[Broken] Overpower costing 10 Rage

[Auberdeen]

ya tard face if your running dbl dps two's, reg bg's, rated bgs, openers in 3's or 5's, your going to ALWAYS be in battle stance. rage gen as def NOW is poop, let alone in ptr

you telling me you just rot in def stance all the time in pvp? thats so fail and u havent even experienced the true play of what arms feels like than.

srsly if you rlly do sit in d.stance all the time out of fear of gettin pee'd in, do urself a favor and go KFC or WLD in battle stance. bring a towel cuz ur gunna gizz everywhere.

[Stormcall]

Wait. You're saying to use one Horn of Winter is too hard? You have Howling Blast to spam. That's 40 Runic power + generation fromabilites.

Either way, if you see the rogue is stealthed, please make sure you have enough runic power.. I mean... What else are you doing? Trying to look for him?

If the rogue opens on you(and non-blood DKs ARE easy targets), how are you spamming the Howling Blast?

Oh, yeah, also, Horn of Winter gives 10 RP on a 20 sec CD. IBF costs 20 RP. Aww shit, remind me how 10=20 again?

[Kezotar]

If the rogue opens on you(and non-blood DKs ARE easy targets), how are you spamming the Howling Blast?

Oh, yeah, also, Horn of Winter gives 10 RP on a 20 sec CD. IBF costs 20 RP. Aww shit, remind me how 10=20 again?

First of all - Start in blood pressence. Basically..that's it. Rogues wont be able to beat you from that. If you die you're bad lol. You see him burst, well? CC him. Stun, kite w/e. L2P. Jeez. Can't believe you whined on be because of L2P issue. Darn.

[Stormcall]

First of all - Start in blood pressence. Basically..that's it. Rogues wont be able to beat you from that. If you die you're bad lol. You see him burst, well? CC him. Stun, kite w/e. L2P. Jeez. Can't believe you whined on be because of L2P issue. Darn.

Blood Presence is a 10% damage reduction, and drastically lowers damage output. If that is sufficient defense in your mind, you really need to not even bother complaining about Defensive Stance being nerfed, as even nerfed it STILL has more DR then Blood Pres, and both drastically lower damage output. As for the second half of your statement, it's hard to "CC him, stun, kite, w/e"while you're BEING stunned and CCed, which was the original argument you were making.

In other words, if the above solutions are good enough for DKs, they are good enough for warriors, cause they apply just as much.

[Gatsu]

Staying 100% of the time or almost in def stance, is kinda a must against team with hard-switches that can kill you in a stun, just to let all the superheroes 1500 rated know.
And yes, almost all the warriors over 2400 rating play in def stance for the reason I said above.

[Deleted]

Blood Presence is a 10% damage reduction, and drastically lowers damage output. If that is sufficient defense in your mind, you really need to not even bother complaining about Defensive Stance being nerfed, as even nerfed it STILL has more DR then Blood Pres, and both drastically lower damage output. As for the second half of your statement, it's hard to "CC him, stun, kite, w/e"while you're BEING stunned and CCed, which was the original argument you were making.

In other words, if the above solutions are good enough for DKs, they are good enough for warriors, cause they apply just as much.

Hard to compare stances/presences in the first place, but you totally forgot the 55% armor and the 25% stamina increase. Against physical thats much better than Def Stance against magical dmg its still better. So ofcourse DKs should also lose more DMG than Warrior by shifting pressences.

In general DK Presences are a much bigger commitment.

[WireRabbit]

key word there is USE TO.stances have a global cd now,right?whats the cd 3 secs?yeha makes for great stance dancing right?think before you speak.heres a post from arena junkies.
"SO many idiots. Do they not realize most if not all classes have passive reduction? Spriests shadowform, lock fel armor, rogues can have recoup+feint(still flop over but it's something). Mage has molten armor, dks blood presence, even hunters get 15% with the aspect, you get the point. Most classes at this point have 10-15% damage reduct, and taking away from warriors is retarded.

All they need to fix this is give 15% to battle stance, or take off ragecost of overpower. Nerf to 15% was fine and needed, but you CANNOT play in defensive stance with no rage, and going battlestance is just not an option (warriors have terrible defensive cds)".

