Is the main hand proc nerf going to effect us too?

[Kizee]

<DIV>I was reading that CoB was effected on the dirge boards and started to get me thinking about all our "proc heals".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They are really gonna need to boost us up healing wise if our effectivness just got cut in half.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can anybody confirm?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wouldn't pass it by SOE to throw us a bone with the other 2 spells they fixed this patch then bend us over for a nerf too. Didn't they do that last patch with a few spells too? :smileyindifferent:</DIV>

[OlaeviaTraisharan]

<DIV>Hell I hope not <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My T5 weapon proc nukes for more than my T6 smite <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Lostboy25]

What?

[Viane]

I can't say for sure as I haven't tested it myself, but from the wording it appears that GoC will  now proc 50% less on scout classes.  Anyone tested this yet?

[Kizee]

<DIV><EM>- Poisons (<STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>as well as other applied effects that have a chance to proc on a successful attack</FONT></STRONG>) now only trigger upon successful attacks made with the weapon in the primary hand. Note: Weapons with an inherent damage proc (like all crafted imbued weapons) are unaffected and will continue to proc regardless of which hand they are equipped in.</EM></DIV> <P> </P> <P>This isn't a scout only issue...its everybody.</P> <P>I hope what I bolded and colored doesn't mean that it will effect templar heal procs but I am pretty sure it does. That is a major nerf to us and would expect them to bring our healing up to par with the other classes again or exempt us from that change.</P> <P> </P> <DIV><EM><BR></EM></DIV>

[Wossname]

I sincerely hope this won't affect proc rates on the Mark line and GoC but it reads like it does. Mark of Kings Adept3 is pitiful, it heals far less than a Lambent imbued BP. I've practically stopped using it except when I need a Divine debuff. <div></div>

[Lostboy25]

Gotcha!  I have a hard enough time remembering the different acronyms for the Templar spells let alone other classes :p.

[Sassyone]

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPRORPIATE CONTENT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:18 PM</span>

[Timaarit]

Yes it will affect us too. <div></div>

[Viane]

Great! I was so hoping for another SoE nerf for Christmas!

[Andu]

<P>Sheer idiocy. Why do they make changes like this <U>without explaining the reasoning behind it</U>. If it's to slow damage then surely heal procs should be exempt. </P> <P>Hell, if they told me it's to reduce the number of on screen graphics effects I would be less annoyed because at least there would be a reason.</P> <P>As it is, they've nerfed us again without any explanation and seemingly without any logic or thought. Muppets.</P>

[Kizee]

<DIV>I thought there would be more of a stink about this by now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> I guess it is true that there arn't many of templars left playing. :smileysad:</DIV>

[Timaarit]

Nah, I think the silent ones are just the ones that would be happy even if our heals were halved yet again. <div></div>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <DIV>I thought there would be more of a stink about this by now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> I guess it is true that there arn't many of templars left playing. :smileysad:</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I'm not happy about it myself but what exactly do you think we should do?  We've already got like 3 threads complaining about it.   </P> <P>Isn't there a penalty for hitting with offhand weapons or is that residual WoW in my head?</P>

[Hakthaf]

Anyone else find it funny that like 2 patches ago they increased proc rate on dual wield weapons and now they are making it much much less than before. *Applauds SoE and their inability to make up their minds*

[DmZB]

Please explain what you are talking about.  Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars.

[MadisonPark]

<BR> <DIV>Does anyone remember when they nerfed GoC in the first place? If they increase it again, it will only cause people to gripe that it is too powerful, and possibly just have it  nerfed again. Why don't we wait until the changes actually go into effect before we start crying that the world is ending and the sky is falling. Take the time to parse the amount of healing it does now, then parse the amount of healing it does after. Perhaps the difference will be minimal. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone claims that our "lotto" heals can't be counted as a "real" heal nor that they can be relied on. If this is the case, why is the change such a cause for people to have an aneurysm sub class wide.  If they are reliable and efficent part of our healing arsenal, why are people crying that we're decent at best healers?</DIV>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MadisonPark wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>Does anyone remember when they nerfed GoC in the first place? If they increase it again, it will only cause people to gripe that it is too powerful, and possibly just have it  nerfed again. Why don't we wait until the changes actually go into effect before we start crying that the world is ending and the sky is falling. Take the time to parse the amount of healing it does now, then parse the amount of healing it does after. Perhaps the difference will be minimal. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone claims that our "lotto" heals can't be counted as a "real" heal nor that they can be relied on. If this is the case, why is the change such a cause for people to have an aneurysm sub class wide.  If they are reliable and efficent part of our healing arsenal, why are people crying that we're decent at best healers?</DIV> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You raise a good point about the GoC proc.  I think this is a nice spell, and while you wouldn't want to count on it in a pinch, it can save lives by providing a baseline of background healing, and this baseline may have just been significantly reduced.  I hope that if GoC is less effective, it was merely an oversight that will be corrected.  I'll wait to judge how big of a deal this is.</P> <P>As far as the "other" proc heal, the Mark line, the healing amount on this spell was already paltry, even at existing proc rates.  They should be improving the spell, not nerfing it.  Fortunately, in a strange way, it helps that the healing on this spell was already trivial. . . losing half of it doesn't hurt that much.  With GoC it might hurt.</P> <P>They apparently are just trying to remove the dual-wield advantage on all proc effects.  I can live with this, but I would at least like the spells that are affected to be improved enough so that, on average, they are at least as good as they were before.  This would mean that the spells are better than pre-LU18 on non-dual-wielders and worse on dual-wielders.  I mean, it's not like pre-LU18 GoC or Mark are game-breaking in their healing potential.</P> <P>Alephin</P>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hakthaf wrote:<BR> Anyone else find it funny that like 2 patches ago they increased proc rate on dual wield weapons and now they are making it much much less than before. *Applauds SoE and their inability to make up their minds*<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>2 LU's ago they were concerned with weapons with proc effects and weapons in the secondary slot weapons being less useful than they wanted.   What is your point?</DIV>

[Whizbang]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DmZBaT wrote:<BR>Please explain what you are talking about.  <STRONG>Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit</STRONG>, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I was thinking the same thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/shrug</DIV>

[Kizee]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MadisonPark wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV> Why don't we wait until the changes actually go into effect before we start crying that the world is ending and the sky is falling. Take the time to parse the amount of healing it does now, then parse the amount of healing it does after. Perhaps the difference will be minimal. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Except it went live already. :p<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> JubatheMighty wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DmZBaT wrote:<BR>Please explain what you are talking about.  <STRONG>Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit</STRONG>, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I was thinking the same thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/shrug</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Uh...not talking about reactive heals. We are talking about the "lotto" heals.<BR>

[Aleph]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> JubatheMighty wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DmZBaT wrote:<BR>Please explain what you are talking about.  <STRONG>Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit</STRONG>, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I was thinking the same thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/shrug</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The GoC and Mark spells proc when an ally successfully attacks a target.  Mark of Pawns is placed on a mob, while GoC is placed on an ally.  It's certainly plausible that the Mark line will be unaffected by the change, now that I think about it, because it is a debuff to the mob.  Glory of Combat, though, I'm not sure about.  Damage procs from friendly buffs only go off when the target is hit too, I believe, but they apparently depend on whether the weapon was in main or off hand now.  GoC is likely the same way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess I'll just wait and see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>DmZBaT wrote:Please explain what you are talking about.  Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yes, but if the target is hit with off-hand weapon, there will no longer be a chance for a proc.</span><div></div>

[MadisonPark]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DmZBaT wrote:<BR>Please explain what you are talking about.  Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>People aren't refering to our reactive heals when asking wether or not it will "effect us". Our reactive heals and the Involuntary line will of course be untouched, however our Mark line and Glory of Combat, which are triggered by us or our friend hitting the mob will be affected. Now the issue is more so exactly how large the effect is.   </P> <P>Although, to say that we have 'yet another nerf" is quite a large overstatement, as A) one can not keep themselves or anyone else healed with our procs alone as it is currently and B) It affects all classes with procs /dual weilding classes.</P> <P><BR></P>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote>MadisonPark wrote:<p>Although, to say that we have 'yet another nerf" is quite a large overstatement, as A) one can not keep themselves or anyone else healed with our procs alone as it is currently and B) It affects all classes with procs /dual weilding classes.</p><div></div><hr></blockquote>Yes. But here is the thing. Templars are already the stepsons of priest class. This is a direct neft to our heals which are already below average. So 'yet another nerf' is definately true.</span><div></div>

[MadisonPark]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>MadisonPark wrote: <P>Although, to say that we have 'yet another nerf" is quite a large overstatement, as A) one can not keep themselves or anyone else healed with our procs alone as it is currently and B) It affects all classes with procs /dual weilding classes.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. But here is the thing. Templars are already the stepsons of priest class. This is a direct neft to our heals which are already below average. So 'yet another nerf' is definately true.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Redheaded step children or not, calling it a nerf to us is over reacting and quite a bit paranoid. This was not directed at us.

[Whizbang]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alephin wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> JubatheMighty wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DmZBaT wrote:<BR>Please explain what you are talking about.  <STRONG>Our reactive heals proc when our target is hit</STRONG>, and have nothing to do with whether he is attacking duel wield or offhand, or sitting on the ground.  I dont understand how this affects templars. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I was thinking the same thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/shrug</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The GoC and Mark spells proc when an ally successfully attacks a target.  Mark of Pawns is placed on a mob, while GoC is placed on an ally.  It's certainly plausible that the Mark line will be unaffected by the change, now that I think about it, because it is a debuff to the mob.  Glory of Combat, though, I'm not sure about.  Damage procs from friendly buffs only go off when the target is hit too, I believe, but they apparently depend on whether the weapon was in main or off hand now.  GoC is likely the same way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess I'll just wait and see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Alephin</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ah.  My apology then.  I guess my reading comprehension is rather low today.  Too much work and not enough holiday vacation. 

[Lostboy25]

<DIV>Before the doomsayers jump all over me I just want to clarify that yes, I do think any loss to our abilities sucks :p</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That being said however, you need to look at this realistically.  This spell effectively doubled the chance of getting a proc heal to go off due to dual wield.  Maybe not exactly double, but you get the idea.  So we we're already getting twice as much of a chance of the proc going off as the spell intended.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now however, it has the same chance of going off on any class whether or not they're able to dual wield.  Which I would assume was the original intent of the spell.  It's still better to put on your group members with faster attack speeds though, as more attacks = more chances for it to go off.  I think saying omgzorz!  Our effectiveness has been cut in half nooooo!  Is a little overreactive no?</DIV>

[Gobbwin]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MadisonPark wrote:<BR><BR>Redheaded step children or not, calling it a nerf to us is over reacting and quite a bit paranoid. This was not directed at us. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>While it may not have been directed at us, it does inadvertently affect us.  If the mark line originally had a 5% (can't remember the exact % at the moment) chance to heal whenever the targeted mob was sucessfully struck by a melee attack (note that it never specified 2h, dw, 1h, primary, secondary, etc), then making it so that procs are only caused by the weapon in the primary hand will reduce the spell's affectiveness.  This is the same for GoC.  Now while neither of these are game breaking, it does further reduce our healing capabilities, if even slightly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do agree that saying that it will affect their affectiveness by half is an overstatement, it is unarguable that their affectiveness WILL be reduced.  </DIV><p>Message Edited by Gobbwin on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:32 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

Couple things. First, for those who are unaware, this occured on the November 9th, 2005 update: <ul> <li><font color="#ffcc00"><b>*** Items ***</b></font> - Dual-wield weapons now do additional damage, since they miss more auto-attack chances when using spells and combat arts. They also have a better chance to trigger their proc effects.</li> </ul> Basically,it seems to be part of ongoing changes to normalize procs between DWs vs other weapon types.  Contrary to what was posted a couple posts back, ignoring Combat Arts, weapons are designed to proc at roughly the same rate no matter the weapon speed.  Faster weapons proc less often per hit while hitting more, slower weapons have a better chance per hit while hitting less. So since DW procs were previously increased, this latest change is tuning them back down.  This "nerf" affects procs with higher % to go off more so than lower %, thus, it affects poisons primarily, which has a 25% rate to go off. <div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote:Redheaded step children or not, calling it a nerf to us is over reacting and quite a bit paranoid. This was not directed at us. <div></div><hr></blockquote>You mean it was directed not only us. Or do you call it sloppy work and not thoroughly though before hand? No, I'd say they knew what they were doing and how it would affect templars. So it was a nerf even if it did affect others too.</span><div></div>

[MadisonPark]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MadisonPark wrote:<BR>Redheaded step children or not, calling it a nerf to us is over reacting and quite a bit paranoid. This was not directed at us. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You mean it was directed not only us. Or do you call it sloppy work and not thoroughly though before hand? No, I'd say they knew what they were doing and how it would affect templars. So it was a nerf even if it did affect others too.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>No, Im sayign it barely effects us, and we don't even know exactly how detrimental it will be yet. This affects 2 of our entire line up of spells. I use Glory of Combat on at best 2 group members, and I never rely on it.</DIV> <DIV><BR>You're saying that someone one in a big room was sitting around a table and said "We must make it so that procs will no longer go off on the offhand weapon of dual wields, hence finally beable to strike at templars once again. Muahahahahaha!" ? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is highly unlikely. If that were the case they would have patched "Glory of Combat proc precentage will no longer take the off hand weapon of dual wields into account."</DIV>

[Lostboy25]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>Couple things.<BR><BR>First, for those who are unaware, this occured on the November 9th, 2005 update:<BR><BR> <UL> <LI><FONT color=#ffcc00><B>*** Items ***</B></FONT><BR><BR>- Dual-wield weapons now do additional damage, since they miss more auto-attack chances when using spells and combat arts. They also have a better chance to trigger their proc effects.</LI></UL>Basically,it seems to be part of ongoing changes to normalize procs between DWs vs other weapon types.  Contrary to what was posted a couple posts back, ignoring Combat Arts, weapons are designed to proc at roughly the same rate no matter the weapon speed.  Faster weapons proc less often per hit while hitting more, slower weapons have a better chance per hit while hitting less.<BR><BR>So since DW procs were previously increased, this latest change is tuning them back down.  This "nerf" affects procs with higher % to go off more so than lower %, thus, it affects poisons primarily, which has a 25% rate to go off.<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That's fine and dandy, except GoC isn't a weapon proc (ie. imbued into the weapon or whatnot) it's a spell proc.  GoC has an inherent percent chance of going off on a successful attack across the board as far as I'm aware (5% last I checked mine, may be different now).  Now unless they used the same formula in the spell coding for different speed weapons as they used in an actual weapon proc, then I fail to see how that change on Nov. 9th affects our spell?</P></DIV>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Lostboy25 wrote:<div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote:Couple things.First, for those who are unaware, this occured on the November 9th, 2005 update: <ul> <li><font color="#ffcc00"><b>*** Items ***</b></font>- Dual-wield weapons now do additional damage, since they miss more auto-attack chances when using spells and combat arts. They also have a better chance to trigger their proc effects.</li></ul>Basically,it seems to be part of ongoing changes to normalize procs between DWs vs other weapon types.  Contrary to what was posted a couple posts back, ignoring Combat Arts, weapons are designed to proc at roughly the same rate no matter the weapon speed.  Faster weapons proc less often per hit while hitting more, slower weapons have a better chance per hit while hitting less.So since DW procs were previously increased, this latest change is tuning them back down.  This "nerf" affects procs with higher % to go off more so than lower %, thus, it affects poisons primarily, which has a 25% rate to go off. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>That's fine and dandy, except GoC isn't a weapon proc (ie. imbued into the weapon or whatnot) it's a spell proc.  GoC has an inherent percent chance of going off on a successful attack across the board as far as I'm aware (5% last I checked mine, may be different now).  Now unless they used the same formula in the spell coding for different speed weapons as they used in an actual weapon proc, then I fail to see how that change on Nov. 9th affects our spell?</p></div><hr></blockquote>Spell-based procs function in the exact same way - normalized over 3 seconds.  The source of the proc does not affect the rate at which it procs - which is calculated based on weapon speed against the % of the proc. Also note that poison is similiar to a spell-based proc, as it is essentially "casting" a spell from a "potion" which gives you a buff.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:54 AM</span>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>MadisonPark wrote: <div>No, Im sayign it barely effects us, and we don't even know exactly how detrimental it will be yet. This affects 2 of our entire line up of spells. I use Glory of Combat on at best 2 group members, and I never rely on it.</div> <div>You're saying that someone one in a big room was sitting around a table and said "We must make it so that procs will no longer go off on the offhand weapon of dual wields, hence finally beable to strike at templars once again. Muahahahahaha!" ? </div> <div> </div> <div>This is highly unlikely. If that were the case they would have patched "Glory of Combat proc precentage will no longer take the off hand weapon of dual wields into account."</div><hr></blockquote>Well here is an equation for how much it will affect me: When DW procced on both hands, my DW target got on average 2 procs per minute from auto attack and up to 1 from CA's. Now they will get one proc from autoattack and up to one from CA's. That is 33% reduction and means about 400 health per minute. My full capacity to heal (and prevent damage) is roughly 40k per minute, so this means I my heals lost about 2% ( I use[d] this on 2 DW's) of their power.</span><div></div>

