---

Q u o t e:


Funny you say that, You would think those overpowered healers would be Overpowered behind OTHER dps classes. Also funny that you don't specify which healers are overpowered, all of them are. Crazy .

---

yeah cause rogues, and ret pallies, druids and deathknights just suck now in 2v2.


look at the numbers warriors are not dominating. they are doing okay, but no where near over represented.

---

Q u o t e:

I think Juggernaut was a completely unnecessary change and that the real problem was CoI countering warriors so hard, and Warrior damage being too low (due to low yellow numbers, and rage starvation).

---

Ahh ok the in combat charge is what you feel the problem is. I can tell you removing it would cripple Arms warriors. I'll explain why.

Juggernaut in it's current form may not be necessary but the distance closer available in battle stance very much is. The new rend/OP mechanism wouldn't work at all if you had to be in berzerker stance all the time for the gap closer.

Additionally, the problem now is if you take away juggernaut completely we won't have anything. We'll have 1 gap closer in berzerker stance on a 30 second cooldown (25 secs with 4set PVP bonus but we don't have access to the intercept CD reduction talent anymore, that went back to the fury tree). We lost the 15 second intercepts of days past and we got access to charge instead (on a 15 second CD and allows us to utilize rend/OP, imagine that!). Thing is currently we have a fairly short CD gap closer but we also still have intercept to fall back on especially in the beginning of a fight where both are available back to back.

If 2 gap closers on separate CDs are the problem, I'd suggest just removing access to intercept for juggernaut warriors but buffing the amount of damage they can mitigate . Without all the face time to stop/debuff incoming spell damage we'd die pretty quickly. A good example is when we fight DKs and ret paladins since they're free to hit us with spell damage even when we're in their face. Bottom line is we need a 15 second gap closer available from battle stance just to be viable but the intercept on top of that trumps a lot of caster's gap gainers. Lastly if you get more time to cast and land all this damage on a warrior the warrior is going to need to be able to take a lot on punishment to stand a chance against it.

You have to look at it from both angles to come to a proper conclusion here. What you would gain against a warrior and what a warrior would lose. Without juggernaut you'd gain much more face time and warriors would lose face time but also be forced to PVP almost exclusively in berzerker or trying to swap back and forth (incuring GCDs and rage starvation) to utilize taste for blood and unrelenting assault. The playstyle would be ether tossed back to TBC days or horribly klunky with all the setup required in battle stance.

---

Q u o t e:

You can try to dress up Juggernaut as a rage mechanic however you want, but it is, at heart, a gap closer, and an unnecessary one. I'm sure you (or more importantly, GC) are smart enough to figure out a way to solve rage starvation without in-combat charge.

---

This is exactly what I'm talking about, it's not just a gap closer it's a gap closer that works with the new multiple talent damage mechanic they devised for Arms warriors in battle stance. It you want to point the finger i'd be pointing it at access to intercept on top of juggernaut.

No offense GC, but it's completely absurd you are considering further PvP nerfs based on representation that completely differs from what you suggest. Warriors not dead last again in representation, can actually compete? Nerf please. There are far more pressing matters than warriors averaging 4th (aka upper-middle) in arena representation in each bracket. There are classes with better representation and more broken mechanics like the untouchable hero class, the 2 stun->dead classes, etc.

I'm fine with TG staying at 10% dmg.

I'm also fine with talents pre-TG in fury to be tuned.

In fact, I'd like them to be tuned in a such a way that hybrid spec becomes an option. I don't like dual weilding 2hs very much TBH and would like to go back to 1hs.

Please allow me to DW 1hs again!

how is it fine warrior still get destroyed by other melees ... well besides enhancement shaman

hmmm though a pvp nerf? well we just got nerfed, the only other thing they could nerf is take away the crit from MS entirely any more then that and we'll drop like a rock the only thing thats really changed from last season to this season that actually made us viable is the mobility that juggernaut provides take that away and we'll quickly fall to the bottom again.

---

Q u o t e:
To the "Blizzard hates warriors" crowd, we ask that you spare us having to remove your posts. Post intelligently or please don't post. :)

---

Granted, a lot of it is not constructive, but you have to ask yourselves, how much of it is warranted? Unless we as players haven't stumbled upon whatever magic setup your testers are using, I don't see how anybody could objectively look at what you're doing to warriors as anything but hatred for the class.

It's basically a "worst at everything" class. You've claimed it was because they're some type of hybrid class, but that simply doesn't work anymore. Almost everyone is hybrid, and no class has to deal with the amount of slamming the warriors get, no class has to deal with every other class/play style being superior.

What's even worse, as tanks, many of our key abilities don't even work on bosses, so we're left with a couple of skills to use over and over. I truly think it's time for you guys to step back and look at the whole picture. There's a lot of complaining going on about the warrior, and how much of it is true? I know your current theme is "bring the player not the class" - but that doesn't work for gamers. People don't bring "the player" for the most part, they bring what works, and right now, everyone does the job better than a warrior does. *Everyone*

So, if all of the source material out there is overlooking some key ingredient to making the warrior as powerful to the players as it is to you guys, please inform us so that gamers can get on the same page.

---

Q u o t e:



Percentages aren't everything, but if you look at them, warriors are more dominant than Ret, rogues or DKs in 2s and 5s and just below them in 3s.

---

This quote here GC worries me greatly about the direction you are looking at pvp balance. You just compared an entire class to one spec.

It implies that you think some spec's for some hybrids should be treated in respect to arena balance as an entire class should be.

If you look at only one spec compared to a class, why do rogues get to be so much more massively represented then a balance, druid but you don't feel that rogues are over represented. And it is not as if warriors are more represented then DK's currently, with us both being tanking/dps hybrids.

Are there separate balance rules that you take into account for different classes with multiple roles?

Could you please clarify that perhaps?

While the Two-Handed Specialization may not be a problem with Titan's Grip, they are essentially doing directly opposing things. If you move 2h spec further down in the tree (replacing it with a talent that is wholly unattractive to Fury and Prot), then you could reduce the penalty on TG a bit.

What this would do is free up a few points for Fury specs to pick up some additional "fun" talents.

---

Q u o t e:


This quote here GC worries me greatly about the direction you are looking at pvp balance. You just compared an entire class to one spec.

It implies that you think some spec's for some hybrids should be treated in respect to arena balance as an entire class should be.

If you look at only one spec compared to a class, why do rogues get to be so much more massively represented then a balance, druid but you don't feel that rogues are over represented. And it is not as if warriors are more represented then DK's currently, with us both being tanking/dps hybrids.

Are there separate balance rules that you take into account for different classes with multiple roles?

Could you please clarify that perhaps?

---

Yes, there are special rules for special classes.

And No.... he won't clarify.



Do you really think he's gonna say "yes of course we have classes we let be intentionally OP because so many people play them and its making us money"


.....

Its implied.

---

Q u o t e:




Yes, there are special rules for special classes.

And No.... he won't clarify.



Do you really think he's gonna say "yes of course we have classes we let be intentionally OP because so many people play them and its making us money"


.....

Its implied.

---

That wasn't my question.

My question was more along the lines of are some hybrids seen as to have a higher rep because they want multiple roles working for them and have more priority, then say making prot warriors viable in pvp also.

I'm asking if he is implying that ret paladins should do as well as warriors in arena, without regard to how well holy is also doing.

I want to know if they balance with this in mind.

Less Juggernaut talk, please.

Warriors are really hurting in pve dps across all three specs. This is an opportunity to present some ideas to a developer. Let's not ruin it.

---

Q u o t e:
We're not at all worried about Fury in PvP at the moment.

---

Because 85% of high rated Warriors in arenas being Arms is intended? We're back to Arms being both the PvP and PvE spec?

---

Q u o t e:


We're not convinced the Juggernaut nerfs were sufficient, but we're going to see how the 3.1.2 changes play out.



Percentages aren't everything, but if you look at them, warriors are more dominant than Ret, rogues or DKs in 2s and 5s and just below them in 3s. Only healers have more representation and when you figure almost every team runs with a healer and there are only 4 healing classes, that isn't too surprising. I don't know that it makes sense to expect 10% of all classes given that only some of them can heal. It may be that in a perfect world, the healers are like at 12% and the dps are at 8%. But again, you can interpret percentage representation a lot of ways. Some classes have multiple viable specs and some classes (warlocks and hunters particularly) are too low across the board.



It doesn't ultimately matter who does less damage in Arena if your team still wins.

As I've said we do think Fury and Arms dps are too low in PvE. We're not at all worried about Fury in PvP at the moment.

---

I think what you have failed to factor into the equation is the resurgence of interest in Arms pvp once they again became viable. People who shelved their warriors and flocked back to PvP. This certainly cause an increase in reputation in arenas which will likely drop off given some time. Much like DKs when they first came out.

The other thing that didn't really seem to be included in the Juggernaut nerf was the impact outside of PvP. While the impact it has in instances and raiding is negligible, it can definitely be felt doing dailies. Being able to frontload a little damage without depending on the RNG made doing the dailies far less of a chore. Warriors already take the most damage out of any of the classes I play (rogue, DK, shaman) while questing and doing dailies, with minimal ability to self-heal compared to the rest. Might seem petty I know, but it was one of those things that make doing dailies feel less grindy. Balance that against the fact that a DK got their self-heal ability buffed, and almost every other class has the ability to either kill from range, kill under control, or self-heal consistently, and it doesn't seem very equitable. When you have to be constantly in a mob's face taking damage.. well, you know the rest.

---

Q u o t e:


Because 85% of high rated Warriors in arenas being Arms is intended? We're back to Arms being both the PvP and PvE spec?

---

Prot for tanking also works.