To the ground baby!Follow

Please don't lie to me, who expected this? Yea, all of us.

From EJ I read that its a 7% decrease to Muti and a 2.3% decrease to Combat. Also the Poison change reduces the poison coefficient by 10%.

I hate this change. I really do. But its like hating veggies as a kid, you hate them, but you know you need them.

When the sole reason my killed Festergut was because we had 3 Muti rogues doing 10k+DPS and carrying the sub 6k DPS we have a problem.

Supposedly Muti still wins on single target but the gap is much smaller.

New spreadsheet should come out within a few days so I'll know more than.

It shouldn't, because a big part of the reason we don't gem AGI is because we are so close to hitting the Crit Cap already. Gemming AGI would exacerbate the problem.

EDIT: I should mention some people seem to think 51/13/7 will be better than 51/18/2. Until the newest spreadsheet comes out we can't be sure though(unless you wanna spend an hour+ testing on dummies, which isn't acurate anyways).

Edited, Jan 8th 2010 12:18pm by GodOfMoo

What I dislike about this change is that HFB has been changed yet again. HFB used to be a talent that actually added something to your rotation. Now it's a 5% damage boost that barely impacts your rotation or playstyle at all - they might as well call it Murder 2.0 now. Normally this isn't something that would really bug me, but the fact that they kept buffing rogues and now have to compensate for those buffs by nerfing HFB does make me feel like it's a little bit... I dunno, hypocritical? Sad?

They previously nerfed it from 15% to 10%, and now from 10% to 5%.

With 10k DPS we lose about 700DPS.

I think it can be seen in different ways.

One is certainly now a "why bother at all?"... And frankly, unless its for epeen or progession, you might now be very relaxed about keeping (or even bringing) HfB up. No bleed - no worries! I mean WTH, its only a 5% damage loss rather than 10 or 15, right?

Ok, so it didn't take skill or anything to maintain HfB in anything but a 5-man. I think it's even wrong to say that it actually added anything to a "rotation" cause hitting that button every minute in a "fire-and-forget" manner didn't really make anyone break a sweat. For that, the actual 10% damage bonus is actually pretty big, and even 5% will be somewhat decent. It is nothing compared to the drama cat druids have to go through to get their 30% from Savage Roar. They let it drop - they lose big time.

What pisses me off about this nerf - and ALL nerfs those people come up with - is how they can't possibly tone things down slightly and see where it goes. I mean wouldn't the logical step here have been to change the freaking glyph for starters and take it's 3% rather than chopping off 5 from the talent?

Or could it possibly be that the problem wasn't so much rogues needing a nerf, but other dps classes needing some BUFFS when rogues got theirs? They're just gonna continue like this, take a class or 2 and mess with them - then act all surprised when they actually succeed. Hell no, can't take that to the rest then.

It would be too damn easy I guess to bring rogues back in line by reducing their damage a little and increasing that of others a bit.

Just freaking watch the madness coming with Warlocks next. Buff them, then nerf because nobody can catch up. Mages next maybe? Hunters?

This crap is something that really has me worried about Cataclysm. I mean they obviously can't properly balance classes with the choices of glyphs and talents as they are now. How is that to work when they add this whole archeology thing for even more "customization"? It seems to make it even more likely that they'll continue to get themselves stuck with "balancing" a single class or 2 rather than looking at the roles in general.

But I guess nerfs are after all better than not coming up with anything at all before the next expansion.

Thank you for showing you don't have a clue.

Blizzard has done a superb job balancing all the classes in this game. Every DPS spec is viable, all tank specs are viable, and all tank specs are viable - and the only one that's significantly out of line right now? You guessed it, rogues. If it pisses you off so much that you can't just slam your head into the desk and do 8k DPS, maybe you should go play another game. And please, maybe you should shut your mouth until you've actually considered all the work that goes into balancing classes, and given even a modicum of thought as to why they can't just buff every other class up to the level rogue is at. (Hint: It's because the DPS isn't only relative to other classes.)

Majivo said it better.^^

You should see the O-boards about this right now. You have 2 parties, the nerd ragers and the people who are saying "Shut up, it was obviously needed."

My favorite are the people like Kann, who think it is Blizz's job to give them ridiculous DpS so they down bosses faster.



1. This. This change is not harsh, at all. A 7% nerf that still lets you top the charts, or at least sit right beside those that are topping the charts, is hardly a big deal.



2. Them buffing you too much in the first place was part of the balancing process. They gave you too much juice, and needed to take some back.

And you know why that happens? Because theory crafting gets a lot of support outside of the game. Blizz can do pretty decent predictions of things. But there are THOUSANDS of players that contribute to TCing. We know enough about how the RNG for WoW works, as well as formulas, that we (as a playerbase) can basically TC far better and faster than Blizzard can.

Why? Because we have the man power, and enough computers, to make it happen. Blizzard does the best they can to balance. And they do a very good job. The reason they can't get it perfect every time is that:

A. They need to balance EVERYTHING with each change to a class. TCers predict DpS within specific constraints. So, they have to worry about how their buffs and nerfs affect both PvE and PvP.

B. They need to do this for *every class.* Dedicated TCers generally focus only on their own class, and maybe one other. Blizzard can't pay 200 people to focus own the TCing for one class--that isn't feasible. But the internet easily can let 200 people on just one forum like EJ contribute to the think tank.

C. Blizz has to worry about balance across gear levels, which TC does not. They can't just look at BiS and say "Okay, they are performing 10% better than what we want. Let's just shave 10% from their 15% buff then." They need to see how changes will affect the class across gear levels (and player levels to a certain extent).

D. Sometimes, balancing content rather than classes is valid, too.

So, in the end, it may be easy for a player to say "Why didn't they just get it right the first time" or "Well, just go in and boost the other classes."

But the fact is, that would take such a ridiculous amount of resources (just to increase the PROBABILITY of it happening higher) that them making the best change they can think of and retooling it as it went along is the least stressful for us and them. Because now all the funding that would go to 100 more Devs whose only job is to predict DpS numbers from a specific change can now go to 100 more Devs whose only job is to think up and implement exciting new content, as well as go to the management and elimination of annoying bugs (amongst the many other jobs).

The system may not be perfect, but it's the best we can reasonably expect. Just be happy this isn't FFXI. You'd have one class (Rangers) that completely dominated the Damage department for years, and then got nerfed so bad that they were only played by the most dedicated players after that. Blizz wants classes to perform well, and that includes balancing support and Damage.

It isn't just a question of what will let you put out the most damage. Otherwise level 1 gray items would have 999 of every stat and rating on them, with a speed of .01.

[EDIT]


Why? You rather them try and fool around with something less direct to lower your damage, and risk nerfing you far worse than they want? HfB is a very easy way to fix things. As a direct damage boost, you'll still be using it (I mean, 5% to all damage all the time is a pretty amazing 51 point talent. I don't think any other class gets one as good for a single point). And, since it is a flat percentage buff, they can lower it when they see that Rogues using it are specifically putting out too much damage.

You'll still use HfB. It is still something you only need to think about every minute.

Believe me, the outcry would have been WAY more if they changed things in a way that actually affected rotations. Players hate nerfs, but they HATE having to change their play style because of their nerfs.

I'll take a nerf to a percent bonus over the riskiness of mechanic changes any day.

Edited, Jan 9th 2010 2:03pm by idiggory

I guess I must be playing a different game than you do already, cause you're apparently dreaming. What does any of this have to do with viability?

Because of every dps spec being viable, we're having this amazingly high number of raiding frost and fire mages. Sub rogues are totally kicking ***. BM hunters are just plain awesome, and elemental shammys would be topping the meters if it wasn't for those overpowered rogue dudes. What are you smoking?

I am also concerned about your quality standards. If less than a handful of people can come up with spreadsheets and simulations in their spare time that accurately tell you how changing a single freaking gem would affect your dps, then it's a **** poor job if the people at Blizzard have classes go all over the place in between their buffs and nerfs.

Druids- 4 viable specs.
Priests- 3 viable specs.
Mages- 2-3 viable specs (Fire, Arcane and FFB all perform well at different levels. Frost is still behind, yes, but more than enough DpS for heroics and there are raiding Frost Mages that do okay).
Warlocks- 2-3 viable specs. Afflic and Destro are fine, but I know nothing about Demo.
Rogues-2 viable specs
Warriors- 3 viable specs
Death Knights- 3 viable specs (and 3 tank specs, but play styles are similar)
Shaman- 3 viable specs
Paladins- 3 viable specs
Hunters- 2 viable specs and 1 fine for Heroics (and possibly lower-end raid damage).

And there isn't a single spec that is never viable for any content. Blizz is (admittedly) nervous about changing Sub, since it works fine for PvP. Probably the same with Frost Mages and Hunters. But EVERY OTHER SPEC in the game is raid viable.

If you don't think that's a great feat, you need to GTFO and come back after you
see the state of every other MMO in existence. There isn't a single one so balanced that you can literally start as any class and be guaranteed to function fine in early PvE content, and still have options in the top end stuff. Most MMOs have whole classes that are 100% useless in the hardest battles.



Thanks for proving how stupid you ACTUALLY are. Spreadsheets work within specific parameters. I can put in my gear now and see my predicted DpS. I can change some stats and see predicted DpS there. I can change some talent points, and see predicted DpS.

So, tell me. How am I supposed to take that and turn it into a buff or a nerf.

A. The changes, unless they happen deeper in a talent tree, may affect ALL members of that class. Yeah, buffing up Subtelty by giving 2 AP per Agility may seem like a good idea until you take into account Combat and Assassination.

B. They only take into account specific gear levels. Ever notice how, at different gear levels, different stats and talents gain and lose value? Good luck coming up with a change that is going to create the desired affect with all of them. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that Blizz ONLY cares about what the top-tier raiders are doing, and they aren't. They care about the players running heroics, too.

C. Different changes have different affects in PvP and PvE. For example, HfB could be very powerful in Arena, Raids and Heroics, but much less so in BGs. Poison buffs may put out awesome damage in a Raid, but be pitiful in PvP. These things are taken into account for every change. It isn't as simple as saying "Okay, Rogues ar 7% ahead. Let's change the glyph to 2% and nerf HfB to 10% damage. Done."

D. Spreadsheets aren't predictive in nature. They work within specific constraints. And they don't always predict real-life scenarios. In 3.3, Scourge Strike got a buff, and then nerfed with the first HfB nerf. Why? Because it was doing more damage in practice within both PvE and PvP content than they expected it would, since the RNG was a heavy factor in making it do great damage, or making it do ridiculous damage.

E. Furthermore, raid compositions change DRASTICALLY, and there are 10/25 and heroic versions. Changes need to be such that it doesn't lead to stacking. Maybe a Rogue performs fine in 5 and 10 mans, but the additional buffs of a 25 man make their DpS zoom off the charts. But you can't just nerf them in 25 mans without nerfing them in 10 mans. Etc. It is unrealistic to expect Blizz to compare a change with every possible raid composition. But you can be sure players will...

[EDIT]

F. Gear.

When Blizz designs Leather that Rogues would potentially use, they also need to make sure it is usable for Druids (Cats AND Bears). Furthermore, they have to keep in mind that many of the stats those two classes want (so let's say 4 specs--Cat, Bears, Mut and Comb) are desirable for Hunters and Shaman.

Except there's a bigger problem. Warriors and Death Knights may want it too! (Warrior BiS list, before current wing at least, included leather). Maybe even Paladins, if it has really great stats.

So now you are creating armor that needs to be balanced with a ton of classes and specs in mind, all with the intent that you'll keep each class at similar DpS levels. But that's a problem, since different stats gain and lose power for each class, depending on other stats! For instance, Hit makes AP and Crit stronger for Rogues. But Mut doesn't want ArP. But Cats sure as hell do. And they want Crit and Hit, too!

So you see the problem? All the classes may be perfectly balanced around one idealized level (say, BiS DpS with every raid buff). But the fact remains that the VAST majority of players find themselves without BiS gear, and not always with each buff. It is IMPOSSIBLE to balance classes across even one level of content to have similar DpS. But Blizz has at least made most viable, which is awesome.

Do they have to fine tune nearly every change they make? Duh. But they put more effort into balance than ANY other game-making company that exists.

Have ridiculously high standards if you want to (hey, it's your happiness). But you have to be fair and recognize that Blizz is doing the best job in the industry right now. If you feel they aren't doing enough, then you should probably just quit MMOs right now, as they spend more in that department than all their competitors (possibly even the top 3-5 combined).

Edited, Jan 9th 2010 3:38pm by idiggory

Lol, can't make an argument so you try to bring up another thread which was about something COMPLETELY different? I'm not arguing for argument's sake, and I wasn't in that thread either. I'm not going to open that debate here, but I was being completely fair AND civil in that thread. I was trying to have a discussion/debate. And everything I posted in that thread was supported by math. The responses I got never even addressed the points I made, but decided name-calling and irelevant facts about raiding (when the thread was about heroics) were sufficient. I TRIED to make it into a discussion, but the immaturity of certain Shaman forum posters made that impossible. I had hoped it would have gotten better in the year since I last posted a thread in it, but I was disappointed.

But, you're right, I don't play a Rogue at end-game. But that isn't what this discussion is about, is it? It's about balance between classes. If this was a discussion about Mut and Combat balance relative each other, I wouldn't get involved, because I don't know how they compare. But it isn't. It isn't even about Rogues. You made a claim that Blizzard wasn't trying hard enough to balance classes. That is completely unfair, and that's what I'm arguing against.

And if you think that it is really as simple as one guy with a computer making a spreadsheet and saying "this is what needs to happen to get what we want to happen" then you are delusional to the point where the most logical argument in the world makes no difference.

Yeah, they knew they overshot it. That's why 2 days after 3.3 launched they dropped the damage by 5%.

Why did they not just drop it another 7% right then and there?

Because they wanted to see 2 things.

