2.4 Warrior suggestion.Follow

Well, of course it is frustrating to be countered by your anti-class. I don't like Warlocks when I play my Mage either.

That being said, this complaint isn't about this.



http://www.sk-gaming.com/arena/player -> Druid are higher. But this is inflated by the fact that about 70% of top 2v2 teams have druid in them. The number is skewed. A small side note however, Druid/Warrior is the top combo. Where druid to be nerfed, it's pretty easy to assume that war/pld would go back to number #1 like the last 2 season.

http://www.realmhistory.net/arena-statistics/class-breakdown.html ->
In the 'duelist' Range, Warriors are 2/8, 1/8, 1/8
In the 'Gladiator' Range, Warriors 2/8, 3/8, 3/8

You want the game to be balanced? Nerf the strong, buff the weak. Warrior happens to be one of the strong. This isn't some secret 'zomg, I'ma rogue and i wantz warrior nurfed' post... it's looking at data and drawing a conclusion.

Then again, it is much easier to just say 'MY class isn't overpowered'. I can understand that.

I also believe Paladin/Shaman needs some more defense against spell lock effect, druids need some more balancing to be more effective in 5 and less in 2s, that mana burn need a serious re-examination, etc. But this post is massive enough without including everything.



Must be why the most powerful 2 combo right now is War/Druid, a team no dispel (beside poisons), right?

Warrior's ability to lock down a target, the cheap snares they have, the great burst damange they do, various shouts, their awesome mobility, ability to disarms, etc. It allows them to fill many roles, change target on a whim and to be the perfect ally for so many classes.

Heck, my whole 3v3 is based off the synergy of Rogues and Warriors >_>.

The warrior class from the get go was designed to be a group class. Not so much for many other classes. Blizzard has even said so. What I'm implying in that point, is that every class needs to be redesign with the 'group' mentality, like Warriors have been.



Oh, I agree you're arguing a dead horse issue.

When you're actually want to talk about what this thread is about thought, maybe we can have a discussion.

Sure it's not, Tyr. Sure it's not.



It's 'inflated' because 70% of all the good 2v2 teams have a Druid? If 70% representation in a 2-man format isn't that point at which 'inflated because of X' become 'my god, they're overpowered', then what the hell is?


[/quote]

Yeah, because Priests didn't get any significant buffs, almost exactly like Druids did plus a massive buff to the power of Mana Burn, in 2.3. And neither did Warriors get nerfs.

Wait a ticket... that's not right.

Drop Druid representation, and with the fairly strong buffs Priests got they'll climb to the top. Rogue/Priest > Warrior/Paladin by quite a bit. The main counter to Priests, besides Shaman, is Druids... and Shaman don't play nice with many people in 2v2.



So the contention is now that Warriors are mediocre in all brackets?



See above for condescending dismissal of neutrality claims. I think I hit the right note there and I wouldn't want to ruin it.



A partner that can completely lock out the rest of their team plus stop them from moving for you does kind of negate the need for dispels, admittedly. Druids are the exception to the rule, though, and playing with a Shaman having no Dispels really hurts.



True. I guess Rogues don't have the ability to lock down a target, a free snare, great burst damage, Cyclone, awesome escape tools and near-immunity to damage, etc.

Please. You can do better than that.



Is "I'm rubber, you're glue, and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" going to be the next response, Tweenador?

But sure. Let's. Even accepting on face value your premise, which I don't, and ignoring that this is a blatant "mommy, the bad man hurted me so hurted him in the same way mommy mommy pweeease", which it is...

So what? WM is fairly minor. It forces a loss of an enchant, but that's what you live with. Losing Sweeping Strikes (more importantly, TM) is the bigger deal. Dropping TM is like giving Vanish, Evasion and Cloak of Skilldows a cost in terms of combo points. Dropping Sweeping is a big hit when trying to deal with Warlocks, but it's otherwise not that big of a deal - besides pets, only rarely is it worth anything.

It's barely a nerf in 2v2. It hurts in 5v5 since you often need as much damage as possible, but even then it's not so bad.

It's still a stupid idea, but what in the world makes you think it'll change anything? It's another balancing idea from somebody who has distance second-hand experience with Warriors at best. You're the vaguely more experienced Mazra in this argument; you don't really know what it's like for the other side, but by god it's unfair and must be complained about!



Who the hell worries about Karma? It's been an incredibly retarded system since day 1. You know, when they moved off the uBB boards?

Hmm. Maybe you don't. Oh well.

I suppose it's possible you read the value upside down, since it is a fraction. But in this case, 1/8 means 1st out of 8.



Ah, so when you do it, it's fine. When I do it, I'm being childish? Interesting view point.



Not even. I've said they're the most successful class across the board. That doesn't mean they're the best at everything.

It's become pretty clear that you're having your argumentation with the points you think I have, rather then the points I am bringing forth. I'm not going to defend those points, they aren't even mine.



In an ideal situation, the class representation would be pretty even. You wouldn't have 1 class with 25% representation and one with 1%. While I understand one class has to be on top and one at the bottom, the problem is the gap between top and bottom.

Still, I love your logic! 'Let's not balance the class on top, because then some other class will be on top!' >_>



Finally! I got what I want out of you!

I don't think WM is as minor as you make it to be. I also highly doubt any Warrior will bother using a weapon chain even if they're forced to lose WM. Every class in the game has over 4% dodge rate. WM essentially mean you get to hit your targer 4% more. That is a dps increase (by my guess, 4%) and a rage generation increase.

As for losing TM... why? Drop some point of enrage and get it. I know the idea of having to pick and choose between your pvp talents point instead of being able to grab them all is kinda scary, but everybody else does it just fine.



That's the point.

Doesn't do much in 2 (doesn't matter), hurt in 5 (good), but it's not that bad (awesome, we don't want to break the class).



It might, or it might not.

That was the point of posting this. Trading ideas and discussing about it. There's a very distinct possibility that I'm totally off base and that indeed, this won't bring about any change what-so-ever. I've never claimed my change was the best solution. It's a suggestion.

The fact that this is getting such a reaction out of you is actually telling that I'm actually close to something that would nerf warriors without destroying and quite possibly bringing much more balance to the game. Then again, your stance when it comes to warrior seems to be that they are fine... which I suppose is something we'll disagree about.

In the end, your argumentation once again go back to 'It's stupid and you're wrong.' I'm a bit disappointed, you actually had a good start there. Sadly you're still fighting idea that this is a rogue who wants warriors nerfed to be worse then him, rather then a genuine balance concern.

It's sad, because in another post, I've got you to say that you didn't think the current pvp situation was balanced. This implies something needs to be done to balance it. Saddly, you've close up like clam ever since. No way to get a genuine opinion or suggestion out of you.



Once again, nobody forces you to read or to respond to any of my post. I must admit that I was indeed expecting you to by posting this here, but you're free willed individual fully capable of deciding if he posts or not.

Ironically enough, had you not replied (or had you actually discussed instead of flaming), this post would have gotten maybe 10-15 replies and would have been on the 2nd page by Tuesday. It's a deadhorse, but you're hitting it just as hard as I am.





Edited, Jan 27th 2008 4:15pm by Tyrandor

Actually no. The only reason why I brought up those argument was after you told me that it had been answered before. I then listed the most common reply in order to show none of them were very solid. You expect me to stop crying about an issue? Give me a valid reason to stop.

It's kind of funny how you quote 2 different post and totally ignore in your 'snip' the part where you brought up the issue.



Oh please, I wrote 4% instead of 2%, it's essentially Murder with a disarm resistance tacked to it.

Less dodge means more damage. More damage means more rage.



Of course it never does - I don't have any weight or influence on Blizzard (luckily actually). I like arguing for arguing's sake :P. And you do as well, or you wouldn't be coming back to this. Which is the main issue and make your whole 'You've been talking about this for months!' point a total waste of space.

I can already see you coming back with 'This thread is a waste of space'. So why are you replying to it?



Actually with hindsight, I do agree that the AR/Prep nerf was a necessary thing.

It was worthless in 5s anyway, and made us more powerful in 2 and 3s. The only reason why we didn't suddenly start to dominate 2 was because for all of HARP's 'overpoweringness', Druids are OP as well and counter us way to well.

As fun as it was pop all my CD (twice!) and go toe to toe with a warrior and kick his ***, Balance is not attained by having a class dominate it's counter class.

Not only that, but HARP was a such a brainless spec that it really lowered the skill cap of the class.

I don't quite agree with the fact that they took without really giving something back however - while HARP was a bad way to go about buffing us, we do need a buff. Nor do I quite understand why they'd nerf us based on 2s and 3s performance and let Druid go untouched. That still confuse the hell out of me.

That being said thought, at the time of the reply, the whole thing was still pretty damn raw and I was rather mad about it and it did show in the tone of my post.

You say 'I struck him down'? All I really did was explain to him why he was wrong. I didn't tell him 'you're stupid and wrong'. I'm not quite sure explaining to somebody why they're wrong can be classified as 'striking them down', but going by that, I'd rather wish you'd strike me down rather then going with the 'You've posted this forever. You play a rogue! You're wrong and stupid' circle we've got here.

And there you go and do it. Well, kinda. You don't discuss my warrior change, but you bring in question the change being necessary. Just as effective. Just took 30 threads.



That's a very good point. Interestingly enough, the number gaps widen even more between the middle spot (12-13%-ish depending on format) and the bottom spot (1% in 2s for mages!) when you move up to the 2200+ brackets.

Since Blizzard say they want the bring the game to e-sport level, then the 'professional level' what truly matters. In this case, the pro-level show the trend as the 'semi-pro' level, only much more so. I might be going about this upside down.

What a lose-lose situation... I'm fairly confident that if I had made a post about my suggested buffs to rogue for 2.4, you'd have been down my throat as well :P.

Although quite frankly, this does assume that everything is a vacuum. A nerf to warrior could mean better representation by rogues in 5s and hunters in 2s, as that class falls down a few pegs and other class with similar role come in. Granted, it's also possible they'll just trade spot with the class righr behind them.

I can see why you'd rather they work with buff then nerfs however, it certainly suck less that way.


Edited, Jan 27th 2008 5:20pm by Tyrandor

I most definitely think that Blizzard needs to up the crit chance on Execute.

It only crits like 90% of the time. Not good enough. Do you think a 2.5k Mortal Strike crit, followed by a 1.9k white crit, followed by a 2.2k Whirlwind crit and finishing off with a 6.5k Execute crit is enough to put me out of business?!

HAH! I laugh in the face of danger and metal-heads. Ptjuw. May my spit bring rust upon your plate armor.

Whats wrong with having advantages over other classes? Yeah it sucks that 9 out of 10 times a warrior will drop a rogue with no sweat but rogues can drop classes that give warriors hell with no problem. If they made it so every class had an equal chance to beat another then the game wouldn't be any fun. Why? Because then no skill would be required. Yeah it sucks that rogues get stomped by warriors but its really more of a solo class. Look up rogue in the dictionary and then have a thought as to why they don't have alot of group or pvp talents.

That is why i'm changing my warrior's name to MacGyver.

seems like a reasonable nerf.

I don't think warriors need to be nerfed, maybe rogues should just learn to pick their battles. Rogues have the ability to attack whoever they want and not get attacked whenever they please. Yeah warriors are frustrating for rogues but mages are frustrating for me but I'm not asking they lose their cc and massive dps so I can kill them easier.

I did it with a warrior at 60.

Obviously, that doesn't makes me an expert of level 70 warriors... but it did teach me to be a bit wary of what warrior players say. I got the impression from my 60 warrior that they were a very solid class and when my friend (who played a shaman) would support me, we'd cut a bloody swat in BGs. Yet at the time, many bemoaned the weakness of warriors.

I sure as hell fought my fair share of them and I currently have one in my 3v3 team.

That's my warrior resume :P

That being said, I do play a frost mage. I know exactly how easy a warrior can be to kite. :P But here's a frost mage trade secret - Rogues aren't any harder to kite.

In fact, there's nothing quite like winning a 1v2 as a mage against a rogue and a warrior in BGs for that ego boost.




The day they allow us to 'pick' our battle in arena, this will make sense.

TBH thought, I'd select druids in 2s and 3s as my 'I don't want to play class', not warriors :P.



Well, now that we've seem to reach some kind of middle ground, there's the issue of 'what the do you do to rogues to make them viable in 5?'

Making ShS trainable (and probably lowering the cooldown)? Allowing some kind of 'combo point transfer'? Possibly lowering the the dependancy on cooldown (Or make them less powerful but on a much short CD?)?

All seem somewhat viable... but all you're really doing is turning the rogue into a warrior.

I couldn't really care less about Karma... if I did I would carefully pick and choose my my posts, who I disagreed with, and where. Case in point. What I did care about was my post getting removed, which it was, whether Tyrandor is conveniently unable to remember it or not. Abuse of power isn't very amusing when you're not on the abusing end.

I suppose it's possible that someone other moderator saw my post in the thread where I argued with you and removed it... but I really can't imagine why he would have and that would be ever so coincidental, would it not?

I honestly think that every class except warriors believe that warriors are OP. I also think that everyone except warriors believe that warriors need a nerf. Yes, I am a Rogue, and yes, I do get annoyed at being eaten alive by warriors. I do realize though that much of this games PvP balance is bassed off class counters and Warriors just happen to be one counter to the Rogue class. So, assume that such isn't tainting my post and that most of the players believe that warriors need a nerf.

If that is true, then the only thing that ought to be talked about here is how well this nerf, or something similar would work.

Blizzard has explicitly said that PvP is balanced around 5v5. If this is so, then Warriors are in a 3 way tie for first place in representation in 1850+ 5v5 brackets. Info from [link= this]http://www.realmhistory.net/arena-statistics/class-breakdown.html[/link] site; which was used earlier as a source on information.

This means that a nerf would be best if it had it's largest effect in the 5v5 bracket.

RPZip said:


So, something that is barely a nerf in the lowest brackets and hits fairly hard in the upper...hmm...sounds like a potentially well planned nerf.

As to the suggestion that with a nerf to warriors rogues would take the top spot, in 5v5, we have a 7% representation. That is a tie for second to last with druids, with only hunters below us and that only by 1%.

Yes, this would most likely result in an increase of rogues and hunters in those teams because (for rogues at least) Warriors are a bane and if the number of warriors went down then perhaps others could move up.

This specific nerf might be a bit to much, but it is in many ways very similar to the recent rogue nerf.

Blizzard nerfed hemo but boosted it's dmg farther down the tree compared to nerfing the MS defbuff then restoring it farther down the tree.

This coupled with the prep nerf encouraged rogues to go all the way down the tree and not spec hybrid. Since the logic given for this was that too many people were specing it and that Blizzard wanted people to be speced primarily in one tryy and take the 41 pt talent, would this nerf not fit such logic and methodology perfectly?

Edited, Jan 28th 2008 5:24am by Nocthil