This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Interesting snippet on Blizzard's future PvP plans.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gnostik
I find this interesting bit of info from Blizzard's
Druid Q&A
:
ur priority is on getting underperforming classes viable before we worry about the second or third spec of classes that already have a strong PvP presence. We’ll get there.
This was in regard to making Moonkins more survivable in PvP. In other words, "Druids can go Resto for PvP, so we're not worried about them." Mages were also brought up in that Frost is fine for PvP.
What I'm wondering is, what class(es) do they think are underperforming? The only one that comes to mind is Shamans. Maybe Hunters.
Anyway, I just thought some people might be interested to know that this is their line of thinking right now. It may forestall any false hopes of your favorite spec being made PvP-viable any time soon.... (Of course it could give you
more
hope if you play a gimp class. But again, I'm not sure what those are....)
EDIT: In the Mage Q&A he gets more specific:
It is more important to us though to fix classes that have no viable specs than it is to bring options to classes that already have a reasonable Arena presence. We are more focused on improving hunter and warlock representation than making sure Fire has a PvP role.
So, Hunters, Warlocks - and I have to assume Shamans - should expect PvP buffs before anyone. Although, they are buffing Shamans in 3.2 so it might be a while before they are looked at again. (The buffs are pretty lackluster though, imo.)
Post by
cloudp
This is such crap... How far has blizzard gone?
Bring the player, not the class, anyone? they stated it themselves. Now, it gets to bring the spec, not the class? Grats blizz.
Hybrids VS Pures is the true contest here. While those statements may apply to pures, they do not apply to hybrids.
Pures have the room to have a bursty tree, a controlling tree, a pve tree. See mages or rogues; Arcane/Mutilate, Frost/Subtlety, Fire/combat. (i admit i know close to nothing about hunters, so not much to say here). Warlocks seem a bit messed up, but it could get fixed; they still have various playstyles to choose both pvp and pve wise. 3 Trees, 1 role. works fine. (/ignores DKs. I don't know what exactly those are, their trees are a stupid mess of tankdps anyways.)
But Hybrids?... A druid has 3 trees for 4 roles (caster offensive, caster healer, tank, meleer). Having a single tree for pvp means they aren't efficient in pvp with two or three roles. I could roll a druid for moonkin and feral, and blizzard tells me i must go resto?...
And hybrids of two types? like Priests and Warriors. How would their trees do? Priests would be forced to heal, and warriors would be treated as stupid pures, only able to dps, as tank spec is nonexistant in pvp?
What is blizzard's mind exactly? they're diving each patch further from what I call balance. Decide yourselves, blizzard. If you want to give a speciallized pvp tree to each class, go ahead. But state it decently; the way things are, the more they fix, the worse it gets.
Post by
133375
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
cloudp
If you like Moonkin or feral specs you
can
play them but you will only be as powerful as everyone else.
Untrue.
Moonkins have real problems regarding pvp. Probably, -the- most problems in a caster offensive spec.
Also, i know tanks are useful flag holders, but no pvp measures should be taken on battlegrounds. That is not a good way of measuring how balanced pvp is, you'll be facing a lot of unskilled, ungeared, unbothered pvpers, and most situations are not a matter of skill, but positioning and luck. It is arround Arenas that OP/UP should, and is, determined.
I am not saying they shouldn't fix UP first. I am finding annoying the fact that they are stating directly how unconcerned they are with a spec, as long as the class has at least one playable spec for pvp.
Edit: Also, by blizzard's mind, your warlock has destruction as a viable pvp spec, so just forget affliction. It is essentially what they are saying.
Post by
Thuya
I am not saying they shouldn't fix UP first. I am finding annoying the fact that they are stating directly how unconcerned they are with a spec, as long as the class has at least one playable spec for pvp.
Edit: Also, by blizzard's mind, your warlock has destruction as a viable pvp spec, so just forget affliction. It is essentially what they are saying.
Except that's not what they're saying at all. Why don't you go ahead and wipe the tears from your eyes and try reading those posts again.
They aren't saying they WON'T look at it, they're saying they have to prioritize the order of things they have to work out, and that right now they'd
rather have people respec than reroll
.
Every time they make a post saying what they're prioritizing, there's people that get upset feeling ignored and forgotten.
I know that for the general population this may come as a shock, but the world does not revolve around you, so maybe instead of complaining that your spec a/b/c from a generally viable class isn't up to snuff when Mr. warlock/hunter/shaman don't have ANY spec they can use you should feel lucky that you have anything.
The sense of entitlement here is just ridiculous.
Is pvp balanced atm, NO. But they're working on it. With new abilities and gear everything shifts. It's a constantly changing thing and is treated as such. Now stop whining that you can't faceroll your way to the upper tiers of arena with any spec you please (which is funny coming from a disc priest).
Post by
cloudp
(which is funny coming from a disc priest).
Retired disc priest. I played 2 days for season 6, rest was in season 5.
Point taken, tough. I might be pessimistic, but i still think this won't bring balance - look at how Druids were in S5 and the jump they got, look at how hunters were in S5 and the supernerf they got. Blizz typically pushes it to the top or the bottom. Looking at a specific spec/class is their mistake. They don't seem to grasp that counterclasses do exist, and that if class X rises, class Y gets lower. While they take it so narrow, i don't think it will work.
Post by
79146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thuya
I think you make a lot of good points Open, specifically when you mention balancing certain classes by specifically nerfing the ones that are over represented.
I was actually just talking to a buddy of mine about this, and we thought it was funny how their general plan as far as "scaling" and balance goes is to increase the health pools. Which in turn increases the damage necessary, which causes more of a balance issue between the classes.
Poor example, but it illustrates my general idea: If every char in pvp gear has ~5k hp the gap between the highest damage and the lowest isn't as obvious as when you have ~25k hp. I guess what I'm saying is that balance has always been an issue, but as the numbers get bigger, so does the gap.
That being said... I arena feral, and I love it. :P I just had to make a new team because my friend lost his account with the leadership of ours, so that sucks. We don't win 100%, but to say that resto druids are the only viable pvp spec right now does us (feral) a disservice. :P
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Valer
PvP needs to be fixed around nerfs not buffs.
Or else we just end up with 10 extemely powerful classes that do too much damage or too much healing. Pvp just becomes too bursty which is a load of !@#$.
Post by
369599
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
280759
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
216037
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
79146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
87278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Booterang
Open speaks the truth. The bigger the bracket the more effectiveness you have overall, more-so than any other class in arena imo (bl).
More to the point though. I think it's great that they are focussing on getting under represented classes up to a competitive level instead of giving powerful classes more things to play around with when they aren't dominating arena.
The higher representation of shamans in 5v5 bracket is one of the main reasons why the class has not been buffed in my opinion. You have a class that is lackluster in 2v2 and 3v3, but over-represented in 5v5 due to
one buff
.
I'd rather they overhaul shaman PvP by giving the class a larger health pool (not that pathetic 7% base health) greater mana efficency (800 mana for a riptide is a bit ridiculous when you compare it to a druid's spells) and more mobility. In return... remove the effect of bloodlust from arena.
Frankly I'd rather keep both, but at least with this new option I would not be brought into a 5v5 team where the only thing going for me is a 45 second haste buff.
Also: Nerfing > Buffing, it is easier to cut down a class then bring another one up.
Post by
129414
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.