I was chatting with another paladin healer today, and noticed he was using [Althor's Abacus]. I was a bit surprised, because it seems like another [Trauma], which really wasn't that good for paladins.
However, this paladin said that the Abacus was very good. According to him, it can proc when someone gets healed from his Judgement of Light. This means that it actually has a pretty high proc rate. He claimed that the Abacus accounted for a full 3% of his heals.
Any other paladins have experiences with [Althor's Abacus]?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Best Change in Patch 3.3.3
The best change in the new mini-patch that came today:
Hunters now display ranged weapons on the character select screen.
No paladin changes to talk about. The new auction interface is pretty good. Don't forget to convert all your old Battleground Marks to Honor.
Hunters now display ranged weapons on the character select screen.
No paladin changes to talk about. The new auction interface is pretty good. Don't forget to convert all your old Battleground Marks to Honor.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Cataclysm Parry: Part I
One of the most interesting changes coming in Cataclysm is the new Parry mechanic. Currently, a Parry prevents 100% of the damage on the current swing and speeds up your next swing. In Cataclysm, a Parry will prevent 50% damage on the current swing, and 50% of the damage on the next swing, and will not speed your weapon.
What's amusing about this change is that it changes the way you have to analyze tanking. Boss swings are no longer independent. The damage you take on the current swing depends on if the previous swing was a parry or not. Incoming damage becomes a Markov chain, and you need to play around with matrices instead of simple probability.
There are two possible interpretations of how the second swing after a Parry works, and Blizzard has not seen fit to enlighten us yet. The first interpretation is that the second swing always hits for 50% damage, and cannot be dodged or blocked or re-parried. The other interpretation is that you can still miss/dodge/block/parry the second swing, but damage on a parry or block is reduced even further.
In this post, I'll look at the first Parry version. Here is a graph that shows how damage is reduced as you increase Dodge, Parry, or Block (assumes starting values of 5% Miss, 5% Dodge, 5% Parry, 5% Block):
As you can see, Dodge is the best stat of the three. One percentage point of Dodge reduces damage by significantly more than Parry or Block. Intuitively, this makes sense. After all, Dodge completely negates the attack, while you still take 70% damage on a Block. If you had 100% Dodge, you'd take 0% damage. 100% Block would be 70% damage. As for Parry, if you had 100% Parry, you would be taking 50% damage all the time.
However, in this scenario Parry behaves slightly differently than Dodge or Block. Dodge and Block are linear, and each percentage point of Dodge or Block will reduce damage by a equal amount. Parry, on the other hand, is almost as good as Dodge early on, when you have low amounts of Parry, but becomes less and less effective as you add more Parry.
(Please note that I am discussing raw Dodge and Parry, not Dodge Rating or Parry Rating. The amount of Rating per percentage point will make a big impact.)
In the next post, I'll look at the second Parry scenario. My initial instinct is that Parry will be much better under those rules. After all, in the second scenario, 100% parry would translate to 25% damage all the time.
What's amusing about this change is that it changes the way you have to analyze tanking. Boss swings are no longer independent. The damage you take on the current swing depends on if the previous swing was a parry or not. Incoming damage becomes a Markov chain, and you need to play around with matrices instead of simple probability.
There are two possible interpretations of how the second swing after a Parry works, and Blizzard has not seen fit to enlighten us yet. The first interpretation is that the second swing always hits for 50% damage, and cannot be dodged or blocked or re-parried. The other interpretation is that you can still miss/dodge/block/parry the second swing, but damage on a parry or block is reduced even further.
In this post, I'll look at the first Parry version. Here is a graph that shows how damage is reduced as you increase Dodge, Parry, or Block (assumes starting values of 5% Miss, 5% Dodge, 5% Parry, 5% Block):
As you can see, Dodge is the best stat of the three. One percentage point of Dodge reduces damage by significantly more than Parry or Block. Intuitively, this makes sense. After all, Dodge completely negates the attack, while you still take 70% damage on a Block. If you had 100% Dodge, you'd take 0% damage. 100% Block would be 70% damage. As for Parry, if you had 100% Parry, you would be taking 50% damage all the time.
However, in this scenario Parry behaves slightly differently than Dodge or Block. Dodge and Block are linear, and each percentage point of Dodge or Block will reduce damage by a equal amount. Parry, on the other hand, is almost as good as Dodge early on, when you have low amounts of Parry, but becomes less and less effective as you add more Parry.
(Please note that I am discussing raw Dodge and Parry, not Dodge Rating or Parry Rating. The amount of Rating per percentage point will make a big impact.)
In the next post, I'll look at the second Parry scenario. My initial instinct is that Parry will be much better under those rules. After all, in the second scenario, 100% parry would translate to 25% damage all the time.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Optional
Suzina at Kill Ten Rats confessed that she bought gold to purchase dual specialization on her first WoW character at level 40. For the purposes of this post, let us ignore the whole "buying gold" aspect of the story. What's much more puzzling to me is why Suzina felt she had to have dual-spec at all.
To me, it seems that Blizzard put the 1000g price tag on dual-spec specifically to signal that dual-spec was optional. That you didn't need it while leveling your first character, and was more of an extra for experienced players leveling an alt. And I agree with this view. You don't need dual-spec until heroics at max level. Before then you can tank or heal in any spec. Every class has the basic tools necessary available to all specs.
Sometimes it seems like this genre has no concept of the term "optional". Something is either absolutely necessary, or it is useless. There doesn't seem to be any in-between. Another example is professions. Professions used to be more or less optional. But many people complained that professions were useless, and profession perks were added. Now, having two professions is mandatory, just for the extra profession-specific perks.
There is a huge debate on the EJ Benefactor forum about the state of Wrath endgame. The people in Royalty guilds are very unhappy because they feel that--to be competitive--they are forced to do 10-mans, 25-mans, alt runs, and daily heroics. Because every one of these activities has a small benefit, they all become necessary and no longer optional. 10-mans give extra Emblems and some Best-in-Slot gear. Daily heroics give extra Emblems. Alt runs grant you extra attempts on attempt-limited bosses.
And yet, if these activities have no benefit, they become worthless and will not be done at all. There is no in-between, no state where sometimes you do a 10man, and sometimes you don't. You either do the 10-man every chance you get or you never do it at all. Sometimes it feels like players are completely unable to moderate themselves.
Is it possible to design elements that are optional and yet have decent rewards? Or should Blizzard be heavy-handed and formally restrict players from going overboard? Should they combine 10-man and 25-man lockouts? Should they restrict dual-spec to level 80s?
Maybe it's better for the designers to assume that players will have no sense of moderation or sanity, and will take every possible step to gain any potential benefits. Then design the game to severely limit the amount of possible steps to keep players from hurting themselves.
To me, it seems that Blizzard put the 1000g price tag on dual-spec specifically to signal that dual-spec was optional. That you didn't need it while leveling your first character, and was more of an extra for experienced players leveling an alt. And I agree with this view. You don't need dual-spec until heroics at max level. Before then you can tank or heal in any spec. Every class has the basic tools necessary available to all specs.
Sometimes it seems like this genre has no concept of the term "optional". Something is either absolutely necessary, or it is useless. There doesn't seem to be any in-between. Another example is professions. Professions used to be more or less optional. But many people complained that professions were useless, and profession perks were added. Now, having two professions is mandatory, just for the extra profession-specific perks.
There is a huge debate on the EJ Benefactor forum about the state of Wrath endgame. The people in Royalty guilds are very unhappy because they feel that--to be competitive--they are forced to do 10-mans, 25-mans, alt runs, and daily heroics. Because every one of these activities has a small benefit, they all become necessary and no longer optional. 10-mans give extra Emblems and some Best-in-Slot gear. Daily heroics give extra Emblems. Alt runs grant you extra attempts on attempt-limited bosses.
And yet, if these activities have no benefit, they become worthless and will not be done at all. There is no in-between, no state where sometimes you do a 10man, and sometimes you don't. You either do the 10-man every chance you get or you never do it at all. Sometimes it feels like players are completely unable to moderate themselves.
Is it possible to design elements that are optional and yet have decent rewards? Or should Blizzard be heavy-handed and formally restrict players from going overboard? Should they combine 10-man and 25-man lockouts? Should they restrict dual-spec to level 80s?
Maybe it's better for the designers to assume that players will have no sense of moderation or sanity, and will take every possible step to gain any potential benefits. Then design the game to severely limit the amount of possible steps to keep players from hurting themselves.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Gold Selling
The Problem
Last week Big Bear Butt issued a call for Blizzard to end Prohibition and start selling gold to players. The theory is that by offering players a safe and legal method of purchasing gold, Blizzard will greatly damage the economic incentive of hackers and goldsellers, reducing the damage that hacked accounts are doing to the game.
I am reluctantly forced to agree with him that gold should be sold through legitimate channels. I have never bought gold. I regard purchasing gold as a form of cheating. But the truth is that there is apparently a significant segment of the audience who is willing to purchase gold. To satisfy that need we have people who hack accounts, secretly install keyloggers, and do much damage to innocent players. If selling gold directly would significantly reduce the number of hacked players, then it would be worthwhile.
There have been two options suggested: players selling gold to players; and Blizzard selling gold to players. Each method has pitfalls, and at the end I will make a suggestion on what I think the best course of action would be.
Solution 1: Players Selling to Players
There are three major problems with Player-To-Player transactions that I see. First, it gives players a significant incentive to defraud other players, especially as the fruits of the fraud result in real money. Imagine a GM or officer making off with the guild bank to sell for real money. Even in day-to-day transactions, the incentive will be to take the most valuable option. In random dungeons, always roll Need on gear so you can sell it. I think that setting the players against each other in this fashion is not good for a casual game like WoW. In a hardcore PvP game like Eve Online, it might be acceptable or even necessary, but it would not be good for WoW.
The second problem I see is that it has the potential to get the IRS and the government involved. I see no good coming from having the IRS interested in my game playing. Anytime something involves real money, the government has an interest and tends to interfere. The academics who think virtual worlds are important might feel validated at the sign of government interest, but I don't want to end up filling out Section A, Subsection B: Income Earned From Virtual Currency Trading on my tax forms.
The third problem is that I believe it is wrong for strong players to get a "free ride" at the expense of weaker players. If players can sell gold to other players, the good players will pay for their subscriptions by selling gold to weaker players. So essentially, the weaker players are paying both subscriptions and are the ones who are actually supporting the game.
In Magic Online, this phenomenon was called "going infinite". Players had to supply packs of cards to enter tournaments, and the prizes were additional packs of cards. A good player would win tournaments, and the prizes would pay her way into the next tournament. The only people who were actually paying for the game were the losers. I don't think this behaviour is healthy for the game in the long run.
Right now, everyone pays an equal amount to access the game, and that is fair and sensible. Creating a division between sellers, who play the game for free, and buyers, who end up paying for everything, will cause nothing but problems.
Solution 2: Blizzard Selling to Players
There are two major issues with Blizzard selling gold directly to players. First, Blizzard can be undercut by the illegal gold sellers. A significant number of players will buy from Blizzard, but there will probably be enough people who go for the cheaper prices. This may or may not be a big problem.
Second, incentives matter. This is just as true for corporations as it is for individuals. If Blizzard sells gold, then selling gold becomes a revenue stream for them, and they have a strong incentive to increase that revenue stream as much as possible. I really don't want to see game design decisions that encourage the player base to buy gold instead of bettering gameplay. For example, the drop rate of Frost Lotus was recently increased, bringing down prices. Would you trust Blizzard to make the same decision if they stood to gain money as people bought gold to compensate for higher prices?
Maybe the Blizzard of old might have made the best decision for the game, but Activision certainly won't. Not if the other path results in increased revenues in the short term.
My Solution: Charity Selling to Players
My solution would be to have Blizzard sell gold to players and donate all money generated to a charity. Not just the profits, but all the revenue. Blizzard can pay for it out of the decreased Customer Support costs.
This would remove any incentive for Blizzard to maximize gold selling revenue at the expense of gameplay. They wouldn't really care if players buy gold or don't buy gold. The charity might care, but it would have no power to do anything.
Secondly, it would provide a powerful incentive for players to purchase from Blizzard instead of illegal gold sellers, even if the illegals undercut Blizzard. On one hand, your money can go to people who hack accounts. On the other hand, your money can go to charity. I think that making the choice starker, and adding extra moral weight to the choice we want people to take, would lead to more people sticking with the official sales.
As well, this would avoid consumers protesting that Blizzard is being excessively greedy. Gold selling would be seen as something completely separate from subscriptions. The divisions between sellers and buyers would not occur.
Of course, this option is extremely unlikely to happen. It's hard to imagine an MMO company allowing its virtual currency to be sold, but giving up all revenue from it, especially if the amounts were non-trivial.
Last week Big Bear Butt issued a call for Blizzard to end Prohibition and start selling gold to players. The theory is that by offering players a safe and legal method of purchasing gold, Blizzard will greatly damage the economic incentive of hackers and goldsellers, reducing the damage that hacked accounts are doing to the game.
I am reluctantly forced to agree with him that gold should be sold through legitimate channels. I have never bought gold. I regard purchasing gold as a form of cheating. But the truth is that there is apparently a significant segment of the audience who is willing to purchase gold. To satisfy that need we have people who hack accounts, secretly install keyloggers, and do much damage to innocent players. If selling gold directly would significantly reduce the number of hacked players, then it would be worthwhile.
There have been two options suggested: players selling gold to players; and Blizzard selling gold to players. Each method has pitfalls, and at the end I will make a suggestion on what I think the best course of action would be.
Solution 1: Players Selling to Players
There are three major problems with Player-To-Player transactions that I see. First, it gives players a significant incentive to defraud other players, especially as the fruits of the fraud result in real money. Imagine a GM or officer making off with the guild bank to sell for real money. Even in day-to-day transactions, the incentive will be to take the most valuable option. In random dungeons, always roll Need on gear so you can sell it. I think that setting the players against each other in this fashion is not good for a casual game like WoW. In a hardcore PvP game like Eve Online, it might be acceptable or even necessary, but it would not be good for WoW.
The second problem I see is that it has the potential to get the IRS and the government involved. I see no good coming from having the IRS interested in my game playing. Anytime something involves real money, the government has an interest and tends to interfere. The academics who think virtual worlds are important might feel validated at the sign of government interest, but I don't want to end up filling out Section A, Subsection B: Income Earned From Virtual Currency Trading on my tax forms.
The third problem is that I believe it is wrong for strong players to get a "free ride" at the expense of weaker players. If players can sell gold to other players, the good players will pay for their subscriptions by selling gold to weaker players. So essentially, the weaker players are paying both subscriptions and are the ones who are actually supporting the game.
In Magic Online, this phenomenon was called "going infinite". Players had to supply packs of cards to enter tournaments, and the prizes were additional packs of cards. A good player would win tournaments, and the prizes would pay her way into the next tournament. The only people who were actually paying for the game were the losers. I don't think this behaviour is healthy for the game in the long run.
Right now, everyone pays an equal amount to access the game, and that is fair and sensible. Creating a division between sellers, who play the game for free, and buyers, who end up paying for everything, will cause nothing but problems.
Solution 2: Blizzard Selling to Players
There are two major issues with Blizzard selling gold directly to players. First, Blizzard can be undercut by the illegal gold sellers. A significant number of players will buy from Blizzard, but there will probably be enough people who go for the cheaper prices. This may or may not be a big problem.
Second, incentives matter. This is just as true for corporations as it is for individuals. If Blizzard sells gold, then selling gold becomes a revenue stream for them, and they have a strong incentive to increase that revenue stream as much as possible. I really don't want to see game design decisions that encourage the player base to buy gold instead of bettering gameplay. For example, the drop rate of Frost Lotus was recently increased, bringing down prices. Would you trust Blizzard to make the same decision if they stood to gain money as people bought gold to compensate for higher prices?
Maybe the Blizzard of old might have made the best decision for the game, but Activision certainly won't. Not if the other path results in increased revenues in the short term.
My Solution: Charity Selling to Players
My solution would be to have Blizzard sell gold to players and donate all money generated to a charity. Not just the profits, but all the revenue. Blizzard can pay for it out of the decreased Customer Support costs.
This would remove any incentive for Blizzard to maximize gold selling revenue at the expense of gameplay. They wouldn't really care if players buy gold or don't buy gold. The charity might care, but it would have no power to do anything.
Secondly, it would provide a powerful incentive for players to purchase from Blizzard instead of illegal gold sellers, even if the illegals undercut Blizzard. On one hand, your money can go to people who hack accounts. On the other hand, your money can go to charity. I think that making the choice starker, and adding extra moral weight to the choice we want people to take, would lead to more people sticking with the official sales.
As well, this would avoid consumers protesting that Blizzard is being excessively greedy. Gold selling would be seen as something completely separate from subscriptions. The divisions between sellers and buyers would not occur.
Of course, this option is extremely unlikely to happen. It's hard to imagine an MMO company allowing its virtual currency to be sold, but giving up all revenue from it, especially if the amounts were non-trivial.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Ask Coriel: New Prot Paladin Spec
Redzilla asks:
In my opinion, my tank build would be: 0/53/18
It's not very much different from yours, but I would take 2/2 Imp Judgements, 2/2 Pursuit of Justice, and Seal of Command. 2/2 Imp Judgements is not strictly needed, but sometimes it's useful to have your Judgements available a bit early. The 969 rotation is the standard, but don't get tunnel-visioned. Sometimes deviating from 969 is necessary. For example, if you were kiting a mob, you'd prefer to have more Judgements.
As well, I am a great fan of Pursuit of Justice. I find being able to move swiftly is very useful, and I think trading 2% crit is worth it. However, a lot of other paladin tanks would probably disagree with me, and say that having Tuskarr's Vitality on your boots is good enough.
Seal of Command is very useful on trash and adds. It's especially good for AoE tanking.
I'm not sure about Divine Sacrifice. I'm not sure how much you would use it as a tank. You might be better off just getting 3/5 Divinity instead. Divine Sacrifice is powerful, but if you never use it because you're always tanking, better to take something else.
As for Auras/Blessings/Seals, at low levels I would suggest Blessing of Kings, Devotion Aura, and Seal of Righteousness. Don't use Light, let your healer keep you healed up. When I see low level paladin tanks running Light1 I know that the tank is going to have a hard time holding aggro.
Switch to Blessing of Sanctuary when you get it, and then Seal of Vengeance or Command when you get those.
1 Or worse, Seal of Justice. I'm not sure why Justice is so attractive to newbie tanks.
I'm looking for the overall best Tankadin build in your opinion. I have a Female Dwarf Ret Pally, that I love, but I'm now leveling a Female Blood Elf Prot Pally. This is the cookie cutter I'm using, wanted to get your opinion, and what you would do to change this:
0/53/18
Also, as a long time Ret pally, I'm used to using certain blessings and aura's for different situations. With a tankadin, what do you suggest? For 5 Mans, I'm assuming Blessing Of Kings, Devotion Aura, and Seal of Light(for health regen) or Seal of Just curious as to what you use in 5 mans vs solo'ing to level. I'm going straight Prot Pally all the way to 80 with my Blood elf.
In my opinion, my tank build would be: 0/53/18
It's not very much different from yours, but I would take 2/2 Imp Judgements, 2/2 Pursuit of Justice, and Seal of Command. 2/2 Imp Judgements is not strictly needed, but sometimes it's useful to have your Judgements available a bit early. The 969 rotation is the standard, but don't get tunnel-visioned. Sometimes deviating from 969 is necessary. For example, if you were kiting a mob, you'd prefer to have more Judgements.
As well, I am a great fan of Pursuit of Justice. I find being able to move swiftly is very useful, and I think trading 2% crit is worth it. However, a lot of other paladin tanks would probably disagree with me, and say that having Tuskarr's Vitality on your boots is good enough.
Seal of Command is very useful on trash and adds. It's especially good for AoE tanking.
I'm not sure about Divine Sacrifice. I'm not sure how much you would use it as a tank. You might be better off just getting 3/5 Divinity instead. Divine Sacrifice is powerful, but if you never use it because you're always tanking, better to take something else.
As for Auras/Blessings/Seals, at low levels I would suggest Blessing of Kings, Devotion Aura, and Seal of Righteousness. Don't use Light, let your healer keep you healed up. When I see low level paladin tanks running Light1 I know that the tank is going to have a hard time holding aggro.
Switch to Blessing of Sanctuary when you get it, and then Seal of Vengeance or Command when you get those.
1 Or worse, Seal of Justice. I'm not sure why Justice is so attractive to newbie tanks.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Allods Online Pricing
There's a mini-controversy about pricing for Allod's Online. Keen has details. Allod's Online is a Free-To-Play game that started out in Russia. Apparently prices in the North American game are 10-20x times higher. (Keen says 20x, but all his examples are only 10x.) A bag that costs $2 in Russia costs $20 in the NA version.
So all the vocal gamers, parsimonious creatures that they are, are up in arms over this.
I don't know if the price is too high or too low. But consider this: Russia is a poorer country than the United States. Its GDP-Per-Capita is roughly a fifth of that of the States. Is it really so unreasonable to believe that if people in Russia are willing to pay $2, people in the States would be willing to pay much more? Heck, this is the land of $5 coffees!
I think a lot of times gamers take it as an article of faith that there is a large segment of people who are willing to pay small amounts of money to a micro-transaction shop. But maybe that group doesn't actually exist. Maybe the two major groups are people who will pay nothing, and people who will pay a lot. In that case, it's the best strategy to get as much money out of that second group as possible.
Edit: Also, the other thing that struck me was that there is a "level 10 rune that was $689 is now $6,890." Now, I have a hard time believing someone will pay $7000 for an item, but then again, I have a hard time believing someone paid $700. If the $700 item sold, then it is entirely possible the $7000 one will too.
So all the vocal gamers, parsimonious creatures that they are, are up in arms over this.
I don't know if the price is too high or too low. But consider this: Russia is a poorer country than the United States. Its GDP-Per-Capita is roughly a fifth of that of the States. Is it really so unreasonable to believe that if people in Russia are willing to pay $2, people in the States would be willing to pay much more? Heck, this is the land of $5 coffees!
I think a lot of times gamers take it as an article of faith that there is a large segment of people who are willing to pay small amounts of money to a micro-transaction shop. But maybe that group doesn't actually exist. Maybe the two major groups are people who will pay nothing, and people who will pay a lot. In that case, it's the best strategy to get as much money out of that second group as possible.
Edit: Also, the other thing that struck me was that there is a "level 10 rune that was $689 is now $6,890." Now, I have a hard time believing someone will pay $7000 for an item, but then again, I have a hard time believing someone paid $700. If the $700 item sold, then it is entirely possible the $7000 one will too.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Healer Hubris
In the continuing adventures of my low level warrior tank, I joined a group today to tank Maraudon's Orange wing. I run the addon RankWatch, which notifies people when they use a lower rank of a spell than their max available. Because all spell ranks cost the same, it's almost always a bad idea to cast a downranked spell now.
Anyways, the druid healer in my group got upset when RankWatch told him he should be using Abolish Poison instead of Cure Poison. He told me that he put me on his ignore list.
On the next trash pack, I somehow died, even though the healer was at full mana. Cutting my losses, I leave the group.
After waiting 5 minutes for my Dungeon Finder timer to wear off, I rejoin the queue. I get put back into the same group I left, leading to this exchange:
I don't really know why he thought I would want to tank for a healer who deliberately let me die. That just sounds like a terrible idea.
Lately, I've seen a lot of forum and blog posts about healers abusing their healing power. Letting DPS who've annoyed them die "to teach them a lesson". Reveling in the fact that because their role is somewhat rare, that gives them the right to act like a jerk.
In my opinion, if you sign up as a healer, you heal as best you can. Triage as appropriate, but you don't let people die if you can help it, regardless of how annoying they are.
If someone is truly too annoying to play with, leave the group. Don't act like a petty tyrant.
Anyways, the druid healer in my group got upset when RankWatch told him he should be using Abolish Poison instead of Cure Poison. He told me that he put me on his ignore list.
On the next trash pack, I somehow died, even though the healer was at full mana. Cutting my losses, I leave the group.
After waiting 5 minutes for my Dungeon Finder timer to wear off, I rejoin the queue. I get put back into the same group I left, leading to this exchange:
I don't really know why he thought I would want to tank for a healer who deliberately let me die. That just sounds like a terrible idea.
Lately, I've seen a lot of forum and blog posts about healers abusing their healing power. Letting DPS who've annoyed them die "to teach them a lesson". Reveling in the fact that because their role is somewhat rare, that gives them the right to act like a jerk.
In my opinion, if you sign up as a healer, you heal as best you can. Triage as appropriate, but you don't let people die if you can help it, regardless of how annoying they are.
If someone is truly too annoying to play with, leave the group. Don't act like a petty tyrant.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Was Blackwing Lair Boring?
I recently had a chance to see a raid video of Blackwing Lair, by A Few Good Men. I have always liked Blackwing Lair, and consider it to be one of my favorite instances.
However, on watching the video, what struck me was the Blackwing Lair fights look really boring, at least compared to modern fights. Everyone pretty much just stands in one spot and spams DPS or heals. The only fights that look mildly interesting are Razorgore and Nefarian.
Admittedly, part of it is that a lot of the challenge in BWL dealt with tank threat (Vael, Broodlord, Ebonroc) and Line of Sight (Firemaw, Chromaggus) which was important in the days before Omen and that is something that is something that videos don't convey well.
Is it just nostalgia that tints our view of old fights? Is it hard to appreciate just how unique and interesting modern fights are?
Even Trial of the Crusader, for all that instance is denigrated, had far more complex fights than BWL. Take a look at Northrend Beasts, with its three phases, snobolds, multiple wyrms, poisons that cancelled each other, evading charging yetis, etc. That's significantly more complex than even Nefarian was.
Revisiting Blackwing Lair has certainly made me appreciate modern raid fights more, especially those in Icecrown Citadel.
However, on watching the video, what struck me was the Blackwing Lair fights look really boring, at least compared to modern fights. Everyone pretty much just stands in one spot and spams DPS or heals. The only fights that look mildly interesting are Razorgore and Nefarian.
Admittedly, part of it is that a lot of the challenge in BWL dealt with tank threat (Vael, Broodlord, Ebonroc) and Line of Sight (Firemaw, Chromaggus) which was important in the days before Omen and that is something that is something that videos don't convey well.
Is it just nostalgia that tints our view of old fights? Is it hard to appreciate just how unique and interesting modern fights are?
Even Trial of the Crusader, for all that instance is denigrated, had far more complex fights than BWL. Take a look at Northrend Beasts, with its three phases, snobolds, multiple wyrms, poisons that cancelled each other, evading charging yetis, etc. That's significantly more complex than even Nefarian was.
Revisiting Blackwing Lair has certainly made me appreciate modern raid fights more, especially those in Icecrown Citadel.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Limits in Normal Icecrown Citadel Removed
Daelo, on the WoW Forums:
There is a saying that generals are always trying to fight the last war. In a sense, so is Blizzard. The big problem in Trial of the Crusader was that the gap between normal and heroic was too large.
To fix that problem in ICC--to create more of a spread between the Gentry guilds, but still have many guilds eventually complete the instance--Blizzard added normal-mode attempt limits for the end bosses. I think the idea was that the normal-mode attempt limits would slow down Gentry guilds, but not really impede Aristocracy and Royalty guilds.
However, ICC turned out to be reasonably difficult. The attempt limit isn't what's holding back Gentry guilds. And the Royalty guilds are going out of their way to evade the normal mode limits, because they can't afford to fall behind on hard modes. Several edge guilds are doing alt runs of ICC first. I understand that Paragon, which got the world first Arthas kill, took this path.
So Blizzard removes the limit for Gentry guilds, and is relying on natural difficulty of the fights and the eventual Faction Leader buff to spread out the guilds.
What will be interesting to see is how Blizzard reacts to the creation of alt teams to evade time and attempt limits. I'm not really sure what they could do, other than excessive attunement chains. But if it is hard to attune alts, it is also hard to attune trials and new characters, and that has its own pitfalls.
Perhaps Blizzard will just start creating impossible fights, with a built in buff timer like the Faction Leader buff timer, and let the best guilds wipe until the buff stacks just high enough to clear the bar. Like a high jump bar slowly being lowered until someone can just clear it. Then the bar keeps going down so the rest of us can experience the fight.
After each region's maintenance this week, raids will no longer lose attempts on wipes in Normal mode for Professor Putricide, Blood-Queen Lana'thel, Sindragosa, and the Lich King. There will still be limited attempts in Heroic mode.
We will continue to monitor developments in Icecrown Citadel in the future, especially since the Heroic difficulty has been unlocked by a significant number of raids.
There is a saying that generals are always trying to fight the last war. In a sense, so is Blizzard. The big problem in Trial of the Crusader was that the gap between normal and heroic was too large.
To fix that problem in ICC--to create more of a spread between the Gentry guilds, but still have many guilds eventually complete the instance--Blizzard added normal-mode attempt limits for the end bosses. I think the idea was that the normal-mode attempt limits would slow down Gentry guilds, but not really impede Aristocracy and Royalty guilds.
However, ICC turned out to be reasonably difficult. The attempt limit isn't what's holding back Gentry guilds. And the Royalty guilds are going out of their way to evade the normal mode limits, because they can't afford to fall behind on hard modes. Several edge guilds are doing alt runs of ICC first. I understand that Paragon, which got the world first Arthas kill, took this path.
So Blizzard removes the limit for Gentry guilds, and is relying on natural difficulty of the fights and the eventual Faction Leader buff to spread out the guilds.
What will be interesting to see is how Blizzard reacts to the creation of alt teams to evade time and attempt limits. I'm not really sure what they could do, other than excessive attunement chains. But if it is hard to attune alts, it is also hard to attune trials and new characters, and that has its own pitfalls.
Perhaps Blizzard will just start creating impossible fights, with a built in buff timer like the Faction Leader buff timer, and let the best guilds wipe until the buff stacks just high enough to clear the bar. Like a high jump bar slowly being lowered until someone can just clear it. Then the bar keeps going down so the rest of us can experience the fight.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The Third Dimension
Valithria Dreamwalker has really driven home a point for me: I am not fond of having to maneuver in 3 dimensions.
Oculus, Malygos P3, and Valithria have all had portions where you could move in all three dimensions. And I haven't really enjoyed those portions. It's not the vehicle aspect either. I like Flame Leviathian, and I don't mind jousting. Plus, in Dreamwalker you fly with your normal character.
Part of it is because I don't think I am very good at 3D movement. I always seem to move too far up or down unintentionally.
3D fights add a extra level of complexity that I am not sure makes an encounter more fun. For example, Malygos might have been better if the dragons were restricted to the plane. If they couldn't really move up or down. Would Valithria be any different if the orbs were on the ground, and maybe had to be killed instead of flown through?
But on the other hand, riding a dragon is all about flying in three dimensions. Maybe limiting it to two would be overly restrictive.
Oculus, Malygos P3, and Valithria have all had portions where you could move in all three dimensions. And I haven't really enjoyed those portions. It's not the vehicle aspect either. I like Flame Leviathian, and I don't mind jousting. Plus, in Dreamwalker you fly with your normal character.
Part of it is because I don't think I am very good at 3D movement. I always seem to move too far up or down unintentionally.
