Yay, Blizzard listened to reason

[Lissa]

Blizzard Patch next week, hopefully early

Here's the gist:

Hi all,

First of all we would like to thank everyone participating in the Open Beta. The development team has been able to gather valuable in-game data over the past few days. Based on this data and your feedback on the forums, we will be making a few changes in the next patch:

- Players will only receive a 25% durability loss instead of 100% when using a Spirit Healer to resurrect

- Players will now only incur a maximum 10 minutes of resurrection sickness instead of 30 minutes when using a Spirit Healer to resurrect

- Some key buff spells will have their reagent requirements removed

- Changes to Warrior’s Defensive Stance that will improve their ability to hold aggro

We are hoping to get the next patch out early next week.
[ post edited by Ordinn ]

[Artega]

Blizzard Patch next week, hopefully early

Here's the gist:
[right][snapback]60002[/snapback][/right]

Damn sexy. Does that blurb about Warriors mean that Battle Stance will become less uber (i.e., losing Taunt and Sunder Armor)?

[Brother Laz]

Same thing as always. <_<

Rest state: introduced -> panic & outrage -> effect reduced -> less panic & outrage -> effect hardly noticable now.
Durability: introduced -> panic & outrage -> effect hardly noticable now.
Durability loss on death: introduced -> panic & outrage -> reduced in next patch.
Rez sickness: increased to 30 minutes -> panic & outrage -> sickness from rez spells removed in emergency patch -> less panic & outrage -> sickness from spirit healer reduced in next patch.
Reagents: introduced in latest patch -> panic & outrage -> will be removed from some spells in next patch.
Taunt: nerfed in latest patch -> panic & outrage -> more aggro options in next patch.

Kudos to them for trying over and over anyway. :D People complain about the game 'getting worse' with each patch, but every time Blizzard attempts to break the game, it is quickly fixed until no one notices it anymore. I don't see the problem. :lol:

Lesson learned: whining does help. Next time Blizzard does something stupid, let's all forget the Lounge rules for a moment and spam the official boards with OMG ENOUGH 1S 3N0U6H I QU17 8LIZ 5UX!!!!111!1onetwo. It helps Blizzard make a better game. :rolleyes:

Edit: forgot one.
Edit 2: added reasons for editing. :)

[Tal]

Durability: introduced -> panic & outrage -> effect hardly noticable now.
[right][snapback]60027[/snapback][/right]

I disagree with this point. The other night I decided to do a "green" quest in my book on my lvl 60 paladin. What isn't so clear from the quest though is that it spawns a level 57 named and three level 55 mobs. I fight valiantly and die. I run back, resurrect and while I'm eating and drinking I notice an orc warrior get slaughtered by the same mobs. I clear out a few mobs in the area to prevent adds before trying again. In the meantime the Orc warrior comes back and tries again. So I run over and grab two of the spawned to help him out (I know an Alliance helping a Horde but we're in Scourge territory and dammit. THEY are the enemy. ;)). But the orc can't go toe to toe with the 57 and a 55 and he dies. Unfortunately I'm back to fighting 4 mobs and die in short order being unwilling to use Lay of hands just yet in the evening. I run back, med-up and notice that my Orc friend has an Undead rogue with him. Now undead as a paladin I can't abide so I decide to watch them and see how it plays out. Well it didn't the orc dies and the rogue is forced to use sprint. But I notice that the objective of the mission is left unguarded and I run over to open it. Unfortunately though the mobs came back and I ended up dead again. I run back and get my body and decide enough is enough. I mount up and ride off. Only to run into one of the wandering elite dead heroes who manages to daze me so that I dismount and get creamed.

Cost of the nights fun? 3 gold. Net return on sold items? 90s. Yay.

Granted I could have stopped the kamikaze attacks after the second death but given that I had been making headway on killing the four of them I thought that I would have been able to easily finish the quest. I was also unable to find anyone in the zone that was willing to help me with the quest even with throwing in "I'll help you on yours if you help me on mine." ;)

[Brother Laz]

Well, the durability loss on death will be reduced due to the current panic & outrage. The durability loss from fighting monsters is much less than it was two patches ago. :)

[Ruvanal]

I have to agree with Tal. The cost of the duribility repairs is frequently exceeding the amount that is getting earned on session if you happen to end up getting killed twice or more (20%+ duribility damage) on trip as melee character. This has effectively wiped out what little money reserve my two main characters have been able to maintain upto the point of this patch. Currently I have look very seriously at how the two of them travel about the world since the cost of grabbing most of the flight could become an expense that may prevent a future needed repair. This is not a fun way to have even view plying the game or having to look at just doing a long overland runor ride to help conserve the money. Even with the change that they are listing that they are going to do in the next patch may not be enough since it does not concern the 10% durability drop from just dying. They really need to look at the cost itself that is sucking the money out the average player, not the money that characters have been accumulating for weeks after hitting level caps and not having had such a system in place from the start.

Brother Laz:

People complain about the game 'getting worse' with each patch, but every time Blizzard attempts to break the game, it is quickly fixed until no one notices it anymore. I don't see the problem.

The problem is most of these points that have been getting 'whined' about, it could have easily been seen what would happen if they took a little time to objectively look at what the results would be prior to introducing them in the first place. Some of these and others had been mentioned as something that was going to be implemented in a future patch and the holes in them pointed out immediately in the forums prior to patch going live and the bulk of the players actually seeing what was going to happen that caused a massive 'whining' outcry. This is the real problem, not enough objective examination of what some of the changes will mean to the average player. Instead too often these changes are aimed at the top end powergamers who will exist in almost every game despite the changes done. Crank the game mechanic up to that high a level and the bulk of the players will endup going somewhere else in a one to two month span of time since regular play just becomes a chore; something that they are likely playing the game to get away from.

[Kevin]

I have to agree with Tal.&nbsp; The cost of the duribility repairs is frequently exceeding the amount that is getting earned on session if you happen to end up getting killed twice or more (20%+ duribility damage) on trip as melee character.

I know I haven't played a lot, and I know there are some situations where you die that you don't have a lot of control of (the item lag that I mentioned in another post). But I really don't think a death penalty is a bad thing. 90% of my deaths I could have avoided. Most of them were caused by going too deep into a spawn area, or not luring monsters away, or not grouping, or something else in my control.

There are problems with quest coloring. I have done orange quests that were a lot simpler than green ones. But that is another issue.

And I am torn a bit on the issue as well. I understand that if the penalty is too harsh then fun goes down. But if there is zero penalty fun goes down too, because everyone gets reckless, party dynamics break down, and you still have the time sink of dying, because you die more, at least with a lot of the average people out there. I was the kind of person who played hardcore and softcore D2 the same way. I'm testing in WoW right now so I'm less cautious in some situations.

This is a multiplayer game at heart some of the lack of grouping is caused by no penalty for dying. You get more exp solo, more loot solo. Why should you group? Well if it prevents you from dying and dying has a penalty, that is a reason. Of course I want to be able to solo as well, so yeah, it is a tough balance. I don't want to have to group for everything.

There are other problems with grouping. The early areas just don't need it. All the starter towns are designed to be solo'd. I know my biggest char is only L15 and my other 2 are only 8 and 9, but I've only had 3 or 4 quests out of the hundred or so that I have done that having a group was really benefical for. That seems to be a key underlying problem with a game that is supposed to be multiplayer. If you will need to group later on (and I don't know that you have to), then you probably want people getting used to it early. The number of party members in a group is another issue I have seen raised that can be just as much of a problem to group formation as well. There are numerous issues at hand.

I know tal's initial point was that durability loss was noticable. I'm saying I think that this might be a good thing. Though I'm worried that Blizzard is looking at it for a solution to a different problem. But I was always leary of a game that had very weak death penalties. Not sure what they have now is right or not. Durability loss generally doesn't slow down the fun since you don't lose a lot of dur in combat now and one penalty shouldn't need to be repaired right off the bat. I like that. You still feel the pinch, but you can spread the penalty out, you can usually still get back to it pretty much right off the bat. The res sickness is another issue entirely though. You can't really spread that out, and it has an immediate impact on the fun factor and can really slow you down. I'm less in favor of that. Of course it has less of a global impact because a money sink effects the economy a lot more than someone being less effective in combat or not participating in combat at all.

[Tal]

Durability loss generally doesn't slow down the fun since you don't lose a lot of dur in combat now and one penalty shouldn't need to be repaired right off the bat.&nbsp; I like that. You still feel the pinch, but you can spread the penalty out, you can usually still get back to it pretty much right off the bat.[right][snapback]60041[/snapback][/right]

Well prior to my multiple run-ins with that particular quest I had not died very often on Sharanna. The problem is though that the expense is much higher for durability repairs the better your equipment is. And unfortunately to function as a melee character at my level I need better equipment. So even when I avoid a death I still end up paying more in repairs than I make in a session of play.

Another part of the issue though is that even when you group you can end up dying very easily if even just one party member doesn't do their job well. I've been in instances with priests who insist on only using shadow spells and stating that the Pallies (there were two of us) could do the healing. Needless to say I and my partner pally could not keep up with the damage that the Warrior was taking and we wiped. I've been in instances where the warrior or rogue has aggro'd more than the party can handle (remember Bootstrap Bolty? She hasn't gotten any better) and we've wiped. I've also been in instances where everyone did their job well and still wiped. I come out of those play sessions much poorer than I started. I agree with Ruvunal they need to re-examine the costs for those of us who have not been chain running BRD, BRS, Scholo, and Strath. :)

[Brother Laz]

I suppose the new durability loss on death is an issue for those who don't play absolutely perfectly. It does not encourage but force players to be perfect, which is exactly what the gosu Korean players want but not the average crowd. Did you ever run out of money in D2? In that game money was just something to exchange for more itamz, not a necessity to keep playing.

Nevertheless, I predict after the spirit healer durability loss reduction in the next patch, there'll still be a lot of whining and the durability loss from death will be changed to 5% in the patch after that, which should be the retail patch. Be there. :)

[Ruvanal]

Nevertheless, I predict after the spirit healer durability loss reduction in the next patch, there'll still be a lot of whining and the durability loss from death will be changed to 5% in the patch after that, which should be the retail patch. Be there. :)
[right][snapback]60051[/snapback][/right]

Its not the 10% per death that I have problem with. That is a good percentage to help discourage bad playing. It is the cost involved with getting those repairs done once you are back at a city or town to do the repairs in. When 2 deaths (20%+ durability reduction across all items, worn and in inventory) will cause the repairs to usually exceed what can typically be made on some of the runs; then you have the repair problem.

Another aspect that you are not seeing at your level is the reagent problem. While I feel the costs were too steep to start with, I do expect that they will get balanced better in the next few patches. The biggest problem with them is that the eat heavily into the limited inventory space of the characters. Not everyone has all the largest sizes of bags available to use. A simple case to look at is my mage who now needs to take up 2 inventory slots to carry 2 different runes for casting the personal teleport to major cities and the group portal to cities. I do feel the cost for those runes is steep, but the worst aspect is the needing to keep 2 bags slots tied up for having these spells usable. This does not take into account having reagents for buffs or the feather fall spell. Currently I am not even going to bother trying to use those at all, even if the cost comes down due the inventory space issue. This could have been easily seen if they had looked at what most players are already putting up with inventory gripes concerning some of the quests. When Arkthorn goes to turn in one quest it is going to take 12 spaces in inventory to carry the required items to the quest giver. Think of what it would mean to also have to be carrying 6+ items to just have the option to use some of the skills. This is not to say that there is some important balancing issues involved with having some reagents to controls some of the spells; I do agree that they are needed in cases including the mage teleports. But they could have instead done as one poster suggested; personal teleport requires 1 rune to cast and the group teleport requires 2 runes to cast. Net effect is that only a one space hit on the character is needed to put a restriction on the usage of 2 spells. These lack of forethought on some of these issues are what is starting to cause a lot of the outcry.

[Lissa]

Its not the 10% per death that I have problem with.&nbsp; That is a good percentage to help discourage bad playing.&nbsp; It is the cost involved with getting those repairs done once you are back at a city or town to do the repairs in.&nbsp; When 2 deaths (20%+ durability reduction across all items, worn and in inventory) will cause the repairs to usually exceed what can typically be made on some of the runs; then you have the repair problem.

Another aspect that you are not seeing at your level is the reagent problem.&nbsp; While I feel the costs were too steep to start with, I do expect that they will get balanced better in the next few patches.&nbsp; The biggest problem with them is that the eat heavily into the limited inventory space of the characters.&nbsp; Not everyone has all the largest sizes of bags available to use.&nbsp; A simple case to look at is my mage who now needs to take up 2 inventory slots to carry 2 different runes for casting the personal teleport to major cities and the group portal to cities.&nbsp; I do feel the cost for those runes is steep, but the worst aspect is the needing to keep 2 bags slots tied up for having these spells usable.&nbsp; This does not take into account having reagents for buffs or the feather fall spell.&nbsp; Currently I am not even going to bother trying to use those at all, even if the cost comes down due the inventory space issue.&nbsp; This could have been easily seen if they had looked at what most players are already putting up with inventory gripes concerning some of the quests.&nbsp; When Arkthorn goes to turn in one quest it is going to take 12 spaces in inventory to carry the required items to the quest giver.&nbsp; Think of what it would mean to also have to be carrying 6+ items to just have the option to use some of the skills.&nbsp; This is not to say that there is some important balancing issues involved with having some reagents to controls some of the spells; I do agree that they are needed in cases including the mage teleports.&nbsp; But they could have instead done as one poster suggested; personal teleport requires 1 rune to cast and the group teleport requires 2 runes to cast.&nbsp; Net effect is that only a one space hit on the character is needed to put a restriction on the usage of 2 spells.&nbsp; These lack of forethought on some of these issues are what is starting to cause a lot of the outcry.
[right][snapback]60055[/snapback][/right]

Warlocks have been dealing with this issue since they were brought into the game. Tahapenes literally has one 12 slot bag devouted just to soul shards. A lot of Warlocks have been asking Blizzard to make a shard bag like the Quivers or to allow shards to stack to a limited stack size (about 5), but so far has not come through. Now with the required reagents for some of the high end spells for Warlocks, it's getting even worse. Thankfully, some of the reagent requirements will be removed soon.

[Bolty]

Replies to the general thread so far, not so much to Lissa...

Sometimes I do think that they may be doing it all on purpose - putting something extreme in, then scaling it back so it doesn't seem bad. If they put in a durability reduction of 5% at first, people would complain massively. So put it in at 10%; then, when you lower it to 5%, you're appeasing the gamers and getting the original goal in the end anyway.

It strikes me that they probably planned a death penalty for months, but didn't want to burden beta testers with the costs. I can't think of any other reason to implement this just 3 weeks before relase.

Reagents and inventory space: heh, Warlocks for the entire beta have been forced to devote entire bags to their soul shards because Blizzard doesn't let us stack them. Deal with it ;)

Oh, and regarding money in Diablo II - that game had no real economy, remember? You have to make money mean something. In a massively multiplayer game, money is everything and all players WILL be affected by the economy. Even the most casual gamer will discover the usefulness of the auction house eventually, selling the items that they can't use for good cash which they can then use to buy the items needed for equipment, crafting, and even some quests.

Waiting for the next patch...

-Bolty

[MongoJerry]

Taunt: nerfed in latest patch -> panic & outrage -> more aggro options in next patch.

Taking one snipet quote and blowing it all out of context...

You know, it's wierd to me how so many people talk about the change to taunt as a "nerf." I guess it's easier to call something a "nerf" rather than a "change" or a "shift." Frankly, I like this change very much and in many ways, Taunt has become far more powerful. Consider this, you could have a raid level mob with 40 people firing away at it for 15 minutes. Suddenly, your main tank dies and the mob charges at your rank of healers and squishy spellcasters. Old Taunt: Dead party. There would be absolutely no way any substitute warrior or anyone else could possibly generate enough aggro in time to save anyone. New Taunt: Warrior steps up, casts Taunt once and instantly has (barely) more aggro than any one else in the party. That's a massive amount of aggro generated by one cast of the spell. Of course, the raid has to be told to stop nuking and let the secondary tank build up aggro, but there's nothing wrong with requiring a party to use tactics, skill, and coordination to achieve a goal. Bottom line: I like the new Taunt very much.

The trouble with what people have been experiencing is not a "nerf" of Taunt, it's just that the other skills the warrior has generate too little aggro compared to the aggro generated by dps characters and healers. (I finally plunked down the talent points to lower the aggro on my healing spells by 20%). This is particularly true for warriors who went defensive spec. Sure, defensive spec warriors can take a pounding, but that doesn't do a party very much good if the mob won't attack the warrior. So, I'm guessing from the comments from the developer that it will mean that defensive stance and/or talents will get a boost in their aggro generation that will allow a warrior to hold aggro on a mob without requiring warriors to just be "Taunt machines." If so, this would be a good change.

[MongoJerry]

Reagents and inventory space: heh, Warlocks for the entire beta have been forced to devote entire bags to their soul shards because Blizzard doesn't let us stack them.&nbsp; Deal with it&nbsp; ;)

Hunters have one bag slot taken up by an ammo pouch, and rogues have always had to carry around their poisons and flash powder. I don't see a problem with reagents as long as the cost gets reduced by at least half for those buff spells. 10s per buff over a full party is a major hit to the cash flow.

Oh, and regarding money in Diablo II - that game had no real economy, remember?&nbsp; You have to make money mean something.&nbsp; In a massively multiplayer game, money is everything and all players WILL be affected by the economy.&nbsp; Even the most casual gamer will discover the usefulness of the auction house eventually, selling the items that they can't use for good cash which they can then use to buy the items needed for equipment, crafting, and even some quests.

Bingo

[BEEFMOTRTON]

Most classes get screwed out of inventory space in one way or another.

As a shaman, I have 4 slots that are used by my totems and give no benefit other than allowing me to cast my spells. Mages don't have to have "Fire crystal" in their inventory to cast fire spells, so I guess they now get screwed by teleport reagents.

Hunters get screwed out of an entire bag slot, rogues have to carry poisons, druids used to have to carry entire suits of armor though they can't do that anymore since it can't be switched in combat. Warlocks get screwed by soul shards, the list goes on for most classes.


Though I'm not really sure why they've decided "screw everybody equally" is better than not screwing anybody at all :)

[Tal]

Reagents and inventory space: heh, Warlocks for the entire beta have been forced to devote entire bags to their soul shards because Blizzard doesn't let us stack them.&nbsp; Deal with it&nbsp; ;)

[right][snapback]60096[/snapback][/right]

My warrior feels some of the same pinch but not as bad. I've got to carry a pair of swords, a shield, food, bandages, arrows, potions for emergencies, and the helm and shoulders I use for groups.