|
Note: je sais pas trop si je dois le coller ici ou sur l'ordre de Tirisfal, mai j epense que le laisser ici serait meilleur, vu que la dynamique du guerrier concerne tout le monde.
En VO, vue la taille, je vais avoir du mal a traduire. La source: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...&T=589546&P=25 Le post Q u o t e:First, I’d like to thank you for the constructive post. Although we practically never miss reading a post like this, we unfortunately don’t typically have time to respond in detail to posts of this depth. However, since warriors have been a very hot topic lately, I’d like to give some insight into our thoughts on both warrior issues in general and the points raised below… Q u o t e:While I don't disagree that warriors could use some more effective rage generation (I'll get into that in more detail in just a bit), I'd like to point out our general philosophical approach with regard to the warrior. Warriors in WoW are absolutely intended to be more interactive then warriors in other similar games (and possibly more interactive then characters of any class in other similar games). However, they are definitely intended to be less "twitchy/frenetic" to play then WoW rogues are. We feel as though it fits the kit of the rogue class best to have the most spastic gameplay of any class, which I believe we've accomplished pretty well. As such, I don't necessarily think it's legitimate to directly compare the twitch value of the warrior versus that of the rogue with the expectation that they will be the same. So, although we really do want warriors to have a substantial amount of button-pushing (which is already arguably very significant for some warrior builds that stance-twist a lot), rogues are intended to press noticeably more buttons in a given period of time then other classes. Therefore, I don't want to foster an expectation that warriors will be equivalent to rogues in this regard, even after the rage issues have been satisfactorily resolved. Please remember, this is not intended to imply in any way that warriors should be "slow or boring" to play, only that they aren't intended to be as frenetic as a rogue to play. Q u o t e:While I don't disagree that 1h+Shield is the lowest rage-generating equipment choice, it is intended to be so, primarily for the following reason. The more enemies you have hitting you at once, the less your rage generation from dealing damage means to your total rage generation (compared to the rage you generate from being hit). This means that as you take on more mobs, the 1h+shield approach becomes the stronger strategy since you gain an extremely significant amount of damage reduction, while drastically narrowing the rage generation gap caused by dealing less damage than 2h or DW (dual wield) equipment choices. Obviously, there is a chicken-and-egg scenario where warriors need some rage to get the mobs on them in order to get more rage so they can keep the mobs on them. However, it is intended that this be manageable through bloodrage, taunting, and potentially starting a fight in another stance to build some agro (and also rage if you have Tactical Mastery), then switching to defensive, and finally through rage potions if other methods still aren’t enough for that particular encounter. In addition, I noticed that you compare warrior rage generation to the energy regeneration of a rogue. This simply isn't a meaningful comparison for several reasons. First, warrior abilities don't generally cost as much rage as rogue abilities cost energy (ie: 15 rage for heroic strike, 40 energy for sinister strike). So, while rogues do indeed still press more buttons then warriors due to power generation rates (as intended per the general philosophical comments earlier), trying to draw 1-to-1 comparisons between rage and energy generation aren’t entirely valid. Second, rage does not translate into damage in the same way that energy does. For example, Mortal Strike costs 30 rage (compared to 40 energy for Sinister Strike), yet it is a free attack with usually a 2h weapon (whereas rogues can only use 1h weapons, which means Mortal Strike’s free attack is more potent then Sinister Strike’s), the additional damage bonus of Mortal Strike is considerably higher then the damage bonus of Sinister Strike, and Mortal Strike has a secondary effect of reducing the targets ability to heal to go along with it all. Simply put, 1 point of rage generally translates into a greater effect than 1 point of energy. Third, if rage and energy were generated at equivalent rates, it wouldn't have been particularly meaningful for them to be different mechanics. If we intended for them to be the same, we probably would have chosen to make warriors use energy just like rogues do, yet all this would have done is water down the core differences between the character classes. So yes, we’re quite aware that rogues and warriors generate their power very differently. Thanks for pointing that out. ;] Finally, if when it was all said and done warriors dealt as much damage as rogues (due to similar rage-energy translation into damage and similar power generation rates), warriors would be flat-out better characters then rogues (better armor, more hit points, same damage), so again, it simply isn't reasonable to draw direct comparisons between the two. All of that having been said, we agree that there are some issues with rage generation in general, and we plan to address these so that warriors dish out some more damage and push slightly more buttons than they do today (more on this still to come). Q u o t e:Ok, yes, 2h rage generation is better then 1h+shield in a 1v1, with that gap narrowing the more targets you have on you at once (or generally speaking even just the more damage over a normal 1v1 amount you're taking in a given time frame). As noted above, this is known/intended. Also as noted previously, one Mortal Strike does not equal one Sinister Strike, so the frequency of performing said abilities, especially when coupled with other core differences between the classes, should not be expected to be equivalent. Q u o t e:It is intended that DW produce slightly more rage over time then 2h. This is partially due to the fact that in our opinion, warrior abilities and general game mechanics overall slightly favor 2h weapons over DW, so it helps offset that. Again, there's nothing really "wrong" with that in particular as far as we're concerned (other then the overall rage generation issues that I have yet to cover, which are indeed a problem). With regard to dual wielding, I'd like to clarify how it works and its intent. First, we do obviously realize that DW has a significantly higher miss rate, and that the offhand weapon does not deal its full damage. This is done to keep DW in direct DPS balance with using 2h weapons, and to ensure that both 2h and DW are well balanced in total effect against 1h+shield. For a little background on the DW balance process, I need to first give a little background on how 2h weapon use is balanced against 1h+shield. In order to make both 2h and 1h+s viable strategies for general purpose gameplay, we want approximately the same overall effectiveness in terms of total sustained killing ability over time between 2h weapon and 1h+s. This means that if you were to kill 100 creatures (for example) of your level, it should take close to the same total time including downtime when using 2h or 1h+s, perhaps favoring 2h choices somewhat (although it should be noted that there are intangibles that make measuring downtime a reasonable estimate rather than a perfect science). While you will kill more quickly using 2h, you are expected to end the fight with a lower remaining health compared to the same fight using 1h+s. In the 1h+s case you will be killing more slowly, but have more health at the end of the fight, and therefore less downtime over the long haul (and yes, it is balanced to account for the fact that killing more quickly implies taking less hits from the enemy). After it was all calculated to exhaustion (factoring in other objectives such as the desired damage reduction contribution of your shield relative to the rest of your armor), we determined that to achieve our goals of relative balance between 2h vs 1h+s, 2h weapons needed to produce approximately 20% more DPS then 1h+s. What this meant was that in order for DW to be an interesting (but not overpowered) choice, DW needed to also produce a total increase of 20% DPS over 1h+s (just like 2h does). As you might realize at this point, if you got the full DPS from your second weapon while dual wielding (by having the offhand weapon attack at full speed, with full hit chance, and full damage), your DPS would go up by 100% rather than by 20% (assuming an equally good weapon in the offhand). Unfortunately, 100% amounts to a *lot* more then 20%, and would make DW the best choice by such a wide margin that it would have been pointless to have 2h or 1h+s in the game at all. Given that, we needed to find a way to modify some combination of damage, hit chance, attack speed, or other basic combat factors in order to achieve 20% rather than 100%. Since we didn't want to reduce any one of these by too much, we opted to reduce the hit rate for both the main and offhand (since at least swinging a lot more helps correct streaky behavior caused by the increased miss rate). In addition, since increasing the even-level miss chance to 24% or so for both weapons while using DW still wasn't enough to get us down to 20% increased DPS (and for "feel" reasons I'm sure you can understand, we didn't want to push the miss rate higher than that), we opted to reduce the damage of the offhand weapon, figuring that doing less damage from your offhand seems like it makes sense to players and would feel acceptable. The combination of the increased miss rate for DW and lowering the offhand damage got us down to the 20% overall DPS increase from DW that we needed to ensure that DW was well balanced against 2h weapons. So, while it can be always be said that some other combination of trade-offs for DW would have proven to "feel" better, we do have a DW system that is balanced and arguably feels more like you're actually using two weapons than DW systems in other RPGs that are also intended to be balanced. As such, in response to the myriad of posts that offer the shocking revelation that DW has a higher miss chance than 2h or 1h+s, I’d like to say that it really isn't necessary to inform us of this. We know this, that's how we made it, thanks again for the reminder. ;] Also, it seems these revelations often imply that since DW has a higher miss chance, that the DPS isn’t as good as 2h, which (as explained above) simply isn’t factual. ...CONTINUED IN NEXT POST DUE TO SIZE... ... CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST... Q u o t e:First, a few minor notes. Yes, slow weapons will be streakier then fast weapons, causing you to notice it more when you fail to hit the opponent. This isn't something that is likely to change, it's just a basic property of the psychology involved with having fewer random events in a given time versus more. It’s probably worth reminding everyone that you're also going to get a more substantial effect on a single fight from streaks of hits, which, after decimating the enemy in a few swift blows, you aren't likely to come to these forums to express discontent about. ;] So, there are a variety of positives and negatives with regard to streaky results from slow weapons, and each player makes the decision for themselves in the end as to what they think "feels" better or more fun. Also, we make no claims that a given "miss" event is fun, and as such we do like to have as little "missing" as we can get away with while keeping things balanced entertaining in the overall experience. At the same time, the reason it exists at all is because we feel that some reasonable amount of unpredictability adds to the overall fun of the game, since it lowers the chances that a given encounter will end in exactly the same way other similar encounters ended. Now, regarding improving the warrior’s overall rage generation. We've found that there are indeed a few issues with rage generation as a result of bugs. Warriors (and druids in bear form) are intended to gain some rage on block,dodge,parry events, but apparently this isn't working correctly. This needs to be fixed asap in order for warriors to meet their total expected rage generation. In addition, while our tests have indicated that players are getting the intended 5% miss rate while using a single max-skill weapon against even level enemies (yes, we've tested this exhaustively, and cannot reproduce the 9% miss rate you're reporting for normal swings), we have found the bug causing abilities (ie: heroic strike, sunder armor, etc) to miss around 9-10% of the time under the above conditions instead of the intended 5%. This does mean that warriors are getting the "miss" even about twice as often as they should. Obviously, this needs to be rectified asap, since it directly impacts the warriors DPS and rage use (since missing wastes 20% of the rage cost of the ability). That being said, I do encourage more testing of the normal (non-ability) swings (believe me once again that we've tested this to no end), as they appear in our tests to be missing only 5% of the time. It might be that the "9% pure miss rate" you quote was from testing special abilities, but if not please do ensure those tests were accurate and let us know the exact details of your tests. Also, we were definitely not able to get close to a 9% “miss” rate on normal attacks against creatures 4-5 levels below our characters (using 2h or 1h+s). Please give us more specific information as to the conditions and results of your tests on this front (and yes, the servers we've tested this on are the same as the servers we all play on). As far as we can tell, the 9% miss rate for normal attacks versus mobs of 4-5 levels below you just isn’t true. Q u o t e:We understand that Rage potions being on the same timer as other combat-timer potions means they don't amount to "free" rage. If rage potions were on a separate timer, we'd actually have to balance the game around the assumption that rage potions are used in a significant number of fights, which would affect the rage cost of warrior abilities (also, rage potions probably wouldn’t generate anywhere near as much rage as they currently do). As it stands, since we know that using a rage potion comes at the cost of not using another potion such as a health potion, we can balance without the assumption that warriors have a ton of extra rage from potions. Therefore, rage potions aren't intended or expected to be what provides a baseline amount of rage for a fight. On the other hand, as is the case with the Charge ability, Bloodrage is also intended as a way to reduce the time before you're pressing your first ability button. I think it is definitely worth mentioning that we’ve listened to the feedback we’ve been getting from warriors, and agree that Bloodrage is too punishing right now. We plan to improve Bloodrage so warriors don't feel as hesitant to use it. Q u o t e:"Completely useless" seems to me like an overstatement in order to emphasize the opinion (which does hold some truth) that certain warrior talent trees are not as powerful as others. While I don't feel the overstatement is really necessary (despite it being a long and proud tradition on forums like these), I agree with the assessment that several talents can use some improvement in order to bring them in line with other popular warrior talents. Q u o t e:Agreed, this talent needs some love. Q u o t e:Again while cross-class comparisons are popular methods to prop up flawed arguments in order to get a bunch of "/signed" responses from other members of that class, they typically don't end up being valid comparisons. The core reasons the comparison between the Warrior and Shaman's flurry talent isn't meaningful are as follows... 1. The percentage of a Shaman's total DPS that they get from melee attacks is less then that of a Warrior's (a result of attack power differences, lack of Shaman melee special abilities, etc). As such, increasing melee attack speed by a given percentage for a Shaman isn't as impactful as increasing the percentage by the same amount for a Warrior. 2. Shamans don't have a large number of melee-oriented talents that compound each other. Warriors do. As such, each warrior talent that increases a warrior's melee abilities becomes worth more for each other melee-oriented talent that a warrior can combine with it. This also means that a point of flurry becomes worth more for a warrior then for a shaman when you look at the total combination of talents. These key differences mean the aggregate value of a point of flurry is not equal between the two classes. So, yes, they're in different locations of their respective trees, and although that makes it a convenient target for players to prop up a claim of imbalance, the claim simply isn’t valid. Q u o t e:It's probably worth doing a more extensive evaluation of how much damage a point of Improved Cleave adds up to relative to another point you could have spent it on. Obviously, a huge factor in that particular comparison will be how often you use Cleave versus how often you get use out of the talent you're comparing it against, but the total lifetime damage per talent point may not be as off as it appears. Q u o t e:First, it's worth noting that the full consumption of rage upon missing is a bug that will be fixed. However, it might be worth doing some more research on the value of Improved Execute, as once again there is more to it then meets the eye. For example, the reduced rage cost on the base ability has three immediate implications. First, it means there are times you'll be able to use the ability when you couldn't otherwise have done it at all due to not having enough rage. Second, if you did have more than the minimum amount of rage to use the ability, that extra rage you have due to the ability being cheaper gets converted into more damage then you otherwise would have gotten. Third, the reduced rage cost means that against key "boss" monsters, you will be able to use the ability as many as 3 times instead of 2 times. This can make a very significant difference in terms of how difficult it is to finish of a very difficult boss encounter. I assure you that there are accomplished players that value this talent. You're entitled to dislike it, but dismissing the talent as pointless leads me to believe you might not be as much of an expert on your class’ talents as you make it sound. ;] Q u o t e:While I don't disagree that the value of the first point is greater then that of those after it, "absolutely no benefits" isn't really accurate since the increased duration can allow you to actually get the second block before the ability wears out (in which case being able to block a second attack wasn't terribly helpful). All it takes is for a mob to miss you in order to not get the second block before the ability expires (and mobs generally get more miss/block/dodge/parry than you do… and certainly many of you feel you get quite a lot of them). Q u o t e:I agree that this talent can use some improvement. It turns out the current design leaves it vulnerable to always being either too narrow or too powerful, without much in-between. While this problem is ok in some situations based on the overall placement and role of the talent in its tree (such as with the rogue’s “remorseless attacks” talent), the problem isn’t ok for the final talent of a tree. As such, this talent is a likely candidate for change. ... CONTINUED IN NEXT POST... .. CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST... Q u o t e:I don't necessarily agree with this statement. While it doesn't work flawlessly, I've found hamstring to still work very well at 60% in the majority of cases. While this probably isn't a very popular thing to say to warriors, I don't necessarily believe hamstring should flawlessly keep the target within melee range under any circumstance (we found this to be very detrimental to balance during beta). The 60% number was zero'ed in on after trying a variety of different values during beta, and currently appears to us to be the most well-balanced we've tried for hamstring. Q u o t e:Ok, but how many abilities/spells don't lose most of their effectiveness against mobs +4 levels above? Does this mean a group is entertaining greater risk when relying on an under-leveled tank? Yes… but shouldn't it be? We understand that this has some different implications in raids due to the way raid mob levels work, which we'll continue to evaluate, but I don't necessarily think it's valid to assert that taunt is broken in the general case because of the +4 level statement. Q u o t e:First, the way Health gain on level-up works is balanced between classes to get all classes to our target expected base Health values. The mere fact that it is "working as intended" for all classes means it's meaningless to imply that the system is unfair to warriors, yet somehow not to other classes. Of course we could change the methodology for how Health gain is calculated on level-up, but in the end warriors (and all the other classes) would still have the same amount of Health. So, while it’s fair to state your opinion that warriors should have more health, I don’t see any valid connection between that opinion and your jab at the methodology for arriving at the health numbers. Using that approach again smacks much more of an attempt to get “/signed” responses for a change you would personally like to see than it does of presenting constructive feedback. Second, as far as I’m aware, naked warriors do have more health then naked characters of other classes (they’re certainly intended to). To imply that WoW has some kind of wacky design where Warriors have less health than other classes strikes me yet again as another attempt to mislead other players into thinking that there is a design flaw when there isn’t necessarily one. That being said, you’re claiming an imbalance exists is because a warrior that focuses on getting gear with stats other than stamina gear can end up having a lower total health then another character that focuses on stamina equipment, I still don’t see the argument as entirely valid. That scenario seems more like a conscious choice on the part of the players involved, and evidence that WoW has interesting and meaningful equipment choices. With respect to the implication that warriors should have more base health, our combat durations, damage values, ability/spell statistics, etc are all balanced around a warriors having their current health values. Changing those health values yet retaining similar combat times, downtime, etc for the game as a whole would require a huge number of changes across the game, impacting the balance of the game in general. Regarding spellcasters, it's important to understand that the game was balanced around the assumption that players and monsters would generally have little to no resistance values to the different schools of magic, and that they would only have resistances when it comes at a significant trade-off in some other respect. As a result, spells deal less damage then they otherwise would if a warrior’s armor was expected to protect them against spells. We could have balanced the game around the assumption of some meaningful incidental resistance value from armor, but understand that base spell damage would have been proportionally higher to compensate. For example, all physical damage values are calculated with the assumption that the target has a substantial armor value. Therefore, a warrior's base melee attacks are deliberately "overpowered" with the expectation that the targets will have some amount of physical damage reduction due to armor. In the end, what matters is whether the general balance of melee damage versus magic damage feels good in solo and group PvE and PvP cases. I think that in this regard we've done pretty well, especially in avoiding the pitfalls of having normal monsters with substantially higher health values then players, thus causing problems with damage values in PvE versus PvP. While we do agree warriors need some improvements (both in the form of key bug fixes and other such tweaks), I don’t feel like it has anything to do with your revelation that armor doesn’t help a warrior against magical attacks. Again, we knew this and designed the entire magic damage system around that assumption, it isn’t some kind of massive design oversight like you imply. Q u o t e:Agreed, this argument has been heard many times. However, it’s also worth mentioning that not only are there some balance issues being resolved with Paladins (ie: the fix to seal of the crusader which gives paladins both superior survivability and superior damage output), but there are some things I should clarify about the design intent of warriors and paladins. While paladins are indeed intended to be the most survivable of any class in the game (players sometimes assume warriors are, which is not the case), paladins aren’t intended to make the best “tanks” in the game, or to have superior offensive abilities then warriors. What this means is that survivability alone does not a tank make. The other key concept to tanking is the ability to hold agro on mobs (especially simultaneously on multiple mobs). This is the key difference between warriors and paladins in PvE. Simply put, warriors are intended to be the best at holding agro against multiple mobs (which will also be a more clear distinction once the Seal of the Crusader bug is fixed). So, assuming a group scenario that includes healers, a warrior’s survivability rivals that of a paladin’s, with the warrior having very significant advantages in terms of holding agro. Q u o t e:No specific traits or abilities? You mean like stances? Rage? Disciplines like retaliation and recklessness? Auto-attack-and AFK? Um… yeah, I do really well when I don’t push buttons as a warrior. :/ I really can’t find it in myself to remotely agree with this statement… it strikes me as pure drama. If playing a warrior involves little interaction for combat, why is it that group success is often made or broken by the skill of the player playing the warrior. I would wager to say that even today, the success of a group is determined as much, and possibly more, by the skill of a tanking warrior then that of any other class. No perks? You mean aside from being an indispensable part of most instance runs? The ability to use ranged weapons (unlike a paladin)? The ability to both close distance on a target and slow the target once you get to them? Carrying out an opponent’s death sentence once they reach 20% health? Really now, you’re going to have a very hard time convincing me that warriors suffer from a “uniqueness” problem. Q u o t e:The rage cost is 10 on the server (meaning it currently only costs your character 10 rage when you use it). The client-side problem that requires your character to have 15 rage to activate the ability (which certainly is a valid problem) will be addressed very soon (as described in the upcoming patch notes). Since the key elements of the intercept ability are the ability to close the distance to the target and stun them (the damage is a secondary benefit), the damage was lowered to keep the same damage:rage ratio as it had when it had a cost of 15 rage. This way, we were able to increase the likelihood that warriors can use the ability when it is critical to do so, without dramatically increasing its power. Q u o t e:In truth, it was never really the intent that sweeping strikes would work on multi-target abilities (it is intended to turn single-target abilities into dual-target abilities). However, in the interest of not weakening warriors right now, we’re inclined to allow the combination to work as long as it doesn’t become highly abusive and create balance problems. ...CONTINUED IN NEXT POST... .CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST... Q u o t e:I fail to see how this is a “warrior issue”. Other classes have been affected equally by the mob health increase. Q u o t e:Again, I don’t see how this is specific to warriors. Q u o t e:“Bandages are now WORSE than Cooking/Food…” Exactly in what way are they worse? Bandages heal considerably more quickly then food, and countless players (myself included) still consider bandages to be absolutely indispensable. Yes, all classes that use bandages have been impacted by this change (which although this may surprise you, even includes a classes that can heal, like shamans and paladins) I find the “WORSE” comment very difficult to take seriously. Q u o t e:I agree that it’s reasonably valid to argue that shieldswap+shieldbash is more effective than pummel. However, it’s also fair to point out that instantly swapping to a shield to bash with then swapping back is clearly not how shield bash is intended to work. So, I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a problem with Pummel, rather a problem with the ability to “cheese” shield bash. In addition, I think it’s worth pointing out that most players underestimate the value of Berserker Stance. In general, any time your ability to deal damage is increased, the amount of damage you take in a fight is decreased proportionally (ie: if you deal 20% more damage, you kill an opponent 20% faster and thus also take 20% less damage than you would have otherwise suffered). Many players don’t make the connection that more damage dealt = less damage suffered. As such, if Berserker stance were to increase your damage output by 10% (for example), while also increasing the damage you take by 10%, it would be unquestionably the “best” stance, since it would actually result in the warrior killing faster with the same downtime (which as stated would be flat-out better then any other stance). Also, since each percentage increase in the chance to get a critical strike increases most warrior’s total damage by more then one percent (due to talents like deep wounds, impale, flurry, etc), the crit chance increase in berserker stance translates into a total DPS increase higher than that percentage. So, while it is intended that you will kill faster in berserker stance and take more damage, the amount of damage you take over the course of the fight is considerably less than the 10% it appears you will take. Q u o t e:As mentioned earlier, we agree that Bloodrage can use some additional improvement. However, it’s important to understand that the cooldown is critical, since if the cooldown were too short (causing the cooldown to finish before all rage from bloodrage had decayed), players would be incentivized to use lame tactics like spending 5 minutes (for example) before a boss fight to bloodrage, wait for it to cool down, then repeat until they eventually reach 100 rage, and then start the fight. We don’t want to have to balance key boss fights around the assumption that players are doing that kind of lame stuff. :/ Q u o t e:Your statement is misleading. The current version of mortal strike still heavily favors slow 2h weapons, which still fits the theme of the arms tree nicely. It simply doesn’t favor the slow weapons as overwhelmingly as it did. When the speed of the weapon is too important a factor (as it was in previous versions), it means there are many cases where you may have a slower, lower-level blue item, then find a higher-level 2h purple item that is slightly faster, yet turns out to be the worse weapon choice for your character entirely due to Mortal Strike so heavily favoring the slowest possible weapon. We don’t want this, and we suspect the players that finally experience the euphoria of getting that awesome purple weapon don’t want to suddenly find that joy sucked from them as they realize using their new epic weapon of practically the same weapon type would be a downgrade. =[ Q u o t e:Generate rage on parry/dodge/block? Consider it done! ;] Q u o t e:In conclusion, while I don’t agree with many of the assertions you’ve made regarding warriors, I do agree that warriors should be improved. Not only will the bugs that are making the warriors less potent than we expected get fixed, but we do plan on improve some of the warrior’s abilities (“awesome changes”, I swear!). ;] Well-played warriors are both a playable and viable class in PvE and PvP, and will likely become more so. I want to extend everyone who has contributed valuable, objective feedback our thanks, and assure you that we not only pay attention to that feedback, buy also analyze it carefully. We realize that when players become frustrated, there are invariably claims of hidden personal agendas to hold back that player’s class, but I want to assure you that there isn’t any class in the game that isn’t played by at least a few highly-opinionated blizzard employees that are very interested in preserving the balance of that class and the game in general. If we didn’t actually like a class or its core concepts, we never would have made it. ;] |
30/01/2005, 10h50 |
|
Aller à la page... |
Monster post d'un developpeur sur le Guerrier
Suivre Répondre |
|
Partager | Rechercher |
|
ce pavé
j'ai commencer a lire mais pas eu le courage d'aller au bout, y'a pas moyen de lire le résumé au dos du livre ? |
30/01/2005, 10h58 |
|
Odessa Silverberg |
Voir le profil public |
Trouver plus de messages par Odessa Silverberg |
Alpha & Oméga
|
Tout pareil c'est long
Le dev c'est laché ! |
30/01/2005, 11h04 |
|
|
Bisous ( comprend rien a l'anglais )
|
30/01/2005, 15h21 |
|
|
Citation :
Le rogue tank beaucoup plus haut que +1. Face à cette fonction il n'y a pas encore dans WoW de véritable répartition des tâches. Pour moi c'est essentiellement dû à deux phénomènes ; le premier la grosse latitude au solo qui fait que toute classe résiste à un adversaire de niveau égal ou +1 et que toute classe de corps à corps résiste aussi bien au delà de +1. Le second est que la limite de difficulté abordable est très très très vite atteinte, groupe de 5 ou pas, bien complémentaire ou pas, au delà de +4 ça devient une barre infranchissable à cause des mass misses, resists. Il n'y a pas d'échelle de difficulté croissante vaste ; on passe de +0 à +1 faisable par tout le monde à faisable par personne au delà du +4. Du coup ben le rôle de tank est tout de suite moins mis en avant. D'un autre côté WoW introduit de la difficulté potentielle ailleurs ; c'est à dire dans la masse. 4 ou 5 aggros peuvent se révéler très dangereux pour un personnage ; c'est la que le guerrier peut rendre toute sa plénitude. En fait non puisque le taunt de zone est totalement bâclé dans le jeu (outre les resists ; le timer de 10 minutes qui est en complète inadéquation avec le rythme général du jeu). Comme le dit le dév : Citation :
Oui un warrior jongle beaucoup, beaucoup plus qu'un rogue, c'est la force d'un gameplay plus "délicat" qu'apprécient certaines personnes, c'est aussi l'énorme faiblesse à cause de la redescente de rage qui s'en suit à chaque fois (et ce malgré la comp adéquate). C'est pour ça que je trouve que le dév ne répond pas aux questions sur le fond mais les élude complètement. La grande question est : Quid de la réactivité ? Le guerrier n'est pas un damage dealer, tous ceux qui ont opté pour cette classe et l'ont un peu jouée et l'apprécient acceptent je crois cette contrainte pour favoriser ce qu'on leur propose en échange ; à savoir une palette très entendue de coups tordus ne faisant pas forcément beaucoup de dommages mais remplissant un tout autre rôle (stun sur block/parade, taunt, interruption de cast, débuff armure, désarmement etc etc). Le problème est que tout ça c'est bien mais ce sont que des coups de réactions. C'est pour ça qu'un guerrier jongle beaucoup il se doit de réagir aux circonstances. Mais avec leur système de rage, la réactivité elle en prend un sérieux coups dans l'aile. Le jeu d'un guerrier je suis obligée de le reconnaître ça ressemble souvent à celui d'un healer oom ou quasi-oom et c'est un tantinet frustrant. J'ai, l'impression (ce n'est peut-être qu'une impression) que le système de rage est là pour brider les dégâts du guerrier (voir l'affaire de la vidéo) alors que ceux qui jouent guerrier s'en foutent de leurs dégâts ils savent que leur rôle est ailleurs. Le fait par exemple de ne pas consomer de rage quand un guerrier miss est tout simplement risible en terme de cohérence. |
31/01/2005, 02h25 |
|
Coeur de poivron |
Voir le profil public |
Trouver plus de messages par Coeur de poivron |
Suivre Répondre |
Connectés sur ce fil1 connecté (0 membre et 1 invité)
Afficher la liste détaillée des connectés
|