Except Druids are still only 3% of the high-end 5v5 representation.
Why do people keep arguing that class % representation is the be-all end-all determinate for well balanced? It can certianly indicate some balance flaws, but it's a terrible standard from which to base final judgement, as there are many factors involved.
"I have nothing personally invested in my own opinions. I'm just, like, inviting you to join me on the bandwagon of my own uncertainty." -Taylor Mali
Unless Improved Intercept gets moved, the Warrior talent swap has done nothing for Warrior PvP spec/playstyle. The exact same cookie-cutter 35/23/3 build will be what is played by all MS Warriors.
Fury PvE DPS should see a net increase based on the WW changes - that's really all it did.
Edit - In response to the poster above me, it seems like a surprising number of these 'statistics' ignore total % of the playerbase represented, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people who are good at PvP are not equally distributed amongst the classes, or that % representation in Arenas might more closely mirror % of population distribution than people are willing to admit.
Edit 2 (>.<) - As far as the OP, I think they understand the nature of the game very well. The reality is, Blizzard has stated that they want the game to be as seamless as possible - they don't want different rulesets. How an ability works in PvE should not be far off from how it works in PvP (the only noticeable differences being diminishing returns or shorter durations on CC). If they can't allow for unique rulesets, they're bound by the inherent limitations of the game and its existing class balance as it has evolved - Arenas will never be perfectly equal.
Edit - In response to the poster above me, it seems like a surprising number of these 'statistics' ignore total % of the playerbase represented, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people who are good at PvP are not equally distributed amongst the classes, or that % representation in Arenas might more closely mirror % of population distribution than people are willing to admit.
Vhairi's Scratchpad Normalizes it compared to the overall population of a given class
Unless Improved Intercept gets moved, the Warrior talent swap has done nothing for Warrior PvP spec/playstyle.
For sure, this week I tried playing with Last Stand and Concussion Blow instead of improved intercept and it was too painful. I'm really not sure what the pvp talent is doing in fury but it is crucial to arena play.
Unless Improved Intercept gets moved, the Warrior talent swap has done nothing for Warrior PvP spec/playstyle. The exact same cookie-cutter 35/23/3 build will be what is played by all MS Warriors.
Improved Intercept swapped places with Weapon Mastery... Improved Intercept is in Arms now (or was when I was on the PTR when it went up, unless they reverted it back?).
Why do people keep arguing that class % representation is the be-all end-all determinate for well balanced? It can certianly indicate some balance flaws, but it's a terrible standard from which to base final judgement, as there are many factors involved.
This is especially interesting for druids. I've read many times high rated teams basically saying "we're looking for a druid but we haven't been able to find a good PVP resto druid on our server". You hear this all the time. Now maybe that means the class is a little too hard to play at the highest level and they need to make it a little easier (see 2.3 shapeshift changes), but it also means that druids may very well have all the tools to be powerful enough and it's only not reflected in the numbers simply because not enough druids can hit the level of play required. I'd also point to the massive influx of elemental shaman into 5v5. On bloodlust at least shaman were not overly represented in the top 5v5 teams in S1. Now, with minimal changes at best they are everywhere simply because people are copying a team layout that includes them. Druids don't really have a team setup that everyone is jumping aboard right now. That's why the numbers are faulty, they do point to a problem to be sure, but they don't point out the root cause of the problem. It could be power level of the class (hunter, possibly), it could be the class is too hard to play at the highest level (druid, possibly), or it could be that the metagame is not the best for the class (rogue, possibly).
That's why the numbers are faulty, they do point to a problem to be sure, but they don't point out the root cause of the problem. It could be power level of the class (hunter, possibly), it could be the class is too hard to play at the highest level (druid, possibly), or it could be that the metagame is not the best for the class (rogue, possibly).
Another part of this is soft factors, as well, which you can't really adjust in every situation. Some people just don't want to play something no matter how strong it is. To play a druid, you have to play an elf with some silly racials and a social reputation for attracting bad players (I am not commenting on whether this is deserved or not! I am just saying the soft factor exists) or a big bull-man that, because of its model scale, feels "slower," because its animations are less exaggerated.
Why, at level 70, are there 53,000 dran-sham and 62,000 belf-pal despite the Alliance having a 1.3:1 aggregate ratio advantage, and the huge huge demand that persists to this day for shaman for Alliance raiding guilds? No one can deny Horde getting paladins was a bigger gain for PVE and PVP than Alliance getting shaman, but it still isn't adequate to explain the difference. (adjusted for the population ratio, its 53k vs. 80k, which is pretty staggering)
Looking more broadly, draenei are the best priest choice for their faction, arguably favorable as "the" shaman race vs. the other faction, okay hunters, mages, and warriors, and great paladins. Blood elfs AOE silence is a great racial, but honestly, they lack warriors altogether, their paladins don't compare favorably to the other faction as dran-sham do, their hunters aren't nearly as good as the other Horde choices, and priest/mage/warlock/rogue all have (I would argue) better selections being undead. The very strong showing of blood elves vs. draenei, I think its pretty obvious, does owe a good deal to the soft factor of bulky space demons just not being very appealing vs. getting to play a seksi arcane blonde girl or an invincible healing Goku super-saiyan.
I think you may have misunderstood here... the change is an increase in a talent from 15% regen in casting to 30%, hence its a buff directly influencing your in-combat casting regeneration, and has nothing to do with your regen outside of 5 sec casting.
In light of the change to S3 resto set, did you even look at the math at all? It sounds like you just read "15% -> 30%" in patch notes and you go "ok, buff"
I play a Priest, Druid, Hunter, Mage, rogue in competitive arena, all between 2000 and 2250 rating.
I can tell you without any sense of hesitation that the druid is by far the most powerful Healer out of every other class in 2v2 and 3v3.
Another part of this is soft factors, as well, which you can't really adjust in every situation. Some people just don't want to play something no matter how strong it is. To play a druid, you have to play an elf with some silly racials and a social reputation for attracting bad players (I am not commenting on whether this is deserved or not! I am just saying the soft factor exists) or a big bull-man that, because of its model scale, feels "slower," because its animations are less exaggerated.
Well top players tend to ignore those and just focus on what works.
There was a huge line of thinking that said "If you want to roll a healer for pvp, you want to roll a paladin, end of story" and this dominated season 1. This was also coupled with the fact that paladins typically don't need as much resilience gear to perform well.
For a resto druid to do well, you essentially have to have a lot of resilience, and the four piece set bonus makes a large difference for kiting. Once a few druids persevered through the gearing process, got the set bonus, and started showing off what can really be done, the doubts started to fade. Then others started to copy, which typically meant levelling and gearing an alt which is very time consuming and now they're much more prevalent in high end 2s and 3s brackets.
With hunters it's really not the same thing. The playerbase was there initially, the workable matrices were definitely tried, they're not reliant on a 4pc set bonus. In my opinion there isn't really a breakout strategy that's still undiscovered for hunters.
With 2.3 this could very well change though. No other class has a healing reduction affect, a mana drain, and an offensive dispel. While these will take time to master, I think hunters can do quite a bit better than they think
No other class has a healing reduction affect, a mana drain, and an offensive dispel. While these will take time to master, I think hunters can do quite a bit better than they think
If you count curse of tongues as a healing reduction effect (debatable, since MS/WP reduce HPS and HPM, whilst CoT only reduces HPS, and doesn't stack so it can be dispelled slightly easier) then warlocks do!
Still, a lot of hunters are making good points in saying that MS aimed shot isn't hugely reliable. Even if you manage to synergise it perfectly with haste and CC/snares from teammates to maintain range and LoS, the duration is still shorter than the cooldown, so it won't be up 100% of the time. Still, I suppose you really only need it for bursts. An all ranged 4dps team now seems possible.
If you count curse of tongues as a healing reduction effect (debatable, since MS/WP reduce HPS and HPM, whilst CoT only reduces HPS, and doesn't stack so it can be dispelled slightly easier) then warlocks do!
Still, a lot of hunters are making good points in saying that MS aimed shot isn't hugely reliable. Even if you manage to synergise it perfectly with haste and CC/snares from teammates to maintain range and LoS, the duration is still shorter than the cooldown, so it won't be up 100% of the time. Still, I suppose you really only need it for bursts. An all ranged 4dps team now seems possible.
Arena is a sub-game in WoW. It is a relatively new concept, and is very different to how the rest of the game functions. It is supposed to bring a competitive edge to Player-vs-Player combat.
This isn't a bash-Blizzard thread, so please don't turn it into one.
I would like to see other peoples opinions on this: Do you think the Blizzard devs (mainly Tom Chilton and crew) have the forsight, and Arena experience to adequately balance the current Arena system? Do you think they are at the cutting edge of Arena strategy? Do you believe they actually play Arena and/or are capable of achieving a competitive rating?
Do comments from Blizzard such as this shake your faith?
Actually this comment gives me faith that maybe one day there will be more than 1 spec viable for mages in arena.
Well top players tend to ignore those and just focus on what works.
There was a huge line of thinking that said "If you want to roll a healer for pvp, you want to roll a paladin, end of story" and this dominated season 1. This was also coupled with the fact that paladins typically don't need as much resilience gear to perform well.
For a resto druid to do well, you essentially have to have a lot of resilience, and the four piece set bonus makes a large difference for kiting. Once a few druids persevered through the gearing process, got the set bonus, and started showing off what can really be done, the doubts started to fade. Then others started to copy, which typically meant levelling and gearing an alt which is very time consuming and now they're much more prevalent in high end 2s and 3s brackets.
I think this is generally true, but the rerolling cost in WoW is something to definitely consider. In something like guild wars, for example, with their being essentially no cost for starting a fresh max level char, recognizing FoTM/OP combos is much easier just by looking at who is playing what. Even with leveling changes in WoW, you are still looking at a week or more of /played time to get 70, then dozens upon dozens of hours in BGs for honor, then either buying arena points (still probably taking 2 months to gear up) or being on a legitimate team with good gear (now probably an entire season to catch up in gear). As much as people like to complain about arena gear being a joke to get, the cost is still pretty high for a PvP element when compared to other games.
As much as people like to complain about arena gear being a joke to get, the cost is still pretty high for a PvP element when compared to other games.
Arena is at least fun, honor gear grinding is suicide inducing. I have one piece of honor gear + the honor trinket and I hated grinding them, AV and all bg's without a team feel like just a mindless zerg.
This image shows druids being the least represented class in 5v5, including filtered by population. Yes, this one statistic is not the best thing a person can point at and say "Hey! here is conclusive proof druids need a buff (assuming 5v5 is where the classes should be balanced around)". However, there surely is SOME reason for this result?
And of that 3% in 5v5, how many are resto druids and how many are ferals? Simply put, when people say "Druids are fine"... they mean "Resto druids are fine" yet even so, in 5v5 we are the least wanted class. I could list so many reasons why feral druids are just not viable in a 5v5 when you could get many other classes to replace what a Feral would bring, and do the job better with less effort on the players side too.
I would have to say to the OP that blizzard DO know their game well, but they do often seem blind to some major issues classes have simply because an alternate spec offers viability.
I think the instant shift is more of a buff to resto druids than to feral druids anyways (in Arena). Its not like we can shift and drink a potion=). And Yes, I know people will point me to videos of incredible feral druids holding their spot in 5v5 teams at 2,500 rating. The fact is though the skill needed to play a druid is so much higher very few people can ever achieve that. I played a rogue for 2 years and I considered myself very skilled and I had arena teams to prove it in S1. Now on my feral I find to feel as if I am contributing like my rogue did, I need 2 keyboards and 4 arms.
Anyways, I do not mean this to sound like a whine as I accept this situation and do not mind anymore =).But Ferals and Restos are 2 entirely different beasts, don't lump 'em together please! And whatever anyone says, 3% representation in 5v5s has to mean SOMETHING!
There is light at the end of the tunnel.
The only problem is, it's often an incoming train.
