test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Official Feedback Thread: Weapon Enhancement Changes

1121315171822

Comments

  • marnivalmarnival Member Posts: 1,432 Arc User

    Hi @asterdahl

    This is directly connected to the dps scaling from enchant.

    Now , the GF actually is the class with the high burst dmg in dominion.
    Dont know if this has been addressed or not, but the feat TRAMPLE THE FALLEN in his current state need to be cough cough, placed under a "little" check by dev.
    Now, suppose, just suppose, that instead of giving a total of 20% on controlled target ( 5% for each tier ) give, is just a supposition, 20% for each tier? A burst dmg of +80% .

    Now, taking in consideration ONLY the new weapon damage, that damage will receive, instead of a buff of 20%, a total buff of 80% i'm right?
    If my supposition "cough cough" is right, in the end, the GF will not benefit something like x4 of this dps boost gived by the new scaling enchant, respect of how their feat is intended to work? And we are talking about a class that have an huge burst dmg in dominion....

    What exactly are you trying to say here?
    Gf has 3 class feats that gives 20% bonus although only 2 can be taken at same time and 2 of them uses stacks while trample needs target to be under some sort of control. But what is it you are trying to say it is rather confusing to read your text tbh..
  • btairbornebtairborne Member Posts: 352 Arc User

    warpet said:

    cant u just let them go over cap i cant see how is 9% on plague or 6% on new terror to much to be blocked and made useless in dungeons

    The writing has been on the wall that they'd need to reign in stacking debuffs and make everything behave consistently for a while.

    Unfortunately, the inconsistencies were what was giving certain specific things value. But keeping those inconsistencies and trying to balance around specific exceptions would be a mistake.

    Edit to acknowledge that Asterdahl posted at the same time I did, and to suggest that people take those precautions in light of this reversion seriously. The goal of making the game better and more coherent isn't supported by allowing certain things to perform differently than other things, not in the long run.
    I don't see the "mistake" if the inconsistencies are not game-breaking, just something else to account for in balancing passes.
    I don't agree. It's a bad precedent. Fixing the mistakes of the past should not be founded on retaining those mistakes.
    I'm talking about flexibility. If the mechanic works but wasn't what you had planned for (but people enjoy it), I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't see anything game-breaking here at all. In fact it makes things more interesting.
  • lordnemesis1981lordnemesis1981 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 204 Arc User
    marnival said:

    Hi @asterdahl

    This is directly connected to the dps scaling from enchant.

    Now , the GF actually is the class with the high burst dmg in dominion.
    Dont know if this has been addressed or not, but the feat TRAMPLE THE FALLEN in his current state need to be cough cough, placed under a "little" check by dev.
    Now, suppose, just suppose, that instead of giving a total of 20% on controlled target ( 5% for each tier ) give, is just a supposition, 20% for each tier? A burst dmg of +80% .

    Now, taking in consideration ONLY the new weapon damage, that damage will receive, instead of a buff of 20%, a total buff of 80% i'm right?
    If my supposition "cough cough" is right, in the end, the GF will not benefit something like x4 of this dps boost gived by the new scaling enchant, respect of how their feat is intended to work? And we are talking about a class that have an huge burst dmg in dominion....

    What exactly are you trying to say here?
    Gf has 3 class feats that gives 20% bonus although only 2 can be taken at same time and 2 of them uses stacks while trample needs target to be under some sort of control. But what is it you are trying to say it is rather confusing to read your text tbh..
    yeah, sorry for my english, is terrible i know, i'm referring to just TRAMPLE THE FALLEN, that is supposed to give +5% for each level of the skill. Are u sure that give just a total of +20%? If is not, and give +20% for each level instead of 5%, the dps boost received from the new enchantment on the weapon will not be out of scale on GF thx to that feat? Ofc taking in consideration the weapon damage only
  • beckylunaticbeckylunatic Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 14,231 Arc User
    That seems like a really weird question based on conjecture, which is why people are having trouble following the line of thought. Basically you are saying you're worried that the buffs will be much too strong if and only if one power is massively incredibly broken.

