Proc Change - Something Else To Think About Before It Goes Live.

[Erick_Stormfu]

<div>I understand why this change is going in, and until it fully gets tested out will hold judgement.</div><div> </div><div>My one concern though, as a beserker, is my taunt level.  My taunts were previously reduced significantly due ot the damage we do.  We were told that this was because we did so much damage, that our damage was figured into our taunt equation.</div><div> </div><div>With the proc change, many of our damage C/A's and special abilities (namely rampage in conjuction with any of our multi-hit skills) will be doing much less damage. </div><div> </div><div>I simply ask the developers to please monitor our ability to taunt and make the appropriate taunt level increase to offset the amount of damage decrease were receiving.</div><div> </div><div>I current taunt rate is nothing spectacular.  On raids, its a very very fine line to maintain aggro with the live system.  This is could make our ability to maintain aggro impossible.</div><div> </div><div>Again, I am not posting this to whine about this change, I am reserving judgement on it.  I'm simply bringing to your attention of another effect this will have, that you might not have thought about.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>- Erick Stormfury</div><div> 60 Beserker</div><div> Nox Arma - Nektulos</div>

[Erick_Stormfu]

<blockquote><p>i'm not even going to dignifiy that with a response.</p><p>I'd like to keep this as a constructive post rather then a flame fest.</p><p>the fact of the matter is this will nerf zerker damage... ok, i understand, and am not complaining.  However our taunts have been balanced next to our damage output for a full effect of taunting.</p><p>they've reduced our damage, but have not increased our taunts.  So i'm asking the developers to THINK about what there doing, and make the approriate adjustments to our taunt levels.</p><p> </p><p>-Erick</p></blockquote>

[infernus006]

<div></div>I agree this could be a huge problem for Berserkers since we rely on procs for so much of our damage output.  If they want us to do less damage...fine...but at least fix our taunts so we can still keep aggro and do our jobs as tanks.Moorgard said:  <i>"Berserkers will do more damage than guardians, especially when tanking. While they also have taunts, part of their taunting comes from the damage they do."</i><div></div><p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:21 PM</span></p>

[MagicWand]

<div></div><div>The Flavor of the Month Class will always get nerfed.  I just find it funny when the mass of merry rangers act like its a total surprise.  You think after 8+ years of MMORPG experience people would learn that FOTM classes always get nerfed. </div><div> </div><div>You know what they say, about Death and Taxes, same goes for FOTM classes getting the nerf stick as well.</div>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><p>Magic, your post is annoying and misplaced. Its not just the rangers that are getting their dps nerfed, any class that melees and uses procs is getting their dps reduced. Do you want to go back to EQ1 where it takes a group a minute to kill normal exp mob or something?</p><p>And to the original poster, if you think Breserkers have it bad, think about SK's. Shadow Knights currently have the worst single taunt out of all the tanks, and we can't do as much dmg as you Breserkers. SK's went from screwed in the taunting department, to even more screwed.</p>

[DarkLegacy2005]

<div>I think it was MG, or Black, that said that players using faster weapons shouldnt be affected as much. in addition many of the posts roaming the forums are misleading as to how disatrous it is. Even for the ranger(which arguably takes the largest blow) it is probably at most ~20% lost which leads me to believe that for the fighters and other proc using classes, its even less of a hit.</div>

[Stryyfe]

The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. Or for my MONK it will be that much harder to hold aggro on adds.  Before I would use a multi-hit attack on the 2nd or 3rd mob in the encounter and switch back to the main mob... This ensured taunt would fly off a few times and keep it on me, when that necro or conjurer kept AOE'ng.Now i'll lose this and many other strategies ive developed to hold aggro as a monk.  Just because Rangers were designed to do insane DPS with multi-hit procs.It's not a smart change for other classes, as we don't compare to ranger DPS.  Sure we can develop more ways around this change so we can hold aggro or what not... but why should we have to do this all the time just because one class is overpowered?Not acceptable... but i'll be logged on on the 21st anyways! I know they'll work hard to get it right... if it's not right intially. Just tired of seeing them back-track and change the changed changes all the time.<div></div>

