Dev Watercooler - Threat

Anything, including off-topic posts

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, Sabindeus, PsiVen

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby lythac » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:41 am

Sabindeus wrote:
*I am not responsible for any Paladins who had a heart attack when seeing the phrase "massive overhaul"


If you're a Paladin and "massive overhaul" causes heart attacks then you should be loooooong dead.


Notice how Bubble works on less and less things? The next thing - heart attacks.
Ryshad / Lythac of <Heretic> Nagrand-EU
User avatar
lythac
Moderator
 
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:10 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby benebarba » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:09 am

Bladesong wrote: The current interaction between mana and holy power is pretty bland, but if they're willing to do a massive overhaul*, it could actually be interesting.


Agreed. Heck, I pretty much just assume I have mana to do what needs doing, so I really only watch my HoPo.
benebarba
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:30 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby masterpoobaa » Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:24 pm

Back in Early Cata I believe i made a comment along the lines of mana and paladins - Wondering how long we are actually going to remain having it?

It doesn't realy serve a purpose for Prot (besides reminding us to keep casting judgement,not cast consecrate and limit our self heals) Nor ret either (no consecrate again).
Ellifain @ Khaz'Goroth does not approve of torture, save where there's experience/rep/loot involved.
masterpoobaa
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe.

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Dantriges » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:57 pm

I have to admit, I am slowly fed up with the current model.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Fetzie » Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:59 am

the thing is, converting paladins to work on an energy resource (i.e. infinite) from mana (finite) would mean that they would need to come up with some very good ideas on how to make paladin healers not totally dominate PvE and PvP because they cannot run OOM (and the priests will start q.q-ing about how manadrain is useless against us).
Fetzie | Protection Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby benebarba » Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:32 am

Pyrea wrote:the thing is, converting paladins to work on an energy resource (i.e. infinite) from mana (finite) would mean that they would need to come up with some very good ideas on how to make paladin healers not totally dominate PvE and PvP because they cannot run OOM (and the priests will start q.q-ing about how manadrain is useless against us).


well, or the opposite: have them suck so terribly that they fall out of favor because their throughput goes through the floor as they wait for <insert energy-like resource here> to re-fill so they can use their abilities. Though I guess nothing is stopping them from doing something similar to the druids where 2 specs basically end up doing things completely differently (i.e. essentially have a completely separate resource for their main abilities).
benebarba
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:30 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby masterpoobaa » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:24 pm

Hrms. point.
Have a base holy tree 'talent' that converts strength into int for a normal mana pool.
But of course then what about selfheals for prot/ret. - so maybe not :)
Ellifain @ Khaz'Goroth does not approve of torture, save where there's experience/rep/loot involved.
masterpoobaa
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe.

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Sagara » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:36 pm

Further, I can easily imagine the PvP madness with a Paladin that has both immense Strength and Intellect.

I remember back when Prot pallies used the Int PvP Plate to provide good heals without sacrificing their damage output via the SP -> AP converting talent.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby PsiVen » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:14 pm

Hrobertgar wrote:I think part of the reason that tanks do not queue as much for RDF is that the supply of tanks is low, and has probably decreased since Firelands came out.

Someone mentioned earlier that 25m content only requries 2 tanks. So, if that guild decides to do heroics to top off VP, then they are short 4 tanks (2 tanks vs 5 groups, but adding 3 tanks would displace 3 dps so really they would need 4 for all make it into RDF). Back in Naxx25, fights like Patchwerk required 3 tanks, and it was not uncommon for guild to run with 4 tanks, even if one was dps/heals offspec. Just think how big a deal people thought it was to do 25m heroic halfus with 4 tanks, compared to naxx25. So the conversion of 25m content to 2 tanks for most fights has impacted RDF.

Furthermore, now that it is possible for a 25m guild to cap VP based soley on 7 bosses, or 6 + bh. then again the pool of available tanks is lower. Even as a 10m raider, my healer has now downed Raggy, so I can VP cap with Raggy + bh. Other than achieves why would I heal an RDF (chaos orbs for some people I guess, or maybe helping guildees). Even my tank now has 6/7, so I only need 1 troll heroic or two normals to cap VP. Lowering the VP cap probably exascerbated the tank problem.


Raids have always had this issue, and I doubt that's it gotten much worse just because the fights are more consistently 2-tanked than they used to be. The whole problem with Halfus 25H balance was that 25-mans found it very, very easy to throw 4-5 tanks at it. 25-mans keep multiple backup/offspec tanks on their rosters and feed them plenty of overflow gear.

5-tank fight standards are too impractical; the only way to fix RDF queues is one that will never happen: 6-player groups with 4 DPS.
Gladiator Psiven, Retired Tankadin
WoW-sober since March 2014
Longtime addict of Space - Glory Through Conquest
User avatar
PsiVen
Moderator
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: On a Boat

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Koatanga » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:32 pm

PsiVen wrote:5-tank fight standards are too impractical; the only way to fix RDF queues is one that will never happen: 6-player groups with 4 DPS.

Even that model is problematic because when you extend it to 25-man groups, you have 4 tanks. Designing for 4 tanks would still require redesigning the encounter for 10-mans with 2 tanks.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Dantriges » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:52 pm

My guild planned for threee tanks originally. 3 raidays with a required attendance of 2 days. So you had 9 spaces in the schedule. One tank fills two spots, so you needed 4 tanks or so.

No we plan for 2, six spots, one tank still fills 2, means 3 tanks in the roster maximum. So this means one has to change to DPS or heal. Ok a guild with a tighter roster wouldn´t face this problem but we had some secial circumstances like DPS/tank offspec retiring and a Tank/reluctant DPS came back from retirement but yeah I think it had some effect, at least on some middle of the road guilds who entered Cata with their old tank roster.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Steve » Sun Aug 28, 2011 4:36 am

Koatanga wrote:Even that model is problematic because when you extend it to 25-man groups, you have 4 tanks. Designing for 4 tanks would still require redesigning the encounter for 10-mans with 2 tanks.


The best is the enemy of the better.
Steve
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:04 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Malthrax » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:44 am

PsiVen wrote: the only way to fix RDF queues is one that will never happen: 6-player groups with 4 DPS.


Explain how increasing the number of DPS in a random dungeon group from 3 to 4 will reduce queue times appreciably when people playing DPS characters outnumber those playing tanks by a factor of 10:1 or more.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby yappo » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:11 am

Koatanga wrote:
PsiVen wrote:5-tank fight standards are too impractical; the only way to fix RDF queues is one that will never happen: 6-player groups with 4 DPS.

Even that model is problematic because when you extend it to 25-man groups, you have 4 tanks. Designing for 4 tanks would still require redesigning the encounter for 10-mans with 2 tanks.


You're likely to solve the problem with seven man dungeons. Worst case you'd need eight man ones.

The former would be 1 tank, 1 heal and 5 dps. The latter, 1 tank, 2 heal, 5 dps. Basically you acknowledge the actual spread among players when it comes to how attractive the roles are from a percentage point of view.
yappo
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:15 pm

Re: Dev Watercooler - Threat

Postby Malthrax » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:04 pm

yappo wrote:You're likely to solve the problem with seven man dungeons. Worst case you'd need eight man ones.

The former would be 1 tank, 1 heal and 5 dps. The latter, 1 tank, 2 heal, 5 dps. Basically you acknowledge the actual spread among players when it comes to how attractive the roles are from a percentage point of view.


Anything you do to reduce the DPS queue time is going to attract more DPS to the queue.

The "queue time" issue is a result of forced reliance on a limited resource (i.e. a player willing to take on the "tank" role). There is no solution to the issue, so long as Blizzard maintains the constraint of requiring a tank for each group.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest