[DoK] DPS Spec Advice

[peterthepan3]

I get what you're saying. It would be cool if the proc nerfs for CoC/CoV didn't affect the DPS DOK himself; it is what made him viable, as you said.

[freshour]

I get what you're saying. It would be cool if the proc nerfs for CoC/CoV didn't affect the DPS DOK himself; it is what made him viable, as you said.

Yeah especially later on from what I can tell man. I've watched nearly every single melee healer/DD DoK video from live and they have insane AA speed and the AA's actually do a decent amount of damage compared to what they do now. It just didn't make sense to not just nerf but remove such a core mechanic of the class. If it isn't possible then I get that they had to nuke it all. But if it is possible to remove the ICD from the DoK and leave it on for others, then I am really really realllllly curious why it wasn't done instead.

[Darosh]

[snip]
- Either they did not realize it was that key to their damage, or they just wanted an already super gimped class in comparison to live because apparently everyone hated DD DoK's on live lol. I don't know which it was but removing the ICD for a DoK breaks nothing if they can leave it on the rest of the party. That was my only point and I haven't been answered yet, hopefully soon though.
[snip]

[snip]
DOK IDC on proc - eviscerated the damage
Crip Strikes no longer procs off AoE - completely gutted 2H Chosen - the OPPOSITE of the EA nerf.

NO "give and take"... Just boom. You Done. So now there is NO reason to have a 2H Chosen, every Chosen should roll SnB. Crip Strikes (a HUGE cornerstone tactic for Chosen) is nerfed...
[snip]

You shouldn't jump to conclusions and accuse people of bad intent or ineptitude*, it'll just shorten your life expectancy (blood pressure and such) and overall capabilities to enjoy the game.

[Moved for clarity's sake.]

[snip]
To work out proper changes the devs probably need client control/more resources - reworking of the entire stacking-hierachy/stats, substitutes for skills/tactics/etc and the introduction of new mechanics to alleviate the impact of those you cannot take care of otherwise is a pretty difficault task if you have to work with the <remains> of a game, in your free time and, at times, without the expertise required to tackle specific problems.
I highly doubt they would roll out blanket changes like that if they could avoid it; I am pretty sure they have thought about exceptions and alternative solutions.
[snip]

Abbd.: *Devs are humans, devs read the forums, devs acknowledge how changes generally have a potential to rile up people. Devs do not have fun in creating misery or dealing with backlash.

E: Words and stuff.

[th3gatekeeper]

[snip]
- Either they did not realize it was that key to their damage, or they just wanted an already super gimped class in comparison to live because apparently everyone hated DD DoK's on live lol. I don't know which it was but removing the ICD for a DoK breaks nothing if they can leave it on the rest of the party. That was my only point and I haven't been answered yet, hopefully soon though.
[snip]

[snip]
DOK IDC on proc - eviscerated the damage
Crip Strikes no longer procs off AoE - completely gutted 2H Chosen - the OPPOSITE of the EA nerf.

NO "give and take"... Just boom. You Done. So now there is NO reason to have a 2H Chosen, every Chosen should roll SnB. Crip Strikes (a HUGE cornerstone tactic for Chosen) is nerfed...
[snip]

[snip]
To work out proper changes the devs probably need client control/more resources - reworking of the entire stacking-hierachy/stats, substitutes for skills/tactics/etc and the introduction of new mechanics to alleviate the impact of those you cannot take care of otherwise is a pretty difficault task if you have to work with the <remains> of a game, in your free time and, at times, without the expertise required to tackle specific problems.
I highly doubt they would roll out blanket changes like that if they could avoid it; I am pretty sure they have thought about exceptions and alternative solutions.
[snip]

You shouldn't jump to conclusions and accuse people of bad intent or ineptitude, it'll just shorten you your life expectancy and overall capabilities to enjoy the game.

I agree, not sure why I am listed in there. I dont think Ive ever said there is ill intent in choices... Merely the result of the choice is rather 1 sided and I wonder if they realize this...

[Darosh]

Spoiler:

[snip]
- Either they did not realize it was that key to their damage, or they just wanted an already super gimped class in comparison to live because apparently everyone hated DD DoK's on live lol. I don't know which it was but removing the ICD for a DoK breaks nothing if they can leave it on the rest of the party. That was my only point and I haven't been answered yet, hopefully soon though.
[snip]

[snip]
DOK IDC on proc - eviscerated the damage
Crip Strikes no longer procs off AoE - completely gutted 2H Chosen - the OPPOSITE of the EA nerf.

NO "give and take"... Just boom. You Done. So now there is NO reason to have a 2H Chosen, every Chosen should roll SnB. Crip Strikes (a HUGE cornerstone tactic for Chosen) is nerfed...
[snip]

[snip]
To work out proper changes the devs probably need client control/more resources - reworking of the entire stacking-hierachy/stats, substitutes for skills/tactics/etc and the introduction of new mechanics to alleviate the impact of those you cannot take care of otherwise is a pretty difficault task if you have to work with the <remains> of a game, in your free time and, at times, without the expertise required to tackle specific problems.
I highly doubt they would roll out blanket changes like that if they could avoid it; I am pretty sure they have thought about exceptions and alternative solutions.
[snip]

You shouldn't jump to conclusions and accuse people of bad intent or ineptitude, it'll just shorten you your life expectancy and overall capabilities to enjoy the game.

I agree, not sure why I am listed in there. I dont think Ive ever said there is ill intent in choices... Merely the result of the choice is rather 1 sided and I wonder if they realize this...

See the abbendum, and pay attention to the last qoute - its from one of my rants earlier in the thread.

[th3gatekeeper]

I get what you're saying. It would be cool if the proc nerfs for CoC/CoV didn't affect the DPS DOK himself; it is what made him viable, as you said.

Yeah especially later on from what I can tell man. I've watched nearly every single melee healer/DD DoK video from live and they have insane AA speed and the AA's actually do a decent amount of damage compared to what they do now. It just didn't make sense to not just nerf but remove such a core mechanic of the class. If it isn't possible then I get that they had to nuke it all. But if it is possible to remove the ICD from the DoK and leave it on for others, then I am really really realllllly curious why it wasn't done instead.

At a minimum, if they keep the ICD, then look at OTHER ways to improve melee DOK. As I said above, it basically eviscerated the melee DOKs damage... The procs made up a good chunk of damage (as you know)... Kinda like Chosen Crip Strikes... If something is nerfed, maybe provide something else to balance it out... rather than directly nerf something that wasnt OP.

The longer I play and the more changes get made, I cant help but feel like we are being more and more pigeon holed into running specific classes with specific builds inside of specific group composition... The freedom/choice and flexibility seem to be getting smaller and smaller and smaller....

[Darosh]

I get what you're saying. It would be cool if the proc nerfs for CoC/CoV didn't affect the DPS DOK himself; it is what made him viable, as you said.

Yeah especially later on from what I can tell man. I've watched nearly every single melee healer/DD DoK video from live and they have insane AA speed and the AA's actually do a decent amount of damage compared to what they do now. It just didn't make sense to not just nerf but remove such a core mechanic of the class. If it isn't possible then I get that they had to nuke it all. But if it is possible to remove the ICD from the DoK and leave it on for others, then I am really really realllllly curious why it wasn't done instead.

You are aware that those videos featured DoKs/WPs in sov/df/wf+lotd items, yeah?

Abbd.: Not to forget rr80-100, liniments, BiS talismans - potentially even those pesky dumbfire potions.
Abbd.: For the rest of your post, see the qoute in one of my posts above. If they could have done it, chances are they would have done it. Its probably a chore to implement a seperation for ICDs even with all the access required - it likely comes with other issues that are harder to deal with and currently not worth the risk of accidently completely overtuning or breaking the procs.
Abbd.: As to haste, look up 100% haste on youtube - go figure why videos from live are by no means representative of what should be the norm.
Abbd.: For the luls:


Click here to watch on YouTube

[freshour]

Well the way I see it, you can proc 1 cov on one guy every 1 second. So it meant if 5 people hit an enemy he can only take damage from 1 proc. So that would mean the ICD of the cov to proc is on the guy being hit saying he can only be hit by it once every second which seems a bit more complicated than just leaving the doks cov as it was, and then applying that ICD that the defender had excluding the dok. I mean I'm not a master of code but assigning variables and such was pretty easy in the VERY limited coding I did. All I'm saying is that the work required to make 1 person only take 1 cov from any number of enemies hitting him granted they are given that cov by the same dok - seems fairly hairy to code and that if that much control is in fact possible that bypassing the gcd with the doks personal CoV/Coc would be relatively straight forward.

Edit: I watch the RR80 videos usually and obviously those gear sets are to a VERY extreme degree but you can still see that a LOT of their damage is based off AA's and covenants lol. So yes, live had way too good of gear. It still doesn't counter my point that DoK's damage came with quite the significance - from CoV/CoC

Edit Edit: "If they could have done it they would have" - you are REALLY giving them a lot of credit lol. I'm not saying it was malicious by any means. I am saying they most likely did not realize how much of the DoK's personal damage was from those and the ICD just seemed like a straight forward fix and they never took into consideration the huge hit to total % damage that they gave the DoK. I find that WAY more likely than it is not possible.

[Darosh]

Well the way I see it, you can proc 1 cov on one guy every 1 second. So it meant if 5 people hit an enemy he can only take damage from 1 proc. So that would mean the ICD of the cov to proc is on the guy being hit saying he can only be hit by it once every second which seems a bit more complicated than just leaving the doks cov as it was, and then applying that ICD that the defender had excluding the dok. I mean I'm not a master of code but assigning variables and such was pretty easy in the VERY limited coding I did. All I'm saying is that the work required to make 1 person only take 1 cov from any number of enemies hitting him granted they are given that cov by the same dok - seems fairly hairy to code and that if that much control is in fact possible that bypassing the gcd with the doks personal CoV/Coc would be relatively straight forward.

I've worked sometime in IT before opting to study again and bugger off - I wouldn't dare judging, especially if something as complex as a multiplayer is concerned. Moreso, if the source code isn't available to you and, last but not least, if the source code in question is meant to ducttape together the <remains> of a game that were reverse engineered by decoding packages.

It might be easy, it might be - again - an absolute chore. Neither I, nor you, or anyone else without insight can judge it. If it hasn't been done yet its for a reason.
If its not related to the coding it will be related to resources (as in: time, among other things) or just another gameplan; as means to not mess with things that need - and that will, maybe, receive - overhauls (which brings us back to resources; time consuming, redundant work => bad, especially if you aren't getting paid for it).

Abbd.: The game might look fancy in its current state - it might, however, be held together, behind the curtains, by the weirdest gibberish one could imagine.

Abbd.:

Edit Edit: "If they could have done it they would have" - you are REALLY giving them a lot of credit lol. I'm not saying it was malicious by any means. I am saying they most likely did not realize how much of the DoK's personal damage was from those and the ICD just seemed like a straight forward fix and they never took into consideration the huge hit to total % damage that they gave the DoK. I find that WAY more likely than it is not possible.

I've acknowledged that predicament - in fact, read back through my posts, I've been the one feeding you the idea of seperate sets of ICDs. If I had known that I'd stir up this circular argument... I wouldn't have done it - no offense intended.

The marked part in the qoute is the circular argument, you are hellbent on brushing aside the possibility - if not certainty - that they did consider it and opt not to try and implement it.

And yes, I am giving them a lot of credit because I have no reason not to, much less to consider them completly inept in their considerations - it is, was and will ever be abundantly obvious to everyone that has ever glanced at the class in question that the procs are a major part of its dps capabilties; you don't need a development related, secluded server to parse stuff to grasp it, if you have such a server at your disposal - guess what - you'll have made sure to make use of it, if you are developing the game and are looking forward to applying changes to it.

No kind of development does work without math, everyone even remotely invested into computer science performs math on everything he can possibly perform math on - its the nature of things.


E:Words and stuff.

[freshour]

I never said you were wrong. I understand it could be a chore. But you are not listening. If you can add an icd to something. You can also bypass the icd. The logic in what they have been able to do shows that it would be very possible lol. I mean usually the icd it self and making it work properly is where bugs happen. But we'll never know until someone speaks up.

That aside - if you have the time to nerf a classes damage in the range of 20-40% pending tactics/gear even if it was indirectly done (it was mainly to remove the proc meta) - it would be very very nice to hear about why, you know? Proc meta was stupid - it needed to go. But I searched for anyone mentioning that it directly nerfed dok's damage as heavy as it did and no one said anything. So I really don't think anyone knew.

Hence why I said I think they missed it in the first place. But we don't have to go back and forth. As soon as a higher power chimes in it should make it all pretty clear of if the damage will be returned to the DoK while the ICD remains in place for the other party members. If not, I'll just take it as a 30+% nerf to my spec and have fun in pug sc's with my DoK b/c it is clearly not a welcome spec lol.