02-24-2007, 03:19 PM
The big question my priest friends are asking (and Mongo hinted at it): "How did PoM make it through Blizzard's internal testing without someone seeing that it would get spammed?"
I'm really trying not to be hyperbolic about the nerfs, but most of my friends and guildmates play Priests or Druids. It's not uncommon for me to look at the guild tab on any given night and see that 60% of the people are "healer" classes while the others have "healer" alts. The net effect of these changes is a nerf to my guild, so my friends and I will feel them quite acutely. We really enjoyed our Shadow Priests + Bear(s) instance runs and we thought it was "Working as Intended". In our minds, it made sense to have good synergies between off-spec "healers". A viable alternative to tank-and-spank, if you will.
/sigh
Responding to the comment that Druid changes were the result of "QQers", Drysc said:
(emphasis mine)
I'd like to see these numbers and the assumptions on which they're based. What were the gear levels and situations? PvE and/or PvP? Was the mob used for threat testing able to bleed (i.e., was Lacerate included)? What DPS were the weapons being used against PoM? There are many questions about their assumptions but they assure us that internal testing validated the need for these changes before the PTRs came out.
Wait, is that the same "internal testing" that let Live get into this situation in the first place? :huh:
I'm really trying not to be hyperbolic about the nerfs, but most of my friends and guildmates play Priests or Druids. It's not uncommon for me to look at the guild tab on any given night and see that 60% of the people are "healer" classes while the others have "healer" alts. The net effect of these changes is a nerf to my guild, so my friends and I will feel them quite acutely. We really enjoyed our Shadow Priests + Bear(s) instance runs and we thought it was "Working as Intended". In our minds, it made sense to have good synergies between off-spec "healers". A viable alternative to tank-and-spank, if you will.
/sigh
Responding to the comment that Druid changes were the result of "QQers", Drysc said:
Quote:We commonly take feedback or our own play experience and then put that to work testing and evaluating a specific class, ability, item, etc. There are some straight up nerfs in this patch, and that's from our testing showing that Druid damage was just much higher than we would like to see bear form doing. The threat generation was far and beyond what we would have thought or intended, and this type of information on what a class is able to perform is based on internal testing and statistical information.
We take ideas, suggestions, and feedback and take that into an investigation of any possible issue. We're balancing classes based on evidence and our own design of how we would like classes to function.
QQers need not apply. They're weeded out as soon as the numbers hit the table.
(emphasis mine)
I'd like to see these numbers and the assumptions on which they're based. What were the gear levels and situations? PvE and/or PvP? Was the mob used for threat testing able to bleed (i.e., was Lacerate included)? What DPS were the weapons being used against PoM? There are many questions about their assumptions but they assure us that internal testing validated the need for these changes before the PTRs came out.
Wait, is that the same "internal testing" that let Live get into this situation in the first place? :huh: