The Role of Melee Combatants in a Group

[Cryptic]

I just call them enemies - simple and to the point, covers men/beasts/monsters, and the plural is never confused with the singular.

But MMORPGs are an outgrowth of MUDs, which have a very old and enforced terminology. They will be mobs, mobs, mobs ...
:P

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually, I have seen "creeps" used in the WoW beta forums. Right now, people there use whatever term they are carrying forwards from whatever experience they have. Eventually, some one term will dominate and that will become the "official" WoW "noise with a meaning" for things one attacks. It's funny how each game develops its shibboleths, permitting the 'leet' to immediately spot a 'noobie' as soon as the latter opens his mouth ;)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just call them enemies - simple and to the point, covers men/beasts/monsters, and the plural is never confused with the singular.

True. However, there are a few things wrong with it. First, "enemy" usually connotes an entity that is actively opposing you. It has been used for non-sentient beings (e.g., "wolves were long thought to be the enemy of man.") but that is almost a hyperbolic usage. Second, many of the things one can and does kill for XP are not actively enemies until after they are attacked -- at which point most will try to defend themselves. Indeed, in every starting area I've played in (all but Tauren) the first things you are sent out to kill will not attack you unless you attack them first.

So, 'enemy' is fine, but I find it hard to think of "enemy boar" :)

As an aside, has anyone noticed how ubiquitous boars are in WoW. Perhaps it should be renamed "World of Boars". Though I suspect marketing would have a hard time with that :)

--Pete

[Artega]

I dunno - wolves are pretty damned common in Mulgore. And so are Plainstriders. And Cougars.

[BEEFMOTRTON]

One thing warriors can do to get the attention of the monsters right away is to use demoralizing shout. This doesn't do any damage, but is an area of effect move that reduces the attack power of the enemies and gets their attention. By doing this, you have their attention focused right where you want it, and it doesn't hurt quite so bad.

As for mind control, note that engineers can also make an item that lets them 'mind control' mechanical enemies. I was in a gnomeregan group in which our warrior used his 'remote control' to control an enemy mechano-tank, and our priest used mind control on one of the non elites nearby which posessed the ability to heal the tank!

[apandapion]

Vaguely on topic:

What are the best talents for defensive stance, both inside the protect tree and outside it?

[Artega]

I haven't been terribly impressed with the protection tree. Then again, I'm only LV14 and I've never been in a party that wasn't all warriors.

I've found Improved Strike, Improved Rend, and Improved Charge to be gold. Charge generates more rage, Strike costs less, and Rend does more damage. Arms mastery in maces is also very useful, since I'd rather have an enemy stunned than a critical hit or a higher chance of hitting :)

[Bolty]

This post by a Blizzard employee really sums things up well.

A lot of people play Warriors with the thought that they will be the big bad-you-know-what's of the game, dishing out damage and whomping on monsters. The Warrior is the most popular class in the game (Blizzard released statistics). I would imagine that the Warrior would be the class of choice for the "kiddie" crowd; not to bash all Warrior players, but we know that younger (especially male) players will gravitate toward the class that looks the coolest/toughest. This results in a glut of players on the servers who play the Warrior class incorrectly, and thus brings out frustration for other class players.

In fact, it can be so rare to see a Warrior player who plays their class correctly, that it garners people instant friends-list status when they're played right. Warriors in groups have one role: to get beat up. Note that this goes against the idea that many people start Warriors for: to beat other people up.

Warriors in groups should use Defensive Stance and taunt. Sure, it seems boring. As Blizzard says, if you want to dish out extreme damage in melee, you should be playing a Rogue. Giving the ultimate tank in the game the highest melee damage in the game would make other classes irrelevant.

As a player, one should start a Warrior if they enjoy being the guy who allows their teammates to unleash their fury with abandon. It's similar to a Priest's style of play - it's more about the teammates and the protection of said teammates than doing damage yourself. If a creep peels off you and goes after a teammate, you need to be on top of it, chasing it down and taunting it back to you. Playing a Warrior properly isn't easy.

If you think the idea of standing in a fight and getting beat up is boring, then don't play a Warrior. If I group with you and you're a Warrior, that's what I'll expect from you, just as you'd expect my Priest to *never* let you die as long as I have mana. You ever see a Priest who only uses offensive spells in a party? They'd be kicked out so fast it's not funny. At the higher levels, the same is done to Warriors who don't taunt in pickup groups, and then they complain. It's all about perception and expectations - these players don't think of themselves in the right setting. Former Diablo II players may have a lot of trouble adjusting to this; in their minds, Warrior = Barbarian, and They Can Play Any Damn Way They Want To. :)

-Bolty

Edit: I reread this post and realized it sounds like I'm bashing TheDragoon; quite the contrary, I was using "you" in the general sense. Sorry, Dragoon :)

[Cryptic]

That is indeed the best way to play the current incarnation of the Warrior, and the role that Blizzard intended.

There is an extensive thread (with a bit of Blizz response) on the official forums where people are lamenting the fact that WoW is creating "class templates," with the role of each class being pre-ordained as excelling along one narrow path to the exclusion of most everything else. Some of the debate is focusing on whether talent trees will be extensive and diverse enough to allow classes to break away from the template if the player wants them to; offensive, light/skirmish and ranged Warriors, would be interesting variants.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx...&p=1#post163625

[JustAGuy]

I'm a man who can admit when he's wrong. I was the highest level Paladin in the aforementioned party, and I was thinking that the instance was going to be a cake-walk (I had plans to solo it). With that in mind, I wasn't employing proper tactics, as had envisoned myself as a massive hit-point tank, invulnerable to death. I was responsible for being the tank, and yes, I didn't do a very good job of it. That doesn't mean I'm not a good player. You see, I'm mainly a soloist or small group-ist, so group dynamics are still something I need to work on.

Excuses aside, you should have voiced your opinion at the time. I was wrong in thinking that we should be focusing our attacks on one mob at a time. The rationale for said decision is that if all players focused one at a time, they would drop faster, leaving the priest untouched because of the high death rate of mobs. You can't be hurt when all mobs are dead, right? It works if they really do drop fast, but on groups of elites, this isn't the case, and I see that now.

We should have been protecting you, and to a certain extent, I was (I healed you on occasion), but healing the healer is indicative of poor group play. I'm not dumb, or slow, so if you were to voice your concerns at the time, I would have adjusted my tactics. Considering that the policy of all-vs-one mob doesn't work when facing multiple elite mobs became clear after the fact to me (it was at the end of night, if I recall correctly, when you left us. It was REAL late!), perhaps you should have spoken up if you knew at the time? That's another sign of poor group play: lack of communication.

I was actively looking for the mob with the least health, and adding to his demise! A wrong tactic for certain situations, but at least I was good at it. Notice, we never had problems with medium sized groups of mobs. We were only over-whelmed by Hamhock and his surprise goons, due to my error in tactics (I say MY, because I was the primary tank).

I should point out that you called it a "Tactic that often doesn't work", but in our case, it was serviceable until the time of our demise. In keeping with my belief of "I was higher level than most, so I'm practically invulerable", when our party was overwhelmed by Homeboy, I managed to escape, preserving the instance and our time spent there. It doesn't justify all of you dying in there, but at least it's something to mention ;)

Our group had eventually whittled down to three due to time concerns, the players left being Refigerator, LavCat and myself. Fridge was way under level for the area. As LavCat and I were taking out small groups at a time, I was keeping Fridge alive by drawing aggro from anyone that attacked him. We were still employing the all-vs-one tactic, but I was responsible for peeling and healing as necessary, as Refigerator could only take 2-3 shots before dying (WAY underlevel!). This tactic worked well until he had to leave (again, it was VERY late).

So the group ended up with LavCat and I, two Paladins left to finish off the instance. And we did. The all-vs-one tactic works as it should in a two-Paladin combo, and we played it perfectly. We killed everything, never dying once (Well, I think Lav died once because of a button-pressing-snafu), handling groups of up to 4 elite mobs at a time. I can't remember what level I was, I think I was 29, and LavCat was 27 or 28 at the time, and we were fighting level 25+ mobs. Two Paladins taking on 4 or more elites and winning fairly safely with good distribution of aggro due to timely healing and stunning, along with use of the "safety/bail-out" skills at the right moments, I'd say is pretty impressive.

So yes, the all-vs-one tactic doesn't work in a 5 player group with healers simply because all mobs need to be accounted for. We know this now. All-vs-one works in a 3 man group, if one person acts as peeler, but that's pushing it, and all-vs-one works when you play in a 2 man group (I'd say it's a no-brainer if you're Paladins that can heal and draw aggro that way when one is getting overwhelmed). I'd imagine that when you have 5 tanks in a group, those players being moderate damage inflicting, high hit point and defense players, all-vs-one would be serviceable since everyone can handle the damage being dealt to them. But even in that situation, having all mobs accounted for would probably be best.

[Bolty]

Excuses aside, you should have voiced your opinion at the time.

Huh? You talking to me or TheDragoon? I don't recall this instance trip you're describing.

If you're talking to me, I don't consider Paladins to be tanks - they simply can't hold aggro well enough to stop the aggro from shifting to mages, especially. People tend to think that anyone wearing mail armor is a tank, but a Paladin is poorly designed with the goal of holding aggro in mind. If the party lacks a Warrior to pull and hold aggro in fights, they have to improvise.

For example, in the Scarlet Monastery runs that a group of us were doing this weekend, we didn't have a warrior, so with two Priests in the party I felt it was safe to use Mind Control often to split up mobs. It worked wonders against groups of three mobs. I would start the fight by Mind Controlling one of them, causing the 2nd to attack my controlled minion. The third would come and attack me, but before it could reach me the others in the group would start slamming it hard. Killing the 3rd monster, attention would turn to the second, and after it was dead, I could release the 1st for a finish-off.

We ran into problems when the other priest in the party decided to try to use Mind Control in the same fashion; however, she was only level 37 (compared to my 40) and could not hold it long vs. level 38 and 39 mobs. Level difference is HUGE with Mind Control. We had a whole party wipeout on one occasion when an ill-timed Mind Control caused 5 creeps to come down on us. In parties of 5, Priests should never really be using offensive spells, but without a tank an exception was necessary. Even still, if I were the *only* Priest in that group, I would not use Mind Control as it would leave me unable to shield and heal during the fight.

-Bolty

[Tal]

Excuses aside, you should have voiced your opinion at the time. I was wrong in thinking that we should be focusing our attacks on one mob at a time. The rationale for said decision is that if all players focused one at a time, they would drop faster, leaving the priest untouched because of the high death rate of mobs. You can't be hurt when all mobs are dead, right? It works if they really do drop fast, but on groups of elites, this isn't the case, and I see that now.

You were right in focusing the attacks on a single mob. When you get a group of elites it becomes problematic so what do you do? Well a pally can peel off and get the second and thirds attention before turning back to the first and helping to finish it off. Keep in mind that your ability to damage it isn't as great as the cloth wearing nukers. That DOES mean though that they have to slow down on the nukes so you can keep the mobs attention. Don't forget also to make liberal use of your seals such as Seal of Fury to generate more hate and if you are planning being the main tank you should be using a two hander. Keep in mind though that as a Pally you're really a secondary tank and have your party let you do the pulling - using dynamite helps with that.

In the SM instance I was not as useful as the main tank with two mages along invariably one would land a fireball before I could get off a Holy Strike and the mob would run after the mage. But then the other would get off an attack possibly getting the attention of the mob and he would turn just in time for me to unload one on him. The tactics Bolty described worked pretty well on times when we had multiple mobs. And when we did have multiples I would go after those the Mages were going after as I knew that mob was going to drop quicker. At that point I would heal whichever mage was getting pounded on and hoped that Bolty and Lissa were healing each other. Most of the time we were okay. ;) When we got to Herod (I think that was his name) the second time we were more successful because I was able to generate a LOT of hate from him before Roane started nuking. Bolty and Lissa took turns healing me and shielding me as I worked on him. He never even looked up at the three of them and instead concentrated on me. I knew as long as Bolty, Lissa and myself had mana that I could survive down there for quite awhile.

[Bolty]

I knew as long as Bolty, Lissa and myself had mana that I could survive down there for quite awhile.

But MAN, that was close. I ran out of mana shielding/healing you, and stopped to drink. Lissa was then able to keep you alive long enough for me to get back to full mana, and then he stopped to drink. It took two Priests' full mana bars to keep you alive. That guy is tough stuff. :) Still, it worked like a charm!

It does show what a difference a warrior makes. A natural party leader, the warrior can handle the pulls, aggro, you name it - concentrating its full attention on the creeps, and having faith that his/her teammates will do the necessary healing. The others can do the nuking, but when it comes down to it, guess who the others are going to send in first to fight the big boss? That's right. :)

-Bolty

[Tal]

But MAN, that was close.  I ran out of mana shielding/healing you, and stopped to drink.  Lissa was then able to keep you alive long enough for me to get back to full mana, and then he stopped to drink.  It took two Priests' full mana bars to keep you alive.  That guy is tough stuff.  :)  Still, it worked like a charm!

Hehehe. No worries. I still had divine favor to heal myself with and a couple of greater heals. :)

It does show what a difference a warrior makes.  A natural party leader, the warrior can handle the pulls, aggro, you name it - concentrating its full attention on the creeps, and having faith that his/her teammates will do the necessary healing.  The others can do the nuking, but when it comes down to it, guess who the others are going to send in first to fight the big boss?  That's right.  :)

-Bolty

Yar. I wish I had levelled Shalandrax up more than Sharanna and probably would have if I had known I was going to be tanking so often.

[JustAGuy]

Threaded view, baby.

I was replying to TheDragoon. Unless I'm on crack, the instance in question was the Stockades. Dragoon was the primary healer, LavCat and I were the tanks, Refrigerator was a level 20 Druid (very young for the instance) and Lissa was the Rogue. The instance TheDragoon describes is the one we were in, where we fell to Hamhock, an elite mob when his side-kicks spawed (or were very well hidden and the came out) on top of us. Since the tanks didn't handle the aggro well enough, the priest got clobbered and shortly after, so did the rest. Since the Priest was felled first, and the Druid was dead in three hits, that left the rogue and two Paladins to handle 4 to 6 elites. I also believe that we hadn't fully rested, or our mana supplies had gone low, so we were at the mob of mobs' mercy. Sure, I made it out alive, but that's not the point.

This is what caused this whole thread: a bad pull exasperated the fact that the tanks didn't do what they were supposed to. That is, we didn't gobble up aggro and take a beating well enough, allowing the healer to do it's job and heal us. If we had spread out our threat to all the enemies, and tagged them all well enough, the priest would have survived longer, allowing the druid to survive longer, thereby making us all survive longer, long enough to win.

It also has to do with faith. I don't think I had any faith in other players' abilities to manage their own classes well enough. I was playing as if I was soloing, mainly looking out for number 1, and using tactics that would be well in line with a soloist's survival method. If I had more faith in the healers, that they would heal me when appropriate, I wouldn't worry about killing as fast as possible. I would instead kill safely; I would make sure the priest is always safe, and he would in turn make it safe for me to keep things that way, i.e. take a beating and keep on living. It's like that post you referred to in the Blizzard forum; instead of hurrying to make the kills, just take your time, do what you're supposed to (in my case, draw the aggro) and it'll be fine. Have faith that the party members will do their jobs.

Sure Paladins are not supposed to be main tanks. But that doesn't mean that they can't be. I've got a penchant for snagging aggro, especially when I use the seals to their fullest potential (there's one that I can increase my threat and one for reducing the caster's threat. I can also seal the casters to absorb some of their damage. Hell, I can seal the caster to make them invulnerable to damage!). So while it's difficult to be a main tank, it's not impossible, and I can do it. That night, since the overall strategy was flawed, no manner of sealing, skill and item use would have saved us from that bad pull.

That mind control skill sounds really interesting. Kind of like "Conversion" or "Mind Blast" in Diablo 2.

[TheDragoon]

Edit: I reread this post and realized it sounds like I'm bashing TheDragoon; quite the contrary, I was using "you" in the general sense. Sorry, Dragoon smile.gif

Actually, I didn't even think about it that way until I read this line. No worries, but thanks for thinking about me! :lol:

[TheDragoon]

Just to clarify, I didn't mean anything against you guys. There was some lack of communication, but by the time we actually started, I was pretty tired and just wanted to get it over with. As I said, good players occasionally just don't play like it. :)

Really, my post was more to try and flesh out my thoughts on the matter (and all of the responses have helped). It was spurred by the outcome of MANY groups I had been in recently where the group members (meleers in particular) were not really paying attention to trying to deal with all of the mobs, resulting in the early demise of the healers time and time again. :) It's a pretty common problem out there, it seems, and particularly when people don't take a dungeon seriously enough.

That said, I'm just about ready to give the Stockade another shot...

[Tal]

That said, I'm just about ready to give the Stockade another shot...

Shalandrax is getting big enough for the Stocks - perhaps we can arrange a time to go through?

[TheDragoon]

A couple of us (Thenryb and I) are planning on heading into the Stockades this evening to clear those quests out of our logs. Does that work for you and anyone else that is interested? :)

[Bun-Bun]

Would a level 31 druid be helpful, and of an appropriate level? If so, I'm interested. Of course, I have no idea where the Stockades are ...