I think you don't really understand what aftermath does. It is a 10% chance to proc a 5s duration 50% snare when a destro spell lands. This is really lousy... it would be lousy as a Tier 1 talent and it still is lousy as a Tier 2 talent.
Aftermath was probably intended as a leveling talent originally. Every 2-3 fights you would get a proc while pulling the mob or nuking it after fear, which sets up a drain life to help the destro lock recover life/mana. Later on you could get some use out of it when aoe-ing in 5-mans or farming with a mage friend, perhaps.
Needless to say, the mechanic is terribly outdated.
Daze itself is handy in PvP; a daze that can proc from AoE effects is attractive even at a 10% rate. However, I'm not sure how the proc % is calculated for the channeled AoEs, whether the 10% chance is calculated only on the first tick, applied whole on each tick, or (like pyroclasm) calculated across the length of the entire spell. If it's like pyroclasm, then that leaves Shadowfury as the only good aoe effect to proc it, and that's on a 20-sec cooldown.
Even so, it would make a better Tier 1 option for most Affliction and Demo locks that spec up to Shadowburn. Most don't have the crit rate to proc Imp. Shadow Bolt at any significant rate, but they could expect to see some Aftermath procs.
Blizzard needs to give Destro locks better options to proc it (and pyroclasm). I think there's a good concept in place with spells like RoF and Hellfire, they just need to come up with something that will work in PvP. Some Guild Wars examples would be short duration, melee-range AoEs, or AoEs with dmg or cc-proc chance that ramps up quickly if you don't move out of it, while burning a lot of the lock's health/mana.
Pre-TBC testing showed that the chance was not per-tick, but divided across all the potential ticks in a full-length channel. So, yeah, it's worthless.
There was probably a time when a thread about warlocks on EJ wouldn't go the way of the WoW forums except with better spelling. It sure isn't now.
I'm so tired of reading page after page of people informing the world that a topic isn't allowed to be discussed and what REALLY should be discussed is $theirpettopic, as if Blizzard is going to make changes based on the number of posts discussing the validity of an idea.
Especially when the initial thesis was very much one of balance not 'zomg we suck.'
My favorite is when I fuss about soulshards taking up too much bag-space and being a stupid, outmoded design to someone and I hear "LOL I can't believe you want warlock buffs, you're SO overpowered already LOLOLOLOL."
(don't bother armorying me to see my leet arena rating. I have none, I quit pvp a long time ago and that was on another character. My forum title is why I play this game now. P.S. WoW needs more dragons.)
I'm not really sure about this. In 2s and 3s, UA warlocks are prime lockdown targets right now. Due to UA's cast time, they're effectively SL/SL locks which take ~25% more damage and deal about 5% more damage in return. This changes if they are allowed to cast, of course, but this usually doesn't happen. I mean, I really don't see UA warlocks in 2s and 3s these days... giving Affliction more defensive options while nerfing Soul Link would make UA builds (and some Soul Link/Affliction builds) viable in small arenas, but it's questionable as to whether it will make warlocks more prevalent as a whole, especially if the defenses require a great deal of skill to use.
I think you don't really understand what aftermath does. It is a 10% chance to proc a 5s duration 50% snare when a destro spell lands. This is really lousy... it would be lousy as a Tier 1 talent and it still is lousy as a Tier 2 talent.
This is what I don't understand, why should UA be viable as well as SL/SL and full demo? Most classes have a complete staple talent (or a group of talents) that they just have to take to be effective in serious PvP, the warlock one happens to be soul link at the moment. If any mages or warriors complained how gimped they were and asked for sweeping PvP buffs while playing as full fire or fury respectively, people would laugh at them and tell them to respec MS and Frost.
why should UA be viable as well as SL/SL and full demo?
Because Blizzard wants talent trees to be viable. They buffed discipline for this purpose, they buffed enhancement for this purpose, they buffed shadowstep for this purpose, and they're giving Ice Block to everyone for this purpose.
