Won't this end up dramatically reducing the vengeance gain from magic damage? In general it's probably not a big deal, except in the case of certain mobs (e.g. Gandling and Lei Shi) who do magic damage exclusively.
We're actually giving 5% of damage that isn't mitigated by armor (i.e. bleeds and magic damage) to solve this problem.
While there was a tooltip bug difference between EF and WoG (which should be identical), I think what you are seeing with the PvP Power conversion factor is that we straight out reduced the amount of healing provided by PvP Power.
It is important that PvP Power affect healing because otherwise healers wouldn't value the stat or the gear. However, unlike damage, healing is not offset by resilience, so stacking PvP Power just makes healers better and better. We knew this was a risk, but now the consensus is that healing is just much too good in PvP. We reduced the amount of healing provided by 50%. That seems like around the right number, but we may still iterate on it.I think we’re still missing something that you’re trying to tell us. PvP Power globally affects all healing (except percent based heals), so should be completely abstracted from any discussion about WoG or EF or any particular heal. If this is not what you’re seeing, we can investigate that. If so, can we simplify the discussion by completely leaving PvP Power out of it? PvP Power should be completely irrelevant to WoG vs EF or really any talent in that row, or priority list, or anything.
There were two problems. Balance druid DPS was high, not even considering
was too much of a DPS increase. Some players attached themselves to the story that
caused them to get nerfed, but that wasn't what happened.
We changed the set bonus to 2 seconds. That means 14 sec without the set bonus and 16 sec with the set bonus. We won't keep offering that set every tier.
You should not be 20K DPS behind mages. We also aren't seeing that.
was nerfed, it was the clear choice for that talent "tier". With the current dmg set at 50%, will this bering it down enough to where it won't be the obvious choice over NV.
With the current data, we believe all 3 talents are pretty close.
is slightly high compared to the others since you can't control the timing. You can use a cooldown exactly when you need it, which means overall it's probably going to let you tune damage better. That's why we left
a little high.
If you think they aren't the same though, please let us know.
What's up with Chi Wave
? I spent a while on the dummies and it's doing about 2.5x much per chi as BoK and 1.2x as much as RSK, but in actual raid testing it's very inconsistent. Sometimes it will hit bosses 4x and sometimes it will just hit once and then disappear. I remember reading a blue post saying that the second tier of monk talents weren't intended to be used rotationally - is this still the case?
Right now it's a required talent and provides a 15-20% increase in DPS on bosses on which it bounces multiple times and is worthless (except as a small extra heal, although expel harm + healing spheres may be better options) for bosses on which it bounces only once. How is this ability supposed to work, and can it please be adjusted to work consistently?
There are some nerfs coming to the level 30 row, that should resolve this. It’s not intended that the level 30 row is a pure DPS increase for Windwalkers, but should provide a very strong option for trading a little damage for a lot of healing.
Did something change with the
calculations this patch, specifically with 2h weapons?
The tooltip updated, and some people are reporting getting 3 stacks (consistently) with a 3.6 speed weapon (the PvP polearm), which should be impossible given the formula we were given, while others are still getting 2.
s from Brewmasters and adjusted the proc rates of
and Gift of the Ox
to account for the reduced number of normal attacks that they'll be doing.
Execution Sentence is consuming Charred Glyph
, but is seeing no increase in the healing done. Is it supposed to consume the effect and receive the increase or is it not supposed to interact with the glyph at all?
Ideally it would benefit from the glyph and consume the buff, but ES is a complex spell, so it's possible we'll have to exclude it. Sounds like a bug regardless.
Did WoG and EF change and somehow those changes didn't make it to the Patch notes?
My values are down for it on just about every AP scale I've tested by between 3 and 7% (easily noticeable on the EF HoT tick)
The tooltip for EF is incorrectly not including its base healing (but I believe is functioning correctly). Regardless, EF's initial heal should exactly match WoG's heal.
Quick question GC. The recent built that nerfed Light of Dawn
. Was there a particular reason for that outside of the possibility you guys thought it was too strong? I'm just curious for that nerf to me seemed out of the blue considering it has a potential long ramp up time outside of cd's like Holy Avenger
and if it has a faster ramp up time it usualyl costs a hefty amount of mana.
We were seeing a strategy in some heroic raids of Crusader Strike
, Holy Shock, Crusader Strike
-> Light of Dawn
that took almost no mana and was very effective. We want Light of Dawn
to be a good button (we didn't like using
and ignoring Light of Dawn
when the going got tough) but we want paladins to use cast time heals too. As a consequence of this, we also made Crusader Strike
cost much more mana for Holy. Using CS should be an option, not the only viable way to heal.
Warlocks -- the next beta build will make it look like we nerfed Demo enormously. These are actually just adjustments because mastery was only giving 66% of the benefit it was supposed to in Meta form, which is now fixed.
is really powerful in duels. We don't balance all of our PvP around duels however. Outside of duels, it feels like a coordinated team should have no trouble overcoming the heal, especially considering that many execute abilities also come into play during the time Second Wind
is beneficial. It is one of those abilities that is really hard to put a number on, compared to an ability with a duration of X and a cooldown of Y. In a contrived situation, Second Wind
could account for 300% of your total health in healing. Who wouldn't take that talent? But it's more likely to be far less.
What will be most telling is if every PvP warrior ends up taking Second Wind
. Then we'll know it's too good, or at least too good relative to other talent points on that tier.
IMO, this topic is best served discussing Second Wind
, not "I wish my Execute
You're free to state anything you want (within forum guidelines). You're also free to ignore my opinions. Understand however that that strategy is less likely to get us to change our minds. :)
The reason I believe that steering a discussion of Second Wind
towards your own executes is counterproductive is that we believe the counter for a player being tough to kill in PvP should be to coordinate with your teammates, not that you can individually hit so hard that you blow them up no matter what.
Someone made a post on EJ asking about warriors switching to SMF for Execute
phases. This is a valid concern since it just requires weapon swapping now. I personally like the idea (I like abuseable stuff), but I can see it's not intended. Maybe turn SMF and TG into a out of combat toggle mode or something like that?
We are going to use the same solution we did for Frost DKs, which is that a weapon swap will prevent the passive bonus for applying for 30 sec or so. In this case, if you switched to SMF for Execute
, you wouldn't benefit from the SMF bonus for a long enough time that it's probably not worth it. There are very few legitimate cases where a warrior would want to switch from TG to SMF in the middle of an encounter.
All three of those recent Execute
parses have a very high crit rate. I assume you were just getting lucky (or unlucky as it were if you're trying to demonstrate that Execute
does too much damage) or had popped Recklessness.
In any case, we don't think it's a problem. I haven't seen a compelling argument for why it's bad design to do a lot more damage during Execute
. It's still around 10-12% of total damage even for the very lucky parses, so it's not like Execute
accounts for half your damage. Even a warrior who forgot to Execute
would do decent damage. Once in awhile we do a boss that stops fighting at 10% health or something, but we also do bosses that start wounded.
Warriors (some at least) want smaller executes and paladins and priests want larger ones. We like the classes being different. We think that's ultimately better for the game.
I want to dive into this a little bit again, because I still think there's some sort of miscomm between us and you guys.
1) If you have 60 or more rage, you should be able to Slam
. No problems there.
2) If you have less than 60 rage, you might have to choose between Slam
has plenty of duration left, then go ahead and Slam
. You'll probably get enough rage to
is about to fall off, you're at the greatest risk. In this case, it may be worth not Slamming because you need to have 30 rage. Even in this case though, you shouldn't be sitting on empty GCDs. This is a great time to Storm Bolt
or Dragon Roar
or Battle Shout
. If every one of those is on cooldown, then you might have to wait a GCD or two, but that should be pretty rare. As you get better gear (and honestly that might be part of what we're seeing here) it should be even more rare because you'll have more rage to Slam
So what am I missing here? I want to understand the feedback.
GC, just a quick question. Is this change trying to suggest that Fury warriors should never equip a shield to go defensive?
Swapping to a shield should not turn off the
damage bonus for an SMF warrior. It's possible a Titan's Grip
warrior who swapped to a one-hander and shield will not get the
bonus. However, TG warriors can also equip a two-handed weapon and shield.
GCs arguments and justifications almost make it sound like he has some kind of personal vendetta against the warrior class and wants us to suck and not be invited to raids... never gives us a real answer to anything other than "working as intended" or "we'll see" but nothing ever changes unless its another nerf or new penalty added to an ability... if we show the slightest hint of getting better "it's a bug... here we'll fix it"
Yeah, that's probably it.
may not be half of my total dps but its a huge chunk that im missing out on 80% of the fight. Ghostcrawler, I dont understand your reasoning sometimes on these issues, you wanted player feedback, its given, but you counter saying its not an issue. Why bother even continue reading our feedback if you already have a replay to shoot it down?
Think about it from my point of view. If every time players say "Please fix this" we then always go and fix it, then we're really not making the decision. We're letting players make it. The way we like to design is through informed decision making. We like to gather information and then make the call. That doesn't mean we're always going to make the call you want, but at least we'll know how you feel about it.
In this case, I wanted to see if there was something we hadn't considered about why high Execute
s are bad. I didn't see many arguments we hadn't considered, but there was one we found potentially compelling. Essentially, if a group is stuck on phase 2 of a boss they might feel compelled to swap out a warrior, since their contribution is really going to come in phase 4. Now if phase 4 is also tough, you made a mistake, but if phase 4 is easy, then you may have made the right call.
In my humble opinion it's the same deal as some classes being amazing on burst or multidotters. Granted, sub 20% happens in most boss fights unlike multidotting, but it could be viewed as a perk. If a fight lasts 4-5 minutes Shamans and other burst classes are ridiculously strong, on council fights multidotters shine and then warriors can have the flavor of killing you if you're close to death.
That was more or less our logic. Warriors might be great when Execute
s matter and weaker when Execute
s are irrelevant, but those don't happen with such regularity that it would be a major problem. Groups tend to like the dot classes even on single target fights. They just excel at group fights.
The same response came with shield wall and spell reflect, people dont like it and yet, you completely ignore the feedback and reply; "we are happy with warriors requiring a shield" well, thats fine and dandy that your happy, but wouldnt you rather have the players who are using the warrior be happy?
I've tried to explain our shield logic there several times. I'm sure you could find the responses. Now you may disagree with out logic, but that's different than our ignoring the feedback.
Of course, reading between the lines in GCs responses, it looks like they may not have fully taken CD stacking during Execute
phase into account, so there's also the possibility that Warriors are competitive for 80% of the fight and just flat OP for the final 20 ;)
No, I just wanted to make sure there was a good explanation for the high crit rate.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of having your damage more backloaded. I think the concern right now is that it is too backloaded. It's just been kind of funny to hit the last 45 seconds of a beta raid encounter and have an ability go from zero to #2 in WoL while accounting for 15% of my damage, all in ~45 seconds.
Yeah, many of the responses seem to be "it feels weird" and not "it's fundamentally broken" (even when they say the latter, it looks like they often mean the former). Now feeling weird still counts, but it's not as "must fix" as a critical design flaw.
I seem to remember one of your first suggestions being a short cooldown slapped on. Intuitively, that seems the best — Execute
can be powerful enough to kill in PvP without crowding damage contribution in PvE.
We don't like Execute
having a cooldown. You still need to do other attacks already to make sure you have enough rage to spend. If we decide it's a problem, we're more likely just to shift some of the damage from Execute
back to other attacks. (Key word is "some" - we don't want it to be weak.)
We're not changing the shield requirements of Spell Reflection
and Shield Wall
. You can read my previous comments on them, Die by the Sword
. Our stance hasn't changed.
We are going to try reducing Execute
damage by about 20% and redistributing the damage to yellow attacks. I'm not sure that nerf will be significant enough to make some of you happy (what an ironic thing to say) but it might be enough of a compromise between Execute
feeling awesome but not so awesome that the rest of your attacks feel weak.
Why would you ever use the HS until
stops proc'ing? You Overpower until it stops, then you HS. If you have 60 rage (or think you will soon) then you go ahead and Slam
because you'll still have enough rage to
as well. It's the "on-the-fly calculation and gambling" part that I'm not quite understanding. If you're choosing to HS when you don't know if the proc is done, then I guess that's gambling, but why do that? That's like bleeding off all your rage when you don't know is a CS is about to proc. If you're choosing to Slam
when that means you won't be able to HS, then why do that (unless maybe the target has to die right now)?
It seems to me that the two decision points are: Should I
and should I Slam
at 5 stacks? Then, absolutely HS. If not, then is
up? Then it's still worth it to blow the stacks with an HS. If not, then will the buff expire before I get another stack? If so, then
. (It's off the GCD, so you don't even have to delay another ability.)
Should I Slam
? Will Slamming mean not enough rage for an upcoming
? Then, no.
What am I missing?
SMF warriors being able to eat is an unintended consequence of the bullet-proofing we put in to stop TG warriors from swapping to SMF for Execute
. Should be an easy fix.
is better than HS at 1 or 2 stacks, so you should never HS at that amount of stacks.
Okay, I think this is part of the problem. On our current build,
is at 110% weapon damage and Slam
is at 220% weapon damage. That means a one stack of
ties with Slam
and two stacks on always wins.
3. With 60 rage banked up, if you get lucky Overpower procs you'll have to HS before you reach 5 stacks or you'll waste rage due to cap. This is also RNG.
This part I am not understanding. If you have enough rage, then Slam
. Otherwise, wait for the 5 stack. When are you at rage cap but unable to Slam
4. Now say you have 60 rage, a 5 stack TfB and no filler avaiable. You have to outweigh the short term benefit of Slam
+ HS vs the possibility that those 30 rage you spent could turn into a 3 or higher stack in the next MS cycle.
If you're at 5 stacks, you should
because it can't go any higher. The only reason to delay would be if CS is about to come off cooldown. You shouldn't have to pool rage for multiple
s. If you use one, you should be ready for the next one by the time it stacks -- you're talking about a MS and 3 Overpower
s. I'm not sure what gear you're talking about -- is this the ungemmed PvP gear at level 90?
Maybe another way to ask this is what percentage of the time are you Slamming in between buffed
s, and what percentage are you double Slamming?
Again, it's all probably due to low rage generation. As Arms you generate 36-45 rage during each MS depending on swing timers, which is less than you might be required to spend.
Yeah, I am starting to wonder if that's the issue. If you don't have enough rage to Slam
regularly, then the rotation is going to feel empty. That will get better with more gear, but it sounds like Fury's rage feels good already.
I'm with GC on this one. The choice is merely between
when you have rage. Why are you guys so steeled on 'must fill all globals!'? One of the big problems warriors had was too many globals as arms, you had no time for any utility buttons.
I understand that some players just like filling all globals, and the fact that warriors always become rage flooded in the last tier of content exacerbates how off it feels going from heroic raid gear to quest gear for the new expansion. We still want to keep some sense of progression that better gear means more rage which means more attacks, but maybe that's just too hard to deliver. On the other hand, warriors already have the highest APM of any class when you consider they can fill almost every global and have several off-the-global abilities, including a legitimate attack.
I do appreciate those of you attempting to clarify your concerns and not just venting. It is helpful.
The problem involves being out of range, out of rage, facing the wrong direction, the ability being on cool down for 4.5 more seconds, or disarmed etc.
We made a change so if you are in range (on any class) you will start autoattacking even if the special attack you used didn't go off (if for example you have no rage). It also works if you are facing the wrong direction.
It will not start autoattack if you are out of range. That might be something we can fix.
I just tested this on Slam
and Mangle, and it works as I described. If you can test beta and verify that this is not happening, let us know. This is a change from live.
Is Sudden Death
from the arms warrior talent tree working as intended?I did about 5 min worth of attacking on a target dummy and i was literally getting proc after proc after proc with maybe 2 or 3 seconds in between on attacking? not saying it needs a nerf but maybe the % proc chance is wrong atm?
As I suggested in a recent thread, we are going to try the implementation of Sudden Death
as 20% on white attacks instead of 6% on white and yellow attacks.
I think GC's point is that the accusation of "lazy game design" is often just a hoity-toity way of saying "you're not doing something I want."
I mean, the point might be valid, I don't know anything about PVP and less about warriors, but the rhetorical jab of "lazy game design" is the new "slap in the face."
Yeah, this was really my point. I legitimately wasn't trying to troll anyone. As any long time readers know, I have a very sarcastic sense of humor, but it's not intended to convey disrespect for any of our players. At the same time, I'd recommend a pretty thick skin from anyone attempting to wade into our forums.
We get requests literally every day to have different sets of numbers in PvP and PvE so I found it slightly amusing that the argument here was that it was bad design to do so (which ironically is often an argument I use for why we don't do it more often).
I suspect the OP and other early posters really wanted to say "I want warriors to be more of a force in PvP and having a brutally hard-hitting
is one way to do that." I would have found that a much more solid argument than trying to argue that we had no choice but to buff
because it was somehow aesthetically offensive to have it work differently in PvP. Now, I still would have disagreed with that argument because higher burst damage is almost never a good way to make a spec desirable in PvP. It's usually just less fun for everyone.
Interesting thought experiment, if you're so inclined: compare the armor of a boss to the armor of a player.
You, of all people, should know that each player represents their own opinions, regardless of what other players have said.
I do appreciate that of course, but it's helpful when players recognize that too.
Ninety-nine percent of the time you post something on our forums, you're going to be engaging with other players, not us. We read everything of course, but we can't directly respond to it all. If I were a player, one of the first questions I would ask myself before posting is "How will other players respond to my post?" If you think other players will disagree with you or if you think your point will be controversial, then it's probably worth shoring it up even more carefully. That is often the distinction between a well-crafted argument and something that comes across as just venting.