Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Theloras

Paladin Bug Compendium

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, foleet said:

Are these two updates nerfs or buffs? What was the spell power bonus at before for judgement of righteousness?

Judgement of Command now scales base damage depending on whether the target is stunned rather than scaling the bonus damage --> Its a nerf imo. If scaling is done without spell bonus, it lowers its dmg. But i'm not sure... @Theloras what do u think?

Judgement of Righteousness now scales at 50% spell power bonus --> Its a buff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rafale said:

Judgement of Righteousness now scales at 50% spell power bonus --> Its a buff

What was the scale for spell power at before? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a fix/buff

previously Judgement of Command was only scaling at 23% and Judgement of Righteousness was scaling at 43%

now JoC is correctly scaling at 43% for stun and unstun

and JoR is scaling at 50%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically someone confused the spell dmg scaling for JUDGEMENT of Command with the scaling for SEAL of Command when they coded it originally for the server

TLDR - SoC should correctly scale at 23% from spell dmg whereas JoC scales at 43%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else noticing that reckoning swings are only proccing items on the first swing? Weapon damage procs and items like HoJ don't seem to be able to proc on extra swings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xaph said:

Anyone else noticing that reckoning swings are only proccing items on the first swing? Weapon damage procs and items like HoJ don't seem to be able to proc on extra swings.

not me - ive always and continue to have multiple procs from Lifestealing, Neretzek and Venomhide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Theloras said:

not me - ive always and continue to have multiple procs from Lifestealing, Neretzek and Venomhide

Have you ever had HoJ proc from the reckoning swings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Xaph said:

Have you ever had HoJ proc from the reckoning swings?

that's actually a fair point - @Grimtoll has told me multiple times that he has never gotten an Ironfoe proc ever either in his reck bombs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's because it's scripted so that extra hits can't proc off of extra hits, ie if, wf and hoj can't proc off each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's an intentionally scripted bug? Why do pallies always get hit hardest by these = /

HoJ is weak for reckbombs then, what would you guys suggest for your 2 trinkets? Blackhand's and Mael? or that Wyrmthalak trinket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I remember, blizzard hit extra attack procs hard with that nerf. Because of that I've never had multiple extra swings proc on the same attack with a reckoning bomb. Only just the once, unless I had another item to proc another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blizzard never hit this unfortunately, outside of tf. What is done on this server is unique to this server as there is plenty of footage showing chain multi-hits (the famous reck bomb being part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys are sounding like religious nutjobs. Provide evidence that judgments stacked between 1.8-1.12 or gtfo with your rubbish answer "it happened before and possibly after but I can't prove it happened during and you need to prove it didn't". Dude if you can't find evidence to prove it happened then it probably didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole argument is pointless. If you applied the same standard you're requiring to every other ability in the game we'd have to conclude that hunters didnt exist prior to oatch 1.4 and disappeared again in patch 1.10 only to resurface in 1.11. See how silly your argument is? You can rationalize it anyway you want but it doesn't make it less absurd when applied to other cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rofl there's footage showing hunters before 1.4 but no one has found any (that withstand inspection) for judgment stacking. A positive claim needs some evidence to stand on otherwise I refer to the flying spaghetti monster as an example. There might be one but without proof no one should accept it as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nirinia said:

rofl there's footage showing hunters before 1.4 but no one has found any (that withstand inspection) for judgment stacking. A positive claim needs some evidence to stand on otherwise I refer to the flying spaghetti monster as an example. There might be one but without proof no one should accept it as fact.

Obviously the example was exaggerated but it was meant to show how silly your rationale is. If you concede the point that judgement stacking existed PRIOR to 1.8 and then POST 1.12, then your "flying spaghetti monster" example is irrelevant. If you concede both those points then it is you who is claiming it was REMOVED during those 4 patches, requiring YOU to establish proof that it was. In all the threads concerning judgment stacking this has never been done. My point was to show that if you concede that hunters existed during some patches and demand video proof of patches in between because they could have been stealth removed is ludicrous.

If you don't concede that the evidence compiled demonstrates that judgment stacking existed prior to 1.8 then I agree with your argument. The burden of proof changes depending on that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the burden of proof in any situation rests with the positive claim, in this situation that judgments stacked between patch 1.8 and 1.12. Agreeing with it existing before and (possibly, yes I said possibly) after does not imply agreement between those periods. Eg. A light can be on at 1pm and again at 3pm. Agreement that it was on at both these times does not imply that it was on in between unless it is seen or proven.

It could have been fixed in patch 1.8 and later readded by accident with tbc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're committing a basic logical fallacy. If you agree that judgment stacking existed before 1.8 and after 1.12, then your assumption is that it was REMOVED in 1.8. That is your base assumption. Your reasoning is that because we think that judgment stacking still existed between 1.8 and 1.12 that the burden of proof is on us to DEMONSTRATE that it wasn't stealth removed as there is no official statement on the issue. This means that the burden of proof that you require us to provide is actually not that judgment stacking existed between 1.8-1.12 but that the stealth removal of it didn't happen. Before responding please read this carefully as the entire discussion rests on whether you concede that judgment stacking existed prior to 1.8. If you don't then fine, but if you do agree then whether it is a positive or negative claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a stealth removal occurred NOT that one didn't.

The GitHub thread that covered this issue conflated all kinds of issues as you are here. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that judgment stacking of wisdom and light would break certain encounters and on that basis alone it shouldn't be allowed. The same is not true for crusader stacking. A second issue is whether debuff stacking with a particular spell should be considered a bug that was not correctly dealt with by blizzard. Again, here I think you could make the case that it was missed but should be brought in line with the standardized approach to spells. A third issue is whether debuff stacking even existed (this is what we're discussing and it's why the concession that it existed prior to 1.8 is so important).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my issue with your counter-argument is that you are claiming that a stealth-REMOVAL is a positive claim. It is not, it is a negative assumption and should be treated as such which places the burden of proof upon the counter-argument.

Your side is using the good old religious argument of, we say something exists and its up to everyone else to disprove it. Saying something existed before also has no bearing on it being removed. If anything it would mean there should be more evidence of it existing however no one seems to be able to find any. This means that your argument has no weight until you find some indisputable evidence.

note that I am not saying it didn't exist, just that should keep quiet about it until you have proof, then there wouldn't be any opposition of any kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nirinia said:

Saying something existed before also has no bearing on it being removed. If anything it would mean there should be more evidence of it existing however no one seems to be able to find any. This means that your argument has no weight until you find some indisputable evidence

Saying something existed changes the entire issue. If it existed prior to 1.8 then we can assume it continued to exist or didn't. If it didn't then it was either removed intentionally or perhaps it was a bug connected to something else and when that got fixed it disappeared. The other option is that it remained. Your requirement to prove that it didn't change is through video evidence is one way of looking at the issue but it does not escape the further claim that you are suggesting one of the first 2 options took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it got intentionally removed then there won't be anything to find, if it remained then there will be evidence of it. Those are the only options. I have no qualms about it either way but I'd prefer it if people would provide evidence before making a claim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×