Debuff limit removal!

Classic Discussion
While a neat idea, it results in a widening of the gap, not a shrinking one.

Biggest benefactors are Warlocks, for obvious reasons. In AQ+ Mages benefit by not having their fireballs fall off. Warriors don't have their deep wounds falling off, and could apply rend (decent damage for the basically nill rage cost). Rogues could open with garrote and use Rupture (which ignores armor) instead of eviscerate.

Druids get what, moonfire? Insect Swarm isn't much DPS and often a spot is already reserved for one. Hunters can now use Serpent Sting (arguably not even worth the mana).

I guess the biggest thing would be you could have more shadow priests, which would synergize more with having more warlocks.
06/04/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Williams
<span class="truncated">...</span>

It is bad game design not being able to use the spells you have and being forced to spam one button in pve.


Its bad game design to balance everything around only one component of the game.. /cough.. Raid, modern wow.


It is likewise bad game design to limit gear progression to only one component of the game.
TBH it's not something i want for a number of reasons but here's two (as a druid)

1) I'm just gonna oom sooner if i use moonfire unless they give me mana but then i will be op and then that's just opening a huge can of worms

2) not bothering with trying to change things means getting the game to me sooner

I understand you wanna play a bad spec because its fun - i do, too - but I also like that in PvE, my raid needs me to do a specific job and so i feel more powerful when i am playing with a group. Hell, i could still make it work in a non-progression-super-hardcore guild, anyway, so why bother making changes? lol
Of course they should life the debuff limit, then make serpent sting scale with RAP and cost next to no mana. That way, they can easily make hunters do as much damage as the other pure dps classes without increasing their burst.
06/04/2018 01:53 PMPosted by Mentats
TBH it's not something i want for a number of reasons but here's two (as a druid)

1) I'm just gonna oom sooner if i use moonfire unless they give me mana but then i will be op and then that's just opening a huge can of worms

2) not bothering with trying to change things means getting the game to me sooner

I understand you wanna play a bad spec because its fun - i do, too - but I also like that in PvE, my raid needs me to do a specific job and so i feel more powerful when i am playing with a group. Hell, i could still make it work in a non-progression-super-hardcore guild, anyway, so why bother making changes? lol


obviously it didn't make them op, see tbc moonkins
My hunter should be able to tame Tauren. Tauren so Moo, it’s a must feature.

Also +vs beast should apply to Orc.
No. This is just a convienence request so you don't have to think.
06/05/2018 08:50 AMPosted by Sars
No. This is just a convienence request so you don't have to think.


Think about what? The debuff limit just removes options. There will be a set in stone list of allowed debuffs and that's it.
I personally think its fair to have a discussion about classes/specs in Classic, considering class balancing as a philosophy didn't exist back then as it does now. The idea of a "hybrid tax" was obviously not very good in the grand scheme of overarching class design and it made some specs arguably not viable/unplayable. I'm not suggesting we make huge changes or even small changes at all for that matter, but that it is a worthwhile conversation to have. -wow cm
06/03/2018 10:09 PMPosted by Williams
We experienced this in a way in patch 2.0 when it was raised to 40, and its results ended up with warlocks being the only DPS you really wanted because of how their mechanics stack to the flipping moon.

I am against class changes so I would have to pass on this because the results are disgusting.


Th results are already disgusting.
Fury warriors were stupid OP at the end of Vanilla.

Are you a hunter? We only need 2 of you for your tranq shot. 2 our of 40. We’d rather stack rogues and mages.

There is no class balance in vanilla, and to pretend there is, well, it shows a pretty big degree of ignorance.

The best thing Blizzard can do is not pay attention to the retard armchair devs like you and I. Then make classic without bugs and technical limitations like the debuff limit, and of course tune appropriately.
06/03/2018 10:13 PMPosted by Nightrom
If you're no change, then you wouldn't be asking for any change outside of the Vanilla WoW Timeline. End of story.


Increase server population cap.
Increase AQ gates opening war-effort requirements (when you hand in raw materials to open gates of AQ for server).

I only liked Vanilla but I will accept some changes keeping to the experience of Vanilla... but hey lets not make things that break vanilla.
Playing with limitations was part of the charms of vanilla.

No change.
06/05/2018 04:42 PMPosted by Mordegast
Th results are already disgusting.
Fury warriors were stupid OP at the end of Vanilla.

Are you a hunter? We only need 2 of you for your tranq shot. 2 our of 40. We’d rather stack rogues and mages.

There is no class balance in vanilla, and to pretend there is, well, it shows a pretty big degree of ignorance.
The degree of ignorance is saying Vanilla was balanced around raiding. This isn't Legion. Vanilla is first and foremost a roleplaying game. To say, 'Ok, this one part of the game, the part that the least amount of players experience...we're going to arbitrarily pick that and balance classes around it' is absurd. Yeah, that's how Current WoW works, but it has no place in Classic.

I understand it's difficult to open your mind and adjust your mindset to accept that Vanilla (and Classic) is a fundamentally different experience. But that's a problem of the players, not the game.
06/05/2018 09:46 PMPosted by Mogar
06/05/2018 04:42 PMPosted by Mordegast
Th results are already disgusting.
Fury warriors were stupid OP at the end of Vanilla.

Are you a hunter? We only need 2 of you for your tranq shot. 2 our of 40. We’d rather stack rogues and mages.

There is no class balance in vanilla, and to pretend there is, well, it shows a pretty big degree of ignorance.
The degree of ignorance is saying Vanilla was balanced around raiding. This isn't Legion. Vanilla is first and foremost a roleplaying game. To say, 'Ok, this one part of the game, the part that the least amount of players experience...we're going to arbitrarily pick that and balance classes around it' is absurd. Yeah, that's how Current WoW works, but it has no place in Classic.

I understand it's difficult to open your mind and adjust your mindset to accept that Vanilla (and Classic) is a fundamentally different experience. But that's a problem of the players, not the game.


When did I say it was balanced around raiding??
Reading comprehension bro, I suggest you put the forums down and go back to school.
06/05/2018 09:46 PMPosted by Mogar
06/05/2018 04:42 PMPosted by Mordegast
Th results are already disgusting.
Fury warriors were stupid OP at the end of Vanilla.

Are you a hunter? We only need 2 of you for your tranq shot. 2 our of 40. We’d rather stack rogues and mages.

There is no class balance in vanilla, and to pretend there is, well, it shows a pretty big degree of ignorance.
The degree of ignorance is saying Vanilla was balanced around raiding. This isn't Legion. Vanilla is first and foremost a roleplaying game. To say, 'Ok, this one part of the game, the part that the least amount of players experience...we're going to arbitrarily pick that and balance classes around it' is absurd. Yeah, that's how Current WoW works, but it has no place in Classic.

I understand it's difficult to open your mind and adjust your mindset to accept that Vanilla (and Classic) is a fundamentally different experience. But that's a problem of the players, not the game.


Until you can give numbers to say what percentage of max level players raided(hint: that info does not exist outside of blizz) you do not know how big or small raiding was.

So then you need to look at the game. Max level content centers around raiding and pvp, with no xp loss everyone eventually hits max level, so all other content builds to those. Sure there are people who ignore the content but if they are doing that then balance does not matter to them because they are playing a single player game. So yes we balance on raids and pvp, because its not a single player game and thus needs some degree of balance.
06/05/2018 09:56 PMPosted by Mordegast
When did I say it was balanced around raiding??
Reading comprehension bro, I suggest you put the forums down and go back to school.
You serious? Every example you listed was referencing raiding. You can try and backtrack now, but...come on.

I encourage you to go to youtube and watch the 2005 Blizzcon character class panel. Go ahead and watch it, and tell me how many times the devs say the words 'raid viability'. Go ahead, I'll wait.

In fact, even better than that I'd suggest watching Tips Out's video about that panel. I'll even link it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oh9MHnVbME

That's someone who understand how and why classes were balanced in Vanilla.
06/05/2018 10:06 PMPosted by Mogar
06/05/2018 09:56 PMPosted by Mordegast
When did I say it was balanced around raiding??
Reading comprehension bro, I suggest you put the forums down and go back to school.
You serious? Every example you listed was referencing raiding. You can try and backtrack now, but...come on.

I encourage you to go to youtube and watch the 2005 Blizzcon character class panel. Go ahead and watch it, and tell me how many times the devs say the words 'raid viability'. Go ahead, I'll wait.

In fact, even better than that I'd suggest watching Tips Out's video about that panel. I'll even link it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oh9MHnVbME

That's someone who understand how and why classes were balanced in Vanilla.


they were not balanced in vanilla, they put them out there then spent the whole expansion fixing them all. 1.1 balance was way worse than 1.12 which was again way worse than 2.0 balance at 70.

They created the classes then spent most of the patches fixing and balancing them, then they decided to release BC where they continued the balancing using the same design principles.
I just have to accept the fact that some people will never be able to view Classic differently than Legion. All they see is a raid simulator. They simply can't fathom it's only a very minor part of the Vanilla experience. A true rpg is balanced from a principle of classes having strengths and weaknesses, and fulfilling niches. From that standpoint WoW classes have never been more balanced than they were during Vanilla. The things that matter the most in an rpg (class identity, uniqueness, differing playstyles, relying on and working with other classes) all peaked out during Vanilla. Once players embrace that nature of the game they're in for a treat.

But yes, classes did change a lot during 1.1 and 1.12. So have a discussion on which version of each class at any given patch cycle was optimal. At least that's an achievable goal. Do you really want to debate balance changes over 14 years? That's a debate that will never end, and the cost is one that took most of the flavor and joy out of the classes.
The debuff limit was NEVER technical.

It was a class-stacking prevention method.

They only raised it because the class overhauls also added more useful synergy options and they raised it enough to include them. (and most of which were immediately assigned to Warlocks and not the new debuffs they were meant for).

The pre-patch ALONE shows why that would a absolutely horrible idea, because just raising it to 48 made the game World of Warlockcraft.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum