World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS?

Lyka

< Trucido >

Alleria

161. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:55:52 AM PST

Q u o t e:

Is this really a question you don't know the answer to? I don't get to drag out the reallies like the players do very much, so I'll that the advantage of that here. Really?

Rogues, mages, warlocks and hunters should be doing the highest dps, if you assume all other things are equal. Other things are never equal. Gear, skill, group buffs and encounter (in PvE) all matter a lot. In PvP, highest damage matters a lot less than specific abilities that let you control or break control.

There will be fights where warriors are on top because the situations favor them. There will be fights where the shamans or priests are on top.

Arms and Fury warriors should be mixed in with Elemental and Enhancement shamans, Shadow priests, Retribution paladins, Feral and Balance druids, and 3 types of DKs. Currently on live we feel that Arms isn't up to this level and Fury is too high. If you think Fury is not too high then you are probably comparing your dps on live to classes that also received dps nerfs in 3.1.

Wow just... wow, so basically no matter how much I work on my character or how much time i spend learning the game mechanics I can never pass that "ceiling" you are artificially making JUST because we have a tank tree? This doesn't apply to warriors alone either.

I guess all the "hybrids" got owned at the character selection screen.

Charsi

< Critical Mass >

Stormrage

162. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:56:50 AM PST

Q u o t e:
They talk about a lot of things. They talked about a change to stance shifting and rage loss that would have made that mechanic WORSE. Let me tell you how much I'm really not holding my breath for anything significant. Not for stances, not for rage, not for PvP, not for much of anything about the class.

Why are you unguilded, did you go over to the dark side?

Also.. this is about where I am nowadays too. I know some of my thoughts are whack but i've given up expecting even the simplest things. Now I just wait and see to see what new innovation i'll simply have to deal with.

Heck

Destromath

163. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:57:10 AM PST

wow this is terrible...

Karan

< Honor Guard >

Feathermoon

164. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:58:14 AM PST

Q u o t e:
You realize that dual spec makes 3way hybrids even more out of whack than their current state of "Jack of all trades, master of all too"

So when dual spec comes out, a ret/prot paladin when compared to a fury/prot warrior are similar, except the paladin can also heal very badly. The point is that triple hybrids have a much lower baseline ability to do things, and spend a lot of talent points just catching up to 2-H classes. hence, even with dual spec, their third spec will still be bad.

Being able to heal badly (think nonheroic 5-man) should weight against my other roles about as much as a mage's wonderful ability to portal everywhere weights against his dps.

[ Post edited by Karan ]

Paladins totally need to get a Falcon Punch move.

Rerolled

< Shards of Existence >

Drak'Tharon

165. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:58:43 AM PST

It's simple all you have to do is make dual role hybrids match pures and have 3 way hybrids be in the current hybrid position.

Atleast it makes sense for ret paladins/enh shamans/ele shamans/balance druids and feral druids to be lower DPS than "pure classes" since they're trucks of mandatory utility.

Adila

Stormreaver

166. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:59:07 AM PST

Q u o t e:
Warriors aren't hybrids. Hybrids have massive utility and play 3 roles out of ranged dps/melee dps/healer/tank.

We play TWO roles and suck at raid utility.

wrong. your defination of hybrid is way off base.

LOL 10 YARD STATIONARY SNARE REMOVING AURA ... WITH A 15 SECOND CD... WITH 5 HP

Nomepunter

< Angry >

Illidan

167. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:59:10 AM PST

Q u o t e:

Now remove Thaddius and Loatheb and where do they end up?

With someone who can't do math.

GC, if the intention is to have Warriors end up ~5% behind everyone else, it's pretty clear that Combat, Mages and I'm fairly sure Warlocks (don't have the parse in front of me) also need nerfs. Are these going to go through, or will you be moving Fury DPS back up?

Twilight Vanquisher (US 114th) Nomepunter of the Nightfall (US 22nd)

Namau

Draka

168. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:59:16 AM PST

Q u o t e:

Now remove Thaddius and Loatheb and where do they end up?

Still finishing in the top 3 on a lot of fights. Actually in the fastest parse that includes a warrior the warrior finished #1 on 10 of the 15 fights. Oh, and he's not BIS yet.

Edit: http://wowwebstats.com/e4qqlten1mmgi

[ Post edited by Namau ]

Caargon

Feathermoon

169. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:59:44 AM PST

Q u o t e:
I think the arguement, when considering warrior utility, is that they bring very little UNIQUE utility (to 25 man scenarios).

Most raids still use at least 1 prot warrior, so sunder, tclap are provided instantly. Now, dps warriors can have the best commanding shout, but battle shout is more than often covered in 25 man raids. Now if you assume the common tank core for a guild is a prot warrior, DK, and feral druid (which seems pretty common), the dps warrior brings improved demo shout, and commanding shout. That's it.

I really can see justification for thinking dps warriors are closer to the pure side than the hybrid side.
(How many guilds still use the same tanks for years? Many warriors have never raided as a tank, and it's always felt almost like 2 classes. You use a different stance, buttons, etc.)

No one brings unique utility anymore except, like, shamans.

Home is where the hearth is
http://i16.tinypic.com/4pxlg14.gif
<The Conversation Killer>

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

170. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 11:59:51 AM PST

Q u o t e:
What exactly is the point of bringing a warrior to dps then? All our raid buffs are overwritten by better versions of the same buff other classes have.

It is not our goal that you (or any class) have crappy versions of other buffs so you feel like second-class citizens. To be fair though, a lot of players make this claim about their raid buffs. Some of these complaints are totally legit and some are just thinly veiled requests for damage / healing / tanking buffs. We are trying to adjust areas where your buff feels inferior to another buff, either because it is too expensive, doesn't last as long, has an opportunity cost or whatever.

What we are not interested in doing:

-- Buffing a spec because their buffs are inferior. (We would rather fix the buffs.)
-- Giving any spec unique buffs to make sure they will earn a spot.
-- Buffing a spec because another spec with those buffs is "always" in the group. (The intent is that "always" depends on the guys you run with.)
-- Coming up with an over-specific or unrealistic model where warriors are 1% above druids and 3% above shamans or whatever. Such a design would shatter the first time someone upgraded their gear.
-- Start defining things in terms of half-hybrids or two-third hybrids or whatever. Related to the previous point, having fewer larger buckets works better for a number of reasons.

Apologies if I sounded snippy. I am just surprised that anyone who follows these forums would not know our goal for the stack rank of dps classes. The topic is perennially on the first page here.

What I didn't mention is that in BC the goal was to keep hybrid classes far inferior to the dps of the rogues, warlocks, mages and hunters. We want it to be much closer now. If you know your class cold, I mean really know it, then there is no reason you can't be topping meters. But some (key word) of that responsibility lies with you and not with us juicing the numbers in your favor.

Rerolled

< Shards of Existence >

Drak'Tharon

171. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:00:31 PM PST

Q u o t e:

So when dual spec comes out, a ret/prot paladin when compared to a fury/prot warrior are similar, except the paladin can also heal very badly.

Being able to heal badly (think nonheroic 5-man) should weight against my other roles about as much as a mage's wonderful ability to portal everywhere weights against his dps.

If you consider Kings/Auras/Judgements/Replenishment/Salvation/Sacrifice/Divine Shield/Divine Protection etc. comparable to what the avg fury warrior brings : 0 (sunders are up by prot warriors and paladins cover battle shout. Commanding shout is covered by a warlock pet. Demo shout is covered by druid or warrior tanks.

[ Post edited by Rerolled ]

Nomepunter

< Angry >

Illidan

172. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:00:32 PM PST

Q u o t e:

No one brings unique utility anymore except, like, shamans.

And Paladins. Both BoSanc and BoKings are pretty much unique, even ignoring the mana return effect on the new.

Twilight Vanquisher (US 114th) Nomepunter of the Nightfall (US 22nd)

Angeni

Spirestone

173. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:00:52 PM PST

Q u o t e:

Wow just... wow, so basically no matter how much I work on my character or how much time i spend learning the game mechanics I can never pass that "ceiling" you are artificially making JUST because we have a tank tree? This doesn't apply to warriors alone either.

I guess all the "hybrids" got owned at the character selection screen.

Correct. And until Blizzard changes their stance on this issue, it will always be like this.

"We have changed the gorilla Pummel cooldown to 4 hours. Relax" - GC

Rerolled

< Shards of Existence >

Drak'Tharon

174. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:02:44 PM PST

Q u o t e:

It is not our goal that you (or any class) have crappy versions of other buffs so you feel like second-class citizens. To be fair though, a lot of players make this claim about their raid buffs. Some of these complaints are totally legit and some are just thinly veiled requests for damage / healing / tanking buffs. We are trying to adjust areas where your buff feels inferior to another buff, either because it is too expensive, doesn't last as long, has an opportunity cost or whatever.

What we are not interested in doing:

-- Buffing a spec because their buffs are inferior. (We would rather fix the buffs.)
-- Giving any spec unique buffs to make sure they will earn a spot.
-- Buffing a spec because another spec with those buffs is "always" in the group. (The intent is that "always" depends on the guys you run with.)
-- Coming up with an over-specific or unrealistic model where warriors are 1% above druids and 3% above shamans or whatever. Such a design would shatter the first time someone upgraded their gear.
-- Start defining things in terms of half-hybrids or two-third hybrids or whatever. Related to the previous point, having fewer larger buckets works better for a number of reasons.

Apologies if I sounded snippy. I am just surprised that anyone who follows these forums would not know our goal for the stack rank of dps classes. The topic is perennially on the first page here.

What I didn't mention is that in BC the goal was to keep hybrid classes far inferior to the dps of the rogues, warlocks, mages and hunters. We want it to be much closer now. If you know your class cold, I mean really know it, then there is no reason you can't be topping meters. But some (key word) of that responsibility lies with you and not with us juicing the numbers in your favor.

The larger bucket theory only screws DPS warriors and Shadow priests and makes druids/paladins/shamans overly interesting to a raid leader. I don't even feel bad for shadow priests because they bring far more utility than warriors. I can see how screwing two core RPG classes isn't a problem.

[ Post edited by Rerolled ]

Charsi

< Critical Mass >

Stormrage

175. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:03:19 PM PST

Q u o t e:

Correct. And until Blizzard changes their stance on this issue, it will always be like this.

This is some pretty fail trolling given the blue reply 3 posts up, so I figure i'll quote it.

Caargon

Feathermoon

177. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:03:40 PM PST

Q u o t e:

Why are you unguilded, did you go over to the dark side?

Also.. this is about where I am nowadays too. I know some of my thoughts are whack but i've given up expecting even the simplest things. Now I just wait and see to see what new innovation i'll simply have to deal with.

Unguilded because I'm antisocial and it has yet to affect the regularity if my raid invites. But if by darkside you mean rerolled, then yes, I've been playing a mage for the last month and a half or so.

Q u o t e:
Apologies if I sounded snippy. I am just surprised that anyone who follows these forums would not know our goal for the stack rank of dps classes. The topic is perennially on the first page here.

What I didn't mention is that in BC the goal was to keep hybrid classes far inferior to the dps of the rogues, warlocks, mages and hunters. We want it to be much closer now. If you know your class cold, I mean really know it, then there is no reason you can't be topping meters. But some (key word) of that responsibility lies with you and not with us juicing the numbers in your favor.

They know. It's a loaded question.

Home is where the hearth is
http://i16.tinypic.com/4pxlg14.gif
<The Conversation Killer>

Adila

Stormreaver

178. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:03:56 PM PST

Q u o t e:

Wow just... wow, so basically no matter how much I work on my character or how much time i spend learning the game mechanics I can never pass that "ceiling" you are artificially making JUST because we have a tank tree? This doesn't apply to warriors alone either.

I guess all the "hybrids" got owned at the character selection screen.

that is not what gc said. do not put words in his mouth and do not read into his comment and only gleen what you want to hear.

what gc said is that if 2 people with equal skill, gear, group make up, buffs and encounter. then the pure dps has an advantage.

now the above is not realistic and will never happen.

LOL 10 YARD STATIONARY SNARE REMOVING AURA ... WITH A 15 SECOND CD... WITH 5 HP

Skdall

< Resolute >

Eredar

179. Re: [Warrior] Where SHOULD we be on DPS? 03/04/2009 12:04:20 PM PST

Q u o t e:
-- Coming up with an over-specific or unrealistic model where warriors are 1% above druids and 3% above shamans or whatever. Such a design would shatter the first time someone upgraded their gear.

So..... how does that not work but having pure DPS classes "slightly ahead" work? I mean, you just completely contradicted not only your own words, but your and the other developers entire philosophy going into WotLK.

Forum > CLASS ROLES > DAMAGE DEALING