Reasonable Arguments

I've noticed there is a lot of people who make... very interesting assumptions about various class abilities, and it hurts the overall argument. Most of my examples (if not all) will be about Warlocks and Mages, since I'm currently building a Mage and have spent most of my time recently looking at their forums.

A common compliant of Mages is that Warlocks have an equivalent level of DPS, and this is not supposed to be so. Yet, a Warlock specialized in the Destruction Tree is (quite literally) a Mage by definition. The differences between the two class (various utility spells being the exception) are mitigated by the specialization. Pets and Dots are relatively weak and insignificant down that tree, and become a side-line to our actual damage. Instead a Warlock becomes a Direct-Damage dealer using, roughly, the exact same spells as a Mage under a different name. In the light, why is it so unreasonable to complete on the damage meters with a Warlock?

Another problem is the tools used to measure ones effectiveness. Most people use damage meters to judge they're overall capabilities yet completely refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of those. For example, comparing Warlocks and Mage damage, a good Warlock with the opportunity to use Seed of Corruption will be so far up the scale on damage meters that every other player will seem insignificant. Yet in order to get that damage they must be in a very specific situation with a good group.

Likewise if you engage several targets which are strong enough to support the full timer of a Affliction Warlocks DoT spells then a Warlock will rise above others in the damage meters simply for they're ability to pump out consistent damage over multiple targets (when properly supported).

Which is actually part of another compliant where, for some reason, much of the Mage community on the forums don't seem to realize that a Warlock's DoT spells (even under the power of an Affliction Warlock) do roughly the same damage as four or five fireballs. The problem is that those DoT must finish their run in order to get that damage, and a Mage can get off four Direct Damage spells in the amount of time it takes a Warlock to actually cast the DoTs, leaving the remaining 15-20 seconds of DoT duration for the Mage to get extra damage over a Warlock.

Perhaps the most insane compliant I've seen, from any class directed towards Warlocks, is the claim of higher Hit Points. Do these people not realize that we sacrifice Intellect for Stamina? Most Warlocks can do this because we can turn Stamina into Mana, and we do not benefit too much from the extra critical strike chance gained from Intellect. A Mage, or any class, is more than able to sacrifice another primary attribute for Stamina and achieve results just as a Warlock does.

To show other examples, look at the Druid community. Druids are constantly complaining that they do not have the utility of their parent classes. Which is true, yet they somehow ignore their own utility in that computation, such as Mark of the Wild, healing capability (even if not spec'd for it a Druid can still off-heal), in-combat ressurection, and so on...

There are numerous other common complaints among all the classes. People need to apply some logical thought behind their arguments and consider the nature of just what they're arguing about. It doesn't do someone any good to complain about a topic if there is a counter-balance to their argument already in the game.