Report 1724

Report #1724
Skillset: Necromancy Skill: Deathmark
 Org: Magnagora Status: Completed Jun 2017
Furies' Decision:
All solutions.
Problem: Once considered top-tier by a wide margin, Necromancy has rightfully
received several reductions in utility and overal strength during its lifetime.
As the overhauls have continued, however, due to changes in resistance formulas,
DMP, and percent-scaling Necromancy has found itself 'behind the curve,' of many
similar Rituals-based skillsets. Rather than addressing individual skills case-
by-case at this time, this report attempts to bring some presence back to the
skillset as a whole by tweaking a core skill, Deathmark, to create a ripple
through the various abilities that interact directly with the affliction. This
will allow Necromancy users a rationale behind stacking Deathmark and reward the
time required to do so.
[A: 9 R: 0] Solution #1: The functions and scaling of Deathmark are calculated
 only for the holder of the mark, which currently
 stands against the current direction of affliction
 design in the game as a whole. To resolve this, make
 it so interactions with Deathmark from other skills
 function and scale irrespective of who 'holds,' the
 mark on the target. This serves several purposes,
 such as increasing the overal 'worth,' of Deathmark,
 reducing affliction tracking, and allowing more
 strategic interplay between Necromancy users.
[A: 6 R: 1] Solution #2: In addition to Sol1, increase the max stacks of
 Deathmark to 25 to bring it in line with other
 similar Rituals 'stacking-skills,' such as Timewarp
 or Temporary Insanity. Even with skill interactions
 between Necromancy users being viable, the actual
 scaling of Deathmark is still relatively low. In
 addition to making it less trivial to max out stacks,
 this will allow for a moderately increased reward
 from Deathmark stacking to other Necromancy skills.
[A: 4 R: 2] Solution #3: Also in the effort to bring Deathmark more into line
 with similar afflictions, move this from a cleanse
 cure to Purity in order to maintain some degree of
 affliction synergy while making the affliction itself
 less onerous to deal with.
Player Comments:
---[Rideta on 6/14 @ 23:03 sets as pending]
---[Shedrin on 6/14 @ 23:25 writes]:
So Solution 2 increases the max scaling possible for deathmark scaling skills.
As far as I know, it's pretty light on each skill that does that, but some
specific numbers of what it is now and what it will be at the new max would be
appreciated. For Solution 3, I think in a lot of cases this would just make it
impossible to build. Right now deathmark isn't particularly impactful so having
it be a (generally ignored) cleanse cure is fine. Maybe with Solution 2 it puts
it over the top, but I'm not sure this is the direction you should go. Solution
1 is fine.
---[Iytha on 6/15 @ 00:37 writes]:
I don't see a problem with Solution 1 or 3. And Solution 2 is fine iif it the
scale just becomes more granular, so that the new max has the same effects as
the current max.
---[Falaeron on 6/15 @ 22:45 writes]:
My only concern is if deathmark or any of the skills that use deathmark are ever
changed to be more powerful than they are right now. With deathweapon we might
get into a situation where deathmark builds very quickly, so that is something
to keep in mind. For comparison, timewarp is just not possible for a Sentinel to
build while temp insanity is possible for a Templar only with a lot of
investment.
---[Wobou on 6/16 @ 18:39 writes]:
1 and 2 seem fine to me because as far as I know all the scaling on deathmark is
pretty weak. It will definitely need to be revisited if there are buffs in
scaling in the future. For solution 3 I share Shedrin's concerns. I predict that
moving it to dust will later result in a report that asks for a buff either in
application or something else to hinder dust and I'm not sure if I want to go
down that road of granting necromancy users a full on dust stack either by
buffing mark or something else so that their mark is not instantly cured off. I
think if you want to move it off of cleanse that a timed cure would be better.
---[Shedrin on 6/16 @ 22:48 writes]:
Asking again for clarification of the details of what effect Solution 2 will
have. Thanks.
---[Ciaran on 6/17 @ 10:47 writes]:
Yeah, I feel like I can't very well weigh in on this report without
understanding the underlying data better. At this moment just supporting
solution 3.
---[Xenthos on 6/26 @ 22:01 writes]:
I'm hesitant about switching it to a purity cure-- either it will make it
trivial to off, or (especially in cases where it is made to passively build) it
will get in the way of other affs. Difficult to balance it well. But at the
same time, trying to make it stronger while leaving it on a cleanse cure can
also be problematic. So, for now, just going with solution 1. I think this
report needs more investigation, numbers, effects, passive vs. active
generation, etc. before we make significant changes to functionality.