Level 70 Bracket: BRACE YOURSELF! HERES 5.3!

Rommtor, do you really think this bracklet is good now ? Huh, rogues was enough op last patch same with prot warrios and i see you have rolled them both. That nice of you. You'll see i have a priest right ? but i dont play on it cuz it is so fking boring to play shadow i only played disc. My pally is holy / ret. Just saying if you are going to start argumenting.
i dont think its good i just like that i can kill healers now and i didnt reroll either of those classes i had the war at 70 since wotlk and the rogue was some random toon i found at lvl 64 mid cata so decided to make it 70
edit: changed my mind i do like this patch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My hunter must enjoy the new PvP, 3K Multi-shots with 8K Imp serpent sting DoTs.

Let's kill some healers!
 
i got a 17k hit from rogue, i wondering that i survie so long to collect 5 combo points...

prot pally, rogues and disc priest are the absolutely godclasses atm.

I dont like this play style, but i guess more players will play in this braket. The normal player like to oneshot others.

we will see it, bane or blessings.

Oneshoting sucks, but more players will be fine for this braket.
 
res is okey for now, but im still gonna wait till they fix healing and dmg while playing my lvl 90 man (yes this is my main, sharlindra is no more).
 
Stamina can only increase your effective health, but resilience can increase your longevity.

So at this point, it is still quite unclear whether healers should stack stamina at all. I'd say 50% resilience is minimum.
 
Stamina can only increase your effective health, but resilience can increase your longevity.

So at this point, it is still quite unclear whether healers should stack stamina at all. I'd say 50% resilience is minimum.

50% cost 440 Resi = dmg reduce for 10%
440 Stamina increase HP pool for 4200 hp with 40% dmg reduce

with each point more resi, loses this value.

a player with 40% base resi and additional 4200 hp survive always longer as a player with 50% resi without 4200 extra hp.

thats the reason why stamina gems > resi gems
 
50% cost 440 Resi = dmg reduce for 10%
440 Stamina increase HP pool for 4200 hp with 40% dmg reduce

with each point more resi, loses this value.

a player with 40% base resi and additional 4200 hp survive always longer as a player with 50% resi without 4200 extra hp.

thats the reason why stamina gems > resi gems

Let's look at some scenarios with your numbers(which are wrong to begin with), shall we?

Let's say a priest's health is 14000 at 40% resilience, now i can have 10% more resilience, i.e., 50% resilience, or 18200 health.

First option gives me 14000/0.5=28000 effective health.

Second option gives me 18200/0.6=30333 effective health.

So on the surface it seems that the second option is slightly superior (2k more effective health). but wait, a priest is most likely shielded. and can receive heals. Let's say the shield is 10k and he heals himself for 50k before he dies, now let's check again.

First option gives me (14000+10000+50000)/0.5=148000 effective health.

Second option gives me (18200+10000+50000)/0.6=130333 effective health.

So first option actually offers 18k more effective health.

So unless you get hit for a number that's between 28000 and 30333 before you shield youself, the first option is always superior.

But this bracket is so bursty that the damage you receive before you can do anything is probably so high that if it's above 28000, it is most likely going to be above 30333 too, so the second option is plainly worse.
 
this bracket seems to bursty... hunter / rogue damage is insane. Do u think a prot pally is still viable (in arena)
 
Played some games as ele disc, ele shadow and mage disc.
Gotta say this may actually be the first time i don't wanna play the bracket. I thought 20% resil would at most bring us back to cata damage. But it's much worse :S
Some examples would be a prot paladin who wasn't even on me just randomly turning his face in my direction and critting me for 9k then 8k, it was 100->0 instantly. Another game i got 100->0 by an elemental shaman, the next second my teammate oneshots the other teams SP and a second later he gets oneshot >.> Seriously 3 people dropped in under 4 seconds.

It should be noted i was wearing 650 ish resil during the games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I shouldn't be coming back just to make this argument, but your numbers are wrong too, as they're based off of his. 440 resi is worth 440*1.5 stamina, or 660. This is an increase of nearly 7k hp (11 hp per stamina if I'm not wrong), so the difference is much, much smaller. Agree with you completely, but it's not as clear cut as you might think.
 
I shouldn't be coming back just to make this argument, but your numbers are wrong too, as they're based off of his. 440 resi is worth 440*1.5 stamina, or 660. This is an increase of nearly 7k hp (11 hp per stamina if I'm not wrong), so the difference is much, much smaller. Agree with you completely, but it's not as clear cut as you might think.

I was using his numbers, which i considered "wrong to begin with", look at his post...

50% cost 440 Resi = dmg reduce for 10%
440 Stamina increase HP pool for 4200 hp with 40% dmg reduce

with each point more resi, loses this value.

a player with 40% base resi and additional 4200 hp survive always longer as a player with 50% resi without 4200 extra hp.

thats the reason why stamina gems > resi gems
 
And the starting figures are just fine. What you didn't do was make them appropriate to your own math.

If I wanted my numbers to be exact/correct, I would have needed more data and precision.

I wasn't trying to come up with a ground-breaking theorem, I was simply trying to prove him wrong, under his assumptions.
 
If I wanted my numbers to be exact/correct, I would have needed more data and precision.

I wasn't trying to come up with a ground-breaking theorem, I was simply trying to prove him wrong, under his assumptions.

What point is there in having more precision? You're already at 5 s.f, and you'd only be more specific if you talked in decimal percent (which is largely irrelevent). Sure you proved him wrong, but without using correct numbers. That almost makes your proof wrong, too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top