+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: so firelands is on the ptr?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    531

    so firelands is on the ptr?

    anyone tried it yet,im wondering if blizzard is continuing with there trend of making things melee unfriendly or is firelands actually more melee friendly then current raids

    my ptr account got banned a long time ago so i cant get on the ptr and try it out or i would

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    WI, USA
    Posts
    2,614
    I think you may be missing the point as to why things are actually melee unfriendly in general. It actually has relatively little to do with the mechanics of the encounter in general, but simply because you are melee. By virtue of being melee, you have less flexibility in your choice of where you can stand.

    I detect the start of a unconstructive thread.
    "In anything, if you want to go from just a beginner to a pro, you need a montage." /w TankSpot WTB Montage for Raiders.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    531
    but simply because you are melee. By virtue of being melee, you have less flexibility in your choice of where you can stand.
    so how come encounters seemed easier for a melee dps in wrath then cataclysm? i was 12/12 in wrath,and ive seen 10/12 in cataclysm.this tier of raiding is less melee friendly then wrath was

    i dont think it has to do with being a melee dps,i think it has to do with the design of the encounters.even paragon or ensidia said this tier sucks for melee,and there was a video were they actually sat people out for a boss because they couldnt heal because of the encounter or somethin i forget.but theres a al'akir video of it

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,428
    what fights exactly were easier for melee dps in cataclysm?

    READ THIS: Posting & Chat Rules
    Quote Originally Posted by Turelliax View Post
    I will never be a kaz.. no one can reach the utter awesomeness of you.
    http://i.imgur.com/3vbQi.gif

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazeyonoma View Post
    what fights exactly were easier for melee dps in cataclysm?

    magmaw and of course sinestra

    and maybe omnitron and twin dragons and chogall

    dammit didn't mean to hit post meant to hit preview anyway ......

    I AM REALLY UPSET at method right now. they assumed (which I agree with) that when the boss tested today reaches 0 energy in phase 2 something is supposed to happen. They aoe + stacking enrage is brutal. BUT THEN THEY SAID "if that assumption is true the fight is perfectly tuned." WHAT! are you kidding me? you are one of the top 25 man raiding guilds in the world in PERFECT HARD MODE HEAR! and you were forced to either 2 heal it to make the enrage timer and your healers were still oom 20 seconds before he hit 0 energy. Even if the fight had reset back to phase 1 at 0 energy your healers never would have been able to maintain it for another 40% of the boss

    o right, and it was NORMAL MODE!

    I made a post about this back in ulduar, the 10 man hard modes were balanced around having 25 normal + hard mode mixed gear. It really upsets me that they think just because they did so well a normal mode early instance boss is balanced.
    Last edited by Darksend; 05-11-2011 at 03:19 PM.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,428
    whoops, i meant to say in wotlk wow brain fart.

    I know there were a few, like DBS, and one of the 2 abominations, but i wouldn't necessarily say things were easier for certain dps types, maybe it was just me.

    READ THIS: Posting & Chat Rules
    Quote Originally Posted by Turelliax View Post
    I will never be a kaz.. no one can reach the utter awesomeness of you.
    http://i.imgur.com/3vbQi.gif

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Darksend View Post
    magmaw and of course sinestra

    and maybe omnitron and twin dragons and chogall

    dammit didn't mean to hit post meant to hit preview anyway ......

    I AM REALLY UPSET at method right now. they assumed (which I agree with) that when the boss tested today reaches 0 energy in phase 2 something is supposed to happen. They aoe + stacking enrage is brutal. BUT THEN THEY SAID "if that assumption is true the fight is perfectly tuned." WHAT! are you kidding me? you are one of the top 25 man raiding guilds in the world in PERFECT HARD MODE HEAR! and you were forced to either 2 heal it to make the enrage timer and your healers were still oom 20 seconds before he hit 0 energy. Even if the fight had reset back to phase 1 at 0 energy your healers never would have been able to maintain it for another 40% of the boss

    o right, and it was NORMAL MODE!

    I made a post about this back in ulduar, the 10 man hard modes were balanced around having 25 normal + hard mode mixed gear. It really upsets me that they think just because they did so well a normal mode early instance boss is balanced.
    wasn't that the guild that complained that tier 11 was too hard and too long, but now everyone is complaining about not enough content? wait what?

    READ THIS: Posting & Chat Rules
    Quote Originally Posted by Turelliax View Post
    I will never be a kaz.. no one can reach the utter awesomeness of you.
    http://i.imgur.com/3vbQi.gif

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    WI, USA
    Posts
    2,614
    Quote Originally Posted by PimpJuice4 View Post
    so how come encounters seemed easier for a melee dps in wrath then cataclysm? i was 12/12 in wrath,and ive seen 10/12 in cataclysm.this tier of raiding is less melee friendly then wrath was

    i dont think it has to do with being a melee dps,i think it has to do with the design of the encounters.even paragon or ensidia said this tier sucks for melee,and there was a video were they actually sat people out for a boss because they couldnt heal because of the encounter or somethin i forget.but theres a al'akir video of it
    Isn't dealing with the problems that face melee part of the point to playing melee? I have to deal with being right in the fray but that's a choice I made. When it's all said and done, everyone has a job, they do it, and the boss dies. Also comparing your progression in Wrath to your progression now is irrelevant as it is common knowledge that raiding in Cataclysm is more difficult as a whole than Wrath.

    Also, comparing to world top guilds is not the way to go if you are not a world top guild. You have to keep in mind, these guilds are contending for things like World First kills. If bringing 11 Feral Druids will get them a kill, they will bring 11 Feral Druids. It has nothing to do with whether or not the encounter can be killed with a less than ideal makeup. It's that they are exploiting every possible advantage they can because they are in competition to get World First. If you're going for a World First kill and its easier to do the encounter with ranged dps, then you'll bring ranged dps, plain and simple. It isn't that they wouldn't eventually be able to beat the encounter with their normal makeup. It's that they want to kill it sooner than "eventually" so they capitalize on any advantage they can. The vast majority of other raids that kill these encounters will do so with considerably better gear than they had simply because it took them longer to progress to that point. For those slower progression groups, they may be fine with the we'll kill it eventually because each week we get slightly better than the last. It's a completely different mentality at the top so comparison to the top isn't of much value.

    I think this topic will only continue to detriorate further since it started with a QQ original post.
    Last edited by Quinafoi; 05-11-2011 at 04:07 PM.
    "In anything, if you want to go from just a beginner to a pro, you need a montage." /w TankSpot WTB Montage for Raiders.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazeyonoma View Post
    wasn't that the guild that complained that tier 11 was too hard and too long, but now everyone is complaining about not enough content? wait what?
    Method? not sure.

    I know paragon QQed after killing council hard mode with 0 melee and the fight was hotfixed within a week to make ranged tank a bajillion more damage than melee by having the chain not chain melee anymore



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    WI, USA
    Posts
    2,614
    Granted Blizzard should realize these issues before they go live so they don't need to hotfix everything after its already been killed showing them the flaw in the design. But these issues affect the highest end of progression and are addressed in some part before the general population reaches that point in progression. That issue wasn't because the encounter was melee unfriendly, but because the encounter was poorly designed/tested initially. Since they did change it we can only assume they did not intend it to be like that but just didn't test it thoroughly enough to determine the problem ahead of time.

    Blizzard doesn't design encounters to be unbeatable with certain raid makeups (least not intentionally). Granted some compositions will always be more favorable than others on given fights, doesn't mean that other compositions aren't viable, they may just have to work harder. In the same regard however no composition is ideal accross all encounters, so even if you find one fight more difficult as a particular composition, another may be easier.
    Last edited by Quinafoi; 05-11-2011 at 04:31 PM.
    "In anything, if you want to go from just a beginner to a pro, you need a montage." /w TankSpot WTB Montage for Raiders.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,675
    Blizzard design fights with the intention of testing players in all roles to some extent. That means putting things in melee range that force them to move or react (or interrupt), just as it means putting things in that casters need to avoid or spread out from or alter their cast rotations. Often, the things for Any fight where they test ranged less than melee or in which melee are unable to dps for long periods gets branded 'melee unfriendly'. Many fights which are 'ranged unfriendly' (e.g. Magmaw hc, Valiona - fights in which the melee are less challenged) raids tend to put as few people at range as they can and have the remainder hug the melee.

    In 25 man, I don't think I've seen anything extreme in t11 (never seen council heroic, but I can see how it might have been). 10 man is kinda different, as the sheer lack of numbers will sometimes exaggerate these factors.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazeyonoma View Post
    what fights exactly were easier for melee dps in cataclysm?
    To add to Darksend, I think Atramedes is a bit easier as melee. Staying ahead of the breath is easier the closer you are to the dragon, and you can even continue to dps during the breath, but I haven't done it on heroic, so maybe it's different.
    Kathy, I said, "I'm lost" though I knew she was sleeping
    I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
    Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
    They've all gone to look for America

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazeyonoma View Post
    whoops, i meant to say in wotlk wow brain fart.

    I know there were a few, like DBS, and one of the 2 abominations, but i wouldn't necessarily say things were easier for certain dps types, maybe it was just me.
    This is what I get for replying before reading all the posts.

    DBS was easier for melee.
    Marrowgar was melee friendly, and hunter unfriendly.
    Festergut was easier for melee.
    Putricide was arguably easier for melee when the malleable goo didn't bug out and land on the melee group, but easier by design anyway.
    Gormok the Impaler was easier for melee.
    XT-002 Deconstructor was melee friendly.
    Auriaya was melee friendly and hunter unfriendly.
    Vezax was easier for melee.
    Aside from Grobbulus, which was easier as ranged, I think all the Naxx fights were pretty even.
    Kathy, I said, "I'm lost" though I knew she was sleeping
    I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
    Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
    They've all gone to look for America

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by swelt View Post
    Blizzard design fights with the intention of testing players in all roles to some extent. That means putting things in melee range that force them to move or react (or interrupt), just as it means putting things in that casters need to avoid or spread out from or alter their cast rotations. Often, the things for Any fight where they test ranged less than melee or in which melee are unable to dps for long periods gets branded 'melee unfriendly'. Many fights which are 'ranged unfriendly' (e.g. Magmaw hc, Valiona - fights in which the melee are less challenged) raids tend to put as few people at range as they can and have the remainder hug the melee.

    In 25 man, I don't think I've seen anything extreme in t11 (never seen council heroic, but I can see how it might have been). 10 man is kinda different, as the sheer lack of numbers will sometimes exaggerate these factors.
    I think part of the reason people notice "melee unfriendly" fights more than ranged unfriendly fights is because with the exception of hunters, ranged can stand in melee if they need to and still DPS. Melee doesn't get the option to go into ranged and still dps.

    That said, I'd still prefer to play melee than ranged any day of the week.
    Kathy, I said, "I'm lost" though I knew she was sleeping
    I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
    Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
    They've all gone to look for America

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    WI, USA
    Posts
    2,614
    That's exactly the point I was getting at Reev. You have to deal with being in the fray as melee, but you made that choice and that is part of what makes your role interesting. The main difference between melee and ranged is ranged has more flexibility in their positioning, not bound so tightly to a hit box. There are other dynamics that also differ between melee and ranged which Blizzard tries to balance out. For example, ranged classes because they are primarily non-instant ability usage suffer a greater loss in performance when they are actually required to move, melee however can generally maintain a high efficiency while on the move provided they stay in range of their target. Ranged however have an advantage when target switching may be required particularly when targets are separated from one another because they don't have to move, or move as much to be able to attack their target. In general, ranged have to move less but suffer more from moving whereas melee have to move more but suffer less from it.

    The mechanics of encounters aren't designed (intentionally) to be undoable with a balanced group. Top guilds in the world however will use any advantage they can get, always have and always will. The rest of the community will do the same encounter but be significantly better geared when they do so making it more doable with a sub-optimal group (the same group for every encounter is sub-optimal).
    "In anything, if you want to go from just a beginner to a pro, you need a montage." /w TankSpot WTB Montage for Raiders.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by Darksend View Post
    bajillion
    Not to be a jackass but thats not even trying...

    I'm just moving into fury from prot in cata. I've heard our resident rogue complaining about the fights but I never saw it until last night. I do see how it is melee unfriendly however... Really? Lets not start comparing to the Xpac that every single one of us were done with at the end. Part of the reason everything was melee friendly in wrath is because it was tuned down, our healers we all OP, and we could just stand there and hit things. I'm digging fights like Atremedes in Cata. I can't hit but I can be the gong runner and use CDs and leap to get away. Making sure to NOT stand in fire.
    Quote Originally Posted by WarTotem View Post
    You know you just called yourself an asshat, right?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,043
    Lets see - normal mode at least... I think I ended up 10/12 ICC HM and just started HM for cata (though still no Al'kir kill).

    Morrowgar, slightly easier for range (no twiddling the thumbs). Hunters might get forgotten...
    LDW, less invovled for range, move out of green every so often. Melee was running around and green on the ground was much more movement.
    Gunship - meh.
    DBS - definately the most most melee friendly fight ever.
    Fester - Second most. But really only hunters HAD to stand outside, and then just enough other range.
    Rot - Actually pretty melee friendly unless you got an debuff. not sure it was that much different.
    PP - wtf, wtb uptime please, especially in 10m when melee has to work on slimes.
    BPC - Pain for everyone, but melee had to worry about several things range didn't (standing too close, bosses at range)
    BQL - Slightly easier for range, but not too difficult.
    VDW - range is less complex.
    Sidny - Less muderous in P2 for range (melee had to basically stop attacking, that freaking debuff would stack so fast, even as fury) - but in P1, melee actualy had it easier with the pulse, got sucked in sooner, more time to get out.
    LK - wtb valks with bigger hitboxes so I'm not constantly overwalking them. Love to help on spirits... love to have to starburst when a defile was coming up...

    Outside of DBS there wasn't a single fight that less complex for melee - but looking back, not being in the middle of it, there were a number that were actually pretty similar.

    ****

    In cata:

    Halifus - Easier for range in that it's easier to SEE and then move out of incoming fireballs.

    Twin Dragons - Actually I think this one is easier for melee. We don't have to worry about engulfing magic or moving out of the shadow flame. And the dazzling orbs on the ground are pretty easy to move out of the way of. And it's really quick to move out of hte way of the cone of breath.

    Council - Just bench your melee. Terrestra, I hate you so much. Avoid eruptions, grab debuff, avoid eruption, land hit, avoid eruption, grab other debuff, get out of raid because of lightning rod, avoid eruption, grab other debuff, avoid eruption, land hit, avoid.... LOL

    Cho'gal - honestly, I don't see much difference here, everyone's bunched for worshipping interrupts so have to get out of shadow crashes equally, range might have a slightly more complex job in P1 while melee tends towards interrupt duty in P2 which is more complex.

    ***

    Magmaw - melee have it nice in this one.
    Omni - I think range has it on this one - less downtime from slimes (since you're already at range) and easier to get debuffs out of the group.
    Malorik - Range has advantages here more than it's easier. They can attack with the chill debuff, easier to see and get away from the blue orbs. Better AoE typeically than melee.
    Chimerion - Is there a difference? Maybe melee that have to stand on the far side?
    Atremedes - I think this one is actually far easier for range - you have 2x as much time or more to react to the orbs that come out. And that one guy standing out of the group won't cause your whole group to get hit.
    Nef - No interrupt duty... other than that, is there much different?

    ***

    Conclave -
    Dunno, it's just different. Range has to watch out of the wall of air, melee is on adds. Really the coordination is the key point here.

    Al'kir - tried him a few times, but it seems range has it better in P1, slightly better in P2. Just easier not to chain lightnings as range and easier to get to holes.

    ****

    Overall, when I stop and look at it, it doesn't seem to be that much worse for melee - but I think the fact that so much of the membership here focuses on Min-Maxing exacerbates these small differences.

    So it really does 'feel' as you're going through it that a group of nearly all range would be better than melee just because we tend to look at maximum output.

    Maybe hardmodes are different, like I said, so far just Halifus and Magmaw, so I don't have any knowledge on how those compare.
    An introduction into WarTanking (no longer updated as I've retired from WoW - the concepts will still be mostly accurate but the numbers no longer will be.) - http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.p...101-The-Primer

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinafoi View Post
    Isn't dealing with the problems that face melee part of the point to playing melee? I have to deal with being right in the fray but that's a choice I made. When it's all said and done, everyone has a job, they do it, and the boss dies.
    This is precisely correct I enjoy the extra challenge. I must keep high enough DPS while not standing in the puddle they put right under the target. Also since I am wearing plate and have some basic tools I can grab aggro from the healer and deliver it right to the tank.. But even if I do that and save the healer my DPS better not suffer too much.. How do I do it? I practice, pug queue, run dailies in Ret spec and I brought keybinding+natural hand placement together into a 0 delay scheme I could always remember with no errors. I enjoy looking over to see 27K while I am dodging pink swirly things, watching my healers, keeping an eye on the tank to pop lay on hands. Ya that is living for me.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    126
    Ranged DPS damage should be reduced by 80% if they are within 10 yards of a mob (approximately the DPS loss of a hunter too close to a mob). This is the only way to make it fair. Right now, raids become progressively easier for each ranged you bring in over a melee. There is zero benefit to bringing a melee character that a ranged can't do (often better, with higher DPS and additional buffs).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by stgeorge View Post
    Ranged DPS damage should be reduced by 80% if they are within 10 yards of a mob (approximately the DPS loss of a hunter too close to a mob). This is the only way to make it fair. Right now, raids become progressively easier for each ranged you bring in over a melee. There is zero benefit to bringing a melee character that a ranged can't do (often better, with higher DPS and additional buffs).
    Melee usually have better interrupts than ranged, except for shaman of course, and they have higher damage usually on movement intensive fights. Plus, at least in the case of rogues, they have very very strong damage reduction cooldowns and Feint, so if they're playing properly, there's little reason they should be taking more damage than a ranged player, and in many cases less.
    Kathy, I said, "I'm lost" though I knew she was sleeping
    I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
    Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
    They've all gone to look for America

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts