Hey, if it's very hard to notice the change, why make the fucking change in the first place? Sick of this shit...lack-luster TBC talents and spells, windfury generates yellow hits, ambiguous rage normalization that you MIGHT not notice. Stop dancing around the issue, if you(blizzard) have a problem with warrior dps, say it, and then follow through. No more of this indirect shit. I want to know now if I should reroll for the expansion.
Because you fix things with subtle changes, not grand sweeping ones. Subtle, observe consequences. Another subtle tweak, repeat.
You'd reroll if your ridiculously powerful class became slightly less so?
JUICE! Aww I'm sorry. Did... did anyone want some juice?
Kind of depressing to read that they don't mind warriors are so powerful, and that the only way to keep them somewhat balanced is to make their talent trees poorly set up.
From what Kalgan said about rage normalization, it sounds like the warrior gets a certain amount of rage per a swing (probably based off of weapon speed). The objective is to change the warrior formula from "more DPS => more rage => more DPS" into "more DPS just does more DPS". Since it's switching to a steady rage/time instead of rage/dmg, it will also increase the threat generation or DPS of a non-tanking warrior in any encounter that the warrior is not in optimal DPS gear.
Hey, if it's very hard to notice the change, why make the fucking change in the first place? Sick of this shit...lack-luster TBC talents and spells, windfury generates yellow hits, ambiguous rage normalization that you MIGHT not notice. Stop dancing around the issue, if you(blizzard) have a problem with warrior dps, say it, and then follow through. No more of this indirect shit. I want to know now if I should reroll for the expansion.
Because you fix things with subtle changes, not grand sweeping ones. Subtle, observe consequences. Another subtle tweak, repeat.
You'd reroll if your ridiculously powerful class became slightly less so?
No, I'm not arguing about the tweaks, nor whether they are subtle or now. Read Zagzil's post, that's a good example of what I mean. I'm not sure where he got that blizzard is ok with our power level, but let's assume Zagzil is correct. Why make talent trees that suck and place talents ilogically?
I'd reroll because my dps is being whittled away, little by little every patch, and I'm unsure if these are dps nerfs to bring us in line, or if they are balance changes. I'd rather play a class that has a clear purpose, like mages and rogues, you know they are supposed to deal top dps, rather than play a class that may deal more dps than mages and rogues, but has to fear the nerf stick every patch.
2. We're definitely not trying to pidgeon-hole warriors into tanking, we view them as a tanking/dps hybrid, both parts valid.
[snark]
Yes, it would truly be a tragedy for a class to be pidgeon holed into a single viable raid role. I'm mean, to do only the same thing raid after raid, providing no utility, oh the Humanity!
[/snark]
I think that might be the first time I have seen blue's refer to warriors as hybrids though.
Not trying to be a smartass, but a better question would be to ask, why an admittedly hybrid class is just as effective or very very similar to two primary damage dealing classes? I don't think it's tough to see the writing on the wall.
The problem is, blizzard keeps confusing everyone by not drawing a line in the sand for warriors and allowing them to top the damage meters for so long without doing anything other than subtle nerfs. It's irritating to both the dps warriors and the classes that they are threatening.
What confuses me is that blizzard realizes how deadly effective warriors are in both of thier hybrid roles... yet still refuses to give shadow priests damage caster grade dps, or feral druids raid class melee dps, etc. They let one class master each of the roles that they can accomplish (by respec'ing and gear, etc.) but other classes don't have 1/2 the potential in any of thier "hybrid" specs. A shadow priest will never (in the current game mechanics) reach caster dps status despite having every piece of shadow damage gear in the game, but a warrior can run through bwl/aq40 and become every rogues nightmare with ease.
No, I'm not arguing about the tweaks, nor whether they are subtle or now. Read Zagzil's post, that's a good example of what I mean. I'm not sure where he got that blizzard is ok with our power level, but let's assume Zagzil is correct. Why make talent trees that suck and place talents ilogically?
I'd reroll because my dps is being whittled away, little by little every patch, and I'm unsure if these are dps nerfs to bring us in line, or if they are balance changes. I'd rather play a class that has a clear purpose, like mages and rogues, you know they are supposed to deal top dps, rather than play a class that may deal more dps than mages and rogues, but has to fear the nerf stick every patch.
I agree about your tree/logic comment (from an unspecific standpoint being somewhat unfamiliar with Warrior talents currently). I think his comment about power level is that there's a lot of pure DPS class players that are kind of jaded about the fact that the most important tanking class also gets to be a top DPS class (making a pure DPS class sorta wonder why they're there). Lord knows I've been hearing enough about how hybrids like Shaman and Druids shouldn't surpass pure DPS classes. Every time I ask for slight benefits to my DPS or threat reduction, I have a bunch of people leaping on me about how Hybrids like Shaman shouldn't match pure classes, yet the Warrior stands defiant (lolpun) of this by being able to excel at both tanking and dpsing. Guess I'm bitter. =P
And since one of those comments from Kalgan was something to the effect of being pleased with Warrior's role as tank/DPS, it was taken (I believe) to mean they're fine with it, and just want to reign it in slightly because, at least from my arguably ignorant perspective, Warrior DPS scaling is kinda ridiculous. The issue is that bigger weapons = more rage on hit, and since your rage bar is a flat 100, they're probably hoping to avert a time where every melee crit at 70 fills your whole rage bar.
JUICE! Aww I'm sorry. Did... did anyone want some juice?
As Kalgan said, this has been in alpha for a little while
I'd guess if it were any sort of a drastic change that somebody would have mentioned it by now. If their goal was to keep generation at 60-ish the same, I'm much more interested to see how it works at lower levels. Hopefully not really having any rage to use your fun abilities more than once a fight while leveling will be going away as well.
Originally Posted by CheshireCat
Eh, my nostalgia goggles aren't as good as they used to be.
I don't really see that as a problem. Rage efficiency falls off very quickly. I can sustain BT/WW/hamstring quite easily, extra rage goes int cleave or HS, which for separate reasons, aren't that great. I'm not really worried about the rage normalization itself, I have more rage than I know what to do with as it is now. I'm just worried that developers have an agenda for warriors and they haven't shared it with anyone. It really makes me scratch my head when they make comments like "reigning in warrior power in the future", when any high level dps warrior knows that rage generation is NOT the problem at BWL+ levels of gear. We are held well line line by ability cooldowns and the global cooldown. Any sort of upgrade we receive in the expansion via gear will be relatively the same as any other class, assuming points item budget is class neutral(haha).
I still disagree in part with the hybrid argument, the class would be subbed in and out if they weren't able to do good dps with one set of gear, and tank well with another. I can concede that their damage is higher than it should be right now, but the class needs to be able to be a viable DPS class as well as a tank in order for raids to not gain an immense transition in difficulty simply by subbing out warriors whenever they aren't needed to tank.
There is a difference between "viable DPS" and "the best DPS." If warriors did damage under mages/rogues but above the hunters and warlocks, I don't think anybody would see the complaints they do now. As it is warriors can do 100k + more damage than I can on encounters that actually matter DPS wise, like Loatheb or Thaddius, and I have no hope to ever match that.
I am not sure I understand the warrior outcry here atleast not from the fury guys. I cannot speak for alliance but on horde our are usually capped by aggro not by rage. This change will increase the rage of your tanks and increase their threat, hence raising your limiting factor.
This is not a doom and gloom change and I think everyone, to some extent, knew it was coming.
There is a difference between "viable DPS" and "the best DPS." If warriors did damage under mages/rogues but above the hunters and warlocks, I don't think anybody would see the complaints they do now. As it is warriors can do 100k + more damage than I can on encounters that actually matter DPS wise, like Loatheb or Thaddius, and I have no hope to ever match that.
I don't agree with warrior DPS being 'the best DPS'. Different classes will shine more in different scenarios but overall equally geared rogues will put out just as much (if not more) dps than a DPS warrior. IMO since Naxx has quite a few fights that let the DPS warrior really shine b/c of different aggro mechanics than we've seen previously, that's what everyone tends to look at and use as examples. Not 80% of the rest of content that we can't pot/buff out and spam HS w/o fear of aggro.
I think Deathwing touched on it but we now scale at the same rate as everyone else. The tension came because it really took BWL level gear to catch up to rogue/mage DPS. This isn't a trend that will continue. As Deathwing stated, generally we're not limited to rage as much as cool-downs and there's no gear that will change that.
For the record, I don't think Warrior DPS is out of line.. I think that there should be more utility added to other high dps classes. IMO people are focusing on the wrong issue.
As for the rage normalization, it looks like a good thing. It won't really change much in current setups but will make sure that at 70 rage is not a 1 crit = 100 rage type situation (where'd the fun be in that).
Warrior hybridization - and specifically tank/<anything> hybrids are the weakest hybrids in the game, *when you consider the game as a whole*. The main reason being that the role of tanking is useful only in group dungeon play (including raiding) - merely one aspect of the game.
Consider hypothetically if blizzard removed warrior dps entirely, making them the premier tank class specialist only (as many people seem to be clamoring for). In the levelling/solo aspect of the game, this class would be like levelling/soloing a paladin without the buffs or heals. Similarly in arena or bg PvP, nobody would ever bring a warrior. People simply ignore low dps classes in PvP today (e.g. paladins) unless they do something threatening (e.g. heal). A warrior without dps in PvP would be like one of those "newb loldps" paladins in blue gear who point blank refuse to heal/cleanse anything and bounce around you like an annoying gnat.
When you consider that Blizzard puts an extremely large amount of effort into balancing classes for *all* styles of play, not just raiding, it is rather unsurprising that they want to give warriors the option of good dps - because it is all they have in two major aspects of the game.
Going back to the consideration of types of hybrids, clearly the strongest hybrids are dps/heal. Again, considering all aspects of the game, if there were a class which could dps and heal along with the best in the game, how broken would that be in PvP or Solo play? Imagine a Rogue with a Paladin or Shaman heal spells, or worse, a Priest bubble/renew.
People arguing that priests should be able to do competitive raid healing and with the switch of a button (shadow form) do raid-class dps, or similarly druids should be able to raid-heal and with a simple shapeshift switch to competetive raid-dps are ignoring the fact that this ability would make these classes ridiculously overpowered in PvP or Solo/Level/Grind play.
The warrior class is a good raid tank/dps hybrid, however individual warriors generally are specialists due to the insane gear requirements for both roles. With very few exceptions none of the gear overlaps roles. This means that your raid-role (dps/tank) represents a significant (months) of investment in gearing. It is also the reason people complain that prot is gimp (because it sux in pvp/solo - evidence of the point I make above). If warriors were such godly hybrids, your MT should just be able to slap on a few items and pwn noobs in Arathi Basin, right? ... not quite.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the balance is right - however I do want to put an end to the myopic reactionary debate that people seem to continuously direct at warriors regarding dps and balance. When you say 'balance' make sure whatever you're saying considers the game as a whole, not just your little niche.
Personally, I think that the months long gear investment which forces specialization, and the threat mechanic are great ways to 'balance' warrior dps. Yes, bliz shouldn't have screwed up on Salv/Fetish. And I think the occasional threat-less encounter is a great way to let wars unload, but there should be a balanced number of encounters allowing other classes to shine also.
Improving one-dimensional classes like rogues would be much more beneficial for the game overall than a blind: 'omgz nerf dps wars'. Where are the rogue threat-transfer abilities? Make stealth effective in raids. Make pets effective in raids, etc.
/rant
The rage normalization they've announced simply sounds like a curve adjustment to add very high end diminishing returns to rage production. Probably bliz noticed that wars hit the wall around lvl 70 raid epics where improved gear suddenly radically slows down due to the rage bar being permanently full and they flattened the curve a little.
I still disagree in part with the hybrid argument, the class would be subbed in and out if they weren't able to do good dps with one set of gear, and tank well with another. I can concede that their damage is higher than it should be right now, but the class needs to be able to be a viable DPS class as well as a tank in order for raids to not gain an immense transition in difficulty simply by subbing out warriors whenever they aren't needed to tank.
There is a difference between "viable DPS" and "the best DPS." If warriors did damage under mages/rogues but above the hunters and warlocks, I don't think anybody would see the complaints they do now. As it is warriors can do 100k + more damage than I can on encounters that actually matter DPS wise, like Loatheb or Thaddius, and I have no hope to ever match that.
Locks and especially hunters would probably complain. :P As I see it, hunters should be just behind/almost equal to rouges and ahead of the rest of the dps classes considering the extreme lack of utility (read, none at all) hunters bring. If they put in a lot of extremely aggro sensitive fights in BC so hunters can acctually make use of their aggro wipe, I would be fine with doing subpar damage compaired to the other classes for straightforward dps. In the current endgame, there are almost no such fights. I'm frankly annoyed that hunters lack so much in dps as they do now. We bring just as much utility as a rogue do to a raid, and do inferior damage compared to them and warriors. Sure they need to be in melee and eat AoE's etc, but that alone should not make the difference so enormous as it is now. I consider any nerf to warrior dps a good change, they excel far too well at their secondary role at the moment.
I still disagree in part with the hybrid argument, the class would be subbed in and out if they weren't able to do good dps with one set of gear, and tank well with another. I can concede that their damage is higher than it should be right now, but the class needs to be able to be a viable DPS class as well as a tank in order for raids to not gain an immense transition in difficulty simply by subbing out warriors whenever they aren't needed to tank.
There is a difference between "viable DPS" and "the best DPS." If warriors did damage under mages/rogues but above the hunters and warlocks, I don't think anybody would see the complaints they do now. As it is warriors can do 100k + more damage than I can on encounters that actually matter DPS wise, like Loatheb or Thaddius, and I have no hope to ever match that.
No you'd still see them, because warlock/hunter presense on raids is very gimmicky. Tranq shot here, pet pull there, sit your imp here, give the tanks HS's etc.
Warlock/Hunter issues have already been raised and hopefully both classes will get the pve buffs they really need.
Slight derail, sorry.
Anyways, as far as the rage generalization thing, all of the warrior tweaks have been pretty nice as far as tanks go. I know alot of my friends just want to suck up the damage and get often annoyed at dps warriors for how awesomely hybridized they are.
But that's the point. How a dps warrior can say word 1 is beyond me, they are the only class that can do two things better than anyone else, and some classes can't even do one thing.
As a hunter, my main retort would be, hey I can tranq better than anyone else. /dripping sarcasm mode off
I hope the rage generalization is a step in the right direction, and actually makes a bit of a noticable difference, because the warrior stuff is just kinda annoying. A perfect raid group nowadays seems to be pretty warrior heavy, negating either semi dps classes with tricks (warlocks/hunters) or pure classes because the best hybrid can do their job better than they can AND do another job better than any other class.
Here's to hoping paladins, shamans and rogues unseat the warriors from their throne. :P
The day is finally at hand. Not like anyone didn't see it coming, but still it makes you wonder.
Having played a warrior since the day one, I can honestly say that warriors are fine currently in terms of PvE damage dealing capabilities. It is but a select few warriors that have the gear and the mad glimmer in their eyes that are required to top the damage meters on fights that are designed to be all out damage fest for everyone, namely C'thun, Loatheb and even Patchwerk to certain extent (yes, you will pull aggro with 920 DPS). The major problem with warrior PvE damage dealing comes from aggro management. Rage is not really an issue in PvE for us, as we're solely limited by cooldowns of our abilities. Having said that, it does beckon the question as to why such a change is needed?
Warriors have a very well defined task in raids. They are tanking, and when they are not, they are dealing damage. As most encounters need only one or two tanks, what would you have rest of the warriors do if they could not effectively fill out their secondary role? Warriors do not offer anything to a raid beyond those two simple functions, one of which is useless most of the time. Maybe the situation will change in Burning Crusade as the amount of warriors you are bringing compared to the amount of tanks you need might not be so imbalanced. The dawn of Burning Crusade is also looking quite grim to most of the warrior population, as we are one, if not the most, played class in the game, and our secondary role is now being diminished.
Is it really the rage generation that is the problem of the PvE warriors? I don't think so. Rogues are complaining that they would not be wanted into raids if warriors did equal amount of damage, or even more then they. This will never be the case, as the difference in top rogue damage and top warrior damage is negligible, and as warrior damage drops are not as common as those for rogues, the gear progress on rogues will be faster, thus expediting the progress through new content for the guild. As a guild master and a raid leader, I would never consider dropping rogues for warriors if all I wanted was someone who could dish out damage, provided that the difference in their gear would not be too steep. I think the problem is just simply that you might need additional tanks on certain specific bosses or trash mobs and therefore you have to bring lots of warriors to a raid. We currently raid with eight to nine warriors regularly, and even thinking about what happens when the expansion comes gives me a major headache.
Personally I feel offended by this change, but nothing more. It just gives the notion, once again, that any gear improvements you get are not worth getting as you will not grow in power. This change combined with the new subpar talents in our two other trees really make me a sad member of the class. Oh, well, I suppose I can always go back to tanking fulltime should the worst happen.
There is a difference between "viable DPS" and "the best DPS." If warriors did damage under mages/rogues but above the hunters and warlocks, I don't think anybody would see the complaints they do now. As it is warriors can do 100k + more damage than I can on encounters that actually matter DPS wise, like Loatheb or Thaddius, and I have no hope to ever match that.
I don't agree with warrior DPS being 'the best DPS'. Different classes will shine more in different scenarios but overall equally geared rogues will put out just as much (if not more) dps than a DPS warrior. IMO since Naxx has quite a few fights that let the DPS warrior really shine b/c of different aggro mechanics than we've seen previously, that's what everyone tends to look at and use as examples. Not 80% of the rest of content that we can't pot/buff out and spam HS w/o fear of aggro.
Why wouldn't they use Naxx fights as examples? They are the fights that matter. Thaddius has perfectly normal aggro mechanics and warriors still do quite a bit more damage than rogues, so I really don't see aggro as being a huge issue that so many warriors make it out to be. Even if you do die, most of the time you can just get a battle rez and keep pumping out damage.
I still disagree in part with the hybrid argument, the class would be subbed in and out if they weren't able to do good dps with one set of gear, and tank well with another. I can concede that their damage is higher than it should be right now, but the class needs to be able to be a viable DPS class as well as a tank in order for raids to not gain an immense transition in difficulty simply by subbing out warriors whenever they aren't needed to tank.
There is a difference between "viable DPS" and "the best DPS." If warriors did damage under mages/rogues but above the hunters and warlocks, I don't think anybody would see the complaints they do now. As it is warriors can do 100k + more damage than I can on encounters that actually matter DPS wise, like Loatheb or Thaddius, and I have no hope to ever match that.
Loatheb and Thaddius are really good examples of why rage normalization is needed. Both of those encounters are based around the idea that it would be really cool to give the raid a huge DPS boost. But because warriors don't scale linerally with more damage, they go crazy and dominate the damage meters. If there wasn't rage normalization, then encounters like that in the future would have to be balanced around the idea of stacking warriors.
As far as Hunter/Warlock DPS, our Hunters and Warlocks regurally hang around with a non-Ignite rolling fire mage, as long as the hunter or lock brings along a buffed pet. Our last Patchwerk kill we had mages hovering around 450-550 DPS with most of the locks/hunters also in there. We also had a warrior with 909 DPS.
Warriors have a very well defined task in raids. They are tanking, and when they are not, they are dealing damage. As most encounters need only one or two tanks, what would you have rest of the warriors do if they could not effectively fill out their secondary role? Warriors do not offer anything to a raid beyond those two simple functions, one of which is useless most of the time.
Oh no. That's awful. I mean that's so much worse than only being there for 2 curses, soulstones and healthstones. Or for tranq shot. :p No problem with warriors doing good dps in their secondary role. However that to me is ~ frost mage damage, not more damage than anyone else if not agro constrained.
however individual warriors generally are specialists due to the insane gear requirements for both roles. With very few exceptions none of the gear overlaps roles. This means that your raid-role (dps/tank) represents a significant (months) of investment in gearing. It is also the reason people complain that prot is gimp (because it sux in pvp/solo - evidence of the point I make above). If warriors were such godly hybrids, your MT should just be able to slap on a few items and pwn noobs in Arathi Basin, right? ... not quite.
...and how is this any different from Shaman, druids, etc.?
JUICE! Aww I'm sorry. Did... did anyone want some juice?
We currently raid with eight to nine warriors regularly, and even thinking about what happens when the expansion comes gives me a major headache.
Do you ever considered bringing 8 or 9 of any other class to a raid? I know I would not. Does that not strike anyone as a design flaw (even barring 4 horsemen)?
TM moved to deny MS + Flurry, nice one. Can someone post on the US Forums and tell them moving flurry 1 tier down and precision 1 tier up has the same result?
10/04/06, 3:43 PM
Similar Threads
