Damage Over Time Changes - Part 1

"

Bananaplasm wrote:

The concept alone is just pure shit. I wonder if anyone even remotely thought this through.

"

grepman wrote:

"

xX999Xx wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

nowhere did they say that low amount of increased aoe with the new changes would have overall MORE benefit than the old values at same increased %. which is what you have for the first 6 squares or so (whatever the scale is)

They SAID exactly that, it WILL not affect players that do not HEAVILY invest into AoE!
Look at almost all skills baseline AoE without any invest into AoE they are TRASH, and Skills that got no love (AoE per level) they are COMPLETELY GUTTED

THIS IS EXACTLY what Chris Wilson said in an interview...

this doesnt contradict what I said. your graph on the left has MORE benefit after than before with a low aoe increase before f(g)=f(r) @ x=6. this contradicts, however, GGG's statement. nowhere have they said that new AOE people who dont invest much aoe will have MORE benefit.

according to graph on the left, GGG 'promised' doubled effective AoE if investment of increases is low enough... @x=3 your f(r) is TWICE that of f(g) assuming linear uniform scale. nowhere did they say that at low increase levels you'd get twice aoe. stop this madness. f(r) from their promises would always be strictly lower than f(g). that graph is trash, sorry bro.


also I couldnt care less if you take me seriously or not; but Ill say this, if you are of an opinion that nerfs are inferior compared to buffs, because they are nerfs...remind me to not take you seriously when talking about balance, ok thx.