Skip to Content
5-13-2009 @ 4:28PM
Moonduh, that's not entirely true. They have a history of nerfing and tweaking without telling the players, at least when it comes to Shaman.The most recent example was the removal of the AP bonus on Windfury glyph, which was never mentioned or acknowledged in patch notes. Enhancement players will also remember that the AP bonus on the Emblem-bought totem (relic) also went missing for a couple of months without an explanation. In fact, up until patch 3.1, the best-in-slot relic for Enhancement was a level 70 item that came out in 2007. I'm not joking.I don't follow Elemental changes much because I don't spec Elemental, but I know they often get the short end of the stick.And while I'm not convinced it's malicious, I tend to think it's because Shaman tweaks are low on the priority list. While we were running around with broken glyphs, missing AP bonuses and our 2007 relics, there were dozens upon dozens of tweaks to Paladins and DKs. And let's not forget that for almost the entire life of TBC, there were some very smart people from EJ and the shaman forums, posting solid math and irrefutable proof that Elemental did not scale the same as other casters. That was never fixed until WotLK, as far as I know, but those who use Elemental as their main spec could speak to that better than I can.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.