Brewmasters in 7.2.5

Legion Class Development
Prev 1 23 24 25 35 Next
I do appreciate the constant conversation from devs - it helps out here.

I think the Purifying Brew change lacks elegance. I would enjoy being able to purify 0 stagger for PvP, but it is really clunky in PvE. Even in PvP, it feels a bit clunky to purify low damage to get a root cleanse.

The closest parallel would be shield block. That still has defensive value if something goes wrong, like the other tank gets gibbed, and it can be used offensively to buff shield slam. Or they could use a different ability instead to burn the rage.

If the change was added to both brews, that would be better. With the ISB cap, it shouldn't be as much of a worry if ISB has the buff as well. That will let us choose to either purify some of the raid damage we receive while OTing or continue popping ISB instead.

Gameplay loops should be smooth and fun. Things like 0 or low stagger PB usage feels a bit shallow and clunky. Max stagger limits seem not fun from a gameplay perspective. AM buff capping feels odd. Some of the changes seem great for making the loop more fun and engaging, but others just feel like they won't be enjoyable.

I don't care if I can't cheese stuff anymore or if I'm not top-tier; I want to have fun and keep feeling like an actual sturdy tank.
If all of this is coming from the fact BrM can supposedly cheese auto kill mechanics...why don't they like...you know...

Make the auto kill mechanics auto kill? Make the damage (That is intended to be unsurvivable) be unblockable/staggerable...or just hard code it in that you die if it hits you.

This seems like an encounter design problem, not a Brewmaster problem.
04/04/2017 12:21 PMPosted by Eleanõr
If all of this is coming from the fact BrM can supposedly cheese auto kill mechanics...why don't they like...you know...

Make the auto kill mechanics auto kill? Make the damage (That is intended to be unsurvivable) be unblockable/staggerable...or just hard code it in that you die if it hits you.

This seems like an encounter design problem, not a Brewmaster problem.


This would make bears vulnerable though, and we can't have that.
04/04/2017 12:26 PMPosted by Atráeus
04/04/2017 12:21 PMPosted by Eleanõr
If all of this is coming from the fact BrM can supposedly cheese auto kill mechanics...why don't they like...you know...

Make the auto kill mechanics auto kill? Make the damage (That is intended to be unsurvivable) be unblockable/staggerable...or just hard code it in that you die if it hits you.

This seems like an encounter design problem, not a Brewmaster problem.


This would make bears vulnerable though, and we can't have that.


That's another thing...didn't a Blue say that the next thing they were going to focus on Tanking wise was revamping Mark of Usroc before ToS? Why the sudden emphasis on Brewmaster? Brews are (debate-ably) balanced, or as close to balanced as the current round of tank balance can be.

Isn't there bigger fish to fry than overhauling a spec because of poor encounter design?
04/03/2017 10:35 PMPosted by Voodoofu
Can't DH get 100% uptime on spikes or close to it with certain legendaries and t19?


With enough haste, a suboptimal spec, and T19 4 piece we can get 100% up time on a 10% physical damage reduction.
@Celestalon

There are many proposed changes but in this post I will suggest a new way of dealing with our ability to cheese. The stagger cap will indeed prevent us from cheesing attacks that should normally kill them. The problem with the stagger cap is that there aren't many variables to play with (health, ironskin cap, stagger cap, % we stagger and the ability such as Fel Scythe). Big (negative) changes to these, causes us to fall over on any hard hitting content such as M+ or Mythic Raiding. Thus we have to add more variables to the equation.

I want to step of the invisible Stagger Cap that stops us from stagger. It may work for Guardian Spirit but priest don't revolve around Guardian Spirit like we do with Stagger. We can however implement a penalty by having large amounts of damage consume our Ironskin Brew. Lets say 200% of our HP will not give us a penalty but any damage beyond that will consume 1 second of our Ironskin Brew for 20% HP above 200%. Ultimately this means that if we try to soak 50 million hits with 6 million health our Ironskin Brew will run out and the remaining damage will not be mitigated by it.

This system gives you the following variables to play with:

  • Ironskin Brew cap: Disallows us to get a long duration on Ironskin, thus we cannot purify 3 times in a row without Black Ox Brew
  • Brew Generation: Generating more brews means we can take more penalty.
  • Stagger Penalty & Health: More health or high stagger cap, the more we can stagger without consuming Ironskin.
  • % we stagger in general
  • Armor: Self explanatory
  • Attack Damage: Higher Content means stronger attacks!
Why not just change Purify? Instead of our current stagger make it a total heath? Like Purify removes 50% of stagger damage equal to our total health? That way if we are sitting on 300% stagger it will only remove 50% which will bring it down to 250% stagger? This will make us think about purifying more. It seems you want us to Purify more and have less ISB uptime so why not just change the way Purify works?
04/03/2017 10:47 PMPosted by Bruzes
Except ISB is not AM, it is a standard part of our toolkit that enables us to function as a tank. It splits the damage between stagger and our health pool. We still take that full damage but smoother. ISB does not prevent damage, Purifying Brew does, and the definition of mitigating is to prevent damage, and PB does by removing 50% of the dot. Without ISB we would be uncompetitive as tanks. Its the same as shield block for a warrior. With out SB they would not be able to function.
These changes are coming regardless, it's just a lie it's built around. Because if they truly were listening they wouldn't do this.
As for the comment I quoted, there is an earlier post about what every tank with externals can do regarding 100 energy fel attacks from Guldan.
So by blizzard logic every tank should get the same treatment.


ISB is AM by definition. It's how Monks meet Mitigation Checks in the game. Try again.

So you're saying that Monks should be able to Stagger 80% of the physical damage they take after armor or other mitigation 100% of the time? Compare that to any other tank's numbers, seriously.

You're also saying that monks should be able to Stagger (with talent) a similar amount of magic damage 100% of the time? The smoothing benefits of that compared to any other tank are mind-boggling. I mean seriously, who cares about total healing over time if you never have to worry about being gibbed?

Not balanced, sorry.

Edit: Any other tank except Guardian Druid, of course.
@Celestalon & team
if you want to add baseline defensive benefit for BoS and BoF why not just make BoS used against a target with BoF debuff increase chance for a healing sphere to spawn for x seconds?
Personally I feel Brewmasters shouldn't be touched because of what Sigma said about Guardians not getting touched. Seems only fair because in higher content tiers Guardian has more Gul'Dan mythic clears than any other tank by huge folds.

"we are not adjusting Guardians in the 7.2 patch because we avoid imposing significant nerfs at this point in a tier to a spec that many people have gotten comfortable completing the content with" -Sigma

I'm sure the majority of the small BrM community agrees that we are comfortable completing content with what we have now, and really don't want to be messed with in a manner that could easily make us unplayable.
let's take a step back.

The only 'issue' with monk tank Celestalon has outlined is our ability to soak too may mechanic intended to kill player ... in particular, gul'dan fel scythe or solo soaking annihilate. Monk mitigation isn't leap and bound better than other tank (we actually take more damage than any other). we dont have an armada of CD to handle everything, we dont have crazy DPS or crazy self healing...

However, has been discussed... this isn't a monk-only issue ; every tank (minus DH) is able to do that! Hence, the issue is more with the boss ability, and not the tank ability.

That being said, why implement such broad change to monk, if the issue lie within the encounter, and not the class?
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


Not confirmed, but so much more relief. Thank you!
04/03/2017 10:33 PMPosted by Leeflow
You are not seriouly comparing "keeping 100% uptime on stagger" with "Tank X can't keep 100% uptime on his AM", are you?

Monks drop dead when their "AM" is not up. Our AM is not "an extra layer of defense" ... it's what allow monks to stand in front of the boss in the first place.


Hey, Leeflow from the old tank forums! Cool.

I'm not comparing Stagger to other tanks' AM, I'm comparing ISB.
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


Well, we appreciate you doing this. This sort of thing should be done for all specs. I'd assign a CM a job solely to handle this sort of thing. As a medium between the class Devs and the playerbase.
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


I want to thank you guys for being so open and clear with what your plans are for us monks in the future, it's very refreshing to hear and I think everyone can agree that hearing the reasoning behind changes is always welcome!

Keep up with the great communication, its amazing!
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


Agile development/scrum/iterative development/transparency is the cool in one hand. But on the other hand, in an MMO, some players are far more invested into their toon than a regular "business customer".

This level of detailed iterative transparency is ideal if you are dealing with professionals on an engineering level, but becomes far more emotional when dealing with a large player base in virtual reality.

A blue/dev/designer coming to collect public opinion is cool, but posting with "we will be doing X" doesn't really show that this is an iterative development process. Changes sound final (if you revisit the original post), and that's where uproar will happen.
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


I don't want the devs to be scared off by our comments to this 'change', the majority of us really enjoy an open discussion about the game, and are very passionate to find solutions for problems the devs may have. Please, discuss as much as you reasonably can, and I am sure you'll net more positives than negatives for the progression/improvement of WoW.

Also, many of us are not fools, we know what sounds broken, rarely do players delibately ask for something unreasonably strong -- Asking for advice is a strength not a weakness.
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


While it still feels like a solution looking for a problem, thank you Celestalon for listening to our feedback, it's nice to see that you guys are listening.
04/04/2017 01:26 PMPosted by Celestalon
Usually, we don't discuss changes so early in the design process, but decided to try it out here. That's why I've focused so much on our thoughts and intent, not the exact changes we're planning, because planned changes are so ephemeral.

Our design process is extremely iterative. We start with something and tweak it until it's as good as we can get. That means it starts out pretty rough, and solidifies over time into something better, and this discussion is a perfect example of what it looks like to peak into that process.

Continuing this iteration process, listening to your feedback, and lots of internal discussion and testing, we're now leaning toward removing the Stagger cap. (To be perfectly accurate, changing it to an obscenely large value so that it still functions as exploit prevention. If you can get to 1000% Stagger... sorry, that's probably enough.)


This is encouraging. ISB duration cap still worries me, but thats something I really need to see on PTR to get a feel for how it will play. Looking forward to testing.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum