Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Dear WoW Insider, I think you're wrong.

.

While browsing WoW Insider, I came across this post: Val'anyr is a Paladin weapon. And I quote:

"While Val'anyr, Hammer of the Ancient Kings is a mace that all healing classes can use, the "discovery" of the weapon's proc -- something that's been speculated on for a while -- puts the weapon squarely in the hands of a Paladin."
They reference Ferarro from Paladin Schmaladin, who states:

"Let's get something out of the way: This is first and foremost a Paladin mace. Period. All healing classes will increase their healing and raid viability with this mace. It's just that Paladins get more out of it."
Uh... no, actually. I swear I am usually very kind and rarely a bitch who calls people out like this, but you're just flat out wrong. Also, when you say things like "this is a paladin mace, period," especially when you have SO many people who follow your blog and take what you say as legit, AND you're a self-proclaimed Blizzard employee (as far as I can tell), you come off sounding pretty self-righteous. Here, I'll explain why you're wrong.

The equip effect.

This is what I take this equip effect to mean now:

1. You cast healing spells.
2. Val'anyr procs, giving you this buff. This buff stays on you for 15 seconds.
3. You heal other people. Throw around LBs, rejuvs, nourishes, wild growths.
4. Anyone who has a heal from you land on them in that 15 seconds gets a shield on them, which shields them from damage equal to 15% of any of your heals on them over the next 15 seconds.

She breaks the weapon down into three categories.

First: Stats. Are the stats better for a paladin than other classes? Ok, it's got crit on it. It's got int and stam. Looking at stats alone, would I say that, it'd be a good paladin mace. Better than a druid mace? Sure, I'll give her that. Druids absolutely use crit more than they ever have before, but paladins still use it more. =)

Edit on June 5: You know what, I'm taking this back. Yeah, that's right - the stats are NOT better for a paladin. It doesn't have spirit on it - OMG IT CANNOT BE FOR DROODS, AMIRITE? Wrong. Spirit has gotten nerfed through the floor for us. It no longer affects our Innervate. It barely affects our out of combat regen. The only thing going for us is that it'll increase spell power a bit. Let's say Val'anyr had 42 spirit on it. It would give us 7 spell power in tree form, and that's pretty much the only benefit. So the fact that it has no spirit on it? Does NOT scream Paladin to me.

Also: crit. Druids are using crit more than ever. Many druids are using Nourish as their *top heal.* Crits help us proc Living Seed and Nature's Grace. It's good stuff for druids. As is haste.

So Ferarro, I actually DON'T give you this point.

And the argument, "Well, ok, let's say the proc IS the same for all healers, like you say below. Then, then - we have to look at the stats, and look, the stats are better for Paladins, so the mace IS better for Paladins!" - yeah, that doesn't fly. In light of all of our spirit nerfs and crit buffs, it totally does not fly. Bwuahahah. Did I just totally retroactively refute all you commenters? YES. Is that fair? Well, honestly, in light of them ditching our spirit correlation with Innervate, yeah, I think it is. ^^

Next: The proc.

This is where she gets off base. Here's what she says:

"You heal your main tank with Holy Light for 20k (let's make this math easy).

So. A nice 20k heal.

15% of 20,000 is? 3,000.

So your main tank now has a shield around him that will absorb 3,000 damage.

Holy Shock a melee for 9k? You just gave them a 1350 shield.

What's that? You just crit Lay on Hands? Congrats. They're now the proud owner of being invincible for 6,750 damage."
So in 5 seconds (accounting for cast times and GCDs), she's mitigated damage on three different people.

In 5 seconds, I could Wild Growth 6 people and LB 4 people. I could shield 10 people as opposed to her 3. And I didn't have to use a 20 minute cooldown to do it. ^^

Yes, this is assuming that it works with druid healing ticks (edit: it does). I assume this because Ghostcrawler specifically said "The proc is probably better than you guys are assuming (even for druids). I'm not going to spoil it though. :) " Also, I've heard that the mace proc works with overhealing as well. Druids have close to, or more than 70% overhealing on any given raid. No, it doesn't show up on WWS. Any overheals that our ticks do don't count on WWS. Just trust me - we have THE most overheal out of any healing class out there. Contrary to popular belief, it's not paladins. We just *look* efficient.

Listen - I'm not arguing that it's *better* for druids than paladins. It's not, at all. But it's a not "a paladin mace, hands down," absolutely not. I could potentially shield the ENTIRE RAID over the 15 seconds that it procs. Can a paladin do that? Hell no! Can a paladin shield a few people for a lot of damage mitigation? Hell yes! Are both vital to raiding and equally important? Yes. Giving the tank a big shield is awesome, but: how many times have you wiped because a tank died simply due to so much plain old regular damage that you couldn't mitigate it all? And then: how many times have you wiped because too many dps died due to AoE damage that also couldn't be mitigated?

I'd say both are frequent reasons of wiping, especially due to the crapton of AoE damage AND direct tank damage that goes out in Ulduar.

Her third argument: the slot, based on stats. Ferarro tries to use the "but druids and priests have other gear that they can get in Ulduar - for paladins, this mace is best in slot!" Ok, so because there is *one* other two handed staff in all of Ulduar that might drop that has more spirit and intellect on it, we should pass this to paladins. With a legendary weapon, it doesn't work like this. With regular gear, yes - if there was something that was BiS for pallies, and also good for me, BUT there was something ELSE out there that was even BETTER for me - of course I'd let the paladin take it. But see, on a legendary mace like this, the stats don't really matter. It's the *proc* that makes it legendary. I don't think her argument flies.

And THEN! The kicker is, at the very end, she says, in bright orange and FLASHING letters:

"Val'anyr should go to the player and healer most worthy of it, regardless of the class."

Oh, really?

But - you just said it's best for paladins.

So... if you have two healers who are equally worthy of it, and one is a druid, and one is a paladin, you're saying it should go to the paladin?

"For example, if the GM is a Druid but one of the long-standing officers is a Paladin, it's easily in the best interest of the guild to let the Pally have the first mace (you'll probably end up with two or three by expansion's end, anyway). As it stands right now, with the current stats and numbers, taking equal gear and equal skill into consideration, Val'anyr's benefit goes: Paladin > Shaman > Priest > Druid."

Sigh. No.

It also disappoints me that WoW Insider actually posted this without any other blog post to give a different point of view.

What do you guys think? Do you think it's "easily" in the best interest of the guild to give it to the Pally officer over the Druid guild leader?

Also: a nice reiteration of what I'm trying to say here can be found at Restokin here.

.

65 remarks:

Brent said...

Quick! Fix the link from http://ferraro.blogspot.com/ to http://ferarro.blogspot.com/ before people get confused about an empty french short story site :-p

As for the mace, I'm not sure the buff works that way. From what I interpreted in reading the buff its like Forethought Talisman etc, such that you target a player (X). Player X receives a 10000 HP heal, and Player X gains Blessing of Ancient Kings, absorbing 1500 damage for 15 secs, as well.

Averna said...

@Brent: I'm pretty sure that YOU get the buff, and everyone you heal gets the shield. That's what wowhead and other sources tell me, at least. Although I/they could be wrong, who knows? We'll have to wait and find out =)

PS: thank you for the link catch! I usually check all my links before the post goes live, and forgot this time >.<

Author said...

This should definately be a druid/shammy weapon long before a pally/priest equip it, and here is why...

Like you said, druid crits with WG and suddenly you have 5-6 members with a shield (you were suggesting that right?) Shammy crits with a chain heal and you have 4-5 ppl with shields (if working as I think it does). Pally at best gets a one heal (two with beacon) so yay for the chance of possibly two ppl getting that shield... When your aoe ppl pass out a better chance, (I wonder if this would work for a priest's aoe heal?) Anyways I also hate that they would suggest that this is mainly pally.

SuicidalPriest said...

Ok, I'm a holy/disc priest and I'm getting the mace in my guild. When I first saw the stats I was like "hmmm... No spirit or mp5" but then I realised they only used stats on the mace to make sure everyone gets something out of those stats. Spirit would just be useless for paladins for example. The proc is just a matter of, how do you want to use the shields? Thats something my guild has discussed about, do we want me trowing around PoH and giving 4000dmg absorbs over the total raid or dmg absorbs on the tanks? Even then, I can trow in heals as well on tanks. We certainly had a very very long talk about it. But the moment a fragment dropped they gave it to me, and I've had nothing but positive comments about it. I think you should just give it to the player and not the class.

Ferraro said...

"Looking at stats alone, would I say that, it'd be a good paladin mace. Better than a druid mace? Sure, I'll give her that. Druids absolutely use crit more than they ever have before, but paladins still use it more. =)"

And then you also say:

"Listen - I'm not arguing that it's *better* for druids than paladins. It's not, at all."

And that's what I mean when I wrote that it's a Paladin mace, hands down. I never wrote, "It's ONLY a Paladin mace and that ONLY Paladins should get this mace. I wrote - and explained a dozen times - that it's simply the best in the hands on a Paladin, stat-wise. There's a big difference between me saying what my class can do versus me saying what your class shouldn't do. Don't make me a villain and take my article as the latter, especially when you yourself agree with it in your own post.

Averna said...

"I wrote - and explained a dozen times - that it's simply the best in the hands on a Paladin, stat-wise. There's a big difference between me saying what my class can do versus me saying what your class shouldn't do. Don't make me a villain and take my article as the latter, especially when you yourself agree with it in your own post."

I agree with you that it's a decent paladin mace, stats-wise. And if that's all you said in your article, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

But you didn't say it's best in the hands of a Paladin, stats wise. You said it's best in the hands of a Paladin, period. Your post wasn't just about stats. If it was, it wouldn't have a big long section about the proc, and how it's best used by paladins.

You're not a villian, you're just wrong.

And no, you never wrote "it's ONLY a paladin mace." I'm not saying you did. However, you did write that it is best for paladins, based on the stats, the proc, and the slot. I argued that based on the stats, you're right; based on the proc, you're wrong; and your slot argument is just flawed to begin with.

Kae said...

It all comes down to what the readers see when they read the post. If a bunch of players see "it's better for pallies than druids," the vast majority of them are going to ignore the followup of "based on the int/stam/crit stats," even if you say later that the equip effect (which is the body and soul of the weapon) is useful for any class. It's amazing how what you say in your post can be misinterpreted by readers, or that things you think are assumed simply aren't. It can mislead people into complete black-and-white misunderstandings, and then it just causes trouble in their guilds.

Averna said...

@Author: WGs can't crit, so I'm assuming you mean "proc", rather than crit?

If that IS what you mean, then you bring up the main point of my argument - paladins can heal and therefore shield a small handful of people from a lot of damage, and other classes (and I talk specifically about druids, because I'm the most knowledgeable about that class) can heal and therefore shield MANY people from a lesser amount of damage.

They are both *equally* important, and therefore, you can't say, as Ferarro does in her comments section, "Either way, your MT/OT-healing Paladin is still the top choice."

I guess that's the TL;DR version of my post =P

Averna said...

@Kae: You say, "If a bunch of players see "it's better for pallies than druids," the vast majority of them are going to ignore the followup of "based on the int/stam/crit stats," even if you say later that the equip effect (which is the body and soul of the weapon) is useful for any class."

I don't know if you're implying that I ignored her follow-up, but I did read her entire article, and she says that due to the proc, it IS best for paladins.

She says: "Speaking of the proc ability, it's brute power relies exclusively on the power of the heal itself. And no one bombs high-powered heals and at a fast rate the way a Paladin does....And who in the raid needs the shield and mitigation the most? Your tank and off-tank. And who's healing the tank and off-tank? Why, it's your Paladin."

Now, what *I'm* saying is: Who's healing the raid who's taking massive AoE damage and could also use some shields? Your shaman, druid, and priest.

ALL of these roles (paladin included!) are important and could equally benefit from the shield.

Kae said...

Lol, sorry Averna, my comment was directed at Ferraro :)

Doomkin_at_Heart said...

I think what Kae said has a lot of relevancy. In most cases what matters is not what you think you said, its what people heard.

In any case, if you're correct about the proc Averna, then I agree with you. It's too bad such a high-profile site like wow insider didn't catch something like that, or at least consider it.

But Legendarys like this are always going to cause debate and tension as to who it "should" go to. Ultimately, like SuicidalPriest says, the guild should talk it through and make a decision that fits them.

Icyslush said...

Honestly, even when we DO know exactly how an item's proc works these endless arguments about who and item is "best" for are just so much noise. They belong on Thottbot, not on any of these blogs I know and love.

Does the proc affect the target or the healer? Well it looks like the healer based on the fact that the buff (http://www.wowhead.com/?spell=64411) targets the healer. Does it work on HoT ticks? We don't know! But since GC had posted that "the proc is better than you guys think, even for Druids" then it would seem likely. We won't really know until someone has it though.

Again, all these "this item is better for class x (oh and what do you know, that's me!)" posts just make me want to turn the page.

Lissanna said...

I wrote a really long post about it on my restokin site saying why I still think it's worthwhile for druids... Don't anger the druid community, for we have sharp claws in cat form...

Ferraro said...

What I wrote on Wowinsider (so you can follow me there, too):

"best in the hands of a Paladin, stats wise."

"best in the hands of a Paladin, period."

That's... the same statement. It's currently best in the hands of a Paladin. It doesn't mean it's BAD in the hands of a Druid or Priest or Shaman.

And the only argument you can make for the proc is based on what you haven't seen yet: the proc itself. I, on the other hand, actually saw the early version of the proc back in March and I'm basing my opinion on that. And I said in my post that if it's still the same on Live (which I hope it isn't), then Paladins will get the biggest kick out of it.

If the proc is amazing gets somehow customized for every healing class via some option or quick quest, then that cancels out the proc argument. All that's left are the stats.

I'll let you figure it out from there.

Look, I know you must really, really, really, want this mace super-duper bad, and that so much is hinging on getting it. So maybe you read my article as saying, "This mace is not for druids!" And with Wowinsider's title of the post (which I'm not happy about), I can see how someone could immediately think that's my stance. But it's not. And if you've read my post like you say you have, I really can't understand where you're coming from with any argument when you're agreeing with me.

The stats favor Paladins > Druids. We both agree on that.

The proc's mechanics is unknown to you and I've seen it first hand. Unless it's changed, it's still Paladins > Druids.

It's not a personal attack on you from Blizzard or me. Those are just facts. And to be honest, I truly hope the proc and mace can be altered or customized in some way. Because if not, when the Live version gets revealed, all of this will start over again, the theorycrafters will break out their pens, and in less than a week X class will benefit Y% more from Z proc. And everyone NOT playing that class will be up in arms like you and so many others who read that post and aren't Paladins.

Averna said...

It's not the same statement. "Stats" (also known as attributes) are stamina, intellect, spirit, agility, and strength. Stats =/= the proc or equip effect. When you said "It's best in the hands of a Paladin, period," you meant the mace as a whole, including the stats, AND the proc. If that's not what you meant, then you should clarify properly.

"Look, I know you must really, really, really, want this mace super-duper bad, and that so much is hinging on getting it. So maybe you read my article as saying, "This mace is not for druids!""

Sure, everyone wants the mace "super-duper bad", but I wouldn't mind if the mace went to a paladin, or any other healer in my guild at all, provided they had put in time and effort. And if you'd read my blog, you'd know that I'm actually the one getting it, based on raid attendance.

I'm not reading your post as you saying that it's not for druids. You never said it's not for druids. I'm not saying you ever did. What you DID say is that it's better for paladins than it is for druids, based on the proc. What I'm saying is that it is equally good.

"The proc's mechanics is unknown to you and I've seen it first hand. Unless it's changed, it's still Paladins > Druids."

This is what you've seen first hand:

1. It works with Beacon of Light.
2. It works with overhealing.
3. It had a 100% proc rate which has now been nerfed.
4. There was a class-specific modifier on the mace, but that didn't make it through.

How does this make it "Paladin > Druids"? I don't get that.

If you have other information that you can give us that would prove that it is in fact better for paladins, I'd love to hear it. By all means, fill us in.

Ferraro said...

"How does this make it "Paladin > Druids"? I don't get that."

So you agree that the stats are better for Paladins.

And you "argue" that the proc is equally good for both Paladins and Druids.

So that cancels the proc debate out.

What's left? The stats.

I don't see how this is such an argument.

Averna said...

Sigh, now we've tangented. You're missing my point (or rather, perhaps I've gone off about stats too much here, which is my own fault).

The proc ability is what MAKES this mace.

You're arguing that the proc ability is good for a druid, but better for a paladin.

I'm arguing that the proc ability is equally as good for a druid as it is a paladin.

=)

Ferraro said...

"I'm arguing that the proc ability is equally as good for a druid as it is a paladin."

Cool.

And the stats on the mace give Paladins the edge. Which makes this mace more Paladin-centric. That's why I said so in my post. You asked me why, and that's why. I took the whole mace into consideration, not just the proc (which, best case scenario, is equal for all classes). It's the stats that tilt it in the Paladin's favor.

I don't know how I can be more clear.

Averna said...

So your entire write up was essentially saying that the only thing that makes this mace a paladin mace is not because of the proc, but because it has a little bit of crit on it, and no spirit?

You sure can be long-winded, then. =P

It's just confusing when you say things like: "If MT/OT healing is all we're good for, then that simply reinforces the Paladin's priority for this mace even more. No one's shield proc from this weapon is going to be stronger than a Paladin's."

This is you saying: This proc is best for paladins.

I don't deny that a paladin's shield proc will be greater than other healers' procs. But other healers can shield a greater number of people, which is just as important. I don't know how many more times I can reiterate my point here.

Fultree said...

I'm not a great with crunching the numbers, but I think I can speak for my guild's healer core when I say it will probably go to our strongest and most consistent attending healing officer. Again, we're probably not as good as the "leet" min/max guilds, but we're looking at it as a healer mace, period. It will probably go to either a shaman or druid first as we those are our strongest and most consistent healers.

I must say I find it irresponsible to the community for WoW Insider to quote that without any research or countering viewpoint for the non-Pally healers.

Just my halfpence. Thanks for at least pointing it out Averna. Discussion and different views are what keep this game and community interesting to me.

Ferraro said...

No, my write up is based on the stats AND the proc. You are the one who is arguing over the proc saying it'll probably be equal. I'm just giving you that so the score is 1-0 instead of 2-0.

My analysis of the proc is based on what I saw back in March, which heavily favors the Paladin. Is this different on Live? I have no idea. You have no idea. I hope so, though. But for now, I'm backing up the proc argument with first-hand results I've seen with my eyes.

In March:
Me - I saw it better for Paladins.
You - You weren't there.

Now:
You - You're guessing/hoping it'll be equal for us all.
Me - I'm hoping for the same, but I can't ignore first-hand data.

Also, the difference between putting small shields over the raid versus big sheilds on the tank is, as you say, equally important - furthering the argument for canceling out the proc from the debate. So, for the 7th time, all that leaves are the stats, which benefits Paladins more. I don't know how many times I can reiterate my point here.

Just because the mace is BETTER for Paladins doesn't mean it's bad for Druids. Stop arguing over that. Unless another version comes out with Spirit and Mp5 on it, you can't win. The difference in the mace's benefit between a Paladin and Druid will likely be very, very small. Probably unnoticeable. But even a 1% edge is a 1% edge, and that is where my I drew my article from.

(And my posts are long-winded to clarify, re-clarify, and over-clarify facts that people, like you, I guess, require.)

Averna said...

Oy. This could go on forever.

I can't seem to get you to understand what I'm saying here, so I will hope that my other readers will, and just call it a day.

Ferraro said...

/agree

Averna said...

One quick thing: Do you think that putting small shields on many different people is equally important as putting greater shields on a smaller number of people? Because that's the entire basis of my argument, really, based on the amount of AoE damage in Ulduar.

I ask this of any readers, not just Ferarro.

Fultree said...

@Averna My life would be easier with spreading the shield around. Smaller or not, it's like having another hot rolling around on top of my others. Helps all the healers to spread more damage buffers around the group to help keep the slightly neglected dps up. Our tanks are well enough geared and well enough healed that the extra buffer would never hurt, but we're more likely to lose a dps over the tank any day.

coil said...

Ferarro, your argument seems to be "the proc is fine for any healer, so the stats make it best for a paladin." So because it has crit instead of spirit, it's suddenly a paladin-priority mace?

Sorry, but that's like saying Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros shouldn't go to an orc because it's a mace and not an axe.

The stats are such a tiny part of what makes this mace worth having, that basing your "best for" argument purely on those stats is incredibly myopic. If it's equivalent for all healers excluding the stats, then it's effectively equivalent for all healers.

Full disclosure: Averna is a guildmate. I still think she's right.

fallingleavesandwings said...

I look forward to your math Averna!

Coil, I completely agree with you that the stats aren't what make the item legendary, it's the proc. I believe that there is even a blue post confirming this in a backhanded manner. I am at work so I can't track it down, but I'm fairly certain it is in the same post where Ghostcrawler made his infamous "it's good for all healers" comment.

Basing an argument over *just* the stats of the weapon seems to me like looking at the tree, and ignoring the forest.

Ferraro said...

@coil and fall: I mention all of this - and in full detail - in my article. Let me go get some quotes straight from it actually. Be right back...

"But because of the proc - depending on how it ends up working - it'll likely be BiS for any healer, anyway."

"The version I saw a month ago had a class-specific modifier on it that made it quasi-customizable per class, but I don't see it on the current Live version of the mace - not that it won't be there. Without going too much into it (blame NDA), if it does get implemented in some fashion, then the class comparisons section of this article will be rendered moot. And to be quite honest, I hope that happens."

"...no one can say this mace is "best in the hands of a Paladin!" Only that Paladins benefit the most from the mace, which is true. There’s a big difference between those two statements, and it’s one a lot of people keep misunderstanding. Who it ends up being “best in the hands of” will largely depend on the final version of the proc on Live servers. Chances are, BoAK will be more or less equal for all healers."

Just because the mace is BETTER for Paladins doesn’t mean it’s BAD for Druids. Stop arguing over that. Unless another version comes out with Spirit and Mp5 on it, you can’t win. The difference in the mace’s stat benefit between a Paladin and Druid will likely be very, very small - probably unnoticeable. But even a 1% edge is a 1% edge, and that is where my I drew my article from.

Its_Actually_A_Hunter_Weapon said...

The argument between Averna and Ferraro is on the border of getting trifling. You've both clearly explained your thoughts.

Averna said...

@itsahunterweapon (lol): Indeed, I've stated my argument and the facts behind it multiple times and I think most people get it by now. =)

I'm still curious as to what other readers think, though.

Notabear said...

Good news kiddo, we gave the first frag to a druid. An amazing druid who is the number 1 healer in the guild.

Ever said...

ferarro has pretty much won every single argument.

Roman said...

The stats are better for pallies, everyone realises that. The proc, that makes this mace a legendary weapon, is great for each healing class. We do have "a 1% edge", that is still an edge. But the one who gets it will probably be the one most worthy of it. And in case of an officer and a GL I'd suggest a roll :P
The only thing I really don't like is the title of the article. It's provoking and lots of people will read it and think that "Val'anyr is a paladin's weapon, period". And when it'll come for a guildleader to decide who gets the mace, someone can just say "hey, THE INSIDER told it's a paladin's weapon. What are you thinking about?". That 1% edge is not worth of such categorical statements. When healers argue about benefits and so on, it's ok. But when Wowinsider makes such a statement.. I don't like it. Honestly.

fallingleavesandwings said...

Roman,

It's not just the phrasing provided by WoW Insider that has everyone up in arms, it's the actual controverrsial content of the post.

The first full sentence of the article reads "Let's get something out of the way: This is first and foremost a Paladin mace. Period. ".

While many other things are said throughout the article, the general tenor of the article reflects the first intitial statement in most reader's minds, and it is very hard to see anything else through the initial tone of the article. Like it our not, your introductory, "grab their attention" statement will colour everything else in your writing.

Had that first thesis sentence read something along the lines of "Val'anyr is an amazing weapon for all healing classes, but appears to favor paladin's playstyles and strengths the most" and then continued with her support for why it stronger for a paladin over other healers, I do not think you'd see the huge outcry you are seeing now.

Roman said...

fallingleavesandwings,

agreed.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the proc is worst for Paladins. Hands down, by far, worst for Paladins.

Paladin tank healing style is to have a big heal incoming in anticipation of a big hit from a boss. This shield is going to go up after the damage, and it's not going to be big enough to prevent the need for that next big heal. The only place it's going to help is when you're on the hairy edge of having your tank be one-shot by the boss. Let's face it. If you killed Yogg-Saron on hard mode to get this mace, you're not in that situation.

This proc is best for Druids and Shaman. It's good for Priests. It's crap for Pallys. It's balanced out by the fact that it's best-in-slot stats wise for them.

Iscariot said...

I'm sorry Averna and Ferarro - I think you're both wrong.


@ Averna:

Given the massive increase in raid damage I've seen in Ulduar (as opposed to say Naxx), I disagree with Averna's assessment that the proc is equal in the hands of all healers; far from it. I think that any raid would benefit most from the shields going out over many people rather than the tank and a couple others, even if they're smaller.

I don't see raids wiping due to tank death; I see them wiping because a dps here, a dps there, and oh crap, look, enrage timer. Given that, I see the proc as, in fact, superior in the hands of an aoe/raid healer than in the hands of a single-target/MT healer.

As for Ferarro -

You state: "As it stands right now, with the current stats and numbers, taking equal gear and equal skill into consideration, Val'anyr's benefit goes: Paladin > Shaman > Priest > Druid."

I would agree with the order of Shaman>Priest>Druid, though I'd place Pallies at the bottom, for the exact reason above.

Now, I know you're gonna have me reference your post about stats and slot - to which I retort: so with which argument are you planning on sticking? The one you post on your blog, or the one where Averna, here, posted that the proc is the same (a point with which, you'll note, I disagree)?

Seeing as they contradict each other, you only get to choose one. Do you believe the proc is better for pallies than other healing classes (as you state on your blog) or do you believe the proc to be equal in value to all healing classes (as you state in these comments, above)?

Also - if I may, I'd like to ask you to clarify something: you said "no one can say this mace is "best in the hands of a Paladin!" Only that Paladins benefit the most from the mace, which is true. There’s a big difference between those two statements, and it’s one a lot of people keep misunderstanding."

I'd like it if you could explain what you see as the difference between those two statements, preferably without quoting something that's already been said. If "people keep misunderstanding" it, perhaps you're not doing a good job of explaining the difference.

Ever said...

@falling: i like how everyone keeps quoting her when she says that its first and foremost a paladin mace (which it is). but you always fail to quote THE EXACT FOLLOWING SENTENCE:

"That's not to say it's bad for Shamans or Druid or Priests; it's a pretty amazing weapon for any healer. All healing classes will increase their healing and raid viability with this mace."

you druids are just complaining for the sake of complaining now. she didnt say a single thing wrong. youre picking apart random sentences and ignoring the rest. i think its pretty petty.

fallingleavesandwings said...

Ever, hun, take a deep breath. Go back and read my entire comment.

After you do that, think about what I said really hard.

If at this point you still don't get it, I will not be able to explain it to you through your rage. It's not so much WHAT she said, as HOW she said it.

Iscariot said...

@ Ever - I play dps; I have no stake in this. Statements like "you druids" are, as you said, petty, and not really helping the discussion at all. In fact, neither of your posts have said anything at all, save for fanboying your obvious favorite. So, Ever, do you have anything at all to actually contribute to the conversation, or are you just trolling? Keep your friendship politics out of logistics discussions if you wish to be taken seriously.

Ever said...

lol im not mad. i find it amusing. the facts are right there and she said its best in slot for all healing classes right in her article. but just because she pointed out the stats lean more towards paladins, every class NOT a paladin is acting like she wrote AMG ONYL MY PALADINS SHOULD GET THIS MACE!!!! she didnt. lol

so im not mad or full of "rage". i just think its funny how the problem with her article has dwindled down to simpply "how" she wrote it.

Anonymous said...

Quote from article...

"This is what I take this equip effect to mean now:

1. You cast healing spells.
2. Val'anyr procs, giving you this buff. This buff stays on you for 15 seconds.
3. You heal other people. Throw around LBs, rejuvs, nourishes, wild growths.
4. Anyone who has a heal from you land on them in that 15 seconds gets a shield on them, which shields them from damage equal to 15% of any of your heals on them over the next 15 seconds."

I am wondering if in practice this may mean almost permanent up time unless there is a hidden cooldown on the proc of the buff.

I am also wondering about the 15sec shield rule, will shields stack? A new shield for each tick or new heal applied, this could mean having a shield up on the group for 30secs!

Allied to this a proc at the enrage moment of a boss fight could be invaluable, throw hots on all group members you can for the first 7 secs of the proc to get shields up, then hit innervate and tranquility to give a huge shield boost to the group, could make the difference between a win or a wipe... just my ramblings

Nephis said...

This arguement has gone beyond ridiculous now! This mace was made available to those four classes because it's a healing mace. Not a pally mace. Not a Druid mace period.

The way pallys are acting about this you would think that intellect and crit were completely uselss to any other healing classes! The reason this weapon doesn't have spirit is so pallies CAN use it, not to make it worse for the others. This should go to your guilds most dedicated healer. I hope that no guild masters are reading articles and giving this to pallies in preference.

It's an immense proc, that's what makes it legendary and as such it should be in the hands of someone who deserves it and will use it well, regardless of class.

That means me if you're reading this Olaladine.

Ever said...

@nephis: actually, if guild masters read her article and follow it, theyll do what you just mentioned and give it to the most dedicated healer, whether its a pally or not. she never once says to always give it to a paladin and actually states several times to give it to whatever class your best healer is. a lot of you guys keep attacking her but shes actually lobbying for you. and she said in another post that shes the gm of her guild and she actually gave the first fragments to her druid.

thats why so many of these comments make me laugh

Averna said...

@Ever: She does say it's BiS for all healers, and she's 100% correct. And it would be in good hands to whichever healer gets it. But then she says it's "better in slot" for paladins, because of the proc: "If MT/OT healing is all we're good for, then that simply reinforces the Paladin's priority for this mace even more. No one's shield proc from this weapon is going to be stronger than a Paladin's."

This is what I'm arguing against, because I think the proc would be equally good for any healer (including AoE healers), not just MT/OT heals.

Hell, Iscariot up above thinks we're both wrong, and that it would be BEST in the hands of an AoE healer. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, because I think that MT/OT healing is just as important as AoE healing.

@Ever again (just saw your latest comment): You're totally right. However, she should know that a lot of GMs aren't that smart, and will see "it's a paladin mace, period" and simply stop reading. It's unfortunate, but true. Is it her responsibility to help out these ignorant GMs who won't read the whole article by putting something in the beginning that says how it should go to *any* dedicated healer? Well, yes, I think it is. If she's a good blogger who knows her audience, anyway. But that's not the topic we're really focusing on.

@Nephis: Good luck. =)

Adsski said...

What is this mace for....

The question you should be asking is not which class this mace is best suited to, because its amazing for all healers, and frankly only the best and most respected healers (not to mention talented) will ever be lucky enough to get one.

No a bigger question is..
What are Blizz intending for these Healers to use it for.

Well its not Ulduar! As you have to finish it to get the Mace right? Yogg-Saron needs to be defeated i believe.

I'm hoping (fingers crossed) a new ultra hard mode or new secret boss will be revealed where BoAK will make the difference, only the most dedicated will ever get there, fewer still will win, and those that do...

Shall be legend

Ever said...

"This is what I'm arguing against, because I think the proc would be equally good for any healer (including AoE healers), not just MT/OT heals."

im not even going to scroll up and count how many times ferarro said this, but maybe you never read it.

youre arguing that the proc would be good for ANY healer. alright so lets pretend thats what ends up happening. now whats the only difference between the healing classes if the proc is just as good for all of them? the stats on the mace. like it or not, paladins get more benefit from the stats on the mace than druids do. and that was her point.

theres two parts to the mace. the proc and the stats. if the proc is the same for everyone, the stats still arent.

seriously. cmon. this isnt a hard concept to grasp. its been said like a dozen times.

Averna said...

Your logic doesn't fly. To prove your point, you set it up like this: You assume that I'm correct in saying that the proc is equal for all healers. You GIVE me that point. Then, to prove your point, you say "look at the stats! It has a bit of crit on it!"

Instead of you doing that, I want you to prove to me WHY, as Ferarro says, the proc is better for main tank healing paladins rather than as equally good for ALL healers, including AoE healers. Because that's what Ferarro is arguing - she says multiple times that, due to the proc, the mace is better for paladins. So give me some facts, or numbers, SOME kind of information that says "this shield is better for a small number of targets rather than a large number of targets".

Unless you DO think that the proc is actually equally good for all healers. And in that case, you agree with me. =)

Ever said...

holy shit dude. lol

theres no way anyone is this dense.

im going to try one more time to break this down and spoonfeed it to you, and if you still dont get it, im just going to let your readers laugh at you.

here we go.

the proc:

possibility #1: the proc is better for paladins because (as ferarro said on her blog) when she saw the proc WITH HER OWN EYES, it benefitted from overheals and indirect heals like beacon of light. so a 3000+ shield on your MT/OT is amazing.

theoretical score: paladins 1 - druids 0

possibility #2: you say that raid healing and shielding is EQUALLY important to the raid as mt/ot healing and shielding is, which means its not better for a paladin, druid, shaman or priest. its the same for everyone.

theoretical score: paladins 1 - druids 1

so those are the two arguments between yours and ferarros. she thinks it benefits paladins cause shes seen it, you think think its the same for all healers. with me so far? so its either 1-0 paladins, or a 1-1 tie.

now. with the proc out of the way, we come to the stats. theres not a single (good) druid out there that can or will deny that the stats on the mace benefit a paldain more than a druid. YES druids can use crit. all healers can. but paladins need crit for healing and mana regen and combo healing, so crit is far more vital to their healing than it is to druids. thats pure fact. no one can argue with it.

stat score: paladin 1 - druid 0

so final score?

either paladins 2 - druid 1

OR

paladins 2 - druids 1

whatever your opinion is about the proc, whether its better for paladins or if its the same for druids, paladins overall still get slightly more benefit from the mace than druids.

if you STILL cant understand this, youre hopeless.

Averna said...

"the proc is better for paladins because (as ferarro said on her blog) when she saw the proc WITH HER OWN EYES, it benefitted from overheals and indirect heals like beacon of light. so a 3000+ shield on your MT/OT is amazing."

But druids do more overhealing than paladins. We have more overhealing than any other class. We do approximately 70-80% overheal on any given encounter. It doesn't count on WWS, because overhealed ticks don't count there. It makes us look efficient, when really druids are very inefficient in terms of overhealing - meaning, we do LOTS of it. And paladins aren't the only people with indirect heals - what about chain heal, or other AoE heals? So "it works with overhealing and indirect heals" is definitely not a point in your favor.

"you say that raid healing and shielding is EQUALLY important to the raid as mt/ot healing and shielding is, which means its not better for a paladin, druid, shaman or priest. its the same for everyone."

Wait. In your first point, you said "the proc is better for paladins because of overheal" (which I refuted, but whatever). Now, you say that it is equal? So you agree with me that it's equal, then? Because the only way you can use the stats argument as a tipping point is if you assume that the proc is equal for all healers, and therefore, agree with me. Do you get that logic? Do you see how it makes your two arguments contradictory? You're supposed to be trying to prove this point wrong, proving that the proc is better for paladins, not agreeing with it.

So, please prove to me why the *proc* is, as F says, best for paladins - the overheal argument doesn't cut it. Prove to me why putting big shields on few people is BETTER than putting smaller shields on many people, especially when Ulduar has so much AoE damage. Prove to me why the proc is better for mainly single target healers rather than AoE healers. You still haven't proven that, and neither has Ferarro, even though you both keep insisting that because of the proc, it's good for all healers, but better for paladins.

This is really starting to go around in circles, so it's the last thing I'll say.

Also, I'm not a dude, and I'm not dense. =P

Ever said...

a druids overheals come from constant little heals of a few hundreds, maybe a couple thousand. a paladins overheals are a result of 20k or more, resulting in a much larger shield.

the shields strength is based off the heal itself, and a paladins heals are bigger than a druids. both in effective heals and overheals. do you get it? a druids overheals are from healing a bunch of people for 300-1000 a tick, resulting in a 150 shield at most. even if your hots ticked for 2000 each time, the shield would still only be 300. a paladins overheal is upwards of 20k+, giving the target a 3000 shield.

and sweet lord im not agreeing with you that the proc is equal for all healers. you even quoted me saying, "YOU SAY..." as the first two words! i was telling you what YOU said and then breaking it down.

jesus christ.

Anonymous said...

@Averna: You should really stop commenting. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

I play a Resto Druid on Dalvyngr and even I can see you're making no sense. Ferraro (and even Ever) have made several good points but for some reason you're not able to read. Or something. LOL

The proc could be good for pallys or it could be equal for all healers, it doesn't matter. Pallys get more use out of the mace. Like Ever said, it's either 2-1 or 1-0, regardless of the proc.

You're embarrassing us Druids.

Doomkin_at_Heart said...

Now, now... don't be getting down on people just because they're not arguing "up to your standards"

That applies to everyone, including Averna, Ever, and Mr. Anonymous at the end there.

Averna is *not* embarrassing all druids. Nor is she doing anything wrong. It's her blog, and she can post as often as she likes. I'll continue to read, and respect her opinions and thoughts regardless of whether I agree with them, or how she's presenting them.

I also respect what Ferraro's points are (and Ever's arguments too, though I disagree with his approach vehemently.)

Thank you Averna for posting this, and having the courage to show your passion on the subject. And thank you Ferrero for sparking this. Debate is never a bad thing, even when it brings out people's claws. :)

Averna said...

If that is the case then I sincerely apologize.

Anonymous said...

It's not "my standards." Just look at Averna's counter-comments. They make no sense. She'll bring up a point and it'll be resolved and proven, but she'll just keep bringing it back up. Like if she asked "What does 2+2 equal?" And someone said "4!" She would go "Okay but... what does 2+2 EQUAL?" "We said 4!" "Okay so you agree with me that 2+2!" Do this about five times and you have an idea of what she's been doing. Just take a few minutes and read through the back and forth comments. It's really sad.

Maybe Averna has a good idea in her head somewhere, but she's really bad at debating and discussion and doesn't know how to convey any of it, so she's just sounding ridiculous and like Ever said, "complaining for the sake of complaining."

I don't agree with Ever's methods either, but he's right in what he (she?) is saying and Averna hasn't made a point since comment #2.

Averna said...

Thank you, Doom.

Anonymous said...

I agree with averna. The mace can be great on druids Paladins may have a better use of the on proc but thats like saying warglaives should never be given to warriors because rogues do higher dps. Its great all around. stop getting your knickers in a twist

Doomkin_at_Heart said...

@Anonymous
"Maybe Averna has a good idea in her head somewhere, but she's really bad at debating and discussion and doesn't know how to convey any of it"

Even if that's the case --which I dont agree with-- it still doesn't discount what she's trying to say, or that she's saying it at all.

I don't accept the argument that "if you can't argue well or the way I want you to, you're wrong". Or in your case, Anonymous, you think she's "embarassing all druids" because she's not saying things the way you like.

Doomkin_at_Heart said...

(agk, hit "publish" too soon).

Anyways my point is, nobody should be shutting anyone's ideas down. Encourage communication and debate on issues, don't stifle differing opinions.

Roman said...

How about this one? Stats will mean nothing come the next expansion, but the proc will still matter.)

@Anonymous
"You're embarrassing us Druids."
That's rude in the first place. Along with that "..for some reason you're not able to read. Or something. LOL" passage. If you read Averna's journal, you should know that she is always trying to get to the core, does some heavy maths and is trying to put everything simple for less experienced players. She is definetly the one to be proud of.

Doomkin_at_Heart
"Encourage communication and debate on issues, don't stifle differing opinions."
+1

Anonymous said...

I believe Averna started the "stifling of opinions" when she wrote:

"You're not a villian, you're just wrong."

And the fact that she followed it up with such poor arguments didn't help anything.

Roman said...

Maybe Averna is not that great at debating, but she's doing her best to explain why she thinks Ferraro is wrong. Also encouraging others to express their opinions.

If you ask me, I'd say the stats are so pathetic that arguing about who benefits the most is just funny. And that 1% edge, that's still an edge, indeed IS an edge, but it should have no influence on a GM's decision on who gets the mace. It should be "the most worthy healer gets the mace, period." And this was already written multiple times.
Also I personally don't think Ferraro is wrong. She is totally right, saying that "it's just that Paladins get more out of it." Paladins are the only ones who just can't ask for more. The mace has got everything except for spirit and mp5 which they simply don't need.
What truly makes me sad is that "Val'anyr is a Paladin weapon" post on WoWinsider. What is that? A boy persuading his GM to give him the mace? I don't know which class the author of the post is playing, but it totally looks like that. While I think it's a shame for a serious resource like WoWinsider to post such one-sided articles. I'd say the post is composed of two layers: the one "I want this mace so badly" covered by Ferraro's research and Alice's disappointment about the proc. To put it simply just look at those citations which I find to be the core of the post:
"Paladin blogger Ferarro thinks that the new legendary mace from Ulduar is a Paladin weapon and she explains why in a detailed post"
"...weapon's proc ... puts the weapon squarely in the hands of a Paladin. Even Allison found it something of a bummer (she plays a Druid) when she found out about the proc"
"I'll probably send to our GM for some, um, consideration..."
This is so childish.. That "Even Allison!" part makes me smile each time I read it) I would just skip that post with a smile on my face if it wasn't published on WoWinsider.

Adsski said...

I think we should end this discussion, the simple fact is this.

Until this Mace is created by assembling the pieces and used on the production servers, we will not know for sure the stats or the actual mechanics of the proc. Who knows what changes may have been made since the PTR.

I have a feeling we'll all be suprised as GC comment was that it'll be great for all classes, so who knows the stats might be set on creation according to user class, i.e a Paladin creates it and the stats benefit them, a Druid creating one might get slightly different stats (Spirit prehaps) a Priest or Shamen something beneficial to them. It may just be that so few were seen on the PTR that this is true but as yet undiscovered. (I.e. a pally created the Mace on the PTR, and hence its good for them)

Lets wait and see, then the theorycrafting can commence in earnest.

Roman said...

Addski is right. And in fact, I suppose there will indeed be different versions of the mace.

Averna said...

Something I will totally admit: I've *never* been great at debating. But it was really fun to do it here in this comments section! =P So thank you Ferarro and everyone else who commented (no, really - I mean it!).

I've NEVER had this much of a response to one blog post. ....but 65 is *quite* enough, so I'm going to shut down the comments section.

Who knows, maybe Ferarro's hope , and Adsski's (and mine, too) will be realized, and we'll have a mace that's customizable per class.

You can be sure that when that's revealed, I'll be one of the first to post it on my blog - so keep checking back. =)

Thanks to everyone for putting in their 2 cents.