Mages with molten armor LMAO. yeah only if you are fire i guess. you are kidding me right....you realize thats like a 1.5 seconds cast or something to change armors? which can be interrupted.

so many bad warriors in this thread. This change wont wreck warriors. It's a minor pvp buff and you guys are saying the sky is falling. Stop being FOTM and learn to play your class. Nerfs come and go so fucking deal with it. Also what is warriors representation for above 2200+ right now? yeah...thought so, now go cry some where else.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:14 AM ----------

First of all - Start in blood pressence. Basically..that's it. Rogues wont be able to beat you from that. If you die you're bad lol. You see him burst, well? CC him. Stun, kite w/e. L2P. Jeez. Can't believe you whined on be because of L2P issue. Darn.

Yeah and your multiple stuns.fear.defensive stance. shield wall. banners. reck. avatar also WITH short burst CD's dont mean anything around a rogue, i think this is a L2P issue.

[Miko]

asnd you can watch his videos and here him call out switch to warrior hes in battle stance,right?warriors were the most killable and easily trained targets for years.blizz gave us new abilities so that was not the case anymore.wtf dont you get that warriors were DESIGNED to give and take a ton of damage,not supposed to be an easy kill.warriros always had more Armour and hit-points then any other class,not 2nd and d stance keeps us up.

you think its bad for a warrior to not be the first target teams WANT to go on,but its ok for warriors to be an easy target right?thats what you are saying.if warriors are not the least fav target another class will be.but as logn as its not a warrior your fine with that.

by the way your full of shit if you dont think warriors get targeted.so i guess warrior never die in pvp at all in any bracket,because they are never targeted lmfao.i watched some streams today with that lock beckinsale or what ever his name is.and yes they liek to blow up warriors.

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 08:50 PM ----------



thats because other classes dont "stance dance" any more either.

I'm happy to stance-dance when in battle:

"mages/locks have to change armour
hunters change aspects (like the old days)
rogues change poisons (like the old days)
Shaman change shields and weapon buffs
Druids change form (I guess that is what they are used to do)
Then it will be fair"

that was a quote for a guy on arena junkies-and it was well said

I think a warrior should be A target to swap to. If you see a dk and a warrior, who are you going to attack? Stop trying to defend this class, its stupid OP atm trying to deny that makes you look really stupid.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:40 AM ----------

Staying 100% of the time or almost in def stance, is kinda a must against team with hard-switches that can kill you in a stun, just to let all the superheroes 1500 rated know.
And yes, almost all the warriors over 2400 rating play in def stance for the reason I said above.

And this is the problem. You shouldn't have an option that other classes do not have that allows you to just stand out in the open and roll out dps.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:42 AM ----------

Hard to compare stances/presences in the first place, but you totally forgot the 55% armor and the 25% stamina increase. Against physical thats much better than Def Stance against magical dmg its still better. So ofcourse DKs should also lose more DMG than Warrior by shifting pressences.

In general DK Presences are a much bigger commitment.

Blood Presence is trash and isn't close to being as good as DEF stance. Stop the madness.

[Kreeshak]

I think a warrior should be A target to swap to. If you see a dk and a warrior, who are you going to attack? Stop trying to defend this class, its stupid OP atm trying to deny that makes you look really stupid.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:40 AM ----------



And this is the problem. You shouldn't have an option that other classes do not have that allows you to just stand out in the open and roll out dps.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:42 AM ----------



Blood Presence is trash and isn't close to being as good as DEF stance. Stop the madness.

Regarding should and should nots on the bold part.

Classes that get to open to warriors should not bring them down to second wind levels on their opener.
Certain classes should not have the option to completely negate your 5 minute long cooldown with their immunities.

There are a lot of shoulds and should nots we are not going to agree about.

[cFortyfive]

It's a minor pvp buff

Randomly throwing around abilities and calling other people bad while not being able to use the correct word. Always hilarious.

I think a warrior should be A target to swap to. If you see a dk and a warrior, who are you going to attack? Stop trying to defend this class, its stupid OP atm trying to deny that makes you look really stupid.

What actually makes you look stupid is claiming that there won't be always a target that is better to train than the other. Dks certainly are squishy and they have been since at least cataclysm - three minutes on a 20% reduce seems way too much even though ams is still pretty good but then again this probably isn't really the forum to discuss changes to the dk class.

