non dagger mutiliate in wod, yay or nay?

[Sesshou]

But this half-assed "no one worries about weapon types except rogues because screw you" isn't really going to fly much longer.

Why not exactly? A pretty much identical approach was taken and continues to be taken towards lots of rogue stuff. Big one recently is positional attacks. I mean I agree that it is total bull shit that they do this to us, but them continuing with archaic mechanics to screw just us over isn't likely to stop any time soon.

[ymirsson]

We need to threaten GC with unsubbing!

[Sassafrass]

It's just typical Blizzard stubbornness. "We know what's right and you don't." I'm not excited for the expansion because the same thing will happen as Cata and MoP; Rogues will be vastly underwhelming in beta, we'll warn about it for months and then be ignored until patch 6.2

Blizzard's excuses are rather insulting but we Rogues are used to it by now, aren't we?

[Deleted]

It's just typical Blizzard stubbornness. "We know what's right and you don't." I'm not excited for the expansion because the same thing will happen as Cata and MoP; Rogues will be vastly underwhelming in beta, we'll warn about it for months and then be ignored until patch 6.2

Blizzard's excuses are rather insulting but we Rogues are used to it by now, aren't we?

Exactly. Problems appear in beta, everyone says wait for release, we suck till x.1, then we get over buffed, then we get nerfed the fuck out of in x.2, then we reach somewhere somewhat balanced/underpowered at x.3 but only because of gear scaling and by then everyone else is in the same boat, healings out of control, health pools are too high, and no ones killing anyone any time soon.

We've seen it consistently since every expansion.

We need to threaten GC with unsubbing!

Nice joke, but I'm not "trying" to threaten anyone. The fact is I WANT to like this game, it has so much potential. I love wow and the idea of the rogue class.

It's just, it doesn't deliver. I'm not subscribed, I havn't been since early cataclysm. I've played on and off 2-3 times for a week or so at a time, and I follow the patch notes, but nothing holds my interest any more.

That's not because I'm showing off or trying to throw a hissy fit and cancle and go "yeah thatll show em" but rather, I genuinely find the rogue class boring compared to what it used to be. A no other class appeals to me because I like stealth too much - therefore I don't have any preference of a character to play the game with, so I don't play the game.

Yes I like the game, but if you see a character as a tool you use to play the game, and you don't like the way it works, then that's where things get frustrating and you loose interest in the game.

It's not even a case of number tweaks which everyone goes on about endlessly. They could give rogues a 500% damage buff for all I care, I would still find them boring because of their current design.

[SynergyDarkstar]

Why not exactly? A pretty much identical approach was taken and continues to be taken towards lots of rogue stuff. Big one recently is positional attacks. I mean I agree that it is total bull shit that they do this to us, but them continuing with archaic mechanics to screw just us over isn't likely to stop any time soon.

One of two things will happen: either Blizzard will wake up and make the slightest attempt to figure out what so many people find offputting about playing a Rogue or there will be a natural slide into less and less people playing a rogue. There's nothing right now that would draw a new player to the class, and like every class, there will be inherent turnover in people who don't have time to play anymore, are tired of the game, switch for something else, etc. There's always some non-zero amount of turnover, and without any draw for new players or people who are tired of their current class to pick up a Rogue there the population of people playing a rogue will drop further and further. This part is pure speculation on my part, but I have a feeling that overall drops in WoW subs hurt rogues more than other classes due to the feeling of being ignored that we've had since Cata (whether that feeling is valid or simply perception is a matter of some debate). Maybe CPs on the rogue is one way they're trying to draw people in, but I don't know if it's too little too late.

If their goal is to get every class equally viable, then why would anyone hamper themselves with archaic mechanics and restrictions on their class?

The question is at what level do they figure it out: Is 93% of the population avoiding playing a rogue a problem? Is 95%? How about 98? 99?

[Deleted]

I'm glad they reverted the option. It would just be further homogenization of an already homogenized class. People who -think- they need it are just doing so for the sake of novelty and nothing else. We already have a spec that uses slow weapons.

[SynergyDarkstar]

It would just be further homogenization of an already homogenized class.

Granting the access to use alternate weapons in a non-optimal (non-viable) manner is not homogenization. Their original intent was to have a discrete difference between using daggers and slow 1Hs.

Further, spec identity shouldn't be based around what kind of weapons you use. It should be around the method in which you play. You don't see a spec of caster forced to use wands, and yet there are three unique and different warlock specs and three unique and different mage specs independent of what they're holding in their hands. 2H Frost and Unholy DKs play differently than each other without worrying about whether they use a polearm or a sword.

Spec homogenization is a direct result of lazy and poor design of the specs themselves, not of arbitrary restrictions

[Deleted]

Granting the access to use alternate weapons in a non-optimal (non-viable) manner is not homogenization. Their original intent was to have a discrete difference between using daggers and slow 1Hs.

Further, spec identity shouldn't be based around what kind of weapons you use. It should be around the method in which you play. You don't see a spec of caster forced to use wands, and yet there are three unique and different warlock specs and three unique and different mage specs independent of what they're holding in their hands. 2H Frost and Unholy DKs play differently than each other without worrying about whether they use a polearm or a sword.

Spec homogenization is a direct result of lazy and poor design of the specs themselves, not of arbitrary restrictions

Pretty much this.

I don't like combat as a spec. I don't like revealing strike, it feels clunky. I don't like bandits guile either

[Rédempteur]

I say yes, but I think you should still have to wear both weapons of the same type, to keep that double strike feel i've always "felt" while using mutilate, as if you were striking real hard and real fast BANG!

[Deleted]

Granting the access to use alternate weapons in a non-optimal (non-viable) manner is not homogenization.

Granting the access to clunky sub-par weapon choices is bad design, and if those choices make use of the same weapon for multiple specs they are, by definition, homogenizing the class. Furthermore, if specs did not take weapons into account why don't we have shamans using swords, or warriors wielding daggers?

Crying for non-daggers on a different spec because you don't like Combat is the same as asking for agility staves because you don't like Feral druid's playstyle. Exact same reason, not a very good one.

It really comes down to lore and flavor, which most people will disregard as secondary, or even a non-issue. Assassination is based around daggers and poisons. What good are poisons if your opponent is already chopped in half by your axe? Even mutilate's animation, watch it on any race: it does not make sense with bigger weapons. No, I'm all for player choice, when it makes sense. It does not make sense here.

[ymirsson]

Unless you change dagger stats. Which would make this discussion obsolete any some people happy. Arguably more happy then unhappy.

[Deleted]

Unless you change dagger stats. Which would make this discussion obsolete any some people happy. Arguably more happy then unhappy.

Stats and maths should never render a spec unplayable. The fun you experience should not be based on numbers alone.

A curve rather than a line would help to compensate for lower weapon stats. It scaling slightly favour slower weapons to compensate for their reduced stats, but not to the degree that currently happens where it just isn't viable.

[ymirsson]

Why not make daggers yet another 2.6 one hand weapon? The first one to shout "lore" or "flavour" gets no cookie, but a knife in the back instead. Or maybe a knife somewhere in his side.

[Deleted]

Why not make daggers yet another 2.6 one hand weapon? The first one to shout "lore" or "flavour" gets no cookie, but a knife in the back instead. Or maybe a knife somewhere in his side.

Because it wouldn't be a dagger then? What reason would the dagger have to be that slow? Extra weight? If so it would end up more like a mace or a sword than a dagger.

But if you want to make 2.6 speed dagger, then go ahead. Scale the damage down proportionately, and go for it.

Same applies to a short 1.5 speed sword, scale the damage up, why the hell not.

[Sesshou]

Crying for non-daggers on a different spec because you don't like Combat is the same as asking for agility staves because you don't like Feral druid's playstyle. Exact same reason, not a very good one.

Except that 'reason' is the same as the reason Blizzard won't let you: flavor. It can't be a good reason when they say it and suddenly a poor reason when some one else says it.

If their goal is to get every class equally viable, then why would anyone hamper themselves with archaic mechanics and restrictions on their class?

I'm pretty sure that isn't their goal. They certainly want to pacify the massive whining everytime enhance shaman or boomkin or whatever isn't doing that well because some prefer that playstyle over the play style of their other specs (and they always have at least 1 viable one), but they pretty clearly don't give a crap about making our 'class' viable so long as we have one viable spec. Pretty sure they just lucked out with SoO because that is the first time since I can remember that all the specs were viable.

[SynergyDarkstar]

Granting the access to clunky sub-par weapon choices is bad design, and if those choices make use of the same weapon for multiple specs they are, by definition, homogenizing the class.

Sub-par being bad design is based on how sub-par we're talking. Last I checked, no one complained about DW vs 2H frost DKs, and no one complains about DW vs 2H WW Monks. And no one complains about Slow/Fast vs Slow/Slow Combat. One of those is going to be numerically better than the other, but the closeness is so small that they're functionally the same. Again, homogenization does NOT come from what you happen to be wielding as a weapon. It comes from how your spec plays related to other specs of the class.

Are you really trying to say that if Combat, Assassination and Sub used exactly the same buttons, but had weapon restrictions they would be non-homogenized?

Alternatively, if we had three unique specs that played completely differently with different abilities and mechanics, and all used the same weapons they'd be homogenized?

Weapons don't matter at all right now other than arbitrary restrictions. They have no bearing on gameplay at all other than "must be used with daggers"

It really comes down to lore and flavor, which most people will disregard as secondary, or even a non-issue. Assassination is based around daggers and poisons.

If we're speaking from a lore perspective an Assassin would use whatever methods available to eliminate his target. Axe, sword, dagger, broken bottle, poison, anything. Cairne was assassinated through a proxy, but that poisoned axe sure was effective. Considering that Blizzard writes the lore and can (and has) changed it on a whim, you can essentially justify any change ex post facto through some nugget of lore.

Furthermore, if specs did not take weapons into account why don't we have shamans using swords, or warriors wielding daggers?

Considering there's a boss in HoF whose entire mechanics revolve around harnessing the elemental power of wind through his swords, there's no lore reason why shamans couldn't use swords. And if I recall correctly, there were certain daggers in vanilla that warriors would use as main weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure that isn't their goal ... they pretty clearly don't give a crap about making our 'class' viable so long as we have one viable spec. Pretty sure they just lucked out with SoO because that is the first time since I can remember that all the specs were viable.

This goes against their stated intent, look at how much work it's taken for sub (iirc it was pretty good in DS) and frost mages to be accepted as solid raid specs. I'll absolutely agree that their actions haven't lived up to their intent. And that is just one more reason why there will be fewer and fewer new rogues playing the game. Why settle for one viable spec when you can have up to FOUR viable specs of varying roles?

If I started playing today, brand new, I'd be a Monk. The only reason why I haven't switched is because of the personal attachment I have to my rogue.

[ymirsson]

Because it wouldn't be a dagger then? What reason would the dagger have to be that slow? Extra weight? If so it would end up more like a mace or a sword than a dagger.

But if you want to make 2.6 speed dagger, then go ahead. Scale the damage down proportionately, and go for it.

Same applies to a short 1.5 speed sword, scale the damage up, why the hell not.

Are we talking physics now? Because, remember, we're still talking about WoW. You can't win.

[Deleted]

Sub-par being bad design is based on how sub-par we're talking. Last I checked, no one complained about DW vs 2H frost DKs, and no one complains about DW vs 2H WW Monks. And no one complains about Slow/Fast vs Slow/Slow Combat. One of those is going to be numerically better than the other, but the closeness is so small that they're functionally the same. Again, homogenization does NOT come from what you happen to be wielding as a weapon. It comes from how your spec plays related to other specs of the class.

Are you really trying to say that if Combat, Assassination and Sub used exactly the same buttons, but had weapon restrictions they would be non-homogenized?

Alternatively, if we had three unique specs that played completely differently with different abilities and mechanics, and all used the same weapons they'd be homogenized?

You're the one speaking in absolutes, saying weapons don't matter at all, when they do. I never suggested they were the only factor to take into account.

Weapons don't matter at all right now other than arbitrary restrictions. They have no bearing on gameplay at all other than "must be used with daggers"

From a gameplay perspective, there is no reason for any weapon restrictions in the game. Once everyone can use anything, will you still claim it doesn't affect class and spec homogenization?

If we're speaking from a lore perspective an Assassin would use whatever methods available to eliminate his target. Axe, sword, dagger, broken bottle, poison, anything. Cairne was assassinated through a proxy, but that poisoned axe sure was effective. Considering that Blizzard writes the lore and can (and has) changed it on a whim, you can essentially justify any change ex post facto through some nugget of lore.

Again, it's not hard to change the lore in order to fit gameplay (see: tauren paladins) the issue is most of the times it's unnecessary change. Why do we still have race/class restrictions? What does it even matter, from a gameplay perspective?

Considering there's a boss in HoF whose entire mechanics revolve around harnessing the elemental power of wind through his swords, there's no lore reason why shamans couldn't use swords.

Now that you mention it, there is a gameplay factor to take into account. Having one more spec rolling for slow agility weapons has consequences in loot drop rate/distribution. Not a big deal, but something to consider. Also, no boss in HoF was a shaman. Harnessing elemental powers does not make you a shaman - many classes use fire, water, and wind.

[Ohmygonzo]

If up to me, I would allow assassination spec to wield everything except maces.

Fist weapons especially, and swords ofc.

Subtlety is more of a dagger oriented spec, at least it feels like that to me.

[SynergyDarkstar]

You're the one speaking in absolutes, saying weapons don't matter at all, when they do. I never suggested they were the only factor to take into account.

From a gameplay perspective, there is no reason for any weapon restrictions in the game. Once everyone can use anything, will you still claim it doesn't affect class and spec homogenization?

It's like saying that what armor class you belong to determines your playstyle. Allowing all plate to be equivalent by shifting Str->Int does not homogenize HPallies and Prot Warriors. They are still completely and utterly different and in no manner does what you wear determine your rotation or class abilities.

If weapons were completely gone tomorrow what would change about the way you play a class? Nothing at all. That's what I'm talking about when I speak of homogenization. Weapon choice only separates classes from an aesthetic perspective.

But maybe this is getting a little too heated; on the grand scale of things, this doesn't even break the top 25 concerns of the rogue class going into WoD. Either way, I'm glad to see that other people still have passion for the class