disease and curse of emptiness at adept 1 debuffs for 607 disease/poision, you are replacing them with the new chaotic maelstrom that debuffs for 504 disease/poison; that's a 70% reduction in debuffing. This will have a huge impact on your damage output especially on raid level mobs, in fact, there are some mobs I just can't hit most of the time if they aren't fully debuffed. I wouldn't be surprised if this difference alone resulted in a 20% reduction in damage output.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>MilkToast wrote: <div><blockquote><span><blockquote><p>So....if I'm reading this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, to get a ~5% DPS increase on a single target, we have to burn through ~40% more power?  That doesn't seem like a terribly good trade-off to me.  Is the AE boost we're getting that good?</p> <p>Message Edited by Jaelis on <span class="date_text">08-15-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:52 PM</span></p> <hr> </blockquote>It's not really a "trade off."  We are being nerfed, yes, but what is being nerfed is power efficiency, NOT single target damage potential.  Also remember that the entire system is changing, mobs have less HP in the test version than they do on live.  Fighter DPS has been nerfed all to hell, and many many skills across the board have had numbers, power cost adjusted.  The only class I can think of that is being "upgraded" is Rangers.As for numbers, using the same power as Live servers now, a warlock can expect to do approx 9000 damage instead of 12000.  However, I believe (but am not sure) that this can accomplished with fewer casts of spells.AEs have similiar DPP efficiency (~11) on SINGLE target mobs, but are obviously more powerful against multiple targets.</span> <div></div> <p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">08-15-2005</span> <span class="time_text">02:09 PM</span> </p><hr> </blockquote>I hate to tell you this but unless they've changed the resistances of mobs your damage calculations are way off. Currently, I use chaotic maelstrom and curse of  emptiness to debuff any mob of consequence. The current chaotic maelstrom at adept 3 debuffs for 1106 poison/disease and curse of emptiness at adept 1 debuffs for 607 disease/poision, you are replacing them with the new chaotic maelstrom that debuffs for 504 disease/poison; that's a 70% reduction in debuffing. This will have a huge impact on your damage output especially on raid level mobs, in fact, there are some mobs I just can't hit most of the time if they aren't fully debuffed. I wouldn't be surprised if this difference alone resulted in a 20% reduction in damage output.</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>Yes, of course.  But resistance and mob HP changes are a gamewide systematic change and affects most classes similarily.  Warlocks are not the only class to lose debuffs. The numbers are provided as a theoritical potential DPS numbers.  No real warlock, live or test, is going to be able to chain all that without aggro and dying in any case.  Additionally, both Before and After numbers are calculated as tho nothing is resisted.  I am not going to go thru the exercise of attempting to determine mob's resistances in both live and test and work that into my equations.  Fact is we do not know what mob resistances there are, nor do we know the real effect of the "int vs target wis" argument.  Since I do not have enough information, I had to leave it out.  But yes, you are right, debuffs have also been nerfed.  It's meaning is, however, unclear at this time.  (Altho there has been no "outcry" of mobs' resisting spells too much that I've noticed.)</span><div></div>

[Splatterpunk28]

<P>I'm confused as to what the point in that write up is, as well.  The numbers are meaningless if taken out of the context of:</P> <P>-Resists.  We can't debuff as much and from what I'm hearing we're hitting towards the minimum number.</P> <P>-Power.  Like everyone else, spells cost more power.  And if everyone else is going out of power at the same time, this isn't going to affect that comparison.</P> <P>-Cast times.  Umm, they've increased -- this is especially noticeable on AoE spells when the longer the cast times, the less effective the spell will become (and may never even get to land.)</P> <P>Honestly, theoretical dps calculations mean absolutely nothing when comparing two different games and that's basically what this is.  The question is NOT what our dps is compared to now, it is what our dps compares to other classes, which will decide whether we are a desired class or not.  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Splatterpunk28 wrote:<p>I'm confused as to what the point in that write up is, as well.  The numbers are meaningless if taken out of the context of:</p> <p>-Resists.  We can't debuff as much and from what I'm hearing we're hitting towards the minimum number.</p> <p>-Power.  Like everyone else, spells cost more power.  And if everyone else is going out of power at the same time, this isn't going to affect that comparison.</p> <p>-Cast times.  Umm, they've increased -- this is especially noticeable on AoE spells when the longer the cast times, the less effective the spell will become (and may never even get to laend.)</p> <p>Honestly, theoretical dps calculations mean absolutely nothing when comparing two different games and that's basically what this is.  The question is NOT what our dps is compared to now, it is what our dps compares to other classes, which will decide whether we are a desired class or not.  </p> <hr></blockquote> The point was to debunk the idea that all we can do is AE.  The point is that potentially, single target is the same.  Other factors such as resists affect all classes and all encounter types, and as such would figure in a similiar manner even if the spells themselves were not changes.  If it is your opinion that theoritical DPS calculations mean nothing, then doesn't that mean "OMG WE AE ONLY NOW" based on glances at spells without even an attempt at DPS analysis mean even less? In economics we use the term ceteris paribus, meaning</span><font size="-1"></font><span> "other things being equal" to concentrate on the effects of a single variable in isolation of others.  In order to examine these numbers and build a useful model, we must, assume at the outset, that all other variables are going to be unchanged, or at least that they affect the pre and post models similiarily should they change. Once we've established the basic model, yes, we can add the other variables in.  Unfortunately, I would say we do not have enough info on all classes and mob resistances and related power costs to accurately add onto our model at this time.  If you disagree, please feel free to attempt it. ~ and yes, we are working on other DPS now =) edit: necros have theoritically parsed their single target damage to ~480 dps, btw, with a theoritical dpp of 12.2.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>08-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:26 PM</span>

[pharacyde]

Warlocks will still be the first in DPS no matter what. As soon as there is an AE encounter we are already number one with like 350-450dps. On single targets we get easily 200dps. Afther combat changes we are gonna do even more dps ... Since now a resist on nil distortion doesn't mean alot of dps loss ... The dps has been flatten out over a bigger range of spells and is not only dependent on devastation and nil distortion now. Which is a nice nice thing <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> People crying I have been nerfed are IMHO a bunch of whiners who should go wank their frustrations away ... and wait till they actualy had a taste of the combat changes. So far from people on test I didn't see much people complaining. Most of them actualy agree with some changes, disagree with some others ... Well isn't that the same as now, we all agree devastation, nil distortion are nice, and we all disagree with soul flay, nullmall ! So what's the difference ? Can't your wank brain handle the combat changes ? Yeah I know some have troubles reading changes and understand them .. I guess you are one of those wankers ... HF Complaining, as long as you are here complaining you aren't complaining on the live servers <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> SoE was smart to give a complain forum for some kids, at least they leave us alone on the live servers <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Oh yeah I realy don't know what huge changes you mean ... Devastation is our last spell AE, and our first lvl 20 spell is also AE ... Guess we are AE ownzors, but yeah that brain of yours only has place for one spell I guess ... Nil distortion ... I bet you go like this : Look daddy i hit the mob for 2k in one hit I am ubah ! Look I did it again !!! Yeah right [Removed for Content], now you will only show 1.4k to your daddy pitty for you ... Anyway, we got alot more spells that will be useable against epic mobs (which is nice) Before the combat changes it was all very limited to a few spells. Auro of emptiness, Deter will be usable. People will also use Soul Flay now. I mean you can play the donkey and only see what's bad and complain or you can remove the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] in front of your eyes and look at all the spells and see the good changes in it ... And the excuse my warlock is completely different is just a childish way of saying I dont understand the changes I need my daddy to help me ... So far the truth about whiners ... <div></div>

[anshar]

<P>One thing we need to consider on raid level mobs is the fact that now our debuffs stack with other people's castings of the same spell (if I understand correctly). While we may not be able to debuff 1k + with one casting, with another warlock, it evens out...with 2 more, the debuff potential is even greater. The only limit now is how many of one class will be on a raid...what will we have now...1 main tank group, 1 support group, and 2 warlock + support groups? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

[Dae]

While DoT damage from the same spell may stack I doubt that any debuffs of the same type will. We'll still need other classes with noxious debuffs to help out. That isn't going to help our AE dps much though unless I missed them giving AE noxious debuffs to anyone but us. This is just an assumption mind you. I'm basing it on the fact that they seem to be slowly but surely turning everything else in this game into its EQ1 counterpart <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. <div></div>

[Splatterpunk28]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>The point was to debunk the idea that all we can do is AE.  The point is that potentially, single target is the same.  Other factors such as resists affect all classes and all encounter types, and as such would figure in a similiar manner even if the spells themselves were not changes.  If it is your opinion that theoritical DPS calculations mean nothing, then doesn't that mean "OMG WE AE ONLY NOW" based on glances at spells without even an attempt at DPS analysis mean even less?<BR><BR></SPAN>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>08-15-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:26 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I never said, "OMG WE AE ONLY NOW".  I do not believe that and if a bunch of meaningless numbers can disprove to folks that believe that statement, well then I guess they will just take whatever is advertised to them as truth.  Neither are true.  Your numbers do not provide any basis that our single target dps is the same, as there are too many things not factored in that we do not even know between the current and future combat changes to even humor the idea.  But I've already stated this.</P> <P>If we want to compare the two different games (which they basically are), we would discover that while our theoretical single target dps is basically the same, our AE dps was increased significantly -- both consume much more power than the live system.  This is what is worrying people.  Plainly our AE was tweaked to be better, yet our single target was not.  Our level 50 class defining spell is AE; this should have clued folks in on release that we are potentially more AE centered than single target.  But these ideas move away from my point.</P> <P>My point was that it doesn't matter if our dps has increased or decreased, AE or single target if we cannot see the bigger picture.  The bigger picture is...what can other classes do dps wise in the same encounters?  If you want to make your case that we are still as viable for groups and raids in which the majority of the encounters are single target, why not put these numbers to the test against...say wizards?  Say...assassins?  That would be much more meaningful as it compares us to others in the same combat system.  Comparing anything between the two different combat systems is worthless. </P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Splatterpunk28 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <span> <blockquote>The point was to debunk the idea that all we can do is AE.  The point is that potentially, single target is the same.  Other factors such as resists affect all classes and all encounter types, and as such would figure in a similiar manner even if the spells themselves were not changes.  If it is your opinion that theoritical DPS calculations mean nothing, then doesn't that mean "OMG WE AE ONLY NOW" based on glances at spells without even an attempt at DPS analysis mean even less?Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">08-15-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:26 PM</span> <hr> </blockquote></span></blockquote> <p>I never said, "OMG WE AE ONLY NOW".  I do not believe that and if a bunch of meaningless numbers can disprove to folks that believe that statement, well then I guess they will just take whatever is advertised to them as truth.  Neither are true.  Your numbers do not provide any basis that our single target dps is the same, as there are too many things not factored in that we do not even know between the current and future combat changes to even humor the idea.  But I've already stated this.</p> <p>If we want to compare the two different games (which they basically are), we would discover that while our theoretical single target dps is basically the same, our AE dps was increased significantly -- both consume much more power than the live system.  This is what is worrying people.  Plainly our AE was tweaked to be better, yet our single target was not.  Our level 50 class defining spell is AE; this should have clued folks in on release that we are potentially more AE centered than single target.  But these ideas move away from my point.</p> <p>My point was that it doesn't matter if our dps has increased or decreased, AE or single target if we cannot see the bigger picture.  The bigger picture is...what can other classes do dps wise in the same encounters?  If you want to make your case that we are still as viable for groups and raids in which the majority of the encounters are single target, why not put these numbers to the test against...say wizards?  Say...assassins?  That would be much more meaningful as it compares us to others in the same combat system.  Comparing anything between the two different combat systems is worthless. </p><hr></blockquote> No, you didn't say that concerning AEs.  And I hope you didn't think I was implying you did. But the original poster more or less did, and it was to him I was addressing my original reply to, not you.   I wanted to alay his fears that we can no longer do single target damage. ~ I understand your point and even agree to some extent.  But that doesn't mean we can't do SOME kind of analysis.  If we took your approach in life we might as well not do anything because we can never see the effects our actions have due to the relatively chaotic nature of our universe.  But we make do with best information that we have, and we add to it when additional information is available. Technically you could say "maybe the mobs will be super resistant so we will do 0 damage" but that's hardly realistic.   What is realistic is to expect that mob resistances will be adjusted to match our debuffing ability.   Ther eis also no reason to believe that somehow the resistances will hurt warlocks more than another class "just because," rather, we should expect that ALL classes will suffer/benefit roughly equally on changes to mob resistances in general.   Thus if resistances are indeed higher, then it is higher for ALL classes, and even if we have been further nerfed on single target damage due to resistances, it is the same ACROSS THE BOARD.  This means that my original analysis would still hold, relatively speaking. On a different front, based on current information, we can see that Necro and Warlock DPP are quite similiar in single target encounters, with warlocks looking slightly behind, but having higher burst potential.  Warlock  DPP  can also be said to have higher potential when facing multiple mobs, offset  perhaps by the perpetual damage a pet can do. As for the level 50 Spell, DPP-wise, it is actually as efficient against a single target as most of our nukes, oddly enough.  It's when it gets to hit multiple targets that it the efficiency goes thru the roof. And yes, I agree that AEs were given a boost.  But where I disagree is the single target area.  It is true that power efficiency has been nerfed, but as you said, we cannot be certain what that really means, but besides that, we will have more viable options when faced with a single mob at any given time than on Live. And unfortunately for you, most of us are concerned with pre- and post-changes and manage to see its relevance.  At this point in time, I can tell you that power efficiency has been lowered for single target mobs, and that using AEs on a single target mob carries similiar power efficiencies.  When AEs are allowed to hit multiple targets, their efficiencies increases (recall that this is true on live servers as well, and it should be expected behavior).  We also note that when comparing pre- and post- change spells, we have more options in the single target department, capable of carrying similiar DPS numbers.  We also note that resistance debuffs have been decreased. </span><span>That is hardly meaningless. </span><span>Additionally, our power efficiency, though nerfed, is still comparable to a Necro's.  AE damage has been increased across the board for many classes, including warlock, berzerker, paladin and swashbuckler.  One calculation of necro DPS has been shown to be slightly higher on a single target. What is most important about showing that DPS on single target can be the same, is allow us to isolate the other variable of concern - power efficiency - and see how that is going to affect our class.  If it is discovered, for example, tat wizards now have higher DPS potential AND higher power efficiency, then we have issues. I agree, we do need more information to build a complete pictur,e but I prefer to take things one step at a time but remain constructive in the meantime by building models that can be added on should additional information come available. And as I said, we are currently attemping to get those numbers compiled now for other classes.  I've indicated as much in three different threads I am sure you've read by now =P</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

Seriously tho, do you really think the people like our OP here really looked at the spells?  Or just saw Devastation and Nil Distortion and heard some people talking in /ooc and now thinks what he does?  If anyone objectively looks at the new spell selection they will plainly see that some of our more powerful DDs have been scaled back, but that many of our other previously useless single target abilities have been upgraded to a usable form in addition to the AE increases.  The other remaining issue, is, of course, power efficiency.  But any warlock who is truthful will tell ya we owned in that department too, so downscaling of that to be in line with other mages is hardly unexpected <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Brig]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>Seriously tho, do you really think the people like our OP here really looked at the spells?  Or just saw Devastation and Nil Distortion and heard some people talking in /ooc and now thinks what he does?  If anyone objectively looks at the new spell selection they will plainly see that some of our more powerful DDs have been scaled back, but that many of our other previously useless single target abilities have been upgraded to a usable form in addition to the AE increases.  The other remaining issue, is, of course, power efficiency.  But any warlock who is truthful will tell ya we owned in that department too, so downscaling of that to be in line with other mages is hardly unexpected <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Actually Sokolov just loves this argument.  He's been having the same argument with me for a while about this.  His words = Scaling back vs. Nerf.  Since now it costs us over 700 power to cast devastation and 1 round of Nil absolution, I just cant share your optimistic rose colored view of this situation.  I have 290 int self buffed on live and over 3500 power.  In beta my "scaled back" form my int is 230 and my power pool is down to right around 2800.  So we got double whammied, less power pool and more expensive spells.  </P> <P>When you are casting 2 spells and it takes 1/4 of your power that is a significant issue, no matter how many people like the neat front loaded damage on multiple mobs.  I do share some of the views made about your numbers as you know I already disagree with them.  By the way we didn't own the power efficiency world, wizards do.  Their power dump is MUCH more effective than ours.  I wish you would go level and try out the spells that cause the problems so you would quit telling people how wonderful they are when you've never cast a single one of them.</P>