SPOILER Wynn 2.0 Combat Changes Discussion (+ spin cube poll)

Man, if the changes to int are as they seem, I might get to build even heavier into hypertank with even smaller costs. This will be insane for both buildcraft and for fun factor.
Depending on how heavily archetypes actually end up affecting play (for instance, a thing like manachism is optimally like 5mr in current meta), you could make builds with no life sustain, or no mana sustain, and just go ehp/damage or something. Crazy stuff.

I'm ridiculously hyped for fallen warrior (possibly even more than paladin)
(Also makes me wonder if the corruption meter is a Dern/SE thing or if that's a fallen warrior thing)

 

Trapper is probably going to be like survival hunter in WOW, melee. Would involve focus like you said.
It would explain stuff like grappling hook, closes the distance.

 

I am so ready to make a huge analysis about every single skill tree because they look like theyre going to be so epic
I already have theoretical combinations for archer

Edit: Nighthawk is absolutely going to be sharpshooter meta there's no way it won't be

 

don't know if major ids are going to have a massive impact on ability trees, but if I had to guess I would say that they would be mostly separate or integrated entirely.

 

Would pande take all the spells in the update

 

Honestly would be cool to just grappling hook a mob to you and just multihit it-
Wait what, it is not for assassin? I cannot be like Link?
But for real tho this looks so cool :like:

 

Compromise:
Grappling hook the mob to you and multi arrow it (aka arrow storm)

 

Salted said that you could use grappling hook to like hook mobs into basaltic traps, and apparently that's what the new combos are supposed to be

 

might actually try lvling archer in the update /shrug

 

Yas archer very fun, best class
(Spoken by a very biased archer main)

 

it's not looking good for the spin cube faithful

 

________________________________

________________________________

 

so it seems like they're announcing a new spell/ability every two days-ish, hopefully until the Changelog drops

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but when it says -20% of your DPS per bash, shouldn't that just be -20% damage per bash? Saying DPS implies it's either a rate which this clearly isn't, it's just a flat deduction per bash, or it affects all your sources of damage which this also doesn't since it specifies per bash. I just don't understand why it says per second per bash when it only needs per bash.

IMO it really should just say -20% bash damage, much clearer and shorter too unless it's calculating that damage in a more complex way than what's shown in the UI.

 

It's because all spell damage in the 2.0 system is described as a percentage of DPS rather than base damage, because it's based off of the spell multiplier times the base damage of the weapon times the attack speed multiplier, which is effectively just the spell multiplier times the weapon's DPS. It's more accurate and less likely to mislead newer players, who might otherwise just think that higher base damage= higher spell damage and thus slower weapons are better for spells. The description is an offshoot of that that's trying to say that it removes 20% from the spell multiplier (IE. Bash's multiplier goes from 130% of DPS to 110% of DPS) rather than just straight up removing 20% of bash's damage (IE. Bash goes from 130% of DPS to 104% of DPS).
That said, I do think it could just say it removes 20% from the bash spell multiplier per hit or something, which would suffice to get the point across.

 

But DPS itself is still derived from base damage and the spell multiplier so it's still all the same.

Beyond that though, I guess my problem is with using DPS as a metric when it uses a measure of time to describe something where time is irreverent to the description. I want to know how much a single bash (or in this case, 4 bashes) does, not how much damage those bashes will do per second because that doesn't tell anyone anything useful regarding the attack itself. Like, if you have an attack which casts for an extended amount of time and has multiple hits which aren't all going to land on a single target, how do you calculate the DPS there or if you have a spell like bash which can hit more than one target, how do you find DPS with that? It's just a bad measure since it doesn't accurately reflect any spells which aren't single target and extremely consistent which is like, a quarter of the spells in the game if that.

To be clear, DPS isn't useless, it makes sense for melee attacks since part of melee is attack speed which necessitates using a rate to properly reflect but spell casting is different, the rate at which you cast spells is pretty fixed and the frequency you can use spells is based on MR and spell cost. A spell rotations DPS shouldn't come close to the DPS described by the most powerful spell of that rotation since presumably a rotation involves using more than one spell or involves waiting on mana which makes the measure pointless since you'll never be able to sustain it.

On a related note, if DPS is such an important metric, they should be giving the cast time/effect time and the damage per hit, not the DPS.

 

dps is the most sensible wording for spell damage

rather" base dps" / "spell effective dps" but thats too wordy

this is separate from any dps you might get out of a spell, its just jargon/shorthand for base x attackspeed x boosts


if you just say meteor does "500% damage" then the natural question is "500% of what?"
its no less ambiguous.



that being said the wording on "damage: -20% of your dps per bash" is so ambiguous in so many (somewhat nonsensical) ways that it should be corrected yes

 

To answer your question of what damage, I present the following;



Seems pretty clear to me what that 500% of is considering it's a number which is pretty easy to see. When it says you lose 20% of bash damage, the obvious place to look would be to those numbers where you would expect to see the decrease.

Beyond that, you can't say damage doesn't make sense but DPS does when DPS is literally just damage per second, if damage makes no sense DPS makes even less sense. The best word would just be spell damage, or if you want to be specific name the spell, so in this case, bash damage, which is not only not wordy but is also extremely clear.

Beyond that though, if it's going to be a rate, which it shouldn't because time has no impact on spells, it should be per tick, not per second since time is relative in a game where lag is a frequent occurrence.

Adding this on for clarification and to elaborate further on the point, even if you're factoring in attack speed to spells it still doesn't make sense to display it as DPS because the speed component of that calculation doesn't actually apply to the casting time of the spell, only to the damage they do.

If you want to say DPS a better term than just damage outright, you can't make that argument by saying using damage is ambiguous, you need to make the case for why adding in the factor of time makes the measure better or more useful, which it obviously doesn't because spells have fixed cast times which makes the time component completely useless. What the damage should be is per hit which is how the information is currently presented, changing that to DPS makes literally no sense.

 

Gonna be interesting seeing how build creation works when the update breaks wynnbuilder

 

alright i was gonna leave it but you put this image up

which highlights exactly how misleading it is to use the word "damage"

(also, possibly the reason why compass is currently fked)

Every single spell damage number in compass is wrong. Wrong by a lot. For a baseline they take 500% of the displayed damage of the weapon (which is not at all how spells work); spells, old and new, take weapon base DPS into account when calculating their damage. Which is why 500% DPS is the "correct" term (or at least the more descriptive term) relative to 500% Damage.
Notably, weapon base dps is missing from the compass. :hmm:

(compass calcs also seem to be wrong in other ways; though i haven't done my research into how exactly it is incorrect beyond that it is egregiously wrong.)

I do think %DPS is a slightly weird thing to think about (esp. for average player who doesn't care too much about damage calculation), though I heard that weapons will have base dps displayed in addition to base damage which should help alleviate the confusion slightly.

EDIT: i am re-reading your post and i think there's a point of confusion. The DPS we are all talking about is not "Spell DPS" (which is a poorly defined number if anything), it is "weapon base DPS" which is simply calculated as weapon base damage multiplied by weapon attack speed in hits/second. Common number used to compare weapons across attack speeds and critical to building for spell power.