1. #1941
    Mechagnome
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dubbo, NSW
    Posts
    696
    Protection Warriors are famous for reducing damage yeah? Just trying to confirm.

  2. #1942
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Beardyface View Post
    They didn't remove the healing, your health just dips down again when LS ends. It still ends up being a net gain in health, just not by as much as before. See back a few pages for a detailed description.
    Of course it's a big nerf to the spell. The reason why it could be considered a "heal" before this nerf is because you didn't actually lose the hp gained from it so painfully... only your max health dropped after the 15 sec duration.

    For example, if you had 77+%HP with LS up, once it dropped you'd be at exactly 100% HP again, in regards to your max health without LS. If you had less than 77% HP before it dropped, you wouldn't lose any hp thus -- again only your max health was affected, without changing your current health. The only time your current health was affected is when it was actually higher than your max health without LS (=> higher than 77% before LS dropped) -- this was obviously because you can't have more hp than your max health, and not due to some silly nerf.

    Now, if you're at 77%hp with LS up (let's say that's 770k hp), once it drops you'll actually lose hp and drop to some 590k instead of remaining at 770k, as it previously were the case.

    To me that's a plain nerf to the spell, and not a little one. It's stupid because there's no reason for it, or are they somehow assuming we have too much direct heal? Right...

    Also, with LS becoming buffable to some 60% HP increase, this net loss in HP will hurt so much more that it will inevitable cause unnecessary bursts in TMI, pretty much every time LS will drop. In the example above, you'd be dropping from 770k to 481k (that's close to 40% net loss). Again, it's silly, and uncalled for...
    Last edited by mmocd210ee9388; 2016-06-19 at 08:30 AM.

  3. #1943
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by FenixAU View Post
    Don't suppose anyone has any VoDs or Youtube videos of Mythic+ Prot Warrior PoV that they could share?
    https://www.twitch.tv/slootbag/v/73039042

    First one starts at ~1:40:00. He does a few more after that up to level 5, I think.
    Last edited by mmoc61098086ac; 2016-06-19 at 09:29 AM.

  4. #1944
    Scarab Lord Vestig3's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands, Amsterdam
    Posts
    4,621
    Tbh abandoning prot warrior for what it currently is on the PTR is rather silly because its in no way a reflection of what it is at 110.
    Last edited by Vestig3; 2016-06-19 at 09:45 AM.
    - Vanilla was legitimately bad; we just didn't know any better at the time - SirCowDog


  5. #1945
    Deleted
    on wowhead is nice warrior preview. I have a question for someone who is in beta, or for someone who would know
    can i use as prot war (for example) Unbroken Stand shield with Arm of the Fallen King sword? or are we forced to use Unbroken Stand shield with Unbroken Stand weapon?

  6. #1946
    Quote Originally Posted by Salix View Post
    https://www.twitch.tv/slootbag/v/73039042

    First one starts at ~1:40:00. He does a few more after that up to level 5, I think.
    Thanks mate.

  7. #1947
    Quote Originally Posted by Krasomir View Post
    on wowhead is nice warrior preview. I have a question for someone who is in beta, or for someone who would know
    can i use as prot war (for example) Unbroken Stand shield with Arm of the Fallen King sword? or are we forced to use Unbroken Stand shield with Unbroken Stand weapon?
    Not in beta, but 99% sure you cannot mix and match like that. They are a set, and while you can Tmog them individually, since you cannot Tmog an Artifact appearance onto another item, you can't use that to change one weapon skin to another. But if you look at the Artifact Talent Calculator (here), the appearance tab at the bottom shows them together with no individual options for weapon and shield - and i believe that's how it works in Legion as well.

  8. #1948
    My guess is they changed Last Stand for one of two reasons:

    • They realized that with the new RFDT model, the optimal way to use Last Stand was to activate it, hit Impending Victory if you had it, then cancel the buff so that your increased health pool size didn't reduce your rate of rage gain. This is deeply unintuitive and not something they wanted players doing, so they had to change Last Stand's design to disincentivize cancelling the buff.
    • They wanted the Will to Survive bonus to make Last Stand into an immense heal, but felt it was overpowered if Warriors got to keep all of it as healing.

    My guess is they realized #1 and made the change to how Last Stand works, then did their best to compensate for the nerf by making Will to Survive a HUGE bonus. 60% is a massive self-heal. It's usually an "I won't die" button on a 3 minute cooldown.

    Am I happy about it? No, but I am happy that I don't need to create a "remove aura" macro and double-tap the button every time I use Last Stand.

  9. #1949
    Quote Originally Posted by L Kebess View Post
    Of course it's a big nerf to the spell. The reason why it could be considered a "heal" before this nerf is because you didn't actually lose the hp gained from it so painfully... only your max health dropped after the 15 sec duration.

    For example, if you had 77+%HP with LS up, once it dropped you'd be at exactly 100% HP again, in regards to your max health without LS. If you had less than 77% HP before it dropped, you wouldn't lose any hp thus -- again only your max health was affected, without changing your current health. The only time your current health was affected is when it was actually higher than your max health without LS (=> higher than 77% before LS dropped) -- this was obviously because you can't have more hp than your max health, and not due to some silly nerf.

    Now, if you're at 77%hp with LS up (let's say that's 770k hp), once it drops you'll actually lose hp and drop to some 590k instead of remaining at 770k, as it previously were the case.

    To me that's a plain nerf to the spell, and not a little one. It's stupid because there's no reason for it, or are they somehow assuming we have too much direct heal? Right...

    Also, with LS becoming buffable to some 60% HP increase, this net loss in HP will hurt so much more that it will inevitable cause unnecessary bursts in TMI, pretty much every time LS will drop. In the example above, you'd be dropping from 770k to 481k (that's close to 40% net loss). Again, it's silly, and uncalled for...
    How did you read "not by as much as before" and get "not a big nerf?"

    If you had bothered to read back a few pages, like I suggested, you would have found this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Skerh View Post
    Interesting timing that you would speak about that right now. On the official feedback thread someone just posted feedback concerning last stand that would diminish the effet of your idea if it turns out to be true. Here is the quote:

    On live when last stand is used, your max health increases by 30% and your current health is increased by the same value; then, when last stand expires, your current health value is maintained, unless that total would exceed your normal max health.

    For ease of explanation, lets say you have 100k max hp and use last stand on live; if you are at 30k hp and use last stand, your current health will move to 60k hp and your max will be 130k. If nothing else happens, when last stand ends your current health will stay at 60k hp with your normal max of 100k.

    On Beta, in the same situation, when last stand expires, you instead maintain your current % of max health instead of absolute health. In the same case as above when last stand is up 60k of 130k is 46.15% health, so when last stand expires you'll be at 46.15k of 100k.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beardyface View Post
    Holy good god. Add in the 30% additional from Will to Survive and you lose even more health when Last Stand ends. I don't.. I .. just... what??? This is why I think about quitting this game entirely. These devs are clearly far too inept to design any game, let alone one this complex.

  10. #1950
    The Patient Zasriel's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Beardyface View Post
    How did you read "not by as much as before" and get "not a big nerf?"
    Just to clarify, he did say it was a big nerf.

    Quote Originally Posted by L Kebess View Post
    Of course it's a big nerf to the spell.
    Now with that said, I really don't understand why we as prot warriors can't agree on what our issues are. We're unable to provide consistent feedback, therefore Blizzard can't respond to our complaints. I think this is our #1 issue at this point, consistency amongst the base. Not sure how we can fix it, but it certainly isn't helping us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agromat View Post
    My guess is they changed Last Stand for one of two reasons:

    • They realized that with the new RFDT model, the optimal way to use Last Stand was to activate it, hit Impending Victory if you had it, then cancel the buff so that your increased health pool size didn't reduce your rate of rage gain. This is deeply unintuitive and not something they wanted players doing, so they had to change Last Stand's design to disincentivize cancelling the buff.
    • They wanted the Will to Survive bonus to make Last Stand into an immense heal, but felt it was overpowered if Warriors got to keep all of it as healing.

    My guess is they realized #1 and made the change to how Last Stand works, then did their best to compensate for the nerf by making Will to Survive a HUGE bonus. 60% is a massive self-heal. It's usually an "I won't die" button on a 3 minute cooldown.

    Am I happy about it? No, but I am happy that I don't need to create a "remove aura" macro and double-tap the button every time I use Last Stand.
    The LS nerf is silly and a further slap in our face, I think. Just another of the many reasons I'll be playing something else in Legion. What you mentioned doesn't justify changing how a spell we've had since Vanilla works. It has NEVER removed total health before when it expired. It has ALWAYS removed the Max HP portion of it. That is going to be a much harder change for prot warriors who have been tanking for awhile to get used to. Or on the flip side, it's going to make even less sense to the new prot warriors and why they're randomly losing HP when their buff expires (that's not much of a buff).
    Last edited by Zasriel; 2016-06-19 at 06:16 PM.

  11. #1951
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordekae View Post
    Just to clarify, he did say it was a big nerf.



    Now with that said, I really don't understand why we as prot warriors can't agree on what our issues are. We're unable to provide consistent feedback, therefore Blizzard can't respond to our complaints. I think this is our #1 issue at this point, consistency amongst the base. Not sure how we can fix it, but it certainly isn't helping us.



    The LS nerf is silly and a further slap in our face, I think. Just another of the many reasons I'll be playing something else in Legion. What you mentioned doesn't justify changing how a spell we've had since Vanilla works. It has NEVER removed total health before when it expired. It has ALWAYS removed the Max HP portion of it. That is going to be a much harder change for prot warriors who have been tanking for awhile to get used to. Or on the flip side, it's going to make even less sense to the new prot warriors and why they're randomly losing HP when their buff expires (that's not much of a buff).
    I think the problem is that Blizzard only responds to the best of the best theory crafters. Which to my knowledge Prot has none dedicated to Prot. I have seen them respond to Collison, Binkenstine, or ppl like Komma and Wallflower. Unless we have a top notch dedicated SimCrafter etc, it's like we are the old American colonies dealing with the British IE: Taxation without representation. So we are lorded over basically, but we have no representation to speak on our behalf that Blizzard finds acceptable to respond to.

    Edit: It's currently the problem in many specs that have a very small representation. As you see they always stay bottom of the barrel cuz they have no one to speak for them.
    Last edited by Valkaneer; 2016-06-19 at 06:36 PM.

  12. #1952
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Agromat View Post
    My guess is they changed Last Stand for one of two reasons:

    • They realized that with the new RFDT model, the optimal way to use Last Stand was to activate it, hit Impending Victory if you had it, then cancel the buff so that your increased health pool size didn't reduce your rate of rage gain. This is deeply unintuitive and not something they wanted players doing, so they had to change Last Stand's design to disincentivize cancelling the buff.
    • They wanted the Will to Survive bonus to make Last Stand into an immense heal, but felt it was overpowered if Warriors got to keep all of it as healing.

    My guess is they realized #1 and made the change to how Last Stand works, then did their best to compensate for the nerf by making Will to Survive a HUGE bonus. 60% is a massive self-heal. It's usually an "I won't die" button on a 3 minute cooldown.

    Am I happy about it? No, but I am happy that I don't need to create a "remove aura" macro and double-tap the button every time I use Last Stand.
    I understand what you're saying, but do you remember how LS used to work back in BC/CT? How we had to vocal things like "LS dropping in 2 sec" just so that healers don't get surprised by the burst in TMI that followed? Well now, with the 60% increase, things will get twice as dangerous. That's why, I hate it.

    Also, this nerf is not justified because Warriors simply do not have "too much" direct heal (or indirect heal for that matter). Anyone saying this should not be playing the spec, and it's quite obvious when you look at these dev's -- clearly they haven't tried the spec in any real combat situation.

  13. #1953
    Quote Originally Posted by L Kebess View Post
    I understand what you're saying, but do you remember how LS used to work back in BC/CT? How we had to vocal things like "LS dropping in 2 sec" just so that healers don't get surprised by the burst in TMI that followed? Well now, with the 60% increase, things will get twice as dangerous. That's why, I hate it.

    Also, this nerf is not justified because Warriors simply do not have "too much" direct heal (or indirect heal for that matter). Anyone saying this should not be playing the spec, and it's quite obvious when you look at these dev's -- clearly they haven't tried the spec in any real combat situation.
    Have you reached 110 on Beta yet? I'm wondering what the difference is between 100 on the PTR and 110 on Beta with the weapon etc. Cuz on the PTR we are the strongest and Warriors can reach insane amount of Stacks of Uber strike because of Impending Victory, Meaning we can mitigate so much on the PTR that only 15% heal can make us last forever. I wonder what that is like at 110 with skill points in place.

  14. #1954
    PTR isn't best place to clarify how we will be looking vs any other tank on Legion as like everything is attached to the Artifacts. Similar to Arcane mage who could suck in prepatch. On Beta in raid tests I definitely wasn't the stronger tank vs a Druid, while he could survive most (just an example).

  15. #1955
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Agromat View Post
    My guess is they changed Last Stand for one of two reasons:

    • They realized that with the new RFDT model, the optimal way to use Last Stand was to activate it, hit Impending Victory if you had it, then cancel the buff so that your increased health pool size didn't reduce your rate of rage gain. This is deeply unintuitive and not something they wanted players doing, so they had to change Last Stand's design to disincentivize cancelling the buff.
    • They wanted the Will to Survive bonus to make Last Stand into an immense heal, but felt it was overpowered if Warriors got to keep all of it as healing.

    My guess is they realized #1 and made the change to how Last Stand works, then did their best to compensate for the nerf by making Will to Survive a HUGE bonus. 60% is a massive self-heal. It's usually an "I won't die" button on a 3 minute cooldown.

    Am I happy about it? No, but I am happy that I don't need to create a "remove aura" macro and double-tap the button every time I use Last Stand.
    my guess is not losing the health is a bug that was to low priority to fix or acceptable to leave unfixed. and now they just got around to fixing it.

  16. #1956
    Scarab Lord Vestig3's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands, Amsterdam
    Posts
    4,621
    I just fought the boss dummy on PTR and i managed to fight it for 7,41 minute and 37 uberstrikes before it killed me lol i could never survive this long on live tho i could have survived a bit longer.

    http://i63.tinypic.com/2i9m93l.jpg
    Last edited by Vestig3; 2016-06-19 at 09:27 PM.
    - Vanilla was legitimately bad; we just didn't know any better at the time - SirCowDog


  17. #1957
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Yse View Post
    PTR isn't best place to clarify how we will be looking vs any other tank on Legion as like everything is attached to the Artifacts. Similar to Arcane mage who could suck in prepatch. On Beta in raid tests I definitely wasn't the stronger tank vs a Druid, while he could survive most (just an example).
    You're completely right in that PTR balance doesn't reflect 110 balance one-to-one (I'd hope so for paladins' sake ). But I want to nitpick on the example of druids during raid tests. Druids were just grossly overtuned at that time and regardless how the balance will shift at 110, I don't think we're likely to see any tank be that much of an outlier when things go live.

    Even then, some things can already be 'felt out' on the PTR. With artifact we gain a bunch of modifiers and one extra ability. Our tanking 'rotation' will stay mostly the same as PTR in how we use our AM and tools.

    Shield block does what it has always done and does it as well as ever. At full artifact we gain some extra armor and stam as passive mitigation. The biggest unknown that will make or break warrior at 110 in my mind is how IP's absorb value will compare to incoming damage in high end content. Cynically, I doubt that ratio will remain the same as at 100 (certainly nothing like the target dummy shenanigans), or at the very least RIP Never Surrender.
    Last edited by mmoc61098086ac; 2016-06-19 at 11:11 PM.

  18. #1958
    Quote Originally Posted by Salix View Post
    You're completely right in that PTR balance doesn't reflect 110 balance one-to-one (I'd hope so for paladins' sake ). But I want to nitpick on the example of druids during raid tests. Druids were just grossly overtuned at that time and regardless how the balance will shift at 110, I don't think we're likely to see any tank be that much of an outlier when things go live.
    I hope so with that last, as seeing him eating 4-5-6 stacks while I almost died to 2nd isn't fun or engaging for Warrior. But let's be truthful, if they would sort RFDT or just rage generation - we would be in great spot for raiding. Only because of it we drop down in the 'line' and rest of the issues are just either cosmetic or creating some annoying gameplay (FR, some talents etc).

  19. #1959
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordekae View Post
    Just to clarify, he did say it was a big nerf.
    He said that because he somehow thought I said it was a little nerf. I wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Beardyface View Post
    They didn't remove the healing, your health just dips down again when LS ends. It still ends up being a net gain in health, just not by as much as before. See back a few pages for a detailed description.
    And he responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by L Kebess View Post
    Of course it's a big nerf to the spell. (more stuff) To me that's a plain nerf to the spell, and not a little one.
    Where he got that I thought this was a little nerf is what confused me. It is a nerf in Legion. You still end up with a net gain in health in Legion. You have less of a net gain in Legion than you do in live. Those are facts.

    Anyway,

    Quote Originally Posted by Yse View Post
    I hope so with that last, as seeing him eating 4-5-6 stacks while I almost died to 2nd isn't fun or engaging for Warrior. But let's be truthful, if they would sort RFDT or just rage generation - we would be in great spot for raiding. Only because of it we drop down in the 'line' and rest of the issues are just either cosmetic or creating some annoying gameplay (FR, some talents etc).
    Yes, most of the tanks got fairly major nerfs since you were last sreaming raid testing, Guardian and DK especially. DH is about where it was and Monk is maybe slightly stronger due to the addition of Expel Harm. Prot warrior hasn't had any nerfs in beta that I can recall aside from the nerf to Neltharion's Fury damage. Possible there's one I don't remember.

  20. #1960
    Deleted
    I've been regularily checking this thread for a while now, and I've either missed it in here (or in another important announcement), so excuse me if it's already been asked/answered.

    Does RPDT include "partial" rage in some way? I.e.: Getting the same rage when being hit 50 x 0.5 % HP within 3 seconds as opposed to getting a single swing knocking off 25% of your HP at once?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •