Jump to content


Infraction for nca: Multiple violations.

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Jessamy


    Struck by Diax's Rake

  • Moderators
  • 4803 posts

Posted 07 March 2011 - 02:38 PM

Post: Fury DPS: 4.0 and Cataclysm
User: nca
Infraction: Multiple violations.
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Rule 6: Gut feelings aren't helpful.

Rule 7: Do your own math.

Rule 10: Report bad posts instead of replying to them.

Original Post:

I do not understand how the Flurry change is a nerf to Fury. This seems like a buff to me, however I should mention that this is a gut feeling. Is there any mathematical explanation for the change being a nerf? I know the changes will, well, change further as the 4.1 patch is coming along, but this is a well intented (if not well thought) change that shows me a good direction for PvE on the part of the developers (as that's my primary focus). Instead of burst damage, relegating Fury dps to a smoother curve will make for a more balanced PvP; people seem to drop down all around during the buff stacking madness.

Yes, the change values Crit even more than everything else, but is that such a bad thing? Is the aim to have as balanced stats as possible, or perform the best you can under given conditions? I understand that this sort of change leads to a monochrome itemization scheme, but that should not be considered a problem, unless I'm missing something. Every patch, every change brings new sets of stat weights, and we adapt. Just don't throw away everything you don't use currently, and you'll be fine come the next set of changes.

However, the CS nerf deserves a corresponding buff as well, I think. Fury is not topping any charts on average (ref: stateofdps.com), and this is a clear nerf to PvE, which is not needed as per current data.

On a separate note, does anyone have a working model (with detail on how things are calculated, if not the exact calculation methods) for stat weights including Str? The ones that I have seen around don't make much sense to me, as they seem to be grossly oversimplified.

Also, hi!

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users