Rage as a liability
by Eliah Hecht 
Jul 29th 2009 at 3:00PM
Rage is a problematic mechanic, and has been since its implementation. It can be a lot of fun, but it can also be frustrating, and it contributes to Warriors' gear dependance. Blizzard is probably working on a way to redo rage entirely, but in the mean time, I'd like to highlight this suggestion for a rage revamp from Alveredus, a commenter on a recent post of mine.
Here's a quick rundown of Alveredus's proposal:
- Rage increases over time by itself.
- The more rage you have, the lower your attack speed, but the higher your crit chance.
- When your rage is at maximum, you start losing resilience.
- Your abilities vent rage instead of costing rage - same thing really, but a different way of looking at it.
I'm not certain about the specifics of it, but I like the general idea of rage being something you want to get rid of instead of something you want to spend. It makes sense: being in combat makes you angry; when angry, you may be less accurate, more vulnerable, or generally imbalanced.
On the other hand, a system like this runs the risk of feeling like Rogue energy with a penalty. Rogues get their resource back at a constant rate and use it on abilities, but nothing bad happens to them when they cap their energy (aside from losing out on some potential DPS). The comparison could feel unfair for Warriors, who already have their share of penalties for core abilities. But rage definitely could use some work, and I'd like it to stay an interesting mechanic.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Agerath Jul 29th 2009 3:11PM
No thanks.
Eternauta Jul 29th 2009 3:29PM
^this.
Bubsa Jul 29th 2009 3:47PM
Third-ed
Prime Jul 29th 2009 4:04PM
Consider that great warriors were known to control and direct their rage, and when combined with skill became a force to be reckoned with. It would seem that most of you view a warrior not as a skilled tactician but as a berserker or thug.
Also, how would this dynamic affect the tanking mechanic? Penalized for having full rage? In tough fights warriors usually can’t get rid of rage fast enough no matter what they do.
Friday_Knight Jul 29th 2009 4:31PM
Agreed. This idea sounds entirely too complicated and absolutely unfun.
As I've said before the rage system needs to be stabilized to be more like the runic power system. White hit should be totally independent. They don't generate or use rage. They just do damage. Neither damage dealt or damage received generate rage any longer.
Certain abilities should generate rage and have cooldowns as well as individual effects. Heroic Strike could become warriors' standby rage generation ability, instantly dealing a percentage of weapon damage + a bit extra and generating a set amount of rage. Change Rend to do a little damage up front, apply the bleed DoT and generate some rage.
Then we have slightly more powerful abilities that cost rage. Take abilities like, say, Whirlwind off its cooldown and just make it cost rage so that we are forced to use other abilities between Whirlwinds to keep enough rage to use it. Pummel could cost rage. Mortal Strike could cost rage.
Shouts could also generate rage instead of costing rage.
The whole class would need to be reworked for this. Every ability redone. But that's what warriors need. The class is a relic. It desperately needs this kind of overhaul.
Anaughtybear Jul 29th 2009 6:58PM
Those suggestions are horrible and make no sense. Why would attack speed slow with more rage? That is the complete opposite of the berserker theory. Your speed should go up, if anything, when you are enraged. These are just bad and I don't want to think about it anymore.
Rollo Jul 29th 2009 8:34PM
WTH is the berserker theory? I must have missed that in school.
The Baron Jul 29th 2009 11:52PM
Sounds like an idea based around some purely role-playing thinking.
bugmaster Jul 29th 2009 3:13PM
sounds like a warhammer online mechanic to me...
Batmunkh Jul 29th 2009 3:18PM
interesting idea but the point of rage (like mana, runic power, energy etc) is to be a resource for us to manage as we use our abilities, and this sounds more like making rage to be more like a buff/debuff trade off- giving certain perks for having lots of rage (the higher crit chance) while debuffing with the lower attack speed. Again interesting idea but misses the entire point of what rage is supposed to be - the warriors resource for our abilities.
Although i do like the idea of it naturally increasing overtime in a fight.
zappo Jul 29th 2009 3:42PM
It's a resource for us to manage when we're at some "accepted level" for what we're doing. That's one of the biggest problems with rage is that blizzard can't really figure out how to balance it with gear taken into consideration. Which is why death knights got runic power. It operates independently of outside influences, it's something you sort of have to manage yet it's not exactly a catastrophe if you cap out or starve for a second or two - assuming you're doing everything mostly right. Or possibly they could do something similar to the melee mana based systems.
Tyu Jul 29th 2009 3:16PM
Right now Rage is a positive feedback mechanism:
The more damage you do -> the more rage you get -> the more damage you do
If rage was a penalty, it would be negative feedback:
The more damage you do -> the more rage you get -> the less damage you do
Negative feedback loops are much, much easier to control (balance). I say it is only a matter of time before this change is made.
jtrain Jul 29th 2009 3:36PM
I think you're on the right track. Rage is something that builds up by using abilities, but it actually hurts you the higher it goes (forget the crit chance buff, just make it a debuff). When a warrior gets pissed, he suffers a hit/expertise penalty for his wild swings, and his defense rating would suffer as well because he's not as balanced (would affect both prot and DPS warriors). Your stances would offset some of these penalties (prot suffers less of a defense penalty, arms suffers less of a hit/expertise penalty, and maybe fury simply generates less rage per ability).
When you enter combat, you have zero rage, but all your abilities are available to you. Certain hard-hitting, high DPS abilities generate more rage than other lesser abilities. Rage is something you want to keep low...so if you begin combat w/ your nastiest maneuver, you need to autoattack a couple times until your rage settles down, or use weaker hitting abilities. It's a negetive feedback resource, just as you mention. It also makes a warrior focus on what abilities to use when, whether using several heavy abilities back-to-back is worth the rage penalty, etc. I see this system having huge potential.
Beliam Jul 29th 2009 3:50PM
I can see tons of problems with this. In particular:
Warriors would be screwed over in situations where you're in combat but with no one to hit. The Heigan dance comes to mind, by the time Heigan jumps back on the battlefield, the warrior tank is overflowing with rage and is effectively gimped until he can get rid of some of it.
Secondly, it just doesn't make that much sense. I fully expect to tell a new player that, as a FURY WARRIOR, you DON'T want rage, and get a confused, slack-jawed "huh" in response.
jtrain Jul 29th 2009 4:00PM
@Belium
You're still assuming that rage is generating by itself over time...what I'm saying is that using abilities generates rage, but that rage is a negative resource.
As for fury warriors not wanting rage...well, anytime you change a mechanic that's been around for 5 years people are going to be confused at first. Doesn't mean that it's a bad change though.
Grubba Jul 29th 2009 4:09PM
I'm with Beliam here. I don't love the mechanic, but where it really loses is the theory behind it. It's completely counter to the core concept of rage. The idea is that as warriors take (or give) damage, they become more dangerous and powerful. Why would a heavy plate wearing fighting machine be constantly trying to return to a calm state where they have no rage?
jtrain Jul 29th 2009 4:19PM
@Grubba
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. In my mind a warrior is a highly trained fighter who is a master in melee combat. His weapon skills are unparalleled, and his defensive positioning and maneuvers take years of practice. When in combat, a warrior must remain level-headed even though there is carnage and blood everywhere around him. If he succumbs to the rage, his training goes out the window and he becomes nothing more than a screaming barbarian. I don't think rage as a negative resource is as counter-intuitive as you might think.
toddcore Jul 29th 2009 5:02PM
Jtrain. Give it up. You're wrong.
Warriors have abilities/talents with the following names: Berserker Rage, Bloodrage, Bloodthirst, Rampage, Enraged Regeneration, Enrage, Unbridled Wrath, Blood Craze, Death Wish, Intensify Rage, Furious Attacks, Unending Fury, Blood Frenzy, Endless Rage, Taste for Blood.....
From the first line of the warrior class description on worldofwarcraft.com: "Warriors can be a raging berserker or an iron-clad juggernaut".
Does that sound like a class that was designed to come across as calm and collected on the battlefield? Whatever sort of vision of warriors you've created for yourself in your imagination is not remotely similar to reality, and all these ridiculous counter-intuitive proposals from people who obviously don't play the class are insulting. Please go away.
jtrain Jul 29th 2009 6:26PM
@toddcore
Creative thinking is bad. Challenging the current implementation is bad. We must all accept how things are and never question why or how rage works the way it does. It's been the way it is forever, and it can never change. This is a static video game and Blizzard frowns on changing any game mechanics whatsoever, less it conflict with established stereotypes.
/sarcasm
toddcore Jul 29th 2009 7:05PM
You aren't thinking creatively, you're proposing something totally off the wall and justifying how ridiculous it is by saying "It's creative! I thought outside the box!".
Having played a warrior as my main since I rolled him in 2004 I understand that the current design of rage as a resource has flaws and can be improved. How you people have managed to stretch so far from "make rage more consistent and functional at varying levels of gear and content" to "Let's start all over and create a completely new class and just call it a warrior" escapes me. Regardless, it doesn't indicate creative thinking - rather, it indicates an inability on your part to provide relevant thought or insight so you substitute whatever wild and extreme ideas you can come up with.
Really, read all of the comments here. You can tell who really plays a warrior seriously and who doesn't - those who don't and are just in some sort of competition to see who can be more outlandish and "creative" than everyone else, and those who just want to see the problem fixed in a reasonable and logical manner.