    Even if we accept the premise that Trample was buffing damage 80% and not 20%, the solution is to fix the power, not wring your hands over whether the enchant damage buffs would be too much on top of it.
    Guild Leader - The Lords of Light

    Neverwinter Census 2017

    All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
  • marnivalmarnival Member Posts: 1,432 Arc User
    edited February 2017

    marnival said:

    Hi @asterdahl

    This is directly connected to the dps scaling from enchant.

    Now , the GF actually is the class with the high burst dmg in dominion.
    Dont know if this has been addressed or not, but the feat TRAMPLE THE FALLEN in his current state need to be cough cough, placed under a "little" check by dev.
    Now, suppose, just suppose, that instead of giving a total of 20% on controlled target ( 5% for each tier ) give, is just a supposition, 20% for each tier? A burst dmg of +80% .

    Now, taking in consideration ONLY the new weapon damage, that damage will receive, instead of a buff of 20%, a total buff of 80% i'm right?
    If my supposition "cough cough" is right, in the end, the GF will not benefit something like x4 of this dps boost gived by the new scaling enchant, respect of how their feat is intended to work? And we are talking about a class that have an huge burst dmg in dominion....

    What exactly are you trying to say here?
    Gf has 3 class feats that gives 20% bonus although only 2 can be taken at same time and 2 of them uses stacks while trample needs target to be under some sort of control. But what is it you are trying to say it is rather confusing to read your text tbh..
    yeah, sorry for my english, is terrible i know, i'm referring to just TRAMPLE THE FALLEN, that is supposed to give +5% for each level of the skill. Are u sure that give just a total of +20%? If is not, and give +20% for each level instead of 5%, the dps boost received from the new enchantment on the weapon will not be out of scale on GF thx to that feat? Ofc taking in consideration the weapon damage only
    It was 20% last time I checked and if not bugged out during last couple of patches it should still be 20% ....

    P.S no need to be sorry this is an international forum with a great deal of people with another native language then English like myself ).
  • lordnemesis1981lordnemesis1981 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 204 Arc User
    edited February 2017

    That seems like a really weird question based on conjecture, which is why people are having trouble following the line of thought. Basically you are saying you're worried that the buffs will be much too strong if and only if one power is massively incredibly broken.

    Even if we accept the premise that Trample was buffing damage 80% and not 20%, the solution is to fix the power, not wring your hands over whether the enchant damage buffs would be too much on top of it.

    No conjecture :P
    And yes, you'r right, is the power that must addressed, not the enchant, but i was thinking that first of implement something like that will be a good move check how the power will benefit from the new weapon damage, and if i see that a power is out of scale respect to the other must be addressed so that dev can can fix it having a power that work as intended and is not totally op?
  • rgutscheradevrgutscheradev Member, Cryptic Developer Posts: 133 Cryptic Developer
    OK, our deadline for making changes for this module has hit, and I've managed to squeeze in two more things.

    One is I finally got the Lightning chains to scale properly, which turned out to be a real beast for technical reasons I won't bore everyone with. But after a complete rebuild of the power, it all seems to work correctly now.

    The other thing I did (based on asterdahl's suggestion) was tweak the stacking behavior for the Flaming WE DoT. It might be helpful for people to know more about this, so let me explain.
    * In the old days, each stack had its own timer and each would fall off when that timer ran out. So, for example, if you added a stack every second, and each one lasted 3 seconds, then the 3rd stack would fall off right about when you put on the 4th.
    * Then programmers added a flag to get RefreshDuration stacks. Whenever you add a stack, each existing stack gets its duration refreshed. So all the stacks will fall off as a group, not one by one. And once you are at max stacks, it's a lot easier to stay there. Mostly this is how we like to do stacking now, unless we have some special reason not to.

    What I did was update the DoT to be of RefreshDuration type. It will be a lot easier to reach 3 stacks now, and a lot easier to maintain your stacks (there's still a stack limit of 3, just as before). Hopefully this will allow more characters to consider the Flaming WE. (Plague Fire got this same treatment.)

    I mention this because there are almost certainly other places in the game where this "stacks fall off one by one" behavior is lingering. While I don't really want to go on a crusade to squelch every single one of them, if there are a few that are particularly bugging people we might be able to change them too. (There might be a some where we want to leave them with the old behavior, either for balance reasons or for some other weird reason I can't think of right now, so no promises!)
  • darthpotaterdarthpotater Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,130 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    So now plague fire and frost can bypass the cap but terror cant? I dont get why you dont like terror
    Lescar PvE Wizard - Sir Garlic PvE Paladin
    Caturday Survivor
    Elemental Evil Survivor
    Undermontain Survivor
    Mod20 Combat rework Survivor
    Mod22 Refinement rework Survivor
  • marnivalmarnival Member Posts: 1,432 Arc User
    edited February 2017



    I don't agree. It's a bad precedent. Fixing the mistakes of the past should not be founded on retaining those mistakes.

    I'm talking about flexibility. If the mechanic works but wasn't what you had planned for (but people enjoy it), I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't see anything game-breaking here at all. In fact it makes things more interesting.
    I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.

    The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.

    But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.

    However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.
    • Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
    • Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
    • Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
    • Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
    • Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
    In the time we had for these M11 enchantment changes (which, remember, started out as "buff Flaming and Barkshield"!), I don't think we could have gotten to a good solution to the overall debuff stacking issue. So that will have to wait. In the meantime, I think it makes more sense to do nothing (with the debuff stacking issues) rather than make some temporary tweak that would then change again when we did the real thing.

    But at some point I would like to improve this system so it makes a bit more sense.

    Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous
    .
    On the contrary but you need to cap stats when you play with things stacking with power. As it is now with bonding+buffs players running around with 100+% crit and 150k+ power IS going to cause issues with things like lighting, bile and many other things you/we missed out on.

    Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.

    Capping things that can SCALE might be a good general idea with few exceptions. Also preventing to much of same debuffs/buffs effecting a target making room for general abuse would come under same restriction.

    Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?

    Read above.

    Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
    The logical pattern to take consideration would probably be;
    Things that scale
    Things that proc (there are still a number of broken loops running havoc in the game)
    Things that debuff targets to negative numbers(at least for pvp and so they don´t create ridicules numbers like 200mil hits in pve).
    Things that stack invulnerability like perma invis, 100% deflect, the reason pal bubble had to go and dc AA is broken.
    Things that buff stats to much like bonding, if not a hard cap at least a heavy soft cap.

    Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
    Also an option but far more work in that is my guess....

    On a side note putting a timer on certain powers/dailies like forest for Hr would also go a long way to create more balance to the game. The spamming of a particular popular dailies like dc AA, tr exe etc is totally broken due to the today´s rapid AP gain. If you want there is absolutely no problem what so ever to run around with 30-50k recovery making both encounters and dailies easy to abuse in a way never men´t when these where implemented..
  • masterclown61masterclown61 Member Posts: 102 Arc User
    I need to also say thanks for being interactive.

    About damage debuffs:

    - %200 effectiveness is enough for capped debuff powers.

    - Dont change the uncapped debuffs BUT dont also let them stack. 4 minute MSva runs are stupid and not fun.

    - I learnt about this capped uncapped debuffs after 3 years of playing. Not everyone needs to know about these. Please consider letting us know which powers are capped which powers are not.
  • demonmongerdemonmonger Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,350 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    @asterdahl
    @rgutscheradev

    For the frost weapon enchant mentioned I would do this.

    Pve - trans frost
    Allow chill stack's to accumulate at 7 stacks of chill freeze the enemy in a block of ice. On next hit shatter aoe damage to nearby foes, plus 20% chance to shatter the main target killing it.

    Pvp - trans frost
    Allow chill stack's to accumulate at 7 stacks of chill freeze the opponent in a block of ice. On next hit shatter aoe damage to nearby foes, plus 20% chance to slow all those hit by shatter effect for 7 seconds.

    That's more in line with old school d&d ways
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I hate paying taxes! Why must I pay thousands of dollars in taxes when everything I buy is taxed anyways!
  • dupeksdupeks Member Posts: 1,789 Arc User
    edited February 2017

    I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.

    The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.

    That's really refreshing to hear :) I think you've been doing a great job engaging with the community which drives enjoyment all around I hope!

    But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.

    Good point, a more rigorous approach to tooltips and how functionality is documented is definitely warranted and would help the game tremendously. That said, discovering stuff is kind of cool too. For instance, a good rule of thumb (not 100% perfect, but pretty good) for interpreting the current tooltips is: When the tooltip says reduces "Damage Resistance", it's almost always capped. When it mentions reducing/lowering "Defense" or "Deflect, it's usually uncapped. I'd guess for some historical reasons possibly with how the engine has evolved / how certain things were solved / who was working on it.

    However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.

    • Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous. Agree, that would likely be too much
    • Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think. That would be sad, you'd be cutting off a venue for build diversity / end-game trade-offs
    • Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much? I think that would largely run into the same issues as being uncapped. It would require more policing of runaway debuffs especially with the move to larger group content trials, and would afford you less flexibility in making powers / items desireable
    • Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much? Mechanically, I think that this solution or your ideas about separate debuff bins or diminishing returns are the most interesting. But they are more complex, and would require better use of consistent terminology and careful attention to what powers you want folks to use at various stages of their progression.

    In the time we had for these M11 enchantment changes (which, remember, started out as "buff Flaming and Barkshield"!), I don't think we could have gotten to a good solution to the overall debuff stacking issue. So that will have to wait. In the meantime, I think it makes more sense to do nothing (with the debuff stacking issues) rather than make some temporary tweak that would then change again when we did the real thing.

    But at some point I would like to improve this system so it makes a bit more sense.

    I'm glad to hear it. I think any change you end up making will definitely rock the landscape, and it's best to do that in a disciplined manner so that you don't have to correct things later and have wild swings. I'm hoping for an eventual result supporting greater build diversity and interaction with the game mechanics. <3

    Thanks again for the thoughtful dialog!
  • treesclimbertreesclimber Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,161 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    @rgutscheradev my big setback in getting a plague for example if that the debuff is exclusive to the 200% would is "what if the debuff has already been reached?", i disagree that stacking above 200% is good (it makes me very sad, not happy) , the meta of the game is already "kill fast to take less risks" so this elitism would grow even more and all the debuff possible in the game would be used, upon that experient groups will do 3, 4 runs, get 3, 4 times more rewards than a group that worries a more about party protection, i would reduce the DR reduction cap to around 180%-190% and put everything in as a base, having the 190% DR cap for everything will open doors to more protective builds and dungeons with better rewards, now we grind over and over the same dungeoun in a nonsentical cicle it would not just feel more rewarding but also more D&D like.

    But.....here is the trick:

    I would do, for WE since it's a expensive thing and you cant just go to your power tab and switch:

    x= 190 - (current debuff + WE new debuff)

    if x > 0 -> Effectivness of the on the target = 190 - x

    if x < 0 -> Effectivness on target = 190; Effectivness of caster on target = 190 - x;



    In addition to this there are certain situations where the damage component of the player is very dependent on the debuf on target, for example a GWF, simply a daring shout and WMS will trow effectivness to 150%, but as these are much more relevant than WE debuffs turn them uncaped for the caster, whether if they were initially on target or not but in a siphon function merging to 30% for example. @chemodan007 sugested this already.

    So for example HR preys a target (50%):

    x= 190 - (current debuff + 50)

    if x > 0 -> Effectivness of the on the target = 190 - x

    if x < 0 -> Effectivness of HR on target = 190 + (log1.16(-x))+1;

    Now DC bear your sins:

    x= 190 - (current debuff + 10)

    if x > 0 -> Effectivness of the on the target = 190 - x

    if x < 0 -> Effectivness on target = 190; Effectivness of DC on target = 190 + (log1.16(-x))+1;

    This would apply to everything, companions, feats, powers, artifacts....

    Edit: i said trick because the debuff spreads to uncaped debuffs if overflowing and yes i read to make it more understandable for some people that i meant preview i've rewritten.
    Post edited by treesclimber on

  • tyrtallowtyrtallow Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 747 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    hquadros said:

    OFF TOPIC "FIVE CENT": @rgutscheradev It's hard to please Greeks and Trojans you know, but in spite of the decisions that have to be made and of all variables one thing is certain: the way you led this topic should be the standard adopted by Cryptic. And at this point, my sincere congratulations!

    @asterdahl @terramak

    This. It's going to be hard to please everybody, especially people who don't even bother to read, but the way you have handled this has been exceptional. Kudos!

    You there. New to the game? Feeling overwhelmed? Maybe you think getting to end-game is impossible for a casual player like yourself, or maybe you just need to be around a community that helps each other stay sane and competitive with the latest news, current trends, random chitchat and most of all LEGIT (that is, we try to keep things fair) gameplay. If you don't mind being around quirky people and the rare occasional drama (one of our prominent TR members is apparently a mafia godfather) join nw_legit_community at http://www.nwlegitcommunity.shivtr.com/forum_threads/2330542.
  • l3g10nna1rel3g10nna1re Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 372 Arc User



    I don't agree. It's a bad precedent. Fixing the mistakes of the past should not be founded on retaining those mistakes.

    I'm talking about flexibility. If the mechanic works but wasn't what you had planned for (but people enjoy it), I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't see anything game-breaking here at all. In fact it makes things more interesting.
    I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.

    The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.

    But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.

    However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.
    • Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
    • Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
    • Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
    • Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
    • Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
    In the time we had for these M11 enchantment changes (which, remember, started out as "buff Flaming and Barkshield"!), I don't think we could have gotten to a good solution to the overall debuff stacking issue. So that will have to wait. In the meantime, I think it makes more sense to do nothing (with the debuff stacking issues) rather than make some temporary tweak that would then change again when we did the real thing.

    But at some point I would like to improve this system so it makes a bit more sense.
    On that topic - is barkshield going to achually allow 20k per layer to work or is it still going to allow 1k of damage to remove a layer ?
  • vteasyvteasy Member Posts: 708 Arc User
    popping by to say thanks for staying so engaged. You gave great explanations of why you do or didn't do somethings. Please keep this up in all aspects of the game. many of the players in this thread have been playing a very long time and can give you alot of insight on what is and is not working if you want. But like i said, really appreciate you all engaging!
  • ejziponkenejziponken Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 887 Arc User
    @rgutscheradev Was the chill stack mod suppose to be in this patch today? Because its not working.

    ▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ Gankdalf The Icehole █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁

  • warpetwarpet Member Posts: 1,969 Arc User



    I don't agree. It's a bad precedent. Fixing the mistakes of the past should not be founded on retaining those mistakes.

    I'm talking about flexibility. If the mechanic works but wasn't what you had planned for (but people enjoy it), I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't see anything game-breaking here at all. In fact it makes things more interesting.
    I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.

    The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.

    But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.

    However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.
    • Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
    • Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
    • Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
    • Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
    • Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
    In the time we had for these M11 enchantment changes (which, remember, started out as "buff Flaming and Barkshield"!), I don't think we could have gotten to a good solution to the overall debuff stacking issue. So that will have to wait. In the meantime, I think it makes more sense to do nothing (with the debuff stacking issues) rather than make some temporary tweak that would then change again when we did the real thing.