[Miko]

Randomly throwing around abilities and calling other people bad while not being able to use the correct word. Always hilarious.

What actually makes you look stupid is claiming that there won't be always a target that is better to train than the other. Dks certainly are squishy and they have been since at least cataclysm - three minutes on a 20% reduce seems way too much even though ams is still pretty good but then again this probably isn't really the forum to discuss changes to the dk class.

Yet a perma 25% reduction is perfectly ok?

[Kankipappa]

Yet a perma 25% reduction is perfectly ok?

Who actually disagreed on the fact that 25% def stance is too good currently? In my mind everyone already agrees on that Def stance 25% to 15% nerf, but after taking the ability to stay at nerfed 15% stance, I mean completely negating the ability to stay there in the weakened version most of the time makes people afraid that it might be too much with the additional second wind tuning.

Not that I would like being 100% on def stance either, but combining those nerfs just might be too much overall. Probably would have been better to keep it at 25%, but instead completely negate the ability stay offensive with it might have been better choice on future. That comment just feels like any average non-warrior player tbh. Calling more nerfs and justifying it by the stuff that already does get fixed, because "currently it's not out yet". If only we'd have the control of mages after dying easier than them.

Myself, I wouldn't be too bothered by our lost of defences though. I'm more afraid on the fact that we might not have any good offensive ability either after losing the defences too.

[jerkface]

Stop the madness.

Speaking of madness, you did start out the thread with statements like:

Bad warrior relying on DEF stance.

I don't really know of any skilled and decent warriors that actually like to or even stay in DEF stance now unless being trained.

So only the bad warriors hang out in defensive stance, right? Certainly no highly rated warrior would EVER be seen in defensive stance unless they're getting trained if not even decent warriors are. If that's actually the case, then wouldn't these nerfs be unnecessary? If defensive stance isn't beneficial enough overall to use, why you would be strongly for nerfing it both directly and indirectly? It shouldn't matter either way.

Sitting in def stance 100% of my arena life isnt why I play this class. Also, as it is on live warriors are not dying to cheap shots they are infact, not dying at all becuase no one targets them.

Just so help you understand, with out a rage cost on overpower there is never a need to EVER remove yourself from DEF stance.

Oh wait, so now there's actually no need to EVER remove yourself from defensive stance and you feel that you're best served sitting in defensive stance 100% of your arena life on your warrior? That doesn't match up with your original statements in the thread very well. It's almost as though you just want warrior to be nerfed in any way possible and are trying to back your position by just making shit up.

To be honest, I'm not even sure if these nerfs would be the end of the world; but you're not helping your case much when you start out by shooting yourself in the foot credibility-wise and make the spine of your argument idiotic hyperbole like "warriors never get focused or die."

[Miko]

Speaking of madness, you did start out the thread with statements like:





So only the bad warriors hang out in defensive stance, right? Certainly no highly rated warrior would EVER be seen in defensive stance unless they're getting trained if not even decent warriors are. If that's actually the case, then wouldn't these nerfs be unnecessary? If defensive stance isn't beneficial enough overall to use, why you would be strongly for nerfing it both directly and indirectly? It shouldn't matter either way.





Oh wait, so now there's actually no need to EVER remove yourself from defensive stance and you feel that you're best served sitting in defensive stance 100% of your arena life on your warrior? That doesn't match up with your original statements in the thread very well. It's almost as though you just want warrior to be nerfed in any way possible and are trying to back your position by just making shit up.

To be honest, I'm not even sure if these nerfs would be the end of the world; but you're not helping your case much when you start out by shooting yourself in the foot credibility-wise and make the spine of your argument idiotic hyperbole like "warriors never get focused or die."

Taking things out of context dosn't make it right.

1) On live no reason to leave def stance b/c the draw back isn't there.
2) A good warrior shouldn't have to rely on def stance camping.
3) Nothing I have said is made up, trying to be funny while not understanding what is being said makes it seem like you are just trying to troll.

As a warrior, I have said this time and time again. I don't want to sit in DEF stance, I don't want to blow someone up in 2seconds with CD stacking, and I want to actually be the target of my enemys once and a while. As we are now on live nothing about a warrior TO ME seems fun or how it was supposed to be. I still stance dance like I have been doing my whole arena life, be it not ideal anymore or not I'm still doing it because it's how I think it should be played.

[yurano]

Either way, if you see the rogue is stealthed, please make sure you have enough runic power.. I mean... What else are you doing? Trying to look for him?

If you're talking about a 1v1 scenario, Runic Power decays. Derp.

While out of combat, you have 2 RP generating abilities: Horn of Winter and Death and Decay. With RP decay, there's no way you can have IBF up for the first CS.

Handling IBF in PvP is more difficult than sitting in defensive stance.

[Deleted]

As a warrior, I have said this time and time again. I don't want to sit in DEF stance, I don't want to blow someone up in 2seconds with CD stacking, and I want to actually be the target of my enemys once and a while. As we are now on live nothing about a warrior TO ME seems fun or how it was supposed to be. I still stance dance like I have been doing my whole arena life, be it not ideal anymore or not I'm still doing it because it's how I think it should be played.

Maybe the problem is that what you defined (and i prefer that playstyle too) is currently not working with warriors. If you change stance, you can be oneshoted. If you don't stack CD's to try to oneshot someone, you never have a chance against anyone, since even the warr burst is good, their overall dmg sucks to many classes.

Currently warriors mostly not target for nuke since they are in defstance, they get CC'd instead (which ain't hard tbh, since warr has the lowest defensivity against cc after monks [until 5.2, they get a lot of buffs]). With the current D-stance and other nerfs together they should make SW much stronger or give one more def ability.

BTW, the DK's who were QQing in this topic, i would be happy to have thoose stance in 5.2, 20% cc reduction+normal RP gen / 10% dmg reduction+25% hp with shit RP gen is way stronger then normal rage gen / -15% dmg reduction shit rage gen.

[jerkface]

Taking things out of context dosn't make it right.

1) On live no reason to leave def stance b/c the draw back isn't there.
2) A good warrior shouldn't have to rely on def stance camping.
3) Nothing I have said is made up, trying to be funny while not understanding what is being said makes it seem like you are just trying to troll.

As a warrior, I have said this time and time again. I don't want to sit in DEF stance, I don't want to blow someone up in 2seconds with CD stacking, and I want to actually be the target of my enemys once and a while. As we are now on live nothing about a warrior TO ME seems fun or how it was supposed to be. I still stance dance like I have been doing my whole arena life, be it not ideal anymore or not I'm still doing it because it's how I think it should be played.

This might come as a shock to you so brace yourself. You can click those little blue arrows by each quote to be linked back to the full post it originated from, allowing you to still see what I quoted in context while allowing me to only copy the actual pertinent lines I'm addressing rather than having giant block quotes. If you're referencing a point made by another author when writing, you don't actually quote his entire paper do you?

Not understanding what is being said? I'm not going to tell you what type of play style you should find fun, especially when I agree with some of it, but your arguments so far have been far less subjective than what you just posted above. You can't go from talking about how not even a decent warrior sits in defensive stance to acting like it's the norm because of how overpowered it is.

I don't really know of any skilled and decent warriors that actually like to or even stay in DEF stance now unless being trained. Its supposed to be a dps loss.

I don't see you talking about how you think warrior should play there. You came off as trying to argue from authority in terms of what bad warriors currently do and what decent/skilled warriors currently do. That pretty much flies in the face of reality (and your subsequent posts) unless you can show that currently the highest rated warriors are not touching defensive stance outside of when they're being focused; and if that were actually true, then altering it would be unimportant due to it being a sub-optimal play style anyway.

Similarly, now when you're saying that no good warrior should have to rely on defensive stance, are you saying that you're certain warriors would remain competitive with these changes or are you simply saying that you agree with the play style philosophy behind it? I don't think most of the people in this thread taking issue with the changes or your arguments are saying that defensive stance doesn't somehow need to be toned down, rather that the way they are going about it could very well toss warrior back into its late cata state. Simply arguing "you have defensive cooldowns" doesn't do much to address that, unless you're under the impression that warriors didn't have them back then.

[meathead]

Taking things out of context dosn't make it right.

1) On live no reason to leave def stance b/c the draw back isn't there.
2) A good warrior shouldn't have to rely on def stance camping.
3) Nothing I have said is made up, trying to be funny while not understanding what is being said makes it seem like you are just trying to troll.

As a warrior, I have said this time and time again. I don't want to sit in DEF stance, I don't want to blow someone up in 2seconds with CD stacking, and I want to actually be the target of my enemys once and a while. As we are now on live nothing about a warrior TO ME seems fun or how it was supposed to be. I still stance dance like I have been doing my whole arena life, be it not ideal anymore or not I'm still doing it because it's how I think it should be played.

stance dancing is out dated and clunky.blizz removed it "for the most part" because of what i just said.add to that the fact that other classes have been streamed lined,like rogues "poisons"-you get the picture.

i do not see how you long for the days of pummel only being usable in berserker stance?it sucked trying to land a pummel switching stances and hoping lag would not cause you to miss "and it did to many many warriors.thats shit sucked so get over it,games changed and warriors have to chnaged with it to keep up.or we would still be that outdated class left behind that i have seen more then once since BC.

[Miko]

This might come as a shock to you so brace yourself. You can click those little blue arrows by each quote to be linked back to the full post it originated from, allowing you to still see what I quoted in context while allowing me to only copy the actual pertinent lines I'm addressing rather than having giant block quotes. If you're referencing a point made by another author when writing, you don't actually quote his entire paper do you?

Not understanding what is being said? I'm not going to tell you what type of play style you should find fun, especially when I agree with some of it, but your arguments so far have been far less subjective than what you just posted above. You can't go from talking about how not even a decent warrior sits in defensive stance to acting like it's the norm because of how overpowered it is.



I don't see you talking about how you think warrior should play there. You came off as trying to argue from authority in terms of what bad warriors currently do and what decent/skilled warriors currently do. That pretty much flies in the face of reality (and your subsequent posts) unless you can show that currently the highest rated warriors are not touching defensive stance outside of when they're being focused; and if that were actually true, then altering it would be unimportant due to it being a sub-optimal play style anyway.

Similarly, now when you're saying that no good warrior should have to rely on defensive stance, are you saying that you're certain warriors would remain competitive with these changes or are you simply saying that you agree with the play style philosophy behind it? I don't think most of the people in this thread taking issue with the changes or your arguments are saying that defensive stance doesn't somehow need to be toned down, rather that the way they are going about it could very well toss warrior back into its late cata state. Simply arguing "you have defensive cooldowns" doesn't do much to address that, unless you're under the impression that warriors didn't have them back then.

Ok let me try to explain this again, you still don't get it. "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should." Meaning that just because you CAN sit in DEF stance doesn't mean its the right thing to do. The Warriors that I know that play good still dance. Do they have to? NO. The thing is, what I'm trying to point out that we as a Warrior class need to be able to stance dance, need to be able to do something more then just sit in one stance 100%. As it is now on live, you can do that. As far as the Warriors that I know and do think they are decent all say the same thing, they do not like the current set up and strive to still stance dance, even tho they do not have too.

Maybe I cleared it up for you. If not your loss.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 03:07 PM ----------

stance dancing is out dated and clunky.blizz removed it "for the most part" because of what i just said.add to that the fact that other classes have been streamed lined,like rogues "poisons"-you get the picture.

i do not see how you long for the days of pummel only being usable in berserker stance?it sucked trying to land a pummel switching stances and hoping lag would not cause you to miss "and it did to many many warriors.thats shit sucked so get over it,games changed and warriors have to chnaged with it to keep up.or we would still be that outdated class left behind that i have seen more then once since BC.

This is very simple, I do long for the days where Warriors did SOME, not all but, SOME of these things. Things like pummel seems fine, but being in one stance the entire fight is a retarded way to play my class. I like the class because of stance dancing and the ability to turtle up when needed. I don't like how it plays now. It feels like a Ret. I understand you love this class and its why I'm comfused why you wish for it to be further dumbed down to make it easier. As a Warrior do you honestly like to sit in once stance and have a limited play style?

[Volitar]

Forcing Warriors into battle stance and removing the healing from second wind while stunned is too much, alas the classic wave of warrior overnerfs hit.