39 replies to this topic

[gurg0]

new marquise rubies would require for me 185-185 damage to be on level with new marquise emeralds(110%crit dmg) and i got 1.4 weapon witch is better than average speed
they say that +dmg scales nicely with speed put everything does
only reason why would someone want +dmg over crit dmg is if he got low crit chance but every properly geared char got 30%+ crit chance and only top players can afford gems that cost 110milion (with curent prices, but even if prices drops base craft price is 35.5mil which is for NPC

at the end only usage i can see is for low level twinks since they got really low crit chance

[sssdrawr]

vioche, on 13 January 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

i wonder how much new ruby will be in damage, it needs to be like 100-200 atleast to beat 100 crit hit dmg

This really depends on your class, skills and gear. Here are some examples for WW Barbs:

1. WW Barb - Top DMG - MH http://tw.battle.net...33/hero/9517398 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-9SSo2

100% cd gem
dps: 877264
tdps: 3402868

104-208 dmg gem
dps: 841704 -35560
tdps: 3403878 +1010

160-320 dmg gem
dps: 875466 -1798
tdps: 3609847 +206979

This barb will see a lot less sheet dps but almost the same effective dps with a 104-208 dmg gem and the same sheet dps but 200k more effective dps with a 160-320 dmg gem

2. WW Barb - Top DMG - OH http://tw.battle.net...33/hero/9517398 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-58Cdt

100% cd gem
dps: 877264
tdps: 3402868

162-324 dmg gem
dps: 876711 -553
tdps: 3175050 -227818

404-808 dmg gem
dps: 1022048 +144784
tdps: 3402582 -286

To replace the gem in the OH he would need a 404-808 dmg gem for the same effective dps and 162-324 dmg for the same sheet dps.

3. WW Barb - Low DMG - MH - http://us.battle.net...15/hero/5614672 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-27CMG

100% cd gem
dps: 88159
tdps: 360859

165-330 dmg gem
dps: 88108 -51
tdps: 384140 +23281

117-234 dmg gem
dps: 84123 -4036
tdps: 360996 +137

4. WW Barb - Low DMG - OH - http://us.battle.net...15/hero/5614672 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-yS9uF

100% cd gem
dps: 88159
tdps: 360859

455-910 dmg gem
dps: 112182 +24023
tdps: 360882 +23

165-330 dmg gem
dps: 88108 -51
tdps: 324998 -35861

Quote

Our goal with the tuning on the new Ruby is that if you have high attack speed, and/or your skill build leans heavily on skills that don't crit (such as Hydra), then you may prefer the flat damage granted by the Ruby over the Critical Hit Damage provided by the Emerald.

Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't hydra damage calculated with your avg MH Damage including crits ? There are no crits yes, but more crit damage should still increase the damage of this skill.

Edited by sssdrawr, 14 January 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[vioche]

sssdrawr, on 14 January 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

vioche, on 13 January 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

i wonder how much new ruby will be in damage, it needs to be like 100-200 atleast to beat 100 crit hit dmg

This really depends on your class, skills and gear. Here are some examples for WW Barbs:

1. WW Barb - Top DMG - MH http://tw.battle.net...33/hero/9517398 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-9SSo2

100% cd gem
dps: 877264
tdps: 3402868

104-208 dmg gem
dps: 841704 -35560
tdps: 3403878 +1010

160-320 dmg gem
dps: 875466 -1798
tdps: 3609847 +206979

This barb will see a lot less sheet dps but almost the same effective dps with a 104-208 dmg gem and the same sheet dps but 200k more effective dps with a 160-320 dmg gem

2. WW Barb - Top DMG - OH http://tw.battle.net...33/hero/9517398 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-58Cdt

100% cd gem
dps: 877264
tdps: 3402868

162-324 dmg gem
dps: 876711 -553
tdps: 3175050 -227818

404-808 dmg gem
dps: 1022048 +144784
tdps: 3402582 -286

To replace the gem in the OH he would need a 404-808 dmg gem for the same effective dps and 162-324 dmg for the same sheet dps.

3. WW Barb - Low DMG - MH - http://us.battle.net...15/hero/5614672 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-27CMG

100% cd gem
dps: 88159
tdps: 360859

165-330 dmg gem
dps: 88108 -51
tdps: 384140 +23281

117-234 dmg gem
dps: 84123 -4036
tdps: 360996 +137

4. WW Barb - Low DMG - OH - http://us.battle.net...15/hero/5614672 - http://www.d3rawr.com/d-yS9uF

100% cd gem
dps: 88159
tdps: 360859

455-910 dmg gem
dps: 112182 +24023
tdps: 360882 +23

165-330 dmg gem
dps: 88108 -51
tdps: 324998 -35861

Quote

Our goal with the tuning on the new Ruby is that if you have high attack speed, and/or your skill build leans heavily on skills that don't crit (such as Hydra), then you may prefer the flat damage granted by the Ruby over the Critical Hit Damage provided by the Emerald.

Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't hydra damage calculated with your avg MH Damage including crits ? There are no crits yes, but more crit damage should still increase the damage of this skill.

basicly it need to be atleast 100-200 to beat 100 crit

[sssdrawr]

vioche, on 14 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

basicly it need to be atleast 100-200 to beat 100 crit

I would say yes for WW Barbs MH gem (my tests with wizards say 160-320 but i'll have to check this again). Problem is, your sheet dps is going down by a lot and 90% are still using this number when looking for upgrades. Forums will be full of QQ about how bad a new 100-200 damage gem is.

[vioche]

sssdrawr, on 14 January 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

vioche, on 14 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

basicly it need to be atleast 100-200 to beat 100 crit

I would say yes for WW Barbs MH gem (my tests with wizards say 160-320 but i'll have to check this again). Problem is, your sheet dps is going down by a lot and 90% are still using this number when looking for upgrades. Forums will be full of QQ about how bad a new 100-200 damage gem is.

no one really know if its 100-200 damage, i said it has to be atleast that to beat 100%, but they are improving the green aswell so have to take that into calculations aswell

more like 150-300 or more should be as good, might be better for some or worse for some, i dunno just throwing out ideas atm

[Litheum]

Dude, do you think Blizzard is made of money???

Do you understand how much development time and resources it would cost to change 2 whole gems.....IN THE SAME PATCH?
You guys are so spoiled, you're lucky Blizzard listens to us, and is changing any of the gems! You should be kissing their feet, and thanking the gods Blizzard has graced us with this wonderful blessing, when they barely made any money off us, or the RMAH.

Asking for 2 gems to be fixed in one patch is just being greedy. If we are lucky, Blizzard may consider changing Topaz later in time, but don't expect such massive changes from Blizzard, they have a very small team, and a very small monthly revenue to work with, it would take hours of work for a programmer to change the stats on all the tiers of Topaz's. Where would they find the time and resources for that???

Blizzard is making changes to Rubies out of the goodness of their heart, with no benefit to them at all, I heard the development team is actually volunteering their free time to make this patch. We should feel so incredibly lucky these underpayed, overworked developers are nice enough to make any changes to the game. Blizzard is such a generous and caring company to be making these changes with no benefit to their company at all!!

We are so blessed by the great and wonderful Blizzard. Stop complaining, and just like the game! It's not that hard, just like it, don't discuss on these forums what you don't like, you played the game 100s of hours, so therefore, you must like the game, NOW!

Topaz's are fine.

Edited by Litheum, 15 January 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[shaggy]

EDIT
Fuck it, there's no point in responding to obvious trolls.

@rest of thread
Blizzard acknowledged that they have a few affixes they want to work on improving - they used thorns and life on kill as two of the most concerning ones (LoK is only a real concern in multiplayer games, thorns is a concern in both single player and multiplayer).

It would stand to reason that the gem that provides thorns would be changed when they change thorns as it fits much more with whatever solution they figure out in that respect and much less with the fact that they decided to throw in a quick buff to weapon Rubies in this patch.  It wouldn't be anything but redundant work to change the topazes before they've fixed Thorns since it's pretty clear they want to attempt to salvage Thorns as a viable property.

Edited by shaggy, 15 January 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[maka]

@shaggy, my problem with the topaz is that the weapon bonus it provides makes absolutely no sense. You've got two gems that give you more damage, one that returns life to you when you hit stuff, and one that......does something you get hit. That's an armour bonus, not a weapon bonus. I was hoping they'd fix the topaz, but by changing what it does (in a weapon), not tinkering with the numbers.

Litheum, on 15 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Blizzard is making changes to Rubies out of the goodness of their heart, with no benefit to them at all, I heard the development team is actually volunteering their free time to make this patch

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not (sometimes it's hard to tell, with written text), but I hope you are, because, otherwise, this is a bit ridiculous.
Not only do they have the RMAH, but they will also be releasing at the very least one expansion (most likely two), so no, they're not doing this for the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because they have a steady stream of revenue coming in (I'm not gonna argue over amounts) - the RMAH - and also because they have an expectation of future profits with the xpacks. And nobody buys expansions for dead games, so it is very much in their interest to keep the game alive and people interested. And the way to do that is by fixing what's bad/wrong/bugged, and just generally keeping in touch with the playerbase.

Whether or not they're doing that, I'll leave to each individual person.

Edited by maka, 15 January 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[shaggy]

maka, on 15 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

@shaggy, my problem with the topaz is that the weapon bonus it provides makes absolutely no sense. You've got two gems that give you more damage, one that returns life to you when you hit stuff, and one that......does something you get hit. That's an armour bonus, not a weapon bonus. I was hoping they'd fix the topaz, but by changing what it does (in a weapon), not tinkering with the numbers.

Oh, I totally agree to that point.  I just think Blizzard has probably said "we're going to attempt to fix thorns, so that includes the Topaz weapon effect."  I'm not sure if I agree with that, but I can at least understand the "why" if you get what I'm saying.  I'd agree wholeheartedly if you told me that a Topaz should only give thorns in a helm.  I just think Blizzard is looking at it from a "this will be a valid gem when we rework Thorns" perspective.

I'm not truly sure that Thorns will ever be a reasonable affix since it scales inversely with DPS (the faster you kill things the less they hit you, the less value Thorns has).  And, well, the goal in most ARPGs is to become a godly killing machine which means that the goal is counterintuitive when compared to Thorns... unless you're going for a pure Thorns build, I suppose.

So, ultimately, even if they rework Thorns I'm not sure it matters.  Most likely they'd have to multiple Thorns values by a factor of about 10 or 20 to make them desireable, and to that extent you might find that it becomes insanely OP.  It's definitely one of those stats which I think will either be worthless or amazing.  I'm eager for Blizzard to prove me wrong on that, though.

[IgnatiusReilly]

Thorns is a problem since MP would make whatever buff they gave it either useless at high MP or incredibly OP at lower MP levels. That is if they simply gave the values a flat numerical boost.

Ummmm... how about: Returns X% weapon damage to attacker. Make the affixes work the same varying from 5-15% or whatever number works right. That way, you could feasibly build a character that returns 200% weapon damage or something. That'd be kind of powerful while not completely game breaking.

Hmm, but yeah, even still, there's no way it could compete with crit damage or even the new ruby gem. And people never respond well to stuff that doesn't show a direct boost to your paper DPS.

Edited by IgnatiusReilly, 15 January 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[Zero(pS)]

Litheum, on 15 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Dude, do you think Blizzard is made of money???

Do you understand how much development time and resources it would cost to change 2 whole gems.....IN THE SAME PATCH?
You guys are so spoiled, you're lucky Blizzard listens to us, and is changing any of the gems! You should be kissing their feet, and thanking the gods Blizzard has graced us with this wonderful blessing, when they barely made any money off us, or the RMAH.

Asking for 2 gems to be fixed in one patch is just being greedy. If we are lucky, Blizzard may consider changing Topaz later in time, but don't expect such massive changes from Blizzard, they have a very small team, and a very small monthly revenue to work with, it would take hours of work for a programmer to change the stats on all the tiers of Topaz's. Where would they find the time and resources for that???

Blizzard is making changes to Rubies out of the goodness of their heart, with no benefit to them at all, I heard the development team is actually volunteering their free time to make this patch. We should feel so incredibly lucky these underpayed, overworked developers are nice enough to make any changes to the game. Blizzard is such a generous and caring company to be making these changes with no benefit to their company at all!!

We are so blessed by the great and wonderful Blizzard. Stop complaining, and just like the game! It's not that hard, just like it, don't discuss on these forums what you don't like, you played the game 100s of hours, so therefore, you must like the game, NOW!

Topaz's are fine.

You could sum all that with a "/sarcasm-post" command.

I think we get your point. You didn't really need to write such a big comment to make a sarcastic comment though.

But really, if you think changing a Gem's stats involves just programming effort and no iteration or no design, you clearly don't understand how game design works. Particularly on a game that involves "permanent" characters.

If they just change Topazes to give attackspeed, and it turns out to be overpowered, and suddenly every single player out there is using them, how exactly do you fix that? Change their current gear? That's what happened in the first "attackspeed nerf", and it became a PR nightmare. You probably wasn't here when it happened or maybe doesn't care that it happened.

