This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Why Deforestation isn't a nerf
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
curlymon
And until Cata is released none of us know exactly what will be in the end product so why winge about it if you don't know for sure?
Because honest debate is encouraged. Because ideas that come out of debates like this can and have been placed within the game.
And, here is the big point, There is nothing genuinely new to discuss in the druiding world that relates to the here and now that has not already been beaten to death. So we look to the future and talk about it like normal people or like crazed rabbits on E (you decide :P )
Post by
Drakaina
Because honest debate is encouraged. Because ideas that come out of debates like this can and have been placed within the game.
And, here is the big point, There is nothing genuinely new to discuss in the druiding world that relates to the here and now that has not already been beaten to death. So we look to the future and talk about it like normal people or like crazed rabbits on E (you decide :P )
This is true... *looks down... feels kinda sheepish*
Just don't understnad some of the more extreme ppl I guess someone I know IRL said they would abandon his Resto spec if they dropped Tree :S seems a little much to me
Post by
skribs
Heres the thing though, pvp is whats driving the change. Not pve and certainly not asthetics.
Actually it's the combination of both. If the game were only PvP, blizzard could have balanced tree to be the strongest healer as a result of the loss of DPS/CC in form. Weakest healer in caster form, strongest healer in tree form - makes you fairly powerful.
Barring LDW (on 10-man if you have 2 druids and 1 gets MC'd, the other is the best option to CC it via cyclone) or maybe a few specific other fights, they could have balanced PvE for trees to heal as well as the other classes. If 99% of what you do is just spam heals, then it doesn't matter what other assets you bring to the table.
The problem is that they have both, which means you're balancing one based on full effectiveness and the other on min/max heals. You can't have them missing signficant portions of what others can do and balance them along both spectrums.
Is still a valid argument. I'm not talking about heals vs dps, dps vs heals, tank vs heals or any other permutation you can think about... I'm talking about Primary vs Secondary roles. It is a simple way to compare the flexibility of the class in a PvP situation.
You're not talking about primary vs. secondary roles, though. You're talking about primary rolls vs. added utility. Blizzard has pretty much homogonized the roles and nerfed hybridity. DPS are primarily DPS, with the secondary rolls in PvP of CC and tanking. Any DPS that can heal are adding utility over what the DPS role does, and (once again, excepting the ele shaman) will be significantly weaker at either healing or DPS while in a healing capable form.
The druid is the only one of the healers who has to give up his ability to DPS or CC. Which, for the healer slot on a team, gives him a significant disadvantage unless his heals are OP (keep in mind, they're nerfing druid mobility in other ways as well).
What you're trying to do is an apples-to-apples comparison of DPS to healers. They function differently (in PvP, you can do only damage and kill someone, but you cannot do only heals and kill someone; but in PvE you are generally expected to do your role), and they fill a different slot on the team. Like I pointed out above - you have several things that they give each player, depending on role. So in determining what a druid should have in a given form, it only makes sense to compare it to what ALL of the other specs fulfilling that role can do.
Think about it: what if they told warriors that they were removing thunder clap because warriors are supposed to tank single target. But then if you go to this new stance all you can cast is thunder clap. Now warriors would have to switch back and forth to hold a boss and adds, but switching back and forth kills rage that you've generated. In the meantime, all three of the other tanks work AoE threat into their rotation enough to keep aggro on the adds without any real effort (just remove single target filler with high damage AoE). Is this fair to warriors? No. That's basically what it's like to play a resto druid when something is called for.
Another good analogy is what they did to ret seals. Seals used to last 2 minutes, and judgement would consume your current seal. So every time you used your damage attack, you had to spend another GCD to get your self buff up. That's what it's like for druids any time we cast tree form just to get back from caster after having cycloned that druid in LDW or casting a wrath to finish off that player in PvP. It's an extra GCD and mana burned just to do what the other healers could have done anyway.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oberondreaming
but it was a lack of flexibility in pvp that was the primary driving force.
You can certainly believe that if you want to, but they've literally come out and said the exact opposite.
It's not for PvP reasons. We just don't think healing forms are a good idea.
Post by
Yunaleia
but it was a lack of flexibility in pvp that was the primary driving force.
You can certainly believe that if you want to, but they've literally come out and said the exact opposite.
It's not for PvP reasons. We just don't think healing forms are a good idea.
Oh and just because Blizzard "said" that, its suddenly true? Come on ... this is Blizz, none of us are that naive.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oberondreaming
Oh and just because Blizzard "said" that, its suddenly true? Come on ... this is Blizz, none of us are that naive.
Call me crazy, but I just don't believe Parrazell has some unique insight into what actually makes up the "Primary Driving Force" for the developers decisions.
If you going to just not believe anything they say (or presumably anything anyone else says either) there isn't really much point in having a discussion about anything they do. I mean, heck, they may not even actually do the things they say they're going to do, so why even bother debating it. There's probably a secret plan to get rid of druids all together.
Post by
Yunaleia
You're crazy ... </being arsy>
And why should I believe what you say? I know the quote, and I am not against debate, what Im against is unforgiving sods like yourself who, for all intents and purposes, will go on and on about how your view must be of better value and then seek to further that view by diminishing any other given view by anyone else.
So yea, I see what you say and understand completely, but that doesnt mean I have to believe or agree with what you say.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oberondreaming
You keep watching the left hand that blizz is waving at you with...
I'll keep an eye on the right hand
If you don't care about the reasons, then why bother watching the other hand?
In my many years playing MMOs, I often find people who seem to have this attitude that the Developers are out to ruin their fun. I just haven't ever understood it. I mean, even if you set aside the monetary issues (that developers want customers because they want to make money), you're talking about people who are basically devoting the bulk of their time to a game. I have to believe that most of them want to make it better. So perhaps that makes me naive, but I do tend to take them for their word when they discuss their intentions, design philosophies or plans. Sure, some of it gets filtered through the marketing department, but if they say "We don't think healing forms are good in PvE or PvP" or even "The main motivation behind this change isn't PvP" I believe them.
Especially since, it really isn't that hard to see what they're talking about. Having druids have a healing form really isn't a good thing, because there's no benefit to it but rather only drawbacks which no other healer suffers from. (Something that you can't say about any of the other druid forms, regardless of how hard you argue.) As I've said before, I can understand the aesthetics argument against the change (the "But I like looking like a tree" one) but so far all of the mechanical arguments I've seen fall pretty flat.
But if you want to continue thinking that the developers are out to get you personally, and they're going to take away all your toys in the near future, then you keep watching that other mysterious, potentially only-in-your-head hand.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Yunaleia
But if you want to continue thinking that the developers are out to get you personally, and they're going to take away all your toys in the near future, then you keep watching that other mysterious, potentially only-in-your-head hand.
Insinuating that others are delutioned to try and argue your own opinion ... new low ... that right hand always lurks, all classes have felt its force at some time or other.
Why is it not a good thing for druids to have a healing form? Because they cant CC or DPS? Then explain to me why its so hard just to let ToLs do just be able to CC and DPS from ToL form. Because it breaks the mould of other classes? Oh sure, boomkins cant heal, shadow priests cant heal while in said forms, but no-one has said that shouldnt be able to with changes.
As I've said before, I can understand the aesthetics argument against the change (the "But I like looking like a tree" one) but so far all of the mechanical arguments I've seen fall pretty flat.
Im afraid that quote swings both ways. I think that changing a single mechanic for a single class to justify the reasons given is a waste of time spent looking at other things that to me could be changed in a far simpler fashion. Not being able to CC, let them be able to, cant DPS, let them be able to do something even if it means a 3 second Wrath cast ... there are other ways around.
Post by
oberondreaming
The developers have made mistakes before, on numerous occassions and about a variety of things.
Yes, developers, being human, make mistakes. But often times there's absolutely no way to know before seeing something in practice whether it's a mistake or not. But generally speaking, the developers have the best view of what things are going to end up like, in a way that we can't possibly know (because we don't have all the facts yet). So freaking out about changes, which happens a lot, when you only have part of the story tends to seem a bit pointless to me. (Not that you, specifically, are even "freaking out" but there is a lot of it happening both in this forum and elsewhere.)
For every person saying "We should keep Tree form as a balancing mechanic" you have another person saying "Why not just let Tree form do everything." We can all come up with our own ideas about what's the best way to manage stuff, given the things that they've told us, but we don't know what the raids are going to be like (how important will it be for trees to be able to deal damage and CC?), we don't know what the new talents will be (when we're not spending every GCD healing, having a talent proc that gives us a free wrath cast could mean it's beneficial for us to be able to cast damaging spells), we don't even know, beyond the most general descriptions, what the overall healing 'game' is going to be like.
We just don't have all the information, and so assuming that the Devs are doing something for Reason A, when they've actually said "It's really more of Reason B" seems a bit odd to me.
there are other ways around.
Yeah sure, but again, the people with the best grasp on everything that's changing, and therefore the people in the best position (at least in my opinion) to be making the decisions about which of the many ways that things could change is the way they should change, are the developers.
