Page 53 of 99 FirstFirst ...
3
43
51
52
53
54
55
63
... LastLast
  1. #1041
    Quote Originally Posted by Lysozyme View Post
    @Ausr you do take less damage from players; you take so much less that they had to have a modifier just to make you not unbelievably overpowered. Personally I find myself to be extremely powerful in the rare instance that I pvp.

    @Bearygood When you're at 5 stacks; ideally replacing a swipe just before a thrash
    So 5 stacks use pulv-3 stacks use thrashx2 and then just before thrash is back use Pulv?

  2. #1042
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearygood View Post
    So 5 stacks use pulv-3 stacks use thrashx2 and then just before thrash is back use Pulv?
    I've been trying this method, but what I'm finding in-game doesn't mesh with conventional wisdom being touted thus far of Pulv > R&T for ST. With Elize's pants on a ST raiding target dummy, I'm finding Pulverize lagging behind R&T by 10-15k DPS easily on live with no trinkets and bear-only (trinkets widen the gap more for me, mileage may vary). I tried varying it up to use Pulverize more often, but that didn't alter the results. Either Pulverize isn't hitting as hard as people projected, or the simulations need a looksie.

    *edit* - Should mention that I have Pulverize winning handily with no-Elize, no trinket setups over R&T.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2017-01-10 at 11:13 PM.

  3. #1043
    Has the stat priorities changes as of 7.1.5? With the slight nurf to iron fur and rage regen is haste more attractive?

  4. #1044
    Anyone tested Archimonde's Hatred Reborn ? its good?

  5. #1045
    How much better do DMF get now that it can be 865?

  6. #1046
    got a neck in my weekly m+chest today and was wondering if mark of the trained soldier is more competitive this patch after the mastery it provides got doubled to 600

  7. #1047
    Deleted
    People who say guardians are bad in 7.1.5 are out of their mind. We all knew they deserved a nerf. They are perfectly fine as a tank now. Even if they somehow end up taking more damage than other tanks , damage taken will always be smoother as they have the highest effective health and most consistent acitve mitigation. They scale insanely good. Their pvp got incredible buffs in the patch and that is good news. All other tanks take 25% increased damage in pvp while bears take only 10% (15% less than others). Only warriors take 15% increased and they come closest.

  8. #1048
    My bear has about 200k more health than yesterday and it is not mastery. What happened?

  9. #1049
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridcully View Post
    My bear has about 200k more health than yesterday and it is not mastery. What happened?
    Rings and neckts have more stats, secondary and primary.

  10. #1050
    Quote Originally Posted by djambalaz View Post
    People who say guardians are bad in 7.1.5 are out of their mind. We all knew they deserved a nerf. They are perfectly fine as a tank now. Even if they somehow end up taking more damage than other tanks , damage taken will always be smoother as they have the highest effective health and most consistent acitve mitigation. They scale insanely good. Their pvp got incredible buffs in the patch and that is good news. All other tanks take 25% increased damage in pvp while bears take only 10% (15% less than others). Only warriors take 15% increased and they come closest.
    The nerfs are bearly noticeable in the current content.

  11. #1051
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulwell View Post
    The nerfs are bearly noticeable in the current content.
    I see what you did there

  12. #1052
    Deleted
    Hey there, since 7.1.5 is live now I was wondering if there is a change in 1) stat priority and 2) change in talents for us bears.

    I wasn't able to copy my character onto the PTR to test the talents for myself so I'm sorry if this feels dump for you.

    Oh and also should I change to one of the new neck enchants or stick to old "Heavy Hide" one?
    Last edited by mmocc301eba938; 2017-01-11 at 03:05 PM.

  13. #1053
    Thrash with the buffed chest legendary and wrist: http://i.imgur.com/rH1RQuQ.jpg. Would be nice if they updated the effect.

  14. #1054
    Anybody know if the moonfire legendary shoulders drop for guardians?

  15. #1055
    honestly i doubt pulverize is really that much of an increase over R&T in terms of damage. on a dummy it did 13-14% of my damage. You lose 10% R&T bonus, it forces you to use thrash and pulverize above all else, losing mangle and GG procs... I figure pulverize might win by 1% at most, but it doesn't really feel like it's worth it IMO... would probably need to see the math. That said, it's definitely at least on par and a viable alternative.

  16. #1056
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreyen View Post
    honestly i doubt pulverize is really that much of an increase over R&T in terms of damage. on a dummy it did 13-14% of my damage. You lose 10% R&T bonus, it forces you to use thrash and pulverize above all else, losing mangle and GG procs... I figure pulverize might win by 1% at most, but it doesn't really feel like it's worth it IMO... would probably need to see the math. That said, it's definitely at least on par and a viable alternative.
    What about without the +2 stack legendary?

  17. #1057
    Without Elizes Pulverize is probably better for 1-2 targets. Beyond that, rend and tear as usual.

    @Valkon Moonkin legendaries only drop in balance loot spec.

  18. #1058
    Quote Originally Posted by roi View Post
    @Valkon Moonkin legendaries only drop in balance loot spec.
    Do they work in guardian spec or is the effect disabled?

  19. #1059
    Seems to work and is probably extremely strong for bear dps (not 100% sure if it also affects galactic guardian though). However the chances of obtaining it anytime soon are...bad.

  20. #1060
    Quote Originally Posted by roi View Post
    Without Elizes Pulverize is probably better for 1-2 targets. Beyond that, rend and tear as usual.

    @Valkon Moonkin legendaries only drop in balance loot spec.
    You mean for dps not surviability?
    Because 9%>6% in my book or am i missing something?

Posting Permissions

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