Diminishing returns on silencing effects repealed
After further discussion about the change in patch 2.3 which adds diminishing returns to silencing effects, we've decided to revert the change. Though we do feel that being chain school locked is a problem and plan to address it at some point in the future, we weren't comfortable with the amount of testing this particular change received. (Eyonix)
I really hate to say this, but it almost looks like these forum "revolts" are working. Earlier in this patch cycle we had Paladins making thread after thread about threat reduction, and they got it. Now, Shamans have beat the stuffing out of their own little corner of WoWdom, and poof, here's the change they hated so much removed. Is this really a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease, or is it more that the change was bad and that's the cause of both the revolt and the repeal?
[thanks, Hybrys]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
PhyerFly Nov 5th 2007 3:05PM
Whats sad is that it takes a massive community response that ends in account termination for Blizzard to acknowledge that they've really F'd up.
Nogun Nov 5th 2007 3:07PM
More crying than Cheering and Blizzard folds.
déjà vu
eelboy Nov 5th 2007 3:08PM
and what about mages revolts? ice block is still 45 seconds
Shalmaneser Nov 5th 2007 3:08PM
I want to say that all the complaining on the forums is out of place, I think it signals a sort of balance when every class think they are getting the shaft, but since Blizzard has been terrible at actually acknowledging constructive feedback from players the players feel they have to do something large to get noticed.
Fizzle Nov 5th 2007 3:08PM
If the squeeky wheel got the Blizzard grease, mages and rogues would both have every ability in the game 2x as powerful as anyone else, and be able to solo Arthas before he's even in the game.
Brass Nov 5th 2007 3:09PM
the problem is that this wasn;t even a core issue for shaman in 2.3, sure, it was a problem, but as an elemental shaman, the major problem i have with 2.3 is that the promised dps buff turned out to be a signifigant nerf
(and no, added longevity does not make up for it.)
MrFoof Nov 5th 2007 3:09PM
The reason why it was repealed because in some situations, using Earth Shock would actively sabotage your arenamates by effectively shortening the total spell lockout because of how diminishing returns works.
To quote Gurgthock from Elitist Jerks:
It's a brutal change -- in 2v2 where you only have one ES target, they may as well have doubled ES's cooldown, because unless you voluntarily abstain from waiting 6+ seconds after it has cooled down every time, you give your opponent immunity to the interrupt. And mixing in some earth shocks with your partner's pummels/kicks on warlocks trying to drain you? Good luck.
And in larger settings like 5v5 alongside classes like mage or warlock, shamans will basically need to stick interrupting a tertiary target (like lightning bolts from an elemental shaman or something) because shocking a primary interrupt target like a healer is actively sabotaging the team.
Case 1:
0:00 -- Healer begins to cast a heal
0:01 -- Mage Counterspells (8sec lockout)
0:09 -- Lockout ends, Healer can cast again
Case 2:
0:00 -- Healer begins to cast a heal
0:01 -- Shaman Earth Shocks (2sec lockout)
0:03 -- Lockout ends. Healer can cast again, begins to cast another heal
0:04 -- Mage Counterspells (4sec lockout due to DR)
0:08 -- Lockout ends. Healer can cast again
Boom Nov 5th 2007 3:32PM
"I really hate to say this, but it almost looks like these forum "revolts" are working."
Why do you really hate to say this? If a group of players "revolt" about something, and then a change is made that is related to what the revolt was about, does that somehow invalidate the change?
Eliah Hecht Nov 5th 2007 3:34PM
Boom: No, of course not. My problem is that I don't like the tactic of spamming, and therefore if it actually works to get the players what they want, that's a bit upsetting to me, because it'll encourage people to do it again in the future.
Doomkin Nov 5th 2007 3:39PM
Eliah: There's a sort of implied working here. We don't know (and will never know) if "revolts" work.
It's unfortunate because Im not a fan of that type of spamming tactic either, but the optics of the situation imply that it did impact Blizzard's decision regardless of the actuality of that.
onyx.ceilican Nov 5th 2007 3:45PM
So a bunch of people gathering together to signal their displeasure of an event is considered spamming?
Kinda sounds like a protest to me
If players (your cash cow) start to 'revolt' about a change and it is ignored... how many thimes do you think they could do that before said 'cash cows' decide to moove (pun intended) on to greener pastures (ok, another cow reference).
If a lot of players don't like something, they are not spamming they are showing that the change is not good and want it fixed. That sounds like the feedback Blizzard supposedly wants but does not seem to look for.
Naix Nov 5th 2007 3:45PM
"If the squeeky wheel got the Blizzard grease, mages and rogues would both have every ability in the game 2x as powerful as anyone else"
Mages, Warlocks and Rogues should have the highest DPS in the game hands down. The trade off to being squishy is supposed to be superior damage. Think of a sniper vs a tank.
Zhalseran Nov 5th 2007 3:50PM
as much as I think the change should never have hapend in the first place, I do not at all like how this played out. This is Blizzard's game, and when a big company like Blizzard starts caveing to a bunch of whiners on their official forums, something is not right. If someone has an issue with it they should bring it to Blizzard's attention and suggest what can be done about it, not endlessly spam the forum. If thats what happens when people don't like a change in a monumental patch that almost everyone is super excited about, then I have even less faith in the WoW community than ever
Ahoni Nov 5th 2007 3:53PM
I yawn. While yawning, the phone rings. WoW logic dictactes that yawning causes the phone to ring.
Maybe the shaman whine-fest had something to do with them reverting the change, and maybe it didn't. You don't know. You can't know. Stop pretending forum whiners have any influence. These are unrelated events. Move on, nothing to see here.
Eliah Hecht Nov 5th 2007 3:54PM
Ahoni: Did you read my post? I clearly addressed that it may have been correlation without causation.
MechChef Nov 5th 2007 3:56PM
I declare spam-revolts fair-game when the implementation they're revolting against is poorly thought through. The proposed Repair Bot 110G was also subject to it's own "Revolt." As a result, Blizz conceded to the angry mob and changed it. Again, I feel the revolt was justified as the original model was complete BS. The issue at hand is the "fix" they're trying to apply had the potential to cause more harm than good. Again, Blizz conceded because the angry mob had a point.
Again, if mob tactics worked, warlocks would be nerfed back to the stone-age.
Rasnarok Nov 5th 2007 4:02PM
It's wonderful to see Blizzard reacted so quickly to the Shaman rebellion. Although I never play Shaman, I did agree that this upcoming change was bad and it's good to see they got through to Blizzard.
Matthew Rossi Nov 5th 2007 4:05PM
Warlocks are not squishy. Mages and Rogues should FAR outDPS locks. Locks should be about as good as Hunters, the other pet class.
Jagoex Nov 5th 2007 4:06PM
This is definitely disappointing. A change to Silence and Interrupts that is comparable to what other forms of CC have already received, and that force players to make better, smarter decisions that will improve their PvP play as a result, and Bliz folds.
Kalgan must have a Shaman alt we don't know about.
http://jagoex.blogspot.com
Hybrys Nov 5th 2007 4:07PM
Yays! Got my first Tip used!