Since Nibbon has quit: Sage/Sorcerer Top issues discussion

[Chemic_al]

Similar thing happened again, relevant bit from Parsec log:

 

03:15:24.611 You gain Susceptible from Subteroth

03:15:24.612 Subteroth hits you with Energy Discharge for 12,641 kinetic damage

03:15:27.144 You lose Subteroth's Susceptible effect

03:15:27.158 Subteroth hits you with Energy Discharge for 44,474 kinetic damage

03:15:27.158 Subteroth kills you

 

Notice how previous susceptible effect is LOST before Energy Discharge, and it still hits for 44k.

The combat log shows Subteroth Explosion as 44k as the thing that killed us, and it was definitely only one.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Chemic_al

[judgeender]

Looks to me like you get hit by a Subteroth exploding and gain Susceptible. 2.5 seconds later you get hit by a second one exploding (while still having the debuff). The debuff lasts much longer than 2.5 seconds normally. Although a bit out of order, the entry "03:15:27.144 You lose Subteroth's Susceptible effect" is associated with your actual death as you lose all buffs and debuffs at that time. Those things often show up before the actual death entry even though it is associated with the death itself.

[Chemic_al]

Yeah I guess, except I only had aggro on one, and there were no other ones near so I don't know.

 

It's still BS, the explosion is always 12,641 kinetic damage in the log.

 

12,641+200% damage is 37,900 or so which you live through at full health. It shouldn't be 44k+ in any case.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Chemic_al

[Gyronamics]

Similar thing happened again, relevant bit from Parsec log:

 

03:15:24.611 You gain Susceptible from Subteroth

03:15:24.612 Subteroth hits you with Energy Discharge for 12,641 kinetic damage

03:15:27.144 You lose Subteroth's Susceptible effect

03:15:27.158 Subteroth hits you with Energy Discharge for 44,474 kinetic damage

03:15:27.158 Subteroth kills you

 

Notice how previous susceptible effect is LOST before Energy Discharge, and it still hits for 44k.

The combat log shows Subteroth Explosion as 44k as the thing that killed us, and it was definitely only one.

 

Unless your bubble is absorbing a galactic amount then the normal hit on you from a subteroth is ~12k and taking a debuffed hit wiped you out.

 

No DPS or healer can take a normal hit then a second boosted hit without using a cheese ability and sage already has a cheese ability you could have used.

 

Yeah I guess, except I only had aggro on one, and there were no other ones near so I don't know.

 

It's still BS, the explosion is always 12,641 kinetic damage in the log.

 

12,641+200% damage is 37,900 or so which you live through at full health. It shouldn't be 44k+ in any case.

 

You're forgetting about your own mitigation of about 15-16%

 

Taking two hits is meant to kill a non-tank. NiM mechanics punish failure to obey by instakilling you.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Gyronamics

[AdrianDmitruk]

At this point I would think so. Besides what people have posted here, I've looked back over the Sage and Sorc forums and these issues come up again and again. I'm going to try to refine them more, but I think these topics should be the 3. 2.7 dealt with some serious QoL issues and took some stuff off the table, like Balance force issues.

 

EDITS ARE UP. I'VE MOVED THE DISCUSSION OF THE SET BONUSES TO FEEDBACK.

 

I would like to bulk that section up, so if you have concerns with set bonuses, please post comments.

 

The set bonuses really are a seer spec issue. I can see why you moved them to feedback (to allow a broader discussion of PVP set bonuses being lackluster for every spec, to the point where we literally think about taking the other AC's stalker bonus--ridiculous!) but it is particularly glaring for seer and deserves a specific reference there. Please add a cross-reference in the seer question.

[judgeender]

I like the set bonuses as a feedback rather than full question. My concern is if you only mention the seer set bonuses, they may not realize that others are a problem/concern. From a dps perspective, I would at least add a mention that the "4pc PvP Force Master is seen as rather lackluster" with most people choosing other options. I think the PvE dps set bonuses are generally fine.

 

Also the second sentence under skill tax, I believe the first word should be "And" not "An"

[johnbgood]

Unless your bubble is absorbing a galactic amount then the normal hit on you from a subteroth is ~12k and taking a debuffed hit wiped you out.

 

No DPS or healer can take a normal hit then a second boosted hit without using a cheese ability and sage already has a cheese ability you could have used.

...

 

actually our assault specialist vanguard aka offtank survived a second hit. he was healed to full with a sage bubble and had a rejuvinate/force shelter armor buff. the second hit took about 89% of his HP, you can see in the fist minute of our video.

nerf vanguard armor

[Darth_Dreselus]

actually our assault specialist vanguard aka offtank survived a second hit. he was healed to full with a sage bubble and had a rejuvinate/force shelter armor buff. the second hit took about 89% of his HP, you can see in the fist minute of our video.

nerf vanguard armor

 

He has 38k health and a bubble (7k) so that is consistent with the 44,474 Chemic reported. He also has Force Shelter increasing his armour even further. In fact a bubbled Sage on 100% would survive 44k.

[Ycoga]

In fact a bubbled Sage on 100% would survive 44k.

Then... is there really a problem. :/

[AlrikFassbauer]

The issue is that, in NiM Ops, there are numerous examples of random damage (one or more members are targetted to take a hit) or AOE damage (whole raid gets hit). In many cases, those attacks deal damage that is mitigated by armor. That means that on those hits/multiple hits in many AOE cases, sages/sorcs take more damage from each hit.

 

Maybe it should be stated specifically that these raid modes are meant ?

Edited April 16, 2014 by AlrikFassbauer

[KeyboardNinja]

Maybe it should be stated specifically that these raid modes are meant ?

 

It happens in all modes. It's just that, as with many NiM mechanics, you simply don't notice when the margins aren't tight enough to punish minor deviations (like a single GCD sacrificed).

[Master-Nala]

I like the set bonuses as a feedback rather than full question. My concern is if you only mention the seer set bonuses, they may not realize that others are a problem/concern. From a dps perspective, I would at least add a mention that the "4pc PvP Force Master is seen as rather lackluster" with most people choosing other options. I think the PvE dps set bonuses are generally fine.

 

Also the second sentence under skill tax, I believe the first word should be "And" not "An"

 

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for on that section. Could anyone else opine on this. PvE set bonuses especially since I'm not as familiar with how those play out.

[Mr_Fuzzle]

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for on that section. Could anyone else opine on this. PvE set bonuses especially since I'm not as familiar with how those play out.

 

The PVE DPS set bonus is very nice if under-appreciated. The PVE heal set bonus is honestly extremely attractive with the 2 piece absolutely essential to play at a high level and perhaps a bit too attractive to PVP Seer Sages. Reduced cooldown on the largest net single target heal is huge in both environments. At the same time, the 4 piece is kind of just there. If you can manage Force with 650 Force, you can probably manage Force with 600 just as well. So overall, the 2 piece is amazing and the 4 piece is kind of meh.

[AdrianDmitruk]

The PVE DPS set bonus is very nice if under-appreciated. The PVE heal set bonus is honestly extremely attractive with the 2 piece absolutely essential to play at a high level and perhaps a bit too attractive to PVP Seer Sages. Reduced cooldown on the largest net single target heal is huge in both environments. At the same time, the 4 piece is kind of just there. If you can manage Force with 650 Force, you can probably manage Force with 600 just as well. So overall, the 2 piece is amazing and the 4 piece is kind of meh.

 

Well in fairness the 2 piece PVE bonus is attractive to seers mostly because the 4 piece PVP bonus for seers absolutely sucks to the point it may as well not exist. With bolster, there's literally no sacrifice made to take the 2 piece PVE bonus and everything to gain.

 

Change the 4 piece PVP bonus to eliminate health cost on noble sacrifice entirely, and switch the 2 and 4 piece around for PVE seers, and maybe we won't have that problem.

 

Also I didn't ask for the set bonus feedback to be completely moved back to seer. I just asked for it to be referenced there as it's a glaring problem with that one spec (and in no way diminishes the fact that set bonuses for other specs also suck). Something like, "We also suffer heavily from lackluster set bonuses in PVP; see discussion of set bonus feedback below" would have been fine.

 

But then the feedback would have to include more than the PVE/PVP set bonus imbalance for seer to get all specs' set bonuses looked at. Being thorough there is not a bad thing.

Edited April 16, 2014 by AdrianDmitruk

[MidichIorian]

Came across another experienced and geared sage healer who was struggling with the force management in an OPS today. At the same time I was just lololol'ing away at a much higher HPS and with no energy issues on scoundrel. This basically happens in every operation I'm in and when it doesnt it's usually because the sage is so conservative with the heals and even more behind in terms of HPS that it never becomes an issue. I'm personally never PvE healing on sage anymore because I can do the same thing better and smoother on scoundrel.

 

Hence, I would, again, add that to the seer issues in a more specific manner.

Edited April 16, 2014 by MidichIorian

[Mr_Fuzzle]

Well in fairness the 2 piece PVE bonus is attractive to seers mostly because the 4 piece PVP bonus for seers absolutely sucks to the point it may as well not exist. With bolster, there's literally no sacrifice made to take the 2 piece PVE bonus and everything to gain.

 

Change the 4 piece PVP bonus to eliminate health cost on noble sacrifice entirely, and switch the 2 and 4 piece around for PVE seers, and maybe we won't have that problem.

 

Also I didn't ask for the set bonus feedback to be completely moved back to seer. I just asked for it to be referenced there as it's a glaring problem with that one spec (and in no way diminishes the fact that set bonuses for other specs also suck). Something like, "We also suffer heavily from lackluster set bonuses in PVP; see discussion of set bonus feedback below" would have been fine.

