05-28-2007, 10:01 PM
Quote:Whenever we have more than one Protection warrior in the raid, the second Prot warrior off-tanks. I don't understand why your Protection warriors fail to do the job, though I suppose it could be due to the level of content.
Clearly, because my experiences don't agree with you, my warriors are incompetent.
I ask again: Is there anything I can say which will make you believe me? No matter what I say, you'll just accuse my players of being terrible (all that raid progression clearly means nothing), accuse me of having a slanted viewpoint (my viewpoint is solely slanted towards what works), call me a liar, or attempt to discredit me in some other way. Are you approaching this with an open mind? Is there any kind of evidence you'll accept? Are you willing to admit that you're wrong?
Or am I just wasting my time?
Quote:If a single paladin can tank them without dying, it sounds like a gimmick encounter to me. It's pretty much what mages were forced to endure in Molten Core and BWL (Majordomo, Suppression Room).
I love this phrase, "gimmick encounter". It's overused. One thing I've continually stressed, having seen nearly all the implemented raid content from 1.0 forward, is that there's no general case for raid encounters. From the beginning of WoW, all raid encounters have had exactly two things in common.
1) Something will need to be healed.
2) Something will have to take damage.
That's it. Every fight has a "gimmick" of some kind. Some kinds favour warriors, and others favour paladins, and some kinds favour yet other classes (for example, Warlocks on Magtheridon). Yes, so only 20% of the encounters in SSC/TK currently favour prot paladins - I did say paladins need tweaking. But they have their place.
Quote:And if they hit for ~1800 on cloth, they'll hit for ~1000 on plate. 12 murlocs on one paladin? It's a bit of a stretch. He'd have to spamheal himself as well as getting spamhealed by at least one other healer, if not two - and if they are higher than level 70, he'll get crushed (can't keep Holy Shield up). I suppose it's possible, though.
Why, thank you. After trying to discredit me yet again, you concede that I just might not be lying to you. How kind of you. How gracious of you.
Seriously, can you lay off the skepticism? I'm trying to be helpful, but you're doubting me at every turn as if I have nothing better to do all day than to lie to you. I'm not asking you to take my word as gospel, but can you at least pretend that you believe that I know what the hell I'm talking about? Every time I relate an experience, you question it, with no counter-evidence of your own besides "oh, that's not true", which isn't really an argument at all. Let's discuss in a manner where you present evidence, and I present evidence, and we talk about it, as opposed to what's happening now where I present evidence and you deny its reality. Unless you're not interested in hearing about why you're wrong, in which case, I am wasting my time.