3D fights add a extra level of complexity that I am not sure makes an encounter more fun. For example, Malygos might have been better if the dragons were restricted to the plane. If they couldn't really move up or down. Would Valithria be any different if the orbs were on the ground, and maybe had to be killed instead of flown through?
But on the other hand, riding a dragon is all about flying in three dimensions. Maybe limiting it to two would be overly restrictive.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Top WoW Videos - #2 - Here Without You
The #2 video on my countdown is Here Without You by Dimoroc.
This video is one of the oldest WoW music videos. I think it might have been first one I saw.
It's a great storyline, which fits the song perfectly. The video also embodies the Forsaken extremely well. While some of techniques--notably the fight between Redsword and Dimoroc--are less advanced than videos today, a lot of the other effects match anything produced recently. Especially the cuts and fades, and the flashback sequence.
I love this video. It is simple and not especially flashy, but it just works.
Top Video List (so far):
This video is one of the oldest WoW music videos. I think it might have been first one I saw.
It's a great storyline, which fits the song perfectly. The video also embodies the Forsaken extremely well. While some of techniques--notably the fight between Redsword and Dimoroc--are less advanced than videos today, a lot of the other effects match anything produced recently. Especially the cuts and fades, and the flashback sequence.
I love this video. It is simple and not especially flashy, but it just works.
Top Video List (so far):
- Here Without You
- Tales of the Past III
- The Craft of War: BLIND
- Big Blue Dress
Friday, February 05, 2010
Ensidiagate
So Ensidia claimed the world-first kill of Arthas, but were then hit with a 72-hour ban and had their kill and titles revoked.
I admit that, like Tobold and Larisa, when I first heard the story I was a bit sympathetic to Ensidia. Their story was that a rogue using Saronite Bombs as part of his regular rotation happened to make part of the encounter easier.
However, now I think it's likely that the ban was completely deserved. Apparently, what happened was something like:
That's textbook "exploiting a bug to avoid part of the fight". Thus, Ensidia fully deserves their ban.
I admit that, like Tobold and Larisa, when I first heard the story I was a bit sympathetic to Ensidia. Their story was that a rogue using Saronite Bombs as part of his regular rotation happened to make part of the encounter easier.
However, now I think it's likely that the ban was completely deserved. Apparently, what happened was something like:
- The Lich King destroys part of the platform during the fight.
- Valkyrs come and snatch raid members. They have to be DPSed down before they reach the edge or they drop the person to their doom.
- Saronite Bombs are bugged and apparently rebuilt part of the platform.
- Ensidia apparently sent the Saronite rogue to deliberately rebuild the outer edges of the platform where the val'kyrs drop people.
- Ensidia ignored the val'kyrs when they appeared, focusing DPS on the Lich King.
- The val'kyrs dropped the people, but they landed on the rebuilt platform safely, and rejoined the fight.
That's textbook "exploiting a bug to avoid part of the fight". Thus, Ensidia fully deserves their ban.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Star Trek Online: Ground Combat, Skill Points
The other half of Star Trek Online is ground combat. In true Star Trek fashion, anytime you need to beam down into a hostile situation, rather than sending Marines, you send the bridge crew.
You beam down with your officers, creating a party of 5. If you are with other players, you have less NPCs and more real players. The NPCs are pretty good. Kind of honestly, they seem to do a better job than I do, so I let them do their thing. I'm still not sure what the Science Officer is doing with tachyons in the middle of the fight, but I'll assume it's something useful.
Combat is pretty much MMO-standard with 3rd person-view and hitting buttons corresponding to abilities. The one twist is the Expose/Exploit system. About half the weapons have a special ability that has a chance of putting an enemy into an "exposed" state. The other weapons have a special Exploit ability. If you hit an Exposed target with an Exploit, the target takes massive damage, and is usually vaporized thus far.
This adds some nice coordination between characters. My Engineering officer sets people up with an Expose, and I vaporise them with an Exploit. There's a real sense of teamwork there.
An added concern is that Exploit abilities do large amounts of damage on their own, but they have a long cooldown. The cooldown is long enough that you often miss an Exposed window. So you have to decide if it's worth saving the Exploit ability for an Expose (which is not guaranteed) or if you should use it whenever it comes off cooldown.
Ground combat is okay. I don't think it's as fun as space combat, but it's interesting enough in short doses. However, I think there is a issue with skill points.
Skill Points
Star Trek Online gives you skill points as you play which you can invest in skills. However, Space skills are separate from Ground skills, but both use the same pool of points. Because I like space combat, I've been dumping all my skills into Space skills. This has the side effect of lowering my effectiveness in the ground game, which makes the ground game harder and less fun.
You have to make the same choice between Space and Ground skills for your officers as well. My officers have been maxing out their Space abilities, but still have poor ground abilities, which really isn't helping.
I can't help but think that it might have been better if there had been separate point pools for Space and Ground. Or if each skill had both a ground effect and a space effect. That way you don't end up gimping yourself for one half of the game.
Not to mention that there are no respecs yet, and if Cryptic follows the Champions Online pattern, skill respecs will end up being sold in the RMT store for real cash.
Conclusions
Well, that's an overview of Ground Combat and the Skill system. I think that they are both interesting yet flawed elements of the game.
You beam down with your officers, creating a party of 5. If you are with other players, you have less NPCs and more real players. The NPCs are pretty good. Kind of honestly, they seem to do a better job than I do, so I let them do their thing. I'm still not sure what the Science Officer is doing with tachyons in the middle of the fight, but I'll assume it's something useful.
Combat is pretty much MMO-standard with 3rd person-view and hitting buttons corresponding to abilities. The one twist is the Expose/Exploit system. About half the weapons have a special ability that has a chance of putting an enemy into an "exposed" state. The other weapons have a special Exploit ability. If you hit an Exposed target with an Exploit, the target takes massive damage, and is usually vaporized thus far.
This adds some nice coordination between characters. My Engineering officer sets people up with an Expose, and I vaporise them with an Exploit. There's a real sense of teamwork there.
An added concern is that Exploit abilities do large amounts of damage on their own, but they have a long cooldown. The cooldown is long enough that you often miss an Exposed window. So you have to decide if it's worth saving the Exploit ability for an Expose (which is not guaranteed) or if you should use it whenever it comes off cooldown.
Ground combat is okay. I don't think it's as fun as space combat, but it's interesting enough in short doses. However, I think there is a issue with skill points.
Skill Points
Star Trek Online gives you skill points as you play which you can invest in skills. However, Space skills are separate from Ground skills, but both use the same pool of points. Because I like space combat, I've been dumping all my skills into Space skills. This has the side effect of lowering my effectiveness in the ground game, which makes the ground game harder and less fun.
You have to make the same choice between Space and Ground skills for your officers as well. My officers have been maxing out their Space abilities, but still have poor ground abilities, which really isn't helping.
I can't help but think that it might have been better if there had been separate point pools for Space and Ground. Or if each skill had both a ground effect and a space effect. That way you don't end up gimping yourself for one half of the game.
Not to mention that there are no respecs yet, and if Cryptic follows the Champions Online pattern, skill respecs will end up being sold in the RMT store for real cash.
Conclusions
Well, that's an overview of Ground Combat and the Skill system. I think that they are both interesting yet flawed elements of the game.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Offering Advice
Apropos of our discussion last week, here's a question. Let's say you see another player make a mistake. When should you offer them unsolicited advice?
I think most of us are more willing to offer advice as you go down the list. The more tenuous the social connection, the less likely we are willing to offer unsolicited advice.
Where I disagree with a lot of readers, it seems, is that I think it is perfectly appropriate to offer advice to pretty much everyone. Why not? Are you afraid of looking elitist?
Obviously you should be tactful, but if you're a skilled player, I don't think it's a good thing to just keep your head down and collect badges.
- They're playing solo and you come across them randomly.
- They're part of your Random Dungeon group.
- They're part of your PuG Raid Group.
- They're a member of your guild.
- They're a member of guild's steady raid team.
- They're a long-time "in-game" friend.
- They're a "real-life" friend.
- They're a family member.
- Never. Only offer advice if someone asks for it.
I think most of us are more willing to offer advice as you go down the list. The more tenuous the social connection, the less likely we are willing to offer unsolicited advice.
Where I disagree with a lot of readers, it seems, is that I think it is perfectly appropriate to offer advice to pretty much everyone. Why not? Are you afraid of looking elitist?
Obviously you should be tactful, but if you're a skilled player, I don't think it's a good thing to just keep your head down and collect badges.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Dreamwalker
So Valithria Dreamwalker is now active in Icecrown Citadel. It's an interesting boss, where the healers have to heal the dragon up to full health, while the rest of the raid deals with adds trying to prevent this.
It's a pretty good fight, but there's one aspect of the fight that I do not like.
Every so often, Dreamwalker will create portals to a dream world. In the dream world are little orbs that you can touch and it will give you a stacking buff that increases your healing by 10% per stack.
It's possible to carry your stack from portal to portal, but the timing is exceptionally tight. If you are capable of carrying stacks, your healing gets massively magnified. If you're not, or have high latency, your healing is greatly hurt.
The timing is way too tight for the potential gain. If healers are meant to carry the stack from portal to portal, the timing should be slightly longer. Alternatively the penalty could be less severe, maybe losing a stack per second instead of all of them at once. If healers are not meant to carry stacks, the timer should be lower, so the stacks drop off before you enter the portal.
Basically, if Patricia is a little bit better than Daisy, Patricia should do a little more damage or healing than Daisy. You shouldn't have a situation where Patricia can all of a sudden do twice as much damage or healing as Daisy. Small differences in skill should not translate into very large differences in effectiveness.
It's a pretty good fight, but there's one aspect of the fight that I do not like.
Every so often, Dreamwalker will create portals to a dream world. In the dream world are little orbs that you can touch and it will give you a stacking buff that increases your healing by 10% per stack.
It's possible to carry your stack from portal to portal, but the timing is exceptionally tight. If you are capable of carrying stacks, your healing gets massively magnified. If you're not, or have high latency, your healing is greatly hurt.
The timing is way too tight for the potential gain. If healers are meant to carry the stack from portal to portal, the timing should be slightly longer. Alternatively the penalty could be less severe, maybe losing a stack per second instead of all of them at once. If healers are not meant to carry stacks, the timer should be lower, so the stacks drop off before you enter the portal.
Basically, if Patricia is a little bit better than Daisy, Patricia should do a little more damage or healing than Daisy. You shouldn't have a situation where Patricia can all of a sudden do twice as much damage or healing as Daisy. Small differences in skill should not translate into very large differences in effectiveness.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Star Trek Online: Space Combat
Space Combat is Star Trek Online's killer feature. It's relatively novel, interesting, and fun.
Combat is quasi-2D. There is a Z-axis, but movement along it is restricted. It's 3D-enough that you can do cinemactic passes underneath or above an enemy ship, but the combat itself is effectively 2D. No Immelmanns for you.
Combat is not really frantic, it has a measured pace that works extremely well. Also, there are explosions, which always improves everything.
Your ship has four shields: fore, aft, left, and right. Weapons are all about firing arcs. The starter ship has forward phasers and photon torpedos, and aft phasers. Photon torpedos have a narrow firing arc, so you can only fire them when your target is directly ahead. They also have a longer cooldown. Phasers, on the other hand, have a very wide firing arc. If the enemy is to the side of you, you can fire both phaser banks at them.
So much of the early game is using phaser broadsides to weaken shields, trying to keep a strong shield between you and the enemy, and getting a photon torpedo to strike through a hole in the enemy shields.
(Tip: if you right-click your weapons, you can set them to auto-fire. I think you still have to fire them once before auto-fire kicks in.)
However, new weapons can completely change how you fight. On my first ship, I got a Disruptor Cannon, which did a lot of damage but had an extremely narrow firing arc, and a Disruptor Turret, which did low damage, but had a 360 degree firing arc. So now, if I faced the enemy straight on, I did a huge amount of damage because the Cannon, Turret, and Photon Torpedos were firing. However, as soon as I had to turn, damage dropped off greatly.
As well, if you keep one side facing the enemy always, that's the shields which are going to be pounded, so there's a nice tension where you have to keep rotating which weapons are firing and which shields are taking hits.
You can also adjust power for your various weapons. You can send more power to the shields, or the weapons as you need.
Long-term cooldowns are special abilities given by your bridge officers. For example, my Engineering officer can greatly boosts the shields every few minutes. (I envision "Scotty, I need more power to the shields!" "She cannae take much more of this, Cap'n!" when I click that button.) The Science officer does something with Tachyons which damages the enemy's shields. It's a very neat way of handling cooldowns, and very much works with the IP.
I am not very far in yet, so I don't know how the rest of the game will pan out. However, I think Star Trek Online is worth trying for the space combat alone.
Combat is quasi-2D. There is a Z-axis, but movement along it is restricted. It's 3D-enough that you can do cinemactic passes underneath or above an enemy ship, but the combat itself is effectively 2D. No Immelmanns for you.
Combat is not really frantic, it has a measured pace that works extremely well. Also, there are explosions, which always improves everything.
Your ship has four shields: fore, aft, left, and right. Weapons are all about firing arcs. The starter ship has forward phasers and photon torpedos, and aft phasers. Photon torpedos have a narrow firing arc, so you can only fire them when your target is directly ahead. They also have a longer cooldown. Phasers, on the other hand, have a very wide firing arc. If the enemy is to the side of you, you can fire both phaser banks at them.
So much of the early game is using phaser broadsides to weaken shields, trying to keep a strong shield between you and the enemy, and getting a photon torpedo to strike through a hole in the enemy shields.
(Tip: if you right-click your weapons, you can set them to auto-fire. I think you still have to fire them once before auto-fire kicks in.)
However, new weapons can completely change how you fight. On my first ship, I got a Disruptor Cannon, which did a lot of damage but had an extremely narrow firing arc, and a Disruptor Turret, which did low damage, but had a 360 degree firing arc. So now, if I faced the enemy straight on, I did a huge amount of damage because the Cannon, Turret, and Photon Torpedos were firing. However, as soon as I had to turn, damage dropped off greatly.
As well, if you keep one side facing the enemy always, that's the shields which are going to be pounded, so there's a nice tension where you have to keep rotating which weapons are firing and which shields are taking hits.
You can also adjust power for your various weapons. You can send more power to the shields, or the weapons as you need.
Long-term cooldowns are special abilities given by your bridge officers. For example, my Engineering officer can greatly boosts the shields every few minutes. (I envision "Scotty, I need more power to the shields!" "She cannae take much more of this, Cap'n!" when I click that button.) The Science officer does something with Tachyons which damages the enemy's shields. It's a very neat way of handling cooldowns, and very much works with the IP.
I am not very far in yet, so I don't know how the rest of the game will pan out. However, I think Star Trek Online is worth trying for the space combat alone.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Offline For A While
My cable company was working on my building last night, and they managed to knock me offline. The next tech can only come out Friday, so I guess I am taking an enforced vacation from the Internet and WoW.
Still my cable company is pretty competent, and this is the only issue I've had in three or four years, so maybe a vacation will be good for me.
I've managed to make a post a day for the month of January, and didn't want to see that streak get broken on the very last day.
For the record, you can really see the difference in traffic that a regular posting schedule makes.
See ya in a week (or maybe sooner if I'm lucky).
Still my cable company is pretty competent, and this is the only issue I've had in three or four years, so maybe a vacation will be good for me.
I've managed to make a post a day for the month of January, and didn't want to see that streak get broken on the very last day.
For the record, you can really see the difference in traffic that a regular posting schedule makes.
See ya in a week (or maybe sooner if I'm lucky).
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Top WoW Videos - #3 - Tales of the Past III
The #3 video on my countdown is Martin Falch's magnum opus, Tales of the Past III.
Note that there's no Youtube link. In a world where most machinima are shorts, rarely exceeding the 10 minute mark, Martin Falch made a full-length, one-and-a-half hours-long, movie. The movie is 2.3 GB in size, so I recommend using the torrent option to download it.
The movie is pretty epic. It features many of the big names in Warcraft, including Thrall, Jaina, Arthas and the Ashbringer. Also, there's a paladin in full Judgment, which automatically makes every movie better. Tales of the Past III is over the top, but gloriously so.
It is not a perfect movie. In a lot of technical aspects, it is weaker than the other movies lower on the list. But I admire boldness and daring. Martin Falch dreamed a greater dream, one that most other machinima creators would hesitate to raise their eyes to. And he had the fortitude to see his vision to completion.
Top Video List (so far):
Note that there's no Youtube link. In a world where most machinima are shorts, rarely exceeding the 10 minute mark, Martin Falch made a full-length, one-and-a-half hours-long, movie. The movie is 2.3 GB in size, so I recommend using the torrent option to download it.
The movie is pretty epic. It features many of the big names in Warcraft, including Thrall, Jaina, Arthas and the Ashbringer. Also, there's a paladin in full Judgment, which automatically makes every movie better. Tales of the Past III is over the top, but gloriously so.
It is not a perfect movie. In a lot of technical aspects, it is weaker than the other movies lower on the list. But I admire boldness and daring. Martin Falch dreamed a greater dream, one that most other machinima creators would hesitate to raise their eyes to. And he had the fortitude to see his vision to completion.
Top Video List (so far):
- Tales of the Past III
- The Craft of War: BLIND
- Big Blue Dress
Friday, January 29, 2010
Measuring Absorbs
Ah, Discipline Priests. According to some meters, they are the worst healers. According to other meters, they are the best healers because their shields prevent so much damage. What's the truth? Who really knows? Probably somewhere in the middle, would be my guess.
All of this is because the combat log does not report absorbs correctly.
The lesson here is, again, one of feedback. You need to feedback to be able to correctly evaluate abilities.
How does Sacred Shield compare to the other abilities? Is it weak or strong? I have no idea. I take it on faith that it's doing good, so I keep it up on the tanks always. But I really don't know.
That could actually be another point in favor of the FoL paladin healing style. Focusing on Spellpower gives you a really strong Sacred Shield. Maybe that's the element which makes the build truly viable. We don't know, though. We can theorycraft, but theorycraft really needs data to confirm the math.
If you have a game with a combat log, all effects need to reported and properly attributable. Blizzard really needs to get a proper reporting system for absorbs up and running.
All of this is because the combat log does not report absorbs correctly.
The lesson here is, again, one of feedback. You need to feedback to be able to correctly evaluate abilities.
How does Sacred Shield compare to the other abilities? Is it weak or strong? I have no idea. I take it on faith that it's doing good, so I keep it up on the tanks always. But I really don't know.
That could actually be another point in favor of the FoL paladin healing style. Focusing on Spellpower gives you a really strong Sacred Shield. Maybe that's the element which makes the build truly viable. We don't know, though. We can theorycraft, but theorycraft really needs data to confirm the math.
If you have a game with a combat log, all effects need to reported and properly attributable. Blizzard really needs to get a proper reporting system for absorbs up and running.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)