    But at some point I would like to improve this system so it makes a bit more sense.

    I would love to see diminishing returns returns back in game because if anything breaks game its a uncapped stats and 1 specific class not some 9% or less damage buff of enchants
  • kacsaneverkacsanever Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 167 Arc User
    edited February 2017

    OK, our deadline for making changes for this module has hit, and I've managed to squeeze in two more things.

    ...

    @rgutscheradev @asterdahl If it isn't fixed for mod11 then Flaming is useless, Plagufire is so-so.

    Bug: Flaming and Plaguefire enchants
    There is something wrong w/ Flaming enchant. It seems it does not take Resistance Ignore into account (most of the time) or something similar. Toon has RI: -54%; I did not use any DR debuff. Enemies were Berserkers in IWP.
    Note: Flaming has the same issue on live. Can't try Plagufire on live - i haven't.


    Flaming effectiveness:


    Lightning effectiveness:


    Holy effectiveness:


    There is a similar issue w/ Plaguefire. The non-AOE damage is recorded as Flaming Weapon and has 50%- effectiveness.

    Flaming, PTS latest patch, RI -54%


    Flaming, Live, RI -84%


    Plagufire, PTS latest patch, RI -54%

  • wintermurlocwintermurloc Member Posts: 106 Arc User

    OK, our deadline for making changes for this module has hit, and I've managed to squeeze in two more things.

    ...

    @rgutscheradev @asterdahl If it isn't fixed for mod11 then Flaming is useless, Plagufire is so-so.

    Bug: Flaming and Plaguefire enchants
    There is something wrong w/ Flaming enchant. It seems it does not take Resistance Ignore into account (most of the time) or something similar. Toon has RI: -54%; I did not use any DR debuff. Enemies were Berserkers in IWP.
    Note: Flaming has the same issue on live. Can't try Plagufire on live - i haven't.


    Flaming effectiveness:


    Lightning effectiveness:


    Holy effectiveness:


    There is a similar issue w/ Plaguefire. The non-AOE damage is recorded as Flaming Weapon and has 50%- effectiveness.

    Flaming, PTS latest patch, RI -54%


    Flaming, Live, RI -84%


    Plagufire, PTS latest patch, RI -54%

    This is not a bug , its actually working as intended. You have not accounted for the dual layers of mitigation both of these enchants are subjected to, the first being enemy DR which will always mitigate a part of your debuff irrespective of your resistance ignored and the second being 75% effective on level 73 mobs. I went through your logs and if you account for these changes those figures are quite accurate. Flaming is a perfect example of how closely it functions very similar to terror. Both of them are capped at 200% effectiveness and undergo the dual layers of mitigation and hence their poor state of performance while terror atleast applies its small debuff for allies , The 3% debuff from flaming is effective only on the person using it. Plague works a bit more different with a little added complexity. The 9% debuff from plague is not capped at 200% effectiveness but it does undergo the dual layers of mitigation and now at trans it also has another 2% added debuff which is capped at 200% effectiveness but doesnt undergo the dual layers of mitigation. If you account for all this and apply them to the base damage, The results you posted are quite accuracte and not a bug.
  • kacsaneverkacsanever Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 167 Arc User
    edited February 2017


    This is not a bug , its actually working as intended. You have not accounted for the dual layers of mitigation both of these enchants are subjected to, the first being enemy DR which will always mitigate a part of your debuff irrespective of your resistance ignored and the second being 75% effective on level 73 mobs. I went through your logs and if you account for these changes those figures are quite accurate. Flaming is a perfect example of how closely it functions very similar to terror. Both of them are capped at 200% effectiveness and undergo the dual layers of mitigation and hence their poor state of performance while terror atleast applies its small debuff for allies , The 3% debuff from flaming is effective only on the person using it. Plague works a bit more different with a little added complexity. The 9% debuff from plague is not capped at 200% effectiveness but it does undergo the dual layers of mitigation and now at trans it also has another 2% added debuff which is capped at 200% effectiveness but doesnt undergo the dual layers of mitigation. If you account for all this and apply them to the base damage, The results you posted are quite accuracte and not a bug.

    First: i used zero debuff.
    Second: check the triggering damage effectiveness on the last 3 logs.I expect the WE damage to be the same (close to 100% w/ 54% resistance ignore).
    Third: Check the effectiveness of Holy and Lightning, no such issue.
    Try them out please and let me know if I was wrong, i will accept. Again: NO debuff was used -> IBS/HD/Battle Fury (dps/self buffs only).
  • silverkeltsilverkelt Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,235 Arc User
    Please understand something, its not that I am a proponent for items to break 200%.. its that they shot this across the bow, a day before they apparently had time..

    They needed to redo frost and plague at least 3-4 weeks ago and AT LEAST think of alternatives to just cap and forget.. how about if cap is met with them, then code them that they offer something back to the user instead?

    Things could be done, but to HALF the value of these enchants at the last moment, without properly thinking of alternatives, was just too late in the game at this time.

    That was the issue to me, I cant just simply dump the enchants and make new ones, I got them because they were the best utility ones to use.

    I am hoping that in the future if they can redo these , they give a bit more time that they can be properly vetted.



  • wintermurlocwintermurloc Member Posts: 106 Arc User
    I just hoped onto preview to check it out and while i was replicating your results with flaming and plague , i didnt see anything different from what was happening before. While i can understand that you would like to have the damage component from these weapons to behave like the dps enchants(lightning in this particular example) where in they didnt undergo mitigation and rely on your resistance ignored to dish out the full damage.. the reality was these enchants had fixed ranges of dots being applied irrespective of your RI and was being mitigated by enemy dr and thats exactly whats happening. While the damage range is now scaling according to your power and the devs buffed the aoe hit by another 60-80%, they never did allow or trigger the damage to respect your RI. This is essentially why ppl have been giving feedback that the damage is still not good enough with this limitation. Now you might feel that is a bug since this approach leads to the enchant being less effective but its always worked like this. I do however support your claim that the enchant's damage component definitely needs to respect your RI and further not be mitigated by enemy DR but while doing all this i switched back to terror to test that out again and i noticed something important .. It seemed to be 75% effective against mobs but it doesnt seem to get mitigated by their DR now. I constantly had a 3% effectiveness from it all the time and thats really nice. I had earlier posted asking for this relief in this thread but that was when it was working on 4% debuff but things had changed recently according to adsterdahl where in terror should be doing a debuff of 6% with or without all that extra mitigation happening. I was waiting to test it when the preview build gets updated to see if terror would undergo all that
  • hypervoreianhypervoreian Member Posts: 1,036 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    I am dissapointed about the whole frost enchant story.

    The enchant in its current form is useless. I am taling about pure/trans level. +7%/-7% and an icd.
    The proposed change would bring this enchant in line with the other enchants.

    It was a well deserved buff.

    "transcendent Frost Enchantment
    You deal an additional 28% weapon damage as Cold damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 30% slow, 28% recharge speed reduction, 30% damage resistance reduction, 30% damage dealt reduction and disable your target for 4 seconds. (No disable in PvP.) This effect may occur no more than once every 20 seconds."

    But this was taken back ,by posting ill thought arguments and prioritizing 1% players of the server over the rest 99%.

    More or less thier argument was .."With the change ,and the 200% cap,the enchant would not contribute".

    While now with 7% it makes it 207% and it is the difference between failure and success.Give me a break.Not to mention the ICD.

    For me the solo benefits ,outweight the 7% buff that well organized parties would lose.
    +23% damage -23% damage taken and people talked against this? Cause you lose 7% effectiveness in tiamat?Where poor tia dies in first phase.

    This i is not possible.It is not possible to read such things.it is my eyes.Can't be.

    Not to mention that extremely few run pure frost/t frost anyway,even now.

    The things posted are not true and in other aspects.

    200% effectiveness can be achieved by a 20-50% of the server population in raids with more than 5 people parties (tia edemo etc).But that is irrelevant.
    Cause it does not matter anymore,power creep will kill tia or poor demo in first phase or in 6-7 secs even with 150% effectiveness.Take 25 3,5k GWFs ad leave them to se what happens there.

    You guys make it to seem like tia or demo require some kind of skill or cordination.

    To make it short : group content where 200% effectiveness is achieved ,is already trivial with or with out 200% cap.Edemo ,tia are a joke already.

    Msva died out cause of mod11.

    In a 5 man parties 200% effectiveness can be achieved by 1% of the population.Even then from that 1% i doubt 5% run frost anyway.

    ---------------------------------------

    Please buff frost ! thanks! :)
  • treesclimbertreesclimber Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,161 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    The sugestion i gave before didn't make much sence, throwing debuff to uncaped like that would at first make them more powerfull than capped.



    However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.

    • Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
    • Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
    • Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
    • Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
    • Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
    1. No definitively not all uncaped, the game needs more challenges but making a "who can debuff the most" doesn't seem good.
    2. Probably, what disapoints me them most is "why am i using this power to debuff taking the chances to being debuffing nothing?" so i think it should go that way.
    3. Probably, if completly making uncaped debuffs disapear something between 250 and 300.
    4. If uncaped or not things that should be taken more in consideration: companions, WE, artifacts because are choices a player invests a lot.

    So now giving a sugestion that fits better:



    Flamming would make part of powers/feats but with numbers tweaked so it's good and people feel good carrying it.

    Edit: log1000 is a bit wackadoodle, something like 400 is more what i was expecting to get out of the graph.


    Post edited by treesclimber on

  • kacsaneverkacsanever Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 167 Arc User
    edited February 2017

    I just hoped onto preview to check it out and while i was replicating your results with flaming and plague , i didnt see anything different from what was happening before. While i can understand that you would like to have the damage component from these weapons to behave like the dps enchants(lightning in this particular example) where in they didnt undergo mitigation and rely on your resistance ignored to dish out the full damage.. the reality was these enchants had fixed ranges of dots being applied irrespective of your RI and was being mitigated by enemy dr and thats exactly whats happening. While the damage range is now scaling according to your power and the devs buffed the aoe hit by another 60-80%, they never did allow or trigger the damage to respect your RI. This is essentially why ppl have been giving feedback that the damage is still not good enough with this limitation. Now you might feel that is a bug since this approach leads to the enchant being less effective but its always worked like this. I do however support your claim that the enchant's damage component definitely needs to respect your RI and further not be mitigated by enemy DR but while doing all this i switched back to terror to test that out again and i noticed something important .. It seemed to be 75% effective against mobs but it doesnt seem to get mitigated by their DR now. I constantly had a 3% effectiveness from it all the time and thats really nice. I had earlier posted asking for this relief in this thread but that was when it was working on 4% debuff but things had changed recently according to adsterdahl where in terror should be doing a debuff of 6% with or without all that extra mitigation happening. I was waiting to test it when the preview build gets updated to see if terror would undergo all that



    Well, what I reported was that while Lightning/Holy (and others) do respect RI (enemy DR is also correctly respected by those - checked w/ my little HR) Flaming and Plagufire does not - and yes, Flaming works like this on Live server, too. This should be a bug: either Flaming/Plagufire are buged not taking RI into account - i think so - or the rest are buged b/c those do. I can't see the reason RI is not taking into account.
    I wanna know the devs' opinion/answer and I still say: Flaming in its state is useless <- the raw damage buff is very nice against dummies but in "real" PvE it is a see and forget.
  • tattica7tattica7 Member Posts: 9 Arc User


    While now with 7% it makes it 207% and it is the difference between failure and success.Give me a break.Not to mention the ICD.

    It is not 207%, it is 214%. You have much to learn.
Sign In or Register to comment.