Update 23 Second Look

[Vargouille]

I don't think it matters much, at the end of the day we all know what the damage reduction gain is. I don't think players can get it wrong.

My point was that the way it has been implemented is against the original idea. By boosting so much PRR on the lower end, now the ratio of mitigation of a pajama build (or anyone putting on an armor) vs tanky builds is worse than it was before.

This is perfectly useful and good feedback, btw.

So for the first 3 blocks of 100 PRR, I'm reducing my incoming damage by 50%, then an additional 16%, then an additional 8% off the original hit. You can't just ratio the final result between two different PRRs like you did between 200 and 300 PRR and then say that the additional 100 PRR gives 25% reduction - this is so misleading.

It's OK if you don't want to view it like this. But as a player who has 200 PRR, I want to know how much less damage I'll get by equipping items or pushing an ability button that gives +100 PRR. The damage number I see goes from 200 to 150. I don't really care about the original hit, I care what this item/ability is going to do for me.

You might not care about it, or call it misleading, but this is exactly how I view it as a player (both in DDO and other games that have had similar formulas). There's always disagreement about what's a better way to view things, but I'm not intentionally misleading anyone, and I'm explaining exactly what I'm saying. I respect you when you explain where your numbers come from!

Of course there's diminishing returns. My earlier post today in this thread shows exactly that, and we're not trying to hide that.

/backtolurkingandnotdiscussingthingslikeaplayer

[Cetus]

The damage number I see goes from 200 to 150. I don't really care about the original hit, I care what this item/ability is going to do for me.


/backtolurkingandnotdiscussingthingslikeaplayer

That's because your original, unmitigated number was 600.

What if you were going to get hit for 200? Then having 200 PRR makes you take 68 points of damage. Having 300 PRR makes you take 50 points of damage.

Now, do the same thing - take the difference 18 damage, and divide it by the 200 mitigated outcome - 68

18/68 = 26.5%

The number just changed. That's why I said it was misleading to say that "you mitigate 25% extra damage going from 200 ---> 300 PRR"

You got 25% for that particular example, for mine here we have 26.5%. In both cases, however, its an 8% difference from the original number.

[Desonde]

To clarify that chart, the -25% numbers are only relative to the previous line, not total. It shouldn't be summing up to a new total mitigation.

A simpler way to think of it is that every 100 PRR changes how much incoming damage is divided:

0 PRR => Divide by 1 (don't change it).
100 PRR: Divide by 2 (50% damage taken compared to 0)
200 PRR: Divide by 3 (33% damage taken compared to 0, or 67% reduced)
300 PRR: Divide by 4 (25% damage taken compared to 0, 75% reduced)

But going from 200->300 is reducing damage a lot more than 8% (If you were reducing 600->200 damage with 200 PRR, that 200 damage goes down to 150 damage for reaching 300 PRR -- or a 25% reduced damage for going from 200->300).

I have to agree with Cetus here, you are taking a single stage of the equation and trying to use it as an answer to a new question you pose afterwards;

200->300 =/= 0->300

Yes 0->300 = -75%, however 200->300 == 75-67 = 8.

Your example, though clever, is a complete misdirect and an example as to why math can be confusing;

0->200PRR == 600->200 = 66% reduction and 200->300PRR == 200->150 = 25% reduction
however that's also equal to:
0->200PRR == 600->200 = -400 damage == -2 dmg per PRR and 200->300PRR == 200->150 = -50 damage == -0.5 dmg per PRR

The later states that 200-300 returns 75% less than 0-200. Using exactly the same math, just completing the scientific experiment in the later.

[Thar]

This is perfectly useful and good feedback, btw.




It's OK if you don't want to view it like this. But as a player who has 200 PRR, I want to know how much less damage I'll get by equipping items or pushing an ability button that gives +100 PRR. The damage number I see goes from 200 to 150. I don't really care about the original hit, I care what this item/ability is going to do for me.

You might not care about it, or call it misleading, but this is exactly how I view it as a player (both in DDO and other games that have had similar formulas). There's always disagreement about what's a better way to view things, but I'm not intentionally misleading anyone, and I'm explaining exactly what I'm saying. I respect you when you explain where your numbers come from!

Of course there's diminishing returns. My earlier post today in this thread shows exactly that, and we're not trying to hide that.

/backtolurkingandnotdiscussingthingslikeaplayer

The PRR decreasing returns is fine. The jump in protection is a little too much for heavy armor as you start getting into involunability mode. Heavy armor barb who blows up today like a roman candle, cake walks through ee with cocoon only. (yes i don't rage since i can't use cocoon while raging... 20 hp isn't worth it) So is damage ramped up so you need 4 people for EE like you should? then will non heavy armor explode like barbs do today at the slightest hit? the increase i think needs to be scaled back a little to about half what it is between today and lam.

[Dagolar]

This is horrifying logic varg - this is a hell of a way to cover up the diminishing returns that actually exist.

Basic Math: Now, Horrifying Logic.
:P


A big factor here seems to be a misunderstanding of how cumulative gains are appreciated.
As Varg said, you CAN view it differently, but in game design, in business, in economics, etc; that's typically how the numbers are perceived.

For example, Varg could be said to be saying "Okay, we've gained 25% more sales increase over the past month, as per the previous month."

You could counter with "But it's only 8% of the total from the first of the year!"

Varg is correct in saying that it's been a good month;
You're correct in saying that it's not a measurable affect upon the total gain.


To understand why Varg's view is superior, requires an understanding of relative realities:

In the base perspective, you want static gains that are comparable to previous ones.

Varg is indicating that the reality changes each time you calculate, however:

In other words, that 300PRR toon is going to take 75% of the damage of a 200PRR toon.
The 50PRR toon is going to take 75% of the damage of a 0PRR toon.
You're correct- you're spending twice the PRR to garner the same effect.

And that PRR comes more difficultly, requiring Tier 5 enhancements and rarer items.

So, is the extra effort worth it to you? Perhaps not.

But as Varg stated, to tanks, it would likely be worth it- they're still seeing an extra 25% reduction in damage (comparative to what they would take without the extra 100 PRR), which could be massive in boosting their survivability.

More importantly, your arguments are flawed-
While you're correct that the effort to gain begins to become more and more demanding, you're assuming that it needs to be different.

If there is a range where PRR seems more ideal to you, than simply hover within it.

Arguments to the contrary would be like saying "this +500 HP isn't worth it over this +400HP!"
You're probably right for most builds. But for the tank, it might be worth it.

:runs hand through hair:

Ah, that's the best I can offer.

In any case, suffice it to say the current system makes perfect sense from the perspective of most similar systems, and that there's no readily available method to adjust the system to what you desire of it.

And more importantly, suffice it to say that Varg is not intending any sort of deceit or confusion, he's just working with what is standard format in his field.
Accusing him of the contrary is ridiculous.

Good enough?

[BigErkyKid]

OK, so more regarding changes in general, now wrt to damage.

First, without getting into the paladin thing per se:

Blitzers
Nerf: Damage addition of blitz is heavily discounted (before it was x2.5 now it is x.5). Yes, I am aware that some of it is pilled within the destiny.
Buff: Easier to mantain, more powerful against bosses.

A pure paladin had in lama, fully stacked blitz, 112 melee power at level 28.

There are two DPS competitors for blitz:

Divine crusader: A pure paladin had in lama 60 melee power at level 28.
Fure of the wild: A pure paladin had in lama 62 melee power at level 28.

Overall we see a nerfed blitz with a catch up of other destinies.

But here is the major issue for me:

Before, blitz has seen as "fair" in terms of DPS wrt to casters and other powerful builds. Now, let's say that all the melee destinies are balanced, they are balanced at a lower power level. So overall, melee has received, IMO, a nerf in pure DPS.

The reason why people say it is a lot easier now to play melee, to the extend of making the game "trivial", is because their PRR has gone up a lot which means they in combat for longer - less back jumping for heals = more DPS.

That of course and running with holy sword. The first competence bonus that can be applied to any weapon, compared to the previous ones that targeted relatively weak weapons (light weapons, sticks, daggers).

For my taste, buff a bit more DPS, give more PRR for specialized tanks and less to the rest (non monotonic PRR curve).

[BigErkyKid]

Basic Math: Now, Horrifying Logic.
:P

Good enough?

There is no established way of looking at those numbers in economics, you just present them in the clearest possible way.

Unfortunately, there might be disagreement. In any case, for this particular example, it does not matter one bit. The numbers are VERY easy to read and one can judge by himself whether the extra damage reduction is worth it.

[FCofKhatovar]

OK, so more regarding changes in general, now wrt to damage.

First, without getting into the paladin thing per se:

Blitzers
Nerf: Damage addition of blitz is heavily discounted (before it was x2.5 now it is x.5). Yes, I am aware that some of it is pilled within the destiny.
Buff: Easier to mantain, more powerful against bosses.

