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"
It's my third, and you may have noticed I argue a bit, but did you notice a difference ? Did you see me write a similar thing? How many threads I've made accusing (will get to it next).
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.
This is simply not correct. It's nice how first the accusations come and then after it took 3+ people to say that the accusations are simply wrong and the OP didn't prove a thing, there is backtracking.
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.
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.
Or maybe not
Here we go again how the calculations are wrong (if they are not wrong, we can't make "the right" calculations):
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
We are at the end, this must be the dungeon vs dummies part:
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.
I guess it's not either.
So please, I may disagree, I may be wrong, I may be right, I may be stubborn and write aggressively. Yet I'm a firm believer that from arguments we learn the most. But I don't insult no ones Intelligence here, so please do not insult mine. My reading comprehension maybe not the best, but even I can see that this post is not about dungeons, and it's not about dummies.
...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 correct assertion will be:
So according to @thefabricant precise calculations an ACDC in module 12b will need 57,6k power to share 81k power to a dps withn 80k power. To provide the same buff as DO DC
Now we can argue few things here:
1. That the calculations are completely wrong and incorrect. 2. One is that it's irrelevant to the topic. 3. WoL shouldn't be ignored.
The OP focuses on the first. Several people demonstrated that the calculations are indeed correct. What was stated, is indeed what was calculated.
We can argue that even that that the calculations are correct, they are not relevant. It is not what the OP wrote.
And finally, WoL. I trust that both you and the OP are capable doing the calculation with WoL, I don't need no screenshots or preview, it's simple addition, we know the numbers, we know mod12b transfer, and I even provided similar calculation in my first long post. So if anyone wants to prove / disprove WoL issue, lets do it, and if you think you can't, no problem, I'll do it (though I'm sure everyone here can). Also for the full work, it will be nice to see, like @rapo973 mentioned, the considerations for DO different typical power.
So, lets go point by point and prove or disprove things, this waving hands is only bias.
To be continued..... (I think at the end this is indeed colossal waste of my time)
Post edited by micky1p00 on
4
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
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.
And I've provided the reasoning for my opinion. And argued over it's validity, I didn't assert it as a fact, and then accused reality of not confirming to said facts:
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.
Also you know very well, that the devs wont say either way.
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".
ofcourse, and it was brought as a logical fallacy, to a totally different claim you made. You claimed that DC shouldn't have invested in power. And their investment is their loss because it's just to good. I've brought the same example, you shouldn't have invested in bondings, it's now your loss, you should have known that's too good.
While I object to bondings changes. You can't claim one without the others. I say both bondings and power share were left as is for enough time to be considered WAI, even if the original designer, obviously, didn't account for the future.
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.
While the OP claimed the numbers are wrong and the subtext is that power-share is OP, I've shown what the power share actually gives. As you yourself, ask for reduction to the power-share, I suggest you go over that post. Who knows, maybe I can show you something new or change preconception.
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.
And here is why I've suggested for you to read that numbers post, because that's exactly what it deals with. But instead somehow you claim just in the quote above that it has nothing to do with what was asked:
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.
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
Could it be that, in the same post I've just calculated how much powershare translates to a dps buff ? Can't be, it must be offtopic. But let me help resolving this, you want a quick solution to power creep, I've offered one repeatedly, Diminishing returns to ALL Primary stats. It looks to me now that this constant deal with buffs / powershare comes from other reasons, because I can't fathom why we are dealing with this, and not asking for DR on stats...
You want to tone down buffs, no problem, but multiplicative can't be simply changed, because class feats rely on it. So are companions, boons, and what not. For a rework of such magnitude buffs must be separated into groups, and make the system more complex.
And yet the same buffs exists since mod5. Please do read what I wrote. A constant buff of even million %, doesn't change anything as long as it's static. This is not what power creep is. Adding to that buff, is power creep, reducing is negating power creep. Adding to the damage that goes thought that buff, is power creep, reducing is negating. Having the same buff since the start is not. This is fundamental understanding of the damage and power creep.
Some people singled out the powershare and made it into a big DC issue...
Sorry, but you singled it out. And please don't make me go and quote it. I think we can use our time better. Iv'e wrote why actually stat sharing is has it's merits over flat buff. I've wrote better solutions (IMO) than changing it.
You are for replacing power share for flat buff ? Lets find a middle ground, no problem, lets work that way, lets change the power share, that a AC DC will match DOs straight buffs with consideration to the costs, and everything. You want to remove pet-share. Sure no problem, and yes, there were even numbers thrown as straight buff, or lets buff the power share so it wont work via the pet but directly. This will also add pet variety (ranged) and augments (that do not benefit from this now).
But first lets cap posts per day, this takes too much time.
2
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
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.
Bonding runestones were not adjusted due to power creep. They were adjusted due to being so far out of line with the rest of runestones/companions. It was something on our radar for a long time, and where it may have been easier to accept if it had happened sooner, it still needed to happen.
The refinement changes were something we already had plans for and were working on. With that coming down the line, we knew that any changes to bonding runestones needed to happen before players started investing in T13 and T14 bonding runestones and that is why these changes are all bundled together.
At this point we are still going forward with the bonding runestones as they are now. We realize there are other issues in the game and those are all things to be looked at independently of this. Bonding runestones do need to be brought closer in line with the rest of the companion system, and these changes still leave them out in front as the most powerful choice for most players.
3
putzboy78Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,950Arc User
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.
We answered this question in the DC_Channel
First note this is way off topic. The topic is really about keeping AC/DC powershare relevant and at what point does powershare move from relevance to overpowered. I would recommend this gets put in a seperate thread if @ambisinisterr is done recovering from the last cleanup, lol (sorry Ambi)
To your questions.
HL casting is more of a low geared additive or a pre-made additive. Than an endgame or high geared additive. BIS characters don't depend on HL for their rotations. In fact, in many cases getting their encounters available sooner will most likely not result in more casting because the timings are tight as is. Also consider that we have a couple of classes (particularly 2 of 3 big HL DPS classes) that do not rely on encounter cooldowns for their damage (HR and GWF). So essentially if your BIS enough to justify using AC/DC as a powersharer over TI then your party typically doesn't need HL.
Another consideration is HL is available to both AC/DO so this does not serve to differentiate from the DO paragon.
AA as a ultility for avoiding damage and CC has limited function in game. Once again we are talking about in order to have enough power to justify the role as a buffer your party is likely to not be as reliant on you for survive-ability (most rely more on OP shield, GF KV, and lifesteal). Also many of the end game content has small attacks that quickly dissolve the AA shield. T9G last boss is an exception but most of mod 8-11 content has this function, especially mod 9.
AC/DC will always have a niche in groups. It is superior to DO in survive-ability. The trick is measuring that benefit which cannot be done via math which has been the focus on this thread. The benefits you list are subjective and kind of dangerous because OP is a better protector than DC. So your looking for a role that sits between that of buff/debuff DC and protector OP. There is a lot of class overlap in the way of roles which is one reason the idea of introducing a new class with a buff/debuff role (bard) is scary because right now the roles are crowded for healing and protection.
1
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
I agree a lot things can be a waste of time as i see...
Once again, and I want expand on it.My point was that with what was said it made it look that in the new module you will need a 57k dc to share 81k power. What he needed it for, is not important. It was posted that a 57k Dc can buff 81k, I saw different and I said its not correct.
I understand all of your points but I didn't challenge the 58% powershare to keep bring it on and on again. You can keep posting and its your right but you will keep getting the same answer.
DO+AC+OP will fairly easily cap at 160k power added (OP at roughly 70k AC DC at 90k and DO at 15k), at mod 12 levels, BiS. Thing is, that powershare as a 133% dps buff being somehow shocking just goes to show how poorly the actual extent of buffs is understood. The actual multiplier to raw base damage is about 6-7 times higher in an actual end game group. An MoF can reach close to the same level of damage buff alone, given that no other debuffs are active. Thing is, actual top end groups are reaching not 200, but closer to 2000% peak buffs compared to raw unbuffed damage, as a simple calculation for multipliers:
(debuff) 3 x (powershare 2.5) x (HG) 1.4 x (eFF) 1.15 x (eBTS) 1.3 x (itf) 1.3 x 1.1 (commander) = 22.44 for a solid 2144 % dps buff.
Of course, due to the multiplicative nature of buffs, nerfing a single component in this list, will also have a multiplicative effect. Say we reduce the powershare component down to 1.5, and the end result will be only 1247 % dps buff.
Just to show how numbers can be correct and simultaneously lie, I could say that in a dungeon situation with full buffs a HR's longstrider's shot gives a party buff worth 168k power (with the assumption of toons having 240k power to start with)
But here's the thing, when we start talking about these shocking numbers, we often forget a few things. First, to see the shocking results, we are going to need a well organized group where all synergies work well together, second for any of this to have any meaning we need high base damage in the first place.
0
putzboy78Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,950Arc User
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.
Silly question, but when you say low ilvl cleric, is that because you intentionally have 4 enchants slots empty companions removed, etc to prove your point? Because a <12K DC shouldn't have 37K base Power. Also noting that your recovery is only 11.5K. A "maxed out DC" would have invested in those enchants and more recovery. You have legendary artifact equipment, mythic artifacts. I feel like you have massaged the data to add seriousness to the statement. No reason for that, the point stands on its own without the categorization of "low IL" and "Maxed out DC"
0
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
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.
Silly question, but when you say low ilvl cleric, is that because you intentionally have 4 enchants slots empty companions removed, etc to prove your point? Because a
I meant low item level ironically since i have 37k compare to 58k that was said. Sorry otherwise i wouldn't show the full picture and the legendaries as you said. Either way even 4 more rank 12 would give me 82x4=328 and make me just above 12k. Honestly i didnt massaged the data otherwise i wouldnt show the screenshot . Sorry if i didnt make it clear you have right.
clericalistMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 595Arc User
Somebody mentioned the bard class, it is probably safe to assume that the bard on release will be overpowered, like all the new classes seemed to be. I expect it to be the must have class for the difficult dungeons and for the daily dungeon farmers. Tong for the "correct setup" will take five minutes, and for the rest an hour, if it can be done at all.
Personally I dream of the day where this game does not need these absurd levels of powersharing to do all of the content. I can understand that there are the number crunching types that enjoy this kind of stuff, but I would be surprised if this was a sizeable percentage of the player base is trying to get out of the game. There should be hard end game content, but it should not be based on finding the optimal calculations determined with spreadsheets as the people are arguing about here. The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges.
"The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges."
I wanna throw in a question.... I play an acdc on my own and I am still wondering about my stats sometimes. I have around 35k base power, and I can buff myself to 90k with 3 defensive slots for r11 bondings... Is this normal or is perhaps Assasins Covenant too strong? I abuse this insignia bonus like hell. So I can triple my power. Sure I do not share this at all, but this is what happens when I go into rage mode as acdc. Funny thing... I can buff my OP with nearly the same amount of base power to 180k power... Yey assasins covenat abuse.............both do...... and I run around with 120k power when everything procs during the dungeon. Btw I am only 13k ilvl.... Daunting Light with more than 500k crit damage is pretty normal now..
0
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
Somebody mentioned the bard class, it is probably safe to assume that the bard on release will be overpowered, like all the new classes seemed to be. I expect it to be the must have class for the difficult dungeons and for the daily dungeon farmers. Tong for the "correct setup" will take five minutes, and for the rest an hour, if it can be done at all.
Personally I dream of the day where this game does not need these absurd levels of powersharing to do all of the content. I can understand that there are the number crunching types that enjoy this kind of stuff, but I would be surprised if this was a sizeable percentage of the player base is trying to get out of the game. There should be hard end game content, but it should not be based on finding the optimal calculations determined with spreadsheets as the people are arguing about here. The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges.
Finally someone said what we need excellent comment.
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.
Very true but there are cases we don't actually need a comparison as we have a very good grasp of the min / max values. When we say a car is 400H/P we don't actually need to compare it with other cars to understand its positioning, value or strength.
Since we know the min and max and average of how tall humans can be, even if i tell you I'm 1.94 without comparing we can understand I'm tall based on our knowledge of the average height.
Don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing with you on your post just thought that I should say how I see it.
The thing here mickey again singling out one phrase to give a false impression isn't becoming and by all means I dont mean you did thew singling out but this entire conversation is based on things that happened during various conversations both here and on the other threads but you just followed them along.
Point 2 Bringing in line the other ruins and/or augments. Complex subject but really easy to see where the problem is.
You wanted to tone down the bonding % as you felt its overpowered compared to others... Agreed. What did you achieve with that? Nothing. Its still better that any other ruin even with others giving more points. How much better? 95% exactly. The amount of stat share it offers. Now you kept saying on the last Stream that is better to tone down one and not raise the others.. I agree, but this is hardly enough and became pointless now.
Any logical player will go for the solution that offers the most. They will reconsider ONLY if given choices offer similar benefits with different stat allocations, to create variety. So unless the other enchants offer the same share % of stats, as bondings do, but different stats (crit, armor pen etc), there is no way that anyone will justify losing 195% more stats from 3 gears and 9 enchants. Would you?
Now here is the catch. Powershare to the companions (again). Neither augment nor other ruins allow the powershare to go through. So you ask the player base reconsider to switch to either augment and/or other ruins and lose 95% of own stats and 38k stats from powershare pr source more or less. How one would think this, as a possibility is beyond me.
On top augments don't offer at the current point any support for mount bonuses that trigger by using companions. Even more stat loss.
That was part of my entire argument about, NOT nerfing the bonding and in exchange adjust the powershare to the companion while buffing the direct effect of powershare to the player from DC / pally and at the same time increase the other ruins.
You may agree or disagree or have a different idea, but for sure I'm not asking for nerf nor it has the DC as focus. Powersharing to the companion was the center and from ALL sources.
None of you tho got that somehow, but got focused on my "attempt to nerf the AC... " like I have something to win.... you will not find in my posts a single line (unless taken out of context) about me asking a nerf to DC as you keep trying to prove.
If the above is not enough... then you just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.
And if we think about it isn't powershare again preventing people from moving to other solutions because those don't transfer the power that the companion will get from dc, to the player in multiples? food for thought
Just to demonstrate and lighten the mood a bit let me single out too some of your comments
Now what will people think if they just see you saying the above? (above posts are from this thread and taken out of context, Micky didn't mean that at all )
For me this ends here
Post edited by oria1 on
0
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc 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
Check again my original post i added an example with dc and op be in party in a sp run. I have screenshots for the total power i got from dc-op and calculations how much gave the dc based on his base power . The last screenshot the buffs are visible on my character and you can see also how was the composition dc-op-hr-me on cw-gwf.
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
Check again my original post i added an example with dc and op be in party in a sp run. I have screenshots for the total power i got from dc-op and calculations how much gave the dc based on his base power . The last screenshot the buffs are visible on my character and you can see also how was the composition dc-op-hr-me on cw-gwf.
Can you please clarify what is the point you try to make now with the edit ?
If it's that powershare gives more the lower the shared target is and the more the DC has, and vice versa give considerably less the more the DPS has to begin with and the less the DC has. Then you show it, especially on a support MoF (29k recovery, 6k crit, and 40k power with bondings). I've wrote it repeatedly, that what makes powershare interesting, as it normalizes the DPS, and still your entire DPS even if magnified by 300% (instead of the demonstrated power share) wouldn't be on par with the typical DPS in the group. In this case the GWF, and if he is geared, his power will be much higher to begin with and the gain from powershare much lower. As I've said repeatedly, and shown.
If it's not that, then please clarify what you want to show so we wont have misunderstandings later.
" ...what makes powershare interesting, as it normalizes the DPS, and still your entire DPS even if magnified by 300% (instead of the demonstrated power share) wouldn't be on par with the typical DPS in the group. In this case the GWF, and if he is geared, his power will be much higher to begin with and the gain from powershare much lower."
Very good point.
0
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc 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
Check again my original post i added an example with dc and op be in party in a sp run. I have screenshots for the total power i got from dc-op and calculations how much gave the dc based on his base power . The last screenshot the buffs are visible on my character and you can see also how was the composition dc-op-hr-me on cw-gwf.
Can you please clarify what is the point you try to make now with the edit ?
If it's that powershare gives more the lower the shared target is and the more the DC has, and vice versa give considerably less the more the DPS has to begin with and the less the DC has. Then you show it, especially on a support MoF (29k recovery, 6k crit, and 40k power with bondings). I've wrote it repeatedly, that what makes powershare interesting, as it normalizes the DPS, and still your entire DPS even if magnified by 300% (instead of the demonstrated power share) wouldn't be on par with the typical DPS in the group. In this case the GWF, and if he is geared, his power will be much higher to begin with and the gain from powershare much lower. As I've said repeatedly, and shown.
If it's not that, then please clarify what you want to show so we wont have misunderstandings later.
I am sorry i didnt express it correctly and you have right , the reason i made that thread ( with a little anger) is because we cant i believe exclude parameters sharp mentioned( wol legendary bonus etc) and then compare two classes. It is like to compare example:
As great weapon fighter to remove gear-companions-insignias and put a blue weapon which has lesser weapon damage than tr so i am weak buff my class. While in numbers his statement is not incorrect to some poeple will give the wrong impression about the class.
So i updated my original post to show what is happening under the real dungeon circumstances when you exclude nothing.
First at all, AA is a situational daily. It dissipates very quickly when there are dots or swarms of enemies. Are you claiming you can consistently maintain 200k in MSP? If not, posting 200k is deceiving.
Second, for buffs, an ACDC being the only DC in the party would need to prioritize between HG and AA. Being the only DC, you also need to weight between gaining AP and gaining divinity. Which means you cannot just cast AA over and over for the best result - and if you do, party might see higher power, but this higher power doesn't equate to better result.
Third, DC relies on power to heal. Nerfing power would also mean destroying DC's healing abilities.
It absolutely angers me when people claim power sharing is overpowered when they run with a party composed of OP tank, GF, DODC, ACDC, and GWF. Is some people's preference for this composition purely ACDC's fault? Is it purely a result of power sharing? It's the synergy that's powerful - not because this one class one paragon.
4
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
First at all, AA is a situational daily. It dissipates very quickly when there are dots or swarms of enemies. Are you claiming you can consistently maintain 200k in MSP? If not, posting 200k is deceiving.
Second, for buffs, an ACDC being the only DC in the party would need to prioritize between HG and AA. Being the only DC, you also need to weight between gaining AP and gaining divinity. Which means you cannot just cast AA over and over for the best result - and if you do, party might see higher power, but this higher power doesn't equate to better result.
Third, DC relies on power to heal. Nerfing power would also mean destroying DC's healing abilities.
It absolutely angers me when people claim power sharing is overpowered when they run with a party composed of OP tank, GF, DODC, ACDC, and GWF. Is some people's preference for this composition purely ACDC's fault? Is it purely a result of power sharing? It's the synergy that's powerful - not because this one class one paragon.
The reason i made that thread because i saw wrong presentation of the ac dc has " weak power share" when in reality has a pretty strong power share.
ABout your first and 2nd is not common to have this expierence since even when i try to make the party with 1 dc it ends up with angry poeple asking for 2nd one.
IS up to devs to : "The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges." That a guy said earlier.
I will add: or to rework the current content for the above goal.
It is not the AC DC's fault it is a condition (the power share loop) that was not ever intended. It is the DEV's fault for allowing to stay in game this long. Power sharing and the multiplicity of buffs in the game is a huge problem, it trivializes all content in the game. The DC role now is to bring to the party what really lessens the game. Who needs a healer when you can HAMSTER stomp all content using 300k power buff.
The reason i made that thread because i saw wrong presentation of the ac dc has " weak power share" when in reality has a pretty strong power share.
ABout your first and 2nd is not common to have this expierence since even when i try to make the party with 1 dc it ends up with angry poeple asking for 2nd one.
IS up to devs to : "The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges." That a guy said earlier.
I will add: or to rework the current content for the above goal.
Thank you.
You think it's wise to nerf a class/paragon that's balanced itself because what angry people demand?
Angry people asking for two DCs are either lazy or ignorant - perhaps that ignorance partially stems from posts like this that claims power sharing is overpowered.
I personally haven't seen any angry player demanding two DCs. If I ever run into one someday, I would tell that player to go find another group.
I think almost everyone likes to be useful. But is destroying a balanced and interesting mechanics the solution to make everyone else useful? Why do certain DPS classes mostly play support at the moment to get into groups? They are excellent supports, but some not by choice - the other option has been taken away.
