OK, proposed change - put CH back to what it was and disable the exploit. I know that's crazy talk, but we players didn't design CH; the devs did. It was in game and we were all happy. Then at some point, people started exploiting it with Banestrike. So remove the exploit. Fat chance of that happening though. because the exploit was just the excuse the nerf it into oblivion. If the exploit was the problem, they'd just remove the exploit.
They already had disabled the exploit over two months ago. Then they nerfed it this past patch for who knows what reason. It was no longer exploitable yet they still changed it. I'm guessing they had the brilliant idea that due to the stacking changes it would be too much... that's a pretty shtty reason though.
They nerfed it because it was too powerful, yes. Nobody needs to nuke for 1.5 million 4 times a minute.
4 times a minute pre- or post-fix? And you really think going from 275% to 40% was an acceptable balancing of the ability? Yeah, no. I'm not sure what planet some of you DPS casters live on but if you're not in a top 10 guild (e.g. the majority of players) then your Enchanters are actually doing "stuff" that isn't nuking or otherwise that can proc haze. So, wherever this 4 proc/min number is coming from and it being overpowered [post sploit fix]... unsure. Maybe on strictly burn mobs? Ok. So... two in Arx. That's hardly representative of reality. Was the ability beyond zOMG OP with Banestrike? Um, yeah. No one has ever denied that. Was the ability good after the fix with reasonable adjustments? Um, yeah. Was the ability good after nerfing it down 200%+ because they decided to completely rework the damage mod system? No. It's beyond ironic that all of the DPS casters [not Enchanters] say that it was so OP and should have been nerfed and you support the current changes. Hey, it's your DPS. Doesn't make a difference to my job.
375% to 40%. I tested it out with a wizzy friend after the changes, Under there own burns and IoG they were able to get a 1600k Nuke. add in the other stuff you can get from other classes because all the + critical % damage stuff stacks now and i wouldn't be shocked to see a 2+ million point damage DD first point for this, the random number generator is random you can get 10 procs in a min (i know i have) or you could get 0. When chain casting i cast a spell every 3.6 seconds (2.1 cast time + 1.5 GCD) that amounts to ~17 casts in a min which, when normalized, is 1.36 procs every min (17 *0.08). Mind you the random number generator is random. so this could be more, or could be less. 2ed point. Haze procs off stuns, and dots now. Just because YOU cast runes all day long on raids doesn't mean that other enchanters do. I'm in undivided faith on drinal. I wouldn't consider us top 10, yet i still burn on every raid. I don't use up all my personal burn on Tila's ghost since we save for last mob wave and well, enchanters are busy there. It is still good. Its not AS good as it was in the old system but as stated in multiple threads by multiple people this change is for the overall better. Or would you rather see the numbers be balanced around the old haze %'s thus requiring you to have an active nuking, stunning or dotting enchanter? I'm an enchanter, I main an enchanter, heck i basically ONLY play an enchanter. Leaving the haze charges at 375% would have resulted in some massive OP nukes. To the point that caster DPS on raids would most likely be made to revolve around it procing to some degree. Which is not something i want to happen again (see banestrike abuse) Reality is what you make of it. Your an enchanter you should know this. Now If you don't mind i'm going to turn into a Bunny again and venture down a different rabbit hole. Gotta see if i cant find an Alice.
What does it tell you when the people who benefit from it the most even admit it was OP? I mean really, be serious for a moment. Anyone who saw it immediately after it was first changed and thought it wouldn't get nerfed eventually (before the crit damage stacking change was even a thought) was deluding themselves or simply ignorant of how the devs do things. And thinking I defend the devs about everything? Are you for real? Do you even know who I am or read these forums? I've called them out more than pretty much anyone else when they do stupid . I just don't do it nearly as much on the forums these days because I can talk to them directly for the most part. Being able to talk to them directly also allows me to have a greater insight into -why- they make some of the decisions they do, and surprisingly, there is usually a pretty good reason behind most of them, even if I/the players don't agree with it. When I am able, I try to relay those explanations here for people because I know how much people hate being in the dark about things, I did too. I am not always able to talk about things though, and I don't always know they are going to do something until they announce it so I'm in the dark as much as anyone else those times. But when I can say something about things, it too often that leads to everyone assuming -I'm- directly responsible simply because I'm relaying the explanation, so they try to all over me. (Protip: That's the main reason why most of the devs don't like posting and giving explanations in the first place, it causes people to act like ). I'm a big boy though and I can take it so I do it. (Plus I do kind of like the attention a little and most of it makes me laugh anyway). Whatever you or others may think of me, I take my role as an advocate for the players of the game seriously. I'm usually one of, if not the, first person to raise a red flag when I see or hear about changes that are likely to be detrimental to someone. I also give suggestions for improving things whenever I can or when people ask me to forward on an idea. And yes, it also means when I see something is broken, exploitable, or otherwise just OP, I bring it up to them so they can decide what, if anything, they want to do about it. Haze added way too much damage. It is as simple as that. Even at 40% it still adds a respectable amount of damage, ~100k/proc on a burn ~50k/proc non burn. That's ~6.5k dps on a burn or ~3.25k non-burn which is in line with your other passive adps stuff like TC/MR Auras. And when you factor those in, along with all the other support you give: GoM procs, Spire, IoG, Runes, etc. Enchanters are one of the most desirable classes in the game right now. The "Woe thy name is Enchanter" crap really needs to stop because everyone knows better. (I'm not particularly referring to you about that, I meant that more in the general sense of people whining. It's getting almost as bad as Mages, and that's saying something).
Yes but the point is silv is arguing for the proced to be = activated. Hence by doing that you gain more of the 1.5+ mil crits which cause people to start to build and time around haze at least a bit.
No, I am not. I am saying it should be more than 40% IMO. I'm not saying it should be the same as activated given the stacking changes.
I skipped some of the posts cause im lazy like that so maybe someone else already said this but these numbers show an overall increase of 16k dps between the two parses. I would say even though the poor, poor chanter loses some dps id say this is still win.... assuming there is any validity behind the numbers you posted. doesn't improving overall raid dps help you as much as the rest of the raid in the end?
I mean, splitting hairs. I made the number up, it doesn't matter what it is. It's my opinion that it was too powerful. I don't think tuning caster dmg around a passive enchanter ability that requires them to neglect 95pct of their spell/ability arsenal is healthy for the game. We're supposed to all have to work together to do dmg. Now the timing of druid/enchanter/bard/ranger/(wiz/mag/nec) abilities is the most important thing. Before this most recent patch the most important thing was whether or not your enchanter was willing to neglect his other duties and nuke. I'm all for enchanters being the premier caster aDPS class, but I think the choice they had between being an aDPS and being an enchanter before this patch was toxic for the game.
The whole point of looking at DPS/parsing is to split hairs. So, making up numbers doesn't add anything meaningful. You say it was OP and that the 40% is appropriate. So, would 41% be OP then? People couldn't even parse out the changes because they [stacking/haze] happened simultaneously. I already agreed that with the changes, keeping Haze procs the same as activated would be too much. But how did you come to the conclusion that 40% on procs was appropriate? Or was it just 'we knew it was OP so now that it's a lower number it's okay'.
Long sighted wizards are ok with it going away because they know that with less adps available, their class will have to be greater dps to compete with melees that have more adps available to them. It's an interesting world eh? Now is probably the time to make enchanters valuable because of a strong enough need for crowd control that they are sought after for that in all walks of the game if you don't want to make them dps powerhouses. The issue here is, many people are in a situation where they are in raid guilds that for most group content really don't need an enchanter, and more dps is a better option. Feel free to say that you personally aren't in that position, but many people end up there.
I am fine with how enc adps is now it still takes one to achieve maximum potential twincast Mr activated haze and gift of haze and IoG 3rd is plenty of boost for any caster now. I think encs in newer content are still very powerful in group content especially If they are played well. I had no trouble finding groups when I was playing my enc as my main during cotf rof. Even in older content some of your guilds with less dps an enc was probably more valuable with runes to help with healing mental contortion etc. The 40% is fine with me just one less thing I have to watch for when trying to maximize my dps.
Didn't I do the math here already? granted i didn't have the right numbers but the premise still works You sum up all the % critical damage from all abilities for spells then do the same for the ideal %'s in the old system compare them, then Pull them under haze. The you multiply the total % damages by the % chance of happening and add the two. This gives you the average % damage mod over all spells while under burn conditions, which you can then subtract to see gain/lose You then repeat this for all classes. I just don't have a clue as to non-enchanter based % critical damage. Enchanters before change (did anything else stack?) IoG(250%) * CI (103%) = 257.5% Total damage mod : 257.5% Damage mod With Haze : 965.625% Avg damage mod = 257.5 * 0.92 + 965.625 * 0.08 = 236.9+77.25 = 314.15% Enchanters after change: Black Wolf - 100 %+ Spice - 0% + CI - 3%+ IoG - 150%+ Glyph - 60%+ Innate - 100% = 413% Total damage mod : 413% Damage mod With Haze : 578.2% Avg damage mod = 413 * 0.92 + 578.2 * 0.08 = 379.96 + 46.256= 426.216% 426.216 - 314.15 = 112.066% Burn damage gain under new system for enchanters. Assuming i have the % damage increase mods at the right numbers. gift of haze gives reason for enchanters to cast other spells during the events beyond what is bare minimum required. Granted you'll still find the few enchanters that still try there best to parse without it (aka raise the one finger salute to other classes) but there is little incentive to Main an enchanter in a raid nowadays other than Arx being designed to basically require enchanters
By that logic, as long as enc have even 500 dps worth of adps, you would need them to achieve your max burn so you are fine with it because that is needed for maximum potential. I'll break it down like this, if you don't need CC, which in most content in the game now you probably don't, then enchanters would need to have enough overall benefit through adps, dps, and debuffs to matter. So basically, enc are only really useful in a few instances before Degmar, and then most stuff at/after Degmar. If you want to argue the adps route, It depends too much on your group. I don't group with 2+ wizards/mages/necros on average. I'm lucky to even have one. Often the dps I'm grouped with is melee dps, so the best thing I can do is haste them in the hall and then log on a real class to do the actual heavy lifting. Put frankly, if I play my enchanter in these pre degmar groups vs any other class, the group will take more time to complete the task in almost every single case. I don't think our adps without like a perfect group is going to make up for the 20k+ dps that I see gained by playing a wizard or even a beastlord over my enchanter (keep in mind this isn't a "for show" parse, I'm talking all of the dps over 40 minutes to an hour's worth of time.. anything else would be lying for this scenario.. also this was pre haze nerf since I didn't just chain banestrike and played normally, so +10 on the real-o-meter). I mean hell even with the beastlord in group chain nuking, when I've played the enchanter for auras, IoG, etc.. over that long period of time, I didn't gain enough dps. Maybe it was 5k dps over that long time, and that's being generous... most of it was the mana reiterate aura with such fast nukes. I'd guess an average wizard would get a 7k dps gain over 40 min-1 hr. So you do the math with that 20k dps gap.... For me this is a very realistically important metric since this sort of group is probably about half of my playtime. CotF may have been a different story when it was new content, but nowadays I think you only need an enchanter for like 2 missions in cotf if that. Just get a real tank instead of a tank merc. Just get a real healer instead of a healer merc. You've provided more stability than an enchanter, and you haven't even really taken up a group slot yet. I have to do coft to help people level because we lost people to progression servers, which sucks all around, but before that people wanted help levelling alts, so guess what? Time for dead hills.... It's basically inescapable that a lot of the content people want to do is older content for me.
Has everyone forgotten that there are people out there who don't raid? Or that less than ideal ADPS setups are a thing? Balancing around 100% burn efficiency in a raid environment is stupid. No, you didn't do the math here that is relevant to my point. I'm just curious how they [devs/you/whoever] determined that the new value was appropriate. Did they throw a dart at a board labeled with random percentages? No one has defined what the metric is for changes to our ADPS numbers. Is Wizard DPS, based on the assumption they will have Haze procs X amount of the time, supposed to be a specific value that they've [potentially arbitrarily] determined? If that was the case, then sure, they could have calculated a 40% mod would fit that criteria. Otherwise this is just people's opinion that it was overpowered and should have been set to X value, apparently 40%, for 'reasons'. Again, I agree it would have been too much with still proccing with the same mod as activated. I'm just wondering how you all came to the conclusion that it's now properly balanced. All I've seen is people posting nuke ABC did XYZ damage and that's too much or adding up percentages and saying that because it's such and such value everything is great now. I hope you were talking in generalities because I have never thought you had some dev conspiracy or that you weren't a good player. So, yeah...
