What has Blizzard done to Warrior DPS...

[Targis]

Just to end the "They use the same stats!!!" argument, I took it upon myself to do 5 seconds of research. As it turns out, mastery is the best stat if your tanking followed by crit. For gladiator you want crit and haste, and mastery (the thing you want to stack as a tank) is way at the bottom of the list. Bonus armor is only found on jewelry and cloaks, and to be honest are the only pieces of gear that can be optimal for both tanking and dps at the same time.

[Gwa]

...and they're nerfing Glad, not buffing Arms/Fury - gg Blizzard, gg....

[Deleted]

1) You might have a point, MAYBE, if you could switch stances in combat ... but you can't, so this is completely moot. 2) This make believe utility can only be leveraged between encounters. 3) Gear has been homogenized (i.e. bye bye Dodge/Parry) and the few slots that have BA are trivial to acquire ... AND raid drops have been broadened to appeal to a wider range of specs.

4) In terms of utility, committing to Gladiator for an encounter actually gives you LESS of it than the other two specs (no raid CD in Commanding, no DPS cooldowns).

Sorry, you're just mad for no reason whatsoever.

1) And for what reason should I accept that my point only is valid just in case it were possible to switch stances in combat? This is a question-begging condition that you've brought in from nowhere because you've realised that you lack the means to contradict my argument.

2) If you spec Protection you can do viable DPS as well as tank by means of a single spec, and you can in all likelihood do so without having to bring a separate set of gear. If you spec either Fury or Arms, this is impossible. Which part of the obvious difference in utility between these three specs is therefore 'make believe' to you?

3) I don't understand how this part of your post is relevant to what you're arguing. Insofar it is, it doesn't seem to help your case at all.

4) This is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because I haven't compared the utility of the Gladiator talent with the utility of the Fury and Arms specs at any point (Woah! A single talent has less raid utility than an entire spec does?! Preposterous!). My argument consists in showing the difference in utility between Protection , Arms and Fury. To make you understand my point properly, let's turn to a concrete example. Suppose you're in a situation where you have to choose between which specs you're going to bring to the raid. You can choose 2 specs out of Arms, Fury and Protection and you'll bring 1 extra set of gear to support your off spec.

If you spec Fury and Arms, you will:

- Bring a raid cooldown.
- Bring the best Aoe DPS your class has to offer.
- Bring subpar ST DPS.

If you spec Protection and Fury you will:

- Bring a raid cooldown.
- Bring the best ST DPS your class has to offer.
- Bring a tank.
- Bring subpar ST DPS.

If you spec Protection and Arms you will:

- Bring a raid cooldown.
- Bring the best ST DPS your class has to offer.
- Bring a tank.
- Bring the best Aoe DPS your class has to offer.

On the basis of the above you have to be a full-fledged retard to not see the superiority of choosing Protection over the other specs. Notice also that no matter how many different sets of gear you bring as Fury and Arms specced, you will never achieve the utility of speccing Protection in combination with either of the other two. In comparison, if you bring 2 extra sets of gear as either Fury/Arms in combination with Protection, the accuracy of the list above is guaranteed, even if it is false that Protection tanking and the Gladiator talent can be used without bringing an extra gear set. It thus follows that it is true that Protection is a much stronger spec than either Arms or Fury, even if the strongest objection to my argument obtains.

Fucking Q.E.D.

[melodramocracy]

if a prot talent is beating you while on a boss you're just bad at the game... if you mean gladiator stance, i've seen many arms warriors beat it.

if you're that mad just go sword and board

http://www.worldoflogs.com/ranking/e...or/protection/
http://www.worldoflogs.com/ranking/e.../warrior/arms/
http://www.worldoflogs.com/ranking/e.../warrior/fury/

I'll just leave these here.

[Danifilth]

If you are getting beat on the meters by the tank you shouldn't be doing dungeons / raids.

[willtron]

http://www.worldoflogs.com/ranking/e...or/protection/
http://www.worldoflogs.com/ranking/e.../warrior/arms/
http://www.worldoflogs.com/ranking/e.../warrior/fury/

I'll just leave these here.

all that shows is Arms and Fury need a buff, not Gladiator needing (another) nerf

[Mihalik]

Can you now point out to me where paladins had a place in real history? Because I am interested to see these holy warriors that draw their strength from the light to vanquish their enemies and specifically the undead.

OT: Fix fury plx. I rolled warrior because I like the beserking dual wielding playstyle. I fucking hate glad and the way it works.

Crusaders...faith based clergy/warriors. (Paladins) Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, Teutonic Knights.

- - - Updated - - -

These are knights and soldiers though

Knights and Soldiers are Warriors. As were Vikings or Roman Legionaries. I don't know what exactly is your definition of a "Warrior".

[Vulgrym]

Words

The best part about your misguided novella is the amazingly contrived utility "comparison" between Prot, Fury and Arms utility.

Kris Zierhut literally just said that the Gladiator toolkit was specifically designed with holes in it (i.e. the holes I tried to point out to you earlier) - you just seem to be the only one here who is completely oblivious to them or that there's much of a practical difference between accessing the spec via a talent vs. clicking on your secondary talent specialization via a different UI element.

Anyways, hopefully the pending 5-10% nerf to Glad throughput heads off the ulcer you were headed towards. They'll all still be in the same ballpark with the same strengths and weaknesses (and yes, much as you refuse to admit it, even Glad has major weaknesses).

[Edc]

Crusaders...faith based clergy/warriors. (Paladins) Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, Teutonic Knights.

You mean, warriors? Paladins as seen in WoW do not excist in the real world nor have they ever, so the comparison made earlier in this thread is bs.

OT. I am interested to see if by bringing back in line with the other specs Blizz wants to nerf Glad further or wants to buff fury/arms to a more acceptable level.

[Deleted]

1) The best part about your misguided novella is the amazingly contrived utility "comparison" between Prot, Fury and Arms utility.

2) Kris Zierhut literally just said that the Gladiator toolkit was specifically designed with holes in it (i.e. the holes I tried to point out to you earlier) - you just seem to be the only one here who is completely oblivious to them or that there's much of a practical difference between accessing the spec via a talent vs. clicking on your secondary talent specialization via a different UI element.

3) Anyways, hopefully the pending 5-10% nerf to Glad throughput heads off the ulcer you were headed towards. They'll all still be in the same ballpark with the same strengths and weaknesses (and yes, much as you refuse to admit it, even Glad has major weaknesses).

1) It was so amazingly misguided and contrived that you didn't care to point to which aspects of it was wrong, nor mention why. Instead of choosing this easy and effective method to undermine me, you resort to insult me and my motives. You don't make sense.

2) Above I have given you a concrete example regarding the effective difference in utility between the Warrior specs at the moment. This difference is a consequence of that Gladiator is a talent in the Protection spec, which is why the Protection spec is overpowered at the moment. I still don't understand what this whole 'hole' business is supposed to add to your argument, other than excusing poor design (if I remember your last description of it correctly).

3) I won't be satisfied until it has been demonstrated that there are no fights where the Gladiator talent does more DPS than the Fury or Arms specs.

[Syh]

TL;DR: Here's my main point (so you can simply skim the rest):

This whole 'talent vs spec' argument is completely redundant... they can make the talent change whatever they need to about Protection, ensuring that Gladiator is EXACTLY as they intend it to be. If they lacked any control from it being a talent, I would agree with you; but that's not the case.

I'm going to go back and remove anything related to talent vs spec from this post, because I really don't think I'll ever be able to agree on that. If you still think it should still be a 'dedicated' spec, then we can agree to disagree.

--------------

I definitely think that the Gladiator hype has been detrimental to fixing the problems with Arms and Fury, especially among high-end raiders. Is this being self-righteous? I find it perfectly logical. Everybody despairs over having no good DPS spec to play, which puts pressure on Blizzard to sort out Fury and Arms -> Blizzard overpowers Protection -> Everybody plays Protection and instantly it's as if all of the issues from before have somehow gone away. I know that this is how competitive raiders think anyway -- you have to play that which works the best at the moment -- but in this case I think that it has damaged everyone's prior efforts to have Fury and Arms changed. I don't think this is an unreasonable hypothesis at all.

Stating that the people playing Gladiator lack integrity and are sell-outs, which is the part that I quoted, is a self-righteous statement. You're acting like you're morally superior to them simply because you hold these views.

They're not lacking integrity because they want to play the better specialization, nor are they sell-outs for wanting to remain competitive.

This is a straw man. Contrary to your portrayal of me, I didn't say anywhere that I was happy that tanks got nerfed because of Gladiator. As part of this you also claim that tanks are entirely independent of Gladiator stance. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I've never said anything to the effect that Gladiators are tanks or anything similar. What I have said that they're both part of the Protection spec, which is completely different.

When somebody brought up legitimate concern about protection tanks, you stated that it made 'perfect sense' that they nerfed Protection as a whole when they could have nerfed only Gladiator. How does that make perfect sense to you? I would agree with your argument if they were unable to nerf solely Gladiator, but we both know that's not how it is... and it's certainly not 'wrong' to nerf only the offender instead of Protection itself.

I don't even see how you can argue that they were right to nerf Protection in it's entirety when the culprit was only Gladiator... except for the fact that you think it helps your other argument. From my point of view, it looks like you were trying to twist his legitimate concern to help your argument. I originally took your statement as if you were happy with the overall nerf, but now it's seeming like you only liked it because it served your argument. That's even worse, if that's the case.

Yeah, I suppose all of those things happen when you change to a new spec. Still doesn't make Gladiator into its own spec.

Specialization. What does that mean to you? There are three types of specializations in WoW: DPS, Tank, and Healer. Gladiator specializes in DPS, thus I'm going to continue to believe that it is a DPS spec.

In all honesty, your issue isn't with it being a spec or not anyway. You want them to change it's utility and the like. That's your main argument, so lets just drop the terminology semantics for the sake of everyone's sanity...

This is one of the very obvious implications of the fact that they are both part of the Protection spec, which is completely central to what I've argued all along. I don't see why such redundancies even require mentioning.

I don't really care about what you think your argument implies; if it's a point of your argument then state it. We can't read your mind and you should not expect us to.

which would mean that you wouldn't have an obviously overriding reason to spec Protection instead of Fury or Arms.

I've haven't played Fury much, so I'll only talk about Arms: they have more raid-wide utility than Gladiator (Inspired Presence, Rallying Cry) and better DPS cooldowns. In addition, they have more than enough survivability for current content, so that's really not the issue either. In other words, I think they need their abilities damage output tweaked but that's about it. Fury may be different.

Your hostility towards me seems to stem mostly from having latched onto a peripheral remark I made.

My hostility towards you stems from you claiming to be objective yet slipping in self-righteous views throughout your posts and abusing other people's legitimate concerns to get your argument across.

----------------

Now, what I meant originally was that I agree that Arms and Fury should be looked at, BUT Gladiator should not be 'sacrificed' simply so the other specs get more attention. That's not reasonable. They should definitely level the playing field for them (by tweaking Gladiator and buffing Arms and Fury) but not gut Gladiator just 'because'.

I don't disagree with making Fury and Arms eligible to tank with a talent either. It would add different flavors to tanking, which is always welcomed in my book. Hell, I wouldn't even care if they made it so the entire class and it's range of specs (DPS/tank) benefit all from the same gear/stats. It would allow for more player freedom which I personally view as a good thing.

------------

Either way, they're planning on buffing Fury and Arms tomorrow (or so we've been told). We'll have to see what they actually do.

EDIT: Revised. I tend to type more than what's needed and this is the slimmed down version. I might revise it again cause it's still a lot to read, but yeah... I did include a TL;DR, so you can't blame me.