Login
1 2 3 4 5
... 
Last »
This thread has been locked by a moderator.
Show staff replies in this thread
14th January 2019 19:49:24 GM Quillon View post »
14th January 2019 21:18:26 GM Quillon View post »
15th January 2019 13:27:49 GM Shadow View post »
15th January 2019 14:30:44 GM Shadow View post »
15th January 2019 14:34:21 GM Quillon View post »
15th January 2019 16:52:25 GM Shadow View post »
15th January 2019 18:55:01 GM Quillon View post »
17th January 2019 16:16:55 GM Shadow View post »
17th January 2019 19:17:33 GM Shadow View post »
19th January 2019 18:02:00 GM Shadow View post »
20th January 2019 16:14:11 GM Shadow View post »
Doeden
Player

Pharos
Level 283
Warrior
15th January 2019 15:29:51

This might just be one mans opinion.. but warriors (both barbarian and paladins) are so.. how should i put this.. "not useful in pvp" besides the buffs and spells, we almost never get more then 1AA in every 5-10 sec, paladins have 1 range spell with 45 sec cd. and we die almost as easy if not easier than mages our lvl since we have lower "NMR"..

I think that warrior, sepecially paladins, built for being a buff tank that should be able to take a beating.. should be alot harder to kill vs a mage.. as of right now, that's not the case.

Maybe its just because im as i would like to call it "wow damaged" i see tanks as TANKS, not like a whimpy melee charater just used and abused for buffs, then left on the sideline with no real purpose.

All in all.. enough rambling.. Paladins should be considered as tanks, not just in a pvm status, but also in a pvp status.

If anyone would like to agree/disagree, i'll be more than glad to hear you reasoning..!
GM Shadow
Game Master

15th January 2019 16:52:25 (Last edited 15th January 2019 16:53:38)

Test Server was restarted with a stronger reduction formula.
Baltas
Player

Pharos
Level 317
Mage
15th January 2019 17:40:43 (Last edited 15th January 2019 17:43:18)

Quoting GM Quillon:
Quoting Baltas:
Quoting GM Quillon:
Quoting Baltas:
And what do u mean by (calculated as percentage points, not as %)?


Total resistance is the sum, not the mathematical product of the components. Natural resistance is not multiplied by equipment magic resistance. It is just summed with it.

Magic resistance is hidden skill reserved just for mages. For this reason, we prefer that this formula should not be fully known.

-- Quillon


Do you realise that sum gives higher result that multiplication?

% means 1/100
20% magic resistance means you take away 20dmg out of 100. Which means you will receive 80% or 80dmg out of 100.

If you get 10% more resistance from somewhere else:
Your case aka SUM. you resist 20/100 + 10/100 = 30/100 aka 30%. So you will receive 70% or 70dmg.
Multiplication case. You gonna receive 80/100 * 90/100 = 72/100. AKA 28% magic resistance.


And it wasnt sum, it was multiplication always before. The only SUM was buff+magic gear.
So if you managed to get 60% of gear and 40% buff you would receive 0 dmg. cuz 60%+40% equals 100%. To see results in multiplication you would have to go 1 - (1-0.6) * (1-0.4) = 76% magic resistance


There is one problem with your calculations Baltas. Base natural mage resistance for any other case than Mage vs Mage equal to 0. Are you sure than multiplying 0 is right? If any component of mathematical product will be equal to 0, total magic resistance will be always 0.

Just one not used boost (no matter which) and your formula gonna to ignore other boosts.

-- Quillon


okay let's add NMR which is 0 my multiplications:

To see results in multiplication you would have to go 1 - (1-0.6) * (1-0.4) = 76% magic resistance
so 1 - (1-0.6) * (1-0.4) * (1-0) = 76% magic resistance

You see, its multiplications, but in brackets you calculating how much damage you gonna receive after every reduction. After if some reduction is 0 you get number 1 which means it will not affect previous results.


if you resistance is 10% you don't multiply by 0.1 you multiply by 0.9
if you resistance is 20% you multiply by 0.8

if resistance is 100% then you multiply by 0 and surely enough you receive 0 dmg which can never ever happen.
If resistance is 0% then you multiply by 1 which doesn't affect the formula
Zevoh
Player

Pharos
Level 182
Ranger
15th January 2019 17:43:56

I totally agree with doeden, warriors are tanks only pvm, even if they have bigger hp pool.. The low "NMR" is killing them easily in pvp, specifically from mages.
I'd also like to say that rangers having the same issue, a higher healthpool but for no reason as they take way more dmg due to low NMR, in addition both warriors and rangers do Great dmg to rangers since lowered defending skill by training.

Warriors - blocks ranger dmg ok, other warrior dmg ok, mage dmg is way too strong not making warriors tanky.

Deals ok dmg to every class, in regard of being a tank role.


Rangers - actually weak to all type of pvp dmg after lowered defending etc. This is why the healthpool is dropping so fast in pvp.

Deals ok dmg to mages and other rangers, seems sort of weaker to warriors.. But its a good thing as it proves the tankyness of a warrior, which we miss to see When mages are involved.


Mages - Deals too much dmg to warriors and rangers which make their class have less purpose in their roles to pvp.

Receives ok dmg from all classes without mages, hope the tests will improve this one!

This is my opinions in a simple way.

Hope its getting looked into and may differ a bit When merge launch :)

Good luck staff!
Baltas
Player

Pharos
Level 317
Mage
15th January 2019 17:46:15

GUYS. THIS CHANGE ONLY AFFECTS MAGE VS MAGE.

Warriors and rangers are as tanky or as fragile as they were. NOTHING CHANGED FOR THEM!!
Baltas
Player

Pharos
Level 317
Mage
15th January 2019 17:53:07

Quoting Doeden:
since we have lower "NMR"..
~~~~~~~
If anyone would like to agree/disagree, i'll be more than glad to hear you reasoning..!


How can someone agree with you when you are talking none sense. You have and always had 0 NMR it's only mage vs mage thing


Quoting Zevoh:
I totally agree with doeden, warriors are tanks only pvm, even if they have bigger hp pool.. The low "NMR" is killing them easily in pvp, specifically from mages.
~~~
Hope its getting looked into and may differ a bit When merge launch :)


Oh he does agree. He also thinks NMR is low...

Pretty sure you guys are the reason why staff can hardly take players input. You do crap job by talking none sense.
ye, warriors are fragile vs mages. But if its not mages warriors would never die at all
Zevoh
Player

Pharos
Level 182
Ranger
15th January 2019 18:07:00 (Last edited 15th January 2019 18:13:36)

Ok so if ur right that nmr is 0, gz for you my probro.
Doesnt rly matter if its 0 or 10, what matters is that their too weak to magic dmg imo, while mages are certainly not, in which makes mages as tanky as rangers and warriors due to their too high sustainability against magic dmg.

Tho if mages nmr gets reduced it may make up for the warriors and rangers, so it may Solve itself by solving the mage probs actually, we will see.

Dont forget everybody has their rights to put opinions onboard.

The point is that u dont feel like a warrior When u play warrior, besides in pvm, rangers fall as easy.
Soul Redfield
Player

Novus
Level 92
Ranger
15th January 2019 18:07:16 (Last edited 15th January 2019 18:19:48)

And ranger will continue hitting low....not tanky not fragile they dont do nothing keep fixing mages this game is just for mages
GM Quillon
Game Master

15th January 2019 18:55:01 (Last edited 15th January 2019 19:03:19)

Baltas you are right, but not excatly - your updated formula is already fine, but change one important thing, after implementing your formula, equipment magic resistance (works in pvp), potion magic resistance (works in PvM), natural magic resistance (works in pvp, only in Mage vs Mage), talents magic resistance (works in PvM) reduce each other. It means that after your change used descriptions of all these boost will be wrong.

Look at this example (it is not about PvP Mage vs Mage, but you suggested it):
- potion guarantee 7% magic resistance,
- talents guarantee max. 20% magic resistance (50 x 0.04%),
- equipment may guarantee let's say 15% in this example,

In case when both max. talents and potion in use:
- potion will guarantee not 7%, but 6,63% magic resistance
- maxed talents will guarantee not 20%, but 18,96%

In case when max. talents, potion and 15% magic resistance from equipment in use:
- potion will guarantee not 7%, but 6,12 % magic resistance
- maxed talents will guarantee not 20%, but 17,5%
- 15% magic resistance from equipment will be reduced to 13,12%

It also means that warriors, rangers and mages will be more vulnerable to magic damage than now.

-- Quillon
Baltas
Player

Pharos
Level 317
Mage
15th January 2019 20:02:03 (Last edited 15th January 2019 20:02:30)

Quoting GM Quillon:
Baltas you are right, but not excatly - your updated formula is already fine, but change one important thing, after implementing your formula, equipment magic resistance (works in pvp), potion magic resistance (works in PvM), natural magic resistance (works in pvp, only in Mage vs Mage), talents magic resistance (works in PvM) reduce each other. It means that after your change used descriptions of all these boost will be wrong.

Look at this example (it is not about PvP Mage vs Mage, but you suggested it):
- potion guarantee 7% magic resistance,
- talents guarantee max. 20% magic resistance (50 x 0.04%),
- equipment may guarantee let's say 15% in this example,

In case when both max. talents and potion in use:
- potion will guarantee not 7%, but 6,63% magic resistance
- maxed talents will guarantee not 20%, but 18,96%

In case when max. talents, potion and 15% magic resistance from equipment in use:
- potion will guarantee not 7%, but 6,12 % magic resistance
- maxed talents will guarantee not 20%, but 17,5%
- 15% magic resistance from equipment will be reduced to 13,12%

It also means that warriors, rangers and mages will be more vulnerable to magic damage than now.

-- Quillon


you could look this way, or just say
In case when max. talents, potion and 15% magic resistance from equipment in use:
- potion will guarantee not 7%, but 6,12 % magic resistance
- maxed talents will guarantee not 20%, but 17,5%
- 15% magic resistance from equipment will be reduced to 13,12%

15% + 7% + 20 % would give total of 37% instead of 42%.

And I am pretty sure it always worked like this. Otherwise pyro/warlock wouldnt get any magic damage pvm.

warlock buff 30%, potion 7%, talents 20%, eq 20% adding up would be 30+7+20+20=77%
and in pvp...
25% pvp dmg reduction, 30 buff, 20 eq (and NMR against mages). So 75% from everyone and 125% at h lvl against mages.

So I am pretty comfortable to say that these numbers u said (6.12% magic resistance on potion instead of 7 etc) are working that way already.

To sum up there are too many ways to negate damage so they should negate regressively to avoid people being too tanky.
1 2 3 4 5
... 
Last »