Jump to content


Photo

Warning for Cloudio: 1. All posters are to make an effort to communicate clearly.


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 malthrin

malthrin

    stalemate associate

  • Moderators
  • 9,107 posts

Posted 21 September 2011 - 01:06 AM

Post: The Retribution Concordance - 4.2, Now with Two Scoops of Ragnar-Ohs
User: Cloudio
Infraction: 1. All posters are to make an effort to communicate clearly.
Points: 0

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Please don't put spaces before your commas and periods.

Original Post:

Blue Post
In the English language the phrase: "may not necessarily" strongly implies that there is at least the chance that it may indeed do so. The phrase "may not necessarily" is incorrect. Proper phrasing is "While it will not" - because there is absolutely no chance that reducing HoW would reduce proc reliance. HoW has nothing to do with procs. This is the root of the sanity question. The sentence is simply a non-sequitur.


Did you mean HoW damage has nothing to do with procs ? as HoW is mentioned under Divine purpose proc spells .

The questions is , if we consider blizzard were so accurate about the relation between HoW damage and proc reliance , is there any hidden/unknown equation for proc chances that we are not aware of ? Did blizzard intended to give us a hint that there is a relation between HoW damage and proc reliance ?

I know procs are quite random , but eventually and in order to get a proc , there should be some number executions in the background which depend on alot of factors .






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users