Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    While there are some PvE situations that could cause troubles, the PvP scene is going to be the one to watch... there's a reason you can't switch specs in the middle of organized PvP, but this talent circumvents it. I completely understand why they're trying to do it as they are right now, but I think the execution is a bit off even if the intent is proper.
    What if switching in/out of Glad Stance took as long as spec changing and had the same restrictions?

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    What if switching in/out of Glad Stance took as long as spec changing and had the same restrictions?
    That'd be perfectly fine. I'd still question the vehicle via a talent, but there's honestly not much they can do about it with the current structure they have. To be clear, I'm okay with there being a method of Prot Warrs being able to use their prot gear to DPS under the WoD model of gear being viable for all specs (minus trinkets/rings).

    Be that as it may, the other issue is whether Glad. Stance would end up being better than the other two DPS specs. I don't want to delve into it too much since this is a druid forum, but there's quite a few issues that could pop up that do parallel with bearcatting and the balancing nightmare that it was (even if the situation isn't exactly the same). In the end, it might be better for Blizz to bite the bullet and just tell Prot Warrs to get another weapon if they want to DPS.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    Be that as it may, the other issue is whether Glad. Stance would end up being better than the other two DPS specs. I don't want to delve into it too much since this is a druid forum, but there's quite a few issues that could pop up that do parallel with bearcatting and the balancing nightmare that it was (even if the situation isn't exactly the same). In the end, it might be better for Blizz to bite the bullet and just tell Prot Warrs to get another weapon if they want to DPS.
    All issues with bearcatting stemmed from being able to do both in the same fight. Glad stance prevents this from happening by only being changeable out of combat. The issue that forced the separation was the new spec system itself, since we would have ended up with not just 90% of a tank and 90% of a DPS, but 100% of each in the same character, with nothing to stop them from just switching back and forth midfight.

    If they're happy with how Glad Stance works, Warriors might just end up with four specs as well, but for now, a talent is pretty much the only sensible option.

  4. #184
    I like second message. I dont feel butthurt.

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    All issues with bearcatting stemmed from being able to do both in the same fight. Glad stance prevents this from happening by only being changeable out of combat. The issue that forced the separation was the new spec system itself, since we would have ended up with not just 90% of a tank and 90% of a DPS, but 100% of each in the same character, with nothing to stop them from just switching back and forth midfight.

    If they're happy with how Glad Stance works, Warriors might just end up with four specs as well, but for now, a talent is pretty much the only sensible option.
    No, having it sit in Beta till they are happy with how it works enough to then make it a spec is the only sensible option.

    If they are doing this, they need to merge Cat and Bear back into a single DPS spec (With both cat and bear being viable as DPS) and then give it a talent to turn it into a tanking spec via a talent (maybe let Cats do DK style avoidance tanking or something) and giving prot paladins a DPS talent as well.

    I honestly don't see why blizzard has this major hard-on for warriors, they have seemed to have one for the entirety of this game as far back as vanilla and only rarely have they ever been weak and typically fixed rather quickly while others they will actually leave that way for huge extended lengths of time.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    If they are doing this, they need to merge Cat and Bear back into a single DPS spec (With both cat and bear being viable as DPS) and then give it a talent to turn it into a tanking spec via a talent (maybe let Cats do DK style avoidance tanking or something) and giving prot paladins a DPS talent as well.
    This is pretty childish, frankly. "He's getting a treat, why am i not getting one?!?!" Because you're not him. They don't "need" to do anything, especially not for you.

    This doesn't have anything to do with warrior-hardons or anything, they just had an idea and are trying it out. It's fairly easy to do for prot warriors, so they went ahead with that. If it doesn't work out, it's far easier to remove a talent than a spec.

  7. #187
    If they are doing this, they need to merge Cat and Bear back into a single DPS spec (With both cat and bear being viable as DPS) and then give it a talent to turn it into a tanking spec via a talent (maybe let Cats do DK style avoidance tanking or something) and giving prot paladins a DPS talent as well.
    In what way would this not create more problems than it solves?

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle View Post
    In what way would this not create more problems than it solves?
    That's my overarching concern with Glad Stance, as it will cause more problems than it solves. I know Glad. Stance isn't bearcatting by a long shot, but it may make similar balancing mistakes that came with bearcatting. It may come down to deciding between allowing Prot Warrs to DPS with a shield, creating a new stance and abilities to accommodate this, and ensuring the abilities/scaling is good enough to compete with Arms/Fury but not so good that warriors default to sword-and-board if they're primary DPS, ensuring that the system isn't abusive throughout PvE/PvP... or Blizz saying "Prot Warrs, get another weapon and play Fury/Arms to DPS." The latter is immensely easier to accomplish than the former.

    Currently it's early enough to mess around with Glad. Stance, but the concept itself lends to high risk of similar problems that should have been lessons learned with bearcatting and the balancing nightmare it was.

    *edit* - Forgot to mention, I think it would make a LOT more sense to have Arms/Fury abilities have damage calculations that account for sword-and-board (similar to different calculations for dual-wielding and 2Hers).
    Last edited by exochaft; 2014-05-01 at 11:09 PM.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    That's my overarching concern with Glad Stance, as it will cause more problems than it solves. I know Glad. Stance isn't bearcatting by a long shot, but it may make similar balancing mistakes that came with bearcatting. It may come down to deciding between allowing Prot Warrs to DPS with a shield, creating a new stance and abilities to accommodate this, and ensuring the abilities/scaling is good enough to compete with Arms/Fury but not so good that warriors default to sword-and-board if they're primary DPS, ensuring that the system isn't abusive throughout PvE/PvP... or Blizz saying "Prot Warrs, get another weapon and play Fury/Arms to DPS." The latter is immensely easier to accomplish than the former.

    Currently it's early enough to mess around with Glad. Stance, but the concept itself lends to high risk of similar problems that should have been lessons learned with bearcatting and the balancing nightmare it was.

    *edit* - Forgot to mention, I think it would make a LOT more sense to have Arms/Fury abilities have damage calculations that account for sword-and-board (similar to different calculations for dual-wielding and 2Hers).
    And the simplest way to balance Gladiator Stance is to make it replace Defensive Stance. The talent is the choice to be a tank or not; if you want to resume tanking then remove the talent.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Trubo View Post
    And the simplest way to balance Gladiator Stance is to make it replace Defensive Stance. The talent is the choice to be a tank or not; if you want to resume tanking then remove the talent.
    If that's the intent of the talent, so be it. However, as implemented the talent tries to have your cake and eat it, too. Even if it does replace Defensive Stance, the work involved to make it work is akin to making a completely new spec. It's like druids getting Uber Bear Form with a talent with similar restrictions to allow us to DPS as a bear instead of switching to Feral/Balance... cool idea, no way in hell do I think it will be feasible to implement/balance well against Feral and Balance.

    I'm still under the assumption that the talent is a vehicle to allow Prot. Warriors to DPS with tank gear. I could be wrong, however I believe that assumption makes the most sense... even if I still think Blizz is walking into a balancing nightmare with their current scenario.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  11. #191
    I'm still under the assumption that the talent is a vehicle to allow Prot. Warriors to DPS with tank gear. I could be wrong, however I believe that assumption makes the most sense... even if I still think Blizz is walking into a balancing nightmare with their current scenario.
    No such thing as "tank" gear anymore since every secondary stat has both offensive and defensive value for tanks.

  12. #192
    I wish glad stance would be best for pvp and pve just to make people mad

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Teye View Post
    Yeah, you're clueless.

    You cannot change into or out of this stance during combat.

    That's the difference.

    /thread, get lost.
    Holy fucking angry FotM Warrior re-roll. You don't have to try and defend a talent you don't even have yet.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    This is pretty childish, frankly. "He's getting a treat, why am i not getting one?!?!" Because you're not him. They don't "need" to do anything, especially not for you.

    This doesn't have anything to do with warrior-hardons or anything, they just had an idea and are trying it out. It's fairly easy to do for prot warriors, so they went ahead with that. If it doesn't work out, it's far easier to remove a talent than a spec.
    It isn't anymore childish than the ones supporting this as a talent giving them 2 specs in one which is also the whole reason this thread was made.

    It isn't because they are getting a new treat, it is because they are getting getting 2 specs in one that is very similar to what they took from druids with some of the same massive balance issues as well in PvP.

    And it isn't much harder to remove the talent either with how they are doing them now. Not like they had full trees anymore. Now removing a spec is as easy as removing a talent.

    And it would be equally as easy to do to Prot Paladins or Guardian Druids. Still doesn't make it right giving them 2 specs in 1.

  15. #195
    This Thread is still going?

    It was answered on the first Page why it is different.

    You can't change in combat.

    The thing that made Bear-cat OP.
    Bow down before our new furry overlords!

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Arielle View Post
    No such thing as "tank" gear anymore since every secondary stat has both offensive and defensive value for tanks.
    There still is, when it comes to rings, trinkets, and (specifically for paladins/warriors) shields. I was meaning to infer that the use of a shield for DPSing when I say "tank gear," since obviously the stats will shift for their spec and the respective tank classes with shields haven't used shields for DPS specs. Glad. Stance would be the first implementation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pool of the Dead View Post
    This Thread is still going?

    It was answered on the first Page why it is different.

    You can't change in combat.

    The thing that made Bear-cat OP.
    Changing in combat was just one of the things that made bearcatting OP. There are many other implications and problems associated with having one spec with two different viable roles, balancing across the class with respect to the changes, etc. Glad. Stance isn't even close to bearcatting, but that doesn't mean there are potential issues with it.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    Changing in combat was just one of the things that made bearcatting OP. There are many other implications and problems associated with having one spec with two different viable roles, balancing across the class with respect to the changes, etc. Glad. Stance isn't even close to bearcatting, but that doesn't mean there are potential issues with it.
    Oh, there's issues. But it really doesn't belong here. Glad isn't synonymous with Bearcat at all, so this kind of discussion belongs in the warrior forum or the general forum. I'm not overly concerned for two reasons:
    1) They already have 23 dps specs to balance anyway. One more is just a drop added to the bucket.
    2) At its core it is a very simple spec. Shield bash to build rage. Devastate to try to proc shield bash. Revenge on cooldown (assuming Revenge keeps the rage boost of defensive stance, if not probably drop it). Spend rage on Shield Charge. There aren't a whole lot of knobs they would need to tune - even less than something as simple as an arcane mage which has about as many buttons but have to metagame their resources.
    Last edited by Luneward; 2014-05-02 at 07:08 AM.

  18. #198
    Deleted
    lol..

    There is a HUGE difference between switching in and out og stances IN combat, then to make a choice before combat starts..

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by xuthos View Post
    My biggest complaint, and I think the complaint that a lot of people here are saying, is that Warriors get a tank spec, a pve dps spec, and a pvp dps spec, all rolled into 2 specs, thanks to this talent. I used to run around as feral/heals, and it was great because I could tank, dps, and heal, all thanks to my dual spec and the hybrid nature of feral. Now I get to tank/heal, or dps/heal, or dps/tank, thanks to feral being split into two trees.

    What would be nice is if they merged feral, and then changed "attunement" or whatever in an ability simillar to this. That way you could only fill one role during a fight, but you can fill any of the 3 roles that druid provides with only dual-spec. You feel a lot less like a hybrid when you have to spend a ton of time going back and respeccing/reglyphing/re-keybinding just to do something that a hybrid class (which a druid should be more than a warrior IMO) should do.
    The sensible thing to do would be to remove the 2-spec restriction but for some silly reason they remain attached to it.

    Don't support merging feral and guardian, it was a relief when they were finally separated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  20. #200
    The Lightbringer Cerilis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,191
    Additionally...Tank Druids with DPS-Subspec could also be a healer with second spec. Warriors can't do this.

Posting Permissions

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