What's not to get? A lot of people, when faced with passives and actives on a class they're not that experienced with, will go with the passive. Same deal if they're not that bothered about maxing performance and just take some random person's advice, or whichever is most attractive at first glance. I do it myself on classes I enjoy but don't actually care about doing particularly well on (Hunter, Lock, DK mainly). I don't think I've seen a single other Prot out and about - and I pretty much always inspect - using a talent setup that isn't DP&HS so it's reasonable to assume that the majority will go for the one that looks easiest on paper; the passive.
It's smarter to just give those people the best setup possible for those "lazy" choices than tell/expect them to take a talent and gear setup they don't have the knowledge to pull off. In the end they'll probably do better using HS/DP/Mastery effectively than using Seraphim/HA(or SW)/Crit poorly.
http://www.wowpopular.com/Paladin/Protection
Last edited by mmoc4359933d3d; 2015-01-10 at 01:05 AM.
What's not to get is assuming that someone taking a talent automatically renders this person competent enough to understand the nuances of that talent, especially when it's a thing to armory hump better players. And obviously players will take talents for idiosyncratic reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with armories or their skill levels. It's one thing to say that AMR defaults to HS since it is the most popular talent and another to assume players talenting Seraphim understand what it is they're doing.
- - - Updated - - -
I really like that combo for survival. On our M Brackenspore attempts I've yet to die to either the add or the boss; not having to dump 5 HP in Seraphim allows me way more flexibility to react to incoming damage. To be fair I also yelled at our healers pretty hard before pulling.
Last edited by trystero; 2015-01-10 at 02:37 AM.
I misinterpreted your complaint a bit since you quoted the whole thing, but take a look at the wowpopular link and you'll see basically everyone is using HS. I'm fairly confident the kind of person who uses Seraphim without knowing how or why is going to get crushed, decide Seraphim is worse than HS, then go back to their comfort zone. I think it's reasonable to assume the majority of people using Seraphim long-term actually know what they're doing, or will try to understand it better and end up in threads like this one.
Theck worded it a bit too absolutely maybe, that's all. All I think he was getting at is that there's more benefit in using his time to make sure people gear for Holy Shield properly since so many use it, rather than worrying about catering to the small amount of Seraphim players that aren't clued in, or those that are simply too bad to actually get the benefit out of it.
Last edited by mmoc4359933d3d; 2015-01-10 at 03:25 AM.
That was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's more or less correct.
1) Holy Shield is by far the more popular talent. Hence, biasing the defaults towards HS makes sense.
2) If you take Seraphim and play very badly, then your best bet is to stack stats that are good at passive mitigation, because you suck. What are those stats? Mastery and Stamina, the same ones the Holy Shield weights push. So these weights are also good for "bad players using Seraphim."
3) If you take Seraphim and want to get the most out of it, presumably you're doing at least some research as to how to do so. In which case you should have stumbled across stat weights somewhere, and should be able to enter them yourself.
I mean, the question is a bit pedantic anyway. If you're playing like shit, you're going to perform like garbage regardless of what you stack. And the stat weights generated using a model that plays properly are unlikely to be at all accurate in the first place. At that point, does it really matter what stat you prioritize? Because it's not even clear what the correct stat is if you're playing severely sub-optimally.
Last edited by Theck; 2015-01-10 at 03:34 AM.
6.1 has buffs all around for Prot Paladin... am I the only one who thinks its not needed?
You're welcome! Do keep in mind the latest download has tweaked the graphical user interface, so there might be slight differences. It shouldn't be too big of an issue sorting it out though.
Definitely. The changes to GC and our mastery in particular pop out. I'm really hoping they either find a way to make haste worthwhile for us or they swap our attunement to mastery or something.
The datamining finds changes in the tooltip text, so it will pick up pure tooltip changes as well as new buffs/nerfs/tweaks. I'm not sure about all the AP scaling changes, but I'd imagine everything is old changes where the tooltips just haven't been updated since we haven't had a real patch. I doubt they'd buff prot DPS right now.
Warning - while you were typing 50 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
So divine bulwarks tooltip was actually wrong and currently only gives 4% dmg reduc from sotr? I know you guys have been saying that many tooltips were wrong but I don't remember anyone actually listing which abilities had incorrect tooltips. Also insert obligatory jaden smith quote: If our tooltips aren't real how can we be real?
it's been 4% since they changed our mastery coefficient. It's like a month old change, they increased the base dmg reduction from 20% to 25% and reduced how much % you get from mastery
Warning - while you were typing 50 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Were they all tooltip changes then?
Don't get me wrong, I'm just happy they aren't nerfing us lol.
Yes. All of those are tooltip changes to reflect the hotfixes we've gotten since SoO.
Or more accurately, they're actually moving the hotfixes to the actual spell data so that the tooltips reflect the correct values. The way they've done hotfixes in WoD is... irritating at best, in that they stuff them into a bunch of "Hotfix" spells rather than modifying the spell data for each spell directly.
In any event, there are no buffs for us in the patch notes whatsoever. At least, not yet.