[infernus006]

I find it rather strange if the whole reason for this nerf is because they think Rangers' DPS is too overpowered.  It's true that right now Rangers are the best DPS in the game and it's true that maybe it's not supposed to be that way.  And it's true that most of the Ranger's DPS comes from procs.  So they decide to nerf procs to reduce Ranger DPS?  But then what about all the other classes in the game that also rely on procs for their damage and are NOT overpowered?  And not just DPS either but also aggro generation.  I'm starting to wonder if they actually think anything through before they decide to just go ahead and make drastic sweeping changes like this that will effect everyone in the game in a negative way just to try and fix a problem with one broken class.<div></div>

[Moorgard]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Stryyfe wrote:<BR>The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. <BR><BR>This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS.  <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</P> <P>Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results. Some rough edges we can live with, but we are unwilling to go into a whole new realm of damage output with these issues still present. Adding 10 to the level cap and introducing achievements will make players that much more powerful; leaving in bugs would result in the 4000 DPS rangers that BG mentioned in his post.</P> <P>Taunts were also designed with certain degrees of player damage output in mind. The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts, so it will likely be a bit easier to hold aggro with a scout in the group. But again, aggro management is the job of everyone, not just fighters.</P> <P>As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary.</P>

[Robert2005]

So.... why isn't the priest disparity getting fixed?  You think 300% DPS difference is OK within an archetype?  What you're "fixing" here is very very small potatoes in comparison!You say you have the DPS charts from all the servers -- now break that down to the 30 second typical fight and stop distorting your results over extended kill times that don't exist in the game.

[Xery]

Not to sound like flaming, but how can you honestly say that the LU13 changes were made without knowing this bug was present?  It's been bug reported ever since initial release. and many times since then...<div></div>

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><p>Zerkers please stop pointing the blame for this change at the Rangers.  This part of the change is coming from the fact they can't fix proc spells (specifically illusionist ones) that are only suppose to proc 3 times.  The way they work now if put on a Bruiser or Monk that uses their skill that is a series of 5-8 attacks it procs on all of them.  Because they can't find away to fix the proc spell itself they are just taking away the additional procs from everything.</p><p> </p>

[Stryyfe]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stryyfe wrote:The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. <hr></blockquote><p>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</p><p>Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results. Some rough edges we can live with, but we are unwilling to go into a whole new realm of damage output with these issues still present. Adding 10 to the level cap and introducing achievements will make players that much more powerful; leaving in bugs would result in the 4000 DPS rangers that BG mentioned in his post.</p><p>Taunts were also designed with certain degrees of player damage output in mind. The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts, so it will likely be a bit easier to hold aggro with a scout in the group. But again, aggro management is the job of everyone, not just fighters.</p><p>As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary.</p><hr></blockquote>I value that you checked this thread and posted in reply to my post.A major concern of mine is that this affecting more than just imbued weapons or taunt for other classes.I can speak for my class only, and let's be honest, it's not my job to care about anyone elses. Monks attack lightening fast, thast a given... scouts do as well.  I have 1 multi-attack ability... not several like a ranger would.Our Shocking hands buff... doing 50-80 damage per hit for up to 7 hits is our only booster to attacks that we receive. I'm not sure how many rangers get, or other classes.But please note the design of Lunging Mongoose... and Shocking hands.  Lunging Mongoose is our multi-hit attack again for those who dont know.     - Each lunging mongoose has the chance to hit for up to 7 times, if there is any miss in there, the rest of the attacks miss. Already making it difficult to land every HIT.  Shocking hands is an additional damage boost to each successful HIT.Meaning, if I miss with lunging mongoose on the first hit, I get 0 out of 7 attacks to land, and no proc possibility from my shocking hands, which will carry over to auto-attack or CA attacks...thats fine.Why don't you take some time out to define a HIT or Successful ATTACK.  If my lunging mongoose skill is designed that if one hit misses, they all miss...why can't it then be left that if it hits 7 times, I have a chance to proc with it 7 times.  As for my class, again... let me reiterate, I have one multi attack. I have one group attack.   If rangers have much more than this, I can see a need to reduce the proc amounts for them... but not everyone.     - The point where this becomes a problem in my opinion for at least Monks, and probably other tanks... is Taunt.     Monk's Aggro Stance... is a stance, it's not a proc'd buff ability, it's an actual stance that a monk has put himself into (according to design) ... each hit has a 50% chance to add hate to a mob.  Again... I challenge you to define a HIT... if i'm in a stance where each HIT has a 50% chance to add hate to a mob... and my lunging mongoose multi-attack has a "chance" to land 7 hits as long as it doesn't miss one of them... than those HITS should have a 50% chance of adding hate.  You should not take away the proc chance of Taunt on this specific ability for Monks, as it is not guarenteed that we land more than 1 hit (even though we do quite often, we aren't talking about a whole lot of damage here) But we are talking about an incredible taunt loss. And a design flaw.I understand you are reviewing the change... and you will make adjustments accordingley. I'm asking as a member of the Monk community that you make a little more of a specific change weighed toward classes such as rangers that have several multi-hit attacks... and not monks, who have one.  (not counting my one group AOE attack that does 400 damage to area every 60 seconds)Thank you</span></div>

[Zork Phobos]

<div><blockquote><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stryyfe wrote:The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. <hr></blockquote><p>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</p><p><font color="#99ff33">Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results</font>. Some rough edges we can live with, but we are unwilling to go into a whole new realm of damage output with these issues still present. Adding 10 to the level cap and introducing achievements will make players that much more powerful; leaving in bugs would result in the 4000 DPS rangers that BG mentioned in his post.</p><p>Taunts were also designed with certain degrees of player damage output in mind. The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts, so it will likely be a bit easier to hold aggro with a scout in the group. But again, aggro management is the job of everyone, not just fighters.</p><p>As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary.</p><hr></blockquote><font color="#99ffff">If you or any of your team ever seriously played a Ranger, or ever took the time out of your busy days to talk to Rangers about their class, any of them could have told you that this is how the LU13 changes were gonna pan out. This is the core issue; Devs have little or no understanding of how the Ranger class truly works and they will not listen to feedback or criticism over it. Quit just looking at parsers. Go check out BG's post for some constructive ideas on how to make this upcoming transition more equitable for us.</font></blockquote></div>

[EvilIguana9]

Moorgard is absolutely right insofar as this change has to be applied to all classes equally.  The proc system was originally designed not to favor weapons of a particular speed over weapons of another speed, and it did this correctly with regards to auto attacks but not with regards to combat arts.  This change fixes a fundamental balancing issue.  Weapon speed was never supposed to be a factor in this area, and having it that way really complicates the balancing job.  If some classes end up doing less damage than intended because of this fix, then their abilities can be adjusted directly without having unintended consequences for other classes. The same basic principle applies to procs only happening on the first hit of CAs.  Proc spells with a limit on how many times they trigger are based around doing a specific total amount of damage per cast.  Using multi hit CAs to increase the damage from these spells was never intended and was resulting in more damage being done than planned for.  Basically it made the combat system TOO complex and hard to control in a few specific areas. Now whoever it was who said all melee classes were getting nerfed by this, I disagree.  As a paladin I get a decent amount of extra damage from my procs, but I don't see that damage going down in the next patch.  If anything it will go up, as my weapons are currently all below 3.0 delay which is the delay at which the listed proc rate is correct.  If I were using a RGF or something I might expect a small decrease in dps, but I'm not so I don't. <div></div>

[Vorham]

<p>i dont really care about the shocking fists changes... it's a fix</p><p>but what about Bruiser's in balanced/offense mode who have seen their 5%-10% chance stance-based procs continually nerfed -- they dont work on ranged attacks, don't work on fire immune mobs, no longer work on offhand, soon will only work on one attack in a flurry, and will soon use casting time of Combat Art to determine chance to proc which ends up being a pathetic 1.67% chance to proc per CA swing if using our "10% chance" offense stance....meanwhile the Bruiser counterpart the Monk enjoys extremely high levels of self haste that is of constant effect...</p><p>please keep an eye on these factors and either increase our chance to proc, or give us something else -- because at this rate soon the conditions for bruisers to be able to proc their stance dmg will be laughable at best</p>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><div>You're forgetting that they're making your CA cast timer determine the chance of a proc on that CA Evillguana. So unless your weapons delay is smaller then your CA cast time you're going to lose DPS.</div>

[Isard]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stryyfe wrote:The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. <hr></blockquote><p>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</p><p><font color="#ff00ff">Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results.</font> Some rough edges we can live with, but we are unwilling to go into a whole new realm of damage output with these issues still present. Adding 10 to the level cap and introducing achievements will make players that much more powerful; leaving in bugs would result in the 4000 DPS rangers that BG mentioned in his post.</p><p>Taunts were also designed with certain degrees of player damage output in mind. The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts, so it will likely be a bit easier to hold aggro with a scout in the group. But again, aggro management is the job of everyone, not just fighters.</p><p><font color="#ff3333">As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary.</font></p><hr></blockquote><p>We've heard this before.  You're idea of 'watching how it plays out' is either a) ignoring it and saying "its working as intended" or b) getting the biggest nerf bat you can, make some radical change that goes so overboard that people cancel in disgust.</p><p>A lot of upset people might be calmer if it was admitted from the begining of this silliness that there has been a bug for a LONG time.</p><p>Players hate to feel ignored and this is a case where something was pointed out which you ignored.  Repeatedly.</p><p>To present this situation as something you are doing to 'balance' classes leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, especially when you had people telling you this was going on.  We're not all idiots who make stuff up.  Sometimes we do know what we're talking about.</p>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stryyfe wrote:The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. <hr></blockquote><p>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</p><p>Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results. Some rough edges we can live with, but we are unwilling to go into a whole new realm of damage output with these issues still present. Adding 10 to the level cap and introducing achievements will make players that much more powerful; leaving in bugs would result in the 4000 DPS rangers that BG mentioned in his post.</p><p>Taunts were also designed with certain degrees of player damage output in mind. The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts, so it will likely be a bit easier to hold aggro with a scout in the group. But again, aggro management is the job of everyone, not just fighters.</p><p>As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary.</p><hr></blockquote>ok you have broken ranger class down to tier 3 dps by fixing this bug.now is the time to come to beta and see with your own eyes. create a ranger for yourself and see and then you know why we need a tweak up back to Tier1 so badly.</span><div></div>

[Karvar]

<div></div><p><span>Hold up a sec Moorgard ...  I have 2 rangers on beta .. my copied one from unrest karvar... and my beta buffed one Named scratch.... and i want to know something ... you say a ranger was doing 4k dps ... is this one ranger... 2 rangers? spike dps? or sustained dps over a 10 min period.. cause i can spike my DPS phaser to </span><span>3 to 5k</span><span> now in a 10 sec fight leading with sniper and then triple.. then double..  so how about a little info on how this 4k dps sustained rangers works???</span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>cause let me point something out to you ... an I bugged this in beta also .. There was a major flaw in your AA skills … that you could auto clear the AA then zone and stack up AA points... currently my beta buffed ranger ... has Every AA skill maxed in all 5 lines ... with points left over...  YES I know this is not how it should be ... but it is beta you expect me to find these bugs and report it... and I have .. look at your logs.. but none the less I got a ranger on beta that has every AA possible at max ability … all 5 AA lines... with points left over ... </span></p><p><span>NOW if a ranger has all that ... </span><span>MAX</span><span> lvl ... MASTERS and the insane weapons in beta ... and in a full raid with all the right class .. and then I am doing 4K DPS sustained .. and use that ranger for a reason to nerf the rest of us then that is just insane... and wrong...</span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>Please let me know … <span> </span>if you happen to read this ... did you check that ranger out .. and make sure he was not UBER AA Buffed and had way more skills than would ever be allowed on live .. Remember on live we only get max of 50 pts to spend .. in beta I bought all 5 lines of AA .... And this was common place for most all beta buffed toons ... not copied ones unless you got AA buffed from a GM and then used the bug to further Increase  your AA points.. </span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>Please give us some info on this ranger that can do 4k DPS over a good period of time ... </span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>Karvar Blackhawk 60 ranger  unrest..</span></p><p><span>Karvar Blackhawk 65 ranger  Beta..</span></p><p><span>Scratch 60 ranger beta...</span></p><p><span></span> </p><p><span>P.s. I be happy to log my toon in for you to check it out … hell Log him in yourself and see what I said is true.. and that you need to make sure your not using some UBER buffed beta ranger as a standard… YES I know you can no longer increase AA from that bug… but Little hint .. you never took the skills away from the peeps that already did it..</span></p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Jeridor]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stryyfe wrote:The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. <hr></blockquote><p>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</p><hr></blockquote>I have to agree with Moorgard here.  If procs from poisons are the main thrust of your class's power, your class is broken.  Poisons are shared by many classes and you can't simply say make poisons great, or make poisons weak and leave it at that.   Poisons need to be across the board in potency, and then each individual class needs to be tailored so that its combat arts and such combine with that across-the-board poison approach to provide your bottom line DPS as intended.</span><div></div>

