---

Q u o t e:
Finally, in Wrath of the Lich King we increased its damage-dealing potential to make it near that of a primary damage-per-second (dps) caster -- such as a mage -- while also retaining some of its unique utility which made it cool during The Burning Crusade.

---

I am of the belief that our DPS is not up to the place where Blizzard thinks it is.

The Q&A's would have been better if GC himself chose what to answer and the CM's (or whoever chose the questions) didn't give him questions to answer. Of course it would have been more time consuming and probably taken longer to get all the Q&A's done, but I don't think anyone would mind having actual questions asked by the players answered instead of a pile of philosophical crap.

Hello. I am a Priest.

I didn't mind the Q+A. It wasn't stellar, but at least I know that tunics might be in the works; since the Q+A didn't mention them at all.

More importantly, why buff the mind flay glyph? If the intent is that we receive the slow and the range, why not just change the core ability itself?

As some players have pointed out, the Shadow tree did receive more focus in this Q&A. Frankly, we felt it was needed. We plan to continue the Class Q&A Series, and the order in which we review each class will change. We'll also look to our previous Q&A's and the feedback we received about them in the hopes we can improve future Q&A's and focus on new topics for each class when applicable.


In all honesty, what is the most frustrating about the Q&A for holy priests is that for question after question, it was implied to be answered by me as "Broken, we don't have time to fix it".

And as stated before, yes I do have mana issues in Holy on longer fights, as I am popping every CD. It seems unfair to me that I have to use 540 mana on a fight like Iron Council or Hodir dispelling for 540-540-540-540 and they aren't hitting. I dont know, maybe if you know its a problem, why not make the dispel at least cost less while you work on the problem.

And P.S. - Do we need to be replaced by another dispeller (Pallys whose heals are buffed in the patch) because they can hit with dispels as well as top heal charts and don't go OOM? Am I going to seriously have to sit out like I did in TBC because of mana regen before you finally fix it?

---

Q u o t e:


My god, you're a stone guard, I don't know how you can possibly say that. Do you REMEMBER the days before 1.10? DO YOU!?


Why is nobody around here even the slightest bit happy that we can actually do ANYTHING? We used to suck at everything but healing. I know, I levelled Holy back when that was retarded. So they havn't got it completely right yet... I'd cheerfully see you do better, with respect to the WHOLE game. Not just our pet class. Jesus.

---

BUT, we still were chosen to heal 5m and 15m UBRS groups over paladins and druids...

---

Q u o t e:

It seems that many players took from the answer about Lightwell that our development goal is to encourage DPS players to use Lightwell more so that it's a more effective tool. I don't believe that was the intent behind the answer. If players don't want to use Lightwell, that doesn't mean the problem lies with the player. There's clearly a reason players don't want to use Lightwell. We are very well aware that it's been a controversial and troubled ability ever since its inception and I hope we can keep a dialog open about improving it.

The original question taken from the community was regarding Lightwell causing players to lose their target, which can be a huge deal during a raid boss encounter. We opened the question up beyond that though because we recognize that the core of the issue players have with Lightwell isn't simply the fact that a player loses his or her target when clicking on it.

As some players have pointed out, the Shadow tree did receive more focus in this Q&A. Frankly, we felt it was needed. We plan to continue the Class Q&A Series, and the order in which we review each class will change. We'll also look to our previous Q&A's and the feedback we received about them in the hopes we can improve future Q&A's and focus on new topics for each class when applicable.

---

Why was lightwell changed to lose the current target? It wasn't that way in beta until someone deemed seeing the remaining charges worthy of a targeting function which no one even uses thanks to the fact you lose current target. Not that this would fix the lightwell issue..just make it baseline and give us another talent. A medium heal that was hinted at that spreads renews around to make holy more AoE type healing..I don't know.. ANYTHING besides lightwell in it's current form.

---

Q u o t e:
I don't think anyone would mind having actual questions asked by the players answered instead of a pile of philosophical crap.

---

THIS!. THIS %%@@ RIGHT HERE.

We want real questions answered. Real concerns. Who gives a %%@@ what Blizzard's "overall view" of the class is for the game. You ask that question and answer it every single Q&A session. We know what you think Priests, and every other class, is "supposed" to be. That doesn't answer what you feel they currently "are" and how you plan to bring them to that "model" of perfection.

The Q&A was general and vague, tip-toeing around serious issues, and giving nonsensical BS answers to legitimate concerns.

0/10 Blizzard. Not even a point for effort.

---

Q u o t e:

If this is how you would summarize the answers provided in the Q&A, I would almost question whether or not you were prepared to take nothing but that out of the Q&A before even having read it.


You might as well ask why every popular question wasn't included. We're providing quick feedback on player concerns and trying to keep these Q&As going as we continue to make changes to the game. I have a feeling we could write an entire book responding to player-submitted questions, all the while sharing every last detail about our plans for your class. Even then, there'd be a certain percentage of players that would come back and sum up every nuanced response with, "lol, he said we're fine and to L2P."

---

There weren't any plans shared for the future of the class for the most part.

Q: "What about dots"
A: "It's fine"

Q: "What about lightwell"
A: "It's fine, tell your dps to l2p"

Q: "What about inner fire"
A: "Mages have numerous armor choices, because of this choice we feel like you should remain the only caster classes with charges on your armor"

Q: "What about greater heal, how can we use this spell with current content and the necessity for quick heals"
A: "Well you should coordinate heals better using vent "I got Jimmy", so that you don't snipe each others heals"

This makes me believe that you don't care to take any of this seriously, outside of explaining for each issue why things are, and will remain, the way they are. Which I guess could be one function of a Q&A.

I took it as it was given to me, not with any preconceived notions of what it would be.

---

Q u o t e:

If this is how you would summarize the answers provided in the Q&A, I would almost question whether or not you were prepared to take nothing but that out of the Q&A before even having read it.

---

Actually, there's a certain amount of validity in his statement. When answering questions about Greater Heal and Flash Heal, the response was more a definition of what Flash Heal and Greater Heal are. The question really wasn't answered.

Any healing priest knows what these spells are, what we're asking is why should we cast either of them given that they do relatively little over the course of a fight. The majority of the time when I cast Greater Heal I only really get half the value of the heal because in the time it takes to cast the spell, the tank has taken half the value of the total heal. Flash Heal is even worse because by the time I've cast the heal, the tank has taken enough damage to negate the heal completely.

When asked about lightwell the response was that the dps need to learn to use the lightwell.

Both of those answers pretty much come down to "l2p".

Then your arguements are based on vapor-stats like absorbtion numbers, a stat that we can't track. Essentially, you come across as trying to undermine our concerns by using numbers that we don't have access to.

---

Q u o t e:

You might as well ask why every popular question wasn't included. We're providing quick feedback on player concerns and trying to keep these Q&As going as we continue to make changes to the game. I have a feeling we could write an entire book responding to player-submitted questions, all the while sharing every last detail about our plans for your class. Even then, there'd be a certain percentage of players that would come back and sum up every nuanced response with, "lol, he said we're fine and to L2P."

---

I agree that answering every question would take way too much time. As a player, I would much rather that time be spent on development.

You asked a simple question, did we think the Q&A answered some of the questions put forth by the community.

Overwhelmingly the community has replied "No, even amongst the questions that made it into the Q&A Session, the questions were not answered properly. At best, it seemed rushed and as if we were ignored as a community."

Honestly, I can't see the point of even having the Q&A Sessions if the questions covered in the Q&A sessions won't be taken seriously.

As of last week, there was a 41 page thread about healing as a priest. The thread explains why Greater Heal and Flash Heal don't work, and why Penance is so important for single target healing. Both of these were covered in the Q&A, and yet it sounded as if the official stance of Blizzard is that priests should look at these as tools and ignore the very obvious problems with using them. The answer seemed complete aimed at players who are unaware that the issues with our "toolbox" exist.

I'm sorry, but it is very hard to take these things seriously at all when the attitude from your end seems to be that you don't really care about the concerns of the community. And every time there is a pre-planned response regardless of the community's evidence to the contrary, the Q&A Session will come across as dismissive.

---

Q u o t e:
Today we continue our class Q&A series with the development team, in which we're taking a look at each class and answering some of the top questions brought forward by their communities. Next up, we explore the most asked questions from the priest class and find out more about the design philosophy and expectations for the class, as well as what may lie in store for it in the future.

Check out the Priest Q&A here: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/priest.html

---

Ok reading now.

---

Q u o t e:

It seems that many players took from the answer about Lightwell that our development goal is to encourage DPS players to use Lightwell more so that it's a more effective tool. I don't believe that was the intent behind the answer. If players don't want to use Lightwell, that doesn't mean the problem lies with the player. There's clearly a reason players don't want to use Lightwell. We are very well aware that it's been a controversial and troubled ability ever since its inception and I hope we can keep a dialog open about improving it.

The original question taken from the community was regarding Lightwell causing players to lose their target, which can be a huge deal during a raid boss encounter. We opened the question up beyond that though because we recognize that the core of the issue players have with Lightwell isn't simply the fact that a player loses his or her target when clicking on it.

As some players have pointed out, the Shadow tree did receive more focus in this Q&A. Frankly, we felt it was needed. We plan to continue the Class Q&A Series, and the order in which we review each class will change. We'll also look to our previous Q&A's and the feedback we received about them in the hopes we can improve future Q&A's and focus on new topics for each class when applicable.

---

I can see shadow needed a lot of questions, and no one is questioning that. What we ARE questioning, is the absolute lack of anything Discipline in that session. Even worse is that 3.2 has a rather sizable Penance nerf, that wasn't a nerf for PvE's sake, but for PvP balance, without any thought given to the result of PvE performance. You'd think that would have at least been brought up in a class Q&A, but no.


Ultimately, what it all boils down to is the Q&A is a nice thought for what it is, but we're all probably hoping it was meant to be a "finally we got some answers to year old questions" when in many cases(and certainly not this one) it wasn't. Which is fine. It still doesn't answer why these questions persist to not be answered, does it?



And Lightwell, you guys have never gotten it right. I've tried this spell so many times since it was put in, with the tbc changes as well. A heal to be useful has to be in control of the healer that uses it. Yes, it's unique in that it's a heal that doesn't require any effort from the priest after it's cast, which on paper can be a great thing. In all honesty, this spell would serve a way better function if it was even something like one of the ulduar light balls that followed the priest around when they moved, and served the same purpose(barring the being a mob that has to be targeted thing). Before, the output and cooldown and charges weren't there. Now that those are fixed, further problems have taken the spotlight. Yes, this is how broken this spell was when it was first put in, and this is how much work it's going to take to have it be used. But you have to admit, looking at the question in the section, it seemed like GC said nothing more than "DPS need to lrn2play and click the thing that heals them." Does a heal a healer has little to no control over worthy of a talent point investment? That's something that still probably needs an answer about someday.



Here, I'll help make lightwell useful for everyone:


1) You cast the spell. A floating ball of light appears behind you, as a mini pet would. Heck, maybe it can even fly over the priest's left or right shoulder, kind of like they're holding a balloon of pure light. This summon has a 3 minute duration, and comes with a cast bar.

2) When you want it to heal, you can manually target someone and have the pet "attack" the target, where it'll run over to the person and add the lightwell effect on them.

3) The "Lightwell" ball will have a 100 energy meter, and every "heal" it does will consume 10 energy. This energy is unable to be replenished.

4) You can set up this pet to be on aggressive/passive/defensive. On Aggressive, it'll run around like a crackfiend throwing heals on anyone that takes damage. Won't last long, but will get a lot of healing done fast where the priest doesn't have to worry about(what should be it's functionality now). On Passive, it will only ever respond to the priest's input. If none is given, the ball will fizzle out after the 3 minute duration is up. On Defensive, it will only go after players independently if they dip below 40% health.

5) The pet will be programmed to never do anything on it's own to the person with current boss agro(since the breaking on damage mechanic was solely in place to prevent a tank from ever getting any benefit from this spell).

6) The pet's automatic functions(defensive/aggressive) will only work on targets within 20-30 yards of the priest.




HOLY CRAP I JUST MADE LIGHTWELL A FUN SPELL TO USE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP SOMEONE. :p

I liked how half of the healing related questions were either useless questions or were answered with nothing more than we have no plans to do anything.

---

Q u o t e:
It seems that many players took from the answer about Lightwell that our development goal is to encourage DPS players to use Lightwell more so that it's a more effective tool. I don't believe that was the intent behind the answer. If players don't want to use Lightwell, that doesn't mean the problem lies with the player. There's clearly a reason players don't want to use Lightwell. We are very well aware that it's been a controversial and troubled ability ever since its inception and I hope we can keep a dialog open about improving it.

---

Lightwell is not worth clicking on or casting in a raid environment because of two issues.

1)If you are melee DPS, you have to stop DPSing run over to it, click it to get healed, and then run back to the boss to continue DPSing.

2)There will most likely be other healers in the raid, which means, undoubtedly, the melee DPS in problem 1 will be healed before he even makes it to the Lightwell.

----------

Why would anyone bother to click on it if they are going to get healed either way?

---

Q u o t e:



BUT, we still were chosen to heal 5m and 15m UBRS groups over paladins and druids...

---

Hoss, we were chosen to heal EVERYTHING over paladins and druids. Paladins and druids (and Shaman) sucked back then. The only reason you had a druid was for Innervate. The only reason. And Pallies/Shammies each had their own raid utility, which was the ONLY reason anyone ever brought them at all.


If it hadn't been for things like Mana tide, innervate, and blessing of kings, nobody would've even looked twice at the "off healers."

---

Q u o t e:




2)There will most likely be other healers in the raid, which means, undoubtedly, the melee DPS in problem 1 will be healed before he even makes it to the Lightwell.

----------

Why would anyone bother to click on it if they are going to get healed either way?

---

I think this is pertinent. Give us a raid boss that increases the cost of any healing spell by 300% and force healers to delegate heals rather than just clicking the target with least hp.

Lightwell was awesome in original 4 horsemen because as you rotated your dps/tank groups who had the debuff back to the middle safe zone, you could have a lightwell down and because all these people were not dps'ing or tanking they could then be healed up.

This really is the only fight it has been good in for a long time which is pretty sad.

A few weeks back I ran the numbers on adding haste to shadow priest gear. I used example numbers from a wwl report and ran two tests. One I allowed the tick time between dots to be increased by haste, ie if dots were ticking at 2 second intervals and you had 25% haste the tick would then be decreased to 1.5 seconds. The other test was adding a scalar multiple that your haste let your dots tick for (your haste percentage) more, again if you dot was ticking for 1000 and you had 25% haste it would start ticking for 1250. Both resulted in (off the top of my head) only a 300-500dps increase on a previously 4000dps Ignis fight.
So yes a boost but nothing amazing.

Additionally I ran the numbers on the concerns with haste and the t8 4 piece set bonus in the priest questions thread. Now the issue here is you want to not be clipping mindflay while hitting mindblast as soon as it is off cd. So with a 5.5sec cd you need 2.75sec flays which is around 8% haste. To push that to 3 flays you need 1.833 sec flays or 39% haste. The 4 flay per mb cd is just too far out of the picture but basically that 3 is the haste sweet point for shadow priests. The issue is because haste essentially only helps with mindflay to achieve such high levels you are sacrificing a lot of more beneficial stats just to make the rotation perfect. Now the issue with the 4 set is it actually hurt the rotation because mindblast gave unwanted haste etc, new patch new tier gear so lets just ignore that. But the issue still stands that priests really only want 8% haste or 39%. Something in between just ends up getting clunky to manage you either miss mb coming off cd or if you clip incorrectly it is a dps loss. Clipping is stupidly annoying to do and it is far easier to get your haste sweet spot and use a while flay don't flay macro. Missing clips is a big net loss in dps.

Anyway i'm sure the dev's are aware of the numbers but if not there they are. So hopefully if people couldn't see why haste was unnattractive maybe they now can.

---

Q u o t e:



Hoss, we were chosen to heal EVERYTHING over paladins and druids. Paladins and druids (and Shaman) sucked back then. The only reason you had a druid was for Innervate. The only reason. And Pallies/Shammies each had their own raid utility, which was the ONLY reason anyone ever brought them at all.


If it hadn't been for things like Mana tide, innervate, and blessing of kings, nobody would've even looked twice at the "off healers."

---

Too true. And now that every class is on par with us for healing we don't get anything better than shadowfiend. Im not complaining but you see the irony in that

---

Q u o t e:

I understand where you're coming from. I didn't mean to say that any criticism of a Q&A can be written off as an unavoidable statistic. I'll be reading through as much of the feedback as I can. I just really ask that players take your approach to raising specific concerns. That's feedback I can take back to our developers and draft a Q&A follow-up like we've done with some of our other classes.

Please keep it constructive folks. Let us know what other questions you feel really should've been asked in this Q&A. Additionally, inform us about any answers you want clarified. Things are getting really busy for the community team with BlizzCon rearing its head, but we want to keep the dialog open and don't need the knee-jerk reactions of absolute despair or vitriol. It ultimately wastes the time of the players who have taken a very reasoned approach to providing their feedback; likewise, it wastes our time. We have to sift through the trash and clean it before even looking for that sweet lost gem.

---

It was a sufficient Q&A. I did not tell us anything specific and implied that we will see changes (hopefully good ones) to alot of the skills we don't like in general. Also it was a little biased towards people that are fairly new to the priest class. Perhaps somebody who knows as much or more about priests than the veteran priest players should have read over the Q&A before it was submitted.


EDIT:

Not to say GC doesn't know the priest class very well. There are a lot more players out there that have invested more hours on their priests that could have given good insight into what to focus on.