Edit: Yes I agree they are slow to react at times (Feral tree, Hunters) but it doesn't change their base philosophy. The only tree which they stated was "not for PVP" was the warrior/paladin protection trees. The fact that they left Blessed Resilience in the holy tree means that they want it to remain viable instead of making disc the "PVP tree"
This is what I don't understand, why should UA be viable as well as SL/SL and full demo? Most classes have a complete staple talent (or a group of talents) that they just have to take to be effective in serious PvP, the warlock one happens to be soul link at the moment. If any mages or warriors complained how gimped they were and asked for sweeping PvP buffs while playing as full fire or fury respectively, people would laugh at them and tell them to respec MS and Frost.
I really don't see how this is any different.
<shrug> the thread is about ways to revamp warlock defenses so that more specs are viable in the arena. I'm merely participating in it. I've already said there are more urgent things to do about arena balance as a whole, but yeah, SL/SL especially is boring, yet dominant in small settings so a change would be nice.
I don't really see the harm in making UA more viable for arena, especially when you consider that it has a proc that would only ever show up in a PvP setting.
For the most part, melee DPS is the majority of the incoming damage for everyone. When you consider that SL is basically just 20% more mitigation (assuming either a felguard or felhunter for 3s/5s) against melee DPS it still doesn't even come close to the base abilities of other classes.
An MS warrior in plate has around a 40-50% reduction from armor (base, without a shield and not in defencive with, for the most part, 0 defencive talents). Add on counterattack, higher dodge and parry abilities and a warrior without even trying to be defencive has 1.5x the melee protection a warlock with SL is sporting.
Just about every class, with almost no effort can get themselves up to around 40% melee reduction or, even better, can use abilities to avoid even more damage (blink, vanish, evasion, shield, bubble, etc.).
On paper, 20% more reduction puts us below all plate and chain wearers and most leather wearers. However, when you consider that our avoidance is very low, it seems that a warlock is one of the best characters to put up constant damage on as a melee. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that a warlock tanking a melee is just about the biggest mana sink possible and results in a HUGE reduction of potential for the warlock.
Note: I realize that SL DOES really make a difference against casters along with the resists from MD. This post was more of a question in regards to the "warlocks are good tanks" posts.
Melee dps is not the majority of damage coming in for everyone. 3 classes in arena are pure physical, that being warrior, hunter and rogue. Feral is not the optimal spec for druids (although they can do sweet damage, its just that everyone else these days is resto) and Enhancement and Ret are jokes, although ret has improved a lot.
This is against Ele shamans, Shadow Priests, Warlocks, Mages and another suboptimal spec in Boomkins. Warriors unless focus fired (enough to give them enrage but not enough to make them shield and board) or in a drain setup do not put out most of the damage. Same with rogues. They spend far too much time being kited. They are there because they can harass casters and make their lives hell as well as apply MS/WP. Hunters can put out massive damage, but LoS screws them, as does their inability to do dps under pressure and smaller mana pools. Add in the new mechanics for healing gear and every healer (well other than paladin I guess since holy shock isn't too much) is capable of doing some strong burst magic damage. So yes magic damage is far more prevalent in PVP than physical damage.
CC messes up melee damage and gives squishies a way to get away. LoS messes up direct ranged damage and gives people time to get away by using physical obstacles in the arena. Warlocks as they depend on neither have a distinct advantage.
For the most part, melee DPS is the majority of the incoming damage for everyone. When you consider that SL is basically just 20% more mitigation (assuming either a felguard or felhunter for 3s/5s) against melee DPS it still doesn't even come close to the base abilities of other classes.
An MS warrior in plate has around a 40-50% reduction from armor (base, without a shield and not in defencive with, for the most part, 0 defencive talents). Add on counterattack, higher dodge and parry abilities and a warrior without even trying to be defencive has 1.5x the melee protection a warlock with SL is sporting.
Just about every class, with almost no effort can get themselves up to around 40% melee reduction or, even better, can use abilities to avoid even more damage (blink, vanish, evasion, shield, bubble, etc.).
