Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    High Overlord Ryuuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Slippykins View Post
    I assume they'd implement something rather simple, like partial tick damage = (tick damage)*(time since last tick)/(tick rate). Haste will reduce tick rate but have no bearing on time since last tick, as this is just an arbitrary point in time. In fact, were you to set the time since last tick equal to the tick rate, you would get the damage of a normal tick (obviously). Therefore, this equation could be used to show the damage of every tick in any DoT set. Haste is irrelevant when we just want to consider partial DoT tick damage, as it is represented in the DoT's tick rate.

    Edit: the implication of such a system is that there is no benefit to actually getting to a haste breakpoint (ie. when the partial tick becomes a full tick), as the haste scaling here is entirely linear. I'm not sure if this was what Blizzard said in their WoD post, as I haven't read it myself.
    Just so I understand you, here is an example which I think fits your description.

    Lets take Moonfire and assume it will last 12s without haste. Lets also assume a tick will do 100 dmg. Now we add 10% haste.

    The new tick rate can be calculated with haste_tick_rate = base_tick_rate / (1 + haste) (Only works with a positive haste value. Negative values are calculated differently). Of course haste is a decimal value.

    The time line would be:
    2.7s - 100 dmg
    5.5s - 100 dmg
    8.2s - 100 dmg
    10.9s - 100 dmg
    12 - 40 dmg


    The value of the partial tick would then be:
    part_tick_dmg = tick_dmg * time_since_last_tick / tick_rate = 100 * (12 - 10.9) / 2.7 = 40

    Note: Numbers here are rounded off.


    In case of refreshing, this now adds a small issue where the partial tick at the end must be added to the new partial tick, because else you would lose a bit overall damage. But that would not work either, because then if you always refresh the dot, the partial tick, which after a couple refreshes is now higher than a regular tick, will never actually do its damage unless you let the dot run out.

    What can also be done is to add the partial time (time since last tick) to the new dot application, possibly adding another tick. This way, if you always refresh your dots, the damage lost would only be one partial tick. Which is insignificant. In fact this last bit seems most likely the route Blizzard will take.

  2. #22
    Moderator Slippykins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuuki View Post
    Just so I understand you, here is an example which I think fits your description.

    Lets take Moonfire and assume it will last 12s without haste. Lets also assume a tick will do 100 dmg. Now we add 10% haste.

    The new tick rate can be calculated with haste_tick_rate = base_tick_rate / (1 + haste) (Only works with a positive haste value. Negative values are calculated differently). Of course haste is a decimal value.

    The time line would be:
    2.7s - 100 dmg
    5.5s - 100 dmg
    8.2s - 100 dmg
    10.9s - 100 dmg
    12 - 40 dmg


    The value of the partial tick would then be:
    part_tick_dmg = tick_dmg * time_since_last_tick / tick_rate = 100 * (12 - 10.9) / 2.7 = 40

    Note: Numbers here are rounded off.


    In case of refreshing, this now adds a small issue where the partial tick at the end must be added to the new partial tick, because else you would lose a bit overall damage. But that would not work either, because then if you always refresh the dot, the partial tick, which after a couple refreshes is now higher than a regular tick, will never actually do its damage unless you let the dot run out.

    What can also be done is to add the partial time (time since last tick) to the new dot application, possibly adding another tick. This way, if you always refresh your dots, the damage lost would only be one partial tick. Which is insignificant. In fact this last bit seems most likely the route Blizzard will take.
    On live, if you refresh a DoT rather than letting it expire, the partial tick we're talking about is added to the new DoT after the refresh. This at least works for when you're refreshing during the last segment of the DoT, but I'm not sure if it would add that extra bit if you refreshed halfway through.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuuki View Post
    In case of refreshing, this now adds a small issue where the partial tick at the end must be added to the new partial tick, because else you would lose a bit overall damage. But that would not work either, because then if you always refresh the dot, the partial tick, which after a couple refreshes is now higher than a regular tick, will never actually do its damage unless you let the dot run out.

    What can also be done is to add the partial time (time since last tick) to the new dot application, possibly adding another tick. This way, if you always refresh your dots, the damage lost would only be one partial tick. Which is insignificant. In fact this last bit seems most likely the route Blizzard will take.
    Their plan was to have all dots/hots get pandemic built in (50% of the duration of the previous will be added to the new dot), so the partials will indeed add up to a full tick over time. You're only gonna miss out if you didn't let your dot drop of before the mob dies, and even then there's a hardcap of how many partials will lost [less then the value of a full tick]

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Alltat View Post
    From what I remember reading, they've not only said that they'd change it, but also said how they'd change it:

    If you have 60% of the haste necessary to reach the next "breakpoint", you get a final "bonus tick" that heals for 60% of what the other ticks healed for. If you're just below a "breakpoint" the tick will be tiny and if you're just below then it'll almost be a full tick. Right now that bonus tick is either 0% (i.e. you don't get one) or 100% with nothing in between. In WoD it can be anything from 0.01% to 99.99%. Haste breakpoints will still exist on paper in WoD, but they will have zero impact in practice as there's no actual benefit to having all ticks heal for the same amount.
    Aha! The world suddenly makes much more sense now! Was that from Blizzcon or do you have a source?

    I personally hope it works this way.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvencus View Post
    Aha! The world suddenly makes much more sense now! Was that from Blizzcon or do you have a source?

    I personally hope it works this way.
    Blizzcon and via twitter (https://twitter.com/Celestalon/statu...52253479575552)

  6. #26
    Bloodsail Admiral Lahis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,033
    Wonder how much more complicated Haste vs. Mastery gearing will become :x
    3DS FC: 3797-6941-2837
    Member of the Elite Four in the MMO-Champion Pokémon League.

    deviantART | tumblr

  7. #27
    Moderator Slippykins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahis View Post
    Wonder how much more complicated Haste vs. Mastery gearing will become :x
    The burst of DPS we see from reaching a haste breakpoint will be evened out and applied to the steady DPS value of haste at all points. Therefore, we should see the marginal DPS of haste increase from this change to compensate for no breakpoints. The GCD cap will still apply as a hard cap to haste.

    Edit: technically, migrating the breakpoint DPS to marginal haste DPS should change nothing about stat priorities, as if it is worth it to obtain a specific haste breakpoint without the changes, then it is worth it to at least get that amount of haste with the changes.
    Last edited by Slippykins; 2014-03-07 at 05:32 AM.

  8. #28
    Pit Lord Alltat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Scandinavia
    Posts
    2,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahis View Post
    Wonder how much more complicated Haste vs. Mastery gearing will become :x
    It should become simpler. Most likely, one will always be a bit better than the other (impossible to say which until we're at least in beta, of course). Which one is better will probably vary from tier to tier depending on set bonuses, buffs/nerfs, specific encounters, etc..
    Diplomacy is just war by other means.

  9. #29
    Thank you so much for the first post, I'm looking foward to come back as a druid after a couple years of inactivity and I couldn't find any thread/article summarising what I can expect to see for us

  10. #30
    There will be a base dot tick time and haste will reduce that value without changing the dot duration.
    If the TickPartialDamage = TickDamage*(TimeElapsedSinceLastTick/TimeToFullTick)

    Then the DoT damage formula should be something like that:
    Dot_Total_Damage = 1+(mastery_tot_dmg_increase_per_point*total_mastery)
    Normal_Tick_Damage = (DoT_Total_Damage/Dot_Standard_Duration)*Standard_Tick_Rate
    TimeToFullTick = Standard_Tick_Rate-(haste_tick_reduction_per_point*total_haste)

    Total_Damage_Mastery = Normal_Tick_Damage*(Dot_Standard_Duration/Standard_Tick_Rate)
    Total_Damage_Haste = Normal_Tick_Damage*(Dot_Standard_Duration/TimeToFullTick)
    (Dot_Standard_Duration/Standard_Tick_Rate) = (Dot_Standard_Duration/TimeToFullTick)

    Changing variables with values shows that the final damage will be the same with 100 mastery 0 haste or 100 haste 0 mastery, if Blizzard decides that 1 point of mastery increases damage in % equal to how muchhaste reduce tick time in seconds (0.01%=0.01sec).

    This means they HAVE to make Haste better than mastery by at least BaseEclipseBonus% because under that value Mastery would be ALWAYS the best stat with the talent that keep eclipse active.
    (Or add to the talent a reducing masery effect "bonus".)

    Haste (Wrath Cast Time < GCD) > Mastery > Haste past the Cap
    Last edited by Meldon; 2014-03-07 at 04:46 PM.

  11. #31
    Nourish removed, Wild Growth 1.5s cast time (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/2...lthy-gameplay/).

  12. #32
    According to the healing blog:
    Nourish gone. Finally our wish from WotLK beta came true !
    Wildgrowth gets a 1.5 second casttime, as long as they account for the HoT nature in terms of troughput/efficiency I see no problem here, as its the same for every healspec.

  13. #33
    Bigger issue is smart heals being less smart; no longer choosing the most injured targets, only choosing random injured targets.

    But that's actually ok with the increased health pools giving more time for our single target healing and target selection to matter again!

  14. #34
    High Overlord Ryuuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Keiyra View Post
    Bigger issue is smart heals being less smart; no longer choosing the most injured targets, only choosing random injured targets.

    But that's actually ok with the increased health pools giving more time for our single target healing and target selection to matter again!
    Ideally, the best scenario for a healer should be to keep everyone at 70-90% health, while trying to maximize efficiency. I think that offers the most fun gameplay. (Think CMs or solo healing SoO.)

    I am worried that healing in PvP is still too high, but we will see when we get to play with the tuning first-hand.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Keiyra View Post
    Bigger issue is smart heals being less smart; no longer choosing the most injured targets, only choosing random injured targets.

    But that's actually ok with the increased health pools giving more time for our single target healing and target selection to matter again!
    Wasn't this how it used to be pre-MoP? Iirc in Cata spells like Wild Growth would spread to others based on their distance from your target, not their HP status.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvencus View Post
    Wasn't this how it used to be pre-MoP? Iirc in Cata spells like Wild Growth would spread to others based on their distance from your target, not their HP status.
    No, WG has been smart healing since its inception in patch 3.02 with WoTLK...which is when they brought smart healing to existing spells like Circle of Healing.

    The only spells that spread/target based on distance are the current renewing mist and cascade (halo doesn't spread but heal value changes with distance so i'll toss it in as well).

    That being said, I'm not too concerned with smart healing being "less smart" across the board. As long as blizz gets things right in terms of boss mechanics and how much TIME we have to heal people up it'll be ok.
    It was the fast paced, multi target/random, huge damage that pushed most healers into having smart heals in the first place...that and the bazillion mechanics requiring us to move that healers needed a "smart" assistant to target the right people before they died to the next hit in 2 secs. If we have the time to use proper triage and target/spell selection, then dumber aoe healing is fine - puts more control back in the hands of the player, which I'm all for.
    Last edited by Keiyra; 2014-03-07 at 04:57 PM.

  17. #37
    You got something mixed up in the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuuki View Post
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    - Rejuvenation, Healing Touch and Efflorescence have high efficiency (low hpm, but low hps) [source]
    - Regrowth and Wild Growth have high throughput (high hps, but high hpm) [source]
    Efficient spells have high hpm, low hps, while high throughput spells have low hpm, high hps.

  18. #38
    Bloodsail Admiral Lahis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,033
    Let's see how long untill WoD healing will be maximum HPS rotation spamhealing like we have now.

    I'm voting start/middle of Tier 18.
    3DS FC: 3797-6941-2837
    Member of the Elite Four in the MMO-Champion Pokémon League.

    deviantART | tumblr

  19. #39
    High Overlord Ryuuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalur View Post
    You got something mixed up in the OP.



    Efficient spells have high hpm, low hps, while high throughput spells have low hpm, high hps.
    Thanks for pointing out! Fixed the OP.

  20. #40
    Stood in the Fire Ashiix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    367
    Nice to see a bit of balance between racials.

    Thanks to Cynsacat for the awesome signature.

Posting Permissions

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