holy shield in 4.2, help me understand.

85 Human Paladin
6435



I am going to take a stab in the dark and say, because it was better then they wanted it to be. Just a thought.

It went from being a slightly better Last Stand to being useful only for the Glyph.

If they can't figure out how to make it not stack with Raidstand that's their problem.


And this is pertinent to Holy Shield and Paladin changes how?

It wasn't that strong, though.


Not saying it was. I was just taking a guess why they nerfed it.
Edited by Xayton on 5/16/2011 5:00 PM PDT
85 Blood Elf Paladin
9950
One of the changes they played with in the 4.1 PTR but eventually reverted was having paladin mastery give both block chance and block value, at about half its current value, and giving holy shield block instead of value. This would keep overall mitigation roughly the same, nearly double the amount of mastery to reach the cap, and keep mastery a viable stat through firelands. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what was half-implemented in this push.

Or it could be some other thing. Just because some mouthy forum poster can't possibly imagine a scenario where 5% additional block chance might be part of an overall reduction in block ability doesn't mean it's not the case.
Bar, I like your posts but it's sort of silly to pretend like (1) there's been any real "hysteria" over this (I mean compare this to the WoG change for example or (2) that this is class-specific. Odd changes made on their own will provoke a response regardless of class, particularly when a blue post follows.


I am honestly just tired of the woe is me crap. I agree there isn't the outrage from WoG but I stem most of that from Ret paladins.

I hold tanking forums to a higher standard because, well, we repeatedly make it known that we are more mature/intellectual/reasonable than dps and healers forums.
100 Human Paladin
19810
Turning mastery into a [reduced] block chance/point + something (most likely block value) seems a given.

I'm genuinely curious about what other changes might be involved though. Something tying mitigation to hit/expertise as was hinted in GC's blog awile back? (*grimace*)

I hold tanking forums to a higher standard because, well, we repeatedly make it known that we are more mature/intellectual/reasonable than dps and healers forums.


I guess my point is that aside from like 3-4 people the response is more "WTF?" rather than "WTF?!?!?!?!eleventyone"
Edited by Lesaberisa on 5/16/2011 5:03 PM PDT
90 Human Paladin
0
05/16/2011 04:53 PMPosted by Barwicka
The whatever changes come down the pipe are irrelevant in this context. If your stated goal is to make it harder to cap mastery, and they implement a change that makes it easier to cap mastery, then no matter what other changes get implemented, that change is harmful towards the developers stated goals. There is no other change they could make short of "Having less than 3 HP reduces your chance to block by 5%", and if that's the mitigating circumstance that justifies this change within the context of their stated goals, then all they're accomplishing is cluttering up the server client communication unnecissarily.


Dev 1: Hey, the Firelands daily stuff is ready and I also got the Holy Shield change done.

Dev 2: Cool, throw it on the ptr so people can test stuff and we can get the raid in.

Dev 1: But I don't have the full mastery change for prot paladins done where we significantly lower block chance and increase block value.

Dev 2: So you are suggesting we hold off on the ptr testing because a change to one class won't make sense for 3 days? Push it. They won't flip their lid.

Dev 1: They are paladins......

Dev 2: Crap, good point.


If their goal is to overhaul our mastery and bake in the increased block value, and they were intending to make it harder to cap mastery, then they would more effectively accomplish their stated goals by overhauling mastery, baking in the increased block value, and getting rid of holy shield altogether.
90 Night Elf Druid
CFT
10670
05/16/2011 04:59 PMPosted by Xayton
And this is pertinent to Holy Shield and Paladin changes how?

Hoping that the change is incomplete and/or an oversight from a build that never should've made it to the PTR?

They've had their lips sealed on something that pretty effectively makes Bears inferior to all other tanks where CD cycling is required (Hi Nef). I'm not going to let it go quietly.
100 Blood Elf Death Knight
13570
05/16/2011 04:54 PMPosted by Arielle


There are several changes we are trying, and the current PTR only reflects a fraction of them. Keep in mind that while we have a lot of changes we want to get in to every major patch, we also want to try and get builds on the PTR as frequently as possible so that we can test other things (like Firelands encounters). We tend to grab builds often, not necessarily when every single change is in place.

So, why did our 3rd CD get neutered exactly?

I thought that was just a tooltip error. Or am I wrong?
90 Night Elf Druid
CFT
10670
05/16/2011 05:03 PMPosted by Dosvidaniya
I thought that was just a tooltip error. Or am I wrong?

The Health Gain/Set appears to be a TT change, but from all accounts the actual effect hasn't changed.

However this isn't the first time they've done it backwards.
90 Human Paladin
0
05/16/2011 04:58 PMPosted by Communism


I am going to take a stab in the dark and say, because it was better then they wanted it to be. Just a thought.


It wasn't that strong, though.


It really wasn't. And taking it below the 20 barrier is really painful. They've basically turned it into Vamp Blood, except on a 3 minute CD rather than the 1 min CD that DKs have.
100 Dwarf Death Knight
14765
05/16/2011 04:49 PMPosted by Kaivax
There are several changes we are trying, and the current PTR only reflects a fraction of them. Keep in mind that while we have a lot of changes we want to get in to every major patch, we also want to try and get builds on the PTR as frequently as possible so that we can test other things (like Firelands encounters). We tend to grab builds often, not necessarily when every single change is in place.


But from a PR standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put out major changes, especially major changes that significantly devalue a classes primary stat, without providing any sort of context? Even a little note saying "this is part of a number of experiments with mastery and is unlikely to go live without other system changes" could have prevented some of the nonsense and panic that has popped up on the forums as a result of this.

Providing even a modicum of context could help players understand what you're trying to do, and prevent you folks from looking bad (which you really do when you talk about a change that makes it easier to cap mastery being an attempt to prevent mastery capping).
05/16/2011 05:02 PMPosted by Dämmerung
If their goal is to overhaul our mastery and bake in the increased block value, and they were intending to make it harder to cap mastery, then they would more effectively accomplish their stated goals by overhauling mastery, baking in the increased block value, and getting rid of holy shield altogether.


I was just giving an example of this change + another one that would feasible allow them to reach their goals and only to disprove your claim that they couldn't.

Allowing Holy Shield to increase block change would give paladins more block chance pre lvl 80. While not essential, it gives paladins a feel good vibe that they are helping in their own survival, even if it is almost a complete illusion.

If WoG taught us nothing, it is that paladins don't really care how something works, they just want illusions of sparkles.
85 Human Death Knight
12405


But from a PR standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put out major changes, especially major changes that significantly devalue a classes primary stat, without providing any sort of context? Even a little note saying "this is part of a number of experiments with mastery and is unlikely to go live without other system changes" could have prevented some of the nonsense and panic that has popped up on the forums as a result of this.

Providing even a modicum of context could help players understand what you're trying to do, and prevent you folks from looking bad (which you really do when you talk about a change that makes it easier to cap mastery being an attempt to prevent mastery capping).


The entire PTR is an experiment. Although I would love to see small explanations next to big changes.
Edited by Communism on 5/16/2011 5:10 PM PDT
100 Night Elf Warrior
17790



Dev 1: Hey, the Firelands daily stuff is ready and I also got the Holy Shield change done.

Dev 2: Cool, throw it on the ptr so people can test stuff and we can get the raid in.

Dev 1: But I don't have the full mastery change for prot paladins done where we significantly lower block chance and increase block value.

Dev 2: So you are suggesting we hold off on the ptr testing because a change to one class won't make sense for 3 days? Push it. They won't flip their lid.

Dev 1: They are paladins......

Dev 2: Crap, good point.


If their goal is to overhaul our mastery and bake in the increased block value, and they were intending to make it harder to cap mastery, then they would more effectively accomplish their stated goals by overhauling mastery, baking in the increased block value, and getting rid of holy shield altogether.


That is one way to do it, but not the only way.

They could have the current change to holy shield, and change paladin mastery to +block value + block chance, making it much much much harder to cap since mastery would scale block chance more slowly.

I mean, warriors have much higher base block chance than paladins, but we have much more difficulty capping. Making base block really low isn't the only thing you can do to make mastery hard to cap.

I'm not sure why you are so intent on trying to make the devs out to be entirely incompetent here.

Do you know why the holy shield change doesn't make it harder to cap mastery? Because it wasn't supposed to. Not by itself, anyway. Its not the only change they intended to make. And its not a case of, they made this change, then they realized they made a mistake, and now are going to try something new. They were intending to change mastery itself the entire time. The timeline of the changes just didn't sync up with PTR pushes.

Imagine the PTR as looking at a building in the middle of a renovation. There are lots of things that are going to look bad or make little sense in the middle of a renovation, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an overall plan or goal that hasn't been achieved yet.
Edited by Asthas on 5/16/2011 5:16 PM PDT
90 Human Paladin
12965
05/16/2011 04:43 PMPosted by Nightsbane
Proof that you're assuming things and that you're an idiot


No, I've just been playing this game long enough to know that your apocalyptic claims are without merit.

Nefing all tank classes doesn't mean older content will get nerfed.


It also won't mean old content will suddenly become inordinately hard (and if it did, it would get nerfed).

I put "as needed" in my post for a reason.

BTW it's cute you talk about my gear - jealousy is awesome.


It's cute that you think I'm jealous.

Let me tell you something about clearing things, it requires not being bad, studying your class well, and oh yeah a good team. Seeing by your lack of Nef may I suggest zipping your mouth


Because this is the first expansion to feature challenging raid content, right?
90 Blood Elf Paladin
6235
Sometimes it's pretty easy to puzzle out why any given change was made, even in the absence of a direct explanation, and even if you don't agree with the specific way the change was made.

This is not one of those times.
85 Human Paladin
5495
Honestly devs, this will be a hit to the prot paladin class overall if this goes through. I think you should nerf baseline block stats instead of a skill we rely onfor increased mitigation.

100 Night Elf Warrior
17790
Sometimes it's pretty easy to puzzle out why any given change was made, even in the absence of a direct explanation, and even if you don't agree with the specific way the change was made.

This is not one of those times.


Well, I'd disagree in this case, but either way, we have two blue posts pretty much spelling out the overall goal and that there are changes coming down the pipe but still quite a few people that are interpreting the holy shield change as a standalone thing.
90 Human Paladin
0

If their goal is to overhaul our mastery and bake in the increased block value, and they were intending to make it harder to cap mastery, then they would more effectively accomplish their stated goals by overhauling mastery, baking in the increased block value, and getting rid of holy shield altogether.


That is one way to do it, but not the only way.

They could have the current change to holy shield, and change paladin mastery to +block value + block chance, making it much much much harder to cap since mastery would scale block chance more slowly.


What you've described is the mastery overhaul I was talking about, with a random +5% closer to the cap. Which is 5% easier to cap than the suggestion I made

I mean, warriors have much higher base block chance than paladins, but we have much more difficulty capping. Making base block really low isn't the only thing you can do to make mastery hard to cap.

I'm not sure why you are so intent on trying to make the devs out to be entirely incompetent here.


I'm not. I just want a straight explanation for what they consider to be the problem, and how they expect this fix to correct that issue. And by a straight explanation, I want one that actually matches up with the changes made.

Do you know why the holy shield change doesn't mean it harder to cap mastery? Because it wasn't supposed to. Its not the only change they intended to make. And its not a case of, they made this change, then they realized they made a mistake, and now are going to try something new. They were intending to change mastery itself the entire time. The timeline of the changes just didn't sync up with PTR pushes.


How do I know that the holy shield change doesn't make it harder to cap mastery? Because it gives us 5% towards the mastery cap for free. That's the definition of making it easier to cap mastery.
100 Night Elf Warrior
17790


What you've described is the mastery overhaul I was talking about, with a random +5% closer to the cap. Which is 5% easier to cap than the suggestion I made.



Yes, whatever change they make, it'd be even harder to cap mastery if holy shield was unchanged or at least wasn't changed to increase block change. You know what would also make it harder to cap mastery? It they reduced base block chance to 0 and just outright nerfed mastery to 1% block per mastery. That doesn't mean its a good way to make mastery hard to cap. Until the other changes are revealed, we can't really say if the approach is right or wrong.



I'm not. I just want a straight explanation for what they consider to be the problem, and how they expect this fix to correct that issue. And by a straight explanation, I want one that actually matches up with the changes made.



You've gotten two straight explanations, you just don't like them. They want mastery to be harder to cap. That is the goal. The plan? They haven't said anything specific, but they made it very clear that the holy shield change was picked up in a PTR push by chance and was never intended to be a standalone change. Again, let me make this perfectly clear, the holy shield change should not be evaluated as a standalone change because its not supposed to be a standalone change. There is no useful feedback to give on it alone. Would it be nice if they laid out the changes they have planned (and had planned before the holy shield change)? Sure. But they'll probably show up on the PTR soon, if they don't come back and tell them to us here.


How do I know that the holy shield change doesn't make it harder to cap mastery? Because it gives us 5% towards the mastery cap for free. That's the definition of making it easier to cap mastery.


Yes, by itself, because you peeked in in the middle of a process and looked at an unfinished project.

Think of the renovating building. A building in the middle of renovation is probably going to be dirty, with junk on the floor, with things out of place. Does that mean they are doing a bad job? Well, maybe they could be a bit more organized about it and not have junk on the floor (the holy shield change by itself) but its pretty standard for that to happen and the state in the middle of a renovation isn't indicative of the goal at the end of renovation.

"We want to make this place look more open."

"But you just knocked down that wall! Now there is debris everywhere! No one is going to want to go over there! How does this make the room more open?"

"Well obviously we are going to clear the debris before we reopen..."

Is equivalent to

"We want to make mastery harder to cap."

"But now holy shield increase block chance! That makes it easier to cap!"

"We aren't done with Prot Paladins yet. The other changes haven't made it in yet."

Or just think of any process or project. If someone looks at it before its finished, there are going to be things that seem out of place. But that's why its unfinished.

But you probably won't be convinced, because the narrative you want is that Blizzard is terrible at the job, so when they tell you that they got caught in the middle of a set of changes for prot paladins this PTR build, you don't believe them, and instead interject that they really thought the holy shield change by itself was going to fix prot paladins and make mastery hard to cap.
Edited by Asthas on 5/16/2011 5:42 PM PDT
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]