Like the quote says - I also think "to create content" is a better idea. There are far better options than to have unnecessary nerf hammer going round and round. Since this is a DC thread, I won't go into what that content could possibly be. It's another conversation that's more worthy of our discussion.
It is not the AC DC's fault it is a condition (the power share loop) that was not ever intended. It is the DEV's fault for allowing to stay in game this long. Power sharing and the multiplicity of buffs in the game is a huge problem, it trivializes all content in the game. The DC role now is to bring to the party what really lessens the game. Who needs a healer when you can HAMSTER stomp all content using 300k power buff.
Stop the rumor mill please.
0
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
It is not the AC DC's fault it is a condition (the power share loop) that was not ever intended. It is the DEV's fault for allowing to stay in game this long. Power sharing and the multiplicity of buffs in the game is a huge problem, it trivializes all content in the game. The DC role now is to bring to the party what really lessens the game. Who needs a healer when you can HAMSTER stomp all content using 300k power buff.
Stop the rumor mill please.
you will wanted a lot to be a rumour but it isnt. Here a dev statement for the meta ( not necessary saying about a class)>
We are aware that there is some concern that the best groups do not actually currently run 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 DPS. The current meta has evolved this way unintentionally due to the overwhelming power of buffs and debuffs, as opposed to being a distinct direction we were driving in.
This is part of the reason we are continually making adjustments to player powers. The design team is in discussions about what we would like to do long term in regards to how far off the meta is from the original design, but we don't plan to adjust the restrictions at least for launch of the feature.
you will wanted a lot to be a rumour but it isnt. Here a dev statement for the meta ( not necessary saying about a class)>
We are aware that there is some concern that the best groups do not actually currently run 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 DPS. The current meta has evolved this way unintentionally due to the overwhelming power of buffs and debuffs, as opposed to being a distinct direction we were driving in.
This is part of the reason we are continually making adjustments to player powers. The design team is in discussions about what we would like to do long term in regards to how far off the meta is from the original design, but we don't plan to adjust the restrictions at least for launch of the feature.
I found this in random queue thread.
I called it rumor because three things are mentioned and none is true.
1. power share loop 2. no heal needed 3. 300k power buff stomping all contents
In regard to trivializing. We are back to the problem of contents and what kind of groups of players we are talking about. Are we talking about eTos or are we talking about TONG? If you say eToS, I agree. But you also need to ask why are these overpowered players running eToS? If you say buffs and debuffs have trivialized TONG, I disagree. A generalized statement of everything being trivialized is simply not true.
And in regard to devs' statement on meta - players naturally gravitate towards what's fast and safe for a dungeon run when you have to run the same dungeon many times to essentially level up (well, apparently you will also be manually level down at some point....) Perhaps if we stop trying to break what's not broken in the game, and focus more on what's really needed to make more fun and satisfying contents, we all might end up enjoying the game more. And if you ask me what happened to those irrelevant DPSs' DPS, I'd say they weren't always irrelevant, were they? Over adjust over nerf one specific area will only introduce more problems down the line.
you will wanted a lot to be a rumour but it isnt. Here a dev statement for the meta ( not necessary saying about a class)>
We are aware that there is some concern that the best groups do not actually currently run 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 DPS. The current meta has evolved this way unintentionally due to the overwhelming power of buffs and debuffs, as opposed to being a distinct direction we were driving in.
This is part of the reason we are continually making adjustments to player powers. The design team is in discussions about what we would like to do long term in regards to how far off the meta is from the original design, but we don't plan to adjust the restrictions at least for launch of the feature.
I found this in random queue thread.
I called it rumor because three things are mentioned and none is true.
1. power share loop 2. no heal needed 3. 300k power buff stomping all contents
In regard to trivializing. We are back to the problem of contents and what kind of groups of players we are talking about. Are we talking about eTos or are we talking about TONG? If you say eToS, I agree. But you also need to ask why are these overpowered players running eToS? If you say buffs and debuffs have trivialized TONG, I disagree. A generalized statement of everything being trivialized is simply not true.
And in regard to devs' statement on meta - players naturally gravitate towards what's fast and safe for a dungeon run when you have to run the same dungeon many times to essentially level up (well, apparently you will also be manually level down at some point....) Perhaps if we stop trying to break what's not broken in the game, and focus more on what's really needed to make more fun and satisfying contents, we all might end up enjoying the game more. And if you ask me what happened to those irrelevant DPSs' DPS, I'd say they weren't always irrelevant, were they? Over adjust over nerf one specific area will only introduce more problems down the line.
LOL @polarp178 , denying the power share.... just lol lol lol. I do not understand why people like you think using the power share loop makes the game fun?
you will wanted a lot to be a rumour but it isnt. Here a dev statement for the meta ( not necessary saying about a class)>
We are aware that there is some concern that the best groups do not actually currently run 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 DPS. The current meta has evolved this way unintentionally due to the overwhelming power of buffs and debuffs, as opposed to being a distinct direction we were driving in.
This is part of the reason we are continually making adjustments to player powers. The design team is in discussions about what we would like to do long term in regards to how far off the meta is from the original design, but we don't plan to adjust the restrictions at least for launch of the feature.
I found this in random queue thread.
I called it rumor because three things are mentioned and none is true.
1. power share loop 2. no heal needed 3. 300k power buff stomping all contents
In regard to trivializing. We are back to the problem of contents and what kind of groups of players we are talking about. Are we talking about eTos or are we talking about TONG? If you say eToS, I agree. But you also need to ask why are these overpowered players running eToS? If you say buffs and debuffs have trivialized TONG, I disagree. A generalized statement of everything being trivialized is simply not true.
And in regard to devs' statement on meta - players naturally gravitate towards what's fast and safe for a dungeon run when you have to run the same dungeon many times to essentially level up (well, apparently you will also be manually level down at some point....) Perhaps if we stop trying to break what's not broken in the game, and focus more on what's really needed to make more fun and satisfying contents, we all might end up enjoying the game more. And if you ask me what happened to those irrelevant DPSs' DPS, I'd say they weren't always irrelevant, were they? Over adjust over nerf one specific area will only introduce more problems down the line.
LOL @polarp178 , denying the power share.... just lol lol lol. I do not understand why people like you think using the power share loop makes the game fun?
when powershare was looping in mod 9 we were running arround with millions of Power flying 1 hitting tiamat heads with atwills... get your facts straight pls.
THERE IS NO POWERSHARE LOOP
3
erosennin92Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 38Arc User
LOL @polarp178 , denying the power share.... just lol lol lol. I do not understand why people like you think using the power share loop makes the game fun?
Please at least demonstrate to know what you are talking about, or at least the terms you are using such as "power shar loop"... Even if we are disagreeing on something, we are triying to have a civilized discussion and picking random terms from past discussions just because it has some words in common is confusing and poisonous to this thread...
By reference, talking from a sensible perspective, if you are still talking about power loop I believe you are (at least) a couple of mods back...
Azeroth Godwill - (Half)Drow - Virtuous AC DC - iLvL 4k
Comments
How many threads I've made accusing (will get to it next). This is simply not correct. It's nice how first the accusations come and then after it took 3+ people to say that the accusations are simply wrong and the OP didn't prove a thing, there is backtracking.
Luckily we don't need to go far, lets see: The statement is: Claim that the numbers are wrong: Again: I think I found the part about dungeons vs dummies, it must be this: Or maybe not
Here we go again how the calculations are wrong (if they are not wrong, we can't make "the right" calculations):
We are at the end, this must be the dungeon vs dummies part: I guess it's not either.
So please, I may disagree, I may be wrong, I may be right, I may be stubborn and write aggressively. Yet I'm a firm believer that from arguments we learn the most.
But I don't insult no ones Intelligence here, so please do not insult mine. My reading comprehension maybe not the best, but even I can see that this post is not about dungeons, and it's not about dummies.
It's about bias and misleading.
So lets revisit again: This is not correct, from the quote at the begining: The correct assertion will be:
So according to @thefabricant precise calculations an ACDC in module 12b will need 57,6k power to share 81k power to a dps withn 80k power. To provide the same buff as DO DC
Now we can argue few things here:
1. That the calculations are completely wrong and incorrect.
2. One is that it's irrelevant to the topic.
3. WoL shouldn't be ignored.
The OP focuses on the first. Several people demonstrated that the calculations are indeed correct. What was stated, is indeed what was calculated.
We can argue that even that that the calculations are correct, they are not relevant. It is not what the OP wrote.
And finally, WoL. I trust that both you and the OP are capable doing the calculation with WoL, I don't need no screenshots or preview, it's simple addition, we know the numbers, we know mod12b transfer, and I even provided similar calculation in my first long post.
So if anyone wants to prove / disprove WoL issue, lets do it, and if you think you can't, no problem, I'll do it (though I'm sure everyone here can). Also for the full work, it will be nice to see, like @rapo973 mentioned, the considerations for DO different typical power.
So, lets go point by point and prove or disprove things, this waving hands is only bias.
To be continued..... (I think at the end this is indeed colossal waste of my time)
ofcourse, and it was brought as a logical fallacy, to a totally different claim you made. You claimed that DC shouldn't have invested in power. And their investment is their loss because it's just to good.
I've brought the same example, you shouldn't have invested in bondings, it's now your loss, you should have known that's too good.
While I object to bondings changes. You can't claim one without the others. I say both bondings and power share were left as is for enough time to be considered WAI, even if the original designer, obviously, didn't account for the future. While the OP claimed the numbers are wrong and the subtext is that power-share is OP, I've shown what the power share actually gives.
As you yourself, ask for reduction to the power-share, I suggest you go over that post. Who knows, maybe I can show you something new or change preconception. And here is why I've suggested for you to read that numbers post, because that's exactly what it deals with. But instead somehow you claim just in the quote above that it has nothing to do with what was asked: So again, please do not insult my inelegance. Could it be that, in the same post I've just calculated how much powershare translates to a dps buff ? Can't be, it must be offtopic.
But let me help resolving this, you want a quick solution to power creep, I've offered one repeatedly, Diminishing returns to ALL Primary stats.
It looks to me now that this constant deal with buffs / powershare comes from other reasons, because I can't fathom why we are dealing with this, and not asking for DR on stats...
You want to tone down buffs, no problem, but multiplicative can't be simply changed, because class feats rely on it. So are companions, boons, and what not. For a rework of such magnitude buffs must be separated into groups, and make the system more complex.
And yet the same buffs exists since mod5. Please do read what I wrote. A constant buff of even million %, doesn't change anything as long as it's static. This is not what power creep is. Adding to that buff, is power creep, reducing is negating power creep. Adding to the damage that goes thought that buff, is power creep, reducing is negating. Having the same buff since the start is not. This is fundamental understanding of the damage and power creep.
Sorry, but you singled it out. And please don't make me go and quote it. I think we can use our time better.
Iv'e wrote why actually stat sharing is has it's merits over flat buff. I've wrote better solutions (IMO) than changing it.
You are for replacing power share for flat buff ? Lets find a middle ground, no problem, lets work that way, lets change the power share, that a AC DC will match DOs straight buffs with consideration to the costs, and everything.
You want to remove pet-share. Sure no problem, and yes, there were even numbers thrown as straight buff, or lets buff the power share so it wont work via the pet but directly. This will also add pet variety (ranged) and augments (that do not benefit from this now).
But first lets cap posts per day, this takes too much time.
First note this is way off topic. The topic is really about keeping AC/DC powershare relevant and at what point does powershare move from relevance to overpowered. I would recommend this gets put in a seperate thread if @ambisinisterr is done recovering from the last cleanup, lol (sorry Ambi)
To your questions.
HL casting is more of a low geared additive or a pre-made additive. Than an endgame or high geared additive. BIS characters don't depend on HL for their rotations. In fact, in many cases getting their encounters available sooner will most likely not result in more casting because the timings are tight as is. Also consider that we have a couple of classes (particularly 2 of 3 big HL DPS classes) that do not rely on encounter cooldowns for their damage (HR and GWF). So essentially if your BIS enough to justify using AC/DC as a powersharer over TI then your party typically doesn't need HL.
Another consideration is HL is available to both AC/DO so this does not serve to differentiate from the DO paragon.
AA as a ultility for avoiding damage and CC has limited function in game. Once again we are talking about in order to have enough power to justify the role as a buffer your party is likely to not be as reliant on you for survive-ability (most rely more on OP shield, GF KV, and lifesteal). Also many of the end game content has small attacks that quickly dissolve the AA shield. T9G last boss is an exception but most of mod 8-11 content has this function, especially mod 9.
AC/DC will always have a niche in groups. It is superior to DO in survive-ability. The trick is measuring that benefit which cannot be done via math which has been the focus on this thread. The benefits you list are subjective and kind of dangerous because OP is a better protector than DC. So your looking for a role that sits between that of buff/debuff DC and protector OP. There is a lot of class overlap in the way of roles which is one reason the idea of introducing a new class with a buff/debuff role (bard) is scary because right now the roles are crowded for healing and protection.
Once again, and I want expand on it.My point was that with what was said it made it look that in the new module you will need a 57k dc to share 81k power. What he needed it for, is not important. It was posted that a 57k Dc can buff 81k, I saw different and I said its not correct.
I understand all of your points but I didn't challenge the 58% powershare to keep bring it on and on again. You can keep posting and its your right but you will keep getting the same answer.
(debuff) 3 x (powershare 2.5) x (HG) 1.4 x (eFF) 1.15 x (eBTS) 1.3 x (itf) 1.3 x 1.1 (commander) = 22.44 for a solid 2144 % dps buff.
Of course, due to the multiplicative nature of buffs, nerfing a single component in this list, will also have a multiplicative effect. Say we reduce the powershare component down to 1.5, and the end result will be only 1247 % dps buff.
Just to show how numbers can be correct and simultaneously lie, I could say that in a dungeon situation with full buffs a HR's longstrider's shot gives a party buff worth 168k power (with the assumption of toons having 240k power to start with)
But here's the thing, when we start talking about these shocking numbers, we often forget a few things. First, to see the shocking results, we are going to need a well organized group where all synergies work well together, second for any of this to have any meaning we need high base damage in the first place.
and the legendaries as you said. Either way even 4 more rank 12 would give me 82x4=328 and make me just above 12k.
Honestly i didnt massaged the data otherwise i wouldnt show the screenshot . Sorry if i didnt make it clear you have right.
Personally I dream of the day where this game does not need these absurd levels of powersharing to do all of the content. I can understand that there are the number crunching types that enjoy this kind of stuff, but I would be surprised if this was a sizeable percentage of the player base is trying to get out of the game. There should be hard end game content, but it should not be based on finding the optimal calculations determined with spreadsheets as the people are arguing about here. The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges.
This is one of the best comments I ever saw...
Since we know the min and max and average of how tall humans can be, even if i tell you I'm 1.94 without comparing we can understand I'm tall based on our knowledge of the average height.
Don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing with you on your post just thought that I should say how I see it.
This was part of my proposal That was part of my entire argument about, NOT nerfing the bonding and in exchange adjust the powershare to the companion while buffing the direct effect of powershare to the player from DC / pally and at the same time increase the other ruins.
You may agree or disagree or have a different idea, but for sure I'm not asking for nerf nor it has the DC as focus. Powersharing to the companion was the center and from ALL sources.
None of you tho got that somehow, but got focused on my "attempt to nerf the AC... " like I have something to win....
you will not find in my posts a single line (unless taken out of context) about me asking a nerf to DC as you keep trying to prove.
If the above is not enough... then you just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.
And if we think about it isn't powershare again preventing people from moving to other solutions because those don't transfer the power that the companion will get from dc, to the player in multiples? food for thought
Just to demonstrate and lighten the mood a bit let me single out too some of your comments
(above posts are from this thread and taken out of context, Micky didn't mean that at all )
For me this ends here
The last screenshot the buffs are visible on my character and you can see also how was the composition dc-op-hr-me on cw-gwf.
If it's that powershare gives more the lower the shared target is and the more the DC has, and vice versa give considerably less the more the DPS has to begin with and the less the DC has. Then you show it, especially on a support MoF (29k recovery, 6k crit, and 40k power with bondings).
I've wrote it repeatedly, that what makes powershare interesting, as it normalizes the DPS, and still your entire DPS even if magnified by 300% (instead of the demonstrated power share) wouldn't be on par with the typical DPS in the group. In this case the GWF, and if he is geared, his power will be much higher to begin with and the gain from powershare much lower.
As I've said repeatedly, and shown.
If it's not that, then please clarify what you want to show so we wont have misunderstandings later.
" ...what makes powershare interesting, as it normalizes the DPS, and still your entire DPS even if magnified by 300% (instead of the demonstrated power share) wouldn't be on par with the typical DPS in the group. In this case the GWF, and if he is geared, his power will be much higher to begin with and the gain from powershare much lower."
Very good point.
As great weapon fighter to remove gear-companions-insignias and put a blue weapon which has lesser weapon damage than tr
so i am weak buff my class.
While in numbers his statement is not incorrect to some poeple will give the wrong impression about the class.
So i updated my original post to show what is happening under the real dungeon circumstances when you exclude nothing.
Second, for buffs, an ACDC being the only DC in the party would need to prioritize between HG and AA. Being the only DC, you also need to weight between gaining AP and gaining divinity. Which means you cannot just cast AA over and over for the best result - and if you do, party might see higher power, but this higher power doesn't equate to better result.
Third, DC relies on power to heal. Nerfing power would also mean destroying DC's healing abilities.
It absolutely angers me when people claim power sharing is overpowered when they run with a party composed of OP tank, GF, DODC, ACDC, and GWF. Is some people's preference for this composition purely ACDC's fault? Is it purely a result of power sharing? It's the synergy that's powerful - not because this one class one paragon.
ABout your first and 2nd is not common to have this expierence since even when i try to make the party with 1 dc it ends up with angry poeple asking for 2nd one.
IS up to devs to : "The developers should strive to create content that is doable with all sorts of party combinations and that the difference in performance is not measured in orders of magnitude ranges." That a guy said earlier.
I will add: or to rework the current content for the above goal.
Thank you.
Angry people asking for two DCs are either lazy or ignorant - perhaps that ignorance partially stems from posts like this that claims power sharing is overpowered.
I personally haven't seen any angry player demanding two DCs. If I ever run into one someday, I would tell that player to go find another group.
I think almost everyone likes to be useful. But is destroying a balanced and interesting mechanics the solution to make everyone else useful? Why do certain DPS classes mostly play support at the moment to get into groups? They are excellent supports, but some not by choice - the other option has been taken away.
Like the quote says - I also think "to create content" is a better idea. There are far better options than to have unnecessary nerf hammer going round and round. Since this is a DC thread, I won't go into what that content could possibly be. It's another conversation that's more worthy of our discussion.
We are aware that there is some concern that the best groups do not actually currently run 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 DPS. The current meta has evolved this way unintentionally due to the overwhelming power of buffs and debuffs, as opposed to being a distinct direction we were driving in.
This is part of the reason we are continually making adjustments to player powers. The design team is in discussions about what we would like to do long term in regards to how far off the meta is from the original design, but we don't plan to adjust the restrictions at least for launch of the feature.
I found this in random queue thread.
1. power share loop
2. no heal needed
3. 300k power buff stomping all contents
In regard to trivializing. We are back to the problem of contents and what kind of groups of players we are talking about. Are we talking about eTos or are we talking about TONG? If you say eToS, I agree. But you also need to ask why are these overpowered players running eToS? If you say buffs and debuffs have trivialized TONG, I disagree. A generalized statement of everything being trivialized is simply not true.
And in regard to devs' statement on meta - players naturally gravitate towards what's fast and safe for a dungeon run when you have to run the same dungeon many times to essentially level up (well, apparently you will also be manually level down at some point....) Perhaps if we stop trying to break what's not broken in the game, and focus more on what's really needed to make more fun and satisfying contents, we all might end up enjoying the game more. And if you ask me what happened to those irrelevant DPSs' DPS, I'd say they weren't always irrelevant, were they? Over adjust over nerf one specific area will only introduce more problems down the line.
Taylor DC/DO & AC Buff/Debuff - Guild Gutbusters Brigade - PVE
THERE IS NO POWERSHARE LOOP
By reference, talking from a sensible perspective, if you are still talking about power loop I believe you are (at least) a couple of mods back...
Azeroth Godwill - (Half)Drow - Virtuous AC DC - iLvL 4k