Test Update 02/10/16

Discussion in 'Test Update Notes and Bug Roundup' started by Hludwolf, Feb 10, 2016.

  1. Vrinda Augur

    They nerfed the hell out of necros - for no good reason - and the entire thread is filled to overflowing with warriors crying because knights got a boost instead of the nerf bat.

    And what good would it do to have a similar 18 page thread with necros complaining about yet another set of unwarranted nerfs? It wasn't necro pets that were tanking raid mobs, but our pets sure got hit harder than mage pets did. One warrior with a vendetta > all rational arguments we could present.

    I wonder how many of us they think will ever play another DB game after they close the doors on EQ. I have many years invested in my toons. They're my hobby, not just a game. Not entrusting another hobby to people who only know how to nerf and don't communicate with their community. :(
    Wiskar and menown like this.
  2. Dibab Augur

    so has this really become the theme? lets nerf it until it dies? because that's really all you are doing anymore. Oh we give every class a fade? yup a couple years later lets undo that. Oh the swarm pets not sharing timers pointed out.. EQ dev states working as intended... now lets nerf that. GODR F2P combo? changes were made to support this. now lets nerf that. Seriously guys without EQ1 there would be nothing else for you. So how about showing the game that made this company and its players some love and not the cold shafting we have been getting between nerfs and extremely lackluster expansions
    Wiskar, menown and Venau like this.
  3. Iila Augur

  4. Dibab Augur

    This
  5. Bobsmith Augur

    Wow just wow I have no idea what part of the developer think tank has landed us here. I have very little to say that would be within the forum guidelines and/or not just pure hate screaming from my soul and pouring from my veins. So in the spirit of constructive conversation, Please rethink the necro nerfs (GoDR and F2P) in specific. Thank you.
  6. Tyraxor Augur

    I really wonder what is going through the Devs head(s) (who knows how many are actually responsible for nerfs, could be just 1...) when they force stuff like this on their players.
    You would think that with Eq's long history, some kind of bond between them & the players was formed instead. Like...hey, us and you are still here. Let's have a good time while earning us some money and you some fun.

    There are people leaving because of constant nerfs, those are not just empty words.
    Personally i stopped playing because of this cold atmosphere, i could handle playing an aged game.
    I can't handle DB anymore thou.
    It's one thing to deliver questionable content, which would be kind of acceptable still with the right attitude...but it's unacceptable to slap players around as well while doing so.
    Disappointing, unnecessary and facepalming.
    Great comic, Lila.
    Hiladdar likes this.
  7. Venau Augur


    Any updates yet? Any reasons given?
  8. Dibab Augur

  9. Vdidar Augur

    If you think your going to get reasoning for why they are doing anything your crazy lol.
  10. Vtull Augur


    They're doing it for balance. Whether people agree or not is moot. They are making the decisions. And contrary to the hypothetical amount of nerd rage this has created which supposedly will result in massive amounts of people leaving the game, well, its all posturing. People will continue on just like before because in the grand scheme of things, it makes little difference in enjoyment.
  11. ShadowMan Augur


    Except when its not.
  12. Vrinda Augur

    If the extent of the necro nerf was making dots no longer qualify for mana burn damage increases, I wouldn't agree, but we wouldn't see any necros having a fit over it. 500 counters gone in 10 - 20 seconds with a maximum of four necros on the raid casting dots doesn't alter the outcome of the raid. Those counters will be eaten up by melee procs in seconds anyway, so why get worked up about it?

    I don't see anyone in this thread or even elsewhere on these boards claiming it will result in massive amounts of people leaving the game. After all the other nerfs necros have endured over the years, there aren't enough of us left to pretend there would be a massive exodus even if the remainder of us all left over this particular nerf. The truth is that everyone has a breaking point. Each time they do something as senseless as these massive nerfs, group and raid, a few more will leave. How do you think we got from the numbers of subscribers in 2002 to the numbers we have today? Every time they swing the nerf bat, a few more subscribers cancel, bringing the devs that much closer to pink slips and searches for their own new jobs. Those aren't people switching to a different DB game. They're leaving altogether.

    Wrong again. It makes a huge difference in enjoyment. When I raided with my necro, I put a lot of work into spell stacking, hot swapping dots (sometimes as many as 20, though more often 16), and managing my pet and my aggro. Making the parse was tough, but achievable. Now, with the GoDR/FtP nerf? All by itself, that nerf unbalances the raid game.

    In the current raid game, you need one mage for mod rods, zero necros, and every wizard you can scrape up. How is that balanced?
    beryon, Wiskar, menown and 3 others like this.
  13. Utaerx Elder


    You're actually completely wrong. There are a lot of necros that are going to leave if this goes through, people who have been important members of the necro community for years and have stuck through nerfs before. It'd be one thing if it was just the nerfs, but when you combine it with broken and diminishing content, even the biggest stalwarts of this game are going to move on and do something else with their life. But feel free to continue to belittle legitimate frustrations about the direction of this game as "nerd rage".
    Nenton, Wiskar, Smokezz and 3 others like this.
  14. Enkel Augur

    Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that the Developers don't know what they're
    doing. They know Exactly what they're doing. They're undertaking a systematic effort to change
    Everquest, to make Everquest more like the rest of the MMO's. That's why they passed the Magician nerfs and created kronos and made the deal with TLP. It is a systematic effort to change Everquest. When I'm a Developer of Everquest, we are going to re-embrace all the things that made Everquest the greatest MMO in the world and we are going to leave the game in a state that it deserves to be: the single greatest MMO in the history of world. We will destroy this class homogeneity and re-balance the classes!

    [IMG]
  15. coloures~ New Member

    please don't take this the wrong way, but i'm really just baffled by the level of the peanut-gallery clamour in this thread from people who apparently fail to understand the most basic mechanics of tanking SPAs and third-grade arithmetic. bad math is bad, and while triconix may be misguided in his quest to demonstrate that carapace will last longer with DP up using these numbers, yes, his numbers prove precisely that SPA 168 effects DI-portion mitigation only.

    to wit, i don't know what you think you are doing by applying the ~0.267 effective total mitigation from DP in triconix's post as some sort of straightforward mitigation against the entire hit. the number 0.267 has nothing to do with DP per se and is a contextual number that relies upon this particular mob's DB; the reason that DP shows ~27% off the hit instead of 30% is because, as has been repeatedly told to you in this thread over the past several days, SPA 168 only mitigates the DI portion of the hit.

    to be even clearer: obviously multiplication is commutative -- as any third grader knows! -- and that you have provided an example of X * .9 * .73 = X * .73 * .9 is utterly trivial and has nothing to do with the order of application of the SPAs. in fact, because there is no data about how much total damage was taken before Vie/carapace/other max-damage-limitted SPA-162 effect failed, we really can't reconstruct any order-of-application information from these data for the same reason: multiplication is commutative, and (1 - 0.1) (B + (1 - 0.7) 19 * DI) of course equals ( (1-0.1) B + (1 - 0.7) * (1 - 0.1) * 19 * DI.

    in order to properly determine the order of application of the SPA effects, we would need to allow a Vie effect to expire due to reaching its maximal damage absorption potential in order to determine how much per hit was being absorbed by Vie and how much by DP. suppose, for example, the mob has a bonus of 100 and a max interval product of 1000. if vie is calculated first, it will absorb 110 from the maxhit; DP will absorb 0.3 * 900 = 270 from what was initially 1000. if DP is calculated first, it will absorb 300 from the 1000; vie will now only absorb 0.1 * (100 + 700) = 80 from the maxhit. obviously, the end results of incoming damage are the same (100 - 10 + 1000 - 100 - 270 = 720 = 100 - 10 + 1000 - 300 - 70), because multiplication is commutative, so you are at least correct that his numbers indicate nothing about the order of operations for the mitigative SPAs.

    but anyway, to the "one of these two things is wrong" portion of your post: let's try to do some decent third-grade-level arithmetic and see if we can properly reconstruct the parameters of the incoming melee hit based on Tri's numbers:

    MaxHit 15666 = B + 19 * DI = B + X [i used 19 bc war, but in fact the actual roll is irrelevant, so i just substituted a new variable X to account for the entire DI portion of the maxhit]

    DP 11482 = B + (1 - 0.3) * X

    LS 9389 = B + (1 - 0.45) * X

    with the system constituted by any pair of the above equations, we can exactly reconstruct the mob's damage bonus and max DI-portion hit (with all results integrally approximated):

    11482 - 9389 = (1 - 1) * B + [ (1 - 0.3) - (1 - 0.45) ] * X <=> 2093 = 0.15 X <=> X = 13953

    9389 = B + 0.55 * 13953 <=> 9389 = B + 7674 <=> B = 1714

    so the damage bonus of this mob is 1714, and it's maximal DI-portion damage (on a WAR) is 13953. if that difference in magnitude seems strange to you coming out of the Plane of Health, then you need to start parsing hits more; massive random-component damage and small damage bonuses are par for the course in the current content.

    as long as i'm expatiating upon the ambiguities of third-grade arithmetic, let me make tangible the error of your invocation of 0.267 as some sort of noncontextual DP modifier. let's examine what happens to the effective mitigation of DP when we keep the MaxHit the same, but exchange the DB and DI values:

    MaxHit 15666 = B + X = 13953 + 1714

    MaxHit under DP = B + (1 - 0.3) X = 13953 + 0.7 * 1714 = 15153

    new effective mitigation of DP = 1 - 15153/15666 = ca. 3.2%, a vastly lower level of total mitigation off the MaxHit. it goes without saying that as the DI portion of the maxhit approaches the total damage (i.e., the DB approaches zero), the total effective mitigation of DP approaches 30%.

    ...beginning to see how it works ?

    you are correct in this statement; the proper way to test the order of operations would be to allow a Vie effect to expire due to having absorbed the max damage as i described above. it's a bit of an involved procedure compared to simple maxhit comparison, which is why you probably have not seen in yet in this thread here.
  16. Jaerlyn Augur



    He claimed his 'proof' showed the order that the SPAs were applied in. It doesn't.

    Please, learn to read.

    Also, I noticed you specifically left out the next line of my post which was:

    Because, well, I was half asleep at the keyboard.
  17. kizant Augur

    The real problem with this administration is that they're incompetent. Not only do they ignore the experts but they constantly jump into these messy situations without knowing what they're getting us into. Plus there's clearly no proper planning being done and execution is always lacking. Just look at all the fixes they have to make to their fixes that they have to make to their fixes. There have been many unintended and unplanned for consequences at every step.... The worst part is that many of them end up on live and take months of writing to our representatives to resolve. And how often do we hear back? Communication is also a huge issue. Even if they did have some grand plan to make us more like the rest of the world they sure haven't shared it with anyone. One change makes it look like we're heading that way then another makes it look like the opposite. So who knows!

    All that said, as long as they nerf mages, they'll have my vote!
    Gyurika Godofwar and Enkel like this.
  18. coloures~ New Member


    oh, my god.

    mackal is obviously trustworthy here; i find myself somewhat embarrassed that i took at face value the assertions of those with no understanding of mitigative SPA mechanics that sedulity did not stack. after all, the only other innate-168 effect that was ever in the game, phalanx of one, was removed from the game because it was not desired to stack with effectual SPA-168 mitigation; it seemed inconceivable that knights would be granted SPA-168 mitigation that raises them above the level of a warrior's.

    to wit: off-disc, knights now have a full 35% SPA-168 mitigation off the DI portion of the hit; warriors have 30% only.

    on-disc, knights get 41% SPA-168 mitigation with guardians, in addition to the ability to stack an additional 10% vie on top of the 41% SPA-168 mitigation.

    10% vie plus 41% 168 is significantly more powerful than 45% SPA-168 (i.e., war defensive).

    i know nothing about knight tanking, and have no idea if knights want to run the 20% vie disc concurrently with the guardians, but either way, as if the 30% direct-port wasn't an overshot enough, WAR now must suffer the ignominy of no longer being the class whose discs and AA's mitigate the most damage on incoming melee hits.

    it would have been bad enough to port the WAR's strengths to the knights as a direct copy; to provide knights with more SPA-168 mitigation than warriors have is so imbecilic i have to believe that the stacking of the innate is, as it was with phalanx, still unintentional.
  19. coloures~ New Member

    first, i said about four of five times in my post that his claim was incorrect, and even provided you with the logical apparatus that wld be required to actually test that claim.

    second, if you seriously fail to comprehend the "application" of my response to "what was commented upon", viz. your preposterous claim that "one of these two things is wrong"...well, i'd offer you the same admonition about learning to read...but honestly, i'd rather you learn to math, first.

    i left it out "because, well," being "tired" is not an excuse for failing to properly parse third-grade arithmetic in a discussion of third-grade arithmetic. the level of mathematical aptitude required to reconstruct the obvious proof that SPA 168 mitigates the random component only is not nearly high enough as to be compromised by slight fatigue.

    the bottom line is that if one doesn't know, before even working it out, what the commutativity of multiplication means for the difference between x * y and y * x, one needs to recuse himself from arithmetical discussions, period.
  20. Triconix Augur

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but SpA 162 has to be calculated 2nd using basic arthimetic.

    Base Damage = 15666

    Damage with just SB: X = (1714 +(735 * 19)) * .90 <=> (1714 + (13952)) *.90 <=> X = 14100
    Damage with just Def Prof X = 1714 + ((735*19) *.70)) <=> X = 11480

    If SB were calculated first, you'd have to change the DI roll or the calculation does not work at a fundamental level. Because SpA 168 specifically changes the DI portion of the calculation, you have to include it as such:

    X = (DB + ((DI*19) *.70)) *.90
    X = (1714 + ((735*19) *.70)) *.90
    X = (1714 + (13952 *.70) * .90
    X = (1714 + 9766) * .90
    X = (11480) * .90
    X = 10332

    If you did SB first, you'd have to change either 1) the DB or 2) the DI number or 3) the DI roll which is just bad math because we already detemined these are set amounts that do not change. The DI roll changes obviously, but not in this specific hit. Therefore, SB mitigates 1148 damage on max hits with Prof on compared to 1567 without it.

    In the end, it's perfectly reasonable from my original posts that you can determine that SpA 162 is calculated after SpA 168 because it's impossible to do otherwise without changing the entire formula. SpA 168 is an add into the base formula because it affects only a certain portion of the entire formula. Meanwhile SpA 162 remains on the outside of base the formula and is calculated once everything in the base formula is done.

    Unless of course I'm simply missing something and then I'm totally wrong.

    And now that it's proven that the Knights 5% innate stacks, we get (if my above is right):

    X = (1714 +((735*20) * .65)) * .90
    X = 11269 * .90
    X= 10142

    This means that knights will now mitigate more damage than warriors at a base level. Again, knights are now the more superior mitigation class compared to warriors. Our innate class benefit - DI reduction - is now gone and actually surpassed by the 5% innate mitigation that knights get.

    This also makes your Guardians a mere 4% lower than LS.