Page 10 of 12
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 8:13 pm
by roadkillrobin
WL deals more dmg then Choppas, at less risk with more CC and doesn't need to stay in melee range to do it's job. Were is that not unballanced?
Both WL and Mara are also dealing way more dmg then WH/WE with twice the armor and better utillity. The classes needs toning.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 8:25 pm
by dansari
roadkillrobin wrote:
Both WL and Mara are also dealing way more dmg then WH/WE with twice the armor and better utillity. The classes needs toning.
Let's just make both cloth armor. Problem solved /s
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 8:31 pm
by gandresch
In case of the WL that is not true in a 6v6 or 12v12 match up. A guarded slayer will do more damage and has constant pressure. The WL dont.
And the WL is the most vulnerable mdps class in ror. You dont have to kill the WL to shut the class down. You can kill his pet and his damage fall way behind. And you dont even have to kill the pet. Even when you snare it and the WL charge or pounce and the pet lacks behind his damage is bad.
But on the marauder i agree with you. Two marauders in a group works fine.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 8:41 pm
by Tifereth
People aren't allowed to make balance proposals unless they have the class at 40/40 now, so
people try to circumvent that by opening a "discussion" thread instead? Well, I knew it wouldn't take long.
WL is fine, Mara is fine. Both might need slight tuning? Perhaps. Mostly for inner faction balance imo, however.
Other classes need tuning also? Yes, also.
Rather make a discussion about how WE/WH can be fixed to be on par rather than nerfing other classes
down to their level.
As people pointed out, this game is not about 1v1 balance, so it doesn't matter if the WL is a counter to
Shaman/Squig. Pounce has a cooldown now, so it can't be used in excess anymore, the pet can be killed to
take the bite out. In WBvWB WL is rubbish, too. There are your group counters already. What else are those
demanding a nerf want, exactly?
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 8:43 pm
by Lektroluv
th3gatekeeper wrote:
Also just because WL and mara get a small nerf doesn't mean they still can't wipe the floor with Shaman or squig... I mean.... the tactic gives them What? 25% or 30% run speed? Yet WL and mara have fetch/pull and charge that gives 50%? And the WL pounce....I don't see why WL needs ALLLL the stuff they have just to counter a shaman... that smells like an excuse to not have WL nerfed...
Don't forget White Lion Root moral 1, too easy access and can't be cleansed with cleansing winds,and only can be broke with Focused Mind moral 2 because not even normal attacks break it.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 8:50 pm
by Nefarian78
gandresch wrote:WLs dont need a nerf. All complaints about WLs made in this topic is based on a 1v1 fight. In a 6v6 or 12v12 you can easy counter the WL.
Currently WLs have the best armor debuff in game, are one of the safest Mdps, the best mobility skill ingame and the highest dmg of all Mdps.
How does that not require a nerf? They don't need to be destroyed and made useless but they do need to be nerfed
They apply an undefendable armor debuff that lasts 10s. They have pounce, a mobility skill that deals really high damage and makes them stick to their target like glue and are also the safest Mdps in-game.
Imo, if a class has that kind of damage and such a strong armor debuff it doesn't need the strongest mobility tool in-game. Pounce is one of the main reasons WLs are low risk and high reward, it makes them way too hard to shut down compared to Slayers, Maras and Choppas.
They also have a pet, which makes them even harder to shut down.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 9:01 pm
by Aurandilaz
IMO interesting approach would be to make it so that WL can't get both POUNCE and Armour Debuff at same time.
Okay, you want to be a mobile DPS, sure, spec for it.
Okay, you want to have a solid debuff that makes a big difference in most fights, sure, spec for it.
Want to have both? Oh please... welcome to the harsh life of every other mdps in this game.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 9:04 pm
by gandresch
Pounce with a 10 cd is high risk and high reward for me. And a mdps class that has no inc heal debuff (most important debuff) and therefore an armor debuff sounds fair to me.
There us a class btw that has both and even the best hp debuff.
The pet makes them easy to shut down. You probably talking about 1v1 also.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 9:06 pm
by Tifereth
Nefarian78 wrote:Currently WLs have the best armor debuff in game
Stellar fact free arguments.
How is WL armour debuff different from the Mara armour debuff? Top DPS is also very debatable, certainly not the
best sustained DPS by a long shot. Safest? Because he can jump out of danger if there is an enemy close and in a safe
zone, but only after your cooldown? Or safest as in you can swoop in for an easy killsteal in an Orvr pug situations? And how
is a pet an advantage when it can be killed easily to cripple your DPS? There's plenty of videos on this forum that shows
you how WLs can be shut down.
Re: [WL vs Mara] NOT a flame thread but honest Discussion.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 9:14 pm
by Nefarian78
Aurandilaz wrote:IMO interesting approach would be to make it so that WL can't get both POUNCE and Armour Debuff at same time.
Okay, you want to be a mobile DPS, sure, spec for it.
Okay, you want to have a solid debuff that makes a big difference in most fights, sure, spec for it.
Want to have both? Oh please... welcome to the harsh life of every other mdps in this game.
That could fix the issue that are WLs right now. Doubt it will ever happen tho.