I am literally accepting that you have different knowledge to me and are clearly well read in my last post. Again you felt the need to quote an academic on a wow forum. We get it
This was what you posted
This is r/iamverysmart criticising language so
Seems a little dishonest in context.
I never said I was complimenting you
Now you’re just talking in circles in order to obfuscate. If I had said what you claim I said then you would have cited it with relish. Instead you were unable to find it since I never said it now you try this instead.
I’m not claiming that you have said anything. I think I maybe made my own observation, that’s all. You’re just so used to deploying this copy and paste response to people because you end up at this point with so many in the warrior forum. You are so hell bent on always being right that you don’t allow for light hearted debate, even between others.
That’s gaslighting as you quite clearly implied that I had set a standard for what people should think is fun. So now you’re stepping into emotionally abusive territory. And copy paste response? Only because so many people engage in this sort of behaviour when they’re criticised and challenged.
Everyone creates a narrative in their own head where they’re the hero as they can only place themselves as the pov. A hero has some defining characteristics and one of them is that a hero is always right, another is that a hero is always just and fair.
Except people are humans and no human can ever live up to the standards of a hero so it creates a cognitive dissonance in people where they subconsciously know that they’re unable to live up to those standards and subconsciously also believe that they can, they react with hostility when it’s pointed out that they’re wrong about something.
Except you haven’t pointed out that I’m wrong about anything. By ‘everyone’, would you include yourself in this?
A valid point, mr. Shapiro.
However…
Imagine actually tryharding with academic knowledge to try and tell someone’s opinion on what they enjoy about a design is wrong lmao.
Your narrative system still doesn’t by the way, to this date, explain the minute details about specific abilities ranging from core rotational abilities to utility- Which, if you are so good and great and right, should be able to provide.
You also very weirdly change your goalposts every now and then. Once you told me that looking and learning from past design is idiotic but here you are quoting Wotlk warrior as best one to date.
I almost hope they ruin the class just so people like you will go mad lmao.
Except I never said that. I only said that the design is objectively bad instead of people enjoying it wrong. Which would be silly and says a lot about your world view that you can even imagine other people saying it.
I’m no game designer, even suggesting a rotation by specific number would be arrogant. And I also note that you ask me for one yet has never made any suggestion for a rotation in your own suggestion. Unless you provide one I see no reason to even think about one, especially since the Overpower Rage-generation and Tactician proc would be silly as it would be a reactionary gameplay depending on many situational, conditional modifiers.
I find it hypocritical that you ask about something without holding yourself to the same standards and since you never do that any rotation I give would be torn apart and ridiculed no matter objectively good it was in order to make your suggestion look better.
I believe I never said that, and if I did I apologise, I more likely said that looking back uncritically is wrong and that a highly Conservative stance.
You also need to supply a quote since you made a specific statement in which case you have to support it by factual evidence. Just you saying stuff is no different than spreading a conspiracy theory.
Yet you somehow have managed to all the same acquire the knowledge of how to design good classes- With just narrative in mind.
Anybody can spin a tale, to actually make it work is a whole different kind of beast.
…You have a short term memory, but, I’ll indulge you:
[Idea] Arms warrior design: Shadowlands and forwards
Single target:
- Charge
- Mortal strike
- Overpower
- Rend
- Overpower
- Slam
Multi-target (+2 targets)
- Charge
- Rend
- Sweeping strikes
- Mortal strike
- Thunderclap
- Overpower
- Cleave
(Bladestorm if large amount of targets)
Execute phase:
- Charge on cooldown
- Mortal strike
- Execute
- Execute
- Mortal strike
Repeat.
Unlike you, I actually practice what I preach. I don’t just offer a vision, I give the whole deal. Now, you can disagree or agree with that vision, but I actually make it into a workable solution. I think of the practicality, hell, I even propose the scenarios myself.
Meanwhile all you got is a narrative. Nothing else. Who knows, maybe I could really like your design if I knew what it was even about- But so far, you just say “ok these things need to go and these things need to replace them”, without actually telling is how would it play out in different scenarios. What downsides are there to it, whatt’s the warriors role and purpise in different contents, what are their strengths and weaknesses, etc. All of that is missing.
You do have a short term memory.
In the same thread I linked, I quote you:
https://eu.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/idea-arms-warrior-design-shadowlands-and-forwards/130296/12?u=atahalni-argent-dawn
“Think bigger, instead of just copying steal things, make them your own. And the popular mechanics while good for the class was bad for the game and removed for a reason.”
…Which, you now suddenly have no trouble doing yourself by literally referring to WOTLK warrior class design as “best to date”- Which can only imply that there are elements from it that you’d copy, just as I did in regards to MoP.
Unless, of course, you omit that I actually never “copied” points, as was your original claim, which means that that argument does go to the bin which I am completely fine agreeing with, since it means that, as I propose in the same thread in a reply, I think it is dumb to try and re-invent the wheel for the 12th time.
I can only create the narrative instead of the mechanic. Creating the narrative in a game-system is important as the people playing it will connect to that instead of the mechanics. The Silmarilion is a gem of a book as it details so many layers of the system that drives the setting. Many people also find it boring and a slough to get through because they find the underlying narrative insufficient to connect to.
I’ll correct you there. Anyone can spin a tale, few people can make a good tale that other people can use to create something after.
Thank you. I find your rotation utterly droll though as it can be timed by a metronome, Nothing interesting happens. It’s boring and outside of pressing those abilities all that the player is doing is waiting for their next Rage allowance. It might be a numerically superior system to the one we have no and narratively it’s vastly inferior as at least now there’s Tactician whose problem is that it’s random.
If I math it correctly, your proposed system would have Overpower have a 3 second cooldown or there would be massive gaps in the gameplay where the player did nothing except watching their auto-attacks, in order for the rotation to be steady against single-targets.
Your multi-target rotation is doable as repeat provided nothing happen.
Your Execute phase rotation has a massive rage-cost of 140 Rage and even though you get some returned if the target survives an Execute the passive Rage-generation would have to be massive. And provided a 3.60 swing-timer, Haste is a variable, as Rage is only given as allowance every 3.6 seconds that’s unlikely to be stable.
You’d be able to pull off the first MS and Execute no problem. The second Execute would require luck or a massive wait and then you might as well weave in Overpower.
You need to think the numbers of you use in that case. In this specific case the Rage-cost.
In my revised-revised version auto-attack would only generate a miniscule amount of Rage while Heroic Strike (The replacement to MS) would generate 30 Rage along with 10 or 15 Rage from Overpower and Tactician would have a “bad luck” protection. This also lowers the insane dependency on Haste that Warriors have which always see them massively OP at the end of an expansion. The combination of the “bad luck” protection and the Rage-generation would make Dreadnought a competitive choice to Anger Management
Single-target:
Charge (+15)
HS (+30)
Overpower (+10)
Cleave (-20)
Cleave (-20)
HS (+30)
Overpower (+10)
Cleave (-20)
Cleave (-20)
Repeat.
At this point Tactician is sure to proc due to the “bad luck” protection. Overpower would be weaved in as necessary and depending on the Tactician proc. Rend would be a result from the Mastery as a chance on hit that stacks.
Multi-target.
Charge (+15)
Sweeping Strikes (Replaces Blade Storm, Snare removal and immunity moved to it’s own ability).
HS (+30)
Overpower (+10)
Whirlwind (-30) <Automatically places a stack of Rend on the target if the appropriate talent is chosen (Cleave replaced with Rend and Tear)>
HS +(30)
Whirlwind (-30)
Overpower (+10) <The “bad luck” protection should had kicked in.>
HS (+30)
Whirlwind (-30)
And from here on the rotation becomes reactionary.
Execute
Charge (+15)
HS (+30)
Overpower (+10)
Execute (-40)
Wait
HS (+30)
Execute (-40)
Overpower (+10) <The “bad luck” protection should had kicked in.>
HS (+30)
Execute (-40)
After this point the rotation becomes reactionary.
Thanks for the direct quote. At least I now know what I’m responding to. What I said had nothing to do with “copy nothing from the past.” As I see it you have trouble differentiating between what “copy” and “steal” means.
You can only “steal,” or “copy” for that matter, something that has already been made. Blizzard have made their fame on “stealing” rather than copying. WoW was essentially Everquest II with their own stuff added. This is “stealing” as they took an already existing product and added their own stuff to it like quests and instanced content. Of which the former in EQII were sparse and the latter virtually non-existent which lead to camping of stuff to be the one to kill it.
There are no original steps in your rotation and other than different cooldowns they’re basically MoP ones.
I stole a system that worked in the past by taking inspiration from the WotLK system and added my own things to it.
You copied, I stole. That’s the difference. Your suggestion is a copy of something that was before and was scrapped due to it being unsatisfactory for Blizzard’s taste. Your suggestion is just a repeat of something that has already been deemed a failure.
My suggestion uses the bones of a system that also failed and adds enough new things to it that my suggestion is stolen rather than copied.
Still leaves out actually making the system work- Regardless of whether you judge your own product to be good or bad.
if there is one thing that is 100%, absolutely true about rotations that all players, regardless of whether they are PVPers, raiders or others, it is that they appreciate one thing:
Predictability.
Do you think that it is a coincidence that in the past (e.g. MoP arms, WoD MM hunter), and present (e.g. DH, Assasin rogue) people tend to enjoy specs where resource management is in their hands, instead of being an arbitrary % that throws a dice and decides whether you can do damage or not- No, let me actually answer that.
There’s a reason Legion arms and MM hunter masteries were deleted in the span of an expansion: RNG resources, if applied to a class, must be frequent and supplementing (e.g. Shaman Lava surge, Old SV hunter explosive shot), not punishing (e.g. Warrior tactician, hunter marked shot, destro RNG mastery in legion) and why even Outlaw rogue, a gimmick of a spec around RNG, is being streamlined to be more controllable.
You call it dull. I call it functional- And I know, based on the evidence from both past and the present, that most people prefer when the ropes are in their hands.
Those abilities (Mortal strike, overpower, charge) generate rage. They are not waiting for rage allowance, they are actively deciding when to have it, instead of praying to god they have enough haste and crit for autoattacks.
Thanks, that’s all I needed to hear. Function over form.
The example I gave out had no talents applied, but even then, overpower is being reset minimum every 2 seconds, meaning you always have it ready realistically, since after using overpower, you use another global, and for the 2nd global, your overpower is ready again. This is also reduced by haste, so there’s that.
So no, the math is wrong.
Of course it is assuming a situation to a cleave fight- Just like sims do. Obviously you adapt it according to the situation, as you do now, but that just gives you a basic idea of what you should do and when.
There are multiple ways in which the different talent combinations I provide allow for much more rage to be generated than you make it out to be, and you might have also left out battle stance’s rage generation increase. You can for example have a bit more burstier rage generation for front loaded, burst executes, or a more steady, constant execute phase.
And even if, as I do say in the post, the rage tuning is off, that is a number tweaking issue- Which, you find throughout the entire post. But the design is a proof of a concept.
Well again, you are leaving out many of the talents, battle and berserker stance, so its no wonder.
Oh, so in your rotation, suddenly abilities that generate rage are not boring- Even when they are literal carbon copies of past or present, lol?
Man your entire post is a walking contradiction.
I do however thank you for providing the examples for the different rotations. However, I, like other players pointed out, have no idea what the hell is cleave doing in a single target rotation. You need only look at the design of DH how cancerous to the game it is to bake in AOE damage to your ST rotation.
Anger management should honestly at this point, having been the best pick since its inception in WoD, be baseline as well.
Yes, because MoP arms warrior design is universally loved by the playerbase. For the record, your own version is strikingly similar with very few differences, save for the fact that it has more RNG- Which is universally disliked. You also have very little synergies between the abilities, which is by the way another thing that players miss.
I do not fix what isn’t broke. I add ontop of it polish: As my talent row, and indeed AOE rotations show, which are nothing akin to the MoP arms save for cata bleed spreading.
Meanwhile you just take an old ability, give it a new (old) look and call it a new. How does that even work lol.
It’s really convenient that you get to define your own terms, but even when you do, you manage to contradict yourself in every single step of your post. Your rotations are, in essence, the same (though there is some weird DH ad-hoc additions), with essentially no major changes, which I find ironic because you have been the one to cry out for changes but there’s 0 mention of talents. 0 mention of stances. 0 mention of broader utility save for wish for self healing, mobility and general cc.
Yeah well I don’t really care much for what Blizzard finds tasteful when these are the guys that, let me remind you, designed the Azerite, corruption, and essence system. What they think is cool is frankly irrelevant, and indeed I wouldn’t even need to be supplying these ideas (nor you) if they did a decent job, but alas here we are.
I’m unsure if you thought this was your big trump card but using Blizzard as a golden authority card of “good game design” isn’t an exactly trending, good example to give, to put it mildly.
It isn’t a repeat. It takes elements of what worked and what players liked (controlled rage generation, executioners precision, bleed spreading, rage cost reductions/refunds, determined procs) while polishing ontop new things (e.g. talents, utility, ability interactions).
Wotlk design didn’t fail. The game just changed.
Predictable is different from boring. When you add a “bad luck” protection to something random then it becomes predictably as the event becomes a “when” rather than an “if.” And that’s what people have an issue with. It’s the “if.” Arms is incredibly predictable right now as the random stuff is really just a to the base-line. It’s also incredibly boring because the interesting stuff is utterly random and the player have no control over it.
You have no understanding over what generates engagement in any activity and think that you do. This is Dunning Kruger in effect where you as an uneducated person think they know more about it than me who’s entire profession is geared around people having engagement in their activities and as such we also learn a lot about it. Unless you know about the ZPD that Lew Vigotsky described, the MoHO model by Gary Kielhofner, or even the Canadian model as described by Townsend and Polatajko in Human Activity II, then there’s nothing you can say or do that can convince of you being correct as everything you describe is wrong once you leave layman’s territory and does nothing to reach your stated goal.
You have to quote sources as strong as mine in order to even get me to consider it because your layman’s arguments might be convincing to the common knowledge and to me they’re faulty because I know that the common knowledge is often wrong.
What are Rage-spenders then? If I go through your single-target rotation with that in mind then there are three abilities that builds Rage before a Spender is even used. That’s 45 Rage generated from abilities alone before five Rage is spent. Then another 10 is generated and 20 is spent. Disregarding Charge that’s still 30 Rage generated before five is spent and another 10 generated before 20 is spent. You’d have to weave in AoE abilities to even spend the Rage you build up just by doing the rotation. And this never even includes auto-attack of which the Rage-generation has to be big to do your Execute rotation.
Given that your Execute rotation is that, since Charge can only be used every 17 seconds if you Talent it, then after one MS you have enough Rage to do two Executes. Even with the refund an Execute still costs 40 Rage, So going by that and disregarding Charge and only taking into account the 20 Rage you generate by using MS then every auto-attack would have to generate 20 Rage, which is such a high number that it guarantees that Warriors are dependent on Haste once again.
You’ve just assigned numbers and then you’ve only done a surface level of math with doing a deeper level of it and seeing how the unsaid stuff have to work in order for the said stuff to work.
I can compare this to Hiro Mashima and his manga Eden Zero. He piles a lot of powers onto the villain Drakkan Joe in order to make him a threat without understanding that the side-effects of those powers effectively makes him God-tier instead of a threat that can credibly be defeated because his understanding of physics and anatomy is only within the realm of common knowledge.
You say that I’ve done no math, in my eyes that’s a lot better than the shoddy math you’d done which have no cohesion to what would be the reality.
We would be swimming in Rage, overflowing unless we actually shed it and we’d have to as the Talent where we get an effect only happens when we reach 100 Rage instead of it happening constantly when we cap and stay at 100 Rage and generates additional Rage.
I know that this is an insult towards me and to me it comes across more as you making an insult towards yourself.
I did the numbers tuning previously and the numbers would have to be tuned so out of whack for this to be even remotely possibly while still maintaining any cohesion to the other rotations. Your proof of concept is flawed and isolated. For it to be adjusted to be working the single- and multi-target rotations would have to generate such a massive amount of Rage that according to the desired outcome they would be broken as it would practically mean an unending amount
of Rage
This makes your suggestion even worse. Arms should have no need to have specific Talents to do stuff as it makes the Talent a false choice where the player has to take this or the spec will stop working as intended. Even the requirement to be in Berserker Stance is bad as no other class need to fulfill a condition in order to work at a basic level. The DH going into Meta is a bonus that they choose to have, etc. The nearest thing I can compare this to is that a SP has to go into Void Form as part of their rotation and outside of VF they feel bad and inefficient because the emphasis on VF is too great. Having Berserker Stance as a requirement would essentially force Arms Warriors to turtle in it in order to even work and only using the other stances as an emergency thing.
Yes, because actively using something that has a result on your performance creates engagement in the activity since you have control.
If a tree falls right next to you and you collect firewood from it the meaning of it is low since you did nothing except being there by chance to get access to the firewood.
If you, on the other hand, cut down the tree yourself and the collects firewood then doing so means a lot to you because you did something actively to ensure that you were able to keep warm.
I understand you think that and I attribute it in part to your Dunning Kruger where things has to be wrong since you’re unable to understand them and in part to your ungenerous attribution to me of doing something intentionally, which is the off-the-cuff human emotional reaction, instead of having merely forgotten it and I had forgotten that you set MS, OP, and Cleave to generate Rage. The math of the amount generated still fails to add up to your Execute rotation and if it was adjusted to fit that then it would be OP for your single- and multi-target rotations.
And AM is only the best choice because the mechanics behind the other two are unreliable. If Tactician was more reliable and Overpower generated Rage then Dreadnought would be a competitive choice. If Ravager was an AoE centred on the player that could be detached if they had to run due to an effect then that too would be a competitive choice since the target moving would lead to constant damage as the player followed them and the damage could be kept up even if they had to run. It would only be in the fringe case of both parties having to run in opposite directions at the same. The problem has nothing to do with AM being too good. It has everything to do with the underlying design of the other two being bad. This is the narrative interpretation I talked about earlier. And this is also a sign of you never engaging in meta-thinking and asking yourself, “what is the reason I see it like this?”
I could have sword that I was a part of that same player-base and I absolutely loathed it so much that I regrettably specced Fury after trying it out. Saying that it was “universally loved” is a fallacy of appealing to an imaginary majority in order to strengthen your argument.
Yes and no, WoW is strikingly similar to EQII with some minor differences, those minor differences are the reason we say “WoW-clone” instead of “EQII-clone today.”
And RNG is good as long as the RNG eventually provides a stable outcome due to “bad luck” protection since most people fail to understand how non-protected statistics work. A 90% chance should in their eyes happen almost every time. In reality a 90% chance can fail 100% out of 10 times and then still happen the remaining 90 times out of 100 and there’s nothing that says that those 10 times can happen in a row.
For more of this see how the new X-Com games fudge their math to be more in line with how the player think it should work. On some setting a 90% chance is a lot closer to 100% chance, etc.
Yet you try to bring back something that the devs, those with actual power over the game’s content, perceive as broke. They’re the target audience that you talk to and trying to get them to accept what you think is best, with personal arguments as the argumentation, without understanding that they think it’s worst is arrogant and trying to push your opinion down on other people. You’re doing the same thing that I’m being falsely blamed for which is telling other people how they should have fun and what they see as fun is wrong. When fun has nothing to do with it.
The design of Warriors is based around fear of what the Arms Warrior in particular has been capable of doing in the past. This can be seen in how every other specs have progressed in their execution while Arms has regressed. This is the case even within the Class as both Fury and Prot is objectively better designed to hit the points that create engagement in the player. And in how things that have been denied to Arms Warriors with the reason “that would be too powerful to be in the game,” has been given to other Classes to make them a competitive choice.
I assume you refer to HS, and I’ve given it most of the functionality of MS because MS needs to go, like BoP it’s an iconic ability, and like BoP for Ret it’s holding us back. This way it works narratively like a familiar ability while it narratively has a name that’s familiar to some, makes sense for new players, and narratively the name invokes the hero fantasy that many people have.
No, what worked for you and what clearly failed in the eyes of the devs. One of the things you blame me for is arrogantly telling the devs how they should do things, while at the same time your suggestion tells the devs how they should do things according to you.
I provide arguments based in science, you provide arguments based on emotion. I only see projection in this where you blame me for the things you dislike and ignore within yourself because if you accepted it the reason behind your suggestion would fall apart.
It failed according to the devs while it objectively pressed the triggers for creating engagement and they tried something new that they believed worked, which also failed in their eyes. Failure and success is objective. The feeling of failure and success is subjective and what is an objective success can feel like a failure. The moment you add the feeling of something then it becomes subjective while at the same time also being objective, it’s complicated to say the least.
Having to add bad luck protection by definition tells that the model is flawed from the bottoms up.
Well, seeing as only one of us has been technically correct every single time about how different abilities work, the numbers of participation and if you do a quick ctrl+f on these forums alone, you’ll find that MoP arms warrior is by far the most requested style of arms warr. Now, I have also tackled the issues why it was changed (particularly in terms of AOE, self healing and utility), which has adressed the issues as to why it was removed.
Your sources have no ground in this argument as said. You don’t, as far as I know, have a PHD in warrior class design, and despite your best arguments you still get the very math wrong you try to tackle me on so it speaks a volume of your grasp on the thesaurus and academic literature you try and shut up the opposition with.
In my iteration:
Rend
Slam
Execute
Heroic Strike
Cleave
Thunder clap
You don’t need a ton of spenders to make a solid class. You just need to make them interesting to use, such as:
Outside of execute phase, Slam, thunder clap and cleave are your primary spenders, the former being for ST and the latter for AOE. Further, with talent tree, you get to decide whether you want more spammy rage use, or if you want a more pooling, big hit rage spending.
Further, nobody is forcing you to spend that rage on a rage spender (let alone to use AOE ability on ST, unlike with your style??)- You can just accumulate it, and use it when you need to. Ta-da, we have given the players another choice, choosing when to use the said ability. And as said, if with larger haste levels rage overcapping becomes a problem, the rage costs can simply be adjusted.
Having excess rage also allows it to be used for utility, if the player so wishes- Such as shield barrier.
So as it turns out, it’s a non-issue.
This is false in either case because in my iteration auto attacks by the warrior don’t generate extra rage. Further, with battle stance on, your mortal strike generates 30 rage, not 20. There’s also talent choices to fit whether you want more rage frontloaded, or more overall.
It’s up to the player to choose whether they want to have more frontloaded, big hit combos, or smaller, more frequent hits. My class toolkit baseline and then whatever you combine with the talents with ensures that.
The only one getting the numbers wrong is you.
Swimming in rage is not a problem, fundamentally, as that is what is even currently (and indeed, in every single expansion) happening as warriors get more gear.
The only difference between this and the current is that instead of withholding the good feeling warriors have to late-expansion, now you just get it instantly.
I mean, only one of us has a track record of being technically wrong- Which you yourself admit frequently, so I wouldn’t put much of a weight on what you think about my opinion about how you are.
Maybe if you took half of the passive effects, talents and different builds in mind, you’d actually get good results but all the same, as said, if the end result would end up being either rage starvation (which mind you, you yourself say the class is swimming in rage, which itself is not an issue).
Do you play your class without talents? Further, did you even look at the talent ideas I provided?
The whole point of my talent tree is that there is player agency and choice. The abilities are balanced for different playstyles, meaning that you can pick whichever you like that fits your playstyle, rather than what is required.
Requirements are not a bad thing- If I had my way, I’d also re-introduce hunter deadzone, rogue facing requirements (e.g. Backstab), and many other things. That increases the skill-depth of abilities and makes good players stand out from the rest.
It’s not a choice, going into meta is done on cooldown.
if you actually played SP in any level you’d laugh yourself out of the room for spouting nonsense like this.
The issue of SP is that you can not choose when to spend your resource (Insanity drains all the time, even if you need to move/can’t cast), as well as having a ramp-up damage mechanic, which are universal failures in this game. They just never work.
Berserker stance is a cooldown you choose to use and during that time you get to do damage- Just like literally any damage cooldown in the game. Voidform however ramps up ratherthan gives you frontloaded boost, which simply doesn’t work in the current game.
Berserker stance lasts only for the duration described in the ability. It’s a cooldown stance, not something you must actively sit in, as in the past. It’s funny you say I copy things, but when I instead turn the ability into a cooldown rather than a dps-stance, you dont even bother reading the post.
This is what we call in the business a pro gamer move.
But your rotation, as per your own words, has less control than mine.
nah I think it is something much simpler.
You just can’t handle being wrong.
Whether it’s me pointing out participation numbers, how an ability used to work, or indeed how what you suggest doesnt even fix the fundamental flaws with the class (let alone appeal to the fantasy players in numbers want in the first place), it’s just a hard cope.
Warrior didn’t have tactician as a game mechanic for 12+ years of the game and when it did the class’s popularity dropped like a cow’s tail. tactician is an unfun mechanic nobody asked for, from a game developer company that thought that people would love the idea of RNG legendaries and corruptions.
Also you say you want to add new things and change things but you just seem to want to rejuvinate dead talents, like dreadnought and ravager nobody’s ever picked in the first place? Their design is fundamentally flawed, so I’d just actually add something new and innovative rather than, as per your own words, steal something and put a new wrapper on it and say “AHA BUT THIS IS NEW AND EXCITING”.
What a wasteman argument.
Ah yes, Mr. Shapiro. It’s not that the ability is GREAT (Which it is, and has been since WoD), and shouldn’t be baked baseline to the spec since everybody seems to pick it, like you know defensive stance, but haha, instead we can just buff the other two choices to make them competitive.
Are you even listening to yourself? if players find an ability fun and time-and-time again pick it, regardless of how many nerfs and changes Blizzard does to it, changes are it should be baseline to the spec, not a talent. great mental gymnastics.
True, I can’t claim that everybody liked it, but I can however point out that a simple ctrl+f on these forum sections alone with “MOP” brings out, 9/10 times a positive view on the warrior back then so in effect I get what I want all the same. Players liked it.
Rng is not good.
Again, as said, I do not much care for the opinion of developers who created innovative systems such as corruption, essences, azerite armor and legion legendary system.
Blizzard not liking something =/= not the word of god, which you yourself prove by being here and suggesting an alternative to their design.
Is this satire?
Oh yes, absolutely. After all, if every person you try to sell your idea to ends up calling out your attempt to try and silence them with your frankly candidate level thesaurus and university dialogue, it’s them that are wrong, not you.
It’s not like you have told several times in this very thread that whatever other people perceive as fun is wrong and that what they think might work are wrong also even when you still haven’t provided your supposed PHD in warrior class design.
Do you genuinely think that Ion Hazzikostas wakes up every morning in bed and says a prayer promising never to change warriors because he got killed that one time in classic wow, which has since seen multiple changes and iterations, by a warrior, lol?
It’s nothing to do with fear. It’s just incompetence, plain and simple.
There’s several regressions (e.g. Survival hunter, shadow priest, outlaw rogue, arcane mage, prot warrior, guardian druid and blood dk) and probably more I could list but you trying to paint this as a solely warrior issue is frankly untrue.
Hard disagree, fury has only gotten worse since Legion and tanking as a prot warrior feels about as fun as sliding on sandpaper. yeah, I absolutely love stomping the ground ever 2nd globals instead of using my actual weapon to fight my enemies, and screaming my lungs out to reduce damage instead of actually just defending myself with my weapon and shield.
Truly an a+++ peak of game design.
Disagree, it’s just dev incompetence. Arms isn’t the only class who has lost things for other classes (But certainly one of the worst offenders alongside demo locks).
For the fourth time. I. Do. Not. Care. What. The. Devs. Think.
If they proved to me they could actually design content that was great and exciting, I could take their views and designs seriously but alas they can’t.
Quote me where I tell you’re arrogant for wanting to tell the devs how they should do things. You are arrogant for sure (as am I), but there’s a reason for that, because the devs have let us down so many times and been such failures there’s no point to beat around the bush anymore.
Listing irrelevant to bolster your view on subjects is a real ben-shapiro move, not science.
As you yourself has said, only one of us (me) has ever been technically correct in every single debate we’ve ever had. I base my view on reality from the past and the present, not on emotion. They’re not the same thing at all. I do not lose sleep over the Blizzard devs failing for the 10th time in a row, you on the other hand seem to be very emotionally invested.
Only one of our arguments have fallen apart several times in the past- Which you have admitted yourself.
Sure, success and failure is subjective, up until a 3rd of your class’s playerbase swaps away from the class to play others and you have the audacity to say “aha but we’re happy with the changes”.
If hundreds of thousands of people say they think your design sucks, your design probably sucks. Just look at hunters who, before legion, had over 12,6% class representation in the game, and then in the span of one expansion (including BFA) went down to 6-8%- Much of that being due to Survival hunter rework.
Meanwhile Ion says that “ahh but we think Survival is great and we like it :)” with his typical lawman jargon while never addressing the hundreds of thousands of people who voted with their feet and just left their supposedly amazing cool class.
Same thing has happened to warriors, albeit in a smaller scale.
It just means that whoever invented it and wrote the code had little to no idea how statistics worked. The human perception is that if something has 25% chance then it’ll happen 25 out of 100 times. In order to have a statistical sample you need 1000 events which turns it from 25 out of 100 to 250 out of 1000. This is understood as YES/NO because it happening is the only thing that matters in those cases. Since there’s no protection of any kind then you can have 750 and NO in a row followed by 250 YES in a row. The statistics evens out and fits the Law of Averages and you have a 25% chance. That you say it’s a flawed system tells me you have as little ideas of statistics as the person that invented this.
That’s your narrative. That you’ve never learned these things is none of my problem. That you go after me in order to defend your lack of knowledge is.
And what people request is what they want and what they want is sometimes different from what they need. This is one of those cases. Your suggestion would only attract the people that liked Arms in MoP and given how much it was actually used for anything other than levelling I would say that was a minority as I only came across one person who was Arms iirc. Your mistake is that you make the loud minority into the vast majority. According to any and all studies done on engagement in activity this is a minority since the findings simply have no match to what you describe.
And you have no PhD on game-design, and as far as I know none exist. What does exist is a PhD related to narratology and I have a UC BA in Occupational Therapy and 15 years of experience of playing a Warrior in WoW, what do you have?
And my math is wrong. That’s a general statement. Unless you explain what I’m wrong in then I’m unable to respond in any way. Again you attribute mistakes I make to me being malicious, stupid, incompetent, or a mix of those three. I see no reason to continue this argument if you’re unable to see it as just mistakes and explain where I was wrong instead of making vague statements that can mean anything and depending on the mood of the audience be interpreted as anything.
Those are over three different rotations. For one saying that I do everything to be technical correct you sure seek out technical correctness yourself as it’s true that you did mention all those things. Your citation of me is also misedited and quote-mined as the full context of it show that I asked for your single-target rotation.
If auto-attacks generate no Rage then using the MS generates 20/30, with Charge it increases to 35/45. That’s enough Rage for the first Execute if we assume 45 Rage. Then with the refund of 20 Rage the total Rage would be 25. That’s 15 Rage off being able to use the second Execute. How is that wrong or flawed in any way? You must have forgotten to add something or did you intend that the 15 Rage comes from Talents? In that case we need Talents to even do the basic rotation. That is far more flawed from the bottom up than any misapplied statistic calculation. The Rage Cost of your Execute rotation in no way add up once the Charge has been exhausted.
And you fail to see the problem in this? No other Builder-Spender Class essentially have endless resources. That’s a balancing factor and the reason some of the Covenant abilities that give Resources in SL are such a huge issue amongst the people who realise what such a thing can lead to. The rise in Rage that we generate is the frequency of which we generate it, which is due to our Haste Rating.
This is a flawed design philosophy. No other Class need Talent X to get their basic rotation to work, Faire Mages needs a full rework since the Spec flows drastically better with the bracers that’ll soon be gone sure. Talent choices changes the rotation to a new one or expands on the already existing rotation. Designing Warriors to need these things for their base to even work is a common though process seen in victims of abuse that are so used to their situation being bad that it feels abnormal when it’s good.
See above. Talents should only make what’s already there better or offer an alternative. If a Talent is needed to perform even the basic rotation of the Class then the Class is going to feel severely underpowered without the Talent. Choosing a different Talent will no longer have a minor impact on your performance it’s going to have a major impact. And yes, I did see your Talent suggestions and then I skipped them as making such without fixing the basic system is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The only Talent where I suggested an alternative straight up was Ravager. All the other Talent suggestions was made since with the changes suggested they would be useless as they did nothing or worked outside of what was already there.
There 's no choice if some of them are needed for the basic rotation. Well, there’s a choice between functioning and vastly suboptimal. Which technically is a choice.
That would only add complexity for complexity’s sake and would ultimately feel bad. And Hunters had no dead-zone as either they could shoot you or melee you. The only class that had a dead-zone were Warriors with their 5-yard melee range and 8-yard range minimum for Charge which created the infamous dead-zone.
Well, popping eye-beam for the small duration Meta is technically a cooldown a CD that’s used when ready and with Demonic does proc Meta.
I do play one and what I pay attention to has nothing to do with the speed of with Insanity drains. It has to do with my performance inside VF vs outside of VF. It’s too large. The best I can compare it to is Execute back when it was such a huge part of our damage that we did noticeably less before we could use it. It’s no good doing huge damage with one skill when we’re unable to ever use that one skill due to us being unable to inflict so much damage that it can be used before we die.
I did miss that on my readthrough, again you attribute either malice, stupidity, incompetence, or a mix of them to my actions. I did go back and read it and I’m rather unimpressed as it in PvP is a creative way to commit suicide and also increases our DPS which means that it’s counted towards our benchmark and can effectively never be used since people have addons that says when things are being used. You just end up being CC’ed and taking increased damage. I’m assuming that you can change Stances when stunned.
It has less predictability, You have the exact same level of control as the basic rotations have their rage numbers add up without the things proccing and when they’re in the rotation the “bad luck” protection makes sure that they can be used at that point. I really fail to see how that’s less control?
Which shows how little you know me and yet you assume everything about me.
And you’ve only said those things you have never explained what those things do that makes them so ineffective at solving the issues. What you’re doing is akin to telling me, “You’re wrong,” and when I ask how you say, “You know what you’re wrong about!” There can be no answer, no reflection, or no defense of my position since I’ve no idea what I’m supposed to respond to. You do look good and strong saying it though.
Correlation is never causation. Many things changed when Tactician was implemented. Saying that it Tactician without having studied in-depth is wrong, especially since you seem to have an existing bias toward the ability.
Yes, their design is flawed and the idea behind them is good. It’s that AM is so much better signed and have some synergy effects with ToM right now that it’s vastly superior. If a good idea can be redesigned from a bad design to a good design it should. Your suggestion is akin to shouting and holding your breath until they’re removed because you dislike them intensely. This is called a preexisting bias and it’s greatly no-no in any design or study. The Warrior Class is already designed after the preexisting bias of fear. Changing it to another will solve nothing.
You have no idea how stealing an idea works yet you keep talking as if you do -_- What you say I do is putting old wine in new bottles and that’s either copying or blatant cheating depending on your pov.
And none of your ideas are particularly exciting. The HS Talent is just a better Slam that adds nothing to AoE-damage, which means that AM or Meteor will be more desired. Meteor Strike, "I’ll call it Meteor Leap from here on since the shortform ML cause less confusion than MS) Is a pure PvP talent. It only does damage in PvE against bosses, I guess it can be used in a pinch against trash as a utility CD. Again, performance wise AM wins out. What people are interested in at the end of the day is throughput and ML lacks that compared to AM.
As for numbers adjustment? The HS replaces Slam so can never hit more than one target unless you use Sweeping Strikes and the ML exists in a state where it’s limited how much damage can be added to it due to the other effects. It would be the premier PvP talent due to the burst and kill-tools it adds. That has to be taken into account as well.
I object to that name. Shapiro would had said something utterly stupid instead of something that makes sense if you put your preexisting bias away. Even calling me that shows your preexisting bias against me and I can see that this is a waste of time. You’re projecting madly on me everything you do. You have no desire in having an argument, you just want to be one that shout the loudest and wins so you can prove your superiority. Grats, you win, you’re clearly superior to the inferior me.
It’s like poetry.
Ah yes
the old “You think you do, but you don’t”, that mentality has worked so well for Blizz hasn’t it.
Arms was the top played spec in pvp. Warrior in general was solid in raids and challenge modes.
I rather take the minority, though I think it also represents a good bit of the playerbase, rather than having 0 data on my side (you).
Correct.
You can list that a billion times and I (and indeed, others) wouldn’t bat an eye. You having a PHD in a completely unrelated field has nothing to do with your argument being in any stronger position than mine.
You yourself don’t even read the whole descriptions, e.g. Battle stance and talents affecting the rage generation, you yourself agreed to this.
So it is wrong lol, by your own admission.
You asked me for damages that use up rage, I gave you them. And indeed you can find the explanations of each ability in the post which again proves you haven’t even read the post so is it any wonder you keep tripping over your own words?
Obviously the remaining bit’d come from battle stance rage generation increase and talents options.- How you want that rage to come, whether it is in a big chunk or by reducing ability rage costs or w/e else, is up to you as the player. Unless you argue you don’t use talents this isn’t I’m afraid a working example.
Looks at fury.
Looks at current arms.
Looks at DH.
Looks at WW.
Looks at BM hunter.
IDK if you are in denial or what but on my BM hunter I literally never ever run out of focus for example even if I really try. I’d have to curb my dps by spamming multi-shot back-to-back and not use barbed shot for that to happen.
As said, resource swimming is not an issue- And there is plenty of proof for that, even in the current game.
Everyone is going for Venthyr atm so Idk what are you on about.
Yeah, but you are swimming in rage all the same. I didn’t say it’s due to x thing, I just pointed out that swimming in rage isn’t an issue or balancing problem- As it currently clearly isn’t.
It’s not.
Looks at elemental shamans.
Looks at MM hunters.
Looks at Frost mages.
Looks at DH’s.
Also you are still intentionally misinterpreting the point. You always use talents, yes?
There is a dedicated row. For rage generation. In the talents.
So regardless of which one you pick, you will increase your rage generation. Yes, you need one of the talents to play the spec optimally, but you OBVIOUSLY pick one of them, so its a non-issue? Further, this means that it adds player agency, as they can decide whether they want more frontloaded rage generation, steady generation, or a mix of the two.
Big, massive disagree.
Talents should be tehre to offer you a way to customize your gameplay. You for example are hell-bent on making warriors a momentum-based spec, something many people don’t want. Now, I personally enjoy a more fast paced warrior, but I know a lot more people want big hit, slower style arms warriors.
Thats why my talents actually give you a way to customize your playstyle. You want to have a more quicker/reactionary playstyle? You can do that. You want to be all about big hits? You can do that too.
You’d continue on the disastrous thread where Blizzard decides “OK this spec is about x thing and x thing only, these talents don’t change anything”, which is exactly the issue with most of the specs. There’s no real choice, because you can’t customize your playstyle. If you are a destro warlock, you are gonna be a heavy hit CB caster. You can’t feasibly play little fires, or more spammy, smaller attack destro build. You just can’t. That choice has been taken from you.
None of my individual talents cause this.
Talents are one of the only ways we can customize our playstyle, and if you genuinely think that they are a secondary thing to handle then you frankly don’t understand a thing about class design or what talents even exist for.
Ravager has never been picked ever since its addition to the game in WoD, and even now that they desperately are trying to make it relevant, it is an unimaginative, boring and frankly curbing ability that has so many downsides to it you’d actually have to be a moron to pick it.
The talent should have been killed in its crib in WoD but here we are 3 expansions later and the talent still exists. It’s a bit like echo of the elements which has been a 100% pick since its inception and it still for some god damn reason isn’t baseline to the specs.
You really want to die on this hill with the argument, do you?
Again. That talent row is pitted with other rage gain increasing abilities. So regardless of which you pick, your gameplay is improved. Which you choose, is up to your playstyle preference.
Obviously there will always be min-maxers but thats not an issue that should be put on priority.
Yes, because you, a person with supposed PHD, would supposedly play without a talent row?
Great argument.
Hard disagree. Requirements increase the skill cap and give players something to aspire to. It also promotes counterplay.
Factually untrue, you could keep a hunter in “deadzone” by remaining within 5-8 yards, and they couldn’t neither hit you or shoot you.
Further if you honestly claim a hunter could stand up to any class in melee range you’d be making an intellectually dishonest claim.
I also by the way think that is cool. If you can keep the warrior there, all the power to you.
Which isn’t a choice, as said, it is rotational.
Yes it is. The top Shadow priests of the world (e.g. Ellipsis) all have brought up the same issue, so this is not up for debate, sorry.
It has nothing to do with that. It’s that SP’s whole damage is hell-bent on borrowed power from essences and azerite armor slots, with CoI working outside of voidform which you as (supposedly) playing SP should work.
Yeah, I loved that in WoD. Our damage wasn’t bad by any means, but its true we didn’t have any burst to brag about. We did however have effectly a delete player on 20%, and warrior dps ramped up insanely on execute phase- Which was a neat niche, but granted, wouldn’t work in current m+ environment where trash dies so quick.
Just incompetence, IIRC.
I think it is another good example of having abilities that you have to think about using smartly instead of “haha dps go brrrrt”. Bubble used to reduce your damage by 50%, for example. BoP used to make you unable to attack in melee. It adds a good layer of counterplay against warriors, which increases its skillcap. However, if you don’t like that, you can opt for choosing avatar instead- Which is a better version, and also has utility about it, and doesn’t cancel either your defensive stance or battle stance.
Crazy, having choices, innit?
No actually, just like nowadays, stances have a small cooldown. They are however off the global cooldown. That’s a window of punishment, if the player reacts wrong or plays wrong, which is good.
Because, as per your own words, it has a random element to it. Mine doesn’t.
That makes two of us, doesn’t it?
Participation numbers: Warrior class representation dropped from WoD to legion to BFA. People are -not- happy with RNG tactician. Colossus smash needs to go, along with this awful ability.
How an ability used to work: See my previous examples about evocation, shield barrier, or many other in previous arguments we’ve had, which you yourself have admitted me being “technically correct”.
You are hell-bent on changing mortal strike, when that has never been the issue with this class. The fundamental flaws with warrior are:
- Lack of adaptability.
- Lack of self healing.
- Lack of CC/disruption.
- Lack of satisfying fantasy.
Your suggestion so far touches only on the last and the 2nd issue, and slightly on the 3r’d one. There’s no mention of adaptability. I don’t necessarily think you need stances to do it, but you show nothing of that.
I have said these points to you so many times at this point that I ought to simply link you to my specific posts so I needn’t remedy your short-term memory all the time.
Name me one person on these class forums alone who asked for an ability like tactician. In fact, I invite you to go on and look at Blizzard’s legion class panel and find me ONE single warrior player who was like “Oh boy, I sure do look forward my damage being tied to an RNG ability instead of deciding my own damage!”
No, they are not. if players do not pick them even after 3 expansions, it’s probably time for whoever drafted them to give up trying to say “B-but it’s a cool ability…!”
AM should have been baseline since legion. Ion himself said that they’d add popular talent picks as baseline for classes, but that has not been the case.
If they haven’t been able to fix an ability for 3 expansions they won’t fix it for the 4th one either.
yeah can’t believe I have a bias against an ability that is so flawed anybody can see why there’s no redeeming it without buffing it to such ludicrous levels it then becomes mandatory to pick, but then is clunky as hell and doesn’t actually make your gameplay fun.
Ravager is -not- a fun ability.
Neither is Dreadnought.
AM is fun. it should be baseline. Replace the entire row with something new and innovative.
it still isn’t, regardless of how many times you repeat it.
…because the whole talent row is for single target damage
FYI, meteor strike doesn’t deal aoe damage. And anger management does affect AOE damage, but that does come at a cost of st damage. Choices, again.
So are many other talents in the game in the normal talent trees (e.g. Psychic horror), so what’s your point? An ability being pvp-oriented is not a flaw.
You can also use it to get out of a hairy situation by jumping to a ranged trash mob or enemy to avoid a mechanic or interrupt something.
Ideally no, but it’d come down to number tuning. However, as I’ve said, if this truly was the case (which I doubt), I’d simply make AM baseline and add a new talent in its place. Bang, fixed.
I don’t see an issue with any of this.
oh god, quote wars!!! run, run for your lives, before it gets you too!
I don’t know who in their right mind is deciding the changes for Protection warriors, but they really need to replace the decision makers behind these changes.
- The Charge/Intervene split
Who even asked for this? The current design made sense, the funny thing is the attempt of inserting a talent choice to “band aid” fix it. Leave it as it is and put a real talent instead.
- Inserting Hamstring
Hello? Make Thunder Clap reduce movement speed by 50% again like it used to.
- Whirlwind & Execute
Why? Buff Shield Slam damage / Thunder Clap damage and don’t insert abilities where they make no sense to begin with.
Don’t just add more buttons ONLY for the sake of adding more buttons. Try to make sense when doing it.
2 Likes
Even if they are replaced then cause still remains. The ones that have to okay the decisions are still rules by the same fear bias as those that made the design in the first place.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.