Paladin

Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011
Ret DPS: The real story By now everybody has seen that now infamous graph that shows ret dps near the bottom of the dps pack and dead last among melee classes. However, the author of that graph freely admits that there is more to the numbers than meets the eye. Ret IS NOT as far behind as the graph would tend to show. I wanted to put this out there and beg for some sanity in these discussions about ret dps, and clarify some things that I don't think people understand about the data. The biggest thing to know about the graph is that it does NOT account for gear levels, it just drags together the averages of the top 600 parses for each spec, and then puts the data on a table. It is a fact that right now, compared to rogues and warriors, rets are not as high on the theoretical dps charts if each spec was played by a computer. This means that, in the best guilds where every player plays at near 100% capacity, ret pallies are being phased out in favor of these FOTM classes. That's how they do things, and it's how they win. However, this means that warriors and rogues will tend to have a lot more of the best gear than rets simply due to there being fewer of them at that level of gameplay, and it will push their numbers up, and the ret numbers down by contrast. This makes the gap between the specs seem much larger than it actually is. I think an even better example of this kind of artificially inflated divide is in the numbers for warlocks. Now, Destro is very, very far behind the other specs on that graph. Again, it's true that destro is the bottom of the three warlock specs, however, in the actual numbers department the gap is pretty small. It is large enough, however, that the highest end raiders will switch their spec to the best possible one in order to get the most out of their class. This is natural. However, these raiders, playing these specs at the highest levels, will naturally have more gear than your average destro lock who isn't into heroics yet. So you have a lot of affliction locks doing very very well on the top parses, and destro lagging far more than it would at equal gear and skill levels. Rets, of course, do not have other specs to switch into, so the divide is not as pronounced as it is with destro. The fact is: if you are that far behind other specs when playing your ret paladin: YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. The biggest problem with ret's numbers right now is not that ret pallies are bad, it's that very small mistakes in gearing and rotation can lead to severe dps penalties. The solution is not to come here and beg for buffs, or ask for crazy things like making procs more predictable (doesn't that defeat the point?) and the removal of holy power, but to learn more about your class, get better at your rotation, and learn the fights (knowing when to move, when to switch targets, and when to use cooldowns to get the most benefit is a large part of being a successful melee dps in Cata content, regardless of class). Blaming your spec for bad dps is not an excuse that raid leaders like to hear, especially because you really are capable of doing competitive dps in a raid if you get better at your spec. Nobody ever improved by yelling at devs on forums that they don't read. The fact is, most of you do not raid at the kind of level at which ret pallies are truly being phased out for other melee specs. You're playing with semi-hardcore or casual guilds in which extra effort really does make all the difference. I would say that envelope-pushing rets in server first guilds have legitimate gripes about where they stand in relation to other melee specs, but for the rest of us, please, let's calm down and lend a little bit of perspective to this discussion. It's an important discussion, and it's one we should be having, but let's not let it get reduced to the level of "Ret dps is clearly broken, Blizz, make me the new combat rogue so people will take me to raids just because of my spec." Hammerlock38
Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011 Aug 10, 2011