Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Bryond
  • Member Since Mar 4th, 2009

Are you Bryond? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
WoW3 Comments

Recent Comments:

Officers' Quarters: Best in slot {WoW}

Jul 13th 2009 1:41PM You don't gear the player. You gear the guild.
If the plate wearers gets mail then ultimately some gear goes to waste.

The paladin ends up wearing BiS mail and is pissed off when his guild wipes on the next boss or the hard mode he wants. Optimizing a single toon is not at all the same as optimizing a team.

What they really meant by "bring the player, not the class" {WoW}

Mar 4th 2009 5:14PM "Honestly, I do think Replenishment should be removed – I don't see how requiring my 10-man raid to bring one of five specific DPS specs, or face the consequences, makes the game more fun. But it's good to have some insight into the developers' mindset."

I get frustrated at how this comment is so greatly misrepresented.
Saying that encounters are designed with the assumption of replenishment does not remotely mean that anything is required.

They make a bunch of default assumptions when they define encounters.
They assume X DPS.
They assume Y Tank Health
They assume Z damage avoidance
They assume Q downtime of melee effectiveness The list goes on and on.
Replenishment is also on that list.

The sum of all these factors define the difficulty of the scenario.

All of them are assumed and none of them are required.

If you only have 90% of X DPS, you are going to need better health and or avoidance and better heals.

X DPS is the balance point. It is assumed for design purposes. And if the party doesn't have it they must make up for it in some other way or they will fail. But it is not required.

yeah, there are gear checks. For Patchwerk, your DPS = target or you fail. But those examples are clear cut. There is nothing like this for replenishment.

If you don't have replenishment you have in no way whatsoever failed to meet a design requirement. You simply have to compensate. DPS faster so the same mana gets the job done. Or last longer so you can regen the mana with replenishment. Either of those options work and I'm certain there are groups out there proving it.

To keep repeating the severe misrepresentation that a design assumption constitutes a "requirement" is a really counter-productive effort.

What they really meant by "bring the player, not the class" {WoW}

Mar 4th 2009 5:05PM "Honestly, I do think Replenishment should be removed – I don't see how requiring my 10-man raid to bring one of five specific DPS specs, or face the consequences, makes the game more fun. But it's good to have some insight into the developers' mindset."

I get frustrated at how this comment is so greatly misrepresented.
Saying that encounters are designed with the assumption of replenishment does not remotely mean that anything is required.

They make a bunch of default assumptions when they define encounters.
They assume X DPS.
They assume Y Tank Health
They assume Z damage avoidance
They assume Q downtime of melee effectiveness
The list goes on and on.
Replenishment is also on that list.

The sum of all these factors define the difficulty of the scenario.

All of them are assumed and none of them are required.

If you only have 90% of X DPS, you are going to need better health and or avoidance and better heals.

X DPS is the balance point. It is assumed for design purposes. And if the party doesn't have it they must make up for it in some other way or they will fail. But it is not required.

yeah, there are gear checks. For Patchwerk, your DPS = target or you fail. But those examples are clear cut. There is nothing like this for replenishment.

If you don't have replenishment you have in no way whatsoever failed to meet a design requirement. You simply have to compensate. DPS faster so the same mana gets the job done. Or last longer so you can regen the mana with replenishment. Either of those options work and I'm certain there are groups out there proving it.

To keep repeating the severe misrepresentation that a design assumption constitutes a "requirement" is a really counter-productive effort.