Remember that yesterday the forums were blowing up after Kalgan dropped a bomb on the DOT-reliant community, announcing for the first time that resilience would soon mitigate DOT spells.
I posted why I thought this was a weird solution yesterday.
But, Blood Pact dives into the math and Blizzard's possible thinking. The highlights:
So why is resilience being brought in to fix this problem? If DoTs themselves are the issue, it seems to make more sense to alter the DoTs themselves instead of changing an anti-crit ability into an anti-crit, anti-DoT ability. Blizzard certainly hasn't explained their motivations here, but despite that, I have a guess at what's going on here:Regarding the math:
Blizzard wants to moderate Warlock damage in high-level PvP encounters without hurting their PvE abilities.
And that's exactly what a chance to resilience will do. Monsters don't have resilience. Low-level PvPers don't have resilience. By not altering the DoTs themselves, Blizzard maintains Warlocks' current strengths in PvE and lower-end PvP. If this is, in truth, what they wanted to do, perhaps it's not such an inappropriate solution.
However, the stats on what's currently the best PvP set in the game don't worry me very much. Looking at the worst of the resilience stats from above, we're only seeing a 4.4% damage reduction. Let's look at the highest rank of Curse of Agony, for example, which (base) does 1356 damage over 24 seconds. 175 resilience will reduce CoA's damage by 4.4%, or 60 damage (rounded up). In the grand scheme of things, the reduction sounds pretty minor.Good article, good reasoning. I'm okay with it, even though I think it's making resilience into a funky hybrid stat that's drifting from its original purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment