SK Damage reduction as a result of Buff mergers. [Archive]

View Full Version : SK Damage reduction as a result of Buff mergers.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 04:24 PM

By the numbers -- this is what merging our buffs into stances will cost us>Here are the numbers for our GRIM STRIKE LIKE starting with the 52 buffs DEPRAVED AURA AD. III 356-593 Dam Level 52 173-288 Heal AP II 133-221 Dam99-166 Heal TWISTED AURA M1 – 438-730 – Dam --- 5AA - Level 66224-374 Heal AD. III 261-436 Dam 196-327 Heal AP II 177-296 Dam 133-222- Heal UNHOLY ARMS – AD III 322-537 DAM - Level 77 242-403 M1 368-614 DAM 276-460 Heal Now remember in the Buff merge we will never get the Level 77 Buff - it has gone away -- Vanished. Our Level 38 Buff is merged into our Level 60 Offensieve stance and our level 66 Buff is merged into our level 73 Stance. Ok here is what has happened to our damage - I am basing the merger on the level 38 Buff into the Level 60 Offensive stance which I received as Adept III. I have 5 AA into Grim Strike and its replacment. Because I had Twisted Aura at Master I as a result of the buff merger I got the new Level 73 Offensive stance at Master I. The percentages gives on the Damage reduction are based on the Level 52 Depraved Aura which I had at Adept III OFFENSIVE STANCE Adept IIIJan 11 – 307-511 Dam Reduction of 14% 175-291 HealJan. 21 314-521 Dam. Reduction of 12 % 175-291 Heal Jan 28 288-480 Dam. Reduction of 19% 155-259 Heal. OFFENSIVE STANCE – MASTER I Jan. 21 508- 847 Damage 256-426 HealJan 28 466 -766 Dam 9.5% since January 21 M1 224-379 – Heal. about 9.5% reduction also. since Jan. 21 So we have had a severe decline to our damage as a result of the buff mergers

LygerT

01-29-2009, 04:43 PM

omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 04:56 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>I will agree with you that other tanks probably needed more although I do not specifically know their particular circiumstances and buffs. BUT if as you say other tanks needed more that is no reason to give us less. That is hardly a justifiction for a 19% reduction in damage as a result of buff merger. The buffs were definately not merged equally and despite what Aeralik say we DID LOSE DAMAGE AND HEALING as a result of these mergers -- especially when you realize we could have the buffs running no matter what stance we were in.I really think the buff mergers need to be reexamined. I would expect the impact to be greater on lower levels but I have not looked at the numbers.

Tandy

01-29-2009, 05:18 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>Dont forget, this is ONE proc. Granted it has been reduced, but the idea that one proc is breaking the entire class is a fallacy of epic proportions.It is a nerf on the damage, but like you said....grand scheme of things it might have made sense from the overall prespective to do this.the proc triggers about 3 to 4 times a minute on average. Compared to everything else a SK has to use for damage, this is hardly game breaking.Regardless of buff mergings or not....the damage / heal on this might have been altered anyway in the tank balancing. So to blame it on mergers is again making assumptions that no one outside the dev team is capable of making since we dont have the information inhand on what has been discussed.and you know what making assumptions makes YOU.also something to keep in mind....when spells merge.....its not x level goes into y ability. The ENTIRE line is now gone and placed in another ability line. So there is no level 33 into whatever or 52 into whatever. Its basically like the line NEVER EXISTED. The devs are then capable of placing whatever values on the new portion of the merged ability they wish. Its not the old one suddenly appears 'inside' the new one. The new stances are brand new creations.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 05:32 PM

<cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>Dont forget, this is ONE proc. Granted it has been reduced, but the idea that one proc is breaking the entire class is a fallacy of epic proportions.It is a nerf on the damage, but like you said....grand scheme of things it might have made sense from the overall prespective to do this.the proc triggers about 3 to 4 times a minute on average. Compared to everything else a SK has to use for damage, this is hardly game breaking.Regardless of buff mergings or not....the damage / heal on this might have been altered anyway in the tank balancing. So to blame it on mergers is again making assumptions that no one outside the dev team is capable of making since we dont have the information inhand on what has been discussed.and you know what making assumptions makes YOU.also something to keep in mind....when spells merge.....its not x level goes into y ability. The ENTIRE line is now gone and placed in another ability line. So there is no level 33 into whatever or 52 into whatever. Its basically like the line NEVER EXISTED. The devs are then capable of placing whatever values on the new portion of the merged ability they wish. Its not the old one suddenly appears 'inside' the new one. The new stances are brand new creations.</blockquote>Please remember that Aeralik himself stated that WE WEREN'T LOSING ANYTHING that the buffs were being incorporated into the stances. So in his own words he used the buff numbers when he developed his new version of the stances.My point is that the numbers indicate that the damage on the Grim Strike Buff was reduced by about 19% in the last update. Granted this is only one factor in SK damage -- but still 19% is 19% So he obviously started with the buff numbers when he built the stances. -- I mean he didn't make them up - he used some base number as a starter. And by the way it is still called GRIM STRIKE so it hasn't gone away it is just been merged. I would have prefered them left as Stand ALONE to be used in ALL stances which I think over all would have been fairer to all the players.Since he is focusing a great deal on the stances and the merged buffs to adjust those stances I have chose to focus numerically on what the result of the buff mergers have done to our damage in our stances. It has been reduced and I have not seen anything that makes it up anywhere in his changes.

Tandy

01-29-2009, 05:37 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>Dont forget, this is ONE proc. Granted it has been reduced, but the idea that one proc is breaking the entire class is a fallacy of epic proportions.It is a nerf on the damage, but like you said....grand scheme of things it might have made sense from the overall prespective to do this.the proc triggers about 3 to 4 times a minute on average. Compared to everything else a SK has to use for damage, this is hardly game breaking.Regardless of buff mergings or not....the damage / heal on this might have been altered anyway in the tank balancing. So to blame it on mergers is again making assumptions that no one outside the dev team is capable of making since we dont have the information inhand on what has been discussed.and you know what making assumptions makes YOU.also something to keep in mind....when spells merge.....its not x level goes into y ability. The ENTIRE line is now gone and placed in another ability line. So there is no level 33 into whatever or 52 into whatever. Its basically like the line NEVER EXISTED. The devs are then capable of placing whatever values on the new portion of the merged ability they wish. Its not the old one suddenly appears 'inside' the new one. The new stances are brand new creations.</blockquote>Please remember that Aeralik himself stated that WE WEREN'T LOSING ANYTHING that the buffs were being incorporated into the stances. So in his own words he used the buff numbers when he developed his new version of the stances.My point is that the numbers indicate that the damage on the Grim Strike Buff was reduced by about 19% in the last update. Granted this is only one factor in SK damage -- but still 19% is 19% So he obviously started with the buff numbers when he built the stances. -- I mean he didn't make them up - he used some base number as a starter. And by the way it is still called GRIM STRIKE so it hasn't gone away it is just been merged. I would have prefered them left as Stand ALONE to be used in ALL stances which I think over all would have been fairer to all the players.Since he is focusing a great deal on the stances and the merged buffs to adjust those stances I have chose to focus numerically on what the result of the buff mergers have done to our damage in our stances. It has been reduced and I have not seen anything that makes it up anywhere in his changes.</blockquote>I will respond to you this once...even though I said I wouldnt. Basically you are saying you want a stand alone buff that is 19% less damage and healing than a merged stance that is 19% less damage and healing.Lets face it....no dev cuts damage on something without thinking about it first. regardless of if we like it or not. If the dev team as a whole decides something, its done. NOT JUST ONE PERSON.So for whatever reason, they are tinkering with the damage and healing on the proc. Regardless of it being in the stance OR seperate from the stance.Please please please understand this. The merger in and of itself is hardly to blame for the reduced numbers if they devs decide to reduce them.Stand alone, merged, or throw in a pixie butt with a unicorn horn dart...if the dev team reduces damage on something its reduced. No matter where or how its located.*and we didnt lose anything. the proc is still there. nothing was taking FROM it. the damage still triggers, and the heal still goes off in offensive stance. So its all still there. the damage is reduced, but that doesnt 'remove' something that 'reduced' it. Reduce does NOT equal remove.

Matia

01-29-2009, 05:40 PM

That in itself is an assumption Tandy, although possibly a more logical one.But the "for whatever reason" might be easier to live with if that "whatever reason" were explained.. not with a blurb or a movie preview abbreviation, but a full out why.

Tandy

01-29-2009, 05:43 PM

<cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote>That in itself is an assumption Tandy, although possibly a more logical one.</blockquote>I only made it cause I seem to remember way back when mergers were discussed before they said its a 'brand new ability with the the parts of the old ones'.That to me means they have to actually sit down and code a new ability. there isnt some way to just push a button and make the one one merge with the new one like some freaky frankenstein abilty. its all new coding from the ground up. I am sure someone who does coding for a living might be able to explain it better, but I am sure they set the values for the things in the new stances themselves, or a program did it, but that its an entirely new ability....not just the old one with new text on the inspect window.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 05:44 PM

<cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>Dont forget, this is ONE proc. Granted it has been reduced, but the idea that one proc is breaking the entire class is a fallacy of epic proportions.It is a nerf on the damage, but like you said....grand scheme of things it might have made sense from the overall prespective to do this.the proc triggers about 3 to 4 times a minute on average. Compared to everything else a SK has to use for damage, this is hardly game breaking.Regardless of buff mergings or not....the damage / heal on this might have been altered anyway in the tank balancing. So to blame it on mergers is again making assumptions that no one outside the dev team is capable of making since we dont have the information inhand on what has been discussed.and you know what making assumptions makes YOU.also something to keep in mind....when spells merge.....its not x level goes into y ability. The ENTIRE line is now gone and placed in another ability line. So there is no level 33 into whatever or 52 into whatever. Its basically like the line NEVER EXISTED. The devs are then capable of placing whatever values on the new portion of the merged ability they wish. Its not the old one suddenly appears 'inside' the new one. The new stances are brand new creations.</blockquote>Please remember that Aeralik himself stated that WE WEREN'T LOSING ANYTHING that the buffs were being incorporated into the stances. So in his own words he used the buff numbers when he developed his new version of the stances.My point is that the numbers indicate that the damage on the Grim Strike Buff was reduced by about 19% in the last update. Granted this is only one factor in SK damage -- but still 19% is 19% So he obviously started with the buff numbers when he built the stances. -- I mean he didn't make them up - he used some base number as a starter. And by the way it is still called GRIM STRIKE so it hasn't gone away it is just been merged. I would have prefered them left as Stand ALONE to be used in ALL stances which I think over all would have been fairer to all the players.Since he is focusing a great deal on the stances and the merged buffs to adjust those stances I have chose to focus numerically on what the result of the buff mergers have done to our damage in our stances. It has been reduced and I have not seen anything that makes it up anywhere in his changes.</blockquote>I will respond to you this once...even though I said I wouldnt. Basically you are saying you want a stand alone buff that is 19% less damage and healing than a merged stance that is 19% less damage and healing.Lets face it....no dev cuts damage on something without thinking about it first. regardless of if we like it or not. If the dev team as a whole decides something, its done. NOT JUST ONE PERSON.So for whatever reason, they are tinkering with the damage and healing on the proc. Regardless of it being in the stance OR seperate from the stance.Please please please understand this. The merger in and of itself is hardly to blame for the reduced numbers if they devs decide to reduce them.Stand alone, merged, or throw in a pixie butt with a unicorn horn dart...if the dev team reduces damage on something its reduced. No matter where or how its located.</blockquote>And I am saying that based on the changes as of Jan. 28th patch - 19% reduction is excessive in offensive stance. It will impact soloers the most although 19% damage reduction is noticely everywhere -- in groups as well as soloers. I think the impact is greater on soloers and I think Development needs to compensate soloers in some manner.I suspect Aeralik is leading the charge on this one -- I don't think the SOE team is so large that they can assigen 12+ developers to one changes. My impression is generally that the EQ2 team is fairly small. It certainly is not the size of shop that IBM runs when it is developing and maintaining an Operating System which is where I worked prior to my retirement.