[Lostboy25]

<DIV> <HR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Spell-based procs function in the exact same way - normalized over 3 seconds.  The source of the proc does not affect the rate at which it procs - which is calculated based on weapon speed against the % of the proc.<BR><BR>Also note that poison is similiar to a spell-based proc, as it is essentially "casting" a spell from a "potion" which gives you a buff.</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>12-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:54 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So in other words, if the weapon speed is faster it procs the same percentage-wise to if the weapon is slower.  So it's still going off 5% (depending on tier of GoC I think) of the time regardless of weapon speed as the spell description states.  Thusly making this a fix rather than a nerf, as now dual wielders don't have double the chances of a proc going off?  Don't get me wrong, I hate seeing us lose anything as much as the next person.  But I also like to call an orange an orange, and not freekin orange from Hades omg!</DIV>

[SenorPhrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lostboy25 wrote:<BR> <DIV> <HR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>Spell-based procs function in the exact same way - normalized over 3 seconds.  The source of the proc does not affect the rate at which it procs - which is calculated based on weapon speed against the % of the proc.<BR><BR>Also note that poison is similiar to a spell-based proc, as it is essentially "casting" a spell from a "potion" which gives you a buff.</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>12-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:54 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So in other words, if the weapon speed is faster it procs the same percentage-wise to if the weapon is slower.  So it's still going off 5% (depending on tier of GoC I think) of the time regardless of weapon speed as the spell description states.  Thusly making this a fix rather than a nerf, as now dual wielders don't have double the chances of a proc going off?  Don't get me wrong, I hate seeing us lose anything as much as the next person.  But I also like to call an orange an orange, and not freekin orange from Hades omg!</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Glad somebody said this.  I didn't want to be called part of the "We're fine team" again.</P> <P>If dual wield had more of a chance than single wield to proc an ability then the spell descriptions would be grossly inaccurate or based on your target.   The dual wielding Monk I normally cast this on would get more procs than the single wielding Shadowknight I also use it on.</P>

[Jukk]

I actually thought things would get better, since it seems the devs actually read what we bring up.The lotto-heals have never been all that great, as we all know...having several controlled heals are much better.As templars have got nerfed to such a great extent...I thought things may be looked upon (especially the dps bit).Instead...templars get yet another hit with the nerf-bat in the healing department...this time to the lotto-heals of all...lol.Increadible.<div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Lostboy25 wrote:<div> <hr> <blockquote><span> <blockquote>Spell-based procs function in the exact same way - normalized over 3 seconds.  The source of the proc does not affect the rate at which it procs - which is calculated based on weapon speed against the % of the proc.Also note that poison is similiar to a spell-based proc, as it is essentially "casting" a spell from a "potion" which gives you a buff.</blockquote> <p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">12-21-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:54 AM</span> </p><hr> </span></blockquote>So in other words, if the weapon speed is faster it procs the same percentage-wise to if the weapon is slower.  So it's still going off 5% (depending on tier of GoC I think) of the time regardless of weapon speed as the spell description states.  Thusly making this a fix rather than a nerf, as now dual wielders don't have double the chances of a proc going off?  Don't get me wrong, I hate seeing us lose anything as much as the next person.  But I also like to call an orange an orange, and not freekin orange from Hades omg!</div><hr></blockquote>Sorta.  I am of the opinion this is a nerf to DWs.  Awhile back there was much debate for Zerkers as to whether one should DW or use 2H.  The conclusion at the end seemed to be that, ignoring CAs, DWs procs slightly less often than 2H.  The gap widens noticeably when CAs are added.  The Nov 9th change made DW the winner in autoattack procs based on limited personal parsing, but I did not thoroughly test it.  Suffice to say DW DPS was significantly boosted with the change, making DW a viable, if not preferable choice. Thus, except for the time after November 9th and before LU18, there is <b>no reason</b> you would put Glory of Combat or other procs on a DW user.  You want it on the player that uses a slower weapon, because assuming equal CA use, the slower weapon will proc more often.  (Note that CAs calculates its proc rate off the weapon speed even tho it is technically an additional attack.  </span><span>Multiple attacks CAs are particularly potent in this regard</span><span>, if you've ever seen a ranger use his 3-arrow attack you know what I mean, as every shot is calculated against the high bow delay, triggering an inordinate amount of procs.) That is why I conclude this nerf barely affects classes which do not inherently dual wield themselves.</span><div></div>

[bigmak20]

(mandatory disclaimer:  disregard everything I write since I've left EQ2) If the spell is percent chance to proc when melee dmg dealt... then that's what it is.  NERFing it to apply only to one hand is still a nerf. This simply makes one of Templar's already weak lineup up of lotto heal utilties weaker.  We have so much uberness we needed a good nerfing. THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER! Now go back and read all the posts about how wonderfully effective Templar's GoC is and how we're still a better healer then other priests because of it (b.s.) posts from certain "we're fine" folks. And btw radar -- you aren't in the 'we're fine' crew.  We disagreed on a lot but you were never belittling or void of reason.  You need to find a new niche.  Maybe takover the reigns of 'forum troll'? <span>:smileytongue:</span>  I'm leaving the position is opening up.... <span>:smileywink: </span>

[RedFeather]

Is this change in code, the cause behind why many different spells that are supposed to proc aren't doing so anymore?I wonder.<p>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:23 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:(mandatory disclaimer:  disregard everything I write since I've left EQ2) If the spell is percent chance to proc when melee dmg dealt... then that's what it is.  NERFing it to apply only to one hand is still a nerf. This simply makes one of Templar's already weak lineup up of lotto heal utilties weaker.  We have so much uberness we needed a good nerfing. THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER! Now go back and read all the posts about how wonderfully effective Templar's GoC is and how we're still a better healer then other priests because of it (b.s.) posts from certain "we're fine" folks. And btw radar -- you aren't in the 'we're fine' crew.  We disagreed on a lot but you were never belittling or void of reason.  You need to find a new niche.  Maybe takover the reigns of 'forum troll'? <span>:smileytongue:</span>  I'm leaving the position is opening up.... <span>:smileywink: </span><hr></blockquote>As I sugggested, except for a brief period time between November 9th and LU18, there was a DISadvantage to casting GoC on a DW user.  During that time period, it MAY have been more advantageous to use it on a DW user over a slower weapon set, but it remains unconclusive. 2H procs more - this nerf affects DW - using GoC on a DW user is silly. You are right tho, it DOES nerf the spell if you still insist on using it on a DW user.  But that's like casting a single target reactive on a mage who doesn't have aggro to me.</span><div></div>

[Jukk]

I usually cast GoC on the monk, it goes off (or did anyway) a fair amount.When casting it on the 2H pally, it basically never goes off.Fast hitter - more procs, atleast for me.<div></div>

[bigmak20]

<div></div> Percent chance to proc on receipt of incoming melee dmg. Two melee weapons = Twice as likely to proc. Make it so only one hand (half) incoming dmg triggers procs. Then half as likely to proc. I think what you're looking at is 5% chance to proc is still 5% single wield or dual wield. You are forgetting to consider incoming dmg is twice as often dual wield. Therefore, it's a significant nerf. on edit: you can't make the leap from dual wield to slower 2 hander to say it isn't a nerf.  Many classes would still be using the same 1h in main hand and a shield in the off hand. <p>Message Edited by bigmak2010 on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:49 PM</span>

[SenorPhrog]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR>(mandatory disclaimer:  disregard everything I write since I've left EQ2)<BR><BR>.<BR><BR>And btw radar -- you aren't in the 'we're fine' crew.  We disagreed on a lot but you were never belittling or void of reason.  You need to find a new niche.  Maybe takover the reigns of 'forum troll'? <SPAN>:smileytongue:</SPAN>  I'm leaving the position is opening up.... <SPAN>:smileywink:<BR><BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Haha...no I'm afraid I'm already as "trollish" as I'm going to be.  If I go too far down that path my friends in NGD will eat me alive and some of them are relentless.   I'll definetly be sad to see you go.<BR></DIV>

[RedFeather]

How come your friends in NGD are so mean to you? :p

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Jukken wrote:I usually cast GoC on the monk, it goes off (or did anyway) a fair amount.When casting it on the 2H pally, it basically never goes off.Fast hitter - more procs, atleast for me.<div></div><hr></blockquote>It really depends on how the player plays as well, tanks tend to conserve power for taunts, which do not trigger procs, but classes like a monk tend to spam damage  CAs more.  Thus, typically, you want some combination of damage CA spamming and slower weapons - this obviously depends on group composition. The point is that if damage CA use is equal, slower weapons will proc more often.  This is a proven fact that is supported by dev comments.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:<div></div> Percent chance to proc on receipt of incoming melee dmg. Two melee weapons = Twice as likely to proc. Make it so only one hand (half) incoming dmg triggers procs. Then half as likely to proc. I think what you're looking at is 5% chance to proc is still 5% single wield or dual wield. You are forgetting to consider incoming dmg is twice as often dual wield. Therefore, it's a significant nerf. on edit: you can't make the leap from dual wield to slower 2 hander to say it isn't a nerf.  Many classes would still be using the same 1h in main hand and a shield in the off hand. <p>Message Edited by bigmak2010 on <span class="date_text">12-21-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:49 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Come back when you understand how procs function. on edit: As I conceded previously, it is true that if you used GoC on a DW pre-LU18 it will now proc less - this is true.  But I am pointing out that GoC has generally been more advantageous to be used on slower weapons.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">12-21-2005</span> <span class="time_text">02:07 PM </span></p> <p><i><span class="time_text">"</span></i><span><i>Weapons have a fixed percentage chance per hit to proc based on the original delay of the weapon and the % proc listed on the weapon. This percentage chance does not care how much haste you currently have, nor does it care where the source of your attack is coming from.  If you use a Combat Art, it doesn't mean you attacked more and so have less chance of a proc, the proc chance remains CONSTANT even if you are hasted.  Likewise, even if you fire an arrow from your bow, your primary slot weapon's proc still has the same chance of proccing off THAT attack as well. The reason slower weapons proc more is because of what I said there.  Without haste or additional attacks, over time, each weapon should proc the same number of times - i.e. faster weapon swings more, procs less often, but slower weapon procs more often with less swings.  The TOTAL number of procs is supposed to be generally equal. However, when you add in extra attacks, the constant proc rate does not change, therefore, you end up proccing more if the delay on your weapon is higher</i> ." </span></p> <p><span>~ Sokolov </span></p> <p><i>"3.8 Second delay weapon will attack around 4 times and you will get off 10 combat skills for 14 total attacks.</i></p> <p><i>1.5 Second delay dual wields will get off 20 melee attacks and 10 combat skills for 30 total attacks.</i></p> <p><i>So 14 attacks total x 2.54 = 35.56            </i></p> <p><i>And 30 attacks total x 1 = 30                                                                                                                                                               (2.54 vs 1 because on a 3.8 second delay weapon you are 2.54 times more likely than a 1.5 dual wield to proc.)</i></p> <p><i>Now we take 35.56/30 = 1.18</i></p> <p><i>So what this tells you is that over the entirity of a 15 second fight you are going to proc 18% more often than if your were using dual wields.  No take into consideration that this is just considerinng 1 proc and berserkers have 2 constantly used ones (anarchy + blood rage) and usually have them on their weapons.   </i></p> <p><i>By typing out all this crap, I wanted to people that atleast for the time being if weapon ratings are equal, it is (with this game mechanic) more optimal to 2 hand than to dual wield. " </i></p> <p><i>~ Sabin </i></p> <p><span class="time_text"><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=4&message.id=11312&query.id=286299#M11312" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=4&message.id=11312&query.id=286299#M11312</a> </span></p> <p><span class="time_text"></span><i> </i></p> <p><i>"Attacks from the longbow were *much* more likely to proc than those from melee.  That's probably due to each weapon's delay: the longbow's delay is 7 and the PGT's delay is 1.2.  A dev had posted that the proc rates shown in examine windows assume a delay of 3, and that in actual use the rates are (delay/3)*examine_rate for a weapon.  The longbow's actual proc rate should be 58% for poison, and 12% for Gleaming Strike (Imbue) and Might of the Land (PGT).  We're pretty close there.  But by that formula, the PGT/melee rates should be 10% for poison and 2% for Gleaming Strike and Might of the Land.  The actual results are closer to 5% and 1%, which suggests that dual-wield proc rates are probably halved." </i></p> <p><i>~ Bayler </i> </p> <p><span class="time_text"><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=44487" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=44487</a> </span></p> <p>It seems to me someone felt "halved" was too much, so they increased it on Nov 9th.  Then they felt it was too much so they removed the offhand procs. </p><p>(The previous line is my conjecture, I don't presume to know how devs think.  Who does? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />)<span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:25 PM</span>

[kenji]

who knows the % goes up in last LU that improve dw proc rate? =)

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>kenjiso wrote:who knows the % goes up in last LU that improve dw proc rate? =) <div></div><hr></blockquote>*nods* totally.  It wasn't really around long enough for anyone to get around to testing it.  And it didn't really get much attention because it was a boost and not a nerf (people tend to forget boosts in 24 hours and feel entitled to having it and rag on even the smallest of nerfs for days). In any case, I doubt this will be the last change to proc mechanics, it's an on-going adjustment.   I still dn't think it affects Templars very much, except for those who have an obsession with GoC on DW users - which has generally been an iffy position, given how procs function.</span><div></div>

[Zabumt]

<DIV>Not to mention, even after my GoC Experiment post, that GoC is a non-issue on raids.  In an xp group it's merely a nice addition.  Unless the group decides to take on encounters that are actually challenging.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span> In any case, I doubt this will be the last change to proc mechanics, it's an on-going adjustment.   I still don't think it affects Templars very much, except for those who have an obsession with GoC on DW users - which has generally been an iffy position, given how procs function.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Here is something to think about DW vs. slow 2h/1h: with dualwield, you used tol get 2 procs per minute with autoattack when proc chance is 5%. Now lets presume haste and that DW's hits once per second with single weapon. A monk can use about 30 CA's per minute, so that will give 0.5 procs per minute more to a total average of 2,5 procs. Slow 2h weapon on the same monk, lets presume it has delay of 2s after all the haste. 1 proc from autoattack and 1 from CA's. That used to be the case. Now after the nerf you will get only 1,5 procs with DW and 2 with 2h, so using the procs to a slow hitter is advantageous. You will still get 2,5 imbued weapon damage procs with DW though. And yes, with someone who has 30 CA's to use per minute and a 4s delay weapon, you will get 3 procs per minute with 2H weapon. So your DW fobia has been pretty pointless..</span><div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MadisonPark wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE>MadisonPark wrote: <P>Although, to say that we have 'yet another nerf" is quite a large overstatement, as A) one can not keep themselves or anyone else healed with our procs alone as it is currently and B) It affects all classes with procs /dual weilding classes.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. But here is the thing. Templars are already the stepsons of priest class. This is a direct neft to our heals which are already below average. So 'yet another nerf' is definately true.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Redheaded step children or not, calling it a nerf to us is over reacting and quite a bit paranoid. This was not directed at us. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Agreed.</P> <P>Remember, EVERY priest has proc style spell lines of some kind.  This affects every priest, not merely Templars.  It affects every fighter and scout that dual wields, not just Templars.  On the flip side, it also affects NPC's in the same manner.  This is an across-the-board change.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span> In any case, I doubt this will be the last change to proc mechanics, it's an on-going adjustment.   I still don't think it affects Templars very much, except for those who have an obsession with GoC on DW users - which has generally been an iffy position, given how procs function.</span><hr></blockquote>Here is something to think about DW vs. slow 2h/1h: with dualwield, you used tol get 2 procs per minute with autoattack when proc chance is 5%. Now lets presume haste and that DW's hits once per second with single weapon. A monk can use about 30 CA's per minute, so that will give 0.5 procs per minute more to a total average of 2,5 procs. Slow 2h weapon on the same monk, lets presume it has delay of 2s after all the haste. 1 proc from autoattack and 1 from CA's. That used to be the case. Now after the nerf you will get only 1,5 procs with DW and 2 with 2h, so using the procs to a slow hitter is advantageous. You will still get 2,5 imbued weapon damage procs with DW though. And yes, with someone who has 30 CA's to use per minute and a 4s delay weapon, you will get 3 procs per minute with 2H weapon. So your DW fobia has been pretty pointless..</span><hr></blockquote>The word is phobia. </span>Your numbers don't make any sense - where/how did you get them? <span> <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=17901&view=by_date_ascending&page=1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=17901&view=by_date_ascending&page=1</a> Monk log from above: </span><i> 2H CA: Total hits: 147 Ancient Flame: 26 Ice blast: 18 Total proc rate: 29.93% Flame procs: 17.69% Ice procs: 12.24% DW CA: Total hits: 336 Ancient Strike: 27 Ice blast: 14 Total proc rate: 12.20% Strike procs: 8.04% Ice procs: 4.17% 2H Only: Total hits: 172 Ancient Flame: 24 Ice Blast: 23 Total proc rate: 27.33% Flame procs: 13.95% Ice procs: 13.37% DW Only: Total hits: 689 Ancient Strike: 47 Ice Blast: 15 Total proc rate: 9.00% Flame procs: 6.82%</i> ~ We see that 2H has a significantly higher proc rate.  More than twice that of DW.  Ignoring haste for now. Now, the DWs had a delay of 1.7 - producing a fight time of 1171.3s (689*1.7).  It's not 689*1.7*2 because the delays are not added together for DW weapons. For a total of 103 procs over 1171.3s seconds, which is 5.28 procs/min. For 2H we have a delay of 3.8 - producing a fight time of 653.6s (172*3.<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. For a total of 91 procs over 653.6 seconds, which is 8.35 procs/min. Haste for the parse was 15%, which isn't much, and unlikely to affect the numbers a lot.  It should be noted that haste affects slower weapons more as it functions as a percentage.  It will also cause more procs for slower weapons given the above proc %s per hit.<div></div>

[Timaarit]

1st, that was made before LU16, this has been changed propably twice since then. The proc chance for 2H seems to be what the weapon said, 12%, for DW it was half. As for my numbers, they are based on the 5% proc for each 3 seconds. If this means on average one proc per minute, then you get the result I presented. Ok, also if the procs really also work the way they should (wouldn't suprise me if they didn't). But as for the procs, between LU16 and 18, DW should have given more procs than 2H for all proc effects. Still now, imbued DW should proc more than imbued 2H, but GoC for example should now proc more with slower weapons and CA's. <div></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>1st, that was made before LU16, this has been changed propably twice since then. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What!?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you just stabbing at the dark now?  Where's the patch note?  Where's the parse?  Where's someone saying it feels changed?  Where's <EM>ANYTHING</EM> to support the above allegation?</DIV> <DIV>  </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Timaarit wrote:1st, that was made before LU16, this has been changed propably twice since then. The proc chance for 2H seems to be what the weapon said, 12%, for DW it was half. As for my numbers, they are based on the 5% proc for each 3 seconds. If this means on average one proc per minute, then you get the result I presented. Ok, also if the procs really also work the way they should (wouldn't suprise me if they didn't). But as for the procs, between LU16 and 18, DW should have given more procs than 2H for all proc effects. Still now, imbued DW should proc more than imbued 2H, but GoC for example should now proc more with slower weapons and CA's. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Do you have data on the proc increase?  I don't, and I am not going to presume that DW "should have given more procs."  Regardless, even if that was true, it basically means this "nerf" adjusts the previous "boost" which I doubt ANY Templars even mentioned here in relation to GoC.  But of course the nerf is hallowed as some kind of abomination - talk about looking at only one side of the coin! Besides, that's the entire point of this discussion, previous to the initial proc increase, it was better to use it on a slower weapon, without dispute.  And it again now is.  Only between LU16 and 18 was it ever in question - and I, for one, cannot find conclusive data in that time frame. </span><div></div>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Timaarit wrote:1st, that was made before LU16, this has been changed propably twice since then. <hr> </blockquote> <div>What!?</div> <div> </div> <div>Are you just stabbing at the dark now?  Where's the patch note?  Where's the parse?  Where's someone saying it feels changed?  Where's <em>ANYTHING</em> to support the above allegation?</div> <hr></blockquote>My bad, it was supposed to read LU13.</span><div></div>

[Xerxess]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR>1st, that was made before LU16, this has been changed propably twice since then. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What!?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you just stabbing at the dark now?  Where's the patch note?  Where's the parse?  Where's someone saying it feels changed?  Where's <EM>ANYTHING</EM> to support the above allegation?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Stealth nerfs?? They don't put everything they change into patch notes. Reverence was stealth nerf'd

[bigmak20]

The defense of this nerf is a slow 2h will proc as much or more.  You (mostly non templars) that are defending the nerf still fail to realize the classes that this is put on frequently don't switch from dual wield to slow 2 hander -- and in fact there is no reason they can't use a slow hitting one hander and fast hitting second -- or 2 slow 1 handers in dual wield. All this "2 hander procs better/more anyways" talk is interesting but not the point. A slow hitting 1 hander procs more. Times 2 if you want... Until after the nerf. And dropping the dual wield does not always mean you're switching to a slow 2 hander -- many classes are still using the same weapon in main hand and adding a shield in the off hand.  So you're just loosing another proc chance. no kidding... slow 2 hander has better proc chance then fast 1 handers.  I get it.  That isn't the point. Slow 2 hander = good proc chance Slow 1 hander = good proc chance (heavy hammer anyone?) 2 Slow 1 handers (of you want to go that route) = way better proc chance -- although most melee combatants (I play some) favor a slow main for procs and effects and fast off hand it ain't difficult to understand I think the 'lesson learned' from ppl reading this should be that a slow weapon in main hand is a really good choice even when dual wielding.  Most melee combatants know that and the analysis in this thread certainly backs that up.

[Sokolov]

<div></div>Zerker classes will likely shift away from DWs.  Zerkers have this thing about DPS and procs... they like more <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But the point isn't that classes will switch.  The point is that the nerf is targeted at DW users.  And Templars have ALWAYS had a choice of whom to put it on, and expect for the brief time in the last month or so, it was undisputed to be 2H users as long as they use damage CAs as frequently as DW users.  This nerf only affects Templars in any meaningful manner if you refuse to adapt and [Removed for Content] your own spell by using it on DW users. (EDIT: Which was a dubious idea to begin with.) <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>12-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:42 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote: 2 Slow 1 handers (of you want to go that route) = way better proc chance -- although most melee combatants (I play some) favor a slow main for procs and effects and fast off hand it ain't difficult to understand I think the 'lesson learned' from ppl reading this should be that a slow weapon in main hand is a really good choice even when dual wielding.  Most melee combatants know that and the analysis in this thread certainly backs that up. <hr></blockquote> Again, learn how procs work before you talk.  Before this change, proc rates for DW was HALVED to maintain consistent ratios.  Feysteel Leafblades is one of the slower DWs but are still relatively fast (1.7 I think?) and they still did NOT match slower 2Hs actual rate of proccing because of this.  It isn't difficult to understand. And yes, I agree that DW users should use a slower one in mainhand with this change.  Offhand will still benefit from being slower if you have one that has a proc on it. </span><div></div>

[Dragonreal]

<DIV>leafblades are actually 2.1 delay =P</DIV>

[Chog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>In any case, I doubt this will be the last change to proc mechanics, it's an on-going adjustment.   I still don't think it affects Templars very much, except for those who have an obsession with GoC on DW users - which has generally been an iffy position, given how procs function.<BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Here is something to think about DW vs. slow 2h/1h:<BR><BR>with dualwield, you used tol get 2 procs per minute with autoattack when proc chance is 5%. Now lets presume haste and that DW's hits once per second with single weapon. A monk can use about 30 CA's per minute, so that will give 0.5 procs per minute more to a total average of 2,5 procs.<BR><BR>Slow 2h weapon on the same monk, lets presume it has delay of 2s after all the haste. 1 proc from autoattack and 1 from CA's. That used to be the case.<BR><BR>Now after the nerf you will get only 1,5 procs with DW and 2 with 2h, so using the procs to a slow hitter is advantageous. You will still get 2,5 imbued weapon damage procs with DW though. And yes, with someone who has 30 CA's to use per minute and a 4s delay weapon, you will get 3 procs per minute with 2H weapon.<BR><BR>So your DW fobia has been pretty pointless..<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Tim, you are confusing how Combat Arts affect the Proc rate.  Saying a Monk can use 30 combat arts per minute is meaningless without knowing the number of extra attacks gained by the combat art.  If a combat art allows a person to make upto 5 attacks at once that will be 5 extra chances to have a Proc go off from a single combat art (using the weapon speed as the proc percent).</P> <P>So if a Berserker used  3 combat arts back to back, we could not add the combat arts into proc rate until we realized what the combat arts did.  For example: 3-hit CA, AoE CA (hit 3 mobs), AoE CA (hit 3 mobs).  Grand total would be 9 extra proc chances from using 3 CA's (not including the swing from the weapon).</P> <P>This is the reason anyclass that has a single person proc buff loves having rangers in the group, if they know how Procs work of course.  Rangers with multi-attack CA's using a longbow is the best proc class in the game.<BR></P>

[kenji]

my question is... if the 3 hits from CA arent counted as main hand... it wont proc, right? =)

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dragonrealms wrote:<div>leafblades are actually 2.1 delay =P</div><hr></blockquote>Thank you for the correction =)</span><div></div>

[Chog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kenjiso wrote:<BR>my question is... if the 3 hits from CA arent counted as main hand... it wont proc, right? =) <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>And you are getting this information from where?</DIV>

[Timaarit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Chogar wrote: <p>Tim, you are confusing how Combat Arts affect the Proc rate.  Saying a Monk can use 30 combat arts per minute is meaningless without knowing the number of extra attacks gained by the combat art.  If a combat art allows a person to make upto 5 attacks at once that will be 5 extra chances to have a Proc go off from a single combat art (using the weapon speed as the proc percent).</p> <p>So if a Berserker used  3 combat arts back to back, we could not add the combat arts into proc rate until we realized what the combat arts did.  For example: 3-hit CA, AoE CA (hit 3 mobs), AoE CA (hit 3 mobs).  Grand total would be 9 extra proc chances from using 3 CA's (not including the swing from the weapon).</p> <p>This is the reason anyclass that has a single person proc buff loves having rangers in the group, if they know how Procs work of course.  Rangers with multi-attack CA's using a longbow is the best proc class in the game.</p><hr></blockquote>Well I have a monk, they have one AE attack and one attack which hits up to 5 times. 2 attacks are on 10s timer, rest in 30s timer, I have 10 CA's + the AE. 30 CA's per minute is accurate enough, though from start, it will take about 1 min 10 s to spam them all (exept the AE, it has longer timers). I didn't confuse anything, though I did say CA's when I in fact meant hits from CA's.</span><div></div>

[Chog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Timaarit wrote:<BR><SPAN></SPAN> <P><SPAN>Well I have a monk, they have one AE attack and one attack which hits up to 5 times. 2 attacks are on 10s timer, rest in 30s timer, I have 10 CA's + the AE. 30 CA's per minute is accurate enough, though from start, it will take about 1 min 10 s to spam them all (exept the AE, it has longer timers). I didn't confuse anything, though I did say CA's when I in fact meant hits from CA's.</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Although a small miss-print, saying 30 combat arts instead of 30 hits from combat arts makes a huge differance when trying to determine the chance to proc.  Glad everything is sorted out now.<BR>

[kenji]

it is just from my imagination. really. but just wanna know if all CA hits are counted as main hand or not =)