Opening Volley (Rangers) vs Killing Fury (Assassins)

[kidpaul]

<p>I just wonder is there any good explanation to why assassins get when mob health is below 30% and rangers are stuck with when mob health is above 80% i searched around the board but didn't find any i thought at first assassins get a lower % to the dmg but apperently they get 15% bump to the dmg as the rangers.</p><p>Cause now I want opening volley to be when health is above 70% and not 80% and on ANY ATTACK not just combat arts but maybe im missing some underlying mechanic that actually balance this out thou im not smart enough to figure it out. cause in my little world scary as it might be 30% of the mobs health is 10% more then 20% and ANY ATTACK is better then only combat arts.</p><p>So assassins get "15% more dmg to any attack when mob health is below 30%" and rangers get "15% more dmg to combat arts when mob health is above 80%" i dont get the math here. sadly my assassin isn't high enough to get this abilty so im stuck just reading the description of what the AA does.</p><p>What am I missing here?.</p>

[EQ2Magroo]

<p>That's a good point regarding the 30% vs 20%.</p><p>Then again, it's no suprise to me that the buffs are designed in such a way that Rangers are putting out max DPS when the mob's aggro table is in a state of flux at the start of the encounter and there is a risk of pulling aggro, whilst the Assassin gets to do extra DPS at the end of the encounter when everything has settled down.</p><p>It's just another way to kill off Rangers early in the fight to so they stay in the rightful place half way down the parse.</p><p>/tinfoil hat</p><p>You really do have to wonder sometimes if this sort of thing is designed to upset us on purpose, or if that's just an extra bonus.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p>I never really found an answer to this either, and it was talked about at length on the beta ranger forums. Wizards get the ranger version while warlocks get the assassin version. So there's really no class logic to it. I see the biggest benefits on named fights, but so do assassin and warlocks. On trash our window time wise tends to be much shorter than the last 30%. Not as bad on named but still tends to be shorter. Not only that but for that first 20% we have to deal with just about every class that has temp DPS buffs and uses them up front. And if you aren't on the ball and not one of the first people to start attacking, you are SOL. Maybe most of the time, or they just think the last 30% of a mobs life goes by faster or roughly the same speed as the first 20%. This doesn't seem true though. And forget it if someone dies on a named when its between 1-30%, named mob heals up a bit and its just more HP they can unload on. Playing devils advocate the ONLY thing I can think of is because wizards have a AA to extend range, and rangers are well, rangers, we are supposed to be hitting the mob on its way in when its out of reach for others. Nice on paper and all but in practice this is SUICIDE. Period. Never mind unloading the second it's settled which has its own problems, unloading when its not even positioned has so many negative repercussions its not even funny, could could very likely wipe a raid doing that, especially with so many raid mobs having mean frontals. Really wish the devs would explain this one to us.</p>

[Magnethjelmen2]

I really don't think that you lose alot off dps on this aa compared to the Assassin one. We are hurting way more on other stuff.

[Noob1974]

<p>The biggest difeeence is that assasisn can utilize it much more than we do, they  have 2 CAs/Spells/AAs that can increase it much more than we can. So they have the much better option with the much bigger dmg/dps potential.</p>

[Noob1974]

<p>double post</p>

[kartikeya]

<p>As mentioned, this was discussed at extreme length on the beta forums, and we never got an answer to it. Anyone I've mentioned the difference to, regardless of class, absolutely boggles at the obvious disparity.</p><p>Something people haven't mentioned yet (in this thread), is that Opening Volley also happens before the mob has been fully debuffed as well.</p><p>As for warlocks and wizards, I couldn't tell you if wizards are upset by the difference. I only play a warlock and semi-casually at that, but if I were making a half-hearted guess, I would say that the 20% versus 30% for them might be because wizard spells, at least from what I can tell, do much more up front damage than warlock spells, whereas warlocks tend to be very proc and (obviously) AE and DOT heavy. But even with that, wizards unloading on the first 20% is as suicidal as rangers doing so. And rangers DO NOT have higher CA damage than assassins to 'balance' the difference in percentages, not even close, so even if that was a reason for wizards and warlocks, it doesn't work for the two predators.</p><p>So I have absolutely no idea. The difference in power between the assassin tree and the ranger tree, and in usefulness in the predator tree, is still pretty annoying. This one stands out so much because it's the exact same thing, just very heavily favoring assassins.</p>

[Chanson]

<p><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This one stands out so much because it's the exact same thing, just very heavily favoring assassins.</p></blockquote><p>Isn't that how things usually work out for rangers?</p>

[Sydares]

<p><cite>nipxur wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This one stands out so much because it's the exact same thing, just very heavily favoring assassins.</p></blockquote><p>Isn't that how things usually work out for rangers?</p></blockquote><p>Yes.</p>

[Chanson]

<p>What I really don't understand is the logic behind Rangers having a bonus on the front end and Assassins having a bonus on the back end. Wouldn't common sense dictate that those should be reversed? Assassins can transfer hate (oh how I wish I could do that), so giving them a bonus at the front of the fight would send more hate to the tank and would stabilize the fight faster wouldn't it? Then the class that Sony decided wouldn't get any nice hate transfer ability could get a bonus at the end of the fight when the tank should have a solid agro hold on the mob. Even if this were done, I'd still support making it 20% on both ends.</p>

[kartikeya]

<p><cite>nipxur wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What I really don't understand is the logic behind Rangers having a bonus on the front end and Assassins having a bonus on the back end. Wouldn't common sense dictate that those should be reversed? Assassins can transfer hate (oh how I wish I could do that), so giving them a bonus at the front of the fight would send more hate to the tank and would stabilize the fight faster wouldn't it? Then the class that Sony decided wouldn't get any nice hate transfer ability could get a bonus at the end of the fight when the tank should have a solid agro hold on the mob. Even if this were done, I'd still support making it 20% on both ends.</p></blockquote><p>The only thing that comes to mind is that maybe they felt it meshed nicely with the verdict proc assassins already have (IE, that chance to insta-kill the mob at 1% health or sommat). I don't know. Assassins have a billion nifty little toys, it gets a bit wearing after a while.</p>

[-=Hoss=-]

<p>Make it 30% on both ends.  No need to nerf one to make the other better. </p><p>Heck, then let rogues do extra dmg between 70 and 30.</p>

[Striikor]

<p>The first 30% will never be equal as the mob will not be fully debuffed for a good part of it and 20% is far less than equal</p>

[Brink]

<p>Cause the first 20% is better for pvp <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Odysia]

<p><cite>Brink wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Cause the first 20% is better for pvp <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>ok... now I know sweet nothing about PvP in this game, but I don't see how knocking your opponent down to 80% health is going to win a fight. When you get right down it it, removing the final hitpoint is what matters.</p><p>But being devils advocate here, if an opponent is warded (which they often will be in both PvP and PvE) then 80% of their health is not 80% of their total hitpoints.</p><p>But its all cobblers anyway. Whats the point of being able to fight at range if you can't use your bow to engage the enemy and soften them up whilst they are closing. I reckon we need some tools to allow us to pull and then reliably dump agro. Imagine Agincourt fought EQ2 style. <rollseyes></p>

[Chanson]

<p><cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Make it 30% on both ends.  No need to nerf one to make the other better.</p></blockquote><p>Agreed, I generally am against nerfing one class so that another 'appears' to do better. However your suggestion does not address a few issues.</p><p>1) As already stated, mob is fully debuffed by the end of the fight, debuffs still being cast at the beginning of the fight.</p><p>2) Assassins get all attacks doing extra damage vs. rangers only getting bonus to combat arts.</p><p>3) Our bonus is at the beginning of the fight when tank has not yet established agro and we have no way to transfer hate like assassins do.</p><p>A couple of these can be easily remedied: Allow our bonus to effect both combat arts and auto attack damage and give us a way to dump agro easier (either greater percentage of hate reduction or some kind of hate transfer). Making both ends the same percentages would be a good step in the right direction even if assassins still get the bigger benefit from being on the back end.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If they really want us to be ranged, per a previous post by Fyreflyte, change it to be X% increase to rangd CA damage if greater than X meters out.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Personally I would do 10 and 10, but there's a lot of balance math that would need to be worked out and I haven't thought it all the way through.</span></p>

[Seiffil]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If they really want us to be ranged, per a previous post by Fyreflyte, change it to be X% increase to rangd CA damage if greater than X meters out.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Personally I would do 10 and 10, but there's a lot of balance math that would need to be worked out and I haven't thought it all the way through.</span></p></blockquote><p>Except since we still have a decent number of CA's with a range of 5m, that could still potentially hurt our dps.  I know fyre said that he expects us to be range dps, but we still have too many CA's with a max range of 5m.  It's too easy to actually go through all range CA's and be sitting there with only melee CA's requiring 5m or closer.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Seiffil@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Except since we still have a decent number of CA's with a range of 5m, that could still potentially hurt our dps.  I know fyre said that he expects us to be range dps, but we still have too many CA's with a max range of 5m.  It's too easy to actually go through all range CA's and be sitting there with only melee CA's requiring 5m or closer.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">I agree, it would have to be part of a larger package of changes. But if they did give us the tools to truly be ranged then this would make more sense than the current implemenation, at least in my opinion.</span></p>

[jjlo69]

<p>as others have stated i bugged both opening volley and the 'sin version through out beta sry but im tired as im writing this until i was blue in the face on how it was bias aa yet it still made it to live... wizards and warlocks have the same thing only the warlock got the 30% and the wizard got the first 20% blah blah blah like a dev will even read this.. im one of the few serious end game rangers left that hasnt betrayed or quit the game out right. </p><p>uncle</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Seiffil@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If they really want us to be ranged, per a previous post by Fyreflyte, change it to be X% increase to rangd CA damage if greater than X meters out.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Personally I would do 10 and 10, but there's a lot of balance math that would need to be worked out and I haven't thought it all the way through.</span></p></blockquote><p>Except since we still have a decent number of CA's with a range of 5m, that could still potentially hurt our dps.  I know fyre said that he expects us to be range dps, but we still have too many CA's with a max range of 5m.  It's too easy to actually go through all range CA's and be sitting there with only melee CA's requiring 5m or closer.</p></blockquote><p>speaking of the the onderfull item dev FYRE he has not even posted on his items changes has he left soe if so then i would not expect to see anything of the comments he has posted about</p><p>uncle  </p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>speaking of the the onderfull item dev FYRE he has not even posted on his items changes has he left soe if so then i would not expect to see anything of the comments he has posted about</p><p>uncle  </p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">That seems to be the question on the site that shall not be named, well at least directly linked to. Either way if he has we will not get a comment from the Red Names due to company policy and California employment laws. My personal guess is that he's on vacation as some suggested, but regardless it keeps coming up that these decisions are made by "the team" so it's still possible we will see them even if he has left. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">I would guess though that zoning stability, BG issues and just general expansion fallout though will be what kills the proposed changes if they do not happen. Not the employment status of one dev.</span></p>

[Chanson]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>wizards and warlocks have the same thing only the warlock got the 30% and the wizard got the first 20% blah blah blah</p></blockquote><p>It's more than just the percentages. From my understanding of sorcerers (I don't play a high level one), is that warlocks have more DoTs and AoEs than wizards do. It seems that it would make sense logically to put warlocks at the front where there DoTs and AoEs won't create as much agro problems for the tank. In addition, the way I understand combat mechanics, if a lock puts a DoT on the mob at 81% and gets the bonus, that DoT will continue to do the higher amount of damage even if the mob goes below 80% since the spell was cast with the bonus. This would allow their DoTs to do the most amount of damage. Giving them the bonus at the end where there DoTs might not even complete all their ticks and giving wizzies a bonus to their already huge nukes at the beginning when agro hasn't been stabilized seems like these were set up to purposely limit the potential of this bonus to both sorcerers.</p><p>Now add that information to all the problems between the ranger and assassin versions of this ability (again, not just the extra 10% length of time), and it seems that this ability was given to all of the T1 dps classes, but set up for limited potential for all but one class.</p><p>ADDED: My solution and reasons would be the following:</p><p>1) Swap assassin and ranger so that rangers have the back end and assassins have the front end - the assassins ability to transfer hate to the tank will allow the fight to be stabilized faster, while allow the class that has ZERO hate transfer the ability to take advantage of this ability more.</p><p>2) Allow ranger's bonus to work on both combat arts and autoattack - this is kind of a no-brainer. If this isn't the obvious favoritism of one class as it appears to be, someone PLEASE explain why it is this way.</p><p>3) Swap wizzies and locks so that wizzies have the back end and locks have the front end - This will allow locks to cast all their DoTs and get the bonus while allowing the DoTs to tick for their full duration as well as giving the wizzie a window that is safer for him (or her) to open up and hit some big nukes without grabbing agro like they would if they did that at the beginning of the fight.</p><p>4) Make the bonus windows the same, both 20% or both 30%. I would even entertain the notion of the back end getting 20% while the front gets 30% since the mob will be full debuffed by the end of the fight, however I don't believe it really takes THAT long to get a decent amount of buffs on to justify a 10% difference between the two. Perhaps the front end being 5% more would be more acceptable, and I'd support 25% for the front end and 20% for the back end even if it was rangers that got the back end.</p><p>I don't believe these changes will negatively impact any of the classes, except if assassins were moved to the front without their 30% window. They'll be up in arms about that, so I don't foresee that happening (see point number 2).</p>