Libram of the Sacred Shield and 3.2.2

[Iselian]

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/threa ... 9172&sid=1


"Libram of the Sacred Shield: The block value buff from this relic has been increased to match its item level."

Glad I held onto it...

[_Ayli_]

450 block value

[Argali]

And why they didn't change in at the same time as 3.2, no one knows.

[Wardari]

An oversight maybe? 3.2 was a fairly big patch, I'm not surprised something slipped through the gaps.

[Braundo]

They weren't actually aware of the problem until not too long before 3.2 went live, if I recall. It got its duration doubled like they had said they would, but they didn't realize that doubling the duration was completely worthless on that libram.

[theckhd]

They weren't actually aware of the problem until not too long before 3.2 went live, if I recall. It got its duration doubled like they had said they would, but they didn't realize that doubling the duration was completely worthless on that libram.

This would be really trivially solved if they had an in-house panel of theorycrafters to look over these things. Maybe one competent player of each class, or maybe 2 of each class to cover all 3 possible specs.

Probably the way it played out was that when the Devs decided to generically double BV on gear and double the duration of BV procs (because doubling the value there could be a bit too strong). But none of them are familiar enough with prot pally gearing and theory to realize that while that works great for some items (LoO), it's useless on LotSS. And to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't play a prot paladin to know that; I wouldn't have a clue about DPS warrior or Hunter changes, for example.

But If they had a panel of 20 or so trusted players from whom they could solicit feedback, they could catch a lot of these minor but obvious errors and get them in the "express lane" to the developers, to fix them more quickly.

[Gamingdevil]

But they didn't just double the duration on LoSS. Before 3.2 it gave you a buff to block value as long as Holy Shield was up. So if the buff fell off by getting dispelled or running out of charges, you lost the BV buff as well.

So they knew that HS has a 10 second cooldown, they put that on the item instead and then doubled it. You can't honestly tell me they changed it like that and noone noticed it went from a 100% uptime to a 100% uptime...?

[Veilan]

They weren't actually aware of the problem until not too long before 3.2 went live, if I recall. It got its duration doubled like they had said they would, but they didn't realize that doubling the duration was completely worthless on that libram.

This would be really trivially solved if they had an in-house panel of theorycrafters to look over these things. Maybe one competent player of each class, or maybe 2 of each class to cover all 3 possible specs.

Probably the way it played out was that when the Devs decided to generically double BV on gear and double the duration of BV procs (because doubling the value there could be a bit too strong). But none of them are familiar enough with prot pally gearing and theory to realize that while that works great for some items (LoO), it's useless on LotSS. And to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't play a prot paladin to know that; I wouldn't have a clue about DPS warrior or Hunter changes, for example.

But If they had a panel of 20 or so trusted players from whom they could solicit feedback, they could catch a lot of these minor but obvious errors and get them in the "express lane" to the developers, to fix them more quickly.

While that would be sound procedure, it'd also add development effort (and hence cost). The direction of the game has been to make the spectrum of actual choice so small that balancing encounters becomes trivial, as developers can simply assume what will be present from the player side, with an ever decreasing margin of deviation. Creating a panel would seem counterintuitive to that trend: It would surely eat up some of the development cost savings, and even if it's just the worktime of that one guy that has to look at the "trusted player" feedback.

[theckhd]

While that would be sound procedure, it'd also add development effort (and hence cost). The direction of the game has been to make the spectrum of actual choice so small that balancing encounters becomes trivial, as developers can simply assume what will be present from the player side, with an ever decreasing margin of deviation. Creating a panel would seem counterintuitive to that trend: It would surely eat up some of the development cost savings, and even if it's just the worktime of that one guy that has to look at the "trusted player" feedback.

The panel wouldn't have to be blizzard employees, just players who they trust because of a proven track record of being reliable sources. I'm sure there are at least a handful of competent people who frequent this forum that wouldn't mind looking over patch notes and looking for obvious little bugs like this. Hell, some of us just crunch numbers for fun. How much do you think I get paid for all the calculations I do on this site? (Hm... there's an idea... Theorycraft for hire).

In any event, the type of bugs this panel would find and help correct are the simple things, like the libram issue. Stuff that doesn't actually require much (if any) calculation. I wouldn't expect them to farm out their whole theorycraft operation to amateurs.

And I can't imagine that GC spending an hour looking over a concise list of bugs drawn up by keen eyes instead of reading ret paladin QQ for an hour would cost all that much.

[Argali]

Actually, minor work like this can be free. It's rife in the TCG/CCG industry. You get a bunch of fans who'll do hours and hours and hours of work for a minor promo card. It depends on the company, but even the most generous company will not pay money, but rather with stock, or product.

Just make some exclusive pets and mounts and you've got a slave work force right there. For free.

[Soralin]

450 block value

It's definitely 450 Block Value on the PTR?

[Worldie]

Well glad i havent thrown my one away then.

[Torquemada]

This would be really trivially solved if they had an in-house panel of theorycrafters to look over these things. Maybe one competent player of each class, or maybe 2 of each class to cover all 3 possible specs.

Probably the way it played out was that when the Devs decided to generically double BV on gear and double the duration of BV procs (because doubling the value there could be a bit too strong). But none of them are familiar enough with prot pally gearing and theory to realize that while that works great for some items (LoO), it's useless on LotSS. And to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't play a prot paladin to know that; I wouldn't have a clue about DPS warrior or Hunter changes, for example.

But If they had a panel of 20 or so trusted players from whom they could solicit feedback, they could catch a lot of these minor but obvious errors and get them in the "express lane" to the developers, to fix them more quickly.

IIRC, reading something Lore put up as part of the Tankspot blogging during Blizzcon, one of the head class developers that he met along with Ghostcrawler on that press day raids as a Prot Paladin. One would have hoped that he had caught onto this kind of thing sooner.

[PsiVen]

Libram of Obstruction: The buff to block value from this relic is now exclusive with the buff to block value from Libram of the Sacred Shield; it is impossible to have both buffs at once.

Boo, hiss. Oh well, libram swapping was kinda annoying anyway.

At least now LoSS will be an upgrade again!

[Gamingdevil]

Libram of Obstruction: The buff to block value from this relic is now exclusive with the buff to block value from Libram of the Sacred Shield; it is impossible to have both buffs at once.

Boo, hiss. Oh well, libram swapping was kinda annoying anyway.

At least now LoSS will be an upgrade again!

Too bad it's after everyone has already collected enough Triumphs to get the dodge libram.