05/26/08, 10:22 AM
|
#1
|
|
Sledgehammer Emeritus
|
Infraction for Wander: Trolling
Post: [Warlock] WotLK Talent Preview / Discussion
User: Wander
Infraction: Trolling
Points: 1
Administrative Note:
Message to User:
Why are you in this thread for any reason other than to stir up shit?
Go away.
|
Original Post:

Well, it's one thing to complain about having a very straightforward and one-dimensional class compared to a multifaceted one; but then, Mages would point out that fact that despite this simplicity, Warlocks:
- Tend to do more DPS in almost every fight.
- Improve rDPS far, far more.
- Never have to worry about a fight being *designed* to use their utility; it's *always* wanted.
It's a fairly simple dynamic: Warlocks are simple and outright more powerful; Mages are weaker, but more complex. Mages can find niches and exploit encounter designs creatively to eke out better results; Warlocks just muscle through no matter the conditions.
The fact is that Warlocks are probably fine, but Mages need a higher potential than Warlocks, if only because they can so rarely actually reach that potential. Having Warlocks chug along at X,000 DPS while Mages bounce between (X-1),000 DPS and (X+1),000 DPS based on how skilled they are and how much the fight favors a Mage seems fine to me; the problem is right now, according to WWS parses, Mages top out at a level lower than Warlocks no matter how skilled.
Perhaps if encounters stop being designed solely around sustainability and longevity and move towards more dynamic encounters that enphasize burst more, Mages will more often be in their niches and feel better about themselves.
A post that complains about how simple Warlocks are without acknowledging the power that comes with the simplicity often comes across as complaining about how boring it is that you hit Home Runs all the time; maybe it would be nice to bunt once in a while, but no, you're so damn strong that every time you're at bat it's at least a Triple and that's boring; it's refreshing to see you haven't fallen into that trap.
|
|
|
|
|
|