I think this is generally true, but the rerolling cost in WoW is something to definitely consider. In something like guild wars, for example, with their being essentially no cost for starting a fresh max level char, recognizing FoTM/OP combos is much easier just by looking at who is playing what. Even with leveling changes in WoW, you are still looking at a week or more of /played time to get 70, then dozens upon dozens of hours in BGs for honor, then either buying arena points (still probably taking 2 months to gear up) or being on a legitimate team with good gear (now probably an entire season to catch up in gear). As much as people like to complain about arena gear being a joke to get, the cost is still pretty high for a PvP element when compared to other games.
Lol at the people complaining about arena gear being a joke to get.
It may be a joke to get if you have very good PvE gear, or if you farmed all the BG stuffs already. But entering arena as a fresh level 70 and fighting with greens and blues against people with full or almost full s2 gear is not a joke at all.
At the start of season 1, yes then it was quite easy to advance with poor gear but a little skill. But now days at 1500 rating you meet a lot of teams with almost full s2 gear.
I am completely unsympathetic to people who play a very viable arena class that complain that a particular spec of their class isn't viable in PvP. FIRST make all classes equally viable, and ensure that every class has a viable role in arena, then worry about making sure that every spec is suitable for PvP.
Warriors don't really cry that they aren't viable as prot in arenas, just either arena casually or respec, since pretty much everyone has to respec from their PvE to PvP specs to compete seriously anyway.
I am completely unsympathetic to people who play a very viable arena class that complain that a particular spec of their class isn't viable in PvP. FIRST make all classes equally viable, and ensure that every class has a viable role in arena, then worry about making sure that every spec is suitable for PvP.
Warriors don't really cry that they aren't viable as prot in arenas, just either arena casually or respec, since pretty much everyone has to respec from their PvE to PvP specs to compete seriously anyway.
This is my feeling exactly. If a spec is powerful/viable then the class is powerful/viable.
And of that 3% in 5v5, how many are resto druids and how many are ferals? Simply put, when people say "Druids are fine"... they mean "Resto druids are fine" yet even so, in 5v5 we are the least wanted class. I could list so many reasons why feral druids are just not viable in a 5v5 when you could get many other classes to replace what a Feral would bring, and do the job better with less effort on the players side too.
Alot of this has to do with mob mentality instead of a class's actual capabilities. Once you start to get 4-5 people together thinking "Hey, what class do we really need to round out our arena team?" they're going to come up with an answer based upon what they have seen work and then they're going to propagate that stereotype even further. I think it's pretty obvious that you CAN be successful with whatever class you want to play, and there are armory links to prove that. The real problem is not viability so much as percieved viability. If everyone else thinks you suck, but you COULD get the job done if given the chance, do you really suck? Do you really need to be buffed, or does that just lead to you being hands down the better class period? I think we've seen this happen many times in the balancing of WoW lately; a class is percieved to suck, the whining begins, they fix said class, and then the people who WERE truly exceptional at that class are now nigh unstoppable because of it.
As an example, lets use hunters and PvE. Personally...I won't take a hunter to round out a pug over anyone else because the amount of moron hunters I've seen is staggering. Truly monumental. Does this mean that hunters suck? Absolutely not. I've grouped with several really good hunters that actually topped the DM's without pulling aggro or being better geared than anyone else, and used their abilities for good, rather than evil. Clearly the capability to succeed is there, and yet I still won't bother with one because I percieve the class to be a bunch of drooling retards.
I think it happens to come down to more of a case of "We need X, Y won't work" when in fact Y will work, it would just take a different line of thinking, or someone who actually knows what they're doing rather than "Hay can I join ur 5v5?"
This is my feeling exactly. If a spec is powerful/viable then the class is powerful/viable.
Personally I disagree. When a class has specs that have entirely different play mechanics. In those situations treating "the best spec" as the reason to not upgrade the others to be viable as well is very unfair.
Of course it needs an ideal world to make all of these specs viable, but I think they should at least be considered instead of people just saying "just spec resto, then you are fine!". The fact that enhancement is getting a clear PvP buff witht heir damage reducing talent suggests Blizzard also think this to some degree.
As I said though, it needs an ideal world =). It will never happen and I accept it, I do not post this as a whine, I post this simply because I think it is unfair to just say Druids are fine when only 1 spec is actually viable. Ferals and Moonkins spent months and even years playing their chosen game style, I do not think it is unreasonable to give them the option of using their skill and gear in the Arena, instead of forcing a respec, forcing them to learn a new style of play and forcing them to completely regear their characters, just so they can get gear for a different spec.
I have to say though, 2 priests disagreed with me, and being that you have 3 viable specs in the arena... is it possible, just a tiny bit, you are biased? =).
My personal belief is that Feral druids will not get a PvP buff because of the few incredible Ferals out there. A buff to the masses will make these guys killing machines =). Similar to past warrior nerfs when only a few warriors had the gear to warrant a nerf. I just accept this and figure if I want to be viable in the arena I can either respec and gear up resto or reroll. however I will never say that this option makes druids fine. It is if anything a patch over the problem, not a solution.
But I think this is not the best thread for this discussion =). Just PM me, I am an adult, I won't whine, cry or take offence due to your opinions, but I would gladly qualify myself and my reasoning if you want that, so PM away =).
There is light at the end of the tunnel.
The only problem is, it's often an incoming train.
Lol at the people complaining about arena gear being a joke to get.
It may be a joke to get if you have very good PvE gear, or if you farmed all the BG stuffs already. But entering arena as a fresh level 70 and fighting with greens and blues against people with full or almost full s2 gear is not a joke at all.
At the start of season 1, yes then it was quite easy to advance with poor gear but a little skill. But now days at 1500 rating you meet a lot of teams with almost full s2 gear.
This is a problem, but I think person ratings might help fix the problem next season. I started very late in the Arenas with my Rogue as I was still leveling her up during S1 as was one of my team mates. So by the time we started playing in S2, we were severely out geared. The thing that has annoyed us the most is that when someone is 2000+ rating in 5v5, yet they are in the 1500 bracket in 2v2 or 3v3.
Now, someone might just suck at 2v2 and 3v3, so if that 1500 rating is an accurate reflection of their skill, then sure, that's great...but generally that's not the case. Since it's the lower brackets, I don't think these people are Smurfing anyone, I just think it's a case of people dropping teams and picking up new ones at the leisure because they've already got their points with their 2000+ 5v5 team. Frankly, I have no idea what the solution to this type of problem would be, perhaps make it that if you have a 2000 rating in 5v5, you'd start with a 1850 rating in 3v3 and 1700 in 2v2 if you started a new team? So in a case like that, if two people at 2000 in 5v5 started a 2v2 team, they'd start at 1700. Let's face it, these people are likely to roll anyone who is really a 1500 anyways, it just saves everyone time and grief.
On a complete other topic, I haven't had time to test the resiliance change that I said earlier still appeared to be broken, I'll see if I can get that done tonight.
Off the top of my head I feel like half of the classes are generally speaking one spec for arenas, outside of maybe a handful of talents that get shuffled around.
Warriors are MS, mages frost, paladins holy, most rogues I see are combat, most hunters are marks, and I've never seen a destro spec lock in arenas. Clearly this could just be my experience of it, but I suspect it's not unique.
Possibly it should be different, but it doesn't seem out of line.
Personally I disagree. When a class has specs that have entirely different play mechanics. In those situations treating "the best spec" as the reason to not upgrade the others to be viable as well is very unfair.
I am not arguing that as a distant goal in the future we should aim at having all specs balanced in arena, I am just saying that it is a distant priority that comes after you make sure that every class is evenly represented and can play a useful function in most matrixes. I am a lot more concerned about hunters not having a single decent arena spec than warriors not being able to spec prot for arena. If Blizzard had infinite resources and time, it would be very nice to see prot turned into a useful PvP spec, but that's for much later.
I have to say though, 2 priests disagreed with me, and being that you have 3 viable specs in the arena... is it possible, just a tiny bit, you are biased? =).
