Will warlocks and mages be half the population of classic?

[VyersReaver]

You meant to write Rogues and Warriors? If so, yes.

[Saphyron]

Um.... er.... you realize that as a lock (iirc), you just need some (okay, a lot of) time (and a decent party for DM) for that, right?

Not planning to only play warlock. I am a altoholic.

[ringpriest]

Not planning to only play warlock. I am a altoholic.

Ah, sorry - I'm planning on limiting myself to a single toon (for both the "authentic" classic experience, and because I don't have time (but will probably play anyways...)) and projected that onto everyone else; doubtless there will be players like yourself who can manage alts in Classic.

[Thage]

Wasn't Warrior the only viable tank back then? Should be played a lot due to that.

That's what I was told.

Not only that, Fury has extremely strong single-target DPS, especially if you have Edgemaster's Grips (mid-level mail gloves that add a healthy bit of weapon skill). Your raid might also have either an Arms Warrior or Ret Paladin with Nightfall to keep the spell damage taken proc up on the boss.

[wholol]

Most of the ideas being thrown here are biased simply due to the fact that people in vanilla sucked, so not having any meaningful data to compare equally geared/skilled players does not make warlocks weak by any means.

In fact I believe warlocks, warriors, rogues , mages and hunters all had equally competitive dps based on fights, obviously gear / proper ability management ( let's not call it skill ) played a huge portion in the overall result though.

[Saphyron]

Ah, sorry - I'm planning on limiting myself to a single toon (for both the "authentic" classic experience, and because I don't have time (but will probably play anyways...)) and projected that onto everyone else; doubtless there will be players like yourself who can manage alts in Classic.

We do not know how long the classic servers will last. If it will last years it should be easy even for me to get all classes to 60 on both factions.