What happened to 2.3.1? User:IbbertTheGnome/Sig 18:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Skipped. Was reserved for any major issues in 2.3.0 :) Kirkburn talk contr 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What about Season 1 gladiator armour being purchasable with Honour?
Paladin Crusader Strike
I can't get the new Crusader Strike. It does 110% of weapon's dmg... So does this means if my weap has let's say for example 150-300dmg in the best way so 110/100*300=330?? And is it going to count as holy or physical dmg??--Grievous 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your math skills suck. 110 / 100 * 300 is 330. It is going to be physical damage. Zurr T ∙ C 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
OMG i added an extra 0 i just saw it -.- . However don't you think that 330 isn't a bit too low for an ultimate ? My weap dmg +330 for a weapon that makes max 300 dmg lol total suckage!--Grievous 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It was far better the old way - weap dmg +40% of your total holy dmg, it's far less dmg than the new crusader strike, but at least holy dmg can't get absorbed unlike physical dmg...--Grievous 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Though what really bothers me is not the simple fact that they changed the stats that affect Crusader Strike, but it seems as if they took no consideration for the people who worked so long and hard to get additional Holy damage gear for their Ret Pally to make this ability as potent as possible. Imagine playing as a Shaman and working your way through all of the major raids and finally acquiring your full Tier6 set for Restoration... only to find that in the very next patch Earth Shield isn't affected by all that +healing gear you just got but rather is dependent on +nature damage/general spell damage and now you have to either go back and do all the raids again, respec and drop Earth Shield, or just live with the fact that you now have a rather worthless 41-point ability until either a future patch fixes it or the next expansion comes out and you gear him appropriately with the new Tier sets. --Varteras 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree Varteras, although the changes were expected after seeing how the Season 3 Retribution paladin set looks in comparision to season two. Retribution paladins could be played on two ways, by stacking either spell damage or strenght and phisical stats. Since it's hard to gear a class that has such a range of needs when it comes to stats, Paladins seem to be slowly changed into more Strenght based class, with skill-based holy damage as an secondary weapon, rather than main way of doing damage. In other words, Crusader Strike is reworked to be more effective with Strenght paladins, just like Seal of Command. I find it good for "warrior-like" Paladins, and a slight nerf to spell damage ones, which will have to re-gear, sadly. And about the calculations, the "weapon damage" in the ability description is just as your white damage hit, so its after adding buffs, Strenght, and such. Pretty much Mortal Strike'ish.
Kefe 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that CS never -did- holy damage - it added 40% of your holy spell damage to the base damage and then the whole thing was done as physical. This is a buff for anyone who wasn't running full spell damage/tier gear, which is mostly everyone. The largest problem is a lack of reworking on the existing T4/T5/T6/S1/S2 gear, leaving us with mostly ineffective spell damage that we didn't really need in the first place as melee stats, even with the old CS, -always- added more damage point for point. Also, weapon damage formulas work off of the displayed damage in your melee tab as well as armor reductions and other such buffs - it's not just based off of weapon tooltip damage range. It's only a nerf if you didn't understand how the ability worked. User:Velrynne/Sig 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For a sec there i thought they were going to make the paladin better at pvp, but i can see blizzard wants to leave paladins plate armoured priests. Crusader Strike just got a bit stronger by the 4 second cd reduction and yet again another nerf. Retribution paladins must 1000% collect items for extra holy dmg because a lot of things depend on it (almost everything). Sanctity aura - increased holy dmg, seal of command's (the main pvp seal for me) second hit is a 70% weapon dmg calculated as a holy dmg, unleashing seal of command also depends on holy dmg, also unleashing seal of crusader to an enemy target is one of the most important things you have to do in pvp, because that's how you increase all your holy dmg sources, vengeance increases holy dmg made as well, seal of vengeanse depends on holy dmg and blizzard is telling me crusader strike shouldn't get bonus from holy dmg because.... I'd like to compare the 2 Crusader Strikes. Crusader Strike (old) - recieves bonus from holy dmg and physical dmg, 40% holy dmg + 100% weap dmg(calculated as a holy dmg), +10% from sanctity aura to the holy dmg, +190 holy dmg from unleashed seal of crusader,3 times stacked vengeance - +15% holy dmg, +3% increased holy dmg from crusade! Crusader Strike (new) - ONLY from physical dmg, ONLY 110% weap dmg, ONLY benefits if it's improved sanctity aura(old-both), ONLY benefits if it's improved seal of crusader(old-both), ONLY benefits +15% physical dmg from vengeance(old-both), ONLY benefits +3% physical dmg from crusade(old-both). And the most important part - noone can can reduce the holy dmg they take (except criticals which are reduced by resilience) but we all know you take less physical dmg if you have more armor... So the point of all this is retribution paladins are going to reduce their numbers again (as if they weren't few enough). And if there is anyone who likes to be laught at because of being a retri pala should be a hybrid (no way this crusader strike would be accepted by any paladin). Pathetic, simply pathetic..... holy warrior my a**, plate healer forever. Keep up the good nerfing job blizzard, oh and while they are at it why don't they make the retribution tree a second holy tree, that way everyone would be happy--Grievous 17:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Removing Blue Question Marks From The Mini-map
Is there any particular reason why Blizzard gave us this neat little function in one patch and then removes it in the very next one? --Varteras 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I assume that people complained that blue question marks were too numerous, making nearby yellows hard to see. NYET! 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I could see that happening but that's where those nifty little zoom-in/zoom-out buttons on the mini-map come into play. Sometimes I would forget that I had just completed a repeatable quest and those question marks reminded me. Oh well. Not a big deal but it's always a little sad to see a neat idea go away because of a couple whiners. --Varteras 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Blue question marks in Netherwing Ledge were getting out of hand, though.. User:Velrynne/Sig 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- They should've added an option in the interface to turn off quest markers on the minimap. Senjuro
- Or just made the icons smaller... Instead of the 100 yard long (in proportion on the minimap) question marks, small dots would have worked fine, and not been as much of a problem. Netherwing would still be a problem, tho... --Azaram 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and I would like to have even grey marks for easier searching of old quests I'd like to do. Could this be done per API or even some existing addon? --Lynos 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No Love for Priests?
Anyone know what this is about? Are these only temporary patch notes, or are priests really getting absolutely nothing? --Myssisilverpants 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Minor patches are bug fix and important change patches - do not expect changes to all classes in them. Kirkburn talk contr 00:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose that makes sense... Thanks for the input --Myssisilverpants 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some classes just aren't in need of any changes. Warlocks for example really don't need any changes at this point so that's why there hasn't really been any. Changing a class just for the sake of changing it could lead to alot of issues.--Varteras 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- O.O" And you're saying priests don't need some changes? I understand that some classes may need much more than priests, but the thing is that our healing capabilities are being overtaken by the other hybrid classes, and our dps can be good but not as good as others. I find it much easier to swallow Kirk's minor patch reason. --Myssisilverpants 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Crying about perceived "class balance" issues is not going to do any good at all here on the wiki. Take suggestions to the official Suggestions Forum or the official Priest forum for your respective locale. Thanks. --User:Kaydeethree/Sig 02:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hold on, I wasn't "crying" about anything. I was simply commenting on the previous commentor's comment, nor did that require such a rude response. --Myssisilverpants 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- The simple truth is that patches don't exist to address every perceived or even existant balance issue, and especially not minor patches. Sometimes, things take longer than one minor revision. A lot longer. User:Velrynne/Sig 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well... Guess we will not receive anything new until the new level cap extension. I still want to have a "Lightform" appart of the Shadowform (wich I don't use), like druids have a morph for each talent tree. That will be more even for the priest's talent scales if we don't like discipline nor shadow (at least is what I think). ---- File:IconLarge Troll Male.gif [1] , the Necroshadowmancer 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The feral tree doesn't have a special form with it... just the same bear, cats, birds and sabretoothed sea lions everyone gets. Lightform would be kind of cool, though... --Azaram 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- My biggest issue with the Holy tree is still that mana regeneration is a little bit to deep in the Discipline tree, and of course, that both trees are very "unimpressive" to me. A light form would be interesting thing (at least for fun), but what effect could it have? --Lynos 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Brooms
"The various Hallow’s End broom mounts now have their proper real-time (rather than game-time) duration of 14 days".... so much for using it a quarter of the year ... oh well -- Coobra 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- typically they'd spoil the fun. on the other hand, i bet quite a few were farming them, sending them to unplayed alts and releasing them one-by-one if one'd expire.. and that's most likely not what blizzard intended. User:Taurmindo/sig 14:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, we could still keep doing that, as while it's in the mail time doesn't expire...well anyway, it was a nice idea, and now that they have the model for it, they could create one for perma-use...maybe for enchanters--Coobra 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: That is so lame, have like 3 of the mounts in my bank.. I think I better sell them asap! - Vladinator
wtf!?
rogues get great stuff while warlocks get partialy nerfed!? wtf!? -Gnomez 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Refrain from it since patches are prone to "nerf" and "un-nerf" ad libitum when ppl complain on the official boards. But why isn't OK to drop an oppinion? --File:IconLarge Troll Male.gif Ravenore , the Necroshadowmancer 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)