For the love of Azeroth - NERF WARLOCKSFollow

False facts are always handy to bolster an arguement.

Edited, Dec 29th 2006 3:11pm by Molarean

Probably meant to type Felhunter instead of Felguard. Have made same mistake before.
Paranoia was ofcourse already in the game before Felguard came and Jord would know this.

V. nice post Iddigory. ^^

Wow ... just wow... like anyone couldn't have mistyped that.

GTFO if all you have is pointless retort. Thanks.

It's easy getting those two mixed up in conversation.

Coming from someone who wants to screen posters in his thread.

More pointless retort lacking any sense of input on the discussion.

Thanks.

Just following your lead.

In case you missed it, tests were done on paranoia. Using the STV arena, they had a rogue stealth up to cheap shot a warlock with and without paranoia. The difference in time given for the warlock to react was 0.7 seconds which is of no significance considering average human reaction time is significantly longer than that.

Why wouldn't they, if a warlocks 41 point magic ceases on his death why wouldn't a priests or a druids who has 5 points, if that, into their effects?

Er, many of the replies were from people saying how you are exaggerating things or crying over spilled milk, I do not think those validate any argumentation coming from you.

Also, most of the long ones were thought out saying what could use a little rebalancing but overall saying that locks don't need much of a nerf.

Many of the people coinciding with you are just ranting something pretty much along the lines of "OMFG ! CHEAP E-Z MODE LOCKS JUST HIT 3 KEYS AND I DIE, CANT DO NUTHIN ! NERFNERFNERFNERFNERF !".

Demagogy doesn't make for good arguments.



Also, I think the fact that warlocks get so complained about is because they are strong and kill all other classes/specs, there are is no anti-warlock thingydoo people can point out at and say, "if you're pissed with locks, try that and you'll whip their asses like every single time", because locks are not supposed to be able to be taken down like that.

Good warlocks will be difficult opponents against anyone, that doesn't mean they have to be nerfed because they're uber-mega-overpowered....
It means you shall have to learn to live with dealing with such a difficult opponent whatever race/class/spec you are, get over it.


P.D: I like the comment someone in page 3 made, about making some DoT's disappear at death but not others, althought the way I see it DoT's are not supposed to fade away on death, it would "defy" their nature DoT's are effects that slowly harm the target from the inside without the caster actively participating, thus the difference with channeled spells. It wouldn't make much sense for the caster to die and you get better suddenly. I think, de-buffing DoT's a bit (+spell damage-wise) would be a better option.

Edited, Dec 29th 2006 8:23pm by Azatodeth

Oh, now this is something that we can debate more on. The question being "Why would a 41 point talent be removed from death" is something that can be argued.

What I was asking was, "If you WERE to do that, why would you remove buffs?"



So, for the sake of discussion, let's stick to the first question and steer clear of the buff argument, as I truly don't think it holds any water here.

Edited, Dec 29th 2006 8:22pm by Webjunky

It is funny, I have seen players die to DoTs literally surrounded by people who could heal, cure and remove curse, WoW isn't balanced around 1 on 1, the developers keep saying this and the players keep ignoring it.