Approach to Fallen Nerf was Flawed

[regal fog]

Title. No, before anyone misinterprets this I'm not saying Fallen should not have been nerfed. Instead I believe Fallen nerf wasn't approached correctly and here's why:

• One major complaint was that Fallen was meant to be a risky playstyle, with extra dps rewarded it for the risk. However, its huge aoe (partially through aspects) gave you the reward of its dps without the risk. Two solutions could've been taken: decrease the aoe by nerfing aspects so the skill can be brought back and its dps could be justified, or to lower the skill ceiling of Fallen and nerf its damage so its lower-risk requirements matched its now lowered dps (the first option would've needed to be slightly toned either way but much less so than going with the second) The ct chose the second, which was a major mistake imo. There shouldn't ever be a change actively lowers the skill ceiling of a class when all the systems are there that allows it to be high skill, risky, yet rewarding
• Pushed rally nerf without even any concern for fallen's inability to sustain by itself besides pots in boss room. See image by Terminated below. This was brought up by the community before yet the it's implied ct doesn't seem to have even looked into it ("might be worth looking at") after the changes are pushed. Why would you actively push out a system without forethought into its consequences after the community has raised concern over it? That's what the beta servers are for--to test things without rushing ahead and pushing them onto the live server
  -- Subpoint: this also seems contradictory to how ct approached the crafteds nerf. With crafteds nerf already hitting Arca/Fallen you'd think they'd take the same level of hesitation to see how the crafteds nerf would play out before offloading another set of Fallen nerfs
• AB change makes it useless in coordinated parties with lb. Yes it had no use buffing others, no it should not be useless in a party with lb (which is 90%+ of good parties)

Other smaller, indirect problems I have with the changelog:

• All these nerfs addressed all Fallen playstyles equally. As many have already pointed out upper scream was much more problematic than upper bash. Another case of crippling a much weaker archetype in order to nerf a stronger one (I'd argue the rally nerf hurt bmonk too but bmonk is already so dead it's not even worth mentioning atp)
• Still doesn't address the item diversity problems with Fallen itself. Yes Fallen is much worse now, but amongst the people who still play Fallen, hero and bbath will continue reigning supreme. This just leaves alka and tcrack even more dead. Hero should've gotten another small nerf and the overall nerfs to the archetype should've been lessened in order to still nerf Fallen equally but adjust the playing field for its weapon choices by toning hero down more

[fervent hare]

ya maybe

[modest lagoon]

Ok but bmonk can take clens at least

[silent isle]

its a bit jarring to be hit with 3 very large nerfs in a single patch after months of nothing

[modest lagoon]

Fallen doesnt have enough AP too

We need something to heal fallen in boss now

[silent isle]

fallen skip abreak tech

[young turtle]

@safe rock Can we count how many fallen threads pop up

[safe rock]

eh this time the threads are mostly valid

[silent isle]

we have 4 ish rn

[simple jay]

i just dont necessarily see the reason to push this many large scale/game changing nerfs on one archetype in one patch, it would feel a lot more sensible and thought-out to do it one at a time and then see whether or not the results are fine or not

[young turtle]

fuck it we ball

[cedar phoenix]

Counterpoint on beta server: they said no one plays it

I don’t know if beta server being exclusive to heroes and silverbull affects this

[frank moon]

Best way to get Rally is by getting Flying kick. Oh no

[feral seal]

Fallen needs to have more sustain nodes off of single target damage on the tree. The fact that an entire archetype essentially relies on an arbitrary major ID is just not good game design. If you want to remove fallen's heavy reliance on Rally, add an alternative to the tree that can be used as well as properly balanced without fucking over other archetypes .

Not to mention, why are all of these nerfs being pushed at once? Fallen has been in this state for what seems like more than half a year now; ample time for CT to try out some nerfs to fallen. Pushing so many devastating nerfs to the archetype at once just feels unwarrented at this point. Not to mention that fact that these changes will leave shadestepper as the strongest archetype in the game by far, an archetype with even less risky gameplay.

[young turtle]

didnt they mention something along the lines of hosing beta is pretty expensive or so

and doing it regularly would tank

[cedar phoenix]

yeah that too

[fervent hare]

Hello terminated

[cunning moss]

1. I think your first point is correct. We think the raw power is the problem, not the aoe. I don't think it was flawed, it needed to come down in power across the board
2. We did and do have concern about fallen's sustain and we simply want to see how it goes before making decisions about what fallen needs. Saying we had no foresight isn't something you can assume from an outside perspective.
3. No we aren't going to push a beta server just for fallen players to see if they're happy...
4. I dont think crafteds are relevant in this ability tree discussion whatsoever.
5. Armour breaker is now more useful with things that do provide vulnerability debuffs such as ritualist, acolyte and coursing restraints on archer
6. It is up to the item makers to decide on whether items are imbalanced and need adjustments, as always

[young turtle]

Ye if we didnt get a beta for acro doubt we get 1 for fallen

[fervent hare]

I can only rlly comment on pt 5, a mob debuff is far stronger than a solo buff in most cases

[young turtle]

Ngl vulns rare compared to selfbuff since its stronger, ye

why do i feel like acos gonna lose something soon

[regal lantern]

4500 hp fallen build
1 pot for heal

[fervent hare]

If it should stay or go is probably sumn that went on in whateva talks

[cunning moss]

yeah this was the problem

[fervent hare]

Gotcha

[cunning moss]

acolyte got incredible support with eldritch call recently but fallen basically made this completely irrelevant

so a support archetype had its main debuff from a red node outclassed by a selfish dps archetype

it didnt make sense

[young turtle]

In a sense it was quite a problem when warrior has all dmg buff vuln resist buff stat buff overhealth

Shit does everything, to an extent lol

[cunning moss]

the synergy with lightbender was also kinda crazy lol

you would expect to need 2 support archetypes on the field to provide a high strength buff & a high vulnerability debuff

but in the previous case you could do it with just 1

[fervent hare]

The changes have kept this

[young turtle]

https://wynnbuilder.github.io/builder?v=16#10_11o0JF0VV0GA2SK2SL2SM2SN03H11111611161g000000z0z0+0+0+0+0-1T2Y2Y2Z2Z2a2azskhD1rk20
look at how many effects warrior can shitout if you build to only support lol

luckily no provoke

[cunning moss]

you can get a str & vuln buff with 1 support sure but its not 50% strength and 20% vuln

its 20% strength from armour breaker and 20% vuln

[young turtle]

basically addressing too much of a combat buff multiplier now ye

[cunning moss]

if you want 50% str and 20% vuln you need a lb and an aco

[young turtle]

(now 40)

[cunning moss]

another thread is arguing that we are pushing for support archetypes to be more relevant and we 100% are. But then they also argue that we're not ready while we've been buffing paladin & acolyte for a couple of months and they are really great options now

[fervent hare]

Lb was nerfed down to 40, you'll always get more out of an aco now

[cunning moss]

and trickster can also be considered a semi support team debuffer once its rework releases

[young turtle]

just dont look at bmonk and warriors being balanced up

[cunning moss]

we've been making huge strides towards support being more relevant and that requires archetypes that currently do everything like fallen to not do everything

[young turtle]

idm getting more outa aco since aco cant run like lb does so it also then involves holding the boss in a sense

[cunning moss]

people also love to comment that we need to bundle x y and z changes together but it is incredibly hard to assess where a change needs to be made until the current splinter is ripped out and we see it in action

[cedar phoenix]

lb: 40 damage buff
acro: 35 damage buff
5% str increase ongobb

[young turtle]

truely wish for the 10%shaved off to go into 1 of the lb nodes tho

[fervent hare]

its just an infinite whack a mole game im sure there will be a similar discussion down the line abt how acolyte is insanely overtuned and what were the devs thinking

Last week it was mid by any1 in class builds xd

[young turtle]

tbh i got a feeling vengeful is going to 15

[cunning moss]

i do think that eldritch call is slightly overtuned still

since it does really good damage and support. But I dont think its too far

[young turtle]

i dont see ec as the problem but still lunatic/flaming tongue

well lashing(and sorrow to an extent)

[silent isle]

Ignoring the armour break cooldown, a change from buff to debuff is a net nerf for fallen, especially with how prevalent lightbender and fortitude is

Unless you are playing solo you may unironically skip armour break since a acolyte / lightbender will give it to you / a better version

[cunning moss]

I think you mean debuff to buff. And yes it was meant as a nerf lol

[silent isle]

Me when i write wrong order

[silver sluice]

I think this is going under appreciated by a lot of wynncord tbh. Idk why ppl think wynn should always be a dps only game but this everlasting only glass cannon meta is getting increasingly boring so making supports and tanks required to do well is a great step.

