Instead of 2 stacks of 10 Bleeds, it's 1 stack of 20 Bleeds with the damage going to whoever stacked a Bleed first right?
So 2 Rogues still output roughly* 2 Rogues' worth of damage, which is presumably still more than 1 Rogue and 1 CW or whatever. It's not ideal, of course, but unless you get off watching the scoreboard I don't see why you'd advise against it.
*If the Rogue that stacked first didn't do it ideally (from Stealth with Lurker's Assault with Invisible Infiltrator, etc etc) then the dps drop will be quite noticeable I think, but still. The fact that the Bleeds don't ever update unless they all fall off is broken in and of itself anyway.
Instead of 2 stacks of 10 Bleeds, it's 1 stack of 20 Bleeds with the damage going to whoever stacked a Bleed first right?
Nope, The damage is only based on YOUR 10 stacks... If YOU apply 10 stack then do 10k damage then another rogue apply 10 stack on top of yours... the damage will still be 10k and the other rogue is going to do 0 damage from bleeding damage. that is why 2 rogues sucks.
Comments
So 2 Rogues still output roughly* 2 Rogues' worth of damage, which is presumably still more than 1 Rogue and 1 CW or whatever. It's not ideal, of course, but unless you get off watching the scoreboard I don't see why you'd advise against it.
*If the Rogue that stacked first didn't do it ideally (from Stealth with Lurker's Assault with Invisible Infiltrator, etc etc) then the dps drop will be quite noticeable I think, but still. The fact that the Bleeds don't ever update unless they all fall off is broken in and of itself anyway.
Nope, The damage is only based on YOUR 10 stacks... If YOU apply 10 stack then do 10k damage then another rogue apply 10 stack on top of yours... the damage will still be 10k and the other rogue is going to do 0 damage from bleeding damage. that is why 2 rogues sucks.