List of Bugs and issues with the Barbarian Class

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackSteel

doubtful.

you have any idea how much damage you'd have to increase glancing blows by to equal a general 10% swing speed or the now 10 % double strike?

enough for 100% weapon procs wouldnt equal a 10% jump. heck with the glancing nerf its not important anyway.

---

The proc chance wouldn't matter much in most cases... But an increase to glancing blow damage? Definetely would and should have an impact if the devs cared about balancing the capstones in any way.
Having good glancing blows IS important to me, and im sure to allot of players.

How much an increase is some pretty basic math and not a big amount:
Say you do 100 base damage per swing, and 40 glancing blow.. Fairly typical maxed out endgame figures.
Over 4 normal attacks with GTHF (3 glancing blows)=
400 main damage, 120 glancing blow, 520 total dmg. If we wanted a 10% increase of that, we'd need 52 more damage, so 52/3 = 18 more damage per glancing blow
So mainhand 100, glancing blows 58
= 400 main, 174 glancing
= 574 total, 10% increase
18-20 more damage on glancing blows would be fair and really what should have happened. Could even round up to 25 to account for the fact they can't crit.

When a good programmer opens up a bugged file for a feat/enahncement/etc.. He would fix it entirely and for once to match it's description and be balanced. Not partially nerf it, leave i still broken and try to claim it was a bug fix.

That's the sloppiest coding I've ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

How much an increase is some pretty basic math and not a big amount:
Say you do 100 base damage per swing, and 40 glancing blow.. Fairly typical maxed out endgame figures.
Over 4 normal attacks with GTHF (3 glancing blows)=
400 main damage, 120 glancing blow, 520 total dmg. If we wanted a 10% increase of that, we'd need 52 more damage, so 52/3 = 18 more damage per glancing blow
So mainhand 100, glancing blows 58
= 400 main, 174 glancing
= 574 total, 10% increase
18-20 more damage on glancing blows would be fair and really what should have happened. Could even round up to 25 to account for the fact they can't crit.

When a good programmer opens up a bugged file for a feat/enahncement/etc.. He would fix it entirely and for once to match it's description and be balanced. Not partially nerf it, leave i still broken and try to claim it was a bug fix.

That's the sloppiest coding I've ever seen.

---

dont think you'd make a good programmer either, quite a few things wrong with what you just posted. If you're looking at live servers then you'll want to balance for both twitch and autoattack, preview server then its obsviously just autoattack. Secondly you're not even accounting crits or effect dice into the equation, which amount for a good amount of 'damage'.

sure lets say the SoS, 100 damage a swing, but its crit profile puts it more around 200 a swing. glancing blows of 40s. Both of which also get 20 from frenzy. So 220/60.

autoattack 4 swings

regular damage total 880 / glancing total 240 per mob.

1120 over the sequence. 10% of that would be 112 / 3 ( 3/4 attacks get GBs) 34 damage increase on each glancing blow.

second question would be: do you just make it a set bonus? or a scaling percent? one gets outdated eventually and becomes lower than 10%, the other will scale with power creep.


capstone is not going to almost double the damage of glancing blows. suggestion full of fail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackSteel

capstone is not going to almost double the damage of glancing blows. suggestion full of fail

---

Whats full of fail is your attitude and respect for the barbarian class.

You put down suggestions without providing alternatives. Plain negative attitude and not helpful at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

Whats full of fail is your attitude and respect for the barbarian class.

---

once again, just for you ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackSteel

once again, just for you ;)

---

Don't you love when he so accurately describes himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

Whats full of fail is your attitude and respect for the barbarian class.

---

I lol'ed.

Axer, I think it's time to take a short break from DDO. :p

Back on track: Are any of these bugs fixed on the test server?

not a single one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carpone

Back on track: Are any of these bugs fixed on the test server?

---

I think a better question is how many of these issues are being treated as bugs. Does it benefit the player? (i.e.
Capstone alacrity) then ooh, that's definitely a bug. If it doesn't benefit the player then they have better things to
do like making combat more fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

All your doing is complaining for the sake of complaining because you couldn't care less about this particularly clases issues. So go find something better to do with yoru time then try be arrogant enoug hto think you can decide the developers priorities. Untiil you actually become one, you won't and you can't. If you really feel so strongly that you can, you probably have another 1000 threads in the suggestion forum to reply to saying how you don't feel its a high priority, so go waste your time.

---

I think you are doing the same thing - trying to decide the developers priorities. At the very least, you are pointing out that they have not fixed things you want to see fixed in a long time, some since the beginning of the game.

You are also using the word "bug" incorrectly. A 'bug' is a situation where the software does not perform as intended under specific circumstances. You are listing changes you would like to see, and calling it a "bug" that was reported a long time ago, implying that this was not intended inthe first place. I use your favorite word here. "conjecture".

Understand that I agree with your post, as I too play a barbarian and am irritated with the things you are pointing out. Calling them "bugs" however, I think is not the approapriate term. I would love to see this stuff get altered so it performs the way you are asking it to perform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chai

You are also using the word "bug" incorrectly. A 'bug' is a situation where the software does not perform as intended under specific circumstances. You are listing changes you would like to see, and calling it a "bug" that was reported a long time ago, implying that this was not intended inthe first place. I use your favorite word here. "conjecture".

---

Well your using the word "conjecture" incorrectly. It means I have no evidence to support what im saying, and I actaully do, I have plenty. There is evidence to support the fact that all the bugs I listed are indeed bugs. Most of them I even confirmed with my chat with madfloyd you can read earlier in the thread.

Evidence that the barbarian capstone does not work as intended:
Description states it increases glancing blow damage, and chance to proc.

It does not increase glancing blow damage, this has been tested numerous times.

This statement has hard evidence, and thus is not conjecture.

I purposely created 2 seperate sections to point out "player concerns" - ie things that may be bugs but there's no hard evidence to support it. And bugs - things that are DEFINETELY bugs that no logical person would try to argue otherwise.

Im going to have to agree with shade on this one, these are by and large bugs- As in not working as intended. And have been like this for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shade

Well your using the word "conjecture" incorrectly. It means I have no evidence to support what im saying, and I actaully do, I have plenty. There is evidence to support the fact that all the bugs I listed are indeed bugs. Most of them I even confirmed with my chat with madfloyd you can read earlier in the thread.

Evidence that the barbarian capstone does not work as intended:
Description states it increases glancing blow damage, and chance to proc.

It does not increase glancing blow damage, this has been tested numerous times.

This statement has hard evidence, and thus is not conjecture.

I purposely created 2 seperate sections to point out "player concerns" - ie things that may be bugs but there's no hard evidence to support it. And bugs - things that are DEFINETELY bugs that no logical person would try to argue otherwise.

---

Conjecture means: A statement that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven. Many of your statements show this quality when you say they were reported eons ago and nothing was done about it.

The evidence that many of these are or arent intended doesnt exist - conjecture - used correctly. I work in the software industry with high end video editing software and work with our dev team on a daily basis. I have a pretty clear understanding of what the term "bug" implies. Part of that implication is that its not intended to be that way.

As a specific example, I think youre right ont the capstone, however, heres some more conjecture for you. The devs likely knew the nerfs were coming a LONG time before we did. Turbine employees are under NDA just like the people who test are. When they put the capstone in, knowing they were going to take away glances on moving anyhow, and also knowing they are going to rework the entire system, left the effect out of the capstone.

There is evidence that the performance part exists and this is well documented. But is it a bug, or intended based on knowing the changes were coming? How long did they know that TWF was causing lag due to physics calcs before we heard of this? How long have they been planning these changes before going to the customer base with that plan? You see how far the "conjecture" rabbit hole goes in the software industry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chai

How long did they know that TWF was causing lag due to physics calcs

---

That's been basically proven inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eulogy098

That's been basically proven inaccurate.

---

Hardly. Well I guess the assumption that lag is the only thing causing the issue has been proven inaccurate. The devs never made this statement however implying its an all in one issue. Many companys know of these things for a long time before they announce it. We are talking about the people who coded the entire game here. I think they have more of an understanding of its limitations than many people give them credit for. I also think that many users believe the issue to be an all in one issue, and it is not. But there are people who are expecting all lag to just go away after the nerf, dont see it happening, and will continue to try to call this out all the same.

Still waiting for responses here

It's disappointing that most of the items in the OP aren't even listed in the "known issues" thread:

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=150534

> Warforged Brute Fighting can not be used when a rage effect is applied to the character.

I don't understand why something this simple isn't addressed. Turbine obviously has a flag with effects to allow/deny using them while raged, such as the new guild remove curse pots. Apply the same fix to this and get rid of this low hanging fruit already!

This may be considered relevant to the barbarian community of players-


http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...48#post3155348

I’m not seeing this in the thread either:

Potions bought from a guild potion vendor do not suffer from having “funnels” on them. You can use these potions while raged.

What is the update status on these issues? have any of these been identified at least?