Have I made a mistaken assumption?

[Nirruden]

Mana Regeneration in the Post-TSS Era: A Case Study
Since the dawn of time, the necromancers have paid for their vastly superior mana regeneration with increased inefficiencies and reduced burst DPS. This tradeoff was generally regarded as fair and balanced by most. Wizards burst well, and necromancers used large mana regeneration to sustain well. Sustainability and burst power were juxtaposed, represented as the opposite ends of a continuum, if you will.

Today, the situation is thus:
Wizard:
Patient Harvest: 5800 mana every 8 minutes. This is 72 mana per tick for Rank 3. (Rank 2: 5625/80 = 70, Rank 1: 67)
Familiar: 10 mana per tick.
Scales of the Crystalwing (Rk III): 6 mana per tick
C. Pot (Type X): 14 mana per tick.

Total: 102 mana per tick, discounting meditation and non-class buffs, using all readily available self-cast buffs/potions.
(Rank 2: 100, Rank 1: 97)
Discounting potions:
(Rank 3: 88, Rank 2: 86, Rank 1: 83)

Necromancer:
Otherside: 85 mana per tick (Rank 2: 81, Rank 1: 78)
Wraithskin: 4 mana per tick
Total: 89 mana per tick, discounting meditation and external buffs, using all readily available self-cast buffs/potions.
(Rank 2: 85. Rank 1: 82)

As the above figures indicate, necromancers are now inferior to wizards across the board in terms of mana regeneration, while still paying the increased costs for their spells on every spell and generating reduced burst DPS as the tradeoff for DOT. In other words, we pay more on a spell-by-spell basis, to do less immediate damage. Due to the duration-based nature of our spells, it is additionally more difficult (often impossible) to "dip" into OOC regen than for a similarly employed wizard, who can simply remain seated for the first half of combat, and use burst DPS to "catch-up" after having sampled a couple of ticks of OOC.

Something is very, very askew here.

Hypothesis:
Otherside and Wraithskin need to have their mana regeneration components VASTLY increased in order to maintain parity between in-combat regeneration rates. Please note: I am not suggesting in any way that wizards are "above their station" or "overpowered". I am not suggesting any reduction in wizard ability, nor do I think such a thing is appropriate. I do, however, think that the natural order of the game has been altered and needs to be set back into balance in this particular, by restoring necromancers to the apex of in-combat mana regen they have traditionally demonstrated.

Necromancers: Have I made a faulty assumption somewhere, or is this really the case now? Am I leaving something out?

[Brahman]

you are 100% correct.

post it on EQlive in the necro tomb.

[Jebasiz]

That thread needs more specific information. Add up mana cost of new spell bars and what you used during PoR.

If you have any mana expenditure figures send them to me.

If you have any type of information that I can take to prathun on this topic please post it here or send me a pm.

I can't go with generalized statements. I can show him what you send me, I can answer questions if he has any..I can't speak for you. Give me something to get his attention.

[Feellia Flo]

OMG I never knew we lost so much as each expansion went by.

Pre Kunark
Lich = 22 a tick
Clarity = 9 a tick

LoL looks like Otherside needs like around +200mana or more a tick FFS!!! :o

[nephayres]

I'm not a whiz at calculations by any means, and i am positive at least two things are "mildly inaccurate" but just throwing some numbers around and using my own foci to determine their potential, I figure two things:

Either our lich needs to go up to about 95/tick at rk. 1 (This is just to scale with new spells btw, i personally think it should be around 122/tick at rk. 1 for non-arbitrary reasons :rolleyes: -- but since i don't ever expect that, i think what i would "like" accomplished is what a bunch of us expressed already, in the form of a real burn dot for grps (instant, if you will)) or the DPM of TSS spells needs to be adjusted by roughly 13%, in the form of a dmg hit or mana savings, whatever.

anyway the math is fine but a few things are wrong with what i factored in, still i won't claim it as an absolute truth but instead a personal gripe... i don't think 95/tick is asking that much at all, really.

[Feellia Flo]

I'm not sure of a burn dot, but the rest of the stuff sounds great Nephayres. I honestly don't think we where ever a group friendly class beyond some utility, and definitely not a dd class.

Besides adjusting spell cost and dmg. Another good place is to start reevaluating are spell resists. Virtually if a mob doesn't have a specific immunity to a line of spells.. everything we throw at them should land without reliance on debuffs.

Anyway /bleh

:ph34r:

[nephayres]

I agree with you, I was never really a grouper when i could avoid it (except for the verge-of-impossible kind of stuff, or pulling in missions which i find to be a fascinating art in it's own right). I do however feel injusticed, because it really feels like we lost ground in some ways, and while it may not hurt me as much as other necros it's a pretty selfish attitude to just sweep it under the rug.. though i somehow don't sympathize as much with the pet illusion campaign, hehehe.

It's not like i am actively playing or anything anyway, but i'm still slumming around the forums and eqlive in the hopes that something gets changed (And that i will help if i can)- i'd love to be able to return someday and not look at my class fondly "as it was", but "as it is" or "as it should be".

[FCseven]

Originally posted by Nirruden@Nov 22 2006, 02:45 PM
Mana Regeneration in the Post-TSS Era: A Case Study
Since the dawn of time, the necromancers have paid for their vastly superior mana regeneration with increased inefficiencies and reduced burst DPS. This tradeoff was generally regarded as fair and balanced by most. Wizards burst well, and necromancers used large mana regeneration to sustain well. Sustainability and burst power were juxtaposed, represented as the opposite ends of a continuum, if you will.

Today, the situation is thus:
Wizard:
Patient Harvest: 5800 mana every 8 minutes. This is 72 mana per tick for Rank 3. (Rank 2: 5625/80 = 70, Rank 1: 67)
Familiar: 10 mana per tick.
Scales of the Crystalwing (Rk III): 6 mana per tick
C. Pot (Type X): 14 mana per tick.

Total: 102 mana per tick, discounting meditation and non-class buffs, using all readily available self-cast buffs/potions.
(Rank 2: 100, Rank 1: 97)
Discounting potions:
(Rank 3: 88, Rank 2: 86, Rank 1: 83)

Necromancer:
Otherside: 85 mana per tick (Rank 2: 81, Rank 1: 78)
Wraithskin: 4 mana per tick
Total: 89 mana per tick, discounting meditation and external buffs, using all readily available self-cast buffs/potions.
(Rank 2: 85. Rank 1: 82)

As the above figures indicate, necromancers are now inferior to wizards across the board in terms of mana regeneration, while still paying the increased costs for their spells on every spell and generating reduced burst DPS as the tradeoff for DOT. In other words, we pay more on a spell-by-spell basis, to do less immediate damage. Due to the duration-based nature of our spells, it is additionally more difficult (often impossible) to "dip" into OOC regen than for a similarly employed wizard, who can simply remain seated for the first half of combat, and use burst DPS to "catch-up" after having sampled a couple of ticks of OOC.

Something is very, very askew here.

Hypothesis:
Otherside and Wraithskin need to have their mana regeneration components VASTLY increased in order to maintain parity between in-combat regeneration rates. Please note: I am not suggesting in any way that wizards are "above their station" or "overpowered". I am not suggesting any reduction in wizard ability, nor do I think such a thing is appropriate. I do, however, think that the natural order of the game has been altered and needs to be set back into balance in this particular, by restoring necromancers to the apex of in-combat mana regen they have traditionally demonstrated.

Necromancers: Have I made a faulty assumption somewhere, or is this really the case now? Am I leaving something out?
I agree,post this on the eqlive forums.

[Jebasiz]

Nephayres,
How do you come to your 122/tick number?

Not that I don't agree or anything, but it's not like I can show this to prathun and him go "is this true" and I can be all like "ya..take my word for it".

[Meph]

Necros and wizzys historically allways shared their runes why do wizzys suddenly have FT4/5/6 and necros get FT4/4/4 on rk. 1/2/3 of their TSS runes?

Wraithskin Rk. III (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=10533&source=Live), Scales of the Crystalwing Rk. III (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=10812) - NEC/WIZ lvl 73, 1268 rune ... NEC = FT4, WIZ = FT6
Dull Pain (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=5428&source=Live),Ether Skin (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=5448&source=Live) - NEC lvl 69, WIZ 68, 975 rune, FT3 - OoW
Force Shield (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=3301) - NEC/WIZ lvl 63, 750 absorb, FT2 - PoP
Manaskin (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=1609&source=Live) - NEC/WIZ lvl 52, 591 rune, FT1
Diamondskin (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=394&source=Live) NEC lvl 43, WIZ 40, 394 rune

[nephayres]

will send a pm before i leave here jeb, with the basic theory.

[Jebasiz]

Got it, thanks...so does prathun. Minus the F-bomb.

edit:If neph gets back to me with an OK, I'll post the PM for those that are curious.

[Vinlaael]

Originally posted by Nirruden@Nov 22 2006, 07:45 PM
Mana Regeneration in the Post-TSS Era: A Case Study
Since the dawn of time, the necromancers have paid for their vastly superior mana regeneration with increased inefficiencies and reduced burst DPS. This tradeoff was generally regarded as fair and balanced by most. Wizards burst well, and necromancers used large mana regeneration to sustain well. Sustainability and burst power were juxtaposed, represented as the opposite ends of a continuum, if you will.

Today, the situation is thus:
Wizard:
Patient Harvest: 5800 mana every 8 minutes. This is 72 mana per tick for Rank 3. (Rank 2: 5625/80 = 70, Rank 1: 67)
Familiar: 10 mana per tick.
Scales of the Crystalwing (Rk III): 6 mana per tick
C. Pot (Type X): 14 mana per tick.

Total: 102 mana per tick, discounting meditation and non-class buffs, using all readily available self-cast buffs/potions.
(Rank 2: 100, Rank 1: 97)
Discounting potions:
(Rank 3: 88, Rank 2: 86, Rank 1: 83)

Necromancer:
Otherside: 85 mana per tick (Rank 2: 81, Rank 1: 78)
Wraithskin: 4 mana per tick
Total: 89 mana per tick, discounting meditation and external buffs, using all readily available self-cast buffs/potions.
(Rank 2: 85. Rank 1: 82)

As the above figures indicate, necromancers are now inferior to wizards across the board in terms of mana regeneration, while still paying the increased costs for their spells on every spell and generating reduced burst DPS as the tradeoff for DOT. In other words, we pay more on a spell-by-spell basis, to do less immediate damage. Due to the duration-based nature of our spells, it is additionally more difficult (often impossible) to "dip" into OOC regen than for a similarly employed wizard, who can simply remain seated for the first half of combat, and use burst DPS to "catch-up" after having sampled a couple of ticks of OOC.

Something is very, very askew here.

Hypothesis:
Otherside and Wraithskin need to have their mana regeneration components VASTLY increased in order to maintain parity between in-combat regeneration rates. Please note: I am not suggesting in any way that wizards are "above their station" or "overpowered". I am not suggesting any reduction in wizard ability, nor do I think such a thing is appropriate. I do, however, think that the natural order of the game has been altered and needs to be set back into balance in this particular, by restoring necromancers to the apex of in-combat mana regen they have traditionally demonstrated.

Necromancers: Have I made a faulty assumption somewhere, or is this really the case now? Am I leaving something out?
i just wanted to point out that your wizard mana regeneration calculations are slightly off. Rank III patient harvest has a 6 minuite recast rank II has a 7 minuite recast and Rank I has the 8 minuite recast
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=10794&source=Live patient harvest Rank III

http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=10793&source=Live patient harvest Rank II

http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=10792&source=Live patient harvest Rank I



Rank III patient harvest comes out to around 97.5 mana regen per tick if i did my calculations right.

5850 / 60 = 97.5. mana per tick for rank III Patient Harvest

5625 / 70 = 80.35 mana per tick for Rank II Patient Harvest

5400 / 80 = 67.5 mana per tick for Rank I Patient Harvest

if i did any numbers wrong im sorry

with rank III patient harvest

97.5 + 10 ( from familiar) + 6 (scale of the crystalwing rank III) + 14 ( mana pot) = 127.5 mana regen per tick.

[nephayres]

Originally posted by Jebasiz@Nov 24 2006, 12:39 PM
Got it, thanks...so does prathun. Minus the F-bomb.

edit:If neph gets back to me with an OK, I'll post the PM for those that are curious.
haha, i guess i sometimes go off a bit on those stream of consciousness type posts. I don't really mind where you post it or who you give it to- even if it's refuted into the ground and totally disproved, if it's enough to get something rolling or get some higher power's attention, the end result is all that matters.

[Nirruden]

Originally posted by Vinlaael@Nov 24 2006, 08:52 PM
i just wanted to point out that your wizard mana regeneration calculations are slightly off. Rank III patient harvest has a 6 minuite recast rank II has a 7 minuite recast and Rank I has the 8 minuite recast

...which makes things look WORSE instead of better. That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for - before I post this on EQLive, are there any other mistakes I've made?

I appreciate you folks looking into this for me, as it's been a brief process, and I haven't had the time to put into a broad spectrum of research on this.

Anyone with more time:
1. Where were necromancers prior to TSS on an absolute scale of mana regen compared to all other classes?
2. Are there any other calculation mistakes I've missed?

[Brahman]

1. Where were necromancers prior to TSS on an absolute scale of mana regen compared to all other classes?

we were behind shaman.

we were ahead of EVERYONE with passive mana regen though.

[Nirruden]

Case Study posted to EQ Live: http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/...message.id=9768 (http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=Necromancers&message.id=9768)

[Brahman]

you forgot one word...

"passive incombat regen"

[Jebasiz]

I wouldn't mind a massive cannibilization AA like shaman have. As long as it was very significant..like 2200dmg for 1500mana on a 3 min or so refresh. It'd be like 50 mana regen per tick, if we used it consistently. I'd rather just have a huge lich though :P.

I've linked just about everything you all have posted over the last several days to Ky. She's read the PM, I'm not sure if she's followed the links or not. I've asked her for feedback, and I guess we'll just wait and see.

[Nirruden]

Originally posted by Brahman@Nov 27 2006, 07:40 PM
you forgot one word...

"passive incombat regen"
I'm sorta-kinda stuck on that one, Brah. Patient Harvest isn't passive.

If we're going to be removed from our previous place by an active ability, then I'm not going to suggest that ignoring active abilities suddenly makes the comparison fair. For the record - I'm not shooting to supplant shaman, either, I just didn't like the way that mentioning "passive" mana regen felt like I was creating technicality "wiggle room". SOE might claim that they're not malicious in their interpretation of our requests in such matters, but the truth remains that for "passive" regen, we're higher than wizards.

Why let 'em wiggle?

[Brahman]

clicking one button every 3 min is fairly passive...

canniing every 10 seconds is not.

/shrug

you are prolly right htough ;)