Seiffil@Permafrost wrote: speaking of the the onderfull item dev FYRE he has not even posted on his items changes has he left soe if so then i would not expect to see anything of the comments he has posted about uncle
Uncle@Mistmoore wrote: That seems to be the question on the site that shall not be named, well at least directly linked to. Either way if he has we will not get a comment from the Red Names due to company policy and California employment laws. My personal guess is that he's on vacation as some suggested, but regardless it keeps coming up that these decisions are made by "the team" so it's still possible we will see them even if he has left. I would guess though that zoning stability, BG issues and just general expansion fallout though will be what kills the proposed changes if they do not happen. Not the employment status of one dev.
Uncle@Mistmoore wrote: It's more than just the percentages. From my understanding of sorcerers (I don't play a high level one), is that warlocks have more DoTs and AoEs than wizards do. It seems that it would make sense logically to put warlocks at the front where there DoTs and AoEs won't create as much agro problems for the tank. In addition, the way I understand combat mechanics, if a lock puts a DoT on the mob at 81% and gets the bonus, that DoT will continue to do the higher amount of damage even if the mob goes below 80% since the spell was cast with the bonus. This would allow their DoTs to do the most amount of damage. Giving them the bonus at the end where there DoTs might not even complete all their ticks and giving wizzies a bonus to their already huge nukes at the beginning when agro hasn't been stabilized seems like these were set up to purposely limit the potential of this bonus to both sorcerers. Now add that information to all the problems between the ranger and assassin versions of this ability (again, not just the extra 10% length of time), and it seems that this ability was given to all of the T1 dps classes, but set up for limited potential for all but one class. ADDED: My solution and reasons would be the following: 1) Swap assassin and ranger so that rangers have the back end and assassins have the front end - the assassins ability to transfer hate to the tank will allow the fight to be stabilized faster, while allow the class that has ZERO hate transfer the ability to take advantage of this ability more. 2) Allow ranger's bonus to work on both combat arts and autoattack - this is kind of a no-brainer. If this isn't the obvious favoritism of one class as it appears to be, someone PLEASE explain why it is this way. 3) Swap wizzies and locks so that wizzies have the back end and locks have the front end - This will allow locks to cast all their DoTs and get the bonus while allowing the DoTs to tick for their full duration as well as giving the wizzie a window that is safer for him (or her) to open up and hit some big nukes without grabbing agro like they would if they did that at the beginning of the fight. 4) Make the bonus windows the same, both 20% or both 30%. I would even entertain the notion of the back end getting 20% while the front gets 30% since the mob will be full debuffed by the end of the fight, however I don't believe it really takes THAT long to get a decent amount of buffs on to justify a 10% difference between the two. Perhaps the front end being 5% more would be more acceptable, and I'd support 25% for the front end and 20% for the back end even if it was rangers that got the back end. I don't believe these changes will negatively impact any of the classes, except if assassins were moved to the front without their 30% window. They'll be up in arms about that, so I don't foresee that happening (see point number 2).
