Intelligent Compilation of Warrior Issues

#0 - Nov. 27, 2006, 7:23 p.m.

After seeing so many threads putting together unreasonable compilations or ideas that can only be attributed to the work of trolls, I have decided to put together a post detailing the issues that I think are most vital to warriors. This post will be for the Intelligent discussion of issues that arise from our class, and the way we think they will evolve in TBC.

1. Rage & Rage Normalization:

Let's deal with the most pressing and popular issue first. After having played extensively in the PTR, using both high top-end and fairly low end BWL gear, I can honestly say along with many others that Rage, while different, is certainly playable.

What does this mean, however, in a very real play sense? I do not feel that it will hurt us in the long run, as we get very top-end gear once again, we will continue to perform at or above our expected limitations. Even with the Rage Normalization, we remain the only class who functions solely on the mechanics of, "The more damage you deal, the more damage you can deal." That is one of the main reasons warriors are of such interest to me, and why I personally will continue playing this class well into the future.

1.a. Why should warriors be the same or less effective after the new patch while everyone else gets better?

I don't have a good answer for this one. Our Killing rate and Effectiveness is not honestly diminished too distinctly from before, but like I said before, it is a noticeable difference. We remain playable and fun, MS is still great for PvP, Fury still does great damage, but we are left with a bitter taste in our mouth as casters fling around more powerful spells than before. My only real concern with this whole issue is that we are left with the prospect of working our way back up to the top, instead of starting where we were and improving.

2. Our talent changes are underwhelming.

I'm fairly certain that every class can come up with some talents that are underwhelming for them, but my issue with the warrior talent changes is that nothing is really going to be different. Every other class has some talent that changes the overall game play mechanic of their class, IE. Pallies with a controlled Burst damage, Mages with a pet, Hunters have been revamped into a completely new play style, etc.

Whereas warriors have very few things to get excited about. Endless rage is a band aid solution, and ultimately will be the deciding factor, "Can I function without it?" I believe its not necessary in the slightest for what MS is made for, PvP (since we can count on getting shot at). Rampage is just an extension of the fury tree, and since it is like a shorter Battle Shout, it doesn't really offer any new viabilities or gameplay changes. In fact, Rampage is somewhat contrary to the fury tree. My favorite part about fury, and the reason I have been fury since almost day 1 of being 60, is that Fury scales incredibly well with gear, every good talent in Fury has that scaling factor in mind. Imp Berserker Stance does, but Rampage will slowly lose effectiveness as we increase in effective gear level.

The tree that got the most upgrades in my opinion, is the Prot tree. While this tree has been given new life and versatility, I can't help but be underwhelmed in the long run at the prospect of simply replacing sunder spam with devastate. Though, admittedly, it is a very nice and easy way to fix the issue of threat scaling with gear.

3. Warriors NEED a group to perform.

3.a. Gnome Racial is by far the best PvP (warrior) racial.

Aedak, myself and many others have always displayed the opinion that this class is a Group based class, and that this game is balanced and designed around a group situation. But, there are many situations where 1v1 encounters occur, even within battlegrounds and arenas, and in those situations why should we have the mentality, "Well, I lose to that class..." When there is not a SINGLE class warriors can say they beat all the time. EVERY other class in the game has at least one other class it can beat handily (and more often then not its warriors).

Why is this however?

We are the only class without an easy way to kite, all our abilities are designed to keep the enemy in range, and we must always be in melee range to deal damage. This means we are extremely susceptible to kiting and other more annoying incapacitating effects.

The Gnome racial was always a great PvP tool for warriors, a 1 minute cool down PvP trinket as it were. I know, as a warrior, that I can beat most mages if I have my trinket up and pull other tricks out of my sleeves. But, without that trinket, unless I pull of a lucky string of crits, I'm going to be the mage's *%@#! (and I've played a mage so I know both sides of this tale).

If its not overpowered for gnomes to have this racial ability, how about giving warriors some talent or new spell that is like Escape Artist? I mean, Escape Artist doesn't even cost rage to use, and in the next patch it will be instant cast.

Damn me for not rolling Gnome, but who could have known that such a simple racial could solve so many problems.

Conclusion

These are the most pressing warrior issues I feel we currently have, as well as a little discourse on the whole subject.

I maintain my firm belief, however, that warriors are mostly fine, and only need a few fixes to truly shine as an excellent class in the World of Warcraft.

Thank You for your time. Cheers ^_~

Tseric

#222 - Dec. 10, 2006, 10:26 a.m.

Cheers for the thread and slanche to the OP. :)
[ul]

Q u o t e:
1. Rage & Rage Normalization:

Perhaps some warriors in beta might disagree with you. Not to dismiss your comments at all, as I think you do have a good point. The progression of a live player base will be different than a beta player base. There are factors which alter the overall play between the two. Base testing done so far would lend some credence to your point, but the reality has yet to play out. :)

Q u o t e:
Even with the Rage Normalization, we remain the only class who functions solely on the mechanics of, "The more damage you deal, the more damage you can deal."

The quote you provide is why it is a more unpredictable mechanic than mana is. Subtractive points are easier to manage than additive ones. This is why a good deal of attention has been paid to it, not only in the past months, but for the history of the class. But, I suppose I'm not telling you something you don't already know. It certainly is an interesting aspect in many ways.

It is also why normalization will be of good concern in a live environment. People will be watching how it develops in wider play.

Q u o t e:
1.a. Why should warriors be the same or less effective after the new patch while everyone else gets better?

Because the designers want to avoid flat-out nerfs as much as they can. For the overall look of class balance, they prefer to find a baseline and buff classes below or to that point. Now, this obviously has a different look depending on whether your talking power with healing or dps or threat gain or threat loss or crowd control or utility or survivability or the rest of it. As a tanking melee class, warriors were fitting that role well. They could tank proficiently, they could DPS proficiently. In contrast to the most recent patch, warriors haven't really been nerfed, but neither have buffs been large. The most poigniant comment made about talent tree adjustments is that warriors basically keep the same talent build(s) while gaining more talents. The progression of talents was changed to maintain a power that they were seeing at the time, which was really working at levels above the current cap. As a crude analogy, they were working as a level 65 talented warrior at level 60, so if their talents are maintained to keep their level 65 power, that balances out as you gain levels (with the level cap raise) or move toward endgame.

In contrast, other classes saw more buffing because they were lower in certain fields. This contrast lends to the notion of everyone else getting buffs, so it seems like a nerf in comparison. In true numbers, warriors haven't lost any dps, they've actually gained some in particular respects. In comparison to other class buffing or upcoming gear or other elements, there isn't any congruency, because different classes were buffed in different ways.

Q u o t e:
2. Our talent changes are underwhelming.

This rather relates to the previous question. If a class is having its abilities reigned in some, it is going to see an incongruity with other class buffs. I suppose many of you at this point are probably itching to say nerf warlocks, so I'll just beat you to it. :P Specific classes aside, this is the general working philosophy. Set a higher baseline and buff up to it. The DPS buffing is simply one of the more manageable ways to provide a broad range of playability, as every class needs to dps to level. Buffing DPS provides solo, PVP and raid viablility all in one value or factor.

Q u o t e:
The tree that got the most upgrades in my opinion, is the Prot tree.

This is the previously mentioned philosophy in action. Prot was the weakest/least desirable of the trees; lend it more buffs than the others.

Q u o t e:
While this tree has been given new life and versatility, I can't help but be underwhelmed in the long run at the prospect of simply replacing sunder spam with devastate.

This is the tough thing, because of the classes singularity of purpose. If warriors are a tank/melee class, then look at rogues as a melee/crowd control class. In a raid situation, a rogue's stuns are useless against a boss (I can't believe I just used the word 'useless' in a post). On the warrior's side, they're either tanking or dps'ing. There is simply nothing else the class was built for. To say that a different spec should provide a different playstyle can only go as far as what the class limitations are. However, you can find some difference in elements like damage mitigation.

Q u o t e:
3. Warriors NEED a group to perform.

Ok. While I will have to say that each class will be expected to be in a group PvP situation, this may not always happen. In the case of warriors, you are more dependent on a team because you have no healing capabilities. Again, probably not telling you something you don't already know. The primary survivability traits in PvP are fight or flight; in this context DPS or escape abilities. Now, warriors have one of those, but it is not a lasting trait without healing. Sustainability is part of survivability. When working from a solo perspective, you naturally see limitations compared to a group perspective.

I'll try to hit the rest later...also read more of the comments in this thread.

Tseric

#224 - Dec. 10, 2006, 10:47 a.m.

Q u o t e:
Tseric : For the most part I don't want a buff, but I was hoping for a bit more options for the class. Keep my power level the same but give me more things to do. More options. In most pve situations everyone has a routine they get into. But in pvp I can only call upon a few powers in a battle. I rarely walk away saying "if only I had done this instead I might have won" as I tend to with my other classes. With the warrior it is mostly "if only I crit more."
If I had powers that were on the current cooldowns but did different things I would have to chose between them. Giving me more places to make mistakes or make epicly good decisions.

I really do hear what you're saying. My point on singularity of purpose for a class kind of deals with that.

There is nothing I can really say if you aren't having fun. That is what you get from the class and it is true. What I've wanted to convey here is that the particular roles of melee and dps can apply themselves very specifically to both PvE and PvP.

We're constantly working to develop new technology and coding that will push the game boundaries farther. We already have in part, but I can understand if you feel it hasn't spruced up the warrior class in the way you would like.

Perhaps I can inquire with the programmers and designers about what their specific plans are to give variety to dps mechanics, on a core level. That'd probably make for some good discussion. :)

Tseric

#236 - Dec. 10, 2006, 11:35 a.m.

Q u o t e:

ok you keep saying that warriors in beta are doing fine with rage norm

Hmmm...in the first reply to this thread, I said that beta warriors might disagree with everything being fine with rage normalization. I'm not sure how you are seeing that as me saying everythings ok.

Tseric

#237 - Dec. 10, 2006, 11:36 a.m.

Q u o t e:
My eyes are bleeding from all the reading.

Hey. That rhymes!