Insinuating that others are delutioned to try and argue your own opinion ... new low ... that right hand always lurks, all classes have felt its force at some time or other.
Also, just briefly on this. My issue is the notion that there's some nefarious other hand out there, waiting to crap all over you. Yeah, everyone feels the pain of being nerfed, or unintentionally underpowered, or whatever it is. But I don't believe any developer ever sets out to make something suck. It's always happening for a reason, sometimes you're overpowered and need to be brought down a peg which can hurt, but be necessary for the sake of the game. Sometimes you don't scale right and so you start falling behind, but this isn't intentional, and is usually something the developers do their best to fix in the future.
MMOs are a living set of rules that are constantly changing. My only point is that I believe that the developers are constantly attempting to make the game better. Sometimes that means things that any one person might not like. But the developer is not *trying* to make the game less fun for you, there's no secret goal to take away your enjoyment of anything.
Suggesting that there's some sort of sleight of hand thing going on implies that that isn't the case. It suggests that there's some undisclosed plan to take certain things, that they don't want people to know about, and make them not fun. And it's that attitude that I can't simply agree with or even understand.
Post by
razzem
Heres the thing though, pvp is whats driving the change. Not pve and certainly not asthetics.
As curlymon pointed out half the game is pve, half pvp.
The Tree does not suffer in any way shape or form in pve. Its 'balancing issues' i.e. its in-ability to do any meaningful damage is a purely pvp orientated problem. Sure any pvp adjustments has implications to the pve side of the game but its the pvp side where the Tree is lacking in competativness.
TODAY, this is true that in pve we don't need CC now.
BUT...
The first part is definitely a goal. The second part has been taken out of context a bit. I was saying that I was sure we would still have *some* fights with raid-wide AoE damage because that mechanic is one way to make healing feel different from encounter to encounter. But it is not a design to have persistent damage auras as part of every encounter. It's also not a design goal to have crowd control part of every encounter, but overall we expect you'll be doing more CC (and therefore less group tanking) than in Wrath.
We'll see much more CC in cataclysm, imo. It will be important. And 10% healing loss to do it will be a big deal when tackling new content.
Source
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
razzem
They said the same at the start of TBC, by the end it was non existant. It was said again at the start of WotLK but it was non-existant from the start.
I wouldnt hold my breath for it lasting too long come Cata either
Except this time they've talked about mechanics and how they will change things to make this happen. More of a reality than before, imo. You're right though, we will see.
Post by
curlymon
Is still a valid argument. I'm not talking about heals vs dps, dps vs heals, tank vs heals or any other permutation you can think about... I'm talking about Primary vs Secondary roles. It is a simple way to compare the flexibility of the class in a PvP situation.
You're not talking about primary vs. secondary roles, though. You're talking about primary rolls vs. added utility.
Added utility
is
a secondary role. You don't take a mage just for the burst he can provide and you don't take a resto sham just for his healing.
Blizz keeps odd distinctions in the game to keep classes feeling "unique and fun to play" within this homogenized world.
Am I bitter about it? No.
Would I like to see consideration given to this? Yes.
It's not a demand and honestly just musings.
As far as this is going, the debate has degenerated into debating about debating... see something wrong here?
Post by
oberondreaming
Added utility
is
a secondary role. You don't take a mage just for the burst he can provide and you don't take a resto sham just for his healing.
But bears, cats and moonkins all have utility that they can use in form. And/or will be getting some/more in Cataclysm.
However, the form also adds something else or performs some other function. Bear form and Cat form change your resource mechanic. Moonkin form locks you out of healing (quite intentionally). These things are all working as intended.
Tree form didn't do any of that, except lock you out of utility/damage, which they've decided is a bad thing.
Post by
curlymon
Moonkin form locks you out of healing (quite intentionally). These things are all working as intended.
Tree form didn't do any of that, except lock you out of utility/damage, which they've decided is a bad thing.
Moonkin being locked out intentionally is what was being brought up... Ideally, in a similar change to Tree form, Boomkin gains the ability to heal in form (or some other mechanic).
Tree form being locked out of something :: Boomkin being locked out of something :: SPriest being locked out of something
Regardless of role
they are locked out or limited by something that other classes/specs are not. With Tree form this is changing... why not continue it to the last two specs stuck in a similar boat? (Feral kitty got a bandaid fix that turned out to balance things quite well with instant spells, Bear does not need something similar but why not include it for the sake of consistancy?, lol)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
