WoW & Shamins & Blizzard: I think I get it

Ok, maybe I am smoking crack, but I think I understand why blizzard refuses to nerf shamins.

I have heard that blizzard has said that Shamins are finished and they are exactly the way they are suppoed to be. I do not know if this is true, but I have heard it sevearl times, although none from a blue source.

What they are doing it seems, is trying to rework each class so they are as equally powerful and they are useing the shamin as the metric, so they do not want to change it.

Ideally after each class is reworked they will all be fairly balanced with each other and the shamins. For example, from what I have been told, a BM spec hunter w/beastial wrath has a very good chance of owning a shamin now. Before any kind of hunter reguardless of build were fairly worthless vs a shamin.

Warriors with their improvements are still at a disadvantge, but are now an actual threat to shamins.

Maybe these druid imrpovements will bump druids slightly vs shamins too.

So, anyone else think this is whats going on or is it just that blizzard has some irrational love of shamins and refuses to address obvious imbalances?

Shaman.

Blizzard has already said that classes are not strong to every other class, and that there will be a rock-paper-scissors type effect ala WC3.

Dude, not to derail the thread too much but – your post was practically unreadable. Think about a spellchecker. A nice little one comes with the Google Toolbar.

And that definitely shows if you duel a lot. As any given class, there are classes that are easy to kill, and classes that are hard to kill. But in any given situation, a really good player can make all the difference.

Yes. That’s always been how it is. Even in beta, that was Blizzard’s intent, and it’s never been hidden. So there’s nothing to understand. It’s just a waiting game. Shaman just happened to be the class that was finished first. It shows, too. Shamen are a really fun class to play. Jack of all trades, master of none, but nice and versatile.

Also some builds for classes are more or less effective versus your “weak” class target or your “strong” class target.

(Vote Invisibility for mages!)

I’ve seen palladines, preits and rouges, but so far not a single shamin.

I have had the Googlebar forever, but always copy/pasted to spellcheck.net because I just didn’t know the option was there. I’m making this reply both to thank you and test it out.

Holy crap, that is hoss.

Chris Woods

ARGH! Your post is causing me physical pain! :shock:

Actually I saw an opposite post about the fact there are not supposed to be any rock-paper-scissiors for WoW. They said some classes will have an advantage against others, but thier intent was not to create that RPS mechanic.

If any class ever has an advantage over another class, it has to be RPS or it’s broken. Because if there isn’t a weakness for every strength, then it’s unbalanced.

I have had the Googlebar forever, but always copy/pasted to spellcheck.net because I just didn’t know the option was there. I’m making this reply both to thank you and test it out.

Holy crap, that is hoss.

Chris Woods[/quote]

I just noticed it too. Very cool.

yes

THere is a difference between advantages and RPS.

For example if paladin undead spells worked on forsaken, that would be an advantage. If it were RPS then no undead would ever stand a chance against a paladin.

In an RTS where RPS seems the be the mantra, pikemen > calvary, calvary > archers, archers > pikemen.

Taking any two units at full health, and setting them against each other, the outcome is always the same. That is RPS.

If on the otherhand, a pikeman only had a 60% chance to beat a calvary, then that is not RPS.

In WoW, blizzard has said they do not want RPS, but they do not mind advantages.

Currently some interactions are RPS. Take a mage vs a druid or shaman in a duel (to eliminate stupid things like attacking a shaman while he has 3 mobs on it, and then some mage claming vicotry). Also the player on both sides are competant. The shaman will always win. Same with a druid vs a mage. Moonfire FTW and toss on a few regens just in case.

That needs to be fixed.

Mage vs Rogues: Thats iffy. Advantage rouges, but not ovewhelming. Its not RPS.

What is the correct plural of shaman? Is it shamen or shamans?

I always thought the plural of shaman was shaman.

Since the language-correcting bird has flown, allow me to point out that a “calvary” is not a horse-riding soldier unit, but rather a statue depicting the crucifixion of Jesus, who was crucified, as the legends say, on the hill of Calvary. Notoriously un-useful against both infantry and pikemen unless dropped onto them from a great height.

Cavalry are the horse-borne footmen stompers that hate long sticks.

Shaman are strong in duels, and I’d say both Shams/Paladins are about equally useful in BGs. That said, Paladins are significantly better in end-game PvE.

My guild is one of the 4(?) Horde guilds that have taken down Nefarian on the US servers. There are well over 25-30 Alliance guilds who have done the same. Let’s not even go into the Salvation/Kings discussion, but just look at the Nefarian fight alone.

If you’d rather have Shaman in that fight, you’re crazy. Paladins are indispensable for handling stage 3 cleanly, and Nefarian’s class-specific affliction for them (a BoP on Nefarian) is a hell of a lot less devastating than having him throw down 5 corrupted windfury totems while your MT/OT are afflicted by berserk.

Shaman are not a finished/complete class. I expect them to get a major overhaul/improvement of their 3 talent trees fairly soon, and possibly upgrades to some of the completely worthless totems.

Paladins are wildly overpowered and so are hunters now. Of course, they’re still nerfing rogues into the stone age. At least Warlocks got an upgrade.