I think mostly he wants more ability to choose passive effects over active abilities.
1 Like
I should be the norm. No class should have ANY 2 talents point. And the fact u cant see that well just prove you are wrong even tough you like it.
1 Like
Whatâs to discuss here, itâs obviously imbalanced when compared to the rest of the trees. Add multipoint talents to either Elemental or the main Shaman tree. Just a few to one or the other tree would balance it.
But I donât want it nerfed.
3 Likes
I mean sure itâs imbalanced⌠That imbalance goes in favor of Elemental, asking for more multipoint talents is in other words asking to make pathing harder and reduce your ability to take more tools. Not to menction talents that went from multipointers to one pointers didnât get any weaker by doing so (in fact most of them got stronger with just one point than they were with 2).
To paint an example lets look at Elemental Warding, this used to be a 2-pointer but after the rework got turned into a 1-pointer so by your definition they âtook awayâ a multipointerâŚ
Old Elemental Warding:
(1/2) Reduce all magic damage taken by 2%
(2/2) Reduce all magic damage taken by 4%
New Elemental Warding:
(1/1) Reduce all magic damage taken by 6%.
Adjust accordingly is what I had said. However, I still think that it should be two points, but if we made the damage reduction 6%/12% it would be ridiculous. So, adjust accordingly. Maybe 4%/8%?
BUT
Should do the same for the other prior mention talents so the trees have symmetry. Either tree, I donât mind if Elemental doesnât have multipoint talents but the main tree should. Itâs ridiculous.
Thatâs the thing nodes like this are already extremely strong, and 6% permanent magic DR is super strong and already shows a big power creep in comparison to what other (older, not updated) talent trees have. I personally think 8% would be out of the question for being too strong for a passive, even as 2-pointer (So it would probably just downgrade to 3% per point tbh).
Example if you look at the Priest tree the talent Spellwarding is flat out a weaker version (3% magic DR), or the talent Manipulation is a 2-pointer that gives 1% DR per point. Thatâs kind of the ânormalâ level of what a flat passive DR talents used to be (or still are in the more obsolete trees).
I personally feel the new Shaman tree is super good, the âpassiveâ ones are already giving you (for just one point) pretty much the maxmimum of what you could justify for a talent and then we get a good amount of points to kind of pick between what utility we need.
I do beleive that having really high value nodes for the more âpassiveâ talents was specially needed for Shaman because thereâs so much niche utility also in the tree and you need to be able to select enough things so having all of it as one-pointers is the only way to give you enough points to do so (short of flat out increasing how many talent points you get but thatâs a set number for all classes).
Even if letâs say for the sake of argument, they made the talent into a 2 pointer, since itâs in the way of pathing⌠Would you rather have to spend an extra talent there for pathing purposes (even if it gave you 1 to 2% extra DR) over having the freedom to select more utility tools?.. Maybe you want wind-rush totem for the fight, or you need poison dispel totem, or tremor, etcâŚ
Iâm glad we agree about the power creep AND that 12% is far too strong for a passive. In a similar strain of thinking about a creeping problem. I believe that if we do away with multipoint talents in one tree it justifies doing it to others.
I really like the changes in the Shaman tree / Elemental trees aside from the removal of multipoint talents. I am defending AT LEAST the main tree from the lack of symmetry that would occur. Also, that itâs a utility as some multipoint talents can have a single point investment. I had used the example of Swelling Maelstrom and Eye of the Storm being multipoint, because a player may want to somewhat predict when their Tempest may occur. I also believe some players may want to go for a Tempest based build and may actually want to have spells cost more so they can reach the proc quicker. Think of it as perhaps a setting for a fans speed? I donât know about you but the idea of getting to control Maelstrom generation and cost for a build: Definitely screams multipoint justification.
I think his argument is that youâd be able to âhalf-specializeâ in a 2 point nodeâŚwhich moving aside how thats literally arguing for a talent point tax create quite literally a illusionary âmeaningful choiceâ garbage, he doesnât understand you have to full talent into it in order progress into the tree.
Put the pipe down mate. If you wanna predict when tempest is coming out just literally look at a WA (WoW is designed around WA so just unsub if your response is âI SHOULDNâT HAVE TO USE A WAâ). Talent trees do not work in a way that would allow you to half specialize into points unless they do not have anything path off of them which means sticking all 2 pointers in the final nodeâŚwhich is the exact issue Enhance has.
The takes of people who are barely ATOC andys have been wild lately.
1 Like
Once again.
You are asking for things to be worse in every way possible.
Itâs absolutely mind boggling.
1 Like
By that logic letâs just have EVERYTHING baked into the spellbook. No need to think, because itâs all really just an âillusion of choiceâ.
My response is you shouldnât have to install WeakAuras, and itâs a bigoted and backwards notion that ANY player should have to while DBM exists. Also, it isnât every tree that needs both points, I agree it shouldnât be that way. Itâs just the choice nodes â Iâm pretty sure?
Brother Iâm telling you your cook is about as as cooked as you brain after the amount of glue you sniffed to make the argument we should have 2 pointers in the trees for âmeaningfulâ choice.
Last I checked we donât have a surplus of points to take literally every talent in the talent tree so youâre just having a tantrum with that statement.
Whatâs your counter point been besides: âeveryone disagreesâ and âitâs an arbitrary taxâ. Itâs nonsense, why donât you think about what I am writing? Instead of just insulting and having reactionary responses. Seriously.
Go to the talent calculator for live, put only one point in all two point nodes and see if you can path normally. Iâll wait.
Thereâs a whole thread of people explaining why your cook is dumb. Yet youâre glossing over it.
Unless they changed it, have had specs with single points â BUT yeah, maybe it gets confusing because you can go around it often. I see what you mean, but I stand with prior my assertion. Fair point though.
What do you mean by this? Are you talking about specs having 1 point nodes or specs where they would only put a single point into a 2 point node? Try to provide specific examples since it is very confusing and unclear what you are referring to.
I suppose I overlooked that you can âbypassâ the requirement for two-point talents by having the adjacent node, and it can appear you donât need a two-point investment â at least now. It is not that I am supporting the cost, just the âutilityâ to invest a single point into strong passive multipoint talents if I so choose. Additionally, I recall making builds with single point investments and being able to continue down the tree. I guess that I had the adjacent nodes.
So give me a clear example of when you have done this. Because Iâm failing to the utility in this.
There are builds where yes you would only stick one point into a two-point node but more often than not it is due to a lack of points. In most cases, you are not using that 1-point investment into a 2-point node for pathing purposes. That said there are talents where for a build they only need a singular point since the benefit is granted. But those talents are generally heavily criticized and cause point taxes in building decisions.
Enhancementâs current problem is related to this because youâre not just choosing talents for Elementalist or Storm on their own, weâre now going to have to choose talents for our builds AND every hero talent we use. There is quite literally only 1 example where you only put 1 point into a two-point node (Storm Builds taking Legacy of the Frost Witch) but that is a special case where that node has no pathing option. The other 8 2 point nodes require that you stick 2 points not even due to pathing concerns, but theyâre just so powerful that you lose so much throughput you wouldnât even make that decision.
I canât really lay out anymore examples besides the ones that Iâve given about Eye of the Storm, etc. Those are my reasons for considering it a utility â is you could invest the second point regardless of pathing requirements. I apologize for being imprecise about the pathing requirements.
I really cant choose between him beeing a terrible player or a troll its really hard at this point