how could the initial form of the mage tier 10 set bonuses get out of a design meeting?

15% damage buff for 10 seconds on an ability that triggers the gcd? gcd 1.5 seconds thats 15% of the time of the buff thats 15% damage? maybe with haste and low latency you get above break even. I really wonder what the thinking was behind it.

As for the haste after mbarr, hotstreak etc, I can really see your theme of mages being stand there and cast, I seem to remember that from the class Q&A we had, the 6 seconds on AB hurts when ever you have to move and with many stop casting mechanics it is very easy to lose the stack, would it really hurt to let us be a bit more mobile, most fights seem to be built arround not being able to stand there and cast.

---

Q u o t e:
15% damage buff for 10 seconds on an ability that triggers the gcd? gcd 1.5 seconds thats 15% of the time of the buff thats 15% damage? maybe with haste and low latency you get above break even. I really wonder what the thinking was behind it.

---

I'm scratching my head. Help me understand the bolded statement. Even with 500ms latency and no haste you'd get 8 seconds of a 15% damage increase. What's counteracting that to make it so you can't even "break even"?

the 1.5 seconds he spends using the button to activate the +damage

problem is, the OP doesn't see the benefit in STACKING +damage with +haste buffs. GFG

---

Q u o t e:
the 1.5 seconds he spends using the button to activate the +damage

problem is, the OP doesn't see the benefit in STACKING +damage with +haste buffs. GFG

---

It still doesn't make sense. Even 8 seconds of 15% damage is well above "break even". It's all a net gain.

Fake edit: And in truth it's 30 seconds, not 10.

---

Q u o t e:

I'm scratching my head. Help me understand the bolded statement. Even with 500ms latency and no haste you'd get 8 seconds of a 15% damage increase. What's counteracting that to make it so you can't even "break even"?

---

for simple math unbuffed dps = 1000

10 seconds dps is 10 000

lose gcd off 10 second you got 8.5 seconds of 15% buffed damage
so 1000 x 1.15 x 8.5 = 9 775


btw: was asking how the original could even get as far as it did before being changed.

and yeah i question the usefullness of a "buff" when you look at it alone and it is a dps loss.

Edit: Ah, this was in relation to the original 10s. The explanation makes sense now.

btw, what is the DPS gain from Mirror Image as it is now?

Meh, they responded to feedback with alacrity on this, I wouldn't take them to task for it.

I remain unthrilled by the basic concept behind this MI business, but at least the damage is there now. It took literally less than 24 hours for them to adjust the numbers. That's fairly impressive turnaround.

---

Q u o t e:


btw: was asking how the original could even get as far as it did before being changed.

---

almost all the data-mined tier bonuses are placeholders. the numbers themselves are unofficial and in many cases improbable.

---

Q u o t e:
and yeah i question the usefullness of a "buff" when you look at it alone and it is a dps loss.

---

at 10seconds, it evens out. at 30seconds, it's a buff. when you actually play smart and stack your cd's, it's a huge buff.

---

Q u o t e:

30 seconds = 30 000

28.5 * 1.15 * 1000 = 32775

That's ignoring the extra damage coming from the Mirror Images.

---

I know it has been changed to something that is useful what i am asking is HOW it even got as far as it did in the orginal form,

30seconds @18% bonus damage is useful yes no arguement also not my question.

how could 10 seconds @ 15% even been considered in the first place is my question

There is a sticky for set bonus feedback. They put it there so they could like... find it.

AHEM

---

Q u o t e:


how could 10 seconds @ 15% even been considered in the first place is my question

---

---

Q u o t e:
almost all the data-mined tier bonuses are placeholders. the numbers themselves are unofficial and in many cases improbable

---

---

Q u o t e:
AHEM

---

then why did bornakk post it in that form if it was a known placeholder?

that's why they call it testing?

Don't expect perfection on the first pass.

The process worked here. A problem was rapidly identified and corrected. I really don't see any grounds for complaint on that score.

(My gripe is over the use of MI for this in the first place, but that's an entirely different rant.)

---

Q u o t e:
then why did bornakk post it in that form if it was a known placeholder?

---

There were a few that were screwy and surely placeholders. There are some that still have the "for until canceled" placeholder text. This could be the case here but who knows? They may have just started low so they could buff instead of starting high and having to nerf.

---

Q u o t e:



then why did bornakk post it in that form if it was a known placeholder?

---

its called common sense for example the original lava burst cd reduction was 15 sec ...the cd on it is 8, not to mention data minded bonuses from the first tr patch have never been correct

---

Q u o t e:
how could the initial form of the mage tier 10 set bonuses get out of a design meeting?

15% damage buff for 10 seconds on an ability that triggers the gcd? gcd 1.5 seconds thats 15% of the time of the buff thats 15% damage? maybe with haste and low latency you get above break even. I really wonder what the thinking was behind it.

---

Dev 1: Hey, I think the bonus should be 15% more damage for 8 seconds
Dev 2: Cool, how about when you use Mirror Image?
Dev 1: But Mirror Image is on the GCD!
Dev 2: Okay, bump the duration up to 10 seconds.

I think it is weird to assume that they wanted 10 seconds of increased damage, and that that number hadn't already been modified.

Honestly, for the most part , T10 bonuses "seem" better than T9 - except for Priest 4pc T10 which is bad for holy imo.

They're pvp set bonuses.