[Ret 5.2 MoP] Retribution Concordance (RetCon) - Who ordered the Mogu'gai Panda? - Page 26

anafielle · 01/16/13, 5:42 PM

Originally Posted by Exemplar

Why?.

edit: I'm going to remove my post here. I totally & completely disagree, but I also think I am getting off topic. Sorry.

Balhale · 01/16/13, 7:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ravicana

DS is a little over half as strong as TV; the previous iteration was worth ~87% of a TV. (To compare TV and DS directly, you have to consider that DS benefits from Inq, so it's actually doing 130% weapon damage, and TV is mitigated by armor, so it's doing closer to 275*.7 = 193% weapon damage.) So we're looking at a proc that's worth maybe 60% of a TV, instead of ~87% of a TV.

If it has the same 40% proc rate, and the lightning bolt is exactly as strong as a TV, it'll be weaker than the previous bonus by a decent margin. But the previous bonus was extremely strong, so there's plenty of room for it to still be pretty good. Numbers pending, though.

The previous proc was worth way more than 87% of a TV.

100% of normal TV dmg / ~0.7 for no armor reduction * 1.30 inq = 186% TV. The 86% gain is further increased by mastery, say 30% extra to be generous. Pushes it to 212% dmg. The 2pc is roughly 60-70% uptime of 6% more holy dmg, so increase all of that by another 4.2% to 221% dmg.

So we're looking at 60% of a TV gain vs. 120% of a TV gain.

Now, if the lightning bolt did unmitigated TV dmg, we'd have roughly 200% of normal TV dmg from the new 4set, much closer to the original 4set.

@Anafielle

The previous 4pc changed our behavior too, pushing CS up in priority and encouraging TV at 3 HP if the buff was up and CS was coming back.

Ravicana · 01/17/13, 12:45 AM

The 5.2 notes have been updated, and include numbers:

The tier-14 2-piece set bonus now causes Crusader Strike and Hammer of Wrath to have a 40% chance to make the Paladin’s next Divine Storm deal a Lightning Strike for 255% weapon damage as Nature.

I'm glad to see that it scales, rather than being a static amount of damage, since that potentially could have done weird things (like "use DS when your 4pc procs, unless your average weapon damage is above 38k at that moment").

Originally Posted by Balhale

The previous proc was worth way more than 87% of a TV.

100% of normal TV dmg / ~0.7 for no armor reduction * 1.30 inq = 186% TV. The 86% gain is further increased by mastery, say 30% extra to be generous. Pushes it to 212% dmg. The 2pc is roughly 60-70% uptime of 6% more holy dmg, so increase all of that by another 4.2% to 221% dmg.

So we're looking at 60% of a TV gain vs. 120% of a TV gain.

I don't think it's accurate to count Mastery again, since TV benefits from Mastery already without the 4pc - Mastery is already included in the initial TV total. For example, a 70k TV with 30% mastery and Inq deals a total of 97.3k damage. With the set bonus it would ignore armor (100k) and benefit from Inq (130k), and then Mastery makes it a total of 180.7k. Since Mastery is proportional to the TV hit, the ratio between the initial hits (130k/70k) and the total damage (180.7k/97.3k) is the same.

Balhale · 01/17/13, 1:34 AM

True, I forgot that. That patch note is totally messed up though, (2pc t14) = (4pc t15), HoW =? HotR?

Now that I think about it the set bonus doesn't help us cleave at all though or promote extra cleave. We already use DS instead of TV with 2 targets present any way.

anafielle · 01/17/13, 2:15 AM

Originally Posted by Balhale

Now that I think about it the set bonus doesn't help us cleave at all though or promote extra cleave. We already use DS instead of TV with 2 targets present any way.

Yeah. You're right. This proc smells different but it's really very similar to what their original design was.... and GC commented on how they were OK with a single-target specific proc in his very first comments to ret on the set bonus.

As far as cleave goes, I know we've been discussing the 4pc, but our 2pc does affect cleave when glyphed for mexo. I have no idea if it's significant or not, but it could be strong.

Hulabaloon · 01/17/13, 5:23 AM

I wonder if Hammer of Wrath is a typo. I hope not, I'd much rather give up procs off HotR so that we aren't forced to prioritise CS under AW. Letting it proc of HoW would be a smart move.

Exemplar · 01/17/13, 8:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ravicana

I don't think it's accurate to count Mastery again, since TV benefits from Mastery already without the 4pc - Mastery is already included in the initial TV total.

You don't count Mastery again - you count Mastery on the additional damage. You're gaining extra Mastery on the "not reduced by armour" and "Inq bonus" portions.

No bonus: TV * 1.3 (Mastery) = 130%
'Old' 4 piece bonus: TV / .7 (reverse armour reduction) * 1.3 (Inq) * 1.3 (Mastery) = 241%
241% - 130% = 111% gain

We now have a 40% chance of 255% weapon damage (+ scalars).

TV is 275% weapon damage (+ scalars) reduced by armour, buffed by Mastery. 275% * .7 * 1.3 = 250%
So the proc is roughly the damage of a TV, as they said.

DS is 100% weapon damage. This is 36% of a TV (100 / 275 = .36).

'Old' 4 piece = 241% TV.
'New' 4 piece = DS + TV. 36% of TV + 100% of TV = 136% TV.
Both have the 40% proc chance, so we can drop that for comparing.
While the proc is roughly the same as a TV, the overall total is not even close to the last version. Also 'old' version could gain from the 6% bonus Holy, if it was up, while the 'new' cannot.

Voldemort · 01/17/13, 8:59 AM

Originally Posted by Exemplar

You don't count Mastery again - you count Mastery on the additional damage. You're gaining extra Mastery on the "not reduced by armour" and "Inq bonus" portions.

No bonus: TV * 1.3 (Mastery) = 130%
'Old' 4 piece bonus: TV / .7 (reverse armour reduction) * 1.3 (Inq) * 1.3 (Mastery) = 241%
241% - 130% = 111% gain

We now have a 40% chance of 255% weapon damage (+ scalars).

TV is 275% weapon damage (+ scalars) reduced by armour, buffed by Mastery. 275% * .7 * 1.3 = 250%
So the proc is roughly the damage of a TV, as they said.

DS is 100% weapon damage. This is 36% of a TV (100 / 275 = .36).

'Old' 4 piece = 241% TV.
'New' 4 piece = DS + TV. 36% of TV + 100% of TV = 136% TV.
Both have the 40% proc chance, so we can drop that for comparing.
While the proc is roughly the same as a TV, the overall total is not even close to the last version. Also 'old' version could gain from the 6% bonus Holy, if it was up, while the 'new' cannot.

But DS is affected by mastery and Inquisition and ignores armor.

Exemplar · 01/17/13, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Voldemort

But DS is affected by mastery and Inquisition and ignores armor.

Edited:
Valid points on armour and Inq (TV also has Mastery - that washes out... except I did add that to the TV values, so it doesn't wash out).

DS is 100% weapon damage / .7 (no armour reduction) * 1.3 (Inq) * 1.3 (Mastery). 241% weapon. This is 88% of a TV (186 / 275 = .876).

'Old' 4 piece = 241% TV.
'New' 4 piece = DS + TV. 88% of TV + 100% of TV = 188% TV.

Rather than saying the gap is smaller, I'd phrase it that the gap is less huge. It's still huge.

This is not an argument for the 'old' 4 piece. I honestly don't care how the bonus manifests, as long as the DPS gain is balanced compared to other classes (and noting my personal dislike of RNG). This is merely an argument that, if 'old' 4 piece DPS boost was balanced, then 'new' 4 piece is under budget. That's not a guarantee - 'old' may have been over budget and 'new' spot on. I don't claim to know.

anafielle · 01/17/13, 12:03 PM

I know you're not arguing "for" the old bonus, I don't think anyone here is doing that. But the constant comparisons are coloring everyone's impression of the new one.

I think we already have the answer to whether the old bonus was within budget-- not a chance. Wasn't it estimated at something like 10k dps? That is so high that it is actually just funny rather than realistic. I'm saying that there is no universe in which that bonus would go live, it did not even last a single sanity-check on the PTR. Blizzard's worst error here was even telling us about it in the first place. I'm glad they did, because I value that they are communicating with us more., but this is the result: Paladins (not you, not anyone else in this thread, I mean the Paladin On The Street who is not a high level raider or theorycrafter) thinking bitterly "Blizzard promised me a pony and then NERFED ME!!!!!!11".

I appreciate that we are trying to get a feel for this new bonus, but I just don't believe that comparing it to Version 1 is providing anything useful to us.

You mention that you'd like to see this bonus compared to other classes and I totally agree, I would also love to see this.

- ... Compared to our old set bonuses (although we should all steel ourselves for this one to be less strong, since our T14 is probably over budget)
- ... Compared to other class's T15 set bonuses.

• malthrin · 01/17/13, 2:16 PM

Originally Posted by anafielle

I appreciate that we are trying to get a feel for this new bonus, but I just don't believe that comparing it to Version 1 is providing anything useful to us.

Yep. That isn't a productive line of discussion.

I'm fine - for now - if people want to talk about the philosophy of distinct single-target and AOE abilities, or about the relative effect of randomness on DPS. Just take care that it doesn't get too whiny or self-indulgent.

anafielle · 01/17/13, 3:26 PM

Sigh. We're getting Version 1 back again.

- For Retribution, we were trying to emphasize what was once the most awesome spell in the Ret arsenal (Divine Storm) while reacting to some of the initial feedback that the first set bonus wasn't exciting. As often happens in cases like this, the players who liked the first set bonus and not the second have now offered their feedback. I want to stress that when this happens it's not a poll or a contest to see who can yell the loudest. We evaluate the feedback we get, weigh the strengths of the various arguments, and come to a decision. For 5.2 we're going to go back to the initial 4 pc set bonus of Templar's Verdict sometimes hitting for Holy damage. I also want to stress that anyone expecting said bonus to be a 20% DPS increase or something are going to be disappointed, so I hope that's not why you liked the bonus.

Incorporating Divine Storm into the single-target rotation, sometimes, is still a neat idea and the kind of thing we might do as a glyph or something in the future.

PTR Class and Set Bonus Issues - Forums - World of Warcraft

I guess now the question becomes, how are they going to balance this?

Alterra · 01/17/13, 4:22 PM

Lowering the proc rate still leaves open the possibility of excessively wide dps fluctuations if you get lucky. I can see them changing it to make TV deal a portion of damage as Holy, rather than the entire amount. That allows for tuning the damage to be more in line with what they want set bonuses to provide and less fluctuation.

Ronark · 01/17/13, 8:56 PM

Originally Posted by Alterra

Lowering the proc rate still leaves open the possibility of excessively wide dps fluctuations if you get lucky. I can see them changing it to make TV deal a portion of damage as Holy, rather than the entire amount. That allows for tuning the damage to be more in line with what they want set bonuses to provide and less fluctuation.

Or they add in a short ICD to prevent multiple procs in quick succession.

One question remaining is if they still are including HoW with CS on the proc list: And what effect this will have on our T5 talent choices. Certainly, DP will be behind the other 2, and with enough Haste it could be probable to run HA with a CS > TV > HoW > TV rotation (doable with Hero/BL no doubt but not sure if a realistic goal with current gear and secondary stat itemization in HT15 gear.)

Cartavian · 01/19/13, 1:06 AM

What is a reasonable expectation for this 4pc? GC states that no one should expect a 20% dps increase, and while that seems astronomical to me I can't deny that I am relatively ignorant to the precedent thats been set in the previous 14 tiers of 4pc set bonuses and how they impact dps among all classes. I just find it odd that GC would put a particular number on what NOT to expect.

Is there any expectation with regard to precedent as to what we SHOULD expect?