Warrior Q&A Letdown :( - Blue Tracker

#0 - July 16, 2009, 6:54 p.m.

I was really looking forward to the warrior Q&A and it really didn't answer some of the key issues or questions that I have about the class. These questions and concerns have been brought up by the comminity more than once and we are still left in the dark. I was really hoping the Q&A would shed some light on these issues.

1) Weapon specs in arms. They are a mess. Axe is by far number one, mace can be competivie with enough APR and gear, and swords, my favorite weapon to use......welll ya.

2) Rage generation in pvp in 3.2 with resilience change. Any plans to update the rage formula against resilence targtes? Or is a nerf to a middle of the road class, that needs a specific setup to be successful.

3) Continuted stance penalties. The devs had said months ago they would like to get rid of these altogether, but we get the same answer in the Q&A, we would like to get rid of them. Look at DK's stances for as hint, each stance brings an added benefit, not an subtraction combined with a benefit like for warriors. How hard would this really be to put this in the game. While on the topic, why don't DK's lose all thier resources, AKA runes when they swap stances? How is this fair when compared to warrriors. I wish my snare generated resources instead of costing them......

4) Why are DK's and rogue's snares 70% or greater and ours is only 50%? It's really annoying not being able to apply a hamstring because the target is poisoned with crip, then crip is removed a second later and the target is scott free. Hamstring can't be cleansed, let us apply it along with poisons/other snares.

Some of these questions that were answered have been beaten to death like the reliance on a healer, or what warriors bring to raid other than damage and they shed no light on the situations anyway.

Whats the point of this post? Well obviously to express my concerns with the Q&A. Also to bring some questions yet again to the forefront we'd really like answered. Please add any other concerns fellow warriors in replies.

Murr

Ghostcrawler

#31 - July 16, 2009, 9:36 p.m.

Q u o t e:
"No real concerns were addressed".

Read: They didn't answer the questions / concerns that I thought were real.

The fact that you thought any real concerns *would* be addressed set yourself up for disappointment.

Again, look at all the other class Q&A's, they didn't go into specific concerns, it's all high-level future-of-the-class and this-is-our-vision type stuff, which is great, it's something to look forward to.

Q u o t e:
Because people look at the Q and A the wrong way. They are trying to explain what they want to do with the classes over a long period of time, not necessarily what they are going to do for the next patch.

Yes, both of these people get it. After every QA we get several threads like this from players who were unhappy that the question most important to them wasn't addressed or that the devs didn't see eye to eye with them on some specific issue and promised buffs are coming.

The Q&As were always intended to be more philosophical and far-reaching. That is something a lot of players have been asking for in the forums and elsewhere, yet the answers take a lot of time to compose and don't necessarily change a lot. Therefore we thought addressing some of these questions all at once would cut down on some of the commonly recurring ones, e.g. Do you like totem stomping macros? (No.) Will I ever be able to use all my abilities in any stance? (No.)

Consider that we knew the 3.2 patch notes were going to be released before we even finished the first round of Q&A. For that reason we chose not to structure them as lists of patch notes or upcoming buffs, but to help players understand our long-term goals for the classes. Long-term you should know that we're still not happy with the mechanics of rage generation, that we think Arms and Fury talents need a winnowing like Prot received, and we want to solve the problem once and for all of warriors looking at rogue gear by changing our entire itemization design (no small task). If you are curious what's coming in 3.2, reach the patch notes. If you're curious what's coming in 3.3, just be patient because we haven't decided yet.

Ghostcrawler

#41 - July 16, 2009, 9:55 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Then why did you TELL US TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS IF YOU WERE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THEM?

We received hundreds of questions. We tried to be clear that we weren’t going to answer them all. Maybe in the future we’ll come up with a way to let the community vote on which questions they’d most like to see answered. However, what typically happens is players see a thread inviting questions and everyone feels the need to ask as many as they can.

Q u o t e:
I think you need to go look at other classes Q&A's, and see how they were disappointed with theirs. I think the only class that enjoyed their's were shaman

Nah, there were plenty of shaman posts expressing dissatisfaction. If the response was more positive at all, it’s because we did have a bunch of shaman buffs for 3.2, especially in PvP, because shamans really needed them.

Q u o t e:
I am convinced that a political career is on the horizon.

I will admit to having a better understanding for why politicians speak this way after having spent a year or so on the forums. It’s just really easy for you to be quoted out of context or misunderstood if you are not absurdly careful with your word choice. You just end up adopting that tone so you have fewer messes to clean up later. It’s unfortunate and I try to fight against the tendency when I can.

Ghostcrawler

#75 - July 17, 2009, 1:07 a.m.

Q u o t e:
If that is the case I look forward to a new sig, because
Q u o t e:
The warrior class has been a very tricky one to balance, largely due to the way rage converts into damage (which converts into rage, which converts into damage...), and we haven’t completely nailed that design just yet.

is not how rage works.

Yes it is.

I was talking mostly about warrior upgrade progression. The classic problem we've had with warriors is that they don't have enough rage and their dps is low, then as their gear gets better they suddenly have tons of rage and their damage is much higher. With the best gear they can get, they might have infinite rage and the resource ceases to be relevant. They're just GCD locked.

This isn't an issue at all of yellow attacks not providing rage. It's an issue that as warriors get better gear, they do more damage, which then allows them to do more damage, which then allows them to do more damage, etc. In an ideal world, rage would be of equal value at all gear levels. It doesn't do that and so we constantly have warrior balance problems.

Ghostcrawler

#76 - July 17, 2009, 1:11 a.m.

Q u o t e:
You need to stop acting like disappointment is ALWAYS "QQ" or whining or whatever other label you put on it. People are disappointed because the warrior class is horrible right now and they were given a thread to ask questions for the Q&A in, implying that they had some kind of say in what kind of questions were going to be asked to you during the Q&A.

Only if players stop saying things like "the warrior class is horrible right now" because they can't faceroll any class in PvP or beat the rogues on every raid boss. :)

The warrior class is not horrible right now, and if you're arguing from that point of view, then I can understand why we don't see eye to eye.

Ghostcrawler

#174 - July 17, 2009, 5:58 p.m.

Q u o t e:
You clearly state " largely due to the way rage converts into damage (which converts into rage, which converts into damage..."

which is blatantly false. Rage converts into damage... and that's where it stops.

Um... so where does your rage come from if not damage?

As you get better gear, you do more damage, which means you have more rage, which means you do more damage. You do more damage not only because your gear is better, but because your rage is higher. If a warrior and another class are tied for damage when their gear is at level X, the warrior will strip ahead at level X + Y. If the two are tied at level X + Y, then the warrior is behind at X. Anyone has played a warrior for very long likely understands why this is a problem. If they don't think it's a problem, it's because they feel warriors have earned the right to be unlimited by resource or do too high relative dps with good gear since they have suffered through the opposite with low gear.

It's clear this has become one of those punching bag comments, so I'm probably going to stop trying to explain it. This is like the third time.

Ghostcrawler

#195 - July 17, 2009, 7:02 p.m.

Q u o t e:
All that is being said is the cycle is:

More Gear -> More White damage ->More rage -> more yellow damage

Ghostcrawler's original cycle seemed to imply that

More Gear -> More White damage -> More Rage -> more yellow damage -> more rage -> more yellow damage

It seems to be a slight misunderstanding between the two. I'm sure everyone knows abilities that use rage do not generate extra rage.

Yes, that explains it well. I did mean the first one.