Berserker stance

[Tuor]

From the Warrior's blue tweets on Today's MMo front page, http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/...lue-Tweets-Art

The answer is bolded.

removing berseker stance was something I never thought I was gonna see. We're the stances so hard to balance for WoD? pvp
.It isn't a question of balance but rather finding an interesting niche for both DPS stances. (holinka)

So what was wrong with the crit model we had until cata??

Also, i haven't seen the Dk's 6.0 notes, but does Dk's keep all of their presences?? If yes, how is it possible to keep them and then come to the public stating there isn't a niche for Berserker stance, when warrior's stances have always been a way to diferenciate playstyles from specs?? Fury warrior's have always been more of crit dependent, whille Arm's warrior have been more of consistent damage, what's wrong with this model?? I have always been a fan of stances, now Blizz came in to the public that there his no niche, when it that niche always existed... Is that hard to keep the stance per spec model?? Or is this just another lame feature implemented in warriors.

[Deleted]

I think its sad that they didnt find a solution for Berserker Stance and that we are losing such an iconic ability. But I guess they are sort of replacing it with Stance of the Gladiator, so Im not too bummed.

[Valech]

I think its sad that they didnt find a solution for Berserker Stance and that we are losing such an iconic ability. But I guess they are sort of replacing it with Stance of the Gladiator, so Im not too bummed.

Nope. Gladiator Stance is going to replace Battle Stance if taken as talent.

[Eranthe]

I think its sad that they didnt find a solution for Berserker Stance and that we are losing such an iconic ability. But I guess they are sort of replacing it with Stance of the Gladiator, so Im not too bummed.

i feel like the game is going to have a lot less flavor if they keep trimming all the abilities out. fury warrior rotation is more engaging and harder now than it has ever been, but that doesn't mean i only want to do the single target rotation all the time and only have abilities that facilitate the single target rotation. i like having some situational abilities that i can use creatively. (eyes of the beast to pull bosses back in the day, ability to offtank for a few seconds, etc)

i tweeted holinka with this:

berzerker stance: each time you take damage in this stance you gain 1% damage for 15 sec. stacks 15x. (3 sec cd)

[Ssateneth]

So what was wrong with the crit model we had until cata??

2% crit is boring and is not very engaging gameplay. The current model is engaging, but the difference in dps between taking no damage and taking large amounts of constant damage is too huge, which causes large discrepancies of where our dps is supposed to be at, and where it really ends up at.

[Tuor]

2% crit is boring and is not very engaging gameplay. The current model is engaging, but the difference in dps between taking no damage and taking large amounts of constant damage is too huge, which causes large discrepancies of where our dps is supposed to be at, and where it really ends up at.

That has always been the point:

- Battle stance: A compromise betwin damage dealt and damage taken;
- Berserker stance: A increase for damage dealt, and damage taken;
- Defensive stance: a reduction for damage dealt and received.

Unlike what Holinka says, its not even a niche, every stance had always a specific role. In adiction, each spec would tune a specific stance for their specific needs... for most of WoW, without harming the need for once in a whille jump to another stance to use a specific hability, like Heroic Throw.

The only niche i can see is in fact the DPS tanks... Really?? DPS Tanks??

[Kapadons]

Could have made Berserker stance add a movement speed modifier and either a cleave element to normal attacks or increase damage done by AOE attacks. This way it becomes more useful for movement fights and more useful for AOE fights. Being able to stance dance into the right stance would also add a modicum of gameplay to swap stances for each role during a fight.

IE Garrosh - Berserker for first phase add waves, battle when they are dead, berserker in trans phase, battle when out, berserker during Emp Whirlwind and you having to move, Battle when its done.

[Incognito23]

With the removal of stance restricted abilities the notion of having two offensive stances is antiquated and undesirable. Anyone that has been playing warrior since classic would understand this point. The topic is too deep that I will not be going into it depth, however ultimately given the current design model of the warrior class the decision to remove berserker stance was the right one. Just a quick point, for the entire expansion of MoP berserker was unbounded as a key bind for an overwhelming majority of warriors that in itself speaks volumes.

Though as I stated the underlying reason why, is time consuming and not something I want to get into at the moment.

[Tuor]

Could have made Berserker stance add a movement speed modifier and either a cleave element to normal attacks or increase damage done by AOE attacks.

Wasn't that what they wanted for Berserker stance to be in MoP, untill they implemented current one??

Well, i don't like it, but at least it still had a role. As for adding a cleave movement i think its a little OP, perhaps it should be tied for a single utility, like Heroic strike.

I'm still a fan of having stances tied with specs, i loved the crit model for it until cata, as someone else in this thread pointed it wasn't even OP. The only problem of this is that talents are gone, and it became a little dificult to tie stances with specs .

With the removal of stance restricted abilities the notion of having two offensive stances is antiquated and undesirable.

I have to agree... But as you will see, the point here is a little diferent.

Just a quick point, for the entire expansion of MoP berserker was unbounded as a key bind for an overwhelming majority of warriors that in itself speaks volumes.

That is exactly what happens when we don't provide a role to something. Blizzard wanted Berserker stance to become a AoE stance, some didn't enjoyed, and they literally let berserker stance to go down, they droped its development... A thing that had not happened if the stances were still tied with specs, and the point, as i promised before, is in a game where a lot of people keeps complaining that there are not enought diferenciation betwin specs of same class... Blizzard wasted here a good chance, in this case, to KEEP that diferenciation ON.

[Deleted]

They could make berserker stance a pvp stance, like reducing your chance to get cc'd or the duration of cc by 50%. Something like that.

[Eranthe]

With the removal of stance restricted abilities the notion of having two offensive stances is antiquated and undesirable. Anyone that has been playing warrior since classic would understand this point. The topic is too deep that I will not be going into it depth, however ultimately given the current design model of the warrior class the decision to remove berserker stance was the right one. Just a quick point, for the entire expansion of MoP berserker was unbounded as a key bind for an overwhelming majority of warriors that in itself speaks volumes.

Though as I stated the underlying reason why, is time consuming and not something I want to get into at the moment.

there's so much hyperbole in this post, it's pretty much a waste of text.

asserting/refuting something and then saying you won't elaborate on why you asserted/refuted it is pointless.

additionally, you are pulling some facts out of your rear area when you say anyone that's been playing since classic would understand why they're removing berserker stance and when you say it "was unbounded as a key bind for an overwhelming majority of warriors".

the existence of this thread disproves the former and you have no proof whatsoever of the latter.

[Deleted]

+10 to what Eranthe said. Because you had it unbounded and you didnt get the benefit in alot of fights, doesnt mean everyone else was on the same boat. And my warrior is up and slaming 9+ years, so i have no idea what are you talking about. Maybe you would like to share with us that you mean instead. Personally i would prefer to have berserker only as fury instead of battle and tuned accordingly. As it used to be after than initial charge...

[b1ghead3d]

Zerker stance is a huge dps increase on any fight with raid wide damage, I'll hate to see it go. Healers will be happy though because now warriors don't have an excuse to stand in desecrates.

[Trubo]

From the Warrior's blue tweets on Today's MMo front page, http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/...lue-Tweets-Art

The answer is bolded.


So what was wrong with the crit model we had until cata??

Also, i haven't seen the Dk's 6.0 notes, but does Dk's keep all of their presences?? If yes, how is it possible to keep them and then come to the public stating there isn't a niche for Berserker stance, when warrior's stances have always been a way to diferenciate playstyles from specs?? Fury warrior's have always been more of crit dependent, whille Arm's warrior have been more of consistent damage, what's wrong with this model?? I have always been a fan of stances, now Blizz came in to the public that there his no niche, when it that niche always existed... Is that hard to keep the stance per spec model?? Or is this just another lame feature implemented in warriors.

DK's are keeping their presences because each presence has something unique that the other presences don't. For example, Blood grants additional survivability, Frost grants more Runic Power generation + reduction in cc duration while Unholy grants movement speed and more Haste. Compare this to Berserker and Battle Stances where the only difference is Rage generation.

