Page 75 of 83
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 11:36 pm
by navis
When I was playing the other day I noticed Oath Friend won't build from your Oath Friend getting hit..
cheers
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:51 am
by Sulorie
jonathanmurphy3 wrote:Magi were AP starved (and they're an actual DPS archetype!): let's give them an AP-drain spell, too!
Magi use less dots in their rotation, therefore more time to regen. Magus AP management is not worse than SH's.
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 11:21 am
by jonathanmurphy3
Sulorie wrote:jonathanmurphy3 wrote:Magi were AP starved (and they're an actual DPS archetype!): let's give them an AP-drain spell, too!
Magi use less dots in their rotation, therefore more time to regen. Magus AP management is not worse than SH's.
Depends what environment you're talking about. Given that Magi were designed to be more AoE-centered pressure damage, I would GM, Panda, IB (if in range), BT a few targets, and then Firestorm. Decent damage (provided there was a Chosen to reduce resists, and make Firestorm hit like a truck), but AP-starved.
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 12:08 pm
by Sulorie
jonathanmurphy3 wrote:
Depends what environment you're talking about. Given that Magi were designed to be more AoE-centered pressure damage, I would GM, Panda, IB (if in range), BT a few targets, and then Firestorm. Decent damage (provided there was a Chosen to reduce resists, and make Firestorm hit like a truck), but AP-starved.
I beg to differ. They were designed for different roles, based on the spec you choose.
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 1:23 pm
by Coryphaus
Bozzax wrote:Deadpoet wrote:Going back to my initial suggestion, I really don't have an informed opinion on how good or bad the 1.4.9. changes were
The AOE armor debuff + Slayer would have caused 1000s of whine pages on forum. Choppas basically are ST so it was EPIC fail in design.
Reliable self heals on tanks .. don't get me started on this this like the worst thing ever.
It simply dosnt make as to why slayers are able to do both amazing damage 1v1 and in zergs but choppa are forced to be single target, especially considering the fact that their already is a strong destro single target in WE
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 1:40 pm
by jonathanmurphy3
Sulorie wrote:jonathanmurphy3 wrote:
Depends what environment you're talking about. Given that Magi were designed to be more AoE-centered pressure damage, I would GM, Panda, IB (if in range), BT a few targets, and then Firestorm. Decent damage (provided there was a Chosen to reduce resists, and make Firestorm hit like a truck), but AP-starved.
I beg to differ. They were designed for different roles, based on the spec you choose.
Daemonology = up-close AoE dmg/utility
Change = Mid-range AoE (Dissolving Mist, Panda, GM); IFOC only exception
Havoc = Single-target nuke, but had Firestorm and a tactic that made FRF hit more than one target...
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:29 pm
by Tesq
Coryphaus wrote:Bozzax wrote:Deadpoet wrote:Going back to my initial suggestion, I really don't have an informed opinion on how good or bad the 1.4.9. changes were
The AOE armor debuff + Slayer would have caused 1000s of whine pages on forum. Choppas basically are ST so it was EPIC fail in design.
Reliable self heals on tanks .. don't get me started on this this like the worst thing ever.
It simply dosnt make as to why slayers are able to do both amazing damage 1v1 and in zergs but choppa are forced to be single target, especially considering the fact that their already is a strong destro single target in WE
This is not a choppa issue, it's slayer one, none character should be able to do more damage than single target, do more damage than single target mean as your character count as 2 + player that's not fair, also it's not skilled.
Aoe "should" require groupwork not pre-selected rotation to spam relentless. St damage require assist and this it's his weakness, aoe do not require assist, that's why aoe always have to do less damage than ST or it's concentrated in few sec burst and require teamwork. This is why chosen/KOBS buff resistence to whole party and bw/sorc cant debuff their type of aoe damage . That said let's see how slayer do with id cleanseable before comment.
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:34 pm
by Bozzax
jonathanmurphy3 wrote:Magi were AP starved (and they're an actual DPS archetype!): let's give them an AP-drain spell, too!
I also sort of have problems understanding why AM / Shammy has +130 leach / 10 second. Sure Havoc spam is a tad cheaper but we are talking about minor differences if you ask me (1-2 spells per 250 AP). Never touched those 2 classes though
Oh this is only damage abilities and I hope I adjusted per second cost correctly
- Untitled.jpg (184.42 KiB) Viewed 2154 times
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:47 pm
by Bozzax
For reference same for melee dps
- Untitled.jpg (183.13 KiB) Viewed 2161 times
Re: Ability Rework Progress
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 6:15 pm
by Tesq
This is rather ok dps should have less ap regeneration than other classes,even if magus/engi don't work well with their dots there's just no need to make them spam it as they have no end, there should alwas being a moment when they run out of ap and they need some sec to gain it again.
Even choppa have a way to regen some ap but if they spam like crazy they end with 0 ap.
It could had been a good idea give to sh/AM an ap drain to make them able to spam more as their meccanic require to build points continusly... but their meccanic do not work, so it need to be look at if that ap drain will still serve that purpose if some change will hit AM/SH in future.
Also it was only gave to Am, so if that ap drain serve some meccanic purpose it should had mirrored even differently in some way. Healers are the most mirrored on class pair so something important should not remain lock on AM only. Thus this is true even for shammy running tactic if that could be taken as exemple.