Spell proc changes ~ intentions?

[Crombie]

<DIV>This was in the new patch from last night...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- A spell's chance to trigger a proc is now adjusted based on its cast<BR>time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This change seems interesting, but it has really bad side effects to certain classes.  Crusaders, Enchanters and Bards (especially Illusionists and Troubadors) are going to suffer to this greatly.  Troubadors, spells + procs they supply are a major portion of a troubs damage.  Working with a few of the troubs on the Test server.. the change seems very drastic... a Troubs 30% chance to proc on offensive spell.. procs very rarely if at all ~</DIV> <DIV>Not to mention one of our AAs that gives a spell haste (Allegro) has a negative effect now... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Data and etc here on the Troubador fourms ~ <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=36&message.id=7483" target=_blank>Here</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Was this change designed to make certain classes do less damage? or to help out with the casters long casting spells.. and other classes got affected in a negative way unintentionally..?</DIV> <DIV>Overall this change makes me very nervous</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>input and what not are welcomed!</DIV><p>Message Edited by Crombie on <span class=date_text>04-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:40 PM</span>

[Ranja]

<P>As a Ranger that was crushed by the proc changes they made to melee and ranged CAs I feel for you. I hope SOE has fully tested this out and learned from their mistakes with the Ranger class and CA procs. I would be nervous too. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[WAPCE]

I think Enchanters and Bards are going to be hurt the most by this. Both classes rely on quick-casting spells and spell proc damage to hit their arguably mid-tier DPS.

[mook85az]

How does this affect instant cast stuff? <div></div>

[Emerix]

<DIV>Okay no offense and im usually not the kind of persont hat whines but .. what in the *censored* nine hells is that supposed to be ? It will cut my damage by more than 30 % if i proc less . As a troubador i completely rely on procs . IM a scout after all why the hell do they cut our damage even more ? Furies can outdamage us now!? what happened to the damage tier idea?  Hello ? Game designers? wake up please?</DIV>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crombie wrote:<BR> <DIV>This was in the new patch from last night...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- A spell's chance to trigger a proc is now adjusted based on its cast<BR>time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This change seems interesting, but it has really bad side effects to certain classes.  Crusaders, Enchanters and Bards (especially Illusionists and Troubadors) are going to suffer to this greatly.  Troubadors, spells + procs they supply are a major portion of a troubs damage.  Working with a few of the troubs on the Test server.. the change seems very drastic... a Troubs 30% chance to proc on offensive spell.. procs very rarely if at all ~</DIV> <DIV>Not to mention one of our AAs that gives a spell haste (Allegro) has a negative effect now... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Data and etc here on the Troubador fourms ~ <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=36&message.id=7483" target=_blank>Here</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Was this change designed to make certain classes do less damage? or to help out with the casters long casting spells.. and other classes got affected in a negative way unintentionally..?</DIV> <DIV>Overall this change makes me very nervous</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>input and what not are welcomed!</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Crombie on <SPAN class=date_text>04-21-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:40 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>it looks like from your data they are adjusting proc %'s based off 2.5second cast timers.</P> <P>the majority of mages dd spells have 2s cast timers, the big hits are all 3s+</P> <P>This change will if left at the current state increase mages wtih long cast timers dps, and hurt all other classes who cast spells faster than 2-2.5s.</P> <P> </P> <P>What I gather is that they are trying to normalize proccing dps much like they did with rangers.  Granted a 30% nerf to your dps (and others affected) is not the right way to go about it (you'd think they learn by now after rangers nerf)</P> <P>-----------------------------------------</P> <P>In otherwords if you could get off (example only plz no flames) /start example</P> <P>4 spells at .5s cast .5 refresh in the time it takes say one 4s mage spell to fire</P> <P>you would of had a 30% chance to proc on 4 spells, while the 4s cast timer spell would have only a 30% chance to proc once.  which means you would of had 120% chance to proc in 4s.  /end example.</P> <P>------------------------------------------</P> <P>They really really need to test this type of change as it affects all casters and is a huge nerf for some and boost for others.  </P> <P>Let's hope soe does us right this time.</P>

[Emerix]

you forget tho that in those 4 seconds troubydors can do like say .. 2,4 k damage . a mage does 5 k with a nuke . even a fury can do 3,8k (AOE !! ) with one spell .

[Lynadianya Zeran]

<P>*sobs*</P> <P> </P>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> you forget tho that in those 4 seconds troubydors can do like say .. 2,4 k damage . a mage does 5 k with a nuke . even a fury can do 3,8k (AOE !! ) with one spell .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>what part of *just an example* did you not get?

[Emerix]

<DIV>i gave you another example explaining how it affects troubadors heh ^^</DIV>

[Marcuzs]

Sounds like they did the same thing to spell procs as they did to mellee procs. Makes sense to me, a proc is a proc and all should be treated equally. But if your procs are normalized off 2.5s and ours is 3s then your still a little better off than mellee classes.

[Emerix]

It is the same basically . oh well hey .. SOE give us long castime 5k nukes to bring us to tier 3 dps again !

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> <DIV>i gave you another example explaining how it affects troubadors heh ^^</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>so your comparing an example to another example?  not very logical is that?</P> <P>If you would take the time to post the cast / recast timers of those spells you stated and their names for further clairifcation it might help your cause, otherwise it just looks like a knee jerk reaction.</P> <P>I do not doubt this change affects all classes with fast cast timer spells and any procs they may have (equipment/group buff/selfbuffs ect) Just remember that.</P>

[WAPCE]

<blockquote><hr>Marcuzs wrote:Sounds like they did the same thing to spell procs as they did to mellee procs. Makes sense to me, a proc is a proc and all should be treated equally. But if your procs are normalized off 2.5s and ours is 3s then your still a little better off than mellee classes.<hr></blockquote> Except mages have no auto-attack, melee or ranged. When was the last time you calculated DPS using only combat arts?

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Marcuzs wrote:<BR> Sounds like they did the same thing to spell procs as they did to mellee procs. Makes sense to me, a proc is a proc and all should be treated equally. But if your procs are normalized off 2.5s and ours is 3s then your still a little better off than mellee classes.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>2.5 s may be the average of the spell cast timers averaged out.  as in everyones.  I dont have that data but am just taking a guess at it.  Could be one reason for the difference.  Or it could be at 3 seconds and the initial test data is off thanks to the random # generator, could even be lower at 2 seconds.

[Emerix]

<DIV>Illusive . As a level 70 Trouby i do the following .</DIV> <DIV>I took little above the average damage for those skills</DIV> <DIV>Perfect Shrill 1,300 1s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>Noble blade 800 ,5s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>Sandra's 300 ,5s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>Steal essence 400 1s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>thats 2,8 k in 4,5 seconds </DIV> <DIV>Perfect Shrill and Steal essence are spells that can proc . the two others are Combat arts and since we cant use poison they dont proc .</DIV> <DIV>a wizzard can do 5 k damage with an ice comet (lowbie spell i know . they get much stronger nukes . ice comet is jsut the only one i remember atm )</DIV> <DIV>Lets not talk about what kind of damage other scouts do .</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Emerix on <SPAN class=date_text>04-21-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:55 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Emerix on <span class=date_text>04-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:55 PM</span>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> <DIV>Illusive . As a level 70 Trouby i do the following .</DIV> <DIV>I took little above the average damage for those skills</DIV> <DIV>Perfect Shrill 1,300 1s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>Noble blade 800 ,5s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>Sandra's 300 ,5s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>Steal essence 400 1s + 0,5 % recovery</DIV> <DIV>thats 2,8 k in 4,5 seconds </DIV> <DIV>Perfect Shrill and Steal essence are spells that can proc . the two others are Combat arts and since we cant use poison they dont proc .</DIV> <DIV>a wizzard can do 5 k damage with an ice comet (lowbie spell i know . they get much stronger nukes . ice comet is jsut the only one i remember atm )</DIV> <DIV>Lets not talk about what kind of damage other scouts do .</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Emerix on <SPAN class=date_text>04-21-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:55 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Emerix on <SPAN class=date_text>04-21-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:55 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Once you figure out that I'm a supporter of not gimping your class you'll be able to stop the class is greener arguments.</P> <P>Yes wizards can generate more than 5K dmg in 4.5s  Yes this change positivily affects ALL mages (wizards included) that have spell cast timers of 3 seconds or higher.</P> <P>The correct way to argue your point is not by pointing the finger at other classes.  The rangers showed that the loss in proc dmg needed to be replaced by higher dmg combat arts in order to get some sort of balance out of it.</P> <P>So please lets leave the classes greener type of posts out of this one, and provide real #'s to back up the nerf to the class (and maybe other classes will join in)<BR></P>

[Emerix]

<DIV>I did compare which is a completely legal way to analyse problems . What is your point ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> <DIV>I did compare which is a completely legal way to analyse problems . What is your point ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>you have other damage type spells available to you as a lvl 70 troub.  I in fact have 2 masters for your class one is a 600-1100 nuke that recycles every 10s. the other is the aoe group 30% proc that you can take at master 2 for lvl 64 training.</P> <P>The point being not just taking a slice of spells and calling it a day.  It means taking your entire line up, comparing the damage it dealt (with the higher proc #'s) then comparing to how it is now on test. (i keep referring to the bajillion ranger posts because they had lots of rational posts on this issue with charts dps figures which told the whole story not just a sliver of an attack)</P> <P>To expand upon that further.  Comparing the amount of damage a obvious utility class such as a troub (believe it or not your scoutness is based heavily on utility) to a dps oriented class such as a wizard is not a valid one to make.  (thus the grass is greener comments or I should say class is greener)</P>

[GMPOTU]

<DIV>First of all let me start out by saying Emerix you are a "bard". Your class is designed for utility and group buffs. You are not supposed to be T1 DPS like rangers, assassins, wizards, and warlocks. I'd actually go as far as saying there is a chance you're not intended to be T2 DPS either. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That being said, I'd have to "as a wizard" disagree with these changes to procs as well. I am on your side bards. While it would be cool to use Ice Nova (Master I) and have all my procs go off, I'd probably die 90% of the time I cast it if I get a crit. Yes, I do like procs that's why I have them and if they go off every time I cast Ice Nova then cool. Ice Nova, Ball of Lava, and Glacial Winds (AE) or pretty much the only spells I ave that are 3sec+ </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I use all my fast cast spells , 0.5sec-1.0sec for procs as well and if it's being normalized to 2.5sec then I too disagree with this change. I like it how it is.</DIV>

[Zeral498]

<blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Emerix wrote: <div>I did compare which is a completely legal way to analyse problems . What is your point ?</div> <div> </div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>you have other damage type spells available to you as a lvl 70 troub.  I in fact have 2 masters for your class one is a 600-1100 nuke that recycles every 10s. the other is the aoe group 30% proc that you can take at master 2 for lvl 64 training.</p> <p>The point being not just taking a slice of spells and calling it a day.  It means taking your entire line up, comparing the damage it dealt (with the higher proc #'s) then comparing to how it is now on test. (i keep referring to the bajillion ranger posts because they had lots of rational posts on this issue with charts dps figures which told the whole story not just a sliver of an attack)</p> <p>To expand upon that further.  Comparing the amount of damage a obvious utility class such as a troub (believe it or not your scoutness is based heavily on utility) to a dps oriented class such as a wizard is not a valid one to make.  (thus the grass is greener comments or I should say class is greener)</p><hr></blockquote>The AoE group 30% (Aria of Acclamation) is the buff that got nerfed dude. It doesn't proc 30% of the time due to this change. <div></div>

[Dogm]

<P>The fact that a Troub can do a 600-1100 nuke every 10s has nothing to do with this thread.  This thread is about how the spell proc changes effect Troubs etc.  Before you try and pad your post count further, please remember that you are supposed to keep your replies constructive and on topic.  </P> <P> </P> <P>As a crusader this change will effect my DPS, but for me it is kinda a mixed bag.  I am not a DPS class so I can't argue that point, but since most of my Spells have a .5 second cast time this change will make Spell proc items pretty useless for me. </P> <P>I would be interested in seeing where this change is coming from.</P>

[electricninjasex]

With the sorceror WIS AA line, all single-target cast times except Ice Nova are below 3 seconds.  No players I know have ever complained about the current spell proc behavior as it relates to themselves or competing classes and nobody is enthusiastic about the side effects that inevitably accompany these changes. THIS IS A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME.  LEAVE IT ALONE.  FIX THE CLOUD BUG.<div></div>

[Ishbu]

<P>So let me get this straight.  I have an item that has a 10% chance to proc another 200dd on a hostile spell cast.  With this change this item actually only has a 10% chance if my spell has a cast time of 2.5seconds or longer?  What the hell is the purpose of that?  The longer casting spells are the bigger dmg spellls.  Sure I could spam really short cast spells but i would do far less dmg with the extra proc's than with using the bigger hitting, longer casting spells.</P> <P>This is an absolutely [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] change.  If something has a 10% chance to proc on an action it is 10 freaking percent.  Not 5 percent, not 10 percent if spell is over certain cast, 10 freaking percent.  This change should not make it live period.  If it does you just made EVERY spell procing piece of gear useless because they will be around 5% or less chance to proc on my average spell.  Therefore instead of making gear worthwhile for a mage, it is now useless again.  </P> <P>A developer needs to come here and post exactly why they bothered adding spell procs to items if the plan is to make them useless.  QUIT WASTING RESOURCES that would be BETTER spent on adding real content to the game and making things are fixed.  Either the resources were wasted in created spell procing items and making sure they worked (wich they rarely did) or the resources were wasted implementing this change.  One way or the other you wasted a TON of resources if this goes live.  </P>

[Ishbu]

I just thought of something else.  Will you please REMOVE the mage option from the end of the claymore rewards?  The item was fairly crappy as it was with a 5% chance to proc a deaggro and another useless effect.  But with this change that 5% is going to function more like NEVER [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ING PROC WHEN IT WOULD BE OF ANY USE.  So just delete it.  Put a message out saying we dont want mages having gear and anything cloth or mage useuable has been deleted or changed so they can no longer use it.

[Kraks_Aforty]

MORE USELESS "FIXES" PLEASE!Let's not do something that makes sense, like fixing Wizard and Ranger DPS.  No no, let's nerf EVERYONE with something that isn't even broken!!!WOOT!Stop changing the mechanics of the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] game and focus more on content.  The Mechanics, except for Wizard and Rangers, are just about perfect.  People LIKE their abilities, overall, and now you wanna screw with that too?  What are you guys thinking? <div></div>

[shortfa]

Greetings all, I do understand that troubadors and illusionist are supposed to be t3 or whatever dps. That is fine with us (most of us). We are already currently at that damage level in groups and solo i believe. This proposed change would well... from what the figures shown in the bard page, hurt us more. We aren't asking to be t1 dps or anything, but why the change that lowers our average dps more? Yes we are a utility class, which explains our already normalish dps (i.e. not spectacular). But why are we getting a change that lowers our procs with no apparent change in our utility? in fact, the recent changes made more mobs immune to stun and hence our mezz which in turn hurts our utility. I think what Crombie was trying to do is to bring attention to this problem that those classes that rely on spell procs might face after the next update. Unlike our pre-ranger friends, we aren't exactly amazing dps at the moment, so this change will only serve to push us down further with no apparent improvement for us. We aren't T1 dps and we never were, so there's no reason to screw our damage up anymore. In terms of improvment they will probably have to raise the damage on our proc song, or our spells straight out. Perhaps taking the "power damaging" side of our attacks and change em' to more damage or something more useful than its current form. Or preferbly, not implement the change till they can come up with something to make up in the lost of dps for the poor utility classes <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Inquisiter]

I can't beleive they are taking this ill-thought out step.In effect SOE is:1) Nerfing Illusionist (amd Troubador) DPS even further and disproportionally. I thought the nerfs for chanters couldn't get any worse but this is a new low. Our DPS is mediocre at best and now we will be sinking even further cause we have few long-cast spells.2) Reducing the value of proc loot for mages - its bad enough there isnt enough fabled raid loot for mages now your rendering the existing proc loot completely uninspiring.Devs have put no thought behind the fact that some classes depend on their proc buffs a lot more than others.

[Ishbu]

<DIV>Seriously, the Blood of the broodwatcher is a fabled drop off a mob in the temple of scale.  It has a mere 5% chance to proc off hostile spells for a paltry 300-400 dmg.   That means if I cast 20 freaking spells it should give me an extra 350 dmg on average.  Is that so overpowered that it needs to be nerfed so that it only procs once every 50 casts on average?  Jesus whomever thought of this change needs to be slapped and [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing hard. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Enough of the stupid [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] already.  Cant you see people are fed up enough with the crap.  Fix content.  Add new content in all area's of the game.  Quit [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing with [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] that isnt [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing broken.  I dont know how else to say it.  The devs completely ignore us.  I am 100% sure there will be no comment on this absolutely ill conceive and completely un-thought out change.  I dare you to prove me wrong and post a reasonable reason as to why this is necessary.  Was the 2% dps increase so [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing overpowered that we needed to make proc gear for mages, bards, and priests useless?  Get a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing clue.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I for one am tired of this [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  Get your act together and quit screwing with the few parts of the game people actually [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing enjoy.  I havent seen one single [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing complaint from anybody of any [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing class saying OMG mages/bards/priests have too much gear that procs or it procs too much.  Not a single [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing one.  I have seen countless posts detailing how [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ty deathtoll loot is.  I have seen countless posts showing how there is simply not enough raid content (no one more zone that is most likely (based off all your previous additions) broken or far too easy and way way way too short with a much too long of a lockout) for anyone.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I realize I am being brash and down right rude here and you know what?  I dont give a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  I have been paying you people money for multiple accounts for over a year and I am fed up.  Open your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing eyes and take a look around.  Casual gamers, regular gamers, hardcore gamers, raiders and non raiders are ALL eagerly anticipating vanguard so they can leave this game.  How does that not raise a red flag for you?  Sure not everyone will leave, but a major percentage of your paying customers will and that is not a guess.  I for one, am not waiting for vanguard.  I have no desire to rebuild myself after all the effort, work, and time I have put in here.  I would much rather quit gaming.  Maybe if you start listening to people and doing things productive to the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing game you can still turn things around.  Serioulsy, give me a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing answer as to why you feel the need to nerf something that was in no way, shape, or form overpowered when there is so much that needs fixing in this game.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Quit with the bull [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  Quit ingoring your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing player base.  Quit [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing around period.  I am [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing sick of this god [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] mickey mouse bull [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].</DIV>

[stigg]

<P>Grats SOE! Instead of giving sorcerers lower casting times like we all want you've gone and made us benefit from sucking,  And if that wasnt enough you've gone and nerfed all other classes in one shot.  My hat's off to you.  </P> <P>Oh yeah and it's now counter productive to reduce your casting times.  Again way to go!</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by stigger on <span class=date_text>04-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:33 AM</span>

[Dreadwalk]

Its a pity that SOE in my opionion have had great communication over many issues in the past. Class balance and class problems in most cases though seems to end up in stone wall of silence.Im sure all of us would appreciate a decent summary of where we are at.  DPS class tier problems , melee v castor imbalances , T2 dps out parsing T1 etc..  Surely some indepth (not one or two sentence) outlines of where all the classes stand and anticipated changes would go a long way to calming nerves and giving us insight to what the Devs view as priorities to be fixed.<div></div>

[Chefren]

<div><blockquote><hr>GMPOTU wrote:<div>First of all let me start out by saying Emerix you are a "bard". Your class is designed for utility and group buffs. You are not supposed to be T1 DPS like rangers, assassins, wizards, and warlocks. I'd actually go as far as saying there is a chance you're not intended to be T2 DPS either. </div><hr></blockquote>How right you are: we are supposed to be T3 dps and that is what we are at the moment if we work hard enough. This will drop a troubs damage compared to a dirge however, creating imbalance where there wasn't any before.</div>

[mook85az]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><span>:smileysad: I'm a Troubador, a scout class.  Priests outdamage me.  That's fine, I don't mind.  I know my class and how to solo (lots of charm!) and love playing support.  But I can't deal with my major source of damage disappearing. The song in question here is Aria.  The 30% hostile spell proc. At 58 with 324 INT and master1, it does ~350 damage. In a typical solo fight (with a non heroic blue, anything higher I have to use charming tactics) I get off Shrill twice, every 20 seconds.  It's a 1 second cast.  This is THE troubador damage button.  Our highest damaging attack in actually our mob-specific mastery attacks, ~1200-1400 (not a spell).  This one is a few hundred less at level 58 with 324 INT master2, ~700-1100. </span><span> Our encounter nuke has a 3 second cast and low damage around ~500 for whatever one I would have at 58.  I rely on Aria procs to make it do more.  It is only used against groups, and usually only once because of the long cast time I usually won't finish casting.  It has a 20 second recast.</span> <span> My damage song and power replenisher is on a 10 second recast and also has a cast time of 1 second.  It does 300-400.  I have another 10 second recast nuke with almost no range (no good on a pull) and a long cast time, is this 3 seconds? (no good solo because of interrupts and lost damage elsewhere, it's really only for when I'm forced to pretend I'm a ranged class)  I don't know how long the cast is, I never use it.  Better attacks refresh before I ever need to get to it. Those are the four damage spells that set of the Aria.  It also procs off all of the debuffs (this is the important part) with 1 second casts and are encounter wide.  This does a lot of extra damage and I prefer to solo groups of mobs because of debuff Aria damage.  I have 3 of these.  I like to spam these when I put up Precision of the Maestro (short time 100% hostile spell proc).  That and the Aria let me kill things.  I don't usually need these songs in a group or even against solo groups because the fights are short.  I use them just for Aria damage.  Again, I use these specifically for Aria damage. I also have two single target debuffs with 1 second cast times.  These get used twice in a solo fight (24s durations), possibly once for the one with a 20 second recast.  In fact, just because of Aria damage, I cast the 6 second recast one when it refreshes even though it lasts 24 seconds.  Let me say that again: just for the Aria damage.  The other one is actually a debuff for mental resist.  Our three single target damage spells and one encoutner damage spell use mental and so do Aria and Maestro.  Since I'll cast the big damage once maybe twice a fight and the power replenish one twice, I wouldn't cast it so religiously (on the incoming even in groups) if it weren't for the fact that it also lets Aria do more damage. Then I have the Bellow song.  Instant cast, encounter interrupt with a small chance to knockdown.  Recast is 20 seconds.   </span><span> Doesn't do a whole lot of good by itself.  </span><span>You'll never guess why I hit this as soon as it's up. </span><span>Oh, you did?  Aria damage, you say? That's exactly it!  I wonder how much it'll proc with an instant cast time? Mez procs Aria, this is just bonus damage and nothing to be concerned with.  Though I believe it has a 3 second cast. In a solo fight without Maestro being used (1min 30s recast), Aria will do about the same or more damage than my damage spells.  Against groups, Aria may be close to to half of my damage period.  That includes all combart arts and autoattack. And any spell worth using regularily has a 1 second cast time (except for group nuke). I'm not asking to be a damage class, I know what I was getting into.  I just don't want my damage reduced.  I like my class and this will leave me sour.  Have you ever thought to yourself, "That Troub is doing way too much damage!"?  Didn't think so. You can see why this scares me. </span><div></div> When a lower level Troub in my guild won the master of the lvl22 Aria, I congratulated him.  I told him it is our single most important ability.  Then I see the changes on test....<p>Message Edited by mook85az on <span class=date_text>04-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:52 AM</span>

[shortfa]

yeah, i'm still not sure why they are implementing this change. Spell and melee procs are so different, why handle them the same way? even with a low chance to proc, melee'ers can still auto attack, churning out a large number of hits and getting a quasi-regular proc rate. For spells however, we have no auto attack, we just cast it once, if it doesn't proc we're gonna have to wait for the recast timer to get back before we can cast it again. Its madness if the proc rates are lowered, there is no spell auto attack to shore up the damage inbetween or to give a chance to proc. Melee procs still proc when a character is OOP, for a caster however, its not going to happen. Most of the additional damage comes from procs off debuffs (for troubadors at least, our snare, cheap shot, etc.), CAs that do not do damage on their own, so the extra damage is just a help. Melee procs however, even if they don't proc, the CA is still going to do its stated damage. If we include our recast timing into a dps calculation, i'm sure that the numbers will be horrendous. One must remember that a character can have alot more melee hits in a single fight than spells casted. If they intend to implement this change, i believe that they should still increase the base % of procs. for casters, or make the procing damage ALOT (notice the caps? it means AAAALOOOOT) higher than what it is now to give it a fair chance against the melee procs. <div></div>

[mook85az]

If it's not broken, don't fix it!  Especially when Tim the Toolman Taylor is the one doing it. <div></div>

[mook85az]

You know, I just had a thought.  Maybe they thought they'd change this just so it would be the same as melee proc without really thinking about what it would do.  They're on a huge simplification kick lately, and to have the two proc types working differently would be exactly the kind of thing to "fix." Just look at the guild recruitment page.  It pretends to know what you want in a guild and then only shows you fifteen choice.  It's so simple!  Sometimes options and variation are okay.  Have faith in your customers, don't insult our intelligence. <div></div>

[Emerix]

<DIV>Uhm .. after reading the whole Topic again ill agree with electricninjasex</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>THIS IS A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME.  LEAVE IT ALONE.  FIX THE CLOUD BUG.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For everyone who thinks Bards are an utility class and shouldnt do damage :</DIV> <DIV>Search button !</DIV> <DIV>We are supposed to be tier 3 on dps . This will  ---n o t--- be possible after the proc change .</DIV> <DIV>Ill repeat it till the *meeeep* shut up with the utility class *meeep*</DIV> <DIV>Cant say this much easier to understand .</DIV>

[Emerix]

*still waiting for a Dev to answer this topic * God please explain why you guys do that instead if fixing bugs that *meeep* people off for more than half a year allready .

[Hennyo]

This is one STUPID change if you ask me. Seriously tho, spell procs were the only thing that allowed someone to change there style as a caster to try to come a littler further out on top. With this change it just completly removes any skill from the game for a number of classes, it just becomes a boring repeat x spells in this ordrer over and over.<div></div>

[Lolianna]

<P>Take it from a ranger, nothing you say or do or post.. charts, graphs.. NOTHING will stop this from coming live. That's just sony. Asking for an explanation? Give em a day.. they will come up with a fantabulous story where a caster... somewhere, somehow.. hit 4k dps!! NOW.. it's your job to find that caster and ream em good!!</P> <P>For all those people that yelled and screamed and laughed at rangers for WHINING.. I say to you.. relax guys!! It's just a game, you will adjust. You just may find yourself in some wierd tier watching people out parse you by 1k cuz they are getting godly procs off their spells.</P> <P>Ishbul, no-one ever posted it, but I am sure people noticed. It was mentioned in our guild many times, as we note dps - crits when parses are reported. Casters get 2-3 times the procs melees are getting. Perhaps Sony deduced that, if procs were the causation of rangers being overpowered, it was probably the cause here also. Go figure.. no-one can explain except sony. I just believe you will get one of those fishy , on OUR data some mage got 4k dps somewhere and we never meant for that to happen. I can say the highest I've personally seen from a caster in KoS so far was 2799 dps by a necro on a raid.. it's not 4k, but it beats the scout average all to heck. </P> <P>I feel for you bards/ troubs <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. Talk about a double whammy. Good luck finding an answer guys.</P> <P> </P> <P>Meerah</P> <P> </P>

[Ishbu]

<P>I can do 4k dps on certain encounters and regarless of this change I will continue to do so.  My anger over this change lies in the fact that once again all gear will be meaningless for me.  Melee classes can upgrade their weapons to do more auto attack damage between combat arts, mages dont do that.  With the gear in my possesion I will actually be MORE effective wearing my backup gear because I get more power regen out of it.  </P> <P>Thanks for the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing explanation and clarification on this issue too.  Oh wait, we havent gotten one because there is no good reason other than the excuse your just pulling [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] out your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] to pretend like your improving the game.  </P>

[Emerix]

<DIV>I know i posted this allready , but hey , the probability that they see it is higher if i post it again .</DIV> <DIV>Suggestion : Leave the procs on short cast spells as they are or lower them to like at most 20 % ((from 30 % aria to 20% )) . Then make them do up to 40 % on slow  cast spells .</DIV> <DIV>Effects : Casters happy because their slowpoke spells get more procs off</DIV> <DIV>Bards/Illus happy because they dont lose too much and get some more love in groups</DIV> <DIV>Sorcerers finally get back to Tier 1 damage . Sorry to say it but the melee scouts allready get thick armor etc so they should be ok with sorcs being at their dps level again . </DIV> <DIV>LU 13 finally a bit more completed</DIV>

[Nevari]

<div></div>Hmmmm... been thinking a lot about this changes lately. Done some math, even as my math is very flawed I think <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Anyway I sincerly hope someone from SOE is reading this and starts to think about what I will point out now.I've been biased since DoF, oh yeah the dead old horse again, but my point here is, that you force down changes the throat of your paying customers who are mature enough and got enough brains to adopt and have fun with what is given. Yet it is a neverending story. This is what really bugs me here.Why? Make it right the second time. The first time ok, we all got a learning curve and within given time we'll see how stuff works out or not and where tweaks and adjustments are needed.But this feels like meddling around with stuff you do yourself not really understand. There is a limit to how many changes and how often before patience runs out and tolerance runs thin. Then, yes that is given, it is on us on how we react to it and possibly kiss the game goodbye.For once I would love to see an actual communication take place. But then the facts are clearly not in favor of you, you stay silent. Prove me wrong. I would be happy to be wrong here and I'm not talking about the many examples all around the forums but this I mean in regards to a handful of subclasses. You know which I mean I hope.Nevertheless even this major nerf, and yes it is a big hit, could be accepted and adopted. Yet you must admit that for example looking at bards, the Allegro AA is contraproductive for this changes as it lowers the casting times thus lowering the proc chances again.Same goes for some equipment out there. IF you change stuff, please make sure the rest is in line with the upcoming change(s) and that current game mechanics do not get broken by the changes or are contraproductive all of sudden. You fail here sadly and future adjustments after LU23 are kinda to late. The damage is done allready. Your playerbase, or a part of it, is allready upset and we are right with it.Now let's assume just for a moment that we all are completly wrong with the aim and impact of the changes and are hypocritical. Could be, no? If so it is not to hard to give word and calm our souls with a short post. Yet you are silent.THIS is what is most upsetting here. Not alone this single change but all what comes along and HOW you communicate it.Anyway I won't repost what I stated on the Troubador forums here again. Follow the <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=36&message.id=7480" target="_blank">link</a> to check the thread. I can see and do see the pros and cons of the changes. It doesn't mean I have to like them but that's my personal opinion and I stated my point secluded from the impact on Troubadors in this post which was my intention. The impact discussion and more on Troub boards.But please open your eyes and recognize that there might be a deeper impact than you anticipated yet. Just talk to us. Yes you sure will get flames but also there are enough players here who will greatly appreciate some sort of communication. And honestly.... it would be a step in the right direction. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Thank you.<div></div>

[Plurke]

<P>i`m unhappy with this nerf again over 24 LU i only said once woot once not bad and rest was omg another nerf or still no fix for my class</P> <P>most people made a chanter for raid purpose we are already so [Removed for Content] cause we can`t use our main ability for it CC so we do then bit of dps and a powerbuff, our dps is t3 thx to the procs and those are fast procs so our dps is lower a lot by this like 1/3 of our dps is gone we where only t3 we werent complaining other classes weren`t complaining , why the change i don`t get it. oh well so now still no CC in return but nerf of our mediocre dps it`s funny next will be power nerf then i will be totally useless. oh and our AA line like almost every chanter did take agi line 9(reduce timers) so that line will then become useless also oh great thank you for some more useless stuff </P>

[AfflictedOne]

<blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:<div></div> <p>So let me get this straight.  I have an item that has a 10% chance to proc another 200dd on a hostile spell cast.  With this change this item actually only has a 10% chance if my spell has a cast time of 2.5seconds or longer?  What the hell is the purpose of that?  The longer casting spells are the bigger dmg spellls.  Sure I could spam really short cast spells but i would do far less dmg with the extra proc's than with using the bigger hitting, longer casting spells.</p> <p>This is an absolutely [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] change.  If something has a 10% chance to proc on an action it is 10 freaking percent.  Not 5 percent, not 10 percent if spell is over certain cast, 10 freaking percent.  This change should not make it live period.  If it does you just made EVERY spell procing piece of gear useless because they will be around 5% or less chance to proc on my average spell.  Therefore instead of making gear worthwhile for a mage, it is now useless again.  </p> <p>A developer needs to come here and post exactly why they bothered adding spell procs to items if the plan is to make them useless.  QUIT WASTING RESOURCES that would be BETTER spent on adding real content to the game and making things are fixed.  Either the resources were wasted in created spell procing items and making sure they worked (wich they rarely did) or the resources were wasted implementing this change.  One way or the other you wasted a TON of resources if this goes live.  </p><hr></blockquote> Well actually I have to say I was thinking to myself the other day just how many items there were in game for caster procs.  Back in the day there were 0 and scouts were king of the proc equipment.  Got a few ( 3 if I recall in DOF) and I've seen quite a few more in KOS.  So basically casters are in the same place that scouts used to be with proc gear.  There's one thing tho... there's almost no scout based proc gear anymore.  So the tables have turned imo and I for one think it's a very good idea to change casting procs to the same formula that is used for melee classes.  Face facts SOE has decided that procs are a bonus and not something to be basing your character off of.   And yes I know that some classes will be hurt by this but I think it does level the playing field for some of the others. As for saying that there's no interesting equipment for your class anymore.  Well guess what, rangers haven't had any interesting equipment since T5.  In fact in the two expansions there's exactly one piece of equipment that I truely want.  Everything else is just stat gear.  Maybe you won't be procing like you used to but then again I don't even have any proc gear anymore cause it mostly doesn't exist since T5.<div></div>

[Al]

<DIV>I feel this is the devs way to try and nerf summoners but it should be achieved in another way.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Alza on <span class=date_text>04-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:16 PM</span>

[enc]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Alza wrote:<BR> <DIV>Cry me a river summoners, your dps is way overpowered with the way procs work right now due to your fast cast times, maybe this will put you where you deserve to be and up warlock/wiz dps like it should. Melee procs have worked  like this since the ranger nerf in LU20, get used to it. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV> <DIV>hmmm, no one talked about summoners in this thread. This change is mostly hurting enchanters and bards...</DIV>

[Ishbu]

<p>Message Edited by Ishboozor on <span class=date_text>04-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:09 PM</span>

[Hikkymouse]

My suggestion :A. Spell proc will be changed, except Illusionist and Troubador <span>:smileytongue:</span>B. Spell proc will be changed, and proc chance increase greatly.<span></span>C. Spell proc will be changed, and Illusionist and Troubador get new DD!!!!(Cast : 30sec, DMG : 10000 <span></span><span>:smileyhappy:</span> )<span></span>D. Anything will not change <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span><div></div>

[Dystopya]

<div></div>Please dont reduce the troubador class to an afk buff [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. Seriously. My dps is severely limited as it is. My high damage spell at master 1 level reads out at 1200 damage on the high hit. This is severely underpowered compared to just about every other class in the game. Priests can out dps troubs on parses. Guardians in defensive can outdamage troubs in parses. Im content with where i am right now, in the food chain. Most troubies I know are as well. Were not kings of dps and we've learned to live with it. STOP [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ING OR CLASS UP FFS! We finally had a bone thrown to us to put us on par with other classes in kos with aria and proc items. Please dont [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] it all up and yank them from us. Its not fun to have a main raid role that is simply standing around becuase we know spamming all of our abilities will do jack and [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn],  and we'll still be outdamaged by priests.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Dystopya on <span class=date_text>04-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:50 PM</span>

[crewguy72]

<DIV>Please Devs, please reconsider before doing this change. Many of us left this game once before and came back to give SOE one more try... if you keep doing this you're going to lose customers to  your competition for good....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please reconsider changing any more classes...there is honestly nothing worse than pouring your heart and soul into a character and then have it changed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I beg you... reconsider...don't let class changes like this go live...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>:smileysad:</DIV><p>Message Edited by crewguy72 on <span class=date_text>04-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 PM</span>

[mook85az]

<blockquote><hr>Lolianna wrote:<div></div> <p>Take it from a ranger, nothing you say or do or post.. charts, graphs.. NOTHING will stop this from coming live. That's just sony. Asking for an explanation? Give em a day.. they will come up with a fantabulous story where a caster... somewhere, somehow.. hit 4k dps!! NOW.. it's your job to find that caster and ream em good!!</p> <p>For all those people that yelled and screamed and laughed at rangers for WHINING.. I say to you.. relax guys!! It's just a game, you will adjust. You just may find yourself in some wierd tier watching people out parse you by 1k cuz they are getting godly procs off their spells.</p> <p>Ishbul, no-one ever posted it, but I am sure people noticed. It was mentioned in our guild many times, as we note dps - crits when parses are reported. Casters get 2-3 times the procs melees are getting. Perhaps Sony deduced that, if procs were the causation of rangers being overpowered, it was probably the cause here also. Go figure.. no-one can explain except sony. I just believe you will get one of those fishy , on OUR data some mage got 4k dps somewhere and we never meant for that to happen. I can say the highest I've personally seen from a caster in KoS so far was 2799 dps by a necro on a raid.. it's not 4k, but it beats the scout average all to heck. </p> <p>I feel for you bards/ troubs <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. Talk about a double whammy. Good luck finding an answer guys.</p> <p>Meerah</p> <hr></blockquote>You realize this chage increases procs off of the high damage mages and lowers procs on low damage mages, crusaders, and troubadors?  So it does the opposite of what your in glee about?  It makes sorcerors and conjurorers deal more damage.<div></div>

[Ishbu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> mook85az wrote:<BR><BR>  It makes sorcerors and conjurorers deal more damage.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And it should go without saying that isnt a productive change for the game.  Too bad the developers dont care what the players think and will push this live out of being stubborn and uninformed on the issue.

[TheDragon]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> AfflictedOne wrote:<BR><BR>Face facts SOE has decided that procs are a bonus and not something to be basing your character off of.   And yes I know that some classes will be hurt by this but I think it does level the playing field for some of the others.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Since you mention facts.... the only classes to be hurt by this will be enchanters and bards, both of which are currently (using fast cast procs to augment their dps) very very low on the dps teir.  I'm an illusionist and can honestly say that without the procs, I would have stopped playing this class a long time ago.  The procs allow me to "seem" like I'm doing decent dps.  It takes the right situation (no control duties) and alot of work in conjunction with our fast cast AA line to even get to tier 3 dps status.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From reading the responses, it appears bards are nearly exactly the same as enchanters in regards to the effects this change will have on the class.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you mention "leveling of the playing field", I can only assume you speak of summoners that need the leveling.  Well, this change will not give you what you want at all.  Their dps might even go up some with this change (not sure on their cast times), but I can assure you it will not drop noticeably.  Illusionists often watch how often other classes cast hostile spells looking for targets for our spell proc buff and summoners just don't cast often enough to warrent buffing them (in general).  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If "leveling of the playing field" is somehow the goal of this change, then it will fail miserably.  In fact, it will not level anything at all, but rather create a hugh dps gap between enchanters/bards and their respective mage/scout counterparts.</DIV>

[TheDragon]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dystopya wrote:<BR> <P>Please dont reduce the troubador class to an afk buff [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].<BR>...<BR> Were not kings of dps and we've learned to live with it. </P> <P>...<BR> Its not fun to have a main raid role that is simply standing around becuase we know spamming all of our abilities will do jack.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I absolutely agree with you.  These three statements cannot state the main frustration with this change any better, or rather what is left for the class after this change.</P> <P>Oh, and I'm an Illusionist.  Was amazed to see a Troub could say what I feel as enchanter perfectly.</P> <P>I honestly am not sure I can take anymore negative changes to my class.  It seems like ever live update there is something else that make me weaker and weaker.... ever since the combat changes anyways.</P>

[electricninjasex]

Of course the main problem with this change is that almost nobody believes it would help them.  But another problem I have with it is that there are so many more factors to a spell other than cast time, such as recast time and damage per cast, that basing proc rate off of cast time seems like a sloppy workaround. At least they got their message across... bards and chanters, don't you dare even think about propping up your damage output! If they want to change something like this, they need to take a thorough, structured approach... this ain't it. <div></div>

[crewguy72]

<DIV>:smileysad:</DIV><p>Message Edited by crewguy72 on <span class=date_text>04-23-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:03 AM</span>

[QQ-Fatman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> mook85az wrote:<BR>You realize this chage increases procs off of the high damage mages and lowers procs on low damage mages, crusaders, and troubadors?  So it does the opposite of what your in glee about?  It makes sorcerors and conjurorers deal more damage.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>If it's based on a 2.5sec cast timer, sorc wont do more dmg becuse we dont only cast those 4sec and 5sec spells - we cast 2sec seplls too! This change will not help sorc's dps problem at all, but just a nerf to other classes. No sorc would ever want this change.<BR>

[Ishbu]

So there isnt a single person that feels this is a positive change.  God this is just pathetic.

[Riversideblues]

i feel bad  that mages have to get their proc rates competely fuggered just like us scouts, (ie, no more proccing off ca's) but i guess instead of how we just proc off autoattack you guys just get to proc on the odd 4s spell you have, so other than warlocks( lots of 3s+ spells), i feel you guy's pain.why sony has to wreck things that are fine? i don't know, but whether or not VGsoh lives up to the hype or not, keep things like this comming and there will be no complaning on the boards becuase no one will be playing<div></div>

[Cygnu]

<P>/sigh</P> <P>What can I say that hasn't already been said. The troubadour is already nothing like it was when I started playing this game. Its has been changed and changed and changed, and I have left and come back a few times determined to give the class another chance. Our DPS has never been where the Devs say it is. It may have got there after the addition of PoM and when our Proc spell Aria was fixed after months and months of it being broken. These two spells probably bring us to where we should be in the DPS table, and now they are nerfing Arias for our peronal DPS :smileysad:</P> <P>Like our DPS wasn't already low enough!</P> <P>All I ask now is for a DEV to post the reason for the change. What as the thinking behind this decision and what is this change intended to fix?</P> <P>Is it the intention to reduce the DPS of the Troubadour and Enchanters? Surely not. I can only assume there is another reason and they don't realise the effects this will have on the 'lesser played' classes.</P> <P>Please can a DEV give the reasons for the change. Thats all I ask for at this time.</P>

[Kenazeer]

<DIV>Could it have more to do with DPS group setup on raids than individual DPS? Because it doesn't seem to me that this was overpowering on an individual basis. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either way, it is a shame that so much flavor is taken from the game by virtue of striving for "balance," which really doesn't seem likely to ever occur.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which brings up a good point. Will the "balance" ever be achieved? I mean, will the game ever reach a point where it is static in this regard for any protracted length of time? Balance seem like a water balloon; you push down in one spot and it pops up in another. Is there ever going to be a way to eliminate the pop-up? Not very likely, so I sure hope SoE realizes, sooner rather than later, that at some point you reach diminishing returns and all you really do by proceding down the balance path is continue to irritate players. If real balance could be achieved would anyone want to play such a vanilla game? So why strive for it so hard at the expense of good customer relations?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><boggle></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[enc]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kenazeer wrote:<BR> <DIV>Could it have more to do with DPS group setup on raids than individual DPS? Because it doesn't seem to me that this was overpowering on an individual basis. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Even if that was the change's explanation, it just wouldn't be justified.</P> <P>We, enchanters, are loosing all our utility against epic. They're immune to pretty much everything we've got, so being able to add some dps to the raid with reactives somewhat gave us a purpose. </P>

[Signal9]

<P>Origionally, I thought that this would pretty much destroy Illusionist DPS, but wouldn't affect the Coercers all that much.  Now I am beginning to wonder.</P> <P>Sony often has issues with pesky 'unintended consequences' attaching to changes they make.  In this case, they will be playing with the spell-proc rate.</P> <P>Within the illusionist class, they depend on a spell that allows other hostile spells to proc for additional damage.  Coercers do not operate in this fashion, however we do have spells that proc on the mob actions.</P> <P>Our power usage proc should not be affected by this change as it is supposed to proc 100% on power usage by the mob.</P> <P>Our melee reactive, on the other hand, only has a % chance to proc on melee attacks.  I can easily see this change working on the mob based on the mob's cast times.  As this melee proc is used on melee (most with 0.5 sec cast times) any error in coding that causes this change to apply in this fashion will reduce our procs by 75% (based on a 2s casting standardization).</P> <P>I am unsure about our reactive that procs on mob spell usage, but I do not believe that this is a 100% proc chance. (At work, and unable to check the spell % to be sure).</P> <P> </P> <P>I have no illusions that we will be able to prevent this change from going Live.  But I implore you to checksum this to a fare-thee-well before applying it.</P>

[Bassist]

Hey all, if you apply a curve to the data provided it will actually be closer to 3.0 seconds than 2.5 seconds.  As I recently posted on the Troub link above it will barely increase warlock/wizzie damage, and only if it is a 3+ mob encounter for the Warlock.  All other classes get a reduction.For those comparing this to the weapon delay proc nerf, weapon delay is absolute.  3 swings at 1.0 second delay takes 3.0 seconds.  1 swing at 3.0 second delay takes 3.0 seconds.  There is a recovery timer of 0.5 seconds for almost every spell.  So, three 1.0 second casts take 4.5 seconds.  One 3.0 second cast takes 3.5 seconds.  OK, you could remove 0.5 seconds from each since the last recovery wouldn't be needed if the creature died, but the point is that it hurts fast casters by more than just the percentage loss.  It reduces a 150DPS troub by about 20DPS.  That's a pretty large percentage.  And for you DPS classes out there, you see just how low we already are.  Our usefulness is reduced to mana battery, defense (which Dirges do better), and resists with the occasional PotM and Jester's.Since haste does not affect cast-time for the melee proc change, my calculations assume cast-time-reduction AAs and items will not affect these procs.  It gets even worse if they do.

[Ishbu]

It has been what? 5 days now?  and still no freaking reply or explanation.  Dont worry though guys, its not that they dont care, they just dont care about casters and bards.

[Crychtonn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ishboozor wrote:<BR> <P>. . . . . </P> <P>This is an absolutely [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] change.  If something has a 10% chance to proc on an action it is 10 freaking percent.  Not 5 percent, not 10 percent if spell is over certain cast, 10 freaking percent.  This change should not make it live period.  If it does you just made EVERY spell procing piece of gear useless because they will be around 5% or less chance to proc on my average spell.  Therefore instead of making gear worthwhile for a mage, it is now useless again.  </P>. . . . . <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I agree it'd be nice if it did work this way the Dev's have already shown they don't.  This change already went live for all melee classes I doubt they'll change their minds.  Remember it wasn't just a ranger nerf.  Every melee class got nerf'd by the proc change since most have CA cast times of .5 sec or less.</P> <P>The only thing that surprises me here is that this change didn't get put in at the same time as it was for melee CA's.</P> <P> </P>

[Ishbu]

Its not the exact same as the melee nerf.  While similar, melee users are still swining their weapons at all times, even when they are not casting CA's.  However, casters are not casting spells at all times so it hurts us even more.<p>Message Edited by Ishboozor on <span class=date_text>04-24-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:30 PM</span>

[Crychtonn]

<P> The refresh timers on them continue to decay.  And if they decay to the refresh point the weapon will swing on completion of a CA's casting.  But the weapons do not go off during the cast time of a CA.  Do to most melee classes having exceptionally fast cast times of .5 sec or lower it may appear they continually work they do not.  Playing a ranger the one melee class with long cast timers I can guarantee you auto bow 100% never goes off during the cast time of a CA.</P> <P>Also remember because most melee classes have those .5 sec or lower cast times on CA's they pretty much never proc anything when used.  Auto attack is the only real chance for melee classes to set proc's off.  With the exception of rangers that do have longer cast timers.</P> <P>I know casters don't auto attack or have any type of ranged auto attack.  I think it'd be pretty cool if they did add wands and stuff that auto fired every 3 or 6 sec but not while casting.  They'd go off in between spell cast like auto bow does for rangers.  But don't discount the fact the for near all melee classes auto attack is nearly the only source for proc's to go off.  CA cast times are just to short to ever cause procs to go off except on rare occasions.</P> <P> </P>

[Ishbu]

Yeah but like you said inbetween CA's there is almost always a swing with the weapon and while your waiting for CA's to refresh your swinging where as a caster has no equivalent.

[Riversideblues]

<div><blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:<div></div>Yeah but like you said inbetween CA's there is almost always a swing with the weapon and while your waiting for CA's to refresh your swinging where as a caster has no equivalent.<hr></blockquote>casters do have mana feeds to generate some power when not casting, but that doesn't change the fact that if you have no spells over 3.0s you wont ever proc unlike scouts who can autoattack for their poisons even though all of mine, and maybe 8 skills total for all scouts are over .5s............see, in some games the devs don't spend horendous amounts of time trying to balance the classes and end up breaking them more, because in those games the players don't end up quitting when their class gets nerfed/broken every other month............</div>

[Etillchou]

Have to admit I'm losing sight of what SOE wants with each class..Take the illusionist.We're suppost to give mana and CC and do some dps. In solo and group situations well okay soe got us okay. We can do what we are suppost to do.However in a raid SOE already removed 95% of the CC abilities and give mana well altho its needed it isnt the hardest thing to do. macro: /autofollow done..Leaves us with dps.. With a right amount of proc items illusionist can do some dps. True. Our class feels like its builded around procs and dots. I mean we dont have the hard hitting nukes and all we have has a fast cast time. All below 2 seconds. And with the aa's we are given I think 80% of the illusionists have some of the agi tree reducing our cast times even more.If this liveupdate happens then the amount of procs drops bigtime. Leaves the illusionist who already had little left in raid with even less. And since troubadeurs are builded to be the melee versions of illusionists they are hit as hard.If this has to happen according to SOE then they also need to think how to rebalance our dps. Every action has a reaction and the action to normalize the proc rate and the idea to have illusionist dps around xxx will mean you have to raise the amount of damage a spell does since illusionist will lose a lot of dps from their procs. And that should be the reaction. Raise some damage spells for the fast casting classes.oohw and relook at your aa tree. If the chanter aa tree is builded around fast casting and the fast casting now means reduced DPS then the aa tree for chanters is now outdated and needs an upgrade. And with every upgrade in the AA you will need to give them a free respec also.A lot of things to do dear SOE. Think before you make anything go live about how it hurts every class you designed and counter the negative sides. Its known that chanters and troubadeurs weren't given the most love and we all know that you wish that these problems didnt exsist but they do and only you designers can fix it. Normalise procs is death for all fast casting classes and for sure those with an aa tree builded upon fast casting.Like a poster said before me. If a spell can proc 10% when casted its 10% when casted. And not 10% when casted normalised on 3 seconds so a spell casted within a second with all aa casttime reducers will proc... never

[Emerix]

Another day ... still no answer from SOE . Way to go . Great customer service .

[theriatis]

<P>Hi,</P> <P>there's one question i'm wondering about, maybe it has been answered and i was just to blind to see it :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Is the 2.5% Chance calculated from the BASE Spell Time or from the REAL Spell Time ?</P> <P>e.G. if i have Ice Comet with 5 Seconds normally and with AA (50% less, thanks Templars i love you:smileywink<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> i have then an IC with 2.5 Seconds, will that affect the proc Chance ?</P> <P>Yeah, got some decent Proc Gear (finally, they added something with KoS) and now i'm curious if i should just change it...</P> <P> </P> <P>Regards, theriatis.</P> <P>(Mandragore, Lvl 70 Wizard on Valor)</P>

[vwlsskng]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> Another day ... still no answer from SOE . Way to go . Great customer service .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is still being tested, as far as I can tell. I don't see how their lack of reply to this thread of flames falls into the category of poor customer service.

