June 22 balance patch True Patch notes.

Hero Feedback
lol the damage went up. I mean, has any body tried adding?
06/21/2016 01:31 PMPosted by Hippy
lol the damage went up. I mean, has any body tried adding?


The DoT damage happens three times, the explosion damage happens once.
06/21/2016 01:31 PMPosted by Hippy
lol the damage went up. I mean, has any body tried adding?


Have you?

34 + 34 + 34 = 102

102 > 68

He lost more damage than he gained, unless you account for hitting more people with explosions, which is the intent. Less ST damage, more AoE damage (Though, as I mentioned earlier, most of his ST damage is from SKF which already had a nerf but is still great for ST damage)

SKF is really what they need to tweak if they want to reduce his ST damage. Shift the power from that into AoE damage sources (Heck, you could just reduce its numbers but make it damage targets in an area and blam, instantly reduced his ST and increased his AoE)

Which is what I assume might be in the alluded future tweaks. That and perhaps more support for the FS build.
He lost damage on the first target, but increased his damage on the second one (since that one will suffer from 2 incremented explosions). In general, his ability to wipe the enemy team now is higher than before (i.e. 22 damage more on the second/third/fourth/fifth targets, not considering the lvl 20 talent) while a bit less strong against the first target (i.e. 40 damage less on the first target).

Don't think this "nerf" will change the fact that he's 100% banned/picked in every match in HL (Diamond to Gold range). He's even better to team wipe than before!
06/21/2016 01:21 PMPosted by Renideo
People will often pick the healing talents, but the option was a good thing, feral lunge was actually picked quite a lot for quite a long time in the pro scene

Feral Lunge was picked ~0.2% of all games. Doubt it was that popular in pro scene. If it had been picked by pros, a lot of people would've started getting it just because the pros were.
06/21/2016 01:21 PMPosted by Renideo
cleanse has often been picked over the traditional level 7 healing talent

Actually, no. Earth Shield was the go to at level 7. Cleanse was situationally chosen depending on team comps. Earth Shield had 65~80% or so pickrate while Cleanse had 8~12% or so.

06/21/2016 01:21 PMPosted by Renideo
Rehgar fell off not because he was bad (prior to the rework) but because the burst meta got so bursty that his ancestral's timing window became increasingly unreliable, and his healing was relatively more on the AoE side, and less on the burst side. They just basically let him have everything in the rework by giving him a strong single target heal at base and not requiring him to make any sacrifices to get it.

Yet now they're completely nerfing him to the ground where he was actually better prior. :(

Edit: Maybe Feral Lunge was picked 2.0%? 100% sure it was less than 5% picked though.
06/21/2016 11:21 AMPosted by Taril

Just to further point out how stupid this statement is, I'd like to apply the maths to it.

Since things do for the most part have the same percentage increase (4% per level is the standard) it might seem at first glance that they will scale the same.

However, as they are percentage based, then they are based on how big the initial numbers are that they're scaling from.

The difference between 350 and 390 get more pronounced over a game.

350 base damage at level 20 will be doing 350*1.04^19 = 737 damage.

390 base damage at level 20 will be doing 390*1.04^19 = 821 damage.

That's turned that small looking 40 damage discrepancy into 84 damage. This gets worse for levels higher than 20


That's not scaling "worse", it's just scaling.
The value of the gap between two numbers increases when you increase the scale of those numbers at the same rate.

The new Bomb damage remains a lower value, but it's the same % chunk of health at level 20 as it is at level 1 with respect to all the heroes that scale at 4% health. When you "scale it up" it's not better or worse at killing heroes at level 20 than it was at level 1.
For example, at level 1 that 350 damage is ~20.39% of Illidan's 1716 health. Can you guess what 20.39% of the 3615 health Illi has at level 20 is?
Yep, 737.

Doing less damage or doing more damage is not scaling better or worse unless you actually scale it better or worse, like 5% or 3%.
I watched pro games a lot, and feral lunge was picked very frequently at one point, that statistic seems a little arbitrary to me. The timespan is not specified at all.
06/21/2016 11:21 AMPosted by Taril
Just to further point out how stupid this statement is, I'd like to apply the maths to it.

Since things do for the most part have the same percentage increase (4% per level is the standard) it might seem at first glance that they will scale the same.

However, as they are percentage based, then they are based on how big the initial numbers are that they're scaling from.

The difference between 350 and 390 get more pronounced over a game.

350 base damage at level 20 will be doing 350*1.04^19 = 737 damage.

390 base damage at level 20 will be doing 390*1.04^19 = 821 damage.

That's turned that small looking 40 damage discrepancy into 84 damage. This gets worse for levels higher than 20 (However those levels are rarely reached. You might hit 21 or 22 but it's not that frequent)


Dude, do you realize that 84 damage late game is LITTERALY the same thing as 40 damage early game?

I repeat, if it scales at the same rate, it doesn't scale better or worse late game.

You need to understand a simple thing. Dealing 1000 damage to a 2000 hp target is the samething as dealing 2000 damage to a 4000 hp target.

EDIT: Oh someone already replied, well at least I think he'll understand.
06/21/2016 12:05 AMPosted by Altruist
KT reworks are like... they just throw darts at a board with a random selection of nerfs/buffs on them.


They have a more complex system based on 4 rouletes:
1. Rounds
2. Talents
3. Buff/Nerf
4. Percentages

So on the game:
1. They roll the first one: this shows how many rounds will they do with the 3 last roulettes (aka how many talents will be changed).
2. They roll the second: a talent is choosen.
3. They roll the third: that talent will receive a buff/nerf
4. They roll the fourth: the number they get, the percentage will be the buffed/nerfed.

Once the game finishes, they think of logic arguments to sustain that decisions. But this system has some flaws: in this step we realise why they want Reghar to be more agressive, but nerf his heals, cancel his Ancestral Healing autocast, and can't be self cleansed: they couldn't come up with a logic argument of how nerfing heals would make him go more agressive on melee (thus receiving more damage).
The point

___________

Your head.

What he's pointing out is simple. Let's use easy numbers to make it more simple. Say everything scales at 5% in this example:

You have one ability that starts at a base of 500. One that starts at 100. Hit a level, one of them is 105, 110, 115, and the other goes from 500, 525, 550. Yes, they're scaling at the same rate, but the total damage is higher given the higher base.

He's basically telling you that the bigger number does more damage and you're arguing by pointing out that they both gain 4% per level, which isn't something anyone is disputing. The original insinuation made it seem like they scaled to the same _value_.
06/22/2016 07:22 AMPosted by Ness

He's basically telling you that the bigger number does more damage and you're arguing by pointing out that they both gain 4% per level, which isn't something anyone is disputing. The original insinuation made it seem like they scaled to the same _value_.


No, he's not "basically saying the bigger number does more damage", the literal statement being debated is that it scales worse:

06/21/2016 07:39 AMPosted by Aldrius

So... 350 (150+200) instead of 390 (250+140). Not a huge nerf, but a nerf. And that's base, so it also scales worse.


That's me quoting the claim we're debating that it scales worse. You can tell the claim is that it scales worse, because he says, "it scales worse".

Did your head go high enough to catch that one?
Either way, the ability does not scale for the same value that it used to.

And either way, it's a fairly significant nerf to the DoT damage of the ability.
06/22/2016 03:58 PMPosted by Aldrius
Either way, the ability does not scale for the same value that it used to.

And either way, it's a fairly significant nerf to the DoT damage of the ability.


This is true, but it's also a nice buff to the AoE damage, it's something like 130 extra per target it catches at 20.

The weird part is suddenly deciding Kael has "too much" single target damage, after the last major change just a few months ago gave him Gravity Crush + Sun King's Fury.
What did they expect to happen?
No, he's not "basically saying the bigger number does more damage", the literal statement being debated is that it scales worse:


Not sure why this is a difficult concept, but the lower the base damage is, the lower the end product of scaling becomes. If the initial is 400 and the new is 300, the old scales to a higher value than the new. That's literally the entire statement being made.

If more damage = better, less damage = worse, then it now scales into a lower (worse) value.

Not sure why this is a difficult concept.


Nor am I.

06/22/2016 08:30 PMPosted by Ness

If more damage = better, less damage = worse, then it now scales into a lower (worse) value.


A number being higher or lower is not the same as scaling better or worse. The size of the numbers changes with the scale.

Using your simplistic "more damage = better" definition of scaling, it scales better because it's literally a higher number at level 20 than level 1. But that's not what scaling is.
It's like trying to say that Arthas' health scales better than Greymane's because Arthas still actually has more health at 20. Even though Greymane's health actually scales at 4.5% (Arthas, like everyone except Greymane and Cho'Gall scales at 4%).
Seriously, after many games seeing the new rehgar, he's bad now. I doubt he will ever be picked again in any competition.

First ban ming/kharazim in every game incoming.

Also Zagara scales at 3%. I think Zag grey and cho are the only exceptions.
What i really hate is they give Rehgar damage taking away his healing.

Yet he can't jump in and deal damage cause he will implode at first CCs.
06/23/2016 06:10 AMPosted by Larsozzo
What i really hate is they give Rehgar damage taking away his healing.

Yet he can't jump in and deal damage cause he will implode at first CCs.


i feel the same way.. its also a "win more" mechanic, that actually wont help with winning a teamfight in the first place. during a teamfight, you are just worse support.. after a teamfight is already won, you can now safely apply your increased damage.
06/22/2016 10:55 PMPosted by Altruist
Using your simplistic "more damage = better" definition of scaling, it scales better because it's literally a higher number at level 20 than level 1. But that's not what scaling is.


Again, we're comparing the number before the patch to the number after the patch. It now has a lower base and now scales to a lower value. Since 'better' is something you're having trouble defining, here's another example.

Going back to that 5% number with bases at 100 and 500, say at 100 base power you instead scale at a rate of 5.5%, at 500 base you scale at 5%. The 100 is gaining 5.5, 500 is gaining 25. 100 is scaling at a higher percentile, but it's gaining less (aka worse) per level. Saying it 'scales better' is pretty silly as it's still gaining less per level.
Which would you prefer? the 5.5 per level or 25 per level despite one 'scaling better'?

Also Zagara scales at 3%. I think Zag grey and cho are the only exceptions.


Zag's health and auto attack damage scales at 4% - her ability damage and creep tumor health all scale at 3%, except for Hunter Killer's health which is 3.5%.

06/23/2016 08:41 AMPosted by Ness
Saying it 'scales better' is pretty silly as it's still gaining less per level.
Which would you prefer? the 5.5 per level or 25 per level despite one 'scaling better'?


Again, "bigger number" and "scales better" are not the same thing.
Just using your 500/5%, 100/5.5% example:
The 500 damage after 20 levels is 1326, so it's increased by a factor of 2.65.
The 100 damage after 20 levels is 291, so it's increased by a factor of 2.91.
It's still a smaller number, but if you put this in a context of health pools scaling at your same 5% figure, then health pools also increase by a factor of 2.65 over 20 levels. Even though the base 100 damage skill is still a small number, by increasing by 2.91 times it's grown "more bigger" than everything else around it that increased by 2.65 times. It's scaled better.
If you really want to put it into anything resembling a balanced context, say for arguments sake that this 100 damage is an auto attack that can be done 9 times a second and the 500 is an auto attack twice per second. At level 1, that's 900 vs 1000 damage per second, scale that up 20 levels and it's 2619 vs 2650. As you keep adding levels, eventually the 100 will overtake the 500.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum