Fair enough, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Getting a better idea of how certain classes work under the hood is pretty interesting, especially the ones I never got a chance to play back in the day.
4 Likes
Dyehead your second to last sentence is dead on.
Also, I think the fact that this post has gained so much attention so quickly is a big indicator that this needs to be addressed. It’s also, an indicator of which direction the community wants to go. Two way twisting has the support of the majority.
In addition to that, disinterested parties who are informed of it largely either don’t care or are supportive of the idea. I have yet to run into someone in-game who is against two way twisting. Probably because I don’t play on Smeet’s server.
4 Likes
This is not true, ever.
A full haste stack doesn’t prevent the use of 1 way twisting. A twist is stronger than any button outside of crusader strike (windfury is helpful to make this true in earlier tiers, as it makes twisting about 12% more likely to trigger the burst). So long as you are able to pull off a twist twice in about a 10s window, you’ll be doing more damage for less Mana than exorcism and consecration can offer, thus a dps gain over the normal rotation.
The only way that twisting is ever less dps than a normal rotation, in any optimized character, is when the player is messing up the twists. Otherwise, there’s nothing in a normal rotation to make it stronger than 1 way twisting, especially when you consider that twisting players can ALSO stack haste just like a normal rotation, and always raise dps above that baseline.
If you are talking a normal ret rotation to just be CS and judge, there’s tons of dead time at all levels of haste, to twist as Mana allows. It will never beat a twisting player in the same conditions if the twisting player is executing it properly.
The 3.0 speed boundary is not a cutoff for when twisting is a dps gain. It is just a speed where it fits most easily in what could be called a rotation.
Yes, these are all the pitfalls that twisting has always had, as the class was not designed to be twisting centric. Erasing them pushes the class design from twisting being a high risk tool for more dps to twisting being easy enough to pull off with no particular risk that it is the entire focus of the class.
Even with twisting having all of the downsides it has in 1 way twists, it is still always a dps gain when done properly (and no, that does not require fine tuning your haste). It does not need to be made stronger.
3 Likes
Just like the hunters manually weaving shots so as not to clip auto shot. Higher skill level = more damage. Good paladins will be able to do this and stand out.
A lot of classes already have to deal with, so paladins get to join them in the watching swing timers and health bars.
2 Likes
So the gist of the arguments I am getting from you and many others seem to be that there’s a significant issue doing something “different” than what spell batching allowed in OG TBC.
The feedback people are trying to give, that you seem to not even address, is that the two-way twisting that was implemented on Endless, the PTR (temporarily), and was posted in the blue post at the top of this thread, is GOOD.
- Its is more fun.
- It is a more natural rotation.
- It is a marginal dps increase on a mid-bottom tier dps class.
- It HIGHLY unlikely to change the PVP or PVE meta.
There are some obvious changes that already affect Classic TBC, so using the original release as a benchmark for what “should” be OK is just another version of nochangeslol, which really did not turn out well for classic.
I will add that I like the mystery of whether haste in ZA/SWP will be good or not. Apolyon + haste stacking and 1 way twising may eke out a win over Torch + avoiding haste and 2 way twisting, but we don’t really know yet, unless someone has done some math I haven’t seen. Most sheets are using averages, which discount haste procs and being able to flex between the rotations, too (DST).
IMO this increases the skill cap for the high-end player, and makes the barrier of entry for a new ret something more than just auto/judge/crusader. All good stuff.
6 Likes
There’s nothing I can say about some people finding it more fun, I don’t, I’m sure I’m not alone in that. The only class with even a slightly similarly timed rotation are hunters, and they are fighting to get a macro back to automate their rotation so they don’t have to deal with the tedium of it.
It isn’t much different of a rotation. On an optimal speed for 2 way twisting, it gains a free GCD to fill because you don’t shift your swap to SoC back a half second. Sure, it feels better because it keeps to a steady rhythm instead of an alternating one, but it requires the same focus on your swing timer.
That said, I also can’t prove that someone doesn’t like two way twisting. Enjoyment of any particular rotation is subjective.
It’s more than a marginal dps increase though due to the class personal dps balance being much closer in tbc than they were in classic. We aren’t talking adding 10% to ret’s doing 800 dps when warriors are doing 2k. We are talking adding 10% to a class that tops out near 2500 dps when the top dps are only a bit above 3k, and that’s assuming everyone is playing optimally.
And while no, it may not have seismic shifts in the speedrun meta, the vast majority of guilds aren’t a part of that, don’t have everyone performing optimally, and ret’s having an unnecessary dps boost does impact other areas of the game, including pvp balancing.
2 way twisting strictly lowers the skill cap relative to 1 way twisting. There’s no setup required, thus it’s easier.
We already have 1 way twisting for those that want to test their skill and deal more dps.
What I do argue against is the downplaying of the balance and rotational changes to the class in an attempt to try to strengthen the argument that 2 way twisting is something blizzard should be implementing.
Just leave it at:
I like it, it feels better to me, and I don’t find the deviation from tbc to be a problem.
Don’t pretend that the deviations don’t really exist, or that they don’t matter.
2 Likes
Idk about seal twisting I just want to see more of this to shake up the arena meta
2 Likes
Yeah it matters, it rocks, it feels like how it SHOULD feel with two way, it gives us a tiny bump in damage to make us relevant, and there’s 5,000 of us and only one smeet. You’ve written a book at this point, just let the record show it’s getting kinda sad now dude
@purplelime hll yeah brother
3 Likes
in the essence of TBC… keep the seal twisting keep the hunter macro.
if the batching is the culprit blizzard needs to go back to the chalk board on that again.
1 Like
Twisting is currently in and is working like it worked in the original TBC. I’ve heard mixed results on the hunter macro working as it did in TBC.
Twisting fix wen?
1 Like
Regarding meta in PVE and PVP, I am not convinced this will be broken for arenas (check Endless arena rankings for ret pallies – there are remarkably few, and only when paired with shaman), and it would be a very tough sell to say that this means that raids will take more than 1 ret pally. I am not really referring to speedrunning meta, and frankly I think speedrunning is a bit silly.
With regards to skill cap, having non-twisting, 1 way twisting, and 2 way twisting all available will potentially increase the skillcap and the nuance from gearing. It will also make a really good ret stand out from an OK ret, as they will be able to adjust in-fight between the rotations based on haste potions, drums, lust, wings, and trinket procs.
I don’t think there is a significant different in the skill cap between the rotations themselves, but rather a difference in skill cap in identifying in-fight adjustments based on the above factors. 2 way is probably a bit easier because there is a rhythm. I think there will be a wider distribution of performance throughout raid tiers and more interesting gearing if no-twist, 1way, and 2way are all in game.
Finally, regarding dps – top-tier dps around 3200 and top-tier ret without two way twisting around 2500. Thats a 28% difference, which leaves a LOT of room before two-way twisting would in any way threaten the dps rankings or raid compositions in general.
There will of course be deviations, and they will of course matter at the micro level. Macro-level game meta … I doubt it.
edit:
I like it, it feels better to me, and I don’t find the deviation from tbc to be a problem.
5 Likes
I have no issue with you liking it, and thank you for framing your points around that theme.
The only part that care to point out anything about is this section:
This is the design intent of TBC. Hybrids were specifically tuned to be behind full dps classes by about that margin. They gained potent raid benefits to compensate for the difference. No, buffing rets might not break the game, but it is a deviation from the intent of class balancing back then.
It wasn’t until later expansions that hybrids were supposed to come closer to the top.
Now, obviously that’s a different topic alltogether, and I’d agree that it’s a discussion worth having about what degree hybrids should be behind pures. Blizzard doesn’t seem interested in that kind of adjustment for tbc classic given their statements and actions so far.
That in itself takes 2 way twisting mostly off the table as something I expect them to consider.
If they were open to a tuning pass on classes, I’d also prefer it to not be focused on twisting mechanics for paladins, as there are other tools that could be stronger, so that when given the choice between exorcism, consecration, or a twist, it isn’t always the twist that wins.
In a world where twisting were our lowest priority button press I could even get behind 2 way twisting, as it wouldn’t dominate the rotation and it would function more as a filler tool.
That’s a pretty massive cascade of changes though, none of which are particularly likely in what is essentially a remaster of tbc.
1 Like
I would tend to agree that a rebalance such that twisting were lowest priority but still a positive thing to do is ideal. However, I think you are realistic in stating that a huge rebalance for TBC is unlikely and frankly not in the design intent.
My understanding of class balance throughout TBC is that Enhancement shamans generally perform better than a ret at the hybrid melee role, and even if this change puts ret on par or slightly ahead, the shamans will still be generally preferred over a ret due to totems and lust. There will be 3 paladins per raid max, typically, and as many shamans as the raid leader can find.
A 10% increase to 2500 dps is 2750, which is still 16-17% behind top-tier dps. The Hybrid tax is still in play, especially compared to ret’s top-tier DPS in WOTLK, and frankly many people won’t get the full mileage out of the potential 10% max increase. 5% is probably more realistic.
Your points are valid, and I think we are looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion. I don’t think people would have even been talking about this as a possibility if it hadn’t hit the PTR with 2-way twisting, then been removed (all with a blue post supporting the design philosophy as something they intend to keep).
From what I am seeing, the majority of folks are sounding off in favor of putting the two-way twisting back in and keeping consistent with the blue post cited in the OP. I don’t think its because they see themselves as suddenly being a great dps class or ripping off parses like Blayst, but rather that it gives them more active participation in their rotation but keeps it from being completely clunky.
i.e. it seems like the majority view it as a fun change that isn’t game breaking.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s basically all this.
For me personally, with how high twisting is in the ret priority, I prefer it to remain clunky as to not dominate the class’s performance. It’ll still be better than a normal rotation, but the clunkiness holds back how big of a deal it is to be doing it all the time so that a ret’s other buttons still maintain some reasonably close value, rather than twisting being supported to the point where someone messing up almost half of them but using CS on cooldown still ends up ahead.
That is going too far for me.
So in the absence of changes to make twisting low priority for rets, I’d prefer it stay clunky.
I don’t fault people for liking 2 way twisting though. I personally found rank twisting SoC to be fun to do, but I never thought it should go onto live servers even if it wouldn’t have broken anything to do so with how far ahead warrior/rogue/mages are.
That’s just not what the classic servers are really for.
1 Like
This might hold water if the DM AP and Dragonslayer buffs weren’t changed to allow hunters to benefit DURING classic… How do you reconcile that?
1 Like
Or to phrase it in a less contentious way…
We exited #nochanges when Naxx launched, and the TBC Classic Blizzcon presentation was all about how there were going to be #somechanges. What “classic servers are for” is an inherently variable definition set by blizzard with the community’s input.
It wasn’t game-breaking to add AP to hunters in Naxx, but its not like guilds are stacking hunters now that they can, at peak skill, almost hang with melee. Its the perfect analogy for the level of power creep we’re talking about here.
“I don’t want this slight improvement to go live because I am holding out for a real actual fix that will never happen” is a classic example of letting perfect get in the way of good.
If this change is generally viewed positively and generally isn’t insane power creep, and fits within the level of changes that is acceptable for “fun” on classes that aren’t TBC Meta, then lets move ahead and make the change.
5 Likes
Blizzard decided to.
Best I can guess on their logic is the fact that anything else that just says “attack power” does both.
No, class balance was a train wreck in classic anyway, if hunters were only a bit behind the top dps, it could have been more impactful.
Additionally, as it was an adjustment to a world buff the implications of it are fairly narrow, and it did nothing to change how hunters are played at a high level.
It was a generally safer change to make, but even there it helped push hunter dps to a point where they were higher than rets, and that was a class that ret was supposed to keep up with fairly well with on a patchwerk style fight, if not exceed in Naxx (although in both cases it doesn’t make guilds use more or less of them).
Agreed, I simply interpret some changes a bit more narrowly than many do here. I don’t get bothered nearly as much by post progression larger changes either, as the entirety of the progression portion was under more original tuning.
I honestly wouldn’t care if they put 2 way twisting in a month or two after Sunwell launches.
So if blizzard decides to put in 2-way twisting, are you going to change your position and argue against people who don’t want it in?
I also disagree highly with your interpretation of hunter damage increases, giving them 340AP was pretty massive. The difference between P5 hunter damage in AQ40 and P6 hunter damage in AQ40 is almost a 50% increase. I’m sure gear accounts for a good portion of that increase, but not 50%. You’re downplaying it to try and marginalize a significant blow to your primary argument of ‘keeping things as close to original’.
2 Likes
No, I wouldn’t change my position on it, but I wouldn’t put much further energy into it.
It was massive, but like I said, narrow, as it only applied when set up for raiding until the hunter died or 2 hours passed. It didn’t extend to other parts of the game, and didn’t even help much in progression as it was lost the moment the hunter died.
I also said that it made hunters stronger than classic rets at patchwerk style fights at a time that they should have been roughly equal. It had consequences, they were simply lost in translation due to player dps already far exceeding anything Naxx required.
I never said I agreed with it, only that I understand why it was done, and pointed out that it is a more narrow change than 2 way twisting would be.