[modest lagoon]

Ok but can we not tie rally to clens breeze

[cunning moss]

It does make sense being tied to cleansing breeze ngl

[young turtle]

id very much rather tie rally to cleanse over flying kick lol

[modest lagoon]

This like nerfs fallen boss performance a lot

[cunning moss]

A support major id being a support ability upgrade kinda makes sense

[young turtle]

aside of the bmonk being shafted for the x amount of times

[modest lagoon]

Or we need a way for fallen to heal in boss as currently rally is the way people use

[cunning moss]

Yeah we were aware that rally also affects bmonk but that it's hardly important in monks current state at least

And obviously monk can take cleansing more easily

[modest lagoon]

Monk is fine imo

Just needs a bit more damage and it’s chilling

[young turtle]

fyi monk is being shafted once again in a way where they have to take mantles to reach radiance due to the bulwark nodeswap

[modest lagoon]

I mean you want mantles anyways no

It’s like so much more comfy

[young turtle]

so heres the thing

skipping mantles allows bmonk to get cheaper bash 1 and 2, now not only that theyre basically losing cheaper bash 2 theyre also losing cheaper bash 1 since its a forced mantle to take

https://wynnbuilder.github.io/builder?v=16#10_2SG2SH2SI2SJ2SK2SL2SM2SN0Qi0A0A00002C1g000000z0z0+0+0+0+0-1T2Y2Y2Z2Z2a2altuIDquET
example tree for cheaper 1&2

[modest lagoon]

Eh idm you could always just take bpact + mantles and chill

[young turtle]

https://wynnbuilder.github.io/builder?v=16#10_2SG2SH2SI2SJ2SK2SL2SM2SN0Qi0A0A00002C1g000000z0z0+0+0+0+0-1T2Y2Y2Z2Z2a2ajtuITqeZj
what happens post change

it makes...casting bash damn expensive since you dont got ap left to take cheaper costs

[modest lagoon]

Who plays bmonk anyways ngl

I know like 3 players who unironically play bmonk

It needs a lot of reworks to be playable outside of surf which anyways isnt great

[young turtle]

yeah bmonks basically confirmed dead rn

and dies harder next patch not only because of the pala side of changes but due to it being less abusing bloodpact/fallen mythic 🔥

[modest lagoon]

Yeah bpact saved bmonk ngl

Now it’s so cooked because of all the changes

[silver sluice]

It does, I have a guildie that was scared for a rally nerf as he plays guardian pally and it would kill his survivability, this is a great way to not smack paladins who use rally while nerfing fallen being able to sustain what is meant to be a burst

Oh I meant to reply to terminator there but whatever lmao

[cunning moss]

ngl radiance is a pretty obvious paladin ability imo so its weird that monk would have access to that easily

without speccing into paladin more (e.g. with mantles)

[young turtle]

eh its already quite hard, it just makes it even worse now lol

well its as bad as trying to get tclap on paladin

[cunning moss]

I think its consistently proven that battlemonk has little to no unique identity by the fact that every time paladin or fallen gets changes made to it battlemonk gets screwed lol

[young turtle]

you are absolutely right

its identity atm is really just surf, rest can be covered by what pala or fallen does mostly

[cunning moss]

its something we're aware of but we're not going to halt changes for the other two because of it which is unfortunate for sure

[modest oriole]

battlemonk really got rolled over in its grave because of fallen changes

make discomb good again 👍

[hardy jungle]

The major part I agree with here is that I think upperscream deserved harsher punishment (most notably, shrapnel treatment -> air shout, or making air shout harder to cross-path with). Particularly, -5 upper (giving up half-moon or upper cost reductions) and the bpact sustained nerf hurt upper bash disproportionately imo.

The last part idk, I’ve been running alka ub exclusively on warrior through all of 2.1, even before fallen took off and it’s been fine …

[cunning moss]

I believe they both needed to be hit hard and if particular flavours of fallen need further changes that will obviously happen when needed

[young turtle]

or just removing cci from mobs

they will have to watch mobs fly above and above...and above

[hardy jungle]

Fair but even with the last patch wrt fallen (the 80% -> 65 one) it disproportionately affected traditional (riskier/less aoe) fallens instead of ones relying on shout abuse

I get that both are strong but it doesn’t feel like the risk-ehp-sustain tradeoff was accurately captured with those nerfs

[hardy jungle]

Does this matter when they can just aim scream up in the air and hit everything in a 24 block radius? I think it’s mostly an annoyance for teammates

[young turtle]

both yeah, having to look straight up tends to have consequences

[torn talon]

Wind force yap session

[rustic juniper]

would be great if they completely remove the uppercut damage reduction from whirlwind too, it was my favourite playstyle

yea its still upperscream, but its fun because its uppersurfscream

[glass fox]

alright now I did testing

If you want self healing with rally now, you need to sacrifice tempest AND armor breaker or comet

So based on this, I can change the tree ingame rn to adjust to taking cleansing breeze in order for rally to work

now just these two combined resulted in a 15 - 20%. This I consider just rally changes for now.

Now combine this with the aspect nerfs, and estimate how bad this is going to be, that's another 5 - 7% total dmg reduced (depending on T1 / T2 Aspects

oh yeah not to mention the reduction of the dmg boost u can get from support now:

• previously ab + fortitude was a 20% vuln + 50% self dmg boost

• now ab / vengeful + ec is going to be 20% vuln + 20% self dmg boost

that is another dmg loss fallen is getting, which is 30% dmg from support being reduced

With all this combined, here's what the fallen nerf is like right now
15% - 20% dmg reduced to factor in my own variance in casting speed)

• 5 - 7% aspect nerf
• 30% buff reduction from supports (due to ab not stacking, and capping at vengeful / ab + ec)

So let's combine all this, and ask ourselves, is this a case of overnerf or justified nerf? based on what you think, this would also reflect on how "flawed" your approach to balance is, or is not.

[young turtle]

were back to pre 2.1 with this

(it was far worse back then)

[cedar phoenix]

100k feels nothing to me when im just a guy using fallen to lr

although i changed my build to fit the -5 more scream cost

[austere cloak]

So let's combine all this, and ask ourselves, is this a case of overnerf or justified nerf? based on what you think, this would also reflect on how "flawed" your approach to balance is, or is not.
ah yes, "my opinion is fact" type shi
and Term has stated what amounts to "justified overnerf" - it's known that healing was hit too hard, but they need to see what the new numbers will be like in practice to buff AT healing

[regal fog]

1. I agree raw power was definitely one of Fallen's problems, but my argument was that it wouldn't be as extreme if aoe was reduced. Sure it would be strong and toning down would be necessary, but its a proper payoff for the risk that fallen would have (if it was as risky as intended)
2. Apologies, then I misconstrued your message. When you said "we might look into it" I thought it meant that you guys didn't consider looking into it before release, not that you guys were aware but will take a look at it after launch.
   I still disagree with how this was went about--consolidating p. 2 and 3, I feel like you should only push changes if you have a good idea of how they'll turn out. If you're unable to push a beta server and have players test it out you should be very sure internally of the changes, instead of releasing them to the public and praying it'll work out. And if it doesn't, it just becomes a problem players have to deal with until a solution comes who knows how far down the line
3. Crafteds nerf was targetted towards fallen. I can understand if coordination is hard between the Ing team and AT but there should've been some effort to coordinate "hey, the Ing team is already pushing fairly substantial nerfs towards Fallen, let's see how they settle out before the AT drops further nerfs"
4. Fair point. Although I still disagree that it should be fully overriden by fortitude, looking back, yes I do agree this is more of an lb design problem than Fallen problem. Fortitude overriding legit every self buff is also a thing with other classes so
5. Same as p. 4. It's understandable there's a dissonance between the two groups but the ATs should have communicated with the IMs to address the weapon disparity within fallen itself before going ahead and nerfing it

[regal fog]

Ofc what's "good or not" may be subjective in a game but with optimized builds hitting 650k now going to sub 400kish after calcs, which is literally less than 0 winded arca damage...yeah it's safe to say it was overnerfed

You're gonna need to jump through a lotta hoops to justify fallen both dealing less damage than aco and providing no support in comparison to it

[austere cloak]

fallen should have never provided support
damage nerfs got both positive and negative reactions from endgame players, but ig we'll see how it plays out in practice

[regal fog]

Not saying Fallen should have. What I am saying is that it's now underperforming in both aspects in regard to a class that does.

Most people who backed damage nerf still wanted for a change to the rally nerf (not revert but more AT support so you don't lose all that damage from needing to spec into paladin). I'm actually ok with that too. Sugo's calcs are just for if they keep both the dmg nerf and no support for AT

[austere cloak]

ok yeah that explains things

[cunning moss]

I cannot say for sure as I dont work with ingredients but I highly doubt that ingredient changes were specifically to nerf fallen 😂

I think it makes complete sense that a support archetype gets a stronger strength buff than a full dps archetype so i guess we just disagree about that.

[regal fog]

Obv not every ing nerf but yk you can just take a look at the changelog too right? They provided explicit reasoning lol

I can pull up more common ings used in Fallen if you want

[cunning moss]

there is a common point brought up that we don't collaborate on changes like these when its heavily wrong. The rally and fallen changes coming together was not just random coincidence

we do collaborate on many many changes and even moreso as time goes on

[normal condor]

why was the fallen nerfs and rally nerf coupled together before any decent solution to why fallen is so reliant on rally dealt with

[austere cloak]

isn't this to make bbath stand out more
i've seen chatter abt that before, though tbh i thought they'd nerf -mr
and that's like. 1 change

[cunning moss]

yeah but you're saying that it was targetted at fallen which it wasn't. It was across the whole game so obviously some fallen stuff gets hit too its quite logical

[normal condor]

a

[austere cloak]

they need to see what the new numbers will be like in practice to buff AT healing

[normal condor]

guess that makes sense

[jaunty canopy]

Imo the rally thing was the only flawed part the other nerfs were deserved

[regal fog]

Hmm I reconsidered and you're right. I adjusted the wording and after relooking and yeah there were quite a few ings that were prevalent outside of Fallen.

That being said I still stand by my general argument that it's a big nerf and should be given time to settle before further changes.

Also, I have no idea if the previous comment was replying to me but I've never stated the rally and Fallen changes coming together was a sign of the disconnect. I'm quite aware it's intentional, I...still just disagree with it for the reasons I've stated above

[cunning moss]

nah it wasn't replying to you about that

and yeah I agree it should have time to settle like all things

[ancient frigate]

why does eotb even exist in its current state? it just diminishes the identity of bloodbath

[regal fog]

Don't ask me

[normal condor]

why does eotb even exist in its current state? it just diminishes the identity of bloodbath

[glass fox]

what

I didn't provide any opinion there, it was an open ended question to end the basic research I put into these nerfs

[fervent hare]

Hello @glass fox

[glass fox]

Hello @fervent hare

[fervent hare]

Yippie

[hexed loom]

Perhaps I should’ve listened

I wonder how Voidrim will react to these Fallen nerfs

[austere cloak]

" based on what you think, this would also reflect on how "flawed" your approach to balance is, or is not."
im sorry, but idk how else to read it?
you're kinda implying that if someone wouldn't call it an overnerf, their approach to balance is flawed

at least that's what is sounds like

[glass fox]

this does not mean calling this an overnerf means their balance approach is flawed stop looking too deep into an open ended question go do something better than arguing about semantics on a basic ahh research that just shows the impact
this literally means that either justified or overnerf approach to this can be considered flawed since that's the damn name of the thread. Never did I once say that thinking something is an overnerf is a flawed approach to balance.

[austere cloak]

ok, i can see that ig
with how much toxicity there's been it's hard to tell sometimes

[glass fox]

all good, I get how that feels

[vapid gate]

can we just not force flying kick if we're forcing cleansing for rally

[frank moon]

They said they wanted to put rally behind abilities from support archetypes. Yet calling bmonk and flying kick support is misunderstanding how bmonk currently is.

Also forcing a bad node (and taking away precious ability points) is not a good way of balancing.
If everyone uses a major id, it could also mean that there is a fundamental flaw with an archetype/class which gets fixed with said major id (in warriors case that is rally)

Conclusion, if rally gets a heavy nerf/gets locked behind certain archetypes, there should be some compensation to not outright kill an archetype or an entire class.

Now fallen probably won’t be entirely dead, but having to rely on hp pots or healing teammates to be viable is a heavy downgrade (not to mention all the other nerfs fallen gets)

[austere cloak]

it's on cleansing, not kick

[frank moon]

True, but to get cleansing you either have to heavily invest in pala or invest less on bmonk (and for bmonk route you need to take flying kick, Unless I'm wrong).

[austere cloak]

yes, that is true
but considering that their goal is to see how base fallen performs without rally to then buff healing accordingly, that makes sense

and having it on cleansing is fine then imo

[frank moon]

Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of rally. I dunno, it is way to strong. It gives warrior as a class the opportunity to play as a discount lightbender while dealing insane damage. Putting it on cleansing makes sense since paladin is supposed to never die.
We'll see how much it hurts fallen (but I think fallen will still be fine)

[regal fog]

Just to put the nerfs into perspective its damage got more than halved not including crafteds nerf

[frank moon]

The damage nerfs might be a bit overkill (especially if it is really that much with all the nerfs).

Then ask: Is the damage still strong to justify playing the archetype?
Might be a hard question to answer when taking in the rally changes and everything. Overdoing nerfs to an op class/character is something that can happen and it can kill strats for months or even years. I hope this isn't the case. Maybe they should've kept it with the rally changes (I dunno, I'm not a very good player)

[austere cloak]

???
if we just consider effect changes, that's a 20% nerf (1-1.2*1.2/1.2/1.5)
if we also change pathing to still get rally, that's 40% nerf, but the point was to incentivize fallen to not take rally

[jaunty canopy]

It still incentivizes rally

Nothing changed abt that it just made it harder to use rally

Fallen is still relient on rally

[glass fox]

hey guys! a friend of mine ran calcs for these nerfs again
we're loosing more like 15 - 20% dmg from changing rally tree instead of 25% - 30%
my calcs were a bit off sorry for the doomposting!
I'll update my calc message rq

[glass fox]

updated

[normal condor]

is this including eotb nerf

[glass fox]

no

this is just rally changes

[normal condor]

ooo yeouch its probably a quarter damage off total then for the BP weapons

[glass fox]

read the full message

which I linked above

[normal condor]

interesting

[glass fox]

well just tree changes not rally if u look at all calcs I did

[normal condor]

nerfs were deserved i suppose but I do hope the rally change to needing cleansing breeze put fixing fallens healing a bit of a higher priority

[glass fox]

I 1000% agree being forced not to take fallen nodes (to get rally) feels like a totemic shatter situation

[feral seal]

I think the inherent issue is that fallen’s health sustain nodes include no way to sustain health off of a single target. I think that’s honestly just an oversight with the archetype.

For any other situation, bloodlust + exhilarate should be enough to full heal yourself.

That being said, until that’s addressed, if you don’t want to spec into Paladin to use the already nerfed rally, potion sustain is really your main option.

Hence, the rally change really just pushes any fallen weapon out of meta with too much health to full sustain off of potions.

[normal condor]

unfortunately that may be design since CT does want to push for a healer dps tank sort of team line up

[feral seal]

Yeah but to not provide a class any way for it to SURVIVE on its own while being able to deal reasonable damage is kind of ridiculous

Healing is a necessity for a class that’s entire gimmick is using health to cast spells

[normal condor]

yeah it is a massive pain

[feral seal]

You cannot make it work any other way

[normal condor]

otherwise youre essentially on bought time with pot spam

[feral seal]

I mean bloodlust is supposed to address that, and it does fairly well in most situations. It’s just stuff like raid bosses where you don’t get many kills, but still are expressing skilled gameplay, that need to be addressed.

I get the “you sustain if you do well while in corrupted” design, and I think it pairs well with the high-risk high-reward play style of fallen. It just needs to be expanded upon a little to meet all endgame conditions.

[normal condor]

whats beyond confusing to me is that exhilarate and the other healing node don't have any aspects

[glass fox]

there were discussions about tying intox to life steal to make it less mob kill required

but those were just discussions again

[feral seal]

I think you just need to take a look at the role Rally was playing in fallen gameplay. It was essentially just being used in place of an AT node. To be honest, rally would probably be better off as an Ability rather than a mid from a game design perspective. To strip such a crucial “ability” away from the archetype that literally relies on it to survive, just doesn’t sit right with most people.

Imo, making rally’s self healing a FALLEN ability node and allowing the support aspect of it to remain as a mId is the play here.

[glass fox]

high key been thinking what if they simplify the entire rally situation by making cleansing heal (on a cd ofc) and change rally entirely

[regal fog]

???
Why should the pathing change to get rally not be included as part of the nerfs lmao, it literally is a damage loss regardless of the intention behind it
The 40% is still excluding aspect nerf which is another 7% and the casting% nerf lmao. Still over 50%

Just as an example that's like removing mask from summoner and aco and saying it's "not a nerf" because "it only affects the ritualist tree" as if summoner and aco doesn't take it 💀

[austere cloak]

casting%?

[regal fog]

Bpact health cost

[austere cloak]

oh that

[austere cloak]

bpact doesn't really affect sustained fallen iirc? and there's no clear way to include it in damage calcs
including the 7% aspect nerf means a 44% damage nerf (1-0.6/1.07), still not over half. i do agree that's a lot, but it's not what it was made out to be
i included a calculation without accounting for rally because unlike other nerfs, that one isn't completely forced - some players may choose to not go for it, so talking abt their damage makes sense

#1367515522870149211 message

looks like my numbers more or less coincide with sugo's (mine were on the fly, so his are more accurate obvs)

[regal fog]

I'll have to do some further testing. I disagree with parts of his research because you're not gonna run aco over lb and lose out on winded just to make fallen's damage higher

I personally lose 25% from at changes but I might just be playing suboptimally

No matter how you modify these changes by accounting for x or y around tho it's still in the 40-50% range. Sure I'm williing to agree my initial estimate was off but even accounting for the best case scenario it's still very significant

Also yes bpact does make a difference in some builds. It probably hits hero the least and actual burst fallen more which...again yeah I disagree with because sustained fallen was a bigger problem than burst fallen

His calculations still don't account for things such as how rally is nerfed even if you go for it nor ab's team loss buff (which I agree with, but should still be noted) either

[jaunty canopy]

Well they cant

The game is majority like solo

[cunning moss]

the game is majorly solo ye and despite everyone saying the changes are misguided, sugo's numbers (not that i've rattified them or anything) suggest that the main nerf is to heavily optimal fallen play making use of pretty busted combinations like fort + AB

and solo content taking a much smaller hit. So it looks pretty much exactly as we intended

[young turtle]

solo content has shitters to kill most of the time yeah

also healthpot too good to care if solo contenting

[cunning moss]

and that yeah

intox blood is fine all the way until you get to raid bosses lmao

like tna its pretty useless. It just needs a better trigger

[jaunty canopy]

Yeah

Was never really concerned abt the dmg i think itll be fine after

[jaunty canopy]

This is my issue

Fallen is so hyper reliant on rally and now its forced into a paladin node to access its reliancy so you do that or chug pots

[crisp surge]

could maybe have some new heal based on the health u spent casting spells so its not just a free full heal if u get shit on by mobs

[jaunty canopy]

Yeah

[regal fog]

So just to clarify, the ab change wasn't meant to lower Fallen damage (ok it does but I'm assuming this wasn't the main intention) but instead bridge the gap between aco + fallen vs lb + fallen? So that both provide ~40-50% worth of buffing compared to fallen scaling extra well with lb due to it originally being vulnerability?

Also, is it true that your intention with decreasing fortitude to 40% to make it roughly the same as aco's buff is meant to make healing vs dps the main distinction between aco and lb? Instead of lb always being strictly better for buffing

[cunning moss]

50% was kinda crazy that's the answer to part 2

The armour breaker change was because as time went on we realised that although acolyte is now in a pretty great place in terms of support options, it's most powerful debuff was somehow overshadowed by a full DPS archetype that has no business applying 20% vulnerability

We kinda realised that options like acolyte would never be valuable with armour breaker existing in that state

And the fact that in order to get a high strength buff and high vulnerability you only needed 1 DPS and 1 support (lb + fallen) where realistically it should take 2 support classes to give those two at high value

[young turtle]

im here just praying the 10% shaved off fortitude is coming back to lb when rift rework gives the other2 compensation buffs 🙏

[cunning moss]

Not really something we can decide yet as it's likely that with rift rework we will need to watch how it is played first before adjusting arca/lb

But 50% is kinda insane for anything to have

[young turtle]

Ye just praying it goes into base lb tree

and hopefully better arcbender support…

[cunning moss]

Ngl now the base isn't so high it could be an aspect or something