Now I doubt he even plays classic at all. Probably just pet battles on retail.
GG, your opinions are irrelevant.
Yeah, you are kind of making our point for usâŚ
If you can choose who you wanted to bring for good performance, you didnât bring a ret, you had them play their alt for better performance.
That needed to be fixed.
Thatâs your personal views, itâs irrelevant to the discussion on if it was balanced. You are admitting it wasnât, but deflecting that itâs fine because only good guilds avoided ret.
lots of specs âget benchedâ week1 in ultra sweaty guilds to class stack cheese kills
means nothing to 99.99%
itâs not fun, and itâs bad, ppl donât play it. Plus so many are playing the op specs⌠thereâs already 3 pally in the raid without the ret. most raids have 4, while equal class rep should be 2.5.
thatâs where all the rets are, playing prot and holy.
1 Like
It was really just ret, not âlotsâ
Every class had a DPS spec that wasnât largely getting benched except paladin.
There was no equivalency to be drawn.
People were playing ret, it just stopped getting brought once people started doing hard content.
Just because you donât like the spec doesnât mean it is widely disliked by all. It was just bad. It recovered on representation once it wasnât quite as bad (it was still last place after the buffs in Ulduar, it just was no longer a handicap)
No he didnât, Ret dropoff was amongst the highest but still in line with multiple other specs.
Raid participation decreased in general, only using Ret numbers is misleading at best.
Itâs not misleading.
Hereâs an old thread I pulled together back then
The percentages are Algalon kills / total parses in Ulduar of that spec (any boss), so itâs normalized to the people actually still raiding.
Ret was a noticeable step below fury, which was around the lowest spec still part of the rest of the pack.
You were just significantly less likely to see an Algalon kill as a paladin DPS than any other class before the buffs.
they whine worse than warriors
And Ret and Fury have been basically neck and neck throughout.
This is only true when talking about the top 1%.
The average Ret parsed a lot better than the average Fury here.
Itâs due to the fact that Fury has a much wider performance arc than Ret. The tail for Fury is way longer.
Thereâs quirks and differences between the specs that depend on specific encounters and specific data points but theyâre basically in the same league and have been throughout.
Being fair about it Fury and Ret have performed roughly the same across all content so far. Theyâre essentially interchangeable from a dps perspective.
And I may posit - this is as it should be.
Ret has two other S-tier specs and brings considerably more utility than warriors.
Fury also ended about 800 dps above Ret in original ICC but thereâs been silence on that from the as it used to be posters on here.
You spoke about ret representation in âthe weeksâ after the blizzard messaging that no buff was coming. This blue post was on 24/11/22, the weeks following this were Naxx. My post I was referencing was about late Naxx numbers vs peak, which for all specs was roughly that same week as the blue post.
If you wish to talk about Algalon numbers then say that instead.
Weâre brought for a utility that the other S-tier specs already bring (aka, not that) and 3% damage thatâs brought by 2 other dps specs that would both be better than rets without the buff.
Also, healing and tanking is entirely the same as DPS of course, your gear automatically translates into the other rol⌠oh, right.
1 Like
Yeah, I generally ignore Naxx representation because you could go in there at level 70 and clear it if there wasnât a level requirement.
Ret representation mostly tanked in Ulduar, when difficult content actually made class balance matter to help get over tough fights.
Definitely true here. This is a lot of the reason that ret fell behind in the first place. The better the players are, the worse ret tends to look relative to them.
The problems ret has prior to the buffs is that the hard mode content is tuned for the players that largely perform at levels that left ret behind. It isnât just the top 1%, so those guilds largely just didnât use ret. (And in general people are better these days, which didnât help Retâs pretty narrow performance band)
Lower skilled guilds see that, and copy those group building decisions when trying to get past their roadblocks even if ret was semi competitive in their percentile. Those players would also benefit from a good arms warrior or frost mage though, so this isnât really singing praises of ret when itâs only good there.
The buffs were enough to let rets fit in high end groups without making them a stacked DPS. That feels pretty spot on with the goal (although you can argue about a hundred DPS or two if you wanted to find tune placements. Iâd rather do that with real performance data instead of sims though)
Naxx
fury 9086
Ret 7689
Ulduar (post ret buff)
fury 9011
ret 8439
TOGC
fury 14438
ret 13061
a 10-20% gap in every tier = âroughly the sameâ lol, warrior is even ahead of ferals in togc, marginally, only fire, unholy, affli and combat rogue are ahead, its 5th
Where are you pulling these numbers from?
What percentile are you cutting from?
In every phase to date the median for Fury has been lower than the median for Ret - it changes if you cut from the 90th percentile and up where Fury does better.
What this basically means is that for the most competitive players Fury has out performed Ret. However, from the point of view of the vast majority of players that are not getting 90+ parses Ret has been outperforming Fury.
If youâre a top parse then I can see why you might be a little antsy as a Ret player. But if youâre a Blue parser than you should be seeing yourself beating the Furyâs playing at your level.
In the end they have performed roughly the same. And if youâre in a dad guild (like most are) then it doesnât matter. It only matters at the highest tier guilds.
By the way - Iâm not asking for a buff reversal. I have claimed often that i think Ret in its current state is pretty balanced. My only point here is that I donât think Ret has been worse than Fury in the average players experience.
obviously iâm cutting from the 100% percentile, why would I do anything else in a thread where a warrior is compared vs a ret in full icc bis playing at 100% through a sim?
Fury lost to ret in the lower geared ulduar percentiles because fury outscales ret by a ton and low level warriors arenât decked in 252s
In togc, where basically every tier is geared to 240+ levels, warrior beats ret in every percentile above 25, the class just does more damage in good gear
the average players experience is irrelevant really, if you gave warriors a buff because they were equal or worse than rets in 50% guilds, u would create the number 1 dps in the game, simmed like ret and feral is in this thread, warrior would be 1000+ ahead with even a 5% change
1 Like
Itâs not scaling that does it (though Fury do scale better than a lot of classes). You can set the log to control be gear through using an ilevel filter and Fury still has a lower median in each phase. It just has a longer tail, like Feral and Fire do.
A 100 parse should be higher than a simmed average of thousands of iterations, though.
So basically ferals? Got a huge buff because mono cat (what average players were doing) was bad, now projected #1?
it 100% is scaling, thatâs why warriors are at #5 instead of #17 and beat classes they didnât use to beat with ease, why do u think they have this tail? the entire reason is because the top warriors get fed gear and the bottom donât
classes who are less gear reliant are more compact because their numbers donât fluctuate so wildly between top and bottom, this is why warriorâs median is low, because thereâs such a small percent of them that have 258 ilevel but the top performers are able to perform so well
1 Like
If you set the filter to bis phase item level the median for Fury is still lower than the median for Ret - so it is not 100% scaling. It may be in part but thereâs also other reasons. RNG, Rotation variation, impact of latency etcâŚ