As for the stance per spec model, that'd be fine and all if Blizzard felt that Fury actually used Berserker Stance the majority of the time. Problem is Arms and Fury generally used Battle Stance for MoP, making Berserker Stance largely pointless.

[Deleted]

I like where Berserk Stance is right now. It supports smart play, just abit annoying that if you want to maximize it you need to cancel absorbs sometimes.

[Tuor]

DK's are keeping their presences because each presence has something unique that the other presences don't. For example, Blood grants additional survivability, Frost grants more Runic Power generation + reduction in cc duration while Unholy grants movement speed and more Haste.

The concept of a presence having a role was copied from the warrior stance model. Until cata all warrior stances had a defined role aswell.

Compare this to Berserker and Battle Stances where the only difference is Rage generation.

That is the lazy MoP version, until cata stances used to be a modifier to damage dealt and damage received. Being the PvE stance, berserker stance increased damage dealt but also the damage received... It wasn't uncommon to stance dance betwin boss phases... And that was part of being a warrior.

As for the stance per spec model, that'd be fine and all if Blizzard felt that Fury actually used Berserker Stance the majority of the time. Problem is Arms and Fury generally used Battle Stance for MoP, making Berserker Stance largely pointless.

Its pointless, there is no doubt about that, but it wasn't like that all the time, and most Fury warriors used Berserker stance until cata, and untill wrath you had to stance dance, as fury, lets say if you needed to use rend you had to jump to battle stance.

[Trubo]

The concept of a presence having a role was copied from the warrior stance model. Until cata all warrior stances had a defined role aswell.

That is the lazy MoP version, until cata stances used to be a modifier to damage dealt and damage received. Being the PvE stance, berserker stance increased damage dealt but also the damage received... It wasn't uncommon to stance dance betwin boss phases... And that was part of being a warrior.

Its pointless, there is no doubt about that, but it wasn't like that all the time, and most Fury warriors used Berserker stance until cata, and untill wrath you had to stance dance, as fury, lets say if you needed to use rend you had to jump to battle stance.

I'm aware of DK Presences being an adaptation of Warrior Stances as well as each Warrior spec favoring an individual stance. However, with Cata they removed most stance requirements for abilities and by doing so made Berserker Stance the go-to stance for damage cause who wouldn't want an extra 5% damage passive? With MoP they had to either go back to the old stance model or make a change; Blizzard went with the later and what we have now is the generally worthless Berserker Stance.

Could Berserker Stance and Battle Stance be made different enough beyond Rage generation? Sure, one example is that each could offer a bonus to a different secondary stat with the exception of Crit because Crit is just too damn good. Could see something like Mastery+Haste for Battle and Multistrike for Fury given the projected stat weights done by Collision in other threads in the forum. Problem here is that people will just sim their character to see which stance is better for the given gearset they have and choose that way.

So we're back at the same point: How do you make Battle and Berserker Stance different enough that choosing one over the other has negligible effect on throughput while still making which Stance you're in a critical decision?

[Tuor]

However, with Cata they removed most stance requirements for abilities and by doing so made Berserker Stance the go-to stance for damage cause who wouldn't want an extra 5% damage passive? With MoP they had to either go back to the old stance model or make a change; Blizzard went with the later and what we have now is the generally worthless Berserker Stance.

Then why not fix it?? Bring back the beneficts of of stances tied with spec. If required, bring back stance requirements for spells... Never eard before people asking for them being removed, but i've eard a lot of times for them to bring back stance dance.

Could Berserker Stance and Battle Stance be made different enough beyond Rage generation? Sure, one example is that each could offer a bonus to a different secondary stat with the exception of Crit because Crit is just too damn good. Could see something like Mastery+Haste for Battle and Multistrike for Fury given the projected stat weights done by Collision in other threads in the forum. Problem here is that people will just sim their character to see which stance is better for the given gearset they have and choose that way.

Crit is so damn good because is in fact the only freaking stat that helps Warriors... Since everything is weapon damage or baseline damage controled (such as Shield Slam) and Haste is just a bad stat for Crit becomes the so good stat you speaking about. Things would be a lot diferent if it wasn't this dump design of gameplay.

Anyway, you seem to not understand why was that crit there. The crit was there to compensate the increased miss chance of Fury Warriors compared to Arms, which can (could) be full hit capped, a Fury Warrior only aims to be soft capped, that is why they had the Berserker stance crit boost... And Rampage aswell (I could open a thread about Rampage, snif). In the other hand, Since Arms could talent for improved Battle Stance, that would normally mean they would not use Berserker Stance in a regular base, perhaps to be able to use a Death wish+Reckleness combo, but no more then that.

The old model was very well balanced... The only ones that didn't noticed it were Blizzard employees.

So we're back at the same point: How do you make Battle and Berserker Stance different enough that choosing one over the other has negligible effect on throughput while still making which Stance you're in a critical decision?

I would tie stances with specs again... And that could easely be donne via spec speacialization.

[Archimtiros]

Then why not fix it?? Bring back the beneficts of of stances tied with spec. If required, bring back stance requirements for spells... Never eard before people asking for them being removed, but i've eard a lot of times for them to bring back stance dance.


I would tie stances with specs again... And that could easely be donne via spec speacialization.

Because then what is the point? You either have DK presences, in which you hardly if ever change; or you have Monk stances in which you cannot change.
Either way there is no decision, no gameplay impact other than "cool I'm fury, so I'm in Berserker Stance now, that sounds fun!"

The design of this game is very simple, you have two types of abilities.
1) Rotational abilites that you use every X/Y/Z, that enable you (Bloodthirst every 3 GCD, MS every 6s for OP charges, SSlam for rage every time it's up, etc)
2) Decision based abilities. These usually have moderate to long CDs and are meant to be used when the player deems them best appropriate, rarely are they simply "on cooldown". Think things like Shield Wall, Recklessness, even Colossus Smash to an extent.
(Obviously there are some abilities that don't quite fit this mold, and others that fall into both categories, but it is a generalization)

The developers want you to make decisions with these abilities. Simply "be in this stance for this spec" or "macro this stance to that ability" has no impact. You may enjoy it because it gives the illusion of flavor, but its nothing more than a name that means nothing on an ability you have no control over. I come back to Monk Stances again. I honestly don't know why they are in the game and are not simply passives, other than to identify what spec the monk is currently in.

- - - Updated - - -

And Rampage aswell (I could open a thread about Rampage, snif)

I cannot begin to explain how much I hated Rampage.

[Tuor]

Either way there is no decision, no gameplay impact other than "cool I'm fury, so I'm in Berserker Stance now, that sounds fun!"


You may enjoy it because it gives the illusion of flavor, but its nothing more than a name that means nothing on an ability you have no control over.

Flavor?? isn't that the point of all games?? Some call it Flavor, like you, some others, like me, call it just Fun... A little bit of rethorical thinking... Isn't FUN the point for us to keep playing these games? You could be damn sure i want my fun back... Because if i'm playing a Fury Warrior, i really don't want him to behave like a Arms one... Or worst, like a enhancement Shaman which is what they turned Fury Warriors in... And i love enhancement Shamans, its weird to have 2 separate classes behaving in such a similar way... I want to feel like a Warrior when i'm playing my Warrior, and a Shaman when i'm with my Shammy... And like a Fury Warrior when i'm actually playing as one...

Fun is the only point we play these games... And stances have provide a lot of fun... not just for me, but judging the amount of people asking for them to bring back stance dance, i could easely say that i'm not alone.

I come back to Monk Stances again. I honestly don't know why they are in the game and are not simply passives, other than to identify what spec the monk is currently in.

Because like warriors, those stances have a role... They are game modifiers, one allows you to have mana and be able to heal, the other to tank, and the last one to DPS... Have you noticed that they also change the class main resource??

Stances, or presences, call it what ever you like it, aren't just passive abilities, they are games modifiers that use a lot of game resources, and i'm in believe to say that they currently using those resources for the new Glad Stance ... But first, they obviously had to turn one of the 3 stances into something useless... The choosen was Berserker stance.