Page 26 of 47

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:57 am
by Fetzie
* Tsulong: enrage issues (because healers didn't know about Day Phase)

Didn't they remove Tsu-long's berserk timer?

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:01 am
by Sagara
Don't know- I haven't seen tsulong go beyond his third night phase in LFR (and if I remember right, he enrages after the third Day phase instead of the second on LFR)

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:36 am
by twinkfist
i still go to groups that wipe on lfr. i mean, it's amazing on the bosses in TOES...i can't even describe it. windlord i wipe every week because no one uses the spears on the wall and the tanks want to pull everything. yeah, i'm doing 400dps...yeah, i'm running back up the steps after dying.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:02 am
by Fenris
Fetzie wrote:
Paladin
- We agree that Retribution does not offer enough benefits to an Arena or Battleground team beyond just taking a Holy paladin. We are going to try a change where Hand of Sacrifice also dispels all harmful magic effects on the target for Ret only.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic ... ge=68#1345
Retribution PvP buffs, do my eyes deceive me?

Just think about it and you'll see that..

*spoiler*






Not enough benefit compared to holy paladins=>let's give them something a holy paladin has with 8s cd but with 2(+clemency) minutes cd

I.e: pretty much useless when you realize that

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:17 am
by oldboyz
if Blizz want to make more sexy the pure avoidance stats and wroc havoc our current tanking priority :
successfull parry --> 5 sec strengh buff
successfull dodge --> 10sec haste bonus
successfull dodge/parry/block --> "advantage bonus" (+hit +expertise)
:idea:


PS.
promise of several night figuring how to modelize&optimise it! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:23 am
by Teranoid
Sagara wrote:Don't know- I haven't seen tsulong go beyond his third night phase in LFR (and if I remember right, he enrages after the third Day phase instead of the second on LFR)


He enrages but it didn't seem to do anything when this gem happened

Image

I lost count how many times he went between day and night.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:32 am
by Sagara
oldboyz wrote:if Blizz want to make more sexy the pure avoidance stats and wroc havoc our current tanking priority :
successfull parry --> 5 sec strengh buff
successfull dodge --> 10sec haste bonus
successfull dodge/parry/block --> "advantage bonus" (+hit +expertise)
:idea:


PS.
promise of several night figuring how to modelize&optimise it! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


We discussed that a bit a few pages before, and Theck had that very nice idea of linking avoidance to HoPo generation, like by activating Grand Crusader. The plus is that we stay inside the existing model without adding extra mechanics left and right.

Teranoid wrote:
Sagara wrote:Don't know- I haven't seen tsulong go beyond his third night phase in LFR (and if I remember right, he enrages after the third Day phase instead of the second on LFR)


He enrages but it didn't seem to do anything when this gem happened

Image

I lost count how many times he went between day and night.


Wait. Wut? That passed by stupid, left depressing in the dust, and didn't bother to slow at pathetic...

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:45 am
by KysenMurrin
Quite often on LFR Tsulong, the health bar goes backwards on day phase and progress is only made in night, so I can imagine that happening easily with a low dps group. Haven't seen it go more than 3 day phases myself, though.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:39 pm
by Darielle
Continually lowering the bar, especially when they lack a platform to actually help players improve.
Ugh.

It's also going to be fun if/when premades start rolling around wiping people for 10 stacks to parse on LFR meters.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:55 pm
by Xfighter
Darielle wrote:Continually lowering the bar, especially when they lack a platform to actually help players improve.
Ugh.

It's also going to be fun if/when premades start rolling around wiping people for 10 stacks to parse on LFR meters.

This was my first thought when I read it yesterday.

Should still be a small amount who go and do that though.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:40 pm
by Darielle
It's more frightening when you consider their implied hint that they could play with difficulty a bit and possibly avoid nerfing LFR encounters. Ranking is niche enough that it shouldn't be a big deal, people intentionally using it is worse.

Week 1:
"Guys we're going to wipe 10 times on Will because Will is too hard without 10 stacks".
"Hurry up and die on Garalon, we can't do this with less than 5 stacks".

Honestly, LFR just needs to be reworked and repurposed to be some kind of Tutorial-esque mode instead.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:56 pm
by Sabindeus
Sagara wrote:We discussed that a bit a few pages before, and Theck had that very nice idea of linking avoidance to HoPo generation, like by activating Grand Crusader. The plus is that we stay inside the existing model without adding extra mechanics left and right.


Sorry if I missed the discussion, but wouldn't GrCr proc on avoid lead to the degenerate case where your SHotR uptime scales with the number of mobs you're tanking? Unless it had a separate ICD to prevent that...

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:11 pm
by Flex
That was brought up and the implementation of using an ICD was suggested.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:08 pm
by Darielle
Proccing Grand Crusader would automatically cap at the respective gcd even when fighting infinite mobs. An ICD would only be if that was "too much", and tbh it probably would slip under the radar.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:19 pm
by Sabindeus
Darielle wrote:Proccing Grand Crusader would automatically cap at the respective gcd even when fighting infinite mobs. An ICD would only be if that was "too much", and tbh it probably would slip under the radar.


I don't think they want us having 100% ShotR uptime though. So the GCD would be too much.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:31 pm
by Darielle
It would take almost a 1 sec gcd to actually achieve that (counting HA's "bank"), and that's if the hits incoming are staggered enough that you will get a proc in between every gcd exactly (aka swings from mobs with a 1.5 sec swing timer, and on average parry being high enough to guarantee a proc). I don't think they'd even hypothetically be concerned about that popping up in actual raids, and if they were they would just do what they did with SD and SB to prevent 100% coverage; give it a charge system that refreshes every 4.5 seconds or whatever, so you could it back to back and use procs back to back, and use the same amount of HP, just not get 100% uptime on ShoR.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:19 pm
by Fenris
We are considering some other buffs to Ret still. We don't know yet if we will do any or all of these (they are emphatically not promises) but the kind of thing we are considering:

- Glyph of Blessed Life -- no longer requires Seal of Insight. You can have any Seal or none active, which puts the glyph in Ret's hands.
- Glyph of Templar's Verdict -- damage reduction triggered by Exorcism (or both) instead. That way you aren't choosing TV over a heal.
- Light's Hammer -- also snares targets it damages while in range. This one potentially buffs Holy too, but we're not sure that many Holy paladins would give up Prism to take it.


Light's hammer one might have pve uses for us

Maybe

Sometimes

I guess :lol:

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:13 pm
by Darielle
Lots of uses actually, although most guilds have probably adjusted enough by now to ensure they have the snares available for the fights that need them.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:38 pm
by Klaudandus
I was thinking something... would you guys be ok if Sanctity of Battle was removed, but instead SotR lasts longer even if its weaker?

It seems the value of Haste is because we want to hit SotR as fast as possible because its buff is really short.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:03 pm
by theckhd
Klaudandus wrote:I was thinking something... would you guys be ok if Sanctity of Battle was removed, but instead SotR lasts longer even if its weaker?

It seems the value of Haste is because we want to hit SotR as fast as possible because its buff is really short.

Funny you should mention that, as it's one example I have in the blog post going live tomorrow.

Short version: it could happen with SoB removed, if I recall correctly they were toying with a 4.5-sec version in beta pre-SoB. A 4.5-second version would get a pretty hefty mitigation nerf to keep it balanced though, probably by 50%. Having 50% mitigation for 3 seconds is less powerful than having 25% for 4.5 seconds (see also: block cap). Obviously TDR would go up in that situation, but we haven't cared about TDR in quite a while.

I'd actually be OK with SoB going away and keeping the 3-second SotR, provided they did something to make avoidance attractive. Holy power through avoidance could more or less replace the HP gain from haste scaling to keep SotR uptime high without encouraging us to grab haste. It would lock us back to the 1.5-second GCD, though.

You won't see a 4.5-second SotR with SoB though, for sure. Too many concerns about block-capping v2.0.

Sabindeus wrote:
Darielle wrote:Proccing Grand Crusader would automatically cap at the respective gcd even when fighting infinite mobs. An ICD would only be if that was "too much", and tbh it probably would slip under the radar.


I don't think they want us having 100% ShotR uptime though. So the GCD would be too much.

As Darielle already pointed out, GCD wouldn't be that big of an issue. With SoB, you might get enough haste to reach a 1-second GCD and get 100% uptime on SotR, but only while tanking so many mobs that you'd basically need that uptime to survive. Without SoB or at at low haste, you're talking about 1.5-second GCDs, so 4.5 seconds to build up the 3 HP it takes to power 3 seconds of SotR. Still gaps in the coverage.

Against single targets it's much less problematic. Bosses don't swing faster than 1.5s, and if you're avoiding multiple attacks in a row you're also not getting any benefit from the SotR uptime during those avoids.

In any event, they'd probably put a sane ICD on it (like 4.5 seconds) just to make sure none of those were problems.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:50 pm
by Darielle
I was thinking something... would you guys be ok if Sanctity of Battle was removed, but instead SotR lasts longer even if its weaker?

It seems the value of Haste is because we want to hit SotR as fast as possible because its buff is really short.


Personally? I'd be conflicted.

It's nice that ShoR is AS powerful because being that high amount of pure physical DR that works on everything is incredibly useful when it comes to trivialising mechanics.
It's also not nice that ShoR is that powerful because it makes those mechanics funky in how much they should do (think Qiang on 10-man and the flexibility to solo-MA), how comfortable your healers are, and how your healers react for different classes (For example, our healers have this habit of derping hard when I'm taking Exhale as a Bear over Psiven as a Paladin. There's no logical reason for it, but it definitely happens to healers)

For straight up white hit tanking, I guess I wouldn't care.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:03 pm
by Skye1013
I know we've somewhat moved past this discussion, but in regards to snap aggro... how "gamebreaking" would it be to just attribute Light's Hammer aggro to the caster instead of it being considered "pet" aggro? And do you think doing so would help fix the snap aggro issue in aoe situations?

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:42 pm
by Klaudandus
not seeing why they shouldnt, considering protection warriors get an aoe taunt with their banners.

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:48 pm
by Sagara
I'd sacrifice a warlock to get LH's aggro. Make that two warlocks and a priest - less people on my tier gear.

Re: SoB - I still believe it's the best approach to solve the whole haste shenanigans. The only trouble is how GC stated he "understood" that haste was fun. I'm hoping they're not building a complicated answer just for that sake, though.

Just sack SoB, get GC to proc off avoidance with a nice ICD, and off we go!

Re: patch 5.2 ?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:12 am
by Skye1013
Has GC (or any other devs) commented on why LH aggro is separate? Seems like an easy fix that would make a lot of pally tanks happy.