Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Delmadord
    no its completely different...it will not transfer only dmg but also stuns or other things...i dont get how you can think that is like the same than old void sac - that only gave you shield which could be dispelled or spellstealed in the worst case...
    Ah if you mean that will strasfer to your demon all debuffs, stuns,snares,etc....
    Then its much better but still... 25% reductin dmg taken > 3 min cd 'oh shit' button that will probably kill your minion

  2. #42

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Mermeoth
    Ah if you mean that will strasfer to your demon all debuffs, stuns,snares,etc....
    Then its much better but still... 25% reductin dmg taken > 3 min cd 'oh shit' button that will probably kill your minion
    at first: CD can be be smaller, it was just an example
    second: it will probably not kill your minion because of CC, heal, or just the soul link buff wears off
    third: what is passive dmg reduction is good for if you are dead???
    fourth: you are pushing too much offence and no ideas to improve IMHO....

  3. #43

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Delmadord
    at first: CD can be be smaller, it was just an example
    second: it will probably not kill your minion because of CC, heal, or just the soul link buff wears off
    third: what is passive dmg reduction is good for if you are dead???
    fourth: you are pushing too much offence and no ideas to improve IMHO....
    Dmg reduction is helping all fight.. your idea will help only against 1 rush..
    Ussually the worst moment is 1st rush.. But do you think they will not kill you after that without soul link? Because we have just 1 escape abilty and without dmg reduction it will be hard.

  4. #44

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Mermeoth
    Dmg reduction is helping all fight.. your idea will help only against 1 rush..
    Ussually the worst moment is 1st rush.. But do you think they will not kill you after that without soul link? Because we have just 1 escape abilty and without dmg reduction it will be hard.
    from my POV is better to be able to do something than just looking at my char stunlocked or slamed/HSed(or whatever warrior uses) to death...i think something like this could be on of the steps in reworking locks survivibility in way, which fits in idea of warlock not being a tank...

  5. #45

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    So how about something completely different?

    Metamorphosis - No longer an activated ability. Instead, it would proc (or perhaps be auto-activated) when you get stunned, clearing the stun and giving you the normal meta effect. Ofcourse there should be an internal cooldown (2 mins?) but this does mean melee classes need to give their stuns an extra moment of thought like we need to do with fears (spell reflect anyone?)

    Shadowflame - No longer a cone attack. Instead it would be an aoe effect (think immolation aura, hellfire) which instantly burns the ground around you for 10 seconds, dealing a small amount shadow and fire damage to anyone (including yourself) that moves while standing in it. Should work decent in combination with the portal we got, and might make people choose to go for someone other then the warlock for a change.

    Hellfire - No longer an aoe suicide bomb attack. instead ot would conjure a flame that slowly follows your target around for 10 seconds. Standing in this flame would deal x damage per second. The obvious effect is that melee will not just be able to stand and hit you till you roll over and die anymore, as they need to watch out for the hellfire to reach them.

    Obviously these aren't balanced, obviously I just came up with them 2 minutes ago, but what I'm trying to show is that there's plenty original directions to go with the warlock class without making them a tank or too slippery.


  6. #46

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizzygnome
    Hellfire - No longer an aoe suicide bomb attack. instead ot would conjure a flame that slowly follows your target around for 10 seconds. Standing in this flame would deal x damage per second. The obvious effect is that melee will not just be able to stand and hit you till you roll over and die anymore, as they need to watch out for the hellfire to reach them.
    this one is quite original i like this idea

  7. #47

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Delmadord
    this one is quite original i like this idea
    i agree, probably one of the best ideas from these forums.

  8. #48

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by katsu
    wooooooooow man take it easy warlocks are OP. I mean WTF what kind of problems are you talking about. LOCK is a fear BOT fear + DoT =win i play arena as paldin retri 850 res i am wasting my mana trying to disspell DotS and they crit me about 3k. I mean what kind of issues are you talking about. Maybe lets give a lock a spell thats gives him 20k armor for 30 min ???
    L2P. Whats ur partner doing? eating popcorn?
    OM NOM NOM

  9. #49

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    What kind of downs do you have as a ret not being able to hit a lock? I play as a destro lock which is anti paly and dk but not by itself.

  10. #50

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by katsu
    wooooooooow man take it easy warlocks are OP. I mean WTF what kind of problems are you talking about. LOCK is a fear BOT fear + DoT =win i play arena as paldin retri 850 res i am wasting my mana trying to disspell DotS and they crit me about 3k. I mean what kind of issues are you talking about. Maybe lets give a lock a spell thats gives him 20k armor for 30 min ???
    played lock this season???? so OPness! almost 1% arena representation...really OP, needs nerf

  11. #51

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by katsu
    wooooooooow man take it easy warlocks are OP. I mean WTF what kind of problems are you talking about. LOCK is a fear BOT fear + DoT =win i play arena as paldin retri 850 res i am wasting my mana trying to disspell DotS and they crit me about 3k. I mean what kind of issues are you talking about. Maybe lets give a lock a spell thats gives him 20k armor for 30 min ???
    I have to admit that my affli lock is the first of my toons that can /laugh in the faces of rets (since wotlk).

    And that feels good ;D
    *French guy inside*
    *please forgive my poor english*

  12. #52

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    If u can't breakfear and facing a warlock =dead.

  13. #53

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    which is why all classes have about 20 ways to break fear, fear has casting time, dr, breaks on damage, trinket

  14. #54

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Anachronism
    I know that melee is getting a hard rap on this thread because of their apparent domination of warlocks, and I agree, there is definitely some balancing that could be done in the warlock's favor. However, I can't help but think some comments are exaggerated a tiny bit. Although it may seem to the contrary, I think Blizzard has given warlocks some decent passive resistances to melee.

    For instance, consider the PvP Destro Chaos Bolt/Soul Link spec. If you put points into Molten Armor and Soul Link (glyphed) that is already 31% reduced damage taken from ALL sources. If you then factor in armor, which is around 12% physical damage reduction with Fel Armor and nearly 20% with Demon Armor, that adds up to just about 42-50% melee damage reduction, along with the 31% magic damage reduction. Then, if you consider the Voidwalker sacrifice bubble which, when talented and used, provides a bubble which absorbs 10,700 damage that is usable while stunned without any mana, then it would seem that warlocks are actually somewhat effective at mitigation.

    However, I don't know if my logic is correct with these calculations though. I do not know if the Molten Armor and Soul Link and the armor stack cumulatively, or if Molten Armor first reduces 6%, then the SL redirects 25% of that, then the armor mitigates 12-20% of that (which is actually a 38-44% reduction instead). Even to me, a 50% melee damage reduction seems little higher that what Blizzard would allow. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    But our lack of ways to get away and active defence from melee suggest that we have longer time being in close range with melee.
    The logic is:
    when melee is in range they do high damage within range but little or none when out of range. (not everytime melee will do high damage in range)

    If a class with active defence then they can avoid the high in ranged amage to low or none, while in long range they get low damage or none.

    If a class with passive defence then they turn high in range damage to medium, while in long range they get lower damage or none.

    Example: (these number is just let you get an idea none of them are real)

    class melee do 7500 in the whole time in range every 2 time in range while 2500 the other time. (can get in range every 10 sec)
    class 1 with active defence have spell to avoid 80% of damage, and 50% of damage along with other.
    class 2 with passive defence 50% all time.(In both case count all reduction inculde armor and other.)


    Class 1:
    class 1 got in range by class melee and being deal 7500 but have 80% reduce from spell/skill. total: 1500

    10 sec pass since the class melee first got in range

    class 1 got in range by class melee and being deal 2500. total: 4000

    10 sec pass

    class 1 got in range by classs melee and being deal 7500 but 50% reduce. total: 7750

    Class 2:
    class 2 got in range by class melee and being deal 7500 but 50% passive reduction. total: 3750

    10 sec pass

    class 2 got in range by class melee and being deal 2500 but 50% passive reduction. total: 5000

    10 sec pass

    class 2 got in range by class melee and being deal 7500 but 50% passive reduction. total: 8750

    Conclusion:
    Against predicable brust damage within short period of time active damage reduction is more effective.

    Side note: Most active spell have more than 50% or 80% include armor and other things.







  15. #55

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Anachronism
    I know that melee is getting a hard rap on this thread because of their apparent domination of warlocks, and I agree, there is definitely some balancing that could be done in the warlock's favor. However, I can't help but think some comments are exaggerated a tiny bit. Although it may seem to the contrary, I think Blizzard has given warlocks some decent passive resistances to melee.

    For instance, consider the PvP Destro Chaos Bolt/Soul Link spec. If you put points into Molten Armor and Soul Link (glyphed) that is already 31% reduced damage taken from ALL sources. If you then factor in armor, which is around 12% physical damage reduction with Fel Armor and nearly 20% with Demon Armor, that adds up to just about 42-50% melee damage reduction, along with the 31% magic damage reduction. Then, if you consider the Voidwalker sacrifice bubble which, when talented and used, provides a bubble which absorbs 10,700 damage that is usable while stunned without any mana, then it would seem that warlocks are actually somewhat effective at mitigation.

    However, I don't know if my logic is correct with these calculations though. I do not know if the Molten Armor and Soul Link and the armor stack cumulatively, or if Molten Armor first reduces 6%, then the SL redirects 25% of that, then the armor mitigates 12-20% of that (which is actually a 38-44% reduction instead). Even to me, a 50% melee damage reduction seems little higher that what Blizzard would allow. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    We really need to make a sticky explaining these all too common mistakes..

    1. Percents don't add. When you add damage reduction percents you severely overstate how much damage is actually being reduced. "6% molten skin + 25% soul link + 10% master demonologist + 20% armor = OMG 61% damage reduction" No, it doesn't work like that.

    2. Soul link is not damage reduction

    3. Most of the time warlocks have no pet out because the pet is killed twice 10 seconds into an arena match so there is no soul link.

    4. 50% melee damage reduction is nothing. Paladins, DKs, warriors and shamans have that just from their armor. "But spells aren't mitigated by armor blah blah blah" Ya, but melee damage is balanced around targets with a decent amount of armor. If there was no armor, melee damage would be insanely better than spell damage.

  16. #56

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by idpersona
    Warlocks:

    1)Have a pet,which means they can disturb healers. They die so fast its not funny
    2)Have the ability to "blanket" their spammable spell CC with UA,rendering it pretty much undispellable. I've seen so many healers just dispel it anyways.
    3)Have drain mana,which currently:
    a)is the strongest mana drained per mana spent ability if left to channel to full,after the nerfs to the other 2 abilities Interrupt the 5 second channel
    b)as long as the target is in los for the first cast,the ability cannot be outLOS'd Again...interupt it
    4)are one of the few classes that can use their bread and butter damage spells without facing their target Unless you're desto
    5)Soul Link and Demon Armor turn you more durable in pvp than you think.In the time it takes you to go to 40% hp a mage would be dead,if he had to stand there and take damage. Ya if the mage stood there. We still die so quick with soul link and demon armor.

    There's a reasons why mages arent player anymore in healer/dps 2v2 combos.Their survivability is bad.and their mana doesnt allow them to be always ready to output burst,unlike you.You have your own strengths and weaknesses.

    And yes,if you dont coordinate your own gameplay,which must be good,your pet,and communicate with your partner,you'll die,easily.Early in vanilla,the Warlock official class description had the following citation:

    "Requires more involvement to play than other,simpler classes."

    This is quite true in PvP.Play very well,and you're a well rounded teammate that can fulfill multiple pvp roles.Play badly,and splat,the melee facerolls you on the floor.

  17. #57

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Segomo
    i agree, probably one of the best ideas from these forums.
    Agreed here too, that's the kind of thing I picture warlocks doing(control over the fire, like it's alive, rather than just blasting it out like a mage). I'm just saying as to what comes to mind, not what actually appears in the game:P.

    (I'd still like to have the hurt-yourself-hellfire though, playing around with suicide moves was something a friend of mine liked for some reason...)

  18. #58

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Anachronism
    While it is fairly obvious that your Class 2 is the warlock class specced with SL and Molten armor, who exactly is your Class 1? Are you referring to Shadow Priests with their Dispersion?
    I said that I use random number just let you get an idea.
    if you are interested and you have enough free time which I don't, you can try it on every class and post it.

  19. #59

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Which part of "Warriors and rogues with a brain are supposed to splat you into the ground"dont you understand?

    In 2v2,any decent team with a rogue or warrior WILL kill you.It's what blizzard themselves admitted in a recent blue post.In 2v2,some battles are over from the time the arena doors open.2V2 IS NOT BALANCED.

    The only legal concern of warlocks is pet survivability;without it they're crippled,and its quite easy to communicate a CC+burst combo to kill it.An approximate +5000 hp to all pets would rectify this issue quite well,and would be a very good idea to be implemented by Blizzard.

    But you being dominated by rogues and warriors,that ain't gonna change,folks.They're your two hardcounters,just like retridins,and DK's are their own hardcounters.Just as you're the hardcounter of retridins,hunters,non-unholy DK's,ferals...

    Think 3v3.Barring the dominance of RMP(which Blizzard themselves admit that is unintentionally dominating the bracket),Warrior-Druid-Warlock,and generally any combo of Melee-Healer-Warlock is a VERY powerful comp.Melee peels off warlock,warlock is free to shadowplay the fuck outta the opponents.

    Indeed,maybe you should stop trying to be the 2v2 king.Two very popular classes,rogue and warrior,hardcounter you.Maybe you should just try 3v3.You will be pleasantly surprised.

  20. #60

    Re: Warlock vs Melee Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by idpersona
    Which part of "Warriors and rogues with a brain are supposed to splat you into the ground"dont you understand?

    In 2v2,any decent team with a rogue or warrior WILL kill you.It's what blizzard themselves admitted in a recent blue post.In 2v2,some battles are over from the time the arena doors open.2V2 IS NOT BALANCED.

    The only legal concern of warlocks is pet survivability;without it they're crippled,and its quite easy to communicate a CC+burst combo to kill it.An approximate +5000 hp to all pets would rectify this issue quite well,and would be a very good idea to be implemented by Blizzard.

    But you being dominated by rogues and warriors,that ain't gonna change,folks.They're your two hardcounters,just like retridins,and DK's are their own hardcounters.Just as you're the hardcounter of retridins,hunters,non-unholy DK's,ferals...

    Think 3v3.Barring the dominance of RMP(which Blizzard themselves admit that is unintentionally dominating the bracket),Warrior-Druid-Warlock,and generally any combo of Melee-Healer-Warlock is a VERY powerful comp.Melee peels off warlock,warlock is free to shadowplay the fuck outta the opponents.

    Indeed,maybe you should stop trying to be the 2v2 king.Two very popular classes,rogue and warrior,hardcounter you.Maybe you should just try 3v3.You will be pleasantly surprised.
    maybe i'd have agreed with you about a year or so ago but you have to consider the fact that counter classes can and will change. It wasn't too long ago that mage vs warlock was an auto win for the lock. So, why did blizzard even bother giving them resists and mage armor if they were "just fine" with counter classes? Point being, blizzard changes their minds and it is entirely plausible that warlocks be given a fighting chance against their counters.

Posting Permissions

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