93 réponses à ce sujet

[Yallegro]

 

Nightmare build - Supporter / "Ninja Medic"

Should maybe say something more about this weird one: It's one method I found of being of value to a Nightmare group without an obscene amount of Promotions. The whole build is focused on obstructing/disabling enemies and supporting group members in a pickle. LS + Disable can take a tough enemy almost wholly out of the equation for 11 seconds. Spike Trap+ and Sleeping Powder+  both  do not break Stealth, and the latter grants an enormous tactical advantage when its AoE capabilities are used skillfully.

 

Still, ewww Knockout Powder

 

My opinion is that Hunter is not a class to play on nightmare without the stats or at least some barrier supporter (which wouldn't combine terrifically with Stealth)

 

There is also no sunder on that build

 

 

WHAT!!!!

Why Bioware insist on not telling us those things!!!

 

 

The same applies to Knockout Bomb found on archers and alchemists

 

oh and Poisoned Weapons

[Snakebite]

Since my whole spiel was about the nerfed version, your conclusion is off (laying aside that your 250% weapon damage part is wrong in the first place) -- hitting 4 enemies for 250% weapon damage is 1000% weapon damage (note that, per my post, 1000% weapon damage from a bow is usually better than 1500% weapon damage from a staff)...but this is assuming you hit 4+ enemies while Chain Lightning only needs 2 enemies within 9m of each other.

Since that whole quote was about the pre-nerf version, why are you dissecting and trying to tear it apart because my math doesn't fit the post-nerf version? Anyone can just look at my quote right above your analysis and see you you are cutting pieces of it out to fit your analysis and "prove" my math is bad.

About my inaccuracies about the upgrade, I will just take your word for it. I spend my time playing the game, not running the formulas for each and every ability. The fact that it "only" does 80% of the damage I thought it would does not bother me. Still good damage.

[MagicalMaster]

Since that whole quote was about the pre-nerf version, why are you dissecting and trying to tear it apart because my math doesn't fit the post-nerf version? Anyone can just look at my quote right above your analysis and see you you are cutting pieces of it out to fit your analysis and "prove" my math is bad.

Since my whole quote was about the post-nerf version, why are you dissecting and trying to tear it apart because my math doesn't fit the pre-nerf version? Anyone can just look at my post and see you are cutting pieces out of it to fit your analysis (like, y'know, the first two sentences of "Okay, wow, that's complete nonsense (the nerf, that is). Literally a 50% nerf on an ability that was already lackluster in the first place") and "prove" my math is bad.

Did you not bother to read the first few sentences of my post (prior to the section you quoted, actually, so not like you could have "stopped early") or did you just not understand it?
 

About my inaccuracies about the upgrade, I will just take your word for it. I spend my time playing the game, not running the formulas for each and every ability. The fact that it "only" does 80% of the damage I thought it would does not bother me. Still good damage.

Yeah, taking 10-15 minutes to look at the *standard* damage formula to figure out how the stats work and realizing that "damage bonus" on abilities meant attack on gear was pretty bad really detracted from the time I wanted to spend playing the game. It was rough, man. If I was really good I could have earned like 25% of a promotion in that time period.

And I actually thought it might bother you since you claimed (when talking about the pre-nerf version)

"If you meet that requirement, you are hitting at least 4 enemies for 500% weapon damage each, for a total of at least 2000% weapon damage. Yes, that is actually more than the 1500% weapon damage Chain Lightning can do."

80% of that would be 1600% (versus 4+ enemies) compared to 1500%. If your math (after the 80% adjustment) was correct, that would seem to make your *other* claim of

"My conclusion: Unless you have very little Cunning, Chain Lightning is nowhere near as good as Explosive Shot."

ring hollow since Explosive Shot would only be 6.7% better than Chain Lightning against four enemies (and substantially worse against 2 or 3) prior to factoring in crit.

[Snakebite]

80% of that would be 1600% (versus 4+ enemies) compared to 1500%. If your math (after the 80% adjustment) was correct, that would seem to make your *other* claim of

"My conclusion: Unless you have very little Cunning, Chain Lightning is nowhere near as good as Explosive Shot."

ring hollow since Explosive Shot would only be 6.7% better than Chain Lightning against four enemies (and substantially worse against 2 or 3) prior to factoring in crit.

Let's not forget the fact (that you broguht up initially) that a bow does about twice as much damage as a comparable staff. It is still twice as good, BEFORE factoring in crits.


Why did you even bring up Chain Lightning in the first place? This is a Hunter thread, and the last time I checked, the Hunter does not have Chain Lightning. Did Proto's opinion of Explosive Shot (that is was good, is still an OK starting ability, but since the nerf he actually feels the need replace it with another ability) upset you that much?

[Jay P]

It's important to me that I'm on the side of the facts. If you have math, logic, or some other type of proof to show that I am wrong then I will "switch sides" to be on the side that the facts support.

It's just not that important to me. It's just a video game.

And debating your subjective opinion when you are clearly trying to skew the facts in your favor isn't that interesting.

You are trying to compare explosive shot to auto attacks, but it's an AoE.

You are saying explosive shot isn't a good CC, but your comparing it to a Mage CC, which the archer and hunter can't get.

That's fine I guess. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this some big debate with multiple people.

It was good before the accidental nerf. It's not as good now, but still remains a good starter ability until you can get a better fourth ability.

I'm not sure how the above is so controversial.

[MagicalMaster]

Edit: had order of damage calculation incorrect for physical weapons and elemental abilities.

Let's not forget the fact (that you broguht up initially) that a bow does about twice as much damage as a comparable staff.

Indeed, hence why I said "If your math...was correct." That said, in this case you're still ignoring armor which can bring a bow down substantially versus many enemies on higher difficulties (only a few specific enemies are resistant/immune to Electricity and others are vulnerable).
 

It is still twice as good, BEFORE factoring in crits.

How are you getting *that* conclusion?

With the upgrades factored in (and ignoring armor still), talking 225%ish per target on 4 enemies for 900% damage total. Chain Lightning is 1500% total, cut that in half (staff vs bow) to get 750%.

Since we're talking prior to crits (*and* ignoring armor which favors CL), does 900% somehow equate to being twice as much as 750% for you? Looks more like 20% better to me, not 100%.

And, again, hitting only 2-3 targets with the nerfed Explosive Shot makes Chain Lightning significantly better.
 

Why did you even bring up Chain Lightning in the first place? This is a Hunter thread, and the last time I checked, the Hunter does not have Chain Lightning. Did Proto's opinion of Explosive Shot (that is was good, is still an OK starting ability, but since the nerf he actually feels the need replace it with another ability) upset you that much?

Hunters (and all classes) were given Chain Lightning yesterday. To quote St. Barrett: "We were sick and tired of only those elves spamming Chain Lightning and doing nothing, everyone should be given the right to do pathetic damage."

More seriously, if a Support/Tank class has a equalish starting DPS ability (and better in many cases, just need 2-3 enemies within 9 yards of each other versus 4+ enemies in a 4 yard radius) compared to a DPS class's starting DPS ability, that probably indicates the starting DPS ability of the DPS class is pretty bad (unless you want to claim that Chain Lightning is too strong, of course).

And no, Proto's opinion didn't bother me that much. The idea that Bioware might read it and believe it bothered me -- I wrote it to provide some math showing how the nerfed Explosive Shot was really bad. The good news was that St. Barrett responded to another post I had just made while I was writing the post in this thread -- but I didn't see it until finishing this thread's post, hence my having to edit in the breaking news that the nerf wasn't intentional.

But then assorted people (like you and Proto) decided to take issue with my post and things went on from there.
 

You are trying to compare explosive shot to auto attacks, but it's an AoE.

Your original quote:

"Explosive shot, when not bugged, is an awesome starter ability as it does very good damage, decent aoe damage, and it a very reliable, short cooldown CC.

Even when bugged, it's passable damage for a starter ability, and still an awesome CC."

I read that has...

Original: Good single target damage, decent AoE damage, good CC
Nerfed: Passable single target damage, good CC

Because there's a point at which the AoE damage becomes so little it doesn't matter or actually hurts (due to drawing aggro) -- if Explosive Shot did 20% weapon damage to every enemy in a 20 meter radius it would still be bad. So I thought you were saying that, with the nerf, Explosive Shot just didn't do enough AoE damage for it to be worth using intentionally in that role, merely as a passable bonus to single target damage.

And if you're talking about it as a passable single target increase...that brings us into the realm of auto attacks.
 

You are saying explosive shot isn't a good CC, but your comparing it to a Mage CC, which the archer and hunter can't get.

And? How else are you going to determine whether it's "good?" If, ignoring damage for a moment, every non bow class had single target CCs which knocked down an enemy for 10 seconds on a 15 second cooldown while Explosive Shot knocked down an enemy for 1 second on a 12 second cooldown, how could you claim Explosive Shot's CC was "good?"

I'm certainly not saying Archer/Hunter CC should be equal to a mage's, to be clear. But the idea is that they do more damage or provide effects like Sunder in exchange for having worse CC. And prior to the nerf, that's what happened -- Explosive Shot was worse CC than Winter's Grasp but significantly better damage. And Explosive Shot doesn't have some other effect like Sunder, Cripple, etc to "even the scales" so to speak either.

Oh, and just to head off it being brought up: the specific concern here is whether it's good as a low level/starting ability. Hence why it's being compared to another *similar* low level/starting ability -- later class abilities wildly diverge (Elemental Mines vs Walking Bomb for AoE or something) and are not as comparable. At that point you look at *overall* class power/balance with the various abilities and passives...but that's not in effect yet for the levels we're discussing here.
 

It was good before the accidental nerf. It's not as good now, but still remains a good starter ability until you can get a better fourth ability.

I'm not sure how the above is so controversial.

The "remains a good starter ability" part. Which is why Bioware has said they'll fix the (unintentional) nerf.

[Jay P]

Indeed, hence why I said "If your math...was correct." That said, in this case you're still ignoring armor which can bring a bow down substantially versus many enemies on higher difficulties (only a few specific enemies are resistant/immune to Electricity and others are vulnerable).


How are you getting *that* conclusion?

With the upgrades factored in (and ignoring armor still), talking 225%ish per target on 4 enemies for 900% damage total. Chain Lightning is 1500% total, cut that in half (staff vs bow) to get 750%.

Since we're talking prior to crits (*and* ignoring armor which favors CL), does 900% somehow equate to being twice as much as 750% for you? Looks more like 20% better to me, not 100%.

And, again, hitting only 2-3 targets with the nerfed Explosive Shot makes Chain Lightning significantly better.


Hunters (and all classes) were given Chain Lightning yesterday. To quote St. Barrett: "We were sick and tired of only those elves spamming Chain Lightning and doing nothing, everyone should be given the right to do pathetic damage."

More seriously, if a Support/Tank class has a equalish starting DPS ability (and better in many cases, just need 2-3 enemies within 9 yards of each other versus 4+ enemies in a 4 yard radius) compared to a DPS class's starting DPS ability, that probably indicates the starting DPS ability of the DPS class is pretty bad (unless you want to claim that Chain Lightning is too strong, of course).

And no, Proto's opinion didn't bother me that much. The idea that Bioware might read it and believe it bothered me -- I wrote it to provide some math showing how the nerfed Explosive Shot was really bad. The good news was that St. Barrett responded to another post I had just made while I was writing the post in this thread -- but I didn't see it until finishing this thread's post, hence my having to edit in the breaking news that the nerf wasn't intentional.

But then assorted people (like you and Proto) decided to take issue with my post and things went on from there.


Your original quote:

"Explosive shot, when not bugged, is an awesome starter ability as it does very good damage, decent aoe damage, and it a very reliable, short cooldown CC.

Even when bugged, it's passable damage for a starter ability, and still an awesome CC."

I read that has...

Original: Good single target damage, decent AoE damage, good CC
Nerfed: Passable single target damage, good CC

Because there's a point at which the AoE damage becomes so little it doesn't matter or actually hurts (due to drawing aggro) -- if Explosive Shot did 20% weapon damage to every enemy in a 20 meter radius it would still be bad. So I thought you were saying that, with the nerf, Explosive Shot just didn't do enough AoE damage for it to be worth using intentionally in that role, merely as a passable bonus to single target damage.

And if you're talking about it as a passable single target increase...that brings us into the realm of auto attacks.


And? How else are you going to determine whether it's "good?" If, ignoring damage for a moment, every non bow class had single target CCs which knocked down an enemy for 10 seconds on a 15 second cooldown while Explosive Shot knocked down an enemy for 1 second on a 12 second cooldown, how could you claim Explosive Shot's CC was "good?"

I'm certainly not saying Archer/Hunter CC should be equal to a mage's, to be clear. But the idea is that they do more damage or provide effects like Sunder in exchange for having worse CC. And prior to the nerf, that's what happened -- Explosive Shot was worse CC than Winter's Grasp but significantly better damage. And Explosive Shot doesn't have some other effect like Sunder, Cripple, etc to "even the scales" so to speak either.

Oh, and just to head off it being brought up: the specific concern here is whether it's good as a low level/starting ability. Hence why it's being compared to another *similar* low level/starting ability -- later class abilities wildly diverge (Elemental Mines vs Walking Bomb for AoE or something) and are not as comparable. At that point you look at *overall* class power/balance with the various abilities and passives...but that's not in effect yet for the levels we're discussing here.


The "remains a good starter ability" part. Which is why Bioware has said they'll fix the (unintentional) nerf.

Grats.

[Yallegro]

Magicalmaster I currently (and yesterday and tomorrow) lack the attention span to go through all your text to find out what exactly you are claiming.

 

But it seems to be of extremely little importance.

 

A thread that was supposed to be about the hunter now has more text devoted to you than anything else, please let this lie.

[Carbon_Bishop]

This was a nice thread for about a page...

[Snakebite]

Indeed, hence why I said "If your math...was correct." That said, in this case you're still ignoring armor which can bring a bow down substantially versus many enemies on higher difficulties (only a few specific enemies are resistant/immune to Electricity and others are vulnerable)



Because there's a point at which the AoE damage becomes so little it doesn't matter or actually hurts (due to drawing aggro) -- if Explosive Shot did 20% weapon damage to every enemy in a 20 meter radius it would still be bad. So I thought you were saying that, with the nerf, Explosive Shot just didn't do enough AoE damage for it to be worth using intentionally in that role, merely as a passable bonus to single target damage.

Explosive Shot does fire damage. Elemental damage bypasses armor. The fact that you don't even know some of the basic principles of the ability we are debating is sad.


This is kind of how I feel about Chain Lightning. I don't care how far away I can hit things from the primary target if I can only hit them for a fraction of the damage. Explosive Shots AoE damage is equal to the damage it does to the primary target (which is higher than Chain Lightnings primary damage).
If you are having trouble hitting multiple enemies with Explosive Shot, let me give you a tip: Prioritize grouped up enemies over single enemies.

[MagicalMaster]

Grats.

Thanks! My favorite part is how you quote my entire posts -- even the parts that are responding to other people.

Magicalmaster I currently (and yesterday and tomorrow) lack the attention span to go through all your text to find out what exactly you are claiming.

I feel sorry for you then. Numbers and logic are not for everyone. Consult your doctor before use.

Explosive Shot does fire damage. Elemental damage bypasses armor. The fact that you don't even know some of the basic principles of the ability we are debating is sad.

I'm aware it does fire damage (technically, prior to nerf it used to be one physical hit and one fire hit). I was only in error over how the physical -> elemental calculation worked. I thought it would be calculate damage -> change damage to fire -> apply to target when in fact it seems to be change damage to fire -> calculate damage -> apply to target.

But I'm still waiting to hear your justification for "It is still twice as good, BEFORE factoring in crits" given that my numbers explicitly were ignoring armor anyway, so my error didn't matter. Or do you typically just spout nonsense and, when pressed, try to misdirect to an irrelevant error the other person made? I'm still new to this part of the Bioware forums.

Explosive Shots AoE damage is equal to the damage it does to the primary target.
If you are having trouble hitting multiple enemies with Explosive Shot, let me give you a tip: Prioritize grouped up enemies over single enemies.

Yeah, I'll just ask them to clump up nicely for me all the time. And not just in a group of 2-3, but of 4+. That is definitely what usually happens in runs.

[Jay P]

Thanks! My favorite part is how you quote my entire posts -- even the parts that are responding to other people.


I feel sorry for you then. Numbers and logic are not for everyone. Consult your doctor before use.


I'm aware it does fire damage (technically, prior to nerf it used to be one physical hit and one fire hit). I was only in error over how the physical -> elemental calculation worked. I thought it would be calculate damage -> change damage to fire -> apply to target when in fact it seems to be change damage to fire -> calculate damage -> apply to target.

But I'm still waiting to hear your justification for "It is still twice as good, BEFORE factoring in crits" given that my numbers explicitly were ignoring armor anyway, so my error didn't matter. Or do you typically just spout nonsense and, when pressed, try to misdirect to an irrelevant error the other person made? I'm still new to this part of the Bioware forums.


Yeah, I'll just ask them to clump up nicely for me all the time. And not just in a group of 2-3, but of 4+. That is definitely what usually happens in runs.

I quoted the whole thing because I don't care enough to edit it.

Your arguments aren't interesting to me.

The only thing that is even remotely interesting is the lengths you are willing to go to to be insulting and to try and twist logic to try and support your position.

When I said passable damage, I meant AoE, it's not my fault that you misinterpreted that.

I shouldn't have to explain that an attack that only does 150% weapon damage with a long animation, plus costing sta, is not that great, even if it does ignore armor.

And the fact that the AoE is based upon the single target damage should have lead you to the conclusion that I was talking about passable AoE.

But whatevs. You seem to be intent on fighting an imaginary war and insulting as many people as possible in the process. I look forward to your future posts.

[MagicalMaster]

But whatevs. You seem to be intent on fighting an imaginary war and insulting as many people as possible in the process. I look forward to your future posts.

Where in this thread have I insulted anyone who didn't insult me first? If you can point to one (or more) examples then I will apologize to that person (or those people) and make amends as best as I am able.

[Yallegro]

 

Snake, Jay I'm looking at you two

[Proto]

LOL. I can't believe this thread. Remind me not to answer any of MagicalMaster's questions in the future. 

 

Wait, when did that happen?

 

Latest patch. Still does fire damage and knockdown, but no physical damage. Pretty big nerf if you ask me. Still a good starter ability in my opinion. Other skills are actually worth taking to replace it now. 

 

How the above statement was seen to be so nonsensical that it led to the following is beyond me. 

 

Before I quote the following post. Here is the definition of "comparing"

 

"to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences."

 

Please note the bolded and italicized parts. 

 

Edit: apparently the nerf was unintentional.


Okay, wow, that's complete nonsense (the nerf, that is). Literally a 50% nerf on an ability that was already lackluster in the first place. I don't agree that it's a good starter ability now -- the AoE is way too small for it to do that little damage. I mean, let's look at the Archer/Hunter:

Archer gets Long Shot, Leaping Shot, Mark of Death...and last ability is up in the air. Those three are the "core" abilities. Some people go Explosive Shot, others Full Draw, others Fallback Plan, etc.

Hunter gets...well, Hunter is a lot more of a wild card. Some people focus on Elemental Mines or Spike Trap, others like Throwing Blades, others like Stealth, others like Full Draw, Leaping Shot, Fallback Plan, Hook and Tackle...and so on. No one ever talks about how Explosive Shot is so good and needs to be taken or something.

Explosive Shot was not some super powerful class/spec defining ability. And let's look at some actual numbers for "good start abilities"...say, Chain Lightning?

 

-snip- (bunch of pointless numbers. Even bringing up chain-lightning was absurd)

Why? One Leaping Shot will have the target at 0 armor by the fifth hit? Throwing Blades will also sunder.

Maybe if you're talking about running up to an enemy and just Spike Trapping it, I guess? But for many playstyles it'll barely matter.

 

I will let others decide whether they think that was a comparison or not. We obviously disagree and aren't going to change each others mind.

 

"Explosive Shot was not some super powerful class/spec defining ability."

 

You came to that conclusion by "looking" at the abilities available to the Hunter and Archer.

 

I will note that explosive Shot is so "lackluster" that many never replaced it as one of their 4 active abilities. You included.

 

The latter bolded part was in reply to my recommending the armor penetration passive to another poster. 

 

PS. Make sure to keep in mind the line about chain lightning being a "good start abilities."

 

 

How did we get to comparing the archer and hunter when discussing explosive shot? They both have the ability as a starter. Archer is clearly the more OP kit due to opportunity knocks...no debate from anyone there. Nerf impacted them both equally, at least for the builds I ran. Both included Explosive Shot. 

 

Explosive Shot in its pre-unintended nerf state never needed to be replaced. Never needed to be upgraded. I certainly never spent points to replace it. It's a fantastic ability that knocks enemies down and doesn't miss unless blocked by terrain. Its AOE isn't as bad as you would make it out to be and criticals (which with both physical and fire is fantastic) can be guaranteed when paired with stealth/Knife+Shadows. It also has a short cooldown of 12 seconds.

 

Even with fire damage only, its still a solid starter skill that has a low cooldown and can knock enemies down. 

 

Please reread my post. I specifically said "other skills are actually worth taking to replace it now." This implies I agree the nerf is extreme and no longer makes the skill something worth skipping elemental mines, throwing knives or fulldraw for...Pre-unintended nerf that isn't the case. 

 

 

My guess is that the Marucho is using something like this:

 

Build

 

That build doesn't include Throwingblades, nor Cheap Shot. Armor passive is nice. 

 

In the post above I would like to point out that I made the statement that the archer is clearly more OP than the Hunter due to opportunity knocks and that it was non debatable. I made a statement. Is that not allowed?

 

The reason I made that statement is because I didn't understand "looking" at the abilities of the Hunter and Archer in relation to explosive shot. The classes are so different, due to opportunity knocks. You can't look at their available abilities to find out whether a specific ability is class/spec defining. The abilities, even though they are exactly the same are so drastically different on each class because their cool-down time is so drastically impacted by the presence or absence of opportunity knocks.

 

The post above apparently hit a nerve. I still don't understand why. But nonetheless you start trying to find something I said that was incorrect or misguided.

 

When was I comparing the Archer and the Hunter? I never said anything about their respective power levels, I was talking about the abilities they used. My point was that neither of them had Explosive Shot as a "awesome must have" ability. Explosive Shot was never in a situation where it was so good it had to be nerfed for either class.

Also, Hunter is a lot easier to use for a new player with worse gear. Between starting with Fallback Plan and having Stealth, lot easier to manage aggro/health before getting better gear and HoK/HoH.


If you were using Explosive Shot for AoE then the upgrade drastically helped. Hit 4+ enemies and it's like having 100% more attack -- even if you have 100% attack default that's still a 50% damage improvement. Even on one enemy it would have been >10% increase even if you had 100% attack otherwise.


The very build you guessed Maracucho was using doesn't keep Explosive Shot. Dieb on page 1 doesn't keep it. SpaceVegan didn't mention it in his post. Only you and I were using it from the people who posted actual "builds" in this thread. So apparently 60% of people posting in this thread who care enough to post a build think it was already worth replacing prior to the nerf.

 

At this point we both have acknowledged Explosive shot was not in need of a nerf, though I don't seem to care. You on the other hand are completely bent out of shape over it. In the mean time you spent the entire post nitpicking my opinions, even made the claim the Hunter is "a lot easier to use for a new player" which had what to do with my post exactly? 

 

lolz

 

That's a comparison.

 

I can see that being the case. Though I remember thinking exactly what you described in the quote above. Then I unlocked him and was extremely disappointed because opportunity knocks is and will always be king, especially with all the people out there with high critical chance now aday. Longshot was also OP in those days, which might have influenced that feeling. 

 

Sure, it gets used as an AoE. But often not against 4+ enemies due to its 12 second cooldown, much more often used against < 3. Upgrade is a throw in towards the end of the build for me. Not essential by any means.

 

My guess is SpaceVegan uses it, because he probably promotes before getting to a point where he replaces it. I could be wrong, though. He does say passives, not other abilities. I would guess Jerky uses it, seeing as he said he was going to try out a swap I mentioned I gave a try. So yeah, Maracucho who said he used mines after the bug-nerf and Dieb don't use it.

 

We have such a big sample size here its worth pointing out though, right... 

 

Its a great ability, you yourself use it. Not even sure what you're trying to gain from bickering with me back and forth. 

 

Looking back I really like the above post. 

 

I don't know if you're trying to troll me here. The only even semi-comparison was talking about how the Hunter has a wider variety of abilities used compared to the Archer -- and you could remove the word "more" without changing the meaning of the paragraph. Nothing was said about relative power or "OPness" or anything along those lines (you brought that up). The point was that *neither* class had Explosive Shot as a crucial/keystone ability.

Goal: show chocolate is irrelevant to making apple pie or cherry pie

A. Apple pie is made with apples and pie crust
B. Cherry pie is made with cherries and pie crust
C. Neither A or B mention chocolate
D. Therefore chocolate is irrelevant to making apple pie or cherry pie

That is not a comparison of apple pie and cherry pie -- it's comparing apple pie to chocolate and then cherry pie to chocolate.

Goal: show Explosive Shot isn't crucial/primary/etc to the Hunter or the Archer

A. The Hunter does not have Explosive Shot as a crucial/primary/etc skill
B. The Archer does not Explosive Shot as a crucial/primary/etc skill
C. Neither A or B features Explosive Shot as a crucial/primary/etc skill
D. Therefore Explosive Shot isn't crucial/primary/etc to the Hunter or the Archer

It's not "Hunter vs Archer" but rather "Hunter vs Explosive Shot" and "Archer vs Explosive Shot"...because those are the only two classes with the skill.
 

It doesn't. You'd need both the auto-crit (or very high Cunning) and Cheap Shot. If you have neither then the 25% Armor Pen talent is a lot more appealing.

 

It's difficult, I know, but in this case you need to think from the perspective of someone actually new (and I'm being completely sincere right now -- trying to remember what it was like to start playing a game after investing hundreds of hours into it isn't easy. You could even try making a new account to start from scratch if you wanted to see -- the trial version is free).

I used it prior to that minor "do 50% less damage" accidental change. That changed it from being decent to being terrible. You're arguing that even at 50% of original damage that it's still solid -- that's what I'm disagreeing with.

 

LOL at the chocolate BS.

 

Having a hypothetical goal that includes an ingredient not included in the actual PIE and trying to use it as a means to make a point for your actual goal of Explosive shot not being crucial/primary to the Archer and Hunter, two classes that ACTUALLY HAVE THE SKILL AS A STARTER ABILITY makes all the sense in the world. 

 

Not.

 

Lol, again.

 

 

Point is your "goal" was not achieved. Explosive shot is a crucial and primary skill to the Archer and Hunter. They both use it for a minimum of their first 10+ levels, and many choose to keep it as a main ability in their rotation throughout the entirety of their build. 

 

Not sure why you are arguing that you didn't compare the two, you did. I will admit I was the one who mentioned the difference in effectiveness, but only to make the point that bringing up the hunter's access to a wider variety of skills as a reason to not "nerf" explosive shot was balogne. 

 

Exactly. That's why I recommended it in the first place. (armor passive)

 

Newer players forget that we have all played in low promotion situations, with far worse gear than the newer player's experience. We probably played hundreds more hours with scrubby level stuff and didn't have improved armor to work with. Please try to think about it from that perspective.

 

You yourself have pointed out how easy it is to get critical chance up through weapon and armor upgrades as well as accessories, ect...I'm not buying your Routine and Threatening explanation. We're not talking about week one players with absolutely no access to anything. The Hunter is clearly not high on the "unlock" list for new players, at least the ones who plan to powergame. So yes, in that specific example, where someone happens to have the Hunter unlocked before he leaves Routine, it may be more effective than an archer, maybe.

 

I have the trial version of the game, but no computer worth playing it on. Eventually I'll need a new PC for my home, but at the moment its not high on my priority list. 

 

Lol...The spell is always an AoE. Whether it actually hits multiple targets doesn't change that. In my statement < 3 = one or two enemies, not more. 

 

I've already told you I pick it up later in my builds if I feel like it. The Hunter is starved for points early on. I want Stealth, most players want Knife in the Shadows.  I want Leaping Shot and its upgrade. I want Razor's edge. I want Spike Trap and or Elemental Mines. I may even want to get Throwing Blades and Cheap Shot. I want pincushion. I want the armor passive if I didn't go for throwing blades and cheap shot.

 

This was my initial stance. If others want to prioritize increasing explosive shots damage against multiple targets...and only against multiple targets, fine go for it. Its not worth it to me. I'd prefer to spend the points other places until later in the build. 

 

As stated before, its better than decent for a starter skill...when not bugged. Its a great starter skill when working as intended. My exact quote on the matter in response to a question you specifically asked me was this:

 

"Latest patch. Still does fire damage and knockdown, but no physical damage. Pretty big nerf if you ask me. Still a good starter ability in my opinion. Other skills are actually worth taking to replace it now."

 

"Even with fire damage only, its still a solid starter skill that has a low cooldown and can knock enemies down."

 

I tested Chain Lightning with Snakebite last night, wow that ability is terrible. 

 

I will not defend myself any further. The fact you are giving me this much grief over the above statements, which were only made to answer a question you posed, is ridiculous. 

 

Now is when it gets hilarious. I ran out of "Quotes" so I just bolded the following. 

 

MagicalMaster, on 11 Sept 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:
Ah, so Dragon Rage isn't a crucial and primary skill for the Reaver -- after all, she doesn't even get it until level 6+ so it fails the first half of your test (used for a minimum of first 10+ levels).

If that's not what you meant, kindly clarify, have to run for now.

 

lolololol

 

Grasping at straws, man. Why are we talking about another class, this time a non-bow user? Archer, Chain Lightning...now Dragon Rage. All in a thread about the Hunter. Obviously, Dragon Rage is going to be "more" crucial and primary to the Reaver than Explosive Shot is to the Hunter.

 

My statement about the minimum 10+ levels was just an example to show that the ability is used by every hunter during their progression, and while being used is effective/useful even to a point that some don't ever replace it. That part of the statement was never intended to set a parameter for what classifies a skill as "Crucial and Primary."

 

If you're going to latch on to the "minimum of their first 10+ levels" and use that as a means to argue your point further, it just goes to show you have little ground left to stand on. 

 

Crucial: of great importance 

 

Primary: earliest in time or order of development.

 

Yes, explosive shot is crucial and primary for the Hunter. At least during the early levels of the class.

 

Here we go...I was totally off base...

 

Because you're trying to use primary/crucial in a nonsensical way and setting up a completely bizarre definition for it (which is easily checked by noting that Dragon Rage wouldn't meet your criteria). But apparently that's not what you meant.
 

I "latched on" to half of your initial definition : /
 

No, I was using those words as synonyms. Hence why I also used the term "keystone." And I *never* mentioned anything about certain levels, so why you would think "primary" was referring to time versus "First or highest in rank or importance" is beyond me. Especially in this context as it would mean something like Dragon Rage or Deathblow or Ambush/Broadsides or Static Cage or whatever would not count as primary abilities.

In other words, I'm talking about abilities that make you say "Yeah, that's a really important ability to have, typically critical for optimal play with the class." And the only reason I said "typically" versus "always" is that some classes have more than one playstyle. War Horn vs Devour is an example for Reaver -- people run with one or the other based on other factors but not with both. But people with War Horn can easily wish they had Devour for extra healing and people with Devour can easily wish they had War Horn for the CC/auto crits.

But Explosive Shot? Nothing so iconic or playstyle defining.

Prior to the nerf, was it a solid and useful skill? Yes.

This whole stupid side argument seems to have started when you claimed I was somehow comparing Archer to Hunter to figure out which was better or something...which I wasn't. My entire point from that, which you completely missed, is that Explosive Shot was not in a situation for *either* class where it was simply too powerful and had to be nerfed. And since those are the only two classes *with* Explosive Shot there's no reason to nerf it.

To show why this is important, look at Throwing Blades. Used to be Hunter only. Then Silent Sister got it. If the Devs decided Throwing Blades with all the SS passives was too good and had to be nerfed...well, that sucks for the Hunter to be nerfed due to the SS. But Explosive Shot wasn't in a position where it had to be nerfed for Archer *or* Hunter, so there's no potential collateral damage.
 

I don't have a dislike for Proto, but I do dislike his earlier misunderstanding/claim that I was somehow comparing Hunter to Archer in terms of which was better or something.
 

First of all, I never said Chain Lightning was good. I said Chain Lightning was better than Explosive Shot. Which you should have realized from my statement of "Why is a starting DPS skill of a support mage and a tank mage significantly better (as in over twice as good versus two targets, over 50% better versus three targets, etc) than a starting DPS skill of rogues?" which clearly indicates I think Chain Lightning *shouldn't* be very good (since it's a DPS skill of a support mage and tank mage).

The only thing stupid about my claim was that I didn't realize the secondary hits of Chain Lightning couldn't crit (I never stacked crit chance on AW/Keeper but I still saw the odd crit from CL). But let's talk about your "math" then, shall we?

 

LOL, dislike my misunderstanding/claim that didn't ever occur. Gimmie a break. Also, remember when I pointed out the chain lightning comment earlier? Yeah...

 

The following portion explains exactly why I was puzzled you brought up the archer at all. "Looking at" throwing blades on the Silent Sister(flow of battle) and throwing blades on the Hunter, isn't an assessment worth making. Not fair to the Hunter that doesn't have an OP cooldown passive. 

 

"My entire point from that, which you completely missed, is that Explosive Shot was not in a situation for *either* class where it was simply too powerful and had to be nerfed. And since those are the only two classes *with* Explosive Shot there's no reason to nerf it.To show why this is important, look at Throwing Blades. Used to be Hunter only. Then Silent Sister got it. If the Devs decided Throwing Blades with all the SS passives was too good and had to be nerfed...well, that sucks for the Hunter to be nerfed due to the SS. But Explosive Shot wasn't in a position where it had to be nerfed for Archer *or* Hunter, so there's no potential collateral damage."

 

Yes...it's the same exact situation...pointless "looking at" exercise. 

 

Also, where did I miss the point? I think the point was established with my initial post. No where did I say explosive shot was justifiably nerfed. I only mentioned that I would be replacing it.

 

You just wanted to beat a dead horse.

[BiggyDX]

Dat post length...JEEEZUSS!

[Proto]

Dat post length...JEEEZUSS!

 

Had to feed the troll, as yallegro would say.

[Beerfish]

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

[Carbon_Bishop]

You know what does irk me about the hunter? His hat is bent on the wrong side.  Should be bent on the right side as that is where he shoots his bow.

 

Also, Explosive shot cured my Syphilis.  Awesome ability.