20. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 07:46:24 AM PST
What did they change about Illhoof? We go in tomorrow for him. Maden = bring 2 paladins or more instead of our usual 1 for the fight. Monroes = Luffa no longer works, and Limited invul pots no longer work to removed the garrot.
Midnight despawned at 25%, But attunemen didn't mount up. Took him down to 25% and he made his call "come midnight blah blah blah" and despawned :( anyone else get that last night?
23. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 07:56:20 AM PST
1) Illhoof - He has a much larger HP pool compared to pre-patch. His sacrifice routine heals him for a great deal now as well.
2) Aran - They changed blizzard so that it encompasses about 50-60% of the room's perimeter and it moves much faster then it did before. Also his Blizzard/Flame Wreathe/Arcane Explosion trio of abilities seem to be on a shorter global cooldown, cause they seem to overlap quite often now.
Those were the major changes we noticed last night.
25. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 07:58:17 AM PST
No changes on Aran from what I noticed. As for Illhoof, not only more dps, but also more healing intensive, as it is a longer fight with more damage going on.
Member of the "I'm stuck with Garr's Bindings" club.
26. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:26:49 AM PST
My purpose was not to argue whether the fights are doable or not, but rather are the changes intentional?
I have been raiding end-game long enough to see many instances where bosses seemingly got intentionally buffed, only to have blue say a few days later "Oops boss (x) wasn't supposed to be doing this, we will look into it, apologies."
The fact that these rather major changes were undocumented and the chess event is broken leads me to believe that these changes are indeed not intentional. Either way is fine, id just like an official word from blue.
29. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:34:23 AM PST
Q u o t e: Making fights class dependent in a 10 man raid is the problem. Its not horde vs alliance its just that with 9 classes and 10 slots its a bad idea to make something class dependent. In a 25 man raid its ok because you are likely to fit probably at least 2 of everything into the raid but no doubt at least one of everything. 10 man encounters need to be somewhat generic in terms of class requirements.
I completely agree but if they did that it would effectively make them easier and people could not wag epeens.
30. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:42:21 AM PST
Q u o t e: Nobody knows, the bugged the chess event out and yuo cant control any pieces making it impossible to even get to prince now.
Blame the rogues. :\
Tigole
Blizzard Poster
31. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:46:31 AM PST
Q u o t e: Just a simple question to blue regarding the 3 Karazhan changes that seem to have occured with the latest patch.
1.) Maiden buffed
2.) Illhoof buffed
3.) Chess event broken
1) Yes, the encounter wasn't up to par
2) Illhoof was way too easy
3) Of course not. We would not deliberately break content. We'll try to get this fixed ASAP
Regarding 1 and 2, I'm looking into where the communication breakdown happened that prevented this information from making the patch notes. Apologies for that.
33. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:48:37 AM PST
Q u o t e:
1) Yes, the encounter wasn't up to par
2) Illhoof was way too easy
3) Of course not. We would not deliberately break content. We'll try to get this fixed ASAP
Regarding 1 and 2, I'm looking into where the communication breakdown happened that prevented this information from making the patch notes. Apologies for that.
34. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:52:43 AM PST
Q u o t e:
1) Yes, the encounter wasn't up to par
2) Illhoof was way too easy
3) Of course not. We would not deliberately break content. We'll try to get this fixed ASAP
Regarding 1 and 2, I'm looking into where the communication breakdown happened that prevented this information from making the patch notes. Apologies for that.
35. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:53:36 AM PST
Q u o t e:
1) Yes, the encounter wasn't up to par
2) Illhoof was way too easy
3) Of course not. We would not deliberately break content. We'll try to get this fixed ASAP
Regarding 1 and 2, I'm looking into where the communication breakdown happened that prevented this information from making the patch notes. Apologies for that.
Um hey what about the Prince keeping his 60-30 DPS boost if you wipe in P2? Was that fixed?
36. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 08:55:58 AM PST
Q u o t e:
1) Yes, the encounter wasn't up to par
2) Illhoof was way too easy
3) Of course not. We would not deliberately break content. We'll try to get this fixed ASAP
Regarding 1 and 2, I'm looking into where the communication breakdown happened that prevented this information from making the patch notes. Apologies for that.
.
Communication breakdown? Every single stealth nerf/buff since 2 years ago you've pretty much kept your lips shut about. Whats new?
37. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 09:00:31 AM PST
Q u o t e: the Alpha Centauri references are awesome.
Yeah, I am surprised about the dozens of people who noticed it from my server alone. I basically just wanted a good name for a druid and it seemed perfect.
38. Re: Blue: Karazhan changes intended? 02/14/2007 09:02:38 AM PST
Q u o t e:
1) Yes, the encounter wasn't up to par
2) Illhoof was way too easy
3) Of course not. We would not deliberately break content. We'll try to get this fixed ASAP
Regarding 1 and 2, I'm looking into where the communication breakdown happened that prevented this information from making the patch notes. Apologies for that.
1) Agreed, it didn't seem too much worse when we killed her
2) Overdone, not worth his loot table. Without a good raid setup you arn't going to want to waste time on him anymore.
3) Was there any prince changes that slipped through the patch notes? Maybe fixing the two major bugs wih him? D:
