YES to Class Balancing (Blizz Poll)

Classic Discussion
Prev 1 8 9 10 19 Next
12/05/2017 09:21 PMPosted by Akaidian
12/05/2017 09:09 PMPosted by Curruptress
Give it up. Your spec IS viable just not in the way you want it to be,

You're going to have to prove that with more than anecdotal evidence of a few bad guilds bringing ret along. Throughout the entire history of wow and all video games, there have been people ham-fisting things into submission to "make them work." That is decidedly not-meta, and therefor decidedly not actually viable. A hexagon could do the job of a wheel, but it's not an actually viable alternative, because there are too many downsides, even if you could still get your car from A->B.


No, it no ones job to prove anything. You have been told by NUMEROUS hybrid mains just like me that things are fine and you need to learn your class.

Yet you continue to whine and groan asking for buffs that would turn hybrids into demi gods. You will never be happy no matter what Blizzard gives you in handouts. The sentiment of your posts is echoed in the Class development forums, and those modern wow players just like you aren't happy just like you, and never will be, because they want it all for free and want it all handed too them.

TL;DR as usual. Learn to play.
12/05/2017 11:51 PMPosted by Espure
12/05/2017 11:45 PMPosted by Harland
PvE in vanilla was very much great too, it was 100% the player, not the class. Its a lesson you need to learn.

You weren't going to beat a Frost Mage of equal skill as a Rogue or Warrior. Also the lack of resilience meant Rogues demolished everyone except Warriors.


Based all you info on Chinese whispers and pvp videos I see.
12/05/2017 11:59 PMPosted by Harland
Based all you info on Chinese whispers and pvp videos I see.

...no? How do either stop being kited endlessly?
implement a system for the classic community to vote on changes 6months in.. 75% to pass or not happening.

I can deal with things i might not like or agree with if 75% of the people who are actually playing classic want it.
12/06/2017 12:22 AMPosted by Smoke
implement a system for the classic community to vote on changes 6months in.. 75% to pass or not happening.

I can deal with things i might not like or agree with if 75% of the people who are actually playing classic want it.

Maybe requiring a 60 char on classic would be a good idea too
12/06/2017 12:22 AMPosted by Smoke
implement a system for the classic community to vote on changes 6months in.. 75% to pass or not happening.

I can deal with things i might not like or agree with if 75% of the people who are actually playing classic want it.

By then, the class imbalance will have already happened. A supermajority will be playing one of the top four "pures" (of which 2 are hybrids), or as I like to call them, the aristocrats, and any voting will be in favor of them.

The only way to prevent the problem from occurring, and getting a healthy class distribution is to take care of the problem before the initial character selection process.
No. Vanilla needs to STAY CLASSIC PERIOD! Learn to play. Don't be a CATA n00b.
12/06/2017 12:35 AMPosted by Chunlí
12/06/2017 12:22 AMPosted by Smoke
implement a system for the classic community to vote on changes 6months in.. 75% to pass or not happening.

I can deal with things i might not like or agree with if 75% of the people who are actually playing classic want it.

By then, the class imbalance will have already happened. A supermajority will be playing one of the top four "pures" (of which 2 are hybrids), or as I like to call them, the aristocrats, and any voting will be in favor of them.

The only way to prevent the problem from occurring, and getting a healthy class distribution is to take care of the problem before the initial character selection process.


I had planned on playing a paladin again, but since you say its impractial I guess I'll just suck it up and roll a Priest or Warrior instead like all the ther players who know how to have fun better than I do.
12/06/2017 01:08 AMPosted by Harland

I had planned on playing a paladin again, but since you say so I guess its not allowed because hybrids just cant compete.
Ignore posters caught in the Legion mindset. You can play whatever you want.
11/15/2017 12:09 AMPosted by Akaidian
Since someone feels the need to artificially drive traffic for their personal view point, I'd prefer to keep this sub forum neutral and will thus promote my personal feeling.

Go take this survey
https://goo.gl/forms/rOHYFFp6i74a8or13

And be sure to vote YES for class balancing.
It's absolutely possible the original classic prejudice against certain less-than-desirable specs can get fixed!


20 likes but you probably had 50,000 views lol. This Is one thing blizzard shouldn't touch.
Crossrealm is 100% a deal breaker for me. Sure, give me an opt in server with absolutely no chance of cross realm if you like (and the rest of you can play on whatever you like) but if every server is cross realm i'm done. There was nothing more tragic than that AV way back when, when i realised i recognised none of the people running it. (Well, one thing more tragic: taking a deep breath as i was about to enter BRM for the first time on this character in TBC only to realise (my first alt post TBC) that it was empty...) But that AV? i dont even remember when it happened. But i have a vivid memory of absolute disappointment.

Also, just to be clear, nevermind statistical analysis, somewhere between 5-11% of players need to have their votes discounted for a) level boosts; b) flying, c) LFR and d) LFD. Not to mention the ones who dont understand the question on MC.
By balance you mean a bad player can beat a good player? Because in some instances x should beat y 90% of the time. I'm cool with getting smoked by my nemesis. But also I'm cool with smacking the "class" I'm suppose to.

Balance is getting rid of all classes except 1. Then giving everyone the only option for wep/armor w/ the exact same spec. Then it would be balanced to where skill would be the deciding factor.

Years ago; when the game was good/harder to achieve I remember rogues being the killer of locks. But I learned to adapt after a bit of time and actually did ok against them. The rest is history.

Do good what your class was meant to. Wait for your time to shine. Blizz will bring it around.
12/05/2017 11:31 PMPosted by Nalal
the only people that want balancing are skrubs that couldn't fill the role they wanted to because they were garbo or dumb enough to roll a healing class with the intent to dps
Well, you obviously weren't around in Vanilla, or you just didn't bother reading any of the text on the character creation screens, or the manual, because Blizzard originally intended Paladins to primarily be in melee...

From Blizzcon 2005 — https://youtu.be/ioQWkWj5_ss?t=20m17s — the developer's exact words (from 20:34) are:
We always kind of imagined the Paladin class as being the Holy Warrior where you would get in there with the Warriors and you've had your plate armour on so you can take the damage and you would be beating on the mob, and yes you would be a healer in a backup situation but that's not really how it's played out over time
Absolutely no room for any doubt whatsoever. Blizzard intended Paladins to tank. Blizzard intended Paladins to DPS. Blizzard only intended Paladins to heal in a 'backup situation'.

Whilst he did not indicate whether they thought Paladins should be tanking more, or DPSing more, it is absolutely clear that healing took a back-seat to the melee roles.

This is supported by the actual World of Warcraft Manual which, in 2004, said (p.80):
the Paladin is ... geared towards physical battle more than spellcasting prowess.
Note: "physical battle more than spellcasting" ... "more" ... More.

Then we have the class description from the character creation screen:
Powerful warriors in their own right
Note: "Powerful warriors" ... "powerful" ... Powerful. Not "second-class" or "mediocre". Not "jack of all trades, master of none". Powerful warriors in their own right. It is simply impossible to interpret that as meaning "Paladins were never meant to tank/DPS as well as Warriors."

Thus there is no way on Earth that any intellectually-honest person with even half a functioning brain cell can hold the view that "Paladins were designed to (primarily) be healers." That is 100% false, as proven above by official Blizzard sources. Paladins were primarily designed to be a melee class — they were designed to tank and DPS. That. Is. A. Fact. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong and deliberately lying.

So, most folk that rolled Paladins in Vanilla were expecting to be Holy Warriors (i.e. tanks/DPS) because that's what the manual, the game and Blizzard all clearly said they would be. After ~15-20 days /played those players started being told by raid leaders to respec Heals or GTFO. /smh

In summary: You are completely and utterly wrong. You obviously didn't play Vanilla. At the very least, you are ignorant about how things actually worked back then. Given that 'what you think' bears no relation whatsoever to 'what actually happened', maybe it would be best if you just slither quietly back to enjoying the advantages baked into your class that lets you top meters and stroke your epeen without requiring much in the way of skill or effort.
12/05/2017 11:31 PMPosted by Nalal
the only people that want balancing are skrubs that couldn't fill the role they wanted to because they were garbo or dumb enough to roll a healing class with the intent to dps
Well, you obviously weren't around in Vanilla, or you just didn't bother reading any of the text on the character creation screens, or the manual, because Blizzard originally intended Paladins to primarily be in melee...

Blizzcon 2005: https://youtu.be/ioQWkWj5_ss?t=20m17s

The developer's exact words (from 20:34) are:
We always kind of imagined the Paladin class as being the Holy Warrior where you would get in there with the Warriors and you've had your plate armour on so you can take the damage and you would be beating on the mob, and yes you would be a healer in a backup situation but that's not really how it's played out over time
Absolutely no room for any doubt whatsoever. Blizzard intended Paladins to tank. Blizzard intended Paladins to DPS. Blizzard only intended Paladins to heal in a 'backup situation'.

Whilst he did not indicate whether they thought Paladins should be tanking more, or DPSing more, it is absolutely clear that healing took a back-seat to the melee roles.

So, most folk that rolled Paladins in Vanilla were expecting to be Holy Warriors (i.e. tanks/DPS) because that's what Blizzard's class fantasy clearly said they would be. After ~15-20 days /played those players started being told by raid leaders to respec Heals or GTFO.

So, in summary, you are completely and utterly wrong. You obviously didn't play Vanilla. You are completely ignorant about how things actually worked back then. Given that 'what you think' has no relationship whatsoever with 'what actually happened', maybe it would be best if you just slither quietly back to enjoying the advantages baked into your class that let you top meters and stroke your epeen without requiring much in the way of skill or effort.


Wait... you didnt end your tyrade with calling everybody trolls like usual
12/06/2017 07:10 AMPosted by Tuathaa
Wait... you didnt end your tyrade with calling everybody trolls like usual
A great thing about facts is that they make certain opinions irrelevant. I presented the facts... that make your opinions irrelevant.

So... all that's left for you to do is cry, get personal, and spell "tirade" incorrectly. lol — yeah, whatever. Get back to me once you have something to say that isn't based on a lie.
Guys what you don't understand? I have played in recent expansions and it's clear to all of us that base healing from healing spells is very weak. As a paladin you won't just stand and cast holy light because it's a waste of time in pvp. In vanilla 1 holy light was player's half hp, or at least third... This is same with druids.

So in this case, hybrid tax should still apply and ret and prot paladins should have their healing done lowered by 90%. Same with feral and moonkin druids.
12/05/2017 05:04 PMPosted by Faustor
Hybrids are fine, you need to adapt or go back to retail.


If hybrids are already perfectly capable of tanking, healing, and DPSing as they were originally intended to, like you claim, then there's no harm in going back and changing them to be perfectly capable of tanking, healing, and DPSing as they were originally intended to. After all, if they can already do those things, it can't change the game in the slightest to make them capable of doing those things, because they can already do those things and we'll just change them to how they already are.

12/05/2017 05:04 PMPosted by Faustor
As a shaman, even ench, you will have an easier time getting into a raid than if you were one of the other million other cookie cutter warriors/rogues.


Unless you want to DPS, in which case you won't be allowed to even compete with the thousands of rogues/warriors for a slot, you'll just be forgotten until you respec resto or you find enough people willing to carry you through content.

12/05/2017 05:04 PMPosted by Faustor
Also sorry bud, its not "bad" balance considering balance is subjective.


Balance is not, has never been, and will never be subjective. That's just another myth fabricated by people who can't form a logically consistent argument against taking another look at the classes and making changes where and when it becomes necessary.
A lot of these arguments are made because of how guilds will min/max. The thing is... They'll min/max regardless. And you'll never get things 100% balanced, the only thing you'll change is WHICH CLASSES get massed. Unless all classes are exactly the same, there WILL be some that outperform others. And a min/max raid will take those.
Retribution had no viable role.

in PVE? Only had the option to heal
in PVP? Same thing. healing only.
in Solo Leveling? Protection was superior. AoE tank grinding.

The only niche Retribution had, was maybe in some 1v1 situations it had a good chance (if seal of command decides to proce) but even then, Reckbomb 2h was superior.

Changes MUST be made for retribution at the bare minimum.
12/06/2017 08:41 AMPosted by Kadavr
there WILL be some that outperform others. And a min/max raid will take those.

But you can alter it to the point where it's ambiguous enough that the community at large won't care. Case-in-point is mythic world first groups versus "just" mythic groups today. The world first people optimize the way you're talking, but classes are good enough at their roles that there is plenty of representation among guilds that routinely beat mythic content before the end of a tier and all the heroic raid guilds. Then you move onto your "normal mode only" raids, where none of that actually matters in the way you're talking and want/expect vanilla to work, but no one (read: me) cares about those people, since those people will be so far behind the curve with vanilla raids it won't matter.

Tl;DR

I want ret viable in t2 style guilds. 2 std deviations away from 50th percentile.

t1 guilds (95th percentile world first types) would be nice, but not realistic.
t3 guilds (bottom 5th percentile) will take anything anyways because they have so many other problems that it doesn't affect their "progression."

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum