Originally Posted by Boevis
The point isn't that we don't scale, when I get DPS upgrades, they are DPS upgrades.
The point is that the first time a rogue goes up by 50 dps from upgrades, a druid goes up 45, however the second time the rogue goes up 50, the druid only goes up 40 then 35 then 30 then 25 etc. By the time a rogue is doing 2000 dps (not likely to occur but I'm already exaggerating) instead of doing 1800 the druid is doing 1500. On any fight that doesn't involve me tanking, I will be sitting out for a better DPS class.
(note: not the actual numbers)
|
If this were actually the case, I agree that it would be a problem. But, allow me to reitterate:
I have seen no evidence that this actually occurs. There has been
no calculations in this thread that discuss anything about the scaling of actual DPS.
|
As for your argument that the spreadsheet isn't accurate from your experience, that's usually due to armor not being factored on spreadsheets as well as a boss that is stationary with no adds, aoe, deaggro, or other gimmicks that would require a rogue to stop attacking ever.
|
The sustained factor is not what I'm referring too; On tidewalker the highest dps number I ever posted was ~1200, which was a 30%-ish wipe where I was never tombed. The spreadsheet at that time was suggesting that I should be sustaining 1600+. I haven't had a chance to verify the damage numbers lately since the spreadsheet has the 2.1 upgrades in it and I haven't done tidewalker since the patch, but my impression is that it's still generating too-high numbers. It's not a sustained vs interrupted thing; it just reports overly large numbers. And regardless of the exact source of those overly large numbers, if you compare a druid to a rogue model that overestimates damage by 20%, yes, druids are going to look poor by comparison.