The Weekly Marmot - Deconstructing the Dragon Soul Debuff

[Fetzie]

<br>
The ICC buff increased health by 30% also, not just DPS, so really they are the exact same, there's literally no difference in the buffs. The only thing you might be able to argue is that a 30% buff to players could sometimes be exponential based on class design... but that's the only thing I can imagine. They're really the exact same thing. It's just whether the "boss" feels easier or the "player" feels more powerful.

<br>
<br>
You also had the problem with Hellscream's Warsong that when you went over to Ruby Sanctum, suddenly you felt a lot weaker all of a sudden. Same for any other content outside of ICC. For that reason alone I prefer the 5% less health+damage approach to nerfing if it has to happen. However, I think it should stop when heroic mode becomes easier than normal mode without the debuff (i.e. the 20 to 25% step should be the last one).

Nerfs need to be specific. If a specific thing is killing a lot of players, like Yor'sahj' debuff stacking on the tank to 6 or 7, slow down the application of the debuff so that he only gets 5 of them. If a timer isn't the issue, then health pools don't need adjusting.

[Tengenstein]

@Theotherone
You are misunderstanding. If Perfect play give me 20k dps on a boss a 30% buff means i'll pull 26k. If i'm shite and only manage to play at 50% effcientcy I do 10k, and get a 30% buff so i now do 13K, If i AFK the entire encounter i do 0k dps,, with a 30% buff i'd still do 0K as 30% of 0 is 0. The buff always gives 30% extra DPS, regardless of you DPS. good players will get more raw numbers out of it that pants players becuase good players have bigger numbers.

[Theotherone]

theoretically a damage buff will be 30% of whatever DPS you were doing, regardless of if you were good or bad, but I definitely see what teng means, so I guess nerfing the boss is more consistent than buffing player dps.


What they're doing with the progressive nerf in DS is NOT what they did in FL though, they're not looking at plateaus, they're just nerfing the content 5% every 4 weeks.

Yeah, consistency is a better way of looking at it. I was looking at from a constant damage out put perspective i.e. if one does 10k dps, the buff gives them 13k dps, but then they might only do 8k dps next time and so they get 10.4 dps with the buff, but the boss still has 100k health. Whereas a player that is a consistent 20k dps will have a consistent 26k dps with the buff; but in the end it all works out the same, it's just a matter of time.

The blanket nerfs on a 4 week schedule are at odds with the "hand on the dial" theory. I agree that it would be statistically, shall we say, interesting, if everyone kept plateauing at set 4 week intervals. In some ways I kind of wish the turn off the buff button wasn't all or nothing, but that you could set it to 5,10,15 whatever. Then again after being stuck on H Spine this week, there's no way we'd turn it down - the damage by the third lift sucks to heal.

[Tengenstein]

Urg spine, Every nerf it becomes more a pain in the arse, and corruptions die accidentally and we spend more and more time waiting for enough bloods to spawn.

[Fetzie]

I'm rather surprised that it isn't already impossible to break the three grip casts without killing it unintentionally.

[Aggathon]

Try using leap of faith (if you have a priest or 2) to break the grips, if the priest is far enough away from the person being gripped, it will break it and it saves on hit points dealt to the corruption.

[Theotherone]

We tried the Leap of Faith move but it didn't seem to work, must have been a distance issue. Our biggest issue, the nerf will not help i.e. poor raid awareness by one member, if there's a way to get yourself killed this player has found it.

[Passio]

Hi first time poster here just thought i`d give my 2 pennies worth (i`m english so no cents here. ).
Agree with Lore regarding the option to turn off the debuff.
In my opinion most HC raiders, raid for the progress and that means that once you have achieved the highest achievement you can and have repeated it at least two more times to prove it wasn`t a fluke, content then goes onto farm mode to max your gear so that you can give yourself a better chance at going at the next tier of content faster.
With no incentive or way of recognising the fact that you have completed something without the debuff then there is no logic in intentionally making something you have on farm already more difficult because at that stage you are essentially doing dailies.

I agree with a lot of others that i just plain dislike the idea of blanket debuffs on heroic modes full stop. I think that LFR and Normal modes could do with tuning up slightly and then introduce debuffs on those modes but then HM stays just the way it is balanced unless it is apparent that it is far too difficult. Too many people think they are just entitled to the best titles and progress that is available instead of looking at themselves and saying "i`m/we`re a 4/8 HM player/guild and thats where i am/we are unless i/we improve.

Like its already been said though, the hardcore players including most of the people that are involved in such discussions opinions are a minority, but at least its good to have a good old rant eh guys?

[Quinafoi]

I think what he means Agg is that if a boss has 100K hp and i do 10k DPS it dies in 10 seconds if iget a 30% buff i do 13k DPS it dies in 6.79 seconds, whereas if it gets a 30% nerf it only has 70k health and therefore dies in 7 seconds. 7 is not the same as 6.79.

I do think you're totally right about the buff being draconian, I mean as of now LFR has the same health/damage as 25 normal, and as of next rest 25 normal will have less HP/Damage than LFR. should it really be a case of that groups that can't do LFR becuase they don't have the HPS/DPS should have an easier time time in normal as long as they move right?

First off... 100/13 = 7.69 > 7
The buff is weaker than the nerf. This has mostly to deal with it's relative effect. Each increase has less effect than the prior increase. The opposite is true of nerfs. Each increase is actually relatively larger than the one prior.

Relative scaling...
You aren't "gaining" 30%. You're increasing 25% to 30%.

Increasing a buff from +25% to +30% is actually a 4% increase from the prior week.
Increasing a debuff from -25% to -30% is actually a 6.67% decrease from the prior week.

So if you do 10,000 DPS with a 25% buff, increasing the buff to 30% would increase your DPS to 10,400. If the boss had 100,000 health in the prior week it took 10 seconds for you to kill him. With the increased buff it takes you 9.62 seconds.

On the other side, if the boss had a 25% nerf and was at 100,000 health last week and now the nerf is increased to 30%, they would have 93,333 health now. If you did 10,000 DPS the week prior and killed it in 10 seconds, this week you kill it in 9.33 seconds.

[Quinafoi]

Basically, each increase to the buff you receive is weaker than the one you received prior, because it's relative size to the total has gotten smaller. However each increase to a debuff is stronger than the one prior because the relative size has actually gotten larger.

[Focii]

Instead of general nerfs they should have a vendor called Vonte Cobal inside the raids. He could sell a range of performance enhancing dietary supplements for DPS, damage reduction and healing in various strengths. Allowing player to personalize their programs. Each would come with different sized asterisks.

[Focii]

Basically, each increase to the buff you receive is weaker than the one you received prior, because it's relative size to the total has gotten smaller. However each increase to a debuff is stronger than the one prior because the relative size has actually gotten larger.

It is a sad day that you had to explain this ... personally I'm looking forward to the 95% to 100% nerf

[Ion]

Some points, as I was listening:

I disagree that "heroic" content should ever be flat-nerfed. But as you said, a topic for another thread.

WRT the "feeling of triumph". Yes. Flat nerfs totally rob you of the "HELL YES WE KILLED IT!" moment of raiding. Which, as you said, IS the point. I know our rag kill felt less awesome than it would have had they not nerfed it. Yeah, it was good to kill it, but it was definitely a "well...we got it...after blizzard helped us...awesome". As opposed to killing Al'akir or Nef on heroic...those felt like accomplishments. We wiped a LOT trying to kill h-al'akir...when we got it it was a big moment for us. Killing rag post-nerf robbed me, at least, of a lot of that euphoria.

I TOTALLY agree that the nerfs (especially in Dragon Soul) came WAY too fast. They double-nerfed h-Spine before more than a few people killed it at all...most "normal heroic raiders" were still progressing on it (and only had been doing it for a couple weeks) when they dropped double-nerfs on it. And yes...I agree that struggle makes things more interesting. You SHOULD struggle...we wiped almost 200 times before we killed h-Rag...100 before we killed h-Al'akir...(I forget how many it was on nef...but it was fewer) those were TOUGH, interesting, memorable fights. We wiped 10 times on h-Staghelm. We laughed. It was pointless...it wasn't even a "heroic" fight.

I agree that turning off the debuff is pointless. It has no value, and even adding your achievement/feat of strength doesn't really add enough reason to bother. As someone mentioned earlier...you're still not "as good as Paragon" (or, as it happened, the korean guild "Happy raid" or something). You had like 30 more ilvls than they did when they killed it. Making the debuff optional is valueless. You can't hamstring yourself in the progression race and it's pointless to make farming harder.

To me, having some potential for failure is GOOD. It means that YES...this is a thing that is worth doing! And if you DO do it then you've done something that was actually difficult. Nerfing, especially at the rate they did for DS (which should have been at LEAST half as fast, if not even more gradual), just removes all the challenge in the game. "Optional" though it may be.

I've seen an argument for "do it faster then"...which is fine and dandy...if you can afford to spend the extra time at launch to race against nerfs. We shouldn't HAVE to race against nerfs if we're progressing at a reasonable pace. Sure, if there's something broken (like the tendon health on spine and the necessity to stack bursty classes to deal with it), then by all means, FIX THAT. But racing against blanket, one-size-fits-all nerfs...it's annoying and stupid and adds nothing to the gameplay experience.

[Bovinity]

Once the debuff/buff is in effect for a zone, any mobs/drops/etc that would give progress toward a legendary should stop working unless the raid turns the buff/debuff off, clearly.

[Theotherone]

(or, as it happened, the korean guild "Happy raid" or something).

Happy Ending?

[Mwawka]

Issue I have with the achievement for doing it without the nerf:

Gear. And why I don't think it would work. The Paragon's of the world that are beating it pre-nerf are people that do it with worse gear too, so getting the achievement after you're already farming from the boss for the better gear is still not as big of an accomplishment. The raid might even be doing more DPS when they kill the boss without the nerf but with better gear than they would have at 5%. Some fights you can still just out-gear.

Just how much do you need to reward the players who put their lives aside to be world first? If there was an achievement for beating a raid with the debuff off, it would be fine if it were available to everyone who killed it, even with gear from that boss gained with the debuff on. It still would be an accomplishment that I believe well under 5% of the player base would achieve.

One idea is to leave these achievements in the game permanently, but give an option to normalize gear to the heroic level from that tier using the system they have in place for Challenge Modes. You want to get the title of Super Awesome Deathwing Killer, you turn off the debuff and turn on gear normalization (only available after the content is no longer relevant of course) and go at it. Just like Herald of the Titans, but without having hang on to the lower level gear to do it.

[Leucifer]

Some points, as I was listening:

I disagree that "heroic" content should ever be flat-nerfed. But as you said, a topic for another thread.

WRT the "feeling of triumph". Yes. Flat nerfs totally rob you of the "HELL YES WE KILLED IT!" moment of raiding. Which, as you said, IS the point. I know our rag kill felt less awesome than it would have had they not nerfed it. Yeah, it was good to kill it, but it was definitely a "well...we got it...after blizzard helped us...awesome". As opposed to killing Al'akir or Nef on heroic...those felt like accomplishments. We wiped a LOT trying to kill h-al'akir...when we got it it was a big moment for us. Killing rag post-nerf robbed me, at least, of a lot of that euphoria.

I TOTALLY agree that the nerfs (especially in Dragon Soul) came WAY too fast. They double-nerfed h-Spine before more than a few people killed it at all...most "normal heroic raiders" were still progressing on it (and only had been doing it for a couple weeks) when they dropped double-nerfs on it. And yes...I agree that struggle makes things more interesting. You SHOULD struggle...we wiped almost 200 times before we killed h-Rag...100 before we killed h-Al'akir...(I forget how many it was on nef...but it was fewer) those were TOUGH, interesting, memorable fights. We wiped 10 times on h-Staghelm. We laughed. It was pointless...it wasn't even a "heroic" fight.

I agree that turning off the debuff is pointless. It has no value, and even adding your achievement/feat of strength doesn't really add enough reason to bother. As someone mentioned earlier...you're still not "as good as Paragon" (or, as it happened, the korean guild "Happy raid" or something). You had like 30 more ilvls than they did when they killed it. Making the debuff optional is valueless. You can't hamstring yourself in the progression race and it's pointless to make farming harder.

To me, having some potential for failure is GOOD. It means that YES...this is a thing that is worth doing! And if you DO do it then you've done something that was actually difficult. Nerfing, especially at the rate they did for DS (which should have been at LEAST half as fast, if not even more gradual), just removes all the challenge in the game. "Optional" though it may be.

I've seen an argument for "do it faster then"...which is fine and dandy...if you can afford to spend the extra time at launch to race against nerfs. We shouldn't HAVE to race against nerfs if we're progressing at a reasonable pace. Sure, if there's something broken (like the tendon health on spine and the necessity to stack bursty classes to deal with it), then by all means, FIX THAT. But racing against blanket, one-size-fits-all nerfs...it's annoying and stupid and adds nothing to the gameplay experience.

So far, the most convincing argument I've heard yet for why doing this with a buff/debuff turned-off is pointless.

- it's pointless to make farming harder
- You had like 30 more ilvls than they did when they killed it

Unless you're doing it exactly as they did it..... same gear, same comp, etc.

It's almost like you need a snapshot of the raid group, as they were at the time of accomplishment, to really have a way to judge against them. There's just too many factors and for the sake of simplicity, just knocking it down faster than the next guy is about the best "realistic" comparison that you can do.

OK.... THAT... I get. That argument, laid out like that, makes sense because you brought in the idea that there are too many variables that come into play.

It makes me wonder though..... might there be room for a "competitive" PvE "field" where all groups run in a standard set of gear and specs? In other words.... you participate in this arena.... you'll be "issued" gear and specs... and have to play with that stuff and rely on skill only. In all truth... I really doubt anyone would sign up for that, because you'd be "intentionally hamstringing yourself" against the rest of the WoW population.

Or maybe a more complex "scoring system" for progression? Even then, the complexity of all the variables (how do you score a mage vs a shaman for example....) might just make it impossible to make it completely "fair".

EDIT:

Issue I have with the achievement for doing it without the nerf:

Gear. And why I don't think it would work. The Paragon's of the world that are beating it pre-nerf are people that do it with worse gear too, so getting the achievement after you're already farming from the boss for the better gear is still not as big of an accomplishment. The raid might even be doing more DPS when they kill the boss without the nerf but with better gear than they would have at 5%. Some fights you can still just out-gear.

In all fairness..... Agg, you finally explained this out also. I know you and I have gone a few rounds over this, and put into THIS context... ok. I get it.
I agree. You've never before taken the time to expand on this aspect of it though. You always just fell back into the mom and dad "because", without ever verbalizing the underlying reason.

By the way, I have heard of guilds doing raids "undergeared". I know of one blogger whose guild made a point out of running ICC in "blues" just to prove that gear is a crutch. Mind you.... all these groups that did this, to the best of my knowledge, did this in Wrath during ICC. I have a suscpicion that this has changed considerably given the stat differences with gear in Cata, given some of the discussion that I've seen over the dps differences between t12 and t13 gear.

[Ion]

It makes me wonder though..... might there be room for a "competitive" PvE "field" where all groups run in a standard set of gear and specs? In other words.... you participate in this arena.... you'll be "issued" gear and specs... and have to play with that stuff and rely on skill only. In all truth... I really doubt anyone would sign up for that, because you'd be "intentionally hamstringing yourself" against the rest of the WoW population.

Or maybe a more complex "scoring system" for progression? Even then, the complexity of all the variables (how do you score a mage vs a shaman for example....) might just make it impossible to make it completely "fair".

You could call it..."Challenge Modes".

[Leucifer]

You could call it..."Challenge Modes".

I thought those were going to just be "timed runs" in dungeons? Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[Theotherone]

It's fun to discuss the theory and whys and wherefores and alternatives, but in the end the most important factor is dollars and cents. Blizzard has made end game content the be all to end all; the mostest, bestest purples are the holy grail, that being the case those bestest rewards have to become accessible (not given, but accessible) to the player base, not just 1% of the player base. The only way to do that is nerf the best content (or buff the player).

Blizzard has said time and again that it believes players want to succeed, they want to feel like they are making progress and when that progress isn't being made, Blizzard will give them a hand.

Think about the size of this game, wow subscriptions exceed the population of New York City - in fact they come close to NYC plus Connecticut. The 1% are not influencing Blizzard's decision making process; if they are it's just bad business and if they think they are, they've never been a Board room.

Get used to killing heroics faster, unless you're willing to turn off a nerf - they really seem to be moving to making that a staple.