Power Infusion and Supports in WoW

There’s been a lot of discussion around PI, so I wanted to make a post from the perspective of a casual-gone-semi-hardcore player and a designer.

I want to start by outlining the problem space, before discussing how I would approach this mechanic in WoW. Feel free to just skip all the way down to where I discuss a potential solution

TLDR: PI should give its target a debuff that reduces the effectiveness of future PIs by X% for 6 minutes. This debuff should not apply to PIs cast on a priest by themselves.

The Cons

Primarily, Power Infusion has been seen as problematic in what Blizzard refers to as “Game 2.” For context, Game 2 refers to the game players have invented around dps meters, parsing, and Warcraft Logs rankings.

A very large portion of the players that play WoW are invested in Game 2. It has become a massive part of the game, sometimes even more important than Game 1 - as in sometimes people care more about parsing than actually killing a boss.

If you look at it from a Game 2 perspective, PI is a cheat code. Imagine you’re playing a Warlock, you go to the logs and everyone at the top has multiple PIs. If you don’t also get a PI, you have no hope of competing. Furthermore, if you want to improve and check out rotations, well people without PI are now starting on page 10. Are page 10 logs going to help you improve? Hard to say.

Another aspect of this is that there is always one spec that is best with PI, so you PI them (at least this is the case for most play. In very high levels of play you will see PI being planned out for certain mechanics). No one else is allowed to get PI, and that spec gets it on cooldown. This is a massive inflation in the power level of this spec, as well as an oversimplification of a mechanic that could have been very interesting. PI becomes effectively an additional cooldown for that spec.

Of course this is not always the case. There are fights where it is best to allocate PI to certain classes as it lines up best with mechanics. My guild likes to discuss this kind of stuff, but I have also seen people just toss PI on themselves, random DPS, or a specific single player at lower levels of play simply because they don’t care to think about it.

Additionally, since PI gives haste and therefore increases the speed at which players play their rotation, it has a major impact on their experience of the game. It is noticeably more fun to play the game with PI than without it. As such, people can become quite attached to receiving it on cooldown. This creates friction when determining who will get PI.

The Pros

Firstly, we have the fantasy of empowering one’s allies. As this is a fairly underexplored side of WoW, I think there’s inherent value in this unique interaction between players. Giving your allies a buff that significantly empowers them generally feels good.

Furthermore, thinking through how you want to utilize external buffs adds a level of puzzle solving to fights. How do we want to use this external? Where do we need the power? Is it best used trying to beat a dps check, or do we need it for healing through a mechanic?

Receiving an external is a massive boost for the player. Getting that haste is a rush - you know your teammate just empowered you and you are going to put that to good use. Haste changes have you feel and how your rotation functions, which makes this a more interesting interaction than just gaining dps throughput.

Finally, PI is just cool in terms of fantasy and thematics.

Tangent on Supportive Builds

Feel free to skip this.

In general, supportive gameplay is a fairly underexplored aspect of WoW. We see a lot more supportive mechanics coming in for Dragonflight, ranging from Evoker utility to new experiments with party buffs (hello Restless Crew). We also saw things like Blessing of Summer and Fae Guardians - which have not been as polarizing as PI.

Since WoW’s release, the concept of “Supports” have become way more widespread in games. In terms of fantasy, helping your allies in a fight and providing them with unique benefits feels natural. This adds an additional level of complexity to the game - something to think about and experiment with for those who care to do so.

Another aspect of this is that the Healer role, especially in raids, can behave a little weird. Sometimes you want 4 healers in a fight, but you only really needed 3.5 healers, or you need some additional cooldowns but not more downtime healing. In these cases, in higher levels of play healers will default to doing damage when healing isn’t needed, but some people just prefer to only heal.

Some supportive gameplay options, especially in the form of talents, could make healers’ gameplay more interesting. You don’t need to absolutely pump healing? Why don’t you talent into some support options instead and increase your raid’s damage output?

We’ve seen more damage focused healers before, such as “Battle Shaman,” a more dps oriented Resto Shaman build (kind of incentivized by a lack of decent healing legendaries) . The issue is that a lot of healer specializations might not have interesting non-healing mechanics. I imagine filling the time between healing cooldowns with Lightning Bolt and Lava Burst can get quite dull.

I was actually quite disappointed to see that the Shaman class tree was lacking in raid utility and more interesting “Battle Shaman” build options. At the very least, I would have expected to see a nerfed version of Skyfury totem.

There are also classes that do not benefit from PI - or even Bloodlust - nearly as much as others. The good news is they do not experience the PI problem in Game 2 nearly as much, but it also feels bad if there is no external buff you can receive like others can.

I think new buffs with designs that make them more suitable for a variety of targets can be quite interesting, while providing opportunities for other classes. Furthermore, saturating the space with more external buffs should also reduce the individual impact of these buffs.

Approaching a Solution

I would like to see more supportive talent builds available to healer specs - give them the option to choose between healing throughput or raid utility/damage increase. This can come in a massive variety of ways, but I’m going to mostly return to PI.

Blizzard has expressed that they aren’t even sure if they should care to balance PI around Game 2, as it is a game invented and managed by players instead of Blizzard. My personal goal with a solution is to limit PI’s impact on Game 2, while maintaining/amplifying the fantasy of empowering your allies.

A quick list of things to accomplish:

  • Make it so PI does not turn into yet another cooldown for a narrow list of specs.
  • Allow more players to experience an external buff and feel empowered.
  • By incentivizing a larger distribution of benefactors, reduce the impact of PI on logs/dps meters.
  • Create a mechanic that makes it so PI is a blessing you can receive a limited amount, so that friction around one person receiving it over another is reduced.
  • For people who don’t care to think about PI, it should remain somethings they can just toss on someone/themselves and forget about
  • Make sure PI remains at a good power level when Priests use it on themselves.
  • Increase the visibility of “funneling” for Game 2

With that in mind, the solution I would consider is fairly basic:

PI applies a Exhaustion to your target, reducing the effectiveness of further PI’s cast on them by others by X% (let’s say 20%) for 6 minutes.

I have considered a debuff more similar to Weakened Soul or Forbearance, but I think this is too detrimental for those who do not want to think about PI. This forces complexity onto players, so I think a small debuff is preferred.

If PI becomes weaker on a target when cast twice in a row, you are now incentivized to cast it on someone else who will be able to use it better. There should still be classes that do not benefit from PI nearly as much, so I expect there will be cases where you will want to PI someone multiple times in a row. For this use case, my suggestion is a nerf. But I think that is okay - we want to avoid PI becoming an additional cooldown for some specs, so if it does, it is better nerfed (rather than the spec itself getting nerfed because their throughput is so inflated by PI, which feels bad for the players of this spec.)

The 6 minute suggested debuff duration is for dungeons, where if you alternate between 3 DPS you will never have to worry about the debuff. This maintains the power of PI at a decent level: even though you would likely be PI’ing worse targets, hopefully the performance of those targets are not that much lower than your preferred target. And in the worst case, you can always PI yourself, the tank, or someone with a debuff for a slightly weaker PI. The debuff should not in any case be a brutal nerf.

As players will understand that receiving PI back to back reduces its impact, it should create a general atmosphere that PI is something that should be shared.

In terms of Game 2, this makes it so that it is easier to highlight people who received PI while debuffed. This might not always be suboptimal, but the proposed change should disincentivize it when it is, and increase its visibility in either case. Game 2 is designed by the players, and this provides additional tools to balance Game 2 for everyone.

Finally, this should incentivize discussion around who should get their PI when, and create interesting decision points. Maybe you want to PI your Demonology Warlock during Bloodlust, so you PI someone else on pull. Or maybe someone needs PI to improve their rotation at a certain timing - now this will not cost you a PI on your best target because they would have the debuff anyway.

Cutting the frequency at which a single player receives PI by a 3rd should drastically reduce it’s impact on logs, while tripling the number of players who get to experience PI in a fight. I think that is more than impactful enough to be worth considering.

I think a similar structure can be applied to any single target buff to come in the future (and I do hope we receive more supportive abilities that incentivize thought and planning). Especially for buffs that impact one’s playstyle - whose damage benefits cannot easily be isolated and attributed to the caster - there should be incentives to cast them on a variety of people throughout an encounter.

Looking at the Data

Disclaimer: I do not believe the relationship between haste and dps gained from that haste is linear. Therefore, 20% reduced haste likely does not equate to 20% reduced dps gain. I’m going to instead look at it assuming that we are reducing the dps gained from PI by 20%, not the haste for ease of analysis.

These are also patchwerk 5 minute sims, and the varying value of PI for different target counts and fight durations already incentivizes target variety by some amount. I think the proposed changes can further build on this.

In patch 9.2.5, the DPS gains from PI for each spec is decently close in the middle, with major outliers at the ends. At the top, Fire Mage and Demonology Warlock are far above the rest of the pack, where even with a 20% reduced benefit would not make other classes viable PI targets.

Outside of these two outliers, reducing the next best spec’s (Unholy DK) benefit by 20% makes 3 other specs viable PI targets instead (Destro, Ret, Aff). If the benefit is reduced by 30% instead, 4 more specs are now viable (Marksman, Assassination, Balance, Enhancement, Frost DK).

In raid, this should be decent enough to provide some diversity in PI targets, especially if future tiers aren’t as polarizing as this one (DPS Benefit Values: Median ~810, Mean ~900, Venthyr Fire Mage Benefit ~1800).

Especially in mid-high tiers of gameplay where raid comps are not ideal (where you might not have a Fire Mage or Demonology Warlock), or in future tiers if values do not have such massive outliers at the top end, I believe a small to moderate debuff of 20-30% should be more than enough to increase diversity such that people who want PI will likely become a good enough target to receive PI.

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1inZGAyrPiNTjN0ni9jWTxsYuojDIkCDFBPtE7-Wd2rw/edit?usp=sharing

Bonus

It would also be cool to see further interactions for these buffs with their casters that make them even more collaborative. What if Discipline Priests could take a talent that makes Atonement benefit from your ally’s damage at a reduced rate when you PI them? One can imagine other interactions like this that allow healers to specialize in supportive builds if they so choose.

6 Likes

Well thought post. I thought this was going to be another remove PI thread and I’m happy I clicked and to read it anyway.

I feel this would be a very good change for PI to reduce the problems it causes for game 2 while not being a real nerf of the class utility for game 1.

Also, your support ideas are interresting. I guess it’s not going to cut it for game 2 but it could very well do in game 1.

Cheers.

1 Like

Reading this just makes me think we Priests are something akin to a “Drug” dealer or being like Dr. Mario and just passing out pills and making everyone addicts that start hounding us more and more when they get used to having it lol.

Also, the idea that “game 2” is invented by the players is to me… short sighted. Blizzard are the ones that created this gogogo mentality and added enrage timers and created tightly adjusted tuning for bosses to reinforce this “optimal” playstyles/builds to execute.

If timers and tightly tuned encounters / enrage timers weren’t a thing then “Game 2” would not exist or at the very least not be as prevalent to have to be acknowledged as an entire separate way to see / view the game.

What I enjoy about the game is when I am running M+ or Raiding with my close friends, we like to compete with each other and fight to stay above and overcome each others DPS. Its a really fun competition that we clown each other over when we pass one another (its like racing on a race track type of feeling). But if I am a buff machine then I would upset this little fun “race” we have with one another… its like a gentlemen’s bet that now we cant have a legitimate outcome if I am a buff bot on my priest.

1 Like

FFXIV. Guild Wars 2.

Parsing ‘happens’ in these games in that there’s 3rd party tools to measure your DPS. However, it’s SIGNIFICANTLY muted in terms of players competing with other players for damage within raid groups. And they both have hard enrage timers. FFXIV’s in particular will just flat out kill you on every enrage, with no chance to beat it post-enrage.

