Level of detail in talent analysisEdit

I started rewriting the raiding advice for most of the talents. The problem was that it would say "Raid" but then refer to 5man grouping (even RFK at one point). However, I started to run into some basic problems while trying to update this page. Namely, there are just too many different builds to summerize their usefulness in such small columns. If we added another row for 5mans that would start to get complicated, but it gets even worse if you start thinking about writing for each talent from the prospective of a healing priest, a dps smite priest, or a shadow priest.

For instance, if we wanted to cover all the facets of Spirit Tap:

Spirit Tap Doubles your total spirit and allows 50% of your mana to continue regenerating while casting for 15 seconds after landing the killing blow on a mob that gives experience or honor.

Solo (smite): Extremely good ability to both regenerate mana faster, and double the benefit from Spiritual Guidance for extra spell damage. Solo (shadow): Excellent to increase your mana regeneration between fights. 5man (healing): While it is sometimes possible to nab the last hit and get the proc, generally it takes too much time away from healing. 5man (smite): Can still be used fairly often, but generally the dps comes when the fight is almost over and can't be completely utilized. 5man (shadow): Extra mana regeneration at the end of a 5man fight is mostly useless, as at that point the priest can simply drink back the mana lost. Raid (all cases): Not worth taking, the killing blow is almost impossible to land on purpose with so many other dps.

Of course I'm being a bit drastic but I think my point is made. I propose that this page be split into two pages, one specifically for healing groups, raids, and pvp and another one for dps priests that covers solo, raids, and pvp.

Any thoughts? Chronocide (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just doing this based on the layout of the Druid talent analysis page. I'm just trying to cover the very basic concepts of the talents, and I have a hard time covering all of them without making the page so long that it takes 3 hours to read the whole thing. As for your comment about how the "Raid" section mentions 5-man instances, I think that most of the concepts regarding a particular talent in a raid would apply to a 5-man group as well (although your Spirit Tap example is correct; trying to get the killing blow in a raid is much different than trying to do so in a 5-man). Felindre (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably shoulda waited on this one... now it needs to be finished AND updated for the 3.0.2 Talents. I'll get to it when I have some spare time. Felindre (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Felindre, and suggest a more holistic approach. But you make good points that I wouldn't want to miss. Both points you make under Solo (smite): and Solo (shadow): can easily be mentioned in one Solo Utility category. A similar averaged group or Raid Utility can be given for Spirit Tap, where you will agree it is not very useful. If the usefulness of Spirit Tap for healing and dps priests in Raid Utility is different enough, the different judgements can easily be mentioned in one paragraph. For example Shattered Barrier (Mage Talent) is somewhat useful for most mages, but excellent for Frost AoE mages, so they're mentioned separately.
Spirit Tap would become: <description in Italic>
  • Essentially allow mana regeneration during or after combat outside the Five Second Rule, if you get enough killing blows.
    • Solo Utility: Excellent ability for faster mana regeneration, reducing downtime between fights. Combines well with the talent Spiritual Guidance to increase spell power, if specced Holy.
    • Raid Utility: Not very useful, since you will usually not get the killing blow. Even as a dps priest in a 5 man group its use is limited. Most fights will be over too quick to notice Spirit Tap contributing to regeneration, so you can use drinks.
    • PvP Utility: Limited, as PvP fights are about burst damage and mana use, not mana regeneration. Points are better spent on Blackout for its useful stun effect.
  • Bottom Line: Useful for solo play when levelling, reducing downtime. Not very useful otherwise.
This page is not intended to be the end-all to which talents should be chosen for each priest. Rather it is intended as a consensus for priests that want to create their own talent build for the 3 main areas of play: solo (single, versus AI), raid (group, versus AI) or PvP (single and group, versus humans). Detailed talent specs for specific priests should go into the Talent build page, to which this page is an inspiration, not a complete integration.Sunsmountain (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
While I'm no expert in raiding, the raiding advice here seems to be directed mostly at Holy builds. I understand that there isn't exactly consensus on whether discipline priests have a role to play in raiding, it seems like it might be worth including the perspective that disc priests are viable tank healers. Benvis (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just edited through Tier 7, correcting misconceptions and making sure Discipline spec is properly addressed. There were even some talents that needed to be changed, such as the new Focused Power and Enlightenment! I'll continue to edit starting with Reflective Shield, but more under Progress Update below.
Hitting a prior point about the different settings, I followed Sunmountain's general format. For example, this is how Improved Divine Spirit looks
  • Improved Divine Spirit This talent is often passed up as at max level, 80 spellpower is considered a minor improvement.
    • Solo Utility: Your spells and heals do more, so you get more bang for your buck.
    • Raid Utility: While great in 5-man dungeons, in raids Improved Divine Spirit is likely to be overwritten by a superior buff, such as Flametongue Totem or Totem of Wrath.
    • PvP Utility: This talent actually makes Divine Spirit useful; more damage and healing is something that all casters try to get in PvP.
  • Bottom Line: Excellent EXCEPT in a full raid setting, where another buff will likely overwrite this spellpower gain.
Doing this in this format seems to succinctly account for Improved Divine Spirit's different utility depending on the size and makeup of the group. SirRedK (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Progress Update Edit

Started rewriting these talents, first 2 Tiers for Discipline are up to date.

  • Discipline: up to Tier 2
  • Holy: up to Tier 0
  • Shadow: up to Tier 0

I'm leaving out point requirements because they take up space, are extra work to correct each expansion and don't really add useful information as the talent trees (the limitations you'll face when test-picking talents) speak for themselves. Instead, they are listed top to bottom from lowest to highest Tier and from left to right as they appear in the trees. Sunsmountain (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Discipline is done up through Tier 7's Power Infusion, edited and also including a Discipline Priest's perspective on life. Continuing with Reflective Shield! SirRedK (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Discipline is completely finished, and Holy is finished through about tier 3. Finished setting up the skeleton for the rest--tooltips and descriptions need to be added, and utility ratings written. Also, did you know that there's no article on WoWWiki for either Improved Shadowform or Veiled Shadows? Also, Improved Shadowform needs a proper image in the main article SirRedK (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude. (SummonerMarc)(talk). I understand the edits that fleshed out certain excerpts, as well as any edits that offered a different opinion from the previous entry. However, I question the 'officializing' of some entries, where you removed the plain English, down-to-earth opinion with something more bland and formal. The only people who will use this page are NOT the people like you and I who know a ton about this tree, but rather will be those who have no idea how to differentiate a good talent from a bad one. "Not an essential talent" sends a far weaker--and thus missable--message than "Terrible. Don't waste points on it".

I still intend to come back and continue filling out this page. If I do, and you have not replied to this talk page, then it is also my intention to go back and put BACK the down-to-earth language I originally had before your edits. SirRedK (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Go ahead, fill out the page, I've no issue with that at all but I don't think it's the place for personal opinions and views. The places I've deleted things like "Terrible" are because this is not essentially the case. Sure, you may think the talent is terrible but it's not always so and short of writing where and when and how these talents are either terrible or not terrible respectively, I think it should more be noted that it's simply unessential. My "bland and formal" language is simply an attempt to get out any personal opinions on the subject at hand. Things like "AWESOME" and "I N C R E D I B L E" and "Wow. Just wow." aren't suitable for the page and are merely an attempt to neutralise it. Sorry if that's "bland" but neutral language tends to lack flavour at times. If you can keep it neutral but add some better language, feel free. I don't think that the only people who use this would be those who are not informed as much as others. I know a mass amount about the talent trees but I still come to this page for reasons other than to edit it. It should be suited to all, and should be neutral -- SummonerMarc (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, you are right. My own real fear is that with that level of neutrality, it becomes more difficult for the less informed to accurately perceive the rationales behind specific talent choices (as well as understand just how much certain talents are or aren't desired). "Not essential" is definitely more neutral than "Don't take it", but I fear the loss of information quality. What might be the best way to prevent the bias of "IT'S A TRAP DON'T DO IT!" while also communicating the idea that it is not only "not essential", but also "generally undesirable"?
My first priority is definitely to finish the page, if someone doesn't do it first, though. I'll do what I can to keep the tone more level. That said, sir, you changed my "specialization" (American spelling) to "specialisation" (British spelling). You are obviously biased towards Great Britain.^_^ SirRedK (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, your concern is very valid and it's a risk. I can't think of a solution off the top of my head on how to display that some talents are terrible (and some are) whilst keeping a neutral view and giving information rather than opinions. I'll think about it more! :D
I'm happy to help out on finishing the page if you want some assistance. I was going to fill in some last night but I ended up sleeping instead, haha. And yeah I'm biased to the UK spellings. I'm from there :( -- SummonerMarc (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of dateEdit

Keeping this page up to date is a pretty big endeavor. I marked it out of date simply to warn unsuspecting readers that some of this analysis is based on older versions of the talents. The note at the bottom of the page that this is a work in progress seems an insufficient warning, since a reader would not see it until the had read the whole page already. If the out of date tag is too severe, perhaps someone could simply move the work in progress note to the top. Benvis (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a Talent Analysis page for Priests, so I decided to start one. Felindre

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.