Bruener

01-29-2009, 05:45 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>Why exactly? Is it because SKs could parse as well or SLIGHTLY better than Bezerkers, who by the way have more survivability?This should not have been nerfed in offensive stance DPS-wise at all. This proc was our number 2 DPS most of the time on parses. So now it procs less often and does less damage. Meanwhile if I remember correctly for some reason Bezerkers saw an increase to their Bezerk numbers with the merging of their buffs.If you want to throw stones we can definitely go there.The fact is since SOE is making it black and white that really tanks will not be DPS'ing while tanking and vice versa than there is no way that any dps should have been taken away from tanks in offensive stance, and this was in fact done to SKs. I will go as far as to argue that instead tanks in offensive should have seen a raise to DPS...since we are no longer given the option of doing DPS while doing our primary role. DPS or tank. The solved the defensive stance problems and made sure that tanking while in defensive will not be a problem. Now they need to address when in the DPS role.After years and years of changes it finally looked like SOE was getting it right and we were seeing 4, or even 5 fighters on a raid, because those fighters that were not expect to tank had enough DPS to contribute and enough to bring to the raid to make up for the DPS spot loss. And than wow roll in GU51 and suddenly the stance dancing that added to fighter utility in raids is taken away, tanks that are actually called to tank have crap for DPS <ensuring the fighter with the most survivability as always being the tank of choice>, and than a ton of little issues like this where they are in fact nerfing the DPS in offensive stance.

Tandy

01-29-2009, 05:48 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>And I am saying that based on the changes as of Jan. 28th patch - 19% reduction is excessive in offensive stance. It will impact soloers the most although 19% damage reduction is noticely everywhere -- in groups as well as soloers. I think the impact is greater on soloers and I think Development needs to compensate soloers in some manner.I suspect Aeralik is leading the charge on this one -- I don't think the SOE team is so large that they can assigen 12+ developers to one changes. My impression is generally that the EQ2 team is fairly small. It certainly is not the size of shop that IBM runs when it is developing and maintaining an Operating System which is where I worked prior to my retirement.</blockquote>it is 19% on ONE proc that triggers 3 to 4 times a minute. NOT 19% globably to all your damage. Soloers are probably impacted the LEAST from this.Statsically speaking a solo fight lasts on average 10 to 15 seconds (Being easy here, on my SK i can kill a one up in under 5 seconds, but overcompensating for time). The average heroic mob might last 20 to 30 seconds? never really timed it. The average raid mob lasts longer. The longer the fight, the more time for the proc to trigger.With the way procs per minute works....the shorter fights are only apt to see one proc per fight if that. Ergo, logically, solo fights would see the least impact from a reduction in the proc damage.

Matia

01-29-2009, 05:51 PM

<cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote>That in itself is an assumption Tandy, although possibly a more logical one.</blockquote>I only made it cause I seem to remember way back when mergers were discussed before they said its a 'brand new ability with the the parts of the old ones'.That to me means they have to actually sit down and code a new ability. there isnt some way to just push a button and make the one one merge with the new one like some freaky frankenstein abilty. its all new coding from the ground up. I am sure someone who does coding for a living might be able to explain it better, but I am sure they set the values for the things in the new stances themselves, or a program did it, but that its an entirely new ability....not just the old one with new text on the inspect window.</blockquote>Actually, I was referring to this line of yours - "Lets face it....no dev cuts damage on something without thinking about it first. regardless of if we like it or not. If the dev team as a whole decides something, its done. NOT JUST ONE PERSON."But if these changed spells/CA's, etc are all new from the ground up, then I give them props for having to re-do every single fighter one to make them different based on stance. (Hate/De-hate/etc).But it still doesn't explain why certain ones were decided to be *poofed away* and folded/incorporated/be subsumed into other ones.The explaining might help some folks out. So far it's just "you don't see the big picture" or "well you just need to try it out".

Tandy

01-29-2009, 05:51 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!well you were comprehensive i will give you that, but truth is, either other tanks need more or you needed less.</blockquote>Why exactly? Is it because SKs could parse as well or SLIGHTLY better than Bezerkers, who by the way have more survivability?This should not have been nerfed in offensive stance DPS-wise at all. This proc was our number 2 DPS most of the time on parses. So now it procs less often and does less damage. Meanwhile if I remember correctly for some reason Bezerkers saw an increase to their Bezerk numbers with the merging of their buffs.If you want to throw stones we can definitely go there.The fact is since SOE is making it black and white that really tanks will not be DPS'ing while tanking and vice versa than there is no way that any dps should have been taken away from tanks in offensive stance, and this was in fact done to SKs. I will go as far as to argue that instead tanks in offensive should have seen a raise to DPS...since we are no longer given the option of doing DPS while doing our primary role. DPS or tank. The solved the defensive stance problems and made sure that tanking while in defensive will not be a problem. Now they need to address when in the DPS role.After years and years of changes it finally looked like SOE was getting it right and we were seeing 4, or even 5 fighters on a raid, because those fighters that were not expect to tank had enough DPS to contribute and enough to bring to the raid to make up for the DPS spot loss. And than wow roll in GU51 and suddenly the stance dancing that added to fighter utility in raids is taken away, tanks that are actually called to tank have crap for DPS , and than a ton of little issues like this where they are in fact nerfing the DPS in offensive stance.</blockquote>Regardless of what some people are saying...after spending a few HOURS soloing on test...I can 100% attest that our DPS is probably slighty higher than on live, regardless of this proc nerf in offensive stance.I have no doubt in my mind we are fine solo, group or raid in offensive stance, and if you havent been there to check it out please do so <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Some people on this forum are bound and determined to make it out that we are barely capable of killing a green solo mob. I can pull 5 or 6 white or yellow solo mobs....and still be in the green to grab more when they die. I can still solo the same triple up's I do on live with no problems at all. The sky is not falling.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 06:11 PM

<cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>And I am saying that based on the changes as of Jan. 28th patch - 19% reduction is excessive in offensive stance. It will impact soloers the most although 19% damage reduction is noticely everywhere -- in groups as well as soloers. I think the impact is greater on soloers and I think Development needs to compensate soloers in some manner.I suspect Aeralik is leading the charge on this one -- I don't think the SOE team is so large that they can assigen 12+ developers to one changes. My impression is generally that the EQ2 team is fairly small. It certainly is not the size of shop that IBM runs when it is developing and maintaining an Operating System which is where I worked prior to my retirement.</blockquote>it is 19% on ONE proc that triggers 3 to 4 times a minute. NOT 19% globably to all your damage. Soloers are probably impacted the LEAST from this.Statsically speaking a solo fight lasts on average 10 to 15 seconds (Being easy here, on my SK i can kill a one up in under 5 seconds, but overcompensating for time). The average heroic mob might last 20 to 30 seconds? never really timed it. The average raid mob lasts longer. The longer the fight, the more time for the proc to trigger.With the way procs per minute works....the shorter fights are only apt to see one proc per fight if that. Ergo, logically, solo fights would see the least impact from a reduction in the proc damage.</blockquote>On Live GRIM STRIKE is about 10% or more of my damage.On Test GRIM STIKE is about 4% of my damage.So yes that is a big change when you considered that damage is reduced on test by 19%, -- the encounters I looked at where lasting about 40( about 10 seconds + on live) seconds on the average so it does proc more than once on both test and live.I couldn't possible solo a 3 up heroic unless he were maybe green - I don't have the armor to take that much damage and even using Pestilent Touch I probably could not heal enough to survive. On live I can do a group of 3 whites but not on Test. I tried several time and died every time -- could not do the damage and healing I used to.

Tandy

01-29-2009, 06:15 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>And I am saying that based on the changes as of Jan. 28th patch - 19% reduction is excessive in offensive stance. It will impact soloers the most although 19% damage reduction is noticely everywhere -- in groups as well as soloers. I think the impact is greater on soloers and I think Development needs to compensate soloers in some manner.I suspect Aeralik is leading the charge on this one -- I don't think the SOE team is so large that they can assigen 12+ developers to one changes. My impression is generally that the EQ2 team is fairly small. It certainly is not the size of shop that IBM runs when it is developing and maintaining an Operating System which is where I worked prior to my retirement.</blockquote>it is 19% on ONE proc that triggers 3 to 4 times a minute. NOT 19% globably to all your damage. Soloers are probably impacted the LEAST from this.Statsically speaking a solo fight lasts on average 10 to 15 seconds (Being easy here, on my SK i can kill a one up in under 5 seconds, but overcompensating for time). The average heroic mob might last 20 to 30 seconds? never really timed it. The average raid mob lasts longer. The longer the fight, the more time for the proc to trigger.With the way procs per minute works....the shorter fights are only apt to see one proc per fight if that. Ergo, logically, solo fights would see the least impact from a reduction in the proc damage.</blockquote>On Live GRIM STRIKE is about 10% or more of my damage.On Test GRIM STIKE is about 4% of my damage.So yes that is a big change when you considered that damage is reduced on test by 19%, -- the encounters I looked at where lasting about 40( about 10 seconds + on live) seconds on the average so it does proc more than once on both test and live.</blockquote>I am sorry but I honestly, from a very sincere place....can NOT fathom how a solo mob can take you 40 seconds to kill on test server. Even swarms of solo con mobs dont take me anywhere near that long to kill.There might seriously be something wrong with your toon or something wrong with your copy data or maybe a corruption on your PC or some weird techno bug that is causing it.I am dead serious, and other SK's have posted, that it takes little effort to kill a solo mob.I again will extend the invite I gave you in a PM last week. Set a time, I will try my best to log on test server when YOU are there, and you are welcome to watch me solo to see for yourself.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 06:19 PM

<cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>And I am saying that based on the changes as of Jan. 28th patch - 19% reduction is excessive in offensive stance. It will impact soloers the most although 19% damage reduction is noticely everywhere -- in groups as well as soloers. I think the impact is greater on soloers and I think Development needs to compensate soloers in some manner.I suspect Aeralik is leading the charge on this one -- I don't think the SOE team is so large that they can assigen 12+ developers to one changes. My impression is generally that the EQ2 team is fairly small. It certainly is not the size of shop that IBM runs when it is developing and maintaining an Operating System which is where I worked prior to my retirement.</blockquote>it is 19% on ONE proc that triggers 3 to 4 times a minute. NOT 19% globably to all your damage. Soloers are probably impacted the LEAST from this.Statsically speaking a solo fight lasts on average 10 to 15 seconds (Being easy here, on my SK i can kill a one up in under 5 seconds, but overcompensating for time). The average heroic mob might last 20 to 30 seconds? never really timed it. The average raid mob lasts longer. The longer the fight, the more time for the proc to trigger.With the way procs per minute works....the shorter fights are only apt to see one proc per fight if that. Ergo, logically, solo fights would see the least impact from a reduction in the proc damage.</blockquote>On Live GRIM STRIKE is about 10% or more of my damage.On Test GRIM STIKE is about 4% of my damage.So yes that is a big change when you considered that damage is reduced on test by 19%, -- the encounters I looked at where lasting about 40( about 10 seconds + on live) seconds on the average so it does proc more than once on both test and live.</blockquote>I am sorry but I honestly, from a very sincere place....can NOT fathom how a solo mob can take you 40 seconds to kill on test server. Even swarms of solo con mobs dont take me anywhere near that long to kill.There might seriously be something wrong with your toon or something wrong with your copy data or maybe a corruption on your PC or some weird techno bug that is causing it.I am dead serious, and other SK's have posted, that it takes little effort to kill a solo mob.I again will extend the invite I gave you in a PM last week. Set a time, I will try my best to log on test server when YOU are there, and you are welcome to watch me solo to see for yourself.</blockquote>I tried to reply to your private but I got a message which said that you were not accepting private messages.I am on EDT so I usually play in the morning.As for the time I don't find 40 second that long -- it came from ACT -- seemed longer to me was surprised to see the time as it seemed very short. I was in the Fens of Nathsar soloing.

Bruener

01-29-2009, 06:23 PM

Solo or not, who cares. The point is that the DPS coming from this proc has been significantly lowered, this goes accross all forms of game-play. No, it is not game-breaking...but it is in fact a nerf to DPS in offensive stance, which Aeralik stated would not happen. This proc does even more DPS when in a group setting, and guess what even more DPS in a raid setting due to debuffs and buffs from others.No this does not break the game.Yes it is a nerf, and an unjustified nerf.

Tandy

01-29-2009, 06:24 PM

something I noticed just now as I logged into test. Previously the proc rate was 2.9 times a minute with 5 AA spent on increasing it.Now it is at 3.5 times a minute.The % reduction might have came because the proc rate was set higher to match the proc rate on live.

Maroger

01-29-2009, 06:32 PM

<cite>Tandy wrote:</cite><blockquote>something I noticed just now as I logged into test. Previously the proc rate was 2.9 times a minute with 5 AA spent on increasing it.Now it is at 3.5 times a minute.The % reduction might have came because the proc rate was set higher to match the proc rate on live.</blockquote>I have screen shots of the ADEPT III version of my Offensive stance on test.Jan 11. proc time 3.2 per minutesJan. 21 Proc time 3.4 per minuteJan 28 Proc Time 4.0 per minuteOn my M1 Offensive stance the proc time is 4.0 pers minuteNot sure where you got 2.9 but I also have 5 AAs spent.I would post the screen shots but apparently I need to find a hosting site and post from there instead of being able to cut and paste them into my message.

LygerT

01-29-2009, 09:53 PM

Noaani

01-29-2009, 11:51 PM

The title should read "SK damage reduction as a result of step one of a two step intended nerf to the class' DPS because we were doing too much".That would have been more accurate

Bruener

01-30-2009, 01:24 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>The title should read "SK damage reduction as a result of step one of a two step intended nerf to the class' DPS because we were doing too much".That would have been more accurate</blockquote>Seriously, those of you who say SKs are doing way too much DPS need to wake up. SK DPS is T2 DPS. Any pure DPS class that is on their game will blow them out of the water on a parse. Enchanters will out DPS them. So like Rogues that bring a ton to the table with debuffs, Enchanters that bring a ton to the table with buffs....that is where SKs are sitting. If a SK is parsing 10k, a skilled T1 DPS class can parse 16k.The ones that are saying DPS is too high are the ones that are not as good at maximizing thier toon, or legendary T1 DPS classes that can't seem to understand why a Mythical'd - TSO Raid Geared SK is out parsing them in a group zone.

Pins

01-30-2009, 01:34 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>The title should read "SK damage reduction as a result of step one of a two step intended nerf to the class' DPS because we were doing too much".That would have been more accurate</blockquote>Seriously, those of you who say SKs are doing way too much DPS need to wake up. SK DPS is T2 DPS. Any pure DPS class that is on their game will blow them out of the water on a parse. Enchanters will out DPS them. So like Rogues that bring a ton to the table with debuffs, Enchanters that bring a ton to the table with buffs....that is where SKs are sitting. If a SK is parsing 10k, a skilled T1 DPS class can parse 16k.The ones that are saying DPS is too high are the ones that are not as good at maximizing thier toon, or legendary T1 DPS classes that can't seem to understand why a Mythical'd - TSO Raid Geared SK is out parsing them in a group zone.</blockquote>You are aware that SKs are doing too high DPS for TANKS. Not compared to everybody else, but compared to OTHER TANKS. THIS is the problem. You are a TANK, you shouldn't be doing that much DPS compared to other tanks.

Noaani

01-30-2009, 01:36 AM

LygerT

01-30-2009, 02:19 AM

people "don't understand" when it is finally them at the top.i hoped we would get better balance than this, i deluded myself.

Windowlicker

01-30-2009, 09:07 AM

tbh no tank should be hitting for over 2k dps.

Geothe

01-30-2009, 12:15 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have screen shots of the ADEPT III version of my Offensive stance on test.Jan 11. proc time 3.2 per minutesJan. 21 Proc time 3.4 per minuteJan 28 Proc Time 4.0 per minuteOn my M1 Offensive stance the proc time is 4.0 pers minuteNot sure where you got 2.9 but I also have 5 AAs spent.I would post the screen shots but apparently I need to find a hosting site and post from there instead of being able to cut and paste them into my message.</blockquote>Okay.So your huge claim in this thread is that the damage on this specific buff was reduced around 19% with the update on the 28th?And then here, you post that on the 28th the proc rate INCREASED.Lets examine those numbers a bit more.Prior, 3.4 times / min with 19% more damage.On the 28th, 4.0 times/min with 19% less damage.And increased proc rate of 0.6 times/min.0.6 divided by 3.4 = ~18% increase in the proc rate.Wow, what a strange thing, the proc rate increased by approximately the same relative amount as the damage was decreased. Gee, thats about a net change of ZERO over time.Next?

Mathafern

01-30-2009, 12:46 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>people "don't understand" when it is finally them at the top.i hoped we would get better balance than this, i deluded myself.</blockquote>No kidding man I saw you raid tank back pre-TSO and honestly my jaw dropped at your DPS.I can see why it might hurt your ego to see anyone else start DPSing while tanking.I can see where Guardians have grounds to complain, but zerkers are not too badly off with these changes IMO- survivability, DPS, AND more hate than you can shake a stick at. There must be a pretty stellar SK in your guild to make you this green. And yeah survivability may not be job 1 for the OT, but not all SK are OT in a raid, some just want to tank a hard instance or two without running out of power on every encounter.

Maroger

01-30-2009, 01:09 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have screen shots of the ADEPT III version of my Offensive stance on test.Jan 11. proc time 3.2 per minutesJan. 21 Proc time 3.4 per minuteJan 28 Proc Time 4.0 per minuteOn my M1 Offensive stance the proc time is 4.0 pers minuteNot sure where you got 2.9 but I also have 5 AAs spent.I would post the screen shots but apparently I need to find a hosting site and post from there instead of being able to cut and paste them into my message.</blockquote>Okay.So your huge claim in this thread is that the damage on this specific buff was reduced around 19% with the update on the 28th?And then here, you post that on the 28th the proc rate INCREASED.Lets examine those numbers a bit more.Prior, 3.4 times / min with 19% more damage.On the 28th, 4.0 times/min with 19% less damage.And increased proc rate of 0.6 times/min.0.6 divided by 3.4 = ~18% increase in the proc rate.Wow, what a strange thing, the proc rate increased by approximately the same relative amount as the damage was decreased. Gee, thats about a net change of ZERO over time.Next?</blockquote>But you are fogetting that our heals are decreased. So Overall we are losing out. The Higher damage number is better over all since the heals are higher too.Without going into probability math - there is always a high degree of change that you will not hit for the max damage -- so the higher damage number is better from a probability point of view since you will have a higher chance of hitting for more damage if the numbers are higher regardless of the small increase in number per second. Since this on a successful melee attack only there is the probability you will miss. Thus you always want the higher number for damage since probility curve favors that you will do more damage than less. For example if you only hit 1 time and miss 3 the higher number favors your the lower number does not. I can go into the math of the probility curve if you would like and lay it all out for you.

AziBam

01-30-2009, 01:23 PM

<cite>Mathafern@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>people "don't understand" when it is finally them at the top.i hoped we would get better balance than this, i deluded myself.</blockquote>No kidding man I saw you raid tank back pre-TSO and honestly my jaw dropped at your DPS.I can see why it might hurt your ego to see anyone else start DPSing while tanking.I can see where Guardians have grounds to complain, but zerkers are not too badly off with these changes IMO- survivability, DPS, AND more hate than you can shake a stick at. There must be a pretty stellar SK in your guild to make you this green. And yeah survivability may not be job 1 for the OT, but not all SK are OT in a raid, some just want to tank a hard instance or two without running out of power on every encounter.</blockquote>Funny thing is I haven't seen anything to show me that SKs ARE actually parsing higher than zerkers even after the changes. I don't have a ton of data to compare and quite honestly the zerker in my guild has a bit better gear than myself or the other SKs we play with. That said, he still outparses us zw pretty consistently. I'll also be the first to admit he is VERY GOOD at what he does. Maybe I just suck. /shrug I've also seen guards do very good dps as well as paladins. I haven't grouped or raided with enough brawlers to give them a fair assessment either way. Naturally, I'm talking ZW numbers not cherry picking individual fights.

Mathafern

01-30-2009, 02:19 PM

Well honestly I don't peg my ego on my parse- if I did I'd have quit early in RoK.I care much more about holding aggro (which these changes certainly seem to give me, in spades) and survivability.I do fine in most instances on both currently because I have a good healer and I've worked out with the wizzies when they should be nuking. But my DPS is currently important to the group because without it it takes too long to kill some of the names- I suspect after GU51 Mystmyr, for instance, will be something I won't be running any more.I'm fine with a reduction in DPS if that's what the devs decide the class needs for balance. But I'd hope for something in return, like more survivability or less power cost. That's for grouping, mind, not raiding. I'm really concerned that the devs are too focussed on the raiding aspects here rather than groups. Saying that they can only roll with whoever shows up for test isn't quite true; if they can buff people up to 200AA, mythical, and fabled armor they can buff people down to 150AA, fabled weapon, and T1 shard gear. THEN let them run group instances and get a feel for it- my guildies are still laughing at the notion of testing by running mythicaled raiders through DF. What's that prove, that for the .6 seconds the mob survives the tank can hold aggro and survive?Try testing changes running 150 AA, T1 shard, fabled weapon players through Befallen. Be sure to have a guardian tank it, and let me know how it goes. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bruener

01-30-2009, 02:54 PM

<cite>Pinski wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>The title should read "SK damage reduction as a result of step one of a two step intended nerf to the class' DPS because we were doing too much".That would have been more accurate</blockquote>Seriously, those of you who say SKs are doing way too much DPS need to wake up. SK DPS is T2 DPS. Any pure DPS class that is on their game will blow them out of the water on a parse. Enchanters will out DPS them. So like Rogues that bring a ton to the table with debuffs, Enchanters that bring a ton to the table with buffs....that is where SKs are sitting. If a SK is parsing 10k, a skilled T1 DPS class can parse 16k.The ones that are saying DPS is too high are the ones that are not as good at maximizing thier toon, or legendary T1 DPS classes that can't seem to understand why a Mythical'd - TSO Raid Geared SK is out parsing them in a group zone.</blockquote>You are aware that SKs are doing too high DPS for TANKS. Not compared to everybody else, but compared to OTHER TANKS. THIS is the problem. You are a TANK, you shouldn't be doing that much DPS compared to other tanks.</blockquote>So tell me how again do you figure this? Sks are pretty equivalent to Zerkers DPS wise. Paladins parse slightly less, yess Paladins can parse because I have seen them hitting consistent 8k+ numbers. Guards, well they have the primary role constantly. Brawlers too are parsing as much as SKs, more on singles. So how is it that you figure SKs are parsing too high for TANKS?If this is true than Enchanters need to be nerfed by about 50% of their DPS too. Rogues need to be nerfed as well, because both of these classes out DPS SKs and bring a hell of a lot more to a raid than a 3rd fighter.You guys are also forgetting that the DPS you see from SKs are in offensive stance, wearing offensive gear. This will not exist come GU51. You tank and you parse like a healer. You go offensive and the number will be back up there. What exactly do you expect the 3rd, 4th, or even 5th fighter in a raid to do on 99% of the content? Sit there and do crap DPS. Guess what, we will be back to 2 fighters in a raid, with bring in the alts for the fights that actually might need a 3rd fighter.Right now on live, balance for fighters v all others is finally getting to the point where a raid doesn't feel drained on bringing that 4th or even 5th fighter. If it were up to you Pinski there would be 1-2 fighters on a raid like it was before so that we could bring even more of your OP'd archetype.

LygerT

01-30-2009, 03:39 PM

<cite>Mathafern@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>people "don't understand" when it is finally them at the top.i hoped we would get better balance than this, i deluded myself.</blockquote>No kidding man I saw you raid tank back pre-TSO and honestly my jaw dropped at your DPS.I can see why it might hurt your ego to see anyone else start DPSing while tanking.I can see where Guardians have grounds to complain, but zerkers are not too badly off with these changes IMO- survivability, DPS, AND more hate than you can shake a stick at. There must be a pretty stellar SK in your guild to make you this green. And yeah survivability may not be job 1 for the OT, but not all SK are OT in a raid, some just want to tank a hard instance or two without running out of power on every encounter.</blockquote>to put things into perspective, i have to drop my avoidance down to around 42% to be able to do max dps with my gear, it takes time to buff yourself out of that hole to prep to be able to tank a mob. an SK can outparse me and take hits with much less reaction time, you're just now seeing people drawing attention to it because people have started to notice it more because they're not fluke occurrences.perhaps the changes on test will even out things a little more but generally tanks are the most vocal, we as well as the healers probably have the most stressful jobs in the game most of the time.

Mathafern

01-30-2009, 04:49 PM

So punching the macro to swap sword and shield takes a while? TBH I _wish_ I had that problem. Think about it.Who do you really think is tankier, in equivalent gear and buffs? I'd love to know. Serious question.And if one is tankier- shouldn't the other hit harder?

