Or, idk, remove the damage by proc altogether and make it a flat increase to Crit Severity (say somewhere along the 5-10% mark)
So again, it benefits classes like TR/CW the most who have periods of 100% crit chance?
Right now the TWO classes that get the MOST benefit from it at TRs and CWs. For a CW it will make up easily north of 20% of your total damage for a TR its not uncommon at all to see 15-20% from LOL set.
For my GWF (BTW 4,700 item level and I crit stack) Its right around 9-10% of my damage.
Making it severity only increases the benefits.
Now if you REALLY want to make it interesting and possible very balanced. Id almost suggest something like this:
"Change the Proc on Crit to a Proc on NON-Crit"
What this does is removes the fact that LOL procs are 100% crit, so that would right away nerf the damage by ~ 50%. What it also does is more "evens out" the damage. Either you CRIT and get no proc or you DONT crit and get a proc. Now classes who want to build around this must choose crit versus pure damage. Classes that stack crit (like TR/CW) will no longer get a massive synergy of Burst on Burst, and now its aLOT more of a tradeoff.....
I know alot of CWs and TRs that will flame this idea though, although to be honest its probably the best solution.... Either that or an ICD of ~3-5 seconds on the proc so all classes can benefit (both high and low crit) as well as fast attacking AND slow attacking.
PvE GWF here
for me its 20%-25% of my damage and im very close to BiS with over 90% Crit Chance in combat.
It should have a ICD across all classes wouldn't hurt if its over 10 seconds or more. The proc would still be impactful and noticable, but not reliable.
It definitly needs a nerf to be similar to Black Ice or Imperial set boni in terms of damage.
What aryoux talks about probably refers to PvP.
As for PvE: GWF highly profits from it since we easily gain plenty of offensive stats and have much more self buffs and enemy debuffs as non-selfish Strikers. We can proc lostmauth with not even .7 seconds in between through for example Weapon Masters Strike which has 2 damage ticks which both proc lostmauth making 1 at will produce 4 hits.
Lostmauth adds nothing, but damage not a valuable mechanic or anything just pure damage which is nice on a Damage Dealer or in PvP in general.
So again, it benefits classes like TR/CW the most who have periods of 100% crit chance?
Right now the TWO classes that get the MOST benefit from it at TRs and CWs. For a CW it will make up easily north of 20% of your total damage for a TR its not uncommon at all to see 15-20% from LOL set.
I don't have a problem with it becoming a specialist set that benefits some classes/builds much more than others. Changing to a small crit severity boost also will bring it down way below that 15-20% of a toon's total damage.
0
Options
putzboy78Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,950Arc User
edited May 2015
Better yet, don't nerf it at all, make the other artifact sets as useful as the lostmauth set. If the set is encouraging classes to pick it even though the ability score bonus does not fit the class. That is where the problem lies. I'm a DC, I have the Imperial set because the belt matches my class design (str-wisdom). Imperial gives a "chance" of dealing 25% of my weapon damage, while lostmauth gives 100% with every crit. Lostmauth is miles betterin terms of dealing damage (my crit chance is greater than 50%, which implies i would average an additional 50% weapon damage on every hit).
You may wonder why i do not have the lostmauth set. Well i lacked the foresight to review all of the set bonuses and based my decision off of the ability scores, had I known the disparity between the sets before acquiring and lvling the artifact set. I would have chosen differently, and if the set bonuses do not change, I will switch to the lostmauth set the next 2xRP weekend (I lack the motivation to start over feeding three more artifacts without getting the 80% RP from my existing set).
This is the problem with the artifact system. The artifacts are so hard/expensive to replace, if you pick wrong the consequences are huge, not only in cost, but in the hours of gaming time you spend dragging/dropping RP (RP feed is killing the game, i just want to kill $%#$, if i wanted to feed in a game, i would get a digipet).
Better yet, don't nerf it at all, make the other artifact sets as useful as the lostmauth set. [...]
Why? Then people without a set are still not gonna be able to compete at all. And they just got rid of set bonuses on armor because they were too powerful, then right away created this set.
Set bonuses should be small and symbolic, not game changers.
0
Options
lirithielMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,482Arc User
Set bonuses should be small and symbolic, not game changers.
This. In. So. Many. Ways.
But Cryptic missed the boat once again...
Our pain is self chosen.
The most important thing in life is to be yourself. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.
0
Options
darkstarcrashMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,382Arc User
edited May 2015
I have this set on my GWF -- in fact, it's the only 3-pc. set I own. The stats are perfect for GWF, and we have the highest weapon damage, so a bonus based on weapon damage is very nice.
But I think it needs some nerfing. Seems like a short ICD would be enough to make classes like CWs who get no use from Str/Dex to think twice about going for Lostmauth rather than a set that actually has the proper stats.
I don't have a problem with it becoming a specialist set that benefits some classes/builds much more than others. Changing to a small crit severity boost also will bring it down way below that 15-20% of a toon's total damage.
So you think a belt with STR/DEX should be geared towards a CW who has high crit? That seems backwards to me..... Shouldnt it be geared towards classes that use STR/DEX as primary stats?
So you think a belt with STR/DEX should be geared towards a CW who has high crit? That seems backwards to me..... Shouldnt it be geared towards classes that use STR/DEX as primary stats?
I'm not saying the set should be marketed at CWs at all - can't see from where you would draw that conclusion. If a CW wants to make the choice to take the set bonus over the stats, because they feel it will ultimately benefit their build more, why not? By reducing the damage bonus this CW would get from the set, they already may decide that the trade off isn't the wisest.
if we take by your logic , why was it fixed when the HRs was making it multi procc?
and still on your own logic why was lathander set fixed to not ressurect allies and respec HD.
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SYMBOLIC AND SMALL , but more like a game changer.
so we aren't sayin that they should remove the set bonuses, we are just sayin that it should be fixed all the way, so that other classes cannot benefit more than it was as intended.
a ICD is good, but i wish better they should remove the amplifiers.
so it's just a 3/3 set, it should deal less damage than a boon, but it doesn't.
and if you think that you need that set to improve your DPS u're thinkin this in the wrong way.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I really follow what you are saying. Or more precisely, from what I think I understand of your post, I'm confused why you are quoting me.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I really follow what you are saying. Or more precisely, from what I think I understand of your post, I'm confused why you are quoting me.
I think he is saying that overall the DEVs said set bonuses were not going to be THE reason for getting the set. Meaning CWs ALREADY shouldnt be looking at the set becuase the stats dont line up with what they normally want....
But because its SOOO strong.... Its BIS...
Here is the crux.... They are in a VERY sticky position because NOW if they OVER nerf the set, players invested ALOT into it. So thats why I say they cant just make it worthless or not good anymore..... So they put themselves in a pickle.
I think he is saying that overall the DEVs said set bonuses were not going to be THE reason for getting the set. Meaning CWs ALREADY shouldnt be looking at the set becuase the stats dont line up with what they normally want....
But because its SOOO strong.... Its BIS...
Was just confused, because I never argued against that position.
Here is the crux.... They are in a VERY sticky position because NOW if they OVER nerf the set, players invested ALOT into it.
I know, but I can't accept that as a very good reason to tread gently. Do you think players were wise to invest heavily into such a clearly over-performing set? Besides, there's plenty of precedent of unpopular "balancing" decisions in the games short history already.
Yes it does, never suggested your ideas weren't sound and well presented. As does restricting the bonuses that can be applied to the damage more tightly.
However, I've seen time and time again that incorrectly timed or reduced ICDs, damage multipliers and multi-proccing reoccur as bugs in this engine. Hence why I'd advocate for a more predictable/reliable set bonus - but it's just my opinion
Comments
So again, it benefits classes like TR/CW the most who have periods of 100% crit chance?
Right now the TWO classes that get the MOST benefit from it at TRs and CWs. For a CW it will make up easily north of 20% of your total damage for a TR its not uncommon at all to see 15-20% from LOL set.
For my GWF (BTW 4,700 item level and I crit stack) Its right around 9-10% of my damage.
Making it severity only increases the benefits.
Now if you REALLY want to make it interesting and possible very balanced. Id almost suggest something like this:
"Change the Proc on Crit to a Proc on NON-Crit"
What this does is removes the fact that LOL procs are 100% crit, so that would right away nerf the damage by ~ 50%. What it also does is more "evens out" the damage. Either you CRIT and get no proc or you DONT crit and get a proc. Now classes who want to build around this must choose crit versus pure damage. Classes that stack crit (like TR/CW) will no longer get a massive synergy of Burst on Burst, and now its aLOT more of a tradeoff.....
I know alot of CWs and TRs that will flame this idea though, although to be honest its probably the best solution.... Either that or an ICD of ~3-5 seconds on the proc so all classes can benefit (both high and low crit) as well as fast attacking AND slow attacking.
for me its 20%-25% of my damage and im very close to BiS with over 90% Crit Chance in combat.
It should have a ICD across all classes wouldn't hurt if its over 10 seconds or more. The proc would still be impactful and noticable, but not reliable.
It definitly needs a nerf to be similar to Black Ice or Imperial set boni in terms of damage.
What aryoux talks about probably refers to PvP.
As for PvE: GWF highly profits from it since we easily gain plenty of offensive stats and have much more self buffs and enemy debuffs as non-selfish Strikers. We can proc lostmauth with not even .7 seconds in between through for example Weapon Masters Strike which has 2 damage ticks which both proc lostmauth making 1 at will produce 4 hits.
Lostmauth adds nothing, but damage not a valuable mechanic or anything just pure damage which is nice on a Damage Dealer or in PvP in general.
I don't have a problem with it becoming a specialist set that benefits some classes/builds much more than others. Changing to a small crit severity boost also will bring it down way below that 15-20% of a toon's total damage.
You may wonder why i do not have the lostmauth set. Well i lacked the foresight to review all of the set bonuses and based my decision off of the ability scores, had I known the disparity between the sets before acquiring and lvling the artifact set. I would have chosen differently, and if the set bonuses do not change, I will switch to the lostmauth set the next 2xRP weekend (I lack the motivation to start over feeding three more artifacts without getting the 80% RP from my existing set).
This is the problem with the artifact system. The artifacts are so hard/expensive to replace, if you pick wrong the consequences are huge, not only in cost, but in the hours of gaming time you spend dragging/dropping RP (RP feed is killing the game, i just want to kill $%#$, if i wanted to feed in a game, i would get a digipet).
Why? Then people without a set are still not gonna be able to compete at all. And they just got rid of set bonuses on armor because they were too powerful, then right away created this set.
Set bonuses should be small and symbolic, not game changers.
This. In. So. Many. Ways.
But Cryptic missed the boat once again...
The most important thing in life is to be yourself. Unless you can be Batman. Always be Batman.
But I think it needs some nerfing. Seems like a short ICD would be enough to make classes like CWs who get no use from Str/Dex to think twice about going for Lostmauth rather than a set that actually has the proper stats.
So you think a belt with STR/DEX should be geared towards a CW who has high crit? That seems backwards to me..... Shouldnt it be geared towards classes that use STR/DEX as primary stats?
I'm not saying the set should be marketed at CWs at all - can't see from where you would draw that conclusion. If a CW wants to make the choice to take the set bonus over the stats, because they feel it will ultimately benefit their build more, why not? By reducing the damage bonus this CW would get from the set, they already may decide that the trade off isn't the wisest.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I really follow what you are saying. Or more precisely, from what I think I understand of your post, I'm confused why you are quoting me.
I think he is saying that overall the DEVs said set bonuses were not going to be THE reason for getting the set. Meaning CWs ALREADY shouldnt be looking at the set becuase the stats dont line up with what they normally want....
But because its SOOO strong.... Its BIS...
Here is the crux.... They are in a VERY sticky position because NOW if they OVER nerf the set, players invested ALOT into it. So thats why I say they cant just make it worthless or not good anymore..... So they put themselves in a pickle.
Hence again, ICD makes alot of sense....
Was just confused, because I never argued against that position.
I know, but I can't accept that as a very good reason to tread gently. Do you think players were wise to invest heavily into such a clearly over-performing set? Besides, there's plenty of precedent of unpopular "balancing" decisions in the games short history already.
Yes it does, never suggested your ideas weren't sound and well presented. As does restricting the bonuses that can be applied to the damage more tightly.
However, I've seen time and time again that incorrectly timed or reduced ICDs, damage multipliers and multi-proccing reoccur as bugs in this engine. Hence why I'd advocate for a more predictable/reliable set bonus - but it's just my opinion