PTR Notes: Angry tailors vs. Blizzard
Sorry, clothie tailors -- today's not your lucky day. As Mike noted early, word from the PTR is that two of the BOP tailoring sets -- Frozen Shadoweave and Spellfire -- have been significantly nerfed, at least according to their users. As a set, Spellfire gains 29 int but loses 34 damage and 5 spell crit rating, while Frozen Shadoweave loses 34 damage and gets 24 int. The stats on the Primal Mooncloth set seem to be unchanged.
As expected, tailors are not happy about this. While it was widely acknowledged that some of the crafted sets were superior to Tiers 4 and 5, and were a big reason why mages, warlocks and shadow priests were out-DPSing melee, many tailors thought buffing the raid sets instead was the solution. Selected comments from the threads include "gg blizzard i hate you all", "this is a pathetic attempt by blizz to fix their raid game", and "This patch makes me want to kill a cat. Lots of cats. Kittens, even." However, a few casters are okay with the changes, mostly because they calculate it as a minor loss of DPS in exchange for int.
I'm not a clothie or a tailor, so I really don't have an informed reaction to this. What do you think? Is this a needed change, or is it a bait and switch for tailors who put a lot of money into their profession?
Update: Looks like angry tailors win.
Filed under: Mage, Priest, Warlock, Tailoring, Patches, Analysis / Opinion, News items






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Paradoxic May 1st 2007 2:34PM
Nerf reversed!
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=100430525&pageNo=1&sid=1#0
Yay Blizz! Sets will remain.
Greg May 1st 2007 2:35PM
It's being reverted.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=100430525&sid=1&pageNo=1
For those who can't get on the forums:
Eyonix: The changes players have noticed on the public test realms concerning select tailor-crafted items, such as the Spellfire set, will be reverted before the patch is live on production realms.
This means your item sets will remain just as they are now.
Also note, to address the feedback we've been reading this morning concerning the idea of simply “buffing tier 4 and 5 equivalent slots”, the reason we do not is because improving those 3 slots for tier 4 and 5 would force a change to all other tier 4 and 5 items as well (weapons, melee sets, everything).
Ogon May 1st 2007 2:48PM
Thats pretty relieving... I put about 3500-5000 gold into my set getting skill from 1 to 375 then getting the mats, i could have my epic mount right now but i went with tailoring instead.
Good call i was pissed for a second
Scruffy May 1st 2007 3:04PM
More and more, Blizz is listening to not the reasoned, patient suggestions but to (well deserved) anger.
Time to stage a holy and discipline priest riot?
ahoke May 1st 2007 3:07PM
wow, the tailors get up in arms and blizz caves.
the shammies have been crying foul forever and they don't hear nuthin.
Pritchard May 1st 2007 3:12PM
It was a God-awful change and I expected no less than complete outrage by the tailors of the game.
Anyone else feel Blizz is run by monkeys?
And to those few posters who said these changes to tailoring were warranted... HA HA!
Dabura May 1st 2007 4:22PM
Blizzard should bloody nerf these sets. The set bonus on spellfire is just like being an arcane mage which kinda ruins being one. But anyway I can outdps all the mages and locks and sps with them sets anyway.
nubular May 1st 2007 3:22PM
I really don't understand the tailors who were OK with the changes saying, 'but we gain int, it's not so bad, it's only a minor loss of DPS.' I mean wtf is that?? I've seen people spend a shit load of gold for an epic gem that will increase their damage by a couple of points but losing 34 damage is ok? Ugh, stupid Blizzard fanboy apologists.
larsiezwei May 1st 2007 4:26PM
omfg! Thank god no more nerf. I just got the set this week complete.
Shandar May 1st 2007 11:03PM
I hate to see anyone get nerfed, But I have a hard time having any sypathy for tailors or blacksmiths when both craft items that are so amazingly superior to anything that can be crafted by engineers.
Lori May 1st 2007 3:31PM
IMO changing stats on items is a always bad idea for the stated reasons. People make decisions on gear stats and they should not be changed at a later time.
Romulox May 1st 2007 3:35PM
Wow, so tailos QQ for a couple of hours, and they keep their OP sets, while ENGINEERS still get crap after asking reasonably for months. I wonder which professions Blizzard cares about?
Dont get me wrong, It would suck to have devoted so much time and effort into those sets, and have them nerfed, but at least you had something to begin with. Engineering havent had anything until this coming patch, and its one item that is equal to T6, while tailors get an entire set.
Yippster May 1st 2007 3:47PM
Ever consider that those sets might be overpowered? Crafted sets superior to tier 4 and 5? I mean, come on, why don't us melee get anything like that?
Some people can't handle a nerf man it blows my mind!
If Blizzard did anything wrong here its give in to all the crybaby tailors.
E May 1st 2007 3:50PM
Tailors FTW.
Shamans FTL. Still & again.
cluffer May 1st 2007 3:54PM
The nerf should stand.
It is downright stupid to create a crafted item set that now "requires" a warlock or mage to take up tailoring to be competitive with every other lock or mage.
Blizz needs some balance to all non-gathering professions, blacksmithing and tailoring have become mandatory for certain classes.
For christ sake, at least make them BoE so we don't all have to do the lemming imitation. Even Spellstrike has a friggin' tailor bonus on it.
Bunkai May 1st 2007 3:55PM
I think Blizz just opened up a can of worms by caving on their decision completely, and not just making modifications to the changes.
A complete reversal admits a wrong and shows that someone wasn't paying as much attention as they should have been.
I really don't care one way or another, because I'm neither a tailor or a squishy that would benefit from the set, but a cave by Blizz is bad idea in this situation, IMO.
It's only going to bring about this kind of immature behavior by players in the future when they get upset about a change to their class or profession.
They should get more strict about listening to reasonable requests and suggestions vs. the 3rd-grade whining.
I HATE whiners, cry-babies, and pouters... they are the bane of our society in all walks of life.
Jim May 1st 2007 4:05PM
"The nerf should stand."
Then I want to be able to trade in my Frozen Shadoweave set for an epic mount. Give your head a shake. Once you purchase an item, spell, talent or whatever, it should be nerf-proof or fully refundable.
cluffer May 1st 2007 4:13PM
@14
Then as a mage, I want to be able to trade my 3oo alchemy for 300 tailoring. I made the decision to go alchemy based on all information available at the time. The introduction of "mandatory" BOE tailoring items, as good as Tier 5, was a mistake and recognizing and fixing mistakes is what a smart company does.
Never before has there been such an imbalance among professions. I don't get a spot in the guild Kara run because I don't have spellfire, other mages do.
Blizzard has always reviewed and changed items on the fly. Give your head a shake if you think this is something new.
Yippster May 1st 2007 4:13PM
I love all the "oh it was overpowered when we got it so it needs to stay that way" remarks I see here, #14 is a good example.
Does that mean that the illumination nerf should only effect pallies who haven't leveled up enough to learn the skill in the first place?
Does that mean that the inc changes to sap shouldn't take effect until rogues pay for a respec?
Does that mean the inc nerf to alchemy should only effect flasks and elixirs brewed after 2.1 goes live?
I think you see where I'm going with this, enough said.
NH2 May 1st 2007 4:19PM
I'm glad the change isn't making it live. It's taken a horrendous amount of farming to even reach 375. I'm 3 combines short on the vest too.
/reached Exalted with the Scryers and still didn't have enough cloth to make it to 375... Bleh.
//gouges eyes out from excessive farming.