LygerT

01-30-2009, 04:54 PM

i will just say you probably will soon see more SKs getting their big break, getting decent gear and the disparities between the tanks known once again. hitting 1 macro or just swapping stances and putting up a tower shield is only half of what is needed, i still can hit the floor before the stances have even changed as is.i will tell you some things: SKs outparse me fairly often now, SKs rip me apart in duels, SKs can solo group zones without a healer, SKs seem to require less time to begin to absorb massive amounts of damage. if i missed anything let me know.

MadBarman

01-30-2009, 05:00 PM

I think the damage etc is reduced because the previous buff was merged into the stances at the level of the stance. If you were to mentor down to the level you get your stance on live you would probably find the proc damage equals what it is currently on test.This has happened with all the buffs that were merged into fighter stances, I noticed it with the str/wis buff monks have had merged into their stances.

Bruener

01-30-2009, 05:54 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mathafern@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>people "don't understand" when it is finally them at the top.i hoped we would get better balance than this, i deluded myself.</blockquote>No kidding man I saw you raid tank back pre-TSO and honestly my jaw dropped at your DPS.I can see why it might hurt your ego to see anyone else start DPSing while tanking.I can see where Guardians have grounds to complain, but zerkers are not too badly off with these changes IMO- survivability, DPS, AND more hate than you can shake a stick at. There must be a pretty stellar SK in your guild to make you this green. And yeah survivability may not be job 1 for the OT, but not all SK are OT in a raid, some just want to tank a hard instance or two without running out of power on every encounter.</blockquote>to put things into perspective, i have to drop my avoidance down to around 42% to be able to do max dps with my gear, it takes time to buff yourself out of that hole to prep to be able to tank a mob. an SK can outparse me and take hits with much less reaction time, you're just now seeing people drawing attention to it because people have started to notice it more because they're not fluke occurrences.perhaps the changes on test will even out things a little more but generally tanks are the most vocal, we as well as the healers probably have the most stressful jobs in the game most of the time.</blockquote>You act like it is much different for SKs. Yes I get to where a shield, but I already have lower mitigation and do not have the temp mit buffs that Zerkers have. Stance dancing to defensive is the same for SKs. There is 1 difference, your macro to equip a shield. Hhhmmm, pop adrenaline = plenty of time to do whatever you need to to get set up.The ones that are parsing well are the SKs that have always been around. You know the really good ones that had to scrape and claw to keep raid spots when hardly anybody wanted to carry a SK. The excellent players. Anyhow, this argument is getting old fast. You have a player from a class that nobody can deny is OP'd and a player from a tank class that are on equal footing and that also dominated their field in the past.

Noaani

01-31-2009, 01:06 AM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>For example if you only hit 1 time and miss 3 the higher number favors your the lower number does not.</blockquote>This is true, but since no self respecting fighter has a melee hit rate of 25%, it is also not applicable.Rework your probability crap with a standard melee hit rate that an average SK is getting (not you, you are below average). Work it out based on variable proc rates to see the difference, and scale down the damage of the proc by the same increase you give the proc rate.You will see that if the damage is scaled down at an equal rate to the proc being scaled up, a low damage proc with a rate of 15 ppm is ideal for SKs (note: equal scaling of the proc rate vs the damage amount).

Maroger

01-31-2009, 11:30 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>For example if you only hit 1 time and miss 3 the higher number favors your the lower number does not.</blockquote>This is true, but since no self respecting fighter has a melee hit rate of 25%, it is also not applicable.Rework your probability crap with a standard melee hit rate that an average SK is getting (not you, you are below average). Work it out based on variable proc rates to see the difference, and scale down the damage of the proc by the same increase you give the proc rate.You will see that if the damage is scaled down at an equal rate to the proc being scaled up, a low damage proc with a rate of 15 ppm is ideal for SKs (note: equal scaling of the proc rate vs the damage amount).</blockquote>The probability of hitting at the high end of the number is lower -- most probability events occurs in the middle of the curve. -- Also if a fight lasts less than a minute-- then you will proc less - maybe only twice. If you proc only twice at the middle range of number -- you will end doing less damage.You bascially will do less damage with change because of the duration of most solo fights and where the numbers will fall on the probability curve. But since the change has been postponed for a later date - I suspect this is irrelavant now. Who now how long before we see any change and I suspect they will be different than what we have now.

Noaani

02-01-2009, 05:42 AM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>For example if you only hit 1 time and miss 3 the higher number favors your the lower number does not.</blockquote>This is true, but since no self respecting fighter has a melee hit rate of 25%, it is also not applicable.Rework your probability crap with a standard melee hit rate that an average SK is getting (not you, you are below average). Work it out based on variable proc rates to see the difference, and scale down the damage of the proc by the same increase you give the proc rate.You will see that if the damage is scaled down at an equal rate to the proc being scaled up, a low damage proc with a rate of 15 ppm is ideal for SKs (note: equal scaling of the proc rate vs the damage amount).</blockquote>The probability of hitting at the high end of the number is lower -- most probability events occurs in the middle of the curve. -- Also if a fight lasts less than a minute-- then you will proc less - maybe only twice. If you proc only twice at the middle range of number -- you will end doing less damage.You bascially will do less damage with change because of the duration of most solo fights and where the numbers will fall on the probability curve. But since the change has been postponed for a later date - I suspect this is irrelavant now. Who now how long before we see any change and I suspect they will be different than what we have now.</blockquote>How does any of that have any relavience to this?The probability of hitting in any given percentage range of any proc, spell or combat art is a funtion of the min/max ratio, and that was not changed. You have the same probability of hitting in the low range with the proc as it is on test now as you did before.The difference is that now the new low is lower, but you will hit with the proc on more occasions. In a short fight you are more likely to trigger this effect with a higher proc rate than you were with the lower, so its a very clear advantage set up this way.Over an extended period of time (be it a long encounter or a large number of encounters), the effect will deal the same amount of damage with the lower proc rate/higher damage as it does with the higher proc rate/lower damage. The only difference is the statistical probability of the effect actually triggering in a short encounter. A small proc triggering is better than no proc triggering, just as an fyi.

Ventisly

02-01-2009, 07:26 AM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote> TWISTED AURA M1 – 438-730 – Dam --- 5AA - Level 66224-374 Heal UNHOLY ARMS – M1 368-614 DAM - Level 77 276-460 Heal </blockquote>Hmm, I didn't even get halfway through your post before something seemed fishy. Using your above numbers you are saying that the M1 version of your level 66 spell does more damage than the M1 version of your level 77 spell? Throws any conclusions you have reached into the overall impact of the changes in serious doubt.I also wonder if you are ensuring that you have on the exact same gear on test as you have on live since that can effect the numbers of the examines.

Phank

02-01-2009, 12:26 PM

Test versus Live. Live server numbers are [in brackets.]On Test Offensive stance M1Bonuses:Caress Feedback: 118 disease [vs 94 disease, 154 threat]Grim Strike, 4.3 times, 737-1228 disease, heals 227-379. [vs 4.3 times, 850-1417, heals 276-460.]Increases INT by 280 [same]Increases Offensive skills by 53 [vs Increases Offensive skills by 64]Penalties:Increases all phy dmg done by 5% [N/A]Decreases Hate Gain by 10% [N/A]Decreases Defense and Parry by 20 [vs Decreases Defense by 22]Defensive Stats -Absorb 54.4% [same]Avoid 50% - Block 30.9, Parry 9.5 [vs Avoid 52.1% - Block 30.9, Parry 13.7]Melee Weapon 593-3359On Test Defensive stance M1Bonuses:Vengeful Feedback: 899-1099 threat, inflicts 79 disease dmg [N/A]Unholy Strike, 4.3 times, 3466-4237 threat, heals 278-464. [N/A]Increases WIS and INT by 183 [same]Increase Hate Gain by 8% [N/A]@Increase Defense, Agression and Parry by 32 [vs Defense and Agression by 31]Increase Mitigation vs disease by 2419 [same]Increase effectiveness of armor by 15% [same]Penalties:Reduces Base Damage of Spells by 10%Decrease Melee Dmg Multiplier by 0.5Decrease Offensive skills by 15.0Melee Stats -Only change, Hate Mod 8%Defensive Stats -Absorb 57.7%Avoid 61.5% - Parry 19.2Spell Stats -unchangedMelee Weapon 452-2560On Test NO STANCEBonuses - N/APenalties - N/AMelee Stats -Hate Mod 0%Defensive Stats -Avoid 55.1% - Parry 13.7Spell Stats -unchangedMelee Weapon 593-3359

Maroger

02-01-2009, 12:42 PM

<cite>Gaktar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote> TWISTED AURA M1 – 438-730 – Dam --- 5AA - Level 66224-374 Heal UNHOLY ARMS – M1 368-614 DAM - Level 77 276-460 Heal </blockquote>Hmm, I didn't even get halfway through your post before something seemed fishy. Using your above numbers you are saying that the M1 version of your level 66 spell does more damage than the M1 version of your level 77 spell? Throws any conclusions you have reached into the overall impact of the changes in serious doubt.I also wonder if you are ensuring that you have on the exact same gear on test as you have on live since that can effect the numbers of the examines.</blockquote>They aren't fishy. The level 66 spell reflects the facts that I have 5 AA into the line, The level 77 spell number are from Allakhazam and don't have the 5 Aa.The level 66 spell WITHOUT 5AA does only 298-499 Damage -- it is the AA's that raise my damage. So probably if you had the M1 of UNHOLY ARMS with 5AA you would be doing 800+ damage.

Phank

02-01-2009, 12:42 PM

Dissecting the numbers a few things jump out which will be negative for our class.1. In Offensive, Grim Strike doing less damage/healing than currently on Live. This is a nerf.2. Offensive skill bonus in new Offensive stance is less than it is on Live. This is a nerf.3. Penalties on Offensice stance are now three-fold. Decreases Hate Gain is understandable, this can be offset with gear adjustment. However the increased damage taken and the reduction of Parry is new (since we get increased Parry on Defensive now, this is NOT a Nerf.) The damage sustained is a nerf however since there is not built in absorption on new Defensive stance.4. Defensive stance penalties do not equal the bonuses of the stance. To be in defensive is to limit just about every aspect of the Shadowknight's arsenal. Reduced spell damage. Reduced melee multiplier. Decreased offensive skills. This is overkill. 5. Threat is no longer a skill. It is everywhere. It is built into stance, automatically generated. It is enhanced with each AA tree. Essentially anyone can create a fighter now, go into defensive stance, smash keys and generate 90+ threat.If you want to turn fighters into training dummies when tanking, at least give us that Illusion. Because with all the handicaps, people are going to be extremely bored and disappointed only watching +threat. You have taken the offensive tank out of the game completely. You are unraveling years of development and player skill that has adapted to a specific paradigm of offensive prowess to build hatred, and devolved it into the simplest common denominator -- TAUNT tank!

Phank

02-01-2009, 01:36 PM

Additionally...6. Change to Shadowknight's Furor is a nerf because a. we don't need more hate gain for 15 secs, b. we lose 10% spell damage for that duration (which has already been nerfed in Defensive stance. Therefore Furor in Defensive stance needs the 20% that it had initially.)

Ventisly

02-01-2009, 03:33 PM

Thanks Phank for the much more accurate numbers. I don't think Maroger realizes that you can link spells to see what their exact effects are with your gear/AAs.It does seems that SKs are heading for a bit of a nerf but that's probably independent of the buff mergers/tank changes. While I'm happy for the SKs doing more DPS with TSO, they shouldn't be pulling aggro from a fully buffed main tank when they aren't even trying (we're guessing that it's mostly from the Seething Hatred proc on the mythical). The differences above that are unique to SKs seem relatively small overall so it shouldn't impact your DPS much when in offensive.As for turning tanks into taunt-dummies, well I guess this change will separate the good tanks from the mediocre since if you are high enough on hate you can DPS more than taunt. Our DPS skills will still be used and challenged, we're just losing the reliance on "easy-mode hate transfer" that we've had for so long. This game has always had a dynamic set of rules from the introduction of ancient teaching spells, to melee/spell boost stats to the recent 4 new endline abilities of the Shadows tree. If tanking was exactly the same today as it was back in T5 (pre DoF) I would have quit a long time ago out of sheer boredom.