Fury Legion Discussion

[Archimtiros]

2/7 bosses don't even have a single frost DK log. You don't see how that could be problematic when it comes to judging its overall performance?

Being fair, it doesn't look much better on Heroic, Normal, or LFR.

At best you could say they are in relatively equally poor positions, but the issue isn't whether or not Fury and Frost are competitive with one another, but how competitive they are with every other spec in the game. Being "last" isn't an issue the way most make it out to be; the issue is when there is a 15% disparity between the top, middle, and bottom.

[Saiona]

plz god i hope they buff fury more. I cant stand FR anymore

[Teranzil]

Well I was hoping for something considerably more substantial than that. We're looking at what, a 5% ST increase? Wow. That might just push us to mid tier!

In all seriousness though, one our biggest issues still remains, and that is juggernaught. We shouldn't be punished by losing stacks for playing well/following mechanics. I'll say the same thing everyone else has, lower the stacks and increase the damage per while making it last longer. 10-12secs would suffice. I think I'll be retiring my Warrior for a while now, it's incredibly hard to find groups for anything even at around the 860~ mark and being in a different time zone to all my guildies makes it difficult to group with them. Two of my alts both around 845 have an easier time finding pug groups than the Warrior, says it all really.

[Einchy]

I think after looking at today's hot fixes it may be time to end my Warrior main this expansion. I don't have time to commit to an actual schedule like I used to, and I don't have time to always be the one starting a group up for Mythic+ and Raids. I'm sick and tired of being almost auto denied for every group I try and join. I'm 855 on my Warrior for all three specs, each one having two golden dragons,but the horrible state of warriors compared to the other melee is a joke.

Anyone else feel like they're getting close?

Inb4: You just want to be top or FOTM Class. I do not. I just wish not to be absolute garbage.

I'll never main switch but if I was the type to, I'd have done it on the first week of this xpack. Only idiots like myself have stuck it out with Fury.

It's ego man. We saw the same thing in WoD.

Their ego made it so Arms spammed WW in WoD. I remember how Warriors did nothing but complain about the state of Arms in WoD during the beta, they didn't listen and then when the xpack released and Warriors hated the spec, a Twitch interviewer ask them about it and Ian said people were loving the spec. When he said that, chat exploded because everyone their knew it was bullshit and they still didn't fix the damn spec.

As a player, it was one of the most disappointing displays of being out of touch that I've seen from Blizzard.

I really hope their ego won't fuck up Warriors in legion.

[GT4]

Being fair, it doesn't look much better on Heroic, Normal, or LFR.

At best you could say they are in relatively equally poor positions, but the issue isn't whether or not Fury and Frost are competitive with one another, but how competitive they are with every other spec in the game. Being "last" isn't an issue the way most make it out to be; the issue is when there is a 15% disparity between the top, middle, and bottom.

Not only does it look different for Heroic, it looks even more different if you look at higher percentiles (e.g. arms being #5 if you go to the 95th percentile). This isn't about whether the respective specs are underperforming but about hand-picking stats just to make a point.

[Archimtiros]

Not only does it look different for Heroic, it looks even more different if you look at higher percentiles (e.g. arms being #5 if you go to the 95th percentile). This isn't about whether the respective specs are underperforming but about hand-picking stats just to make a point.

We weren't talking about Arms, the OP cited Fury being "much better" than Frost, another player cited a mythic log specifically regarding that point, and you complained about the lack of parses within that log, so I provided more information. I specifically used the same percentile to keep the conversation coherent.

Are you even following this conversation or just looking for things to complain about? Nobody has tried to say that either Fury, nor Frost are in anything but poor positions, nor have they tried to say that Arms isn't still in a relatively strong one overall.

[GT4]

We weren't talking about Arms, the OP cited Fury being "much better" than Frost, another player cited a mythic log specifically regarding that point, and you complained about the lack of parses within that log, so I provided more information. I specifically used the same percentile to keep the conversation coherent.

