Improved Shield Block ... bugged?

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

Now that access has been granted to core software, would it be possible for someone to confirm/deny if there is a bug with the Improved Shield Block talent in the Protection tree?  Specifically ...

Source
Patch 1.6.1 (02-Aug-2005): Fixed a bug where Rank 2/3 of the talent was not granting an extra block for each of the talent points on improved shield block.

Source
Patch 1.6.1 (2005-08-02): Fixed a bug where Rank 3 of the talent was not granting the extra block.

I'm hoping it's just a display error on the talent tree mouseovers ... but ...

[gotmilk0112 10]

You only need one point in that talent anyways.

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

Shield Block
Increases chance to block by 75% for 5 sec, but will only block 1 attacks.

1/3 Improved Shield Block
Increases Shield Block duration by 0.5 sec and blocks 1 additional attack (total 2).

2/3 Improved Shield Block
Increases Shield Block duration by 1 sec and blocks 2 additional attacks (total 3).

3/3 Improved Shield Block
Increases Shield Block duration by 2 sec and blocks 3 additional attacks (total 4).

6 minutes ago, gotmilk0112 said:

You only need one point in that talent anyways.

Only if the Improved Shield Block talent is bugged and not doing what I'm expecting it to do after Patch 1.6.1, which is this ...

0/3 Improved Shield Block = 1 block per 5 sec = 1Bp5 = 0.2BPS
1/3 Improved Shield Block = 2 block per 5.5 sec = ~1.8Bp5 = ~0.4BPS
2/3 Improved Shield Block = 3 block per 6 sec = ~2.5Bp5 = 0.5 BPS
3/3 Improved Shield Block = 4 block per 7 sec = ~2.9Bp5 = ~0.6 BPS

We are supposed to be playing on Patch 1.12.1 game mechanics ... right?
 

[gotmilk0112 10]

It's not supposed to give an extra block per talent point. It never did that in vanilla. Maybe in the earlier patches, but not in 1.12, as far as I can tell.

 

If you look at the actual talent tooltip ingame, putting more points into it only increases the duration, the "Allows your Shield Block ability to block an additional attack" does not change.

 

Looking at the 1.6.1 patch notes on WowWiki, it reads:

Improved Shield Block - Fixed a bug where Rank 3 of the talent was not granting the extra block.

 

This means that there was a bug where if you put 3 points into the talent, it wouldn't give the extra block.

Edited March 11, 2017 by gotmilk0112

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

So I'm saying ...

11 minutes ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

0/3 Improved Shield Block = 1 block per 5 sec = 1Bp5 = 0.2BPS
1/3 Improved Shield Block = 2 block per 5.5 sec = ~1.8Bp5 = ~0.4BPS
2/3 Improved Shield Block = 3 block per 6 sec = ~2.5Bp5 = 0.5BPS
3/3 Improved Shield Block = 4 block per 7 sec = ~2.9Bp5 = ~0.6BPS

And you're saying ...

0/3 Improved Shield Block = 1 block per 5 sec = 1Bp5 = 0.2BPS
1/3 Improved Shield Block = 2 block per 5.5 sec = ~1.8Bp5 = ~0.4BPS
2/3 Improved Shield Block = 2 block per 6 sec = ~1.7Bp5 = ~0.3BPS
3/3 Improved Shield Block = 2 block per 7 sec = ~1.4Bp5 = ~0.3BPS

... and trying to say that's not only RIGHT but INTENTIONAL?  Because I look at what you're saying and think "BUGGED!" rather than "yeah, that's how it should be."

I mean ... seriously ... the more you invest THE WORSE IT GETS?  That's not exactly Blizz-like for their talent tree design.

This is why I want to know what's actually going on under the hood of the UI.  Is it an actual game mechanical fault, or is it just that the UI doesn't display things right?  I know for a fact that some elements of the UI don't work properly thanks to things like Improved Mark of the Wild on my Druid ... where the spell info on the hotbar is right but the buff icon that appears after casting has the wrong info because it doesn't account for the talent effects in the mouseover popup on the buff icon.

I remember Improved Shield Block offering +3 extra blocks at 3/3 like I'm asserting here being in vanilla retail, but it's not like I've been carrying around proof of this for the past decade-plus just to pull a "gotcha!" in a thread like this.

9 hours ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

Source
Patch 1.6.1 (02-Aug-2005): Fixed a bug where Rank 2/3 of the talent was not granting an extra block for each of the talent points on improved shield block.

Your turn.

[gotmilk0112 10]

6 minutes ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

... and trying to say that's not only RIGHT but INTENTIONAL? 

Yes, that's how it has worked on every vanilla server ever.

 

6 minutes ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

I mean ... seriously ... the more you invest THE WORSE IT GETS?  That's not exactly Blizz-like for their talent tree design.

yeah, everyone knows 1.12 talents are completely flawless and there are absolutely no trap talents whatsoever

kappa

 

my favorite talent is the Shaman one that costs 2 points and only gives you +11 str/agi at max level. Best talent.

 

6 minutes ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

I remember Improved Shield Block offering +3 extra blocks

"I remember" isn't really substantial evidence.

 

6 minutes ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

Your turn.

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_1.6.1

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Improved_Shield_Block

These two pages give conflicting information, despite being on the same site.

 

Your turn.

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

13 minutes ago, gotmilk0112 said:

Your turn.

I'm asking what makes good game design sense.  It's also why I didn't just go to a single source and cite only that in the first place.  There's conflicting information out there, so you have to ask "what makes the most sense" rather than the easy/lazy question of "well how did everyone else do it?"

Your turn.

[gotmilk0112 10]

This is vanilla, not a custom funserver. The talent was designed that way. If you don't like it, you can't just declare it a bug and cry that it needs to be changed because it doesn't make sense. Tons of shit in vanilla doesn't make sense.

 

Your turn.

Edited March 11, 2017 by gotmilk0112

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

2 hours ago, gotmilk0112 said:

The talent was designed that way.

Was it ...?

/significant look

2 hours ago, gotmilk0112 said:

you can't just declare it a bug and cry that it needs to be changed because it doesn't make sense.

True.  Fortunately, that's not what I'm doing ... and if you're done playing with your straw man ...

I didn't "declare" it to be a bug, I'm ASKING if it is one.  There's a difference.

I'm also not "crying" ... I'm analyzing what the differences are to see if there is any evidence pointing in a "bug-like" direction.  I'm even doing a Show Your Work to make sure that everyone can be on the same page with that analysis, rather than just assuming everyone knows what I "know" and that they will all automatically agree with me (which, ironically, is because I'm sure that not everyone will agree with me).

At its heart, what we're basically disagreeing with each over here is the phrase that everyone loves to loathe ... Working As Intended.

Most people, especially Developers, focus almost exclusively on the first part of that phrase ... Working ... in the context of "is this Working?" ... which usually gets parsed in the boolean sense of "does this induce a fatal crash to the desktop? (Y/N)" as the first check on the "Working" part of the equation.  After that, there are various non-fatal error states that get considered, including the somewhat obviously non-functional ones of "this should be doing something but it isn't" ... and so on.

However, by focusing exclusively on the "Working? (Y/N)" side of things, which is all about computer programming and making things link up correctly and run smoothly, what often gets lost in the discussion is the INTENT of what the game mechanic is supposed to be doing.  What is the PURPOSE and INTENT behind the behavior that is being seen?  Does the expression of the behavior match up with the Intended (or even anticipated) Effect?  This can result in people talking right past each other.

You're saying it's WORKING as intended.

And I'm asking if it's working as INTENDED?

Note the intentional difference in emphasis.  It's the difference between Works But Is Stupid Yet Still Works ... and Stupid But Works Is Still Stupid.  Yeah, they sound the same, but the emphasis is different, meaning the perspectives of the two basic assumptions is different.  In the former, there's nothing to "fix" because it Works.  In the latter, there's something to re-evaluate because something is Stupid when it (really) shouldn't be.

Unfortunately, there aren't any youtube videos available (that I can find) dating back to the 2005-2006 era of vanilla to prove me right or wrong either way ... so I'm asking the question.  That's not the same as declaring and crying as you assert.

[gotmilk0112 10]

The talent was designed the way the tooltip states. It gives you an extra block, and more points in the talent increase the duration of the buff.

 

It was never meant to give you more blocks with more talents spent.

 

You can argue about "intent" all you want but that doesn't change the talent, and the talent won't be changed unless indisputable evidence arises. A lot of shit in vanilla is "stupid yet still works".

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

19 minutes ago, gotmilk0112 said:

You can argue about "intent" all you want but that doesn't change the talent, and the talent won't be changed unless indisputable evidence arises.

How convenient then that such "indisputable evidence" doesn't exist ... and even if it did, it would no doubt be disputed ... thereby invalidating the "indisputable" clause.

Good game, sir.  Well played.

/polite clap

[gotmilk0112 10]

And now you're arguing just to argue. To the ignore list you go~!

[Undertanker 88]

@Roxanne Flowers

It was always 1 extra block.   I played a tank back in the day.  

The bug they are referring to was the fact that 1/3 gave you 2 total blocks.  2/3 gave you 1 total block, 3/3 gave you 1 total block.  The verbiage used in the patch notes is referring that each level is not getting the extra block - referring to 2 total, not additive throughout the talent tree.

 

You seem to be developing a track record on these forums for thinking of left field questions, not doing any homework on it and expecting the community to do it for you.     Rather than being receptive to the information provided, you then become combative when it doesn't meet your thought process.

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

48 minutes ago, Undertanker said:

The bug they are referring to was the fact that 1/3 gave you 2 total blocks.  2/3 gave you 1 total block, 3/3 gave you 1 total block.  The verbiage used in the patch notes is referring that each level is not getting the extra block - referring to 2 total, not additive throughout the talent tree.

Ah, so it was an inversion of interpretation thanks to poorly explained word choice in the original patch notes.  One of the classic "if you already know the answer it makes sense, but if you don't know the answer then it doesn't and won't" kinds of situations.  One of the hazards of using ambiguous language that doesn't guard adequately enough against misinterpretation.  Yay.

Then yes, in that case, 1/3 is not only the obvious stopping point for investment and going for 2/3 or 3/3 just becomes outright wasteful thanks to poor game design by Blizzard in the first place.  Very much a "booby prize" sort of deal.  It's dumb, but there it is then.  Just about the only value that 2/3 or even 3/3 investment would serve is lower Rage cost (kinda? sorta?) when fighting against slower swing speed weapons where 2 blocks gets stretched out over a longer interval of time (6-7 seconds) ... but that's such a rare edge case scenario all things considered that adds terribly little value for the cost.

53 minutes ago, Undertanker said:

You seem to be developing a track record on these forums for thinking of left field questions, not doing any homework on it and expecting the community to do it for you.     Rather than being receptive to the information provided, you then become combative when it doesn't meet your thought process.

I prefer to think of it as continuing the search for unrealized potentials, because there are some still out there, even after all this time.  You never know when you're going to stumble across something useful when you weren't expecting to.  Or to put it another way, "Even the most inept student may still have something to teach the master."

In point of fact, I don't expect the community to "do it for me" ... and at the same time I am quite well aware that I don't know EVERYTHING that there is to know about the game.  Even better yet, the resources that I have to access for information are at times contradictory, leading to alternative interpretations of nuances, and knowing which is right and which is wrong is not always inherently obvious.  There's a tremendous amount of what I think of as "tribal knowledge" about all sorts of things that aren't easily accessible, even with decent Search Fu, and I can't lay claim to having all of it.  So when I encounter gaps in what I know, I ask.  I question.

As you can imagine, not having been steeped in the game's mechanics and lore for over a decade, there's a lot of catching up and learning to do, and you can't do that quite so well just by lurking (or at least, I can't).

And although I shouldn't have to explain this, I will simply for clarity.  It's not enough to just give the right answer for things ... it's also important to know and understand WHY an answer is the right one, and how it connects to other things, so as to be able to utilize and adapt that knowledge for more than just the question that got asked.  Or to put it another way ... you need to know why things work on a starship.  This is why I go to such lengths to explain the thinking behind what I assert and/or assume, so as to open up that thought process to peer review and analysis in case I make a mistake of interpretation or in case someone else also finds themselves in the position of not knowing enough about a topic or idea and they want to use any discussion about it to extend their knowledge of the game's mechanics and how it "works" under the hood in addition to finding an answer to a question.  Because there's a difference between learning by rote and actual understanding of what you've memorized.  The former merely "teaches to the test" while the latter empowers you to ask new questions and seek new discoveries.

And it's hard to find and learn new things while staying stuck in the well worn ruts of where everyone has gone before.  So I suppose it's fair to say that cookie-cutters just aren't my style, especially when it comes to Conventional Wisdom.

[Undertanker 88]

1 hour ago, Roxanne Flowers said:

Just about the only value that 2/3 or even 3/3 investment would serve is lower Rage cost (kinda? sorta?) when fighting against slower swing speed weapons where 2 blocks gets stretched out over a longer interval of time (6-7 seconds) ... but that's such a rare edge case scenario all things considered that adds terribly little value for the cost.

 

The only value the 2/3 and 3/3 give are for situations that you dodged/parried/are missed with the first or second attack, still giving you 2 charges for block w/o the rage cost.

A geared tank with Threat per second gear and or T2 gear will have between 31-33% dodge + Parry, 5% chance to be missed. Lets take the mean of 37% avoidance.

If you use shield block closer to the end of the mobs swing timer, 3 swings should happen in the 7 seconds.   This allows you to pull more rage for threat abilities rather than reapplying shield block as often; in the event one of the first 2 swings is avoided.

On average the 2 extra talent points in imp shield block accounts for 1.85 rage saved per usage of the ability in terms of potential rage saved due to reduced application of the buff to keep crushing blows off the table.

So yeah, not worth it.

[Roxanne Flowers 15]

And that right there is the explanation that both I and everyone else who didn't know this already needed, since it is definitely not an inherently obvious fact.  It takes knowing several pieces of the puzzle at once in order to reach that conclusion, due to the multiple variables involved.  Thank you for making all of that much clearer.

But I have to say, spending 2 talent points for an extra 1.5 seconds of duration to save 1.85 Rage (averaged) makes for a terribly poor yield return on investment.  So ... not a bug, just lousy.  Wonderful.  -_-

[Moiz 0]

It's also not necessarily poor design. I think we're so used to players knowing the game and optimising stuff that when we come across something which isn't finely tuned we assume it's bad design. Blizzard may have approached this talent with the idea that players will not always be on the mark with using it when necessary the moment it comes off cooldown, so 3/3 potentially gives the player 2 seconds grace, which is a reasonable approach really considering a varied player base and could be argued as good game design. Is it optimal for a savvy player who's committed to casting what and when it's needed? No, but i think assuming Blizzard designed the talents with this type of player solely in mind is cavalier.   

Knowing that 1/3 is the optimal build if you know what you're doign actually makes this talent more interesting, i think.