Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    I'm fine with health sacrificing abilities, but holy christ they shouldn't be tied into defensive abilities, they're polar opposites. Sacrificing a bit of health for utility / dmg boost, fine - but you shouldn't have to, in the heat of the moment, sacrifice 20%(!) of your health for 4 seconds breather, especially with our current savaged regen - it's not like we can drain / SL our way back up like we used to - most of our regen comes from blowing cds.
    Exactly, how can gc or anyone for that matter argue this talent is ok as a defensive talent. It KILLS us, god forbid someone uses a trinket after should I use it twice and almost kill myself in half? Nevermind using a normal fear after is gonna be useless because of drs.

    Defensive talents really shouldn't be something that hurts you bad, kinda defeats the purpose.

  2. #62
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Gohzerlock View Post
    Exactly, how can gc or anyone for that matter argue this talent is ok as a defensive talent. It KILLS us, god forbid someone uses a trinket after should I use it twice and almost kill myself in half? Nevermind using a normal fear after is gonna be useless because of drs.

    Defensive talents really shouldn't be something that hurts you bad, kinda defeats the purpose.
    I don't understand how anyone could argue that a fear spell is offensive at all. Which was GC's reasoning behind this massive nerf.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    I don't understand how anyone could argue that a fear spell is offensive at all. Which was GC's reasoning behind this massive nerf.
    That's a pretty simple argument to make. Blood fear was (is currently) being used offensively whenever you cast it at someone else in order to prevent them from reacting/recovering from a cc chain.

    It's overpowered because (much like blanket silences from counterspell/spell lock, which are also being removed) it's instant, so there's no way to avoid it. Fear being used offensively isn't a problem given that it has a cast time, therefore the enemy team can react to it; instant-cast fear that no one can do anything about is a huge problem. Same with presence of mind into polymorph/ring of frost.

  4. #64
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Spektroman View Post
    That's a pretty simple argument to make. Blood fear was (is currently) being used offensively whenever you cast it at someone else in order to prevent them from reacting/recovering from a cc chain.

    It's overpowered because (much like blanket silences from counterspell/spell lock, which are also being removed) it's instant, so there's no way to avoid it. Fear being used offensively isn't a problem given that it has a cast time, therefore the enemy team can react to it; instant-cast fear that no one can do anything about is a huge problem. Same with presence of mind into polymorph/ring of frost.
    That would still be used Defensively. Its used to keep them away from you, to keep them from doing damage to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    That would still be used Defensively. Its used to keep them away from you, to keep them from doing damage to you.
    It stops being defensive when you're murdering a healer who's been stunned, silenced then blood feared with no time for them to do anything... not many will argue that blood fear isn't overpowered in it's current incarnation. It's that blizz seems to see a lot of qq then make things useless, putting in blood fear was a bad dev mistake probably used to draw more people to play warlocks. Gutting it is also another dev mistake instead of coming up with something thats actually an attractive/interesting talent.

  6. #66
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Gohzerlock View Post
    It stops being defensive when you're murdering a healer who's been stunned, silenced then blood feared with no time for them to do anything... not many will argue that blood fear isn't overpowered in it's current incarnation. It's that blizz seems to see a lot of qq then make things useless, putting in blood fear was a bad dev mistake probably used to draw more people to play warlocks. Gutting it is also another dev mistake instead of coming up with something thats actually an attractive/interesting talent.
    I 100% think INTENT of use is what makes it offensive or defensive. You could use this logic to say any spell is offensive.

    I am not arguing whether blood fear is OP. I just don't think its "offensive" at all, and the new blood fear will be crap. That whole tier will be very very sub par in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  7. #67
    Blizzard loves to make needless balancing changes, its why diablo 3 took forever. Was blood fear really that broken? It may not be perfect but warlocks are hardly dominating arenas because of it. I still think it does its purpose much better than what they want it to be in 5.2.

    I'm going to get flamed but I think it is a fair trade off from normal fear, it can be used as useful defence and it isn't always the best talent in the tier to take.

  8. #68
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by FruitBat69 View Post
    Blizzard loves to make needless balancing changes, its why diablo 3 took forever. Was blood fear really that broken? It may not be perfect but warlocks are hardly dominating arenas because of it. I still think it does its purpose much better than what they want it to be in 5.2.

    I'm going to get flamed but I think it is a fair trade off from normal fear, it can be used as useful defence and it isn't always the best talent in the tier to take.
    I dislike how they compare Blood Fear to other "instant CC" abilities. It takes HEALTH. None of the other "instant cc" abilities take this as a cost. I don't see why people conveniently forget it takes health, which is a much bigger trade off than #% max mana.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    I 100% think INTENT of use is what makes it offensive or defensive. You could use this logic to say any spell is offensive.

    I am not arguing whether blood fear is OP. I just don't think its "offensive" at all, and the new blood fear will be crap. That whole tier will be very very sub par in my opinion.
    An instant spell that costs 10% of your health in order to instantly lock down a healer, which has less means of preventing fears than most damage dealers, and prevent it from keeping its allies alive is considered defensive?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nivrax View Post
    You may be on to something here... GC claimed Ret Paladins killed his parents. Could it be that Warlocks drained Celas' dog soul?

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    That would still be used Defensively. Its used to keep them away from you, to keep them from doing damage to you.
    Let me make it more clear. Skills that are used in combat can fall in 3 different categories:

    A) Skills that are purely defensive in nature (examples): Divine Protection, Barkskin, Shield Wall, Power Word: Shield, Earth Shield, etc.

    B) Skills that are purely offensive in nature (examples): Any damage spell, Dark Soul, Icy Veins, Recklessness, Shadow Dance, etc.

    C) Skills that may be used both offensively and defensively: Berserker rage, Lichborne, Unending Resolve, Anti-Magic Shell, Cloak of Shadows, Ice Block, Divine Shield, etc.

    Blood fear was in category C, and devs really want it to be in category A instead.

    Using the current Blood Fear on an attacker that's eating my face, or chewing my healer: Defensive. I used the skill to prevent more damage from going off, and buy everyone on my team some time to breathe.

    Using the current Blood Fear to CC a healer that was previously polymorphed, then ring of nova'd, then counterspelled, thus allowing my mage partner to obliterate the poor warrior after my burst while his priest partner suffers through 30+ seconds of pure, non-dr'd CC: Offensive. Nothing about that Blood fear was about preventing damage, quite the opposite, it was used to ensure my mage would score a kill.

    For the devs, the first use of Blood Fear is the "intended" use: that's what they wanted players to use it for. The second use is "unintended", meaning players used the spell more cleverly than they expected, and that led to warlocks being better than they were supposed to be. The new design is a way to force Blood Fear into the category "A" described above. In my opinion, it fails that because of the "C" category spells. A warrior can just pop berserker rage offensively and keep beating you up anyway. It also has the downside of protecting only the warlock, and not his partners (granted, if you're not being focused regular fear works fine for this).

  11. #71
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenexis View Post
    An instant spell that costs 10% of your health in order to instantly lock down a healer, which has less means of preventing fears than most damage dealers, and prevent it from keeping its allies alive is considered defensive?
    Yes.

    10chars

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 09:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Spektroman View Post
    Let me make it more clear. Skills that are used in combat can fall in 3 different categories:

    A) Skills that are purely defensive in nature (examples): Divine Protection, Barkskin, Shield Wall, Power Word: Shield, Earth Shield, etc.

    B) Skills that are purely offensive in nature (examples): Any damage spell, Dark Soul, Icy Veins, Recklessness, Shadow Dance, etc.

    C) Skills that may be used both offensively and defensively: Berserker rage, Lichborne, Unending Resolve, Anti-Magic Shell, Cloak of Shadows, Ice Block, Divine Shield, etc.

    Blood fear was in category C, and devs really want it to be in category A instead.

    Using the current Blood Fear on an attacker that's eating my face, or chewing my healer: Defensive. I used the skill to prevent more damage from going off, and buy everyone on my team some time to breathe.

    Using the current Blood Fear to CC a healer that was previously polymorphed, then ring of nova'd, then counterspelled, thus allowing my mage partner to obliterate the poor warrior after my burst while his priest partner suffers through 30+ seconds of pure, non-dr'd CC: Offensive. Nothing about that Blood fear was about preventing damage, quite the opposite, it was used to ensure my mage would score a kill.

    For the devs, the first use of Blood Fear is the "intended" use: that's what they wanted players to use it for. The second use is "unintended", meaning players used the spell more cleverly than they expected, and that led to warlocks being better than they were supposed to be. The new design is a way to force Blood Fear into the category "A" described above. In my opinion, it fails that because of the "C" category spells. A warrior can just pop berserker rage offensively and keep beating you up anyway. It also has the downside of protecting only the warlock, and not his partners (granted, if you're not being focused regular fear works fine for this).
    I still disagree. Under your definitions, no CC's would fall under category A. All CC's would fall under category C. Take counter-spell for an example. You could say the same thing about it: I used it to lock down a healer (even further) so I could score a kill. It seems like people ONLY make the distinction when there is a chain CC going on.

    Lets look at another spell: Every man for himself. People could say its pure defense, or, I could manipulate the wording and say, "I popped EMFH so I could stun their healer, then blind him, thus making an offensive move.

    For me, its more like this:

    A) Offensive- Something that does damage, buffs my damage.

    B) Defensive - Something that keeps my enemy from doing damage. <-- This is where CC's fall. It keeps you alive, it guards them from "scoring" keeps them from doing damage.

    Healing is the only "questionable" thing for me. As you could say healing is offensive since it further your goals of staying alive to kill them.

    Another thing people forget is the trade off. You trade the cooldown of normal fear away, and in turn you have to pay a 10% Max HP price.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    I still disagree. Under your definitions, no CC's would fall under category A.
    Dispel protection mechanics are CC's that would fall under A. Such as the silence from removing unstable affliction or the horrify effect from removing Vampiric Touch. My guess is they want Blood fear to be more like those two. They seem to want blood fear to work as insurance: you pay some health in advance, and it potentially prevents you from losing much more health for the next 30 seconds.

  13. #73
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Spektroman View Post
    Dispel protection mechanics are CC's that would fall under A. Such as the silence from removing unstable affliction or the horrify effect from removing Vampiric Touch. My guess is they want Blood fear to be more like those two. They seem to want blood fear to work as insurance: you pay some health in advance, and it potentially prevents you from losing much more health for the next 30 seconds.
    Fair enough, I just don't think VT or the UA silence come with a whopping 20% health cost, and I don't think any ole pet or guardian can walk up and "waste it" either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Fair enough, I just don't think VT or the UA silence come with a whopping 20% health cost, and I don't think any ole pet or guardian can walk up and "waste it" either.
    Yup. Blood Fear fails miserably at it if the purpose is to be a melee deterrent.

    I think that in order to work, we need to both A) be able to choose who's going to eat it so it's not wasted on a pet and B) deny any defense being used offensively (such as cloak/ams/zerker) by the intended target.

    If we can get both of those conditions met, then I think it's fine for blood fear to have a health cost. One suggestion I saw (and posted here earlier today) was:

    Blood Fear 15% of maximum health
    Instant
    20s cooldown

    Afflicts an enemy with Blood Fear for 30s. The next time the enemy performs a melee attack, he/she gets horrified for 4s. 1 Charge.
    It has a short-ish cooldown, and a moderate health cost. It can't be used against healers, you get to choose who's going to eat it. I'd have a hard time choosing between this talent and Unbound Will.

    My only tweak would be change the duration of the debuff on the enemy to 10 seconds.

    The enemy is then also given a choice; he can simply perform no melee attack for 10 seconds, and he's free to keep attacking afterwards. 10 seconds should be enough for you and your partners to regroup/recover from CC.
    Last edited by Spektroman; 2013-01-08 at 04:12 AM.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Spektroman View Post
    The enemy is then also given a choice; he can simply perform no melee attack for 10 seconds, and he's free to keep attacking afterwards. 10 seconds should be enough for you and your partners to regroup/recover from CC.
    Warriors are very strong at the moment and they wont care about taking the fear, in fact they will probably thank you for speeding up how quickly you set them up to their execute range.

    Basically its pretty useless on the strongest melee class atm.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Gohzerlock View Post
    Exactly, how can gc or anyone for that matter argue this talent is ok as a defensive talent. It KILLS us, god forbid someone uses a trinket after should I use it twice and almost kill myself in half? Nevermind using a normal fear after is gonna be useless because of drs.

    Defensive talents really shouldn't be something that hurts you bad, kinda defeats the purpose.
    It has a cooldown, you can't spam it like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    I don't understand how anyone could argue that a fear spell is offensive at all. Which was GC's reasoning behind this massive nerf.
    I don't understand how you can't see Fear as an offensive spell. It prevents intervention and defence during your offensive action. The only time Fear is used defensively, is when it's used as a gap opener.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2013-01-08 at 09:58 AM.

  17. #77
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    It has a cooldown, you can't spam it like that.

    I don't understand how you can't see Fear as an offensive spell. It prevents intervention and defence during your offensive action. The only time Fear is used defensively, is when it's used as a gap opener.
    Please don't skip over everything I said. The basic intent for using fear is STILL to keep them away from you, to keep them from doing damage, or healing. With you definition, dodging an attack would be considered offensive, and so would every CC available, not to mention things like pally bubble etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Please don't skip over everything I said. The basic intent for using fear is STILL to keep them away from you, to keep them from doing damage, or healing. With you definition, dodging an attack would be considered offensive, and so would every CC available, not to mention things like pally bubble etc.
    Preventing heals is not defensive. End of story. It is offensive, and meant to land a kill.
    Abilities like Dark Bargain cannot be used offensively. So in the end, you do have 3 categories. If you want to omit healing from your reasoning then fine, but that's not how it works.


    Back to main topic: If each pet gave a specific buff like hunters, then wouldn't we feel that using one pet over another would still be mandatory in order to provide the missing buffs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nivrax View Post
    You may be on to something here... GC claimed Ret Paladins killed his parents. Could it be that Warlocks drained Celas' dog soul?

  19. #79
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenexis View Post
    Preventing heals is not defensive. End of story. It is offensive, and meant to land a kill.
    Abilities like Dark Bargain cannot be used offensively. So in the end, you do have 3 categories. If you want to omit healing from your reasoning then fine, but that's not how it works.


    Back to main topic: If each pet gave a specific buff like hunters, then wouldn't we feel that using one pet over another would still be mandatory in order to provide the missing buffs?
    Haha your logic is still very off. You are making it way too grey area, and your definitions conveniently leaves many holes and loop holes.

    If your enemy couldn't hurt you, would you still need to fear them? No. Again, you are totally forgetting how much intent plays in this.

    In basketball, would you say blocking a shot is defensive? Well, many times after you make a block, your team can recover the ball. So now blocking is offensive?

    Fear is most often used to keep yourself safe, or keep people away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenexis View Post
    Back to main topic: If each pet gave a specific buff like hunters, then wouldn't we feel that using one pet over another would still be mandatory in order to provide the missing buffs?
    I'd be ok with that if all of our pets did the exact same damage. At that point you choose your pet based on the buff you want, and the utility skill the pet provides (which is a choice hunters already make). I'd be fine with that.

    What I'm not fine with is having pets with varying amounts of DPS, and having to bring the worst possible pet (dps wise) just to bring an essential raid buff.

Posting Permissions

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