Feed RSS RSS feed
on the Protector of the Pack nerf
The PotP nerf is not the right way to go about reducing Druid mitigation.

You've said that Bear mitigation is too high, fine you may have a point. However, nerfing PotP isn't the right solution because it hurts our magical mitigation. Instead it would be better to nerf the Bear Form armor multiplier from 400% to a more appropriate value.

This has the following benefits:

o It brings Bear Form's flag mitigation down a notch.

o It does so without hurting our magical damage mitigation.

o It helps alleviate the new armor cap concerns (surely you've discovered in your internal testing that Bears are getting dangerously close to the armor cap at the post Naxx level). This will also keep item progression across tiers more relevant.

Another way to achieve the same would be itemization. Our grossly high armor levels are now due in part to the excellent array of high armor accessories (necks, cloaks, rings, trinkets). Redistributing the stats on these to lower the armor and raise the other stats could be another solution, however this has potential ramifications on use of these items by other classes, so care would have to be taken to make sure this is done appropriately.

If neither solution is an option, and you are dead set on making PotP 2% per party member, how do you hope to achieve this with a 3 point talent? I'm sure we can all agree that a "0.66666666666666666666666666666667% / 1.3333333333333333333333333333333% / 2%" distribution for a 3 point talent is ugly. In which case, I'd suggest changing PotP to a 2 point talent, and changing it's AP boost to 3/6% per point.

[ Post edited by Florense ]

Avatar of Florense
Florense
Re: on the Protector of the Pack nerf
I don't know what other sites are posting about our data. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're not. Not long ago, hunters got (understandably) freaked out because of what they thought was a big nerf to Wing Clip when it turned out everyone was looking at a creature ability.

However, we are probably going to have to nerf bears. If we don't, they will be the only MT choice for serious guilds. At the moment, bears in decent gear take less damage, have more health and generate more threat than the other 3 classes by a wide enough margin that we think it's a problem. This is even true on bosses that do a lot of magic damage (like Malygos).

I use the word "nerf" because players use it, and I don't want to hind behind euphamisms. But changing the numbers doesn't have to mean nerfing you into the ground. We just don't want you to dominate. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if Protection paladins were just head and shoulders above the other tanks.

We understand that some Ferals felt they were nerfed in BC either prematurely or in such a way that kept them steadily behind other tanks. (Though Sunwell Radiance was largely for bears.) We will try to make intelligent changes so that you're still out there tanking the Lich King himself. We want you to be about as good as warriors, paladins and death knights, not way above or below them.
Avatar of Ghostcrawler
Ghostcrawler
Re: on the Protector of the Pack nerf

Q u o t e:
We also take 15% less damage from aoe. That means for AoE magic damage, we are taking 88% * 85% = ~75% damage while warriors are taking 84% damage. This might be what GC is referring to (although I'm not sure what the Malygos fight is like)


Yes, this talent is a problem. Bears would be the best tank for every dragon in the game.


Q u o t e:
Don't worry, by January there won't be a single MT bear in any guild leading progression.
It'll still be mostly dominated by warriors and their incredible array of emergency buttons that will allow guilds to get kills that much faster when they're saved from wiping.


Your post is quite helpful. I clap for you. Clap.


Q u o t e:
Though, I must ask, you are internally testing these things and not going off forums right? I sit here and watch people claim that a Druid takes 60% less damage on Patchwerk. Such things simply aren't true. The best part is when they open with, "According to my guildy."


Goodness, no. The forums are great for alerting us to potential problems. Sometimes they turn out to be legit, and sometimes the person was misinformed, had uncovered a bug, didn't understand what they were seeing or (rarely) was just loony. We run all the tests ourselves to make sure we understand what it happening. We also use combat logs produced by trustworthy sources, in particular several cutting-edge raiding guilds with whom we are on good relations. We visit other forums. We receive private emails. We log into the game to try stuff anonymously. We have many sources of information, of which this forum is but one.
Avatar of Ghostcrawler
Ghostcrawler