This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Glyph of Scourge Strike (in 4.0.3+)
Return to board index
Post by
285678
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
567183
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
138583
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
dervasavred
1. 42% (FF)
2. 84% (FF and BP)
3. 126% (FF BP and EP)
These numbers are in no way true. If this were the case, a 10k physical portion SS would have a 12.6k shadow portion, for a total of 23k or so. This does not happen. Ever.
More in line is that the live version of SS is 12% per disease, so 36% as shadow damage. 30% of 36% is 10.8, so the glyph raises the SS shadow portion to 46.8% of the physical portion. Note that Ebon Plaguebringer and RoR may or may not skew this percentage (not sure if RoR double-dips), but you get the idea. Tuesday's patch brings this to 18% per disease for a total of 54% pre-Glyph (70% with the Glyph) and pre-Dreadblade, the new Unholy Mastery, again without factoring talents in.
This application would lead a 10k physical SS to have a roughly 5k shadow portion (which is fairly consistent with current numbers on logs) in 4.0.3. Come Tuesday, expect a 10k physical SS to have a 7k shadow portion before considering Mastery.
Moreso, it is more probable that the damage increase is after all other damage is calculated instead of doing it per disease. This method would reduce server load and is conducive to simpler math, which is something Blizzard likes to do (except for Armor Pen, but that was difficult to balance).
However, it would be more beneficial to our damage to calculate it per disease as that would be a 48% increase instead of my above-mentioned 46.8%. Whichever it is, the Glyph is mandatory.
This is an example of that "new math" all the kids are learning in school.
Post by
apocalypsa
From the tooltip
An unholy strike that deals 100% of weapon damage as Physical damage plus (624 * 100 / 100). In addition, for each of your diseases on your target, you deal an additional 12% of the Physical damage done as
Shadow damage.
Therefor making it 42% shadow damage opposed to 12%
Edit: forgot ammount of diseases scale.
1. 42% (FF)
2. 84% (FF and BP)
3. 126% (FF BP and EP)
Too overpowered. Its not additive its multiplicative.
Its 15% opposed to 12%.
QFT. Well, mostly. 30% of 12% isnt 3, its 3.66 and on.
Post by
285678
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Carukia
QFT. Well, mostly. 30% of 12% isnt 3, its 3.66 and on.
Actually, it's just 3.6.
Post by
BlackWvyern
18% + 18% + 18% = 54% + 30% = 70.2%
You get 18% per each applied disease (Frost Fever, Blood Plague, Ebon Plaguebringer) which brings the shadow damage to 54% to start. Glyph of scourge strike increases this by 30% more. This is multiplicative. It won't come to 84%, but rather 70.2%.
And then you get to factor in our lovely new mastery, which I believe actually is additive. The reason I say this is because my mastery is sitting at 34% currently.
Now, 34% of 70.2% is only 23.868% which would put the shadow portion at a solid 94% damage. However...
According to recount, my shadow strike damage is doing
more
than my standard scourge strike at the moment, by a marginal amount.. Which leads me to believe that -
70.2% + 34% would equal out to 104.2%. Which is exactly what my numbers are showing me on recount.
Post by
138583
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
archonoid
simply it doesn't increase the total SS damage (against no armored target and without resistance) but with high enough mastery it will increase SS's total damage right ? so we can deal more shadow damage than SS's base physical damage.. but i think physical damage totaly consumed by shadow dmg..
edit: short things short this glyph helps to convert Scourge Strike to Frost Strike like ability but dealing shadow damage instead frost.
Post by
Gnub
Seeing as the OP got the responses he was looking for, and this thread looks rather outdated, I'd say it's not worth to keep it going. Please refrain from bumping threads this old - if the OP had more doubts regarding the subject, I'm sure he would either make a new thread, or keep this one going until he got the answer needed. With half a year passed, I'm quite sure we can assume he got that.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