A pure paladin had in lama, fully stacked blitz, 112 melee power at level 28.

There are two DPS competitors for blitz:

Divine crusader: A pure paladin had in lama 60 melee power at level 28.
Fure of the wild: A pure paladin had in lama 62 melee power at level 28.

Overall we see a nerfed blitz with a catch up of other destinies.

But here is the major issue for me:

Before, blitz has seen as "fair" in terms of DPS wrt to casters and other powerful builds. Now, let's say that all the melee destinies are balanced, they are balanced at a lower power level. So overall, melee has received, IMO, a nerf in pure DPS.

The reason why people say it is a lot easier now to play melee, to the extend of making the game "trivial", is because their PRR has gone up a lot which means they in combat for longer - less back jumping for heals = more DPS.

That of course and running with holy sword. The first competence bonus that can be applied to any weapon, compared to the previous ones that targeted relatively weak weapons (light weapons, sticks, daggers).

For my taste, buff a bit more DPS, give more PRR for specialized tanks and less to the rest (non monotonic PRR curve).

BigErkyKid could not have summed up my opinion on these changes in a more adequate way.

By trying to balance all melee builds, they have taken a Holy Sword to the legs of anyone trying to hit their opponents with a weapon. No build will keep up with the numbers the casters and archers are producing, therefore, all melee will be less welcome in groups for endgame content.

In addition, scaling melee power with level may help some builds, but, losing melee power on a build that was designed for Legendary Dreadnaught will be quite a detriment while trying to achieve the goal of many players these days, Epic Past Lives. Going back to 20 was already hurtful with a severe gap of decent gear at that level. Now, it shall be worse.

Epic Sadfaces.

[Vargouille]

This post is just to clarify a mathematical misconception and to try to make it clear how PRR works.

That's because your original, unmitigated number was 600.

The 600 doesn't matter. 6000, 200, or any other number, the result is the same.

What if you were going to get hit for 200? Then having 200 PRR makes you take 68 points of damage. Having 300 PRR makes you take 50 points of damage.

Now, do the same thing - take the difference 18 damage, and divide it by the 200 mitigated outcome - 68

18/68 = 26.5%

The number just changed. That's why I said it was misleading to say that "you mitigate 25% extra damage going from 200 ---> 300 PRR"

You got 25% for that particular example, for mine here we have 26.5%. In both cases, however, its an 8% difference from the original number.

It's not 68 damage, it's 67, rounded up from 66.666 (repeating).

• AKA: 200 damage / 3 is the simple math for multiples of 100 PRR.
• AKA: 200*(100/(100+200)), which is the same math that's actually being done by the code.
• The general formula is to multiply the damage by (100 / (100 + PRR))

I'm not sure where the 68 comes from in the quoted example. If this was tested in game, it's possible there's a slight numerical bug or some strange floating point issue, but the basic formula doesn't result in 68 damage.

So, given that it's mathematically 66.666, with no meaningful rounding:
50 / 66.666 => 75% (or -25% damage for going from 200->300).

I'll concede the number does still change slightly when it's 67, but only due to rounding.

The -25% damage reduction is constant from 200 PRR -> 300 PRR, which is an important feature of the formula we chose. There's no change here, as your example shows, though exact number may look slightly off due to rounding. The proportional math is the same.

Here's a few different examples, ignoring rounding errors:

PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    7634.0    
100    3817.0    50%
200    2544.7    67%
300    1908.5    75%
400    1526.8    80%
500    1272.3    83%


PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    1000.0    
100    500.0    50%
200    333.3    67%
300    250.0    75%
400    200.0    80%
500    166.7    83%


PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    42.0    
100    21.0    50%
200    14.0    67%
300    10.5    75%
400     8.4    80%
500     7.0    83%

The percentage change based on PRR doesn't care how much the original damage was, except for small rounding errors. If you go from 200 PRR to 300 PRR, you are taking 25% less damage than before.

[Portalcat]

But as a player who has 200 PRR, I want to know how much less damage I'll get by equipping items or pushing an ability button that gives +100 PRR. The damage number I see goes from 200 to 150. I don't really care about the original hit, I care what this item/ability is going to do for me.

+1, and this is also how I look at the spellpower gains on casters, fwiw.


This is because I'm interested in the marginal value from adding more to a given stat when comparing it to some other option, and what I already have is the baseline for the sake of figuring that out.

[Monkey_Archer]

You might not care about it, or call it misleading, but this is exactly how I view it as a player (both in DDO and other games that have had similar formulas). There's always disagreement about what's a better way to view things, but I'm not intentionally misleading anyone, and I'm explaining exactly what I'm saying. I respect you when you explain where your numbers come from!

The way I like to view this, is the way I learned about it from that other game that happens to use the same formula .

Think of it in terms of Effective HP, rather then damage mitigation.

If you have 1000 HP and 0 PRR, your effective HP is 1000 (you can take 1000 damage before dying)
If you have 100 PRR, your effective HP is now 2000.
If you have 200 PRR, your effective HP is now 3000.
etc...

Every point of PRR increases your effective HP by 1%. So it actually does not have diminishing returns at all, despite what looking at percentage mitigation will tell you.

[Vargouille]

The way I like to view this, is the way I learned about it from that other game that happens to use the same formula .

Think of it in terms of Effective HP, rather then damage mitigation.

If you have 1000 HP and 0 PRR, your effective HP is 1000 (you can take 1000 damage before dying)
If you have 100 PRR, your effective HP is now 2000.
If you have 200 PRR, your effective HP is now 3000.
etc...

Every point of PRR increases your effective HP by 1%. So it actually does not have diminishing returns at all, despite what looking at percentage mitigation will tell you.

Yes, this is another great way to view this (and which also tends to cause some people mathematical headaches and cause arguments about the definition of "diminishing returns). In terms of "How many hits can I take?" there's no diminishing returns (though lots of fractions).

[Cetus]

Basic Math: Now, Horrifying Logic.
:P


A big factor here seems to be a misunderstanding of how cumulative gains are appreciated.
As Varg said, you CAN view it differently, but in game design, in business, in economics, etc; that's typically how the numbers are perceived.

This analogy doesn't work, we have different amounts of damage against which we weigh the usefulness of PRR investments DEPENDING on the PRR we already had, since the same amount of PRR at different points yields a different result.

For example, Varg could be said to be saying "Okay, we've gained 25% more sales increase over the past month, as per the previous month."

What did the company do throughout the month to warrant a 25% increase in sales? Does it even matter, since the central goal of the company is to just make more money? Are there alternate ways of making money that would've been more efficient? Does the rate at which money CAN be made vary independent of the companies efforts?

Also, the way you make your money doesn't get dictated by a hyperbolic formula that you know about from the beginning, which - if you graph it, reveals an obvious diminishing return the higher the variable in the equation becomes.

Simply, this is a really bad analogy.

You could counter with "But it's only 8% of the total from the first of the year!"

If I made a 100 sales last year, made 8 this month. Then yes, I made 8% of the total sales of last year.

If I made 6 sales last month, then I made (roughly) 25% more sales this month. This doesn't mean that my strategy this month is a 25% more effective strategy than last months, in an absolute sense. That would be misleading. However, this analogy fails rather rapidly after that - because I don't have a formula that dictates my gains.

Varg is correct in saying that it's been a good month;
You're correct in saying that it's not a measurable affect upon the total gain.

Nope, 300 gives 25% more damage reduction of the already reduced 200 PRR value.

Simply put - if I get hit for 200 damage normally, and at 200 PRR I take 68 damage, and at 200 PRR I take 50 damage. I invested a HUNDRED PRR to just shave off 18 points of damage when I get hit by a 200 point attack, yet that is a 26.5% reduction in damage!

Still don't see the problem with this reasoning? But then you write this...

To understand why Varg's view is superior, requires an understanding of relative realities:

Sorry, we'll just have to completely disagree. This is why you'll occasionally see people saying that "math" doesn't solve anything. Math solves countless things, poorly applied "math" doesn't. This is just my opinion, anyway.

Good enough?

Good enough for what? You're making it sound like I didn't understand the calculation.

[Qhualor]

This post is just to clarify a mathematical misconception and to try to make it clear how PRR works.


The 600 doesn't matter. 6000, 200, or any other number, the result is the same.



It's not 68 damage, it's 67, rounded up from 66.666 (repeating).

• AKA: 200 damage / 3 is the simple math for multiples of 100 PRR.
• AKA: 200*(100/(100+200)), which is the same math that's actually being done by the code.
• The general formula is to multiply the damage by (100 / (100 + PRR))

I'm not sure where the 68 comes from in the quoted example. If this was tested in game, it's possible there's a slight numerical bug or some strange floating point issue, but the basic formula doesn't result in 68 damage.

So, given that it's mathematically 66.666, with no meaningful rounding:
50 / 66.666 => 75% (or -25% damage for going from 200->300).

I'll concede the number does still change slightly when it's 67, but only due to rounding.

The -25% damage reduction is constant from 200 PRR -> 300 PRR, which is an important feature of the formula we chose. There's no change here, as your example shows, though exact number may look slightly off due to rounding. The proportional math is the same.

Here's a few different examples, ignoring rounding errors:

PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    7634.0    
100    3817.0    50%
200    2544.7    67%
300    1908.5    75%
400    1526.8    80%
500    1272.3    83%


PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    1000.0    
100    500.0    50%
200    333.3    67%
300    250.0    75%
400    200.0    80%
500    166.7    83%


PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    42.0    
100    21.0    50%
200    14.0    67%
300    10.5    75%
400     8.4    80%
500     7.0    83%

The percentage change based on PRR doesn't care how much the original damage was, except for small rounding errors. If you go from 200 PRR to 300 PRR, you are taking 25% less damage than before.

im just going to point out that there are lots of players, including me, that look at formulas like this and have no clue what you are saying here even with all the explanations to go along with it. I think its important if you guys want players like me to understand formulas, how they work and how to figure out our personal builds PRR, damage or whatnot, no matter how simple they may seem to be to everyone else, that they need to come across as clearly as possible to understand. I personally have to go through lots of trial and error testing to figure out DDO math (hands on) to end up with the same result as what someone with knowledge can do on paper. not a lot of players who don't know math are willing to bother to go through the hassle of what I do and instead ask someone else who knows or thinks they know.

[FCofKhatovar]

Can we please stop arguing about the semantics of how the PRR was stated and focus on how TERRIBLE this new idea for blitz is?

I just popped on Lamma, stood in a room full of mobs, 10 or so, popped a blitz, killed everything...sounds good, right? 0 CHARGES. 0. 0? What's with this? Why can't I get a charge from killing TEN enemies?

And since i haven't effectively gained a blitz, yet, I don't know how terrible the reduction in damage will be when its fully stacked. 50...doesn't seem like anywhere close to the appropriate number for a 10 stack of a top tier Epic Moment.

But, seriously, someone needs to go through this with an extremely fine toothed comb, preferably someone that gets on and tries to maintain a blitz, and fix why the chance to gain a charge is so ridiculously minuscule.

More. Epic. Sadfaces.

[FestusHood]

This math discussion reminds me of a caster dc thread i read a long time ago. Two people were arguing over how much adding one dc to a spell affected it. One said that it was a 5% increase in success, the other said it was 25%. You can probably guess how the latter arguer arrived at that number. He was assuming you already had an 80% success rate, and going from 80% to 85% is a 25% increase in success rate.

[Cetus]

This post is just to clarify a mathematical misconception and to try to make it clear how PRR works.


The 600 doesn't matter. 6000, 200, or any other number, the result is the same.



It's not 68 damage, it's 67, rounded up from 66.666 (repeating).

• AKA: 200 damage / 3 is the simple math for multiples of 100 PRR.
• AKA: 200*(100/(100+200)), which is the same math that's actually being done by the code.
• The general formula is to multiply the damage by (100 / (100 + PRR))

I'm not sure where the 68 comes from in the quoted example. If this was tested in game, it's possible there's a slight numerical bug or some strange floating point issue, but the basic formula doesn't result in 68 damage.

So, given that it's mathematically 66.666, with no meaningful rounding:
50 / 66.666 => 75% (or -25% damage for going from 200->300).

I'll concede the number does still change slightly when it's 67, but only due to rounding.

The -25% damage reduction is constant from 200 PRR -> 300 PRR, which is an important feature of the formula we chose. There's no change here, as your example shows, though exact number may look slightly off due to rounding. The proportional math is the same.

Here's a few different examples, ignoring rounding errors:

PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    7634.0    
100    3817.0    50%
200    2544.7    67%
300    1908.5    75%
400    1526.8    80%
500    1272.3    83%


PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    1000.0    
100    500.0    50%
200    333.3    67%
300    250.0    75%
400    200.0    80%
500    166.7    83%


PRR    Damage    % of previous line's damage
0    42.0    
100    21.0    50%
200    14.0    67%
300    10.5    75%
400     8.4    80%
500     7.0    83%

The percentage change based on PRR doesn't care how much the original damage was, except for small rounding errors. If you go from 200 PRR to 300 PRR, you are taking 25% less damage than before.

The 68 came from my quick rounding - the game will round it to 67 or so:

A mob attacks me and does 200 damage when I have 0 PRR. 200 * (100/100 + 0) = 200 * 100/100 = 200 * 1 = 200 points of damage taken.

Now, I have 100 PRR

200 * (100/100+100) = 200*1/2 = 100 damage taken = 50% damage taken. 50% increase in mitigation from 0 PRR

Now, I have 200 PRR

200 * (100/100 + 200) = 200*1/3 = 200/3 = 66.66 damage taken, the game will round this to 67.

Now, I have 300 PRR

200 * (100/100+300) = 200/4 = 75% mitigation, 25% points of damage taken. I take 50 damage

The difference is 17 points of damage taken between 200 and 300 PRR. Take 17/67 = 25.37%

In your previous example - 66.66% of 600 = 399.96 - game will round this to 400.

75% of 600 = 150, game keeps it as 450

So, 150/200 = 25% exactly

So, without rounding - you'd be right, but the game does round. With fractions, it doesn't depend on the incoming damage - you're right. But the game doesn't deal with fractions, so you cannot express the ratio as a blanket 25% - this is a technicality, of course - but my point was this:

You are still using an already reduced number - the 67 damage at 200 PRR, and taking the further reduced 300 PRR outcome, and expressing it as a fraction of the 200 PRR outcome - so you get the 25% improvement.

My overarching point remains - saying that 300 PRR gives you 25% extra mitigation versus 200 PRR is still misleading. It gives you 8% more mitigation, as shown between the rounded 67% and the 75% off the original value. Period.

[FestusHood]

Can we please stop arguing about the semantics of how the PRR was stated and focus on how TERRIBLE this new idea for blitz is?

I just popped on Lamma, stood in a room full of mobs, 10 or so, popped a blitz, killed everything...sounds good, right? 0 CHARGES. 0. 0? What's with this? Why can't I get a charge from killing TEN enemies?

And since i haven't effectively gained a blitz, yet, I don't know how terrible the reduction in damage will be when its fully stacked. 50...doesn't seem like anywhere close to the appropriate number for a 10 stack of a top tier Epic Moment.

But, seriously, someone needs to go through this with an extremely fine toothed comb, preferably someone that gets on and tries to maintain a blitz, and fix why the chance to gain a charge is so ridiculously minuscule.

More. Epic. Sadfaces.

In all seriousness, do you see how silly the argument that you are too powerful to become more powerful sounds? It's hard for me to believe with the current melee power numbers that you can't find anything that lives long enough to gain any blitz stacks, but if that's the case then the entire system is still horribly broken.

You are saying in epic elite with no blitz stacks at all you can't find anything that can survive more than ten hits? Are you really doing more than 1k damage per hit with no blitz? I don't believe you.

[FCofKhatovar]

In all seriousness, do you see how silly the argument that you are too powerful to become more powerful sounds? It's hard for me to believe with the current melee power numbers that you can't find anything that lives long enough to gain any blitz stacks, but if that's the case then the entire system is still horribly broken.

You are saying in epic elite with no blitz stacks at all you can't find anything that can survive more than ten hits? Are you really doing more than 1k damage per hit with no blitz? I don't believe you.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I wasn't paying attention to how much damage I was doing per swing, but, yes, everything was dead before I gained one charge.

When I went for my second attempt, 5 minutes later, I zerged thru to get around 25 mobs to surround me. Threw a bunch of cleaves, lay wastes, momentum swings, stunning blows, etc. I gained four charges. By the time I ran to the next room full I was at two, threw some attacks in the group, made it to six. Kept zerging as hard as I could to try to reach the mini-boss at the middle of the quest. only there was I able to get my stack to 8... Kept zerging to the end fight. Kill all the trash and the semi-boss, wind up with 7 stacks for the main boss. Start on him, work it up to a ten stack. At this point, im doing ~1200-1500 on big crits, 200-300 on hits. WITH A TEN STACK. My build is not tweaked out with all the best of the best, but, with an 80str and power of the forge going, with a ten stack of blitz, these numbers are absolutely abominable.

If the goal of changing blitz was to keep people in a party competitive but still be able to hold their blitz, e.g. not stacking on kills, this was a complete and utter fail.

Must zerg to keep it alive, things dont live long enough to stack.

[FCofKhatovar]

In all seriousness, do you see how silly the argument that you are too powerful to become more powerful sounds?

This is another example of how things can be looked at from different points of view. If you want to argue semantics, please continue.