Where is the error? Show me the mathematical error.
Your model leads to an unrealistic result.
I don't know where in the long series of manipulations you made a mistake, but the first thing they teach you in modelling is to test your model's outputs against the data.
Your earlier claims were that AoC can contribute 30% of damage. Most disagreed, said closer to 20%.
Then you produce a model that shows AoC contributing 50% of damage. Say "oops, forgot some stuff" and revise it down to 39% of damage.
Do you agree that your model is predicting AoC represents 39% of your damage? Do you see why that's a problem (taking even your highest previous claims of how much AoC should contribute)?
Models are only useful if they are reasonably representative of some aspect of reality. You need to test your model against the data to see if it is working. Your model does not.
I never said that this model represents everything. That is also what they teach you in modelling, that a model is only as useful as the assumptions upon which it is based.
I stated quite clearly what the assumptions were behind my calculation. Under *those specific set of assumptions*, it showed that the HP mount was the better choice over the Power mount, and that it didn't require absurd 200k+ amounts of Power in order for that result to occur. Would you agree with that?
It sounds like you're aligned with how modeling should be done. So why are you not concerned your model gives a dramatically unrealistic result? AoC does not represent 39% of player damage. Not even on like CWs, which benefit the most.
So if your model is giving an irrelevant result, why cite it?
Like I said. We could show that with a Farmer's Scythe that AoC represent 99% of my damage! But how is that useful to the discussion of whether AoC is overpowered?
I agree that you have some set of variables (I would claim incredibly unrealistic and irrelevant to any in-game gearing decisions) where you have arrived at AoC dealing 39% of damage. What is the conclusion?
My conclusion is that your model is not useful for this discussion.
And the LARGER POINT here, before it gets obscured by all this math:
It is completely stupid to be talking about whether HP - hit points! - should be boosting damage in the same vicinity as much as Power does, *especially* since it arises from a completely passive Paladin feature that just stands there in order to provide the buff.
It doesn't though, I have shown my maths yields the same results as yours, but it requires far less user input and thus less room for error. Look very carefully at dbrs pictures, On average, sure strike loses. Furthermore, his picture is assuming 214k power, which is, as I said, over 200k power. Now, reduce the amount of power the dps has to less than that (to whatever power the players in your group have) and there is the answer. It isn't BiS for the absolute BiS running in BiS parties and it certainly will not be BiS in a group which is less geared.
The difference is that you are looking at this global average. I am showing that individual cases deviate from the average, sometimes significantly enough to tip the balance. GWFs get a significant amount of their damage from at-wills, and these are most significantly benefitted from AoC. Even in dbrs' pictures, WMS still wins out with the HP mount over the Power mount even with over 200k power.
And yes, it is stupid to be even talking about how a defensive health pool can be useful for offensive purposes, on the same par as actual offensive stats. It is like discussing the nutritional value of dirt. Sure I guess one could eat dirt, but that's not the point of dirt. The point of dirt is to grow food that has *actual* nutritional value.
And I think considering you are using my runs to justify what should and should not be nerfed, I think maybe you should consider listening to what I am typing when I say it isn't bis. Believe it or not the very first thing I did when I saw the mount was do the maths on how much it would increase AoC damage, see it isn't BiS and then move on.
Too often I have seen in the forums - not necessarily by you, just in general - advice given that is only really applicable to BIS players. My instinct is to not trust advice that is given out that lacks a detailed rationale. I'm not going to trust you or anyone else who says "oh, the HP mount isn't worth it" unless you can SHOW ME that it's not worth it.
I agree that you have some set of variables (I would claim incredibly unrealistic and irrelevant to any in-game gearing decisions) where you have arrived at AoC dealing 39% of damage. What is the conclusion?
My conclusion is that your model is not useful for this discussion.
My model represents an incremental understanding. Instead of griping about my model, why not fill in the gaps?
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
And the LARGER POINT here, before it gets obscured by all this math:
It is completely stupid to be talking about whether HP - hit points! - should be boosting damage in the same vicinity as much as Power does, *especially* since it arises from a completely passive Paladin feature that just stands there in order to provide the buff.
It doesn't though, I have shown my maths yields the same results as yours, but it requires far less user input and thus less room for error. Look very carefully at dbrs pictures, On average, sure strike loses. Furthermore, his picture is assuming 214k power, which is, as I said, over 200k power. Now, reduce the amount of power the dps has to less than that (to whatever power the players in your group have) and there is the answer. It isn't BiS for the absolute BiS running in BiS parties and it certainly will not be BiS in a group which is less geared.
The difference is that you are looking at this global average. I am showing that individual cases deviate from the average, sometimes significantly enough to tip the balance. GWFs get a significant amount of their damage from at-wills, and these are most significantly benefitted from AoC. Even in dbrs' pictures, WMS still wins out with the HP mount over the Power mount even with over 200k power.
And yes, it is stupid to be even talking about how a defensive health pool can be useful for offensive purposes, on the same par as actual offensive stats. It is like discussing the nutritional value of dirt. Sure I guess one could eat dirt, but that's not the point of dirt. The point of dirt is to grow food that has *actual* nutritional value.
And I think considering you are using my runs to justify what should and should not be nerfed, I think maybe you should consider listening to what I am typing when I say it isn't bis. Believe it or not the very first thing I did when I saw the mount was do the maths on how much it would increase AoC damage, see it isn't BiS and then move on.
Too often I have seen in the forums - not necessarily by you, just in general - advice given that is only really applicable to BIS players. My instinct is to not trust advice that is given out that lacks a detailed rationale. I'm not going to trust you or anyone else who says "oh, the HP mount isn't worth it" unless you can SHOW ME that it's not worth it.
I am looking at the global average because the global average is what matters, not whether or not it wins on 1 power. On average it loses in that picture for sure strike, not wins btw. Read carefully. Go back into the thread where I compared my method to yours, you will very clearly see I listed all the stuff you have not included. Include everything that is not currently in your model which alters the outcome and then you can use it. The HP mount will only be used if it wins overall, not if it wins on only 1 power.
In this case, you really should listen. As you have less and less power, the Power mount becomes steadily better and better compared to the HP mount. Your group has much less power than mine and consequently, the power mount will be much better for you than the HP mount. If an HP mount is not bis for me, it is also not bis for you.
My model represents an incremental understanding. Instead of griping about my model, why not fill in the gaps?
Please read through this thread. A lot of helpful people have spent a lot of time explaining how HP is only better than Power in unrealistic cherry-picked situations. They provided realistic estimates of AoC's actual benefit to party DPS, and proposed pretty thorough explanations as to why the cherry-picked situations are not representative.
If you read carefully, you'll see that the OP kept proposing misguided theories and the community helped him understand what he was doing wrong.
Thank you for that. That is what I have been saying. Adding HP reduces the threshold for smaller hits that results in them being buffed more than if power had been added. And as my formula showed, if power is low then adding more power will help more than adding more HP. I would argue however that in real combat, the buffed power even for the newbie will be more than 36k.
I only used 30k power fighter because your original example included a 30k power fighter. It's worth noting that my best in slot fighter example I forgot to include holy avenger, fey, or lightning or any of the other weapon enchantments, which reduce the effectiveness of aura of courage considerably.
I have made a few more for you to look at. This one is the newbie fighter with bondings and power share AC in the group, but they are equally low geared like he is, so he only reached about 71k power while buffed before adding the 4k power mount or 16k HP mount. Note that this guy also has no weapon enchantment, so aura of courage is far better than normal. Please reference the two highlighted numbers for a good way to compare which of these two will likely be better, since it is better to use the average hit of sure strike instead of the tiny first hit.
This is the updated best in slot fighter to include his weapon enchantment. As you can see, 16k HP became much worse compared to last time where it was almost identical.
Beside all that math, I do think AoC Is a reason for disbalance. So balance classes arround an inconsistent power that favours some classes over others? Btw TI multplies damage x1.2. When AoC deals 25% from your overall damage it is a plus of 33,33%. Nearly as good as Hollowed Ground in mod 13. Someone mentioned TI as the better buff, for some classes it's not.
Not quite. You skipped over some first principles in your derivation and got some important constants wrong... but whatever.
My farmer's scythe model is also built on first principles. It's still irrelevant for any in-game gearing decisions...
No, I used an actual GWF weapon. Oh, you are referring to my 1000 test weapon? Oh silly me, I was assuming that maybe you wanted to test my numbers that is why I put it there. I didn't do it to try to deceive you. If I had wanted to deceive you I wouldn't have put any math at all! Heaven forfend that I actually put verifiable math in my posts.
My model represents an incremental understanding. Instead of griping about my model, why not fill in the gaps?
Please read through this thread. A lot of helpful people have spent a lot of time explaining how HP is only better than Power in unrealistic cherry-picked situations. They provided realistic estimates of AoC's actual benefit to party DPS, and proposed pretty thorough explanations as to why the cherry-picked situations are not representative.
If you read carefully, you'll see that the OP kept proposing misguided theories and the community helped him understand what he was doing wrong.
No, you were rude and condescending. I can tell that when you first read my post, you rolled your eyes and said "not another one of THOSE guys!" You started with an air of haughty condescension and you spent most of your time trying to prove me wrong, instead of listening to what I was saying. You still defend the status quo without ever explaining WHY you think it is a good idea for HP to be used as an *offensive weapon* on a DPS class.
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Not quite. You skipped over some first principles in your derivation and got some important constants wrong... but whatever.
My farmer's scythe model is also built on first principles. It's still irrelevant for any in-game gearing decisions...
No, I used an actual GWF weapon. Oh, you are referring to my 1000 test weapon? Oh silly me, I was assuming that maybe you wanted to test my numbers that is why I put it there. I didn't do it to try to deceive you. If I had wanted to deceive you I wouldn't have put any math at all! Heaven forfend that I actually put verifiable math in my posts.
My model represents an incremental understanding. Instead of griping about my model, why not fill in the gaps?
Please read through this thread. A lot of helpful people have spent a lot of time explaining how HP is only better than Power in unrealistic cherry-picked situations. They provided realistic estimates of AoC's actual benefit to party DPS, and proposed pretty thorough explanations as to why the cherry-picked situations are not representative.
If you read carefully, you'll see that the OP kept proposing misguided theories and the community helped him understand what he was doing wrong.
No, you were rude and condescending. I can tell that when you first read my post, you rolled your eyes and said "not another one of THOSE guys!" You started with an air of haughty condescension and you spent most of your time trying to prove me wrong, instead of listening to what I was saying. You still defend the status quo without ever explaining WHY you think it is a good idea for HP to be used as an *offensive weapon* on a DPS class.
Whether or not I think it is a good idea, the devs clearly thought it was a good idea otherwise the power would not exist in the first place. When you are designing a power like this, there are very clear implications of what will happen if you intend to use it. Lets perform a thought experiment for a moment, the tooltip of the power very clearly implies that the damage of this power scales off hp. Therefor, anyone who wants to build for this power, would stack HP. This implies whoever designed this power, if they intended for it to be used, also intended for hp to be stacked to make it useful. Unless you think it was deliberately designed to be a useless, troll power, in which case can you please justify why you think it was designed to be useless, since I think devs prefer for players to use their powers rather for them to simply ignore them.
Literally nobody is deliberately sacrificing offensive stats for this power, only 1 defensive stat vs another and the amount of "sacrificing" done is so marginal in most cases it is less than a 1% dps gain. The amount of min maxing you are complaining about is so laughably small that if the players who did it, didn't do it, they would still rush through content at the same pace and you would never notice the difference. You would just find something else to blame.
WHY you think it is a good idea for HP to be used as an *offensive weapon* on a DPS class.
I personally would be totally okay with seeing aura of courage based on the paladin's HP. That way I can do more damage than currently and build power too. Best of both worlds
No, you were rude and condescending. I can tell that when you first read my post, you rolled your eyes and said "not another one of THOSE guys!" You started with an air of haughty condescension and you spent most of your time trying to prove me wrong, instead of listening to what I was saying. You still defend the status quo without ever explaining WHY you think it is a good idea for HP to be used as an *offensive weapon* on a DPS class.
I can see how you feel that way. I think I did get cynical / frustrated by page 2. My first handful of replies were polite and attempting to be helpful though.
You hit a nerve with using misleading claims / bad math to support a nerf crusade against a support class. AoC is really not a large contributor to high-end burns. And calling for nerfs to other classes based on poor understanding really frustrates me.
You hit another nerve by picking a "visible" feature. The fact that AoC registers as another hit means that it's much more "visible" than other support mechanic. If you accept that AoC is 20% of DPS, then it's a 25% buff exactly like GF's ITF. If you stretch and say AoC is 30% of DPS (it's not, but let's pretend it is), then it's similar to HR's longstrider shot. Those other support mechanics though, are buffs, and do not show up in the combat log. AoC is speshul.
But look back to my first posts. My insistence is on informed discourse. I'm not actually saying AoC isn't overpowered or overused. I just think that it's not OK to use misleading / hyperbolic numbers when discussing it. It's a bit overpowered, not outrageously overpowered.
Moreover, I really think the game needs a rework of buff mechanics in general. And that rework would bring mechanics like AoC (and many others) back in line. Because the root cause is not one class's mechanic, it's the interaction of so many mechanics multiplying with each other.
Nerfing mechanics one-off won't stop the multiplicative interactions.
Cheers
5
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
No, I used an actual GWF weapon. Oh, you are referring to my 1000 test weapon? Oh silly me, I was assuming that maybe you wanted to test my numbers that is why I put it there. I didn't do it to try to deceive you. If I had wanted to deceive you I wouldn't have put any math at all! Heaven forfend that I actually put verifiable math in my posts.
And you were shown immediately that you can't apply 1k weapon as it contradicts your own earlier stipulation (which is also inflated) of 30% damage. But you still repeat and repeat to show models that contradict this and skew the presentations twoards your argument.
No, you were rude and condescending. I can tell that when you first read my post, you rolled your eyes and said "not another one of THOSE guys!" You started with an air of haughty condescension and you spent most of your time trying to prove me wrong, instead of listening to what I was saying.
But you are "One of those guys".
We have a that started as a bug report went to itsy bitsy hate for speed runs, providing those as example of all the wrong in the world, but later we get that the tooltip issue is not the issue, the speed runs are not the issue, other more significant buffs are not the issue, BiS is not the issue, rolled towards a nerf thread, and now the entire thread can be summed up as:
"I have Black Ice enchants in defense. I think that radiants on those BiS players is significant difference because I saw video of fast orcus, and that must be it. I don't want to invest in this. Lets go to the forums and solve this."
With some unrelated videos of runs thrown in as hyperbole and pyrotechnics. Video + text implies that the events in the video are due to the topic. Next post "I didn't say that" "I don't care for Bis" Sprinkled with math, that was shown in first page that contradicts itslef, but still argued as a model, model for what I don't know. This is tiresome.
You don't want to invest into HP, valid, don't invest. The 2% difference is not what sets you apart from the GWF in the videos. You can math yourself the difference if you put all 4 slots in HP + HP mount or not, and what it will be, 5%? max with the full investment vs empty slots and no mount at all. I assure you, 5% is not the issue here.
----
Lets be simple about this, I have 190k HP without single investment into HP (except SH HP boon and natural gear), 4 deflect+LS enchants, will I want to buy that mount? No. But I do accept donations of legacy or legendary snails. So if I think AoC is the way to go I'll swap those first, 16k HP and we get 206k HP
Stipulating that a CW has those 206k HP, we want to add realistic AoC, you say 30%, I saw 20% lets take 25% so:
And find our 4k mount, at 168k Power. Not bad, almost looks like a viable investment in the future.
But 2 problems, the highest gain from AoC is CW, but CW SS going to crit. AoC has interaction with WE, there going be less of those. Weapon damage is increased while our base HP doesn't. CW will benefit from recovery, we can slap a tenser and get 40% RSI which will net more than 5% DPS increase. And a minor issue that called we need a bloody OP for this.
At the end, we expect an average reduction on AoC %. On the other hand to be fair we do expect a slight increase to power due to a bit higher stat on some new gear.
Lets check for the GWF, similar idea but 20% on average: ~220k power to get the same from 4k mount.
So we can say that this HP mount when we have AoC is akin to 1-2% DPS increase, and equal to 4k mount at somewhere between 170k - 220k power more or less. Now lets not forget that this is legendary mount, this is not your high priority buy, we are discussing lots of millions AD for 1%-2%.
It isn't suitable for lower geared players, though it has survivabilty factor, low gain, high investment, need OP, low power.
Is it suitable for BiS? There is one class that sits reliably on high power, but unfortunately it needs damn snails. So we have standard buffed power around 200k in the better groups for the other classes, is it worth it? debatable, but defintly not "the best next thing" I don't see anyone swap whirlwind for this for conditional gain in very marginal situation.
There is a fundamental issue of scaling, AoC scale worse than everything else. Base weapon grows, RSI grows, encounters used more - modifier, number of procs balance changes. So if we look at the mechanics a wet noodle will gain more from AoC, but as it grows, gears and becomes less noddly AoC scales slower even while trying to maintain it's benefit.
You still defend the status quo without ever explaining WHY you think it is a good idea for HP to be used as an *offensive weapon* on a DPS class.
Ahhmm why anyone should prove it's not a good idea? It's up to you to prove it's a bad one, not for us that it's a good one. And so far I don't see any proof except some exclamation marks. Your own GWF have a certain feat that transfer defensive stats to offensive no? Where is your thread to remove that ?
------
Bottom line, this thread didn't have a valid aim and now lost any track of any logic.
Are the buffs an issue? Yes.
Should AoC be changed? Probably. Better with a reasonable and proportional rework to the rest of the external buffs to not screw a single class. Expecially when the buff is not significantly higher than others, and in most cases lower than other classes capability.
Is Cryptic notorious for letting things drag, allow people spend AD, Time, ZEN and then 'fix' things? Oh yes.
Will there be any change to AoC before mod 13 or buff mechanics? You can bet that no. In this whole mess of a thread there isn't a single suggestion of an actual change. And build changes take more than 3 weeks. Good luck with that. Suggest now, and maybe you will see something in mod 15. (yes not 14, I have the title hope of expiriance in game, doesn't mean I need to do it outside. Though I'm always glad to be surprised for the best)
Is this thread has any use? Well it just did the opposite of what some intended and showed that perhaps in some niche circumstances we indeed should look into HP as offensive stacking. If The OP can provide more ACT logs we can look into this further and perhaps be convinced that indeed the mount is the future, though I doubt it.
I don´t think so, according to the past 3 pages, because it actually fails the real problem about this aura imo. Disbalance and powercreep, wich got adressed to some degree by bonding nerf, HG nerf and others in the past (ITF..). I don´t even try to follow that math, since I don´t care about who pees the thickest beam, but I know the numbers in ACT and I think @chemjeff is at least correct in pointing at a buff that is out of order in some cases, wich he stated in the beginning and he also put some proposition in the threat. A good solution should be found, since no aura should be able to buff your dps for up to 43%. At that point, what is the purpose of all those other auras at that point ? Was that one aura really ment to be one of the best buffs in this game compared to others? I can point at some dev, arguing about passive auras, saying: " I don´t think a passive aura should spend such a huge buff " ...we spoke about a 5% buff to lift actually, another class, another threat. That´s a prove about the designer in this game having no clue about what buffs and classes do actually.
Despite the omniprestent call (between the lines): "no nerfs to any class"... "but we want the game to be a better one...", I think AoC needs to be adressed. I don´t know if player will buy that 16k mount, it´s not only a better outcome about that aura it´s also 16k+HP in the end. I am pretty sure a lot will do so, at least all paladins and some GF´s. Maybe some simple ACT logs would help to enlighten this issue a bit more.
Post edited by schietindebux on
0
Options
arcanjo86Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,093Arc User
31%(4points) of the player hp as radiant damage(it never crits)
??????????????
max ranked aura of courage , dam you really dont know the max percentage value of the aura of courage class feature, lol. @nitocris83 this is a fail post to nerf things that dont exist. can this be closed?
I am pretty sure Aura of Courage does not deal 31% of HP as damage at max rank FOR ALLIES.
of course not, because not being in the range of the aura and mobs damage resistance affects the aoc damage the enemie receives
As I've said earlier, it's matter of scaling, because it's based on HP and the rest on other factors like crit chance, weapon damage, severity, the higher the player damage the less percentage AoC will represent, and you can see that for an actual DPS, TR it's only 14% (Not 16% as you wrote).
@micky1p00 He listed them as buffs. If you remove aura of courage from the control wizard, and then check the relative increase of adding it back it is 36.9%
When a class deals near 30% oft it's damage from a passive aura it disbalances the game.
Some classes proc AoC far better than other and some classes can buff that proc by selfbuffs far better.
I completely and absolutely agree with your points. Looking around your previous posts on the balance issues you seem like you're understanding the main problems with the game. Other people rush too much into building what's best and then they cry when it gets destroyed for being overused even though it never had a true potential for the success.
So to sum it up - Yes, this is correct. In epic encounters as well as dungeons and regular encounters in the River District Aura of Courage emerges at the very top of the DPS chart right next to some of mine hardest hitting spells. A friggin' AURA that's a PASSIVE SPELL. I can't think of any video-game where the passive and constantly active Aura was the main damage dealer, unless it was activated first.
Given, my CW is nowhere near the high level hitting, but I do solid DPS and I usually end up being first in many encounters on various points.
Aura of Courage should remain how it is currently with a reduced damage because it simply does far too much for absolutely nothing other than investing into HP pool.
This makes it absolutely mandatory to pick a Paladin in any team-based content. The spell itself is stronger than my Sudden Storm ability! That shouldn't happen in any scenario lol
One of the ways to do it is to put an Internal Cooldown to its procing ability.
I do agree that it's way too powerful for its own good.
True Neutral
Left the Game due to heavy Damage Control & Missing Spanish Language
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
@micky1p00 He listed them as buffs. If you remove aura of courage from the control wizard, and then check the relative increase of adding it back it is 36.9%
I know, and after 4 pages partly discussing misrepresentation of data, we get this..... Either don't modify, or show both, or clearly write the modification, good thing I've clicked the links and didn't just trusted the numbers.
@c1k4ml3kc3 The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything.
5
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
When a class deals near 30% oft it's damage from a passive aura it disbalances the game.
Some classes proc AoC far better than other and some classes can buff that proc by selfbuffs far better.
I completely and absolutely agree with your points. Looking around your previous posts on the balance issues you seem like you're understanding the main problems with the game. Other people rush too much into building what's best and then they cry when it gets destroyed for being overused even though it never had a true potential for the success.
So to sum it up - Yes, this is correct. In epic encounters as well as dungeons and regular encounters in the River District Aura of Courage emerges at the very top of the DPS chart right next to some of mine hardest hitting spells. A friggin' AURA that's a PASSIVE SPELL. I can't think of any video-game where the passive and constantly active Aura was the main damage dealer, unless it was activated first.
Given, my CW is nowhere near the high level hitting, but I do solid DPS and I usually end up being first in many encounters on various points.
Aura of Courage should remain how it is currently with a reduced damage because it simply does far too much for absolutely nothing other than investing into HP pool.
This makes it absolutely mandatory to pick a Paladin in any team-based content. The spell itself is stronger than my Sudden Storm ability! That shouldn't happen in any scenario lol
One of the ways to do it is to put an Internal Cooldown to its procing ability.
I do agree that it's way too powerful for its own good.
If HG was shown as seperate hit of it's full contribution, how much of the damage it would accounted for? If ITF was shown as seperate hit of it's full contribution, how much of the damage it would accounted for? If Longstrider was shown as seperate hit of it's full contribution, how much of the damage it would accounted for? If BtS...
> @designedbyrng#4319 said: > @c1k4ml3kc3 > The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything.
Correct, other buffs are also far too much leading to this boring and embarrassing state this game actually is at... "Lfm tong OP, 2xDC, buffer" For some classes AoC will outnumber Hollowed Ground in the sum.
@c1k4ml3kc3 The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything.
More so, AoC is actually in some way balancing buff, the stronger the player without it the less it will add, the weaker it is the more significant it will be. In some ways similar to power share. This will benefit lower geared players, or non dps classes, more and scale down in terms of overall percentage as the player gear. That means it's a significant gap closer for players, as opposed to flat damage buff, which will just amplify any gap when looked in absolute numbers.
> @micky1p00 said: > @c1k4ml3kc3 > The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything. > > More so, AoC is actually in some way balancing buff, the stronger the player without it the less it will add, the weaker it is the more significant it will be. In some ways similar to power share. > This will benefit lower geared players, or non dps classes, more and scale down in terms of overall percentage as the player gear. That means it's a significant gap closer for players, as opposed to flat damage buff, which will just amplify any gap when looked in absolute numbers.
Pfft.. Wait for my next ACT I will pick a 16 k+ GWF , sure a lowie DPS class
What i talk off and what @chemjeff also pointed at is the need of a solution now, before things get more out of balance, before player build up for stupid builds , based on HP, to get nerfed into abyss in mod 14 or 15 and ragequitt
1
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
1. Unlike bondings, lostmauth, FOTM classes, or what not that was expensive to buy and considered a must have, AoC at it's base is free. The whole discussion is not about the 30% of the damage or 40% or whatever buff. Those you get just by not being dead, and with your appropriate gear. 0 investment in HP, not a single slot is almost 200k HP. From your ACTs, if I invest in rank 14 radiants and that legendary mount I will get something like 2.5%-3% DPS increase. lostmauth was ~20% increase. Bondings are more. This whole noise about builds and what not is about 3% !!
You don't count from 0 HP, you count from howmuch you have without investing, and how much you can invest. So instead of 5 forum pages of trying to show how AoC is OP, the only simple thing people should point out is that this is investing 25m AD, for conditional 3% DPS and a single mechanics that can be nerfed. That's it. Nothing more. If someone wants to spend that, they are welcome. If they want to rage about it, they are free to do so. It's obvious to everyone that 3% wont make or break any builds. This is a not must have like bondings, or lostmauth, so what all the noise about?
2. You will never have something like this changed so fast. And more so not posting this under bug reports. This is a blatant hysterical nerf thread over a buff like any other buff, or lower to most of us actual DPS players. Someone honestly expect sudden changes to a class core mechanics in 2 weeks before a mod goes live ? Are you new around ?
Want real discussion, then enough of the pitchforking, suddenly AoC is OP ? But every other buff is ok because it desn't show as separate hit on ACT? There were numerous suggestions about buffs in general, want discussion, sure, maybe even some good suggestions will ocme out of it. But enough with showing videos just because. Adjusted numbers (everyway possible) just because. And most importantly at least before making a nerf thread, lets not make a witch hunt, but actually base it on understanding of what, why, and how it compares to other things.
Most other buffs are "solid equal to each player buffs". AoC is not, it's a 46% + DPS for a mof and a maybe 10% for that warlock. It multiprocs on some encounter or at wills but does nothing to others. It disbalance classystem same as leads to powercreep as simply shown in EVERY single run. This is an issue , and it's compareable to lolset, since it follows the same way.
Post edited by schietindebux on
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Every other buff is a solid equal to Dach player buff.
AoC is not, it's a 46% + DPS for a mod and a maybe 10% for that warlock.
It multiprocs on some encounter vor at wills but dies nothing to others.
It disbalance classystem same as leads to powercreep as simply shown in EVERY single run.
So it's about worlocks now? Your Buglock have scalable debuff that can bring efficiency to over 500%, when the cap is about 360%, maybe that should be fixed first. If you want that part balanced, open a thread about what doesn't proc AoC for warlocks, that at least be productive, and beneficial to balance. Making AoC count OP HP wont change this. Disablance in classes doesn't lead to power creep. Power creep is a completly different story.
PS, what is the 46% + DPS ? A buff is multiplicative or you can talk about damage portion, and where is that 46? you just showed ACTs with the only DPS class getting 14%. If something going to double some AC DC damage, they are welcome to have it, it wont change a thing, when a normal dps deals order of magnitude more.
