RDM thoughts and tuning needed

[snipski]

Mass ressing ppl in 24 man isnt a thing anymore because the mana issue it was abit broken for that purpose though.

[Archwizard]

So I suppose it should be pointed out:

It seems likely to me the reason Enchanted Reprise was nerfed was because, for the interval between getting Reprise and Scorch, you could potentially get more raw damage out of 80/80 Mana's worth of 300p Reprises than the melee combo.

Now obviously this isn't accounting for things like number of GCDs spent, but on its face it's 2400p vs 1570p + Verfinisher returns (around 1800 total?), where the nerf puts it at 1760p which is a very close but small loss compared to the pre-Scorch combo.

Just felt it was worth mentioning, since the calculations for the value of Mana do take into account the existence of Scorch.

To combat this I would perhaps propose swapping Reprise and Enhanced Contre Sixte in the leveling order (so this is only a concern for 2 levels instead of four, and a singular dungeon I think), or maybe adding a trait at level 80 to buff Reprise.

[Zyneste]

So I suppose it should be pointed out:

It seems likely to me the reason Enchanted Reprise was nerfed was because, for the interval between getting Reprise and Scorch, you could potentially get more raw damage out of 80/80 Mana's worth of 300p Reprises than the melee combo.

Now obviously this isn't accounting for things like number of GCDs spent, but on its face it's 2400p vs 1570p + Verfinisher returns (around 1800 total?), where the nerf puts it at 1760p which is a very close but small loss compared to the pre-Scorch combo.

You have to account for the seconds or GCDs spent. Thats how damage works.

Classes are also not balanced for leveling. They need to meet certain goals like having decent AOE and ST, but some mechanics just don't fit in until cap.

Reprise though at 300 potency is 136 PPS.

Riposte is 140 PPS. [Already better than reprise when you consider you'll be doing a full melee combo.]
Zwercchau is 193 PPS.

The pattern continues. It only goes up.

Moulinet is 133 PPS. It is literally 3PPS behind old Reprise.

They changed Reprise so that it would be more costly to use DPS wise and thats it. Its sad really because instead of thinking "Well it could be worse. At least I have reprise for this" Im thinking "Welp thats setting back my deeps. I hate myself for using it."

[Leidiriv]

So I suppose it should be pointed out:

It seems likely to me the reason Enchanted Reprise was nerfed was because, for the interval between getting Reprise and Scorch, you could potentially get more raw damage out of 80/80 Mana's worth of 300p Reprises than the melee combo.

Now obviously this isn't accounting for things like number of GCDs spent, but on its face it's 2400p vs 1570p + Verfinisher returns (around 1800 total?), where the nerf puts it at 1760p which is a very close but small loss compared to the pre-Scorch combo.

Just felt it was worth mentioning, since the calculations for the value of Mana do take into account the existence of Scorch.

To combat this I would perhaps propose swapping Reprise and Enhanced Contre Sixte in the leveling order (so this is only a concern for 2 levels instead of four, and a singular dungeon I think), or maybe adding a trait at level 80 to buff Reprise.

The melee combo isn't meant to be competing around 8 Reprises, since it refunds 35 of the 160 mana spent on it, leaving it at an effective cost of 125 mana. The melee combo is competing with 6.25 Reprises, which means that even at 300 potency Reprise is still a pretty big loss over the melee combo.

[Archwizard]

The melee combo isn't meant to be competing around 8 Reprises, since it refunds 35 of the 160 mana spent on it, leaving it at an effective cost of 125 mana. The melee combo is competing with 6.25 Reprises, which means that even at 300 potency Reprise is still a pretty big loss over the melee combo.

Murky waters there. Yes, it is a lower effective cost, but you still need that 160 mana to cast it in the first place, which is why I would argue the 7/28 Mana returned is part of the combo's damage output rather than its cost input.

And hey, I'm not saying "Oh well they can't buff it because it would be stronger than the combo", just that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the grounds for their logic given the very specific number chosen. I simply pointed out that even by that logic, if I'm right about the motivation which I very much could be wrong, there could still be allowances made for a worthwhile form of Reprise.

[Leidiriv]

Murky waters there. Yes, it is a lower effective cost, but you still need that 160 mana to cast it in the first place, which is why I would argue the 7/28 Mana returned is part of the combo's damage output rather than its cost input.

And hey, I'm not saying "Oh well they can't buff it because it would be stronger than the combo", just that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the grounds for their logic given the very specific number chosen. I simply pointed out that even by that logic, if I'm right about the motivation which I very much could be wrong, there could still be allowances made for a worthwhile form of Reprise.

The problem with saying that it still costs 160 is that in every instance, the 35 is generated for you. There's no scenario, barring the start of a fight (which is solved by Manafication anyway) where you actually have to generate the 80/80 the combo costs. The 35 may not be part of the cost input for the current combo, but it absolutely is for the NEXT combo.

And yeah, I am willing to bet that Reprise was originally designed by someone who works on RDM extensively, then someone who doesn't work on RDM as much saw the raw potency and was basically like "hey, 8 of that is stronger than the melee combo, fix it". I'm just hoping it gets brought back to where it's supposed to be, because as it stands it's a very fun button to use and WOULD fit perfectly in the 120s rotation, but it feels terrible having Moulinet be more efficient than it.

[Almandaragal]

Adding in my two gil that the MP regen is definitely either too low, spell cost too high, or Lucid Dreaming's potency is too low.

I've read elsewhere that the MP regen is still the same percentage, so while it's theoretically not that, the massive reduction in MP has of course caused it to feel that way.

Spell cost went down by 10-20% from what I can see, but they cut our MP pool by far more than that, and while we can technically get about a 25% increase on MP regen of Lucid Dreaming if we keep it on strict cooldown, it definitely doesn't make up for the drastic cut the magic classes had to their MP pools. Sure, Verraise is now "only" 2400 MP, but that's now essentially a quarter of our MP pool.

On top of that, if we die, even popping a Lucid Dreaming doesn't really do enough to keep us casting at full tilt, because we burn MP faster than it can generate. You have to hope for down time to get some MP back, or stand around being idle and hope that the healer can keep you topped off in your weakness so as not to die from the next roomwide.

I think some simple MP cost reduction would go a long way, since touching Lucid Dreaming would affect way more than just RDM.

Outside of that, things do feel like they're dying a bit slow, but that's always the case with lower gear levels, and it really just seems like they're never really going to gives us a DPS bump of any sort because of our "potential" utility, even if that's been disemboweled with the MP changes.

[Rongway]

The 35 may not be part of the cost input for the current combo, but it absolutely is for the NEXT combo.

If you're going to look at it that way (and I recommend we do), you also need to account for the mana that would have been generated by the spells you're not casting during the combo. This puts the effective cost of a full melee combo at about 163 mana, as the melee combo expends 160 and generates 35 in the time that you could have generated 38 mana by casting spells.

Spell cost went down by 10-20% from what I can see, but they cut our MP pool by far more than that, and while we can technically get about a 25% increase on MP regen of Lucid Dreaming if we keep it on strict cooldown, it definitely doesn't make up for the drastic cut the magic classes had to their MP pools. Sure, Verraise is now "only" 2400 MP, but that's now essentially a quarter of our MP pool.

It's funny that you use Verraise as your example, because Verraise is the one spell that's actually in a better position now.

But anyway for anyone who wants it, here's a comparison of our costs pre-/post- ShB.

Spell         SB cost    SB cost%    ShB cost    ShB cost%    Change
Jolt              360      2.500%         300       3.000%      +20%
Verstone          360      2.500%         300       3.000%      +20%
Verfire           360      2.500%         300       3.000%      +20%
Veraero           480      3.333%         400       4.000%      +20%
Verthunder        480      3.333%         400       4.000%      +20%
Verholy           600      4.167%         500       5.000%      +20%
Verflare          600      4.167%         500       5.000%      +20%
Scorch           ----      -----          500       5.000%      ----
Vercure           600      4.167%         500       5.000%      +20%
Scatter           480      3.333%         400       4.000%      +20%
Verraise         3600     25.000%        2400      24.000%       -4%

[Leidiriv]

If you're going to look at it that way (and I recommend we do), you also need to account for the mana that would have been generated by the spells you're not casting during the combo. This puts the effective cost of a full melee combo at about 163 mana, as the melee combo expends 160 and generates 35 in the time that you could have generated 38 mana by casting spells.

The problem with looking at the generation is that if you look at the generation in the melee combo, it's all hypothetical mana because you will overcap in that case. Mana wasted on overcapping has a potency of 0. Additionally, the reason we consider mana that could have been generated in the time spent on a weaponskill is because that mana could have been built toward a melee combo, and you can't build very far at all toward another melee combo in place of doing the melee combo.

[Rongway]

The problem with looking at the generation is that if you look at the generation in the melee combo, it's all hypothetical mana because you will overcap in that case. Mana wasted on overcapping has a potency of 0. Additionally, the reason we consider mana that could have been generated in the time spent on a weaponskill is because that mana could have been built toward a melee combo, and you can't build very far at all toward another melee combo in place of doing the melee combo.

There exists a mana range (20-180) where you could either execute a weaponskill or cast spells. That those weaponskills are the wrong choice during much of this range is irrelevant; they are usable. There's also a range (160-180ish) where you could execute a combo or continue to cast spells. Because of this, all that "hypothetical" mana is real mana.