Jump to content

Photo

Tree form survivability SLIGHTLY nerfed, OOcaster survivability buffed


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
230 replies to this topic

#21 Mackeveli

Mackeveli
  • Junkies
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Blackrock
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 725
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:22 AM

AND WHAT ABOUT INNERVATE
  • 0

#22 tontonba

tontonba
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • US-Shattered Halls
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 152
  • Talents: Balance

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:24 AM

That's what I was thinking, 160% does seem like it's too much if it's passive, which is leading me to think that it might only be when barkskin is active.
  • 0

#23 Zesti

Zesti
  • Members
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • US-Dethecus
  • Rampage
  • Posts: 293
  • Talents:

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:31 AM

Its not gonna be passive lol, and the dispel resistance is no longer on imp bark? or?
  • 0

#24 Ckmaster

Ckmaster
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 224
  • Talents: Balance 1/0/1/2/2/2/2
  • 2v2: 1754
  • 3v3: 2343
  • RBG: 1136

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:45 AM

My guess is it's only while active. Yea I'm more worried about the dispel resist did they remove that?
  • 0

#25 Pookette

Pookette
  • Junkies
  • Gnomeclass_name
  • US-Kel'Thuzad
  • Nightfall
  • Posts: 3,108
  • Talents: Destruction

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:50 AM

the stupid thing about it is that it pretty much kills Dreamtree spec (or w/e you want to call it) because to me imp barkskin seems too good to pass up(if it's passive, anyways)
  • 0

#26 Formose

Formose
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Coilfang
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 283
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:05 AM

It sure as hell sounds like it would be passive...
  • 0

#27 Leafy

Leafy
  • Leafy
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Talents: Restoration

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:37 AM

lol wat? blizzard grew a brain???

160% seems a bit too much to be passive, idk
  • 0

Druids were not weak in S5


Druids weren't weak in s5 at all, some people realized how to play them and beat dk teams, some didn't.


#28 Craton

Craton
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Hyjal
  • Whirlwind
  • Posts: 5,298
  • Talents:

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:40 AM

Funny thing is, Juggernaut just got butchered


Rofl.

No.
  • 0
화이팅

#29 Mearis

Mearis
  • Members
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-The Venture Co
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 1,367
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:00 AM

Innervate needs its dispell resist chance castrated.
  • 0

#30 foofxxi

foofxxi
  • Junkies
  • Taurenclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 144
  • Talents: Guardian 2/1/2/1/2/0
  • 2v2: 1417
  • 3v3: 1903
  • 5v5: 768
  • RBG: 1950

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:08 AM

the stupid thing about it is that it pretty much kills Dreamtree spec (or w/e you want to call it) because to me imp barkskin seems too good to pass up(if it's passive, anyways)


http://www.wowhead.c...ZZf0IubuxmdA0sb
  • 0

#31 Skipt

Skipt
  • Members
  • Taurenclass_name
  • US-Mal'Ganis
  • Stormstrike
  • Posts: 747
  • Talents:

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:20 AM

http://www.wowhead.c...ZZf0IubuxmdA0sb


he prolly means

http://www.wowhead.c...oZZf0IubuxmdA0o
  • 0

#32 Marwa

Marwa
  • Members
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Alonsus
  • Cruelty / Crueldad
  • Posts: 10
  • Talents:

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:30 AM

Marwa approves
  • 0
M

#33 Pein

Pein
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 270

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:49 AM

I'm almost 100% that it's not passive lol.
  • 0

#34 Shouri

Shouri
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 1,308
  • Talents: Restoration 1/0/0/0/2/2/1
  • 2v2: 960
  • 3v3: 2638
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 1729

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:18 AM

...it's not passive I don't know why you would think that
  • 0

#35 Pookette

Pookette
  • Junkies
  • Gnomeclass_name
  • US-Kel'Thuzad
  • Nightfall
  • Posts: 3,108
  • Talents: Destruction

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:37 AM

he prolly means

http://www.wowhead.c...oZZf0IubuxmdA0o


w/e you just linked is just flat out horrible.

Edit: 2/3 dreamstate, which just means you lose a lot of regen just for barkskin
  • 0

#36 Drake

Drake
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Drak'thul
  • Reckoning / Abrechnung
  • Posts: 436
  • Talents: Retribution 1/0/0/2/0/2/2

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:05 AM

If it's passive, then you might aswell delete all the other healers from the game.

If it's active, then you might delete the change cuz it helps nothing at all.

Overall, I think Blizz wanted to do something clever, but screwed up once again.
  • 0

#37 Sebe

Sebe
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Frostmane
  • Misery
  • Posts: 204
  • Talents: Shadow

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:11 AM

If it's active, then you might delete the change cuz it helps nothing at all.

Overall, I think Blizz wanted to do something clever, but screwed up once again.


Exactly what i thought aswell.
  • 0

#38 Cait

Cait
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 480
  • Talents:

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:23 AM

Pretty ridiculous if its passive, the one thing tol druids were vulnerable to (swaps in caster, hots down..you can play around it) they're no longer vulnerable to, at all D:

Basically the same as before cept no weaknesses and mass cyclone spam, awesome

Gonna love playing DK/Druid if it goes through as passive D: pretty sure its not though!
  • 0

#39 Sodah

Sodah
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Blackrock
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 67
  • Talents:

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:26 AM

its probably passive, and its not that huge. It was stupid before, where if you caught the druid in caster without barkskin it would instantly mean hes dead. They snipped some armor off tree form and spread it out amongst other forms, exactly like they should have.
  • 0

#40 Nbslol

Nbslol
  • Members
  • Posts: 131

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:41 AM

^


Edit: From what the tooltip says, i'm pretty sure it is passive.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<