Moving it from one ability to another, or some other aspect? Sorry, maybe that was sarcasm and I missed it!
Coordination Tactic rework
Forum rules
Before posting in this forum, please read the Terms of Use.
This section is for providing feedback and sharing your opinions on what could be improved or changed for the Return of Reckoning project.
To ensure your feedback is as helpful as possible, please review the Rules and Posting Guidelines before posting.
Before posting in this forum, please read the Terms of Use.
This section is for providing feedback and sharing your opinions on what could be improved or changed for the Return of Reckoning project.
To ensure your feedback is as helpful as possible, please review the Rules and Posting Guidelines before posting.
Re: Coordination Tactic rework
Ads
- leftayparxoun
- Posts: 403
Re: Coordination Tactic rework
ShadowWar wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2024 1:45 pm It's a tactic that gives a buff when some abilities are used. Technically different, but with precedent for stacking already. Also, changing from sunder to Shining Blade stop the 100% uptime for two-handers, which is a boon to balance IMO. That said, if you think that the tactic shouldn't stack with weapon procs because of balance reasons, I'd like to hear why it's not the case for other classes.
It is a tactic that buffs an ability:

If it was a tactic that buffs you when you use an ability then the wording would be something along the lines of:
Your parry is increased by 20% for 20 s after a successful use of Shield Rush or Sunder.
Similar example is Sorcs'

that will not stack with Chosen resist aura strip.
(Retested it just be 100% certain: 133 base dmg --> 147 with Chosen aura only --> 170 with Sorc's debuff, regardless of aura active or not)
Opposite example is how WE's

will stack with Shamy's

The former buffs you after using an ability, while the later buffs the ability.
(Just tested it too: 394 base dmg --> 453 with either the self buff or the shamy's shield but --> 512 with both on her)
I also verified that the Shaman tactic does indeed count as a tactic that buffs an ability, since it also doesn't stack with Mara's

Ability + Tactic that buffs ability shouldn't stack as explained in my previous comment.
(From my test: 362 base dmg --> 416 with Shaman 15% buff or --> 452 with Mara's 25% buff, regardless of Shamy buff active or not)
This now brings us to the only Destro tactic that can be considered an exception; Blackguards

This stacks together with other TOU buffs as follows (example from my testing):
- Base TOU = 320
- If using only Feeding on Weakness (+84 TOU self-buff) --> TOU = 404
- If using only Hateful Stike with Terrifying Foe at 100 Hate (+45% TOU) --> TOU = 464
- If applying both --> TOU = 586
The same of course happens with all TOU buffs (it's not specific to Feeding on Weakness). For example a +80 TOU pot will result in 580 TOU if using Hateful Strike + Terrifying Foe at 90+ (400*1.45 = 580)
This is in my eyes not a violation of the stacking rule, because TOU% is most likely treated as a different stat than Toughness for the system. Similar to how both flat Armor and Armor% buffs exist, but they are both presented in the form of flat bonus in ]getstats (see MSH). If the Balance team sees this, feel free to pitch in on if that's true/intended.
Coming back now to my initial statement; according to the normal stacking rules, Coordination buff should NOT stack with other parry buffs from abilities, procs and pots/linis.
If it's intended to stack then the ''bug'' is that the tactic's tooltip should be corrected. As the wording stands it should not stack.
You mention, however,
but with precedent for stacking already
So if I may ask, what is the precedent for it. Because, if it exists, it sounds to me less like a precedent and more like just another bug(s).
Onlymelee, Onlyhealing and more Onlys - Entropy and Chaos - Destro WB Gearing Guide
"All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride."
―The Antigone of SophoclesRe: Coordination Tactic rework
I'm not going to hunt through, I don't have that kind of time, but off the top of my head, I seem to recall that it happened with some SW tactics for sure.
All that said, back to one of my questions, because I'm only interested in the discussion of balance, not the legality of some technical purity: why should the knights not get this, when all the other tanks do?
All that said, back to one of my questions, because I'm only interested in the discussion of balance, not the legality of some technical purity: why should the knights not get this, when all the other tanks do?
- Sinisterror
- Posts: 1219
Re: Coordination Tactic rework
Just give original 240str240ini240ws Runefang + Mighty Soul back and remove this 20% parry buff. All knights will be happier i guarantee it. + Tactics Like Daemonclaw Stack With Str aura or buff. So some of the class mechanics are treated more important than others. SM class mechanic resis debuff used to stack with Woh. Class mechanics should be important and should stack with Ability/Proc + That should stack with Tactics if we go by how stacking worked in Aor. Like blorc used to have 240ws buff on himself + def target if you used tactic. I dont remember if it stacked with stat steal bellow or was it 120 ws from Follow me lead which the tactic affected and it became double buff 120 ws from fml + 120 from the tactic = 240 ws from 1 follow me lead usage.
Bg is super overtuned so im not surprised BG also gets some extras others doesnt.
Bg is super overtuned so im not surprised BG also gets some extras others doesnt.
"To clarify, me asking to developers to go test their own changes is not sign of toxicity or anger, but a sign of hope that the people punching in the numbers remain aware of potential consequences and test their own changes"-Teefz
Re: Coordination Tactic rework
Like sinisterror said... We just need mighty soul back. I've got a knight waiting to kick some destro booty but he is just a buff bot right now soo he wont come out of it's closet.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests



