Poster: Archetype at 2006-10-25 00:23:55
Subject: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| |
Drysc said:
Q u o t e:
We are currently in the process of heavy DPS testing with all classes in a wide variety of combat types, situations, gear, and spec to ensure they fall in-line with what we expect of each class and where we want each class to be on the DPS scale. As we progress with the DPS testing there will be changes made that will help adjust classes to where we want them to be, and you may see improvements or nerfs that seem a bit odd. At the very least we want to express that we're making these adjustments due to involved DPS tests and the changes being made are a direct result of our findings.
The expansion gives us an amazing opportunity to balance all of the classes in one big release, and we're going to be refining each class until release to make sure we're making good use of it.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=38704085&sid=1&pageNo=4
So about that, if you're testing the bounds of DPS in various related fields wouldn't you increase it instead of decrease it? I'm just confused as to why this specific move was made. What, in your testing, made you feel vengeance as well as a 6 second strike blew the roof on paladin damage? I'm just confused... We were happy, thanking you for the gifts given to us.... then we got that nerf....
It makes it seem that you guys gave into the peer pressure whines of a few warriors that were saddened that if they got an unimproved MS we'd come close to their damage. I'm not saying Blizz did it this way, but I am looking for answers.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=39414260&pageNo=1&sid=1#0 |
| |
Poster: Tseric at 2006-10-25 13:10:09
Subject: Re: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| |
Q u o t e:
So about that, if you're testing the bounds of DPS in various related fields wouldn't you increase it instead of decrease it?
Because, if testing shows that DPS for the particular tree (Retribution, in this case) is higher than what we want it to be considering the baseline, a decrease in DPS is what has to be aimed for.
Basically, DPS with Crusader Strike was over the mark. Rather than dealing with the singular spell of Crusader's, the tree was looked at to find places where DPS could be decreased. Vengeance fit this as a canidate for DPS reduction.
We realize this may seem from left-field for some folks, but the overall DPS potential of the tree is what was adjusted, rather than nerfing Crusader in a way that breaks the ability.
Don't get your nether in a twist.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=39414260&pageNo=1&sid=1#5 |
Poster: Archetype at 2006-10-25 00:23:55
Subject: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| |
Drysc said:
Q u o t e:
We are currently in the process of heavy DPS testing with all classes in a wide variety of combat types, situations, gear, and spec to ensure they fall in-line with what we expect of each class and where we want each class to be on the DPS scale. As we progress with the DPS testing there will be changes made that will help adjust classes to where we want them to be, and you may see improvements or nerfs that seem a bit odd. At the very least we want to express that we're making these adjustments due to involved DPS tests and the changes being made are a direct result of our findings.
The expansion gives us an amazing opportunity to balance all of the classes in one big release, and we're going to be refining each class until release to make sure we're making good use of it.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=38704085&sid=1&pageNo=4
So about that, if you're testing the bounds of DPS in various related fields wouldn't you increase it instead of decrease it? I'm just confused as to why this specific move was made. What, in your testing, made you feel vengeance as well as a 6 second strike blew the roof on paladin damage? I'm just confused... We were happy, thanking you for the gifts given to us.... then we got that nerf....
It makes it seem that you guys gave into the peer pressure whines of a few warriors that were saddened that if they got an unimproved MS we'd come close to their damage. I'm not saying Blizz did it this way, but I am looking for answers.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=39414260&pageNo=1&sid=1#0 |
| |
Poster: Tseric at 2006-10-25 13:10:09
Subject: Re: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| |
Q u o t e:
So about that, if you're testing the bounds of DPS in various related fields wouldn't you increase it instead of decrease it?
Because, if testing shows that DPS for the particular tree (Retribution, in this case) is higher than what we want it to be considering the baseline, a decrease in DPS is what has to be aimed for.
Basically, DPS with Crusader Strike was over the mark. Rather than dealing with the singular spell of Crusader's, the tree was looked at to find places where DPS could be decreased. Vengeance fit this as a canidate for DPS reduction.
We realize this may seem from left-field for some folks, but the overall DPS potential of the tree is what was adjusted, rather than nerfing Crusader in a way that breaks the ability.
Don't get your nether in a twist.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=39414260&pageNo=1&sid=1#5 |
Poster: Archetype at 2006-10-25 00:23:55
Subject: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| |
Drysc said:
Q u o t e:
We are currently in the process of heavy DPS testing with all classes in a wide variety of combat types, situations, gear, and spec to ensure they fall in-line with what we expect of each class and where we want each class to be on the DPS scale. As we progress with the DPS testing there will be changes made that will help adjust classes to where we want them to be, and you may see improvements or nerfs that seem a bit odd. At the very least we want to express that we're making these adjustments due to involved DPS tests and the changes being made are a direct result of our findings.
The expansion gives us an amazing opportunity to balance all of the classes in one big release, and we're going to be refining each class until release to make sure we're making good use of it.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=38704085&sid=1&pageNo=4
So about that, if you're testing the bounds of DPS in various related fields wouldn't you increase it instead of decrease it? I'm just confused as to why this specific move was made. What, in your testing, made you feel vengeance as well as a 6 second strike blew the roof on paladin damage? I'm just confused... We were happy, thanking you for the gifts given to us.... then we got that nerf....
It makes it seem that you guys gave into the peer pressure whines of a few warriors that were saddened that if they got an unimproved MS we'd come close to their damage. I'm not saying Blizz did it this way, but I am looking for answers.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=39414260&pageNo=1&sid=1#0 |
| |
Poster: Tseric at 2006-10-25 13:10:09
Subject: Re: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| |
Q u o t e:
So about that, if you're testing the bounds of DPS in various related fields wouldn't you increase it instead of decrease it?
Because, if testing shows that DPS for the particular tree (Retribution, in this case) is higher than what we want it to be considering the baseline, a decrease in DPS is what has to be aimed for.
Basically, DPS with Crusader Strike was over the mark. Rather than dealing with the singular spell of Crusader's, the tree was looked at to find places where DPS could be decreased. Vengeance fit this as a canidate for DPS reduction.
We realize this may seem from left-field for some folks, but the overall DPS potential of the tree is what was adjusted, rather than nerfing Crusader in a way that breaks the ability.
Don't get your nether in a twist.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=39414260&pageNo=1&sid=1#5 |
Poster: Archetype at 2006-10-25 00:23:55
Subject: About Pallys: You forgot to explain why |
| | 0">
|
