[PC] AC DC Issues

mamalion1234
mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,379 Arc User
edited September 2017 in The Temple



...4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it.....

A DC needs to share 68000 power reliably to buff more than DO.
To share that much power an AC needs 48023 base power.

Now, let us look at the high end, a DpS with 80k base power:

A DC needs to share 81600 power reliably to buff more than DO.
To share that much power an AC needs 57628 base power.



The player @thefabricant stated in another post the above statements. I will not even mention that the above statement had nothing to do with the thread and it was an attempt to derail the conversation ( a mistake I will not do) but he also by his mistake revealed the problem that everyone is saying. On top of that his numbers are wrong and/or misleading and skewed based on the following evidence.

One of the topics of that thread was about if the companion was sharing excessive power from the DC to the players companion and then got multiplied by the companion and shared to the other players and @thefabricant went on a talk about how the dc is under performing... whatever
The results he presented to back his arguments was not correct.

He said.:


...4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it.....

Why exactly are we ignoring a feat that is part of the problem just to fix our numbers? The fact that it can be performed by both AC and DO as he mentioned makes the problem even worse as it makes the 2 DC more desirable and the powershare to the companion loop even higher.


Now, let us look at the high end, a DpS with 80k base power:

A DC needs to share 81600 power reliably to buff more than DO.
To share that much power an AC needs 57628 base power.

So according to @thefabricant precise calculations a dc in module 12b will need 57,6k power to share 81k power to a dps withn 80k power.

This is far from truth and misleading or a very huge error on the calculations.
My dc with 38k power and not 58k as sharps example



The dps with 50k base power and with companion at 70k power





and this is the result (note here its with rank 12 bonding (155%) and not with r14 (195%). With r14 I would share 25% more power.




So my low IL cleric with only 38k power could give 74k power while a Maxed out DC at 58k power on a maxed out dps would give only 81k.
I think according to this conclusion there is no need to have r14 and be maxed out, since a 34k power dc can give almost 90% of the power a full maxed out dc with 54k power will. (sarcasm)

Most important tho and to see the problem that was described by others on that thread and Sharp and others attacked with personal remarks is this


So if we do the calculation 57628 * 58% = 33424 power. But I see 81.600 without weapons of light. So can you please explain to us where the extra power comes form? (rhetorical question) Unless 57.6k * 58% = 81.6k and we rediscovered math. A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own.


As you see just from ONE source even with wrong calculations the shared power from dc to player directly is 33.4k and from the companion multiplying the sharing 48.1k If we add weapons of light too the result would be higher and if we do the right calculations we would see as in my DC case the companions was giving alone 51037 power i'm sure with a 54 base power dc it would give way more

Also a strange conclusion, according to the @thefabricant a 38k DC can share more than a 58k dc so good news for DCs. Stay with rank 12. (sarcasm again)

Note here I'm not a tester nor I claim I know the game. I was on the preview server and noticed as well as other DCs that we share a lot of power still even with r12. So when I saw the post claiming that AC need even more buff, I couldn't resist When I see wrong facts to be presented by people who we "trust" the tests, claiming inaccurate statements just to promote their cause or to smear people its really sad.

This is not a personal attack I just posted the numbers I and others saw, against the numbers that are presented by others

Conclusion are yours about the accuracy of both mine and other people tests.
I always welcome any corrections.

Thank you


Mod edit: Removed all caps from subject line. Moved to The Temple, added [PC] prefix.


I will add information from real dungeons situation.

Here is my control wizard support companion stat. companion power 3656 as you see.
Also you see i have 2 legendary bonuses.





Here is my cw again with 27k power + the two legendary + the 5% i get from charisma.

https://image.prntscr.com/image/4nmcKdiiSNOPeID-2uzvKA.png

Here is my cw with bond proc( are r12 bondings and companion used ambush drake) +above.



Here the devoted cleric base power :



Here is the paladin's base power :




and here what happened after all combined together ( remember the base of a paladin 17k and i know the paragon mechanic increase more the
base to share more power dont worry):




From where came 177298 power ? 218413-41115.
or if you prefer was :



218.824 % damage increase from a single thing called "power share"

from dc alone based to what can give with 47364 power and get in account that buff companion power i can get:

58% of 47364= 27441
my companion has 3656 + 27441=31097 x285%=88626+27441 the character gets = 116067
or if you prefer to my cw case:



143.252 % increased damage.

Power share is true decreases as increased damage if we put the numbers on a player with 80k current power but what about the other members in the party they aren't all with 80k power ?:) ( in real dungeons situations as you like)

Thank you.







Post edited by mamalion1234 on
«13

Comments

  • greyjay1
    greyjay1 Member Posts: 163 Arc User
    I don't have something else to do right now, so i will explain you the maths.

    Let's begin with WHAT we compare and HOW.

    WHAT:
    We compare the buffs of an AC-dc and an DO-dc.
    We ignore WL for this comparisons, because both, AC and DO have acces to this buff.
    (it ofc has to be regarded if you look at the total buff-contirbution of each, the DO and the AC, but we compare only these 2 paragons atm)

    What is left are the buffs a DO typically uses: HG, TI
    and the buffs an AC typically uses: AA, BoB

    HOW:
    We have percentage based buffs that always work as a multiplier on the DO-side and Power-based buffs on the AC-side.
    To make both buffs comparable we convert Power into a multiplier.

    CALCULATION:
    DO: HG and TI DO_buff= 1.4*1.2 = 1.68

    If we assume a dps has 80k power and we add x power, then we look at a multiplier of: AC_buff= ( 1 + 80k/40k + x/40k)/[1 + 80k/40k]

    now we
    calculate the point where DO_buff = AC_buff
    1.68 = ( 1 + 80k/40k + x/40k)/[1 + 80k/40k]

    solve => x = 81600 Power

    To determine the amount of base-power needed for that amount we have to look at the bonding-percentage: 65%
    3 stones = 195%
    3 stones + player = 295%
    (3 stones + player + 15% legendary bonus = 310%)

    that means the cleric actually has to buff 81600/2,95 = 27,661 Power.
    The regarded buffs are BoB and AA which grant 33% + 15% base power = 48% base Power.

    CONCLUSION:
    => the cleric has to have 27,661/0,48 = 57627 base Power.
    (with 15% bonus 54838)

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

    Sharp's math is correct, i hope you do understand it now.
  • oria1
    oria1 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 263 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    The point the OP made was not to compare the buffs of each DC or who is better, but to compare the values of how much power is actually granted vs stated.

    If the AC can grant a lot more power than stated though that also will affect the comparison.

    So the result can be considered wrong because the power share of the AC is wrong since it appears it gives more than whats stated. That's what I understood.

    The wep of light therefore if you want to compare the ac buff to DO of course you will take them out but if we want to know how much power the ac will give we should let them in.







  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User
    edited September 2017


    I haven't patched preview yet, when it is patched I will do something similar on preview, but for now, I will illustrate this on live. If anything is behaving differently on preview, I haven't tested it yet as I don't have preview up to date, but here is a demonstration of how it is working on live.

    In this example, the DPS has 0 power of his own and his pet has 0 power. He also has 0 companion leg bonuses, so all the power being shared, is due to AA, WoL and BoB. There are no, "other factors" involved.

    At 35ish seconds in I move withing range of Weapons of Light and share 10% of my power with his companion. In this example I have 41099 power. 41099*0.1*2.85=11713. Please check the screencap at 39 seconds in and note, 11713.

    At 44 seconds in I cast BoB. 41099*0.25*2.85=29283. 50 seconds in it is amazing, the dps has 29283 power! What is this miracle, the numbers match up!

    At 58 seconds in I cast AA+BoB. 41099*0.58*2.85=67936. 1 min 2 seconds in, guess what value you can see.

    Now, why did I exclude WoL when comparing DO to AC? Because both paragons have it, both paragons can take advantage of it. Having WoL doesn't matter when both paragons will buff by that much and we are comparing them. If we are being really technical, which it seems you want to be, I should count WoL....I should count it into how much power the dps has BEFORE the dc uses BoB and AA. So, lets now do this and see the result shall we?

    DPS with 60k power.
    DPS with 80k power.

    So, an AC DC would need to share 79223 power WITHOUT WoL assuming you factored in WoL to buff as much as AC if the DPS has 60k power and they would need to share 95067 power if the DPS has 80k power.

    Hmm, this seems a lot worse than if we just ignored WoL doesn't it?

    Of coarse, if you really don't believe that all this power is worse than taking a DO, well, guess what fixed damage weapons are for, it is quite easy to check that. Also, you can claim all you like that you are, "not asking for a nerf to dc" but considering you are asking for a nerf to power share and there are only 2 classes that share power, dc and OP, it is blatantly obvious you are asking for a nerf to either 1 or the other.
    Post edited by thefabricant on
  • oria1
    oria1 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 263 Arc User


    ...
    Hmmm, maybe Sharp can do power share maths after all?


    But maybe he cant read...

    I cant really understand something. The OP stated that he is not talking about a comparison of an AC vs a DO or who has the better buffs or who needs more. You can exclude anything you like on an comparison that no one asked but what was the point here was HOW much power the companion transfers and how much the AC can give to a DPS as a total.

    The problem was never if the % were right. its always 58% we know that and thank you. The problem stated here is that a 34k DC could give more power unlike what you stated. It was backed up with screenshot on every step. So either he photoshoped the screens or... Your entire post was to show hat the AC powersharing does. totally nothing to do with the point of the post.

    At the end of the day sharp percentages can be misleading if presented wrong and depends on how you read them and what do you want to present. If i do a 300% debuff on a skill that does 0 damage should I say the debuff is zero and buff the MoF pls? Are my math wrong here? No

    In which real dungeon situation would a 80k base power dps not have legendary companion or companions? will you do a dungeon and 2 WoL wont stack? Real combat situations vs test dummies and naked people. There is a difference.

    Again, the OP said he saw a difference between what you said about a 58k dc and 80k dps and his that was at 34k. dc and a 52k dps The way you worded the original post made a dc look like he needed a buff while on real situations we notice that it doesn't. I can even tell you on full r14 it can do better than a DO even though not by much.

    Well I do zero debuff when said player you tested does damage and I need buff too...

    You did the same on the other thread about mod 12 change to bonding, I mentioned an alternative route that we should look at the power share of the companion instead of the % loss on bonding and you start calling me out on attempting to completely delete the AC paragon from existence and then went on and blah blah about what the AC would need to stay competitive. Out of point then and out of point now.


    So to the main point


    So if we do the calculation 57628 * 58% = 33424 power. But I see 81.600 without weapons of light. So can you please explain to us where the extra power comes form? (rhetorical question) Unless 57.6k * 58% = 81.6k and we rediscovered math. A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own.

    Isn't there evident that the DC is giving more than his won power to the DPS? Doesn't he give more by buffing the companion than the player directly? Cause those 2 are the points and not how much your skills do. Now try the same video please with a companion with full r14 and 3 legendary companions and lets see how much power do you give to a naked DPS.

    If a MoF had a feat or skill that would made every companion in the party do 100% undiminished debuff wouldn't that be a bug also?
    Is there a real difference?




  • micky1p00
    micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,540 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    Just to verify my understanding,

    Highway-to-hell* DC transfer [dc_base_power * 0.58 * 2.85] via buffed pet + [dc_base_power * 0.58] directly ?

    So in essence, dc_base_power*2.233 ?

    And DO direct damage buff will be 2.184 (1.4 HG, 1.2 Insight, 1.3 bts) + 10% weapons of light transfer that will translate into, [dc_base_power*0.1 + dc_base_power*0.1*2.85 = dc_base_power * 0.385]

    Am I wrong ?

    (* While Thunderstruck would fit better, highway to hell is the better song)
  • mamalion1234
    mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,379 Arc User
    edited September 2017



    I haven't patched preview yet, when it is patched I will do something similar on preview, but for now, I will illustrate this on live. If anything is behaving differently on preview, I haven't tested it yet as I don't have preview up to date, but here is a demonstration of how it is working on live.

    In this example, the DPS has 0 power of his own and his pet has 0 power. He also has 0 companion leg bonuses, so all the power being shared, is due to AA, WoL and BoB. There are no, "other factors" involved.

    At 35ish seconds in I move withing range of Weapons of Light and share 10% of my power with his companion. In this example I have 41099 power. 41099*0.1*2.85=11713. Please check the screencap at 39 seconds in and note, 11713.

    At 44 seconds in I cast BoB. 41099*0.25*2.85=29283. 50 seconds in it is amazing, the dps has 29283 power! What is this miracle, the numbers match up!

    At 58 seconds in I cast AA+BoB. 41099*0.58*2.85=67936. 1 min 2 seconds in, guess what value you can see.

    Now, why did I exclude WoL when comparing DO to AC? Because both paragons have it, both paragons can take advantage of it. Having WoL doesn't matter when both paragons will buff by that much and we are comparing them. If we are being really technical, which it seems you want to be, I should count WoL....I should count it into how much power the dps has BEFORE the dc uses BoB and AA. So, lets now do this and see the result shall we?

    DPS with 60k power.
    DPS with 80k power.

    So, an AC DC would need to share 79223 power WITHOUT WoL assuming you factored in WoL to buff as much as AC if the DPS has 60k power and they would need to share 95067 power if the DPS has 80k power.

    Hmm, this seems a lot worse than if we just ignored WoL doesn't it?

    Of coarse, if you really don't believe that all this power is worse than taking a DO, well, guess what fixed damage weapons are for, it is quite easy to check that. Also, you can claim all you like that you are, "not asking for a nerf to dc" but considering you are asking for a nerf to power share and there are only 2 classes that share power, dc and OP, it is blatantly obvious you are asking for a nerf to either 1 or the other.

    I never said you can't do math( even if you edited it out) but you made a whole post and a video explaining to us that 33% +10% +15% = 58% really thank you for that.

    You never answered my original point which was that your presentation in other thread was incorrect and that ac dc can give more than you mentioned ,for more info look to my original post.

    ANd again you keep comparing Ac dc with Do dc which i never mentioned. Thank you for not answering to what i pointed out sometimes not answering means also a lot.
  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    How much do you think DC power share should be buffing then? Instead of words lets see numbers. Also I ignored your screenshot since it proves nothing. I can take 2 screenshots and say 1 is with a DC and 1 is without and have whatever differences I like in them. The faith I have in those screenshots is quite frankly 0 and they have no academic value here whatsoever. I showed a video that illustrates that the numbers I am using to calculate power share are correct.
  • micky1p00
    micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,540 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    I miss the point of all of this.

    Lets assume both right ( I didn't actually read the detail there), one talks about all the power share, which is not relevant to the bondings thread where it all began. And it's not power of the target, but lets just get on with it:

    So for that, 34k * 2.333 = 75.9k (look at my previous post, [dc_base_power * 0.58 * 2.85] via buffed pet + [dc_base_power * 0.58] )

    While the other discuss how much AC needs to have to transfer a certain amount.

    And the thread is about a third thing which is the pet transfer:
    34k * 1.653 = 56k
    Or
    50k * 1.653 = 82k

    Grats. You are all right... can we all go home now... Oh wait...I am at home..

    So what the issue ? Is it a lot or not a lot ?

    Lets assume DPS at 80k power. Incidentally this works like debuffs, the more power share sources we have the less relativly each will add as a component.

    Let denote B as DC base power, we get:

    B*0.58*2.85 = PT (Pet Transfer)
    B*0.58 = DT (Direct Transfer)

    We know that DPS increase is:

    (added_power / (40k + DPSpower) + 1) * 100

    Lets test for pet share while direct is active (this was the main point of bondings) and both for various DC base power. 40k, 50k

    We put it in:

    PT1 = 40k * 1.653 = 66k
    DT1 = 40k*0.58 = 23k

    PT2 = 50k * 1.653 = 82k
    DT2 = 50k*0.58 = 29k


    Direct only:

    (DT / (120k)+ 1) * 100 = %

    Case 1: (23k / (120k) + 1) * 100 = (23/120 + 1) * 100 = 119% or 19% increase.
    Case 2: (29k/120k + 1) * 100 = 124% or 24% increase.


    Pet only while direct active:

    (PT / (120k + DT)+ 1) * 100 = %

    Case 1: (66k / (120k + 23k) + 1) * 100 = (66/143 + 1) * 100 = 146% or 46% increase.
    Case 2: (82/149 + 1) * 100 = 155% or 55% increase.

    Both over DPS 80k:

    ((PT + DT) / 120k+ 1) * 100 = %

    Case 1: (89k / (120k) + 1) * 100 = 174% or 74% increase.
    Case 2: (111/120 + 1) * 100 = 192% or 92% increase.


    Lets add one more case with OP in party that shares 50k power.

    Direct only:

    (DT / (120k)+ 1) * 100 = %

    Case 1: (23/ 170) + 1) = 13% Increase
    Case 2: (29/170 + 1) = 17% Increase


    Pet only while direct active:

    (PT / (120k + DT)+ 1) * 100 = %

    Case 1: (66 / (120 + 23 + 50) + 1) = 34% Inc.
    Case 2: (82/199 + 1) = 41% inc

    Both over DPS 80k + 50k:

    ((PT + DT) / 120k+ 1) * 100 = %

    Case 1: (89k / (170k) + 1) = 52% Inc
    Case 2: (111/170 + 1) * 100 = 165% or 65% increase.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere here, especially since no one replayed to the above post to say if I understand it correctly or not.

    What we can conclude from this?

    1. First of all that indeed if we remove the pet transfer we will make AC DC not a happy class. Investing millions in AD to gain base power just to become more useless than a naked DO is sad, very very sad.

    2. The whole measurement must take into account what else the party has. Power is not a direct dps buff.

    3. Power sharing makes a very interesting mechanic and consideration as opposite to direct buff, meaning, a strong DC will immensely buff a weak DPS (in terms of stats) but much less so a strong DPS. I didn't do it but anyone can repeat the same with dps with 30k power for example. This creates a diminishing scaling.

    4. Power sharing can be (if finally that light-bulb will light up in dev land) bound to diminishing returns regardless of the reduction from it's being relative (#3).

    5. Compared to DO ? DO can buff by 2.184 AC can buff by 1.44 (without power share) so how much ACs millions of AD should be worth in terms of buff 1.44 * d = 2.184; d = 1.51; *DO also provide the 10% power share and it's not subtracted here.
    We can see that AC is better, but expensive, in terms of cost / value looks ok.

    6. Is it a lot ?! We should consider that the class only job is buffing. The costs to make AC 'better' than DO makes both paragons viable. And in terms of comparison to other classes we are not seeing 5 CW CN case again, both paragons are good but can't replace everyone and everything. If anything should be considered is only as a global balance or a give-and-take but not just removal of pet-transfer.

    7. Is the pet transfer WAI ? If the devs didn't change it for two years now, then yes, even the question is irrelevant and moot. Lets not mix WAI / not-WAI with balancing and changes in the game.

    (Assuming I didn't made a mistake)
    Post edited by micky1p00 on
  • micky1p00
    micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,540 Arc User
    edited September 2017



    ...4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it.....

    A DC needs to share 68000 power reliably to buff more than DO.
    To share that much power an AC needs 48023 base power.

    Now, let us look at the high end, a DpS with 80k base power:

    A DC needs to share 81600 power reliably to buff more than DO.
    To share that much power an AC needs 57628 base power.



    The player @thefabricant stated in another post the above statements. I will not even mention that the above statement had nothing to do with the thread and it was an attempt to derail the conversation ( a mistake I will not do) but he also by his mistake revealed the problem that everyone is saying. On top of that his numbers are wrong and/or misleading and skewed based on the following evidence.

    One of the topics of that thread was about if the companion was sharing excessive power from the DC to the players companion and then got multiplied by the companion and shared to the other players and @thefabricant went on a talk about how the dc is under performing... whatever
    The results he presented to back his arguments was not correct.

    He said.:


    ...4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it.....

    Why exactly are we ignoring a feat that is part of the problem just to fix our numbers? The fact that it can be performed by both AC and DO as he mentioned makes the problem even worse as it makes the 2 DC more desirable and the powershare to the companion loop even higher.


    Now, let us look at the high end, a DpS with 80k base power:

    A DC needs to share 81600 power reliably to buff more than DO.
    To share that much power an AC needs 57628 base power.

    So according to @thefabricant precise calculations a dc in module 12b will need 57,6k power to share 81k power to a dps withn 80k power.

    This is far from truth and misleading or a very huge error on the calculations.
    My dc with 38k power and not 58k as sharps example



    The dps with 50k base power and with companion at 70k power





    and this is the result (note here its with rank 12 bonding (155%) and not with r14 (195%). With r14 I would share 25% more power.




    So my low IL cleric with only 38k power could give 74k power while a Maxed out DC at 58k power on a maxed out dps would give only 81k.
    I think according to this conclusion there is no need to have r14 and be maxed out, since a 34k power dc can give almost 90% of the power a full maxed out dc with 54k power will. (sarcasm)

    Most important tho and to see the problem that was described by others on that thread and Sharp and others attacked with personal remarks is this


    So if we do the calculation 57628 * 58% = 33424 power. But I see 81.600 without weapons of light. So can you please explain to us where the extra power comes form? (rhetorical question) Unless 57.6k * 58% = 81.6k and we rediscovered math. A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own.


    As you see just from ONE source even with wrong calculations the shared power from dc to player directly is 33.4k and from the companion multiplying the sharing 48.1k If we add weapons of light too the result would be higher and if we do the right calculations we would see as in my DC case the companions was giving alone 51037 power i'm sure with a 54 base power dc it would give way more

    Also a strange conclusion, according to the @thefabricant a 38k DC can share more than a 58k dc so good news for DCs. Stay with rank 12. (sarcasm again)

    Note here I'm not a tester nor I claim I know the game. I was on the preview server and noticed as well as other DCs that we share a lot of power still even with r12. So when I saw the post claiming that AC need even more buff, I couldn't resist When I see wrong facts to be presented by people who we "trust" the tests, claiming inaccurate statements just to promote their cause or to smear people its really sad.

    This is not a personal attack I just posted the numbers I and others saw, against the numbers that are presented by others

    Conclusion are yours about the accuracy of both mine and other people tests.
    I always welcome any corrections.

    Thank you


    Mod edit: Removed all caps from subject line. Moved to The Temple, added [PC] prefix.
    You start with the claim that the calculation of AC needs 57628 base power to buff more than DO is not correct. And then not a single thing to actually disprove or prove it..............


    I don't see how your power numbers or screenshots disprove this. I'm not saying it's right, or wrong, just that you don't prove nor disprove either way.

    Lets say that AC shares metric crapton of power over 999999999999999999999, it's still doesn't show if it's better than DO or worse...
    Why it's relevant?! it's the thing you claim is incorrect..
  • rapo973
    rapo973 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 831 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    What Sharp is saying is correct, but there are some other scenarios to take into account that make the calculation harder and not constant.
    Some cases (probably I'm going to repeat what @micky1p00 has already said to some extent).
    - In the video Sharp is buffing the companion only: the GWF is out AA/BoB range. More often both the player and the companion are buffed: while it's clear that the biggest piece of power comes back from the companion via bondings, it's also true that 41k * 0.48 = 19.6k should be added (without considering WoL) if the player is buffed too.
    So overall an AC DC @41k can share up to 67.9+19.6 = 87.5k. This is an interesting value.

    - WoL. The hypothesis is that both DO and DC have it. But while an AC DC may want to max his power at the cost of some crit chance (for example), I'm not sure that a DO wants to do the same. DO has only WoL as power share feat: I don't think it's a good idea to max the power only for it. The difference can be arbitrarily high or low but in my experience the DO has less power to share to make other stats more relevant. When I switch DO I give up some power to increase the crit chance for example.

    - The AC DC is fast enough to cast both AA AND HG. I can do it frequently with an overlap of some seconds (usually from 4 to 7 seconds). Following the same concept that the both AC and DO have the some power, HG should not be considered in the comparison. In this very particular and not so frequent case where I suspect that the AC is better. Clearly it's a very short timeframe when this happens.

    Finally if we take into account all variables, I keep on saying that it's not everything black or white. Not all players are BiS, not all players have 60k - 80k power...
    All the above should be deeply reviewed due to the incoming bonding nerf.
    Post edited by rapo973 on

    Oltreverso guild leader
    Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
  • elmeister#2511
    elmeister#2511 Member Posts: 24 Arc User
    The difference between mamalion's and thefabricant's numbers is in the companion level bonuses. My calculations are consistent with mamalion's results if we are factoring in that:
    A) There are legendary comp bonuses increasing the power transfer
    B) The companion stat bonuses received from Expert Strike, Master Striker and Legendary bonus in fact affect also buffed power

    My calculations have some fudge, and I had to make a lot of guesses since mamalion kindly provided no info on companion setup, but assuming:

    5 legendary comps, no multiplication of power: 61,775
    5 legendary comps, companion power multiplied by 1,2: 69,734
    5 legendary comps, companion power multiplied by 1,25: 71,723

    The actual number of power buff is 70,962, assuming no other factors in play, it would require some factor to increase the comp's buffed power by 23 %, which is not an at all unlikely interaction.

    Being a PS4 player I can't test any of this but there it is.
  • putzboy78
    putzboy78 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,944 Arc User
    micky1p00 said:


    7. Is the pet transfer WAI ? If the devs didn't change it for two years now, then yes, even the question is irrelevant and moot. Lets not mix WAI / not-WAI with balancing and changes in the game.

    Not sure I'd say devs didnt' change it. We've had multiple changes to how bonding procs and how it gets used up, all were relatively minor. Then we had the AA/BOB nerf in mod 10. I think its safe to assume it came about more as a result of bonding transfer than because of the direct transfer. This isn't the first time this interaction has been modified even if indirectly. The appropriate fix is a DR on stats, which they are avoiding the leg work on instead every 2 mods we are getting tweaks to the skills and interactions.

  • micky1p00
    micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,540 Arc User
    putzboy78 said:

    micky1p00 said:


    7. Is the pet transfer WAI ? If the devs didn't change it for two years now, then yes, even the question is irrelevant and moot. Lets not mix WAI / not-WAI with balancing and changes in the game.

    Not sure I'd say devs didnt' change it. We've had multiple changes to how bonding procs and how it gets used up, all were relatively minor. Then we had the AA/BOB nerf in mod 10. I think its safe to assume it came about more as a result of bonding transfer than because of the direct transfer. This isn't the first time this interaction has been modified even if indirectly. The appropriate fix is a DR on stats, which they are avoiding the leg work on instead every 2 mods we are getting tweaks to the skills and interactions.

    And yet that the pets transfer all stats is known for same two years. The only major change to bondings was the change from variable stacks (when pets could die and over stack) and instead of hard limiting the stacks to 3, they choose to unify the stacks into 1 and make it 100% uptime. Which everyone asked themselves "Why are you buffing it?".

    Lets be realistic, something that left for so long it's a design issue, and a matter of semantics, they may not foresee the concequences, but they can't tell the players after two years, this is not WAI, it is as someone intended back then. It's just a shame that their intentions didn't listen to the player base, or foreseeing a bit further.

    About DR, I'll just quote myself:
    micky1p00 said:


    4. Power sharing can be (if finally that light-bulb will light up in dev land) bound to diminishing returns regardless of the reduction from it's being relative (#3).
    (Assuming I didn't made a mistake)

    I have no clue why this simple, elegant, and widely adapted solution is so hard to accept...
  • oria1
    oria1 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 263 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    If you are talking about me I don't think or have an opinion as to what a dc should or should not buff. Want the truth? The more a dc buffs the more my debuffs help a team finish fast. Great synergy that's all I say. BUT the post was made in another spirit and that is what you keep missing or avoid.

    When I got asked to help the Op to make a post he told me the idea and i said I will help him to show what he wanted. What he wanted to show was from your ORIGINAL post that was without videos or screens too, saying that a DC will buff for X amount and indirectly asked for buffs etc etc. and he believed that its way more. Simple. The rest of the things you and others post here have simply nothing to do with what he said. Sorry but it's the truth. No one called you a liar, but also no one asked to see how DC AC powershare works.

    Once again: He said a AC DC CAN BUFF FOR MORE THAN YOU SAY. he could have word it better? sure, not everyone is English speaking or educated tho. That's one of the issues of world wide games. From what I understand, he understood from your original post in the other thread that while we were talking about the fact that instead of the bonding % being nerfed to maybe stop the companion from giving powershare X 300% to the DD classes and at the same time buff the direct powershare to the players only, to balance the power creep and in that way the low end doesn't get hit harder and the high softer by the proposed changes as they are. You jumped in, accused me of a crusade against AC, Tom jumped in and accused me of jihad.. (lol)

    What do you expect after that? You brought this situation to this point. No one ever set the issue in there or here about what a AC should be, to compete with a DO... you did that. Derailed a situation and??? for what??? Academia?

    I honestly didn't think that my credibility was to be questioned or I would make a 1040 full HD video, while zooming in on each buff and a 360 panoramic view. I'm not joking. Why would I lie anyway? what would be my benefit? As you said Sharp I do this to get in parties? (another personal and unnecessary insult) Do you think that I'm not? I get more runs on my SW templock then others on their DCs will. On my MoF even more.I really didn't expect that from you specially after we talked last time.

    Now in all fairness the OP doesn't show something that cant be verified in 5 min by any other DC including you or with a simple gesture rather than calling out each other "Can you please invite me to a party to see your DC buff first hand" and all would have been resolved in 2 minutes. The screens are not good enough? or you suspect malicious treatment? Ask for better or more before passing judgment. If he would denied that, then by all means and I would be by your side too, go ballistic. That was all it would take Sharp (& co).

    In most cases in this forums isn't a screen enough?

    Now If others want to keep talking about DO vs AC or how much they should buff and talk about anything else unrelated to the question by all means... It only shows other things to the rest of the people reading this.

    My 2 cents.





  • rapo973
    rapo973 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 831 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    One more point I forgot.
    Power share has an impact on some weapon enchantments...just to add complexity. [/off topic]

    Oltreverso guild leader
    Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User
    oria1 said:

    He said a AC DC CAN BUFF FOR MORE THAN YOU SAY.

    Yes, if you include multiple legendary bonuses etc, they can, but, I tried to keep things simple, which is actually in the favour of the AC DC, rather than complicating it.

    You want to make it complicated? Sure, take into account the fact that repeated companion attacks on preview won't refresh the bonding buff. Take into account the fact that if there is an OP in the group, the relative value of a DCs buffs are less. Take into account the fact that a DC might miss allies, or their pets. Take into account the fact that they might not always have AA up. Take into account all those other external factors.

    Those questions I asked of you are very valid. You are the one who has been saying power share needs a nerf, so it is fair for us to ask you to justify yourself.
  • putzboy78
    putzboy78 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,944 Arc User
    micky1p00 said:


    About DR, I'll just quote myself:

    micky1p00 said:


    4. Power sharing can be (if finally that light-bulb will light up in dev land) bound to diminishing returns regardless of the reduction from it's being relative (#3).
    (Assuming I didn't made a mistake)

    I have no clue why this simple, elegant, and widely adapted solution is so hard to accept...
    Because DR has to be part of a larger picture. When DR is to strict it drives you to other stats or has the unintended consequence of becoming a soft cap. The trick is to find balance and that requires math, testing, and some foresight into how you intend to progress the system over time (ex. adding tons of power to the latest BIS gear could be meaningless. You should have an idea on when your going to do a lvl cap and therefore be able to trend power gain to lvl cap so you don't hit the point of meaningless). DR should exist on all stats even for a class that finds recovery useless (GWF/HR) there should be a point of power stacking where recovery becomes more useful than power. It requires vision and a roadmap of the future. Even if they do not know what content is coming from WotC, that's mostly story line, and shouldn't impact equipment power.

    DR is the appropriate fix, but why pay 2x labor now when you can spend 1x labor on last powershare nerf, 1x labor on this nerf, 1x labor on the next fix once they realize that R14s will give DC/OP more base power to share than they currently have





  • oria1
    oria1 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 263 Arc User
    micky1p00 said:

    I miss the point of all of this.

    1. First of all that indeed if we remove the pet transfer we will make AC DC not a happy class. Investing millions in AD to gain base power just to become more useless than a naked DO is sad, very very sad.

    2. The whole measurement must take into account what else the party has. Power is not a direct dps buff.

    3. Power sharing makes a very interesting mechanic and consideration as opposite to direct buff, meaning, a strong DC will immensely buff a weak DPS (in terms of stats) but much less so a strong DPS. I didn't do it but anyone can repeat the same with dps with 30k power for example. This creates a diminishing scaling.

    4. Power sharing can be (if finally that light-bulb will light up in dev land) bound to diminishing returns regardless of the reduction from it's being relative (#3).

    5. Compared to DO ? DO can buff by 2.184 AC can buff by 1.44 (without power share) so how much ACs millions of AD should be worth in terms of buff 1.44 * d = 2.184; d = 1.51; *DO also provide the 10% power share and it's not subtracted here.
    We can see that AC is better, but expensive, in terms of cost / value looks ok.

    6. Is it a lot ?! We should consider that the class only job is buffing. The costs to make AC 'better' than DO makes both paragons viable. And in terms of comparison to other classes we are not seeing 5 CW CN case again, both paragons are good but can't replace everyone and everything. If anything should be considered is only as a global balance or a give-and-take but not just removal of pet-transfer.

    7. Is the pet transfer WAI ? If the devs didn't change it for two years now, then yes, even the question is irrelevant and moot. Lets not mix WAI / not-WAI with balancing and changes in the game.

    (Assuming I didn't made a mistake)

    It would take far less time to read what OP said than to write all these Micky but from what I understand.

    1. "So according to @thefabricant a dc in module 12b will need 57,6k power to share 81k power to a dps withn 80k power."
    2. "So my low IL cleric with only 38k power could give 74k power while a Maxed out DC at 58k power on a maxed out dps would give only 81k"
    3. "So if we do the calculation 57628 * 58% = 33424 power. But I see 81.600 without weapons of light. So can you please explain to us where the extra power comes form? (rhetorical question) Unless 57.6k * 58% = 81.6k and we rediscovered math. A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own."

    the last one was to showcase I guess, the point of HOW much more a pet gives and a small proof that its not working as it should. When a skill says you will give 33% of your power you should give 33% otherwise its not working as it should. If my RoE is stating 17% and gives 170% even if its not fixed after 2 years its still not working as it should.

    But yea just those 2 points. He thinks that, what sharp is saying, is not reflecting the true nature of what a AC can do in powershare. NOT how much actual damage it offers, NOT if its better or not than DO, NOT if it needs adjusts....

    As I said before I don't have it as habit to talk about things that are not in the intend of the post but a small exception is needed here.

    1. First of all that indeed if we remove the pet transfer we will make AC DC not a happy class. Investing millions in AD to gain base power just to become more useless than a naked DO is sad, very very sad.

    We need to weight the needs of the many not the needs of the few. If something, even for so long, was not working as it should then you should not invest much in it in the first place, or asks the devs to adjust it from the beginning before anyone invest. Most AC got convenient around the idea of powersharing way more and maybe I would too if i was playing DC. But lets be honest, we all expect it to come at some point. Honestly, remove it from, pet and give higher % to dc would be one good solution. Probably there are other ideas way better than mine.

    Do you not agree the power creep is real in this game? Don't you also agree that the devs are out for "blood" and if a change needs to be made it should be the one that benefits the most players in game?

    Forgive me about the rest of your topics but if you make another thread talking about those I would gladly come and join but this is not the place for those as far as I go.

    Thank you.





  • erosennin92
    erosennin92 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 38 Arc User
    Being now in temple section we can discuss more into detail the question. And that's a good thing, even if there is not a common agreement.
    In fact, even if I am actually "a no-one", as a DC I followed the discussion in the other topic with great apprehension. However, I refrained from replying because the topic was dramatically derailing from the main one.

    If I understood well the concerns were different from the 2 factions:
    - On one hand @oria1 and @mamalion1234 stated that atm Power Sharing affecting companions with bonding is still an overpowered mechanic granting too much benefit.
    - On the other hand @thefabricant and tom affirmed that the mechanic was not overpowered as it is comparable to the other buffs other setups (DO) can guarantee to the party. Secondly they were concerned about a complete breakdown of AC DC pathway as it would become useless whether companions were not affected by powersharing.

    From my point of view, during the discussion the main points (which I will base my 2 cents on) were:
    1) The disagreement stands because one part is considering the mechanic as a unique point: "the final result is overpowered that's it", the other is trying to contextualize it into what the real (DC) buff's panorama is.
    2) The math used is CORRECT (and after the numerous explanations I believe we won't cover that point again), however the two sides wanted to demonstrate different points.

    Tell me please if I was wrong with this premise.

    <hr>
    Hence, finally being in The Temple section we can really try to solve the point: are AC DC buffs (given because of the powersharing) far better than DO DC ones?
    Now, abandoning all of these "jihad" comments, we can really bring the topic to the point it will become useful and worthy.

    If the answer is "<b class="Bold">YES</b>" than probably the power sharing through companions should be toned down or modified to a fixed buff (as already proposed by some players and well accepted) to be in line with the DO.
    If the answer is "<b class="Bold">NO</b>" and the buffs are comparable then a new aspect comes up: should the DC be nerfed as a whole? Should all the buffs be nerfed? Or, on the contrary, is Power sharing actually working as it should?

    <b class="Bold"><i class="Italic">Methods</i>:
    </b>- I won't analize single powers, but some typical (and simplified) buffs interactions AC DCs and DO DCs can do. This is because "on the field" you don't just spam single powers but a union of them. The discussion has to move from the theorycraft to the practice.
    - Therefore, Powers and Feats equally used on both rotations won't be considered. This means for example that Divine Glow, eFF, eBTS and Weapons of Light won't be assessed as they affect equally the calculation on both sides.
    - Exaltation and Profecy of Doom are not considered. They could be considered in this brief analysis as one specular to the other (with the difference that the buff is single target and the debuff makes every striker benefit it).
    - I will use known and demonstrated maths and formulas.
    - I will consider endgame chars.
    - Calculations will be done considering the new Bonding ratios: 195% stats passed (3x r14).

    <b class="Bold">Buff Interactions
    </b>- DO DC. Hallowed ground +40% dmg (kept at 100% uptime, it will be considered as the only daily used). Terrifying Insight +20%
    - AC DC. Anointed army 33% Base Power shared + bonding share (kept at 100% uptime, it will be considered as the only daily used). Blessing of battle 15% Base power shared + bonding share.

    <b class="Bold">Calculations
    </b>As a high end party let's consider 55k base-power DC (DCBP) and an ally with 80k current power (ACP) (base + bonding buffed) player.
    - DO DC. HG=1.4, TI=1.2 Total=1.2*1.4=1.68 <b class="Bold">+68% plain buff</b>.
    - AC DC. The power passed with bonding is (0.33+0.15)DCBP + (0.33+0.15)DCBP*1.95= (0.33+0.15)*(1+1.95)DCBP=0.48*2.95DCBP=1,416DCBP.
    DCBP=45k. Hence, the power passed with bondings by AA+BoB is 1,416*5k=77,88k. The summed power is: 80k+77,88k= 157,88k.
    This seams a lot, however, using Jeanne tool, if summed to a current power of 80k it gives <b class="Bold">+64,95%</b> damage increase.
    <img src="https://snag.gy/exji9z.jpg" alt="" />

    The answer is NO, the buffs provided by the 2 sets are comparable, DO is a little bit higher.

    <b class="Bold">Discussion</b>
    - This means the buff an AC can provide, using solely its own skills an equal buff in respect to DO DC.
    - I have used examples from high end groups, therefore this has to be considered the maximum to be obtained. Remember that with power we are not talking about a % therefore even if the power will increase in the next mods this will be for both the Ally Current Power and for the DC Base Power, so the percentual increase will stay (to a plausible level of certainty) stable.
    - This makes also a second consequence. Changing AA and BoB to a plain buff as proposed, for example: AA +40%dmg BoB +15-20%dmg would not be a nerf at all for high end groups. On the contrary not being equip given 1) that would be even a further buff for less geared DCs 2) that would impede to DC to support weaker groups, which, having less current power would benefit morein % of dps increase from power sharing (given they have rank 14 bondings....). If u really want it let it be.
    - Therefore if buffs have to be reduced we have to adress every buff as it is. As far as power buff + bonding is comparable to % buff. I don't believe we should nerf all the buffs neither, because if we want to adress equally that is what should be done (and I am not talking solely about DC). I believe we should remain less impressed by the big numbers we see on the character sheets, but going a little bit deeper in understanding what they are.

    <b class="Bold">Confutations and conclusions
    </b>- Hallowed ground can be used also by AC DCs. Trying to use both and keeping them 100% of the time active on every party member simply isn't possible (because of the evanscent nature of AA), and usually results in a mean of their effect (there are actually spikes in which both are active but also troughs in which some members coul not benefit at all). This exemplifies in 2 DCs runs in which every cleric usually chooses one.

    That's the point I would like to focus after demonstrating the comparability of buffs: trying to make both paths still desirable to players!
    Therefore, the worrying about AC DC future if power shared through bonding is removed is true. If it was like that, in 1 DC runs, why would a DC use a path that buffs less, is more evanescent and more difficult to keep it active (DCs know the difference between buffing with AC and DO) when there is another one easier and more effective? It would be relegated as a second hand helper in 2 DCs runs.

    My trial of demostration is certainly rapid and not perfect, many could refute my statements by saying, for example, they use a different rotation, but it's a starting point. So DCs come along and let's discuss it together :D

    p.s. many posts have been written while i was preparing this one, but I am happy many shared the same point

    Azeroth Godwill - (Half)Drow - Virtuous AC DC - iLvL 4k

  • micky1p00
    micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,540 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    oria1 said:


    It would take far less time to read what OP said than to write all these Micky but from what I understand.

    1. "So according to @thefabricant a dc in module 12b will need 57,6k power to share 81k power to a dps withn 80k power."
    2. "So my low IL cleric with only 38k power could give 74k power while a Maxed out DC at 58k power on a maxed out dps would give only 81k"
    3. "So if we do the calculation 57628 * 58% = 33424 power. But I see 81.600 without weapons of light. So can you please explain to us where the extra power comes form? (rhetorical question) Unless 57.6k * 58% = 81.6k and we rediscovered math. A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own."

    the last one was to showcase I guess, the point of HOW much more a pet gives and a small proof that its not working as it should. When a skill says you will give 33% of your power you should give 33% otherwise its not working as it should. If my RoE is stating 17% and gives 170% even if its not fixed after 2 years its still not working as it should.

    But yea just those 2 points. He thinks that, what sharp is saying, is not reflecting the true nature of what a AC can do in powershare. NOT how much actual damage it offers, NOT if its better or not than DO, NOT if it needs adjusts....

    As I said before I don't have it as habit to talk about things that are not in the intend of the post but a small exception is needed here.

    1. First of all that indeed if we remove the pet transfer we will make AC DC not a happy class. Investing millions in AD to gain base power just to become more useless than a naked DO is sad, very very sad.

    We need to weight the needs of the many not the needs of the few. If something, even for so long, was not working as it should then you should not invest much in it in the first place, or asks the devs to adjust it from the beginning before anyone invest. Most AC got convenient around the idea of powersharing way more and maybe I would too if i was playing DC. But lets be honest, we all expect it to come at some point. Honestly, remove it from, pet and give higher % to dc would be one good solution. Probably there are other ideas way better than mine.

    Do you not agree the power creep is real in this game? Don't you also agree that the devs are out for "blood" and if a change needs to be made it should be the one that benefits the most players in game?

    Forgive me about the rest of your topics but if you make another thread talking about those I would gladly come and join but this is not the place for those as far as I go.

    Thank you.

    1. I did read the post. And as I've said it's a tirade, and that makes following the numbers much harder than it should be. And actually posted the correct numbers for both cases. But no one cares about truth or not truth, all I see now is agenda and bias.

    2. 57628 * (0.33 + 0.15) * (2.85 + 0.15) = without light, with legendary = 57,628 * 0.48 * 3 = 82,984 for example. Is it the same as fabricant showed, I don't know, don't ask me, ask him, but no one did. Here I'm showing that you can powershare via pet from 57 to 82, maybe I've invented new math too...
    This "New math" comments help to prove what point ?

    3. "A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own." Since when the OP decides what is supposed to be or not supposed to be ? From where is the hubris ? You want to state your opinion, please do, I will agree or argue it until the end of times, and that's fair. But asserting opinions as 'facts', that's a no go in my book.

    4. How it's a proof that's not working as intended ? Bondings are 3mil per one at the AH, it must be a proof that they are not working as intended. Same logic... No logic.... Assertion of an opinion is not a proof of anything.

    5. Did I made a mistake in my numbers? Point out. And lets get to the point and not this childish back and forward about imaginary proof, deleted posts, false images, or what not.


    "We need to weight the needs of the many not the needs of the few. If something, even for so long, was not working as it should then you should not invest much in it in the first place, or asks the devs to adjust it from the beginning before anyone invest. Most AC got convenient around the idea of powersharing way more and maybe I would too if i was playing DC. But lets be honest, we all expect it to come at some point. Honestly, remove it from, pet and give higher % to dc would be one good solution. Probably there are other ideas way better than mine. "

    Are you serious ?
    2 years and you say "You should have known, and you shouldn't have invested" Do you have bondings ? R12 I assume ? Why you invested in those ? You have known, and you shouldn't have invested. Feel free to send those to me, I will have to handle to burden of having something that I shouldn't ! What I don't do for others here... Mother Teresa-Janne.

    Why we need to expect anything like that? a 50% dps buff is comparable to other mechanics. ITF, Longstrider atc.. From a class that it's only capability is buffing. And unless heavily invested it's lower than the same class without power sharing (DO). So tell me why would anyone assume that power sharing that scales worse than direct dps increase (relative increase creates diminishing returns as compared to DPS power, and stacking shares, as I've clearly shown above) will be nerfed while static buffs that are cheaper, will remain.

    So pick an escape-goat, trash a legitimate investment of people in their class "for the greater good". Sorry I don't find it as acceptable proposition. But to be fair to your earlier posts, I think everyone will agree to give-and-take of turning those to static dps buffs.
    But IMO opinion, in your constant chase against buffs, you miss the point that, again, power share is inferior when the DPS is BiS and better the lower the DPS, allowing an interesting normalization. And the point that the devs don't chase for blood, they want to sell augments again and zen and completion tokens and what not. The fact that there is a single item that's a 'must have' for most builds and players, is not healthy, but after two years, there are better solutions than what they did and it has nothing to do with power share.

    I to thought so, and you can look at my posts at the preview bonding thread, I've mentioned buffed pets. But after doing the numbers, and comparing the buffs, just removing the power buff imo is not acceptable. Trading it for a straight one I guess is an acceptable idea, but IMO it will ruin interesting mechanic just for nothing at the end. More so, the more buffs are sirected to stats and not straight dps the more relative increase you have and the easier it's to control later via stats diminishing returns.

    Ok, this is long, and it's late...

    At the end, should buffs get a rework, yes, I don't think that 4 support 1 dps meta is a healthy thing, but I should add a disclaimer, I play the wannabe DPS part... Soo... you know.... you get the picture...

    Is it relevant to power creep, not imo. The buffs are the same for a long time and they interact in a constant and predictable way. When devs design content they shouldn't look only at X has Y power. But the actual final damage, they easily have the tools and the ability to calculate that (Even we can, with some limitations).

    Increasing the total amount of buffs/stats is power creep for example +5% damage boon. (though those +5% damage vs X monster type is really smart-HAMSTER)

    You want an idea for a solution, introduce augment that share 200% of the stats and make it buffable. Will it add power creep? No, because it's still inferior to current bonding.
    Optionally, remove the stats from bondings (the power / defense) when they are working as power share, and they will have the stats on augment.
    (Or something like that)

    Now we have viable augments, with the benefit of not being stupid and jumping from platforms, on the other hand we have higher stats via pets from the benefit of an active companion, like sell-sword for example.
    If we remove the bonding stats, not only we didn't add power creep we reduced the maximal stat benefit from companions, added verity, and bonding retain their market value - you still want them on the augment for stats (mostly).

    And I totally derailed myself, so I'll continue tomorrow. Bloody hell, I've reached the maximum chars per post. Definitely time to quit this.
  • micky1p00
    micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,540 Arc User


    This seams a lot, however, using Jeanne tool, if summed to a current power of 80k it gives +64,95% damage increase.

    Janne ! ;)

  • fuglymook
    fuglymook Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 119 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    micky1p00 said:

    putzboy78 said:

    micky1p00 said:


    7. Is the pet transfer WAI ? If the devs didn't change it for two years now, then yes, even the question is irrelevant and moot. Lets not mix WAI / not-WAI with balancing and changes in the game.

    Not sure I'd say devs didnt' change it. We've had multiple changes to how bonding procs and how it gets used up, all were relatively minor. Then we had the AA/BOB nerf in mod 10. I think its safe to assume it came about more as a result of bonding transfer than because of the direct transfer. This isn't the first time this interaction has been modified even if indirectly. The appropriate fix is a DR on stats, which they are avoiding the leg work on instead every 2 mods we are getting tweaks to the skills and interactions.

    And yet that the pets transfer all stats is known for same two years. The only major change to bondings was the change from variable stacks (when pets could die and over stack) and instead of hard limiting the stacks to 3, they choose to unify the stacks into 1 and make it 100% uptime. Which everyone asked themselves "Why are you buffing it?".

    Lets be realistic, something that left for so long it's a design issue, and a matter of semantics, they may not foresee the concequences, but they can't tell the players after two years, this is not WAI, it is as someone intended back then. It's just a shame that their intentions didn't listen to the player base, or foreseeing a bit further.

    About DR, I'll just quote myself:
    micky1p00 said:


    4. Power sharing can be (if finally that light-bulb will light up in dev land) bound to diminishing returns regardless of the reduction from it's being relative (#3).
    (Assuming I didn't made a mistake)

    I have no clue why this simple, elegant, and widely adapted solution is so hard to accept...
    Wrong, peeking into chests had been in the game since the beginning and total accepted as being part of the game. The bonding stone nerf in 12b is a direct result of the power share loop of the AC DC and now every class gets penalized because of it.
    Groups/parties are built around AC DC for one reason only now and that is the insane power share. I never see groups built around a DO DC. DOs only get invited if a AC is already in party.
    Post edited by fuglymook on
  • ambisinisterr
    ambisinisterr Member, Neverwinter Moderator Posts: 10,462 Community Moderator
    This thread has been cleaned of the worst of the bickering. I also removed the last few posts just to try to restart this thread with a clean slate. If you think any specific post should be restored please send me a PM.


    Okay, so...my head hurts. The amount of pointers in this thread makes a lot of computer code look simple. I am imagining a cartoon character that knotted their arms from pointing in different directions too quickly.

    Can we all find some common language here? Let's focus on what Janne has said; is what she said about both sides having the correct math but different input variables correct?

    If so then why is there two pages arguing over evidence and whether or not the numbers are accurate? Let's please try to simplify this and streamline the claims. What gear/builds are both of you using and what is the significance of including or not including certain variables into the equation?


    Let's leave out any dispute over the evidence. Evidence should be questioned but it shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't a video. You can ask what variables were accounted for and/or try to replicate the results with the variables given but you can't dismiss a claim by saying "no video, no proof."
  • oria1
    oria1 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 263 Arc User
    edited September 2017

    This thread has been cleaned of the worst of the bickering. I also removed the last few posts just to try to restart this thread with a clean slate. If you think any specific post should be restored please send me a PM.


    Okay, so...my head hurts. The amount of pointers in this thread makes a lot of computer code look simple. I am imagining a cartoon character that knotted their arms from pointing in different directions too quickly.

    Can we all find some common language here? Let's focus on what Janne has said; is what she said about both sides having the correct math but different input variables correct?

    If so then why is there two pages arguing over evidence and whether or not the numbers are accurate? Let's please try to simplify this and streamline the claims. What gear/builds are both of you using and what is the significance of including or not including certain variables into the equation?


    Let's leave out any dispute over the evidence. Evidence should be questioned but it shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't a video. You can ask what variables were accounted for and/or try to replicate the results with the variables given but you can't dismiss a claim by saying "no video, no proof."

    You are very right and that was my point from the start. This tread wasn't about explaining with math because no one challenged or doubted AC can powershare for 58% or not. The argument (I think) the OP was trying to make was that there is a difference if we look ONLY at the math side of skills and different if we look at a real, in dungeon Situation that other factors can contribute and alter the result. And since we all run in dungeons I would agree with that statement about what a class can or cant too should simulate that environment as close as possible and not a dummy test. In that way who ever reads the post will have a better picture because at the end we all care what will happen IN the dungeon and not at a training dummy.

    To be honest and I think we all witness that at some point, people in general when they see comments by established members of the community, take that to the letter. For example "If i add a MoF in the run we will have 89% debuff ". That statement is both true and false until we fully explain under witch circumstances that statement is true. A better statement would be a "If i add a MoF in the run we will get 89 % debuff by using skills only" That way who ever reads it will understand better. Because in a dungeon you will see way more than 89% debuff.

    As far as I'm concert I'm sorry that I added fuel to the conversation and I will answer to comments IF they have anything to do with the what the OP said.






  • almondum
    almondum Member Posts: 308 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    Hello everyone,

    There is a lot of interesting conclusions in this discussion, thanks everyone! Really, learnt alot!

    I have another question, can we somehow consider the benefit of Hastening Light in all this? An AA cleric can spamm it, re-casting it before it expires.
    With a group that knows the cleric, the other classes (except HR I guess) can use their abilities more often (IBS for GWF for example), this results in more damage, as the power is cast twice (with buffs/debuffs). HL also helps a DO DC to keep HG 100%, especially crit based DCs with less recovery. Even without powersharing, these synergies should be considered.

    Another thing that is not considered, because it does not add to the "power/damage", is the protection provided by AA. High end groups know the tactics and take less damage, but it does not mean they are immortal and won't sometimes get hit. A dead dps does not damage.
    (Examples: Avatar of Orcus push into black pool + Finger of Death combo, this can kill a person without AA, both barely scratches someone with it. mSVa "Witness the Ring's of Winter power explosion". We can also look at TO9G last boss "Partial Paralysis", AA wards the group against it, thus avoiding DPS loss/deaths during periodical stunns, I'm not good in maths and won't go into it, but not being stunned and using powers more often means more damage.)

    Personally for me, even if the power sharing is "killed-off", AC DC will still keep a niche in groups. The perks of AA (Mobile with target, CC immunity, high damage reduction from many sources, Companion protection against early death, etc) are beyond "power/damage" increase. Without AA, certain encounters become harder and less forgiving.

    Thanks again for this complete and interesing discussion!
    Have fun!
    Almondum.
  • mamalion1234
    mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,379 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    My point was that we should examine what an ac can do in real situations not on a training dummy because we give the wrong impression to the poeple that read the comments.
    I Never said that i want to see if ac dc is better than dc do and neither question the 58% power buff. So how some mention and answer to things i never said?
    My test was based on real situations( or players play without companions in dungeons? :wink: ).

    What i said is : So my low IL cleric with only 38k power could give 74k power while a Maxed out DC at 58k power on a maxed out dps would give only 81k.

    If someone see how expressed the @thefabricant case maybe will think : oh power share is not so strong while in real situations i showed that a 38k base power dc can give very good amounts of power through bonding transfer and if someone want to see if it is true i am open to test it together in preview ( to match with the 12b conditions).
  • greyjay1
    greyjay1 Member Posts: 163 Arc User
    oria1 said:


    The point the OP made was not to compare the buffs of each DC or who is better, but to compare the values of how much power is actually granted vs stated.

    Ok, but that is not what was calculated, the circumstances has been defined to compare AC to DO and you agreed, that the defined cirumstances are valid for this comparison.
    The fact, that bonding changes affect the balance between AC and DO, make the comparison on-topic btw (i'm not saying that it's unbalanced or overpowered, or whatever).
    oria1 said:


    If the AC can grant a lot more power than stated though that also will affect the comparison.

    So the result can be considered wrong because the power share of the AC is wrong since it appears it gives more than whats stated. That's what I understood.

    You can't just take these calculations and put them into another environment and say that they are wrong in the other environment, because they obviously are.
    The issue here is simply that the OP takes the calculations out of context, misinterprets them and draws wrong conclusions.
  • oria1
    oria1 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 263 Arc User
    micky1p00 said:


    1. I did read the post. And as I've said it's a tirade, and that makes following the numbers much harder than it should be. And actually posted the correct numbers for both cases. But no one cares about truth or not truth, all I see now is agenda and bias.

    English is not everyone's main or even second language and I can understand the frustration but honestly he only had few numbers in his entire post that showed some stats along with the images and this "57628 * 58% = 33424"
    micky1p00 said:


    2. 57628 * (0.33 + 0.15) * (2.85 + 0.15) = without light, with legendary = 57,628 * 0.48 * 3 = 82,984 for example. Is it the same as fabricant showed, I don't know, don't ask me, ask him, but no one did. Here I'm showing that you can powershare via pet from 57 to 82, maybe I've invented new math too...
    This "New math" comments help to prove what point ?

    Not really as the "old" was fine too but that was not the point that the OP made... I will repeat and not add fuel. The argument was about real dungeon situations vs training dummy ones.
    micky1p00 said:


    3. "A dc that supposed to share a bit over half of his power ends up giving more than his own." Since when the OP decides what is supposed to be or not supposed to be ? From where is the hubris ? You want to state your opinion, please do, I will agree or argue it until the end of times, and that's fair. But asserting opinions as 'facts', that's a no go in my book.

    The way I see it is when we have a fixed amount of power and a fixed % the result should be also predictable too. For example my RoE can do 35% debuff on tab, If for any reason it does more, something is not right. I will agree tho it is an opinion and not a fact, which makes also yours an opinion too if its intended or not which we will agree to disagree. But the devs opinion when they state their it will become fact for both.
    micky1p00 said:


    4. How it's a proof that's not working as intended ? Bondings are 3mil per one at the AH, it must be a proof that they are not working as intended. Same logic... No logic.... Assertion of an opinion is not a proof of anything.

    My logic dictates that if an item sells for 3 mil it must be doing something the others cant. (or its rare which is not the case) and is far from proof either way as a price of an item doesn't always reflect if something is "broken".
    micky1p00 said:


    7. Did I made a mistake in my numbers? Point out. And lets get to the point and not this childish back and forward about imaginary proof, deleted posts, false images, or what not.

    I will be honest, since personally I didn't challenge or doubted those numbers I dint check them but I will take your word for it.
    At the same time though 1212557*125 = 151569625. My math isn't wrong either, I doubt that you will check them, because in the spirit of my other answers it really has nothing to do with what has been asked.
    micky1p00 said:


    Are you serious ?
    2 years and you say "You should have known, and you shouldn't have invested" Do you have bondings ? R12 I assume ? Why you invested in those ? You have known, and you shouldn't have invested. Feel free to send those to me, I will have to handle to burden of having something that I shouldn't ! What I don't do for others here... Mother Teresa-Janne.

    IF there is a change, about the powershare through the companion only for both pally and ac Bondings will not lose value. Neither the OP or I asked for removal of powersharing we asked to buff but to stop the interaction with the companion. On top with the proposed change one can argue that with the change all the bonding stones now lose value.
    micky1p00 said:


    Why we need to expect anything like that? a 50% dps buff is comparable to other mechanics. ITF, Longstrider atc.. From a class that it's only capability is buffing. And unless heavily invested it's lower than the same class without power sharing (DO). So tell me why would anyone assume that power sharing that scales worse than direct dps increase (relative increase creates diminishing returns as compared to DPS power, and stacking shares, as I've clearly shown above) will be nerfed while static buffs that are cheaper, will remain.

    So pick an escape-goat, trash a legitimate investment of people in their class "for the greater good". Sorry I don't find it as acceptable proposition. But to be fair to your earlier posts, I think everyone will agree to give-and-take of turning those to static dps buffs.
    But IMO opinion, in your constant chase against buffs, you miss the point that, again, power share is inferior when the DPS is BiS and better the lower the DPS, allowing an interesting normalization. And the point that the devs don't chase for blood, they want to sell augments again and zen and completion tokens and what not. The fact that there is a single item that's a 'must have' for most builds and players, is not healthy, but after two years, there are better solutions than what they did and it has nothing to do with power share.

    I to thought so, and you can look at my posts at the preview bonding thread, I've mentioned buffed pets. But after doing the numbers, and comparing the buffs, just removing the power buff imo is not acceptable. Trading it for a straight one I guess is an acceptable idea, but IMO it will ruin interesting mechanic just for nothing at the end. More so, the more buffs are sirected to stats and not straight dps the more relative increase you have and the easier it's to control later via stats diminishing returns.

    I can answer to all of those but as per Mod recommendations I would like to stay in subject and not derail. The op only stated that there is a difference what he is witnessing and what was stated. I explained on a previous post my views on the subject . read the following quote I hope you will notice on some subjects there is a common ground. I said the following about the bonding stones change.
    oria1 said:


    I want to make something clear as far as I'm concerned. I do agree and promote with almost every other option and not nerfing. Harder content, Tiered dungeons, more dungeons for all, diminishing returns even, anything that makes me feel I'm moving forward and not backward...

    But I'm also trying to stay focused to the topic of this thread. The devs wanted a change and a tone down to power creep. Who created that? sure not the players, but nevertheless it exists and the devs want it down. Since this is a given and at this point they will not do any of the above better solutions for x reasons, my goal was to suggest the least worst solution for us players. Trying to choose the lesser evil if you like.

    Ask yourself this: Where does damage come from?
    1st the power not to have diminishing returns (not judging if its right or wrong just stating a fact)
    2nd the powershare gives its benefits X4 extra times through the companion
    3rd Bonding stones too high as a % since mod 6 (maybe)
    4th Buffs having multiplicative nature between them (each skill and from each class multiply with each other) so when we stack buff classes, the numbers increase exponentially

    There are others too like weapon damage, skills etc but you really don't want to go there.

    So from the above factors we can make a suggestion for 1 change. We need to see which is the major one, in order of effect and also keeping in mind the mid range and lower range groups. For that reason, power not having diminishing returns can stay since we can just eliminate the getting the power from other sources easier.

    Buffs having multiplicative nature is helpful in all groups (low end, mid end, high end) because those are player / class based and can develop play style and synergy / strategy with other classes. So we are left with two.

    1. bonding stone now (on new mod) offering almost half the stat points (17842) so a loss of 13k points. Even less if we calculate that we will also have r14 on our gears so the neat loss will be from 2300 points to 945 points depending on what gears you use on companion. This also affects multiple stats (what ever the companion offers such as crit armor pen etc which also asks for more money to be spend to adjust loss in stats. Specially armor pen for some.

    2. Powesharing through companion using bonding that can give anything from +35k extra stat points to all the way to 210k stat points when you stack classes. To make sure people understand ITS NOT ABOUT DC its about the portion of the powershare that comes from all sources and affects bonding multiplying the powershare to the dps. To conpesate affect classes an adjustment can be made so they will powershare MORE but ONLY to the the players.

    Some people singled out the powershare and made it into a big DC issue...
    My 2 cents





  • mamalion1234
    mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,379 Arc User
    edited September 2017

    Being now in temple section we can discuss more into detail the question. And that's a good thing, even if there is not a common agreement.

    In fact, even if I am actually "a no-one", as a DC I followed the discussion in the other topic with great apprehension. However, I refrained from replying because the topic was dramatically derailing from the main one.



    If I understood well the concerns were different from the 2 factions:

    - On one hand @oria1 and @mamalion1234 stated that atm Power Sharing affecting companions with bonding is still an overpowered mechanic granting too much benefit.

    - On the other hand @thefabricant and tom affirmed that the mechanic was not overpowered as it is comparable to the other buffs other setups (DO) can guarantee to the party. Secondly they were concerned about a complete breakdown of AC DC pathway as it would become useless whether companions were not affected by powersharing.



    From my point of view, during the discussion the main points (which I will base my 2 cents on) were:

    1) The disagreement stands because one part is considering the mechanic as a unique point: "the final result is overpowered that's it", the other is trying to contextualize it into what the real (DC) buff's panorama is.

    2) The math used is CORRECT (and after the numerous explanations I believe we won't cover that point again), however the two sides wanted to demonstrate different points.



    Tell me please if I was wrong with this premise.





    Hence, finally being in The Temple section we can really try to solve the point: are AC DC buffs (given because of the powersharing) far better than DO DC ones?

    Now, abandoning all of these "jihad" comments, we can really bring the topic to the point it will become useful and worthy.



    If the answer is "YES" than probably the power sharing through companions should be toned down or modified to a fixed buff (as already proposed by some players and well accepted) to be in line with the DO.

    If the answer is "NO" and the buffs are comparable then a new aspect comes up: should the DC be nerfed as a whole? Should all the buffs be nerfed? Or, on the contrary, is Power sharing actually working as it should?



    Methods:

    - I won't analize single powers, but some typical (and simplified) buffs interactions AC DCs and DO DCs can do. This is because "on the field" you don't just spam single powers but a union of them. The discussion has to move from the theorycraft to the practice.

    - Therefore, Powers and Feats equally used on both rotations won't be considered. This means for example that Divine Glow, eFF, eBTS and Weapons of Light won't be assessed as they affect equally the calculation on both sides.

    - Exaltation and Profecy of Doom are not considered. They could be considered in this brief analysis as one specular to the other (with the difference that the buff is single target and the debuff makes every striker benefit it).

    - I will use known and demonstrated maths and formulas.

    - I will consider endgame chars.

    - Calculations will be done considering the new Bonding ratios: 195% stats passed (3x r14).



    Buff Interactions

    - DO DC. Hallowed ground +40% dmg (kept at 100% uptime, it will be considered as the only daily used). Terrifying Insight +20%

    - AC DC. Anointed army 33% Base Power shared + bonding share (kept at 100% uptime, it will be considered as the only daily used). Blessing of battle 15% Base power shared + bonding share.



    Calculations

    As a high end party let's consider 55k base-power DC (DCBP) and an ally with 80k current power (ACP) (base + bonding buffed) player.

    - DO DC. HG=1.4, TI=1.2 Total=1.2*1.4=1.68 +68% plain buff.

    - AC DC. The power passed with bonding is (0.33+0.15)DCBP + (0.33+0.15)DCBP*1.95= (0.33+0.15)*(1+1.95)DCBP=0.48*2.95DCBP=1,416DCBP.

    DCBP=45k. Hence, the power passed with bondings by AA+BoB is 1,416*5k=77,88k. The summed power is: 80k+77,88k= 157,88k.

    This seams a lot, however, using Jeanne tool, if summed to a current power of 80k it gives +64,95% damage increase.





    The answer is NO, the buffs provided by the 2 sets are comparable, DO is a little bit higher.



    Discussion

    - This means the buff an AC can provide, using solely its own skills an equal buff in respect to DO DC.

    - I have used examples from high end groups, therefore this has to be considered the maximum to be obtained. Remember that with power we are not talking about a % therefore even if the power will increase in the next mods this will be for both the Ally Current Power and for the DC Base Power, so the percentual increase will stay (to a plausible level of certainty) stable.

    - This makes also a second consequence. Changing AA and BoB to a plain buff as proposed, for example: AA +40%dmg BoB +15-20%dmg would not be a nerf at all for high end groups. On the contrary not being equip given 1) that would be even a further buff for less geared DCs 2) that would impede to DC to support weaker groups, which, having less current power would benefit morein % of dps increase from power sharing (given they have rank 14 bondings....). If u really want it let it be.

    - Therefore if buffs have to be reduced we have to adress every buff as it is. As far as power buff + bonding is comparable to % buff. I don't believe we should nerf all the buffs neither, because if we want to adress equally that is what should be done (and I am not talking solely about DC). I believe we should remain less impressed by the big numbers we see on the character sheets, but going a little bit deeper in understanding what they are.



    Confutations and conclusions

    - Hallowed ground can be used also by AC DCs. Trying to use both and keeping them 100% of the time active on every party member simply isn't possible (because of the evanscent nature of AA), and usually results in a mean of their effect (there are actually spikes in which both are active but also troughs in which some members coul not benefit at all). This exemplifies in 2 DCs runs in which every cleric usually chooses one.



    That's the point I would like to focus after demonstrating the comparability of buffs: trying to make both paths still desirable to players!

    Therefore, the worrying about AC DC future if power shared through bonding is removed is true. If it was like that, in 1 DC runs, why would a DC use a path that buffs less, is more evanescent and more difficult to keep it active (DCs know the difference between buffing with AC and DO) when there is another one easier and more effective? It would be relegated as a second hand helper in 2 DCs runs.



    My trial of demostration is certainly rapid and not perfect, many could refute my statements by saying, for example, they use a different rotation, but it's a starting point. So DCs come along and let's discuss it together :D



    p.s. many posts have been written while i was preparing this one, but I am happy many shared the same point

    My point was to show the difference between real dungeon situations which show better the real capabilties of an ac with powersharing. I never said the powershare if is overpowered or overperforming or if is better than do or how much power need or dont need.

    IF we want to be right Its better to examine the power sharing through the companion when it can contribute of all three sources ( dc do dc ac op). So if the dps class has 80000 and those three classes give him 160000 then the dps will get 133.4% damage increase just from this and i think is something we need to think about.
  • erosennin92
    erosennin92 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 38 Arc User


    My point was to show the difference between real dungeon situations which show better the real capabilties of an ac with powersharing. I never said the powershare if is overpowered or overperforming or if is better than do or how much power need or dont need.

    I am sorry if I misunderstood the point. I wrongly assumed you coinsidered the mechanic (power passing through companions and bonding) overpowered after you pointed it out many times in the prev post, asking for a tone down and inviting players to think about it.
    I totally agree with you that we should see real dungeon situations and not (only) dummy tests (they are necessary to understand the math at the beginning). This is actually what I tried to do: analyzing some buffs interactions as they could be in a dungeon (obviously oversimplifying) and not just screening the power in a built in situation.

    I know that the comparison with DO was not something you intended, it is something I added by my own purpose because I think it is needed. To show and judge the capabilities of something we need, in fact, to compare it to something else, otherwise you cannot really understand its real value. This happens also in real life: when you say that a 2 metres high person is tall that is because everyone is around 1.80m. If people were normally 3m high, then the 2m person would have been considered a dwarf. The same height shows diffferent results.
    Making a more game centered example, back in the early mods an Armour giving 2k power would have been considered extremely op, while today (compared to new circumstances) it is in line with the game.


    IF we want to be right Its better to examine the power sharing through the companion when it can contribute of all three sources ( dc do dc ac op). So if the dps class has 80000 and those three classes give him 160000 then the dps will get 133.4% damage increase just from this and i think is something we need to think about.

    I limited to the comparison with DC because we are in DC section and it was not in my intention to underline every powershare interaction.
    However, I think that your point could be correct, to analyze what different powersharing sources could do. Always remembering that in this case we have to divide the results by 3. We are considering the buffs from 3 classes after all, it is normal they will be stronger than the contribution of just one class. In this case that would give a mean contribution of about 43%, which, considering the buff panorama would be high, but not certainly something to worry about.

    I would also really appreciate to see the calculations from which you deduced DC DO + DC AP + OP would give 160k power, not because i don't believe you, but to discuss them better together :)

    Azeroth Godwill - (Half)Drow - Virtuous AC DC - iLvL 4k