[infernus006]

I just hope that Moorgard is right in that they will fix any inadequacies in aggro generation for tanks that arise after this change to procs goes into effect and I hope it will be sooner rather than later (as in like way later).  It's pretty discouraging though considering that they allowed such a huge bug like this to remain in the game for so long that everyone thought it was normal so after they finally fix it and possibly create more bugs in the proccess it won't take as long for them to fix the new bugs that come from this "fix".<div></div>

[Code2501]

<div></div><p>MG,</p><p>While this 'bug' regarding procs is being addressed could you please advise if the 'bug' that results in avoidance tanks getting much less procs of the "when hit" and "on dmg taken" variety than mitigation tanks?</p><p>I say bug because I can not find an official responce to indicate it is intended that these procs fire far less often (as little as 1/5th as often) on avoidance tanks.</p><p>Thanks</p>

[Dahlrek]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div>Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results.<hr></blockquote>Go directly to game design jail.  Do not pass game designer school.  Do not collect subscription fees.Seriously, that's the last thing you wanted to admit.  The playerbase has known about these "bugs" forever.  Maybe some playtesting is in order, rather than a bunch of designers sitting around a conference table playing TheoryQuest.  Anyone with a pulse noticed the CA proc rate, or the other issues procs have.I also want to point out that while this does impact Rangers the most, it is not limited to them, or to scouts, or to players with combat arts. What about the defiler, who places a debuff on foes that gives them the chance to proc a ward onto anyone they hit.  Mobs have CAs too, so assuming this is a system-wide change, they'll be procing wards on to allies less frequently than they were before, so defilers are now marginally less effective.What about the necromancer, who has an offensive stance for their pet that procs a lifetap.  That's not going to proc as frequently anymore, is it?This fix is a sweeping decrease in power for pretty much every character.  When this goes live (because there is 0 chance of it not doing so), you absolutely must be on top of the fixes that will need to be made to compensate.  Timing this with an expansion, with a completely new advancement system, is pretty much your worst nightmare.</span><div></div>

[ChaosUndivided]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Dahlrek wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div>Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results.<hr></blockquote>Go directly to game design jail.  Do not pass game designer school.  Do not collect subscription fees.Seriously, that's the last thing you wanted to admit.  The playerbase has known about these "bugs" forever.  Maybe some playtesting is in order, rather than a bunch of designers sitting around a conference table playing TheoryQuest.  Anyone with a pulse noticed the CA proc rate, or the other issues procs have.I also want to point out that while this does impact Rangers the most, it is not limited to them, or to scouts, or to players with combat arts. What about the defiler, who places a debuff on foes that gives them the chance to proc a ward onto anyone they hit.  Mobs have CAs too, so assuming this is a system-wide change, they'll be procing wards on to allies less frequently than they were before, so defilers are now marginally less effective.What about the necromancer, who has an offensive stance for their pet that procs a lifetap.  That's not going to proc as frequently anymore, is it?This fix is a sweeping decrease in power for pretty much every character.  When this goes live (because there is 0 chance of it not doing so), you absolutely must be on top of the fixes that will need to be made to compensate.  Timing this with an expansion, with a completely new advancement system, is pretty much your worst nightmare.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>I can live with the changes, the worst part however is the pathetic attempt to pass this off as a "Bug" as if they didn't know about it, then to claim that rangers and other classes were "Exploiting" it to do damage. I feel insulted that the developers would even try and pass off the blame on us and make it sound like WE were doing something wrong. Pretty Sad that they can't take any responsibility for anything and can't just come out and say "Look we messed up", blame it on the players is the new style.</p><p>Bad Customer Service, No Communication, No Knowledge of your Own Product.</p><p>Go directly to game design jail, indeed</p>

[tharvey]

<div><font size="2">I'm sure they were aware of the problem with procs soon after LU 13, if not before. It just wasn't a critical fix - it led to some discrepancies obviously, but not (in their opinion) game-breaking. However, apparently adding 10 more levels WILL make it game-breaking, so it gets fixed now. Seems simple to me. They're not accusing anyone of exploiting, or threatening to ban anyone. They're simply saying: "We set proc rates at X% assuming that within any 3 second period, on average there would be 1 proc X% of the time. Now we want to remove the exception to that that we've known about but hasn't been important enough to fix." The intended mechanics of procs have been explained many times, and I would have thought it would be moderately obvious that eventually they'd get around to fixing the odd situation that, say, Triple Shot with a long bow equipped gave you the proc chance of 21 seconds of combat in much less than that. If this results in too few procs on poison, or taunt procs, or whatever, then the solution is to raise the proc rate (or the effect proc'ed), in a predictable and consistent way, not to allow loopholes that make balance difficult to remain.</font></div>

[ChaosUndivided]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>tharvey wrote:<div><font size="2">I'm sure they were aware of the problem with procs soon after LU 13, if not before. It just wasn't a critical fix - it led to some discrepancies obviously, but not (in their opinion) game-breaking. However, apparently adding 10 more levels WILL make it game-breaking, so it gets fixed now. Seems simple to me. They're not accusing anyone of exploiting, or threatening to ban anyone. They're simply saying: "We set proc rates at X% assuming that within any 3 second period, on average there would be 1 proc X% of the time. Now we want to remove the exception to that that we've known about but hasn't been important enough to fix." The intended mechanics of procs have been explained many times, and I would have thought it would be moderately obvious that eventually they'd get around to fixing the odd situation that, say, Triple Shot with a long bow equipped gave you the proc chance of 21 seconds of combat in much less than that. If this results in too few procs on poison, or taunt procs, or whatever, then the solution is to raise the proc rate (or the effect proc'ed), in a predictable and consistent way, not to allow loopholes that make balance difficult to remain.</font></div><hr></blockquote><p>It's been like this since launch. I don't know how they could not have forseen this happening.</p><p> </p>

[Giral]

<div>This is the same post Shadwoknight's got Month's (yes i Said Month's ) ago   :  " As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary. "</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Not only did Shadowknight's Not  Get anything fixed Or tweaked since  re-vamp(we did get a Tuant Nerf), we currently have gotten Our Ranged when moving spell's removed and Now Our Proc's Nerfed . OUR Dp's Isn't equal to Berserker's on Live and we B uild Agro over time and have the Worst tuant's already and the worst agro problems ,    How does any of this equate to your Watch how it play's out and adjust factors ?</div><div> </div><div> </div>

[EvilIguana9]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>KagekDahungry wrote:<div></div><div>You're forgetting that they're making your CA cast timer determine the chance of a proc on that CA Evillguana. So unless your weapons delay is smaller then your CA cast time you're going to lose DPS.</div><hr></blockquote>Good point.  When I first read MGs post I mentally parsed what he said to meaning the recast timer on CAs.  Given that most CAs across all classes are .5 sec casts it would seem almost pointless to base the proc chance on that.  I also assumed that they would be adjusting the formula differently than the ones weapons use in order to get a reasonable value.  I'd love to get some clarification on this from the devs if possible.</span></div>

[Verit]

<font size="5" color="#ff0000">"The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts..."</font>So you officialy annonce: the fighters will be number one dps??Some people could find funny my sentence but fighters like Berserker, SK, Brawler are already in tier 1.Now they will fit completly the DPS and/or Tank role.They just need Crown control and u can remove all other classes. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Just parse the dps when people are very well stuffed, u will see.I just find this silly and im a bit "shocked" to read this.<div></div>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div>Huh? What have you been smoking Verityn? There's no way in hell my SK is tier 1 dps, not even if I have Coercer DPS buff and some other class' haste buff. In fact a 56 SK in my guild says his lvl 35 Wizard out damages him.

[infernus006]

I'm not sure what you are talking about Verityn.  I think you are taking MG's statement completely out of context.  He did not say that fighters were going to have more DPS than scouts after this change.  He simply said that fighters will be less effected by the change and therefore will have an easier time holding aggro from scouts.  The only thing I'm really worried about is the fact that this change does not effect the mage classes hardly at all.  They are still going to have the same DPS they've always had, therefore it's going to be even harder for me to keep aggro from them after this change.<div></div>

[Erick_Stormfu]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stryyfe wrote:The change was made because of rangers.  And the overwhelming amount of them on test. This should not be applied to everyone, as some classes needed this to even stay LOW on the ladder of DPS. <hr></blockquote><p>The fix absolutely should be applied to everyone, or else it isn't a fix. While the ranger class can be used to illustrate why this fix was important, it wasn't made only because of them.</p><p>Balance decisions were made in preparation for LU13 without knowing that these bugs were present to distort the results. Some rough edges we can live with, but we are unwilling to go into a whole new realm of damage output with these issues still present. Adding 10 to the level cap and introducing achievements will make players that much more powerful; leaving in bugs would result in the 4000 DPS rangers that BG mentioned in his post.</p><p>Taunts were also designed with certain degrees of player damage output in mind. The reduction in bugged procs will affect fighters less than scouts, so it will likely be a bit easier to hold aggro with a scout in the group. But again, aggro management is the job of everyone, not just fighters.</p><p>As we've said several times already, we'll watch how all this plays out in practice and will adjust any factors we believe necessary.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Thats more then fair...</p><p>Again, I originally posted this, just to bring to the attention of the developers that there could be more impacts then they've thought about.  As long as they do monitor the change, and make the appropriate adjustments as necessary, I think everyone will end up happier for a fun and balanced game.</p><p>I know this is a nerf to damage for a lot of classes, especially scouts.  But honestly, if you haven't tested it on test.. Then really we need to reserve judgement until we see it in practice.</p><p>There have been a number of nerfs to the zerker class.  Each and every time i've heard huge outcry's of how useless we were going to become.  I thought this as well, but after they were implemented, sure it took a few days to get used to the new mechanic's but overall, i'm still very happy with my class.</p><p>All this outcry of how SOE screws us over all the time.. blah blah blah.. I pretty much disagree.  Yes, they make changes all the time...  thats the nature of MMRPG's.  They change and evolve.  if they didnt, I assure you the game would die after just a few months.</p><p>Do they get everything right?... of course not, thats impossible.  But do they revisit things to correct them?  Yep.. they sure do.  One of these "overlooks" is what really concerns me.  Most shadowknights I know really struggle to hold aggression.   Mainly I think, its because so many of their abilities have changed since they balanced their taunts.  I'd love to see them fix that, and make sure all the rest of us tanks have our taunts truly balanced so that we continue to have a fun game to play.</p><p>Moorgard says they'll monitor it, and make adjustments as necessary.  As long as he holds to his word.  I'm good with that.</p><p>I'll just say.. Thanks for the response Moorgard, and end this thread.</p><p> </p><p>-Erick</p>