WoW: Interesting analysis of Warrior calcs by Blizzard

[Sebmolo]

Well, interesting or deathly dull - you decide! (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-warrior&t=85008&p=1&tmp=1#post85008)

[HRose]

You're just one month late :)

[jafd]

Yeah, totally; I would have been willing to go through this point by point last year, but at this point, I'll just wave my fingers at you and hope/not care that translates into what I'm really feeling.

Regarding the new change; it doesn't mean shit that Warriors will generate Rage when missing. Yeah, it's nice, but ultimately insignificant, and let's point out; should have been that way from day one.

What -would- work? Warriors generating rage over time as long as they are in combat, along with a generous helping of other fixes. Melee-only classes have a hard enough time as it is, simply due to physics. Blizzard's warriors are simply nerfed beyond belief right now. Their design is sound but the implementation is the pits. I refuse to believe that anyone working at Blizzard actually plays an untwinked warrior on a production server. Flat out refuse.

[Mike Cathcart]

Unless I missed something (totally possible since I haven't been playing much the past week), Warriors won't be generating rage on misses. The patch adds rage for block/parry/dodge. I'd actually be OK with misses because then I'd have about 100 rage almost constantly.

[jafd]

Oh, for fuck's sake. I think you're right. I read the announcement and mentally added "on misses" because I'm naive.

Blizzard knows nothing. Check out the screenshot of their people testing the new interface and stuff; they've got a bunch of level sixties with bomb-ass gear, carrying a bunch of potions that retail for 2g each, tooling around in a level nineteen dungeon. I bet testing content is a lot easier when you never die.

I'm fond of Blizzard's theories. But as far as "in practice" goes? They know nothing. NOTHING.

[Talisker]

I'm fond of Blizzard's theories. But as far as "in practice" goes? They know nothing. NOTHING.
Yep, they're idiots -- the game sprang into being from the void on its own, they're just taking what's good in it and consistently making it worse -- obviously, they had nothing, NOTHING to do with all the stuff in it that's great.

[Spam]

Warriors are fine in pve. I can understand people not liking the tank role, please try to understand it or reroll. In a way, I wish they'd throw us a bone in pvp but, not likely to happen given blizzard's stance on the cesspool that is their public boards

[Rywill]

I'm fond of Blizzard's theories. But as far as "in practice" goes? They know nothing. NOTHING.
Between your alternately screaming at anyone who posts something negative about WoW and screaming at Blizzard for knowing nothing about MMOs, I'm starting to think you're just insane. In any event, I regularly group with two different HPF warriors, one of whom is 51, and they are basically fine. They both are happy that they'll start getting rage on blocks/dodges/parries because that is definitely needed. But this whole "gimped beyond belief" thing, you're just nuts, or don't have any clue what warriors are about, or both.

Incidentally: remember how when I was 20 and you were 35 you were saying the ganking is absolutely unlivable and wait until I'm in my 30's because then I'll come crying to a PvE server? I'm 49 and still loving the PvP. You have this tendency to just go OFF about how something in the game is absolutely broken and unplayable just because you don't enjoy it. Most of the time, you're completely and utterly wrong. Maybe you hate it, and that's fine--PvP isn't for everyone, and neither is tanking (remember: tanking is about keeping the mobs on you and soaking up damage, not about doing tons of damage. Warriors are fine with this because they get great taunts, great armor, and great HP. If you want to be doing tons of damage, play a Rogue or a Mage). But coming onto these boards and posting that a part of the game is totally busted and Blizzard obviously knows "NOTHING" about MMOs just because you don't personally enjoy that aspect...that's childish. It makes me discount most things you say about the game.

[Gourmand]

I'm fond of Blizzard's theories. But as far as "in practice" goes? They know nothing. NOTHING.
Yep, they're idiots -- the game sprang into being from the void on its own, they're just taking what's good in it and consistently making it worse -- obviously, they had nothing, NOTHING to do with all the stuff in it that's great.

That was beautiful. Be my valentine?

Seriously. Been a level 60 warrior for a long time and I'm missing out on a lot of these problems. Warriors need a *Slight* tweak. That's about it in my opinion. Rage generation is pretty decent at the moment, and I don't have too many rounds of combat where I'm not allowed to use one ability or another because of lack of rage.

Oh, and I wouldn't mind having imp hamstring a bit lower on the arms tree (Or piercing howl's duration extended to 9 seconds, since distance == everything to a warrior).

EDIT: I just read Rywill's post too, and want to proposition him as well. <3. Jafd can't seem to ever use his indoor voice.

[Sebmolo]

I thought it was an interesting (and almost painfully thorough) insight into their processes for working out this sort of intricate balance. And why they don't do detailed responses more often.

[Sebmolo]

Also, Hrose - huh? Though I have to say I've stopped caring that much what you say, since you revealed that your number one must fix issue is 1337 speak. Oh, and letting higher levels go into low level instances. As to the first - I like my punctuation, and can't see what's so hard about /ignore. And the second smacks of telling me how to have fun in a game I bought.

[olaf]

I thought his response was borderline condescending and he didnt really answer a lot of the important stuff. Or he answered with very arbitrary 'Its that way just because...' or 'Yeah thats a bug we are aware of'. Gee thanks. Three months and counting, do you think maybe you might FIX these bugs? And if they are bugs, then how is your internal testing (presumably done WITH the bugs still in place) to this point worth a shit?

Warrior DPS is too low. Rend at 60 is a fucking SEVEN DPS dot for god's sake. No bullshit my wife's 60 Undead Holy/Disc spec Priest can almost always out DPS my 60 Protection/Arms spec Warrior. And that is with me wielding fucking Ironfoe, one of the best 1h weapons in the game! Too many Warrior skills just flat out suck including our bread and butter Heroic Strike.

Misses cripple Warriors. I dont get why Blizzard cant come around on this one, it seems obvious. Rage as a fuel completely breaks down when you hit a bad miss streak. The other fuels, Energy and Mana, do not fare as badly in similar circumstances. Fix this. Make Rage constantly buildup overtime or fix missing for Warriors. Its really simple.