On paper, 20% more reduction puts us below all plate and chain wearers and most leather wearers. However, when you consider that our avoidance is very low, it seems that a warlock is one of the best characters to put up constant damage on as a melee. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that a warlock tanking a melee is just about the biggest mana sink possible and results in a HUGE reduction of potential for the warlock.
Note: I realize that SL DOES really make a difference against casters along with the resists from MD. This post was more of a question in regards to the "warlocks are good tanks" posts.
Berserker Stance is a 10% increase in damage taken and it is what they are forced to use for most of their arena abilities, so their armor is effectively nerfed down to the mail level and the amount of spell damage they take is greater than any other class. 50% is a bit of an exhageration on your part, Warrior's will general have low-to-mid 40's, and Berserker Stance drops it down to the mid 30's at best. If they drop into defensive stance and put up a shield to try and take more damage their personal DPS goes down to almost nothing. The only classes Warriors have "better defenses" against due to dodge and parry are Rogues and other Warriors, while their defenses against casters are much, much weaker than yours. You see, that right there is the perfect example of giving up defense for offense, and it is a concept I think most of you need to take to heart because having a high damage build with lots of passive defense sounds like you just want to have your cake and eat it too. I have seen many people such as yourself try and claim Hunters are great because they have Dodge and Parry with mail armor, but neither of those means anything to a Hunter because they spend most of their time snared and getting attacked from behind or completely stun locked where Dodge and Parry do absolutely nothing. I think people clinging to this idea of dodge and parry being amazing for Arenas do not really have a grasp on how arena combat works and simply want to point at random defensive mechanics to say other classes have more defense, when the reality is Warlocks have the best Arena defense in the entire game right now. And I'm sorry, but in Arenas you do not "tend" to take mostly melee damage. There is generally only 1 melee per team and 2+ casters unless you are fighting in scrub brackets. The only classes with real defense against melees are those that carry shields because a shield by itself has more armor than entire armor sets (Holy Paladins, Resto/Elemental Shaman).
CC messes up melee damage and gives squishies a way to get away. LoS messes up direct ranged damage and gives people time to get away by using physical obstacles in the arena. Warlocks as they depend on neither have a distinct advantage.
Huh? Warlocks absolutely depend on all of that, and while they could theoretically, kite say, a paladin endlessly around a single pillar, they are outputting any kind of offensive power doing so. And it is perfectly viable to LoS all of a lock's non-instant spells. SL does not make incoming damage disapear, it shunts it to the pet. If you killed a SL pet, that warlock can either summon a new one, or die. While the 20% damage transfer, and the beefy Fel Armor do make healing said warlock fairly doable, that is not damage that is not done. All this is not to say SL is not an incredibly powerful ability, it is. However, the point of this thread was, I thought, to discuss ways to revamp warlock defense such that other things would be viable.
"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
IMO, SL is powerful because of its ability to reduce a large amount of magic damage, moreso than physical damage. Few other classes have ways to reduce magic damage barring resistances, and those that do, usually have to give up DPS or some other utility to attain it (ie. defensive stance for warriors). Contrary to popular belief, a 27/34 SL/SL build can pump out a fair amount of DPS, it's just not burst. In fact, compared to a heavy affliction UA build, their DoT's can hit just as hard. Soul Link matches the 5% bonus from Contagion, and the 6% difference in Shadow Mastery is made up by the extra 200 +dmg from Demonic Aegis and Demonic Knowledge. Combined with a SL/SL lock's self-heals and instant-cast spells, the end result is arguably the most durable class in arenas, and one that can still function while under focus. The felguard build merely trades self-heals for more burst damage, while still retaining all the survivability bonuses of the demo tree. It's more suitable in 3v3 and 5v5 makeups where the SL lock will rarely be focused (as opposed to 2v2 where SL/SL proves more useful)
But this thread wasn't made with proposals to buff SL locks, and in fact, most locks would agree that it could use a nerf. So the typical, WoWforum-like backlash that we shouldn't even be allowed to discuss changes for the other trees is pretty unwarranted imo.
So as to contribute to the original point of the thread, I remember reading one suggestion awhile back when Rogues got Shadowstep:
- A friendly-target shadowstep (or demon only) -- teleports the lock to a friendly target (or to their pet only); wouldn't be able to use while stunned ala Blink; would mainly be helpful against rogues, since warriors can immediately intercept
- Or for destruction, why not a damage shield ala Thorns, but one that's much stronger and actually deters melee from attacking the destro lock? (ie. an active ability that puts up a fire shield for ~12 seconds that reflects 200-300 damage for each melee hit; numbers are arbitrary but you get the idea)
Huh? Warlocks absolutely depend on all of that, and while they could theoretically, kite say, a paladin endlessly around a single pillar, they are outputting any kind of offensive power doing so. And it is perfectly viable to LoS all of a lock's non-instant spells. SL does not make incoming damage disapear, it shunts it to the pet. If you killed a SL pet, that warlock can either summon a new one, or die. While the 20% damage transfer, and the beefy Fel Armor do make healing said warlock fairly doable, that is not damage that is not done. All this is not to say SL is not an incredibly powerful ability, it is. However, the point of this thread was, I thought, to discuss ways to revamp warlock defense such that other things would be viable.
Warlocks have a substantial amount of instant spells, among them their most powerful ones (corruption, CoT). Their dots also don't have facing requirements. Most other ranged dps classes have abilities with longer cast times, which makes them vulnerable to pillar hopping.
The point is that SL is too powerful so any changes would have to be done to either make the new abilities exclusive of soul link or make a weaker soullink trainable but to get the buffed version as it currently stands would require speccing deep into demo. Maybe make base SL 15% vs physical and 5% vs caster and bring it up to its current values if you spec deep into demo.
Since when did dissenting opinions make people into WoW-forum posting morons? It seems to me that the only people here that belong on a WoW forum are the ones that cannot handle debate. People disagree with the very premise that Affliction or Destruction need higher defense, because quite frankly the burst potential of both is much too high to justify any form of defensive buff, and contrary to popular belief non-SL warlocks are not as squishy or easy to kill as Fire mages.
(SL) Warlocks dominate in arenas, thus we should not be discussing them and talk about buffing X class first.
or
Other classes only have one viable spec, so why are you warlocks QQ'ing?
^ These do nothing to contribute to the thread.
In answering your one substantive post:
People disagree with the very premise that Affliction or Destruction need higher defense, because quite frankly the burst potential of both is much too high to justify any form of defensive buff, and contrary to popular belief non-SL warlocks are not as squishy or easy to kill as Fire mages.
Their burst potential is really no more higher than other DPS classes, and much less for a UA lock. A destro lock still won't rival the burst of shatter combos and frost mages have significantly more defenses.
And ask any melee and I'm sure they'll quickly disagree that Fire Mages are easier to kill than Affliction/Destro locks.
(SL) Warlocks dominate in arenas, thus we should not be discussing them and talk about buffing X class first.
or
Other classes only have one viable spec, so why are you warlocks QQ'ing?
^ These do nothing to contribute to the thread.
In answering your one substantive post:
Their burst potential is really no more higher than other DPS classes, and much less for a UA lock. A destro lock still won't rival the burst of shatter combos and frost mages have significantly more defenses.
And ask any melee and I'm sure they'll quickly disagree that Fire Mages are easier to kill than Affliction/Destro locks.
People find your requests ridiculous and completely unwarranted. Most of the requests were general buffs with no mention of nerfs aside from 1 or 2 people out of the entire thread admitting that SL is too good. This thread does nothing to contribute to Elitist Jerks. "Wishful thinking" threads such as this belong on the WoW forums, plain and simple. This thread provides no documentation to show the difference in damage dealt, mitigation, or any form of proof that Warlocks could use buffing. Most of the Warlocks keep making broad generalizations and wild claims that look like your standard self-serving WoW forum poster. I am sorry if there are 1 or 2 people in this thread with a decent head on their shoulders, but take a close look at the claims/requests coming from some of these people and tell me this thread actually deserves to exist on these boards. In the end, what this thread looks to be is someone wishing their high DPS raid spec were viable for arena. Unfortunately, just about all classes' raid and PvP specs do not match up, so you will not find people sympathetic to your cause.
And as for your comment about Fire Mages, I can rip through one in about 6 seconds with my Hunter. Doing the same to an Affliction lock is simply not possible unless they have no clue how to play (or abuse line of sight like all good warlocks).
And as for your comment about Fire Mages, I can rip through one in about 6 seconds with my Hunter. Doing the same to an Affliction lock is simply not possible unless they have no clue how to play (or abuse line of sight like all good warlocks).
Hunters are hardly melee though?
As for the actual topic, I don't see the big deal with considering changing how Warlocks work in PvP. The fact that 99% of Warlocks above 2k rating (excluding UA Warlocks in 4 DPS teams as the only thing) have Soul Link says a lot about the imbalance in power. Demonology is too good, especially in small brackets, but Destruction and to an extent Affliction isn't good enough. I'm not asking for Destruction to spew out 8k crits and two-shot anyone who dare step in LOS, but if Destruction had the same nuke/burst power and defensive strength as Frost Mages (or slightly worse, I consider Frost Mages a tad much atm), would it really be so bad?
I don't see the problem with giving classes multiple viable specs, just because one spec is overpowered doesn't mean we lose our "right" to ask for versatility.
As for the actual topic, I don't see the big deal with considering changing how Warlocks work in PvP. The fact that 99% of Warlocks above 2k rating (excluding UA Warlocks in 4 DPS teams as the only thing) have Soul Link says a lot about the imbalance in power. Demonology is too good, especially in small brackets, but Destruction and to an extent Affliction isn't good enough. I'm not asking for Destruction to spew out 8k crits and two-shot anyone who dare step in LOS, but if Destruction had the same nuke/burst power and defensive strength as Frost Mages (or slightly worse, I consider Frost Mages a tad much atm), would it really be so bad?
I don't see the problem with giving classes multiple viable specs, just because one spec is overpowered doesn't mean we lose our "right" to ask for versatility.
Yes, of course. Make a broad generalization that Warlocks have comparable defense to Fire Mages, then change it later to be about melees only. Please, these forum troll tactics are a little dated and distasteful to be bringing here.
Yes, of course. Make a broad generalization that Warlocks have comparable defense to Fire Mages, then change it later to be about melees only. Please, these forum troll tactics are a little dated and distasteful to be bringing here.
I was referring to the post you quoted:
And ask any melee and I'm sure they'll quickly disagree that Fire Mages are easier to kill than Affliction/Destro locks.
To which you replied:
And as for your comment about Fire Mages, I can rip through one in about 6 seconds with my Hunter.
In which case I'm clearly right that Hunters aren't what's being commented on.
Fire mages can los just as much as affliction locks, they can even run around pillars faster because of blazing speed. Fire mages just don't do any damage while doing so. The hp difference between them is not sufficient to make affliction locks gods compared to fire mages absolute squishiness.
In the end, what this thread looks to be is someone wishing their high DPS raid spec were viable for arena. Unfortunately, just about all classes' raid and PvP specs do not match up, so you will not find people sympathetic to your cause.
That's the problem of talking about things you have no real knowledge and clearly having a agenda against even talking aobut locks. 2 of the 41 warlock talents are about PvP, Unstable affliction and Shadowfury, so telling they are PvE trees is really a bit difficult to do with a straight face. Having a 41 point talent that is compeltly made for PvP like shadowfury and putting it on a tree that has no PvP viability is clearly a well tought decission, but yes, because we are warlock we can't possible have nothing wrong. When was the last time anyone complained about how overpowered destro and afflction locks are?
Yes, of course. Make a broad generalization that Warlocks have comparable defense to Fire Mages, then change it later to be about melees only. Please, these forum troll tactics are a little dated and distasteful to be bringing here.
This is also quotable beacuse alot of people seem to think warlocks have a big number of defenses. Non-talented, warlocks have Fear (1.5 sec cast), HoT (1.5 second cast), Deathcoil (3 seconds each 120 seconds), CoT (prevents the use of other curses, and does nothing against instants), and you could count VW shield or seduce but both are so complete bad that they are a joke. That's it the entire repertoire of warlocks defensive spell. If you spec afflction, you will be able to have CoEx and instant HoT, if you spec destuction you have shadowfury. That's it, so if you compare in defense warlocks to non-frost mages they are not much different, if you compare after all mages have Ice block on next patch, they are alot worse.
In my view the major problems with locks defenses have 3 big problems that limit alot the class as a whole.
Shadow based defenses
All warlock defenses are shadow based, if you silence a warlock shadow school he can't use any defense (or ofense for that matter) and are basically useless, on paladins this is viewed has a big problem, so why not on warlocks? If you take in consideration the use of shadow resist gear then this is a huge problem.
Casted on Enemy
All Warlock defenses are casted on the enemy, and are that way vulnerable to Interrupts/silences. The fact is that warlocks have not a single one defensive spell that they can cast on themselves and not be resited (waiting for all comments on th uber VW shield that can be purged/dispelled and leaves the lock without a pet).
Talented
Warlock non-talented defenses are one of the most weak of all classes (casted fear and deathcoil) so to survive a lock has to spec into something, and the options are just not there, you need to go to 31 demonology to survive, that's the point, warlocks don't spec into soul-link to be uber killing machines, they spec to be able to function, because other specs provide almost no defensive options to a class that at start has very few defensive options.
If you go back to TBC beta you see that blizzard actually had it right, afflction tree had Unstable afflction instant cast, this while being no defensive spell, increased by alot the mobility of afflction locks and traded the "survival" of other trees with the advantage of huge mobility. Curse of Weakness was for a time a good spell to defend against melee but was also changed to the useless form. On the Destruction side you had shadowfury being what it needs to be a Pbaoe that stuns everyone in 8 yards doing less damage than it does now.
When was last time people saw destruction warlocks on arena? and now afflction locks are becoming more and more rare with the inrease damage and armor reduction, of other class buffs and the nerf of drain life/siphon life afflction just cant survive. Even for the people that complain about soul-link and demonology locks, all your whining about even talking off buffing warlocks defenses for other tress only makes more and more locks spec demonology. The problem is increasing and with the scaling of gear and the compelte lack of survival on 2 warlock trees will mean that more and more locks will be demonology with the passing of time.
So, my suggestions,
Put some sort of escape spell on afflction tree above the 21 mark so soul-link can't get it, make it a self casted spell, so locks can do something that does not involve casting a shadow spell into someone, the often talked about change of placements with the pet would be a cool spell, but i'm sure other things can be tought of . On the destruction side, make shadowfury like it was on Beta, and/or change nether protection from fire/shadow to work on physical damage, you could even make it like CloS for rogues and make it a casted with a moderate cooldown that reduced physical damage for 50% or so for 5 seconds and removed all physical debuffs on the warlock, liek harmstring and mortal strike.
Merge demon armor into fel armor and give it a
"Chance on being hit to increase armor by xxx, lasts for 5-8 seconds. Stacks infinite."
Thus you would have the same initial damage but the longer the bashing more survivability a lock would have(does that sound familiar?).
Giving a lock a 5-8 second breath then as opposing DPSers to remove this dampening effect also takes a little breath of him.
But, with a change like that SL/SL would have to be looked into badly and be adjusted.
As for the actual topic, I don't see the big deal with considering changing how Warlocks work in PvP. The fact that 99% of Warlocks above 2k rating (excluding UA Warlocks in 4 DPS teams as the only thing) have Soul Link says a lot about the imbalance in power. Demonology is too good, especially in small brackets, but Destruction and to an extent Affliction isn't good enough. I'm not asking for Destruction to spew out 8k crits and two-shot anyone who dare step in LOS, but if Destruction had the same nuke/burst power and defensive strength as Frost Mages (or slightly worse, I consider Frost Mages a tad much atm), would it really be so bad?
I don't see the problem with giving classes multiple viable specs, just because one spec is overpowered doesn't mean we lose our "right" to ask for versatility.
So basically you're asking for the worst pvp warlock spec to be comparable to the best (and apparently overpowered) pvp mage spec and you see nothing wrong with this?
So basically you're asking for the worst pvp warlock spec to be comparable to the best (and apparently overpowered) pvp mage spec and you see nothing wrong with this?
Re-read the last sentence in his post.
All warlock defenses are shadow based, if you silence a warlock shadow school he can't use any defense (or ofense for that matter) and are basically useless, on paladins this is viewed has a big problem, so why not on warlocks? If you take in consideration the use of shadow resist gear then this is a huge problem.
Yes it is viewed as a "problem" for paladins, but it is also considered one of their weakness to compensate for all the other survivability things they have (curse/dispel/fear/stun resistance, blessed life, etc). Most importantly, it gives teams the option to burst a paladin down if they were fortunate enough to be in a position to do so and counterspell his holy tree.
The Washington Post helps perpetuate a common and pernicious misreading of the decision, referring to "the Supreme Court’s judgment that corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to political speech." What the Supreme Court actually said is that people do not lose their free speech rights when they organize as corporations, including nonprofit interest groups as well as businesses.
Fire mages can los just as much as affliction locks, they can even run around pillars faster because of blazing speed. Fire mages just don't do any damage while doing so. The hp difference between them is not sufficient to make affliction locks gods compared to fire mages absolute squishiness.
So what is your point? Consider:
UA 'locks were viable everywhere, but are getting marginalized due to melee dps scaling far faster than caster defensive stats from gear. This is due to armor pen and bigger, better dps. Fire and Arcane mages were NEVER viable in arena save for gimmick Arcane builds in 2.2 which relied on specific gear interactions. Clearly we are talking about problems on a different order of magnitude here. Giving UA locks more defense will make them viable in arena again whether it be more mitigation or more lockdown/CC. TO make a Fire Mage viable for arena, you would need to make his dps from short casts and instants more substantial and THEN you'd need to consider his survivability.
OP was suggesting a CHANGE in warlock defense, not a BUFF.
The thread is 5 pages long, but the amount of usefull posts can be cropped to 1. This thread is now filling ppl whining locks are OP and lock whining about the whiners.
Tip to locks: Ignore the flaming, just dont even give them any attention and do what Kaber said. If you're gonna suggest a change to warlock defense, you obviously need to back it up with arguments. Compare UA lock dps in pvp vs. Felguard spec etc. Do the same to defensive power. Make spreadsheets vs. the typical setups in 5v5s and 3v3s and make your defense measurable in numeric numbers. Alot of work? hell yea, but Kaber has a point. If you want to convince ppl of your pov you'll need to come with convincing arguments.
I definitely do think the defensive system of the warlock needs to be changed. Because let's face it, fear is very outdated. All it received was nerf after nerf, in my opinion thanks to the nerfing calls in the community, and now it is the weakest form of CC in the game. CoEx can also hardly be considered CC and even if you do, it is too easily dispelled compared to other snares. Soul Link is passive and can therefore, or at least in my opinion, not be viewed as a defensive mechanism. Then there is death coil, I don't see how that is defensive anymore. It's 3 seconds total! Not to mention the fact it can be trinketed. So how can anyone in their right mind say that the warlock defensive system is fine? It's completely outdated.
I think that a way to make warlock PvP more fun for the player and for the potential enemy to just reduce SL/SL (Soul Link/Siphon Life) viability in PvP and replace it with Destruction. You must see that the only thing wrong with that tree for pvp is the limited survivability which can, again in my opinion, easily be solved by giving us some kind of 'blink-like' defense.
12/23/07, 6:26 AM
Similar Threads
