Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by ridish View Post
    i Played with a prot warrior yesturday pulling around 160k dps on aoe packs. At the end of the dungeon he had done about 30% of the total dmg... Tanks shouldn't be pulling this kind of dps. I think a good way to fix it is to give tanks some sort of upgraded threat system were they actually have to do their shit correctly in order to get the aggro from the mobs. Tanks these days just use thunderclap and go afk.
    As a prot warrior for many years I have to agree with this. When we had 1.6 sec weapons and were constantly watching mobs and tab targeting to hold threat I thought tanking was much more fun than now when we have insta threat and spend all our time watching our rage so we can do a defensive move.
    I guess this is the sacrifice we have to make so noobs that want a tank and don't want to truely understand thier class can shorten que times on LFG.

  2. #42
    Herald of the Titans xebtria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bloody ol' Germany
    Posts
    2,909
    still doing fine in heroics, still pulling #1 dps in LFG heroics. actually, the only real part I realize that it was nerfed was dailies and farming stuff. takes a bit longer. still fun to pull 10 mobs and aoe everything down, try this as a dps class.

    well deserved nerf, anyone who expected this to last was pretty short-sighted.
    I don't think that because of a rough 40% dmg nerf on revenge (and this only at 3+ targets, for 2 target it was a 25% nerf, and for single target no nerf at all) and a 50% dmg nerf on deep wounds (which wasn't by any means the biggest part of our damage), we suddenly become the worst tanks of all 5 classes, especially since these changes have zero effect on our survivability, it's just some aoe dps nerf.

    and for the DK tanks, well, it was already said, that it is a walk on a tightrope to nerf it enough so good tanks don't remain too strong with it, but don't nerf it too much so that bad tanks are completely crap afterwards. they just need more data out of raids.
    Since I don't have a blood dk in my guild, I pretty much don't care what they do with them.

  3. #43
    I really dont see why they are nerfing warrior aoe when blood aoe is far higher.
    On the trash before Stone Guard in MV he pulled over 100k, I did around 40K as prot.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by roflmfao View Post
    As a prot warrior for many years I have to agree with this. When we had 1.6 sec weapons and were constantly watching mobs and tab targeting to hold threat I thought tanking was much more fun than now when we have insta threat and spend all our time watching our rage so we can do a defensive move.
    I guess this is the sacrifice we have to make so noobs that want a tank and don't want to truely understand thier class can shorten que times on LFG.
    I don't care what anyone says, aoe tanking was easy as hell from BC on. Yes you could tclap and go afk if you wanted in cats but now the focus has shifted from threat, which is easy for a good player no matter what and now even for bads - to having to pay attention to rage income and timing to avoid becoming a stain on the floor.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by roflmfao View Post
    I guess this is the sacrifice we have to make so noobs that want a tank and don't want to truely understand thier class can shorten que times on LFG.
    Threat as a mechanic itself was never overly fun, it was a great achievement to be a good tank back then, but in all honesty how many times were there massive packs that required such mantic tabbing? Shattered Halls is the most common example, I can't really think of times back in vanilla that it wasn't just tab > Sunder > tab > Sunder to hold aggro on packs, and bosses were just a master class in boredom by comparison today, Razorgore was probably the most fun you could of had as a tank back then. Not to mention that lack of exposure to how much threat you were actually doing left it down to your magical "feeling", If I remember correct I used 10% of the top DPS' damage as 1:1 threat. Tanks these days can contribute much more meaningfully.

  6. #46
    The Lightbringer Zell the Stormbreaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Flawless101 View Post
    Threat as a mechanic itself was never overly fun...
    I know it’s implied, but you don’t speak for everyone here.

    Threat, as a mechanic, was very fun as far as I was concerned. It built a synergy between a tank and his damage dealers that, since the divorce, has robbed the game of depth.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine View Post
    I know it’s implied, but you don’t speak for everyone here.

    Threat, as a mechanic, was very fun as far as I was concerned. It built a synergy between a tank and his damage dealers that, since the divorce, has robbed the game of depth.
    Maybe getting a tad off topic here, but this is an interesting discussions,

    Obviously I don't speak for everyone here, as I was typing the post I was speaking for myself, although maybe a lovely survey with lots of questions to generate stats would be an interesting thing to do for the warrior community to see how others feel. Also synergy between the tank and damage dealers? What was that then, spam sunder enough and you can do more damage? An actual synergy has developed between healers and tanks now, either by freeing up mana, GCDs allowing more depth of play for both tank and healers. Not to mention that tanks now can contribute meaningful DPS to bosses giving you more than one area to improve (Active mitigation, improving DPS etc.).

    It was great to be that tank who held aggro on packs, but that was a different life time for the game, but there wasn't much depth to it, most of the fights were one boss many tanks, very few really challenged tanks. Of the top of my head, Razgore, Nef P1, Anub'Rekhan, were all fairly different, interesting, and challenging with the old threat but most bosses weren't like them.

    Thinking more about this, community has developed so much from that threat model that if it was implemented in todays game I'd like to think the majority of the community would find it basic and easy to manage. How many clickers were there back then, or people who used tabbed, or crated macros? How much easier would tanking of been if there was all the shared knowledge there is now (For example, I mentioned nef P1, it was possible to hold aggro by spamming battle shout as the buff replied it self, generated aggro from each person it buffed, I'm not sure how common it was but it was a neat trick). For comparison think how hard BWL and MC were and how many mechanics there was for each fight, very few, yet they were difficult for the time. I personally think the same logic could be applied to the old threat mechanics if they still existed.

  8. #48
    The Lightbringer shadowkras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,011
    Really, they could have nerfed the ability overall damage instead of nerfing the damage on second and third targets. That will only result in one or another mob being loose.

    Threat, as a mechanic, was very fun as far as I was concerned. It built a synergy between a tank and his damage dealers that, since the divorce, has robbed the game of depth.
    The threat game was fun. The weapon speed game wasnt.

    Their 300% excuse was just so they could stop the dps'ers from crying for threat removing abilities.
    People take stupidity to a whole new level when they sit in front of a computer.

    www.poepra2.com.br Um blog para quem prefere jogos multiplayer.

  9. #49
    The Lightbringer Zell the Stormbreaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,281
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowkras View Post
    Really, they could have nerfed the ability overall damage instead of nerfing the damage on second and third targets. That will only result in one or another mob being loose.
    They said the problem was AoE damage, and not single-target – I reckon that’s why they nerfed it the way they did (to avoid hitting single-target output which, I’m assuming, is on target).

  10. #50
    The Lightbringer shadowkras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,011
    The difference could be made up in shield slam or devastate, doesnt matter. I dont like when cleave-like abilities hit for all kind of different damages, might aswell bring it back to 2-target revenge.
    People take stupidity to a whole new level when they sit in front of a computer.

    www.poepra2.com.br Um blog para quem prefere jogos multiplayer.

  11. #51
    The Lightbringer Zell the Stormbreaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,281
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowkras View Post
    The difference could be made up in shield slam or devastate, doesnt matter. I dont like when cleave-like abilities hit for all kind of different damages, might aswell bring it back to 2-target revenge.
    Erm… Not sure I agree, though I could be convinced. I didn’t like how Cataclysm basically shoved everything onto Shield Slam because, if that missed, you were left high and dry. A better spread around abilities is preferable in my view and Shield Slam already hits hard enough, particularly if glyphed.

    That said… Would more damage away from Revenge make it undesirable? Well, no; it generates rage, so you’re going to prioritise it in second place after Shield Slam, regardless, and particularly on packs.

    Personally, I’d have hit Deep Wounds and left Revenge alone to see how that went. I find it hard to believe they overshot warrior AoE damage to the extent where nerfs of this magnitude were required (50% off of Deep Wounds, just over 40% off of Revenge). Clearly, the avoidance proc just adds to this.

    I also have no problem with your suggestion of going down the 100% to 100% cleave version that worked so well over the last two years.

  12. #52
    The Lightbringer shadowkras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,011
    Erm… Not sure I agree, though I could be convinced. I didn’t like how Cataclysm basically shoved everything onto Shield Slam because, if that missed, you were left high and dry. A better spread around abilities is preferable in my view and Shield Slam already hits hard enough, particularly if glyphed.
    It was an example. I also prefer things being spread a little instead of relying on one ability to rule them all.

    Personally, I’d have hit Deep Wounds and left Revenge alone to see how that went.
    Same here. But blizzard never makes 10% changes, they are 8 or 80. Seriously, if i ever considered nerfing or buffing abilities, i would do it progressively, not massively.
    Then they will have to buff our AoE threat again because we too low.
    People take stupidity to a whole new level when they sit in front of a computer.

    www.poepra2.com.br Um blog para quem prefere jogos multiplayer.

  13. #53
    Moderator eddytheone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    1,065
    I'd prefer to see more damage shifted back to HS, I miss that : <

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowkras View Post
    Same here. But blizzard never makes 10% changes, they are 8 or 80. Seriously, if i ever considered nerfing or buffing abilities, i would do it progressively, not massively.
    Then they will have to buff our AoE threat again because we too low.
    For real. I hope the "balance" team never does any other kind of troubleshooting (or becomes a doctor).

    Nurse: "Doctor this man is having a heart attack!"
    GC: "Throw him in the MRI, pump him full of steroids, and give him a prostate exam!"
    Last edited by Electromatt; 2012-10-04 at 04:45 PM.
    No world! You put YOUR hands up!

  15. #55
    I see people mentioning Deep wounds for a single target nerf...Deep wounds wasn't a huge part of my single target dps, My ST dps is still solid (for a tank). The Deep wounds change was because in high vengeance situations, my AE dps looked like this:
    Revenge(Or Thunder Clap)
    Thunder Clap(Or Revenge)
    Deep Wounds

    And I was doing ~100-160k dps depending on the amount of mobs. Deep wounds was HUGE for aoe (still is...but not nearly as much)

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Woop Woop View Post
    I really dont see why they are nerfing warrior aoe when blood aoe is far higher.
    On the trash before Stone Guard in MV he pulled over 100k, I did around 40K as prot.
    Because Blood DKs have the highest DPS(admitted by Blizzard), but Warriors are the ones who get nerfed. That makes sense according to Blizzard.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by dd614 View Post
    Because Blood DKs have the highest DPS(admitted by Blizzard), but Warriors are the ones who get nerfed. That makes sense according to Blizzard.
    This reverts back to the scaling arguement that DKs will not scale as well with gear and thier dps will literally nerf itself as gear improves.

    As far as the AoE nerf...big deal really, where I want the bigger numbers in comparison to cata, wrath or any other expac is on bosses which are generally a single target. I dont want to be the deciding factor of whether a dps is good or bad to be "if your dps is lower than the tank you suck" so lets hope with the AoE nerf we can still pull the numbers we were promised on single target.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by roflmfao View Post
    This reverts back to the scaling arguement that DKs will not scale as well with gear and thier dps will literally nerf itself as gear improves.

    As far as the AoE nerf...big deal really, where I want the bigger numbers in comparison to cata, wrath or any other expac is on bosses which are generally a single target. I dont want to be the deciding factor of whether a dps is good or bad to be "if your dps is lower than the tank you suck" so lets hope with the AoE nerf we can still pull the numbers we were promised on single target.
    Considering the amount of rankings I'd say that tanks are still pulling retarded damage so...

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by dd614 View Post
    Because Blood DKs have the highest DPS(admitted by Blizzard), but Warriors are the ones who get nerfed. That makes sense according to Blizzard.
    Don't forget that for a blood DK to spam his OP blood boil, he has to sacrifice his active mitigation. This is by no way relevant in heroic dungeons and to a lesser extent challenge modes, but good luck keeping him up on heroic guardians if he is trying to HS or BB to gain more dps. In comparion, our thunder clap is free and our revenge actually generates rage and is a part of our main rotation.

    So on raid bosses we are still in a good position. In heroic dungeons, who cares because all the tanks usually top the meters because it is so ridiculously easy that you can pull whole rooms at a time. The only place where I am outraged that DKs got to keep their aoe dps is challenge modes. As long as you can complete them on your warrior (and you can) what does it matter?

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Laqweeta View Post
    Lower damage = lower threat generation. All Warrior's have a right to get upset over this. It's ridiculous.
    Don't play the threat card. You can sneeze at a mob and hold Aggro. You don't need to be doing 180k dps for aoe threat, the notion that you would honestly believe that this is a legitimate hit to your threat is absurd. There's still no way ANYONE will pull off you, unless you're just not in defensive stance. Threat is so unbelievably easy right now, I can't believe someone even mentioned it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •