Wizards got a huge buff though... At least that is how it appears on the surface.
Meteor is now 450% of weapon damage(255 DPS Staff) as opposed to ~300-500 damage that it used to be.
Things people need to remember about spells like these:
450% of weapon damage does not equal 450% of DPS.
If a 255 DPS staff has an attack speed of .65 or something than the damage can be less than expected if you were to multiplying by DPS
(I know this happens to be the case where the attack speed is 1 so... i'll shut up )
Plus it doesn't necessarily go off of DPS, but the actual damage range. Either way, 450% of 206-304 damage on a 1 speed staff is 1k-1.5k, WAY more than the old(200-300) base damage of meteor.
I assume there are some formula differences between the 2 methods resulting in roughly the same damage, or else blizzard has some massive balancing to undertake at this time.
A lot of the wands seem to have xx-xx% wizard damage increase. Also you aren't accounting for the orb offhand that you would be able to use.
Orbs don't have any damage stat on them, so it wouldn't be calculated with the wand in determining spell damage. Also, no orbs have any +% damage on them. Therefore, every stat that is calculated in the % weapon damage of spells comes from the wand alone.
It would take some math (that I'm not up for doing at the moment) to determine if using a staff or wand is better. Take the following scenario for example:
450% spell damage using a staff with 255 damage
or
450% spell damage using a wand with ~137 damage + an additional 131%-271% damage (highest +% damage on all wands listed).
Just ran it through my calculator and it's possible that the wand damage is higher according to my numbers, but I'm assuming this isn't always the case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing a Wizard. Looking for Demon Hunters to play with.
Meteor with a level 7 Crimson rune does 990% Weapon Damage as fire
Add glass cannon (increase all damage dealt by 20%) and you're looking at 1188% Weapon Damage as fire
Combined with Arcane Dynamo (After 8 signature spells you gain 50% extra damage to next non-sig spell) and you have a whopping 1782% Weapon Damage as fire
Meteor with a level 7 Crimson rune does 990% Weapon Damage as fire
Add glass cannon (increase all damage dealt by 20%) and you're looking at 1188% Weapon Damage as fire
Combined with Arcane Dynamo (After 8 signature spells you gain 50% extra damage to next non-sig spell) and you have a whopping 1782% Weapon Damage as fire
I did the math earlier. With 255 wep + crimson meteor you're looking at 3.5k damage if they stand in the aoe for the 3 seconds after impact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing a Wizard. Looking for Demon Hunters to play with.
Don't forget the new Passive ability, Conflagration, which applies an additional 15% dmg debuff to enemies that you deal fire dmg to
**edit**
It seems as if there are several new Passive skills available to all classes, although I haven't studied this in any meticulous detail, but at least monk/wizard have new ones that don't yet have any icon associated with them yet.
Virtuoso seems intriguing now. A top level wand was looking at 300+ damage for the main attack. Virtuoso makes that 600+ and gives you 15 AP. It seems like a useful skill now (don't have to worry about sig spells).
Also, Galvanizing Wizard heals 160 life per second now.
Meteor with a level 7 Crimson rune does 990% Weapon Damage as fire
Add glass cannon (increase all damage dealt by 20%) and you're looking at 1188% Weapon Damage as fire
Combined with Arcane Dynamo (After 8 signature spells you gain 50% extra damage to next non-sig spell) and you have a whopping 1782% Weapon Damage as fire
I did the math earlier. With 255 wep + crimson meteor you're looking at 3.5k damage if they stand in the aoe for the 3 seconds after impact.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Meteor with a level 7 Crimson rune does 990% Weapon Damage as fire
Add glass cannon (increase all damage dealt by 20%) and you're looking at 1188% Weapon Damage as fire
Combined with Arcane Dynamo (After 8 signature spells you gain 50% extra damage to next non-sig spell) and you have a whopping 1782% Weapon Damage as fire
I did the math earlier. With 255 wep + crimson meteor you're looking at 3.5k damage if they stand in the aoe for the 3 seconds after impact.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Do you have that backward? (1+x)(1+y) = (1+x+y+xy) > (1+x+y)
Meteor with a level 7 Crimson rune does 990% Weapon Damage as fire
Add glass cannon (increase all damage dealt by 20%) and you're looking at 1188% Weapon Damage as fire
Combined with Arcane Dynamo (After 8 signature spells you gain 50% extra damage to next non-sig spell) and you have a whopping 1782% Weapon Damage as fire
I did the math earlier. With 255 wep + crimson meteor you're looking at 3.5k damage if they stand in the aoe for the 3 seconds after impact.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Regardless, level 7 crimson rune, if you can get 1060% weapon damage, that's far superior to any other class.
Orbs don't have any damage stat on them, so it wouldn't be calculated with the wand in determining spell damage. Also, no orbs have any +% damage on them. Therefore, every stat that is calculated in the % weapon damage of spells comes from the wand alone.
This was a good change. Reminds me of a lesson they learned in wow with certain classes and concepts. Took them half a decade to do it but they caught on and made static crit, attack stats etc instead of having physical damage stats and spell damage stats. This also makes weapons extremely important for every class. Weapons are a big deal now.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Do you have that backward? (1+x)(1+y) = (1+x+y+xy) > (1+x+y)
I was thinking that a multiplicative boost could be worse off than additive boosts because they would work like 1+x+xy such that two 50% boosts would give a final damage output of 175% as opposed to 225%. I see where you're coming from though, but your formula would give insane damage output and everyone would be in search of that little extra bit of crit, because it would start to boost your entire crit even further.
For example, if we were to bring in one more 50% crit, it would increase from 225% damage to 337.5%. You can see that this exponential growth is probably not what Blizzard wants.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Do you have that backward? (1+x)(1+y) = (1+x+y+xy) > (1+x+y)
I was thinking that a multiplicative boost could be worse off than additive boosts because they would work like 1+x+xy such that two 50% boosts would give a final damage output of 175% as opposed to 225%. I see where you're coming from though, but your formula would give insane damage output and everyone would be in search of that little extra bit of crit, because it would start to boost your entire crit even further.
For example, if we were to bring in one more 50% crit, it would increase from 225% damage to 337.5%. You can see that this exponential growth is probably not what Blizzard wants.
Not to mention, in what order would you apply them? If that 50% crit was applied first, it wouldn't do as much as if it were applied last. But there's no real order that they should go in, which makes me think they all add up at once.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Do you have that backward? (1+x)(1+y) = (1+x+y+xy) > (1+x+y)
I was thinking that a multiplicative boost could be worse off than additive boosts because they would work like 1+x+xy such that two 50% boosts would give a final damage output of 175% as opposed to 225%. I see where you're coming from though, but your formula would give insane damage output and everyone would be in search of that little extra bit of crit, because it would start to boost your entire crit even further.
For example, if we were to bring in one more 50% crit, it would increase from 225% damage to 337.5%. You can see that this exponential growth is probably not what Blizzard wants.
Not to mention, in what order would you apply them? If that 50% crit was applied first, it wouldn't do as much as if it were applied last. But there's no real order that they should go in, which makes me think they all add up at once.
The commutitive property of multiplication disagrees with you. x*(1+y)(1+z)=x(1+z)(1+y)
If they knew the Fixed skill damage was always falling behind weapon damage, they could've just adjusted it to be in line with what DPS they "expect" people to have at certain levels.
I always thought the whole "+% to Wizard only" was to prevent something like this from ever being an issue (being easily to change that suffix to balance things out), but I guess I was wrong.
I would say "nah, they know better, they're testing the whole thing extensively", but instead I'll just say "well, I hope they know better", otherwise I'll be extremelly disappointed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lot of the wands seem to have xx-xx% wizard damage increase. Also you aren't accounting for the orb offhand that you would be able to use.
Plus it doesn't necessarily go off of DPS, but the actual damage range. Either way, 450% of 206-304 damage on a 1 speed staff is 1k-1.5k, WAY more than the old(200-300) base damage of meteor.
I assume there are some formula differences between the 2 methods resulting in roughly the same damage, or else blizzard has some massive balancing to undertake at this time.
Orbs don't have any damage stat on them, so it wouldn't be calculated with the wand in determining spell damage. Also, no orbs have any +% damage on them. Therefore, every stat that is calculated in the % weapon damage of spells comes from the wand alone.
It would take some math (that I'm not up for doing at the moment) to determine if using a staff or wand is better. Take the following scenario for example:
450% spell damage using a staff with 255 damage
or
450% spell damage using a wand with ~137 damage + an additional 131%-271% damage (highest +% damage on all wands listed).
Just ran it through my calculator and it's possible that the wand damage is higher according to my numbers, but I'm assuming this isn't always the case.
Oh and I love this change!
Great change.
Meteor with a level 7 Crimson rune does 990% Weapon Damage as fire
Add glass cannon (increase all damage dealt by 20%) and you're looking at 1188% Weapon Damage as fire
Combined with Arcane Dynamo (After 8 signature spells you gain 50% extra damage to next non-sig spell) and you have a whopping 1782% Weapon Damage as fire
I did the math earlier. With 255 wep + crimson meteor you're looking at 3.5k damage if they stand in the aoe for the 3 seconds after impact.
**edit**
It seems as if there are several new Passive skills available to all classes, although I haven't studied this in any meticulous detail, but at least monk/wizard have new ones that don't yet have any icon associated with them yet.
Also, Galvanizing Wizard heals 160 life per second now.
Sorry to burst your bubble but its likely the increases are not additive but multiplicative.
Do you have that backward? (1+x)(1+y) = (1+x+y+xy) > (1+x+y)
Regardless, level 7 crimson rune, if you can get 1060% weapon damage, that's far superior to any other class.
http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/data/631/wizard_orb.jpg
Orbs have an automatic % damage to wizard damage. It's like a staffmod from D2.
So yes, orb would be calculated when determining damage.
For example, if we were to bring in one more 50% crit, it would increase from 225% damage to 337.5%. You can see that this exponential growth is probably not what Blizzard wants.
Not to mention, in what order would you apply them? If that 50% crit was applied first, it wouldn't do as much as if it were applied last. But there's no real order that they should go in, which makes me think they all add up at once.
The commutitive property of multiplication disagrees with you. x*(1+y)(1+z)=x(1+z)(1+y)
I always thought the whole "+% to Wizard only" was to prevent something like this from ever being an issue (being easily to change that suffix to balance things out), but I guess I was wrong.
I would say "nah, they know better, they're testing the whole thing extensively", but instead I'll just say "well, I hope they know better", otherwise I'll be extremelly disappointed.