An Agenda for Warrior Improvements

[Artega]

Flipping through the Warrior boards, and amid all the whining about Intimidating Shout changes, I came across this little gem.

It's written by Lithmir, and details what he believes the core issues of the current incarnation of the Warrior class are, and suggestions on how to remedy them. I don't agree with all of what he suggests, but it's an extremely well-thought-out post, and Tseric made a solid reply to it. Some other contributors have also made excellent contributions (*snicker*)

I've gone ahead and saved it to a .txt file, along with replies that I felt were important to hold on to, for when the thread inevitably either breaks (e.g. accrues too many replies) or gets knocked off the boards by whining and PvP-related posts.

[Concillian]

He is correct about the rage system, however such a thing requires such significant overhauls to the base game mechaincs it will never happen.

The system is established. New gear comes out and it benefits warriors most, people cry nerf because warriors get overpowered because they are most gear dependent (and they are correct in doing so), then warriors get nerfed, further imbalancing the classes at the blue / green gear level.

Tseric's post makes it clear... the devs are not interested in overhauling how rage works. I can't blame them, it would be a LOT of work, but the current system is flat out impossible to balance for both blue/green warriors in relation to blue/green <insert class here> and for purple warriors in relation to purple <insert class here>.

Warriors are the most gear dependent because white damage --> rage --> yellow damage and gear bonuses contribute twofold to that as long as warriors have ways to spend their rage. In essence warriors get to "double dip" on stat bonuses from gear. Extra damage gets counted twice, when every other class only sees a single gain from the same stats. This creates the imbalance... as long as warriors have ways to spend that rage.

The only other way than proposed normalization that I see to be able to balance both ends of the scale is to force warriors into "single dip" land by increasing rage gen for all warriors, then make cooldowns such that at some level of gearing, say as a warrior starts accumulating a decent set of blues, but still has some greens mixed in, a warrior will have trouble utilizing all of his rage. This would change the ways warriors work in that they'd often have nearly 100/100 rage, but it would present a platform to work with where cooldowns and skill powers could be adjusted to bring warriors into balance across the scale, since they would be scaling with gear similar to other classes (single-dip)... until it came time to execute, but then you could set a long enough cooldown to prevent that from becoming a gigantic issue.

Such a system is already in the game for tanking warriors vs. raid bosses. They take so much damage that their threat gen is not limited by their rage, but by cooldowns of skills and weapon speed. The precedent is already set on this.

Something radical has to be done at some point, else we will continue to see necessary class nerfs after each new set of warrior DPS gear becomes available.

[Watto44]

Tseric's post makes it clear... the devs are not interested in overhauling how rage works.&nbsp; I can't blame them, it would be a LOT of work, but the current system is flat out impossible to balance for both blue/green warriors in relation to blue/green <insert class here> and for purple warriors in relation to purple <insert class here>.&nbsp;
[right][snapback]103335[/snapback][/right]

The irony is that there is a normalised rage system in the game. Druids get 5 rage per white hit, 10 per white crit. It's a flat system that is only modified by talents. (Talents increase the rage generated from all bear crits by 5.)

He's definately right in that something needs to change. As to whether or not his changes are good, I'm not sure. The charge change doesn't seem like the best idea I've ever heard though, as it would put every single class on the back foot when they're fighting a warrior. (Dare I suggest he rerolls a gnome? ;) )

[Gorthag]

He's definately right in that something needs to change. As to whether or not his changes are good, I'm not sure. The charge change doesn't seem like the best idea I've ever heard though, as it would put every single class on the back foot when they're fighting a warrior. (Dare I suggest he rerolls a gnome? ;) )
[right][snapback]103336[/snapback][/right]

Well they either need to make a change to Charge or make some long-overdue fixes to the code determining when you are "in combat". Currently warriors can be put in combat by actions as trival as an opposing hunter issuing an attack command to their pet, and remain in combat for 10-15 seconds after their target is dead. This puts warriors at a massive disadvantage, as they have to start fights at range, with no rage.

[Rinnhart]

Well they either need to make a change to Charge or make some long-overdue fixes to the code determining when you are "in combat".&nbsp; Currently warriors can be put in combat by actions as trival as an opposing hunter issuing an attack command to their pet, and remain in combat for 10-15 seconds after their target is dead.&nbsp; This puts warriors at a massive disadvantage, as they have to start fights at range, with no rage.
[right][snapback]103401[/snapback][/right]

Putting a warrior into combat before they can charge is a key tactical move and often is the difference between life and death. Intercept and it's longer cooldown exist for a reason- charge is an insane edge.

Yes, there are definately some lag-related issues with the "In Combat" tag, but there are as many that favor the use of Charge as hamper it.

[Artega]

Putting a warrior into combat before they can charge is a key tactical move and often is the difference between life and death. Intercept and it's longer cooldown exist for a reason- charge is an insane edge.

Yes, there are definately some lag-related issues with the "In Combat" tag, but there are as many that favor the use of Charge as hamper it.
[right][snapback]103422[/snapback][/right]

That's a view born of ignorance. Charge gives us an advantage, but it doesn't mean we'll win; did you read Lithmir's tirade about PvP situations that a Warrior more or less CAN'T win without some kind of outside edge (e.g. the person is at less than 100%, has weaker gear, sucks at the class, etc.)?

Charge gives us enough Rage to do a few things, with Improved Charge increasing that list, but it doesn't mean that allowing us to Charge before we take an offensive action (I'd consider drinking any kind of two-minute-timer potion to be an offensive action) is unbalancing.

I'd say that Charge is so important to the Warrior class that they could remove the Rage generation portion and I'd be fine with it, so long as I could use it on my terms, not on some Hunter's.

[Artega]

I'd prefer a normalized Rage system, to be honest; allowing us to have something akin to 100/100 Rage and be limited by cooldowns would make us Rogues-in-Plate, and I'd roll a Rogue if I wanted Energy instead of Rage :)

I'll quote a post made towards the end of the thread (as I left it last night), that spotlights how I'd like to see Rage normalization happen:

&nbsp; &nbsp; Q u o t e:
&nbsp; &nbsp; While they are still considering changes to help green/blue warriors generate rage better


Let's see if we can help the delvs..
My idea-->Let the rage generation from damage delt have a bonus calculation using the ilvl of the weapon used to generate the rage in addition to it's damage. Current system is 1 rage per 30 damage delt. Alter the calculation a bit more like this..
Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros hits for 600 and is ilvl 80
600/30 = 20 rage gain
ilvl 80--->80/10 = 8
10-8 = 2
20 rage from damage + 2 rage from weapon's ilvl = 22

Pitchfork hits for 120
120/30 = 4 rage gain
ilvl 25--->25/10 = 2.5
10-2.5 = 7.5
4 rage from damage + 7.5 rage from weapon's ilvl = 11.5

Summery
Sulfuras old-->20 New-->22
Pitchfork old-->4 New-->11.5

This cuts the lack of rage generation from 16 points down to 8.5 between someone using Sulfuras and a pitchfork. A poorly geared player gets a major buff while the top 1% get a slight buff.

[ post edited by Leafericson ]

[Concillian]

There is no adjustment for weapon speed in there, a fast weapon of high ilvl would generate insane amounts of rage in that case. There would need to be a speed factor for that to work.

The only way to truly get warriors on the same scale as other classes is to essentially make them rogues in plate. Otherwise you still have 'double-dipping' from stat bonuses.

[Rinnhart]

That's a view born of ignorance.&nbsp; Charge gives us an advantage, but it doesn't mean we'll win; did you read Lithmir's tirade about PvP situations that a Warrior more or less CAN'T win without some kind of outside edge (e.g. the person is at less than 100%, has weaker gear, sucks at the class, etc.)?

Charge gives us enough Rage to do a few things, with Improved Charge increasing that list, but it doesn't mean that allowing us to Charge before we take an offensive action (I'd consider drinking any kind of two-minute-timer potion to be an offensive action) is unbalancing.

I'd say that Charge is so important to the Warrior class that they could remove the Rage generation portion and I'd be fine with it, so long as I could use it on my terms, not on some Hunter's.
[right][snapback]103424[/snapback][/right]

What part, exactly, is a view born of ignorance? You agree it's a powerful ability, but the belief that it should be counterable is only held by the bnet kiddies?

I'll keep that in mind next time I have stealth broken by a warrior's shout, or a totem, or a stray AE, because rogues aren't at all dependant upon that.

[Concillian]

Putting a warrior into combat before they can charge is a key tactical move and often is the difference between life and death. Intercept and it's longer cooldown exist for a reason- charge is an insane edge.
[right][snapback]103422[/snapback][/right]

Putting a warrior into combat through conventional means is one thing. Putting him into combat from the mill when he's at the Blacksmith my simply issuing the command for your pet to attack is quite another.

Perhaps you are unaware of the situation he is referring to... a hunter can issue his pet to attack a warrior, and the warrior is in combat the INSTANT the command is issued. The hunter can leisurely lay down his trap as the pet approaches the warrior because the hunter is not considered in combat.

How is this a fair tactical situation? Neither has engaged the other, but one is in combat while the other is not? How you can ethically support this kind of 'key tactical move' as valid is totally beyond reason.

[Rinnhart]

Putting a warrior into combat through conventional means is one thing.&nbsp; Putting him into combat from the mill when he's at the Blacksmith my simply issuing the command for your pet to attack is quite another.

Perhaps you are unaware of the situation he is referring to... a hunter can issue his pet to attack a warrior, and the warrior is in combat the INSTANT the command is issued.&nbsp; The hunter can leisurely lay down his trap as the pet approaches the warrior because the hunter is not considered in combat.

How is this a fair tactical situation?&nbsp; Neither has engaged the other, but one is in combat while the other is not?&nbsp; How you can ethically support this kind of 'key tactical move' as valid is totally beyond reason.
[right][snapback]103429[/snapback][/right]

I will agree that the hunter bit is complete bull, but I've seen enough spells land and still eaten a charge to say warriors benefit from combat bugs as well.

[Concillian]

I will agree that the hunter bit is complete bull, but I've seen enough spells land and still eaten a charge to say warriors benefit from combat bugs as well.
[right][snapback]103430[/snapback][/right]

The fact that it's repeatable and consistent makes it exploitable. PvP groups actually PLAN around the exploitation of this bug.

You cannot PLAN to charge after a spell has landed.

Warriors may benefit from some, but the fact that they are not consistent, makes them as likely as say charging and not ending up in melee rage. The fact that there are exploitable bugs for charge clearly tips the scales away from the warrior's favor.

[Professor Frink]

I'm unclear on how this "double-dipping" with rage is supposed to work. My understanding of the system was that in general the extra damage you get from rage is determined by the speical ability, not a multiple of your character-sheet damage.

So total damage
= base damage (character sheet auto-attack damage) + base damage (rage generation) * special ability damage per rage (fixed)
= base damage * some constant bonus for being a warrior as opposed to a priest

Is this incorrect?

[Artega]

I'm unclear on how this "double-dipping" with rage is supposed to work.&nbsp; My understanding of the system was that in general the extra damage you get from rage is determined by the speical ability, not a multiple of your character-sheet damage.

So total damage
= base damage (character sheet auto-attack damage) + base damage (rage generation) * special ability damage per rage (fixed)
= base damage * some constant bonus for being a warrior as opposed to a priest

Is this incorrect?
[right][snapback]103435[/snapback][/right]

I believe they're referring to the fact that a Warrior generates Rage through his white (character sheet Attack damage, modified by Armor and other associated things) damage, and that Rage can then be used to power yellow (damage boosts from abilities, or instants that cause damage, and so on) damage, which further increases the damage they get from upgrading their weaponry or damage stats. A Shaman could pick up an Earthshaker as an upgrade over Malown's Slam, and he'd see a noticeable damage increase, but that's it; Earthshaker doesn't make his spells more powerful, or make his Windfury proc more frequently. With Warriors, that damage increase also increases the rate at which he generates Rage, allowing him to use his specials more frequently, resulting in a damage increase beyond the simple increase to autoattack damage.

Confused yet? :)

[Artega]

The fact that attacking through a Charge means the target automagically loses the fight, or that Charge is an "insane edge."

Warriors must be in melee to do anything at all; even though Paladins (and some Shamans and Druids) need to be in melee combat to do significant damage (or any real damage at all, in the case of Paladins), they're capable of doing other useful things when they aren't (healing in all three cases, nuking for Druids and Shamans, dispelling or cleansing, etc.) Warriors aren't; they're designed to soak damage and cause damage, and they can't do either (except maybe play mana sponge, but what Mage is going to target a Warrior that isn't busily trying to beat their skull in with a giant pig-shaped hammer over a Priest that's healing the Rogue that's busy turning a Warlock into tasty chunky-bites?) if they aren't in melee combat.

Rogues are at their most effective if they're able to attack from stealth - just as Warriors are most effective if they're able to Charge - but that's where similarities end. If a Rogue is discovered before he's able to launch an attack (either through level difference, AE effects, etc), he can either Vanish to get Stealth back instantly (and break binds active on him in the process), or pop Sprint to rapidly close the gap to the target; if a Warrior is placed in combat before he's able to Charge (and this is ridiculously easy to do, as Hunters well know), he has no alternatives besides popping Bloodrage or Berserker Rage (for Fury specs with the talents) and hitting Intercept, which is a vital skill for countering kiters on a somewhat lengthy cooldown.

Additionally, about your Rogue: If your Stealth is broken by an AE, totem, or Warrior shout, you're already in melee range (or extremely close to it); you're just robbed of your opening move (which you can get back with Vanish.) This kinda makes your analogy of losing Stealth against losing Charge kind of like comparing apples and potatoes.

EDIT: Tags.

[teske]

The point of Frink is:
Suppose a new weapon increases your damage twofold.
=> Obviously double white damage
=> Double rage
=> Double rate of specials

And if every special is just some fixed damage, this new weapon has the effect:
Double white damage, double yellow damage.

That would be fine.

Now I don't know much about warriors, but from the skill description it seems that most skills inflict weapon damge plus a fixed amount, which leads to:
=> Double white damage
=> Double rage
=> Double rate of specials
=> Each special: Double damage

Which would mean, the damage from specials would increase by 4 times.

[Concillian]

Say you get +X AP through a sequence of upgrades. That adds to white damage, and that yeilds extra rage.

If you use that rage for hamstring or rend or heroic strike, then you are not double-dipping, you are getting fixed damage per rage.

If you use that rage the way most warriors do, by using an attack that either takes these stats and/or weapon damage into effect (Bloodthirst or Mortal Strike or Whirlwind or Slam... deep wounds and impale also give benefit here), then you are gaining more damage again by having the bonus applied there upon use of the rage.

Ank skill that uses 'weapon damage' also uses damage from AP.

In addition, any crit chance increase will also increase chance to crit on rage usage, so even fixed damage per rage skills see an increase in average damage per rage, though this is also the case with all other classes.