Disc priest 9.1 raiding

Realized I was posting on my war. Being transparent this is my priest, I know I’ve had similar discussions about disc with some on this board.

It’s an incomplete redesign that holds over far to much from old disc when disc was about damage mitigation instead of actual healing. There in lies the problem. A remade disc won’t be sporting Rapture, Spirit Shell, and likely not even PWS. A redesigned disc wouldn’t look like WOTLK disc went on an all night drinking binge and forgot how to AOE heal and so it started spamming damage.

What else would they do? What else do you give the spec? In BC disc was about decent heals, and a great deal of offensive utility making it solid in pvp. In wrath they wanted it to be a tank healer but hit their head on something and gave us Soul Warding and the bubble spam began. Cata gave us Barrier and atonement wasn’t good enough so bubble spam and spirit shell was the name of the game.

You can see how they don’t ever get away from the stupid absorption nonsense of the spec and this leaves it confused and hard to really structure or make dynamic. It results in the linear play we see now.

Honestly considering the bubble spam mitigation playstyle was a complete accident on their part I have no idea why they didn’t just delete it instead of trying to lean into an obvious mistake. It’s done nothing ht confuse and hinder the spec.

Never designed as a DPS healer but a healer that does DPS to heal…I guess thanks for saying the same thing but reversing the order. Not sure the point you where trying to make or of you where just going a round about way of agreeing with me.

These are balancing issues, they don’t really hold any significance when discussing design philosophy. You design the class, it’s playstyle loops, it’s tools, etc, than you balance numbers.

No, I’m disagreeing. The spec, at its core, was never made to specifically put out atonements and slam damage buttons. There’s always been something preventing them from doing that freely. Raiders created the raid blanketing playstyle, sure, but it requires a lot of downtime to work. In Dungeons, it’s never been a successful playstyle. And Disc’s initial talents upon rework should have been enough to see that the spec wasn’t designed to be smacking their DPS keys.

I agree, and the spec works even at its current balance point. Which implies the spec was designed well enough that there is room to buff damage, and even to add a talent or two that has heavy implications toward playstyle without needing another redesign.

AMZ is getting nerfed next patch so Barrier will actually be more important than ever

Whoopse, I think you just got buffed man.
Sry but you are not in the same level as me anymore I guess I havve to let ya go : (

Even If it was short It was a good time.

1 Like

This is why I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I agree disc was never designed for atonement healing, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. You are literally restating the entire crux of my argument as if you expect me to refute you, but there is really nothing to refute, the difference seems to be that I view that as a bad and unhealthy thing for the spec while you think it’s a good thing.

The spec also worked when you bound “/cast Power Word: Shield target = player 1-25 of your raid group” during WOTLK. Being viable, strong/weak, effective, usable, etc etc has zero barring on if the spec is designed well. Spamming PW:S was bad design even if it was so strong to be manditory. Having atonement do everything for you, including targeting, in MoP was bad design and yet it still worked.

You are debating points I never made and that have nothing to do with my point.

Perhaps we need to actually develop an understanding of what design, and specifically, good design is, as admittedly that can be subjective.

When I look at disc as it currently states I don’t see a class that is designed in a healthy way. Stop a think for a minute how you play the spec in various situations. In M+ for example it’s mostly just Smend for single target and Radiance+Atonement for AoE healing. You can use Rapture when the CD is available to prep for and mitigate the incoming damage but your options are really limited. This is limited linear gameplay that restricts skill expression. Let’s look at pvp and BGs. What do you do? Mostly spam PTW for trinity healing and occasionally mindgames/penance/radience? That doesn’t make for a great deal of player choice or skill expression.

Good design promotes skill expression and player choice. If we look at holy and repose the questions how does it deal with M+ AoE healing? CoH, PoH, Renews ahead of time, PoM bouncing, Sanc, Hymn. You have a number of choices, admittedly some more limited due to poor balancing, but the choices and options are available, plentiful, and ready for you to make the best of. This is good design. The same can be said for Holy pvp, same tools, but stronger spot healing, point click CC for peeling, etc etc creating a significantly less linear playstyle that allows for skill expression and play make, it’s honestly no wonder Holy surprassed disc in pvp as of late.

It isn’t about being good, a well designed kit can be poorly balanced resulting in it being ineffective, and just the same a badly designed kit can be overtuned, or even balanced, to be effective but that doesn’t change it being a bad/good design.

You’re fundamentally not understanding what I’m disagreeing with, I guess. I’m saying the design absolutely functioned, and did it well (and still does!). The only way you could really think that the design isn’t successful is if you view it from a lens that what it really was supposed to be was a healer that just plopped atonement out and DPSed. Something that was never promised, nor was it close to what was initially delivered.

If you view the spec as a healer first and foremost, the design makes perfect sense and works.

This whole paragraph is just using reductive statements. “Just Smend for single target and radiance+atonement for AoE” is not all Disc does in dungeons at all. It’s reducing the actual playstyle down to core concepts.

This is like saying “All Shaman is is Chain heal for AoE and Riptide+surge for single target heals.” It’s obviously not the case, and is just being reductive for the sake of making the spec look bad.

No, this is entirely just an opinion. Having more buttons or tools to accomplish something doesn’t necessarily make that thing better designed. You can just as easily call having a bunch of buttons design bloat, and therefore bad design. Realistically, good design is a design that accomplishes its objective well. After all, a design objective might be ‘We want a character that plays very simple. Fewer buttons to give it a lower barrier to entry, but with options to optimize for a higher skill ceiling.’ That would lead to something like a Demon Hunter.

Personally, neither of us knows what the actual design directives of Discipline were, so we can’t really criticize whether or not it accomplished its design goals. What we can talk about is how it feels to play - and I personally think the spec plays rather well, actually.

No the lens I view it through was what blizzard said when they admitted WoD disc was a failure, IE they wanted a 50/50 spec of 50% heals 50% atonement healing. Frankly though I don’t care about what portion of it’s healing comes from where, I care about what tools it actually has to enable skill expression from a player, and if the spec permits a players to actually make meaningful choices or just demands a linear playstyle that dictates how you play.

Aside for your misunderstanding the purpose of what I did, you are correct. Yes I did reduce the specs down to their tools because when you look at their tools and how they handle situations you get to see what decisions they can actually make to respond to a given threat. I get you don’t like this method because it does make disc look bad, although making it look bad isn’t the goal. The goal is to shine a light on discs design and what we see is how limited the spec really is and it punches a giant hole in your case for disc being well designed.

So let me ask you. I want to create a healing spec that will be a strong raid healer. To this end I give it the following ability…

1% max mana
1.5 sec cast no CD
Heal all allies within 40 yards to 100% of their HP and remove all debuffs.

It accomplishes the goal of creating a strong raid healer, but is it good design?

No it isn’t, and no one would defend it as such. Yes I used an extreme example because I want you to understand the goal of what you want a spec to accomplish isn’t important. The actual tools you give them to accomplish said goal are what is important. If you fail to give them the appropriate tools the design fails due to limiting skill expression and being to simplistic. Yes bloat is a possible issue as well, I won’t deny it, but I would strongly debate and refute the idea Holy is bloated if you wish to make that claim, although that would be for another thread.

As I said above blizz’s stated goals are irrelevant when discussing good design because their goal doesn’t matter, only the finished product they put out does. If the finished product is lacking in the tools required to promote skill expression it’s a failed designed no matter how functional it may be, again see WOTLK disc for the perfect example of viable/fuctional but a complete failure of design.

I guess to TL:DR my point, what you want to design does not matter as much as HOW you design the spec to accomplish those goals.

Yes, if that was your only design goal.

Generally, game design is a lot more complicated than this. You’ll have several design goals that you’re trying to meet with any given project, and with something like a class, you’ll have different design goals per ability as well.

Let’s create an analogy here. Let’s say I said ‘I need something that can cut into something else.’ That is a broad goal, and can be satisfied by really any time of sharp object. A sufficiently sharp knife would do, a razor blade, a sword, etc.

Now, let’s say that instead I had said ‘I need something to create precise cuts in paper, in order to create a specific shape.’ Well, you wouldn’t want to do that with a razor blade. You also probably wouldn’t want a knife or sword right? You’d want something like Scissors. But does that make those things poorly designed, or without purpose? Absolutely not. They’re still perfectly well designed tools, with completely different design goals that are made for a completely different scenario. Similarly, if I had said ‘I need to be able to cut wood’ well I’d want an axe. But an axe would be horribly inefficient for cutting paper.

This is why goals matter to design - and are a good way of measuring a successful design.

You can still have a design that meets its goals, but is a worse design than something else, too. But usually that is because it doesn’t solve design problems. IE: If I wanted a screwdriver that was also a blade - well I could just have a screwdriver and turn the handle into a sharp knife. That would fit the design goal. But it would fail to solve the design problem of ‘OK well how do I hold it now without cutting myself?’ Which is why you would iterate on it and make the blade and screwdriver store away into the handle - an objectively better design. But you could also create an attachable head, and make things moddable. This would also be an objectively better design than the first - but it wouldn’t necessarily be an objectively better design than the second. Whether or not the second or third iteration is better depends on your intent. Do you want something very portable? Or do you want something very comfortable to handle? One is better for each situation.

That is what design is really like. It is not this all-encompassing field with objective rules that everyone follows. What makes a good design is highly dependent on the situation, design goals/intent and the problems that follow.

But it absolutely is, and you continuing to make reductive arguments does not help you, because you assumed the answer, and were wrong in that assumption.

It’s a good thing they didn’t fail, then! You might argue against holy having design bloat but others might argue it does - which, honestly, I would say it objectively does have some design bloat when you start to crunch numbers, but I don’t think it’s poorly designed either.

I don’t disagree that if your design has fundamental problems, it could be called a poor design. But I absolutely disagree with your assertion that Discipline is lacking tools. This seems to be an opinion you hold so deeply that you are presenting it as if it’s an obvious fact, but realistically it isn’t.

Goals absolutely matter. There’s several ways we can look at and analyze design, but the only true objective way we can is through looking at whether or not it accomplished its goals and solved its problems well. Anything else is subjective, and not worth trying to present as some objective fact.

This isn’t to say we can’t criticize design. I might solve a design problem very differently than another designer, and have several reasons for solving it in another way. But I wouldn’t call something objectively bad when it does accomplish its design goals without fundamental problems.

It’s sad you typed so much to say “I’m fanboying the spec and not debating in good faith.”

If you expect me to take you serious when you are trying to say such a blatantly ridiculous spell as what I said earlier would in anyway be considered good design you have another thing coming and your pathetic attempts to try a justify such nonsense only expose how desperate you are to defend something you like.

TBH though your posts just look like desperate attempts to tear down something you don’t like. :thinking:

No, my posts are pretty direct and specific in what they call out. When you attempt to justify the absurd, however, you make it clear you have no interest in a legit conversation in which a blatant right/ wrong exists.

I can accept the possibility I might be wrong, but you won’t convince me of that, nor even prove that, by trying to justify the equivalent of Wrath Disc as good design, IE a 1 button spamming spec that does everything for you.

You also won’t convince me that limiting skill expression, player choice, and forcing linear predefined playstyles is a healthy design goal.

So this just betrays that you don’t have a real argument.

Rather than actually look at what was said, your takeaway was ‘he wants to say a spell that I made up to be ridiculous isn’t bad design!’ In reality, what I said was that it wasn’t bad design if that was your only design goal. To say that your premise was flawed from the start.

No your attempt to justify an ability/class that would completely trivialize all context, negate the purpose of all other healers and in general break the game as in anyway valid because “it’s what I wanted to do” is stupid.

“I want to design a class that breaks the game” is not good game design, which is exactly what my scenario was, and there is no justification for it. That you attempted to do so only shows that you either have zero understanding of healthy, or good, game design, or are not debating in good faith. In either case it shows you do not possess the ability to actually debate such a topic realistically or at a level that merits being seriously considered.

Here I totally disagree, for a start damage profiles are a lot more diverse than just pure AOE and pure single target, when playing Disc you really weave in both direct heals and DPS abilities to adjust to the damage profile that is occurring or will occur.

Disc doesn’t have many direct healing options like Holy does that’s for sure, that doesn’t make it bad design… Holy is designed to be the most vanilla and straight-forward healing spec, you see damage you heal that damage with direct healing spells, in order to make that interesting you do need a variety of direct healing spells.

But if you think about it Disc actually has much more variety on what it does to accomplish its healing, part of it comes from direct healing and you have just enough tools for that but that’s just one aspect of what you do, then you have a portion that comes from atonement and DPSing, then there’s the damage prevention/mitigation portion.

Naturally since there’s a lot more diversity on what you do as Disc you can’t have as many tools for direct healing as a spec that only does direct healing.

In my opinion a well designed spec is one that at its core looks simple and easy to understand yet the way that kit interacts with what happens around you and how you use that kit allows for a lot of skill expression, Disc is like this.

Yes on paper Holy might look more complex in the sense that you have multiple buttons for AOE healing and multiple buttons for single target healing and Disc might look way more Basic with Shadowmend for single target and Radiance + Atonement for AOE.

In practice though all you really need to know as Holy is your spell priority to choose which spells to prioritize for ST or AOE then you go down your list of priority reacting to whatever happens in the fight this is a pretty basic concept for any WoW player and the reason Holy is considered a very easy pick-up and play spec and something that is recommended for new players or people wanting to get into healing.

On Disc your kit might look easier on paper: Shadowmend for ST, PW:Radiance for AOE. Yet there’s a lot more to it, you need to constantly weave direct healing, damage prevention and DPS to accomplish your primary role effectively. Skill expression as Disc doesn’t come from having a complex kit but from understanding when to do what, to do that you also need deep understanding on what to expect on every encounter and every situation. This turns out to be a lot harder to do than just understanding a basic spell priority and reacting to damage, reason why Disc is the healer with the highest barrier of entry and the least recommended choice for new players.

Pretty much everyone knows the variance you get with Disc is huge, on the hands of a good player the spec is amazing while on the hands of a bad Disc you are in for a nightmare. This alone shows pretty clearly that there’s a lot of room for skill expression on the spec.

I’ll give you that in Raids the spec is very linear that it’s basically there to be a Raid CD every 60/90 seconds, Spirit Shell is really hurting us there because even though Evangelism also works like this it’s not nearly as oppressive and we still had a bit more leeway to do other stuff. Regardless I do agree we could have more diversity for Raids but that doesn’t require a full re-design of the spec just different ways to adjust how we spread atonements to fit different encounter profiles.

But it totally can be. Your view is so myopic that you’re unable to see how, I suppose.

In the same vein, while making a platformer ‘Invisible platform over a ledge which will kill you that has no tell or hint to where it is’ is also NORMALLY bad design, but in a game like I Wanna Be The Guy, it’s not bad design. Because the goal of that game is to be brutally hard and have segments that require replaying in order to beat.

You decided to make a dishonest argument, implying that a designer for an MMO would ever set a singular design goal for a specific thing. So I gave you an answer befitting of your premise - which was flawed. You say I’m not debating in good faith, but I can’t give a good faith answer to a question which was not asked in good faith in the first place.

As it stands it’s not looking good for disco 9.2. Our atonement healing is just not very good rn. There are some fights with smaller stages and less moving around where I think disc will be good but I think it’ll be a holy most fights disc a couple of fights tier from what I’m seeing.

I’m thinking maybe with the new mythic + affix it might make room for healers to do bonkers dps in keys which could be a lot of fun. Like if we can somehow get catharstick and the other PTW torghast dmg boost that could be cool. Mana will still be a yikes though.

In raid there just doesn’t seem to be the same extent of static stacking for many fights as there was in CN. Just do away with SS at this point. It was a huge mistake to bring it back.

AMZ is getting a big nerf so Barrier will be a valuable external CD to bring.
Disc priest is going to have a spot in raid comp for sure.

Paladin and Shamans are still going to be meta and probably Rdruid or MW are going to get the hps last spot if hps is necessary or just bring another Shaman.

Not really a sure thing this tier from what many disc priests are saying from testing. Is barrier worth the low hps relative to other healers? It will prob just thrust pallies and shammies further into being the 2 healer meta specs.

Yea a 2min cd that reduces 25% incoming damage is huge for Mythic raiding. And still SS will have some uses during a fight + the passive dmg a disc priest and PI.

Most comps require 3-5 healers so 1 spot for sure Disc is gonna get.

@Rädamanthys literally everything you said that supposedly sets disc aside as high skillcapped applied to every healer. Be it druids prehotting to get head of damage, Holy priest prepping PoM/Renews and precasting PoH, etc etc they all can and many times do use those same skills it isn’t unique to disc and it doesn’t set disc apart as special. What sets specs aside as having a high skillcap is when you give those specs a wide variety of tools for the player to choose between and the players skill in deciding how to use those tools to handle a given situation is able to shine.

If you just give a spec 3-4 healing spells, see Penance/Shield/Radiance/Smend, you are not really giving them a solid set of tools. If you are going to say that selection comes from the DPS tools than you will need more than Smite/Penance/Mindgames/Mind Blast. Both the healing and the DPS toolboxes are lacking and combining the two of them doesn’t make for a whole kit but instead a kit that is incomplete in multple ways.

Atonement can work and be complete, straight up healing and work and be complete, the hybrid it is now can work and be complete but it simply need more choices and more options. If you look at Holy for example it’s clear blizzard just gave the spec tools and didn’t have a predetermined “this spec should heal this way” mindset when designing it. When you look at disc it’s clear blizz wanted you to play a specific style, and the spec really starts to suffer if you deviate from it to much. This is linear design and restrictive to the spec and to player skill and expression. It’s one of the core reason the spec is so poorly designed.