I'd say, if you want to discuss things stay, if you want to insult or rant leave. Ignoring arguments is no dicussion btw. You think AoC is a good buff, it's your dann right to be conviced about it...I am not. The moment my toon deals 30% with a passive aura is the moment I get a + 46% damage buff, maybe just do that math yourself. This is not about warlock, it's about a pretty bad concept of a buff. Bzw. this is no wichhunt, this is to discuss things. A lot if ou guys take things too serious or personal. I build up that class myself and intend to play it, but OP has many issues from my pov to think about.
Anyway scroll through my posts about broken state of warlock and maybe find the answer. I posted several times, some got deleted and never got an answer. And I am the last one that want to get balance based on broken <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, this leads to nowhere
Post edited by schietindebux on
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Comments
So if your model is giving an irrelevant result, why cite it?
Like I said. We could show that with a Farmer's Scythe that AoC represent 99% of my damage! But how is that useful to the discussion of whether AoC is overpowered?
I agree that you have some set of variables (I would claim incredibly unrealistic and irrelevant to any in-game gearing decisions) where you have arrived at AoC dealing 39% of damage. What is the conclusion?
My conclusion is that your model is not useful for this discussion.
And yes, it is stupid to be even talking about how a defensive health pool can be useful for offensive purposes, on the same par as actual offensive stats. It is like discussing the nutritional value of dirt. Sure I guess one could eat dirt, but that's not the point of dirt. The point of dirt is to grow food that has *actual* nutritional value. Too often I have seen in the forums - not necessarily by you, just in general - advice given that is only really applicable to BIS players. My instinct is to not trust advice that is given out that lacks a detailed rationale. I'm not going to trust you or anyone else who says "oh, the HP mount isn't worth it" unless you can SHOW ME that it's not worth it.
In this case, you really should listen. As you have less and less power, the Power mount becomes steadily better and better compared to the HP mount. Your group has much less power than mine and consequently, the power mount will be much better for you than the HP mount. If an HP mount is not bis for me, it is also not bis for you.
My farmer's scythe model is also built on first principles. It's still irrelevant for any in-game gearing decisions... Please read through this thread. A lot of helpful people have spent a lot of time explaining how HP is only better than Power in unrealistic cherry-picked situations. They provided realistic estimates of AoC's actual benefit to party DPS, and proposed pretty thorough explanations as to why the cherry-picked situations are not representative.
If you read carefully, you'll see that the OP kept proposing misguided theories and the community helped him understand what he was doing wrong.
I have made a few more for you to look at. This one is the newbie fighter with bondings and power share AC in the group, but they are equally low geared like he is, so he only reached about 71k power while buffed before adding the 4k power mount or 16k HP mount. Note that this guy also has no weapon enchantment, so aura of courage is far better than normal. Please reference the two highlighted numbers for a good way to compare which of these two will likely be better, since it is better to use the average hit of sure strike instead of the tiny first hit.
This is the updated best in slot fighter to include his weapon enchantment.
As you can see, 16k HP became much worse compared to last time where it was almost identical.
Btw TI multplies damage x1.2.
When AoC deals 25% from your overall damage it is a plus of 33,33%.
Nearly as good as Hollowed Ground in mod 13.
Someone mentioned TI as the better buff, for some classes it's not.
Literally nobody is deliberately sacrificing offensive stats for this power, only 1 defensive stat vs another and the amount of "sacrificing" done is so marginal in most cases it is less than a 1% dps gain. The amount of min maxing you are complaining about is so laughably small that if the players who did it, didn't do it, they would still rush through content at the same pace and you would never notice the difference. You would just find something else to blame.
You hit a nerve with using misleading claims / bad math to support a nerf crusade against a support class. AoC is really not a large contributor to high-end burns. And calling for nerfs to other classes based on poor understanding really frustrates me.
You hit another nerve by picking a "visible" feature. The fact that AoC registers as another hit means that it's much more "visible" than other support mechanic. If you accept that AoC is 20% of DPS, then it's a 25% buff exactly like GF's ITF. If you stretch and say AoC is 30% of DPS (it's not, but let's pretend it is), then it's similar to HR's longstrider shot. Those other support mechanics though, are buffs, and do not show up in the combat log. AoC is speshul.
But look back to my first posts. My insistence is on informed discourse. I'm not actually saying AoC isn't overpowered or overused. I just think that it's not OK to use misleading / hyperbolic numbers when discussing it. It's a bit overpowered, not outrageously overpowered.
Moreover, I really think the game needs a rework of buff mechanics in general. And that rework would bring mechanics like AoC (and many others) back in line. Because the root cause is not one class's mechanic, it's the interaction of so many mechanics multiplying with each other.
Nerfing mechanics one-off won't stop the multiplicative interactions.
Cheers
We have a that started as a bug report went to itsy bitsy hate for speed runs, providing those as example of all the wrong in the world, but later we get that the tooltip issue is not the issue, the speed runs are not the issue, other more significant buffs are not the issue, BiS is not the issue, rolled towards a nerf thread, and now the entire thread can be summed up as:
"I have Black Ice enchants in defense. I think that radiants on those BiS players is significant difference because I saw video of fast orcus, and that must be it. I don't want to invest in this. Lets go to the forums and solve this."
With some unrelated videos of runs thrown in as hyperbole and pyrotechnics. Video + text implies that the events in the video are due to the topic. Next post "I didn't say that" "I don't care for Bis"
Sprinkled with math, that was shown in first page that contradicts itslef, but still argued as a model, model for what I don't know. This is tiresome.
You don't want to invest into HP, valid, don't invest. The 2% difference is not what sets you apart from the GWF in the videos. You can math yourself the difference if you put all 4 slots in HP + HP mount or not, and what it will be, 5%? max with the full investment vs empty slots and no mount at all. I assure you, 5% is not the issue here.
----
Lets be simple about this, I have 190k HP without single investment into HP (except SH HP boon and natural gear), 4 deflect+LS enchants, will I want to buy that mount? No. But I do accept donations of legacy or legendary snails.
So if I think AoC is the way to go I'll swap those first, 16k HP and we get 206k HP
Stipulating that a CW has those 206k HP, we want to add realistic AoC, you say 30%, I saw 20% lets take 25% so:
222/206 = 107.7%
7.7% * 0.25 = 1.92%
We can do something like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zghmb0vdjg
And find our 4k mount, at 168k Power. Not bad, almost looks like a viable investment in the future.
But 2 problems, the highest gain from AoC is CW, but CW SS going to crit.
AoC has interaction with WE, there going be less of those.
Weapon damage is increased while our base HP doesn't.
CW will benefit from recovery, we can slap a tenser and get 40% RSI which will net more than 5% DPS increase.
And a minor issue that called we need a bloody OP for this.
At the end, we expect an average reduction on AoC %. On the other hand to be fair we do expect a slight increase to power due to a bit higher stat on some new gear.
Lets check for the GWF, similar idea but 20% on average: ~220k power to get the same from 4k mount.
So we can say that this HP mount when we have AoC is akin to 1-2% DPS increase, and equal to 4k mount at somewhere between 170k - 220k power more or less.
Now lets not forget that this is legendary mount, this is not your high priority buy, we are discussing lots of millions AD for 1%-2%.
It isn't suitable for lower geared players, though it has survivabilty factor, low gain, high investment, need OP, low power.
Is it suitable for BiS? There is one class that sits reliably on high power, but unfortunately it needs damn snails.
So we have standard buffed power around 200k in the better groups for the other classes, is it worth it? debatable, but defintly not "the best next thing"
I don't see anyone swap whirlwind for this for conditional gain in very marginal situation.
There is a fundamental issue of scaling, AoC scale worse than everything else. Base weapon grows, RSI grows, encounters used more - modifier, number of procs balance changes. So if we look at the mechanics a wet noodle will gain more from AoC, but as it grows, gears and becomes less noddly AoC scales slower even while trying to maintain it's benefit. Ahhmm why anyone should prove it's not a good idea? It's up to you to prove it's a bad one, not for us that it's a good one. And so far I don't see any proof except some exclamation marks. Your own GWF have a certain feat that transfer defensive stats to offensive no? Where is your thread to remove that ?
------
Bottom line, this thread didn't have a valid aim and now lost any track of any logic.
Are the buffs an issue? Yes.
Should AoC be changed? Probably. Better with a reasonable and proportional rework to the rest of the external buffs to not screw a single class. Expecially when the buff is not significantly higher than others, and in most cases lower than other classes capability.
Is Cryptic notorious for letting things drag, allow people spend AD, Time, ZEN and then 'fix' things? Oh yes.
Will there be any change to AoC before mod 13 or buff mechanics? You can bet that no. In this whole mess of a thread there isn't a single suggestion of an actual change. And build changes take more than 3 weeks. Good luck with that. Suggest now, and maybe you will see something in mod 15. (yes not 14, I have the title hope of expiriance in game, doesn't mean I need to do it outside. Though I'm always glad to be surprised for the best)
Is this thread has any use? Well it just did the opposite of what some intended and showed that perhaps in some niche circumstances we indeed should look into HP as offensive stacking. If The OP can provide more ACT logs we can look into this further and perhaps be convinced that indeed the mount is the future, though I doubt it.
I don´t even try to follow that math, since I don´t care about who pees the thickest beam, but I know the numbers in ACT and I think @chemjeff is at least correct in pointing at a buff that is out of order in some cases, wich he stated in the beginning and he also put some proposition in the threat. A good solution should be found, since no aura should be able to buff your dps for up to 43%.
At that point, what is the purpose of all those other auras at that point ?
Was that one aura really ment to be one of the best buffs in this game compared to others?
I can point at some dev, arguing about passive auras, saying: " I don´t think a passive aura should spend such a huge buff " ...we spoke about a 5% buff to lift actually, another class, another threat.
That´s a prove about the designer in this game having no clue about what buffs and classes do actually.
Despite the omniprestent call (between the lines): "no nerfs to any class"... "but we want the game to be a better one...", I think AoC needs to be adressed.
I don´t know if player will buy that 16k mount, it´s not only a better outcome about that aura it´s also 16k+HP in the end. I am pretty sure a lot will do so, at least all paladins and some GF´s.
Maybe some simple ACT logs would help to enlighten this issue a bit more.
https://i.imgur.com/1O0aT5w.png Pally 28% +damage
https://i.imgur.com/cBgvNtp.png CW 37% + damage
https://i.imgur.com/QApzmaj.png TR 16% + damage
https://i.imgur.com/qnNHbIF.png DC 25% + damage
As I've said earlier, it's matter of scaling, because it's based on HP and the rest on other factors like crit chance, weapon damage, severity, the higher the player damage the less percentage AoC will represent, and you can see that for an actual DPS, TR it's only 14% (Not 16% as you wrote).
The DC is 20%
OP 22%
He listed them as buffs. If you remove aura of courage from the control wizard, and then check the relative increase of adding it back it is 36.9%
So to sum it up - Yes, this is correct. In epic encounters as well as dungeons and regular encounters in the River District Aura of Courage emerges at the very top of the DPS chart right next to some of mine hardest hitting spells. A friggin' AURA that's a PASSIVE SPELL. I can't think of any video-game where the passive and constantly active Aura was the main damage dealer, unless it was activated first.
Given, my CW is nowhere near the high level hitting, but I do solid DPS and I usually end up being first in many encounters on various points.
Aura of Courage should remain how it is currently with a reduced damage because it simply does far too much for absolutely nothing other than investing into HP pool.
This makes it absolutely mandatory to pick a Paladin in any team-based content. The spell itself is stronger than my Sudden Storm ability! That shouldn't happen in any scenario lol
One of the ways to do it is to put an Internal Cooldown to its procing ability.
I do agree that it's way too powerful for its own good.
Either don't modify, or show both, or clearly write the modification, good thing I've clicked the links and didn't just trusted the numbers.
The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything.
If ITF was shown as seperate hit of it's full contribution, how much of the damage it would accounted for?
If Longstrider was shown as seperate hit of it's full contribution, how much of the damage it would accounted for?
If BtS...
> @c1k4ml3kc3
> The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything.
Correct, other buffs are also far too much leading to this boring and embarrassing state this game actually is at...
"Lfm tong OP, 2xDC, buffer"
For some classes AoC will outnumber Hollowed Ground in the sum.
This will benefit lower geared players, or non dps classes, more and scale down in terms of overall percentage as the player gear. That means it's a significant gap closer for players, as opposed to flat damage buff, which will just amplify any gap when looked in absolute numbers.
> @c1k4ml3kc3
> The only reason you are complaining about aura of courage is because it displays in ACT. If all the buffs all classes gave showed in ACT, your damaging spells probably wouldn't even display in the pie chart. You are calling one spell completely overpowered when many other buffs are on average even more powerful than it. And yes, some of them are passive as well. Even better, most of the other buffs don't even require you to build anything.
>
> More so, AoC is actually in some way balancing buff, the stronger the player without it the less it will add, the weaker it is the more significant it will be. In some ways similar to power share.
> This will benefit lower geared players, or non dps classes, more and scale down in terms of overall percentage as the player gear. That means it's a significant gap closer for players, as opposed to flat damage buff, which will just amplify any gap when looked in absolute numbers.
Pfft.. Wait for my next ACT
I will pick a 16 k+ GWF , sure a lowie DPS class
What i talk off and what @chemjeff also pointed at is the need of a solution now, before things get more out of balance, before player build up for stupid builds , based on HP, to get nerfed into abyss in mod 14 or 15 and ragequitt
1. Unlike bondings, lostmauth, FOTM classes, or what not that was expensive to buy and considered a must have, AoC at it's base is free. The whole discussion is not about the 30% of the damage or 40% or whatever buff. Those you get just by not being dead, and with your appropriate gear. 0 investment in HP, not a single slot is almost 200k HP. From your ACTs, if I invest in rank 14 radiants and that legendary mount I will get something like 2.5%-3% DPS increase.
lostmauth was ~20% increase.
Bondings are more.
This whole noise about builds and what not is about 3% !!
You don't count from 0 HP, you count from howmuch you have without investing, and how much you can invest. So instead of 5 forum pages of trying to show how AoC is OP, the only simple thing people should point out is that this is investing 25m AD, for conditional 3% DPS and a single mechanics that can be nerfed. That's it. Nothing more. If someone wants to spend that, they are welcome. If they want to rage about it, they are free to do so. It's obvious to everyone that 3% wont make or break any builds. This is a not must have like bondings, or lostmauth, so what all the noise about?
2. You will never have something like this changed so fast. And more so not posting this under bug reports. This is a blatant hysterical nerf thread over a buff like any other buff, or lower to most of us actual DPS players. Someone honestly expect sudden changes to a class core mechanics in 2 weeks before a mod goes live ? Are you new around ?
Want real discussion, then enough of the pitchforking, suddenly AoC is OP ? But every other buff is ok because it desn't show as separate hit on ACT?
There were numerous suggestions about buffs in general, want discussion, sure, maybe even some good suggestions will ocme out of it. But enough with showing videos just because. Adjusted numbers (everyway possible) just because. And most importantly at least before making a nerf thread, lets not make a witch hunt, but actually base it on understanding of what, why, and how it compares to other things.
AoC is not, it's a 46% + DPS for a mof and a maybe 10% for that warlock.
It multiprocs on some encounter or at wills but does nothing to others.
It disbalance classystem same as leads to powercreep as simply shown in EVERY single run.
This is an issue , and it's compareable to lolset, since it follows the same way.
If you want that part balanced, open a thread about what doesn't proc AoC for warlocks, that at least be productive, and beneficial to balance. Making AoC count OP HP wont change this.
Disablance in classes doesn't lead to power creep. Power creep is a completly different story.
PS, what is the 46% + DPS ? A buff is multiplicative or you can talk about damage portion, and where is that 46? you just showed ACTs with the only DPS class getting 14%. If something going to double some AC DC damage, they are welcome to have it, it wont change a thing, when a normal dps deals order of magnitude more.
Ignoring arguments is no dicussion btw.
You think AoC is a good buff, it's your dann right to be conviced about it...I am not.
The moment my toon deals 30% with a passive aura is the moment I get a + 46% damage buff, maybe just do that math yourself.
This is not about warlock, it's about a pretty bad concept of a buff.
Bzw. this is no wichhunt, this is to discuss things.
A lot if ou guys take things too serious or personal.
I build up that class myself and intend to play it, but OP has many issues from my pov to think about.
Anyway scroll through my posts about broken state of warlock and maybe find the answer. I posted several times, some got deleted and never got an answer.
And I am the last one that want to get balance based on broken <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, this leads to nowhere
1. "it's a 46% + DPS" is ambiguous, it can be either percent of the damage, or the buff.
2. Adding 30% of the DPS is 42.857% Buff, not 46%.
Here mod13, preview, one of the best CWs: