#0 - Jan. 29, 2009, 10:41 a.m.
I'll start with the stance system as the consensus among warriors is that this is an outdated mechanic.
Stance penalties/restrictions:
The addition of DK's has really brought the shortcomings of our stance system to light and made the warrior feel like a dinosaur class. Unlike DK's, the bonuses awarded by our stances are counterbalanced by penalties and restrictions. When a DK or druid changes stances or forms, he does so to gain the benefit of that stance/form, whereas we must often change stances in order to use class-defining abilities. In the meantime we have to take a rage penalty, in addition to the stance penalty. I feel that this is a severely outdated and broken mechanic that unduly handicaps the class and in some cases contradicts talent tree design. For example, it's clear that in order to reap the benefits of talents like taste for blood and unrelenting assault, an arms warrior would need to be in battle stance. However, improved intercept is a key talent to an arms warrior in PvP, and requires Berserker stance to use. Hamstring is also a class defining ability and is key to any warrior's success in PvP, but cannot be used in Defensive stance, meanwhile a DK can sit in frost presence and still cast chains of ice and death grip.
But here's what it really comes down to:
THE STANCE SYSTEM IS BACKWARDS!
I can understand having to spend time and rage, and endure penalties in order to set up a great ability. Rogues and feral druids need to build combo points to set up their finishers, DK's use abilities to gain runic power so that they can execute devastating attacks. A paladin needs to cast the appropriate seal before he can judge it. But the difference is that instead of enduring penalties, they all gain benefits from these stepping stones!
Rogues and druids do damage with their combo point builders, DK's do damage with their runic generating attacks, paladins gain benefits from casting seals! Warriors on the other hand only take penalties in order to set up their not so devastating, albeit necessary abilities like intercept, hamstring, and disarm.
In light of the above I believe that the best solution is that stance dancing should be a choice which can provide a benefit, rather than a necessity which penalizes the warrior for using it. Removing stance restrictions on class defining abilities is a must. Replacing stance penalties with benefits would be great, too. A less desirable option is to remove the rage penalty when switching stances, but personally I think that removing stance penalties is a better option, less we have people stance dancing every 2 seconds with no rage penalty.
The charge opener dilemma:
This probably produces more facepalms per day in PvP than any mechanic in the game.
Here's how it works:
Warrior steps into an arena vs. say, a warlock and mage. (class makeup doesn't really matter) Warrior begins in battle stance to charge the warlock. Mage throws an instant cast slow at the warrior, placing him in combat. Warrior now loses the ability to charge and must stancedance, bloodrage, then intercept warlock. Intercept is now on 20-30 second cooldown and warlock uses death coil and lolruns away. Warrior is now 20-30 yards away with no way to catch up.
I understand that charge is not intended to be used in combat, but the fastest finger meta game needs to go. A bad opener leads to a bad fight and losing this chess match has serious repercussions that I can't imagine were originally intended. I can't find any example of this type of mechanic with any other class. My proposal is to give a small window (5 seconds) after combat begins in which charge is still usable. This will still keep with the spirit of the ability and it's intended mechanic, while addressing this issue. In the above example, this would allow the warrior to charge the warlock, take the death coil, then intercept and it's game on, rather than being gimped because someone managed to put him into combat which somehow magically negates his ability to charge the opponent.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
