Also sweeping strikes off the GCD please please please, I hate the delay pressing that 
4 Likes
I remember reading a dumb post while at work, but couldn’t find it till today.
What if I told you and this might blow your mind, frost is better at high end arena than fire mage.
Nice
No it’s not.
3 Likes
Matter of opinion. Ive seen several fire mages in arena brackets that are utilized but whatever. Frost has its place and high end arena but fire is still on fire. Ahaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNAjo5PuvYo&t=247s showcases fire mages that are 3300+ in rating so that is a matter of opinion.
I am not going to comment on a previous topic that I had already corrected myself on so whatever floats yer boat. Ahaha. Bad attempt fer your retort but I give you a d- for effort. Ahaha.
No, objective performance markers are not a “matter of opinion.”
1 Like
Fury needs more pressure.
1 Like
Imagine arguing with some of the best warriors in the US over spec viability.
Fury needs it’s niche to be viable in PvP.
It’s just a matter of finding what that niche is supposed to be, and judging from the current playstyle, high uptime with high damage should be it’s moniker. This is not a spec you want going into dampening, which is fine - that’d be it’s counter.
But it just doesn’t have the damage to put out high amounts of pressure early on in a game, and with the removal of thirst for blood, it doesn’t have uptime either.
So it’s lost at least it’s attempt at that identity.
I know it’s mongo-melee, but I do miss those “win in the first minute or the match is over for you” comps from back in MoP, and fury could really bring that style back. Probably wouldn’t work at super high ratings, but at least the option’s there.
2 Likes
Was trying to be nice. You are speaking of semantics when fire is more widely used over frost in top arena play. 3400 ratings is the ceiling for skill. Just look at that video for example. He speaks of specs and fire is the first mage partner that is on his team
Thank you for your input. Spot on in my opinion.
Personally, I feel Fury needs more than just more damage to make it PvP competitive with Arms.
If you look at classes and specs that always do well its because they bring utility beyond raw damage. Stuns, debuffs, defensives, polymorphs, blinds - they control the tempo. Healers just flat out counter high sustained damage until very deep dampening unless you can disable them. Fury isn’t a spec that can get to deep dampening either given its reliance on self-healing to keep alive. It’s designed around early to mid game.
Fury might technically be ‘viable’ when its damage is top-tier but its never going to a competitive choice for very long if its niche is pure damage alone.
That said, I don’t think you take the cheap option and simply give Fury a Mortal Strike like Arms. All that does is just make it a direct competition and one will always be worse off.
1 Like
They’re almost identical in terms of damage, control, and mobility, and survivability is pretty similar, so I don’t see how giving fury a mortal strike is going to drastically up the ante to the point where it doesn’t just become a simple damage/healing tuning problem.
This is pretty false in its’ entirety.
Because what is the point of having 2 specs almost exactly the same?
I don’t understand. Fury warriors want an MS. Then they cry that their healing isn’t good anymore. Then they cry that their damage is bad. Then their mobility is bad. Then utility.
Fury still has the healing and mobility edge over Arms. Damage is a push while Arms has MS and a little more utility.
You can’t have all 5, so what’s it gonna be?
Now before everyone loses their mind on me, I’m fully understanding and well aware that fury has seen better days in PvP, and yes it has a big problem and deserves to be better than it is currently.
I just don’t think everyone is diagnosing the correct issues and providing the right type of solution for the spec.
MS is not the answer. Neither is homogenizing the 2 specs so that they’re both the same and provide the same assets to a team in PvP.
2 Likes
I think for variety, having Fury deal with healing in a different way would make sense. That’s why we need Fury’s Pummel to be MOUTH PUNCH, causing both the interrupt but also a 30% casting speed reduction for X seconds.
That might be too good on dps casters though.
1 Like
Hold on. Are they “almost exactly the same” and not identical at the same time, sans mortal strike?
No, I’m saying right now they are not the same, but with everyone’s proposed changes, they would be nearly identical.
Okay, what about with exactly one change. Add a -25% healing debuff. Would they be identical then?
Fury does not need MS. It never has. Some of the best seasons for fury were when it didn’t have MS.
Again, wrong diagnosis, not the correct solution. MS would be a bandaid and the spec would still not be as competitive as arms in PvP.
1 Like
That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if the classes would be identical if Fury had a -25% healing debuff.
I mean, what would the difference be at that point? War Banner and Bloodrage? Enraged Regen and DBTS?
I would be for a debuff that a fury warrior places on the target increasing the damage the fury warrior does the longer it stays on that one target. Sort of indicating the primal focus and recklessness of a f***ing pissed off warrior in a rage.
1 Like
Okay, so it sounds like you’re saying they are more or less equivalent other than the mortal strike debuff.
Is that correct?