EasymodeX's Post History

EasymodeX
0
Neutral
The benefit of attack speed is capped based on cooldowns and mana.

If you ever run out of mana without making 100% utilization of your "good" damage abilities, you are mana-capped.

If you ever spend time using "bad" damage abilities, you are cooldown-capped.



Specifically, attack speed softcaps as the "attack speed increase of your [filtered]tiest filler sequence".

This tends to be pretty low.


So for pure DPS, attack speed has a so-so effect, particularly for Sorcs that have BOC as a class feature. They key is to get just enough that all your good buttons go on cooldown when you try hard.

As a practical matter, more attack speed = automatically superior to alternatives because you can switch attacks faster, e.g. use other [filtered] like teleport to survive.
Edited by: EasymodeX 11 months ago
1. Zerks suck [filtered] in 1v1. Pretty much any class can run for a safezone unless they really [filtered] up badly. Warrs [filtered] on Zerks due to mechanics. Slayers have a moderate 1v1 advantage, although it's vaguely close. Lancers should win a 1v1, Zerks primarily beat the [filtered] out of Sorcs 1v1 (it's literally hard to lose to a Sorc who stays and fights), and have a decent advantage against an Archer. That said, both of those classes can escape to a safezone in "real" 1v1 fights.

For the most part, 1v1 is not about actually fighting and winning; it's about who can escape or chase more effectively and Zerks kinda suck at that in general.


2. Zerks are vaguely on par when the numbers get up to 4v4 depending on composition and strat. Zerks are decent at 5v5 or higher primarily due to the AOE fear and ability to survive under attack due to block mechanics.
The cost differentials for crystals are measured in orders of magnitude. The damage results are measured in the low percentages.

If you used a "garbage" tier/cost set of crystals, you would lose like 20% DPS. But you would save like 90% gold.

I guess the purpose of this would be to see if Hexage-tier Carving/Mutinous were ever worth it for a low %back situation ... compared to Pristine Savage/Focused Cruxes and Acrimonious Pentants, and to get a sense of how much DPS you're losing for Hexage tier stuff. And for Mutinous I think the calculation is simple ... around what, 6%? Given that other setups do not vary wildly, you can expect a reliable 4-12% DPS loss for heavy downranking no matter what degree of downranking.

So if a person is going to use cheap crystals, it pretty much comes down to what crystals they can find for cheap (e.g. Carving and Mutinous are never cheap, but Acrim Concach/Pentants can be acquired for pretty low prices).
Edited by: EasymodeX 11 months ago
Uh ...

That sounds like effort for low value. Have fun ^_^.
I saw a person that I thought could be botting on my server once. Thot it was weird how it totally ignored the faction monster for the hunt but just kept killing everything else non-stop.

Didn't report or anything, but I haven't seen that person around lately.


Bo4ts don't3 e4xi52t du1de. D22unn4o 3wh4y peop52le keep comp1laining 2abo2ut the4m.
For the Sorc template re: carving crystal, try:

40 power from buffs
35% back (or lower)
30% enrage

Rest defaults.

Should list Carving + 3x Mut as optimal.


For the Carving Scroll, the discussion is interesting. Carving Scrolls end up being better only when you have high crit damage / crit procs, but "comparatively" low crit rate. This occurs for:

1. Warriors with most combinations. They have no inherent crit% multipliers, so they end up with "low" crit rate for their crit damage multipliers compared to other classes.
2. Sorcs with a high back+enrage time (e.g. you have a very "high" crit damage when your Focused Crystal becomes highly relevant).

This does not occur for:

1. Zerks (crit rate multiplier already).
2. Slayers (crit rate multiplier already).
3. Sorcs with low enrage time (crit damage is not high enough for Savagery scroll to be marginalized).
4. Sorcs with low back time (low back time means dis-use of crit damage, which means Carving becomes de-valued).
However, can you honestly tell me that a Player-dependent reward system can truely be fair, unbiased, and most importantly... measured properly?


1. Does it matter? It should be fun, first, and other qualifications second.

2. Yes, within reason. DAOC, WAR, Rift, WoW have all implemented reasonably fair PvP progression (SWTOR has as well, but due to its recent-ness and fluctuating system, I leave it off for now). The reason you are getting flamed is because this fact is so obvious.


That's all I've been saying, is that PvE based gear distribution has less potential for exploits, more potential to fix exploits,


Less? How much less is less enough? For the first two months of HK's release in Rift, you could stun/snare adds on a raid boss that was unintended. Only the most progressed guilds were able to exploit this for the first few months, and exploit it they did. So what?

Again, how much less is less enough? Is a 2% "exploit rate" a bad deal compared to a 1.5% rate? Who cares?


a set difficulty and does not allow for one person to -block- another person from progressing (thus making the gear gap between them wider.)


This only occurs to detrimental degrees in systems with:

- Poor/narrow PvP progression systems, and
- Poor/limited matchmaking / PvP venues, and
- Poor gear scaling (e.g. steep gear/progression).


Bosses and monsters are impartial and can't be bribed or reasoned with (except for the floating nose... j/k.).


They're also scripted and unable to defend themselves against human cleverness and ingenuity.


All I've been saying. I understand that PvP has become it's own seperate "style" of play in MMO's, but that doesn't make it equal in terms of fairness and reliability as the PvE 'style.'


What makes you think it has to be exactly equal in fairness or reliability?


(Though I suppose, I was spoiled. My first MMO had no PvP gear. People did PvE first, and the reward was beating the crap out of each other afterwards, just for fun. Good times.)


I was spoiled. My first two MMOs were the best PvP MMORPGs ever published. And the genre's gone downhill since then.
Gabbit on 06/29/2012, 09:27 AM - view
there is no stationary burn point aside from his charge aoe where we can get a stable back to burn through.


Quote of the day. Nuff said.
Each time I hear someone say they failed X amount of times my first thought is funny you say that because I'm willing to bet its secretly not even 1/2 of that.


I got my +9 on my 6th attempt using green fodder.

It took me 42 whites and greens to go from +3 to +4 on my boots.

Secret secret tee hee hee.
You know, I wonder about situations like this. It's so far off the norm that even by random probability you should have succeeded by now. It makes me suspect that maybe you were doing something differently than people who have succeeded? Like maybe using only greens and whites while successful enchanters only use golds? There's a pretty popular theory that a higher fodder item level increases chances of success.


Lancer in our guild took 59 attempts to +9 his T12 Lance. He counted after the first dozen attempts.