Patchwerk Hateful Strike not Blizzlike

Problem: Patchwerk is made to have a fixed 1.2 second Hateful Strike.
Fix: Hateful Strike should actually be closer to 1.1 seconds (enabling 1.2/0.8)

Aggrend before you close, have the devs read THIS.

As you can see from the Hateful Strikes in Salad Bakers and Transcendence and Audacity’s logs. Hateful Strike does hit 2-7 times on many tanks in a row. Now imagine if 0.8 hits and 1.2 hits did occur, There are misses or parries but the point is that he CAN hit them at 0.8 seconds.

EVEN in a top guild like Salad Bakers.
Even if it doesnt happen often, it doesnt mean it CANT happen… Transcendence Audacity
Salad Bakers

Fix: Patchwerk needs to sometimes be hitting 0.8 second hits.

Look at the white and red, any of those could of been 0.8 seconds and yet you have 1.2 fixed seconds which isnt Blizzlike.

What Hoofsman said was right. That if this is another case of the 0.4 second batching, if attacks were 1 second it would be a
50/50 split of 1.2 and 0.8 strikes. If it was 1.1 seconds it would be a 75/25 split.
1.05 would be 62.5/37.5.

If adjusted to 1 second that would be an extra 10 strikes in a minute (from 50 to 60, 20% increase).

Hateful Strikes average is closer to 1.05-1.1 then than it is to 1.2 seconds.

1.2 seconds isnt correct.

IN THE 2006 VIDEO I DID NOT USE THE COMBAT LOGS NUMBERS WHICH ARE OFF. What I did was time the health drops with Movavi- since 75% of them were 1.2 seconds, thats when I knew that the ones hitting at 0.8 seconds were legit.

I used Movavi to slow down the attacks. He is meant to have a lower chance to use a second Hateful Strike around 0.7 to 0.8 seconds.
Wotlk mentions hatefull strike is a fixed 1.0 seconds. (1.0 second mentioned is closer to the original)

Hateful Strike in classic should be 62.5 or 75% 1.2 second hatefuls and 37.5 or 25% 0.8 second hatefuls that follow THIS SAME PATTERN.

The chance of a 0.8 second hateful strike was 25% in the video than the chance of a 1.2 second Hateful Strike 75% (one hateful strike in Movavi registered in the 0.7 mark)

( I did not record every single Hateful strike because some had instant heals)

Go to these parts in the video and watch the health of the tank

0:32 1.2 seconds

1:05 1.2 seconds

1:09 0.88 seconds

1:25 1.2 seconds

1:36 1.2 seconds

1:37 1.2 seconds

2:16 0.8 seconds

2:46 1.2 seconds

3:45 0.7 seconds

4:18 0.8 seconds

4:53 1.2 seconds

5:00 1.2 seconds

5:33 around 0.8 seconds

5:39 1.2 seconds

5:46 1.2 seconds

5:48 around 0.8 seconds

6:07 1.2 seconds

6:15 1.2 seconds

6:21 1.2 seconds

6:27 1.2 seconds

6:48 0.8 seconds

6:58 enrages

Patchwerk never had a fixed 1.2 second Hateful Strike in Vanilla. He had an rng with 1.2 seconds being most often but as you can see he hits WAY faster at some moments compared to other parts in the 2006 video and tanks are losing health faster than the 2020 video. The 2020 video is accurate to some losses but not all. Then compare this to the 2020 video with a fixed 1.2 second Hateful Strike which is not true to 2006.

Fix: Hateful Strike in classic should be an rng of 75% 1.2 second hatefuls and 25% 0.8 second hatefuls that follow THIS SAME PATTERN.

Or the 1.2 second fixed hateful strike should be reduced down to at least 1.1 seconds to be more accurate due to the 0.8 second hateful strikes dragging that average down.

If hateful strike is changed to an average of 1.1 seconds (1.2 75%/0.8 25%) That means he will be switching 0.1 seconds faster and that means more pressure on the raid because healers will have to be faster.

Thanks for the observations!

What you are observing here is a slight variance in how often these attacks could occur. In Original WoW you could also experience both shorter and longer windows between hateful strikes as well. This slight variance still exists in the WoW Classic just as it did in Original WoW but is somewhat less pronounced, and the overall average damage output is extremely consistent between the reference client and WoW Classic. As a result this is its not something that we are looking to make changes to at this time.

I’m going to go ahead and close this this thread now as we do not currently consider this to be a bug. As always, thanks for the report!