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>theriatis wrote:<div></div> <p>Hi,</p> <p>there's one question i'm wondering about, maybe it has been answered and i was just to blind to see it :smileyhappy:</p> <p>Is the 2.5% Chance calculated from the BASE Spell Time or from the REAL Spell Time ?</p> <p>e.G. if i have Ice Comet with 5 Seconds normally and with AA (50% less, thanks Templars i love you:smileywink<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> i have then an IC with 2.5 Seconds, will that affect the proc Chance ?</p> <p>Yeah, got some decent Proc Gear (finally, they added something with KoS) and now i'm curious if i should just change it...</p> <p>Regards, theriatis.</p> <p>(Mandragore, Lvl 70 Wizard on Valor)</p><hr></blockquote>I made all my calculations based on using the base cast time, not a AA or buff reduced cast time.  I feel it will be this way, feel being the key word, because that is how it worked for the weapon proc delay vs. haste.</div>

[trenor]

<P>This is utter garbage as an illusionist we are already out dps by any other class except defiler, mystic, templar, and inq i f they are in dps mode.  This is a fact I can't even believe that they would have the audacity to do some other nerf to us.   It's nearly mind numbing.</P> <P> </P> <P>Fiz</P>

[Mulilla]

At least give us our class defining skill...  /usea Autofollow_and_avoid_cliffs_and_lava

[Gungo]

<P>Simple fix for enchanters is just raise the dam of thier nukes and power drains by 10-15%. No reasons echanters shouldn't do decent dps.</P> <P>I have been thinking about enchanters for a while. And truly i don't think there is alot of room to divide the class so much. Since they have effectively removed the archtype system in EQ2. i think they should just roll both coercer and illusinist into 1 enchanter class. Give them access to both class spells. And you will have a great yet not overpowered utility class. Charms, mezzes, persona pet, aoe mezz, power drains, +dps, +haste, +hate, debuffs, stuns/stifles/interupts, power regen, minds eye, channel (power arbitration), procs, mem wipe, illusionary ally, constructs, int/agi buffs, mental magic and divine buffs, reactive procs, roots, spell shield,  and a wealth of other abilites that have been used to divide a crowd control class into half of what it should be. I really think enchanters are still a great class, but severly penalized by having all it can do divided into two seperate classes. Even if they combined the class it would still have less enchanters on most servers then half the other classes.</P><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>04-25-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:42 AM</span>

[verydanger]

I'd have to argue this is EXACTLY like the changes that were made to melee procs. The whole point was to make no weapon-delay better than the other (a change that makes perfect sense no?), here the same thing will be achieved for casting times. Why should the same effect proc 5 times more often on a ranger than an assasin? It shouldnt, so this was fixed. And why should a class with longer cast timers get less benefit from proc effects than another class with shorter ones? I'm at a loss here, someone please explain that to me?It's a flawed game mechanic, simple as that. If fixing this lowers the damage output of class Y to unintended levels or makes procs too rare in general, then that should be corrected too. I do not however see why you need to keep a wrong in the game to make things right, you know.<div></div>

[Emerix]

<DIV>It shouldnt be changed because the classes that will benefit from the change allready do enough damage .. while those who are nerfed ((mainly troubys and illus)) will fall way behind tier 4 damage classes . and troubys and illus are supposed to be tier 3 fyi .</DIV> <DIV>so in short : it will mess the crap up even more .</DIV><p>Message Edited by Emerix on <span class=date_text>04-25-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:52 AM</span>

[mook85az]

<blockquote><hr>verydanger wrote:I'd have to argue this is EXACTLY like the changes that were made to melee procs. The whole point was to make no weapon-delay better than the other (a change that makes perfect sense no?), here the same thing will be achieved for casting times. Why should the same effect proc 5 times more often on a ranger than an assasin? It shouldnt, so this was fixed. And why should a class with longer cast timers get less benefit from proc effects than another class with shorter ones? I'm at a loss here, someone please explain that to me?It's a flawed game mechanic, simple as that. If fixing this lowers the damage output of class Y to unintended levels or makes procs too rare in general, then that should be corrected too. I do not however see why you need to keep a wrong in the game to make things right, you know.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Melee procs and casting procs are not the same.  Casting procs have to deal with recast timers, recover timers, and the lack of an autoattack.<div></div>

[Riversideblues]

i just don't understand why they dont, just to make it fair, up the proc chances of spells with longer casting timers so as that troubs and illus who are already at a low dps niche get even lower<div></div>

[Crychtonn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> mook85az wrote:<BR><BR>Melee procs and casting procs are not the same.  Casting procs have to deal with recast timers, recover timers, and the lack of an autoattack.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>?????????</P> <P>Last I checked the only difference was the auto attack portion.  Melee proc's already had this normalization done to them.  Melee proc's are already being effected by cast times, recast timers and recovery timers.  And because of this near all melee classes will almost never proc anything when using one of their CA's.  The only part of melee that has a half decent shot of proc'ing an effect is their auto attack.</P> <P>The nerf is going to suck and I feel for the classes that are going to be hit.  But since SOE already made this change for one side of the game there is almost no chance it won't be made for the other.</P> <P> </P>

[mook85az]

<blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div><p>And because of this near all melee classes will almost never proc anything when using one of their CA's.  The only part of melee that has a half decent shot of proc'ing an effect is their auto attack.</p> <hr size="2" width="100%">Exactly? So now I'll never proc anything, ever. </blockquote><div></div>

[Ishbu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> vwlssknght wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> Another day ... still no answer from SOE . Way to go . Great customer service .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is still being tested, as far as I can tell. I don't see how their lack of reply to this thread of flames falls into the category of poor customer service.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It has been tested and this thread is FULL of feedback showing just how stupid, pointless, and useless of a change this truly is.  They should listen to the people and say ok, this will not go live or at the very least try and save face on this one and explain why they are doing it.  </P> <P>No communication = poor customer service.</P>

[Ba]

<DIV>Personally i'd leave the proc % rate alone and just scale the effect up or down based on spell cast delay. Base it around a mean 2.0 sec cast time. Anything below that scale it down (less dmg, less stats, less healing, etc), anything above then scale it up (more dmg, more stats, more healing etc).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also apply a cap on the number of procs from worn items that can trigger from a single spell cast. Don't cap procs provided by player spells though.</DIV>

[Bassist]

<blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> mook85az wrote:Melee procs and casting procs are not the same.  Casting procs have to deal with recast timers, recover timers, and the lack of an autoattack. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>?????????</p> <p>Last I checked the only difference was the auto attack portion.  Melee proc's already had this normalization done to them.  Melee proc's are already being effected by cast times, recast timers and recovery timers.  And because of this near all melee classes will almost never proc anything when using one of their CA's.  <b>The only part of melee that has a half decent shot of proc'ing an effect is their auto attack.</b></p> <p>The nerf is going to suck and I feel for the classes that are going to be hit.  But since SOE already made this change for one side of the game there is almost no chance it won't be made for the other.</p> <hr></blockquote>That's making a point I haven't even looked at yet.  There is no auto-attack to make up for anything in casting.  It's just all-around nothing for those of us with 0.5 and 1.0 casting times.  As stated, due to recovery timers, it takes longer to get three 1.0 second casts off than one 3.0 second cast.  Heck, it take 5.5 seconds to get off six 0.5 second casts, vs. 3.0 seconds for one 3.0 second cast.  Ouch.I've put up the numbers many times.  Just have to watch to see if they include recovery timers, as it seems to be the only hope.  I feel sorry for the Troubs coming up, because they don't have anything groups need except mana regen:  no mezz, no PoM, no Jester's, and now even Aria's has become a raid specialty buff.  I still love this game, but this really sucks.

[Cuz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ishboozor wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> vwlssknght wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> Another day ... still no answer from SOE . Way to go . Great customer service .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is still being tested, as far as I can tell. I don't see how their lack of reply to this thread of flames falls into the category of poor customer service.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It has been tested and this thread is FULL of feedback showing just how stupid, pointless, and useless of a change this truly is.  They should listen to the people and say ok, this will not go live or at the very least try and save face on this one and explain why they are doing it.  </P> <P>No communication = poor customer service.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I thought common sense would prevail. </P> <P>No communication = Make your  educated conclusion. </P> <P>They have weapon procs normailized to a certain speed. It only makes sense that they would do it for spells too.</P> <P>My only concern is if this does affect troubs and Illusionist (I play a troub so I do care) as much as people are saying, what is the plan to bring them back up? </P>

[Crychtonn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR><BR> <P>That's making a point I haven't even looked at yet.  There is no auto-attack to make up for anything in casting.  It's just all-around nothing for those of us with 0.5 and 1.0 casting times.  As stated, due to recovery timers, it takes longer to get three 1.0 second casts off than one 3.0 second cast.  Heck, it take 5.5 seconds to get off six 0.5 second casts, vs. 3.0 seconds for one 3.0 second cast.  Ouch.<BR><BR>I've put up the numbers many times.  Just have to watch to see if they include recovery timers, as it seems to be the only hope.  I feel sorry for the Troubs coming up, because they don't have anything groups need except mana regen:  no mezz, no PoM, no Jester's, and now even Aria's has become a raid specialty buff.  I still love this game, but this really sucks.<BR><BR><BR><BR> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually as a Troubador you do have the ability to auto-attack in addition to your spell casting.  If you haven't been or plan to use your auto attack skills your costing yourself a decent amount of DPS.  Even if you just take it easy and don't want to joust AE's to do melee you can still sit back and use auto ranged attack.  This gives you the chance to proc both on spells and melee. And if you use a 7 sec delay long bow you will get alot of melee proc's off using auto ranged.  This will cost you money since you will need to purchase adamantine arrows but then so do all the other scouts.</P> <P>Chanters on the other hand don't have these abilities.  They could try and joust and melee but that would be extremely ineffective for them and with their low HP pool much to risky in loosing group buffs.  Unlike troubadors they have no ranged melee ability to fall back on.</P>

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Bassist wrote: <p>That's making a point I haven't even looked at yet.  There is no auto-attack to make up for anything in casting.  It's just all-around nothing for those of us with 0.5 and 1.0 casting times.  As stated, due to recovery timers, it takes longer to get three 1.0 second casts off than one 3.0 second cast.  Heck, it take 5.5 seconds to get off six 0.5 second casts, vs. 3.0 seconds for one 3.0 second cast.  Ouch.I've put up the numbers many times.  Just have to watch to see if they include recovery timers, as it seems to be the only hope.  I feel sorry for the Troubs coming up, because they don't have anything groups need except mana regen:  no mezz, no PoM, no Jester's, and now even Aria's has become a raid specialty buff.  I still love this game, but this really sucks. </p><hr> <p></p></blockquote> <p>Actually as a Troubador you do have the ability to auto-attack in addition to your spell casting.  If you haven't been or plan to use your auto attack skills your costing yourself a decent amount of DPS.  Even if you just take it easy and don't want to joust AE's to do melee you can still sit back and use auto ranged attack.  This gives you the chance to proc both on spells and melee. And if you use a 7 sec delay long bow you will get alot of melee proc's off using auto ranged.  This will cost you money since you will need to purchase adamantine arrows but then so do all the other scouts.</p> <p>Chanters on the other hand don't have these abilities.  They could try and joust and melee but that would be extremely ineffective for them and with their low HP pool much to risky in loosing group buffs.  Unlike troubadors they have no ranged melee ability to fall back on.</p><hr></blockquote>LOL, I wasn't saying I didn't have auto-attack, I was saying there is no proc associated with it from Aria's <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  The melee proc reduction still had melee procs to help it a little.  Aria's only procs on non-melee spells such as damage, debuffs, and taunts.</div>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<P>(@&%(^D(<A href="mailto:H#@$" target=_blank>H#@$</A>@# stop eating my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!</P> <P>Arias is based off hostile spell cast.  His bow wouldnt proc arias.</P> <P>The troub would have to be mele buffed, but then you have to remember troub + caster = goodness.  Why would you put a troub in a mele buff group when they work better with casters?</P> <P> </P>

[Crychtonn]

<P>Last time I looked nearly or maybe it's all casters have a melee proc they can place on others :smileywink:</P> <P> </P>

[Dogm]

<DIV>This thread has nothing to do with melee procs.  It is only about how this spell proc change will effect players, please try to stick to that topic.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now going along with you saying troubs can melee so they should complain about this change, Casters can melee just as well (just dont have combat arts).  They removed the lower skill caps for casters on melee weapons so there is nothing stopping you from autoattacking also.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>If you would read this thread you would see that this change doesnt help any class, and even pure casters (Wiz/warlock) will be hurt by it.  So please stop derailing this thread by saying Bards can melee also.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Dogmae on <span class=date_text>04-25-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:57 PM</span>

[Dystopya]

Can we get a dev reply about something that alot of us are obviously concerned about?<div></div>

[Astery]

as long as spells will show the real proc %, not for example a misleading 10% while being only 8%, this change is OK with me...dont make it difficult for the player to understand what their spell exactly do! especially after all those simplifications <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><p>Message Edited by Astery on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:36 AM</span>

[Aienaa]

<HR> <FONT color=#ffff00>I thought common sense would prevail. </FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No communication = Make your  educated conclusion. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>They have weapon procs normailized to a certain speed. It only makes sense that they would do it for spells too.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>My only concern is if this does affect troubs and Illusionist (I play a troub so I do care) as much as people are saying, what is the plan to bring them back up?</FONT> <HR> <P></P> <P> </P> <P>Sorry, but it doesn't make sence...</P> <P>The normalization formula is as follows.....   (delay / 3) X Proc %  .....  Where delay is either Weapon Delay for auto attack, Cast time for CA and Spells</P> <P>Melee attacks happen every 1.0+ seconds depending on weapon speed and haste and that is without even using a CA...  Let's use a 10% chance to proc weapon....  a 1.0 delay weapons will have (1 / 3) X 10 = 3% chance to proc...  a 6.5 second bow will have (6.5 / 3) X 10 = 21.6% chance to proc..... </P> <P>Spell attacks ONLY happen when a spell is cast....  so unless a spell is cast, there is 0% chance to proc....</P> <P>Let's look at CAs and spells....</P> <P>CAs have a 0.5 second delay....  (0.5 / 3) X 10% = 1.6% chance to proc</P> <P>Spell procs using Aria at 30% chance to proc</P> <P>Troubador Bellow line is instant....  (0 / 3) X 30% = 0% chance to proc</P> <P>nearly all Troubador spells have 1.0 sec cast....   (1 / 3) X 30% = 10% chance to proc (66% decrease)</P> <P>2.0 second spells .....  (2 / 3) X 30% = 20% chance to proc (33% decrease)</P> <P>3.0 second spells ....  (3 / 3) X 30% = 30% chance to proc (same chance as before)</P> <P>4.0 second spell....  (4 / 3) X 30% = 40% chance to proc (33% increase)</P> <P>5.0 second spell....  (5 / 3) X 30% = 50% chance to proc (66% increase)</P> <P>So, Troubadors are going to have thier proc damage reduced by over 66%....  Enchanters are going to have thier proc damage reduced between 33-66%</P> <P>Thoes with longer cast times are going to get a 33-66% increase in proc damage</P> <P>The thing is, the low DPS caster classes are the ones with the lower cast times, so all this is doing is lowering thier DPS even further...   The higher DPS caster classes have longer cast time and for the most part are going to be not effected or have thier DPS increased....</P> <P>This is nothing like melee procs because there is NO auto attack....</P> <P>They have not posted any changes to the classes that are going to be severly effected....  In fact, it looks like exactly what happened to the Rangers when they changed Melee procs.... The Opps, didn't realize it would make that big of an impact and then have to go and somewhat try and fix them....</P> <P>The only thing that is the same, is the fact that they ignored what people were telling them on the test forums and went ahead and did it anyways....  You can't just put out a change that severly cripples a class and expect them to play it that way till you get around to fixing it....</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin  /  Parody - 61 Troubador</P>

[-Aonein-]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aienaa wrote:<BR> <HR> <FONT color=#ffff00>I thought common sense would prevail. </FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No communication = Make your  educated conclusion. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>They have weapon procs normailized to a certain speed. It only makes sense that they would do it for spells too.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>My only concern is if this does affect troubs and Illusionist (I play a troub so I do care) as much as people are saying, what is the plan to bring them back up?</FONT> <HR> <P></P> <P> </P> <P>Sorry, but it doesn't make sence...</P> <P>The normalization formula is as follows.....   (delay / 3) X Proc %  .....  Where delay is either Weapon Delay for auto attack, Cast time for CA and Spells</P> <P>Melee attacks happen every 1.0+ seconds depending on weapon speed and haste and that is without even using a CA...  Let's use a 10% chance to proc weapon....  a 1.0 delay weapons will have (1 / 3) X 10 = 3% chance to proc...  a 6.5 second bow will have (6.5 / 3) X 10 = 21.6% chance to proc..... </P> <P>Spell attacks ONLY happen when a spell is cast....  so unless a spell is cast, there is 0% chance to proc....</P> <P>Let's look at CAs and spells....</P> <P>CAs have a 0.5 second delay....  (0.5 / 3) X 10% = 1.6% chance to proc</P> <P>Spell procs using Aria at 30% chance to proc</P> <P>Troubador Bellow line is instant....  (0 / 3) X 30% = 0% chance to proc</P> <P>nearly all Troubador spells have 1.0 sec cast....   (1 / 3) X 30% = 10% chance to proc (66% decrease)</P> <P>2.0 second spells .....  (2 / 3) X 30% = 20% chance to proc (33% decrease)</P> <P>3.0 second spells ....  (3 / 3) X 30% = 30% chance to proc (same chance as before)</P> <P>4.0 second spell....  (4 / 3) X 30% = 40% chance to proc (33% increase)</P> <P>5.0 second spell....  (5 / 3) X 30% = 50% chance to proc (66% increase)</P> <P>So, Troubadors are going to have thier proc damage reduced by over 66%....  Enchanters are going to have thier proc damage reduced between 33-66%</P> <P>Thoes with longer cast times are going to get a 33-66% increase in proc damage</P> <P>The thing is, the low DPS caster classes are the ones with the lower cast times, so all this is doing is lowering thier DPS even further...   The higher DPS caster classes have longer cast time and for the most part are going to be not effected or have thier DPS increased....</P> <P>This is nothing like melee procs because there is NO auto attack....</P> <P>They have not posted any changes to the classes that are going to be severly effected....  In fact, it looks like exactly what happened to the Rangers when they changed Melee procs.... The Opps, didn't realize it would make that big of an impact and then have to go and somewhat try and fix them....</P> <P>The only thing that is the same, is the fact that they ignored what people were telling them on the test forums and went ahead and did it anyways....  You can't just put out a change that severly cripples a class and expect them to play it that way till you get around to fixing it....</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin  /  Parody - 61 Troubador</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Your calculations only hold water for spell proc buffs that are added to a melee player to proc said buff. Aria doesnt proc of weapons therefore the normalized time for it isnt 3 seconds, no one really knows what it is, and i think i remeber all spell procs being normalized around 2.5 seconds, not sure how true that is.</P> <P>Until a dev comes in here and gives you the formulation like they did with melee, its all assumptions at this point on how much things will really be adjusted.</P></DIV>

[verydanger]

Does it really matter if you have autoattack or not? This is not meant to balance caster types against melee classes, its meant to balance classes with long cast times vs classes with short cast times. Heck, it will even balance spells within the same class, making your slow casting spells just as desireable to cast as the fast ones.With these changes, if you spend 50% of your time casting spells, you will get X amount of procs. Regardless of what class you are. Not X for slower casting classes, and 3 * X for faster casting ones. Only fair right? Now, the side-effect of this change will inevitably be damage reduction for classes that rely heavily on spell procs, and reduction of spell procs across the board. Again however, if class Y with these changes drops to unintended DPS tiers, this needs to be corrected too. But this should be done by adjusting their CLASS ABILITIES, not letting them rely on a flawed game mechanic.<div></div>

[Signal9]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jenoy wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ishboozor wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> vwlssknght wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> Another day ... still no answer from SOE . Way to go . Great customer service .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is still being tested, as far as I can tell. I don't see how their lack of reply to this thread of flames falls into the category of poor customer service.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It has been tested and this thread is FULL of feedback showing just how stupid, pointless, and useless of a change this truly is.  They should listen to the people and say ok, this will not go live or at the very least try and save face on this one and explain why they are doing it.  </P> <P>No communication = poor customer service.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I thought common sense would prevail. </P> <P>No communication = Make your  educated conclusion. </P> <P>They have weapon procs normailized to a certain speed. It only makes sense that they would do it for spells too.</P> <P>My only concern is if this does affect troubs and Illusionist (I play a troub so I do care) as much as people are saying, what is the plan to bring them back up? </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Why, it's the same plan as they have for bringing the Enchanter subclasses up to par in raid environments.</P> <P>They've even said so in their own words.  And I quote "</P> <P> </P> <P>                                                                                        "</P> <P> </P> <P>See?</P>

[Nocifer Deathblade]

<DIV> <P>Wow thats bad.. It should be comparable with melee..</P> <P>Melee : No cast time and delay = recast time..</P> <P>Spell: Have cast time and recast time.</P> <P>Melee proc % is based on delay factor.</P> <P>If delay = recast time then spell proc % should be based on recast time by logic. Not cast time.. </P> <P>We, SKs for example, have fast casting spells but some have long recast as trade off. Under current system, we are worse off than any classes with long casting spells but with fast recast. They get to proc often than us thanks to recast nature of their spells. Now, we are even worse under so-called nerf thanks to our fast casting that shrink the proc % than those classes with long casting spells (that's upgrade instead of nerf) but fast recast.. </P> <P>That's a bad approach. If they decided to move spell proc % from cast time factor to recast factor then I would support that. I would prefer to leave current system as it is.  Fast melee weapon should have smaller proc % than slow melee weapon.. Same thing... Fast recasting spells should have smaller proc % than slow recasting spells.. Recasting itself determines dps not the cast time..  </P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Nocifer Deathblade on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:43 AM</span>

[Lynadianya Zeran]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <P>Last time I looked nearly or maybe it's all casters have a melee proc they can place on others :smileywink:</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't recall having a melee proc?  At least, I don't recall getting a melee proc in the last 52 levels.  You know, I'm sorry for Rangers.  I am not a ranger.  I have never been accused of being uber.  My guild likes having me in the group because of the buffs I provide but I think what they like most is track and my speed buff.  I was out in Sinking Sands last night having somewhat of a hard time with no arrow blues (the mummies).  Usually got me down to around half health.  </P> <P>Think about it.  Think about what I just said.  </P> <P>I am in an ebon chain chest and shoulders and a pair of drop leggings better than ebon chain.  I have legendary gloves and helm on and Bracers of Thyr.  I am carrying the bone serrated blade and a legendary shield with a 504 shield rating (although I switched out to 2 heritage dual wields (Serrated Bone and the slashing weapon I got after finishing one of the Deathfist Citidel HQs) about halfway through since I was still taking approximately the same amount of damage, but the fights were quicker with the dual weild (even on the stamina line of AAs).  I have most of my damage mastered.  I have my debuffs and buffs either Mastered or Adept 1.  </P> <P>I was getting to half health quite often last night while fighting no arrow blues.   Think about it.</P> <P>A nice percentage of my damage comes out of my Aria spell proc.  It is what I use when I solo: when I solo blues, and whites, and the occasional yellow (these are non-heroic, no arrow up).  You're a ranger.  You have never been told by a group no thanks, we're looking for dps.  I am not saying that we don't have our usefulness.  I think the Troubadour is a wonderful group character.  I'm just saying that it is ridiculous to cut my already pathetic personal DPS even lower when I solo.  </P> <P>I know that Rangers were hit hard by the nerf bat.  I know that it's hard to rally around another class when they're getting hurt when you've been so recently bloodied yourself.  It's not, however, like we're getting our just desserts here.  We are no competition for you.  We never were.  It would be nice if you had something constructive to say rather than the implied "Welcome to my world".  </P>

[Etillchou]

<blockquote><hr>verydanger wrote:Does it really matter if you have autoattack or not? This is not meant to balance caster types against melee classes, its meant to balance classes with long cast times vs classes with short cast times. Heck, it will even balance spells within the same class, making your slow casting spells just as desireable to cast as the fast ones.With these changes, if you spend 50% of your time casting spells, you will get X amount of procs. Regardless of what class you are. Not X for slower casting classes, and 3 * X for faster casting ones. Only fair right? Now, the side-effect of this change will inevitably be damage reduction for classes that rely heavily on spell procs, and reduction of spell procs across the board. Again however, if class Y with these changes drops to unintended DPS tiers, this needs to be corrected too. But this should be done by adjusting their CLASS ABILITIES, not letting them rely on a flawed game mechanic.<div></div><hr></blockquote>The idea however was that an item procs 10% of the time used. not 10% per 3 seconds. The dps attached to each class and their casttimes used to be balanced to enforce this.Its already changed for melee and to balance it they had to increase the damage from some classes. Which they did straight away.For as long as I can see now they didnt plan this yet for the casters. (and do note that some melee classes cast as well). If they adress the damage some classes do to rebalance the game then nobody would complain. However like it is at this moment the fast casting classes which are build upon fast casting and proccing (they can buff procs and they have aa trees builded upon the cast time, not the recast time) will be nerfed.To fix this soe needs to:-rebalance the damage the fast casted classes do. (aka raise it a little)-redo the aa trees based on faster cast times. (for example the AGI line from chanters). It should be more dps if you use this tree however with the proc change. Funny enough after this change using your agi aa tree for a chanter will result in less dps.. And that cant be the idea from the agi aa tree.<p>Message Edited by Etillchou on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:58 PM</span>

[electricninjasex]

<blockquote><hr>Aienaa wrote:<p>The thing is, the low DPS caster classes are the ones with the lower cast times, so all this is doing is lowering thier DPS even further...   The higher DPS caster classes have longer cast time and for the most part are going to be not effected or have thier DPS increased....</p><hr></blockquote> RECAST RECAST RECAST How can I drill this into people's heads?  Cast timers mean borderline jack **** when recast timers are proportionately long. Best example:  My interrupt has a 0.5 cast time and a 25 second RECAST TIME. During a fight, there will be periodic moments when there is nothing of substance to cast because all recast timers are down.  What will I do then, waste power to recast DOT's and play proc lotto?<div></div>

[Emerix]

Nocifer has a point there . If procs would be based on recast it may be better .

[Kenazeer]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> Nocifer has a point there . If procs would be based on recast it may be better .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>I wouldn't expect that they will change it. We brought up these same points when they changed the way CA procs work and they fell on deaf ears. I don't know what proportion of spells are on short cast timers, but I think most all melee non-aoes are on very short timers. If they didn't think the effect was disproportionate on CAs, I wouldn't expect them to think it is disproportionate on spells. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Plus, once I thought about it regarding CAs, how in the world would they allow for the variance in recast times between say something on 20 second recast vs a multi-minute recast. The min/max delta between cast times is far less than the min/max delta on recasts. If their intent is to normalize the proc rate between classes, using the cast times seems by far the easier choice, possibly the only workable choice.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:46 AM</span>

[Crychtonn]

<P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lynadianya Zeran wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <P>Last time I looked nearly or maybe it's all <FONT color=#ff0000 size=5><EM>casters</EM></FONT> have a melee proc they can place on others :smileywink:</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't recall having a melee proc?  At least, I don't recall getting a melee proc in the last 52 levels.  You know, I'm sorry for Rangers.  I am not a ranger.  I have never been accused of being uber.  My guild likes having me in the group because of the buffs I provide but I think what they like most is track and my speed buff.  I was out in Sinking Sands last night having somewhat of a hard time with no arrow blues (the mummies).  Usually got me down to around half health.  </P> <P>Think about it.  Think about what I just said.  </P> <P>I am in an ebon chain chest and shoulders and a pair of drop leggings better than ebon chain.  I have legendary gloves and helm on and Bracers of Thyr.  I am carrying the bone serrated blade and a legendary shield with a 504 shield rating (although I switched out to 2 heritage dual wields (Serrated Bone and the slashing weapon I got after finishing one of the Deathfist Citidel HQs) about halfway through since I was still taking approximately the same amount of damage, but the fights were quicker with the dual weild (even on the stamina line of AAs).  I have most of my damage mastered.  I have my debuffs and buffs either Mastered or Adept 1.  </P> <P>I was getting to half health quite often last night while fighting no arrow blues.   Think about it.</P> <P>A nice percentage of my damage comes out of my Aria spell proc.  It is what I use when I solo: when I solo blues, and whites, and the occasional yellow (these are non-heroic, no arrow up).  You're a ranger.  You have never been told by a group no thanks, we're looking for dps.  I am not saying that we don't have our usefulness.  I think the Troubadour is a wonderful group character.  I'm just saying that it is ridiculous to cut my already pathetic personal DPS even lower when I solo.  </P> <P>I know that Rangers were hit hard by the nerf bat.  I know that it's hard to rally around another class when they're getting hurt when you've been so recently bloodied yourself.  It's not, however, like we're getting our just desserts here.  We are no competition for you.  We never were.  It would be nice if you had something constructive to say rather than the implied "Welcome to my world".  </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not trying to sound mean but next time please read what was posted and the posts it was in response to.</P> <P>For the SK's and Paladin's why should you receive a better chance to proc your spells over all the other tank classes ?  They already had to suck up and take this change on their CA's.  Which have the same fast casts and long recast (outside of harm touch) as you have.</P> <P>The change sucks and we all know it.  It's also stupid that recast timers are ignored in these formulas.  I would personally love to see these damm formula's removed all together when it comes to CA's and Spells.  Leave it in for auto attack but let CA's and Spells use the percentages listed.  But unless they plan on dropping it for CA's then Spells should be treated the same.</P> <P>The only part of this that surprises me is that this change isn't already in the game.  I honestly thought that the changes in LU20 to normalize proc's on abilities was for both CA's and Spells.<BR></P>

[Gungo]

<P>Without a doubt i am certain these changes will go live. It makes mechanical sense, if not actual game sense. They will put these changes in and if they see changes to troubs or enchanters necesary they will adjust (like rangers) accordingly. I am fairly certain everyone here knows these changes will go LIVE. Whether they should put them live we really don't have a say. </P> <P>On that note when these changes go LIVE. They will need to bring Enchanter DPS back up. They need to fix enchanters finally. They have destroyed that class. Bards as well could share from some form of DPS increase *cough Stances and instruments*. My idea for enchanters although likely unpopular would be to merge them. There is no class archtype system anymore. So the reason behind not merging them is no longer necessary. Then they could add in a new class for the new expansion such as a hunter/beastlord/throwing specialis or other cockeyed idea.</P> <P>No reasons echanters shouldn't do decent dps.</P> <P>I have been thinking about enchanters for a while. And truly i don't think there is alot of room to divide the class so much. Since they have effectively removed the archtype system in EQ2. i think they should just roll both coercer and illusinist into 1 enchanter class. Give them access to both class spells. And you will have a great yet not overpowered utility class. Charms, mezzes, persona pet, aoe mezz, power drains, +dps, +haste, +hate, debuffs, stuns/stifles/interupts, power regen, minds eye, channel (power arbitration), procs, mem wipe, illusionary ally, constructs, int/agi buffs, mental magic and divine buffs, reactive procs, roots, spell shield,  self buff, and a wealth of other abilites that have been used to divide a crowd control class into half of what it should be. I really think enchanters are still a great class, but severly penalized by having all it can do divided into two seperate classes. Even if they combined the class we would still have less enchanters on most servers then half the other classes.</P><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:34 AM</span>

[Lynadianya Zeran]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lynadianya Zeran wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <P>Last time I looked nearly or maybe it's all <FONT color=#ff0000 size=5><EM>casters</EM></FONT> have a melee proc they can place on others :smileywink:</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't recall having a melee proc?  At least, I don't recall getting a melee proc in the last 52 levels.  You know, I'm sorry for Rangers.  I am not a ranger.  I have never been accused of being uber.  My guild likes having me in the group because of the buffs I provide but I think what they like most is track and my speed buff.  I was out in Sinking Sands last night having somewhat of a hard time with no arrow blues (the mummies).  Usually got me down to around half health.  </P> <P>Think about it.  Think about what I just said.  </P> <P>I am in an ebon chain chest and shoulders and a pair of drop leggings better than ebon chain.  I have legendary gloves and helm on and Bracers of Thyr.  I am carrying the bone serrated blade and a legendary shield with a 504 shield rating (although I switched out to 2 heritage dual wields (Serrated Bone and the slashing weapon I got after finishing one of the Deathfist Citidel HQs) about halfway through since I was still taking approximately the same amount of damage, but the fights were quicker with the dual weild (even on the stamina line of AAs).  I have most of my damage mastered.  I have my debuffs and buffs either Mastered or Adept 1.  </P> <P>I was getting to half health quite often last night while fighting no arrow blues.   Think about it.</P> <P>A nice percentage of my damage comes out of my Aria spell proc.  It is what I use when I solo: when I solo blues, and whites, and the occasional yellow (these are non-heroic, no arrow up).  You're a ranger.  You have never been told by a group no thanks, we're looking for dps.  I am not saying that we don't have our usefulness.  I think the Troubadour is a wonderful group character.  I'm just saying that it is ridiculous to cut my already pathetic personal DPS even lower when I solo.  </P> <P>I know that Rangers were hit hard by the nerf bat.  I know that it's hard to rally around another class when they're getting hurt when you've been so recently bloodied yourself.  It's not, however, like we're getting our just desserts here.  We are no competition for you.  We never were.  It would be nice if you had something constructive to say rather than the implied "Welcome to my world".  </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not trying to sound mean but next time please read what was posted and the posts it was in response to.</P> <P>For the SK's and Paladin's why should you receive a better chance to proc your spells over all the other tank classes ?  They already had to suck up and take this change on their CA's.  Which have the same fast casts and long recast (outside of harm touch) as you have.</P> <P>The change sucks and we all know it.  It's also stupid that recast timers are ignored in these formulas.  I would personally love to see these damm formula's removed all together when it comes to CA's and Spells.  Leave it in for auto attack but let CA's and Spells use the percentages listed.  But unless they plan on dropping it for CA's then Spells should be treated the same.</P> <P>The only part of this that surprises me is that this change isn't already in the game.  I honestly thought that the changes in LU20 to normalize proc's on abilities was for both CA's and Spells.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well, I apologize then.  I guess I had aboslutely no idea what you were talking about.  We were speaking about Troubadours and Enchanters.  I guess that's why I thought you were talking about how things were going to affect us.  You did not quote the post you were responding to when you said casters.  I assumed you were responding to a post above you regarding Troubadours not proc-ing off of melee (since that's what the posts in that part of this thread were talking about).  </P> <P>Could you please explain your post then regarding casters having melee procs buffs for others and how this affects the Troubadour/Enchanter solo DPS so that I may better understand your point.  Perhaps there is something I am missing.</P>

[Crychtonn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote:<BR> <P>(@&%(^D(<A href="mailto:H#@$" target=_blank>H#@$</A>@# stop eating my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!</P> <P>Arias is based off hostile spell cast.  His bow wouldnt proc arias.</P> <P>The troub would have to be mele buffed, but then you have to remember troub + caster = goodness.  Why would you put a troub in a mele buff group when they work better with casters?</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is the post I was responding to and it happens to be the one directly before my post.  There are also several other posts going back and forth betwenn myself and  Bassist another troubador.</P> <P>Brief breakdown of it all is I was pointing out that Troubadors do have the ability to use melee / ranged auto attack and receive proc's from them.  The same as all other scouts.  Illusive posted that would require the Troubador to be melee buffed and why would you do that when they work best in a caster group.  I then pointed out that nearly and possibly every <EM><FONT color=#ff0000>Caster</FONT></EM> class in the game has some type of melee proc they can place on others.  I.E. they can place these melee proc's on the Troubador that can sit back and use auto ranged or auto melee to set them off.</P> <P>And if you look at it a troubador in a caster DPS group is buffed for this.  They receive there own stat buffs plus the Str/Int buff from wizards that increase both the auto attack damage (Str) and the proc damage (Int).  I also mentioned that Enchanters don't really have the melee skills and wouldn't be able to do this.  Which puts them in a much worse position.</P> <P>This isn't a "Welcome to my World" as you put it thing.  It's about all classes being held to the same standards.  Right now all the other scout classes are held to a standard where proc chances are normalized off of cast times.  Most of these cast times are even shorter then the troubador cast times.  Giving very little chance of proc'ing and only leaving auto attack as a way to proc.  Troubadors have not been held to these same standards.  They are now changing it so that All classes will be held to them.</P> <P>Will it nerf some classes DPS ?  Of course it will and it will reduce it more then the Dev's expect.  Look at how poorly they researched the effect on rangers when they did it to the melee classes.  Will they bump up those classes abilities to compensate ?  We can all hope they do but as we all know there are no guarantees.  And even if they do it may end up being a poor upgrade that doesn't do enough.  The ranger upgrade/fix is an example again.</P> <P> </P>

[Gungo]

<DIV> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Will they bump up those classes abilities to compensate ?  We can all hope they do but as we all know there are no guarantees.  And even if they do it may end up being a poor upgrade that doesn't do enough.  The ranger upgrade/fix is an example again.</BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Its all subjective though, since ranger Dps will rise in comparison to the nerf coming to double atk classes (rogues, brawler) and casters. This change though will require quite a few caster fixes. </P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:40 AM</span>

[Ultimatum]

Saying "Why should SKs and Pallys have a better chance to proc their spells" is like comparitively saying "SKs and pally can heal themselves constantly...why can't other Fighters??"  If this was such a huge issue, why not just change all of our "spells" in the game code to be Combat Arts?  Problem solved.  But the fact is, Crusaders are a mix of Fighters and CASTERS therefore our SPELLS should be treated as such.  This proc change is completely stupid.  If my item says "10% chance to proc on hostile spells" I want a [Removed for Content] 10% CHANCE, NOT 10% chance IF you cast a spell with a 2.5 second cast time, 20% chance if you cast a spell with a 5 second cast time, and 2-5% if you are a Crusader because most of your spells are .5-1 second cast times.  If you take any passing look at parses, every hostile spell item procs at +/- 2% of its listed proc rate regardless of cast times, and that is the way it SHOULD be.  weather I cast a spell with a 1 second cast or a 20 second cast it is ONE SPELL and should have a 10% chance to proc REGARDLESS.  Likewise, if I cast a spell 50 times on a raid, I expect it to proc 5 times, not 1 time because those 50 spell casts were on a .5 second timer.  This (coupled with the similar change to Combat Arts and procs) is the most ludicris slap in the face nerf that SOE has come up with yet.  It defies every law of mathematics and makes absolutely no sense.  I'm not 'whining' because this is going to be a huge nerf to me personally, I'm [Removed for Content] because there is no apparent reason for this change, and the whole mechanics of this change doesnt make any sense.<div></div>

[Lynadianya Zeran]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote:<BR> <P>(@&%(^D(<A href="mailto:H#@$" target=_blank>H#@$</A>@# stop eating my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!</P> <P>Arias is based off hostile spell cast.  His bow wouldnt proc arias.</P> <P>The troub would have to be mele buffed, but then you have to remember troub + caster = goodness.  Why would you put a troub in a mele buff group when they work better with casters?</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is the post I was responding to and it happens to be the one directly before my post.  There are also several other posts going back and forth betwenn myself and  Bassist another troubador.</P> <P>Brief breakdown of it all is I was pointing out that Troubadors do have the ability to use melee / ranged auto attack and receive proc's from them.  The same as all other scouts.  Illusive posted that would require the Troubador to be melee buffed and why would you do that when they work best in a caster group.  I then pointed out that nearly and possibly every <EM><FONT color=#ff0000>Caster</FONT></EM> class in the game has some type of melee proc they can place on others.  I.E. they can place these melee proc's on the Troubador that can sit back and use auto ranged or auto melee to set them off.</P> <P>And if you look at it a troubador in a caster DPS group is buffed for this.  They receive there own stat buffs plus the Str/Int buff from wizards that increase both the auto attack damage (Str) and the proc damage (Int).  I also mentioned that Enchanters don't really have the melee skills and wouldn't be able to do this.  Which puts them in a much worse position.</P> <P>This isn't a "Welcome to my World" as you put it thing.  It's about all classes being held to the same standards.  Right now all the other scout classes are held to a standard where proc chances are normalized off of cast times.  Most of these cast times are even shorter then the troubador cast times.  Giving very little chance of proc'ing and only leaving auto attack as a way to proc.  Troubadors have not been held to these same standards.  They are now changing it so that All classes will be held to them.</P> <P>Will it nerf some classes DPS ?  Of course it will and it will reduce it more then the Dev's expect.  Look at how poorly they researched the effect on rangers when they did it to the melee classes.  Will they bump up those classes abilities to compensate ?  We can all hope they do but as we all know there are no guarantees.  And even if they do it may end up being a poor upgrade that doesn't do enough.  The ranger upgrade/fix is an example again.</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well, that does help me understand your point a bit better.</P> <P>I am not concerned with my spells procing in a group (I rarely run Aria in group as my guild is very fighter heavy and quite frankly, our Conji doesn't need any help from me ;<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ).  I am strictly talking about solo damage.  Most of the Troubadours who are decrying this change are talking about solo damage.  I don't even bother worrying about damage in groups.  That's not why I'm along.  I'm along for the 34% run buff, and the tracking, and the evac, and the power regen song.  What we are trying to get across to the devs is that this is really going to hurt our already pathetic t3 to t4 solo damage.  We are trying to make them understand that, at maybe 150 dps, when you drop an average of 20 off that, it hurts.  I'm not necessarily saying that I want them to not change the spell proc rate.  I just really wish they would give us a cookie.  It wouldn't even have to be a good cookie.  It could be a cookie with raisins in it.  Just something to make it not sting so much.  Maybe give us a new song, or a better debuff.  Not a game breaking something.  If they want to change the spell procs, fine.  Just compensate for our loss of DPS so that we can continue to solo as well as a Fury.  (Actually, one of my guild Furies is a much better soloer than me).  We are not asking to go up a damage tier (it would be nice, but that's not why I have a Troubie).  We are asking to at least stay at T3.</P> <P> </P>

[verydanger]

The more I think about this issue, the more impossible it seems to ever make this fully balanced... Right now the system works in favor of those who can cram the biggest amount of spells into a given timeframe. Short cast times, as well as short recast timers, is what is preferred. With the proposed changes, it will not be about casting as many spells as possible, instead you will want to spend as much time as possible actively casting. Long cast times certainly help this, as well as recast timers that allow you to always have something to cast.When evaluating the changes on test you have to consider, do all caster classes have equal possibility to fill their fighting time with active casting? Unless they can, the proposed system wont be 'fair' either. A bit more logical than the current system IMO, but still not balanced.Basing the proc chance on recast timer rather than cast time you say? That might work, I dont know. In such a system you would maximize your chance for procs by cycling as many spells as possible, and using every spell as soon as their recast timer allows it. Do all caster classes have equal possibility to do this? I dont know. I must admit my knowledge of the mage/priest classes is limited, but to me it seems there are far too many variables in how the different classes work to ever make it truly balanced. I still however feel the changes on test make more sense than what we currently have, even though implementing them might expose some other problems in the game - like chanter/bard DPS. <div></div>

[zit]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> verydanger wrote:<BR>Does it really matter if you have autoattack or not? This is not meant to balance caster types against melee classes, its meant to balance classes with long cast times vs classes with short cast times. Heck, it will even balance spells within the same class, making your slow casting spells just as desireable to cast as the fast ones.<BR><BR>With these changes, if you spend 50% of your time casting spells, you will get X amount of procs. Regardless of what class you are. Not X for slower casting classes, and 3 * X for faster casting ones. Only fair right?<BR><BR>Now, the side-effect of this change will inevitably be damage reduction for classes that rely heavily on spell procs, and reduction of spell procs across the board. Again however, if class Y with these changes drops to unintended DPS tiers, this needs to be corrected too. But this should be done by adjusting their CLASS ABILITIES, not letting them rely on a flawed game mechanic. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>slow casting spells are slow casting for a good reason usually. they are not less desireable to use than fast ones in most cases. </P> <P>why do you think wizi are using ice comet even it has slow cast time? </P> <P>fast casting spell often equals to low damage and are mostly used for filler only when the big ones arent up. not the slow casting spells need to be made as disreable as fast ones, its just the other way round. the way spell procs work atm has been exactly doing this, it made also small spells interesting to cast. </P> <P>if i can do double the damage with casting one single spell than i can by casting 3 other spells in the same time, and those 3 spells in summary even cost me more power, there is no reason as to why these 3 spells cannot have some other advantage like a better chance to proc. would be only fair.</P>

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> IllusiveThoughts wrote: <div></div> <p>(@&%(^D(<a href="mailto:H#@$" target="_blank">H#@$</a>@# stop eating my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p> <p>Arias is based off hostile spell cast.  His bow wouldnt proc arias.</p> <p>The troub would have to be mele buffed, but then you have to remember troub + caster = goodness.  Why would you put a troub in a mele buff group when they work better with casters?</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>This is the post I was responding to and it happens to be the one directly before my post.  There are also several other posts going back and forth betwenn myself and  Bassist another troubador.</p> <p>Brief breakdown of it all is I was pointing out that Troubadors do have the ability to use melee / ranged auto attack and receive proc's from them.  The same as all other scouts.  Illusive posted that would require the Troubador to be melee buffed and why would you do that when they work best in a caster group.  I then pointed out that nearly and possibly every <em><font color="#ff0000">Caster</font></em> class in the game has some type of melee proc they can place on others.  I.E. they can place these melee proc's on the Troubador that can sit back and use auto ranged or auto melee to set them off.</p> <p>And if you look at it a troubador in a caster DPS group is buffed for this.  They receive there own stat buffs plus the Str/Int buff from wizards that increase both the auto attack damage (Str) and the proc damage (Int).  I also mentioned that Enchanters don't really have the melee skills and wouldn't be able to do this.  Which puts them in a much worse position.</p> <p>This isn't a "Welcome to my World" as you put it thing.  It's about all classes being held to the same standards.  Right now all the other scout classes are held to a standard where proc chances are normalized off of cast times.  Most of these cast times are even shorter then the troubador cast times.  Giving very little chance of proc'ing and only leaving auto attack as a way to proc.  Troubadors have not been held to these same standards.  They are now changing it so that All classes will be held to them.</p> <p>Will it nerf some classes DPS ?  Of course it will and it will reduce it more then the Dev's expect.  Look at how poorly they researched the effect on rangers when they did it to the melee classes.  Will they bump up those classes abilities to compensate ?  We can all hope they do but as we all know there are no guarantees.  And even if they do it may end up being a poor upgrade that doesn't do enough.  The ranger upgrade/fix is an example again.</p> <hr></blockquote>To answer, I see where you're coming from with Troubs.  The problem is that Troubs need to have everything maxxed  (Master/Ad3) to even start comparing to the other tier 3 classes.  Even though I get people saying different, I'm generally doing the same thing they are doing but only getting 150DPS.  I can get it pushed up to 200DPS if I used certain time-limited, long-recast buffs, but not much more.  Besides many battery, we have some defensive (where the dirge is better), mezzing (totally useless in raids for T7), haste (usually capped anyway), stat buffing, and agro reduction.  This was our big gun of a buff in terms of concentration buffs.  So, I don't have the DPS to count as a true DPS class.  Devs even said we're Tier 3 where the rest of scouts are 2 or 1.  I'm not the best defensive or melee buffer, dirges work much better for that.  So, now I provide mana and reduce agro.  I can throw in what DPS I have, but it's Tier 3 at best.  As stated, there are healers who have more DPS than a Troub.  Even buffed.  I certainly won't say this is our class defining buff, since we are a bard and shouldn't be awesome at one thing, but it was one of the items which made us good to groups.  It also made it easier to solo if you didn't have all offensive spells/abilities at Master/Ad3 level.  Most raiding troubs either got lucky and have it at Master 1, or went with it at Master 2.  It's that important.I'll let Illusionists speak to their pain.</div>

[Crychtonn]

<P>Seeing the direction some of the posts have gone let me try and clear some things up.  First off I agree that this is a bad change.  Secondly back before LU20 when they first dropped the proc change bomb shell it was a three tier change.  The first part was removing weapon delay as the overriding factor in proc calculation for CA's.  The next part was removing the chance of multiple proc's on skills that included a series of attacks.  And lastly it was going to normalize the proc formula for CA's based on cast times.</P> <P>At that time ranger were overpowered and did need adjusting.  Parts one and two would have done a good job of fixing the imbalance, especially the first part.  CA's using the long bow delay was the key reason for the imbalnce.  The multiple attack change was aimed more at bruisers and monks but did effect rangers slightly as they do have two multi hit skills.  I was fine and didn't have a problem excepting those changes.</P> <P>The third change that was added that normalized CA proc chances based on cast times I did have a problem with.  I'll admit I was very vocal in opposing it.  I was of the opinion that CA's should have no formula attached to them and should work based on the percentage listed.  Same as how your spells work now.  My reasoning was the same many here are trying to put forth.  That basing it solely on cast time and not factoring in recast leaves out a big portion of the equation.  I even made charts showing how large an effect this would have on the classes with fast casting CA's.</P> <P>In the end it didn't matter and the LU went live with all three major changes.  The Dev's appareantly don't see a difference between and ability named a spell vs one named a combat art and are completing the proc change to include all abilities.  Honestly I don't see a difference between the two either.  Remove the words combat art and spell and replace it with ability and they are and do work the same.</P> <P>I still hate the formula and wish class abilities just used the percentage shown.  But unfortunately the Dev's still disagree and this change is going to happen.</P> <P> </P>

[Jayad]

<P>As a Ranger, I can certainly know how people are going to feel about this change.  Many of us explained very coherently and politely what it would do to us, but SOE ignored us.  I didn't have a problem so much with the mechanic change as with the consequences.  The mechanic that Rangers used to proc so much was broken, no doubt about that.  Rangers were just the worst case about it.  SOE, however, did not understand at all what this would do to our DPS.  Our DPS was obliterrated and we haven't recovered since then, even after a "fix". </P> <P>Why do I bring this up?  It seems to me that they are fixing something which needs to be fixed.  If you have, say, a weapon with a proc %, it should not benefit a class which has shorter casting times more than a class which has longer casting times.  Same thing with a buff.  If you have a buff you can cast which has a proc % on attack, you should not want to cast that on the assassin with the 1.5s delay weapons versus the ranger with the 7s bow.  That is not fair.  Same is true with proc % on spell casts.  A sorceror with their longer cast times should not be penalized for that.  A class with really short times should not benefit a crazy amount from it, either.  So, I completely agree with the normalization of the proc rates.</P> <P>What I don't agree with is the effects.  SOE has shown a clear lack of being able to test any changes and work with it before release.  This should make anybody affected negatively by changes very nervous.  Yes, we Rangers screamed after LU20, but we also screamed before LU20.  It was obvious to us what it would do - drop our DPS by 50, 60% - yet SOE still bulldozed the change in.  Did we need adjustment?  Sure.  I'm equally sure it is possible through AAs and spell buffs to somehow make spell procs do something really bad.  That's why the melee proc mechanic was changed, when certain AA trees made the problem unbalancing. </P> <P>This change will very negatively affect certain classes, and changes should go with the mechanic fix that properly bring classes into balance before it is released.  It's fairly obvious to me, as somebody who does not play a real spell proc class, that the percentages will be too low.  Classes which do a lot of their DPS through this mechanic, like troubies, should have some adjustments that go with this change.</P> <P>I'm seriously having some deja vu with this update!</P>

[Dogm]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not trying to sound mean but next time please read what was posted and the posts it was in response to.</P> <P>For the SK's and Paladin's why should you receive a better chance to proc your spells over all the other tank classes ?  They already had to suck up and take this change on their CA's.  Which have the same fast casts and long recast (outside of harm touch) as you have.</P> <P>The change sucks and we all know it.  It's also stupid that recast timers are ignored in these formulas.  I would personally love to see these damm formula's removed all together when it comes to CA's and Spells.  Leave it in for auto attack but let CA's and Spells use the percentages listed.  But unless they plan on dropping it for CA's then Spells should be treated the same.</P> <P>The only part of this that surprises me is that this change isn't already in the game.  I honestly thought that the changes in LU20 to normalize proc's on abilities was for both CA's and Spells.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well first of all other fighters have no spells (well 2 if you count taunts).   All fighter CA's have a .5 second cast time.   SKs have some CA's, and also have spells with .5 cast time up to 2 cast time. </P> <P>Crusaders lose auto attack DPS while our spells are casting.  Crusaders can be interrupted while our spells are casting.  Crusaders gain less HP per STA then other fighters.  Shall I continue with this useless line of thinking?  Why should other fighters have quicker cast times,  why should other fighters not get interrupted nearly as much. </P> <P>If you would actually read this thread you would see that this change hurts EVERYBODY.  And how is it a better chance for us to proc?  We can only proc spell procs off spells and melee procs off melee,  so since we have less CA's and longer casting times(in which we lose auto attack) we have a lower chance to proc melee procs,  what is wrong with spell procs balancing this out.</P>

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>Xney wrote:<div></div> <p>As a Ranger, I can certainly know how people are going to feel about this change.  Many of us explained very coherently and politely what it would do to us, but SOE ignored us.  I didn't have a problem so much with the mechanic change as with the consequences.  The mechanic that Rangers used to proc so much was broken, no doubt about that.  Rangers were just the worst case about it.  SOE, however, did not understand at all what this would do to our DPS.  Our DPS was obliterrated and we haven't recovered since then, even after a "fix". </p> <p>Why do I bring this up?  It seems to me that they are fixing something which needs to be fixed.  If you have, say, a weapon with a proc %, it should not benefit a class which has shorter casting times more than a class which has longer casting times.  Same thing with a buff.  If you have a buff you can cast which has a proc % on attack, you should not want to cast that on the assassin with the 1.5s delay weapons versus the ranger with the 7s bow.  That is not fair.  Same is true with proc % on spell casts.  A sorceror with their longer cast times should not be penalized for that.  A class with really short times should not benefit a crazy amount from it, either.  So, I completely agree with the normalization of the proc rates.</p> <p>What I don't agree with is the effects.  SOE has shown a clear lack of being able to test any changes and work with it before release.  This should make anybody affected negatively by changes very nervous.  Yes, we Rangers screamed after LU20, but we also screamed before LU20.  It was obvious to us what it would do - drop our DPS by 50, 60% - yet SOE still bulldozed the change in.  Did we need adjustment?  Sure.  I'm equally sure it is possible through AAs and spell buffs to somehow make spell procs do something really bad.  That's why the melee proc mechanic was changed, when certain AA trees made the problem unbalancing. </p> <p>This change will very negatively affect certain classes, and changes should go with the mechanic fix that properly bring classes into balance before it is released.  It's fairly obvious to me, as somebody who does not play a real spell proc class, that the percentages will be too low.  Classes which do a lot of their DPS through this mechanic, like troubies, should have some adjustments that go with this change.</p> <p>I'm seriously having some deja vu with this update!</p><hr></blockquote>The real problem is that we don't do a lot of DPS with this, except in specific circumstances.  It's a buff from which a lot of DPS is generated within the group, which is why troubs can get in groups.  I'm low DPS due to some choices I made with regards to upgrades, and it's about 15% of my DPS.  The issue revolves around why a group or raid would want us now.  Soloing will still be as hard as it was, given that there are healers who can out-DPS us.  We don't offer enough to a raid to make it worth while, unless that raid has 5 wizzies/warlocks in it.I understand your concern, and read them, when Rangers lost half of their DPS since that is how they got in groups/raids.Bah, I'm starting to whine about this now, and I dislike whiners.  So, rather than loathe myself any more than I already do I'm going to get back in the game or try to get that dang <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=105&message.id=10746" target=_blank>thread in Unrest</a> locked.   I'll catch all of Unrest in the /lfg channel <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div>

[Dogm]

<DIV>The reason they changed Melee procs was because when using Combat Arts there was a huge imbalance  when it was based on weapon delay.    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Example:     Melee proc 10% chance</DIV> <DIV>Weapon 1:  3 delay.  Each auto attack will have a 10% chance to proc, and every CA also 10%</DIV> <DIV>Weapon 2:  9 delay.  Each auto attack will have a 30% chance to proc, and every CA also 30%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So for auto attack the 2 weapons are balanced, but when you toss in CAs the longer delay weapon wins (This is why RGF ruled T5).  The change to CAs would look like this</DIV> <DIV><BR>(not sure on the exact formula for CA proc chance, but the meaning is still the same)</DIV> <DIV>Weapon 1: 3 delay. Auto attack 10% chance to proc, CA 10% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV>Weapon 2: 9 delay. Auto attack 30% chance to proc, CA 10% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That change balanced it to where the same proc will be equal across all weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Spell procs aren't tied to weapon delay so right now 10% chance is 10% chance on any spell. I don't see how there is any balance issues with the way it is now</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Spell 1: 1 sec cast. 10% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV>Spell 2: 2 sec cast. 10% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and lets not forget AE spells</DIV> <DIV>Spell 3: 4 sec cast. 10% chance to proc on each of the 8 enemies it hits.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now with these proposed changes it would be something like</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Spell 1: 1 sec cast. 4% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV>Spell 2: 2 sec cast. 9% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV>Spell 3: 4 sec cast. 18% chance on each of the 8 mobs it hits.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I fail to see how this is any more balanced. If anything the recast time should be looked at for this. </DIV>

[Crychtonn]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dogmae wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not trying to sound mean but next time please read what was posted and the posts it was in response to.</P> <P>For the SK's and Paladin's why should you receive a better chance to proc your spells over all the other tank classes ?  They already had to suck up and take this change on their CA's.  Which have the same fast casts and long recast (outside of harm touch) as you have.</P> <P>The change sucks and we all know it.  It's also stupid that recast timers are ignored in these formulas.  I would personally love to see these damm formula's removed all together when it comes to CA's and Spells.  Leave it in for auto attack but let CA's and Spells use the percentages listed.  But unless they plan on dropping it for CA's then Spells should be treated the same.</P> <P>The only part of this that surprises me is that this change isn't already in the game.  I honestly thought that the changes in LU20 to normalize proc's on abilities was for both CA's and Spells.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well first of all other fighters have no spells (well 2 if you count taunts).   All fighter CA's have a .5 second cast time.   SKs have some CA's, and also have spells with .5 cast time up to 2 cast time. </P> <P>Crusaders lose auto attack DPS while our spells are casting.  Crusaders can be interrupted while our spells are casting.  Crusaders gain less HP per STA then other fighters.  Shall I continue with this useless line of thinking?  Why should other fighters have quicker cast times,  why should other fighters not get interrupted nearly as much. </P> <P><FONT color=#33cc00>Guess what my ranger has cast times as long as 5 sec (6 sec if you include the time to stealth).  Guess what again he can and does get interupted when using skills.  He also is stuck with the same "Can't move one inch" penalty casters have when using 99% of his ranged CA's.  And [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] to top if all off I loose auto attack DPS while using these CA's !!!!!  Sorry but your poor excuses are the useless line of thinking here.</FONT></P> <P>If you would actually read this thread you would see that this change hurts EVERYBODY.  And how is it a better chance for us to proc?  We can only proc spell procs off spells and melee procs off melee,  so since we have less CA's and longer casting times(in which we lose auto attack) we have a lower chance to proc melee procs,  what is wrong with spell procs balancing this out.</P> <P><FONT color=#33cc00>Lets see here looks like more of the same.  So what your upset about is you loose some auto attack when using abilities.  That seems to be your big arguement for keeping it as is.  Well guess what I loose a hell of alot more auto attack damage then you do.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#33cc00>Oh and on the part where it hurts EVERYBODY.  What exactly did you think the normalization of CA's did in LU20.  They could have just dropped the link between weapon delay and CA's and even did that to start with.  They later decided to pile on an normalize CA's based on cast times.  They could have just left them as is and working like Spells but they chose not to.  To think they weren't going to do the same normalization to Spells is just being nieve (sp?).</FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Dogm]

<DIV>Rangers are fighters?   You made a comment about SKs and paladins being able to proc more then other "tank classes"  .  I showed you how you where wrong.  You being a ranger has nothing to do with anything.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This thread is about the change to spell procs and only that, so please try and stay on topic.      We dont care that you are a ranger that was nerfed (and if you dont think it was needed then you are crazy).  The point of this thread is to show how this spell proc change will help nobody and only hurt DPS classes that are already low on DPS (Bard/chanter   Yes their core roll is DPS).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You are adding nothing to this thread.  Melee procs don't matter (and are balanced).  This thread is only about spell procs.   And if you play a ranger you have no business posting here.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Dogmae on <span class=date_text>04-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:37 PM</span>

[Crychtonn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dogmae wrote:<BR> <DIV>Rangers are fighters?   You made a comment about SKs and paladins being able to proc more then other "tank classes"  .  I showed you how you where wrong.  You being a ranger has nothing to do with anything.  </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33cc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33cc00>No you never showed I was wrong.  In fact your other posts analyzing the change proved me right.  The way it works now you have a higher chance to proc off your spell casts.  Please tell me again how a .5 sec CA normalized with a 3 sec formula gives a better chance to proc then your spell that isn't being normalized.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This thread is about the change to spell procs and only that, so please try and stay on topic.      We dont care that you are a ranger that was nerfed (and if you dont think it was needed then you are crazy) <FONT color=#33cc00>Already answered this if you bothered to read which you don't</FONT>.  The point of this thread is to show how this spell proc change will help nobody and only hurt DPS classes that are already low on DPS (Bard/chanter   Yes their core roll is DPS).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You are adding nothing to this thread <FONT color=#339900>I could say the same for you</FONT>.  Melee procs don't matter (and are balanced) <FONT color=#339900>Not even close to balanced when they are treated under a new system and spells are still on the old</FONT>.  This thread is only about spell procs.   And if you play a ranger you have no business posting here.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Dogmae on <SPAN class=date_text>04-26-2006</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>05:37 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Wrong again.</P> <P>This thread is about treating spell proc's differently then melee proc's.  If you think using two different systems for CA's and Spell proc's is balanced your the one living in denial.</P> <P> </P>

[Ishbu]

This thread is about spell proc changes and how they serve to benefit nobody.  It is not about melee proc's at all.  Sure some posts turned to that but that is nothing but a derailment.  This is about spell proc changes hurting everyone, period.

[Dogm]

<DIV>Where does the OP talk about melee procs?    The point of this thread was to find out the intentions for the spell proc change.   If you think it was to balance it with melee procs the that is all you had to say.  No reason to keep coming back.     Several posters of different classes (Bards, Enchanters, Crusaders, Wizards) have stated how this will hurt them, and it seems like all you care about is saying HAHA i was nerfed so now you are too.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is no reason that spell procs need to be balanced with melee procs, and if that is the intention of this then the proc rate of spell proc items needs to be raised.  As there is no auto attack way to trigger a spell proc, Melee procs have many more chances to go off.   So if as you "think" , this change is balance the two, then Melee procs either need to be lowered, or spell procs need to be raised.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What I think the intention of this change is, is that it is to "fix" many of the spell proc items out there that don't proc.  Most spell proc items with a 5% chance never proc and this seems a likely reason for the change. And SOE didn't realize the negative results this change would have.</DIV>

[Kenazeer]

<blockquote><hr>Dogmae wrote:<div>Where does the OP talk about melee procs?    The point of this thread was to find out the intentions for the spell proc change.   If you think it was to balance it with melee procs the that is all you had to say.  No reason to keep coming back.     Several posters of different classes (Bards, Enchanters, Crusaders, Wizards) have stated how this will hurt them, and it seems like all you care about is saying HAHA i was nerfed so now you are too.  </div> <div> </div> <div>There is no reason that spell procs need to be balanced with melee procs, and if that is the intention of this then the proc rate of spell proc items needs to be raised.  As there is no auto attack way to trigger a spell proc, Melee procs have many more chances to go off.   So if as you "think" , this change is balance the two, then Melee procs either need to be lowered, or spell procs need to be raised.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>What I think the intention of this change is, is that it is to "fix" many of the spell proc items out there that don't proc.  Most spell proc items with a 5% chance never proc and this seems a likely reason for the change. And SOE didn't realize the negative results this change would have.</div><hr></blockquote>Just pulling this outa my butt....but if I had to <b>guess</b> the reasons they would be in order of importance <ul> <li>The devs believe too much situational DPS is being added by the current mechanic </li> <li>They want to normalize spell procs across classes so that a change to item X can have predictable outocomes in all classes</li> <li>They want consistensy in the way in which procs are handled mechanically (meaning CAs vs Spells) </li> </ul> I certainly don't know why they would decide to change it, and see this as being a big blow to certain classes and certain situations. Hopefully they will re-balance against these changes in short order, or optimally before these hit live. <div></div>

[verydanger]

I have a feeling this thread has gotten a bit more complicated than it has to. The ground issue here I think is this:<u>Should one class be more procing more frequently than another?</u> I hope we all answer 'no' here.and,<u>Are all caster classes, most generally speaking, getting equally many procs on live servers right now?</u>If someone can present some solid data showing that the amount of procs is perfectly balanced (or close to) among all the caster classes right now, then I'll have to agree these changes arent necessary. Anyone care to give it a go?<div></div>

[Cygnu]

<P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=101455&jump=true#M101455" target=_blank><FONT color=#ffff00>This thread about proc rates</FONT> </A>contains a DEV comment from Lockeye that the proc rates will be based on <STRONG>Base</STRONG> Cast times and not the cast times after various spells and AA's have been applied.</P> <P>Even though thats a relief, I would still like to know the reason for the change, not how the change will be applied. And I would also like to know if they are aware the change will reduce Troubadour DPS even more! Its allready low.</P> <P>Its like being a child living at home again:</P> <P>Child: <EM>"Mummy, why are you doing that? It was fine the way it was before."</EM></P> <P>Mother: <EM>"Because."</EM></P> <P>Child: <EM>"Because what?."</EM></P> <P>Mother: <EM>"Just because!"</EM></P><p>Message Edited by CygnusX on <span class=date_text>04-27-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:58 AM</span>

[Emerix]

<DIV>its not about procs anymore .. its an ethnic war .</DIV> <DIV>So it will be bases on base cast times and Illusionists and troubys will like uhm .. be dropped to tier 4dps while tanks move up to tier 3 . Is that correct ?</DIV>

[Zypho]

<P>hrmm.. One thing I would love too point out about this upcoming change is that I dont see it being usefull in an overall raid situation too any class whatsoever. Right now if it will only increase spells with a casting timer of more then 3 seconds then as a wizard it will help me on 1 direct damage nuke and on my aes other then that i will lose proc% on spells and on all these neat proc items from t7 which will now be rendered useless. Maybe Im reading something wrong here but It seems as if they were trying too give us sorcerers a bit of a boost here which I dont think we really needed. However it seems too me that in the end this change will actuallylower my dps , make me have too respect my aa's , and make me have too find yet again a new set of gear too wear for raids as all the proc stuff will like proc off 1 spell in a non ae situation and proc hella lots when I ae and take aggro and kill me lol... Somone please correct me if Im wrong , nothing would make me happier then too be wrong about this at this point...</P> <P> </P>

[Oakum]

Interesting discussion. So what about healing spells. Will the warden heal spells (quick casting being their main benefit to a group) now be that much smaller (will almost never crit/proc) compared to the slower casting heal spells of all the other healer classes which will have a much higher chance to proc(crit) and there for be even bigger from healing crits? At least we have our crit chance increase aa's even if that means fury's will benefit that much more then wardens as well as increasing their dps further above ours. (fury's nukes and big dh's are more then wardens and slower casting) lol. Have to wait and see I guess.  Hopefully the devs will change classes as needed on test prior to making it go live. I will still play though while waiting for the rebalances if goes live though. Just not as well as I used to and I will post that much more in the forums.  Life will go on though, its just up to us to decide what we do will do with it.

[tracheaspider]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oakum wrote:<BR> Interesting discussion. So what about healing spells. Will the warden heal spells (quick casting being their main benefit to a group) now be that much smaller (will almost never crit/proc) compared to the slower casting heal spells of all the other healer classes which will have a much higher chance to proc(crit) and there for be even bigger from healing crits? (snip) <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was going to say that crits and procs aren't the same thing, but I guess that's not entirely true.  Crits are a form of proc with a (supposed) base chance of 1%.  But I also wonder if they didn't put this math in for crits ahead of time.  Do folks who cast faster crit more often than folks who cast slow currently?  I'm curious now.

[pawnipt]

This proc change seems to be pointless, annoying, senseless and just about one of the dumbest changes i've ever seen.  Please do not allow this to go live.   if a item says 10% chance to proc i want it to be 10%!! this is like false advertising if the item says 10% and really isnt 10% unless you happen to have a spell that takes exactly 2.5 seconds to cast which i have none of.<div></div>

[Emerix]

<P>Sometimes i really wonder what went  wrong here . Shouldnt the customers be who decide about what goes live and what not ? I mean .. we pay for it ...</P> <P> </P>

[Gungo]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> <P>Sometimes i really wonder what went  wrong here . Shouldnt the customers be who decide about what goes live and what not ? I mean .. we pay for it ...</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Wow big symantics there. Many great minds have debated that concept. Let the people decide the outcome. And eventually most agreed a true form of democracy is nothing more then mob rule where 51% of the people could take away the liberties of the other 49%- (Thomas Jefferson). Now away from that tangent. No the customer should not decide the fate of the game. Its an inherently biased decision making process. Its a bad concept to feel since you pay for something you deserve to do what ever you feel. Many would disagree, but then again those are the same people that complain about everything not to thier specifications. Bitter and never truly happy.<BR>

[Gungo]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CygnusX wrote:<BR> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=101455&jump=true#M101455" target=_blank><FONT color=#ffff00>This thread about proc rates</FONT> </A>contains a DEV comment from Lockeye that the proc rates will be based on <STRONG>Base</STRONG> Cast times and not the cast times after various spells and AA's have been applied.</P> <P>Even though thats a relief, I would still like to know the reason for the change, not how the change will be applied. And I would also like to know if they are aware the change will reduce Troubadour DPS even more! Its allready low.</P> <P>Its like being a child living at home again:</P> <P>Child: <EM>"Mummy, why are you doing that? It was fine the way it was before."</EM></P> <P>Mother: <EM>"Because."</EM></P> <P>Child: <EM>"Because what?."</EM></P> <P>Mother: <EM>"Just because!"</EM></P> <P>Message Edited by CygnusX on <SPAN class=date_text>04-27-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:58 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Wrong spell haste does not affect proc rates % other then allowing the same spell to proc more often in a given period of time. Spell hatse does not naturalise proc rates.

[Emerix]

<DIV>Gungo . now we have like maybe 50 people ruling over thousands . a minoority ruling . thats not rite neither is it ? *laughs* I dont want this to become a political debate . but for now it looks like noone wants it so why do it ?</DIV>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>Oakum wrote:Interesting discussion. So what about healing spells. Will the warden heal spells (quick casting being their main benefit to a group) now be that much smaller (will almost never crit/proc) compared to the slower casting heal spells of all the other healer classes which will have a much higher chance to proc(crit) and there for be even bigger from healing crits? At least we have our crit chance increase aa's even if that means fury's will benefit that much more then wardens as well as increasing their dps further above ours. (fury's nukes and big dh's are more then wardens and slower casting) lol. Have to wait and see I guess.  Hopefully the devs will change classes as needed on test prior to making it go live. I will still play though while waiting for the rebalances if goes live though. Just not as well as I used to and I will post that much more in the forums.  Life will go on though, its just up to us to decide what we do will do with it.<hr></blockquote>In theory, it should only effect proc-items/spells. Crits are on their own and should not get changed. What I wonder now, is thinking about this change, is are they making ALL procs that are based on CAs or Hostile Spells or Beneficial Spells use this new proc formula? Because if so, wow, 10% chance from CAs to land a 10% CA reduction on a mob is going to be "normalized" based on the average CA speed of 0.5s, meaning that it'll be more like a 1.7% chance to proc, instead of 10%. Makes that weapon seem kinda, useless.

[Crychtonn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR><BR><BR>In theory, it should only effect proc-items/spells. Crits are on their own and should not get changed. What I wonder now, is thinking about this change, is are they making ALL procs that are based on CAs or Hostile Spells or Beneficial Spells use this new proc formula? Because if so, wow, 10% chance from CAs to land a 10% CA reduction on a mob is going to be "normalized" based on the average CA speed of 0.5s, meaning that it'll be more like a 1.7% chance to proc, instead of 10%. Makes that weapon seem kinda, useless.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Pinski they already did do this for all CA's back in LU20.  And your analysis is right on a 10% proc only has a 1.67% chance when used with a .5 sec CA.</P> <P> </P>

[Pins]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR><BR><BR>In theory, it should only effect proc-items/spells. Crits are on their own and should not get changed. What I wonder now, is thinking about this change, is are they making ALL procs that are based on CAs or Hostile Spells or Beneficial Spells use this new proc formula? Because if so, wow, 10% chance from CAs to land a 10% CA reduction on a mob is going to be "normalized" based on the average CA speed of 0.5s, meaning that it'll be more like a 1.7% chance to proc, instead of 10%. Makes that weapon seem kinda, useless.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Pinski they already did do this for all CA's back in LU20.  And your analysis is right on a 10% proc only has a 1.67% chance when used with a .5 sec CA.</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They did?  So you're telling me all your procs that proc only on CA usage(you know, those new procs) are normalized to a 3.0s cast time CA, and thus it's completely useless to have a 8% or 10% chance to proc on CA usage(this is not the melee procs I'm talking about, this is on CA, you know like those new procs in T7), which basically means they're useless?  Because, I never remember them saying a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] thing about those.  The only thing they changed was melee/ranged procs, not CA-usage procs.  So what's next to be changed anyway, Beneficial Spell procs too?  Because that'll be pretty [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].

[Crychtonn]

<P>As far as I know there are no proc's that can only go off on CA's.  They can go off when CA's are used or normal auto attack.  If you go back and read the LU20 update notes it's all right there.  They never came out and haven't since given the normalization number they're using for it.  But everyone is going with that it's the same 3 sec that is used in the auto attack formula.</P> <P>I haven't seen anything from the Dev's on the base time they're using for the spell normalization but seen a few people mention it's going to be 2.5 sec.  That could be right and be their way of factoring in the .5 sec cool down on spell use.  But can't say for sure what they are doing it's all guess work at this point.</P> <P> </P>

[ChaosUndivided]

<DIV>Qeynos Cutlass and Cryptic Metallic Coat both have Procs that go off on Combat Arts only.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sure their are more.</DIV>

[Crychtonn]

<P>Thanks for the info on those two items.  I'm still finishing up the PoA parts for Claymore but I'll have to look at my Cryptic I guess.  Has the Cryptic always worked this way and I just never noticed or did it change when they broke it and then redid it.  Makes me wonder if my shield of Striking works this way also since it got broke and fixed also.</P> <P>It does make me wonder how people are ever suppose to proc these types of items outside of rangers with their longer CA casting times.</P> <P> </P>

[The_Wind]

Cryptic used to go off with every successful melee attack, much like many proc'ing items back then.  When they implemented the proc changes, like to the rings and such, they also changed this to proc when hit(debuff) and when CA's are used(attack).  It still goes off enough to be useful, so it makes papa happy still.<div></div>

[Draughi]

<P>I am in foavor of this going live.  Figure it out.  The normalization of all procs across the board simplifies the game mechanics.  With this done, it is much easier to show discrepancies between classes and "DPS".  The mechanics of the game were messed up from the get go.  Melee classes were hit with the normalization, and now casters will be also.  But, on the bright side...this could mean an increase in base spell/skill damages once everything is figured out. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Nevari]

I can't be in favor of something anymore then it is a constant fight, a constant change and no stability in a game mechanic meaning the game as whole.I can't agree to having constantly to eye with a bad feeling the new update notes if my choosen class is getting hit hard and even if or when it is hit that there is no proper communication or reasoning behind it except silence as I would nod and maybe even agree fully with the reasoning.Yeah MMOs constantly change and develop but this is screw over as didn't get it right the second and third time either after a complete game mechanic change.So no, I'm not in favor at all and not willing to maintain the wait-and-see approach until the newly miracle fix will be fully figured out and accordingly adjustments will be implemented. This is plain bad.<div></div>

[Etillchou]

<blockquote><hr>verydanger wrote:I have a feeling this thread has gotten a bit more complicated than it has to. The ground issue here I think is this:<u>Should one class be more procing more frequently than another?</u> I hope we all answer 'no' here.and,<u>Are all caster classes, most generally speaking, getting equally many procs on live servers right now?</u>If someone can present some solid data showing that the amount of procs is perfectly balanced (or close to) among all the caster classes right now, then I'll have to agree these changes arent necessary. Anyone care to give it a go?<div></div><hr></blockquote>The ground issue is indeed the question if classes are all build on only dps or some are build on their ability to proc a lot also. The answer is as far as I see, saw it that classes are each build differently. Some get their damage from the spells and some classes get their damage from their ability to proc more. Its build into the game like that.Classes with a longer cast time do a lot more damage with those spells then classes with a short cast time casting spells more often. It's stabilised a little bit by the proc rate.The classes with longer cast times still do more damage then those with a short casttime but at least at this point the difference isn't that big. With these changes the classes with a longer cast time and already more dps will stay the same if not improve where the classes with a shorter cast time who are build upon using procs will suffer a lot and end with hardly any dps.The game was build on the old proc rate and the dps was attuned accordingly. Some classes were build on longer casttime and more dps and some were build on shorter cast times and more procs so in the end the damage done was layed out to t1,t2,t3,t4 where each class is different.With the proc rate changing now to a normalised proc rate the dps has to be attuned also to counter these changes. The classes are more and more alike. And I know we cant stop the proc rate changes. But I do ask, beg, demand from soe that they change the dps done by the short casting classes to rebalance the damage done in total.And i also do wonder one thing. what is the average cast time from all casting classes together? Is it really 2.5 seconds or only 2 seconds?<p>Message Edited by Etillchou on <span class=date_text>04-29-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:47 AM</span>

[lurx]

8 days, 6 pages of posts, no dev reply to even acknoweldge the issues.Cmon guys, dont play us. At least say something to let us know that you are listening to our feedback.<div></div>

[Dejah]

<DIV>After all that's happened in the last 6 months, I can't believe there are so many complaints about this.  I read about this change in the patch notes and thought "Yup, should have been that way since the beginning".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How do you except SOE to properly balance classes if the system has a bias built into it.  The current system for spell proc's biases faster casting spells.  Why should an item with a spell proc on it benefit class A more than class B just because in class A can cast more spells in a given time frame.  It doesn't make sense and should have been implemented the same way the did it for melee proc's on weapon delay.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, this will probably lower my DPS output; I am a 70 Wizard and I have 5 spell proc items (robe, hat, staff, earring, belt).  The reason I don't have a problem with it is because now the system is fair.  On average, two different classes with the same spell proc's will proc the same number of times regardless of the casting time of the spell.  This also means that its easier for SOE to compare two different classes, since an item's benefit is equal for both of them.  The end result is that they can balance classes better.  If it remained broken, and SOE balanced the classes when they had no spell proc's, then inevitably one class would become more powerful than the other class as they both got decked out in spell proc'ing gear.  There was only a few spell proc's in T6, but in T7 we've seen a lot more of them.  Imagine what it will be like in T8: you'll see casters with spell proc's on every item they are wearing.  The problem would only get worse as time goes on, and I'm glad SOE is doing something about it now before it's gotten too out of hand.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One last thing though.  SOE, please factor in the RECOVERY time of a spell into the cast time.  If you only factor in the cast time, then you are biasing classes with longer cast times.  For example, class A chain casts a spell with a 1sec cast and a 0.5sec recovery time, after one minute they'll have a total of 40sec of cast time.  Class B chain casts a spell with a 2sec cast and a 0.5sec recovery time, after one minute they'll have a total of 48sec of cast time.  If you're going to do this fix, do it right and please make sure that you account for the recovery time of a spell.</DIV>

[UrkBloodA]

Aye - Dejah - very good point - recovery time has to account into it.

[trenor]

<P>The across the board argument is a bucket with a  hole in it.  The reason that casters with quick casting spells have them is that they are the very same casters with 2 direct damage spells the highes t bieng 700 at lvl 70.  The procs from the troubs spells made up for the severe gap between the dps they are doing as compared to other tier 3 classes which is apparently the level the dev's said we are in.  I have news for you we can barely reach t3 now with the procs on the short casting timer.  This change barely affects any classes really but troub and illusionist this is obvious.  What the heck is the modifier of base damage decrease to mages that are already doing 1100 to 1400 dps?  Omg they lose what 100 dps think of it percentage wise.  What is the percentage we lose if its 150 form 500.  </P> <P> </P> <P>Now if you want an across the board change thats fine and apparently your a class that doesnt give 2 [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]s about your freindly neighborhood buff [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]es taggin along battery powering your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn](which incidentally is about all we do now).  Now regularly this wouldnt be an issue but if your going to go and change the game mechanics in such a way there had best be some tweaking (for a lack of better words) in the mage  classes ya screwed.  </P> <P> </P> <P>Remeber, when all your illusionist quit the game (cause troubs still can at least aoutoattack) because they are doing 300 dps instead of the 450 they were getting from procs that this is why.  All you proponents for this remember it too.</P>

[electricninjasex]

<div></div>A rough count of wizard hostile spells shows about 12 have base cast time under 3 seconds, 3 at 3 seconds, and 3 at greater than 3 seconds (the three which also have the largest recast times by far).  Given that only spells with 3 minimum second cast time maintain at least the spell proc rate as listed, there's no genius required to know that for wizards this is a very brutal Nerf. What should determine the rate of a hostile spell proc?  Cast time?  Recast time?  Average damage output?  You don't know, I don't know, and most evidently, the devs/designers don't know either, especially because not all procs operate in the same context or with the same goal or intent.  And this didn't matter until now, when a unified scheme with which players were communally happy, mutates into a nerf that few understand the motives or methods of.  Anyone who says this change adds balance had better explain the balance in more detail than "just because" or "somewhere over the rainbow".  How many sorcerors or other T1 dps classes do you think gave a rat's bottom that shamans and bards were wearing the Bone-Clasped Girdle? THE PARSES DIDN'T BREAK THE HIERARCHY FOR US. The final understandable compromise (read: plea on bended knee) of a lot of people is to base the proc rate on recast times. The math shows that total damage output (and thus net dps) in heroic/epic encounters is limited far more by recast times than cast times (which are normally significantly shorter than the former), but that doesn't save this from being any more arbitrary to the proc rate than cast times. Rather than address the sensibility and the context of the procs they created, the devs are trying to twist and stretch a one-size-fits-all solution until it makes even less sense and ends up stepping on EVERYONE'S toes. My main concern with spell procs is proc'ing items, so my first example is X'Haviz's Gown of Glory.  Did they mean this to chance proc a power regen on every spell no matter how great or small?  Or was a proc a half-baked means of proportionally reducing power consumption?  If that were the case, why not something simple and functional like, "reduces all power consumption by 1%"?  And with Raiment of the Skywatcher... did they intend the highest damage mini-hiroshimas to generate the same fixed threat reduction as the tiniest pipsqueak interrupt spells?  Once again, if they intended it in proportion, why not a fixed percentage rate of reduced hate gain rather than a random proc rate that fewer will understand after LU23? We're going to watch them approach this spell proc change, we're going to tell them not to do it, we're going to warn them they are making a big mistake, and then they're going to do it anyway... which will have its consequences, maintained quietly in respect to the more frustrated among us who have the better graces not to post in this thread. <div></div><p>Message Edited by electricninjasex on <span class=date_text>04-30-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:37 AM</span>

[Aienaa]

<P>What these proc formulas actually do is cut out a good porion of the work that the designers have to do....  what they are attempting to do is make a 1 proc fits all type deal...  </P> <P>This is easily evident in what they did to melee procs...  Where a listed 10% chance to proc is not actually a 10% chance to proc....  On a fast weapon is actually around 2% and on a slow weapon it's closer to 25%....</P> <P>This was done so they did not have to make different procs for different weapons, instead they could use a cookie cutter proc and apply some convoluted formula to suposedly make everything work out right (just look at imbued weapons).... Ok so you look at your weapon, it says 10%, what is the real proc rate??  10% usually means 1 out of 10, but not in this game...  In this game it could actually mean anything from 1 out of 50 to 1 out of 4....  Just a bit confusing to most people</P> <P>If they thought the faster weapons proced too much, then they needed to adjust the % so people could atleast know what it is thier weapon is doing at a quick glance...  would have also made it easier to compare different weapons....  If slow weapons didn't proc enough, then they needed to adjust the % higher.....</P> <P> </P> <P>Now they are trying to apply this same convoluted formula to spell procs....  But look at what it does....</P> <P>Troubadors have a instant cast AE interupt which used to proc Aria at the listed 30% proc rate...  It had no damage of it's own, only a 30% chance to proc for Aria damage......   Now apply the magic formula and your 30% chance to proc changes to 0% chance to proc because the cast time is 0.0 second....  Result is 100% loss of DPS from Aria on this spell</P> <P>Troubadors also have a debuff and a stun on 0.5 second cast times that used to be able to proc Aria at the listed 30% proc rate...  both dealt no damage on thier own... Let's say they "normalize" it around a 2.5 second cast time...  both of these spells would then have a 6% chance to proc...  so now rather than procing once for every 3 casts, they will be procing once every 17 casts....  Result is a 82% reduction in DPS from Aria on each of these spells...</P> <P>The mainstay of the Troubadors spells are on a 1 second cast time....  All of the debuffs did no damage, ony the 30% chance to proc Aria....  That means that once ever 3 casts they would do Aria damage.....   But let's again apply the "normalization" around a 2.5 second cast time...   After "normalizing" it would drop from 30% down to a 12% chance to proc (they would proc once every 8 casts now).... Result is a 63% reduction in DPS from Aria per spell with a 1.0 second cast time</P> <P>Troubadors, who are already at the low end of Tier 3 damage, are going to take a huge hit to thier DPS which will drop them down into Tier 5 DPS....  Yes, I know there is not a Tier 5, but once this goes live, they will be in a Tier of thier own, but it sounds like the Illusionist with be there with them to keep them company</P> <P>Here is another great example....  Let's take Imbued rings for example....  Troubadors were these alot of time because Int has a big effect on thier spell damage...  These rings have a 5% chance to proc on a hostile spell....</P> <P>Once again, the Instant cast AE interupt will never proc the ring... the 0.5 second debuff/stun will have a 1% chance to proc the ring....  The majority of Troubador spells at 1.0 second cast time will have a 2% chance to proc the ring.... What do you really think the odds of getting the ring to proc in any given encounter?  Fact is, Troubadors will rarely ever enjoy the benifit from the proc on these rings... And the same thing goes with any wearable items that have a %chance to proc some kind of an effect....</P> <P>Not only do they get screwed out of thier DPS, they are also getting screwed out of effects that are only obtainable from a % to proc....</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin</P>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR> A rough count of wizard hostile spells shows about 12 have base cast time under 3 seconds, 3 at 3 seconds, and 3 at greater than 3 seconds (the three which also have the largest recast times by far).  Given that only spells with 3 minimum second cast time maintain at least the spell proc rate as listed, there's no genius required to know that for wizards this is a very brutal Nerf.<BR><BR>What should determine the rate of a hostile spell proc?  Cast time?  Recast time?  Average damage output?  You don't know, I don't know, and most evidently, the devs/designers don't know either, especially because not all procs operate in the same context or with the same goal or intent.  And this didn't matter until now, when a unified scheme with which players were communally happy, mutates into a nerf that few understand the motives or methods of.  Anyone who says this change adds balance had better explain the balance in more detail than "just because" or "somewhere over the rainbow".  How many sorcerors or other T1 dps classes do you think gave a rat's bottom that shamans and bards were wearing the Bone-Clasped Girdle? THE PARSES DIDN'T BREAK THE HIERARCHY FOR US.<BR><BR>The final understandable compromise (read: plea on bended knee) of a lot of people is to base the proc rate on recast times. The math shows that total damage output (and thus net dps) in heroic/epic encounters is limited far more by recast times than cast times (which are normally significantly shorter than the former), but that doesn't save this from being any more arbitrary to the proc rate than cast times.<BR><BR>Rather than address the sensibility and the context of the procs they created, the devs are trying to twist and stretch a one-size-fits-all solution until it makes even less sense and ends up stepping on EVERYONE'S toes.<BR><BR>My main concern with spell procs is proc'ing items, so my first example is X'Haviz's Gown of Glory.  Did they mean this to chance proc a power regen on every spell no matter how great or small?  Or was a proc a half-baked means of proportionally reducing power consumption?  If that were the case, why not something simple and functional like, "reduces all power consumption by 1%"?  And with Raiment of the Skywatcher... did they intend the highest damage mini-hiroshimas to generate the same fixed threat reduction as the tiniest pipsqueak interrupt spells?  Once again, if they intended it in proportion, why not a fixed percentage rate of reduced hate gain rather than a random proc rate that fewer will understand after LU23?<BR><BR>We're going to watch them approach this spell proc change, we're going to tell them not to do it, we're going to warn them they are making a big mistake, and then they're going to do it anyway... which will have its consequences, maintained quietly in respect to the more frustrated among us who have the better graces not to post in this thread.<BR> <P>Message Edited by electricninjasex on <SPAN class=date_text>04-30-2006</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>03:37 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It makes sense to have the proc chance off of cast time.  If they didn't, then proc's wouldn't be balanced across all classes.  They SHOULD have done this when they made the change to melee procs, but apparently they didn't.  The goal is on average, over time, to have any two classes chain casting spells to get the same number of procs.  Just like how melee procs work: a 10% chance to proc will proc just as much on a fast weapon as it will on a slow weapon since it's normalized to 3sec--btw Gwern its actually EASIER to compare two weapons with this system because you don't have to do the math to figure out which one is likely to proc more).<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR> Did they mean this to chance proc a power regen on every spell no matter how great or small?  Or was a proc a half-baked means of proportionally reducing power consumption?  If that were the case, why not something simple and functional like, "reduces all power consumption by 1%"?  <P>Message Edited by electricninjasex on <SPAN class=date_text>04-30-2006</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>03:37 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Along that same line of thinking... why do I have a range of damage on my spells?  If they intended for me to do 2948 damage on average with Ball of Lava, then why doesn't the spell just do 2948 damage always?  Why? Because that's boring. :smileytongue:</P> <P>It's not a big mistake, just like the melee proc changes weren't a big mistake.  </P>

[Skratttt]

<hr size="2" width="100%">You caster guys should stop whining about this........the areason for this is to normallize procs just like mele procs were normallized so they could accurately know where each class stands, so every class has the same chance to proc in the same amt of time gone by (and they realized rangers were actualy defficient, but the out of ordinary proc dmg made up for that and then some), from the proc change several positives were acheived (including the dmg increase to high tier arrows, increased dmg for ranger CA's)Change is good <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr size="2" width="100%"><div></div>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aienaa wrote:<BR> <P>What these proc formulas actually do is cut out a good porion of the work that the designers have to do....  what they are attempting to do is make a 1 proc fits all type deal...  </P> <P>This is easily evident in what they did to melee procs...  Where a listed 10% chance to proc is not actually a 10% chance to proc....  On a fast weapon is actually around 2% and on a slow weapon it's closer to 25%....</P> <P>This was done so they did not have to make different procs for different weapons, instead they could use a cookie cutter proc and apply some convoluted formula to suposedly make everything work out right (just look at imbued weapons).... Ok so you look at your weapon, it says 10%, what is the real proc rate??  10% usually means 1 out of 10, but not in this game...  In this game it could actually mean anything from 1 out of 50 to 1 out of 4....  Just a bit confusing to most people</P> <P>If they thought the faster weapons proced too much, then they needed to adjust the % so people could atleast know what it is thier weapon is doing at a quick glance...  would have also made it easier to compare different weapons....  If slow weapons didn't proc enough, then they needed to adjust the % higher.....</P> <P> </P> <P>Now they are trying to apply this same convoluted formula to spell procs....  But look at what it does....</P> <P>Troubadors have a instant cast AE interupt which used to proc Aria at the listed 30% proc rate...  It had no damage of it's own, only a 30% chance to proc for Aria damage......   Now apply the magic formula and your 30% chance to proc changes to 0% chance to proc because the cast time is 0.0 second....  Result is 100% loss of DPS from Aria on this spell</P> <P>Troubadors also have a debuff and a stun on 0.5 second cast times that used to be able to proc Aria at the listed 30% proc rate...  both dealt no damage on thier own... Let's say they "normalize" it around a 2.5 second cast time...  both of these spells would then have a 6% chance to proc...  so now rather than procing once for every 3 casts, they will be procing once every 17 casts....  Result is a 82% reduction in DPS from Aria on each of these spells...</P> <P>The mainstay of the Troubadors spells are on a 1 second cast time....  All of the debuffs did no damage, ony the 30% chance to proc Aria....  That means that once ever 3 casts they would do Aria damage.....   But let's again apply the "normalization" around a 2.5 second cast time...   After "normalizing" it would drop from 30% down to a 12% chance to proc (they would proc once every 8 casts now).... Result is a 63% reduction in DPS from Aria per spell with a 1.0 second cast time</P> <P>Troubadors, who are already at the low end of Tier 3 damage, are going to take a huge hit to thier DPS which will drop them down into Tier 5 DPS....  Yes, I know there is not a Tier 5, but once this goes live, they will be in a Tier of thier own, but it sounds like the Illusionist with be there with them to keep them company</P> <P>Here is another great example....  Let's take Imbued rings for example....  Troubadors were these alot of time because Int has a big effect on thier spell damage...  These rings have a 5% chance to proc on a hostile spell....</P> <P>Once again, the Instant cast AE interupt will never proc the ring... the 0.5 second debuff/stun will have a 1% chance to proc the ring....  The majority of Troubador spells at 1.0 second cast time will have a 2% chance to proc the ring.... What do you really think the odds of getting the ring to proc in any given encounter?  Fact is, Troubadors will rarely ever enjoy the benifit from the proc on these rings... And the same thing goes with any wearable items that have a %chance to proc some kind of an effect....</P> <P>Not only do they get screwed out of thier DPS, they are also getting screwed out of effects that are only obtainable from a % to proc....</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Exactally, well observed.

[electricninjasex]

<blockquote><hr>Dejah wrote:<p>It makes sense to have the proc chance off of cast time.  If they didn't, then proc's wouldn't be balanced across all classes.  They SHOULD have done this when they made the change to melee procs, but apparently they didn't.  The goal is on average, over time, to have any two classes chain casting spells to get the same number of procs.  Just like how melee procs work: a 10% chance to proc will proc just as much on a fast weapon as it will on a slow weapon since it's normalized to 3sec--btw Gwern its actually EASIER to compare two weapons with this system because you don't have to do the math to figure out which one is likely to proc more).</p> <hr></blockquote>You're saying everyone with a given proc is ideally supposed to generate the exact same net damage or effects over time from the proc as every other character with it, regardless of class.  That will mean that of two characters with the same offensive proc, the one in the lower damage tier increases his/her percent damage potential in terms of the one in the higher tier. But I digress. If that is the goal, then it is stupid not to consider recast time IN ADDITION to cast time (not either-or). <blockquote> <p> </p> <hr>Dejah wrote: <blockquote> <hr> electricninjasex wrote: <div></div>Did they mean this to chance proc a power regen on every spell no matter how great or small?  Or was a proc a half-baked means of proportionally reducing power consumption?  If that were the case, why not something simple and functional like, "reduces all power consumption by 1%"?  <div></div> <p>Message Edited by electricninjasex on <span class="date_text">04-30-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:37 AM</span></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Along that same line of thinking... why do I have a range of damage on my spells?  If they intended for me to do 2948 damage on average with Ball of Lava, then why doesn't the spell just do 2948 damage always?  Why? Because that's boring. :smileytongue:</p><hr></blockquote> We seem to be more than amused with the fixed percentages provided by our AA's, and the fixed regens provided by FT items. With some things we just prefer the hard ground under our feet. <blockquote> <hr>Dejah wrote: <p>It's not a big mistake, just like the melee proc changes weren't a big mistake.  </p> <hr></blockquote> Is it not a fundamental expectation that a player reviewing a stated 10% proc can expect a 10% or close average proc rate over time?  Isn't that...just...polite?  Most of our spells are not 3s or greater... what will the numbers look like for us, especially with us having the so-called reputation of being the kings of long cast times? But then again, as long as you're at peace with the end result being a nerf, I really can't say anything. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[SeratedEdge]

<P>What I don't understand is why no one has yet to bring up (from what I've seen) that sony is using 2 different mechanics of normalization and that the spell/ca proc normalization is actually couter-intuitive.</P> <P>What I mean is that the reason for auto-attack normalization is because they want the amount of procs per given time sample to be the same regardless of weapon. The spell/ca normalization does not accomplish this in any way, it simply provides a half-[Removed for Content] nerf in the guise of fixing a game mechanic. To actually normalize spells/cas as they should be normalized, it must work off the recast time, as that would allow the same thing as with auto-attack, same amount of procs no matter what spells used in any given time sample.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Edit: Please correct me if I am getting something wrong.</P><p>Message Edited by SeratedEdge on <span class=date_text>05-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:06 PM</span>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dejah wrote:<BR> <P>It makes sense to have the proc chance off of cast time.  If they didn't, then proc's wouldn't be balanced across all classes.  They SHOULD have done this when they made the change to melee procs, but apparently they didn't.  The goal is on average, over time, to have any two classes chain casting spells to get the same number of procs.  Just like how melee procs work: a 10% chance to proc will proc just as much on a fast weapon as it will on a slow weapon since it's normalized to 3sec--btw Gwern its actually EASIER to compare two weapons with this system because you don't have to do the math to figure out which one is likely to proc more).</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You're saying everyone with a given proc is ideally supposed to generate the exact same net damage or effects over time from the proc as every other character with it, regardless of class.  That will mean that of two characters with the same offensive proc, the one in the lower damage tier increases his/her percent damage potential in terms of the one in the higher tier. But I digress. If that is the goal, then it is stupid not to consider recast time IN ADDITION to cast time (not either-or).<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm saying that a given proc that adds X dps on average and over time to class A should also yield X dps on average and over time to class B, provided of course that both classes A and B are chain casting.  If a proc from an item gives me--a wizard--roughly 10dps over the course of a 3min epic fight, then it makes sense to me that an illusionist with the same proc should get the same 10 dps over the course of the fight, provided of course we're both chain casting hostile spells.  If you want to look at dps percentages, then 10dps on top of 1000dps for a wizard isn't that much of an increase, only 1%.  But 10dps on top of 500dps for an illusionist is a 2% increase in dps. </P> <P>If I understand you correctly, then that's why you think it's not fair.  If the proc gives the same DPS boost to all classes, then the ones with the lower DPS get a higher dps-percentage increase.  I'm still not following what you mean when they say they should consider recast time as well.  How would you propose recast time affect the chance to proc?</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR><BR>Is it not a fundamental expectation that a player reviewing a stated 10% proc can expect a 10% or close average proc rate over time?  Isn't that...just...polite?  Most of our spells are not 3s or greater... what will the numbers look like for us, especially with us having the so-called reputation of being the kings of long cast times?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Let's pretend for a second that they don't make this change.  Let's also pretend for a second that you have the following damage proc items (hat, robe, staff, offhand, range, necklace, belt) and you have synergism and the troubador proc.  Now you can either cast your 0.5 second cease, or you can cast your 2 second sunstrike.  Cease does roughly 60 damage itself, but only takes you 0.5 second to cast and 0.5 second to recover.  Sunstrike does roughly 800 damage itself, but takes you 2 seconds to cast and 0.5 second to recover.  With all these procs stacked on you, on average the damage per spell from proc's is 1000.  That means the DPS of casting Cease is 1060 damage for 1 second of your time, for 1060 dps.  But the damage for Sunstrike is 1800 damage for 2.5 seconds of your time, for 720 dps.  Don't you find it odd that just because you got more proc's on you that suddenly a crappy 60 damage stifle spell (Cease) is suddenly <STRONG>better</STRONG> dps than Sunstrike? </P> <P>With the changes to spell proc's on test, if they do it right and consider cast time and recovery time, then Cease wouldn't get an average spell proc damage of 1000, it would get cut by a factor of 3, going from 1060 to roughly 393.  Sunstrike wouldn't be hurt as badly though, the 1000 average damage proc would go from 1000 to roughly 833, for a total of 1633 damage.</P> <P>What's great about the proc changes on test is that you can do the following:  Calculate the DPS of your spells, based on average damage of the spell per cast time of the spell (not the extended DPS of the spell), and figure out which ones are the best.  You won't even have to take into consideration proc damage or proc rates because it will have an equal effect on every spell's DPS (true dps, ie, time taken to cast, not extended dps, ie, cast + recast).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR><BR>But then again, as long as you're at peace with the end result being a nerf, I really can't say anything. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I wouldn't really call it a nerf, especially in the case of Wizards.  However, this may hit some other classes harder, particularly classes that have buffs that add spell procs.  These classes were balanced with the old mechanic, just like Rangers were.  They will most likely need some adjustment, but not a major one.  No class currently is as dependent on spell procs for damage as the rangers used to be on their melee procs.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SeratedEdge wrote:<BR> <P>What I don't understand is why no one has yet to bring up (from what I've seen) that sony is using 2 different mechanics of normalization and that the spell/ca proc normalization is actually couter-intuitive.</P> <P>What I mean is that the reason for auto-attack normalization is because they want the amount of procs per given time sample to be the same regardless of weapon. The spell/ca normalization does not accomplish this in any way, it simply provides a half-[Removed for Content] nerf in the guise of fixing a game mechanic. <STRONG>To actually normalize spells/cas as they should be normalized, it must work off the recast time, as that would allow the same thing as with auto-attack, same amount of procs no matter what spells used in any given time sample.</STRONG></P> <P>Edit: Please correct me if I am getting something wrong.</P> <P>Message Edited by SeratedEdge on <SPAN class=date_text>05-01-2006</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>01:06 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What I highlighted is wrong.  You're logic is a little flawed.  To get the same amount of procs no matter what spells used in a given time sample, you have to consider the time it takes to cast.</P> <P>Example: Class A and Class B, both have the same spell procs and both have the same melee procs.  Over a long period of time, both classes spend X minutes in melee and Y minutes casting hostile spells.</P> <P>With the normalization SOE does, both Class A and Class B will do the same amount of damage via procs regardless of what A, B, X, or Y is. </P> <P>That wouldn't be the case if they used recast timers.  Having a recast timer doesn't prevent you from doing something else.  Casting an ability does prevent you from doing something else (unless you have one of those crazy AAs that lets you attack while casting an ability).<BR> </P>

[shortfa]

I think the normalization of the proc rates is quite okay, <u>provided</u> they increase the stated proc rates on our items and our spells so we don't feel the pinch. I.e. instead of 30% proc on aria change it to 50% (i'm just throwing out a random % that sounds nice, i'll leave the calculations to the math whizzes). That way they make they get the convinience of easier proc calculations and they get to play around with their new "one size fits all" proc system while we still get to proc the same as now. What do you say eh devs? <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[electricninjasex]

<blockquote><hr>Dejah wrote:<div></div><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial,Geneva,Sans-Serif"> </font></font>Let's pretend for a second that they don't make this change.  Let's also pretend for a second that you have the following damage proc items (hat, robe, staff, offhand, range, necklace, belt) and you have synergism and the troubador proc.  Now you can either cast your 0.5 second cease, or you can cast your 2 second sunstrike.  Cease does roughly 60 damage itself, but only takes you 0.5 second to cast and 0.5 second to recover.  Sunstrike does roughly 800 damage itself, but takes you 2 seconds to cast and 0.5 second to recover.  With all these procs stacked on you, on average the damage per spell from proc's is 1000.  That means the DPS of casting Cease is 1060 damage for 1 second of your time, for 1060 dps.  But the damage for Sunstrike is 1800 damage for 2.5 seconds of your time, for 720 dps.  Don't you find it odd that just because you got more proc's on you that suddenly a crappy 60 damage stifle spell (Cease) is suddenly <strong>better</strong> dps than Sunstrike?  <p>With the changes to spell proc's on test, if they do it right and consider cast time and recovery time, then Cease wouldn't get an average spell proc damage of 1000, it would get cut by a factor of 3, going from 1060 to roughly 393.  Sunstrike wouldn't be hurt as badly though, the 1000 average damage proc would go from 1000 to roughly 833, for a total of 1633 damage.</p> <p>What's great about the proc changes on test is that you can do the following:  Calculate the DPS of your spells, based on average damage of the spell per cast time of the spell (not the extended DPS of the spell), and figure out which ones are the best.  You won't even have to take into consideration proc damage or proc rates because it will have an equal effect on every spell's DPS (true dps, ie, time taken to cast, not extended dps, ie, cast + recast). </p><hr></blockquote>If the fight lasts for maybe 5 seconds, then this is true.  But we're chain casting, remember?  The time between Cease casts isn't .5 + .5 but rather .5 + .5 + 25 = 26 seconds!  We can't rapid fire Cease casts like a machine gun and get insane proc'ing off of it for that reason.  Recast time is the untold story of all spells, not just Cease.  If you extend dps over longer time periods (which is how fights go anyway), Sunstrike easily maintains its dps lead. How can you just not consider recast time?  How can you say for extreme example that Fusion is the number one dps spell when the recast is 3 minutes?  You know how many Sunstrike casts can happen in that timeframe? From what I've seen, cast time doesn't really scale at all with damage output, and has a lesser bearing on how often the spell is cast (thus how often it triggers the proc).  If they are hellbent on making this change, I would advise finding a new normalisation point based on (cast time + recast time).

[SeratedEdge]

<DIV>That is a very good argument dejah, but it doesnt work that way.</DIV> <DIV>I'll give you a very simple example:</DIV> <DIV>Player A and player B have 10 spells that they are chain casting, same cast times, same recoveries, and same recasts except for player B who has one of those spells with a 10 second faster recast.</DIV> <DIV>Now, who gets more procs over 1 hour?</DIV> <DIV>Granted cast time needs to be included in the equation, but the crux of it is in the recast times, not the cast times, as those determine how many spells will be cast overall in any alotted time.</DIV>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dejah wrote:<BR> <FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Arial,Geneva,Sans-Serif><BR></FONT></FONT>Let's pretend for a second that they don't make this change.  Let's also pretend for a second that you have the following damage proc items (hat, robe, staff, offhand, range, necklace, belt) and you have synergism and the troubador proc.  Now you can either cast your 0.5 second cease, or you can cast your 2 second sunstrike.  Cease does roughly 60 damage itself, but only takes you 0.5 second to cast and 0.5 second to recover.  Sunstrike does roughly 800 damage itself, but takes you 2 seconds to cast and 0.5 second to recover.  With all these procs stacked on you, on average the damage per spell from proc's is 1000.  That means the DPS of casting Cease is 1060 damage for 1 second of your time, for 1060 dps.  But the damage for Sunstrike is 1800 damage for 2.5 seconds of your time, for 720 dps.  Don't you find it odd that just because you got more proc's on you that suddenly a crappy 60 damage stifle spell (Cease) is suddenly <STRONG>better</STRONG> dps than Sunstrike?  <P>With the changes to spell proc's on test, if they do it right and consider cast time and recovery time, then Cease wouldn't get an average spell proc damage of 1000, it would get cut by a factor of 3, going from 1060 to roughly 393.  Sunstrike wouldn't be hurt as badly though, the 1000 average damage proc would go from 1000 to roughly 833, for a total of 1633 damage.</P> <P>What's great about the proc changes on test is that you can do the following:  Calculate the DPS of your spells, based on average damage of the spell per cast time of the spell (not the extended DPS of the spell), and figure out which ones are the best.  You won't even have to take into consideration proc damage or proc rates because it will have an equal effect on every spell's DPS (true dps, ie, time taken to cast, not extended dps, ie, cast + recast).<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If the fight lasts for maybe 5 seconds, then this is true.  But we're chain casting, remember?  The time between Cease casts isn't .5 + .5 but rather .5 + .5 + 25 = 26 seconds!  We can't rapid fire Cease casts like a machine gun and get insane proc'ing off of it for that reason.  Recast time is the untold story of all spells, not just Cease.  If you extend dps over longer time periods (which is how fights go anyway), Sunstrike easily maintains its dps lead.<BR><BR>How can you just not consider recast time?  How can you say for extreme example that Fusion is the number one dps spell when the recast is 3 minutes?  You know how many Sunstrike casts can happen in that timeframe?<BR><BR>From what I've seen, cast time doesn't really scale at all with damage output, and has a lesser bearing on how often the spell is cast (thus how often it triggers the proc).  If they are hellbent on making this change, I would advise finding a new normalisation point based on (cast time + recast time).<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>When I said chain casting spells, I did not mean to imply only the same spell.  Chain casting any hostile spell.  If you're half way through a fight, and you have the choice to either cast Cease or Sunstrike, which one do you choose?  You choose the one that will yield the highest amount of damage for the time it takes to cast it.  The recast time doesn't affect the DPS of a spell, it does affect your overall DPS though.  Recast times are only important because you want to A) avoid having all your reuse timers down and B) fit as many casts of your high DPS spells in the fight as possible.  Example A) All your reuse timers are on except for sunstrike and incinerate, which do you cast? Answer: sunstrike followed by incinerate because then you can follow up with another sunstrike.  Example B) you expect the fight to last less than 45sec, do you cast Ice Nova now or later in the fight? Answer: it doesn't matter because you're only going to get 1 Ice Nova in this fight.</P> <P>Just because a spell is the best DPS doesn't mean that it will add the most damage over the course of a fight.  Fusion is a Wizard's best DPS spell, even on single targets.  For the amount of time it takes to cast Fusion, you can do more damage with that spell than any other spell in your arsenal.  It has the highest DPS.  What you are talking about is not DPS, it's extended DPS (damage / (cast time + recovery + recast)).  But knowing a spells extended DPS doesn't help you in a fight.  Extended DPS calculations are only useful when you are comparing two spells and trying to figure out which one you should upgrade first.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR><BR>From what I've seen, cast time doesn't really scale at all with damage output, and has a lesser bearing on how often the spell is cast (thus how often it triggers the proc).  If they are hellbent on making this change, I would advise finding a new normalisation point based on (cast time + recast time).<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>SOE's goal seems pretty clear to me:  They want a proc to add the same amount of damage to one's fight regardless of what class that person is, provided of course they both spend roughly the same amount of time casting hostile spells. i.e., increases everyone's <STRONG>true DPS</STRONG> by X.</P> <P>It looks like you think the goal for the proc system should be that it increase's every spell's extended DPS by X. </P> <P>SOE's aim is at increasing PEOPLE's <STRONG>true DPS</STRONG>.</P> <P>You're aim is at increasing SPELL's <STRONG>extended DPS</STRONG>.</P> <P>Classes are balanced by their true DPS.</P> <P>I'm having the strangest sense of deja vu as I type this.  Haven't we had this discussion before?  I think you might have been number crunching on your AGI line a little too hard.  It's gotten you too focused on recast times and you've forgotten what true DPS is.</P>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SeratedEdge wrote:<BR> <DIV>That is a very good argument dejah, but it doesnt work that way.</DIV> <DIV>I'll give you a very simple example:</DIV> <DIV>Player A and player B have 10 spells that they are chain casting, same cast times, same recoveries, and same recasts except for player B who has one of those spells with a 10 second faster recast.</DIV> <DIV>Now, who gets more procs over 1 hour?</DIV> <DIV>Granted cast time needs to be included in the equation, but the crux of it is in the recast times, not the cast times, as those determine how many spells will be cast overall in any alotted time.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If they are both constantly casting, then they will get the same number of procs.<BR></P> <P>EDIT: A little clarification for our hybrid friends.  When I say constantly casting (or chain casting), I do not mean casting as soon as you can.  I mean constantly casting a spell and doing nothing else.  If you ever have to wait for a reuse timer, then you are not constantly casting.</P><p>Message Edited by Dejah on <span class=date_text>05-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:29 PM</span>

[SeratedEdge]

<DIV>Yea, if they never stop casting due to recasts, then yea you're right, but if your casting all your spells so as not to have to wait for timers wouldn't you be running out of power faster then the mob dies?</DIV>

[electricninjasex]

Your argument seems to hinge on there not being any downtime in a fight whatsoever... the wizard's battle time being 100% consumed from spell cast to spell cast to spell cast with no recast timer waits in between, and not in a fantasy realm either where recast times are zero.  I'll have to chew on that for a while. <div></div>

[Astery]

i take this change as a long awaited warlock luv <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> nothing to complain <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Antipalad]

Sorry Astery, but you won't feel much warlock love from this change. Reason is there won't be many left to feed you these procs that slow casters will benefit from.Not saying this to start a war against sorcerers or anything, but it is kind of disheartening to have a class (troubador) that already will get outdps'ed by a raid buffed guardian in many circumstances, to drop in damage output.This change is not good, not for bards, not for enchanters, and not really all that good for sorcerers either.

[Dejah]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Antipaladin wrote:<BR>Sorry Astery, but you won't feel much warlock love from this change. Reason is there won't be many left to feed you these procs that slow casters will benefit from.<BR><BR>Not saying this to start a war against sorcerers or anything, but it is kind of disheartening to have a class (troubador) that already will get outdps'ed by a raid buffed guardian in many circumstances, to drop in damage output.<BR><BR>This change is not good, not for bards, not for enchanters, and not really all that good for sorcerers either.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I honestly don't think this change will net any class an increase in dps.  But I do think it's a change that is needed for the long term health of the game.  As evidenced by Rangers: its a bad thing when your class gets balanced on top of a broken mechanic, because when the broken mechanic becomes too much of a problem to ignore and gets fixed, then you're no longer balanced.<BR></DIV>

[Aienaa]

<DIV>Stupid thing won't take any text =/</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Aienaa on <SPAN class=date_text>05-02-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:09 AM</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Ok, this is really annoying me...  I have typed it out twice already and each time it won't save what I wrote</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Aienaa on <SPAN class=date_text>05-02-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:31 AM</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text>Finially, after rewritting it 3 times..... =/</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Aienaa on <span class=date_text>05-02-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:04 AM</span>

[Aienaa]

<P>The thing is, if they want to make a change such as this, then they need to be able to see past thier nose and discover how this change is going to effect everyone.</P> <P>Items that already have a ridiculously low % to proc are going to become useless to certian classes that have extremely low cast times....  As I said before, Instant Cast = 0% chance to proc....</P> <P>"Once again, the Instant Cast AE Interupt will never proc the ring....  The 0.5 second debuff/stun will have a 1% chance to proc the ring...  The majority of Troubador spells, at 1.0 cast time, will have a 2% chance to proc the ring....  What do you think the odds are of getting the ring to actually proc in any given encounter?  Fact is, Troubadors will rarely ever enjoy the benifit from the procs on these rings....  The same thing goes with any wearable item that has a % chance to proc some kind of affect."</P> <P>These are not the only proc items...  Items such as the Bone Clasp Girdle, the +20 Int ring from the collection quest that has a proc, and many other items....  (Sorry, not a cster, so I don't know the names)...  But for people that have low cast times, those effects are going to be pretty much useless, while those with longer cast times will be living it up...   Just by  using the rings as an example, the preople with lower cast times will have to cast 5 times the number of spells as thoes with near "normalization" cast times just to get the saem effect, and will suffer from severly reduced DPS, and the likelihood of pulling agro will increase because of the greater number of cast required to get the proc...</P> <P>Look at procs such as Aria (I had also used this one as an example)....  The mainstay spells for a troubador (1.0 cst time) only has a 6% chance to proc, yet the person with 2.5 second cast times have a 30% chance to proc...  That means the Troubador will have to cast 16 spells in order to ensure 1 proc...  At the same time, a person with 2.5 second cast time spells would only need to cast 3 spells....</P> <P>Quick numbers...  Cast + cool down on a 1.0 second spell is 1.5 seconds...  on a 2.5 second spell it's 3.0 seconds... For a troubador to guarantee a proc, they must cast 16 spells...  16 spells X 1.5 seconds = 24 seconds....  A person with 2.5 second spells only need to cast 3 spells...  3 spells X 3 seconds = 9 seconds....  It takes the troubador 2.666 times the amount of time to equal the same number of procs... Or you could say the person with 2.5 second cst times will proc 2.66 times more than the troubador in the same amount of time....</P> <P>If they are going to do something like this, it is very evident that they will need to make changes to several classes and to equipment that has a proc effect...  That will be alot of work, because gear will need to be segregated by classes with similiar cast times in order to even out the proc rates...  This change is going to cost them alot more work and it needs to be done all at the same time so no classes become gimped because of it....  What we are looking at is a need to completely revamp all caster gear and spells with procs on them, and it's not going to be an easy task....</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin</P>

[Emerix]

<P>Could someone be so kind and explain me what people are discussing here ?</P> <P>Its quite clear that low damage classes will lose too much effective damage . Noone really cares about if its True or extended DPS . </P> <P>Fact is : we will lose so much DPS that we will drop even more in effective damage output </P> <P>Fact is : Illusionists and Bards are supposed to be tier 3 damage . That means : we should easily do more damage than any tank class</P> <P>Fact is : To do more damage than a Berserker for example or a bruiser we have to work very hard . and  a bruiser can outdamage me on single mobs every time ((im a 70 troubador )) </P> <P>Also , noone should have a higher chance to proc than others .</P> <P>Those are facts . </P> <P>To conclude : If this change goes live the Chanters and Bards will have their damage output cut . And according to the old LU 13 damage tier idea this should NOT happen . </P> <P>How to work around this : Simply give Chanters and Bards a damage boost that raises us above tanks and under classes like swashy etc .</P>

[Kraks_Aforty]

<div><blockquote><hr>Dejah wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> electricninjasex wrote: <div></div>A rough count of wizard hostile spells shows about 12 have base cast time under 3 seconds, 3 at 3 seconds, and 3 at greater than 3 seconds (the three which also have the largest recast times by far).  Given that only spells with 3 minimum second cast time maintain at least the spell proc rate as listed, there's no genius required to know that for wizards this is a very brutal Nerf.What should determine the rate of a hostile spell proc?  Cast time?  Recast time?  Average damage output?  You don't know, I don't know, and most evidently, the devs/designers don't know either, especially because not all procs operate in the same context or with the same goal or intent.  And this didn't matter until now, when a unified scheme with which players were communally happy, mutates into a nerf that few understand the motives or methods of.  Anyone who says this change adds balance had better explain the balance in more detail than "just because" or "somewhere over the rainbow".  How many sorcerors or other T1 dps classes do you think gave a rat's bottom that shamans and bards were wearing the Bone-Clasped Girdle? THE PARSES DIDN'T BREAK THE HIERARCHY FOR US.The final understandable compromise (read: plea on bended knee) of a lot of people is to base the proc rate on recast times. The math shows that total damage output (and thus net dps) in heroic/epic encounters is limited far more by recast times than cast times (which are normally significantly shorter than the former), but that doesn't save this from being any more arbitrary to the proc rate than cast times.Rather than address the sensibility and the context of the procs they created, the devs are trying to twist and stretch a one-size-fits-all solution until it makes even less sense and ends up stepping on EVERYONE'S toes.My main concern with spell procs is proc'ing items, so my first example is X'Haviz's Gown of Glory.  Did they mean this to chance proc a power regen on every spell no matter how great or small?  Or was a proc a half-baked means of proportionally reducing power consumption?  If that were the case, why not something simple and functional like, "reduces all power consumption by 1%"?  And with Raiment of the Skywatcher... did they intend the highest damage mini-hiroshimas to generate the same fixed threat reduction as the tiniest pipsqueak interrupt spells?  Once again, if they intended it in proportion, why not a fixed percentage rate of reduced hate gain rather than a random proc rate that fewer will understand after LU23?We're going to watch them approach this spell proc change, we're going to tell them not to do it, we're going to warn them they are making a big mistake, and then they're going to do it anyway... which will have its consequences, maintained quietly in respect to the more frustrated among us who have the better graces not to post in this thread. <div></div> <p>Message Edited by electricninjasex on <span class="date_text">04-30-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:37 AM</span></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>It makes sense to have the proc chance off of cast time.  If they didn't, then proc's wouldn't be balanced across all classes.  They SHOULD have done this when they made the change to melee procs, but apparently they didn't.  The goal is on average, over time, to have any two classes chain casting spells to get the same number of procs.  Just like how melee procs work: a 10% chance to proc will proc just as much on a fast weapon as it will on a slow weapon since it's normalized to 3sec--btw Gwern its actually EASIER to compare two weapons with this system because you don't have to do the math to figure out which one is likely to proc more).</p> <blockquote> <hr> electricninjasex wrote: <div></div>Did they mean this to chance proc a power regen on every spell no matter how great or small?  Or was a proc a half-baked means of proportionally reducing power consumption?  If that were the case, why not something simple and functional like, "reduces all power consumption by 1%"?  <div></div> <p>Message Edited by electricninjasex on <span class="date_text">04-30-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:37 AM</span></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Along that same line of thinking... why do I have a range of damage on my spells?  If they intended for me to do 2948 damage on average with Ball of Lava, then why doesn't the spell just do 2948 damage always?  Why? Because that's boring. :smileytongue:</p> <p>It's not a big mistake, just like the melee proc changes weren't a big mistake.  </p><hr></blockquote>You  apparently don't parse very often and don't have any idea what this really means.  Fact is, this changes very very few spells for all but 1 class:  troubadors.  Troubs go from their rightful place in the magical "DPS Tiers" to crapola.  How many spells do we have over 2 second cast time?  Oh yeah, 1.  Our AE DD spell.</div>

[Flipmode]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dejah wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I wouldn't really call it a nerf, especially in the case of Wizards.  However, this may hit some other classes harder, particularly classes that have buffs that add spell procs.  These classes were balanced with the old mechanic, just like Rangers were.  They will most likely need some adjustment, but not a major one.  <FONT color=#ff0000>No class currently is as dependent on spell procs for damage as the rangers used to be on their melee procs.</FONT></P> <P><BR> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Illusionists are.  33% of our T3 dps comes from procs.<BR></P>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>Kraks_Aforty wrote:<div>You  apparently don't parse very often and don't have any idea what this really means.  Fact is, this changes very very few spells for all but 1 class:  troubadors.  Troubs go from their rightful place in the magical "DPS Tiers" to crapola.  How many spells do we have over 2 second cast time?  Oh yeah, 1.  Our AE DD spell.</div><hr></blockquote>Actually 2 classes(Illusionists are getting screwed as much, if not more). I have 3 pure damage spells with 1s cast times, a debuff with a 1s cast time, a limited pet with a 2s cast time, my 2 aoes with 2s cast times, and my secondary nuke(which btw, does less damage than any priest nuke) with a 2s cast time. Then there is my 1 and only 3s cast time AoE Power Tap.Well, that's all that will have a chance to proc my Synergism anymore after the change, because my other damage spell isn't really a spell I cast, rather it procs with what can be described in the mechanics, as "instant" cast time, thus no procs, and on the average fight that lasts 2 minutes, I normally have that going off for 24 "casts"(8 casts of it, 3 procs every cast, with a 15s recycle). So, I will be losing 8 procs from synergism(33%), 7-8 procs from aria(30%), and 2-3 procs from 10%(I usually have 2 equipped) procs, and now it will be 0 procs from those because it's an "instant" cast time. That means I'll be going from 34000 damage from this spell+procs, to 24000. That's just from this 1 spell, which is my primary damage spell. Thus I'm going to be losing 30% of the damage from this change just from the casting of this 1 spell because of all the lost procs I will have.Then my other spells I will be losing probably 15-20% of damage, thus I'm going to be down around 20% of total damage after this change, and no longer will I be able to even COMPETE with brawlers, who are also Tier 3. I will be stuck in the Tier 4 range.So, how am I supposed to remain Tier 3 after this change? Or is there going to be some comment about instant cast spells and procs.

[Trabbart]

<P>It seems to me there is only one solution to the proc problem. Make all procs proc ALLWAYS (100%). Just make the benefits/dmg etc lower. </P> <P> </P> <P>Much easier as a mechanic. (much more boring too, but i can't care)</P> <P> </P> <P>What is being done now will take many LU's of "balancing"  Looking at how my class (troubador)  has been treated sofar I may not stick around for it.</P> <P> </P> <P>Ikikik, Splitpaw</P>

[Flipmode]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Trabbart wrote:<BR> <P>It seems to me there is only one solution to the proc problem. Make all procs proc ALLWAYS (100%). Just make the benefits/dmg etc lower. </P> <P> </P> <P>Much easier as a mechanic. (much more boring too, but i can't care)</P> <P> </P> <P>What is being done now will take many LU's of "balancing"  Looking at how my class (troubador)  has been treated sofar I may not stick around for it.</P> <P> </P> <P>Ikikik, Splitpaw</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>We know how fast they are at addressing class issues.  Here we are almost at LU 23 and enchanters are still waiting.  That is why we dont have much hope for them fixing us anytime soon after they break us.  They just dont seem to care.

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Flipmode wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dejah wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I wouldn't really call it a nerf, especially in the case of Wizards.  However, this may hit some other classes harder, particularly classes that have buffs that add spell procs.  These classes were balanced with the old mechanic, just like Rangers were.  They will most likely need some adjustment, but not a major one.  <FONT color=#ff0000>No class currently is as dependent on spell procs for damage as the rangers used to be on their melee procs.</FONT></P> <P><BR> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Illusionists are.  33% of our T3 dps comes from procs.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Thats only if your putting Dynasim line on you all the time, which i dont depending on group set up. Ill Haste a Scout / high damage dealing Figther ie: Brawler / Berserker before i Dynasim myself.</P> <P>You cant sit there and say that 33% of our T3 dps comes from one spell alone, that in itself is broken. Another reason you cant say it is because it all depends on group set up your in depends wether its going to more beneficial to put it on you or another in the group.</P>

[WAPCE]

<blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote: <div></div> Thats only if your putting Dynasim line on you all the time, which i dont depending on group set up. Ill Haste a Scout / high damage dealing Figther ie: Brawler / Berserker before i Dynasim myself. <hr></blockquote> <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><p>Message Edited by WAPCE on <span class=date_text>05-02-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:23 PM</span>

[Dejah]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kraks_Aforty wrote: <DIV><BR><BR>You  apparently don't parse very often and don't have any idea what this really means.  Fact is, this changes very very few spells for all but 1 class:  troubadors.  Troubs go from their rightful place in the magical "DPS Tiers" to crapola.  How many spells do we have over 2 second cast time?  Oh yeah, 1.  Our AE DD spell.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Troubadors are a hybrid class: they aren't always going to be casting spells, they aren't always going to be performing combat arts, and they aren't always going to be in melee.  At any given time, a Troubador is going to be doing one of those 3 things though.   Suppose you spend 1/3rd of your time casting spells, 1/3rd doing combat arts, and 1/3rd doing melee attacks.  Now can you honestly say that you deserve to get as many <STRONG>spell</STRONG> procs during the whole fight as someone who spends 100% of their time casting spells?  The other 2/3rds of the time you're not casting spells you're using attacks that could trigger <STRONG>melee</STRONG> procs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Troubador's spell damage will probably need to be kicked up a slight notch though to compensate for the fact that they were balanced with the way their spell proc buff worked before.  The same goes for any other class that has a spell proc buff.</DIV>

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>Dejah wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Kraks_Aforty wrote: <div>You  apparently don't parse very often and don't have any idea what this really means.  Fact is, this changes very very few spells for all but 1 class:  troubadors.  Troubs go from their rightful place in the magical "DPS Tiers" to crapola.  How many spells do we have over 2 second cast time?  Oh yeah, 1.  Our AE DD spell.</div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Troubadors are a hybrid class: they aren't always going to be casting spells, they aren't always going to be performing combat arts, and they aren't always going to be in melee.  At any given time, a Troubador is going to be doing one of those 3 things though.   Suppose you spend 1/3rd of your time casting spells, 1/3rd doing combat arts, and 1/3rd doing melee attacks.  Now can you honestly say that you deserve to get as many <strong>spell</strong> procs during the whole fight as someone who spends 100% of their time casting spells?  The other 2/3rds of the time you're not casting spells you're using attacks that could trigger <strong>melee</strong> procs. </div> <div> </div> <div>Troubador's spell damage will probably need to be kicked up a slight notch though to compensate for the fact that they were balanced with the way their spell proc buff worked before.  The same goes for any other class that has a spell proc buff.</div><hr></blockquote>Troub procs are only on spell casting.  Most of our damage is from spell casting.  We were hybrid initially, but the LU13 made us buffers/casters with some melee.  We're like illusionists, except we have melee to make up for less crowd control.  And we can wear chain.  The complaints for Troubs are many, but we're casting a lot more than 1/3 of the time.</div>

[Emerix]

<P>dehah . im casting 80 % of the time . and im certainly not the only one . if you dont have the über fabled weapons auto attack is wasted time .</P>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dejah wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kraks_Aforty wrote: <DIV><BR><BR>You  apparently don't parse very often and don't have any idea what this really means.  Fact is, this changes very very few spells for all but 1 class:  troubadors.  Troubs go from their rightful place in the magical "DPS Tiers" to crapola.  How many spells do we have over 2 second cast time?  Oh yeah, 1.  Our AE DD spell.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Troubadors are a hybrid class: they aren't always going to be casting spells, they aren't always going to be performing combat arts, and they aren't always going to be in melee.  At any given time, a Troubador is going to be doing one of those 3 things though.   Suppose you spend 1/3rd of your time casting spells, 1/3rd doing combat arts, and 1/3rd doing melee attacks.  Now can you honestly say that you deserve to get as many <STRONG>spell</STRONG> procs during the whole fight as someone who spends 100% of their time casting spells?  The other 2/3rds of the time you're not casting spells you're using attacks that could trigger <STRONG>melee</STRONG> procs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Troubador's spell damage will probably need to be kicked up a slight notch though to compensate for the fact that they were balanced with the way their spell proc buff worked before.  The same goes for any other class that has a spell proc buff.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Troub procs are only on spell casting.  Most of our damage is from spell casting.  We were hybrid initially, but the LU13 made us buffers/casters with some melee.  We're like illusionists, except we have melee to make up for less crowd control.  And we can wear chain.  The complaints for Troubs are many, but we're casting a lot more than 1/3 of the time.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thus why I used the transitive verb "suppose" instead of saying something more definitive like "you cast spells exactly 1/3rd of the time always".  It's an example to illustrate the point that the time it takes to cast a spell is the proper way of determining how often a spell proc goes off, as the time not spent casting spells is time spent doing other stuff. <BR>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> <P>dehah . im casting 80 % of the time . and im certainly not the only one . if you dont have the über fabled weapons auto attack is wasted time .</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If you're casting 80% of the time, then whats the problem?  You'll get just as many procs as someone else that spends 80% of their time casting spells.  If that's not a balanced system then I don't know what is.</P> <P>Seems like your real issue is with your class's DPS being low and not with the fact that they are fixing the spell proc'ing system to be inline with the melee proc'ing system. </P>

[The_Wind]

Which is basically how rangers were/are.  When they put the proc system in place, and made our procs equal out with those of other classes, they realised a disparity in ranger CA's damage, and their new inability to solo effectively.  Some of it was fixed, some of the skills are about worthless, other then added points between auto-attacks(while wasting more expensive arrows).  If the new proc changes affect your class to a great extent, then expect a little beefing up.  Just do not expect a great compensation.<div></div>

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>Dejah wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Bassist wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr> Dejah wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Kraks_Aforty wrote: <div>You  apparently don't parse very often and don't have any idea what this really means.  Fact is, this changes very very few spells for all but 1 class:  troubadors.  Troubs go from their rightful place in the magical "DPS Tiers" to crapola.  How many spells do we have over 2 second cast time?  Oh yeah, 1.  Our AE DD spell.</div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Troubadors are a hybrid class: they aren't always going to be casting spells, they aren't always going to be performing combat arts, and they aren't always going to be in melee.  At any given time, a Troubador is going to be doing one of those 3 things though.   Suppose you spend 1/3rd of your time casting spells, 1/3rd doing combat arts, and 1/3rd doing melee attacks.  Now can you honestly say that you deserve to get as many <strong>spell</strong> procs during the whole fight as someone who spends 100% of their time casting spells?  The other 2/3rds of the time you're not casting spells you're using attacks that could trigger <strong>melee</strong> procs. </div> <div> </div> <div>Troubador's spell damage will probably need to be kicked up a slight notch though to compensate for the fact that they were balanced with the way their spell proc buff worked before.  The same goes for any other class that has a spell proc buff.</div> <hr> </blockquote>Troub procs are only on spell casting.  Most of our damage is from spell casting.  We were hybrid initially, but the LU13 made us buffers/casters with some melee.  We're like illusionists, except we have melee to make up for less crowd control.  And we can wear chain.  The complaints for Troubs are many, but we're casting a lot more than 1/3 of the time.</div> <hr> </blockquote>Thus why I used the transitive verb "suppose" instead of saying something more definitive like "you cast spells exactly 1/3rd of the time always".  It's an example to illustrate the point that the time it takes to cast a spell is the proper way of determining how often a spell proc goes off, as the time not spent casting spells is time spent doing other stuff. <hr></blockquote>It was used to ask "Now can you honestly say that you deserve to get as many <strong>spell</strong> procs during the whole fight as someone who spends 100% of their time casting spells?" with in a definitive reference to Troubs.  If we want to get down to this, you can't use a definitive reference on a supposition in debates.Let me state my position:1)  I hate the change, because I'm a Troub.2)  I understand what you are saying with regards to spell casting times vs. number of spells cast, and also disagree that recast should be brought in even though it can play a role in total DPS.  My reason:  it already plays a role.3)  I understand how this change can be used to more easily normalize DPS.4)  I feel it shouldn't go in until they fix the proc percentages to be more acceptable.5)  What will they do about the 100% procs (Precision of the Maestro)?  If they get changed to follow this standard then it is a massive hit to DPS for short casters.6)  They haven't answered if recovery time is included in the total cast time, which would cause imbalance in the other direction since short-casters would spend more time in recovery than casting.  Nothing can happen during this downtime.  This is my biggest gripe.7)  It has been implied from the melee change that only base cast time will be used, not adjusted cast time due to buffs/AAs.  Not confirmed for this change, but I'd give it a 99% that it's just going through the same function.  Based on that:7a)  I agree the system is tough to produce DPS for, but I do not think it is broken.  Average cast time can be applied to the percentages to produce added DPS on a per-class basis.  This change is purely to make it easier for the designers to associate percentages with DPS on a global scale, instead of looking at each class.  In the current system short-casters can increase their DPS more than long casters by getting procs.  Long casters have a higher base DPS and get a more significant increase to DPS by reducing cast times, since the reductions are all percentage based.7b) With the new system the higher base DPS classes will still get a more significant increase to DPS by reducing cast time, but short casters don't get the bonus for having more procs.</div>

[electricninjasex]

<blockquote><hr>Trabbart wrote:<div></div> <p>It seems to me there is only one solution to the proc problem. Make all procs proc ALLWAYS (100%). Just make the benefits/dmg etc lower. </p> <p>Much easier as a mechanic. (much more boring too, but i can't care)</p><hr></blockquote> Basically what I was trying to say a bit earlier.  Rather than latch item benefits to a random scheme that gets gradually more hokey, item designers should just say what they mean and mean what they say. I don't find Flowing Thought boring at all.  If they want to have a robe give a similar net effect to FT15 or whatever, then by God just put FT15 on it and be done with it. They want to proc damage and give everyone the same damage over a span of time?  Give the damage an icon on the maintained spells window, and don't renew the damage until the icon expires and the caster once again meets the proc'ing requirements (which would be 100% chance on the next spell cast). If they want proportional benefits, they can just add percentages to resource consumption, etc. Problem solved.<div></div>

[Pins]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electricninjasex wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Trabbart wrote:<BR> <P>It seems to me there is only one solution to the proc problem. Make all procs proc ALLWAYS (100%). Just make the benefits/dmg etc lower. </P> <P>Much easier as a mechanic. (much more boring too, but i can't care)</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Basically what I was trying to say a bit earlier.  Rather than latch item benefits to a random scheme that gets gradually more hokey, item designers should just say what they mean and mean what they say.<BR><BR>I don't find Flowing Thought boring at all.  If they want to have a robe give a similar net effect to FT15 or whatever, then by God just put FT15 on it and be done with it.<BR><BR>They want to proc damage and give everyone the same damage over a span of time?  Give the damage an icon on the maintained spells window, and don't renew the damage until the icon expires and the caster once again meets the proc'ing requirements (which would be 100% chance on the next spell cast).<BR><BR>If they want proportional benefits, they can just add percentages to resource consumption, etc.<BR><BR>Problem solved.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>But FT has a cap limit, giving a robe a similiar effect to FT goes beyond the cap as a bonus.

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote: <DIV> <P>It was used to ask "Now can you honestly say that you deserve to get as many <STRONG>spell</STRONG> procs during the whole fight as someone who spends 100% of their time casting spells?" with in a definitive reference to Troubs.  If we want to get down to this, you can't use a definitive reference on a supposition in debates.</P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, I was not aware that I can't use a definitive reference on a supposition in debates.  I'll keep that in mind though for the future.  Crac, whip out that "The more you know!!" image!  <BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Bassist wrote:</P> <P>1)  I hate the change, because I'm a Troub.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's understandable.  Rangers hated the changes to the melee proc system.  No one will blame you for being upset that your DPS is being indirectly reduced.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR> <DIV>2)  I understand what you are saying with regards to spell casting times vs. number of spells cast, and also disagree that recast should be brought in even though it can play a role in total DPS.  My reason:  it already plays a role.<BR>3)  I understand how this change can be used to more easily normalize DPS. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>We are in agreement.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR>4)  I feel it shouldn't go in until they fix the proc percentages to be more acceptable.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree, but disagree.  I agree that ideally they should fix the DPS gap they are creating for some classes before this goes live.  However, I don't agree that fixing proc percentages is the only way to do that.  Granted you didn't say that it was the only way they could fix it.  I feel we're both in agreement that ideally they should fix the classes most hurt by this change prior to it going live.<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR>5)  What will they do about the 100% procs (Precision of the Maestro)?  If they get changed to follow this standard then it is a massive hit to DPS for short casters.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I was wondering about this too.  The conclusion that I personally came to is that they are not really "100% proc rate" but rather a guaranteed proc on every successful attack.  The difference being that a "100% proc rate" would mean you'd average a proc once every 3 seconds, which is what were all afraid is going to happen to it.  I doubt that will be the case though and spells like Precision of the Maestro will probably still proc on every successful cast.<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR>6)  They haven't answered if recovery time is included in the total cast time, which would cause imbalance in the other direction since short-casters would spend more time in recovery than casting.  Nothing can happen during this downtime.  This is my biggest gripe.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Amen!!!  I really wish we could get an answer from the Dev's on this issue, or a mention of it in the patch notes, because it's going to be a pain post-patch to test this out and see if they did indeed include the recovery time.  If they don't include recovery times then the system will still be broken as it will be biased towards long cast times.  That would be pretty silly of them if they "fixed" the proc bias towards fast cast times by making it bias long cast times.<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Bassist wrote:<BR>7)  It has been implied from the melee change that only base cast time will be used, not adjusted cast time due to buffs/AAs.  Not confirmed for this change, but I'd give it a 99% that it's just going through the same function.  Based on that:<BR>7a)  I agree the system is tough to produce DPS for, but I do not think it is broken.  Average cast time can be applied to the percentages to produce added DPS on a per-class basis.  This change is purely to make it easier for the designers to associate percentages with DPS on a global scale, instead of looking at each class.  In the current system short-casters can increase their DPS more than long casters by getting procs.  Long casters have a higher base DPS and get a more significant increase to DPS by reducing cast times, since the reductions are all percentage based.<BR>7b) With the new system the higher base DPS classes will still get a more significant increase to DPS by reducing cast time, but short casters don't get the bonus for having more procs.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I see what you're saying.  You don't think the current system is broken.</P> <P>Here's how it works in the melee world (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't exactly melee often):  Haste benefits high DPS classes more than it benefits low DPS classes, because its basically a percentage increase.  Melee Procs benefits high DPS and low DPS classes equally, regardless of how fast their weapon is.</P> <P>After the changes on test go live, spell procs will work like this: Spell haste (ie, cast time reducers) benefits high DPS classes more than low DPS classes, while procs will benefit both classes equally. </P> <P>After the change both melee and spell procs will work the same.  Haste still has the same effect (However, don't even get me started on spell haste and recovery times).  I guess I just can't see how you don't see it as broken when there is such a clear precedent on how it should work.<BR></P>

[Aienaa]

<P><FONT color=#ffff00>Here's how it works in the melee world (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't exactly melee often):  Haste benefits high DPS classes more than it benefits low DPS classes, because its basically a percentage increase.  Melee Procs benefits high DPS and low DPS classes equally, regardless of how fast their weapon is.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P>Minor misconception here...  </P> <P>Haste benefits people that use slower weapons more than people with faster weapons, it has nothing to do with high or low DPS classes...  Being an Assassin, I am one of the highest DPS melee classes, but haste actually effects me less, because of my faster weapons, than a class using slower weapons...  let me explain....  </P> <P>Weapon A has a 1.2 delay, Weapon B has a 3.5 delay....   I currently have a 20% haste item, so we'll use 20% for the example... </P> <P>Weapon A.... 20% of 1.2 = 0.24... The delay of Weapon A is decreased by 0.24...  Weapon A = 1.2 - 0.24 = 0.96 delay</P> <P>Weapon B.... 20% of 3.5 = 0.7...  The delay of Weapon B is decreased by 0.7...  Weapon B = 3.5 - 0.7 = 2.8</P> <P>What is important here is the change in the delay...  20% haste on a 1.2 delay weapon only reduces the delay by 0.24, while the same 20% haste applied to a 3.5 delay weapon changes it by 0.7, which is nearly 3 times the delay reduction of the faster weapon... This shows that haste clearly makes a bigger difference on slower weapons....  </P> <P>Now let's look at Melee procs...   The formula for calculating procs is (weapon delay * % proc) / 3 = actual % chance to proc</P> <P>Let's use the same weapons and say they have a listed 10% proc....</P> <P>Weapon A = (1.2 * 0.1) / 3 = 4% chance to proc... This means it will proc once every 25 hits</P> <P>Weapon B = (3.5 * 0.1) / 3 = 12% chance to proc...  This means it will proc once every 8 hits</P> <P>The time needed to get Weapon A to proc is 25 * 1.2 = 30 second</P> <P>The time needed to get Weapon B to proc is 8 * 3.5 = 28 seconds</P> <P>As you can see, the time needed to proc is nearly the same, with a slight advantage to the slower weapon...  Another thing to take into consideration with melee procs is that all the CAs (mostly with a few exceptions like AEs and ranged attacks)  have same cast time of 0.5 seconds.... this is where the similiarity between melee procs and spell procs end, because there are various spell cast times...</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>After the changes on test go live, spell procs will work like this: Spell haste (ie, cast time reducers) benefits high DPS classes more than low DPS classes, while procs will benefit both classes equally.</FONT> </P> <P>Same misconception as above...  you are catagorizing DPS based on cast times...  Nothing says that long cast times = high DPS, even though this generally holds true</P> <P>10% of 1.0 seconds is 0.1...  Csting time is reduced by 0.1 seconds...  Total cast time after haste = 0.9 seconds</P> <P>10% of 4.0 seconds is 0.4...  Casting time is reduced by 0.4 seconds...  Total cast time after haste = 3.6 seconds...</P> <P>Again, the slow spell gains 4 times the effect from haste as the faster cast spell... So, clearly people with slower cast times will get a greater benefit from the haste....  Though, the actual benefit from spell haste is actually minimal, because all that it does is allow another spell to be cast slightly sooner...</P> <P>Haste that effects the cast time, actually has little overall effect as there really is not much difference between 1 minute and 59.7 seconds (recast times) which determine the DPS output for the given spell, since casters do not have any form of auto-attack damage...  What spell haste does allow, is spells to be cast is succession a little bit faster... In the time that it would normally take you to cast 10 spells (equal cast time spells with 10% haste), you would be able to squeeze in 1 extra cast...  But, the problem here is recast times... Can you actually cast 10 spells in succession and still have spells available to cast??  2000 damage with a 1 min recast would be 33.33 DPS...  factor in the 0.3 seconds shaved off from cast time haste, the same spells DPS would be....  2000 damage with a 57.7 second recst = 33.50 DPS... For a whopping 0.17 DPS increase...  Spell haste on it's own doesn't make a great change, but when you tie it in with spell procs, you will see a much bigger difference...  explained below...</P> <P> </P> <P>Procs are a whole different story.... </P> <P>As I hinted at before when talking about melee procs, this shows why the same normalization formula can not be used to calculate spell procs...  Casters do not have an auto-attack, so your not trying to equalize procs bases on delays and the majority of melee CAs have the exact same cast time...  For Spells, there is no way you can equalize a instant cast spell with one that takes 4 seconds to cast...  It is impossible, look at the formula...  (Cast time * %proc) / 2.5 = Actual Proc %....  </P> <P>When cast time equals 0, no matter what other numbers you add in there it will always come out with a 0% chance to proc (0.0 *.3) / 2.5 = 0... </P> <P>but if you put in a 4 second cast time.... (4.0 * 30%) / 2.5 = 48% .... </P> <P>Let's also look at 1.0 second cast...  (1.0 * 30%) / 2.5 = 12%....  </P> <P>You will have to cast 8 - 1 second spells to make sure it procs...  each spell has a 0.5 second cooldown...  1.5 second * 8 = 12 seconds...  the 4 second spell you will only have to cast twice for it to proc...  4.5 seconds * 2 = 9 second....  Here we are looking at an extreamly small amount of time, so let's expand it....  Let's say the fight lasts 90 seconds (1.5 minutes)...  In the 90 seconds the person using 1.0 cast time spelss will proc.... 90 / 12 = 7.5 times....  The person using 4 second cast time spells will proc...  90 / 9 = 10 times....  so the person with longer cast times procs 25% more.....  Let's say the proc does 500 damage...  1 second cast time = 7.5 * 500 = 3750 damage....  4 second cast time = 10 * 500 = 5000 damage...  25% more damage or 1250 more damage...</P> <P>Here is were spell haste will make a difference...  </P> <P>If a person casting 4.0 second spells has 20% spell haste, then thier cast times will be reduced by 0.8 (4.0 * 0.2 = 0.<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> making the cast time 3.2 second.....  cast + cool down = 3.7 seconds</P> <P>If a person casting 1.0 second spells has 20% spell haste, then thier cast times will be reduced by 0.2 (1.0 * 0.2 = 0.2) making thier cast times 0.8 seconds....  Cast + cool down = 1.3 second</P> <P>Now then in the same 90 second fight the person casting 4.0 second spell would be able to get off 90 / 3.7 = 24 spells....  48% of 24 = 12 procs for 12 * 500 = 6000 damage....  The person using 1.0 second spells would be able to get off 90 / 1.3 = 69 spells...  12% of 69 = 8 procs for 8 * 500 = 4000 damage....  If you compare no spell haste encounter to one with spell haste, the person casting the slow spells increased thier proc damage by 1000, while the person using fast cast spells only increased thier proc damage by 250....  The person with longer cast times increased thier proc damage by 20%, while the person with shorter cast times increased thier proc damage by 7%</P> <P>But this is straying away from what concerns most people have, and that is the loss in DPS they are going to have from this change...  using the 1 second cast time with 30% Aria procing for 400 damage....  If someone was to chain cast for a 1.5 min encounter (90 seconds) the damage they would have from procs alone would be.....  90 seconds / 1.5 seconds (cast and cool down) = 60 spells cast....  30% of 60 = 18 procs........  18 procs at 400 damage = 7200 damage....   With the change, a 1.0 second spell would have a 12% chance to proc (calculated above)...  you would still have the same 60 casts in a 90 second encounter, but instead of 18 procs you would have....  12% of 60 = 7.2 procs....  7.2 procs at 400 damage = 2880 damage...  This change would cause this person to lose 4,320 damage, that is a 60% reduction in damage created through procs....</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin</P>

[Kenazeer]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aienaa wrote:<BR> <P>Minor misconception here... </P> <P>What is important here is the change in the delay...  20% haste on a 1.2 delay weapon only reduces the delay by 0.24, while the same 20% haste applied to a 3.5 delay weapon changes it by 0.7, which is nearly 3 times the delay reduction of the faster weapon... <FONT color=#ffff00>This shows that haste clearly makes a bigger difference on slower weapons....</FONT> </P> <P>Now let's look at Melee procs...   The formula for calculating procs is (weapon delay * % proc) / 3 = actual % chance to proc</P> <P>Let's use the same weapons and say they have a listed 10% proc....</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Weapon A = (1.2 * 0.1) / 3 = 4% chance to proc... This means it will proc once every 25 hits</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Weapon B = (3.5 * 0.1) / 3 = 12% chance to proc...  This means it will proc once every 8 hits</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>The time needed to get Weapon A to proc is 25 * 1.2 = 30 second</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>The time needed to get Weapon B to proc is 8 * 3.5 = 28 seconds</FONT></P> <P>As you can see, the time needed to proc is nearly the same, with a slight advantage to the slower weapon...  Another thing to take into consideration with melee procs is that all the CAs (mostly with a few exceptions like AEs and ranged attacks)  have same cast time of 0.5 seconds.... this is where the similiarity between melee procs and spell procs end, because there are various spell cast times...</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Huh?</DIV> <DIV>Two points.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <UL> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>The % reduction due to haste on either is the same, the absolute magnitude of the change has nothing to do with the change in effectiveness.</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ff0000>Don't round numbers if you want to make mathematical comparisons.</FONT></LI></UL> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I stopped reading the post after I saw these two glaring errors.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class=date_text>05-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:29 AM</span>

[Pins]

Your haste calculations are incorrect. 20% haste will only decrease the delay by 10%, and 20% spell haste will only decrease the cast timers by 10% as well.As for fast weapon vs. slow weapon in terms of proc:3.0 weapon vs. 1.5 weapon(easy math). The delay on a 3.0 weapon with 20% haste is 2.7, while the 1.5 weapon gets turned down to 1.35. So, 10% proc on a 3.0 weapon is 10%, while 1.5 weapon is 5%. Takes 10 swings on the slow weapon, 20 on the fast weapon to gain a single proc, on average. So, what that means is 27 seconds on the slow weapon, or 27 seconds on the fast weapon, wait a second, look at that, haste affects their proc rate exactly the same! No change. Of course, with the slow weapon you can also use CAs in between swings that are 0.5s and not lose any swings, but that's going beyond what I wanted to show there.Now, onto spell/recovery haste. Lets say, you're a SUPERFAST CAST class, with 1.0 cast times, and 0.5s recovery. Now, if it works like it should, that is equivalent to a 1.5 delay weapon in proc terms. Thus a 10% proc will be 5%, and we also have SLOWER CAST class, with 2.5 cast times and 0.5s recovery. Now we give both classes equal spell haste of 10%(which is about what 8 AAs into most spell haste lines give), and recovery haste of 40%(again, 8AAs into it), so now the fast class is at 0.95 cast time, and 0.4 recovery, while the slower class is at 2.375 cast and 0.4 recovery. So it takes 1.35 for the fast, and 2.775 for the slow to cast 1 spell. Now by the math it'll take 27 seconds of casting to proc once for the slow class, and 27.75 for the fast class. Well, with this spell haste helps faster casting class slightly more than slower casting classes.However, no class has only 1.0 cast times. Onto a real world example of spell/recovery haste. Since I'm an Illusionist, I will use my class as an example, and use Synergism as the proc(33%). I have 5% always spell haste, 20% recovery haste, and can add another 24% spell haste from chronosiphoning(5 AAs), and 12-60% spell haste from Perputality(Final ability, it requires chaing casting or AoEs to get up to 60%). So, lets assume I've got Perputality 5 up always after I cast Prismatic Chaos(which generally I do, so that's 36% spell haste). Currently, if I do my chain of Chronosiphoning(0.5+0.5), Brainburst(1.0+0.5), Abolish Hope(1.0+0.5), Prismatic Chaos(2.0+0.5, counts as 3 casts), Shimmering Beam(1.0+0.5), Solar Shower(2.0+0.5), Tribulation(1.0+0.5), Shimmering Beam, Tumor(2.0+0.5), Ultraviolet Storm(2.0+0.5), Shimmering Beam, currently I will get 4.29 procs in 20 seconds without spell haste. However, once I apply my spell/recovery haste and the current proc rules, it will take me 13.9075s to get 4.29 procs. Now then, lets apply the new rules to the non-hasted casting. I will get 2.22 procs in 20 without, and 2.22 in 13.9075 with. But wait a second, Prismatic Chaos counts as an "instant" cast*3 spell, so it gets no procs, so I won't get 2.22 procs in 20 seconds without. So in that 20 seconds, I will get 1.94 procs, and look at how much proc-damage I am losing, that's 50% of my proc damage, which on average counts about 25% of my total damage. This ends up with me losing 12.5% of total damage.And that is the real current game example.

[Emerix]

Dehah are you really that slow  ? Ill proc as often others casting 80 % of the time . well for your info once mor e as if it wasnt said like uhm 50 times in this topic . 30 % of my damage comes from procs .  the less chance to proc i get the less damage i do . not that hard to understand  ? and look up i explained in simple sentences  what the facts and the problems are .

[Aienaa]

<P> <HR> However, no class has only 1.0 cast times <HR> <P></P> <P>Have you ever looked at Troubador spells??  pretty much all of them are between 0 - 1.0 second cst time, with the exception of 2 spells....  don't believe, then go look it up</P> <P>Better yet, here is a list of spells I use on my Level 62 Troubador</P> <P>Awesome Bellow - 0.0 second cast time</P> <P>Lore's Magniloquent Roust - 0.5 second cast time</P> <P>Guviena's Slothful Chant - 0.5 second cast time</P> <P>Pilfer Essence - 1.0 second cast time</P> <P>Demoralizing Processional - 1.0 second Cast time</P> <P>Kian's Catastophic Anthem - 1.0 second Cast time</P> <P>Oppresive Discante - 1.0 second cast time</P> <P>Flawless Shrill - 1.0 second cast time</P> <P>Eli's Thunderous Chorus - 2.0 second cast time</P> <P>Alin's Incandescent Concord - 3.0 second cast time</P> <P> </P> <P>So, you want to do a real world for Troubador or are all thoes 1.0 second cst times going to mess you up??</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 70 Assassin  /  Parody 62 Troubador</P> <P> </P>

[Bassist]

<div><blockquote><hr>Aienaa wrote:<div></div> <p> </p><hr> However, no class has only 1.0 cast times <hr> <p></p> <p>Have you ever looked at Troubador spells??  pretty much all of them are between 0 - 1.0 second cst time, with the exception of 2 spells....  don't believe, then go look it up</p> <p>Better yet, here is a list of spells I use on my Level 62 Troubador</p> <p>Awesome Bellow - 0.0 second cast time</p> <p>Lore's Magniloquent Roust - 0.5 second cast time</p> <p>Guviena's Slothful Chant - 0.5 second cast time</p> <p>Pilfer Essence - 1.0 second cast time</p> <p>Demoralizing Processional - 1.0 second Cast time</p> <p>Kian's Catastophic Anthem - 1.0 second Cast time</p> <p>Oppresive Discante - 1.0 second cast time</p> <p>Flawless Shrill - 1.0 second cast time</p> <p>Eli's Thunderous Chorus - 2.0 second cast time</p> <p>Alin's Incandescent Concord - 3.0 second cast time</p> <p>So, you want to do a real world for Troubador or are all thoes 1.0 second cst times going to mess you up??</p> <p>Gwern - 70 Assassin  /  Parody 62 Troubador</p> <hr></blockquote>Normally I don't like interfering in a flaming, but you actually made Aienaa's point.  Look at the math, because Illusionists have 5/9 1.0 second cast or shorter.  Aienaa obviously didn't want to use math on just 1.0 second casts, and instead used real casting times (including recasts) during a single round of casting to get numbers which would directly apply in-game.</div>

[Dejah]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Emerix wrote:<BR> Dehah are you really that slow  ? Ill proc as often others casting 80 % of the time . well for your info once mor e as if it wasnt said like uhm 50 times in this topic . 30 % of my damage comes from procs .  the less chance to proc i get the less damage i do . not that hard to understand  ? and look up i explained in simple sentences  what the facts and the problems are .<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I said you would proc as much as someone else.  I never said you're damage wouldn't go down from what it was before the change.

[Dystopya]

<div></div>Thanks for not listening to your concerned customers.Please compensate the classes hit hard by this. Youve taken away the troubadors biggest means of dps and given us nothing in return. We werent out soloing epics. We werent in the top tier of dps.Now were classes that people powerlevel to go afk on raids. Thanks.While your at it, please remove my bone clasped girdle and refund me the time and in game plat that I spent getting it, because its a useless piece of [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] to me now. Thanks.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Dystopya on <span class=date_text>05-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:18 PM</span>

[mook85az]

All those saying that Troubadors and Enchanters are broken because we relied on spell procs to do damage are wrong.  That's just how we did our damage.  I thought it was a really neat, clever, and unique way for these classes to do damage.  It made us a little different.  Now we don't have that anymore. <div></div>