I think there are big problems with Warriors in PvP too but I will refrain from posting about them since I play on a PvE server and I dont have any Battlegrounds anecdotes to whine about yet.

olaf

[HRose]

This was the summarized list of fixes I built at that time:
Cumulative List of Fixes:

1- We've found that there are indeed a few issues with rage generation as a result of bugs. Warriors (and druids in bear form) are intended to gain some rage on block, dodge, parry events, but apparently this isn't working correctly. This needs to be fixed asap in order for warriors to meet their total expected rage generation.

2- We have found the bug causing abilities (ie: heroic strike, sunder armor, etc) to miss around 9-10% of the time under the above conditions instead of the intended 5%. This does mean that warriors are getting the "miss" even about twice as often as they should. Obviously, this needs to be rectified asap, since it directly impacts the warriors DPS and rage use

3- We agree that Bloodrage is too punishing right now. We plan to improve Bloodrage so warriors don't feel as hesitant to use it.

4- (about the Improved Thunder Clap talent) This talent needs some love.

5- (about Improved Execute) The full consumption of rage upon missing is a bug that will be fixed.

6- (about Bloodthirst) I agree that this talent can use some improvement. It turns out the current design leaves it vulnerable to always being either too narrow or too powerful, without much in-between. As such, this talent is a likely candidate for change.

And a possible nerf in the future:

- (about Sweeping Strikes + Cleave or Retaliation) In truth, it was never really the intent that sweeping strikes would work on multi-target abilities (it is intended to turn single-target abilities into dual-target abilities). However, in the interest of not weakening warriors right now, we’re inclined to allow the combination to work as long as it doesn’t become highly abusive and create balance problems.

[Rywill]

I thought his response was borderline condescending and he didnt really answer a lot of the important stuff. Or he answered with very arbitrary 'Its that way just because...' or 'Yeah thats a bug we are aware of'. Gee thanks.
Well, I thought his post was extremely informative and not really condescending. There were some parts where he was sarcastic regarding a "No duh" response (e.g., person posts that DW builds more rage than 1H+shield and the Blizz guy is like, "Yeah, thanks, we knew that"). But I thought those weren't out of line. I'm sure it's annoying to design this sytem and then have someone complain that DW and 1H+S build rage at different rates, inversely propotional to the protection they offer. I'm sure he wanted to reply "No fucking shit, Einstein. That's what we designers call a 'tactical choice' or 'trade-off.' It's what makes games intersting."

Three months and counting, do you think maybe you might FIX these bugs? And if they are bugs, then how is your internal testing (presumably done WITH the bugs still in place) to this point worth a shit?
I think they could use a test server. But the bugs listed are mostly not super-critical. Many people play Warriors up to high levels with no problems, and they're highly sought after in groups/instances, despite the bugs. The dodge/block/parry bug is probably most significant, but they're apparently fixing that in the next patch. Three months is a long time, I suppose, but given the crippling server issues they had at the start, it's really only been a month or so since they stabilized everything, which isn't that long. (We could go back and forth about whether that original two-month period of server problems is a result of their own shortsightedness, but that's been covered in numerous threads before.)

Warrior DPS is too low.
See, here I think is the problem. And this is probably why Blizzard doesn't post detailed responses that much: because despite the monumental effort that went into that post we're critiqueing, people just don't get it. It's like they don't even read it; they have their preconceived notions about the game and if you explain to them where they're going wrong, it's like they don't even hear you.

Warriors are not a damage class. They are a tanking class. Their primary job is to hold aggro and take damage, shielding other folks who actually take down the mobs. They are great at this. A well-played warrior can hold aggro against multiple enemies despite the fact that the Rogues, Mages, etc., are massively outdamaging the Warrior. As the Blizz poster said, if your damage were comparable to other classes, you would suddenly be easily the best class in the game: average damage, and highest armor and HP. Blizzard is not going to do that. Get used to the fact that you don't do a lot of damage. It balances out your amazing tanking. If you feel like that's less fun, less glamorous, less heroic, whatever, that's fine--roll yourself a Rogue or a Mage and demolish enemies like there's no tomorrow (make sure you team up with a Warrior first for tanking!).

Rage as a fuel completely breaks down when you hit a bad miss streak. The other fuels, Energy and Mana, do not fare as badly in similar circumstances. Fix this. Make Rage constantly buildup overtime or fix missing for Warriors. Its really simple.
Again, God, it must be so frustrating being Blizzard. As they said, and you ignored, this sort of comparison is meaningless. Yeah, energy and mana aren't hurt by a miss streak the way rage is. Then again, energy is hard to come by if the fight goes on more than 15 seconds, whereas my Warrior friend ususally has a ton of rage once a fight has been going 15 seconds. Maybe they should make it so energy recharges at a faster and faster rate so that it isn't so gimped compared to rage? Wait, wait--my Rogue skills cost about twice as much energy as most Warrior skills cost in rage! OMG GIMPED!!! FIX THIS!! BLUE PLZ!!!!. Or take mana: again, it doesn't replenish in combat! How can this be?? RAGE replenishes in combat, in fact it's plentiful in a long combat, MANA IS SO GIMPED. And what's up with good spells costing so much mana? GIMPED! Also, rage generation increases the more enemies you're fighting. But not energy and mana! This is unacceptable!

I could go on and on. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses. Making this sort of comparison is just silly, it doesn't mean anything. Any class can point to the "checks/balances" part of its system and say "Other classes do better in this situation." No duh. Rage is way better than my Rogue's energy when we're fighting a large group of enemies. So? It doesn't matter. What is important is whether your class can fulfill its role and is viable both solo and as a group member. Warriors most definitely are. They can use a tweak to build rage more quickly in fights, particularly fights against a single foe, and the dodge/parry/block fix will probably do it.

[jafd]

What part of the word "context" do you guys not understand?

[Sebmolo]

HRose - thanks, I should have realised you were referring to your blog. I guess you win!

Jafd - I understand context perfectly, your post less so.

Rywill - thanks for writing the post I was about to.

If I were Blizzard I'd totally wonder whether it was worth responding in such detail to player concerns. I was going to quote some of the stupidest responses here, but the WoW forums seem to have dissolved from all the bile.

I can't think of how they could have been more thorough, or more clearly explained their thinking in making the balance decisions that they did. And did it make any difference to the responses they got? Hell muthafuckin no.

[Greg Williams]

Olaf, you said you spec'd your warrior as a prot/arms...what can you EXPECT on your DPS? While that build is great for tanking, it is a meat shield build. The only high DPS build I have seen in use is a Fury/Arms build. In any MMO I have played, the warrior is normally NOT the big damage dealer. We can put the hurt on for sure, but the main task is to tick things off so someone else can just unload (Prefect example is my pairing with Ry...Warrior/Rogue = lots of dead things fast).

Also, not sure how you spent your points, but Rend is not meant to be some death dealing device. It is good when in large groups to stick on other monsters, but that is about it. I am guessing you didnt pick up deep wounds in the arms tree which would give you a higher dps with rend (plus the DoT that comes with every crit). Deep Wounds + Rend will givey ou a nice little dot, but it is nothing compared to the casters.

And lastly, Heric Strike is NOT our bread and butter. It is a nice skill, but not that great. Sunder and overpower is the "bread and butter".

For the most part, warriors are just fine. I would even go as far as to say this is so far the best warrior class I have played to date. The rage thing really ISNT a problem. I go maybe 2-5 seconds tops before I have enough rage to play with. More rage would be nice, but if needed I can always pop a potion and get 60+ in 1 second. If you dont like the task for warriors, dont play one.

[HRose]

We can put the hurt on for sure, but the main task is to tick things off so someone else can just unload.
Which in PvP means jack shit.

[Gourmand]

What part of the word "context" do you guys not understand?

"the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior" Oh wait, I think that's a different C-word.

I don't quite understand why you're comparing 1handed damage to spell damage either Olaf. Ironfoe is a great weapon, but there are better 2handers that are far more deserving for that comparison.

Rend, at 60, is also one of your best rage to damage conversions in your inventory. It doesn't get affected by armor, and if it misses, you don't lose rage what-so-ever. It's also easily spammable, and extremely cheap in cost. It's one of my favorite skills.

I think a big problem with warriors is they have a tough time beating any class in a 1v1 match. And people justify their complaints based around that. In group PvP I'm a monster. A mage can burn 3/4 his pool trying to take me down, and then a Nature's swiftness and a microsecond later I can be at full health again. Warriors gain a humongous benefit when grouped with healers. Does any other class get that benefit in PvP? I'm not so sure. I commonly execute overly ambitious rogues who've ventured foolishly into plain view. Seriously. I get 3 people on me and I survive with a good healer (And last stand!). Any other class (err... paladins ...) would collapse under that kind of punishment.

[Gourmand]

We can put the hurt on for sure, but the main task is to tick things off so someone else can just unload.
Which in PvP means jack shit.

Disarm, Concussive Blow, Hamstring, charge, intercept, etc ... I keep my team mates alive in PvP and PvE.

[Tom McNamara]

Blizzard knows nothing. Check out the screenshot of their people testing the new interface and stuff; they've got a bunch of level sixties with bomb-ass gear, carrying a bunch of potions that retail for 2g each, tooling around in a level nineteen dungeon. I bet testing content is a lot easier when you never die.

I'm fond of Blizzard's theories. But as far as "in practice" goes? They know nothing. NOTHING.

It's kinda difficult to playtest the interface with Onyxia in your face. But lest you think I'm a Blizz fanboy, I think they should have had this kind of forum feedback at launch, instead of unloading a novel-sized, catch-all response three months after retail.

Furthermore, I think there's a severe cognitive dissonance going on with warrior and paladin survivability. According to the class description page on their site, the warrior is described as, "Excellent for those who like to take damage." Whether or not this is the right way to go is another debate, but the point is they describe the warrior as such--then tell people on the forums that the paladin is designed to have more survivability. Um, how exactly do they reconcile these two statements? It's no wonder the warriors feel shafted.

The official description of the paladin says, "A more melee-oriented hybrid." Which doesn't really say anything about damage output or survivability. Doesn't say much at all, actually. But which description is the potential WoW customer going to come across first? The one permalinked from the front page, or the one tucked away in a forum post?

[HRose]

Furthermore, I think there's a severe cognitive dissonance going on with warrior and paladin survivability. According to the class description page on their site, the warrior is described as, "Excellent for those who like to take damage." Whether or not this is the right way to go is another debate, but the point is they describe the warrior as such--then tell people on the forums that the paladin is designed to have more survivability. Um, how exactly do they reconcile these two statements? It's no wonder the warriors feel shafted.
It's between the stuff they discussed:
While paladins are indeed intended to be the most survivable of any class in the game (players sometimes assume warriors are, which is not the case), paladins aren’t intended to make the best “tanks” in the game, or to have superior offensive abilities then warriors. What this means is that survivability alone does not a tank make.

The other key concept to tanking is the ability to hold agro on mobs (especially simultaneously on multiple mobs). This is the key difference between warriors and paladins in PvE. Simply put, warriors are intended to be the best at holding agro against multiple mobs (which will also be a more clear distinction once the Seal of the Crusader bug is fixed). So, assuming a group scenario that includes healers, a warrior’s survivability rivals that of a paladin’s, with the warrior having very significant advantages in terms of holding agro.
Which brought to the comment/question I wrote about a month ago when we were discussing all this:
Your extensive explainations make sense but they focus solely on the PvE aspects. In the case of PvP many arguments you used (like the role of a tank Vs. survivability) are nullified because of the basic differences in the dynamics between a PvP and a PvE situation.

If the main role and strength of a warrior is to make a better tank, how this translates in PvP where this exact concept doesn't exist?

[mouselock]

We can put the hurt on for sure, but the main task is to tick things off so someone else can just unload.
Which in PvP means jack shit.

That's a reasonably fair point. I know it'd annoy folks no end, but it seems to me taunt actually ought to work on other PCs in PvP. Give it a fixed time that it makes them target only the warrior. (It's not like that would disrupt healing and be abusable..)

That's about as good as you can do without including enough physics to actually allow warriors to physically protect fragile caster types.

[JamesL]

That's a reasonably fair point. I know it'd annoy folks no end, but it seems to me taunt actually ought to work on other PCs in PvP. Give it a fixed time that it makes them target only the warrior. (It's not like that would disrupt healing and be abusable..)

That's about as good as you can do without including enough physics to actually allow warriors to physically protect fragile caster types.

Really, the only qualm I have with this is that it would be a fairly free counterspell (they would have to run towards you, stopping whatever spell they are casting) and, from my experience (although I have never played a warrior, only duels and pvp), this would allow you to absolutely destroy caster classes.

[mouselock]

That's a reasonably fair point. I know it'd annoy folks no end, but it seems to me taunt actually ought to work on other PCs in PvP. Give it a fixed time that it makes them target only the warrior. (It's not like that would disrupt healing and be abusable..)

That's about as good as you can do without including enough physics to actually allow warriors to physically protect fragile caster types.

Really, the only qualm I have with this is that it would be a fairly free counterspell (they would have to run towards you, stopping whatever spell they are casting) and, from my experience (although I have never played a warrior, only duels and pvp), this would allow you to absolutely destroy caster classes.

Warrior taunt range is *very* short. Again, it wouldn't counter heals, but it would indeed counter alpha-strike nukes. That seems pretty much in line with the idea of the tank stepping in front of the fireball, which can't phsyically be done in game space but is exactly what the tank should be there for. (Or in front of the dagger, or the arrow, or... )

It would be a nice reasonable counter for the entire stupidity that is normally "go for the soft targets first". Frankly, in the cases mentioned above, anyone going for the warrior instead of the druid/priest is a moron (or mage). Certainly DAoC had an established order that didn't change, really.. CC, healer, tank. Keep the tank CC'd or snared or what have you long enough to take out his healer. Seems odd that the tanks don't have more tools to interject themselves. In real warfare, the counter to "go for the soft targets first" was always "You have to get through the hard shells to do it". That's just not the case in MMOs; I think having taunt actually work would make it more like that. (Maybe certain spells would be immune.. CC for instance.)

[olaf]

Rend DPS is too low. 7 DPS for a level 60 ability is too low, for any class Which brings me to...

Warrior DPS is too low, regardless of build. Holy spec Priests shouldnt be outdamaging me, but they can, and do. You guys really feel that Warriors should be at the bottom of the DPS ladder (at least on the Horde side)? A ladder where the top classes do 300-400% more damage than the bottom classes? I dont see how you can argue for that.

Heroic Strike is a piece of utter shit. I put 'bread and butter' in because Blizzard thinks highly of it. It gets more upgrades than any of our abilities, we get it at level 1 and its one of the few things usable in all three stances.

I played an Alliance Warrior to 60 in beta, a Horde Warrior to 60 in retail. I have tanked 5 man Strat/Scholo and 10 man UBRS. I know a little bit about playing a Warrior, at least in PvE.

olaf

[_Fury_]

Who cares about warrior DPS? Except people who thought they maybe picked a mage instead?

I've got a 60 priest. My new alt? Level 39 warrior. While soloing with the warrior is not especially fun, group play the warrior shines. So much so that I can't rouse myself to play the priest at all. Oh, and I play on a PvP server. I keep waiting for the suck...

Face it, if you're complaining about warrior DPS - it's not the warrior that's the problem, it's the player. I don't care if you're mack-daddy mr. 5 man Stratholme run; if you think your DPS means anything, you've obviously completely missed the point.

[gnmarsh]

I have a lvl 50 warrior on a pvp server. There are some classes we can't touch if they are played right. Pretty much anyone that has a kiting ability can take us anytime, we have no way to beat it. I don't have a problem with my dps, lines up well with being a tank. I do think they have crippled us in other ways. To be truly effective you need to twists stances. This is more than a little complicated. It would be nice if you had similiar abilites in each stance so you didn't have juggle stances along with keeping an eye on multiple targets.

It would also be nice if they moved tactical mastery to a purchaseable skill instead of it being on the talent tree. You have to have it, so make it a skill like any other.

Last fix, we have no real way to quickly get aggro on multiple targets. The only skill that does has a 10 minute timer, so useful only for emergencies.

Last complaint, we are very dependent on other classes to do our job well. It would be nice if they put some kind of tutorial in the game to explain the different group roles. Very tired of explaining to shaman why they are getting our group wiped.

[JamesL]

Who cares about warrior DPS? Except people who thought they maybe picked a mage instead?

I've got a 60 priest. My new alt? Level 39 warrior. While soloing with the warrior is not especially fun, group play the warrior shines. So much so that I can't rouse myself to play the priest at all. Oh, and I play on a PvP server. I keep waiting for the suck...

Face it, if you're complaining about warrior DPS - it's not the warrior that's the problem, it's the player. I don't care if you're mack-daddy mr. 5 man Stratholme run; if you think your DPS means anything, you've obviously completely missed the point.

You're right, why don't they just lower your DPS to 0, because Warrior DPS has absolutely no bearing on PvP, and any complaints regarding it are totally invalid. Hey, there are other classes that are supposed to do damage, if you picked a warrior, you expected to do DAMAGE? If you wanted to do damage of any sort, pick a rogue or mage or something, jeez.

:roll:

Sorry, now that that's out of my system :D

I think warrior DPS is incredibly important in PvP. I'll concede to you that it's really not as important in PvE, but you can't just sweep away all complaints about Warrior DPS by saying it doesn't matter, which is clearly untrue.

Last complaint, we are very dependent on other classes to do our job well. It would be nice if they put some kind of tutorial in the game to explain the different group roles. Very tired of explaining to shaman why they are getting our group wiped.

You have no idea how much this would mean to us priests. :)

I have a dream where one day, one day, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this year, but one day no one will shout "Heal me!" over and over again when they're at 95% life with a renew slapped on them.

[McBain]

Warriors are not a damage class. They are a tanking class.

I tend to agree with olaf. "Not a damage class" shouldn't mean "DPS equivalent to 1/3 of what a rogue can do while watching TV and just hitting 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3."

I think the only people who are fine with having gimp DPS are Everquest players. Most of the warriors I know actually believed the "damage dealing powerhouse" line they saw at the character creation screen, and would like it to be true.

Heroic Strike is a piece of utter shit.

I couldn't agree more. It's really a 20-25 rage skill that fails constantly and is buggy with weapon enchantments. Garbage.

[Graeme Dice]

I think the only people who are fine with having gimp DPS are Everquest players. Most of the warriors I know actually believed the "damage dealing powerhouse" line they saw at the character creation screen, and would like it to be true.

I think this would especially be true from somebody who is used to single player RPGs, like Baldur's Gate, where it's usually the fighters job to do damage, and everybody else's job to keep the fighters alive.

[mr.white]

The druid is the "least dps" class. I just gave up on mine at 40. It was a chore to play the game at all.

[Euri]

There are some classes we can't touch if they are played right.

Not to be a jerk, but WHY does everyone say this as if it's meaningful or relevant?

Blizzard intentionally designed PvP to be rock paper scissors. About the only class that doesn't have other classes that can completely own it is Shamans and Shadow Priests.

[Backov]

There are some classes we can't touch if they are played right.

Not to be a jerk, but WHY does everyone say this as if it's meaningful or relevant?

Blizzard intentionally designed PvP to be rock paper scissors. About the only class that doesn't have other classes that can completely own it is Shamans and Shadow Priests.

Really? What's the class that owns a Rogue? I can't think of one. A well played Shammie can give a rogue a run for his money if he sees him first, but otherwise it'd probably be a dead Shammie.

Classes that own warrior:

Mage
Rogue
Shaman
Priest (Shadow and Other specs)
Druid (Believe it or not, they are NOT gimped, just slightly broken. My buddies Druid is a force to be reckoned with.)
Paladin, pre-nerf. Not sure now.
Hunter

So, what's the classes that can't own a warrior again?

[Spam]

blah.. pvp is so dependent on player skill imo it's a waste of time to argue about

I have a lvl 50 warrior on a pvp server. There are some classes we can't touch if they are played right. Pretty much anyone that has a kiting ability can take us anytime, we have no way to beat it.

intercept

Face it, if you're complaining about warrior DPS - it's not the warrior that's the problem, it's the player. I don't care if you're mack-daddy mr. 5 man Stratholme run; if you think your DPS means anything, you've obviously completely missed the point.

I'm completely committed to this point of view. Every skill my warrior has/uses is about generating hate, including my 1337 thorium shield spike and weapon chain. I too have tanked 5 man UBRS plus off-tanked ony and in MC, at the end of the day you'll have more hair if you can accept the bliz "vision" for warriors and play to their strengths


edit:
Really? What's the class that owns a Rogue? I can't think of one. A well played Shammie can give a rogue a run for his money if he sees him first, but otherwise it'd probably be a dead Shammie.

Mage, priest straight up. Just about any class that the rogue doesn't get the drop on

[JamesL]

Mage, priest straight up. Just about any class that the rogue doesn't get the drop on

Rogue gets the drop on us 90% of the time.


Face it, if you're complaining about warrior DPS - it's not the warrior that's the problem, it's the player. I don't care if you're mack-daddy mr. 5 man Stratholme run; if you think your DPS means anything, you've obviously completely missed the point.


I'm completely committed to this point of view. Every skill my warrior has/uses is about generating hate, including my 1337 thorium shield spike and weapon chain. I too have tanked 5 man UBRS plus off-tanked ony and in MC, at the end of the day you'll have more hair if you can accept the bliz "vision" for warriors and play to their strengths


You think Warrior DPS means nothing too? I'm really not trying to be an ass here, I'm just confused. In my mind, warrior DPS is a pretty important factor in PvP - it's what determines the rate at which they kill people. Does that not mean something?

[mouselock]

I think the only people who are fine with having gimp DPS are Everquest players. Most of the warriors I know actually believed the "damage dealing powerhouse" line they saw at the character creation screen, and would like it to be true.

I think this would especially be true from somebody who is used to single player RPGs, like Baldur's Gate, where it's usually the fighters job to do damage, and everybody else's job to keep the fighters alive.

Last time I played icewind dale my magic user was the heavy damage dealer, with the fighter and then the cleric following him up. I'll agree that the rogue had totally different uses, but, frankly, those uses are harder to envision in a PvP, MMO type game.

At any rate, I think there's a difference between SRPG and MMORPG at enough fundamental levels that it's unrealistic (although I guess understandable) to expect a 1:1 correspondance.

[_Fury_]

Anyone who thinks that rogues own warriors in PvP hasn't played either, or sucks.

I play my warrior on a PvP server and I've not lost *once* to a rogue that wasn't at least +10. In fact, once I beat two yellow con rogues at once. Granted, that fight I used a 30 min ability, but how often do I get jumped by multiple rogues? Not more often than every thirty minutes.

Warriors also own Hunters so badly that I think nothing of engaging red con hunters solo.

Warriors have the tools to beat priests, but need to play well. This match comes down to player skill.

Warriors lose (badly) to druids in my experience.

I've beaten more mages than I've lost to.

Shaman? Probably a loss, but I've not fought many.

Paladins? Not sure, I'm alliance.

Also not sure about 'locks, as I've not fought a single one.

[Rob O'Boston]

Also not sure about 'locks, as I've not fought a single one.

I dueled a warlock with my druid last night and I ended up dying. I thought they had fixed that. It was so embarrassing.

[gnmarsh]

in my experience a rogue will only win if they get a sap in at the begining. Fear and entangling roots get us every time, if there is a way to deal with it would be curious to hear it. Intercept requires the right stance. So if I am out with a group and I am in my turtle mode, if I switch fast enough it works. That's very much a situational kind of use, but I am 50% with mages. Of ocurse even intercept doesn't really help with the blink spell. Dps matters in pvp, doesn't matter really in pve in a group. I should have made that clear. From that post I got the impression blizzard really doesn't have a role for us in pvp.

[mouselock]

Dps matters in pvp, doesn't matter really in pve in a group. I should have made that clear. From that post I got the impression blizzard really doesn't have a role for us in pvp.

In group PvP I'd imagine a warrior's role is the same as in group PvE. Be the biggest pain in the ass to the enemy so they have to deal with you, then be reasonably unkillable.

So are you saying that the difficulty is in 1v1 PvP? It could simply be that warriors aren't particularly balanced for solo play, no matter the venue. I can see where that would be frustrating, but it doesn't strike me as horrible or horribly unfair.

[Gunmetal]

We can put the hurt on for sure, but the main task is to tick things off so someone else can just unload.
Which in PvP means jack shit.
Yeah, my Holy-specced priest's main job is to heal people in my group. Which "means jack shit in PvP". Oh no! My Priest is gimped!
My Hunter's pet's main job is to attack target and hold agro. Which "means jack shit in PvP". Oh no! My Hunter's pet is gimped!
My lockdown-specced Rogue's main job is to gank n00bs, which "means jack shit in PvE against beasts in UBRS." Oh no! My Rogue is gimped!

[Rywill]

Speaking as a PvP Rogue, I can tell you that Priests and Mages will kill me, even if I have the drop on them, unless (a) I luck out on some heavy crits; (b) I luck out and resist fear or poly; or (c) they don't think fast enough to hit the fear or blink before I kill them (which definitely happens). I'm talking about even-levels here, of course. The first two things almost never happen, so it all comes down to how fast they are on the draw--in other words, player skill. Once I get feared or poly'd I'm pretty much dead. I don't have the HP to fight a magic caster who is throwing shit at me that I can't dodge or parry. Locks have a chance as well--I've only fought them I think once, but it was the same fear/DOT/watch Rogue die routine.

Warriors are a tough fight for me, especially as a dagger rogue. The armor absorbs so much damage that I'm basically doing no damage except from my special abilities. (Once the new interface comes out and I have Expose Armor back on my hotbar, this will hopefully change.) On top of that, I can't use my awesome Evasion ability because I get Overpowered into the ground. I can usually beat an even-level warrior by dancing around and landing some extra backstabs, and stunning a lot. But it's no guarantee. Especially since I have to keep my health above 20% while taking his down to zero.

And all of that is assuming I get the drop. If I don't get the drop, I flee from most even-level players.

Rogue gets the drop on us 90% of the time.

Give me a break. If I'm out hunting other players, of course I'm running around in stealth and should get the drop on them. But if I'm out traveling, I'm on my cat. If I'm out questing, I spend a lot of time out of stealth because I'm fighting, or gathering. And of course my stealth is useless against someone 3+ levels higher than me. People jump me all the time. I get jumped way more often than I get the jump. I'm sure it's frustrating to get jumped by a stealth Rogue, but this idea that Rogues get the jump 90% of the time is just crazy. Maybe if you never go out looking for PvP, then you're probably right that Rogues get the jump on you 90% of the time--but that's like a cornerback complaining that people hardly ever throw the ball to him. If you spend all your time on defense, obviously you're not going to be getting the jump on people!

[mtkafka]

PvP means jack shit in WoW. Its all about the phat purple loot.

etc

[McBain]

intercept

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Mage: Frost Nova
Warrior: Hm. I guess I have to fire my gun.
*Frost Nova Wears Off*
Warrior: INTERCEPT!
Mage: BLINK
Warrior: Awww. :(

Intercept won't beat any kiters. As a Shaman who considers Sham/Warrior an unwinnable matchup for the Warrior, go ahead and burn your intercept. I'll just snare you and kite you again while it's cooling down. Or better yet, I'll just melee your ass since Shaman > Warrior in melee PvP.

Anyone who thinks that rogues own warriors in PvP hasn't played either, or sucks.

Warriors will own Rogues for the first 45 levels or so, especially if they burn retaliation or have Improved Overpower. Once you get to 50+ and start fighting good rogues who can dish out the massive damage, you get owned. And even if you play the retaliation card, they just stun you and wait it out.

To stand your own statement on its ear, anyone who thinks warriors own rogues in PvP hasn't played a warrior past level 50.

[Spam]

still, a warrior with the right gear (ie dal rend's set, goblin rocket hat) + fury spec can kill 3+ people in 10 sec, as bloodthirst flurry and recklessness all stack

http://thedreadnoughts.net/Chrisuploads/wrathofshamiggles.wmv

[gnmarsh]

In group PvP I'd imagine a warrior's role is the same as in group PvE. Be the biggest pain in the ass to the enemy so they have to deal with you, then be reasonably unkillable.

So are you saying that the difficulty is in 1v1 PvP? It could simply be that warriors aren't particularly balanced for solo play, no matter the venue. I can see where that would be frustrating, but it doesn't strike me as horrible or horribly unfair.


I have pretty much always duo'd my warrior with a shaman, so can't really comment intelligently on how well he solos comparitive to other classes. I would hope that they didn't try and balance every class for duels or 1v1 fights. If it is the warcraft universe I expect fights to take place between groups, hopefully large ones. The pvp that happens now is, in my opinion, a waste of time. My point was that every other class's roles work in both situations. A warriors role of aggro taker really doesn't. I don't really want to be the anklebiter in a fight.

[Gourmand]

I don't think Shamans are a good class for comparison, McBain. Also, after multiple people have reminded you that the game is balanced for group PvP, you're still doing 1v1 comparisons. I'll reiterate what I said once again: I by far get the bigged benefit from heals in PvP than any other class (arguabley the shaman and paladin get huge benefits as well because they're part tank). I take a ton of punishment, my enemies put their abilities on cooldown, and then it's time for my group to retalliate. Recently a druid and I took on a Priest/Paladin combo : While farming Devilsaurs. When we tried to sleep the Devilsaur the priest or paly would kick him out of it, so we spent the entire fight with a Devilsaur on us (on me to be exact) taking down the paladin/priest. Which BTW, is an endurance combo if I've ever seen one. The druid was elusive enough and I was pounding the priest hard enough that the paladin actually attacked me instead of my druid. We won. With a Devilsaur on us. And my taking extreme amounts of punishment. And the best part is we forced them into that situation. Warriors might not be the most useful group mate in PvP, but I'll flat out deny any assertions that we're useless. I find myself extremely powerful in group PvP. And that feeling gets reciprocated by the kind words those that group with respond with.

As a warrior I don't struggle against most rogues (even though it is in their power to force a struggle out of me). Most of them go for a Stun-lock, but it's generally a mistake for the reasons Rywill listed. The most effective way is to use your DoT's and kite a warrior. Pop a Garrote or a Rupture on the warrior and Vanish. He's pretty much screwed if you survive long enough to get the combo points off. The reason you use DoT's is because the armor doesn't mitigate any of it. The warrior is forced to take all of it. Not to mention, you can just let the DoT's tick down while you kite him. We're very soft if you play to this style.

Keep an eye out for Retalliation. A lot of rogue's don't understand it's completely avoidable, and they should stop attacking when they see the flames start popping out of their opponents hands. It only lasts 15 seconds, and if you've got DoT's ticking away on your warrior friend then you're still doing damage. If not: Blind! Ugh I hate that skill :)

I really don't have a problem with rogues, but then again I'm not a clothe caster. As soon as a rogue comes into plain view, he drops a lot quicker than his healers can heal if you focus fire. I honestly think rogues are fine the way they are. All of their escapes are either single target oriented (haha!), or easily counterable. (Use rend or other DoTs on a rogue, if he vanishes then 2 seconds later he'll reappear).

Since some people still aren't reading and comprehending on the DPS issue: Warriors last much longer in combat than other classes (Remember, we're looking at group PvP primarily, right?). Giving them that kind of killing power without reducing their damage endurance would make them the de facto best class. But wait: You have it completely within your power as a warrior to make this tradeoff. Spec to Mortal Strike in Arms and Enrage in Fury. This, instead of a heavy defensive build.

I can't empathize with the complaints at all. I'm specced 8 arms, 22 fury, 21 defense. I've chosen the endurance route. And I can endure a lot of punishment.

p.s. it's a wonderful feeling being every opponents executioner. If Enrage is kicking off and someone dips below 20% health, I can crit execute for 2600, and get a regular one off for around 1100. That's a hefty amount of damage.

[JM]

Yeah, we may be gimped in PVP, but *nothing* beats landing a critical execute on someone for obscene damage.

[Greg Williams]

Not exactly sure how we are gimped in PvP. In near every fight I have been in, I draw 2-3 others on me first. I normally die first, but I am "doing my job" and keeping those folks focused on me. If they dont take me out first my group tends to come out on top (even lvl fights).

I will agree in a 1v1 we have our weak spots, but so does everyone. Yes our DPS is lower than a rogue/mage, but I also only need to hit 4-6 times to kill one. When I duel Ry he will hit me a million times, and dodge just as many (thank you overpower!), but as I said, I only have to hit him a few times. Same with casters, once we get in they are toast. When everything is put together, there isnt a huge difference in the "power" of a class. If my DPS were the same as a mage or rogue there would be no reason to have anything but healers and warriors.

If you are not doing well in PvP, look at your build/equip, or even play style. As I first mentioned, I get lots of attention from other players.

[JM]

We are gimped mainly because virtually every other class has a counter that seems specifically designed to take us out. Mages? Frost Nova/Blink are the bane of my life. Priests? Fear, DoTs. Rogues? Stuns, can do more damage to me than I can do to them in the same time. etc etc.

Look, don't get me wrong, I like my warrior. I like the PvP. The fact that we're a little understrength in PvP is fine by me, as long as I'm not completely useless. I can charge around and hamstring things, and make people laugh on voice comms every time I whoop having executed a paladin (or something).

Talking of Paladins - how the hell can you be immune to someone running very fast at you? :)

[edit]

As for my play style... Uh, I make a nuisance of myself, but in general the opposition know that I'm the class they have to worry about the least. Sure, I can get their attention, but as an equal-level opponent I should be able to do more than that.

[JamesL]

Give me a break. If I'm out hunting other players, of course I'm running around in stealth and should get the drop on them. But if I'm out traveling, I'm on my cat. If I'm out questing, I spend a lot of time out of stealth because I'm fighting, or gathering. And of course my stealth is useless against someone 3+ levels higher than me. People jump me all the time. I get jumped way more often than I get the jump. I'm sure it's frustrating to get jumped by a stealth Rogue, but this idea that Rogues get the jump 90% of the time is just crazy. Maybe if you never go out looking for PvP, then you're probably right that Rogues get the jump on you 90% of the time--but that's like a cornerback complaining that people hardly ever throw the ball to him. If you spend all your time on defense, obviously you're not going to be getting the jump on people!

Maybe I misconstrued what was meant by "getting the drop on", I assumed it was meant that the combat started from close range, which I have found true in my experiences (Okay, I exaggerated a little, it's more like 75-80% of my PvP fights with rogues), becuase, unless I'm dueling one or it's far lower level than me, I really have no way to beat rogue stealth at beginning, and can only really wait and/or waste my fear by casting randomly around at him. This is all irrelevant if I find him fighting a mob, though, as that's almost an instant win - but that's true for most classes.

That is not to say I lose to rogues 90% of the time, in fact, as a shadow priest, I am one of the best 1v1ers in the game, and I'd say I have somewhere between a 50-60% with rogues.

[Greg Williams]

If there is one class I do hate, it is the shadow priest. I have yet to ever kill one. To go further, I dont even think I have taken one to half health before I died.

[Rywill]

All of their escapes are either single target oriented (haha!), or easily counterable. (Use rend or other DoTs on a rogue, if he vanishes then 2 seconds later he'll reappear).
Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Maybe I misconstrued what was meant by "getting the drop on", I assumed it was meant that the combat started from close range, which I have found true in my experiences (Okay, I exaggerated a little, it's more like 75-80% of my PvP fights with rogues), becuase, unless I'm dueling one or it's far lower level than me, I really have no way to beat rogue stealth at beginnin
I think we're kind of talking across each other. By "get the drop," I mean that I choose to initiate the combat, which of course (as a Rogue) means I will do it at close range, hopefully behind you from stealth. OTOH, if you start the fight (whether close in or at range, whatever suits you), you got the drop on me.

What I'm saying is you don't need a way to beat stealth at the beginning. You're right that if an even (or higher) Rogue is walking around in stealth, he should be able to get the drop on you (if he chooses to fight you at all). What I'm saying is that Rogues are not in stealth "90%" of the time (or even 75-80%), so it's silly to say Rogues get the drop on 90, 80, or 75% of their opponents because of stealth. I get jumped ALL THE TIME when I am out of stealth, because I (and most Rogues) spend most of my time out of stealth--all my travel time, all my fighting time, my bandaging time, my gathering time, my opening doors or chests time, and 10 seconds after all of those events, that's all out of stealth. Again, it may be true that Rogues get the drop on you 90% of the time if you never (or rarely) start PvP fights--in other words, if you just go out adventuring and fight other people when they fight you, then yeah, of course I would assume Rogues (and Mages, and everyone else) "gets the drop on you" 90% of the time. But again, that's just because you've chosen to play the game as PvE with occasional unexpected PvP. If you went out hunting other players, you would get the drop on Rogues a lot more often, because you'd spot them out of stealth.

And a Shadow Priest has got to be the most unbeatable PvP class EVER, even if I DO get the drop on him.

[Jack Black]

And a Shadow Priest has got to be the most unbeatable PvP class EVER, even if I DO get the drop on him.

I'd say it's the easiest to be the best with, but not hte best Evar. Though maybe when fighting as a Rogue it may seem impossible, I've seen plenty of Undead Rogues murder through Spriests . As a 'lock I've always been able to consistantly beat Shadow Priests from 40+ on to 60. Even without a pet (pretty common in Gpvp).

I'd say of the three classes, Rogue, SPriest and Warlock all do top caliber in 1v1 or GvG PvP. Especially with the right professions and certain races (Undead for example). Mages were fearsome, until I became accustomed to their DPS and it's limit now you can pretty much count on what any upper level mage will do in their cast order based on the only two real builds out there.

[JamesL]

I think we're kind of talking across each other. By "get the drop," I mean that I choose to initiate the combat, which of course (as a Rogue) means I will do it at close range, hopefully behind you from stealth. OTOH, if you start the fight (whether close in or at range, whatever suits you), you got the drop on me.

Okay, yeah. I think we're talking about totally different things, and I got the meanings of "getting the drop" and something else mixed up, because I'm a total idiot with words.

If you're talking about what I think you are, I agree. Any class will have a much better chance of winning if they get the drop, and rogues get ambushed all the time.

What I was talking about was when, both you see the Rogue and he sees you (but not a duel), the Rogues I'm fighting will often go stealth, allowing him to get the first hit on me however he sees fit (unless I waste my fear guessing where he is, as it's AoE) which often will spell doom for me, as they seem to be able to stunlock me, then WotF my fear (Okay, this is an Undead Rogue thing, and I can understand how it doesn't work with other rogues) and just beat the hell out of me before I can even do anything, much less heal myself. It's most likely that I'm playing my priest wrong, as I'm just getting into contested areas that actually mean contested: I.E. STV and Hillsbrad.

[Rywill]

OK, James, we're just misunderstanding each other. I agree that if you and a Rogue spot each other at a distance, he should get the drop because he'll stealth.

I'd say it's the easiest to be the best with, but not hte best Evar. Though maybe when fighting as a Rogue it may seem impossible, I've seen plenty of Undead Rogues murder through Spriests .
Yeah, I should be more precise: I'm not counting Undead Rogues, because WotF will allow them to beat a Priest or Warlock. But any non-Undead Rogue will generally get owned by a Shadow Priest, even if the Rogue gets the drop. There's just no way to stun them long enough to take them down unless you luck out with crits (remember, if you maximize stunning, it's at the expense of doing any damage with your finishing moves). As soon as they unstun it's Fear and DOTs for the Rogue, healing for the Priest, and a quick trip to the boneyard.

[Euri]

Really? What's the class that owns a Rogue? I can't think of one. A well played Shammie can give a rogue a run for his money if he sees him first, but otherwise it'd probably be a dead Shammie.

Mage, for one.

I have a 29 Troll mage on one server, a 41 Human mage on another. I have never lost to a rogue, even one many levels my superior. If they are too high, I need to run away as I don't have the DPS to take them down, but if they are +/-5 I can kill them with few problems. I imagine Warlocks could also kill them without too much trouble. Hunters too.

[McBain]

I don't think Shamans are a good class for comparison, McBain. Also, after multiple people have reminded you that the game is balanced for group PvP, you're still doing 1v1 comparisons.

I wasn't making an argument with that last post, I was picking apart someone else's retarded argument.