bliz was saying not enough warriors

On Jan 24, 8:15 am, lcpltom <lcpl....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The Neverending Underspore Frond, I don't understand why more people
> don't have this item. Too many pugs get halfway through the instance
> when someone runs out of water. This is a great backup.

+1 on that one.....
That's one piece of gear that I don't leave in the bank EVER....my
rogue doesn't even use mana, but the food supply is darn handy,
especially when rep grinding....
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

On Jan 24, 3:18 am, "Shammy" <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
> Hello, Brian!
> You wrote on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC):
>
> BT> Shammy <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
>
> >> I have levelled my warrior to 60 just before TBC came and I have no
> >> idea what are you talking about, they are very fast to lvl as fast as
> >> any other class...
>
> BT> Nonsense. Too gear dependent, too much downtime. They are nowhere
> BT> near as fat to level as some other classes. A BM-spec hunter can
> BT> probably level to 70 before a warrior to 60.
>
> A BM hunter... the easiest class/spec in wow well imo they can level as fast
> as rogues, specially dagger rogues (I levelled a dagger rogue).
> I'm really starting to doubt the experience of some people when you say
> warrior is so hard to level... I understand prot ones are hard but to say
> levelling an arms warrior is hard....

I'm quite surprised actually. I have 65 rogue that I'm currently
leveling. 70 mage and a 62 warrior and a 35 hunter. Hunter for sure
is the easiest. Actually too easy really. Mage comes second. Now
the other two classes - warrior and rogue are quite painful to me.
Rogue a bit less painfull than warriors.

I think the reason why anyone finds rogue easy/fast like the hunter is
probably because they have good gear. Any class will be tremendously
easy if they are lvled it mostly blues. Mage and hunters on the other
hand are not that much gear depenedent and as such are much easier to
lvl.
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

On Jan 24, 3:30 pm, "Shammy" <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
> I noticed a lot of people saying BM hunter is the best, the fastest to lvl
> etc... I suppose you never ever played a feral druid? My main atm is a feral
> druid and he can kill mob after mob for hours without drinking once (and not
> dropping under 80% hp) because imp leader of the pack will heal it enough to
> just go on, now tell me what other class can go on without rest at all?

Hunters can do it very fast too, because pets regain health much
faster after the fight than players. You may run out of mana, but you
can avoid that with using less special shots. Your main is a feral
druid? What level is he? On lvl 70 you eventually outgear everything,
which means you don't lose much health and mana. The situation is
different when you're just leveling up.
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

On Jan 24, 8:30 am, "Shammy" <n....RemoveThis@nothing.com> wrote:
> R> You said " they are very fast to lvl as fast as any other class...".
> R> That is patent bullshit.
>
> What is your experience with wow and what are your classes/levels/specs?
>
> R> There is no objective standard to qualify a class as "fast to level".
> R> We must use relative standards, and Warriors are relatively slow to
> R> level compared to some other classes. You imply that all classes are
> R> equally fast, and that is not true.
>
> Well warrior is as fast to level as priests, rogues, shamans and most other
> classes.......
>
> I noticed a lot of people saying BM hunter is the best, the fastest to lvl
> etc... I suppose you never ever played a feral druid? My main atm is a feral
> druid and he can kill mob after mob for hours without drinking once (and not
> dropping under 80% hp) because imp leader of the pack will heal it enough to
> just go on, now tell me what other class can go on without rest at all?

Affliction warlocks using drain tanking to level. I used this spec to
level all the way to 68 before I changed to demonology just to try
something different.

By level 20 an affliction warlock has enough talent points to get the
base drain tanking talents, Imp Corruption, Soul Siphon, Imp Life Tap,
and Imp Drain Soul. At level 30 they cat Siphon Life, an extra dot
that while doing not so much damage, helps boost the healing recieved
from Drain Life, allowing for more life taps. At 50 they can get
Unstable Affliction, which does great damage and provides yet another
debuff for Drain Life to take advantage of.

Dot Dot Dot Dot, Life Tap, Drain Life, end fight with full health and
near full mana. Move on to next mob.
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

My 2 cents worth, and I'm speaking only from my own experience. Your
results may vary.

I have 2 rogues, a hunter, a warrior, a druid, a mage, a warlock, and
a shaman of various races and factions. The easiest class for me to
level is the hunter. I think the hardest for me to level is the
warrior. It seems like I spend more time looking at a monochrome
screen with my warrior than any of my other characters...
My NE rogue is my first character, my first 70, and the one I enjoy
playing the most. Not the easiest to level, but the most satisfying
and the one that seems to match my personality the most. He's been
combat spec all along.

FWIW, I've been trying to power level the warrior because of a
shortage of tanks in my guild....
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

On Jan 23, 8:07 am, sparks <jstal... DeleteThis @swbell.net> wrote:
> When they talked about the expansion they said the reason for the new
> chr was there were not enough warriors in the game.
>
> Is this true?
>
> At the same time I have seen warriors in outlands that take forever to
> kill anything, another reason is the respec for everything ?
>
> personally I feel that respec and mounts are WAY overpriced

When I first played WOW, and rolled a Dwarf warrior, I thought this is
great - the classic Dwarf Warrior, able to dish out and withstand
hella damange.

Boy was I wrong. I got to Loch Modan or whatever and began to get
pwned by Troggs. That was the last time I played the warrior.

The warrior should be the true "superhero" of WOW, taking on multiple
mobs, dealing out massive damange, able to take tons of damage.
Instead, it's the Hunter that has it easiest, or the Pally able to
take on multiple mobs.

Blizz really screwed up the archetypes IMO. The warrior should be the
most stout class, all other classes should be weak in comparison.
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

On Jan 24, 11:45 am, RogerM <roger.mc... DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> zeeta6 wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 3:18 am, "Shammy" <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
> > > Hello, Brian!
> > > You wrote  on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC):
>
> > >  BT> Shammy <n... DeleteThis @nothing.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> I have levelled my warrior to 60 just before TBC came and I have no
> > > >> idea  what are you talking about, they are very fast to lvl as fast as
> > > >> any other  class...
>
> > > BT> Nonsense.  Too gear dependent, too much downtime.  They are nowhere
> > > BT> near  as fat to level as some other classes.  A BM-spec hunter can
> > > BT> probably  level to 70 before a warrior to 60.
>
> > > A BM hunter... the easiest class/spec in wow well imo they can level as fast
> > > as rogues, specially dagger rogues (I levelled a dagger rogue).
> > > I'm really starting to doubt the experience of some people when you say
> > > warrior is so hard to level... I understand prot ones are hard but to say
> > > levelling an arms warrior is hard....
>
> > I'm quite surprised actually.  I have 65 rogue that I'm currently
> > leveling.  70 mage and a 62 warrior and a 35 hunter.  Hunter for sure
> > is the easiest.  Actually too easy really.
>
> Agreed. I got bored and stopped leveling my hunter for months because it
> was too easy.
>
> >  Mage comes second.  Now
> > the other two classes - warrior and rogue are quite painful to me.
> > Rogue a bit less painfull than warriors.
>
> > I think the reason why anyone finds rogue easy/fast like the hunter is
> > probably because they have good gear.  Any class will be tremendously
> > easy if they are lvled it mostly blues.  Mage and hunters on the other
> > hand are not that much gear depenedent and as such are much easier to
> > lvl.
>
> IMO, the most important factors are how fast you can kill a mob (and
> NOTHING kills faster than a mage), and how well you can escape from a
> bad pull. Pet classes are extremely good at the latter, and just happen
> to be quite good at the former.

I don't have a class with a pet yet, but in PuGs I've sometimes found
pets to be a royal pain. Perhaps its just inexperienced pet owners,
but
I've more than once had a group wipe because a pet brought in numerous
adds. It happened just last night in the troll ruins of STV.

PT
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

R> Ok, now THAT is totally ridiculous, as any veteran player can tell
R> you.


With 3 lvl 70 and 4 lvl 60 I can say I am a veteran ???


R> Avoiding ganks is of little significance to leveling (and zero on a
R> PVE server).3


I didnt avoid ganks I killed my opponents... that's a bit different.


R> If you think warriors level as easily as Hunters, Rogue, Warlocks,
R> and
R> Mages, your opinion on anything in the game is suspect.


I have a 70 mage, warlock, druid, 63 rogue, 50 hunter and more and if you
say warriors are so hard to level compared to other classes then in my
opinion it's just the opposite of what you said it is very suspect YOUR
opinion of the game if you still find it hard to lvl any class after all the
experience...
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

Shammy wrote:
>
> R> Ok, now THAT is totally ridiculous, as any veteran player can tell
> R> you.
>
> With 3 lvl 70 and 4 lvl 60 I can say I am a veteran ???
>

Okay, any OTHER veteran.

> R> Avoiding ganks is of little significance to leveling (and zero on a
> R> PVE server).3
>
> I didnt avoid ganks I killed my opponents... that's a bit different.
>

Not much. You brought the issue up.

> R> If you think warriors level as easily as Hunters, Rogue, Warlocks,
> R> and
> R> Mages, your opinion on anything in the game is suspect.
>
> I have a 70 mage, warlock, druid, 63 rogue, 50 hunter and more and if you
> say warriors are so hard to level compared to other classes then in my
> opinion it's just the opposite of what you said it is very suspect YOUR
> opinion of the game if you still find it hard to lvl any class after all the
> experience...

You said " they are very fast to lvl as fast as any other class...".
That is patent bullshit.

There is no objective standard to qualify a class as "fast to level". We
must use relative standards, and Warriors are relatively slow to level
compared to some other classes. You imply that all classes are equally
fast, and that is not true.

--
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

Hello, Brian!
You wrote on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC):

BT> Shammy <none RemoveThis @nothing.com> wrote:
>> I have levelled my warrior to 60 just before TBC came and I have no
>> idea what are you talking about, they are very fast to lvl as fast as
>> any other class...

BT> Nonsense. Too gear dependent, too much downtime. They are nowhere
BT> near as fat to level as some other classes. A BM-spec hunter can
BT> probably level to 70 before a warrior to 60.

A BM hunter... the easiest class/spec in wow well imo they can level as fast
as rogues, specially dagger rogues (I levelled a dagger rogue).
I'm really starting to doubt the experience of some people when you say
warrior is so hard to level... I understand prot ones are hard but to say
levelling an arms warrior is hard....
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

Kimbelyn wrote:
>
> RogerM wrote:
> > To what end? What is your goal in the game if it not to defeat the
> > current top boss (Illidan in BT?)
>
> different people have different goals in game for "endgame". its not
> anyones place to tell them that its wrong,

I didn't say it was wrong, I asked what the motivation was.

> or that they should be doing
> something else with their time (like killing illidan). you appear to be
> questioning his reasons for doing something.

Right, questioning. Asking for an answer. There was no condemnation of
his play style.

> why does it really matter?
> he's having fun and getting his money's worth. thats what games are all
> about. you do know that dont you?
>

Your tone is quite arrogant and insulting. You know that don't you?

I do not believe you have been appointed to the NG speech police, so
kindly butt out.

--
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

> I think two handed fury is quite a good levelling spec,

Good compared to what? Holy Priest?

--
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors 

Bynahmar wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 8:15 am, lcpltom <lcpl....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Neverending Underspore Frond, I don't understand why more people
> > don't have this item. Too many pugs get halfway through the instance
> > when someone runs out of water. This is a great backup.
>
> +1 on that one.....
> That's one piece of gear that I don't leave in the bank EVER....my
> rogue doesn't even use mana, but the food supply is darn handy,
> especially when rep grinding....

It's a nice item. Unfortunately worthless to mages. Pretty foolish to do
a PUG instance without a mage, anyway.

--
 >> Stay informed about: bliz was saying not enough warriors