There's literally dozens of problems or plain errors with your assessment, including but not limited to...
- the fact that he didn't cite a log but a statistics page
- the fact that I did not complain but simply pointed out how that statistics page isn't saying what he's implying it says
- the fact that a conversation isn't "kept coherent" by committing to the cherry-picked (or randomly picked) statistics of the very person the other person was criticizing for their choice of statistics - you're just repeating their mistake here

Are you even following this conversation or just looking for things to complain about?

I hope you realize this isn't a private conversation but a public discussion forum. I'd rather not have players looking for actual information being mislead by statistics without looking at the actual context. Statistics are great but contrary to popular opinion, not only do they not lie, they don't speak to begin with. You have to properly interpret them to reach a justified conclusion.

As a side note, many players tend to have the same problem when it comes to simulations as well. When ultimately their expectations aren't being met in-game, they rather blame all simulations to be "wrong" instead of actually taking into account the context and reconsidering the way they interpret them.

Nobody has tried to say that either Fury, nor Frost are in anything but poor positions, nor have they tried to say that Arms isn't still in a relatively strong one overall.

What does any of that have to do with me? I'm criticizing your methodology used to make claims. If your whole methodology is fucked up to begin with, your discussion is pointless and Blizzard won't care much about what you're saying either (assuming you also leave this feedback somewhere for Blizzard to read).

[Karaghan]

Btw i just checked noxxic simcraft dps ranking with real encounter type setting and fury warrior was 14th with around 297 153 dps (865 ilvl)
With ptr buffs that gives us around 8-9% buff in overal dps it gives us around 323 896,77 dps overall so its basically the same as ret paladin which is at 4th place.
http://www.noxxic.com/wow/dps-rankin...65-fight-real/

[Archimtiros]

There's literally dozens of problems or plain errors with your assessment, including but not limited to...
- the fact that he didn't cite a log but a statistics page
- the fact that I did not complain but simply pointed out how that statistics page isn't saying what he's implying it says
- the fact that a conversation isn't "kept coherent" by committing to the cherry-picked (or randomly picked) statistics of the very person the other person was criticizing for their choice of statistics - you're just repeating their mistake here

- Yes, it was pretty obvious I meant the stats page and not a specific log, there's no need to be pedantic.
- You did complain, that there weren't enough Frost logs within that statistics page to draw accuracy, so I provided other stats which did have enough, now you're looking for other things to nitpick to try to make your argument... ironic, seeing as it's essentially the same thing you're accusing me of doing with "handpicked" logs. Unless you want to argue over the use of the term "complain", in which case I'd refer you back to the part about being pedantic.
- There's literally no way not to "cherry-pick" statistics, unless you wanted to compile data for every percentile. Even that wouldn't be accurate for a variety of reasons. Again, you're nitpicking and being pedantic; do you see a reoccurring theme?
- I like how you use literally figuratively, and as an exaggeration. That's definitely a way to make yourself sound smart and superior.

What does any of that have to do with me? I'm criticizing your methodology used to make claims. If your whole methodology is fucked up to begin with, your discussion is pointless and Blizzard won't care much about what you're saying either (assuming you also leave this feedback somewhere for Blizzard to read).

No, you're criticizing me for following the other players methodology after I pointed out the flaw in your original criticism of their not having enough logs within the chosen statistic. If your real issue with them was the having chosen the 75th percentile (which I would argue is actually a decent average point for the higher levels of play), you should have used that argument from the start, not complain that there weren't enough logs within that statistic. The only thing you're doing now is evolving your argument to try to prove others wrong and by extension yourself right.

Either way, you either missed the point entirely, which I brought up in my last post - the relationship between Fury and Frost. Regardless of which percentile you choose, it does actually stay fairly consistent. Judging by the tone of your post, I actually fear you didn't miss that point, and are simply being argumentative for no other reason than to do so, since you don't really seem to have a point relevant to the discussion outside criticizing others.

Feel free to reply with another condescending post. This level of pointless petty nitpicking never gets old.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw i just checked noxxic simcraft dps ranking with real encounter type setting and fury warrior was 14th with around 297 153 dps (865 ilvl)
With ptr buffs that gives us around 8-9% buff in overal dps it gives us around 323 896,77 dps overall so its basically the same as ret paladin which is at 4th place.
http://www.noxxic.com/wow/dps-rankin...65-fight-real/

Noxxic is the biggest piece of (wow-related) shit on the internet. Why people still go there is beyond me.

[Karaghan]

Archimtiros i have a quastion as u are a high end raiding warrior. How far behind the fury warrior is in raid enviroment and what are in your opinion the biggest downsides of plaing fury? I ask coz im not yet raiding and atm (dungeons) i really like it.

[Archimtiros]

Archimtiros i have a quastion as u are a high end raiding warrior. How far behind the fury warrior is in raid enviroment and what are in your opinion the biggest downsides of plaing fury? I ask coz im not yet raiding and atm (dungeons) i really like it.

That's... a really long winded answer.

To preface, for raiding, Arms is currently better, hands down. That said, I think Fury is much more enjoyable due to having a much more fluid rotation and not being subject to RNG. While, I again maintain that Arms is better as a whole, Fury does have an advantage in that it's not nearly as subject to RNG, so on an individual level, it's certainly possible for Fury to beat Arms; it's just not going to happen with any kind of statistical regularity.

Fury takes the advantage in one obvious area: dungeons, mainly due to the frequent availability of its burst AoE. Despite popular opinion, Arm's Warbreaker + Bladestorm is just as powerful (actually more so) as Fury's Odyn's Fury combination, but Fury's shorter cooldowns are better suited to the repeated mass-aoe pulls that are the norm in dungeons. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's one of the best dungeon specs when playing to its strength.

The main failing of Fury is that, like the common complaint of pre-buff Ret, it simply doesn't have a niche; it really just isn't good at anything (funny enough, Ret still doesn't have a niche, it's simply so strong that it's good at everything, funny how those complaints fade away once that happens). While above I extolled the virtues of its burst AoE, that's really only useful in small group situations where target counts are high and health pools are low. Thing is, there are a lot of classes which excel at multi-target, and against stronger, longer lived targets, it's easy for other classes to quickly overshadow Fury's capabilities. This is especially apparent in the Emerald Nightmare raid, with most encounters low target counts and ranged bias. The one thing Fury has going for it is Execute, but even that is flawed; I've detailed this at length in the past, but the short version is that Juggernaut simply takes too long to ramp and favors abnormally long encounters, which is contradictory to the games overall concept of improving your character (aka power/gear creep) and ending encounters quicker.

This isn't to dissuade you. I play Fury because I enjoy it, I don't enjoy Arms, and I'm in a position in which I'm able to make that choice for myself. If you're more worried about performance, the question most likely lies in what kind of content you expect to tackle; if you're pushing raiding progression, you're probably better served as Arms, while if you're mainly focusing on dungeons, lower difficulty raids and other small group content, Fury is fine and can even be objectively better. Ultimately, I maintain that it's still a game and you should do what you find enjoyable, as enjoyment is the point of games in the first place, but the decision is yours to make.

[Karaghan]

Cheers for the answer. Im that kind of player that try to max out to perfection one main character. I dont chase the FOTM rerolling and stuff like that. I used to play ret palladin in vanilla and burning crusade just because i liked it mostly in pvp (almost got the glad in 2v2s with feral druid - two worst classes of the burning legion). Fury is fun and ill stick to it for sure.

[GT4]

- You did complain, that there weren't enough Frost logs within that statistics page to draw accuracy, so I provided other stats which did have enough, now you're looking for other things to nitpick to try to make your argument... ironic, seeing as it's essentially the same thing you're accusing me of doing with "handpicked" logs. Unless you want to argue over the use of the term "complain", in which case I'd refer you back to the part about being pedantic.

Is it so hard to comprehend that I was merely stating the most obvious flaw with the statistics he linked for the sake of simplicity? That doesn't mean it's the only one (as I've described previously) and yet you're implying that's the case when accusing me of nitpicking.

In addition to that, your comparison is simply unreasonable. I'm giving you arguments on why the statistics being presented by the other person and by you don't have the inherent meaning that you're seemingly implying they have. You're accusing me of nitpicking without giving any arguments for that claim. Contrary to what you might prefer, a discussion doesn't end the moment you've addressed a single point the opposition has made.

- There's literally no way not to "cherry-pick" statistics, unless you wanted to compile data for every percentile. Even that wouldn't be accurate for a variety of reasons. Again, you're nitpicking and being pedantic; do you see a reoccurring theme?

You cannot just redefine terms that others use in their arguments and then argue against them. Cherry-picking an item (the item in this case being a statistic) means to "Selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available." (Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...us/cherry-pick). So if I'm accusing you of cherry-picking a statistic, I'm accusing you of selectively choosing the most beneficial statistic available (to your argument). That has absolutely nothing to do with the statistics being available being comprehensive as you're claiming here.

- I like how you use literally figuratively, and as an exaggeration. That's definitely a way to make yourself sound smart and superior.

Once again, I was merely stating the most obvious issues with your post. I could easily go into detail on why the statistics you linked to don't have the inherent meaning you seemingly suggest they have (and the person I initially replied to certainly suggested they have). Depending on how you count individual issues, those could be dozens. Interestingly enough, you're accusing me of being pedantic in the previous two points and yet you're making this point. I'll quote you here: "ironic, seeing as it's essentially the same thing you're accusing me of doing [...]". Not to mention your own false usage of the word "literally" just one line above this one.

No, you're criticizing me for following the other players methodology after I pointed out the flaw in your original criticism of their not having enough logs within the chosen statistic.

You never pointed out a flaw in my original criticism. You posted other statistics that you believe support the same conclusion. My initial point (regarding their posted statistics not being representative) still stands uncontested.

If your real issue with them was the having chosen the 75th percentile (which I would argue is actually a decent average point for the higher levels of play), you should have used that argument from the start, not complain that there weren't enough logs within that statistic. The only thing you're doing now is evolving your argument to try to prove others wrong and by extension yourself right.

I'm not "evolving" anything. I'm supplying arguments as necessary like anybody in a discussion is expected to do. If your interpretation of a statistic is flawed for a myriad of reasons, showing that a single one of them possibly has no effect on the conclusion doesn't prove that the interpretation isn't flawed.

Either way, you either missed the point entirely, which I brought up in my last post - the relationship between Fury and Frost. Regardless of which percentile you choose, it does actually stay fairly consistent. Judging by the tone of your post, I actually fear you didn't miss that point, and are simply being argumentative for no other reason than to do so, since you don't really seem to have a point relevant to the discussion outside criticizing others.

Didn't you read my last post? The point is not to take simplistic statistics and base your claims on those without even attempting of interpreting them (and apparently without even looking at them - otherwise they should've noticed that there isn't a single frost log for two bosses which makes it pretty... impossible I'd say to compare the two specs over all bosses using those statistics).

Here's some food for thought:
If you swap "player damage" to "player damage to bosses", frost is now significantly farther behind frost. This raises the question how much of the damage to non-bosses (which frost apparently has more of) is actually relevant damage and not just stat-padding? I'd argue that the former is actually relevant when trying to determine the "better spec" whereas the latter isn't.

Further (and now you don't have any warcraftlogs statistics to look at whatsoever), how do those statistics tell you how well a similarly geared player with similar skill and similar knowledge will perform on both classes (that's probably the most reasonable definition of a class being good)? When simply looking at statistics of logs, widespread perceptions tend to further reinforce themselves. If a spec is considered bad (and frost has been considered "the worst spec in the game" by a lot of people going by discussions outside of class specific forums) by more knowledgable people, those are more likely not to play that spec which means the spec will be played disproportionately by uninformed players which tend to be uninformed on other class related things (e.g. stat priority, rotation, talents, etc.) as well.

How do they tell you how high the expected average/mean DPS is? How do they tell you how high the expected DPS is at least in 95% of all cases (= how consistent it is)? How reliant is a class on a specific legendary to perform decently?

Even further, how exactly do those statistics show you how well both specs are capable of dealing with actual raid requirements, be it damage related (e.g. bursting down an important add such as Nythendra MCs), utility related (e.g. being able to grip priority adds) or survivability related (e.g. being able to survive through high burst damage on the raid)? You're arguing about which the "better spec" is based on those simplistic statistics alone so you're completely ignoring these aspects.

There are so many issues with just taking warcraftlogs statistics and assuming the rankings directly translate into "how good a spec currently is" as indicated above that it's simply not a reasonable thing to do. The player I initially replied to did exactly that and that's why I pointed out the most glaring issue in the statistics they posted.

Contrary to your belief, I don't believe I need to give my opinion on everything being discussed here just to point out a problem in methodology that's possibly skewing the discussion and leading to readers possibly being deceived.

Feel free to reply with another condescending post. This level of pointless petty nitpicking never gets old.

Calling it nitpicking a bunch of times doesn't change anything about either my points nor my arguments for those points.

- - - Updated - - -



Noxxic is the biggest piece of (wow-related) shit on the internet. Why people still go there is beyond me.

While this part of your post isn't related to me, I find it hilarious how immediately you disregard Noxxic (rightfully) and yet you don't even critically assess arguably arbitrarily chosen statistics based on select raid logs.

In any case, this very obviously isn't leading anywhere so have a nice day.

[Ellianar]

Not only does it look different for Heroic, it looks even more different if you look at higher percentiles (e.g. arms being #5 if you go to the 95th percentile). This isn't about whether the respective specs are underperforming but about hand-picking stats just to make a point.

How do you known, a spec widely dependant on RNG with a wide spread in dps potential gets consistently high numbers when you sort all specs by dps ? I'm shocked.

Hint : these are no skilled arms warriors up there, only lucky ones.Skill have nothing to do with arms rankings. But hey I guess if you can pull #5 once every 100 pulls the spec is fine.

[Archimtiros]

Calling it nitpicking a bunch of times doesn't change anything about either my points nor my arguments for those points.

Yeah, I'm not responding to that wall of text since you continually try to evolve your argument and ignore things like simulation data which has proven the statistics accuracy, and can't help but devolve into being continually pedantic as if that gives legitimacy to your claim. I'm just going to point out (again) that you have have a point relevant to the topic - you're nitpicking and being argumentative for no other sake than to do so. Your criticism of the "arbitrarily chosen statistics" could be applied to any chosen statistic, and doesn't even address the point that was given.

For the final time, I'll remind you that the topic was the relationship between Fury and Frost, which is fairly consistent across all of the percentiles, making your "argument" the only truly arbitrary thing in this discussion. For the record, the points your making with regards to damage distribution, etc, aren't invalid; they simply don't have anything to do with the topic. Whether or not you want to try to find the "saving grace" that the statistics don't show, the statistics do show the cumulative effect averaged out over the raid as a whole. None of the rest has any real relevance, as it's simply not what we're out to find. If you want to do a more in-depth analysis, by all means do so, but save it for another conversation.

While this part of your post isn't related to me,

And yet you feel the need to comment anyway. Recurring theme much?

I find it hilarious how immediately you disregard Noxxic (rightfully) and yet you don't even critically assess arguably arbitrarily chosen statistics based on select raid logs.

See previous: Whether or not you think the statistic was arbitrarily chosen or not is irrelevant to the fact that the relationship is maintained across all percentiles, 75% is a relative average among the high end of play (to disregard the dead player parses, etc), and it doesn't really have any bearing on the topic as a whole.

In any case, this very obviously isn't leading anywhere so have a nice day.

No joke, that's what happens on a public forum when people butt into conversations with nothing substantial to add to the subject matter. If you ever manage to stumble into a point that actually has anything to do with the discussion feel free to come back, or don't, I doubt anyone will notice.

[Sandviper]

Does anyone with knowledge of simcraft care to explain to me how to work it correctly to get stat weights for Fury? Tired of my huntard friend always beating me in dps even when I feel like Im nailing my rotation, getting my nice procs, not missing cooldowns and still losing lol.

[mistahwilshire]

Does anyone with knowledge of simcraft care to explain to me how to work it correctly to get stat weights for Fury? Tired of my huntard friend always beating me in dps even when I feel like Im nailing my rotation, getting my nice procs, not missing cooldowns and still losing lol.

I mean, that stuff will certainly help you and it's always great to want to get better, but Hunters will still almost always beat you. Welcome to the bottom of the pile.

[Deleted]

Beta and their treatment of the class caused me to reroll from day 1 of launch. I was not going to tolerate another WoD style shit show.

It's also blatantly obvious no one their design team gives a flying fuck about warriors.

It really is; don't understand why they're so slow and lethargic with this stuff. Comprehensive mechanic or talent changes can wait for major patches; number tweaks? C'mon.

Gotta maintain the illusion that everything is close to perfect I guess with slow and delayed changes.

I'll never main switch but if I was the type to, I'd have done it on the first week of this xpack. Only idiots like myself have stuck it out with Fury.

The main failing of Fury is that, like the common complaint of pre-buff Ret, it simply doesn't have a niche; it really just isn't good at anything (funny enough, Ret still doesn't have a niche, it's simply so strong that it's good at everything, funny how those complaints fade away once that happens).

Very well said.

Paladins get quality service and regular "maintenance". As it should be. Would love to see Fury and Warriors in general getting the same service.
Would love to see Fury being strong in every aspect of the game - world questing, mythic+ dungeons, raiding, battlegrounds, arenas and duels(!) - without having a super niche.

However, Warriors are poisoned with a countless number of underwhelming talents, traits and mechanics. Why Juggernaut has not been revised already? Who exactly is making use of placeholders like Outburst? How come Ravager is still present for Arms since nobody ever touches it? How come Second Wind went from glorious to super useless in PvP?

The service is poor, period. The team who are working on the class are not doing a good job.
Today's PTR build is clear manifestation for this. Primitive Fury buffs, the result of 10 minutes of hard work and 1000 hours of porn in the office.
These are f*king amateurs wasting our time...

Some players might be okay with this - for the sake of attachment to the Warrior class. How about no?

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's one of the best dungeon specs when playing to its strength.

That's at least something positive.

[Sanat]

As a raid leader with a split focus, I find it infinitely easier also to play fury over arms and perform well. I was playing arms in smaller parties pre-nerf and was doing quite well with the spec, but found the distraction of raid leading (holding hands) divided my focus so much that I couldn't maintain my skill level with the arms spec. I made the swap to fury because it was something I was very familiar with and could more easily afk my focus on the micromanagement of my play do more overall damage with the inferior spec. I probably went from 280-300k as arms to sustaining 340k+ as fury in raid just because even at the worst case I Can fall back on the smoother rotation.

Any other raid leaders running around as fury because arms + babysitting was feeling like to much to handle?

[Snackwiches]

Legion's content has been pretty superb, IMO, but Blizzard's class design remains, hands down, the worst in the entire genre and it keeps getting worse.

They cleave out more and more abilities, killed glyphs, continue to simplify gear, continue to homogenize classes, normalize things with easy to balance artifacts and it's still awful.

The arrogance and pride is absolutely fucking hysterical when these people are legitimately AWFUL at their job. Across the board, no matter where you go from reviews to forums to reddit, etc, the #1 complaint with Legion is always that class design is pure trash.