Shiv Changes

Rogue
Prev 1 19 20 21 23 Next
Given that:

1) There have been several times I've entered a BG with 7 rogues on either side, and often at least 4

2) Rogues are very rarely seen in PVE

I would think that it would be evident that rogues are a little too desirable in PVP and less in PVE. I would think that the priority in rogue design would be to tone down PVP control and tune up PVE.

This new Shiv seems to be a step towards PVP improvement. It's hard to put this in an overall picture since there are many other changes, so I won't say it will make Rogues overpowered.

However, Shiv also seems problematic in that the Wound Poison effect seems to be the only healing reduction of that magnitude. It also seems good enough such that Rogues will feel compelled to keep it up a significant portion of the time. These 2 factors make it a bit difficult to balance.
I should point out how excessively cute it is that Dreltath ignored my response (which included not 1, as requested, but 2 examples!) because it was apparently such a wrench to his erector set.

This will sound like an elitist statement, but it isn't exactly;
There's a reason the *vast* majority of the people that are so critically opposed to changes *every* expansion are also on the lowest end of the progression and pvp totem-poles. That isn't to say that all unprogressed players hold the opinion, or that being unprogressed makes you stupid, just that...there's a pretty obvious coorelation between being unable to wrap your head around metagame concepts, and also being unable to raid on the level where understanding such concepts becomes important.
Rogues are very rarely seen in PVE


You've only made it obvious with that statement how little *you* pve. The only place rogues are a rarity at in pve is LFR, and that's just due to class representation. There are fewer rogues than other classes, and there's the element of rogues being pretty easy to gear up, due to only sharing most of their gear with each other or druids (tier notwithstanding.) Most 25 man guilds run 3-4 rogues, and most 10 mans run 1.

I will never understand the tendency of people to talk from perspectives that they do not have.
I should point out how excessively cute it is that Dreltath ignored my response (which included not 1, as requested, but 2 examples!) because it was apparently such a wrench to his erector set.

This will sound like an elitist statement, but it isn't exactly;
There's a reason the *vast* majority of the people that are so critically opposed to changes *every* expansion are also on the lowest end of the progression and pvp totem-poles. That isn't to say that all unprogressed players hold the opinion, or that being unprogressed makes you stupid, just that...there's a pretty obvious coorelation between being unable to wrap your head around metagame concepts, and also being unable to raid on the level where understanding such concepts becomes important.

My Rogue friend who has been 2500+ is pretty much in agreement with everything I've said about prep step, but that's a "cute" strawman.
I should point out how excessively cute it is that Dreltath ignored my response (which included not 1, as requested, but 2 examples!) because it was apparently such a wrench to his erector set.

This will sound like an elitist statement, but it isn't exactly;
There's a reason the *vast* majority of the people that are so critically opposed to changes *every* expansion are also on the lowest end of the progression and pvp totem-poles. That isn't to say that all unprogressed players hold the opinion, or that being unprogressed makes you stupid, just that...there's a pretty obvious coorelation between being unable to wrap your head around metagame concepts, and also being unable to raid on the level where understanding such concepts becomes important.

My Rogue friend who has been 2600+ seems pretty much in agreement with everything I've said about prep step, but nice strawman.


Did you miss the 'vast majority' part, dear? That obviously means most, not all.
Your argument on the issue is also somewhat different than the argument of the people I'm addressing, who bemoan the lack of PvE uses in the trees. Just because you're on the same side of not liking the trees doesn't mean your reasoning (as stated so far) is anything like theirs.

Some of these people believe that stuns are entirely useless in PvE content. Seriously. Read this, which is what my previous post was referencing;

"Oh and name me 1 fight where a melee CC is better than anything that a range can bring? Even with these shiv abilities none of them offer any range CC or anything that a rogue can do better than any other class. In most cases they would be the least desirable version. if the reverse was true we will see a must bring rogue situation which is unlikely to happen."

The majority of the people that present such ideas on PvE, and you can easily check this yourself, are people with one heroic kill at most.
Well then it looks like the conversation is degrading way beyond the topic at hand, which should be Shiv. You have a point. Hell, I only have one heroic kill (despite threats by my group to try more). Even without high end experience and even without the ability to predict the future in MoP, I can definitely see uses for these talents in PvE. I will say though, they seem PvP-centric.

Anyways, no reason to negatively stereotype an amorphous "majority"; achievements or rating should be irrelevant if the point raised is valid. Stuns definitely have had their place in PvE, but with just one or two fights where melee utility is necessary, they're the exception, not the norm.
Well then it looks like the conversation is degrading way beyond the topic at hand, which should be Shiv. You have a point. Hell, I only have one heroic kill (despite threats by my group to try more). Even without high end experience and even without the ability to predict the future in MoP, I can definitely see uses for these talents in PvE. I will say though, they seem PvP-centric.

Anyways, no reason to negatively stereotype an amorphous "majority"; achievements or rating should be irrelevant if the point raised is valid. Stuns definitely have had their place in PvE, but with just one or two fights where melee utility is necessary, they're definitely the exception, not the norm.


Reread the post. It wasn't a stereotype, it was an observed coorelation.
"Not all Zips say Zorp, but just about everything that says Zorp is a Zip."
For every person who posts an opinion on the forum, there are 100 who don't post and probably share similar sentiments (and there are probably at least 100 who disagree, too, of course). But now I'm strawmanning.

Anyways, I'd love to see more utility fights, or even non-boss mechanics like Suppression Room (some hated it...I happened to love it).
02/19/2012 10:42 AMPosted by Tantojutsu
Anyways, I'd love to see more utility fights, or even non-boss mechanics like Suppression Room (some hated it...I happened to love it).


And that's precisely the point some of us are getting at.

PvE is one thing in this game that has *never* simplified with age. Every expansion has had more complicated mechanics than the one before it (Yes, even Wrath had more difficult mechanics than BC, nostalgia for BC aside), and with the talent trees seeing revisions that are primarily utility for *everyone*, then it's a very good guess that they want to integrate utility more and more. It's already quite used these days.

The fact that the talents exist in the way they do says, to me and many others, that it's a very good bet we'll see even more fights where our utility is utilized.
We're operating without much knowledge, of course. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment...

It's quite possible that we won't see a significant increase in utility-intensive PvE fights, and those types of encounters will still be a minority. Just because we see talents that suggest utility will be more prevalent doesn't mean that's the case for PvE specifically; we're assuming quite a bit. All of the truly vital PvE DPS-increasing talents are being given to us, so what's left is flavor - a flavor we often haven't needed.

Moreover, the majority of people don't / won't experience Heroic modes. Even if there are fights with utility needed on normal, isn't it more demanding on heroic? People simply might not appreciate the role of utility in PvE. Whether out of ignorance or lack of experience OR just looking at history, their views have some foundation.

All of that said, I think I still come down on your optimistic side of this argument, for once.

Also, while I have your attention, I've wanted to address this
02/18/2012 01:41 AMPosted by Leitka
I'd expect way better from you.

I'm amazed you give me that much credit after all the things I've said to you. I am sorry for the past, and I'll try to live up to your expectations in the future :P
Moreover, the majority of people don't / won't experience Heroic modes. Even if there are fights with utility needed on normal, isn't it more demanding on heroic? People simply might not appreciate the role of utility in PvE. Whether out of ignorance or lack of experience OR just looking at history, their views have some foundation.


But they're presenting the view as the view of a PVE-er, while neglecting to account for the fact that *they haven't actually experienced all of the pve content, only the watered down versions*

Not wanting to do Heroics is fine, but talking about how something 'isn't used in PvE' because the form of PvE you take part in is too easy to require it is nonsense. It's as sensible as someone that only does LFR saying that Warmaster Blackhorn's abilities need to be buffed, because it's impossible for the boat to die. It's an incomplete picture presented as a complete one.

You shouldn't expect *every* fight to require utility, because that would be poor design. Raiders like occasionally having a patchwerk-esque fight. But the fights that are dedicated the most time, both in design and in attemping to down, are generally utility fights. They're also usually the most fun.
If it's only a few fights, and it's more necessary in Heroic than Normal, that's a double whammy of utility-intensive fights being marginalized into the minority. Speaking PvE strictly, not regarding PvP, should the talents really be focused on 1%, or even 10%, of the WoW experience? Where is the cutoff? 25%? 50%?

Again, devil's advocate.
The best crowd control reward goes to warriors for the most simple.

A QUICK PAINFUL DEATH sprinkled in with RIPPING AND TEARING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XZ1UECrRk0

Here's to Mists. May Mages be as easy to RIP AND TEAR as those demons are to the Doom Guy and may warriors be berserker packin man and a halfs.
You look lost, Warrior. Follow me to the Warrior forums, they're just down this dark alleyway then through that rusty door of the abandoned warehouse...
If it's only a few fights, and it's more necessary in Heroic than Normal, that's a double whammy of utility-intensive fights being marginalized into the minority. Speaking PvE strictly, not regarding PvP, should the talents really be focused on 1%, or even 10%, of the WoW experience? Where is the cutoff? 25%? 50%?

Again, devil's advocate.


Each player's PvE experience with abilities will depend on what content they do, and I personally think that's the perspective that they should look at and give feedback about the abilities from (as long as they don't try to speak for all content, but merely the content they do.) I definitely don't know the statistics, but I'd say most people would be within the Solo / LFD / LFR areas. An ability's usefulness will be looked at differently from a lot of different players.
I agree...I think? There is still validity in the opinions of people who have not done all heroic content. They can only speak for what they've done, and they'll continue to play at that level of difficulty. Even if they aren't all-knowing, their opinion is still valid, especially if they're the majority. But then we're met with the age-old question of whether Blizzard should focus on the "casuals" or the "hardcore" players.
02/19/2012 11:54 AMPosted by Tantojutsu
You look lost, Warrior. Follow me to the Warrior forums, they're just down this dark alleyway then through that rusty door of the abandoned warehouse...


Tanto you brought me someone to test my inventions on how thoughtful :D
There isn't much use for Warriors otherwise. Better than letting them go to waste, right? It's great to see at least one Goblin appreciates the value of recycling. Glad to help! Goblins and Gnomes can work together.
02/19/2012 12:00 PMPosted by Tantojutsu
I agree...I think? There is still validity in the opinions of people who have not done all heroic content. They can only speak for what they've done, and they'll continue to play at that level of difficulty. Even if they aren't all-knowing, their opinion is still valid, especially if they're the majority. But then we're met with the age-old question of whether Blizzard should focus on the "casuals" or the "hardcore" players.


It's not the matter of focusing on anything, though, it's the matter of misrepresentation.
If you're not happy with how 'little' utility is used in normal modes, but you're told that it's more important in heroics, and you want to use your utility, then...do heroic? The misrepresentation comes in when they present their opinion based on one small facet of PvE as being the case for PvE in general; if the content you do doesn't require something you wish it required, but the content above it does, then the answer isn't to change things in lieu of that content, but for you to move to a different form of content. There are probably more rogues doing normal modes that *don't* want to deal with utility than there are that do, because the average player is almost always of the "dps, collect loot" mentality.
The point though is that the majority of people do LFR or Normal raids at best, not Heroic. Should talents be designed for a minority, or a majority? But you're arguing if the talents should be designed with the highest difficulty in mind, regardless of the disproportionately low percentage of people who that will benefit.

It's two different ways of framing the argument. You could call it populism vs elitism, or quantity vs quality - different labels favor different sides. It doesn't really seem like an apples to apples comparison, but I suppose that difference in the philosophical approach to the entire situation will dictate how one feels the situation should be addressed.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum