This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Old Tree Form vs New Tree Form
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
144872
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
167046
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
faia
why could they just not give them the spell like they did give to worgen so you could switch when speced resto?
except warlocks will QQ on it and demon form to get same
Post by
570342
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
I dont believe treeform is "oh shik".. Nature swiftness is.
Resto is just my toy off-spec, but I don't even have Nature's Swiftness. I definitely consider Tree Form my OHSH-- button, personally. For me, OHSH-- isn't "My tank will die if I don't cast
one
instant HT right now," it's "We are going to wipe unless I can slam down 20k+ HPS for the next 10-30 seconds." Also, there's no reason you can't have both. But like I said, I'm a nub.
OnT Wall-of-Text: Another somewhat unmentioned reason I liked the old tree form was because it clearly differentiated a PvP Resto druid and a PvE Resto druid. It's not as if the sheer presence of the "made-for-PvE-and-can't-use-offensive-abilities-Tree-Form" took anything away from the typical PvP Resto build... TBC times were the glory days of Resto PvP IMO. (Though I will agree that the movement speed debuff did seem silly from a PvE-only perspective however, since "get out of the bad stuff" is the core mechanic of every single boss fight ever -- fixes for this are a whole different topic).
Also, in terms of balancing, it gave a justification for balancing Tree Druids
oh-so-slightly
ahead of the other healers. I realize the programmers didn't do this, but if there was ever any reason to complain that you couldn't Moonfire, then that serves as a justification that you should get something in exchange. The question then becomes, is it ever justifiable to complain about not being able to Moonfire? If the answer is no, then the higher balancing point would lead to an overpopulation of Trees in the healer role (and would be improper). If the answer is yes, then maybe you would take a Priest over a Druid specifically because the Druid can't Moonfire (and the higher balancing point would be entirely justified, and would clearly differentiate a priest healer from a druid healer).
Which I suppose sums up the entire topic -- is that the type of decision you want happening when people play? "We can't bring this class as healer, because _____" or "We need a healer (class doesn't matter)." Blizzard's made their choice (and implemented it somewhat poorly IMO, but again, that's a different topic), I'm still undecided.
I suppose my point is, this homogeneity hasn't
actually
made the programmer's lives easier. It's made the game "better" in the same way that WotLK-Faceroll-Heroics made the game "better." The classes are still quite different, and the balancing question now has a new litmus test -- "can
any
class fill this role?" -- the solutions to which are eroding the class diversity that remains for no net benefit.
The only effect I can clearly see is that the "bring the player, not the class" mentality is actually spreading, and that's a good thing -- but it's almost always been true anyways. It was already rare to run into an occasion where "if you don't have this class in your raid, you cannot be successful" -- and maybe it's not such a bad thing to have a couple of those around. Every Mage who ever tanked Krosh Firehand looks back and smiles about it now.
Post by
404185
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Who cares.
They could have done it differently. They didn't. It's not going to suddenly change back.
I agree, I just realized that while I noted in my previous post that 'the debate has been had before' that I really hadn't ever participated in it, so I burned my 30 minutes of free time this morning organizing my thoughts. But I do agree with you, the change has been made and that's the way it is... whining about it isn't a worthwhile effort.
...if you were talking to me specifically. =)
Post by
404185
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
167046
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
curlymon
of course it isnt, blizzard are incapable of making positive changes in this game surely you know that by now whats wrong with you
Please tell me you are just joking around and I need more coffee to realize it...
Post by
144872
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
167046
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
80642
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
570342
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
80642
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
144872
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
748547
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gnub
I think I get both sides of whatever argument was going on here, but let's agree to just drop it, and remember the old days as good times while enjoying the new trees. :)
Post by
Sephrain
In my opinion they could just split it into two spells with a glyph or something. there would be a 'vanity' tree form, where you can just run around as a tree, old model, and then the actual throughput spell that buffs you and changes your model into the new form. Hell, the 'vanity' form doesn't need to have any buffs or restrictions, it can just
be
there, so resto doesn't feel left out of the shapeshift game.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.