Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Legendary! Polarthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    (USA) Florida
    Posts
    6,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitwit View Post
    Ele would have ~45-50% uptime on the meta with a 1.891 coefficient, which is needed because they spend a large portion of the fight receiving drastically reduced benefit from it (whenever they cast lava burst/shocks, since the GCD cap is so easy to reach). This is precisely why the coefficient was implemented in the first place - at the base rate (~25% uptime), the meta is barely an upgrade over the burning primal diamond for elemental.

    For what it's worth, I agree that the .302 coefficient for fire doesn't make a lot of sense.
    *shrug* should send in a report, but if you don't mind, please just put one in about Elemental and not Fire >_>; If it gets nerfed, I will be super sadface.

    Retired Veteran Raider: [T14] 10/16H, [T15] 12/13H, [T16] 7/14H
    FFXIV Stuff: i96 WHM/i94 SCH/i84 WAR/i83 BRD; T1-4, Garuda/Titan/Ifrit Xs

  2. #42
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon9870 View Post
    *shrug* should send in a report, but if you don't mind, please just put one in about Elemental and not Fire >_>; If it gets nerfed, I will be super sadface.
    Sorry man. Been using fire as the counterpoint simply because it's the lowest.

  3. #43
    Field Marshal zandiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    53
    http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-5d...9/?s=711&e=963 32.9% uptime Durumu
    http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-5d...?s=1299&e=1570 30.3% uptime Primordius
    http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-5d...?s=2088&e=2268 22.6% uptime Dark Animus(No Bloodlust tho)
    http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-5d...s=9970&e=10424 23.8% uptime Iron Qon
    http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-5d...=10692&e=11115 34.7% uptime Twin Consorts

    Definitely better than the old 3% crit damage gem.

  4. #44
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    2,006
    Guess I should say this here as well, instead of just my little thread up top. I've been told spec modifiers should be in place as of restarts. Just a heads up.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuni Zyrekai View Post
    Guess I should say this here as well, instead of just my little thread up top. I've been told spec modifiers should be in place as of restarts. Just a heads up.
    So.. that means a nerf for fire and a up for frost, right..?
    Made by mountandpetlover, big thanks !

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Eihwaz View Post
    So.. that means a nerf for fire and a up for frost, right..?
    This is a pretty significant nerf if its going live and also assuming the proc has been bugged bugged since meta's became available. We will go from ~25% uptime to ~5% uptime meaning it will average 1-3 procs per fight this tier.
    Last edited by Proakryt; 2013-04-19 at 06:51 PM.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuni Zyrekai View Post
    Guess I should say this here as well, instead of just my little thread up top. I've been told spec modifiers should be in place as of restarts. Just a heads up.
    I really wonder what they are after. If it really goes to 0.3 RPPM, I doubt I will even use it, unless I get another helm to put it on, as it simply wont be optimal for many fights..

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Proakryt View Post
    This is a pretty significant nerf if its going live and also assuming the proc has been bugged bugged since meta's became available. We will go from ~25% uptime to ~5% uptime meaning it will average 1-3 procs per fight this tier.
    It'll be 10-12%, not 5% iirc. Frost will be 40-45%. Incoming tears.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaylol View Post
    It'll be 10-12%, not 5% iirc. Frost will be 40-45%. Incoming tears.
    I may have my math wrong but with 1.18 base proc chance and a .302 multiplier we have ~.36 proc chance per minute. We can average that out to 1 proc every ~3 minutes. 10/180=6% up time. Even if we optimally use every bit of that haste, and its not wasted on a phase change/immunity/etc, 6% uptime is painfully terrible. I would question even using it if this change is as bad as I think, plus I dont want to deal with even more RNG for fire mages.

    A vast simplification but valid comparison: 6% uptime averages out to ~2% haste rating. 25% up time averages to about 8%. I am crying.
    Last edited by Proakryt; 2013-04-19 at 09:40 PM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Proakryt View Post
    I may have my math wrong but with 1.18 base proc chance and a .302 multiplier we have ~.36 proc chance per minute. We can average that out to 1 proc every ~3 minutes. 10/180=6% up time. Even if we optimally use every bit of that haste, and its not wasted on a phase change/immunity/etc, 6% uptime is painfully terrible. I would question even using it if this change is as bad as I think, plus I dont want to deal with even more RNG for fire mages.

    A vast simplification but valid comparison: 6% uptime averages out to ~2% haste rating. 25% up time averages to about 8%. I am crying.
    You're missing haste scaling (say +15-20%) and bad luck protection in those calculations (~13.07% more procs over expected for infinite combat length, with a high chance at an additional proc at the start of every fight on top of that (unless you're chain-pulling)).

    For this post I'll assume the 13.07% more procs from bad luck protection will translate into 1.1307x more uptime (not entirely accurate since there's a chance for overlap, but that should be minimal in this case, since the proc rate is so low). Assume an 8 minute fight, so the extra proc at the start of the fight is worth ~2.08% (10/480) uptime on its own.

    In total, you'd expect to see some 9.81-10.14% uptime for the meta gem on average. No idea why Blizzard thinks the meta gem needs this low of an uptime for fire, but I'd think that should still be an upgrade over the burning meta. If it's not, we can always provide feedback to Blizzard, as I imagine those coefficients aren't set in stone.

  11. #51
    The main reason I dont like the change comes from the already high RNG aspect of fire. If we are to expect this meta to be up ~10% of the time, i like your math, then it can easily proc during non-dps moments. You become even more reliant on good rolls to do good dps because a lowered proc rate increases the marginal value of each moment of the buff. Each second of a 10 second buff is more valuable than each second of a 30 second buff. I've seen myself lose 1.5 seconds of the buff because it proced in the middle of an evocate. Instances like this lower the realized uptime below 10%. Even if it procs as we expect the time we spend actually casting with the buff wont be the buff's full duration.

    The 3% crit damage is fully realized because number of casts is more or less independent of the meta's effects (you will cast roughly the same number of spell with a burning meta as with none equipped). You do more damage per spell at all times with a burning.
    Last edited by Proakryt; 2013-04-19 at 10:26 PM.

  12. #52
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    2,006
    I can't imagine they'd have it be so low in worth for any given spec that you'd take the normal gem over it.

  13. #53
    Legendary! Polarthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    (USA) Florida
    Posts
    6,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuni Zyrekai View Post
    I can't imagine they'd have it be so low in worth for any given spec that you'd take the normal gem over it.
    If the multiplier is in fact .3, then yeah, Burning comes out ahead or JUST under the legendary.

    But it shouldn't. The legendary should be MILES ahead of a gem that's available to everyone from the get-go.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-19 at 07:51 PM ----------

    PS: I'm coming up with a log right now on the dummy.

    Edit: Results below

    http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/2...s6v/details/0/

    A huge, terrible, nerf.

    3 proccs in about 6-7m. This meta is next to worthless now.

    Second test: http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/o...ocr/details/0/

    4 proccs in ~6m. Ffs, it doesn't help us when it doesn't line up with Combustion... I'm tempted to just use Burning now.
    Last edited by Polarthief; 2013-04-20 at 02:18 AM.

    Retired Veteran Raider: [T14] 10/16H, [T15] 12/13H, [T16] 7/14H
    FFXIV Stuff: i96 WHM/i94 SCH/i84 WAR/i83 BRD; T1-4, Garuda/Titan/Ifrit Xs

  14. #54
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    2,006
    Wow, it's up already? I didn't even know there was a restart.

    Anyway, attempt it in a raid setting. It does scale with haste, and temporary haste at that. Heroism, raid haste, and its own proc will influence rates in a real setting.

  15. #55
    Legendary! Polarthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    (USA) Florida
    Posts
    6,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuni Zyrekai View Post
    Wow, it's up already? I didn't even know there was a restart.

    Anyway, attempt it in a raid setting. It does scale with haste, and temporary haste at that. Heroism, raid haste, and its own proc will influence rates in a real setting.
    I know it will, but I also did this test hours ago. I had a much higher rate on the dummy (20-25%), so yeah... Haste isn't going to influence it THAT much to make it better.

    Hell, it was crap before when it didn't line up with Combustion, now it's just even worse and useless.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-19 at 10:29 PM ----------

    http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/l...yw0/details/2/ As Frost... 14 proccs in ~6m.

    Yeah, this is a fucking joke. Someone please upload these on the DD forums (I would but I'm banned...) and ask them wtf is up with Frost, a specc that benefits more from Haste, is getting MASSIVE amounts of proccs compared to Fire, which doesn't scale as well (especially when it HAS to line up with Combustion to be useful).
    Last edited by Polarthief; 2013-04-20 at 02:29 AM.

    Retired Veteran Raider: [T14] 10/16H, [T15] 12/13H, [T16] 7/14H
    FFXIV Stuff: i96 WHM/i94 SCH/i84 WAR/i83 BRD; T1-4, Garuda/Titan/Ifrit Xs

  16. #56
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    2,006
    It's also used as a tuning function between specs. It's the same reason elemental has such a huge uptime. We need it up more to make it worthwhile since we're basically hard capping nukes now. Fire was ahead by default, it didn't need as large a benefit in relation to some of the other specs out there.

  17. #57
    Legendary! Polarthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    (USA) Florida
    Posts
    6,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuni Zyrekai View Post
    It's also used as a tuning function between specs. It's the same reason elemental has such a huge uptime. We need it up more to make it worthwhile since we're basically hard capping nukes now.
    Okay, but to give Fire 3-4 proccs in 6-7m (around a 7-10% uptime) is a fucking joke and even less worthwhile.

    Edit: Seriously though, someone please make a thread on Official or contact a Dev. I threw the logs to GC on Twitter, but he probably won't respond to them.
    Last edited by Polarthief; 2013-04-20 at 02:38 AM.

    Retired Veteran Raider: [T14] 10/16H, [T15] 12/13H, [T16] 7/14H
    FFXIV Stuff: i96 WHM/i94 SCH/i84 WAR/i83 BRD; T1-4, Garuda/Titan/Ifrit Xs

  18. #58
    mage is still fine dps wise. its just so stupid to balance it through the legendary metagem.

  19. #59
    Legendary! Polarthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    (USA) Florida
    Posts
    6,536
    Quote Originally Posted by ralikonik View Post
    mage is still fine dps wise.
    That's not the issue. The issue is that it's so garbage now that the Burning is pretty much on the same level with it.

    Retired Veteran Raider: [T14] 10/16H, [T15] 12/13H, [T16] 7/14H
    FFXIV Stuff: i96 WHM/i94 SCH/i84 WAR/i83 BRD; T1-4, Garuda/Titan/Ifrit Xs

  20. #60
    The best part is when you have to seriously think about if you actually even want to use a "Legendary" meta gem over its normal counterpart when it's released. I mean... why even give it to fire mages at that point? Seems like a terrible way to balance a spec if that's what they're after. I'd much rather be toned down if needed and actually benefit and have fun with my legendary things rather than just have them be slightly better or worse than normal things if that's how it turns out. I mean really all of those quests up to this point etc and that's sort of a huge let down isn't it? Oh well I suppose we can look forward to future parts of the quest.
    Last edited by Turkey One; 2013-04-20 at 02:57 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •