pretty nice list of stuff. the long and the short of it is:
no, we're not supposed to gain rage by hitting shields (PWS, ice barrier, warlock sacrifice etc.).
arms is ok in its current RNG-focused state (specifically referring to TfB and SD builds).
stance restrictions on moves are here to stay (no duh imo...gives the class some depth, keeps it out of the hands of mouthbreathers...usually).
ok, thats just the short of it. you really should read it for the rest tho. good read, lots of neat info.
what disturbs me the most however, is GC then goes on to make a comment regarding stances and how they compare to DK presences:
Quote:
Yeah, it is. I'll try to explain.
I think in the minds of most warriors they say "Would I like to have a 10% percent damage penalty or not? I think not."
But of course that's not the way it would work. If we redesigned the stances it wouldn't be in order to give warriors 3% more crit and 10% more health. That's just a straight buff. What we would likely do is something similar to the death knight presences -- lower your health by 10% and then increase the damage reduction of Defensive Stance and give Battle Stance a tiny bit of damage reduction. (Or maybe Battle Stance would take the same damage as Berserk, but have a more meaningful bonus like movement speed or attack speed). Now your tooltips don't use the word "penalty" so you maybe feel better about them, but the balance hasn't really changed much -- Berserk would be an offensive stance and Defensive would be a defensive stance. Being in Berserk would still be risky.
If instead you're just arguing that warriors are weak and need to be buffed, that's a different issue. But there is no reason we would have to solve that by removing stance penalties.
I think in the minds of most warriors they say "Would I like to have a 10% percent damage penalty or not? I think not."
But of course that's not the way it would work. If we redesigned the stances it wouldn't be in order to give warriors 3% more crit and 10% more health. That's just a straight buff. What we would likely do is something similar to the death knight presences -- lower your health by 10% and then increase the damage reduction of Defensive Stance and give Battle Stance a tiny bit of damage reduction. (Or maybe Battle Stance would take the same damage as Berserk, but have a more meaningful bonus like movement speed or attack speed). Now your tooltips don't use the word "penalty" so you maybe feel better about them, but the balance hasn't really changed much -- Berserk would be an offensive stance and Defensive would be a defensive stance. Being in Berserk would still be risky.
If instead you're just arguing that warriors are weak and need to be buffed, that's a different issue. But there is no reason we would have to solve that by removing stance penalties.
i responded to part of this, specifically the big paragraph in the middle, as its something i feel rather passionate about. ever since it was released the DK presences have nothing but bonuses to them, ive felt its time that warrior stances receive the same treatment. im fine with a limiter on our skillset as a result of stance mechanics, and even of paying a sometimes hefty cost in rage to stance dance, but now with the advent of dks and their presences, its obvious that you can have a "stance" system in place with a cost to it (runes or rage) that doesnt actively detract from the power of a class. warrior stances actively confer a detriment to the warrior. this detriment is in addition to the detriments that both dks and wars share (cost, and the fact that being in one stance means youre not getting the benefit from the other stances).
my response is on the 14th page, second post, and it basically goes like this:
Quote:
I can't speak for all warriors, but I know for myself it's a personal issue, and it has to do with DK presences. Specifically, I play my DK and no matter what presence I am in I am stronger for it in some way, whether thats damage, tanking ability, or "speed" in every sense of the word. None of them have direct drawbacks; they are only boosts to my "base" character.
Warrior stances all carry drawbacks (even battle stance). Defensive stance reduces damage we deal. Battle stance has no benefit at all (it's just our base character with nothing else attached). Zerker stance causes us to take more damage. Each of these stances has a benefit as well. Where the confusion lies (and I'll admit, some chagrin) is in the fact that presences have no active drawbacks, while stances do.
Personally, I don't feel that not having a boost of some kind is an active drawback. I see a boost as something above what the normal character can do. DK presences improve on the DK in tangible ways without detracting from anything. War stances are the opposite. I, and I'm pretty sure many other warriors, are curious as to why that is, and to be honest we'd like it to be changed. I'm personally fine with stance-limited abilities, but what irks me most in pvp is knowing that to be at my most effective I generally need to also be the most vulnerable.
In short, I don't like the current mechanic of "tradeoff" that exists with warrior stances. We, like DK's, pay a cost to change our stance. However, the DK's suffer no drawback from being in a presence (when I say drawback I speak of a specifically detrimental thing...i.e., being in frost presence doesn't cause the DK to deal 10% less damage). The only drawback DK's suffer from being in one presence is that they are not gaining the benefits from the other two. However, warriors share that same drawback as well as the limitations on our potential skillset and a tangible loss of some power by being in a stance (or in the case of battle stance, no loss or gain of power at all).
I guess what I'm asking for is a dismissal of the zero-sum idea behind stances, that being in one stance should confer both a bonus and a drawback. I'd like the only drawback to a stance being that I'm not gaining the bonus of one of my other stances, like DK's currently are.
Warrior stances all carry drawbacks (even battle stance). Defensive stance reduces damage we deal. Battle stance has no benefit at all (it's just our base character with nothing else attached). Zerker stance causes us to take more damage. Each of these stances has a benefit as well. Where the confusion lies (and I'll admit, some chagrin) is in the fact that presences have no active drawbacks, while stances do.
Personally, I don't feel that not having a boost of some kind is an active drawback. I see a boost as something above what the normal character can do. DK presences improve on the DK in tangible ways without detracting from anything. War stances are the opposite. I, and I'm pretty sure many other warriors, are curious as to why that is, and to be honest we'd like it to be changed. I'm personally fine with stance-limited abilities, but what irks me most in pvp is knowing that to be at my most effective I generally need to also be the most vulnerable.
In short, I don't like the current mechanic of "tradeoff" that exists with warrior stances. We, like DK's, pay a cost to change our stance. However, the DK's suffer no drawback from being in a presence (when I say drawback I speak of a specifically detrimental thing...i.e., being in frost presence doesn't cause the DK to deal 10% less damage). The only drawback DK's suffer from being in one presence is that they are not gaining the benefits from the other two. However, warriors share that same drawback as well as the limitations on our potential skillset and a tangible loss of some power by being in a stance (or in the case of battle stance, no loss or gain of power at all).
I guess what I'm asking for is a dismissal of the zero-sum idea behind stances, that being in one stance should confer both a bonus and a drawback. I'd like the only drawback to a stance being that I'm not gaining the bonus of one of my other stances, like DK's currently are.
it's a long shot, but here's hoping he understands what im trying to say.
Edited, Dec 25th 2008 12:14am by Quor
