Ok, so I was happy to find out that I made a mistake in my calculation of the mana per tick shaman can get out of Ancient Canni. My original calculation was 27 mana per tick, when the actual calculation is 117 mana per tick. I've updated the numbers in my previous two posts and I'll update the thread on the SOE forums also. Below is sumarization of the new numbers if you dont' want to scroll back.
Total General Caster Regen
Group
Timer + Time to Regen = 3.2 minutes
Raid
Timer + Time to Regen = 6.4 minutes
Total Shaman Regen
Group
Timer + Time to Regen = 2.4 minutes
Raid
Timer + Time to Regen = 4.4 minutes (NOTE: DONE BEFORE TIMER)
Shaman went from regening a 12k mana pool 45% faster in all situations to only 25% faster in a group and only 31% faster in raid situations.
Shaman will get a 45% and 0% reduction in max downtime for grouping and raiding respectively while other casters will get 68% and 34%.
General Casters on raids will see no benefit from these changes until they exceed a 5850 mana pool.
Shaman on raids will see no benefit from this change until they exceed a mana pool.
Important Posts from eqlive boards
Moderator: Shaman Mods
by Brohg » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:12 pm
Underestimate the devs? Have you tracked their history? They're just people, dude, and this game is enormous; it would be impossible for them to see all facets even if they could be relied on as unbiased arbiters of balance, but they aren't even machines like that. There's a track record of developer-played classes accidentally slipping a little or a lot over the lines of "balanced". It is likely that they'll say something like what you typed out, but that doesn't mean it's neccessarily true. The spirited efforts of interested parties in the player base have effected great changes in the past by opening eyes on the Sony side to what's actually going on.
- Brohg
-
- Posts: 4975
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:29 pm
- Server: The Nameless (Innoruuk)
Shaman Main
Warrior - Alt/Box
Wizard - Alt/Box
by Tugela » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:36 am
Brohg, you only see what you want to see, not the other 99% of stuff that no one ever knows about because it happens in the background. Like it or not, the Devs designed the game as it is played, and I'm pretty sure they know far more about what is supposed to happen, and how things are supposed to work than any player. The game didn't design itself, the devs didn't just wander into the building when it mysteriously popped into existance - they are the game's builders for heaven's sake. That isnt to say that there aren't bugs, there are, but those are things that are not supposed to happen. Sometimes fixing a bug or issue might cause more problems than it solves, consequently it may be wiser to leave it alone. Some can be dealt with quickly, because they are easy to fix, or they are so game breaking. Others still might have subtle and deep effects in the game, and those might be left in place while the devs consider the best way to address them. Players *might* think that those changes arose from their pressure, but more likely it simply took time to address them for any of the reasons mentioned. However, a player cannot properly address those sorts of things because they simply don't know enough about the mechanics of the game or the intention of the design, not to mention that they are not exactly unbiased. They might sincerely believe they know these things, but belief and actually knowing are two different things.
- Tugela
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:18 pm
Warrior Main
Shaman - Alt/Box
by Kellenial » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:20 am
Are you referring to the same developers that, back when EQ went live, insisted Alchemy was working as intended and not broken?
Yes, developers get an inside track on what happens and why. But sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees - that's when things need to be pointed out to them.
Yes, developers get an inside track on what happens and why. But sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees - that's when things need to be pointed out to them.
, Spiritwalker of the Tribunal
Tunare Server
Tunare Server
- Kellenial
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:46 am
- Server: Tunare
by Ungkor » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:56 am
Also, it doesn't hurt to point out that when designing any system, as a developer, you are always faced with grey areas. Oftentimes, its not just "right or wrong" choices. That is especially true when you start talking about very complex systems, and doubly especially superfantastically true when you talk about trying to balance all the EQ classes.
Say the choices were this:
1. New regen system as is, bringing with it all the problems described above. Pros: Speeds up the gameplay of EQ, making it more attractive to new players. Takes out some of the boredom across the boards for all classes recovering from wipes. Etc... Etc.. Now, descriptors like "makes a game more attractive", and "reduces boredom" are VERY subjective. They are very difficult quantities to define.
or
2. Same new regen system, but instead of 30 seconds in groups, the wait to activate is 1.5 minutes. Pros: Much less impact on classes designed around mana regen. Only a 1 minute addition to recovery time, so still serving the purpose of 'wipe recovery'. Still speeds the game up, still etc..
or
3. Completely redo all spells so that their power is based around the new regen rates, etc.. etc..
I am pretty sure, that just like we are doing now, the Devs have sat around and debated various ways this will impact EQ. They might not know them all, but I bet most of what we discussed in this thread was brought up at 'the table' in some way shape or form. Its just probably being balanced against the health of EQ as a whole, as well as balanced against the time/money required to fix things properly. Namely, major overhauls of spell systems to accomodate the new regen rates.
And that is where our activism comes into play. The time and money issue. If the EQ dev team knows that Change "A" is going to cause X level of irritation and Y level of increased satisfaction, and both X and Y are fairly subjective, they might just indeed do "A" if it looks like Y>X. However, if a loud voice is heard, insisting that its not just X irritation, but X+100 (subjective), they might not "A", as it might end up costing money in subscriptions.
In this case, if I had to guess, its probably very simple. The Dev's know full well that classes based around mana regen and sustainability are getting bent over. They are just balancing that against the health of EQ and all the rest of the problems it fixes. What I still don't get, is why its so hard to retune those classes as part of the regen rollout.
Of course, I could be completely wrong and the Dev's cannot conceive of why this is bad for shaman. I haven't seen one comment from the Dev's about our Shaman issues with this change, so I guess that time will tell. I hope those of you in beta are screaming bloody murder though and adding +1000 to X for us.
Say the choices were this:
1. New regen system as is, bringing with it all the problems described above. Pros: Speeds up the gameplay of EQ, making it more attractive to new players. Takes out some of the boredom across the boards for all classes recovering from wipes. Etc... Etc.. Now, descriptors like "makes a game more attractive", and "reduces boredom" are VERY subjective. They are very difficult quantities to define.
or
2. Same new regen system, but instead of 30 seconds in groups, the wait to activate is 1.5 minutes. Pros: Much less impact on classes designed around mana regen. Only a 1 minute addition to recovery time, so still serving the purpose of 'wipe recovery'. Still speeds the game up, still etc..
or
3. Completely redo all spells so that their power is based around the new regen rates, etc.. etc..
I am pretty sure, that just like we are doing now, the Devs have sat around and debated various ways this will impact EQ. They might not know them all, but I bet most of what we discussed in this thread was brought up at 'the table' in some way shape or form. Its just probably being balanced against the health of EQ as a whole, as well as balanced against the time/money required to fix things properly. Namely, major overhauls of spell systems to accomodate the new regen rates.
And that is where our activism comes into play. The time and money issue. If the EQ dev team knows that Change "A" is going to cause X level of irritation and Y level of increased satisfaction, and both X and Y are fairly subjective, they might just indeed do "A" if it looks like Y>X. However, if a loud voice is heard, insisting that its not just X irritation, but X+100 (subjective), they might not "A", as it might end up costing money in subscriptions.
In this case, if I had to guess, its probably very simple. The Dev's know full well that classes based around mana regen and sustainability are getting bent over. They are just balancing that against the health of EQ and all the rest of the problems it fixes. What I still don't get, is why its so hard to retune those classes as part of the regen rollout.
Of course, I could be completely wrong and the Dev's cannot conceive of why this is bad for shaman. I haven't seen one comment from the Dev's about our Shaman issues with this change, so I guess that time will tell. I hope those of you in beta are screaming bloody murder though and adding +1000 to X for us.
- Ungkor
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:28 am
by Jalelin » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:00 pm
I probably shouldn't have used class names. I was trying to illustrate a point as to how the relative balance could be changed. I'm not in TSS beta (and after my last EQ beta experience, I will never be in another one), so I don't know if it is something that should be a concern or not. Personally, I doubt it will affect me at all, as the only downtime I have are bathroom breaks, and I don't think TSS is coming with a included.
- Jalelin
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:59 pm
- Server: Povar
Shaman Main
Monk - Alt/Box
Ranger - Alt/Box
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 47 guests