1. How will the changes affect PvP and lower-end content.

2. How will other classes develop with new gear.

If ALL the classes were above their expected mark, and Rogues evened out, then they'd be able to buff the encounter (and maybe 1 low-outlier DpS).

Furthermore, they have other balancing options besides going at the class itself. I already mentioned gear. If they could find a solution in gearing weights for the next wing (which they released this week), such as spending more points on ArP and Agility than Rogues generally want, then they could potentially even out the class without having to **** off the players with a nerf.

My point is that, just because they CAN come up with a system that will give them the DpS values they want, they are concerned with much more than just that. For example, Moz (or someone) said they were annoyed because they felt Rogues were fine before hand. *I* read the post before the initial buff about the fact that the devs were not happy with Rogues feeling like they needed to item switch. That is just one example about how ultimate DpS isn't the only consideration they have. They made the DP change to try and fix that. Did it give them a huge buff? Yes, it did. And they made their first correction 2 *days* after 3.3. That's a pretty fast response, especially when a DK change came with it. And a month later, they've nerfed it a little more. That's showing a process. They didn't just nerf it once and decide a few days ago to nerf it again. They wanted to see how things would even out, because actual player data is far superior to their test data. Because, in the end, they end up with the same issues simulators do--human actions/reactions can't be accurately modeled.

After a month, they decided Rogue damage needed to drop 7%.

But notice something--they didn't JUST drop HfB 7%. They made a change to poisons, too. That suggests that they've been testing different possibilities all along. There are many ways they could have changed the class. And ALL of them scale differently with gear.

They clearly have been working hard to balance Rogues. You're complaining about the "see-saw" balancing act? Well, guess what, that takes time. They are trying to MINIMALIZE the effect of it with the way they balance. Yes, your max DpS will go up and down. But, in the end, you avoid the OP to UP system that Locks had to suffer through a few years ago.

Is it perfect? No. But it is NOT fair to blam Blizz for not getting it right in the first try. There are a huge number of variables to consider, and a huge number of options to make the changes in.

And, most importantly, even if they know the final destination (say, a 12% drop in Rogue DpS), it takes time to decide on how to get there.

Do you nerf HfB 12% and call it a day? Well, that might cause Rogues to not bother with it and head elsewhere, which they may not want. Plus, it seriously pisses them off, as the community is god awful at looking towards the bigger picture--the (15+0%)<(5+13%) kind of thing.

Blizz knew that Rogue DpS needed to come down. That's obvious. But they don't have some super clairvoyence that let's them know where best to take it from. And there's often a LOT of debate amongst Devs in that department. They want to make the transition as painless as possible for ROGUES when they *need* to make the change.

Plus, you need to remember that there is more than one spec they needed to consider. They wanted to buff up Combat, too. So they couldn't buff Mut and call it a day. And bringing Assas down by nerfing HfB wouldn't change Combat's damage, which was still too high. There are a lot of variables to consider.

I much rather they take some time and see how things work out then shoot in the dark and be found that they under-powered a working class. I won't fault Blizz for trying to do what will please their player base.

I get WHY you could feel annoyed. And I don't fault you their emotions. When Blizz nerfed the double crit on SS, I was disappointed of course. But I knew it was necessary, and I knew that the spec was better off after the changes than before.

I don't think it is fair to attack Blizz for not having everything perfect at patch day when they are trying REALLY hard to make everyone happy. No other company has an active link between Devs and Players. No other company spends as much money on balance. No other company tries to make player's lives easier by making changes that mean they don't HAVE to use a specific addon. Be happy that you no longer need to really on a weapon swapping macro, and are doing more DpS than before without having to change your rotation or play style AT ALL.

Blizz cares a great deal about their players, and they work really hard to balance everything. To say that they aren't trying their hardest is bull.

[EDIT]

And I would argue that HfB was not a class-defining ability. Mutilate is. Slice-and-Dice is. Envenom and Poisons are.

HfB was hardly defining. If they gave you a passive 15% through other talents, and made Mut the 51 point, you wouldn't miss it at all.

Class-defining abilities change the way you think about and use a class. That's probably a good reason why they chose to buff poisons to such a degree in the first place. They COULD have just made it so instant could only be on one weapon at a time, and get rid of macros that way. Instead, they decided to buff up something that was class defining (poisons) and tone down something that you barely even thought about (HfB).

It's why they buffed Scourge Strike as well. It was a tree-defining ability that was less amazing than it should have been. In return, they took 10% off our second-most damaging ability, through a passive talent you never think about when not designing specs.

Though poisons were more about class-definition and SS was more about tree-definition. HfB wasn't really either. If it gave you 30% damage, but the spec still did way less DpS than Combat, people would go Combat. And they wouldn't miss the play style of Assassination with HfB in mind. I'm not sure how clear this edit has been though...

Edited, Jan 9th 2010 6:13pm by idiggory