Do you think Stance of the Gladiator will successfully allow prot to be viable dps?

[Raugnaut]

Ah, alright. Hadn't seen that so I take it all back.

Gotta admit, suddenly a lot more interesting for me. I'd stuck to the idea of it being a powered up Def Stance so it hadn't crossed my mind at all that we could have a Sword and Board DPS spec. As a fan of the Sword and Board Warrior type, I'd love to play my warrior in MoP as a Tank and a DPS using a shield!

What Skiboy said. You should probably pay more attention to the details before you go calling out other people. Anyway, yea, turns prot into a dps spec, lots of controversy, have to wait till beta to see what really happens.

[Deleted]

What Skiboy said. You should probably pay more attention to the details before you go calling out other people. Anyway, yea, turns prot into a dps spec, lots of controversy, have to wait till beta to see what really happens.

I didnt call out anyone. I spoke my mind, stated I didnt have all the facts, was corrected and subsequentially amended what I previously said.

Im not going to sift through all the posts here and go through old tweets. I got way bettter things to do.

What were you saying about calling people out?

[addlurch]

Hell. I'd even settle for a glyph for arms that let me wield a cosmetic shield (no stats) and changed my colossus smash animation into a shield slam animation.

Now this is a good idea.

[Recke]

Pardon for not reading everything, but it really comes down to how it's utilized, I feel. If I recall from Blizzcon, the numbers for level 100 was supposed to be similar to WotLK-era. That being said, at the start, 3k dps was decent. It scaled well into the rest of the expac as ICC had an increasing damage buff, and ToC offered many ways to increase damage (Twin Valks, specifically, or AoE or spellsteal-able buffs), but if I recall, 20-30k was average (I could be wrong, if so, someone let me know).

On that note, we'd have to know if Gladiator stance was a complete swap of Defensive Stance (do we lose the damage reduction of Defensive Stance to gain the damage dealt buff) or if we gained the flat benefit on top. We'd also have to know the dps numbers for that tier, as 3k (start of expac/assumed), the 1k dps from Blade Barrier would greatly outweigh it. Towards the middle/end, it's called into debate.

We also need to know if Gladiator stance (based on the swap or addition to Defensive Stance) is intended for tanking, or for Prot Warriors who aren't needed to tank to be able to dps for a fight without being too much of a hindrance.

I just wanted to restate my skeptical-ness.

[Raugnaut]

Pardon for not reading everything, but it really comes down to how it's utilized, I feel. If I recall from Blizzcon, the numbers for level 100 was supposed to be similar to WotLK-era. That being said, at the start, 3k dps was decent. It scaled well into the rest of the expac as ICC had an increasing damage buff, and ToC offered many ways to increase damage (Twin Valks, specifically, or AoE or spellsteal-able buffs), but if I recall, 20-30k was average (I could be wrong, if so, someone let me know).

On that note, we'd have to know if Gladiator stance was a complete swap of Defensive Stance (do we lose the damage reduction of Defensive Stance to gain the damage dealt buff) or if we gained the flat benefit on top. We'd also have to know the dps numbers for that tier, as 3k (start of expac/assumed), the 1k dps from Blade Barrier would greatly outweigh it. Towards the middle/end, it's called into debate.

We also need to know if Gladiator stance (based on the swap or addition to Defensive Stance) is intended for tanking, or for Prot Warriors who aren't needed to tank to be able to dps for a fight without being too much of a hindrance.

I just wanted to restate my skeptical-ness.

A bit off on the numbers. 20-30k was far above what was done during wrath. Start of wrath saw average dps numbers around 2k, with higher ones being 4k. The first LK 25 heroic kill had most dps doing about 13-18k, with the 10% damage buff. Average at the end of wrath was 7-8k.

As for numbers, we aren't being shrunk quite to wrath numbers. Health pools in the demo was about 50-60k for lvl 90 in 550 ilvl as a dps, which was about 25-30k more health then dps during ICC.

So, I'm anticipating lvl 100 numbers being similar to cata.

Also, its already been confirmed that Glad stance IS a complete swap of defensive stance.

[Recke]

A bit off on the numbers. 20-30k was far above what was done during wrath. Start of wrath saw average dps numbers around 2k, with higher ones being 4k. The first LK 25 heroic kill had most dps doing about 13-18k, with the 10% damage buff. Average at the end of wrath was 7-8k.

Yeah, I was running number strictly based on available buffs (ICC raid buff, Twin Valk empowers, etc), so didn't know unbuffed.

So, I'm anticipating lvl 100 numbers being similar to cata.

Hmm, if we go back to cata-esque, the 'squish' won't seem too bad, which (for me) is kind of sad. I was/am expecting a big enough squish where they won't have to do it again expac after expac.

Also, its already been confirmed that Glad stance IS a complete swap of defensive stance.

Thanks for the info on that one.

[Deleted]

I am looking forward to this talent.. i always wanted to be a sword & shield dps.. why wouldn't it make sense?? .. also why do some people fight the idea.. makes no sense to fight something like that or hoping that it will suck so much that DPS wont take it in raids.. i mean come on.. this is a good thing

Fuck balance.. let's have some fun.

[Raugnaut]

Hmm, if we go back to cata-esque, the 'squish' won't seem too bad, which (for me) is kind of sad. I was/am expecting a big enough squish where they won't have to do it again expac after expac.

Unless they come out with a radically new power progression system, they will ALWAYS have to do a squish after at least 2 expansions, and, the way gear seems to be looking, probably EVERY expansion. WoD seems to be using the same gear progression as T16, which is many huge jumps in gear. Granted, we haven't seen the actual ilvl jumps yet, but its probably gonna be many large jumps. Expect another 100+ ilvl jump from start of T17-end of T19.

[Archimtiros]

Unless they come out with a radically new power progression system, they will ALWAYS have to do a squish after at least 2 expansions, and, the way gear seems to be looking, probably EVERY expansion. WoD seems to be using the same gear progression as T16, which is many huge jumps in gear. Granted, we haven't seen the actual ilvl jumps yet, but its probably gonna be many large jumps. Expect another 100+ ilvl jump from start of T17-end of T19.

They said they want slightly smaller jumps between tiers, but I would expect them to start squishing after each expansion or two. Not sure exactly how hard that is from a developer perspective but it makes good sense. Keep in mind they don't necessarily have to squish us back to the same place each time either.

[villie]

I don't see why they just don't save their time in the long run and squish the stats down to what they were in the BC? Perhaps adjusting the rest of the world to conform to these stats is not doable before WoD is due?

Just seems like it would be a better plan in the long run?

[Raugnaut]

I don't see why they just don't save their time in the long run and squish the stats down to what they were in the BC? Perhaps adjusting the rest of the world to conform to these stats is not doable before WoD is due?

Just seems like it would be a better plan in the long run?

The way they squished the stats was to alter the algorithms of the amount of stat on the gear per ilvl increase- they stated it was down to 6% of what it originally was.

Also, you have to consider the amount of power loss PER lvl. If they reduced it all the way down to TBC lvls, 70s would be able to kill 80s who would be able to kill 90s who might be able to kill 100s. Reducing it down to what seems to be lvl 81-82 stats is more then enough.

I'm personally hoping that blizzard will just go with the MEGA thing next "squish". By the way it looks, they will have to squish either every expansion or every other expansion.

Also, its getting OT. We are discussing Stance of the Gladiator, NOT item squishing.

[fwc577]

I see no reason why blizz shouldn't apply this to all tanking specs, etc. The flavor/rotation should be the deciding factor for a spec, not necessarily the specs role.

Oh, please, yes. I long for the day when I can resume Blood DPS. I miss Blood DPS.

[Vintersol]

A sword & board dps spec is something that i desire since ages in an mmo. Sounds interesting but i doubt, it will be a viable high end dps spec.

[crakerjack]

Prot dps is very stupid... the people that want it are the same players that don't know what makes a good game. They're the same players that complained about no new class or race for next expansion... it's the same people who think the game is still kicking strong when it's clearly in a spiral downturn. Not only does it not add up logically to use a shield when you're not being attacked, but it's completely 100% noobish. Making prot a dps spec will only make the game unbalanced, because on top of all that survivability, they'll obtain new offensive abilities to make up for the shield. Threads like this only suggest that I'm right about WoW going downhill... why else would people be so desperate to have prot as a dps spec when there's already 2 specs? It's because they're bored of the game and want to mix things up, well sorry chaps, but stupid changes like these ruin the game.

[Raugnaut]

Prot dps is very stupid... the people that want it are the same players that don't know what makes a good game. They're the same players that complained about no new class or race for next expansion... it's the same people who think the game is still kicking strong when it's clearly in a spiral downturn. Not only does it not add up logically to use a shield when you're not being attacked, but it's completely 100% noobish. Making prot a dps spec will only make the game unbalanced, because on top of all that survivability, they'll obtain new offensive abilities to make up for the shield. Threads like this only suggest that I'm right about WoW going downhill... why else would people be so desperate to have prot as a dps spec when there's already 2 specs? It's because they're bored of the game and want to mix things up, well sorry chaps, but stupid changes like these ruin the game.

Why do you even care? Your shaman is STILL at 85, which, to me, means that you don't even play.

So, let me see... since ancient times, most warriors in combat didn't use 2 handed weapons, nor did they use 2 weapons, they used a sword and shield. Shields can also be used to bash people. There are many, many games where a dps-type playstyle uses a shield, AND uses it to attack. So, yea saying that its "not logical" to use a shield when you aren't being attacked is foolish, when many, many things prove otherwise.

Please explain how making prot a dps spec will make the game unbalanced. I already put in a post from a PvP perspective, and basically, you gain extra health, but loose out on defensive stance, and the awesome CD that is die by the sword, as well as giving up arm's burst capability. Not really unbalanced at all. As for the 2 specs, there are a number of classes with 3 dps specs, 2 of the classes have all 3 specs nearly the same as the others.

New and interesting playstyles, as long as they are balanced, can only bring fun. You, Crackerjack, need to block mmo-champ, and all sorts of other WoW-based websites, as you obviously have quit, so why should you care anything about the game in the future?

[Recke]

So, let me see... since ancient times, most warriors in combat didn't use 2 handed weapons, nor did they use 2 weapons, they used a sword and shield. Shields can also be used to bash people.

To further this topic, remember the movie 300? Spartans, as well known as they already are, received a great deal more attention after this hit theaters. The use of a shield in fights was both an offensive and a defensive weapon.

And who doesn't admire a Spartan?

[Deleted]

It's in the game to make prot pvp viable.

[Archimtiros]

To further this topic, remember the movie 300? Spartans, as well known as they already are, received a great deal more attention after this hit theaters. The use of a shield in fights was both an offensive and a defensive weapon.

And who doesn't admire a Spartan?

Sorry to burst your bubble but that movies style of combat was a joke (as was almost everything else in the movie, it wasn't even very historically accurate aside from the battle in general and the place it happened. I love how the naval battle always gets glossed over in movies too). Sure it was fun to watch though.

Shields have always been used to bash, but not as much as you'd think. Shields are big. Shields are heavy. It's not as simple as swinging your arm out every 5 seconds and smacking someone in the face. Generally they'd be used to push more than "slam" an opponent. Even with the smaller buckler style Shields were rarely used as "weapons"; a bash is not an attack so much as a move designed to disorient, disarm or mask your attempt to put your sword through the enemies stomach.
Nobody kills with a Shield unless they've run out of all other options (and get pretty lucky to boot).

The majority of their use has always been defense. If you really wanted to be historically accurate; wouldn't "defending yourself first and using the shield to bash second" (Prot) be apt than "ignoring most/all defensive benefits and only using the shield to attack?" (Glad).

For an Army, the true power of the Shield, as both the Greeks and Romans used to extreme effectiveness was the "shield wall" in which shields would be interlocked to cover eachother. Actual warfare very rarely devolved into the massive individual melees you see in 300 or Sparticus, it simply isn't their strength.

For individuals, not quite so much with the Roman or the Greeks, but "dual wield" fighting has been (rarely) seen throughout history, as has the use of 2hrs. The Japanese, Viking, and Scottish used 2hrs to great effect (Spears, Axes and Swords). They weren't fast melee weapons by any means. Often used as first strike weapons, then dropped in favor of something lighter and easier to use.

Even in modern times there is a German School of Fencing based around the historical system of combat taught in the Holy Roman Empire in the Late Medieval, Renaissance and Early Modern periods (14th to 17th centuries).

Yes, in reality you will never see an army of people running around whirlwinding with two 2h weapons. But then you won't see any heroic throws, heroic leaps, chain lightnings, turning people into frogs, summoning demons or riding dragons either.

TLDR: Stop trying to use history as a reason for gameplay. You are usually wrong, and it doesn't matter in a fantasy setting.

[Deleted]

I'd love to play a sword and board dps.

[Recke]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that movies style of combat was a joke (as was almost everything else in the movie, it wasn't even very historically accurate aside from the battle in general and the place it happened. I love how the naval battle always gets glossed over in movies too). Sure it was fun to watch though.

Well of course, but that's what makes it fun. Ever seen two knights fight with large swords (2 handed)? It's not nearly as exciting as one would imagine.

The majority of their use has always been defense. If you really wanted to be historically accurate; wouldn't "defending yourself first and using the shield to bash second" (Prot) be apt than "ignoring most/all defensive benefits and only using the shield to attack?" (Glad).

No argument there, but the whole situation of anyone "ignoring most/all defensive benefits and only" attack could be commented as the obvious turn of events in any game that utilizes a threat system where most damage (regardless of reason) is focused on a single target.
Why would a 30 foot tall dragon only attack the one target while 9/24/39 other people attacking him are grouped up adjacent to him?

TLDR: Stop trying to use history as a reason for gameplay. You are usually wrong, and it doesn't matter in a fantasy setting.

To further this topic, remember the movie 300? Spartans, as well known as they already are, received a great deal more attention after this hit theaters. The use of a shield in fights was both an offensive and a defensive weapon.

I feel I should of specified the use of the shield in "their," but I was referring to the movie. Unless you thought that the movie, which is based on a comic based on an event in history was going to be 100% accurate. Or, perhaps you thought that the long gone, historical Spartans physically hit a theater?