Sign In
Register
Help
Elemental T9 NerfSource
Thugzug
Cause our dps is so good right? You nerf the set to effect our already low dps. GG
Shaman Tier-9 4-Piece Set Bonus (Elemental): This set bonus now does an additional 10% of Lava Burst’s initial damage over time instead of increasing the size of the Lava Burst.
Seriously what is the logic around this? There is no reason to just keep a 20% dot, not lower 10%... We'll already fall back in ICC because of the bad tier, even you said yourself we get bandaid fixes since we don't scale. So lower our dps? Or does this mean it's a 30% dot?
-
I didn't see you nerfing rogues t8 so they will use t9. Yet you do it to us?
Shaman Tier-9 4-Piece Set Bonus (Elemental): This set bonus now does an additional 10% of Lava Burst’s initial damage over time instead of increasing the size of the Lava Burst.
Seriously what is the logic around this? There is no reason to just keep a 20% dot, not lower 10%... We'll already fall back in ICC because of the bad tier, even you said yourself we get bandaid fixes since we don't scale. So lower our dps? Or does this mean it's a 30% dot?
-
I didn't see you nerfing rogues t8 so they will use t9. Yet you do it to us?
[ Post edited by Thugzug ]
GhostcrawlerBlue Poster
We don't want players to stick with older tier sets when new pieces become available. (It's one thing if it's a really good trinket -- it's another if it's your entire set..)
We balance some things around absolute values (we're shooting for a target) and other things around relative values (how X looks compared to Y). A lot of shaman were saying they weren't going to upgrade to tier 10 despite the, frankly, gratuitous stats on the new gear. We concluded that was because the T9 set bonus was too good and the T10 set bonus was too weak. We suspected the T9 was too good for some time, but didn't want to nerf it while the T9 was all that was available. We did the same thing with a few other sets (or relics).
We try to pick interesting set bonuses, but that means that they will sometimes end up being over or under-budget once players figure out the best ways to optimize their play style around the bonuses. A little of that is okay -- it's interesting when a new set changes your spell rotation a little bit. But when an older set is so good that players feel like upgrading is a bad thing (ignoring the pain of having to get new enchants and gems or whatever) then we think we have a problem.
From a player point of view, I can understand why the attractive answer is always just to buff the new stuff. But continually buffing an outlier instead of bringing the outlier back into the pack is a good way to lead to power inflation on gear.
We balance some things around absolute values (we're shooting for a target) and other things around relative values (how X looks compared to Y). A lot of shaman were saying they weren't going to upgrade to tier 10 despite the, frankly, gratuitous stats on the new gear. We concluded that was because the T9 set bonus was too good and the T10 set bonus was too weak. We suspected the T9 was too good for some time, but didn't want to nerf it while the T9 was all that was available. We did the same thing with a few other sets (or relics).
We try to pick interesting set bonuses, but that means that they will sometimes end up being over or under-budget once players figure out the best ways to optimize their play style around the bonuses. A little of that is okay -- it's interesting when a new set changes your spell rotation a little bit. But when an older set is so good that players feel like upgrading is a bad thing (ignoring the pain of having to get new enchants and gems or whatever) then we think we have a problem.
From a player point of view, I can understand why the attractive answer is always just to buff the new stuff. But continually buffing an outlier instead of bringing the outlier back into the pack is a good way to lead to power inflation on gear.
Ghostcrawler
Lead Systems Designer
Lead Systems Designer
