Correcting Rain of Fire's end cost

[WindDemon21]

Rain of Fire: 144.73 damage, 26.00 end cost

Whirlpool: 131.46 damage, 15.60 end, additional 10% defense debuff

Ice Storm: 116.78 damage, 15.60 end, 10% -rech

(blaster numbers)

 

It should have a 15.60 end cost as the others do, yet it has a crazy extra end cost of 26.00 end instead. It does a little more damage, but not enough to account for that much more of an end cost when the others have additional benefits to already compensate that as it was already anyway.

[WindDemon21]

FYI, NUKES are 27.72 end, this is not doing nuke level damage...

[Laucianna]

It is calculated by the recharge and the area of affect and not manually chosen for all powers as far as I know. A good link that explains how a lot of things are calculated is here: 

 

[Trickshooter]

The formulas are the guidelines, but things typically are manually set, and many powers don't strictly follow the formulas at all. Using the formulas (and assuming some of Rain of Fire's damage is considered a bonus), both Ice Storm and Rain of Fire should cost about 10.92 endurance, but other things might be considered in those costs that aren't accounted for in any formula, such as their range and the debuffs they also contain.

 

Either way, Rain of Fire does cost significantly more than very similar powers and it's probably just a very old oversight.

[WindDemon21]

21 hours ago, Trickshooter said:

The formulas are the guidelines, but things typically are manually set, and many powers don't strictly follow the formulas at all. Using the formulas (and assuming some of Rain of Fire's damage is considered a bonus), both Ice Storm and Rain of Fire should cost about 10.92 endurance, but other things might be considered in those costs that aren't accounted for in any formula, such as their range and the debuffs they also contain.

 

Either way, Rain of Fire does cost significantly more than very similar powers and it's probably just a very old oversight.

Nah do the math, it does only about 10% more than whirlpool does which also has only a 15.6 end cost, AND debuffs defense. Ice storm, and ice blast's aoe in general yeah they should be updated to match these two more closely as the 10% -rech isn't nearly enough compensation. Which in either rate, there is zero reason for this power to be costing 26 end, it's far too much for what it does. (also quite odd that it and ice storm at least don't do -fly, whirlpool i could see not doing -fly, but these two definitely should).

 

Also for reference, Blizzard does way more damage, debuffs, and knocks down, and still only costs 27.72 end. Yeah the recharge compensates those other things I just mentioned, but again, absolutely zero reason for rain of fire to be costing nearly nuke level amounts of endurance.

[Trickshooter]

4 minutes ago, WindDemon21 said:

Nah do the math, it does only about 10% more than whirlpool does which also has only a 15.6 end cost, AND debuffs defense.

 

That's a whole other issue I didn't want to have to get in to lol

 

These 3 powers should be doing the same amount of damage (before Fire's bonus damage). But Whirlpool is the only one doing the correct damage; Ice Storm and Rain of Fire are not.

 

Why is that?

 

Whirlpool is designed as if the base damage is Scale 2.1, multiplied by the Blaster Ranged damage modifier of 1.125. Multiply Ice Storm's damage by 1.125 and you will get a damage number almost exactly the amount of damage done by Whirlpool. This is because Whirlpool was made after Issue 11, when Blaster's Ranged damage modifier was increased from 1.0 to 1.125.

 

None of the blast set pseudopets (except maybe Blizzard) created before Issue 11 were updated to reflect that increase in their ranged damage modifier; they were left as is. The result is that they don't really do as much damage as they should, and unfortunately, when Issue 24 corrected the Corruptor and Defender pseudopets to reflect their own damage modifiers, they were reduced with the assumption that the Blaster versions were already doing the correct damage.

 

So Whirlpool does 131.46 damage, and we divide that by the Blaster ranged damage modifier to get: 131.46/1.125 = ~116.85, the "base damage" (i.e. the damage with a modifier of 1.0) of the power. Notice how close that is to Ice Storm's damage.

 

We multiply that times 0.65, the Defender ranged damage modifier: ~116.85*0.65 = ~75.95. the damage the Defender version of Whirlpool should do, and it's pretty close to what is listed by CoD (75.9).

 

So now let's look at Ice Storm: 116.78/1.125 = ~103.8, the "base damage".

 

Multiply by the Defender modifier: ~103.8*0.65 = 67.47 for Defenders, very close to the CoD number (67.57).

 

Ultimately, the modifiers all line up because Issue 24 reduced the Corruptor and Defender versions to make things look correct, but as a result, all versions of Ice Storm and Rain of Fire do less damage then they should.

[WindDemon21]

Exactly, hopefully these get addressed in a patch sooner. TBH even way back on live as well always made more sense for these powers to get on 40s recharges and not 60 as well, they're nice, but 60 seconds seems odd for them given the damage being only about double that of a standard aoe. Which on 16s recharge (and all up front in one hit, no scatter) would put it alone right there around 32s, and then the usefulness of the area/scatter bumping to the 40s, but 60 seems a bit extra for them.

[WindDemon21]

RoF and the other rains still need fixed

[WindDemon21]

Please @Ghost. explain why the 26 end cost on rain of fire when the other rain powers do more but only cost 15 end makes sense. (And no it does nowhere near more damage to account for that, that's literally nuke level end cost)

[Ghost]

25 minutes ago, WindDemon21 said:

Please @Ghost. explain why the 26 end cost on rain of fire when the other rain powers do more but only cost 15 end makes sense. (And no it does nowhere near more damage to account for that, that's literally nuke level end cost)

I downvoted YOU for flooding the first page of the suggestions section by digging up old suggestions you made, and responding to each and every one.

I couldn’t care less what your complaints are.  You should have summarized them all into one thread.

[WindDemon21]

46 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I downvoted YOU for flooding the first page of the suggestions section by digging up old suggestions you made, and responding to each and every one.

I couldn’t care less what your complaints are.  You should have summarized them all into one thread.

Too much for one thread and that wouldn't make sense, when the other threads already had exactly what they needed on them.

 

That's really not the reason to use down vote. Those are to respond to the actual content of a post. There was nothing wrong with responding to older posts. If you don't like them then just ignore them, but they're all still valid.

 

Edit: I figured as much as well since you seem to be in cahoots with golstat who is doing far worse(or are another acct of his wouldnt surpise me)

Again that's not how you use downvote or other reactions. If you think there is an issue with doing what I did (which there isn't) then report the behavior if it's valid to do that, but do not downvote a post of content for that. That's not how that's meant to be used and negatively affects the true reaction to an actual post itself. You can see how otherwise they would see the downvote thinking you're against the content when it had nothing to do with that.

Edited 12 hours ago by WindDemon21

[lemming]

I may not agree with all of WD's suggestions , but it's reasonable for him to do it the way he did.    Either the devs say, "NOPE", or he can ping occasionally about it.   Now, if we want to discuss how to do suggestions, that would be better in a different thread.

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, lemming said:

I may not agree with all of WD's suggestions , but it's reasonable for him to do it the way he did.    Either the devs say, "NOPE", or he can ping occasionally about it.   Now, if we want to discuss how to do suggestions, that would be better in a different thread.

 

I agreed with one or two suggestions and disagreed with the others. Going forward I'll just openly say why I disagree or agree and move on. And I won't be having a back and forth discussion on it. The devs are big boys and girls who can decide to do something or not. And can defend their decisions easily.

 

EDIT: And this applies to all suggestions going forward not just the OP's to make it clear.

Edited 7 hours ago by golstat2003