[maka]

^^That's what the PTR is for.

@shaggy: totally agree. The concept of 'thorns' doesn't really lend itself to a game like Diablo, in the same way that the concept of 'tank' doesn't lend itself. Thorns and tanks really go together, but they don't really work in a game where, ideally, you're just killing stuff left and right, and not staying with the same enemies for minutes on end.
Like you said, it'll either be OP or worthless.

Edited by maka, 16 January 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[Nephelem]

well the way i see it. rubys prior r15 are still useless.

[shaggy]

maka, on 16 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

^^That's what the PTR is for.

@shaggy: totally agree. The concept of 'thorns' doesn't really lend itself to a game like Diablo, in the same way that the concept of 'tank' doesn't lend itself. Thorns and tanks really go together, but they don't really work in a game where, ideally, you're just killing stuff left and right, and not staying with the same enemies for minutes on end.
Like you said, it'll either be OP or worthless.

Awwwww, maka, we might be friends afterall!!

[sechssechssechs]

Nephelem, on 16 January 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

well the way i see it. rubys prior r15 are still useless.

this I don't understand at all... how could anyone without possessing a fortune even try out if a ruby or emerald suits him better?

[maka]

shaggy, on 16 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

maka, on 16 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

^^That's what the PTR is for.

@shaggy: totally agree. The concept of 'thorns' doesn't really lend itself to a game like Diablo, in the same way that the concept of 'tank' doesn't lend itself. Thorns and tanks really go together, but they don't really work in a game where, ideally, you're just killing stuff left and right, and not staying with the same enemies for minutes on end.
Like you said, it'll either be OP or worthless.

Awwwww, maka, we might be friends afterall!!

Yeah, of course. I just get cranky, sometimes.


They should make the Helm Topaz be '+MF & +GF', make the Helm Emerald be 'Thorns', and change the Weapon Topaz to something useful, be it IAS (might be hard to fine-tune the numbers) or something else.

[overneathe]

maka, on 16 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

They should make the Helm Topaz be '+MF & +GF', make the Helm Emerald be 'Thorns', and change the Weapon Topaz to something useful, be it IAS (might be hard to fine-tune the numbers) or something else.

Someone needs to forward this to Blizz.

[shaggy]

maka, on 16 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

shaggy, on 16 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

maka, on 16 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

^^That's what the PTR is for.

@shaggy: totally agree. The concept of 'thorns' doesn't really lend itself to a game like Diablo, in the same way that the concept of 'tank' doesn't lend itself. Thorns and tanks really go together, but they don't really work in a game where, ideally, you're just killing stuff left and right, and not staying with the same enemies for minutes on end.
Like you said, it'll either be OP or worthless.

Awwwww, maka, we might be friends afterall!!

Yeah, of course. I just get cranky, sometimes.


They should make the Helm Topaz be '+MF & +GF', make the Helm Emerald be 'Thorns', and change the Weapon Topaz to something useful, be it IAS (might be hard to fine-tune the numbers) or something else.

That is very much along the lines of what I was thinking about the gems, actually.  Honestly I think that they need to make the Amethyst weapon effect stronger.  Perhaps Life Leech?  I feel like Life on Hit is just not desireable for many specs, but that Life Leech is probably one of the better survivability stats once you hit a good amount of damage.  Perhaps that's me having a fond memory of pSkulls?  I don't know.

I'm not a huge fan of MF/GF (or even +xp) for gems because they just become invalidated at pLvl 100.  I'd prefer to see things that are not conditional based on level.  But I very much realize that may not be a popular choice, or something that'd ever happen.  What I really dislike about helm gems is that it's basically use a ruby if you're not pLvl 100 and then use an amethyst.  Boooooorinnnngggg!

[overneathe]

shaggy, on 17 January 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

I'm not a huge fan of MF/GF (or even +xp) for gems because they just become invalidated at pLvl 100.  I'd prefer to see things that are not conditional based on level.  But I very much realize that may not be a popular choice, or something that'd ever happen.  What I really dislike about helm gems is that it's basically use a ruby if you're not pLvl 100 and then use an amethyst.  Boooooorinnnngggg!

Maybe at least Topaz can go beyond the cap? Don't know about Ruby. :/

[Chiron]

sechssechssechs, on 16 January 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

this I don't understand at all... how could anyone without possessing a fortune even try out if a ruby or emerald suits him better?

By using a calculator, such as http://www.d3rawr.com/d