Mar 6th 2007 4:46PM Hmm. Perhaps I'm just biased coming from a warrior perspective, where not all classes could be equal 1v1, since the only way you could do that was by eliminating class differences. If everyone is going to be equal for 5v5, I'd like to see the same 1v1.
Mar 6th 2007 2:11PM Yeah, because 5v5 pvp is essentially designed with warriors in mind. You get a set group with a healer who will actually pay attention to you, and very likely a paladin who will blessing of freedom you. Of course, you've also ground the mandatory blacksmithing to get the bop axe/mace. And of course, if you want to raid and pvp you're going to have to spend 100g a week to alternate between 35/23/3 and 5/5/51. So yes, at the end game, with a lot of gold and a competent team, warriors are apparently useful. Wasn't that the point that warriors were the end game, scales well with gear, wait till you hit 70 for the good times class?
To be fair through, warlocks and druids are markedly more popular in the 2v2 and 3v3 brackets. Apparently warlocks are just too squishy to be usaul in 5v5, but have much better survivability when they can't simply be assist trained down.
Jan 29th 2007 10:19PM The way that things break down is that rage is a fundamentally broken mechanic in a game that has expansion packs.
Warriors scale well with gear. This means that we'll be underpowered before the end game (be that MC, BWL, Naxx, whatever.) Once we get to the end game we'll either be equal or slightly more powerful than other classes that have been using whipping boys.
The problem is that WoW has expanded its content with dramatically more powerful items several times. This means that since warriors scale better with gear comparatively, with new gear we would be overpowered. The devs have new choices: leave balance the way it is, and allow the "hardcore" warriors to be overpowered, or balance the class around those players. The devs chose the second case, which means that until there is a structural change to the way the warrior class works, high end warriors will be perfectly fine, the rest of us will be underpowered.
Jan 24th 2007 3:36PM I'm from Tichondrius, where everyone knows that you shouldn't holla at Steelballa, our pvp skills are better than yours, and Retrodruid ate a Sulfuras. But Tichondrius is not for you, so you shouldn't worry about it anyway.
Jan 3rd 2007 6:31AM A half second before impact, Gnomercy realized that maybe it hadn't been such a good idea to bet the Tauren that a cow couldn't punt him to Ironforge from Mulgore.
Dec 5th 2006 6:01PM @ Tibbsy, sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a couple of things.
Anger management is going to work the same way it always did, they just changed the tool tip to reflect the way the talent actually works. You will *not* gain 1 rage/tick all the while out of combat. You will gain ticks of rage while in combat, and lose it more slowly while out of combat.
And yeah, if all you do is PVP, you might like the changes. Endless rage should make up for the rage nerf. However, I like to PVE as well as PVP. The 15 points in prot are pretty damn useful, and I can't reasonably maintain my 31/5/15 build to be able to do both things reasonably well. So I can specialize to do one thing about as well as I did before, while losing my ability to do the other. Sorry, but it sounds like a pretty hard edged nerf to me.
As much fun as epiced out at 70 may be, two months of rage generation at level 60 balanced around 70 is not going to be fun.
Dec 2nd 2006 5:55PM No warrior changes in this patch. >.<
Not like there's anything that could *really* use fixing at the moment or anything.