Was lifebloom nerfed?
by Peppercorn | 01/08/2008 07:15:54 Since the latest patch I've noticed my lifebloom ticking for less. When I first got into beta I seem to remember a 3 stack of rank 1 ticking for ~900 with 1137 spell power, which seemed appropriate with the new healing talents. I just respeced resto to try out rank 2 and noticed it was only healing for ~844. So I did a little comparison of what my spells were healing for on live versus beta with the same gear: My relevant stats: 1137 spell power, 538 spirit @70, ToL Aura, Live: lifebloom(x3)- 815 per tick rejuv- 1013 per tick regrowth- ~3400 crits @70, imp. ToL Aura, Beta lifebloom(x3)- 806 per tick rejuv- 1094 per tick regrowth- ~3600 crits So why is my lifebloom healing for less than it does on live while my other spells both receive noticeable benefits from the new imp. tree of life and master shapeshifter talents? Was I just imagining my lifebloom healing for 900 per tick or did something change? Edit: Is anyone else having a similar experience with the amount of healing done by lifebloom in live vs beta? [ Post edited by Peppercorn ] |
by Koraa | 05/08/2008 21:58:51 Yes, we have done some toning down of Lifebloom. Lifebloom was unintentionally buffed too much during Burning Crusade when we made the coefficient scaling work on the stack applications. This has caused a lot of problems with balance in the game. Druids are intended -- as healers -- to be able to dish out good throughput heals with very low efficiency, likewise Lifebloom is intended to be rather cheap and efficient, but not to the degree that it is today. Compare how you healed in dungeons and raids pre-Burning Crusade to today. Before you used nearly every healing spell you had, today you just use Lifebloom and maybe your other HoTs just because they stack with Lifebloom. Not only is this boring to the player, but it pigeon holes the Druid to spamming Lifebloom on the tanks. We hope to tone down Lifebloom and bring the Druids other healing spells up to speed in this expansion. Part of this is through changes to the Druid class, changes to other healing classes and through encounter design. Just as a note -- we did intend to change Lifebloom in the Burning Crusade (lower the coefficent), but we ended up delaying that so that we wouldn't hurt the Druids viability in raiding. With Wrath, we're introducing a new heal, a revamped Tree Form, and other mechanics to correctly balance things out. [ Post edited by Koraa ] Class Designer |
by Koraa | 07/08/2008 14:21:39
I've noticed many players use the "PvP excuse" as a way to dismiss that abilities or spells are too good in PvE. For example, Illumination... that wasn't nerfed for PvP reasons (like many believe). Whenever we change abilities we always consider the outcomes for all aspects of the game, very rarely will we change an ability that will reduce it's effectiveness in PvE or PvP for the sake of the other. And if we do, it's intended. In the case of Lifebloom, it's too good in both aspects of the game. Again, it's not our intention to merely just reduce the effectiveness of Lifebloom, but to also introduce new healing mechanics (Flourish, Nourish, talents like Living Seed and the improvements to Tree of Life) to compensate. HoTs are intended to be effective in HPS and efficient, but have the drawback of requiring time to heal. The issue today is that you'll HoT a player who got hit by a big AOE, and some other class will use a downrank direct heal and cause you HoT to be ineffective. This is being addressed through downrank penalties. We want other classes to say "Hey, I could heal that guy back up who just got hit by that AOE, but I'll let the Druid do it instead and preserve my mana." Note that I'm not saying random AOE damage is not what HoTs are only intended to be for, I'm just using that as an example. Class Designer |
News
Spam
Hot: Latest blues on Class changes in patch 2.4
Most Viewed 
Recent Blizzard Announcements
