What dps class should i play if i want a raid spot?

[Castration]

Given that 16+ years would be before WoW released, they most likely aren't.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not really what the thread is about, though. It's "What classes are good in raids", which is acceptable.

it's the exact same thing...

[Gungnir]

Actually - im pretty sure you can get a pretty accurate distribution of classes by looking at the popular private servers, and you couldn't be more wrong. Especially on alliance side.

And then you're still left with the fact that you only need one or two, and that's mainly to buff the mages.
Secondly, private server class distribution literally means nothing in this scenario, as there's a giant grey patch of people who have been wanting to play Vanilla but didn't want to trust shady 3rd party russian providers that sell shit behind the scenes and will also be C&D'd anywhere from a week into the servers lifetime to a year.

I mean shit, even the most popular server hit around 30k concurrent players and I am willing to bet that actual Classic servers will be atleast twice that, probably close to three times that.

[WashedUpRaider]

And then you're still left with the fact that you only need one or two, and that's mainly to buff the mages.
Secondly, private server class distribution literally means nothing in this scenario, as there's a giant grey patch of people who have been wanting to play Vanilla but didn't want to trust shady 3rd party russian providers that sell shit behind the scenes and will also be C&D'd anywhere from a week into the servers lifetime to a year.

I mean shit, even the most popular server hit around 30k concurrent players and I am willing to bet that actual Classic servers will be atleast twice that, probably close to three times that.

30,000 is a large enough sample size to see a trend in populations. Again, just because you only need a minimum of one or two, doesn't mean crap. You're trying to assume the average raiding guild is going to run the perfect min/maxed comp at all times. When they aren't. Hell, even the guilds that take place in the speed running of raids use 3-4 warlocks, and they're the ones min/maxing to the teeth.

- - - Updated - - -

Glad you're a psychic and know the exact details. Your troll powers are amazing. Care to teach me? Ah, never mind. You belong on ignore.

The fact that you're this sensitive, to me calling you sensitive, has proven me correct. Carry on snowflake, dont get too heated, you might melt!

[Gungnir]

30,000 is a large enough sample size to see a trend in populations.

But that's the thing, it's a 30k sample size of people sharing a lot of the same min/max views.
Classic will likely draw people who haven't touched or really talked much about Vanilla for the past 12 years and they'll roll whatever they feel like. Hell if you just look around MMO champ, specifically the "what will you play threads", there's a LOT of warlocks being mentioned along with druids and other classes that you don't see at all on private servers.

Regardless, that's still a pool based on what will likely be a skewed minority on actual Classic servers.
It isn't applicable outside of some light discussions around it.

[zeoh]

Most sought after classes on average for classic (alliance side):
Tank: Warrior (obviously)
Healer: Dwarf Priest
Melee DPS: Human Rogue
Ranged DPS: Warlock (with Mage being 2nd place, since you said you don't like lock anymore)

These are obviously all my opinions and originate from my observations over the years while experiencing vanilla. I believe these are typically the most "in demand" combinations for each role, but your opinions may differ.

[WashedUpRaider]

But that's the thing, it's a 30k sample size of people sharing a lot of the same min/max views.
Classic will likely draw people who haven't touched or really talked much about Vanilla for the past 12 years and they'll roll whatever they feel like. Hell if you just look around MMO champ, specifically the "what will you play threads", there's a LOT of warlocks being mentioned along with druids and other classes that you don't see at all on private servers.

Regardless, that's still a pool based on what will likely be a skewed minority on actual Classic servers.
It isn't applicable outside of some light discussions around it.

Retail wow has the same min/max views. Thats how it is in literally every gaming community. DOTA - Apex - LoL - Fortnite - Hearthstone - CS:GO

People find out the meta and flock to the FOTM. The good news for classic, is people have known the FOTM for 15 years.

It's very applicable.

[J012D4N]

Ret, Enh, Feral as Cat, Shadow Priest may get you an invite. But don't expect one. Priests can spec to Shadow Weaving while still picking up Power Infusion(from Disc) which seems to be a fairly reasonable support spec. Shaman can spec down Enh tree to Imp Weapon Totems, but its going to hurt your mana regen and heal potency.(I would not recommend this spec for progression or early raids as mana regen is going to be tight)

- Yeah, you'll probably see the same amount of hybrid disc/shadow's in raid (getting SW), to 31-pnt SPs.
- Enhance is viable, but gear dependent. If your raid invests in a Nightfall (amazing), you're probably the best candidate to roll with it. Proc rate is around 20%, and can proc off WF swings. Enhance also has the shock spec, which actually does good damage & I believe it scales really well late game.
- Can't think of a good reason to bring a Ret or Feral though ... Maybe a feral OT, but I think a DPS war would still be better.

Most sought after classes on average for classic (alliance side):
Tank: Warrior (obviously)
Healer: Dwarf Priest
Melee DPS: Human Rogue
Ranged DPS: Warlock (with Mage being 2nd place, since you said you don't like lock anymore)

Dwarf Priest definitely. Fear ward is soooo good.
Might as well toss in a single SP (or hybrid) as well. Benefit the raid immensely if it's lock heavy.

[Razzako]

But that's the thing, it's a 30k sample size of people sharing a lot of the same min/max views.
Classic will likely draw people who haven't touched or really talked much about Vanilla for the past 12 years and they'll roll whatever they feel like. Hell if you just look around MMO champ, specifically the "what will you play threads", there's a LOT of warlocks being mentioned along with druids and other classes that you don't see at all on private servers.

Regardless, that's still a pool based on what will likely be a skewed minority on actual Classic servers.
It isn't applicable outside of some light discussions around it.

So you're assuming that most out of the 30k pool from a private server population, all share the same views about min/max, to serve as the base of your argument? Quite an assumption, and if you ask me, not solid at all.

[Gungnir]

Retail wow has the same min/max views. Thats how it is in literally every gaming community. DOTA - Apex - LoL - Fortnite - Hearthstone - CS:GO

People find out the meta and flock to the FOTM. The good news for classic, is people have known the FOTM for 15 years.

It's very applicable.

As I previously said, you're going to see a fair few people that hasn't even looked at anything WoW related for the past 12 years, besides expansion announcements.
You can't apply private server statistics to something like this, it fundamentally doesn't function as the servers themselves will attract a lot more people that AREN'T private server players.

So you're assuming that most out of the 30k pool from a private server population, all share the same views about min/max, to serve as the base of your argument? Quite an assumption, and if you ask me, not solid at all.

A lot of =/= all.
So you're assuming that the words I specifically used in my sentence was in fact completely different words that you decided to use in order to twist my post into something fitting your narrative in an argument where you have nothing to add.
Quite an assumption, and if you ask me, not solid at all.

[diarx]

Seriously, play what you want & make some friends. Unless you want to be in a hardcore raid, your friends will take with them even if you are a balance Druid.

DURIDS IS 4 haf FUN TIME WIT FRENS every1 is like a fun time durid!!

[Razzako]

A lot of =/= all.
So you're assuming that the words I specifically used in my sentence was in fact completely different words that you decided to use in order to twist my post into something fitting your narrative in an argument where you have nothing to add.
Quite an assumption, and if you ask me, not solid at all.

Do you even read? I said: most out of the 30k, most does not imply all.

But let's take a look

But that's the thing, it's a 30k sample size of people sharing a lot of the same min/max views.

"A 30k sample of people sharing a lot of min/max views", you have just literally included the whole 30k population into that statement. Where does my question attempt to twist your post? It's funny that you're excusing your assumption (which is a huge assumption to make, to literally fuel an entire argument) on me trying to push a narrative, quite moronic. You either didn't read properly, can't express your thoughts properly, or have no idea what the fuck is it you're saying.

[Gungnir]

Do you even read? I said: most out of the 30k, most does not imply all.

But let's take a look



"A 30k sample of people sharing a lot of min/max views", you have just literally included the whole 30k population into that statement. Where does my question attempt to twist your post? It's funny that you're excusing your assumption (which is a huge assumption to make, to literally fuel an entire argument) on me trying to push a narrative, quite moronic. You either didn't read properly, can't express your thoughts properly, or have no idea what the fuck is it you're saying.

But let's take a look at this.

"A 30k sample of people sharing a lot of min/max views".
Did you fail basic English or did you take classes in order to gain a reading comprehension of a damp log?
Clearly it's one or the other and I am unsure if I am supposed to be impressed or if I should cry. Nicely done.

[Razzako]

But let's take a look at this.

"A 30k sample of people sharing a lot of min/max views".
Did you fail basic English or did you take classes in order to gain a reading comprehension of a damp log?
Clearly it's one or the other and I am unsure if I am supposed to be impressed or if I should cry. Nicely done.

The shot regarding basic English is as ironic as it gets. The 30k population is literally being included in the whole assumption. By using "a lot of" right there after the subject, implies their min/max views are being emphasized. Back to primary school with you!

[Gungnir]

The shot regarding basic English is as ironic as it gets. The 30k population is literally being included in the whole assumption. By using "a lot of" right there after the subject, implies their min/max views are being emphasized. Back to primary school with you!

Yeah, and the sentence being specifically structed to emphasize the fact that the 30k sample he's referring to, that people share a lot of the same views regarding min/max due to consuming a lot of information regarding Vanilla before playing, something a fair bit of the Classic crowd likely won't have done.
Secondly, 30k isn't even the playerbase on that server, it was peak concurrent players.

It's almost like reading the context before heading into an argument where you not only have nothing to contribute, but also fundamentally cannot understand what is being actually discussed is a bad idea.
Oh right, I forgot, reading comprehension of a spud. Got it.

[Razzako]

Yeah, and the sentence being specifically structed to emphasize the fact that the 30k sample he's referring to, that people share a lot of the same views regarding min/max due to consuming a lot of information regarding Vanilla before playing, something a fair bit of the Classic crowd likely won't have done.

If I say "A 30k sample of people shares a lot of money", means the whole 30k pop share money, same applies to your statement. If what you wanted to say is that most people share the min/max views, you should have placed "a lot of" before the subject.

1. "A 30k sample of people sharing a lot of min/max views".
2. "A a lot of a 30k sample of people sharing min/max views".

Notice the difference?

At one point you just gotta take the loss and simply clarify. This is why I asked a question regarding your statement initially, but you get so defensive it's hilarious.

Secondly, 30k isn't even the playerbase on that server, it was peak concurrent players.

Literally, irrelevant.

Oh right, I forgot, reading comprehension of a spud. Got it.

I kinda agree with you in this point though, my reading comprehension is not good enough to understand dumb idiots yet.

[Gungnir]

If I say "A 30k sample of people shares a lot of money", means the whole 30k pop share money, same applies to your statement. If what you wanted to say is that most people share the min/max views, you should have placed "a lot of" before the subject.

1. "A 30k sample of people sharing a lot of min/max views".
2. "A a lot of a 30k sample of people sharing min/max views".

Notice the difference?

At one point you just gotta take the loss and simply clarify. This is why I asked a question regarding your statement initially, but you get so defensive it's hilarious.

So instead of actually asking, because again you clearly can't comprehend basic English at this point, you decided to assume.
Stellar work, lad.
Also, it is quite literally the same fucking thing. "Most of the population share the same view" =/= "The entire population share a lot of the same views". I'd be surprised if you've actually contributed anything or worth to any discussion.

Literally, irrelevant.

Much like your input in this entire thing as you've, effectively, done nothing but bitch. You haven't added anything to the discussion, you just decided to put your foot into it while also not even understand what the argument was about.

I kinda agree with you in this point though, my reading comprehension is not good enough to understand dumb idiots yet.

"Dumb idiots".

[Razzako]

So instead of actually asking, because again you clearly can't comprehend basic English at this point, you decided to assume.
Stellar work, lad.
Also, it is quite literally the same fucking thing. "Most of the population share the same view" =/= "The entire population share a lot of the same views". I'd be surprised if you've actually contributed anything or worth to any discussion.

You are so triggered is sad. "So instead of actually asking" - You mean, what I literally did in my first reply, right? And, "I decided to assume"... says the guy assuming a lot of a 30k of people (I'm guessing that's what you were trying to say initially?) share (or let's say, have) min/max views. You look pathetic.

Much like your input in this entire thing as you've, effectively, done nothing but bitch. You haven't added anything to the discussion, you just decided to put your foot into it while also not even understand what the argument was about.

Nothing but bitch? Ever since I replied to you, you've done nothing but get defensive and throw insults. It's as childish as it gets, but I guess that's why it's so hard to admit fault and as I said earlier, simply clarify what you meant, which makes no sense either way. You're basing your argument on assumptions.

[Gungnir]

You are so triggered is sad. "So instead of actually asking" - You mean, what I literally did in my first reply, right? And, "I decided to assume"... says the guy assuming a lot of a 30k of people (I'm guessing that's what you were trying to say initially?) share (or let's say, have) min/max views. You look pathetic.

So not only are you challenged, but you can't remember your first post?
You didn't ask anything, what you did was assume what my statement was about because as previously proven, you cannot understand common English.

Nothing but bitch? Ever since I replied to you, you've done nothing but get defensive and throw insults. It's as childish as it gets, but I guess that's why it's so hard to admit fault and as I said earlier, simply clarify what you meant, which makes no sense either way. You're basing your argument on assumptions.

Literally all of your posts have been "REEEEE BUT THE GRAMMAR, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT".
That is the definition of bitch, I'd tell you to look it up but I'm afraid that it requires a modicum of education so you're shit out of luck there mate.

Also; "You're basing your argument on assumptions" says the man basing his arguments on assumptions.
Fucking christ you're denser than a dying star.

[Razzako]

So not only are you challenged, but you can't remember your first post?
You didn't ask anything, what you did was assume what my statement was about because as previously proven, you cannot understand common English.



Literally all of your posts have been "REEEEE BUT THE GRAMMAR, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT".
That is the definition of bitch, I'd tell you to look it up but I'm afraid that it requires a modicum of education so you're shit out of luck there mate.

Also; "You're basing your argument on assumptions" says the man basing his arguments on assumptions.
Fucking christ you're denser than a dying star.

I'll quote my first reply just for the record:

So you're assuming that most out of the 30k pool from a private server population, all share the same views about min/max, to serve as the base of your argument? Quite an assumption, and if you ask me, not solid at all.

It's literally a question. That's not an assumption, that's me asking you if that's what you were assuming. Except now you're getting SO defensive you've started to blatantly lie.

Honestly Gungnir, I can't take you seriously anymore. It's like arguing with a child except that chances are it's a fully grown adult, who's on top of that, throwing a tantrum. You keep doing you, as pathetic as that might be.

[Gungnir]

I'll quote my first reply just for the record:

It's literally a question. That's not an assumption, that's me asking you if that's what you were assuming. Except now you're getting SO defensive you've started to blatantly lie.

Honestly Gungnir, I can't take you seriously anymore. It's like arguing with a child except that chances are it's a fully grown adult, who's on top of that, throwing a tantrum. You keep doing you, as pathetic as that might be.

Besides the fact that we've established that you couldn't even comprehend what you were reading, you were assuming that I was saying something that I wasn't in the first place.
So in fact, again, what you've done thus far have been nothing but assuming and bitching.
Oh and I forgot, you tried to correct a sentence by proposing an alternative which is the same exact sentence except switched around. Which was the entirety of every single one of your posts.

Because you couldn't comprehend English.
It's amazing how personal you're taking this, where you can't admit that you didn't understand my post in the first place, proceed to assume I'm saying something else, then adamantly insist that what I wrote and meant wasn't actually what I wrote and meant.
You don't have many friends, do you?