Warhammer Online
https://www.returnofreckoning.com/forum/
https://www.returnofreckoning.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17766
Me wrote:PB being core and ability makes it highly unsuitable for making targeted mid tree improvements.
Lets do some examples so you can understand it better.Rebuke wrote: your last sentence makes 0 sense to me. Blade enchants sole purpose is defining/advocating a mastery tree and corresponding playstyle.
Nothing is taken from the WP, it still has its wounds buff.roadkillrobin wrote:So what about the overlapping with the Zealot and RP Wounds buff then?
And I really don't understand your angle here. You wanna take something from a massive underperforming spec, one of the only befits of playing that spec. Make a free version of it on a proc on another underperforming mastery of another class?
Bozzax, my entire reasoning for initiating this thread is to buff the SM in general (I WANT OPTION A TO HAPPEN) when it comes to being able to grant your group defensive support!Bozzax wrote:Me wrote:PB being core and ability makes it highly unsuitable for making targeted mid tree improvements.Lets do some examples so you can understand it better.Rebuke wrote: your last sentence makes 0 sense to me. Blade enchants sole purpose is defining/advocating a mastery tree and corresponding playstyle.
A)
Assume we add group absorbs on PB
1. SM with 0 points in mid tree get 66,7% (325) of PB's current absorbs for group
2. SM with 9 pts in min tree (KD) get 86,7% (422) of PB's current absorbs for group
3. SM with 13 pts in mid tree get 95,4% (465) of PB's current absorbs for group
B)
So what happens If we instead decided to condition "PB group absorbs" with the 11pts tactic?
1. SM with 0 points in mid tree get 0% (0) of PB's current absorbs for group
2. SM with 9 pts in min tree (up to KD) get 0% (0) of PB's current absorbs for group
3. SM with 13 pts in mid tree get 95,4% (465) of PB's current absorbs for group
In A) we give effective absorbs to all SM specs and in B) only targeting SMs that spec into the tree. A SM with 0 points in the tree get 77% of the absorbs compared to a SM going up to KD (9pts) in A).
So A) buffs SM not mid tree and B) buffs mid tree SMs only
Read me edited post....Rebuke wrote:Nothing is taken from the WP, it still has its wounds buff.roadkillrobin wrote:So what about the overlapping with the Zealot and RP Wounds buff then?
And I really don't understand your angle here. You wanna take something from a massive underperforming spec, one of the only befits of playing that spec. Make a free version of it on a proc on another underperforming mastery of another class?
Obviously the blade enchant (passive) wounds buff will be weaker than that of an ability (active and cleansable) wounds buff. But yes since a blade enchant costs only an initial 55ap i guess you could consider it a free version.
The fact that grace WP is massively underperforming holds no value in this specific Swordmaster balance thread, and using it in arguments is even against the balance forum rules.
Rebuke wrote:Bozzax, my entire reasoning for initiating this thread is to buff the SM in general (I WANT OPTION A TO HAPPEN) when it comes to being able to grant your group defensive support!Bozzax wrote:Me wrote:PB being core and ability makes it highly unsuitable for making targeted mid tree improvements.Lets do some examples so you can understand it better.Rebuke wrote: your last sentence makes 0 sense to me. Blade enchants sole purpose is defining/advocating a mastery tree and corresponding playstyle.
A)
Assume we add group absorbs on PB
1. SM with 0 points in mid tree get 66,7% (325) of PB's current absorbs for group
2. SM with 9 pts in min tree (KD) get 86,7% (422) of PB's current absorbs for group
3. SM with 13 pts in mid tree get 95,4% (465) of PB's current absorbs for group
B)
So what happens If we instead decided to condition "PB group absorbs" with the 11pts tactic?
1. SM with 0 points in mid tree get 0% (0) of PB's current absorbs for group
2. SM with 9 pts in min tree (up to KD) get 0% (0) of PB's current absorbs for group
3. SM with 13 pts in mid tree get 95,4% (465) of PB's current absorbs for group
In A) we give effective absorbs to all SM specs and in B) only targeting SMs that spec into the tree. A SM with 0 points in the tree get 77% of the absorbs compared to a SM going up to KD (9pts) in A).
So A) buffs SM not mid tree and B) buffs mid tree SMs only
I want a Khaine SM to have the option to enable PB at the cost of his HB or NB + 55ap + loss of damage.
I want a Hoeth SM to have the option to enable PB at the cost of his HB or NB + 55ap + loss of damage.
In the current situation this is simply not viable.
Edit: keep in mind that I do not even care if it PB becomes a group absorb or wounds buff, just a sort of defensive support for the group which will result in being able to smoothen pressure your group is receiving. Which is something the SM lacks compared to other tanks, especially for 12v12 or larger engagements.
You mean 1 GCD? loss of resist debuff? loss of ini debuff?Rebuke wrote:loss of damage
Rebuke wrote:Bozzax, my entire reasoning for initiating this thread is to buff the SM in general
Azarael wrote:underperforming aspects of any class are valid for buffs unless they further empower meta specs.
Now you are just quoting snippets of my post so it suits you and gives a misintepretation of my post, which is cherry picking and is forbidden --> viewtopic.php?f=96&t=11105Bozzax wrote:You mean 1 GCD? loss of resist debuff? loss of ini debuff?Rebuke wrote:loss of damage
There is no loss of damage for Khaine/Hoeth SM when order group has the initiative.
In reality it becomes a pure meta group buff which I don't agree with.
Rebuke wrote:Bozzax, my entire reasoning for initiating this thread is to buff the SM in generalAzarael wrote:underperforming aspects of any class are valid for buffs unless they further empower meta specs.