#0 - Jan. 3, 2007, 10:08 a.m.
Q u o t e:
1) Shields - PW:S and other shields of the nature give us no rage even if damage is required to break through the shield.
This has been brought up before. Basically it is a philosophy decision for the devs. Absorbed damage is not damage dealt to the enemy, so no rage is gained. I can redress this in the context you are suggesting, but they might be firm in their belief of having it work this way.
Q u o t e:
2) Our Armor - as our damage mitigation through armour increases, the amount of rage we gain decreases. Until recently, simply upgrading our weapons would restore the rage loss, but with the rage normalization, this form of compensation was removed. Rage gained through taking damage should be normalized so that it's based off the unmitigated damage rather than the mitigated damage so that gear does not become a hindrance to our tanking ability.
Interesting point. Was wondering if you might want to clarify part of that for me: *snip* “but with the rage normalization, this form of compensation was removed.” So, are you saying that upgrading your weapon completely removes an option for increasing rage generation? I can see how increasingly higher-end weapons are going to see more and more effect from normalization, but are you saying that rage generation is at a halt with weapon upgrades?
Q u o t e:
3) Two-Handed Weapons - With the new formula, the difference between a 2h'er and a 1h'er gaining rage is a problem as 2h'ers are being considered more powerful, yet slower versions of a 1h'er instead of their own weapon type.
I feel like I might have mentioned this to the devs before, but can’t quite recall. At any rate, this is a good example of concise feedback that I can easily transmit to the devs.
Q u o t e:
So we require a pocket healer to PvP.
If a warrior wishes to consistently win PvP encounters of varying degree, they require one simple thing which the class is designed to be short on: healing. Because the warrior generally has no healing designed into the class, this basically puts a “countdown timer” on a warriors continued existence in a battleground. Compared to a healing class, long-term existence in a BG is on average less, resulting in the player seeing more deaths.
That seems to me to be a big frustration point for many who are talking about warriors in PvP, because the organized groups have that taken care of by taking the obvious step of team play, but PUGs won’t see that behaviour as much due to more “independent” game play.
To adjust this for your average PUGger, you either have to increase damage mitigation or increase healing potential through regeneration or what not. I think the devs are more inclined to the former, seeing as they added some spell damage mitigation and what not through talents.
Q u o t e:
Range vs Melee Question: Why are ranged classes given higher DPS, more crowd controls, and more escape methods than classes who are melee?
Because there is a PVE side to this game. By looking at it purely from a PVP angle, it sort of distorts the argument. Your following questions seem to portray ranged classes as having “all the DPS”, which kind of comes back to the group PVP point I was talking about before. The longer a warrior stays in the fight, the more damage they can do through rage generation. Death interrupts rage generation, heh.
I realize that seems like an obvious statement, but it has profound effect on PVP performance. It’s kind of like tapping the brakes a lot on your car and getting lower gas mileage in return. If you die a lot due to lack of healing, you keep having to start up the rage motor again, which means on average you are pulling fewer Mortal Strikes or fewer Executes and your overall performance flags.
Again, the methods of circumvention are there for group players, but a soloer is going to suffer. The primary debating point for the devs will be what should be inherent to the class to keep it viable and distinct as opposed to what keeps group play dynamic and balanced. I can reassert ideas of breaking CC to them. I think we come back to the idea of increasing damage mitigation as a route to increase warrior survivability.
Q u o t e:
Protecting the Casters Question: If our goal in PvP is to protect the casters, then why does the warrior class lack the utilities required to take the damage in place of the caster? Should we not be given more abilities like that of Intervene that allow us to take the damage trying to be dealt to the healer?
As far as I know, I think the devs would like to have more effects that deal with “PVP tanking” like Intervene. Part of the issue is simply code tech in place to continue development of varied game mechanics like this. As far as a straight up Taunt that would potentially change targets of another player, the devs have often said they think it’s too clunky and intrusive.
Generally, they don’t want players changing other players’ targets. However, I’ll definitely bring up ideas for more Intervene-like abilities and/or “PVP Tanking” as a topic with them and get some statements.
Q u o t e:
PvE Tanking
By now, it's no shock to anyone that warriors are not scaling in threat like that of druids and paladins. Obviously this was not intended and changes should be made. Some changing of the threat mechanics are in order and that is beyond a players ability to decide on how it should be done. Simply changes that would help multi-mob tanking however can be suggested and it gets no simpler than changing Thunderclap to cost a bit less and be usable in defensive stance.
I can reaffirm this, but as far as I know the devs position is to have the warrior as the primary tanking choice. I don’t think that attitude has changed. However, they do want Pallys and Druids to be competitive choices. This will result in situations where a Pally or Druid might tank better for a particular situation or situations. This could result in more skilled players out performing lesser skilled ones.
I would like it if Warriors wouldn’t feel threatened by this, but I imagine a lot of them are or will be and I’m going to hear about it. Already am, really. If the devs stance has changed in this respect, I’ll let you know.
Q u o t e:
Talents
Last I commented on this generally, it was to the effect that Talent adjustment is still under consideration for the high-end of Arms and Fury. Overall, these trees were sort of “frozen in time” to maintain a certain DPS output. When the devs generated a lot of dps testing for all the classes to redefine baselines for the expansion, talent combinations from Arms/Fury were basically maintained in terms of average output, because Arms/Fury warriors were seeing damage output in numerous encounters (PVP and PVE) that was exceeding the baseline. Observation and calculation in tandem supported the conclusion that fury warriors were capable of rogue-like damage.
This is essentially why Warriors perceive the issue as “not much changed talent-wise or playstyle wise” or that a lot of the high end talents are “lackluster”. Generally, Talents are the thing most subject to change with a class, so attention will be paid to this in future patches following release of expansion. I suspect that the devs are also going to want to watch itemization affecting 41-point talents in a live environment, when they can get a broader cross-section than from the Beta.