Discuss any and all changes regarding to the points system here before committing them. --Hobinheim 11:27, 21 December 2006 (EST)
- I merged all the sub templates into this template. Reasons:
- They were only ever used once it made them much more difficult to maintain.
- Why have a template for every row of a table?
- You may say so we can discuss them. Well that's what this page is for, and it seems to be happening here anyway.
- Templates inside of templates is messy.
- I also pulled the "Class Guide" columns out of this table and put them onto the class page as this table was ridiculously wide.
- The sub-templates can be delete by whoever has access to do that as they are deprecated.
--Jebidiah 11:12, 24 August 2006 (EDT)
- I recommend keeping the subtemplates. I was inspired by the templates you made and created a series of similar templates for class sets, with a slightly expanded purpose in mind. I use the templates on the Class set article to host the header, each class row and footer. Then on the Druid set article and corresponding sets, I used the header, druid and footer templates. I really like the way the navigation flows. Consider something similar with the Class Guides templates rather than empty black bands across the top of the class pages. Umbra 12:18, 24 August 2006 (EDT)
Proposed point system 1-10
I like the change from ++(+) to numbers. Now I'd think it a good idea to use a larger number range. I don't know much about the other aspects, but for healing classes I'd propose the following:
Priest: 8-10 Druid: 6-8 Paladin: 5-7 Shaman: 4-6 Warlock: 1 (yes, I do think that for Soulstone and Healthstone they deserve one point)
I Agree whith 1-10 system at all beacuse that gives more space to eventual faults...
For follow roles i propose:
- Priest: 8-10
- Druid: 7-9
- Paladin: 5-7
- DPS (some ppl mistake DPS with Critical Hits, remember DPS means Damage per second)
- Mage: 8-10
- Rogue: 8-10
- Hunter: 7-9
- Warlock: 7-9
- Warlock: 8-10
- Mage: 8-10
- Warlock: 7-9
I gave my opinion in what i should, what i know...
I didn't give my opinion about some classes at some roles, and about some roles because i think some people can talk about some classes and roles better than me. --JD3K 13:12, 18 January 2008 (GMT)
Since I have personal experience only with Shaman and Priest, I'm not sure whether my ranges are accurate.
I've been playing paladin. What's to consider is:
- Heal per cast
- Length of cast
- Heal per mana point
- Heal per mana bar
- Meta-healing spells/talents
- Improved Heal for Priest, Improved Holy Light, Improved Flash of Light, and two spells that pallies have – one that is talent-required which causes the next heal to be critical, and a Blessing of Light which gives a ~200-point boost to any Holy Light cast (less or none -- not sure -- for Flash of Light)
While it'd be nice to calculate this somehow, it largely depends upon the weighting of each individual. So it's up to them, but the range for each character is good. I think it should be like this:
- Priest: 6-10 (I hear that if they go shadow, they kinda suck, but that's hearsay), big mana bar
- Druid: 5-9 (I hear basically the same for them, but they can be good, too, and have some good spells), decent mana bar
- Paladin: 6-8 (Holy can be awesome, there's a talent that prevents interrupt on healing, they have Concentration which further prevents interruption on anything, and they have other bonuses as I said above; and the most non-Holy pally still has good healing), not especially big, but efficient heals
- Shaman -- no clue
- Warlock: 0, as for combat healing, in my experience. I've never used one of those stones if memory serves.
- Mage: 0, for combat healing, but non-combat, they can conjure up food.
That's the only expertise I have on that. Schmidt 19:26, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)
Some random thoughts on the CC rating system.
- Druid: The ^ (only certain mobs) and # (outside only) imply that Druid CC only works outdoors on certain mobs. But in actuality, Druids can root basically any mob outdoors with Entangling Roots, and can in addition sleep beasts and dragonkin anywhere with Hibernate. Also roots can be specced to be casting delay free (+1)? all the time and can use Nature's Swiftness to make it instant cast subject to NS cooldown and doesn't always break due to damage. Druids have 2 independant CC options outdoors and 1 indoors.
- Mages can Polymorph humanoids and beasts only but it works anywhere hence the ^ for them. They can use Presence of Mind to make this instant cast subject to PoM cooldown.
- Hunter traps can not be made instant and are 'non combat' only. The Hunter can recall the pet and Feign Death to get out of combat but the trap still has a delay and the mob has to be herded onto it. [This is sorely outdated, Hunters traps CAN be droped in combat now, because of it and wyvern sting hunters should get a 3+1 for CC]
- Rogues have Sap which is vs. humanoid only and with Improved Sap talent (+1)? they can usually not break stealth. If this works they are the only CC which does not start combat when it is triggered. The Rogue must be stealthed and the mob must be out of combat for it to work.
- Warlocks have Banish which can take Demons out of combat and Seduce (via their Succubus which works on humanoids, and Fear which works on most things.
- Paladins have Repentance top tier talent which can take a humanoid out of combat but only lasts 6 seconds.
- Shamans have Stoneclaw totem which is not quite a CC, only works versus one nonelite, or gets one shotted.
- Also, can any other class CC two things at the same time?
- Yes, Hunters can Freeze one for 26s, Wyvern sting another for 12s, and Off tank one with his pet indefinetly
- Yes, warlocks can CC up to three mobs. -- (T) 19:43, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
- Correction, warlocks can CC up to 5 mobs with Howl of Terror, I play a 59 lock. -- Rozenwyn
- AoE fear on a huge cooldown doesn't really count. If so, it's the same for warriors and priests. -- (T) 17:25, 31 October 2006 (EST)
- Correction, warlocks can CC up to 5 mobs with Howl of Terror, I play a 59 lock. -- Rozenwyn
- Also, can any other class CC two things at the same time?
- Is there any way to make the summary clearly indicate that the flags apply to 2 independant and complementary CC skills and are not limitations of one CC skill?
- Should there be an 'out of combat' flag?
- Should there be a 'Roles' tag next to the 'Spells' 'Talents' etc. tags per class on the left which would discuss how ( skills and talents ) to build a particular class into the rating listed in the Roles table? It would discuss the talents to get the +N ratings as well as the skills used to get the base rating.
Getting Rid of the Class Tables
- sigh* the whole point of getting rid of the class tables is that they're all used in one place only and never anywhere else on the site...
Regarding "Pulling" and a few other stuff
The current pulling rating is inadequate (only use 3 numbers?). Here is my understanding of what is important in pulling:
- Have a range attack.
- Instant range ability. (against patrolling or clustered unlinked mobs such as Rattlegore)
- Abilty to accurately tell distance between mobs.
- Ability to abort a pull.
Based on the above:
- A rogue should get 3. Their range attack is not instantaneous, which makes pulling patrols difficult. In addition, if you let rogue pull, he start combat unstealthed, which means loss of ambush/cheapshot.
- Paladin should get "^" to pull against undead/demon. All paladins have exorcism which is an instant cast against undead/demons and sense demon.
- Warrior should get 1 because their ranged attack is not instantaneous. Although since they are tanking, they would deserve 2 or 3 for sake of convenience.
- Hunter's AoE should be 3, unless you don't count Multi-Shot as AoE.
- Paladin should get at least 2 if not 3 in debuff, their judgement are almost always used in raids.
- Kiting should also be a role. --Voidvector 17:17, 22 January 2007 (EST)
- To be frank, I'm not liking the numbers section at all. It's too large a source for contention and people keep drive by ninja editing it. I'm almost tempted to say lock it down or delete it. Sometimes it gets stupid. Example, I don't think rogues and hunters are equal in terms of highest DPS. I think mages have higher DPS, but rogues have better sustained DPS. But what do I know.-- 17:29, 22 January 2007 (EST)
- It is good for a new player to know the class. But due to the disagreements, I think we should give less granularity, so it's more like "yes, this class can tank" --Voidvector 17:38, 22 January 2007 (EST)
I really don't understand the scoring system being used on this page.. makes no sense to me. Perhaps add an explanation of key? :S I don't see why it isn't just 0-10 with a class having a max allocation of 10 points each. --10:49, 23 January 2007 (EST)
- The legend is here Class#Legend. It's a rating system from 1-4, with bonuses coming from talents. 11:09, 23 January 2007 (EST)
- I see ty. Though why not include the legend in with this.. it seems to me it should never be included without it. :P -- 11:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)
- Well, it's only used on the one page! 11:42, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Hunter's can heal, just only on a certain target (Can we get ^ changed to target, not enemy). It should be 1^+1^ or something. --11:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Warlocks were listed as superior DPS to Warriors and Druids. While it is certainly true that some Warlocks can beat some Druids or some Warriors, it is not sufficient to say that they are on the same level of Mages for DPS. I have never seen a Warlock beat a Mage in DPS in any raid I have ever been on. For that matter I have never seen one beat a Fury warrior or a Feral druid either.
- I guess it also depends on whether the scores combine pets into the total (same with raid DPS). 20:33, 12 February 2007 (EST)
You can possibly think that Hunters can out DPS Warlocks??? while I'm going to agree that we are not quite up to the standards of a Rogue while taking a single target, or Mages while AoEing, its a close thing. Putting Locks more than 1 point below Mages/Rogues is a very bad joke. I'm a lock, and I raid. I have been out DPSed by 2 Fury warriors, 1 Hunter (vs. Baron) and exactly 0 Druids. And no, I am not in uber gear, infact, Im a full half a tier behind one of said Warriors and 1.5 behind the other (I had 3 pieces of Felheart prior to TBC, while the rest of my guild have at least full T1-2.5)
As for Mages, I generally came around 3rd in our old MC runs, which frequently contained 6-10 mages. (And yes, there was one mage who beat me solid every time.)
missed the ball on buffs
I really feel that we have missed the ball on the buffing section if i had to chose someone to buff my party it would go (i terms of strength of buffs alone) 1) Shaman (4 totems out with substantial buffs comming from each of them.) 2) paladin 1 strong class specific buff to each memeber of the party 3) druid best 'general' buff rest as stated. putting shaman as second from the bottom seems to be doing them a HUGE disservice. if you look at the World of warcraft offical site it says that buffing is their strong point and something they do better than just about everyone else.--Reskar 13:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- While totems are very nice and Shaman buffing has improved with TBC, Shamans can still only buff their own group members. A lot of the game content is for raids (don't forget Battlegrounds), and the Paladin is clearly the better buffer here.
- I'd say that the buff utility is entirely equal between the two. In certain situations the paladin will be better buffer, in certain situations shaman will provide better buffs. It depends on the encounter.--AwaVeios 19:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
One more note on that matter, I do NOT believe that Paladins should be listed as the best buffer. Both classes definitely deserve the 4, but as AwaVeios posted, it depends on the situation. There is no conclusive evidence that Paladins are absolutely better than Shamans at buffing. They may be sometimes, but definitely not all the time. And since I'm the third person saying this I'll go ahead and change it on the main page. Exarcotic (talk) 04:59, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
assuming we have articles for them (as we should) I propose that the DPS,AoE, Heal, Tank, CC, Pull, Buff, DBf, MA headers all be linked to their appropriate page, I was going to do it myself since it's a fairly non controversial edit but I really don't feel like being banned for it by some kneejerk admin (that's only some and not all admins). Jtkiefer 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go link them because it isn't controversial and it just makes sense to link back to a page that explains. Exarcotic (talk) 16:05, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Shaman and paladins should really, really be changed to 2+2 on this guide. Yes, paladins have a more limited range of spells, but a holy paladin has often the best direct cast plain vanilla healing spells, and the use of concentration aura can make up for the lack of instant cast spells. Chain heal is insanely good, and shaman have a full range of healing spells. Yes, prot pallies, ret pallies and enh shaman are lousy healers, so 2+2 is probably a good description. --AwaVeios 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the Class article's discussion page this has been discussed, I left my reasons there for updating paladin healing to 2+2. Please see that discussion page for details, thanks. Dantheman102100 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's listed as (4), as in "best of the best" - This seems to say that a shadow priest would have better healing than a healing-specced Paladin or Shaman... As a Shadow Priest, I would say that our healing just isn't that great at higher levels. Even if it is slightly better than a holy paladin or resto shaman, that means there is no rank left to separate resto druids or holy priests from shadow priests. I would say priests should be 3+1 for healing. Quamarett 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Any comments? Okay, since I'm on the subject, I would say the same thing about warrior tanking - a warrior is also definitely not "best of the best" with no talents. I just don't think a "best of the best" designation really applies in TBC, except to mages for dps and hunters for pulling. If no one cares, I'll at least change the priest/healing and warrior/tanking from (4) to 4. Quamarett 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I feel as if Warrior tanking should be bumped down from 4 to 3+1, as currently it indicates that Warriors cannot improve their tanking through talents, which is blatently false. I would also motion for the change of both Paladins and Druids to (x) status, as all three tanking classes are 'about the same' in viability. I do know that a Bear has tanked Illidan and a Paladin RoS P2, which are generally considered to be the biggest 'warrior' tanking fights. And past that, there are a number of fights where Paladins/Druids perform well above what a warrior could expect. Generally though 'about equal' are the words I'd use to describe the difference. Klimpen 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
MA, Dbf and Pull
Why do these need their own stats? the raid markings/raid leader positions have nothing whatsoever to do with the class, Debuffing is not a defining class role by any standards and pulling? Well thats just silly. I think that the three of these should be removed, and the following changes should be made:
Off-Tank: Effectiveness at picking up aggro from extra mobs and dealing with mobs that get loose and start attacking the healers/DPS.
DPS should be split into Sustained and Burst sections, because there is a HUGE difference between the two. (For example, Mages and Shaman both have a 4 for burst DPS, but while Mages also have a 4 for sustained shaman have a mere 2)
Buff should be renamed Support to better cover the various class mechanics
There should be a distinction between the ability to kite and the ability to CC. (for example, shaman can kite but they have absolutely no CC)Macisaac 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
view | talk
I will let you all copy this table over - if you think it is a good idea. -- ( | | ) 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, which ones are the male icons? The thumbnails are so small and some of the m/f look so similar it is difficult to tell which is which. I liked the ?? as the place holders better. Paly 1 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I admit it, a lot of the male icons are very similar to the female icons. Especially at a glance it's hard to tell them apart. Firstly, ALL Dranei icons are female (since no classes are being added) and ALL Worgen/Goblin icons are male (since they all are being added). For all of the other races, the majority of the icons are female (since far fewer combinations are being added relative to combinations already in the game). The bottom line is, if you can tell the difference at all, the icon that appears fewer times is the male one. If you totally can't tell them apart, then I suppose we might want to look into another method of distinguishing between new and old class combinations. Burzolog (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's now using a similar style that the table on Cataclysm is using: text! (gasp).
- The imagelinks are gone, permanently. Don't re-add them. -- 18:46, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
"lol"; a disagreement
omg, what a noob made the specialty roles part... have you ever played world of warcraft? the part sux... i mean the rating.... all classes in this game are balanced, there is no "best class for this role", each class is good for another situation.... but there is not a best class for tanking or healing... exapmle: warr - tank - (4) ,?... are you kidding me? maybe 3+1 but never (4).... cuz fury war is really bad tank and prot war is not the best one for all situations (for tanking more targets better to use pala), priest - heal - (4).... oh man, it depends on type of healing (power healing or burst healing)... well, priests are good in both but not the best —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valinalo94 (talk · contr).
Specialty Roles Table
It has been discussed on the main discussion for the Classes page that that portion of the chart should be changed to reflect the roles possible via dungeon finder, and merely that the character is usable for such a role, since ratings such as what is already there is purely speculative. Nobody has dismissed the validity of that claim, and it has been there for several months, so I'm taking a lead and adjusting it accordingly. If anyone has a good reason why the table should stay as it is, well, the page can always be reverted later if it's necessary, which I (and many people) believe it is not. ShadowDragoonFTW (talk) 19:09, October 19, 2010 (UTC)