Blade of Carnage drop on beta

[Ele]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With a 1.5s cooldown, N rogues will last (ignoring backstab/riposte issues) 1.5N seconds and do roughly 1.5N * (N/2) * 50 total damage. With 1M hp for the AoW, solving gives N=163 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

By our Ragebringers combined, we are Captain Backstab.

[Daldaen]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With a 1.5s cooldown, N rogues will last (ignoring backstab/riposte issues) 1.5N seconds and do roughly 1.5N * (N/2) * 50 total damage. With 1M hp for the AoW, solving gives N=163 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are some zerg guilds for sure. But I think even when Velious drops any guild would be hard pressed to break 100 players.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are some zerg guilds for sure. But I think even when Velious drops any guild would be hard pressed to break 100 players.

We need to let the ghosts free!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[koros]

Originally Posted by Treats [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah IDK, his ATK had to have been off the charts considering Luclin AA's.

With the hard cap at 289 AC your warriors had to have that very early on in Velious. Mitigation couldn't have been the problem, it was having enough total HP to survive the RNG spikes.

Doubt you would let some cleric in the chain with a shitty connection that couldn't make heals. It's not even possible to account for human error in these numbers anyway.

From a classic standpoint, anyone trying to tank him with under 6500-7000 HP should probably just get smashed. Sure you could survive some rounds but eventually the RNG will catch up. You could have 200 Rogues with Ragebringers but if he's not being tanked and running around slaughtering people it doesn't even matter.

Factor in his AC also resulting in a terribly long duration you wouldn't have enough mana anyway.

I'm sure you attempted him multiple times after they nerfed the charm in Kael Rais? If you couldn't kill him before you did I'm sure there was a pretty good reason why.

You didn't use Frozen guy because of HP to tank AoW, he just put out the most DPS because of CHA buff haha.

Which mobs were Frozen Jesus and Frozen Moses? I used to hang out in FoH irc but they were pretty tight-lipped. Was it frozenshard + a cha buff and Frozen Moses that lieutenant mob who just had a lot of hp?

[Ele]

Originally Posted by koros [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which mobs were Frozen Jesus and Frozen Moses? I used to hang out in FoH irc but they were pretty tight-lipped. Was it frozenshard + a cha buff and Frozen Moses that lieutenant mob who just had a lot of hp?

Fjokar Frozenshard pre-nerf

[pasi]

This thread comes up every couple of months.

It's always people arguing their feelings from way back versus people actually running the numbers. It's almost as if y'all are trying to get a sense of purpose by pretending this content was more than it was.

[Daldaen]

People are being far too scientific and not pragmatic enough.

Sure an awful round of quad/flurry of Max hits may not 1-round a defensive tank. And 200 epic'd rogues may kill him in 2 minutes.

But CH rotations - even with our stellar Internet - can have hiccups, tank swaps can occasionally be unclean, Warriors can lose Aggro near the end of defensive even with a full mallet, etc etc

You all aren't really accounting for the human element. And as much as you all love to say your guild is full of pros who never make mistakes and are the most competent and knowledgeable players, every guild has some down-right awful raiders who cannot perform some of their most basic functions. Beyond the one or two awful raiders, each guild has a handful of mediocre raiders as well. You don't all have 200 ex-raid leaders who know every mechanic, every class, every strategy, etc.

The AoW kills in Velious were almost all done with charmed Giants tanking, not warriors. I expect charmed Giants will again, on P99, be the tanks to kill AoW the first few times. It's just going to come down to how many competent enchanters there are, whether clerics have mana, and whether a few little exploits in charming will function here like they did on live.

[Rais]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The AoW kills in Velious were almost all done with charmed Giants tanking, not warriors.

Wrong. We rotated warriors out with rangers using weapon shield in between warriors switching/gain agro/get heal chain on them. He was killed only 2 times in Velious.

Wrong again. The Ac gains/Hps/items from sleepers/tov are what provided the ability to kill him. Not some zerg using super internet with theory quested numbers thinking they know what the encounter was like. It pains me seeing your posts saying how things should be, when you have never even been there in the first place to see.

[pasi]

For what its worth, VZTZ2.0 PoSky basically had a mob that was a death touching Avatar of War with less HP/AC. It was killed by a bunch of us at 50 with classic pet aggro. The idea being that it doesn't matter if a mob hits for 1000 or 6000, if it can only kill a single target (in other words, no AE) every ~2 seconds, you can kill it with enough pets provided it doesn't outregen the damage output.

This is how close to how Rallos Zek killed Kera (substituting pet deaths/summonings with player deaths/cleric epics) who was un-tankable even with Stonewall.

The numbers aren't made up and the encounter isn't anything more than those numbers directed at a single player. That's all. Y'all are over-complicating this.

I agree with the fact that there is a possibility for human error. However, you can keep a defensive tank up against Avatar of War with a 1 second CHeal rotation. We ran 1 second CHeal rotations with Rallos in PoTime and some other encounters, they aren't outside the realm of median player skill. Human error is very much accounted for in the fact that the default attack speed is much greater than 1 second (or at least should be) and the tank will frequently be able to take 2 rounds without eating it. Or do we really believe that there aren't a dozen or more players on this server who can reliably count to 1 with a 1 second margin of error?

This is going to sound elitist, but fuck it, we've had 10 of these threads: I really wish that I could still view this game in the same mystical way many of you do. I see Avatar of War and I see a mob who has an unslowable mob capable of quads + flurries with a DB of 254 and a DI of 45. Now, you may tell stories at Thanksgiving Dinner of your suspenseful encounters with this mythical creature, but it doesn't change the fact that the dude is an unslowable mob capable of quads + flurries with a DB of 254 and a DI of 45. Got a tank who can survive a round of that? Great. Got enough clerics to make sure the tank is only taking 1 round between CHeals? Awesome. Got some mages to keep the mana going? Perfect. Let's do some work.

Anyhow, I got dragged into another one of these. For the interest of my Nostralis dude, I'm done with this til the next thread in a few months.

[koros]

Originally Posted by Rais [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong. We rotated warriors out with rangers using weapon shield in between warriors switching/gain agro/get heal chain on them. He was killed only 2 times in Velious.



Wrong again. The Ac gains/Hps/items from sleepers/tov are what provided the ability to kill him. Not some zerg using super internet with theory quested numbers thinking they know what the encounter was like. It pains me seeing your posts saying how things should be, when you have never even been there in the first place to see.

We already know the AC did absolutely 0 vs what we have here. I've already calculated the probabilities of his putting out enough damage to one round a tank with some very conservative estimates. I don't know what else to add to convey that point.