"IMPROVED" Vampiric Embrace?? Give me a Break!! Get Your Act Together!!
Orion Ryder
that might be wrong is my assumptions or that something is not what it
is showing on the screen as. Anything listed as "fact" is assumed to be
factual by virtue of what is dusplayed on my screen.
Fact:
Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
Fact:
Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
an additional 10%
Math:
With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
30% + 10% + 10% = 50%
The scivy:
Practicing Vampiric Embrace last night along with Mind Flay and a few
other shadow damage skills.
VE on.
PW:Pain on
MInd Flay at work
Few seconds later:
Monster dead.
Now time to read the combat log.
Hmm the numbers do not look right. What's wrong with this picture?
Do the math.
One of my priest's "shadow hits" dealt 210 shadow damage to monster
XXXX
My preist's Vampiric Embrace heals my priest for 70 life
Check some more out.
Oh yes. Somethign is terribly wrong here.
All the healing is only for 33.3%
Or at least the combat log says it is.
I sure hope that in reality, the priest is being healed for 105 life
rather than what the combat log shows in that example above.
Because if I am going to be expecting the party to be healing for 50%
of my shadow damage they sure as hell better be healed for 50%.
Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
It says an additional 10% twice.
an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%
I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
"additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
factor.
If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.
Improved?
Hah!
Not quite.
As Stan Lee and Jack Kirby used to write "NuffSaid"
OH! OH! OH!
Orion
Urbin
I'm away from home so I can't test wiht my shadow priest but I can say a few
things with regard to the maths...
> Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
>
> Fact:
> Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
> an additional 10%
>
> Math:
> With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
> 30% + 10% + 10% = 50%
Nope, it's 10% of those 30%: <dmg dealt> * 0.3 * 1.1 * 1.1
> Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
> It says an additional 10% twice.
>
> an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
> an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
>
> 30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%
Again wrong:
Normal VE:
30%
Imp VE (1 point)
30% * 1.1 = 33%
Imp VE (2 points)
30% * 1.1 * 1.1 = 30% * 1.21 = 36.3%
I don't know if that corresponds to your figures in the combat log, but that
is how I always interpreted imp VE.
> I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
> "additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
> factor.
Yupp, that's what I would think. Anything else is just *too* imba (as if
shadow priests aren't already imba :)
> If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
> to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
> worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.
>
> Improved?
> Not quite.
Healing 36.3% instead of 30% of my damage dealt is a considerable upgrade and
well worth the 2 points. If I do 1000 damage, that's an additional 63HP
healed.
Cheers
Urbin
--
Urbin (60), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Sunh (60), Nightelven Priest (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Juran (33), Nightelven Druid (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Mymule (25), Gnomish Warlock (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Catriona R
>Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
>
>It says an additional 10% twice.
>
>an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
>
>an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
>
>30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%
>
>I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
>"additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
>factor.
>
>If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
>to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
>worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.
Hmmm, I had thought my VE heals were a little lower than I'd expected,
too... might well drop those extra points next time I respec.
In any case VE turns out to be a little pointless, given my major source of
shadow damage has to be mind flay - if I'm getting hit it gets interrupted,
and if I shield to not get hit then I don't need the healing :-/ So much
for shadow, think I'm going back to disc/holy, as VE only has any use
against caster mobs (who hit me less often), and pretty much none of the
talents I took to reach it are more useful than the holy ones I had before.
--
EU-Draenor:
Balgair - Human Rogue (lvl 60)
Sagart - Undead Priest (lvl 60)
Sealgair - Dwarf Hunter (lvl 56)
Sgoildubh - Human Mage (lvl 44)
Beag - Dwarf Paladin (lvl 42)
Orion Ryder
On Jan 3, 9:34 am, Urbin <u...@dunmorogh.eu> wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 05:44:55 -0800, Orion Ryder wrote:
>
> I'm away from home so I can't test wiht my shadow priest but I can say a few
> things with regard to the maths...
>
> > Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
>
> > Fact:
> > Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
> > an additional 10%
>
> > Math:
> > With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
> > 30% + 10% + 10% = 50%Nope, it's 10% of those 30%: <dmg dealt> * 0.3 * 1.1 * 1.1
>
> > Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
> > It says an additional 10% twice.
>
> > an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
> > an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
>
> > 30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%Again wrong:
>
> Normal VE:
> 30%
>
> Imp VE (1 point)
> 30% * 1.1 = 33%
>
> Imp VE (2 points)
> 30% * 1.1 * 1.1 = 30% * 1.21 = 36.3%
This is what I was talking about nesting except as I mention it was 70
heal which is 33.3%
36.3% would be 76 heal
If it was 76 heal then your equation would be the way it is done.
But
30% * 1.11 = 33.3%
and,
1
+ an additional 10% of 1 = .1
+ an additional 10% of .1 = .01
= 1.11
30% * 1.11 = 33.3%
210 * 33.3% = 70
Now even if it were 6.3%
An additional 6.3% at the cost of 2 talent points?
Seems like the law of diminishing returns at play. I may have only been
playing the game since August but I would think that there is something
else that those 2 talent points could go into that would have a higher
Internal Rate of Return than that 6.3%.
Perhaps it has to do with my working with contracts and legal
documents.
In tort court, a company that promised an additional 10% twice would
lose a suit hands down if the additional turned out to be 6.3% rather
than 20%.
Better yet it would not even make it to court.
There would be a settlement before it got that far.
If there is a better way to invest those 2 talent points, I'll find
them and take care of it when repec occurs in the future, that is if I
stick with Shadow.
Orion
> I don't know if that corresponds to your figures in the combat log, but that
> is how I always interpreted imp VE.
>
> > I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
> > "additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
> > factor.Yupp, that's what I would think. Anything else is just *too* imba (as if
> shadow priests aren't already imba :)
>
> > If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
> > to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
> > worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.
>
> > Improved?
> > Not quite.Healing 36.3% instead of 30% of my damage dealt is a considerable upgrade and
Orion Ryder
On Jan 3, 9:39 am, Catriona R <catrionarNOS...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 05:44:55 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orionry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
>
> >It says an additional 10% twice.
>
> >an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
>
> >an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
>
> >30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%
>
> >I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
> >"additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
> >factor.
>
> >If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
> >to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
> >worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.Hmmm, I had thought my VE heals were a little lower than I'd expected,
> too... might well drop those extra points next time I respec.
>
> In any case VE turns out to be a little pointless, given my major source of
> shadow damage has to be mind flay - if I'm getting hit it gets interrupted,
> and if I shield to not get hit then I don't need the healing :-/ So much
> for shadow, think I'm going back to disc/holy, as VE only has any use
> against caster mobs (who hit me less often), and pretty much none of the
> talents I took to reach it are more useful than the holy ones I had before.
> --
Yeah I noticed that I went through mana a lot more than life.
And I noticed the "interruption" upon being hit. I'll have to see how
it works in the dungeons over the next few weeks. You see how the
"interruption" is actually a quick short dash of the channel bar from
right to left thereby reducing the casting time?
I thought it healed the entire party. I'll have to recheck on that. In
an altruistic manner it could be utilized in that respect if that is
the case.
Still I am gonna hold off on the respec until later. I want to see how
the VT works for keeping the groups mana up when I get there and
whetther there is a need for that.
And of course we have a few higher guildees that will know a good bit
of info. I expect that a shadow priest will be fine as long as the
healing can be handled in some manner.
We have a level 57 shadow priest that will be heading into scholo and
start soon so I'll get some feedback there.
Thanks
Orion
> EU-Draenor:
> Balgair - Human Rogue (lvl 60)
> Sagart - Undead Priest (lvl 60)
> Sealgair - Dwarf Hunter (lvl 56)
> Sgoildubh - Human Mage (lvl 44)
> Beag - Dwarf Paladin (lvl 42)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Catriona R
>Yeah I noticed that I went through mana a lot more than life.
>
>And I noticed the "interruption" upon being hit. I'll have to see how
>it works in the dungeons over the next few weeks. You see how the
>"interruption" is actually a quick short dash of the channel bar from
>right to left thereby reducing the casting time?
Yup, it's pretty annoying - I know fear kiting stops that, but I was
fighting undead last night, who are kinda immune to fear... plus I dislike
fear kiting anyway, as it's usually a recipe for bringing a few adds on my
head ;-)
>I thought it healed the entire party. I'll have to recheck on that. In
>an altruistic manner it could be utilized in that respect if that is
>the case.
It does, yes, seems it's more useful in a group than solo, unless you have
enough +dmg to be useful with only mind blast and SWP, given that there are
no other shadow dmg spells that can be cast while being hit... I was always
under the impression that shadow was supposed to be "best" for solo, but so
far I'm not seeing much sign of it.
>Still I am gonna hold off on the respec until later. I want to see how
>the VT works for keeping the groups mana up when I get there and
>whetther there is a need for that.
That sounds a pretty interesting skill, yeah, maybe someday I'll spec right
into shadow and see what it's like... but again I don't see the soloing
utility that everyone says shadow is all about... :-/
--
Urbin
> On Jan 3, 9:39 am, Catriona R <catrionarNOS...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 3 Jan 2007 05:44:55 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orionry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
> > >It says an additional 10% twice.
> > >an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
> > >an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
> > >30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%
> >
> > >I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
> > >"additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
> > >factor.
> >
> > >If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
> > >to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
> > >worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.
> >
> > Hmmm, I had thought my VE heals were a little lower than I'd expected,
> > too... might well drop those extra points next time I respec.
Hm, I'll need to look into this later on tonight.
> > In any case VE turns out to be a little pointless, given my major source of
> > shadow damage has to be mind flay - if I'm getting hit it gets interrupted,
> > and if I shield to not get hit then I don't need the healing :-/
True enough. However, as soon as you start grouping with someone (doesn't
need to be a full party), VE unfolds its potential. It is especially good
for mobs that don't hit too hard (non-bosses). You can keep your group's
health topped up while still mainly doing shadow damage. In cases where no
dedicated healing is needed but you would need to pop out of shadow form to
heal every X fights.
In tough fights (elites, bosses) it may or may not be enough to keep a tank
alive, but it can help a dedicated healer, if you have one.
> Yeah I noticed that I went through mana a lot more than life.
Yupp, especially when partied up and you don't get the killing blow and miss
out on spirit tap!
> And I noticed the "interruption" upon being hit. I'll have to see how
> it works in the dungeons over the next few weeks. You see how the
> "interruption" is actually a quick short dash of the channel bar from
> right to left thereby reducing the casting time?
Yupp, that's true. But as you group and don't get hit, you can mind flay to
your heart's content and heal at the same time.
> I thought it healed the entire party. I'll have to recheck on that. In
> an altruistic manner it could be utilized in that respect if that is
> the case.
It does heal the whole party.
I have succesfully healed in small groups and instances up to BRD using VE
*only* except for the bosses.
That said: VE is one of the worst things you can do aggro wise. You get the
aggro for:
- dealing significant damage
- healing at the same time
- healing *everybody*, even those not in direct need of it
So, either give the tank enough head start to get solid aggro, hold back on
the damage a bit or be prepared to regularly pull aggro.
Still, for me it is a very nice tool as I have no interested in going
holy/disc and can still heal, even when dealing damage.
Urbin
Fair enough. As I said, I'm not at home, so I couldn't test myself. And I
didn't look at your numbers closely enough to notice (my bad). All I really
wanted to do was explain why it would not be 50% :)
If this is really the way it works (as it seems to be), then I agree, that
they probably botched it and at least the second talent point is probably
not worth it.
> Now even if it were 6.3%
> An additional 6.3% at the cost of 2 talent points?
Yes, an ok deal, I would say. There is a plethora of talents where spending
1 talent point gives you 1% or 2% more damage. Getting 6% more healing (or
21% more, depending on how you look at it) seems pretty fair to me.
> Seems like the law of diminishing returns at play. I may have only been
> playing the game since August but I would think that there is something
> else that those 2 talent points could go into that would have a higher
> Internal Rate of Return than that 6.3%.
I don't know. I'm not saying those two points couldn't be spent better, I'm
just saying that 6.3% for 2 points is comparable to other talents.
> In tort court, a company that promised an additional 10% twice would
> lose a suit hands down if the additional turned out to be 6.3% rather
> than 20%.
Such a company would need a new marketing guy :)
> If there is a better way to invest those 2 talent points, I'll find
> them and take care of it when repec occurs in the future
I'm sure that you'll find 2 other talents you like in the priest's trees, be
it in shadow or elsewhere :)
> that is if I stick with Shadow.
I will. I love it. On the other hand, Catriona can give you ample hints on
how to build a Holy/Disc (or was it Disc/Holy) spec that is a viable
levelling/soloing build. And Babe will be able to provide you with an imba
PvP/raiding build.
Orion Ryder
> > 210 * 33.3% = 70Fair enough. As I said, I'm not at home, so I couldn't test myself. And I
> didn't look at your numbers closely enough to notice (my bad). All I really
> wanted to do was explain why it would not be 50% :)
>
> If this is really the way it works (as it seems to be), then I agree, that
> they probably botched it and at least the second talent point is probably
> not worth it.
>
> > Now even if it were 6.3%
> > An additional 6.3% at the cost of 2 talent points?Yes, an ok deal, I would say. There is a plethora of talents where spending
> 1 talent point gives you 1% or 2% more damage. Getting 6% more healing (or
> 21% more, depending on how you look at it) seems pretty fair to me.
>
> > Seems like the law of diminishing returns at play. I may have only been
> > playing the game since August but I would think that there is something
> > else that those 2 talent points could go into that would have a higher
> > Internal Rate of Return than that 6.3%.I don't know. I'm not saying those two points couldn't be spent better, I'm
> just saying that 6.3% for 2 points is comparable to other talents.
>
> > In tort court, a company that promised an additional 10% twice would
> > lose a suit hands down if the additional turned out to be 6.3% rather
> > than 20%.Such a company would need a new marketing guy :)
>
> > If there is a better way to invest those 2 talent points, I'll find
> > them and take care of it when repec occurs in the futureI'm sure that you'll find 2 other talents you like in the priest's trees, be
> it in shadow or elsewhere :)
>
> > that is if I stick with Shadow.I will. I love it. On the other hand, Catriona can give you ample hints on
> how to build a Holy/Disc (or was it Disc/Holy) spec that is a viable
> levelling/soloing build. And Babe will be able to provide you with an imba
> PvP/raiding build.
>
> Cheers
> Urbin
> --
> Urbin (60), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
> Sunh (60), Nightelven Priest (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
> Juran (33), Nightelven Druid (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
> Mymule (25), Gnomish Warlock (PvE) @dunmorogh.de- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
I still ahve the chep respec available but not touching anything yet.
And from your other post it looks like Spirit Tap is not going to do me
much good unless I get the killign blow in.
I'm going to have to keep an eye on thigns that might work. Such as I
'm not sure improving Psychic Scream by 6 second cooldown is going to
make that much diffrerence. Many things to consider. what a PITA.
I can see where an extra 6.3% is good provided: (1) u need the 40
points to get to VT
(2) the 6.3 % ends up more valuable than a 6 second improved cooldown
onPsych Scream. and since (3) Spirit does only gives you the mana on
killing blow (which I missed, my bad) it seems better than that in a
grop.
Compared to what is avialabe in the tree it might be best. I will ahve
to nto totatlly discount it as no good.
And one thing I have to consider is that the 6.3% is applied to
everyone in the party. There might be a time where the 6.3% is the
difference between keepign a mage alive.
So I might have to bite the bullet on not getting as much increase as I
feel it should have.
Gosh darn it!! (Toned down for the sake of the kids)
Orion
Urbin
> On 3 Jan 2007 06:56:36 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orion...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah I noticed that I went through mana a lot more than life.
> >
> >And I noticed the "interruption" upon being hit. I'll have to see how
> >it works in the dungeons over the next few weeks. You see how the
> >"interruption" is actually a quick short dash of the channel bar from
> >right to left thereby reducing the casting time?
>
> Yup, it's pretty annoying - I know fear kiting stops that, but I was
> fighting undead last night, who are kinda immune to fear... plus I dislike
> fear kiting anyway, as it's usually a recipe for bringing a few adds on my
> head ;-)
Yupp. I never fear mobs unless I'm just about to die. It's my last measure
before karking it.
> >I thought it healed the entire party. I'll have to recheck on that. In
> >an altruistic manner it could be utilized in that respect if that is
> >the case.
>
> It does, yes, seems it's more useful in a group than solo, unless you have
> enough +dmg to be useful with only mind blast and SWP, given that there are
> no other shadow dmg spells that can be cast while being hit... I was always
> under the impression that shadow was supposed to be "best" for solo, but so
> far I'm not seeing much sign of it.
Even without a lot of +dmg gear (maybe +70 at level 60) my SW:P does about
a third to a half of my damage in "normal" fights. But then, as discussed
above, when soloing, I am usually bubbled (PW:S) and don't use VE.
As an option, if fighting mobs that are 2-3 or more levels lower than me
instead of bubbling I just pull with mind blast, throw on VE and SW:P and
then wand them to death. The healing from VE more or less keeps my health
close to 100% and as I am not casting mana regen starts during the fight and
spirit tap gets full benefit. This way the fights last slightly longer (not
too much if you have a good wand :) but I have zero down time in between.
> >Still I am gonna hold off on the respec until later. I want to see how
> >the VT works for keeping the groups mana up when I get there and
> >whetther there is a need for that.
>
> That sounds a pretty interesting skill
I am currently 47 int shadow and have been toying with VT. Too early to tell
yet but my first impression is that its return is rather slight compared to
its mana cost. It certainly won't pay for itself (i.e. return the mana spent
on it for me). However, I can see how it will be very interesting on long
fights (i.e. boss fights) where the fight will last long enough for me to do
enough damage. As it will give mana back to all the casters that could up to
quite a bit of more staying power for mana users.
> yeah, maybe someday I'll spec right into shadow and see what it's like...
> but again I don't see the soloing utility that everyone says shadow is
> all about... :-/
For me the main benefits are:
- shadowform upps my damage and decreases the damage I take (valuable for my
VE + wanding strategy)
- various dmg boosting talents
Having played a hunter and shadow priest to 60, druid, paladin and warlock
to 20-30s, I think my shadow priest was the fastest killing char so far,
best able to take on 3-5 mobs of slightly below my level and 2 mobs of
higher level with most ease. The warlock comes close, the druid and pala
fall way short. The hunter was nice, too, but as I levelled him pre-BM-patch
he was not quite as imba as he would be now :)
On the other hand, I have never played a non-shadow build, so I can't say
how much of my "solability" I would loose...
Babe Bridou
Catriona R a écrit :
> In any case VE turns out to be a little pointless, given my major source of
> shadow damage has to be mind flay - if I'm getting hit it gets interrupted,
> and if I shield to not get hit then I don't need the healing :-/ So much
> for shadow, think I'm going back to disc/holy, as VE only has any use
> against caster mobs (who hit me less often), and pretty much none of the
> talents I took to reach it are more useful than the holy ones I had before.
holy nuking is just pew pew pew with no downtime in the later levels in
TBC, and since they added high spirit/high damage&healing green quest
rewards, I no longer give a look at the shadow tree past spirit tap &
blackout ;)
Urbin
> On Jan 3, 10:28 am, Urbin <u...@dunmorogh.eu> wrote:
> > On 3 Jan 2007 06:49:37 -0800, Orion Ryder wrote:
> > > On Jan 3, 9:34 am, Urbin <u...@dunmorogh.eu> wrote:
> > > > On 3 Jan 2007 05:44:55 -0800, Orion Ryder wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Now even if it were 6.3%
> > > An additional 6.3% at the cost of 2 talent points?
> > Yes, an ok deal, I would say. There is a plethora of talents where spending
> > 1 talent point gives you 1% or 2% more damage. Getting 6% more healing (or
> > 21% more, depending on how you look at it) seems pretty fair to me.
> >
> > > Seems like the law of diminishing returns at play. I may have only been
> > > playing the game since August but I would think that there is something
> > > else that those 2 talent points could go into that would have a higher
> > > Internal Rate of Return than that 6.3%.
> > I don't know. I'm not saying those two points couldn't be spent better, I'm
> > just saying that 6.3% for 2 points is comparable to other talents.
> >
> > > them and take care of it when repec occurs in the future
> > I'm sure that you'll find 2 other talents you like in the priest's trees, be
> > it in shadow or elsewhere :)
> >
> > > that is if I stick with Shadow.I will.
> > I love it. On the other hand, Catriona can give you ample hints on
> > how to build a Holy/Disc (or was it Disc/Holy) spec that is a viable
> > levelling/soloing build. And Babe will be able to provide you with an imba
> > PvP/raiding build.
>
> much good unless I get the killign blow in.
True in a group. Soloing, spirit tap is indispensable (you always get the
killing blow). Start wanding when the mob is about 5 seconds away from dying
and you get very nice mana regen, keeping your down time down low.
> I'm going to have to keep an eye on thigns that might work. Such as I
> 'm not sure improving Psychic Scream by 6 second cooldown is going to
> make that much diffrerence. Many things to consider. what a PITA.
As I am not fear-kiting much, for me that cooldown is not so important,
still I have taken the talent.
> And one thing I have to consider is that the 6.3% is applied to
> everyone in the party. There might be a time where the 6.3% is the
> difference between keepign a mage alive.
Yupp, it can help a dedicated healer to let the damage dealers be healed by
VE and concentrate on the tank. On the other hand, as I wrote upthread, it
does generate a fair bit of aggro.
> So I might have to bite the bullet on not getting as much increase as I
> feel it should have.
Hehe, I have always been so happy with VE that I never even checked the
return on IMP VE and didn't notice it was lacking :)
Catriona R
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:09:33 +0000, Catriona R wrote:
>> Yup, it's pretty annoying - I know fear kiting stops that, but I was
>> fighting undead last night, who are kinda immune to fear... plus I dislike
>> fear kiting anyway, as it's usually a recipe for bringing a few adds on my
>> head ;-)
>
>Yupp. I never fear mobs unless I'm just about to die. It's my last measure
>before karking it.
Likewise, unless I get adds or am fighting an elite, where it's a handy way
of keeping myself alive... it's very situational though!
>> It does, yes, seems it's more useful in a group than solo, unless you have
>> enough +dmg to be useful with only mind blast and SWP, given that there are
>> no other shadow dmg spells that can be cast while being hit... I was always
>> under the impression that shadow was supposed to be "best" for solo, but so
>> far I'm not seeing much sign of it.
>
>Even without a lot of +dmg gear (maybe +70 at level 60) my SW:P does about
>a third to a half of my damage in "normal" fights. But then, as discussed
>above, when soloing, I am usually bubbled (PW:S) and don't use VE.
Hmm I'll have to get recap again and check out my numbers, I've got about
+100 dmg and didn't think SWP was close to that much of it! Guess my
judgement isn't so accurate ;-)
>As an option, if fighting mobs that are 2-3 or more levels lower than me
>instead of bubbling I just pull with mind blast, throw on VE and SW:P and
>then wand them to death. The healing from VE more or less keeps my health
>close to 100% and as I am not casting mana regen starts during the fight and
>spirit tap gets full benefit. This way the fights last slightly longer (not
>too much if you have a good wand :) but I have zero down time in between.
Cool, I'm guessing shadowform helps with reducing damage received though; I
could do it with mobs 5+ levels below me (maybe) but not 2-3, I'd get hurt
too much.
>I am currently 47 int shadow and have been toying with VT. Too early to tell
>yet but my first impression is that its return is rather slight compared to
>its mana cost. It certainly won't pay for itself (i.e. return the mana spent
>on it for me). However, I can see how it will be very interesting on long
>fights (i.e. boss fights) where the fight will last long enough for me to do
>enough damage. As it will give mana back to all the casters that could up to
>quite a bit of more staying power for mana users.
Sounds great in a group then, not so much use for me to try though, as my
undead priest is going to just stick to solo I think, my draenei will be
more of a grouper but she's going disc/holy.
>For me the main benefits are:
>- shadowform upps my damage and decreases the damage I take (valuable for my
> VE + wanding strategy)
>- various dmg boosting talents
>
>Having played a hunter and shadow priest to 60, druid, paladin and warlock
>to 20-30s, I think my shadow priest was the fastest killing char so far,
>best able to take on 3-5 mobs of slightly below my level and 2 mobs of
>higher level with most ease. The warlock comes close, the druid and pala
>fall way short. The hunter was nice, too, but as I levelled him pre-BM-patch
>he was not quite as imba as he would be now :)
Hmm, well if I can decide on a build I'll try up to shadowform someday -
going up to VE hasn't impressed me much, but maybe 31-point will work
better for me! Trouble is until I get past lvl 60 it means losing divine
spirit, which I like a lot :-(
>On the other hand, I have never played a non-shadow build, so I can't say
>how much of my "solability" I would loose...
Maybe a bit, based on your description; I found while levelling I could
manage multiple mobs but it was hard... single mobs on the other hand were
fine, I could go up to +3 levels ok, even +4 if I didn't mind losing all my
mana. Certainly I didn't have any trouble levelling, and I'm looking
forward to trying my draenei with an even more disc/holy based build - my
undead priest had up to mind flay, but my draenei will have only spirit tap
and imp SWP.
Catriona R
>holy nuking is just pew pew pew with no downtime in the later levels in
>TBC, and since they added high spirit/high damage&healing green quest
>rewards, I no longer give a look at the shadow tree past spirit tap &
>blackout ;)
Hmmm, I may consider a change of route then... I was going to make Sagart
more shadowy based, but perhaps I should go deeper into holy instead and
try damage instead of healing talents... my trouble is I like divine spirit
too much to want to drop it (especially with the improved version), and
that makes it kinda hard to reach deep into any other trees, especially
with spirit tap as a must-have!
So many choices... :-)
Snowblade
"Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vblnp2l82kbqh4nj9...@4ax.com...
> On 3 Jan 2007 07:40:59 -0800, "Babe Bridou" <babeb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>holy nuking is just pew pew pew with no downtime in the later levels in
>>TBC, and since they added high spirit/high damage&healing green quest
>>rewards, I no longer give a look at the shadow tree past spirit tap &
>>blackout ;)
>
> Hmmm, I may consider a change of route then... I was going to make Sagart
> more shadowy based, but perhaps I should go deeper into holy instead and
> try damage instead of healing talents... my trouble is I like divine
> spirit
> too much to want to drop it (especially with the improved version), and
> that makes it kinda hard to reach deep into any other trees, especially
> with spirit tap as a must-have!
I have always thought holy/disc specs were the best, except in small PVP
groups which priests should probably avoid anyway.
Simon Nejmann
wrote:
>Let's do some simple math here. The math is correct. The only thing
>that might be wrong is my assumptions or that something is not what it
>is showing on the screen as. Anything listed as "fact" is assumed to be
>factual by virtue of what is dusplayed on my screen.
>
>Fact:
>Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
>
>Fact:
>Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
>an additional 10%
>
>Math:
>With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
>30% + 10% + 10% = 50%
The thing that is incorrect is your reading of those tooltips.
You can look here for the unmodified texts:
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/classes/priest/talents.html
Or, if you don't trust websites, then respec your priest (look before
you put those points in).
What you will find is this:
Vampiric Embrace
Afflicts your target with Shadow energy that causes all party members
to be healed for 20% of any Shadow spell damage you deal for 1 min.
Improved Vampiric Embrace 1/2
Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional
5%.
Improved Vampiric Embrace 2/2
Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional
10%.
In other words: The base percentage for VE's heal is 20% of your
damage, with 1/2 Imp VE that goes up to 25%, and with 2/2 Imp VE it
becomes 30%.
You have 2/2 Imp VE, thus your VE tooltip shows that it heals 30% of
your damage done.
Some numbers from a quick test:
Mind Flay hits for 311
VE heals for 93 (311*0.3 = 93.3)
SW:P hits for 317
VE heals for 95 (317*0.3 = 95.1)
SW:P hits for 57
VE heals for 17 (57*0.3 = 17.1)
SW:P hits for 56
VE heals for 17 (56*0.3 = 16.8)
SW:P hits for 56
VE critically heals for 25 (56*0.3*1.5 = 25.2)
Looks ok to me.
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Catriona R
>I have always thought holy/disc specs were the best, except in small PVP
>groups which priests should probably avoid anyway.
Having just healed an instance for the first time since changing spec, I'm
definitely going back to disc/holy... ok, I was way out of practice, and
ok, I've never used my current mod setup before (as my old ones died in
2.0), but even so, I was struggling a lot at times.
Granted there's not much way to avoid people dying when the tank charges
some scarlet mobs at the same time as a bunch of skeletons come up behind
us, but still, there were a couple of deaths that would've been avoided if
I'd had the 0.5 seconds off my greater heal, or the reduced mana cost on my
heals (so I hadn't run oom). Given that I'm not enjoying it all that much
solo either, I suspect I'll go back to what I know, even if I did
originally want my two priests to have different builds!
Oh, and can you imagine just how nervous it makes me to be in the first
group I've been in for months, and having my guild leader in the group...
and he plays a priest for his main so would know *exactly* what I was doing
wrong ;-) He never commented on anything I did but I suspect I looked
rather incompetent, to put it mildly ;-)
Chris Bromley
"Simon Nejmann" <snej...@worldonline.dk> wrote in message
news:kh3op2tdoq1ek6je8...@4ax.com...
This would be correct. The 5% and 10% aren't IN ADDITION together... they
are seperate entities that are added to the base of %20... but you can have
only one of them.
Catriona R
<catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:40:16 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I have always thought holy/disc specs were the best, except in small PVP
>>groups which priests should probably avoid anyway.
>
>Having just healed an instance for the first time since changing spec, I'm
>definitely going back to disc/holy... ok, I was way out of practice, and
>ok, I've never used my current mod setup before (as my old ones died in
>2.0), but even so, I was struggling a lot at times.
>
>Granted there's not much way to avoid people dying when the tank charges
>some scarlet mobs at the same time as a bunch of skeletons come up behind
>us, but still, there were a couple of deaths that would've been avoided if
>I'd had the 0.5 seconds off my greater heal, or the reduced mana cost on my
>heals (so I hadn't run oom). Given that I'm not enjoying it all that much
>solo either, I suspect I'll go back to what I know, even if I did
>originally want my two priests to have different builds!
Argh, trying to make a build is tricky... I kinda wanted my two priests to
go different routes so but I seem to be ending up with near-identical
builds lol, looking at
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=rVRhzhxzbZfLt0cbqZvM0z for my undead
priest right now, and it's only about 5 points different from what my
draenei priest will go with.
Oh well, at least I know I'll like it, I really am not very happy with my
current build anyway! VE is too situational to be worth losing things like
the 0.5 seconds off holy spell casting times, which I'm missing a lot, and
I miss holy nova even more (yeah, it's not mana efficient, but it's amazing
how many times I really want a nice quick AOE to get rid of some low health
mobs!)
Still a shame I can't seem to make my two priests different to each other;
the only difference I have is mind flay on the undead and not on the
draenei! Anyone got any tips on talents for mainly soloing PVE with this
build? (Oh, and as a note, I think I never will change my habit of always
using shield when soloing, so suggesing Blessed Recovery or similar is no
use... I did have it at one point and got very bored of seeing SCT spamming
"+0 [Blessed Recovery]" all the time :-P)
The general balance of mainly disc and holy with a bit of shadow is a
definite but I'm not so sure on the details, and it would be kinda nice to
not have near-identical builds on my two priests... the draenei I'll build
for grouping as well as solo, although I do want her to be good on holy
damage too. Babe, you've been saying about holy builds being good in TBC,
any particular things I should look at? Seems I'm definitely going for a
respec before I start levelling :-)
steve.kaye
Urbin wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:09:33 +0000, Catriona R wrote:
> > On 3 Jan 2007 06:56:36 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orion...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah I noticed that I went through mana a lot more than life.
> > >
> > >And I noticed the "interruption" upon being hit. I'll have to see how
> > >it works in the dungeons over the next few weeks. You see how the
> > >"interruption" is actually a quick short dash of the channel bar from
> > >right to left thereby reducing the casting time?
> >
> > Yup, it's pretty annoying - I know fear kiting stops that, but I was
> > fighting undead last night, who are kinda immune to fear... plus I dislike
> > fear kiting anyway, as it's usually a recipe for bringing a few adds on my
> > head ;-)
>
> Yupp. I never fear mobs unless I'm just about to die. It's my last measure
> before karking it.
My soloing strategy for melees is this:
1) PW:S
2) VT
3) SW:P
4) Mind flay
5) Mindblast
6) Wand to death
If the mob is too close to get the SW:P in without hindering the
benefit of slowing the incoming mob I swap 3 and 4. Last night (at
level 52) I was grinding on 50-54 undead in WPL and I would often not
even get the wanding stage in as SW:P would finish it off first. I
have two choices with that scenario - wait a bit for spirit tap to work
and not drink or just go straight to the next mob and drink every 5 to
7 kills depending upon the odd spell of resists.
If shield drops before the 15s weakened soul then I scream and mind
flay. I have levelled a Holy/Disc build for about 5 levels (45-50) and
Psychic Scream seemed really lacking without the ability to control the
feared mob with mind flay and so I wouldn't use it until I was in
trouble.
> > >Still I am gonna hold off on the respec until later. I want to see how
> > >the VT works for keeping the groups mana up when I get there and
> > >whetther there is a need for that.
> >
> > That sounds a pretty interesting skill
>
> I am currently 47 int shadow and have been toying with VT. Too early to tell
> yet but my first impression is that its return is rather slight compared to
> its mana cost. It certainly won't pay for itself (i.e. return the mana spent
> on it for me). However, I can see how it will be very interesting on long
> fights (i.e. boss fights) where the fight will last long enough for me to do
> enough damage. As it will give mana back to all the casters that could up to
> quite a bit of more staying power for mana users.
The long fights will be affected by the fact that VT only lasts 15
seconds so that you need to re-apply it and so reduce it's efficiency.
Whilst soloing I don't look at it as a mana-regen skill I look at it
more as a mana-efficient dot. I did quick sums the other day, not
taking +damage gear into account, and it came between mind flay and
mind blast in efficiency (from memory as I can't look it up on thottbot
from work - mindflay was 2.5 dpm, vt was 2.25 dpm and mind blast was 2
dpm)
> > yeah, maybe someday I'll spec right into shadow and see what it's like...
> > but again I don't see the soloing utility that everyone says shadow is
> > all about... :-/
>
> For me the main benefits are:
> - shadowform upps my damage and decreases the damage I take (valuable for my
> VE + wanding strategy)
> - various dmg boosting talents
For me it is the ability to grind non-stop. Spirit tap and VT allow me
to grind with very little down time.
steve.kaye
steve.kaye
Orion Ryder wrote:
> I can see where an extra 6.3% is good provided: (1) u need the 40
> points to get to VT
> (2) the 6.3 % ends up more valuable than a 6 second improved cooldown
> onPsych Scream. and since (3) Spirit does only gives you the mana on
> killing blow (which I missed, my bad) it seems better than that in a
> grop.
If I was short of points to allocate then 2 points in improved scream
and 1 point in silence would win over 1 point in VE and 2 in IVE every
time. Silence is very usefull in PvP and I use it a lot in PvE to pull
caster's away from a group. When I'm soloing I never use VE unless
something took my shield away within 15 seconds so I couldn't re-apply
it. When I'm grouping I tend to not bother with VE much as we either
already have a main healer or I'm concentrating on healing and I want
to save my mana for emergencies.
steve.kaye
Babe Bridou
Sure sure...
firstly, unless I'm mistaken, only the troll racial is a spammable,
protective shield with several charges. So unless I'm mistaken, holy
priests that are not trolls should not even pay a second look at
blackout.
Mind flay is good and all, but to be honest, holy priests don't really
benefit from it.
so that leaves spirit tap and improved shadow word: pain as talents to
consider in shadow.
I also noticed I was relying so much more on holy specialization than
on improved renew, so much more on martyrdom than on improved power
word: fortitude, and I'm sorry to say that wand specialization doesn't
cut it anymore... wands damage being the only thing that doesn't scale
accordingly in the outlands. Sure, I have a couple 100ish dps wands,
but they are just that: 100ish dps.
So for me, the "starter's" build for each tree in a holy solo spec in
TBC would look approximately like this:
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=dxzGzhZrxtZx
15/15/5, at level 44. That leaves me with 16 points to customize for
level 60, and 10 points to strengthen it while levelling up.
While levelling up, breakpoints are at level 62 (shadow word: death,
gives you swift, mana efficient kills, negating the need for improved
shadow word: pain and wand mastery), 66 (shadowfiend, gives you mana
and a solo aggro management toy) and 68 (prayer of mending, gives you
insane survival abilities).
Talent-wise, the "holy trinity" is made of improved divine spirit,
spirit guidance, spirit tap, and the biggest green
spirit/crit/damage&healing gear you can find. At level 60, here's the
build you could consider purely for questing/instancing purposes:
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=dxzGzhxzbZrxt0cbRZx
25/25/5.
And here is the talent allocation as you level up:
61: spirit guidance
62: spirit guidance
63: surge of light
64: surge of light
65: spirit guidance
66: healing prayers
67: healing prayers
68: blessed resilience
69: blessed resilience
70: blessed resilience
and here's the final build:
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=dxzGzhxzbZrxt0crqb0hZx
Pros of this build: with mental agility, healing prayers, Prayer of
Mending casting cost is cut down by a whole 30%. With martyrdom,
improved shield and blessed resilience, people can't kill you on their
own. With spirit of redemption, divine fury, improved healing and inner
focus, your party can be confident in your healing powers - you will
have issues healing in higher-level instances though, and that could be
a problem considering the planned shortage of healers throughout the
first 6 months of TBC. No way I could have healed through Sethekk Halls
at 64 with this build, for example (Sethekk Halls is a level 69
instance). That said, the good thing is, contrary to blessed recovery
or vampiric embrace, blessed resilience makes your shield last much
longer.
Cons of this build: you will need to get past 60-62. It will be
painful. But you will need to do it anyway. Find parties, group up with
friends, and rejoice, you will need to collect these two little babies
along the way:
_Vengeance of the Illidari
http://www.thottbot.com/beta?i=530
Trinket
Equip: Improves spell critical strike rating by 26.
Use: Increases damage done by up to 120 and healing done by up to 220
for 15 sec.
Quest reward on both sides.
_Auslese's Light Channeler
Trinket
Equip: Increases healing done by spells and effects by up to 59.
Use: Reduces the cost of your next spell cast within 10 sec by up to
215 mana.
Drops from Broggok, second boss in the Blood Furnace
Both gives you, basically, a mini-power infusion and a mini-inner
focus, along with a powerful passive bonus. Cooldowns on those are
short. They will change your gameplay.
I managed to find a few more trinkets like these - but not a single
item came close to these two as far as gameplay and efficiency is
concerned.
If your priest is a reroll, if your priest never raided or rolled on
those epic trinkets, if you never took the time to grind argent dawn
reputation or whatever, just... don't miss them. Do that quest chain
for the vengeance, and farm the blood furnace until the channeler
drops. Then you'll be 62 with a big smile.
Catriona R
>Sure sure...
>
>firstly, unless I'm mistaken, only the troll racial is a spammable,
>protective shield with several charges. So unless I'm mistaken, holy
>priests that are not trolls should not even pay a second look at
>blackout.
Ahhh, I'd just assumed it'd work off SWP and mind flay, ok, that's a good
way to save some points then!
>Mind flay is good and all, but to be honest, holy priests don't really
>benefit from it.
>so that leaves spirit tap and improved shadow word: pain as talents to
>consider in shadow.
Hmm, surprised they don't benefit from it, I've used it for ages as my
hybrid build and it's great on runners. I think I may well keep it on my
undead priest, just to have some difference between him and my draenei
priest, but I was looking at only using spirit tap and imp swp on my
draenei :-)
>I also noticed I was relying so much more on holy specialization than
>on improved renew, so much more on martyrdom than on improved power
>word: fortitude, and I'm sorry to say that wand specialization doesn't
>cut it anymore... wands damage being the only thing that doesn't scale
>accordingly in the outlands. Sure, I have a couple 100ish dps wands,
>but they are just that: 100ish dps.
Question about martyrdom: in my experience my shield works well enough to
not really need it... but I know mobs in Outland hit harder and last
longer, so is my shield more likely to be running out on them, so making
martyrdom needed? I've no real use for it on Azeroth so never considered
it, but I can see where it'd be useful if my shield regularly doesn't last
long enough.
>While levelling up, breakpoints are at level 62 (shadow word: death,
>gives you swift, mana efficient kills, negating the need for improved
>shadow word: pain and wand mastery),
Looking at the info for that on the official site, it sounds to me like you
have to cast it to finish off the target, right? Would hurt spirit tap a
lot in that case, as I'd be in the 5 second rule for the first 5 seconds...
unless it's changed since the write-up was done?
>66 (shadowfiend, gives you mana
>and a solo aggro management toy) and 68 (prayer of mending, gives you
>insane survival abilities).
From the write-up I assumed prayer of mending was a group thing, looks
handy for solo as well though :-) Ouch on the mana cost though...
>Talent-wise, the "holy trinity" is made of improved divine spirit,
>spirit guidance, spirit tap, and the biggest green
>spirit/crit/damage&healing gear you can find. At level 60, here's the
>build you could consider purely for questing/instancing purposes:
>http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=dxzGzhxzbZrxt0cbRZx
>25/25/5.
That's very close to what I'd worked out for my draenei priest, a few minor
differences, but looks like I'm heading in the right direction then!
I've never really tried healing above my level anyway, rarely have enough
confidence in my ability to heal people who are taking more damage than I
have mana to heal (as I found last night... I have enough mana to cast only
7 greater heals using max rank, and didn't have enough +healing to
downrank... oops :-)) The rest sounds good, I never really considered
blessed resilience but it sounds like it'll be pretty useful!
>Cons of this build: you will need to get past 60-62. It will be
>painful. But you will need to do it anyway. Find parties, group up with
>friends, and rejoice, you will need to collect these two little babies
>along the way:
Hehe well even my rogue had trouble with some things so I guess I can make
my priest survive somehow... it's not like I'll be short of whispers of
"wanna do <instance>?" ;-)
>_Vengeance of the Illidari
>http://www.thottbot.com/beta?i=530
>Trinket
>Equip: Improves spell critical strike rating by 26.
>Use: Increases damage done by up to 120 and healing done by up to 220
>for 15 sec.
>Quest reward on both sides.
>
>_Auslese's Light Channeler
>Trinket
>Equip: Increases healing done by spells and effects by up to 59.
>Use: Reduces the cost of your next spell cast within 10 sec by up to
>215 mana.
>Drops from Broggok, second boss in the Blood Furnace
>
>Both gives you, basically, a mini-power infusion and a mini-inner
>focus, along with a powerful passive bonus. Cooldowns on those are
>short. They will change your gameplay.
Sounds good, my trouble with items with a "use" feature is I never use them
but always save them for greater need... probably not a good thing to do
but I just never manage it, I already gave up on getting "use" trinkets for
my rogue and just use passive ones or chance on hit instead. I never really
use inner focus either, really should do but I tend to do well if I
remember to use it for buffs!
>I managed to find a few more trinkets like these - but not a single
>item came close to these two as far as gameplay and efficiency is
>concerned.
>If your priest is a reroll, if your priest never raided or rolled on
>those epic trinkets, if you never took the time to grind argent dawn
>reputation or whatever, just... don't miss them. Do that quest chain
>for the vengeance, and farm the blood furnace until the channeler
>drops. Then you'll be 62 with a big smile.
I'll give it a go anyway, and yeah, my priest is badly geared (all blues,
some very old ;-)), and my draenei one of course will be totally new :-)
Thanks for the tips! I may not use the exact build but I'll certainly go
pretty close, it's very near what I'd planned for my draenei, and my undead
will probably go somewhere near it, although I may keep mind flay just for
being different to the draenei... it'd get a bit dull having two identical
characters on either side! ;-)
steve.kaye
Catriona R wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 01:44:48 -0800, "Babe Bridou" <babeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sure sure...
> >
> >firstly, unless I'm mistaken, only the troll racial is a spammable,
> >protective shield with several charges. So unless I'm mistaken, holy
> >priests that are not trolls should not even pay a second look at
> >blackout.
>
> Ahhh, I'd just assumed it'd work off SWP and mind flay, ok, that's a good
> way to save some points then!
It does work off SW:P and Mind Flay but the benefit for holy priests
that are going to mainly use holy attacks is going to be a lot less
than for a shadow priest who would only use shadow attacks. It's a
great defensive talent for trolls on PvP servers as you have a 1 in 10
chance to overcome the disadvantage of not getting the first attack in.
I've had a ?? warrior charge me and get blacked out - I laughed until
I died and then some more :)
steve.kaye
Catriona R
>Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Oh, and can you imagine just how nervous it makes me to be in the first
>> group I've been in for months, and having my guild leader in the group...
>
>Ah, not what I thought you were going to say there. I always have
>that "uh oh" factor when I find a group for an instance I want and
>someone says, "what spec are you?". When I sheepishly say "shadow"
>I'm always nervous to see what the response will be (only once have
>I heard something negative though, once in a while it is "nice" or
>"cool" which always makes me smile. Once it was "shadow priests are
>badass" hah)
Hehe, well I said right at the start that I was badly geared and using an
experimental disc/shadow build which I didn't think was going to be good (I
was right lol), so if anyone else wanted to heal, they could feel free - we
had two druids and a shaman in the group but they were still happy for me
to heal lol.
Have to say I'm a big fan of bear tanks, the druid who was maintanking
really took very little damage; if we only had one or two mobs I didn't
even need to heal, and he only really needed healing badly when there were
4+ mobs at a time :-)
Snowblade
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:36:57 +0000, Catriona R
> <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:40:16 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have always thought holy/disc specs were the best, except in small PVP
>>>groups which priests should probably avoid anyway.
>>
>>Having just healed an instance for the first time since changing spec, I'm
>>definitely going back to disc/holy... ok, I was way out of practice, and
>>ok, I've never used my current mod setup before (as my old ones died in
>>2.0), but even so, I was struggling a lot at times.
>>
>>Granted there's not much way to avoid people dying when the tank charges
>>some scarlet mobs at the same time as a bunch of skeletons come up behind
>>us, but still, there were a couple of deaths that would've been avoided if
>>I'd had the 0.5 seconds off my greater heal, or the reduced mana cost on
>>my
>>heals (so I hadn't run oom). Given that I'm not enjoying it all that much
>>solo either, I suspect I'll go back to what I know, even if I did
>>originally want my two priests to have different builds!
>
> Argh, trying to make a build is tricky... I kinda wanted my two priests to
> go different routes so but I seem to be ending up with near-identical
> builds lol, looking at
> http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=rVRhzhxzbZfLt0cbqZvM0z for my undead
> priest right now, and it's only about 5 points different from what my
> draenei priest will go with.
I like this build. I would only suggest one change for your consideration.
It appears you spent 1 point in Silent Resolve to finish out the 20-point
requirement, that is, I need one more point so where should I put it.
Consider placing that one point in Martydom.
Also I, as you, do like to level with 5 points in Wand Specilization. With
a blue wand, a priest can fly through the mobs during leveling. Fact is, in
preparation for TBC I have bought on the AH the following wands to be mailed
to my new priest: green level 5 Lesser Magic Wand, green level 13 Greater
Magic Wand, and blue levels 16,22,29,45,54. Still trying to get a good
price on a blue level 30ish wand. The first 2 green wands will sail you
though the first two zones in TBC and maybe out and away from the crowds.
>
> Oh well, at least I know I'll like it, I really am not very happy with my
> current build anyway! VE is too situational to be worth losing things like
> the 0.5 seconds off holy spell casting times, which I'm missing a lot, and
> I miss holy nova even more (yeah, it's not mana efficient, but it's
> amazing
> how many times I really want a nice quick AOE to get rid of some low
> health
> mobs!)
You know I have two priests, one Alliance and one Horde, and I have never
used holy nova. I think I will try it for my new TBC priest. Those little
low level pest mobs are a nightmare for my priests.
Catriona R
>I like this build. I would only suggest one change for your consideration.
>It appears you spent 1 point in Silent Resolve to finish out the 20-point
>requirement, that is, I need one more point so where should I put it.
>Consider placing that one point in Martydom.
I think I probably will do that, I thought Silent Resolve was needed as a
healer but I only had one point in it last night and had no aggro issues,
so presumably in a group with a competent tank I shouldn't need to worry -
I was going to fill it out on my draenei but I think I'll skip it for
something else :-)
>Also I, as you, do like to level with 5 points in Wand Specilization. With
>a blue wand, a priest can fly through the mobs during leveling. Fact is, in
>preparation for TBC I have bought on the AH the following wands to be mailed
>to my new priest: green level 5 Lesser Magic Wand, green level 13 Greater
>Magic Wand, and blue levels 16,22,29,45,54. Still trying to get a good
>price on a blue level 30ish wand. The first 2 green wands will sail you
>though the first two zones in TBC and maybe out and away from the crowds.
Nice thinking - I got the two magic wands waiting, but didn't want to spend
a fortune on blue ones so I've skipped those... will see how it goes :-)
>You know I have two priests, one Alliance and one Horde, and I have never
>used holy nova. I think I will try it for my new TBC priest. Those little
>low level pest mobs are a nightmare for my priests.
Yep, I accidentally set off one of those trapped crates in Strat last night
and there was just nothing I could do about it, had to wait for the warlock
to bail me out lol. The mana cost is horrendous so you can't use it for
AOEing like a mage, but when I have it I keep rank 1 on my toolbar as well
as the highest rank available, so the really low health mobs can be gone in
about 50 mana :-)
Quirthanon
> Afflicts your target with Shadow energy that causes all party members
> to be healed for 20% of any Shadow spell damage you deal for 1 min.
> Improved Vampiric Embrace 1/2
> Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional 5%.
> Improved Vampiric Embrace 2/2
> Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional 10%.
> This would be correct. The 5% and 10% aren't IN ADDITION together... they
> are seperate entities that are added to the base of %20... but you can have
> only one of them.
Actually the word "additional" means "in addition to" so the common
person would sum the amounts and wonder why they don't match the
results from the game, as Orion Ryder has done.
This is tricky book keeping on Blizzard's part, for some reason they
decided to nerf the bonuses from percentage increases. Using this
method and the multiplication of percentage bonuses they have reduced
the benefit of talents. They also don't state that the second talent
replaces the first or that the first is no longer added to the total
once the second talent point is spent.
Blizzard should update the tooltips to indicate the correct and actual
amount each POINT in the talent increases the healing/damage/whatever.
Because 3.3% is NOT equal to 10%. Or they could correctly state that
the increase is a percentage of the original percentage and not the
actual damage. So with the following simplified example:
Expected Results (using basic math)
Damage: 100 points
Vampiric Embrace Healing
No Talents: 20 points
1 Talent Point: 25 points
2 Talent Points: 35 points
Is this an unreasonable expectation from reading the talents and spell
descriptions? I think the common person would find this math
acceptable, as would most people heavily involved with math.
Actual Results (using Blizzard's math)
Damage: 100 points
Vampiric Embrace Healing
No Talents: 20 points
1 Talent Point: 23 points (actual percentage 23%)
2 Talent Points: 23.3 points (actual percentage 23.3%)
I don't have a priest so the examples are just theory. If Orion Ryder
could supply a raw dump of the combat log while having the Vampiric
Embrace enabled I could crunch the numbers on real data.
Just dump the log here in a comment.
Simon Nejmann
wrote:
>> Vampiric Embrace
>> Afflicts your target with Shadow energy that causes all party members
>> to be healed for 20% of any Shadow spell damage you deal for 1 min.
>
>> Improved Vampiric Embrace 1/2
>> Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional 5%.
>
>> Improved Vampiric Embrace 2/2
>> Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional 10%.
>
>
>> This would be correct. The 5% and 10% aren't IN ADDITION together... they
>> are seperate entities that are added to the base of %20... but you can have
>> only one of them.
>
>Actually the word "additional" means "in addition to" so the common
>person would sum the amounts and wonder why they don't match the
>results from the game, as Orion Ryder has done.
Actually you didn't read my post.
Base = 20%
5% in addition = 25%
10% in addition = 30%
What Chris is saying is that you can't get both the +5% and +10%
additions.
>This is tricky book keeping on Blizzard's part, for some reason they
>decided to nerf the bonuses from percentage increases.
No it isn't and, sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>Blizzard should update the tooltips to indicate the correct and actual
>amount each POINT in the talent increases the healing/damage/whatever.
But the point is that they DO!
When you first buy the VE talent it says 20% in the tooltip, and after
you buy the talent that says; "I add 5% to VE" the VE tooltip starts
saying 25%, and so on...
>Because 3.3% is NOT equal to 10%.
And the 3.3% number has nothing to do with reality. It is a number
Orion made up because he didn't know that Blizzard already had updated
his tooltip - he then started adding numbers together that had no base
in reality and got to a faulty result.
2 points in Improved Vampiric Embrace gets you 10% extra healing from
the shadow damage you do, EXACTLY as it says that it does.
>Or they could correctly state that
>the increase is a percentage of the original percentage and not the
>actual damage. So with the following simplified example:
But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.
>I don't have a priest so the examples are just theory.
It shows.
>If Orion Ryder
>could supply a raw dump of the combat log while having the Vampiric
>Embrace enabled I could crunch the numbers on real data.
No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Christian Stauffer
> Actually the word "additional" means "in addition to" so the common
> person would sum the amounts and wonder why they don't match the
> results from the game, as Orion Ryder has done.
Well, in addition to the base percentage. If you put in one point,
it reads "by an additional 5%". 20% + 5% = 25%, everything's
alright. If you put in two points, it reads "by an additional 10%".
20% + 10% = 30%, everything's alright again. Now, when the tooltip
reflects it (displays 30% instead of 20%) even better, that's what
people asked for all the time (spell tooltips that show the updated
values due to talents).
> They also don't state that the second talent
> replaces the first or that the first is no longer added to the total
> once the second talent point is spent.
That isn't the case for ANY talent, and there's really more than one
of them with exactly the same logic. Actually most talents follow this
mechanic. 1 point increases [blabla] by x%, 2 points increase [blabla]
by 2x%, etc.
> Blizzard should update the tooltips to indicate the correct and actual
> amount each POINT in the talent increases the healing/damage/whatever.
> Because 3.3% is NOT equal to 10%.
3.3% is not what it does according to Simon.
Chris
--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Gwaith - Short beastmaster (60) on EN Scarshield L. [RPPvP]
Sian - Best friend (60) on EN Scarshield L. [RPPvP]
Yagon - Pointy eared beast (25) on EN Scarshield L. [RPPvP]
Get the alt.games.warcraft FAQ at http://www.wildcard7.com/agw_faq.txt
Quirthanon
> Actually you didn't read my post.
> Base = 20%
> 5% in addition = 25%
> 10% in addition = 30%
reliable information that I could verify, so I went with his numbers.
I've never read a post from you before and couldn't verify which was
correct, I picked experience.
> What Chris is saying is that you can't get both the +5% and +10%
> additions.
I understood what he wrote. The talent point tooltip does NOT note
that the second talent point text replaces the first. Leading to the
situation that Orion Ryder described, confusion on the exact workings.
> >This is tricky book keeping on Blizzard's part, for some reason they
> >decided to nerf the bonuses from percentage increases.
>
> No it isn't and, sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
But I do know what I'm talking about, for one patch Blizzard decided
that percentage talent points would no longer be additive and would now
be either multiplied or just a replacement. It was quite a while ago,
I think around patch 1.5 or so. I'm at work however and can not look
at most web sites related to WoW, so I can't find the exact quote right
now.
> >Blizzard should update the tooltips to indicate the correct and actual
> >amount each POINT in the talent increases the healing/damage/whatever.
>
> But the point is that they DO!
> When you first buy the VE talent it says 20% in the tooltip, and after
> you buy the talent that says; "I add 5% to VE" the VE tooltip starts
> saying 25%, and so on...
But this contradicts the talent point tooltip, which is clearly stated
above in a previous post, It reads "ADDITIONAL" 10%, when it actually
only increases it an additional 5%, for a total of 10%. The spell
tooltip already states the healing is 25% an additional 10% would yield
35%, not 30%. Why would the first talent point's abilities stop
working? Why would someone word it that way, with the intention of
only making it 10%?
> >Because 3.3% is NOT equal to 10%.
>
> And the 3.3% number has nothing to do with reality. It is a number
> Orion made up because he didn't know that Blizzard already had updated
> his tooltip - he then started adding numbers together that had no base
> in reality and got to a faulty result.
As stated above, Orion Ryder posts reliable information that I've
confirmed before. So I know he posted it correctly. He may however
been looking at the improved tooltip and gotten the 30% starting point
wrong. The talents I was able to find on a web site from work and
matched the description provided.
> 2 points in Improved Vampiric Embrace gets you 10% extra healing from
> the shadow damage you do, EXACTLY as it says that it does.
But why would the first talent point be negated? Shouldn't the talent
point tooltip state that the first value is replaced and the new 10%
value is used? Can you think of another example from outside of WoW
where someone would use language such as this? Simply put the talents
with wording like this are misleading and confusing.
> >Or they could correctly state that
> >the increase is a percentage of the original percentage and not the
> >actual damage. So with the following simplified example:
>
> But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.
Which is why? Are you disputing the math? Because the numeric value
used for damage was just picked for ease of calculation. It also
doesn't matter what the number is to understand and to discuss the
results. And please explain what reality would be then and why it
would matter.
> >I don't have a priest so the examples are just theory.
> It shows.
How does it show, because I didn't get the exact numbers right in the
examples? If I can't understand the class's talents by reading them,
the talent descriptions are misleading or confusing. You should not
have to play a class to understand the math behind the talents.
Remember experince does not mean, lack of understanding. I do not need
to play a priest to understand one, especially the math portion.
>
> >If Orion Ryder
> >could supply a raw dump of the combat log while having the Vampiric
> >Embrace enabled I could crunch the numbers on real data.
>
> No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
confirm the results. That is the only way to confirm if someone is
being reliable when talking about numbers, crunch the numbers yourself.
I even suspect that Orion Ryder himself may have made a mistake and I
would like to double check.
Christian Stauffer
> But I do know what I'm talking about, for one patch Blizzard decided
> that percentage talent points would no longer be additive and would now
> be either multiplied or just a replacement. It was quite a while ago,
> I think around patch 1.5 or so.
In a recent patch, *speed* buffs we're changed to being "multiplied"
(as in 30% haste + 20% haste aren't 50% haste anymore). This has nothing
at all to do with talents. My hunters quiver has a 15% haste as well
which is affected by this change.
And talents have never ever been additive.
Catriona R
>Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hehe, well I said right at the start that I was badly geared and using an
>> experimental disc/shadow build which I didn't think was going to be good (I
>> was right lol), so if anyone else wanted to heal, they could feel free - we
>> had two druids and a shaman in the group but they were still happy for me
>> to heal lol.
>
>I'm not a very good healer, being shadow doesn't help. But I rolled a priest
>because I thought shadowform looked pretty badass (it does), not because
>I wanted anything particular out of the class :)
Hehe yeah it looks great on undead priests in particular, shame I just
cannot adjust my mindset to make shadow work as a playstyle for me!
>Speaking of gear, I'm fairly interested to see how things go w/ my new/current
>gear. I've been loading up on the PvP equipment, some enchants and such.
>With my "normal gear" I have about +300 shadow and +260ish everything else,
>and I can swap out my shadow offhand for a healing offhand and a couple
>of other things. OTOH my spirit is total crap and my aggro is through
>the roof. Previously I was at most around +100 healing, so the extra
>+200ish should help a ton.
Sounds good :-) I'm also interested to see how all my new items have helped
my healing, I got over 100 +healing in new gear last night :-)
Simon Nejmann
wrote:
>Simon Nejmann wrote:
>> Actually you didn't read my post.
>> Base = 20%
>> 5% in addition = 25%
>> 10% in addition = 30%
>Actually I did read your post. Orion Ryder has consistently posted
>reliable information that I could verify, so I went with his numbers.
>I've never read a post from you before and couldn't verify which was
>correct, I picked experience.
If you have never read anything by me before then I dare say you
haven't looked very well... Eg. google groups list 1,230 posts by me
in this group.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.games.warcraft&as_uauthors=simon+nejmann
>> What Chris is saying is that you can't get both the +5% and +10%
>> additions.
>I understood what he wrote. The talent point tooltip does NOT note
>that the second talent point text replaces the first. Leading to the
>situation that Orion Ryder described, confusion on the exact workings.
I will just list a few random talents here - I hope to hit a class you
play...
Warlock:
Improved Corruption
Rank 1 Reduces the casting time of your Corruption spell by 0.4
sec.
Rank 2 Reduces the casting time of your Corruption spell by 0.8
sec.
Rank 3 Reduces the casting time of your Corruption spell by 1.2
sec.
Rank 4 Reduces the casting time of your Corruption spell by 1.6
sec.
Rank 5 Reduces the casting time of your Corruption spell by 2
sec.
Mage:
Improved Frostbolt
Rank 1 Reduces the casting time of your Frostbolt spell by 0.1
sec.
Rank 2 Reduces the casting time of your Frostbolt spell by 0.2
sec.
Rank 3 Reduces the casting time of your Frostbolt spell by 0.3
sec.
Rank 4 Reduces the casting time of your Frostbolt spell by 0.4
sec.
Rank 5 Reduces the casting time of your Frostbolt spell by 0.5
sec.
Warrior:
Improved Heroic Strike
Rank 1 Reduces the cost of your Heroic Strike ability by 1 rage
point.
Rank 2 Reduces the cost of your Heroic Strike ability by 2 rage
points.
Rank 3 Reduces the cost of your Heroic Strike ability by 3 rage
points.
Rogue:
Improved Ambush
Rank 1 Increases the critical strike chance of your Ambush
ability by 15%.
Rank 2 Increases the critical strike chance of your Ambush
ability by 30%.
Rank 3 Increases the critical strike chance of your Ambush
ability by 45%.
Priest:
Unbreakable Will
Rank 1 Increases your chance to resist Stun, Fear, and Silence
effects by an additional 3%.
Rank 2 Increases your chance to resist Stun, Fear, and Silence
effects by an additional 6%.
Rank 3 Increases your chance to resist Stun, Fear, and Silence
effects by an additional 9%.
Rank 4 Increases your chance to resist Stun, Fear, and Silence
effects by an additional 12%.
Rank 5 Increases your chance to resist Stun, Fear, and Silence
effects by an additional 15%.
Spirit Tap
Rank 1 Gives you a 20% chance to ...
Rank 2 Gives you a 40% chance to...
Rank 3 Gives you a 60% chance to...
Rank 4 Gives you a 80% chance to...
Rank 5 Gives you a 100% chance to...
I could list just about every talent in the game, and they will all
follow this wording.
But perhaps you would think that warlocks get 6 second cast time
reduction on their 2 second cast Corruption?
And that rogues get 90% passive crit rate on Ambush?
And that priests get 300% chance to proc Spirit Tap?
If it is so confusing how come you aren't complaining till now? There
is no way you haven't bumped into a talent worded this way before.
Btw, the reason they word it like this is that you have no way of
seeing what rank 2 of a talent does after you get rank 3. So they
could either do the tooltips as either:
XX rank 3
Add 1% crit.
Add 1% crit.
Add 1% crit.
Or:
XX rank 3
Add 3% crit.
>But I do know what I'm talking about, for one patch Blizzard decided
>that percentage talent points would no longer be additive and would now
>be either multiplied or just a replacement. It was quite a while ago,
>I think around patch 1.5 or so. I'm at work however and can not look
>at most web sites related to WoW, so I can't find the exact quote right
>now.
I could repeat that you don't know what you are talking about, but
instead I will just look forward to seeing the quote you mention.
In the meantime, here is a quote of the only change of additive to
multiplicative I could find in the patch notes - and it has nothing to
do with what you are looking for:
**
General
- Threat Reduction Effects
This system has been redesigned to eliminate inconsistency in how
the effects work. Previously, some were additive (for example: 30%
reduction + 20% reduction = 50% reduction) while others were
multiplicative (30% reduction and 20% reduction made 44% reduction,
from 0.7*0.8). They are now all multiplicative. This also prevents
unpredictable behavior when the total reduction percentage was
equal
to or greater than 100%. Please note that in almost all cases, when
stacking multiple threat reduction effects you will experience less
threat reduction than previously.
- Haste and Slow effects
Previously Haste and Slow effects worked inconsistently, with
spells
working differently from weapons, and hastes and slows not acting
as
inverses of each other. We have revised the system so that all
haste
and slow effects work the same way, and haste and slow percentages
of the same magnitude perfectly cancel each other out (30% haste
and
30% slow combine to no change). As a result, we had to change the
tooltip numbers on all spell haste effects, and on all melee and
range slow effects. The numbers in the tooltips are different, but
the game functionality is unchanged (other than slight rounding
errors). Those tooltips that changed will now display larger
numbers
than they used to display. Conceptually, haste values indicate how
much more of that activity you can perform in a given time. 30%
melee haste means 30% more swings in a given time. Slow values
indicate how much longer an activity takes to complete. 30% slow
means an action takes 30% longer to finish.
**
>> And the 3.3% number has nothing to do with reality. It is a number
>> Orion made up because he didn't know that Blizzard already had updated
>> his tooltip - he then started adding numbers together that had no base
>> in reality and got to a faulty result.
>As stated above, Orion Ryder posts reliable information that I've
>confirmed before. So I know he posted it correctly. He may however
>been looking at the improved tooltip and gotten the 30% starting point
>wrong. The talents I was able to find on a web site from work and
>matched the description provided.
Ok... So he posted correctly - except that he got the number, and thus
the math, and thus the entire point of his post wrong. But he still
posted correctly?
You have a strange definition of the word "correctly".
>> >Or they could correctly state that
>> >the increase is a percentage of the original percentage and not the
>> >actual damage. So with the following simplified example:
>>
>> But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.
>Which is why? Are you disputing the math? Because the numeric value
>used for damage was just picked for ease of calculation. It also
>doesn't matter what the number is to understand and to discuss the
>results. And please explain what reality would be then and why it
>would matter.
Because your numbers go either; 20, 25, 35 or 20, 23, 23.3 and neither
sequence has anything to do with how the game works - as I have
explained several times.
>> >I don't have a priest so the examples are just theory.
>> It shows.
>How does it show, because I didn't get the exact numbers right in the
>examples?
Yes - more specifically it shows that your examples are pure theory
with no base in anything.
>If I can't understand the class's talents by reading them,
>the talent descriptions are misleading or confusing.
They are worded in the same way as pretty much every other talent in
the game.
>> >If Orion Ryder
>> >could supply a raw dump of the combat log while having the Vampiric
>> >Embrace enabled I could crunch the numbers on real data.
>>
>> No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
>Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
>confirm the results. That is the only way to confirm if someone is
>being reliable when talking about numbers, crunch the numbers yourself.
>I even suspect that Orion Ryder himself may have made a mistake and I
>would like to double check.
Ok, go ahead then.
Why not start with the numbers I copied from my combat log and wrote
in my first post?
--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
Quirthanon
> I will just list a few random talents here - I hope to hit a class you play...
one in your list that states "an additional"? The others quite clearly
list their effects. Again the wording "an additional amount" means "in
addition too," not in place of.
> I could list just about every talent in the game, and they will all follow this wording.
The wording is not identical. Since you seem to have access to the
text of the tooltips, (sorry I'm at work still) please check if other
talents in other classes use the word "additional."
> If it is so confusing how come you aren't complaining till now? There
> is no way you haven't bumped into a talent worded this way before.
I've never noticed the word additional in any of the talents I've used.
They quite clearly state "increased by x" amount, which does not mean
the same as "an additional x". The first replaces the previous talent
value and the second would be added to the previous talent value.
> I could repeat that you don't know what you are talking about, but
> instead I will just look forward to seeing the quote you mention.
> In the meantime, here is a quote of the only change of additive to
> multiplicative I could find in the patch notes - and it has nothing to
> do with what you are looking for:
This is probably it, I got this part wrong. However, the wording on
the talent is still confusing.
> Ok... So he posted correctly - except that he got the number, and thus
> the math, and thus the entire point of his post wrong. But he still
> posted correctly?
> You have a strange definition of the word "correctly".
I know he posted what he saw correctly. He got the value of the
vampiric embrace from the spell tooltip, which I assume was updated by
the talent. This however, does not mean that the confusion caused by
the word "additional" is incorrect. So while the first number may have
been incorrect, it's adjusted by the talent, the question and confusion
are still valid.
> >> But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.
> >Which is why? Are you disputing the math? Because the numeric value
> >used for damage was just picked for ease of calculation. It also
> >doesn't matter what the number is to understand and to discuss the
> >results. And please explain what reality would be then and why it
> >would matter.
>
> Because your numbers go either; 20, 25, 35 or 20, 23, 23.3 and neither
> sequence has anything to do with how the game works - as I have
> explained several times.
This came from thinking too much. The first is example is still valid
as from the plain reading of the talents this is what a reasonable
person would expect. However, the second example is garbage, due to me
forgetting that not all percentage were multiplied. This would then
become 20, 25, 30; the same as your example. However, this is not
intuitive from the talent description and still 5% less then one would
expect from an additive property.
Here's another example:
I promise to give you three dollars if you wash my car. I then
promise to give you an additional 6 dollars for cutting my grass.
Would you expect to receive 9 dollars or 6 for the work? If you said
6, you're wrong. Additional properties are in addition too the
original amount. This would really create confusion when trying to
complete word problems in math classes. Does that in addition to mean
to replace the value this time or to add to it?
> Yes - more specifically it shows that your examples are pure theory with no base in anything.
Except, math; and an incorrect remembering of the patch notes. They
are however based on reliable posts and descriptions of the talents and
spells. You do NOT have to play a class to understand the theory or
math behind it.
> They are worded in the same way as pretty much every other talent in the game.
Except for that one little word "additional" it has a meaning that is
not consistent with replacing values.
> >> No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
> >Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
> >confirm the results. That is the only way to confirm if someone is
> >being reliable when talking about numbers, crunch the numbers yourself.
> >I even suspect that Orion Ryder himself may have made a mistake and I
> >would like to double check.
>
> Ok, go ahead then.
> Why not start with the numbers I copied from my combat log and wrote
> in my first post?
Your example now matches what I would expect from the game. That
doesn't however, mean the talent tooltip is clear. Using the term "an
additional amount x" would mean in addition to whatever amount you
currently have, not in addition to the amount you originally started
with.
Catriona R
>Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sounds good :-) I'm also interested to see how all my new items have helped
>> my healing, I got over 100 +healing in new gear last night :-)
>
>Wow, what all did you get? I think that some of my specific +healing
>gear (not including my offhand) is better than my new "normal" pieces,
>for instance i have those senior designer pantaloons or whatever they
>are which are better than my current pants (some blue piece, boe,
>+14ish dam/healing and some moderate stat bonus)
Redemption dropped (+66 healing staff) in Strat Scarlet, and doing that run
let me complete the Fordring chain which gave me a ring with +37 healing...
and then I also completed the AD grind for Band of Piety, which I think was
+22 healing :-) I basically had no +healing before, only +dmg/heal (except
the DM trinket), so anything blue with +healing on is an upgrade for me
atm, unless it makes a big drop in stats... I did unfortunately lose a bit
more of my already low mana pool, but hopefully the +healing will make up
for that!
It's slightly silly btw that my priest has better rings (relatively) than
my rogue now... poor Balgair still has Masons Fraternity Ring from ZF,
which is a touch embarrassing when most of his gear is from ZG! :-)
Orion Ryder
This is what I will do to settle whether or nto I ahd a
misudnerstanding of something here.
I will go to the talent calculator on the Blizz site.
If the VE icon shows twenty percent and the IVE icon for rank one shows
5 % then it does mean 20 + 5 + 5 = 3.
The thing that threw me is that my VE icon in "my" talent trees shows
30%, unless my eyesight was bad that night.
I forgot that the IVE woudl be 5+5 = 10% additional.
But all that means is I would have written an original post complaining
that I did not get 40%.
I was not expecting the VE icon to update by virtue of the IVE talent
being chosen.
I'll get back to ya'll tomorrow after I take another look at my tree
and compare it to the talen calcualtor before and after chosen
talents..
Orion
On Jan 4, 3:53 pm, "Quirthanon" <quirtha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simon Nejmann wrote:
> > I will just list a few random talents here - I hope to hit a class you play...Did you notice that the Priest talent "Unbreakable Will" is the only
> one in your list that states "an additional"? The others quite clearly
> list their effects. Again the wording "an additional amount" means "in
> addition too," not in place of.
>
> > I could list just about every talent in the game, and they will all follow this wording.The wording is not identical. Since you seem to have access to the
> text of the tooltips, (sorry I'm at work still) please check if other
> talents in other classes use the word "additional."
>
> > If it is so confusing how come you aren't complaining till now? There
> > is no way you haven't bumped into a talent worded this way before.I've never noticed the word additional in any of the talents I've used.
> They quite clearly state "increased by x" amount, which does not mean
> the same as "an additional x". The first replaces the previous talent
> value and the second would be added to the previous talent value.
>
> > I could repeat that you don't know what you are talking about, but
> > instead I will just look forward to seeing the quote you mention.
> > In the meantime, here is a quote of the only change of additive to
> > multiplicative I could find in the patch notes - and it has nothing to
> > do with what you are looking for:This is probably it, I got this part wrong. However, the wording on
> the talent is still confusing.
>
> > Ok... So he posted correctly - except that he got the number, and thus
> > the math, and thus the entire point of his post wrong. But he still
> > posted correctly?
> > You have a strange definition of the word "correctly".I know he posted what he saw correctly. He got the value of the
> vampiric embrace from the spell tooltip, which I assume was updated by
> the talent. This however, does not mean that the confusion caused by
> the word "additional" is incorrect. So while the first number may have
> been incorrect, it's adjusted by the talent, the question and confusion
> are still valid.
>
> > >> But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.
> > >Which is why? Are you disputing the math? Because the numeric value
> > >used for damage was just picked for ease of calculation. It also
> > >doesn't matter what the number is to understand and to discuss the
> > >results. And please explain what reality would be then and why it
> > >would matter.
>
> > Because your numbers go either; 20, 25, 35 or 20, 23, 23.3 and neither
> > sequence has anything to do with how the game works - as I have
> > explained several times.This came from thinking too much. The first is example is still valid
> as from the plain reading of the talents this is what a reasonable
> person would expect. However, the second example is garbage, due to me
> forgetting that not all percentage were multiplied. This would then
> become 20, 25, 30; the same as your example. However, this is not
> intuitive from the talent description and still 5% less then one would
> expect from an additive property.
>
> Here's another example:
> I promise to give you three dollars if you wash my car. I then
> promise to give you an additional 6 dollars for cutting my grass.
> Would you expect to receive 9 dollars or 6 for the work? If you said
> 6, you're wrong. Additional properties are in addition too the
> original amount. This would really create confusion when trying to
> complete word problems in math classes. Does that in addition to mean
> to replace the value this time or to add to it?
>
> > Yes - more specifically it shows that your examples are pure theory with no base in anything.Except, math; and an incorrect remembering of the patch notes. They
> are however based on reliable posts and descriptions of the talents and
> spells. You do NOT have to play a class to understand the theory or
> math behind it.
>
> > They are worded in the same way as pretty much every other talent in the game.Except for that one little word "additional" it has a meaning that is
> not consistent with replacing values.
>
> > >> No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
> > >Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
> > >confirm the results. That is the only way to confirm if someone is
> > >being reliable when talking about numbers, crunch the numbers yourself.
> > >I even suspect that Orion Ryder himself may have made a mistake and I
> > >would like to double check.
>
> > Ok, go ahead then.
> > Why not start with the numbers I copied from my combat log and wrote
> > in my first post?Your example now matches what I would expect from the game. That
Catriona R
>Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Redemption dropped (+66 healing staff) in Strat Scarlet, and doing that run
>> let me complete the Fordring chain which gave me a ring with +37 healing...
>
>Ah nice, I hadn't seen that before, that quest line looks like a pain tho -
>I'm guessing not worth bothering at this point if I'm just starting out?
Probably not, if you're already 60... if you're still levelling enjoy the
exp from killing all the beasts he wants at the start, I always do that
chain for the exp, but only rarely finish it, as I do instances so
rarely... I tend to have the Strat Scarlet bit sitting in my log for months
(I think it must've been on my priest for 3 months or more ;-)) although
it's easy once that's over.
Good chain, but probably not worth it now unless you're bored and got
nothing better to do though... although the money is very good, I must've
made 20g or so finishing it up :-)
>> atm, unless it makes a big drop in stats... I did unfortunately lose a bit
>> more of my already low mana pool, but hopefully the +healing will make up
>> for that!
>
>That's my hope w/ my pathetic spirit and shadow spec (tho the pvp gear
>does have some mp5 on it), with the huge amount of +int from the pvp
>gear and some of the +dmg/healing and +healing boons I've received
>of late that it will help balance out. At least you're thinking similar
>things, so I can't be too far off :)
Hehe sounds like you've got a different imbalance to me, my main problem is
not enough int :-) My mana regen is great, 100 per tick when not casting,
but I just don't have enough mana in the first place, got a pool of 4.8k
right now, and that doesn't go far when greater heals are 700...
>> It's slightly silly btw that my priest has better rings (relatively) than
>> my rogue now... poor Balgair still has Masons Fraternity Ring from ZF,
>> which is a touch embarrassing when most of his gear is from ZG! :-)
>
>My rings are pathetic :) I have the chemist's ring and some random
>"of the xyz" green thing. :(
That's pretty much exactly what I had, only replaced the chemists ring with
eye of adaegus recently (only bought that because it was 10g ;-)), and had
a green "of the owl" one too. Glad to have better rings now, even if some
of my other stuff os kinda poor... on beta I equipped a lvl 35 trinket I
made while skilling up jewelcrafting, because even its very low stats were
better than the Argent dawn commission, which is still permanently equipped
on live! ;-)
steve.kaye
Quirthanon wrote:
> Simon Nejmann wrote:
> > I will just list a few random talents here - I hope to hit a class you play...
> Did you notice that the Priest talent "Unbreakable Will" is the only
> one in your list that states "an additional"? The others quite clearly
> list their effects. Again the wording "an additional amount" means "in
> addition too," not in place of.
The description of Improved VE includes the word additional because it
is in addition to the original talent - VE. VE heals for 20% and
Improved VE heals for an additional 5% or an additional 10%.
> Here's another example:
> I promise to give you three dollars if you wash my car. I then
> promise to give you an additional 6 dollars for cutting my grass.
> Would you expect to receive 9 dollars or 6 for the work? If you said
> 6, you're wrong. Additional properties are in addition too the
> original amount. This would really create confusion when trying to
> complete word problems in math classes. Does that in addition to mean
> to replace the value this time or to add to it?
Your example is faulty as it doesn't match the scenario exactly - a
better one would be:
I'll give you $3 to wash my car. (original talent)
I'll give you an additional $3 if you also mow the lawn. (take rank 1
of the improved talent)
I'll give you an additional $6 if you also mow the lawn and trim the
hedges. (take ranks 1 and 2 of the improved talent)
> > Yes - more specifically it shows that your examples are pure theory with no base in anything.
> Except, math; and an incorrect remembering of the patch notes. They
> are however based on reliable posts and descriptions of the talents and
> spells.
Unfortunatley, a post by a reliable source is not the same as a correct
post. Your examples are based on an incorrect post by someone whom you
regard as reliable. In this case your reliable source made an error -
it happens - he's only human after all. And, not meaning to slag Orion
off here, Simon is a much more reliable source of WoW information than
Orion (in fact, much more reliable than most posters to this newsgroup
- again, not slagging off the others, just praising Simon)
> You do NOT have to play a class to understand the theory or
> math behind it.
>
>
> > They are worded in the same way as pretty much every other talent in the game.
> Except for that one little word "additional" it has a meaning that is
> not consistent with replacing values.
>
>
> > >> No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
> > >Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
> > >confirm the results. That is the only way to confirm if someone is
> > >being reliable when talking about numbers, crunch the numbers yourself.
> > >I even suspect that Orion Ryder himself may have made a mistake and I
> > >would like to double check.
> >
> > Ok, go ahead then.
> > Why not start with the numbers I copied from my combat log and wrote
> > in my first post?
> Your example now matches what I would expect from the game. That
> doesn't however, mean the talent tooltip is clear. Using the term "an
> additional amount x" would mean in addition to whatever amount you
> currently have, not in addition to the amount you originally started
> with.
The word increases would imply the same - my talent Shadow Power Rank 3
says "Increases the critical strike chances of ...... by 9%" the
tooltip also says Next Rank: "Increases the critical strike chances of
...... by 12%". By the same reasoning that the word "additional"
should add to what I already have, that word "increases" would also
imply that it increases my crit chance by 12% over what I have now -
i.e. a total of 21%. But that's not how the talent ranks work.
steve.kaye
Catriona R
<catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:08:33 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I like this build. I would only suggest one change for your consideration.
>>It appears you spent 1 point in Silent Resolve to finish out the 20-point
>>requirement, that is, I need one more point so where should I put it.
>>Consider placing that one point in Martydom.
>
>I think I probably will do that, I thought Silent Resolve was needed as a
>healer but I only had one point in it last night and had no aggro issues,
>so presumably in a group with a competent tank I shouldn't need to worry -
>I was going to fill it out on my draenei but I think I'll skip it for
>something else :-)
Right, think I'm going with
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=dVMuzhxzbZfLt0MZxMhz for now, might get the
2nd point in martyrdom later if it suits me, and the rest of the points
will go in holy - imp divine spirit killed my old tri-spec which had full
imp healing as I just don't have enough points, but oh well, I only have to
wait one level to get it back ;-)
And from reading the tips here my draenei's going for something like
http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=dVMuzhxzbZfxt0cdqb0hZx although I'll be
taking imp sw:p while levelling, will have to see how much it's needed
after getting the new skills in the 60s to decide whether or not I'll keep
it :-)
Catriona R
>Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hehe sounds like you've got a different imbalance to me, my main problem is
>> not enough int :-) My mana regen is great, 100 per tick when not casting,
>> but I just don't have enough mana in the first place, got a pool of 4.8k
>> right now, and that doesn't go far when greater heals are 700...
>
>That's the difference between the pvp gear (tons of sta & int) vs.
>healer oriented priest gear :) Although even before the pvp stuff
>I was mainly going for int/sta
Hehe yeah, the pvp gear didn't really interest me when I looked at it tbh,
too much sta and no mana regen ;-) Totally different playstyles in the same
class!
>> That's pretty much exactly what I had, only replaced the chemists ring with
>> eye of adaegus recently (only bought that because it was 10g ;-)), and had
>> a green "of the owl" one too. Glad to have better rings now, even if some
>
>Hmmm, haven't really considered poking at the Ah. I should start doing
>that although I suppose it might be worthwhile at this point to just
>hold off.
I'd hold off for a couple of weeks; on beta I picked up some very nice
rings pretty cheap, one was a crafted blue ...of the owl, 10 of one and 11
of the other, another was a green ...of the prophet, I think 10 each of 2
stats and 20ish healing, can't remember for sure but nice anyway! I now
have rings on live to beat them but they were upgrades to me before the
last few days, and likely will be to you too, plus there'll be quest
rewards as well :-)
I've actually upgraded about half my gear from the ah, and all pretty
cheap, so the new greens will be great to all us low-geared folk - my
rogue's gear is mainly surviving to the mid 60s, but my alts will all just
stock up on boe greens I think :-)
Snowblade
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:14:33 +0000, Catriona R
> <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:08:33 GMT, "Snowblade" <nos...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I like this build. I would only suggest one change for your
>>>consideration.
>>>It appears you spent 1 point in Silent Resolve to finish out the 20-point
>>>requirement, that is, I need one more point so where should I put it.
>>>Consider placing that one point in Martydom.
>>
>>I think I probably will do that, I thought Silent Resolve was needed as a
>>healer but I only had one point in it last night and had no aggro issues,
>>so presumably in a group with a competent tank I shouldn't need to worry -
>>I was going to fill it out on my draenei but I think I'll skip it for
>>something else :-)
>
> Right, think I'm going with
> http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=dVMuzhxzbZfLt0MZxMhz for now, might get the
> 2nd point in martyrdom later if it suits me, and the rest of the points
> will go in holy - imp divine spirit killed my old tri-spec which had full
> imp healing as I just don't have enough points, but oh well, I only have
> to
> wait one level to get it back ;-)
I like this build. Looks very versatile and fun.
> And from reading the tips here my draenei's going for something like
> http://www.wowhead.com/?talent-bc=dVMuzhxzbZfxt0cdqb0hZx although I'll be
> taking imp sw:p while levelling, will have to see how much it's needed
> after getting the new skills in the 60s to decide whether or not I'll keep
> it :-)
I have mixed feeling about Spirit of Redemption. I like the appearance of
the Angel and being able to heal folks on my priest's last breath. The only
problem I had with Spirit of Redemption was - it can only be used right
before death which is kind of sad. My priest prefers to stay alive, so I
ditched it. In any case if you have never used it, the novelty is a delight
and you can look forward to death ;-)
Catriona R
>I have mixed feeling about Spirit of Redemption. I like the appearance of
>the Angel and being able to heal folks on my priest's last breath. The only
>problem I had with Spirit of Redemption was - it can only be used right
>before death which is kind of sad. My priest prefers to stay alive, so I
>ditched it. In any case if you have never used it, the novelty is a delight
>and you can look forward to death ;-)
Hehehe never used it, never felt it was worth having before this last
patch, but +5% spirit for one talent point in a spirit-based build is a
good thing, I think :-) That addition is the only reason I'm getting it, I
don't really want to need to use its main purpose! ;-)
Orion Ryder
On Jan 4, 5:51 pm, "steve.kaye" <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
> Quirthanon wrote:
> > Simon Nejmann wrote:
> > > I will just list a few random talents here - I hope to hit a class you play...
> > Did you notice that the Priest talent "Unbreakable Will" is the only
> > one in your list that states "an additional"? The others quite clearly
> > list their effects. Again the wording "an additional amount" means "in
> > addition too," not in place of.The description of Improved VE includes the word additional because it
> is in addition to the original talent - VE. VE heals for 20% and
> Improved VE heals for an additional 5% or an additional 10%.
>
> > Here's another example:
> > I promise to give you three dollars if you wash my car. I then
> > promise to give you an additional 6 dollars for cutting my grass.
> > Would you expect to receive 9 dollars or 6 for the work? If you said
> > 6, you're wrong. Additional properties are in addition too the
> > original amount. This would really create confusion when trying to
> > complete word problems in math classes. Does that in addition to mean
> > to replace the value this time or to add to it?Your example is faulty as it doesn't match the scenario exactly - a
> better one would be:
>
> I'll give you $3 to wash my car. (original talent)
> I'll give you an additional $3 if you also mow the lawn. (take rank 1
> of the improved talent)
> I'll give you an additional $6 if you also mow the lawn and trim the
> hedges. (take ranks 1 and 2 of the improved talent)
>
> > > Yes - more specifically it shows that your examples are pure theory with no base in anything.
> > Except, math; and an incorrect remembering of the patch notes. They
> > are however based on reliable posts and descriptions of the talents and
> > spells.Unfortunatley, a post by a reliable source is not the same as a correct
> post. Your examples are based on an incorrect post by someone whom you
> regard as reliable. In this case your reliable source made an error -
> it happens - he's only human after all. And, not meaning to slag Orion
> off here, Simon is a much more reliable source of WoW information than
> Orion (in fact, much more reliable than most posters to this newsgroup
> - again, not slagging off the others, just praising Simon)
>
>
>
>
>
> > You do NOT have to play a class to understand the theory or
> > math behind it.
>
> > > They are worded in the same way as pretty much every other talent in the game.
> > Except for that one little word "additional" it has a meaning that is
> > not consistent with replacing values.
>
> > > >> No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
> > > >Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
> > > >confirm the results. That is the only way to confirm if someone is
> > > >being reliable when talking about numbers, crunch the numbers yourself.
> > > >I even suspect that Orion Ryder himself may have made a mistake and I
> > > >would like to double check.
>
> > > Ok, go ahead then.
> > > Why not start with the numbers I copied from my combat log and wrote
> > > in my first post?
> > Your example now matches what I would expect from the game. That
> > doesn't however, mean the talent tooltip is clear. Using the term "an
> > additional amount x" would mean in addition to whatever amount you
> > currently have, not in addition to the amount you originally started
> > with.The word increases would imply the same - my talent Shadow Power Rank 3
> says "Increases the critical strike chances of ...... by 9%" the
> tooltip also says Next Rank: "Increases the critical strike chances of
> ...... by 12%". By the same reasoning that the word "additional"
> should add to what I already have, that word "increases" would also
> imply that it increases my crit chance by 12% over what I have now -
> i.e. a total of 21%. But that's not how the talent ranks work.
>
> steve.kaye- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Well you can add something to my unreliability - I forgot to look up VE
on the talent calculator last night to see if an unimproved one
basically states 20% or 30%.
Can someone look up the raw amount on the talent calculator on the
blizz site, that is before the talents are applied? I can't right now.
I could swear it said 30%. But it is possible my kids were there at the
time and then I did not swear, cuz swearing in front of the kids is a
no no.
My only last wish at this time is that the posts were geared towards
the data and not the "reliability" of the posters.