 

But then the feedback would have to include more than the PVE/PVP set bonus imbalance for seer to get all specs' set bonuses looked at. Being thorough there is not a bad thing.

 

Feedback was asked for in the PVE perspective. As far as the PVE DPS set goes, it's very good as I said so why talk about anything other than Seer?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Mr_Fuzzle

[AdrianDmitruk]

Feedback was asked for in the PVE perspective. As far as the PVE DPS set goes, it's very good as I said so why talk about anything other than Seer?

 

I'm more familiar with the crappiness of PVP set bonuses, and tbh that is where most if not all of our set bonus issues are. All specs are incentivized to get either PVE set bonuses or the other advanced class' stalker set bonus, but the incentives might not be quite as obvious for DPS as they are for seer.

 

Saying "our set bonuses are fine for PVE" completely ignores where the problem is. PVE accounts for only half the set bonuses and PVPers appreciate having to run ops to get a viable set bonus about as much as hardcore PVErs enjoy grinding PVP for the practically-BiS relics.

[Darth_Dreselus]

Then... is there really a problem. :/

 

Honestly I don't really get what the point of the conversation was. Someone took 2 hits and died. Don't take 2 hits. Sorted.

[Ycoga]

Honestly I don't really get what the point of the conversation was. Someone took 2 hits and died. Don't take 2 hits. Sorted.

 

Not sure if sarcastic.

 

My view on the PVE question atm is that sages have survivability issues in certain PVE NiM conditions. I don't think the BW devs will make changes that affect all sages (e.g. moving stuff off GCD) just for these conditions.

 

They'd be better off just fixing the NiM mechanic.

 

So - are you sure you want to ask this question as it stands?

 

Would you prefer to ask them if they would please fix NiM mechanics so that Sages don't suffer disproportionate damage?

 

Is this really a survivability issue - or is it perhaps a NiM mechanics issue?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ycoga

[DarthSpekulatius]

Not sure if sarcastic.

 

My view on the PVE question atm is that sages have survivability issues in certain PVE NiM conditions. I don't think the BW devs will make changes that affect all sages (e.g. moving stuff off GCD) just for these conditions.

 

They'd be better off just fixing the NiM mechanic.

 

So - are you sure you want to ask this question as it stands?

 

Would you prefer to ask them if they would please fix NiM mechanics so that Sages don't suffer disproportionate damage?

 

Is this really a survivability issue - or is it perhaps a NiM mechanics issue?

if i Ignore the fact that its not allowed i'm playing with the thought of writing a macro that activates my Scoundrels and gunslingers Shield on CD (I'd need to change the CD every time i Respec though)

 

sages couldn't do that even if it was off the GCD

 

so when the smuggler Classes can have a Shield off GCD and a Dodge+Purge off GCD why cost ALL Sage Defensives a GCD?

[Ycoga]

If you're looking for a good class to macro with, apparently sentinel is good. Sage? Not so much. I can't see them making balance changes because people want to macro sages.

 

Anyway you didn't answer my previous question even when quoting it - stop trying to derail it.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ycoga

[DarthSpekulatius]

If you're looking for a good class to macro with, apparently sentinel is good. Sage? Not so much. I can't see them making balance changes because people want to macro sages.

 

Anyway you didn't answer my previous question even when quoting it - stop trying to derail it.

 

the part about writing a macro automating the Defense screen is more out of boredom then on topic the question asked at the end is what relates to your post

[Ycoga]

the part about writing a macro automating the Defense screen is more out of boredom then on topic the question asked at the end is what relates to your post

 

Right, so - would you mind answering these questions if you want to continue the conversation?:

 

So - are you sure you want to ask this question as it stands?

 

Would you prefer to ask them if they would please fix NiM mechanics so that Sages don't suffer disproportionate damage?

 

Is this really a survivability issue - or is it perhaps a NiM mechanics issue?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ycoga

[DarthSpekulatius]

do you actually play a Sage and were never bothered by the fact you don't have anything you can do to reduce damage you know is coming without triggering a GCD (reducing your own DPS/HPS)?

 

the Force cost all by itself will keep Balance Sages from brainlessly spamming it like Smugglers can.

 

if you have to ask if it's a NIM specific problem I don't think you play a Sage, at all.

my sage is my third Healer and I suck as a Sage DPS but even for me it's obvious something is wrong there.

[Ycoga]

do you actually play a Sage and were never bothered by the fact you don't have anything you can do to reduce damage you know is coming without triggering a GCD (reducing your own DPS/HPS)?

 

the Force cost all by itself will keep Balance Sages from brainlessly spamming it like Smugglers can.

 

if you have to ask if it's a NIM specific problem I don't think you play a Sage, at all.

my sage is my third Healer and I suck as a Sage DPS but even for me it's obvious something is wrong there.

Well... youre avoiding answering the questions so I guess there's no more conversation to be had here.