I just peeked at the in-progress spreadsheet. From a Ragefire shaman's point of view, Bane of Nife and Pox of Bertoxx look good for the 5/17/17 update. Both are set to do way more than original coding. Soon I'll be talking about taking aggro all the time
Cinco de mayo will forevermore be reffered to as cinco de shaman. The day our lord and savior ngreth saved us tlp shaman. This was the news ive been waiting for leading up to agnarr. Thanks devs i was worried.
Shamans and Druids rejoice! Maybe they won't mess up necros now if they ever consolidate their stacking.
can someone double-check this? pathtoeternity? im crunching ngresh's edits and it looks like the damage increase percentage is correct for the new patching rolling out 5/17. im deeply concerned that the mana change percentages are not matching the mana costs listed. below is listed my calculation for the actual mana changes listed vs how they were mis-calculated: actual change in mana vs errored listed change in mana: bane 103% increase listed 50% scourge 53% increase listed 34% plauge 79% increase listed 44% envenomed bolt 100% increase listed 42% bane of nife 74% increase listed 41% ancient scourge of nife 72% listed 51% blood of sayrn increase 104% listed 51% increase To calculate the percentage increase: First: work out the difference (increase) between the two numbers you are comparing. Then: divide the increase by the original number and multiply the answer by 100. If your answer is a negative number then this is a percentage decrease. if they patch it according to the current values the mana costs would have actually skyrocked for these spells and in a lot of cases the increase in damage would increase nearly 1:1 with mana, resulting in no net change. i can crunch the numbers based on the percentage change desired to come up with the true mana cost that each spell should have. right now the costs of spells projected is tooooo high. example: envenomed bolt: original mana: 202 new mana: 409 listed change in mana percentage: 50.61% calculated change in manage percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana the difference between 409 mana and 303 mana is a big difference, 33% more. so either the mana cost or the mana percentages are off. and i would prefer it if it were the costs so its an actual buff. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L68cCHgj-XoNB99VMvwnyQRCwNCKo0noz4_ifh3LpqM/edit#gid=10745574
ah i think i tracked down the error in the mana cost percentage calculations by ngreth on google doc.. in my example: envenomed bolt: original mana: 202 new mana: 409 listed change in mana percentage: 50.61% calculated change in manage percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% increase calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana to calculate the mana percentage change you have to do 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% it was calculated like this (incorrectly): 409-202=207 207/409 = 50.61% change (incorrect). this is where the error is. youre taking the change amount and comparing it to the new value, which has no relation to the original value in this equation. the equation you want to employ is trying to find the ratio of the amount of change and the original value. the original value is not being used in this equation which makes it an error. this would lead to another patching error. i will calculate the new spell costs correctly with the corresponding stated percentage changes: envenomed bolt: original mana: 202 proposed mana: 409 listed change in mana percentage: 50.61% calculated change in manage percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202= ****102.4% increase in mana cost calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana bane: original mana: 440 proposed mana: 998 listed change in mana percentage: 50.9% calculated change in manage percentage: 998-440=558, 558/440= ******126% increase in mana cost calculated value for 50.9% increase in mana from 440= 440+ (440*.5009) = 660 mana difference between 660 mana and 998 mana is about a third.... scourge: original mana: 130 proposed mana: 199 listed change in mana percentage: 34% calculated change in manage percentage: 199-130=69, 69/130= ******53% increase in mana cost calculated value for 34% increase in mana from 130= 130+ (130*.34) = 174 mana difference between 199 mana and 174 mana is about 13%.... bane nife original mana: 493 proposed mana: 860 listed change in mana percentage: 42% calculated change in manage percentage: 860-493=367, 367/493= ****74.4% increase in mana cost calculated value for 42% increase in mana from 493= 493+ (493*.42) = 700mana difference between 860 mana and 700 mana is about 20%.... Scourge nife original mana: 440 proposed mana: 758 listed change in mana percentage: 41% calculated change in manage percentage: 758-440=318, 318/440= ****72.4% increase in mana cost calculated value for 40% increase in mana from 440= 440+ (440*.41) = 620mana difference between 620 mana and 758 mana is about 20%.... blood of sayrn original mana: 535 proposed mana: 1093 listed change in mana percentage: 51% calculated change in manage percentage: 1093-535=558, 558/535= ****104.4% increase calculated value for 51% increase in mana from 535= 535+ (535*.51) = 807 difference between 807 mana and 1093 mana is about 28%.... just by eye balling bane...490 original cost, 998 new cost, listed 50% change... 