It more has to do with Blizzard allowing mod support - and not stepping in to stop that second game from fostering. If your account was up for punishment because you told your DPS in your Mists key that they weren’t doing any damage, there’d be less people worrying about it. That is the reality of FFXIV and GW2 though. They ban players talking about meters at all in the game. And they actively tell people third party tools are not allowed.

Also FFXIV in particular is interesting because of Dancer. A class that literally attaches themselves to a DPS and increases their damage by a percentage - and is seen as fine by that community.

4 Likes

Thanks, I’m glad to hear that.

Losing a tool to suit the whims for people’s vanity instead of in-game necessity sounds like the worst reason to nerf something, IMO.

2 Likes

I agree, but we wouldn’t really be losing it though. Have you given a read to his post?
Either way, I def want to keep that wonderful cooldown that everyone would sell their mother for :slight_smile:

I read the tl;dr.

Some people don’t only M+/raid. You get an arena match that goes into dampening under OP’s idea, then a major offensive CD gets worse, and worse. We could use technicalities and say ‘yeahhhhh, you’d still have it though,’ but someone cutting off half my finger isn’t going to make me thankful for a nub.

OP would rather see you fail, than suffer getting beat on a DPS meter (in spite of it in no way affecting his content, and him actually benefiting from anyone in his group doing extra DPS to begin with). Spit on him and send him packing like he deserves.

1 Like

good point, didn’t think about pvp even do I do some every now and then :slight_smile:

While my suggestion was definitely not taking PvP in mind, I should point out two things:

First is a clarification around this:

The debuff I suggest is not intended to be stacking. It can be refreshed, but it is never worse - just a flat X%.

Secondly, this is indeed a notable nerf to PI in PvP, unless you alternate it as 1 cast on partner, 2 casts on yourself (in 2v2s), or 1 cast on everyone (in 3v3s). But if this is an unjust nerf to priests in PvP, the debuff could easily be disabled inside of Arenas. There are already many PvP only interactions (including those outside of PvP talents - such as Blood DK healing reduction in Arenas), so this would not be that out of place.

2 Likes

It’s unjust to nerf based on vanity. Nerfs occur because they impede progress unfairly, or circumvent content in a way it wasn’t designed to be played.

And frankly I could care less from a gaming perspective, half the time PI gets purged off in PVP, and I only do enough M+ to get a seasonal mount and I could do that blindfolded, so it would barely affect me, but out of sheer principal you’re wanting to jurisdict freedom of choice/options because you want to feel better when you look at your parses.

This argument has been mimicked for the past few weeks that I’ve noticed, and I’m still just stunned that anyone would even entertain the idea of removing a functional game ability (and I know you’re trying to suggest X instead of removing it, most suggest removing it) that works as intended because people feel entitled to look better, with their content not being affected at all. Lol

Your main is 3400 IO, you’re in probably the top 2% of the M+ ladder. What is PI keeping you from?

1 Like

If someone is beating another player on a fight simply due to them getting PI, then leave it to the log sites or DPS meters to sort out how much of that damage occured because of PI. The game doesn’t need to lose an impactful ability because people are sad they are losing a DPS race due to not getting said buff.

I actually loved Ion’s response to the PI “problem” in one of his latest interviews. I’ll quote it below if people haven’t seen it.

"Because yes, certainly, if we were making a game, and the point of the game was maximize your score, maximize this number, it would be problematic to introduce elements into the game that are very random or skew outcomes one way or another. But that’s also not the game that we have made. We have created a cooperative game that presents these challenges to be overcome. And so something in that environment like Power Infusion is a really interesting decision in a range of raid settings. Maybe on farm you sell it to the person with the best burst window, but when you’re learning an encounter for the first time, it’s more “what are the moments in the fight that are most challenging for us? Do we need to burst down this wave of adds before this next thing happens and who should we PI? Should we PI a healer because we need a throughput burst to make it through this thing? DPS isn’t an issue, we’re just trying to survive but we don’t want to add a healer?” It’s those sorts of decisions that are interesting group dynamics that we would hate to take away.

And game 2, so to speak, is also one where the rules in other places are shaped by the community. Like everyone at this point thinks nothing of the fact that log sites completely ignore padding. You can maximize your number by just damaging a bunch of extraneous adds in a fight that don’t really serve the interest of the group. And doing that will make you have the biggest number and win meters, and the community has collectively decided this is unhealthy, we’re not going to count or reward that behavior, just because you’re multi-dotting all these adds that will die on their own…we’re not going to count this damage at all. And that shapes player behavior there. To some extent, we want to focus on designing for the so-called game 1, and making that the best experience possible, and leave to the community and log sites and others to figure out the rules for how they want to determine who the best hunter is, who the best mage is etc. on this fight."

2 Likes

This makes me feel like you did not read 99% of what I wrote and made a lot of assumptions about what I’m suggesting

Game 2 and Logs - “Vanity” as you refer to it - is not the only problem. In fact, it isn’t even a majority of the problem. To put very simply, on live PI is a Warlock or Fire Mage cooldown. This creates several problems:

  • These classes get nerfed because of overperformance on the top end, as their power level is measured with them consistently benefitting from PI
  • People playing these classes without consistent access to PI are subjected to nerfs that were partially directed at PI, and not the class baseline.
  • People playing these classes without consistent access to PI have difficulty finding relevant logs to study for improvement as a massive amount of top logs will have PI
  • No other class gets to benefit from PI - casting PI on an average target over a Fire Mage is a ~1k DPS loss.
  • The limitation in effective target choice for PI restricts creative use of the ability due to massive DPS loss.

Additionally, I’d prefer it if you were able to phrase an argument that is focused on the idea itself and not worded as an attack on me.

Aside from content being affected and this not being personal at all, if you researched my main you should have also seen I play Arcane Mage - a class that does not get PI nor does it benefit very much from haste. In fact PI often makes Arcane Mage run out of mana. This is a game design issue, and not at all a personal one.

1 Like

The thing is it’s not just a Game 2 issue. Ion has a point about how PI affects Game 2 not being entirely their job to deal with. But PI does not currently hit their design goals - it’s creative use is restricted by the disparity of impact based on your target. It also creates additional issues with class balance and more, discussed both in my post and above in another comment.

Warcraft Logs already shows PI as a separate column and recently did a post on how to further handle how it impacts logs. The Game 2 issue can and is somewhat remedied by the community that sets the rules of Game 2. I suggest a change that I think will improve both Game 1 and Game 2, so I don’t think it should be dismissed solely on the fact that Game 2 is managed and balanced by the community.

1 Like

Still not a shred of evidence of this happening. In fact, all evidence points to Blizzard completely understanding how these specs are performing and why.

Also it’s funny to think that we acknowledge that Warcraftlogs allows you to remove logs with PI, but for some reason Blizzard just can’t do that and get any data that way.

This is maybe the one problem. But I hesitate to call this a problem. Said player can eliminate PI logs and see what the top are doing. Can still compare all PI’d logs and see what they’re doing comparatively to non-PI’d logs, etc. It’s also an argument for a miniscule amount of the playerbase.

This one’s just incorrect, and has been proven so even by raid leads critical of PI.

2 Likes

You can’t back this up with a shred of evidence.

This makes zero sense. A. No one has a problem finding PI, M+ and PVP have been choc-full-o Hpriest. B. You can study logs just the same with or without PI.

We’re back at ‘bUt BlIzZaRd MuH pArSeS!’ (The only real reason this discussion is taking place, mind you.)

It’s a 20% haste buff, what creative use? I’m not your Lit professor, sir, no reason to church me up with BS.

Right, ‘bLiZzArD mUh PaRsEs’, like I’ve maintained from the beginning.

You’re trying to blow smoke to get me nerfed because you’re mad no one is giving you PI. Attacking you is what you have coming, and deserve.

Would you care to rebuttle a 4th or 5th time to have me repeat myself and chide you some more, or are we done here?

I don’t think they’re balancing any spec based on its max potential with PI.

If that’s your approach to it yeah we’re done here.