12-28-2005, 07:03 PM
Bored at the office on a week where we can't actually do any work because 2/3 of the office is on vacation, I was browsing some WOW-related sites I don't normally poke around on simply because I don't have time.
I was checking out the warrior tactics guide on wowwiki, when I saw something that made me pop a vessel:
Speaking as the primary warrior in Avarice, this sentence just smacks of stupidity; revenge is NEVER the primary method of aggro generation, because it's entirely dependent on whether it gets triggered. If revenge lights up, a smart tank is going to hit the button regardless of what their opinion is on proper aggro management. The real division is between sunder armor and shield bash:
Sunder: higher rage cost, lower aggro generation, but perpetually available as long as rage is
Shield Bash: lower cost, higher aggro, but subject to cooldown and potentially dangerous to NOT have available precisely when you need it
For my part, the decision on which to use is patently obvious; if there are no casters arond, bash to your heart's content. Otherwise, bash casters when they're casting, sunder at will, revenge whenever able, and shield slam to burn rage.
Anyway, that quote above... this is information that's sitting out there on a heavily-used site which people who don't know any better might pick it up and take it as gospel. Is it any wonder I actually hear people repeating this nonsense in-game?
We should make an effort to catalogue Conventional Wisdom about this game which is garbage. Any other glaring examples? I can think of a lot of obvious ones regarding what a class is for or how a class should spec (all of which I consider specious, as there are not 8 classes per faction; there are 24), but I'm thinking more along the lines of specific tactics.
I was checking out the warrior tactics guide on wowwiki, when I saw something that made me pop a vessel:
Quote:Tanks are divided into two schools on holding aggro: those who prefer to sunder repeatedly, and those who use revenge as their primary method of aggro generation.
Speaking as the primary warrior in Avarice, this sentence just smacks of stupidity; revenge is NEVER the primary method of aggro generation, because it's entirely dependent on whether it gets triggered. If revenge lights up, a smart tank is going to hit the button regardless of what their opinion is on proper aggro management. The real division is between sunder armor and shield bash:
Sunder: higher rage cost, lower aggro generation, but perpetually available as long as rage is
Shield Bash: lower cost, higher aggro, but subject to cooldown and potentially dangerous to NOT have available precisely when you need it
For my part, the decision on which to use is patently obvious; if there are no casters arond, bash to your heart's content. Otherwise, bash casters when they're casting, sunder at will, revenge whenever able, and shield slam to burn rage.
Anyway, that quote above... this is information that's sitting out there on a heavily-used site which people who don't know any better might pick it up and take it as gospel. Is it any wonder I actually hear people repeating this nonsense in-game?
We should make an effort to catalogue Conventional Wisdom about this game which is garbage. Any other glaring examples? I can think of a lot of obvious ones regarding what a class is for or how a class should spec (all of which I consider specious, as there are not 8 classes per faction; there are 24), but I'm thinking more along the lines of specific tactics.
Darian Redwin - just some dude now