As of 5.2, Saber Reflect no longer reflects white damage (i.e. ranged weapon damage). However, the damage is still mitigated, and the reflect animation (the energy orb rebounding to the target) still occurs. Thus, it seems like mitigation of Ranged damage is INTENDED, but isn't registering as being 'reflected' and so doing 0 damage. Is there a plan to fix this bug, or clarify it? The tooltip for Saber Reflect states that Ranged damage will also be reflected. Is this intended to no longer be the case?

Hoooooooooly. In Pve, even with these small nerfs, Carnage will probably still be the #1 MDPS spec in game. Deception is probably going to be more viable/competitive. You have no reason to be upset, this is far, far less than I expected based on how they dumpstered Arsenal and Snipers.

My only issue with this is that there is no 'maths' behind your reasoning, it's just assertions. Not to mention running the Mastery stim ALSO gives power also (which has no soft cap, especially in relation to Crit/Alacrity). While the logic holds true (on paper, Mastery is the least valuable offensive stat 100% agree with you there), I'm not sure if the benefits of Alacrity>Mastery are SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant wasted stat points on Deception - particularly on a class which benefits less from Alacrity relative to other classes (as a mentioned before, such as any Sniper spec). Same holds true for something like Vengeance jug - where running LOW (low 1ks) alacrity is actually optimal due to the strange (i.e. OP) scaling with Chilling Scream from raw Mastery. I'm mostly playing Devil's advocate here, but I'm curious to see what the numbers of Mastery vs. Alacrity/Crit at those levels appear as. In 4.0, I found on sniper running 1-3 mastery augments was an increase in DPS when at full build based on each augment giving 0.1% crit chance extra. I'm not familiar enough with the numbers in 5.2+ to tinker with stats, but for anyone to make statistical arguments about pure mathematical efficiency, you need the numbers to back it up. So, just to recap - I think your reasoning is sound about Mastery as a stat being the least valuable, point for point. My only query is whether 1. its lower value is enough to warrant wasting 9 points, especially since not all of the stats from a Mastery/Power stim are going to Mastery; 2. the value of alacrity is sufficiently high for DECEPTION to warrant wasting those points. To answer that, you/I/we would probably need to do testing for empirical data.

Lol'ing really hard at those Carnage 'nerfs.' Fury still unplayable next to Carnage it seems.

For the other people in the forum/my own intellectual curiosity, what evidence/logic do you have for its [mastery/power stim's] inefficiencies? On paper, Mastery/power is strictly more efficient as there are less wasted stats.

Merely was correcting you in you saying that you couldn't hit less than 759. In terms of damage co-efficients, it's actually pretty flexible, and I would argue that the case is by no means 'settled' on an optimal stat distribution/stim choice for all specs. Running Mastery/Power stim causes you to drop some points in Alacrity and Crit, but overall have 9 more points of efficiency, with raw numbers being higher. The benefits of that will change from spec to spec, but I'd argue that it is worth (at least testing) for classes who do not benefit completely from Alacrity (Deception being one of those, as two important cooldowns do not scale with alacrity [Phantom Stride and Force Cloak]). I could see the case being made for running more alacrity from the Acc/Crit stim on, say, a sniper (where all of their damage and cooldowns are affected by alacrity, meaning they maximally benefit from points apportioned to alacrity over raw output). The biggest determinant of damage is not 100 in a stat here or there when above quasi-soft caps, but in the random damage ranges of abilities. I mean, looking at arguably the top two snipers in game in 4.0 (imo Blas/Veldix), both ran radically different stat builds (one ran 600 less alacrity) and they pulled virtually identical numbers fight to fight. I'd also say that the weaker a player you are (i.e. if your apm is anything less than the ideal/maximum apm), the less benefit alacrity provides (doesn't matter if your gcds are 1% faster if you can't capitalise on that speed due to slower reactions). So, while you Evo are one of the strongest sins playing the game worldwide, other players may not reap the benefits of using such a high-alacrity build, and as such I'd caution advice which prioritises alacrity over all else.

Well, that went from 0-100 real quick You seem to be much more of a memer, my friend. And I didn't mean any offense, I feel like you went a little off the rails there. Yes I agree with you, but for 99% of the player base that does raid, given that Carnage is probably top 3 most difficult specs in the game, Anni is certainly serviceable for most fights. Don't see how that is incorrect, or a backtrack. Literally either of the two specs work for vast majority of fights, even pre 5.2. Like I said, Anni is still one of the best melee dps specs in game (unlike Fury). And of the two of us, I'd say you were far, far more rude than I was (which I dispute entirely, I think the only 'rude' thing I might have said was a wry 'lol' which was meant as humour rather than a dig at you).

Incorrect. Using master/power stim you can get 750 exactly.

Honestly, I think a big quality of life change to Fury/Carnage (and to healthily separate the two specs) would be to give Fury the Sunder Armor debuff, and Carnage the AoE damage debuff. This could better differentiate Carnage as the go-to aoe spec (especially since it ACTUALLY BENEFITS from AoE damage buffs in its single target rotation), and Fury as a quasi-burst spec with lackluster AoE (the weakest of the three specs). An armor debuff doesn't hugely help Carnage when they have a repeated buff which gives them the ability to ignore armor anyway... I'd like to see Massacre/Sweeping Slash apply the AoE debuff to damaged targets, and Raging Burst/Smash to apply Sunder Armor.

Eric, I'm a fan of these changes, I think they are a step in the right direction (assuming you and your team are hesitant to changing anything to a great degree). However, I think there are a couple redundancies in the spec itself which need to be sorted out. Chiefly among those is the +10% aoe damage debuff, which is basically useless in a single target situation (since no ability used rotationally benefits at all). Are there any plans to address this/make it useful rotationally? E.g. making obliterate do a small aoe cleave, and thus causing it to do more damage?

REPOSTED FROM CLASSES FORUM. Let me know your thoughts below. As a main mdps player for several NiM groups, I've watched the rebalancing/new balance philosophy that BW has taken with great interest. I was, however, concerned that their new approach was based on three arbitrary groupings (quasi-sustained, sustained, and burst). Though I disagree with this approach, on its own basis, there is a fundamental design error with the design AND designation of Focus/Rage for Sith Warriors/Jedi Knights. From this point, I'll only use the imperial terms for the classes, and analyse the two starting points for class design: beginning with Marauders, and beginning with Juggernauts. Now, if BW desires every Advanced Class to have access to, at the very least, both a sustained DPS and burst DPS specialisation, I think that is a good move.HOWEVER. The innate similarity of Rage and Fury poses a logical problem: If x = y, but y cannot = z, we have a contradiction if x = z AND x = y. This is the case with Rage and Fury, which, for all intents and purposes, are identical in how they operate and perform, yet are classified differently. This contradiction is doubly problematic because the basis for differentiation of specs could begin with with EITHER Marauders/Sentinels (1), OR Guardians/Juggernauts (2). 1. Annihilation and Carnage are already, I think unarguably, sufficiently differentiated, and epitomise the 'sustained' and 'burst' groupings that BW want to focus on. This leaves us with a problematic third spec which BW desires to be 'quasi-sustained,' and shared between the two Advanced classes. The easiest way to build such a spec from the ground up would be to give it unconditional and continuous burst windows, but weaker outputs in those windows, similar to how Fury exists today, but with perhaps one or two DoTs to manage (which is not the case). If Fury has as reliable target swaps/approximate burst to Carnage, Carnage will likely never see play under BW's model (as its output is strictly less in their model). Thus, Fury would need to have more of a 'sustained' than a 'burst' approach to give all three specialisations their own niche. Yet, since Rage would have to have roughly the same spec (if they want a shared spec between the classes), Rage would therefore overlap too greatly with Vengeance to see play IN A COMPETITIVE SETTING WHERE PERFORMANCE IS EVERYTHING (i.e. high end PvE, or Ranked PvP). Vengeance itself already has reasonable target swapping, and near-unparalleled AoE (with the exception of Carnage). This effectively invalidates the use of Rage for Juggernauts, because Vengeance overperforms in a sustained manner and Rage is not sufficiently differentiated in a 'burst' capacity from its counterpart. TL;DR If you want Fury as quasi-sustained as a priority, it would tend towards sustained over burst to not invalidate Carnage. Being shared with Juggernauts, this invalidates its use by them as Rage is not sufficiently differentiated from Vengeance as a 'burst spec' (TOO MUCH SUSTAINED). 2. If we start with Juggernauts, and design a Rage spec that epitomises a 'burst' approach, it would see some play, and would be able to coexist with Vengeance (having different strengths and weaknesses to its sustained counterpart). However, if the same spec exists for Marauders as Fury, it would be functionally a 'burst' spec that (a.) would never see play if it was inferior to Carnage, or (b.) only see play in burst situations as it is superior to Carnage. TL;DR If you want Rage as the burst counterpart to Vengeance for Juggernauts as a priority, it would be invalidated by Carnage if it were too weak, or invalidate Carnage if it were too strong, as it overlaps its role. Currently, the (2.) case reflects the state of play in, at the very least, high end PvE. Even though Rage is performing far better than it has in the past compared to Vengeance, its Marauder counterpart sees essentially no use in serious progression. It lacks the sustained damage of BOTH Carnage and Annihilation, AND the burst of Carnage. If it were to become stronger than Carnage due to rebalancing, it is unlikely Carnage would see play because Fury functions already as a 'burst spec' (since Rage does for Juggernauts). Conclusion: As Juggernauts and Marauders currently exist, I am of the opinion that 1 or more specs between the classes will be effectively invalidated by BW's design approach (the classes MUST share a spec, and Marauders MUST have a quasi-sustained spec). This is really worrying in relation to the upcoming balance changes, as the problem will be unlikely to be fixed; a new spec will become invalidated. However.... SOLUTIONS: 1. Forego the stipulation that Juggernauts and Marauders have to share a spec. This would allow Rage and Fury some design flexibility, and for Fury to carve out a unique niche for Marauders. Rage's burst could be amplified, and Fury's sustained damage could be amplified (while removing some of its burst). This would see that ALL 5 of the specs between the two classes would see some play TL;DR Rage no longer = Fury. Rage is more bursty, Fury is more sustained (but not nearly as much as Anni, perhaps making Force Crush an 18second Dot, and the Ravage bleed last 12 seconds). All specs would see play as they would not overlap. 2. Forego the stipulation that Marauders/Snipers need 1 burst, 1 sustained, and 1 quasi-sustained specialisation. IT IS OKAY IF TWO EXIST IN ONE CATEGORY BW! So long as they have defined/differentiated strengths and weaknesses (pre 5.3 Engineering/Virulence were almost there). Under that model, Fury and Rage could be buffed and treated BOTH as BURST SPECS ONLY, with a different area of strength to Carnage. In that way, all 5 specs would see play. TL;DR No more quasi-sustained. All specs will have their own niche if they have defined/unique strengths and weaknesses. Rage and Fury should function as Burst only. GRAND TL;DR BW's design approach to Fury means that 1 Marauder spec will always be worthless in a competitive setting, and 1 of 2 Juggernaut specs may be worthless. This can be easily fixed in one of two ways, either abandoning the need for the classes to functionally share a spec, or abandoning the need for quasi-sustained.

As a main mdps player for several NiM groups, I've watched the rebalancing/new balance philosophy that BW has taken with great interest. I was, however, concerned that their new approach was based on three arbitrary groupings (quasi-sustained, sustained, and burst). Though I disagree with this approach, on its own basis, there is a fundamental design error with the design AND designation of Focus/Rage for Sith Warriors/Jedi Knights. From this point, I'll only use the imperial terms for the classes, and analyse the two starting points for class design: beginning with Marauders, and beginning with Juggernauts. Now, if BW desires every Advanced Class to have access to, at the very least, both a sustained DPS and burst DPS specialisation, I think that is a good move.HOWEVER. The innate similarity of Rage and Fury poses a logical problem: If x = y, but y cannot = z, we have a contradiction if x = z AND x = y. This is the case with Rage and Fury, which, for all intents and purposes, are identical in how they operate and perform, yet are classified differently. This contradiction is doubly problematic because the basis for differentiation of specs could begin with with EITHER Marauders/Sentinels (1), OR Guardians/Juggernauts (2). 1. Annihilation and Carnage are already, I think unarguably, sufficiently differentiated, and epitomise the 'sustained' and 'burst' groupings that BW want to focus on. This leaves us with a problematic third spec which BW desires to be 'quasi-sustained,' and shared between the two Advanced classes. The easiest way to build such a spec from the ground up would be to give it unconditional and continuous burst windows, but weaker outputs in those windows, similar to how Fury exists today, but with perhaps one or two DoTs to manage (which is not the case). If Fury has as reliable target swaps/approximate burst to Carnage, Carnage will likely never see play under BW's model (as its output is strictly less in their model). Thus, Fury would need to have more of a 'sustained' than a 'burst' approach to give all three specialisations their own niche. Yet, since Rage would have to have roughly the same spec (if they want a shared spec between the classes), Rage would therefore overlap too greatly with Vengeance to see play IN A COMPETITIVE SETTING WHERE PERFORMANCE IS EVERYTHING (i.e. high end PvE, or Ranked PvP). Vengeance itself already has reasonable target swapping, and near-unparalleled AoE (with the exception of Carnage). This effectively invalidates the use of Rage for Juggernauts, because Vengeance overperforms in a sustained manner and Rage is not sufficiently differentiated in a 'burst' capacity from its counterpart. TL;DR If you want Fury as quasi-sustained as a priority, it would tend towards sustained over burst to not invalidate Carnage. Being shared with Juggernauts, this invalidates its use by them as Rage is not sufficiently differentiated from Vengeance as a 'burst spec' (TOO MUCH SUSTAINED). 2. If we start with Juggernauts, and design a Rage spec that epitomises a 'burst' approach, it would see some play, and would be able to coexist with Vengeance (having different strengths and weaknesses to its sustained counterpart). However, if the same spec exists for Marauders as Fury, it would be functionally a 'burst' spec that (a.) would never see play if it was inferior to Carnage, or (b.) only see play in burst situations as it is superior to Carnage. TL;DR If you want Rage as the burst counterpart to Vengeance for Juggernauts as a priority, it would be invalidated by Carnage if it were too weak, or invalidate Carnage if it were too strong, as it overlaps its role. Currently, the (2.) case reflects the state of play in, at the very least, high end PvE. Even though Rage is performing far better than it has in the past compared to Vengeance, its Marauder counterpart sees essentially no use in serious progression. It lacks the sustained damage of BOTH Carnage and Annihilation, AND the burst of Carnage. If it were to become stronger than Carnage due to rebalancing, it is unlikely Carnage would see play because Fury functions already as a 'burst spec' (since Rage does for Juggernauts). Conclusion: As Juggernauts and Marauders currently exist, I am of the opinion that 1 or more specs between the classes will be effectively invalidated by BW's design approach (the classes MUST share a spec, and Marauders MUST have a quasi-sustained spec). This is really worrying in relation to the upcoming balance changes, as the problem will be unlikely to be fixed; a new spec will become invalidated. However.... SOLUTIONS: 1. Forego the stipulation that Juggernauts and Marauders have to share a spec. This would allow Rage and Fury some design flexibility, and for Fury to carve out a unique niche for Marauders. Rage's burst could be amplified, and Fury's sustained damage could be amplified (while removing some of its burst). This would see that ALL 5 of the specs between the two classes would see some play TL;DR Rage no longer = Fury. Rage is more bursty, Fury is more sustained (but not nearly as much as Anni, perhaps making Force Crush an 18second Dot, and the Ravage bleed last 12 seconds). All specs would see play as they would not overlap. 2. Forego the stipulation that Marauders/Snipers need 1 burst, 1 sustained, and 1 quasi-sustained specialisation. IT IS OKAY IF TWO EXIST IN ONE CATEGORY BW! So long as they have defined/differentiated strengths and weaknesses (pre 5.3 Engineering/Virulence were almost there). Under that model, Fury and Rage could be buffed and treated BOTH as BURST SPECS ONLY, with a different area of strength to Carnage. In that way, all 5 specs would see play. TL;DR No more quasi-sustained. All specs will have their own niche if they have defined/unique strengths and weaknesses. Rage and Fury should function as Burst only. GRAND TL;DR BW's design approach to Fury means that 1 Marauder spec will always be worthless in a competitive setting, and 1 of 2 Juggernaut specs may be worthless. This can be easily fixed in one of two ways, either abandoning the need for the classes to functionally share a spec, or abandoning the need for quasi-sustained.

I Hope that the (very likely) nerf to Carnage comes in the form of a nerf to Ataru Form proc damage, or Massacre damage, so as not to ruin the 'feel' of the spec (fast, demanding, high skill requirement etc.). I'll be extremely disappointed if we see nerfs to Gore/DB, or even worse, a removal/rebalancing of 'clipping.' I think Fury as it is designed currently is really problematic for distinguishing the three Marauder specs into 3 tiers of 'Burst' vs 'sustained.' I think some fundamental redesign of it (independent of Rage) is required more than any buffs or nerfs.

Needs a tl;dr lol

Vast majority of player base has no idea how most specs work tbh People crying about how Arsenal is underpowered currently in PvE in the Arsenal threat for example... Or someone arguing with Evolixe + me (Jaek) about how Hatred is viable for NiM calph, styrak and brontes and can meet all checks on it without being carried.