Orion
Orion Ryder
On Jan 3, 9:34 am, Urbin <u...@dunmorogh.eu> wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 05:44:55 -0800, Orion Ryder wrote:
>
> I'm away from home so I can't test wiht my shadow priest but I can say a few
> things with regard to the maths...
>
> > Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
>
> > Fact:
> > Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
> > an additional 10%
>
> > Math:
> > With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
> > 30% + 10% + 10% = 50%Nope, it's 10% of those 30%: <dmg dealt> * 0.3 * 1.1 * 1.1
>
> > Looks to me like the programmers stacked the healing wrong.
> > It says an additional 10% twice.
>
> > an additional 10% of 30% = 3%
> > an additional 10% of the additional 3% = 0.3%
>
> > 30% + 3% + 0.3% = 33.3%Again wrong:
>
> Normal VE:
> 30%
>
> Imp VE (1 point)
> 30% * 1.1 = 33%
>
> Imp VE (2 points)
> 30% * 1.1 * 1.1 = 30% * 1.21 = 36.3%
>
> I don't know if that corresponds to your figures in the combat log, but that
> is how I always interpreted imp VE.
>
> > I get the idea that they nested the equaion such that it applies the
> > "additional" 10%(s) to the healing result(s)instead of the healing
> > factor.Yupp, that's what I would think. Anything else is just *too* imba (as if
> shadow priests aren't already imba :)
>
> > If this is how they set their equation up and this is how it is going
> > to stay, then they have totally messed it up and it makes this a
> > worthless talent to put 2 talent points in.
>
> > Improved?
> > Not quite.Healing 36.3% instead of 30% of my damage dealt is a considerable upgrade and
> well worth the 2 points. If I do 1000 damage, that's an additional 63HP
> healed.
>
> Cheers
> Urbin
> --
> Urbin (60), Dwarven Hunter (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
> Sunh (60), Nightelven Priest (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
> Juran (33), Nightelven Druid (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
> Mymule (25), Gnomish Warlock (PvE) @dunmorogh.de
Hello again Urbin,
Looks like my assumption of 10% for rank 1 IVE and 10% rank 2 IVE is
not correct.
If it is 5% for each then that would give it a 5% + 5% = 10%
inprovement.
A raw 30% x 1.1 would then give 33 %
The 33% is closest to the 210 damage and the 70 heal.
How does that sound?
Orion
Orion Ryder
I'd say I was wrong about the 10% on each rank of improved.
Or at least I think that is what I was wrong about.
Of course it would have helped if I looked at the site last nite.
I just got too anxious and sent in my hunter to get a key and an eye
from a ship, destroy a catapult, kill Nek Rosh, escort Kinelroy, get
some Gnograine, and cash in the eye at Stormwind.
Just too busy and I got caught on a wave of the excitement of it all.
My bad.
We'll get it all straight over the next few days.
After I get the correct info and if it is still worth pissing and
moaning about then I'll make a new post and I'll call it "Improved Rant
on "Improved" Vampiric Embrace".
Heh heh
Orion
On Jan 4, 1:32 pm, "Quirthanon" <quirtha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simon Nejmann wrote:
> > Actually you didn't read my post.
> > Base = 20%
> > 5% in addition = 25%
> > 10% in addition = 30%Actually I did read your post. Orion Ryder has consistently posted
> reliable information that I could verify, so I went with his numbers.
> I've never read a post from you before and couldn't verify which was
> correct, I picked experience.
>
> > What Chris is saying is that you can't get both the +5% and +10%
> > additions.I understood what he wrote. The talent point tooltip does NOT note
> that the second talent point text replaces the first. Leading to the
> situation that Orion Ryder described, confusion on the exact workings.
>
> > >This is tricky book keeping on Blizzard's part, for some reason they
> > >decided to nerf the bonuses from percentage increases.
>
> > No it isn't and, sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.But I do know what I'm talking about, for one patch Blizzard decided
> that percentage talent points would no longer be additive and would now
> be either multiplied or just a replacement. It was quite a while ago,
> I think around patch 1.5 or so. I'm at work however and can not look
> at most web sites related to WoW, so I can't find the exact quote right
> now.
>
> > >Blizzard should update the tooltips to indicate the correct and actual
> > >amount each POINT in the talent increases the healing/damage/whatever.
>
> > But the point is that they DO!
> > When you first buy the VE talent it says 20% in the tooltip, and after
> > you buy the talent that says; "I add 5% to VE" the VE tooltip starts
> > saying 25%, and so on...But this contradicts the talent point tooltip, which is clearly stated
> above in a previous post, It reads "ADDITIONAL" 10%, when it actually
> only increases it an additional 5%, for a total of 10%. The spell
> tooltip already states the healing is 25% an additional 10% would yield
> 35%, not 30%. Why would the first talent point's abilities stop
> working? Why would someone word it that way, with the intention of
> only making it 10%?
>
> > >Because 3.3% is NOT equal to 10%.
>
> > And the 3.3% number has nothing to do with reality. It is a number
> > Orion made up because he didn't know that Blizzard already had updated
> > his tooltip - he then started adding numbers together that had no base
> > in reality and got to a faulty result.As stated above, Orion Ryder posts reliable information that I've
> confirmed before. So I know he posted it correctly. He may however
> been looking at the improved tooltip and gotten the 30% starting point
> wrong. The talents I was able to find on a web site from work and
> matched the description provided.
>
> > 2 points in Improved Vampiric Embrace gets you 10% extra healing from
> > the shadow damage you do, EXACTLY as it says that it does.But why would the first talent point be negated? Shouldn't the talent
> point tooltip state that the first value is replaced and the new 10%
> value is used? Can you think of another example from outside of WoW
> where someone would use language such as this? Simply put the talents
> with wording like this are misleading and confusing.
>
> > >Or they could correctly state that
> > >the increase is a percentage of the original percentage and not the
> > >actual damage. So with the following simplified example:
>
> > But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.Which is why? Are you disputing the math? Because the numeric value
> used for damage was just picked for ease of calculation. It also
> doesn't matter what the number is to understand and to discuss the
> results. And please explain what reality would be then and why it
> would matter.
>
> > >I don't have a priest so the examples are just theory.
> > It shows.How does it show, because I didn't get the exact numbers right in the
> examples? If I can't understand the class's talents by reading them,
> the talent descriptions are misleading or confusing. You should not
> have to play a class to understand the math behind the talents.
> Remember experince does not mean, lack of understanding. I do not need
> to play a priest to understand one, especially the math portion.
>
>
>
> > >If Orion Ryder
> > >could supply a raw dump of the combat log while having the Vampiric
> > >Embrace enabled I could crunch the numbers on real data.
>
> > No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I would like raw data to
Orion Ryder
On Jan 4, 12:46 pm, Simon Nejmann <snejm...@worldonline.dk> wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 09:06:46 -0800, "Quirthanon" <quirtha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Vampiric Embrace
> >> Afflicts your target with Shadow energy that causes all party members
> >> to be healed for 20% of any Shadow spell damage you deal for 1 min.
>
> >> Improved Vampiric Embrace 1/2
> >> Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional 5%.
>
> >> Improved Vampiric Embrace 2/2
> >> Increases the percentage healed by Vampiric Embrace by an additional 10%.
>
> >> This would be correct. The 5% and 10% aren't IN ADDITION together... they
> >> are seperate entities that are added to the base of %20... but you can have
> >> only one of them.
>
> >Actually the word "additional" means "in addition to" so the common
> >person would sum the amounts and wonder why they don't match the
> >results from the game, as Orion Ryder has done.Actually you didn't read my post.
> Base = 20%
> 5% in addition = 25%
> 10% in addition = 30%
>
> What Chris is saying is that you can't get both the +5% and +10%
> additions.
>
> >This is tricky book keeping on Blizzard's part, for some reason they
> >decided to nerf the bonuses from percentage increases.No it isn't and, sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> >Blizzard should update the tooltips to indicate the correct and actual
> >amount each POINT in the talent increases the healing/damage/whatever.But the point is that they DO!
> When you first buy the VE talent it says 20% in the tooltip, and after
> you buy the talent that says; "I add 5% to VE" the VE tooltip starts
> saying 25%, and so on...
>
> >Because 3.3% is NOT equal to 10%.And the 3.3% number has nothing to do with reality. It is a number
> Orion made up because he didn't know that Blizzard already had updated
> his tooltip - he then started adding numbers together that had no base
(clears throat) I don't make numbers up.
But yes it should be 5% for each rank for a total of 10%.
I might assume the wrong things or work off incorrect assumptions. I
had forgotten about the fix on the inconsistencies.
Case 1:
Now assume 30% raw + additional 10%
so 30 x 1.1 = 33
then 210 damage => 70 heal which is just what I saw
Case 2:
I see someone said 20% + 10 % = 30% total.
but then 210 damage would be 63 heal.
So it has to be case 1.
If so then I would think the talent should be called
SLIGHTLY IMPROVED VAMPIRIC EMBRACE.
Thanks for reminding me that it is 5% per rank.
Orion
> in reality and got to a faulty result.
>
> 2 points in Improved Vampiric Embrace gets you 10% extra healing from
> the shadow damage you do, EXACTLY as it says that it does.
>
> >Or they could correctly state that
> >the increase is a percentage of the original percentage and not the
> >actual damage. So with the following simplified example:But it isn't, and your examples has nothing to do with reality.
>
> >I don't have a priest so the examples are just theory.It shows.
>
> >If Orion Ryder
> >could supply a raw dump of the combat log while having the Vampiric
> >Embrace enabled I could crunch the numbers on real data.No need. It works exactly as it is supposed.
>
> --
> Regards
> Simon Nejmann- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Catriona R
>Speaking of stuff from beta, IIRC when I was poking around the caverns
>of time the other week, one of the vendors sold (limited) primal earth
>or fire or something like that (I think for 10-15g). Is it going to
>be worth the irritation of going down there and start stocking up?
Oooh, I missed that! Yes, it will be worth it, I imagine, they're used in
crafting and pretty much essential for skilling up to the high levels of
the skills... anything blue uses quite a lot of primals. And now I think I
might take my rogue down there and see what I can get, anything to save him
a bit of grinding is good ;-)
Catriona R
>Catriona R <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Oooh, I missed that! Yes, it will be worth it, I imagine, they're used in
>> crafting and pretty much essential for skilling up to the high levels of
>> the skills... anything blue uses quite a lot of primals. And now I think I
>> might take my rogue down there and see what I can get, anything to save him
>> a bit of grinding is good ;-)
>
>I might be wrong, so be careful :) They were like 10-15 gold though,
>which seems like an awful lot of money to be worng on speculation :)
Hehe if it was them they're probably worth that much, or something close
anyway - a primal is made of 10 motes, and motes don't drop more than 1-2
at a time... and not massively often, so unless you like grinding
elementals, primals are slow going, to say the least. Some are easier to
get than others, but all are fairly slow so being able to buy any is nice
Ieyasu
"Orion Ryder" <orion...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167831894.9...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> Let's do some simple math here. The math is correct. The only thing
> that might be wrong is my assumptions or that something is not what it
> is showing on the screen as. Anything listed as "fact" is assumed to be
> factual by virtue of what is dusplayed on my screen.
>
> Fact:
> Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
>
> Fact:
> Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
> an additional 10%
>
> Math:
> With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
> 30% + 10% + 10% = 50%
>
the direct responses to the Original Post. All of this information is
incorrect. According to both the game and Blizzard's own talent calculators
(listed on their official website, here
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/classes/priest/talents.html)....
Fact:
Vampiric Embrace heals for **15%** of the shadow damage done
Fact:
Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank improves by an
additional **5%**
Math: (if it's really additive)
15% + 5% + 5% = 30%
Orion Ryder
> "Orion Ryder" <orionry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1167831894.9...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Let's do some simple math here. The math is correct. The only thing
> > that might be wrong is my assumptions or that something is not what it
> > is showing on the screen as. Anything listed as "fact" is assumed to be
> > factual by virtue of what is dusplayed on my screen.
>
> > Fact:
> > Vampiric Embrace heals for 30% of the shadow damage done
>
> > Fact:
> > Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank imporves by
> > an additional 10%
>
> > Math:
> > With VE and 2 ranks of IVE
> > 30% + 10% + 10% = 50%
>
> I didn't dig through every post in this thread like I should have, just read
> the direct responses to the Original Post. All of this information is
> incorrect. According to both the game and Blizzard's own talent calculators
>
> Fact:
> Vampiric Embrace heals for **15%** of the shadow damage done
>
> Fact:
> Improved Vampiric Embrace - 2 ranks available - each rank improves by an
> additional **5%**
>
> Math: (if it's really additive)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aww man you are ressurecting an embarassing post from long ago.
Does not even matter to me now, when I respecced I dumped VE and took
just enough shadow to solo for those times I am not healign in a not
too high instance.
Orion
Ieyasu
Oh man, totally my fault. My newsreader is all screwy with the sorting,
didn't even look at the date. I'm sorry.