I have one item I use in my PvP gear and my PvE gear, and that's my frozen shadoweave boots because I personally despise honor grinding, if I actually took the time to finish honor grinding I wouldn't use those either.
Check my spec as well. I don't have silence, I don't have improved manaburn, I have 5/5 shadow focus and 3/3 threat reduction. If I pvp I respec completely.
Realistically warriors, pallies and mages all have only one viable spec.
Warlocks, priests, rogues, druids* and shamans all have two, although in most cases one is a lot more suited to certain brackets / teams than the other.
Hunters I'm actually not sure. The ones I see tend to be MM, but I still see very very few. I'm sure a lot of people here would say zero though
* I think moonkin druids show a lot of promise in 5v5. I've seen some really powerful ones, and with a range of minor buffs in 2.3 (decurse, intensity, NS+HT from moonkin form in a single press) I think they have the potential to do really well. I know if more of my friends were healers I'd be speccing moonkin for 5s
Personally I disagree. When a class has specs that have entirely different play mechanics. In those situations treating "the best spec" as the reason to not upgrade the others to be viable as well is very unfair.
Of course it needs an ideal world to make all of these specs viable, but I think they should at least be considered instead of people just saying "just spec resto, then you are fine!". The fact that enhancement is getting a clear PvP buff witht heir damage reducing talent suggests Blizzard also think this to some degree.
As I said though, it needs an ideal world =). It will never happen and I accept it, I do not post this as a whine, I post this simply because I think it is unfair to just say Druids are fine when only 1 spec is actually viable. Ferals and Moonkins spent months and even years playing their chosen game style, I do not think it is unreasonable to give them the option of using their skill and gear in the Arena, instead of forcing a respec, forcing them to learn a new style of play and forcing them to completely regear their characters, just so they can get gear for a different spec.
I have to say though, 2 priests disagreed with me, and being that you have 3 viable specs in the arena... is it possible, just a tiny bit, you are biased? =).
My personal belief is that Feral druids will not get a PvP buff because of the few incredible Ferals out there. A buff to the masses will make these guys killing machines =). Similar to past warrior nerfs when only a few warriors had the gear to warrant a nerf. I just accept this and figure if I want to be viable in the arena I can either respec and gear up resto or reroll. however I will never say that this option makes druids fine. It is if anything a patch over the problem, not a solution.
But I think this is not the best thread for this discussion =). Just PM me, I am an adult, I won't whine, cry or take offence due to your opinions, but I would gladly qualify myself and my reasoning if you want that, so PM away =).
This is a shallow topic really and was always going to devolve into little discussions about specific aspects of arena and how people feel about them so no need to take it to PMs I think.
Not biased no... I hate shadow and always have. You have mindblast (cooldown), SW (cooldown), SW:P (DoT), and mindflay as your only spammable damage spell. It's also a channeled spell with all the annoyances that go with. Shadow priest is really the most bland and boring gameplay in WoW as far as I'm concerned. I much prefer warlock for the caster role and have just today gotten him to 70 so that I can play him when I want to be on the offencive.
The way I look at it is "Druids are fine" and "the subclass of feral druid is not fine" are completely seperate ideas whereas you seem to take the line "Druids are not fine because the subclass of feral druid is not fine". The one spec does not pull down the class. If the class has the option to be competitive it is fine overall. If you want to be a specific subclass then that's too bad. It would be nice if Blizzard gets around to getting all the subclasses up to par, but only once all the classes have a competitive subclass. It's about drawing the line between priorities, if one spec of a class is fine that class is no longer a priority to fix over classes that do not have that. And if resto is not fine they should tweak resto until it is because it is the closest to done as far as I can tell. Feral can wait.
10/24/07, 4:01 PM
in EJBSG 9
(cooldown), SW:P (DoT), and mindflay as your only spammable damage spell. It's also a channeled spell with all the annoyances that go with. Shadow priest is really the most bland and boring gameplay in WoW as far as I'm concerned. I much prefer warlock for the caster role and have just today gotten him to 70 so that I can play him when I want to be on the offencive.
Similar Threads
