Tier 11 2 piece set bonus useless for atonement spec

[Koromon]

I am a full time atonement healer and I am really disappointed with the fact that the 2 piece set bonus does absolutely nothing for me. Over a full 3 hour raid night, I cast my Heal spell zero times. I really enjoy the spec and would like to see some thought put into the 2 piece bonus. I see from other post that blizz is addressing the 4 piece bonus issue but have not see anything regarding the 2 piece bonus. Are there any atonement spec priest who actually use their Heal spell? How about giving my Smite a 5% crit buff.

[Kelesti]

I am a full time atonement healer and I am really disappointed with the fact that the 2 piece set bonus does absolutely nothing for me. Over a full 3 hour raid night, I cast my Heal spell zero times. I really enjoy the spec and would like to see some thought put into the 2 piece bonus. I see from other post that blizz is addressing the 4 piece bonus issue but have not see anything regarding the 2 piece bonus. Are there any atonement spec priest who actually use their Heal spell? How about giving my Smite a 5% crit buff.

How about the 2pc isn't anything desirable for Holy or non-Atonement Discipline priests either, and you can build other non-set pieces that would be better itemized.

The draw is 4pc, not 2.

But saying you're a "Full time atonement healer"... you might want to rescind that.

[blitzkrieg3002]

the 2 set bonus is pretty garbage for all speccs really and should be addressed

[Kelesti]

the 2 set bonus is pretty garbage for all speccs really and should be addressed

Or, we'll be replacing it in a few months, and it really shouldn't be affecting how you gear anyways?

[[-Spiritus-]]

At the expense of being obnoxiously pithy, 1st tier of the expansion is 1st tier.

Its all about managing expectations. Do you want your T11 2pc to be so awesome that T12,13,14 2pc pales in comparison? Or would you rather the T12 bonus come out and say, "cool! that's better than T11! I want that!" The developers generally believe that the 1st tier of gear should be not be perfectly itemized, nor provide the best set bonuses of the expansion in order to allow for subsequent tiers to have room to seem more powerful, beyond the linear ilvl budget increase.

Also, as Kel said, I seriously doubt the developers will ever design a T-bonus that is made specifically for the "full time atonement healer," as it is a playstyle choice that is purposely designed to be suboptimal [the full-time part, not the atonement part].

[zito]

Also, as Kel said, I seriously doubt the developers will ever design a T-bonus that is made specifically for the "full time atonement healer," as it is a playstyle choice that is purposely designed to be suboptimal [the full-time part, not the atonement part].

It was never meant to be a viable play-style in the first place, but it just turned out to be one regardless of what blizzards intentions of it.

[[-Spiritus-]]

It was never meant to be a viable play-style in the first place, but it just turned out to be one regardless of what blizzards intentions of it.

"Full time" atonement healing is not currently, nor ever will ever purposely designed to be, the most optimal playstyle for a Disc healer in any role, in any encounter [barring another pre-change Halfus encounter]. That isn't to say you couldn't do it, it just means that a set bonus will not be designed for it.

[PromiscuousPenguin]

Much as I agree with what both Kelesti and Spiritus are saying concerning the appeal being focused on the 4pc, that there will not be something designed for full time attonement priests and that anyway there should be no such things as a full time attonement priest..takes breath...I do not see why expecting a valid two part bonus is too much of an ask.

One of you mentions that we will be replacing it soon (when is that not the case) and the other puts forwards that bad itemization and design is common practice for the 1st lvl of tier. Healing as a Disc priest I do not use heal much in raids, maybe slightly more in 5 mans. So justifying bad design with "it will be better later" or "we do not want to make other tiers look pale in comparison" is something I find rather disappointing. Why is expecting each bonus from tier to be proportionally good and then better as we move up one level not the norm?

It doesn't have to be op, its only the 1st 2p of the expansion but pls at least make it relevant. If you have a look at other class's perfectly decent 2 part bonus's have been allocated.

[Yakushi]

i think the 2set bonus is rather nice for your average healing priest. keep in mind this is actually the healing set, and smite is a damage ability even tho you can technically heal with it through atonement. think about it, why would a healing priest have a buff for a damage spell?

[Bigslick]

It doesn't have to be op, its only the 1st 2p of the expansion but pls at least make it relevant. If you have a look at other class's perfectly decent 2 part bonus's have been allocated.

Generalizing that 2pc bonuses are 'perfectly decent' as a rule is faulty, and in some cases they are even worse. Take for example a feral tank's 2P Bonus. The additional DPS provided by this is minor and pretty irrelevant given that the role of a tank is to hold threat, not to dps, and completely irrelevant in that threat is a complete non-issue in current content. By contrast, the 4pc bonus - the real prize and goal in obtaining tier gear - for healers is quite potent compared to that provided to other roles.

[PromiscuousPenguin]

Generalizing that 2pc bonuses are 'perfectly decent' as a rule is faulty, and in some cases they are even worse. Take for example a feral tank's 2P Bonus. The additional DPS provided by this is minor and pretty irrelevant given that the role of a tank is to hold threat, not to dps, and completely irrelevant in that threat is a complete non-issue in current content. By contrast, the 4pc bonus - the real prize and goal in obtaining tier gear - for healers is quite potent compared to that provided to other roles.

Did i mention as a rule 2p bonus are good and not ours? The is a difference between others and all others. Now maybe to better suit you i could edit what i said to "some are perfectly fine". It being even worse in your opinion for some other class's does nothing but go with what i was saying.

Now try honing your reading skills once again in my op, I love my 4p bonus and am v happy with, what frustrates me is the poor justifications given for bad design.

[Bigslick]

Did i mention as a rule 2p bonus are good and not ours? The is a difference between others and all others. Now maybe to better suit you i could edit what i said to "some are perfectly fine". It being even worse in your opinion for some other class's does nothing but go with what i was saying.

Now try honing your reading skills once again in my op, I love my 4p bonus and am v happy with, what frustrates me is the poor justifications given for bad design.

Not going to get into a pissing contest with you, but you wrote what your wrote, not what you paraphrased yourself as saying in your response. You said other classes were allocated "perfectly decent 2 part bonus's." The implication being that you feel the healing priest 2pc bonus is notably less, therefore not perfectly decent. If you choose a subspec of healing that does not take advantage of the bonus, or choose not to use it regularly in your healing style regardless, that is your choice.

Bad design implies that it offers no real functionality which is not valid for most healing priests that will occasionally use Heal despite it holding virtually no value for one specific subspec; if anything, the 2pc tanking bonuses across the board could argue more viably about bad design. I don't make great use of Heal in my discipline spec (non-attonement), but still use it frequently enough that I appreciate having it - though if it weren't for the 4pc bonus I'd be using offset gear and foregoing the 2pc. This is in line with many other classes, and as others have noted the 2pc bonus, especially in the first tier of content, is simply a small reward en route to the 4pc and not intended to be a 'must-have.'

[[-Spiritus-]]

I do not use heal much in raids, maybe slightly more in 5 mans.

When tank healing as disc, I find myself using Heal more that I thought I would [even in HMs], as it is the cheapest way to keep up inspiration when damage is light and builds DA on crits [which the 2pc assists in], which can stack substantially given some good tank avoidance. I'll admit a 2pc that is only really valid for a very small percentage of actions taken by one spec in one role doesn't constitute a knock-your-socks-off bonus, however, it isn't completely garbage across the board.

So justifying bad design with "it will be better later" or "we do not want to make other tiers look pale in comparison" is something I find rather disappointing. Why is expecting each bonus from tier to be proportionally good and then better as we move up one level not the norm?

You may find it disappointing, but it is a common practice in game design for many successful products. Also, it isn't "bad" design, it just isn't perfectly itemized on purpose. "Bad" design would be hit or strength on Priest healing tier. If the first tier was perfectly itemized, and then the second tier was itemized the same, but had a 10% static increase across all stats, people wouldn't be very excited about upgrading. Woo. 110INT instead of 100INT. Start the parade. However, when, for most priests, CRIT is an "undesirable" stat, that is on 3 pieces of tier, but is on only two the next tier, you feel like that next set is more that 10% "better," even though the ilvl budget is proportionally a 10% increase.

The same goes for 2pc/4pc bonuses. For the sake of argument, lets say the final tier bonuses of the expansion are 95% desirable. If the first tier bonuses are 50% desirable, that only leaves a 45% increase is desirability to spread out between the middle tiers. However, if the first tier bonuses are 30% desirable, it leaves 65% desirability to play with. In this way, the developers can manage expectations so each tier in succession feels more powerful than the flatlined 10% item budget increase, which, IMO, would be incredibly dull.

The problem with asking for something to be "proportionally good" while looking at only the first member of a set is the lack of comparison for the entire set.

[PromiscuousPenguin]

to be reposted sighz

[Bigslick]

You chose to read my post in a way that is not correct, there was no paraphrasing just an attempt at making you understand something. You didn't no big concern.

A spell which is even occasionally cast by the majority of priest healers in the performance of their role which clearly benefits that performance is relevant, which you indirectly stated it was not by saying "please make it relevant" (this is a pretty clear indication that you feel it is not, as you did not say "please make it more relevant). I apologize that I didn't read what you meant to say, but rather was only capable of reading that which you did actually say in your post.

I am interested by your "sub spec" statement of healing though. I didn't know Disc was a sub specc. Pls elaborate

To be clear, in case you or others have a different interpretation, I define a sub spec as one of two or more distinct paths that have substantial impact on one's optimal performance style for that spec in a single tree. Heal is not used by discipline priests who invest into evangelism / archangel / atonement; it is not used by those who spec into those talents. As atonement and non-atonement healers have very different (and fairly cookie-cutter) tree layouts and each operates in a manner quite different from one another but generally consistent with others who opt for that path, I consider either to be a sub spec.

Now take a second to read the answer after yours and you might appreciate that as Spiritus said "I'll admit a 2pc that is only really valid for a very small percentage of actions taken by one spec in one role doesn't constitute a knock-your-socks-off bonus". But i do not blame your lack of knowledge in priest healing. It is not a choice just what is required.

Sadly once again back to your reading skills, as stated before i perfectly appreciate that the 4p is what we are after but I still do not feel that a relevant 2p is too much to ask.

Each priest brings their own healing style to the game. I suspect most disc priests of the non-atonement brand would agree that Heal has a place in their healing, especially in tank healing. While GH might be a more frequent option, Heal is a superior option when the tank is at / near full health and you are simply looking for an efficient means to maintain Inspiration and stack DA. Holy priests use it quite a bit less, and some might opt not to use it at all (10- vs 25-man raid size being a heavy factor), but it still can have relevance there.

Also, regarding my 'lack of knowledge' in priest healing you indicate, sorry, it slipped my mind that I only started playing a priest last Thursday and am still trying to get a feral spec to work for it, but to no avail... I'm not going to offer evidence of my priest knowledge based on length of play or content completed as I don't thing an extensive amount of either is required to understand the underpinnings of the class, but by the same token I don't think that those who do see those factors as being defining of one's knowledge would see my history serving as a foundation for the argument that I'm uneducated on the class. Nothing constructive has ever developed in the forum by trash talking, and you don't elevate your argument or any respect that at least I might be inclined to offer your opinions, whether I agree with them or not. One's knowledge of the class and mechanics is more accurately pinned by what we advocate and support with facts and evidence, not by slander, so please do us all the courtesy of keeping it out of the forums.

[PromiscuousPenguin]

You see the difference between you and me Bigslick is that I was originally giving my opinion and putting forward how I felt about my 2p and 4p that I use every day. You seem to be intent on having the last word in a pointless argument.

Your sub healing statement once elaborated upon make sense to an extent. See this impressive skill I have just shown? When you ask someone to elaborate on a debatable statement and they do, there is no point or interest into looking for a reason to not accept what they are putting forward or advocating that that can not be in any way what they originally meant. Maybe something to work on, pedantic obsessiveness has never been very elegant.

I did however enjoy reading the last line of your last post and am AMAZED by all the relevant evidence that you provided in each of your posts... owh wait no..

Our point of views clearly differ and since I value yours as much as you value mine, I suggest that we end this conversation here.