7 Wrath Casts - No Eclipse Proc

#0 - April 13, 2009, 3:45 p.m.

Seriously,

Tank gets aggro and it's go time,

Cast 1, no crit.
Cast 2, crit no proc.
Cast 3, no crit.
Cast 4, no crit.
Cast 5, crit no proc.
Cast 6, crit no proc.
Cast 7, crit and finally procs.

Eclipse is a core ability that is a complete MUST to compete with other dps classes. If I get lucky with the proc I'm on par with all other dps besides the pure dps classes or the OP flavour of the month class which is warranted.

If you get a string of bad luck your dps is laughable at best. If you get some bad luck, and then have to move around a lot for the type of fight you might as well /afk.

Can you please please make it proc off the first crit within the hidden cooldown period regardless? It's bad enough that it won't proc unless your RNG crit finds it's mark.

Or have it proc off the actual spell hit rather then if it crits within the hidden cooldown. (Might be too much to ask for this)

It's probably been asked for before, but I'm just a little mad after this happening yet again last night and seeing the lack of balance changes come 3.1

Moonkin form costs less mana... YAY

Ghostcrawler

#17 - April 13, 2009, 6:37 p.m.

There are plenty of cases where a class or spec gets a huge benefit out of getting a good random number at just the right time, whether's it for a crit or something else. As long as crits are a chance (and they almost always are), they're going to contribute a lot to your dps. We aren't necessarily trying to reduce the effects of random elements in the game. We are trying to reduce the effects where a single roll often changes the outcome. This happened for example in Arena matches where someone got a lucky stun or an unlucky dispel.

Can someone post reasonable numbers for high and low Balance dps on similar fights where the main difference between the two are getting lucky with Eclipse or not? What kind of discrepancy do you really think we are talking about here? 200 dps? 800 dps?

Ghostcrawler

#130 - April 14, 2009, 7:45 a.m.

Q u o t e:
Isnt that something you should already know?

We have numbers for all this sort of thing, yes. But when players bring up a concern, it's useful to know if we are seeing the same thing or not. Maybe players see a 100 dps difference and think that's completely unacceptable. Maybe we are seeing a 100 dps difference and some players are seeing a 1000 dps difference because of a bug or other synergystic effect. Maybe some players are interpreting a difference in dps to Eclipse that is caused by something else. It never seems unreasonable to gather more data, especially when players are volunteering it.

Q u o t e:
But why GC, do you come to eclipse threads when we have about 100 threads on our pvp viability (or lack thereof)?

We ask that you do not complain about which topics blue posters make replies to. We're interested in your feedback on the game, not on where we post. Posters that can't understand this after all of our helpful hints risk a ban. (I'm also not interested in discussing the "where we post" issue any further in this thread.)

Ghostcrawler

#134 - April 14, 2009, 8 p.m.

Q u o t e:
I wish I were more of a number cruncher GC - I know you're prefer to see hard data vs. my observation.

We don't want anyone to feel like your feedback is not valid if you aren't a math whiz. It's totally fine to post opinions or just stuff you notice anecdotally. It only gets to be an issue when more belligerent folks say things like "I think this spell's damage is low. Why haven't you fixed it yet?" Yet, thinking something is low could be the very first step in uncovering a problem.

Q u o t e:
I'm sad GC, I thought I did such a great theorycrafting thread on the DPS variance of Eclipse, and yet it seems you didn't read it. :(

Fear not. I always read your posts, Murmurs. :)