490 to 998 is not 50% change. its more like 100% so if you patch based on the current listed costs in that google doc youre actually undercutting shaman mana costs by trying to state that 998 is a 50% increase from 490, when you can eye ball it and say its not. the delta was calculated incorrectly with mana cost changes. the delta change value was compared to the new mana value instead of the original mana value, making the change percentage appear MUCH smaller. if things proceed as in the doc the mana spells will seem much less efficient than intended due to miscalculation . at some point you guys gotta get this right. if i walked into a store and they said 490 has only a 50% increase to reach 998 i would turn around and walk right out. i know you guys are trying and its a easy mistake to make but math is really important for people who play these games after 18 years. we have to be comfortable about the numbers being right after many patch attempts. either the mana costs stated are way too high or the quoted changes in mana % are way too low. im assuming you are scaling things based off percentages, so that your mana cost calculations are far too high. either way there is an error and how you decide to fix it will decide the fate of shamans. tread lightly, for you tread on my dreams.
copied from https://dgcissuetracker.com/browse/EQ-1450: Ngreth theres miscaculations in the google doc. the overall mana cost change percentage number is being miscalculated and the new mana cost numbers do not correspond to the listed percentage changes. something is terribly off. im glad i did a bunch of this kind of stuff in school and can hopefully help.... example: envenomed bolt: original mana: 202 new mana: 409 listed change in mana percentage: 50.61% calculated change in manage percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana at a quick glance, 202 mana increased by 50% is NOT 409, its 303. the difference between 303 mana vs 409 mana is about 30%. the overall mana percentage changes and new mana costs dont match up and are being calculated incorrectly. these errors are only for the mana column and you did the damage column just fine, which means odds are it was a simple mistake. i tracked down the error in the mana cost percentage calculations for ngreth on google doc.. in my example: envenomed bolt: original mana: 202 new mana: 409 listed change in mana percentage: 50.61% calculated change in mana percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% increase calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana to calculate the mana percentage change you have to do 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% it was calculated like this (incorrectly): 409-202=207 207/409 = 50.61% change (incorrect). this is where the error is. youre taking the change amount and comparing it to the new value, which has no relation to the original value in this equation. this ratio simply says that the CHANGE is 50% of the New cost, not the old cost and original value. the equation you want to employ is trying to find the ratio of the amount of change and the original value, like this: calculated change in mana percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% increase. this way youre comparing the change amount to the original value, which is the only way to accurately measure the change. the original value is not being used in your formula which makes the mana cost increases look far lower, by comparing the change amount to the NEW cost in the denominator instead of the old cost. this WILL lead to another patching error. When you increase the denominator value the cost percentage change will always look smaller. 207/202 is WAY different than 207/409. using the 409 in the denominator makes the 207 change in mana look much smaller of a change than when you compare it to the original value of 202. and there's no way 409 is a 50% increase from 202. its more than a 100% increase. therefore there are errors in the google doc as of 5/6/2017. If you wanted a 50% increase from the original mana cost 202 it would be 303, not 409. If you wanted a 102.4% increase from 202 you would make it 409, but because this is not the listed percentage on the table, i have a feeling 409 cost is an error and you meant to put 303, a 50% increase in cost. every spell 1-65 that i checked contained this error. i will calculate the new spell costs correctly with the corresponding stated percentage changes: envenomed bolt: original mana: 202 proposed mana: 409 listed change in mana percentage: 50.61% calculated change in manage percentage: 409-202=207, 207/202= ****102.4% increase in mana cost calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana bane: original mana: 440 proposed mana: 998 listed change in mana percentage: 50.9% calculated change in manage percentage: 998-440=558, 558/440= ******126% increase in mana cost calculated value for 50.9% increase in mana from 440= 440+ (440*.5009) = 660 mana difference between 660 mana and 998 mana is about a third.... scourge: original mana: 130 proposed mana: 199 listed change in mana percentage: 34% calculated change in manage percentage: 199-130=69, 69/130= ******53% increase in mana cost calculated value for 34% increase in mana from 130= 130+ (130*.34) = 174 mana difference between 199 mana and 174 mana is about 13%.... bane nife original mana: 493 proposed mana: 860 listed change in mana percentage: 42% calculated change in manage percentage: 860-493=367, 367/493= ****74.4% increase in mana cost calculated value for 42% increase in mana from 493= 493+ (493*.42) = 700 mana difference between 860 mana and 700 mana is about 20%.... Scourge nife original mana: 440 proposed mana: 758 listed change in mana percentage: 41% calculated change in manage percentage: 758-440=318, 318/440= ****72.4% increase in mana cost calculated value for 40% increase in mana from 440= 440+ (440*.41) = 620 mana difference between 620 mana and 758 mana is about 20%.... blood of sayrn original mana: 535 proposed mana: 1093 listed change in mana percentage: 51% calculated change in manage percentage: 1093-535=558, 558/535= ****104.4% increase calculated value for 51% increase in mana from 535= 535+ (535*.51) = 807 difference between 807 mana and 1093 mana is about 28%.... just by eye balling bane...490 original cost, 998 new cost, listed 50% change... 490 to 998 is not 50% change. its more like 100% so if you patch based on the current listed costs in that google doc youre actually undercutting shaman casting abilities by trying to state that 998 is a 50% increase in mana from 490, when you can eye ball it and say its not. the delta was calculated incorrectly with mana cost changes. the delta change value was compared to the new mana value instead of the original mana value, making the change percentage in mana costs appear MUCH smaller than they actually are. if things proceed as in the doc the mana spells will seem much less efficient than intended due to miscalculation. people will be further frustrated and confused. if you raise the damage but also accidently raise the mana costs too much then the effect will be a near 1 dmg/mana ratio increase and just mudflation without an actual revamp or buff. at some point you guys gotta get this right. if i walked into a store and they said 490 has only a 50% increase to reach 998 i would turn around and walk right out. i know you guys are trying and its a easy mistake to make but math is really important for people who play these games after 18 years. we have to be comfortable about the numbers being right after many patch attempts. im guessing the new mana costs quoted are way too high because changes in mana % are way too low and 100% miscalculated. If the mana costs go through as they are now, the percentage mana cost changes would be recalculated to be very high and cause the mana/damage ratio to drop off, leaving us back where we were before. by accidently increasing mana too much the spells just mudflate at a 1 dmg/mana ratio. i will demonstrate this by showing the difference in ratio to additional damage/mana percentages for both correct and incorrect calculations: bane 103% increase in cost calculated, increase mana cost listed 50% bane 105% increase in damage 105/103 is a 1:1 ratio of dmg/mana and isnt a buff and doesnt make sense. its pure mudflation. if the increase is corrected to stated 50% increase in mana (660)(incorrectly calculated as 998) from original value (440) it will be a buff. this would make it a +105% dmg / +50% mana buff. ==================================================================== scourge 53% increase in cost, increase listed 34% scourge 78% increase in damage 78/53 isnt as good of a ratio as 78/34 =================================================================== envenomed bolt 100% increase in cost, increase listed 42% Ebolt 140% increase damage ebolt doing 140/100 more damage to mana isnt nearly the 140/42 buff were all looking for. ======================================================================= bane of nife 74% increase in cost, increase listed 41% Bane Nife 87% increase in damage. This is another one that sticks out. a increase of 87% damage for a 74% increase of cost? and youre saying that its going to do as much damage as it plus the previous three spells? i dont think so. 87% increase of damage with 41% increase of cost could be more along the lines of what we can expect. ==================================================================== ancient scourge of nife 72% increase in cost, listed 41% Scourge Nife 133% increase in dmage 133/72 is way different than 133/41 ======================================================================= blood of sayrn 104% increase in cost, listed 51% increase Sayrn 140% increase in damage heres a big one, blood of sayrn... 140 increase in damage for 104% increase in cost? not much of a buff. but if you calculate correctly for 51% increase from the original mana cost value then its a good buff. I believe what ngreth did was set up the formulas to take the overall mana change percentage increase desired and run it through the wrong formula and got an inflated mana cost figure for each spell. it was calculated like this; envenomed bolt: 50.6% desired change in mana cost: 409-202=207, 207/409 = 50.61% change (incorrect). instead of like this: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% increase (correct), calculated value for 50.61% increase in mana from 202= 202+ 202/2 = 303 mana (correct) so you wanted it to be 303 mana (50.61%) as the formula used currently is wrong. i know the formula is wrong, im not assuming it. what im assuming is that because of spells like bane having a 1:1 dmg/mana increase ratio that ngreth meant to stick with the change of mana cost percentages and calculated incorrect mana costs due to using the wrong denominator in the increase percentage formula. because the wrong references are used in the denominator (new value is being used instead of original value), the computer gives the wrong percentage mana increase for the amount of mana cost. if the formula is corrected then the computer will correctly lower the mana costs for the same desired percentage mana increase. its a simple error and fix on a spread sheet but it took me most the night to explain and work out all the math. a lot harder to explain instead of just fixing it myself on the spreadsheet. im fine with the damage changes and mana percentage changes, but the mana cost calculations dont add up!!!
it was calculated like this; envenomed bolt: 50.6% desired change in mana cost: 409-202=207, 207/409 = 50.61% change (incorrect). instead of like this: 409-202=207, 207/202=102.4% increase (correct), ****to calculate value X, a 50.61% increase in mana from 202, you use this formula, which is entirely different= 202+ (202*.5061) = X = 303 mana (correct) You do not use the same formula to measure change between two numbers as when you are trying to increase a number by a percentage, as the final value is unknown variable X!!! the only way you could have arrived at these mana cost numbers is by spreadsheet and calculation errors! you cannot use the measurement of % change formula to also calculate your mana costs. it is too complicated of a formula that will lead to these types of mistakes. use the % increase formula, not the % change formula. remembered this lesson from college math classes sorry had to make another post because i cant edit past 30 minutes.
To be fair... let's assume the manager changes were intentional and the listed calculations were errant. You say a 1:1 increase to dots and nukes on DMG:MANA is no net change...however that's a misleading statement because the dots damage was increased... the damage increase is a net change to Smh per second potential of the shaman class but it is not a net change to damage efficiency....aka damage to MANA. Therefore it, in its currently proposed state is a net change to DPS potential but it's also a decrease to the long term sustainability of damage because if u buff dps by 100% while u increase manacosts in-step. Then the result is a higher mana expenditure per second meaning ur bursty but at the cost of sustain
There are errors in the spreadsheet either way. I want to know if the mana costs or percentage were correct. If the mana costs are correct the buff adjustment is laughable. If the percentages are correct I'd like the mana costs to be corrected so I am not bugging. Ngreth said the spells should be as strong as the three previous spells. I would challenge you to prove they are that strong with the current mana costs and inaccurate increase in percentages. With the mana costs the way they are and incorrect change in cost percentages, the spells are only gonna be 20% stronger after a 75% nerf. The change in percentage has to be accurate and the mana costs inaccurate or we are chasing our tails for the forth patch in a row.
if the ratio is percentage change : percentage change, then yes a 100% dmg : 100% mana change = zero net change. you can put percentage changes in a ratio to measure the values relative change. if i increase the damage percentage by 200% and the mana cost percentage by 200%, then you have a spell that has the exact same efficiency ratios, because there was no change in mana cost relative to damage. bane 103% increase in cost calculated, increase mana cost listed 50% bane 105% increase in damage 105%/103% is a 1:1 ratio of dmg/mana and isnt a buff and doesnt make sense. its pure mudflation, and logically isnt even worth patching because there's no change in output/cost. if the increase is corrected to stated 50% increase in mana (660)(incorrectly calculated as 998) from original value (440) it will be a buff. this would make it a +105% dmg / +50% mana buff. this increases dmg by more than it increases mana costs. and is the only way the spell can compete with its previous ability to stack. its the only way it makes sense with the 5/17 patch notes. a 105% increase of dmg vs a 103% increase in mana cost = virtually zero change a 105% increase of dmg vs a 50% increase in mana cost = significant boost because of this, im holding onto the belief that the mana costs are incorrect in hopes of a patch that will stick. if the percentage damage increase (numerator) increases relative to the percentage of mana cost increase (denominator), then its a buff, because its a ratio of two percents. the higher the product of this ratio the more efficient it becomes. the more you increase mana costs, the more the denominator increases, and therefore lowers efficiency. if the mana is calculated incorrectly, which it is at least somehow, then the error on the side of increased mana costs lower the new spell's efficiency because of a calculation/formula error. having accidental increased mana costs means that the increased damage and efficiency will be masked by a mudflated mana cost and there will be no net benefit. if you need to see how he calculated the mana percentage change/mana cost wrong again go back and read how i showed that. ive already demonstrated there are errors in the formulas calculating the mana cost percentage change in the spreadsheet and hope this is resolved in favor of lower mana costs/calculations that will translate to better efficiency and therefore a buff. the reason we have to keep repatching could be little things like this. scaling percentages can be a tricky thing! id really like them to double check everything before agnarr. id be more than happy to go over the spreadsheets or whatevers necessary to help and nail the lvl 1-65 spells. i just need a unlocked tab.. im looking at the spreadsheet and it says this is the formula he used to generate the change in percentage for mana costs: =SUM(1-SUM(D7/M7)) thats 1- (old cost/new cost). which is saying 1 - the percentage the old cost is to the new cost. this is again, not how this should be calculated. looking at bane, costing 440 and new cost 998, it says 50% increase in cost. you can eye ball it and see that its wrong without even getting into any math at all. so the formula is very wrong and we have to hope when he fixes the formula and sees the real cost percentage changes from the new mana costs, that he will taper the costs back down to fit a desired mana cost change percentages. im certain he backed into the mana costs based on the wrong formula. and the mana costs should come down.
nice i found the spreadsheet formula error change of mana cost percentage formula used : =SUM(1-SUM(D6/M6)) 1-(oldcost/newcost) change of damage percentage formula used : =SUM(SUM(N6/E6)-1) (newcost/oldcost)-1 the mana cost percentage change formula is inverted from the damage percentage change formula. these two formulas should not vary at all. the numerator/denominator are switched and the -1 has been inverted to 1- for the incorrect mana cost formula being used. i think fixing this is the first step. after that the true mana cost percentage changes will show and the mana costs will need to be reduced in order to make the patch work as discussed/intended.
You don't get it.....if a wizard has a 1k nuke that costs 500 mana....and the damage and mana cost are increased at the 2damge:1mana ratio....to 2k dv for 1k mana......there is a net change to the wizards dps potential because the time it takes to deliver. Double damage is the same....the result is a damage/second increase, and no change to "efficiency". You can't state that there's no net change because there is a "damage per second potential" net increase. Now with that said....your gripe is that the damage per second increase also didn't result in a mana efficiency increase and who's to say it does. Generally speaking mana efficiency improves with level. If spell a from lvl 20 DOT does 100 damage per tick, and lvl 40 DOT does 200 per tick and lvl 60 DOT does 300 damage per tick....but lol 20 DOT costs 100 mana, lvl 40 DOT costs 150 mana, and lvl 60 DOT costs 175 mana...and they are consolidated to do 600 dmg per tick at 350 mana there is a net efficiency and damage increase but you have to look all the way back to the start to see 100+200+300=600 dog per tick at less than 100+150+175 mana costs of the the consolidated DOT stacking and u don't have to spend 3 spellcasts to land the effect freeing urself to be out of casting cycles more often for canni or heals. Furthermore if u go back to the original 3dot scenario at 425 mana for 600 total dmg per tick and compare that to the post-consolidated 600 dmg per tick for 375 mana u can see there's a net efficiency increase of 2/15th or roughly 12.333_%
your response lacks the detail of my response and seems more anecdotal instead of based on any sort of chart or formulas. in your example, the wizard gains 2:1 dmg/mana and is therefore buffed. that simply isnt happening here, even though it should be. banes cost and damage both went up by 508 mana and 550 damage. and you want to tell me this, making it 998 mana:990 damage isnt near a 1:1 boost in power? not 2:1, not 1.5:1, not 2.5:1, and not the stated 3:1, but 1.2:1... 1.2:1 isnt a buff, its not a boost, its not a change in efficiency. its the exact same damn thing. we cant use figures in the efficiency equation since one is damage and one is mana cost, so we have to convert them into change percentages so the efficiency ratio is like numbers top and bottom. okay let me try again here... first off i showed you that the formula used is incorrect. therefore the mana percentage change calculations are much lower than the values. now here is how you determine a change in efficiency: bane: new cost: 998 old cost: 490 new damage: 990 old damage: 440 new mana cost increase ratio= 998/490= 203% cost, or a 103% increase in cost new damage change ratio= 990/440= 225% dmg, or a 125% increase in damage a 125% increase in damage / 103% increase in cost = a net 21% increase in efficiency. a net 21% increase in damage will not be good enough to make anyone happy or have the patch notes make sense, saying that each spell is as strong as the three previous, with no stacking. it also wouldnt be worth patching this way as its still not as good as the original format. theyve already patched a few times now not getting it right. its important to know the numbers are dead on this time before agnarr drops. if you calculated cost by percentages, a 50% increase in mana cost as listed in the spreadsheet would be like this: bane: new cost:735 old cost: 490 new damage: 990 old damage: 440 new mana cost increase ratio = 735/490 = 150% cost, or 50% increase from original cost new damage change ratio = 990/440....225% dmg, 125% increase in damage. if you do it this way the 125% increase damage / 50% increase mana makes the spell much more damage efficient and it will be hitting its marks for 3 previous spells (non stackable now, 125% is 2.5x 50% so just about 3x). ngreth said that due to other variables like having more spellgems available it would be equivalent to the previous three spells instead of the previous four, so that solves any other variables besides raw ratios on paper. as long as you convert the numbers into two percents you can then compare the two percents in its own ratio. you can then use the 125/103 vs 125/50 ratios to compare efficiency. basically the more mana cost the larger the denominator and the less efficient the change. but you have to convert the damage/cost figures to percentages so the efficiency ratio is apples/apples.. if you disagree with ^ statement then youre saying that increase in relative mana cost with the same damage output doesnt change efficiency. thats like saying the car eats more gas but doesnt get worse gas mileage efficiency.. if mana = gas for an example that will perhaps help you. the only efficiency ratio im talking about is the dmg/mana one. there are obvious errors in the spreadsheet that will give rise to one of two scenarios: a revamp of the mana cost change % or a revamp of the mana cost amounts. im using the efficiency change to show that the values are incorrect because i believe they are too high to hit the 5/17 patch target.
step 1: figure out the change in percentage of damage and mana cost changes from original values and new values. (demonstrated by using change in percentage formula) step 2: use the percentages in the efficiency equation (demonstrated by putting % change results of step 1 into efficiency equation) step 3: measure the difference in change to efficiency determined by a change of mana (denominator) (demonstrated by measuring differences and changes in percentage ratios within the efficiency equation) step 4: cross reference the increase in efficiency for each spell with ngreth's quote that each spell will be as strong as it and the three previous spells. considering spells get stronger as they level up, this means that the new efficiency ratio should be in the 2.5:1 to 3:1 mark, considering each spell should be as strong as 4 total spells now. when there are errors on the spreadsheet and the new efficiency ratio is 1.21:1 for bane, then you know it has the potential to be a 4th attempt at patching shaman incorrectly. no argument there. change in efficiency is by far the best tool when measuring changes to spells. it correlates the output/input instead of only looking at its damage or cost. infact i would challenge you that there is no other way to empirically measure spell changes other than looking at the damage/manacost/efficiency changes. if you still do not understand what im doing to calculate efficiency changes using change percentages... then i suggest you go back and take another look at complex fractions. all a complex fraction is a ratio in the numerator and denominator. a percentage is a ratio, even if its change percentages. so we have [(new mana cost/ old mana cost ) / (new damage / old damage )]. all ive done is take the efficiency equation and make it a complex fraction to include the rate of change, therefore making it a change in efficiency equation. thank god for calculus/algebra, eh? lastly ngreth already covered the whole casting multiple spells, cast time, spell gems, resists, other variables by stating that the spells will be as powerful as the original+the last 3 spells combined. if my memory serves me correct he specifically said that it was for this reason it could not be as powerful as the original+the last 4 spells combined. so this has been covered and is not a variable in my calculations.
Is the change supposed to increase mana efficiency? I thought it was simply to stop wasting many spell gems / cast time on DoT's. Any quote about this?
I believe the original intention was mostly to cut down on the number of effects on a boss mob, since the same dots stack from multiple people. The stated effect of this was also a quality of life improvement for the dot casters, so they didn't have to stack 3 dots of the same line for maximum damage, which is 3 times the spell gems (or switching in and out) and 3 times the cast time.
"Here is the upcoming patch message. Most lower level Druid and Shaman DoT spells now do as much or slightly more damage as the equivalent spell plus the two spells before it when the spells originally stacked. Mana cost of these spells have increased accordingly but they are overall more efficient, with a few cases being equivalent. – These changes apply to the shaman Curse, Blood of Saryrn, and Breath of Ultor lines and the druid Sunscorch and Stinging Swarm lines. If someone wants to create a spreadsheet that is OPEN (most of the links I've seen were closed) I'll spend a bit of time and add my calculations. There is some little quirks where at some level's you'll do more some levels less. It all depends on the level of the player vs the level of the spell and the level effect mods of the spell. In all cases, when the spell is doing max damage it is at least equal to a stack of the three most recent of the spells before stacking was removed and damage per spell changed. While one of the examples given showed 4 disease and 2 poison, if instead, we look at old 3 curse, 3 disease, 3 poison, the new 1 each of curse, poison, and disease will do equal to or slightly more than those other 9 old spells. Making it do the last 4 lead to unreasonable numbers, especially when all 3 lines are put together as the new way makes easier to do than before. While a dedicated person, willing to do spell gem swaps and continue a cycle of 12 spells could have theoretically done more DoT damage, this change is a reasonable compromise as, especially in raid situations, the potential to do more damage over the entire raid group is there as fewer debuff slots will be taken up. Additionally, shaman and druids will be able to memorize more variety of other spells as they will not have to dedicate so many gem slots to DoTs and can use more direct damage spells, healing, and/or debuffing where appropriate. So while the potential of people dedicated to DoT damage at the exclusion of everything else (which pretty much would have been required to cycle 12 DoT spells...) overall the potential is there now to do more with other options including adding DD spells in the mix where it would have been prohibitive in a 12 DoT cycle. For group/solo shaman and druids (really also including the raid shaman and druids too, it's just that group shaman and druids don't have to worry about debuff limits), the ramp up time is also decreased as it is faster to get three spells on a mob than 12. (or even 2 vs 6 in the scenario of 4 DoTs 2 poison) increasing the overall DPS per mob." because the mana percent change number is calculated incorrectly the mana cost number could also be incorrect in the spreadsheet and that needs to be looked at to make sure the spells are calculated right lvl 1-65 for tlps. right now the stated mana costs are too high or the stated percentage increase in mana is too low because of a formula error in the spreadsheet.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Instead of comparing now to last patch, which was an admitted blunder...compare now to the original 3 dots and their mana cost.... if ur doing the same or more damage than you did with the 3stack, and it costs less...its a buff in both dps and efficiency because u can now nuke on top of the DOT during the time that you would have been casting 2 extra spells
Comparing the proposed change to the inadvertent nerd to overall dps that resulted from the initial changes is folly
