Fury Legion Discussion

[Roiids]

Hence my asking for thoughts. Sheesh.

Peer-reviewing is essential in scientific work, not so much something practiced in pseudo-science, for what it's worth.

I seriously said the exact thing arch said two pages back that any time missing out attacking while you have the buff is a loss. Guess it doesn't count unless he posts it.

- - - Updated - - -

I've heard Haste is the way to go for anything that lasts longer than hero or around 1 minute, so basically; Reaver, Kormrok, Council (though mastery for additional cleave damage perhaps?), Gorefiend, Soc, Zakuun and Tyrant... The rest are either heavy AoE so Mastery would still be better or have phases so physically can't be shorter than a minute or w/e

- - - Updated - - -



Unless I'm mistaken it's simply a case of using Raging Blow over everything except your Droar/Rampage/Artifact combo and Wrecking Ball procs as long as you're Enraged. If you're not Enraged you want to use Rampage or BT (in that order of priority).

So essentially

Rampage > BT (if not enraged) > Wrecking Ball > Raging Blow > BT (if Enraged) is my understanding.


Edit: That is, I've heard we prio WB procs over Raging Blow with Raging Blows damage nerf - if I'm mistaken just switch RB and WB procs around.

WB procs def hit harder and you should use them. Once you get to playing the spec its fairly intuitive to what you should do. When you see a WB proc you will WANT to press it... I even find myself sometimes pressing 2 WW's because of the input lag on beta. Thats how much I enjoy using the ability now.

Currently on beta the shiny outline of the button doesnt go away right away because of lag so you press it twice thinking you still have a proc but you don't. I'm sure this will resolve on live.

[seamusmc]

So if haste is now becoming one of, if not our best stat, do you think the Warsong enchant would now be better than the Bleeding Hollow?

No weapon enchants in legion, as far as I know. DK's still get runeforging, but that's all I'm aware of. You cannot enchant the artifacts, WoD enchants are gated by ilvl 750, the min ilvl of the artifacts.

[Deleted]

I seriously said the exact thing arch said two pages back that any time missing out attacking while you have the buff is a loss. Guess it doesn't count unless he posts it.

You made the same vague/inconclusive/trivial point as Arch did, yes, and I responded to you. Look, saying you waste one GCD's worth of the DR buff to your auto-attacks is pretty meaningless. Yes, it is something that needs to be factored in, but that argument alone cannot be used to dismiss the viability of pre-casting DR, as I pointed out in my previous posts. At the end of the day, the only decisive answer is going to come from SimC or similar.

... Not that it matters terribly (again, as Arch pointed out, it is fairly trivial). It just irks me a tiny bit that the powers that be are so quick to rudely (and wrongly) dismiss relevant input.

[Murlocbait]

Not that it matters terribly (again, as Arch pointed out, it is fairly trivial). It just irks me a tiny bit that the powers that be are so quick to rudely (and wrongly) dismiss relevant input.

I think it mostly comes down to the fact that no one can figure out why you'd want to do it. It's not like DR has a long animation (like old AotD) or a combat cooldown like a potion. You're wasting initial damage and at least half a second, though probably more like a full second, of the buff. You're proposing something that has no advantage and at least two disadvantages... not sure why you think anyone will think it's a good idea. It's not even something I would ever bother to test because everything about it sounds wrong. If i read a guide that told me to pre-cast DR I would close that guide and never look back, that's how bad an idea it is to me.

[Artunias]

I think it mostly comes down to the fact that no one can figure out why you'd want to do it. It's not like DR has a long animation (like old AotD) or a combat cooldown like a potion. You're wasting initial damage and at least half a second, though probably more like a full second, of the buff. You're proposing something that has no advantage and at least two disadvantages... not sure why you think anyone will think it's a good idea. It's not even something I would ever bother to test because everything about it sounds wrong. If i read a guide that told me to pre-cast DR I would close that guide and never look back, that's how bad an idea it is to me.

You're also talking about like a .1% change in dps no matter which direction happens to be "best" it simply doesn't matter lol.

It's not that unlike the casters that pre-cast and blow their load half a second early and pull the boss early. So everyone's potions got messed up, the boss is out of position, etc. If their cast was .5 seconds into the encounter instead of exactly on pull. Same thing, it's not going to make any appreciable difference by the end of the fight.

[Deleted]

I think it mostly comes down to the fact that no one can figure out why you'd want to do it. It's not like DR has a long animation (like old AotD) or a combat cooldown like a potion. You're wasting initial damage and at least half a second, though probably more like a full second, of the buff. You're proposing something that has no advantage and at least two disadvantages... not sure why you think anyone will think it's a good idea. It's not even something I would ever bother to test because everything about it sounds wrong. If i read a guide that told me to pre-cast DR I would close that guide and never look back, that's how bad an idea it is to me.

The thinking was that DR seems a pretty weak hitter compared to everything else we've got, especially during the initial burst. Again, as I have conceded, that may not the be case.

[Roiids]

The thinking was that DR seems a pretty weak hitter compared to everything else we've got, especially during the initial burst. Again, as I have conceded, that may not the be case.

This forum is meant to have such discussions. Nobody was saying you were dumb. Its just pointless to precast it. End of story. If it gets your dick hard to precast it then by all means do so, but its not doing anything meaningful. Most likely a dps loss, and a pain.

[secondratetech]

What did you think of Preach's melee review? Did Fury really get noticeably worst in the last few patch cycles? This is the spec I was the most excite for in legion. He was suggestion that it WAS amazing, but is only average now.

[Artunias]

What did you think of Preach's melee review? Did Fury really get noticeably worst in the last few patch cycles? This is the spec I was the most excite for in legion. He was suggestion that it WAS amazing, but is only average now.

There haven't been any large mechanic changes to fury for quite some time. It's been nerfed a ton, but so was every other good class. It's still a strong performer.

[Deleted]

What did you think of Preach's melee review? Did Fury really get noticeably worst in the last few patch cycles? This is the spec I was the most excite for in legion. He was suggestion that it WAS amazing, but is only average now.

I don't really agree with him on some of the specs, mainly Fury and UH/Frost, the latter two being his favourites. In my view, Fury, with Inner Rage, is a joy to play, and 1) the T19 4P (1.5s extra on Enrage), 2) the legendary helm or (later: and) the legendary ring with Massacre, and finally 3) more crit and haste in general are only going to amplify that. UH is clumsy, I find; Scourge of Worlds in particular, as it encourages foregoing Festering Wound stacks and spamming Scourge Strike, though maybe I simply haven't had enough time with the spec for it to feel natural. UH also lacks the visceral feeling of Fury and many other melee specs; Death Coil is boring to press, and weak besides, and Scourge Strike/Clawing Shadows, an ability you use a lot consecutively, only having one animation feels pretty bad.

It is all subjective, of course, but the above is my take.

[Wraeith]

What did you think of Preach's melee review? Did Fury really get noticeably worst in the last few patch cycles? This is the spec I was the most excite for in legion. He was suggestion that it WAS amazing, but is only average now.

The segment on Fury was very vague and inconclusive; for instance, he used a lot of ambiguous language that didn't really provide any context or justification for his point. I'm not sure what Preach was referencing when he said Fury lost its "brutality," but surely he wasn't just referring to the damage tuning.

I've played quite a bit of DK and even though I think the Legion changes are amazing for them, I can't see myself playing them over the likes of Fury, Havoc, or Enhancement when we're talking about melee specs. Unholy is going in a good direction but it still feels unrefined and needs some mechanical revisions, whereas Frost finally plays like it was conceived to be played, but I have to ask if fishing for Rime procs is really enjoyable enough anymore, but at least Frost Scythe is fun.

I'm almost inclined to believe he's simply burned-out having already played Fury so much in beta.

UH also lacks the visceral feeling of Fury and many other melee specs; Death Coil is boring to press, and weak besides, and Scourge Strike/Clawing Shadows, an ability you use a lot consecutively, only having one animation feels pretty bad.

Absolutely true. Howling Blast feels comparable to Death Coil in terms of impact and responsiveness. Those abilities could have their visual and sound effects removed entirely and it wouldn't change the player experience almost at all, that's how unsatisfying they are.


Demon Hunter feels liked a huge missed opportunity to me, but I would definitely play Havoc before UH/Frost again, though Blood looks like one of the more rewarding tanking specs. To each their own.

[Tellof]

Hence my asking for thoughts. Sheesh.

Peer-reviewing is essential in scientific work, not so much something practiced in pseudo-science, for what it's worth.

Interestingly, he himself has yet to conclude whether or not it is a gain, save for vague comments about "wasting time" that miss the point entirely. And never mind blunt, rude is more apt.

Scientific work requires actual data and very structured experiments with control cases to compare against, of which you brought neither. He can't "conclude" in either direction because of this, but he did instinctually tell you that it is likely a DPS loss... not sure what you expect.

[Deleted]

Scientific work requires actual data and very structured experiments with control cases to compare against, of which you brought neither. He can't "conclude" in either direction because of this, but he did instinctually tell you that it is likely a DPS loss... not sure what you expect.

Only one of us has access to SimC. I did not make an absolute statement backed up by no evidence, I posed a question. His instinctually telling me that it is a DPS loss is, ironically, exactly the sort of lack of foundation/pseudo-scientific approach he (somehow) found in my comment.

[Tellof]

Only one of us has access to SimC.

I don't know who has SimC, but let's suppose it's you: Bring the data. Let's say it's Archi or someone else: Why should they do the work to figure this out after you've called them both rude and the DPS difference inconsequential? You went out of your way to be argumentative and complain that he gave "vague answers" when your entire assertion to begin with was flimsy. If you had at least done some theorycrafting math and laid it out for everyone you might have had a more productive conversation. The burden of proof is on you to provide.

[Deleted]

I don't know who has SimC, but let's suppose it's you: Bring the data. Let's say it's Archi or someone else: Why should they do the work to figure this out after you've called them both rude and the DPS difference inconsequential? You went out of your way to be argumentative and complain that he gave "vague answers" when your entire assertion to begin with was flimsy. If you had at least done some theorycrafting math and laid it out for everyone you might have had a more productive conversation. The burden of proof is on you to provide.

See my edit above -- I made no assertion. Read the posts through again if you'd like as well.

Anyway: Let's hold here, as it is extremely negligible regardless and contributes to nothing but to draw attention from more important things.

[Soulg]

What did you think of Preach's melee review? Did Fury really get noticeably worst in the last few patch cycles? This is the spec I was the most excite for in legion. He was suggestion that it WAS amazing, but is only average now.

Preach videos are entirely subjective and are ranked based on his enjoyment playing them.

Thus, it's not really worth discussing because there are no numbers or concrete facts involved.

[Tellof]

Preach videos are entirely subjective and are ranked based on his enjoyment playing them.

Thus, it's not really worth discussing because there are no numbers or concrete facts involved.

Yes, but in the context of that passage of the video he was talking about it being mechanically better, so the question had to do with if Fury felt better in early Alpha and they gradually made it worse. From what I remember reading, early Alpha Fury was almost universally loved and Blizzard insisted on iterating it to awkwardness.

[Artunias]

Yes, but in the context of that passage of the video he was talking about it being mechanically better, so the question had to do with if Fury felt better in early Alpha and they gradually made it worse. From what I remember reading, early Alpha Fury was almost universally loved and Blizzard insisted on iterating it to awkwardness.

The rotation was pretty well received in the earliest Alpha. It had multiple fun builds, and it was definitely a great starting point. Of course it had it's problems and was quite rough around the edges being the first alpha build, but it had lots and lots of promise. Not that unlike the first Arms alpha build.

Both of those early alpha builds, with today's talents (mostly) and having been refined over the last several months would no doubt to me blow the current versions of both specs out of the water.

Blizzard Alpha tests, where all good warrior ideas go to die.

[Archimtiros]

I guess what confuses me is that BT and RB w/ IR have the same cooldown, so you never have to prioritize one over the other unless you have to move of of melee range. I tested it just now and even with the occasional WW on a wrecking ball proc I couldn't get them to line back up.

They have the same CD, but you only have one free GCD left during that time and there's more than one ability which can be used, therefore you will eventually end up delaying one or the other. If you're enraged, you delay BT. If you're not, you delay RB.

- - - Updated - - -

So if haste is now becoming one of, if not our best stat, do you think the Warsong enchant would now be better than the Bleeding Hollow?

No. Thunderlord appears to be the best enchant by a large margin.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: That is, I've heard we prio WB procs over Raging Blow with Raging Blows damage nerf - if I'm mistaken just switch RB and WB procs around.

Wrecking Ball is weird. If you're using Inner Rage, the best results I've come up with are using it during Enrage but prioritizing RB over it (in other words if RB and WB are both avail and you become Enraged, use RB first then WB). This is mainly due to the low chance of WB overwriting itself.

If Inner Rage is not talented, use WB on proc, prioritized below Bloodthirst and above Raging Blow.

- - - Updated - - -

Only one of us has access to SimC.

Hi.

[Ezyah]

Hey guys,

Just did the first few bosses on normal and i must say i'm struggling when it comes to the AOE rotation.

What is your rotation on

2 targets ?
4 targets ?
5+ targets ?