Let the fotm Warriors rage and eventually reroll I guess. I’m about to hit 80 on my Warrior, I’ll be happy to take their place
So your theory is that the classic dev who mains a ret decided after 4 years straight of being beaten by warriors in every tier (even after the paladin buff) suddenly decided he was going to buff rets because he plays them? or is it the more logical conclusion that the buffs accidently buffed an item that was already crazy for ret?
Tbh tho i think most rets would beat you regardless of class balance
1 Like
Its time for hybrids to shine. 
Eh, the SoV buffs + TaJ interaction is only a tiny portion of why rets are simming highly. It’s still mostly the glyph. I wouldn’t put too much weight on that “accidental buff” as it’s a tiny portion of the procs ret gets out of it.
They’d still be above 16k sims if Blizz just reverted the SoV changes, just slightly below warriors.
Just in time for everyone to quit the game! yay
Absolutely no one has said this, we’re using Abralans abrastracted numbers to go “that’s not what scaling is, this is what scaling is”.
It’s obviously far more complex than that, but ultimately, even in his 100% made up scenario warriors still scaled better than the warlocks he’s crying about (or whatever the hell arbitrary class he’s whining about in that particular post).
icc will last like 6 months. fury is very strong in togc too…
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/990026849889419295/1106613071658627112/image.png
1 Like
Yes, exactly lol.
That literally shows warriors scaling better than other classes 
1 Like
Yep, and the bottom graph was what people were talking about when talking about warrior scaling. Buffs would have turned it into the top one, and that would not have been a better balanced game.
If you thought it was the top one people were referring to when saying warriors scaled well, you didn’t play Wrath.
Step 1: Know your audience.
Taurasfire: 48.5, no H Anub.
Grahand: 64.3, no H Anub.
Gnàrr: 78.2, Tanks H Anub like a champ.
Lets get a qualified Warrior in here to talk about Fury balance before we go off the rails.
3 Likes
Qualified like at university or something?
Honestly, class balance is a matter of statistics, and knowledge of class and encounter mechanics, not hand eye coordination and social networking.
The Devs aren’t great players yet are arguably better at developing the game.
Parse scores don’t qualify you to talk sensibly about class balance.
2 Likes
Given your post history about Ferals I’m sure you’d want that accidental interaction fixed though, right?
Im losing brain cells in this forum. You dont know what a parallel line is. You dont know what scaling refers to. Yet you say “he literally been told.” Been told what? Wrong information?
Scaling refers to how much dps a class gains in a phase. If Class A gets 2k dps, and Class B gets 2k dps, they scaled the same.
If Class A did 1 dps and got 1000 dps, it now does 1001 dps. If Class B did 2 dps and gained 1000 dps, it now does 1002 dps. They both scaled parallel, both got exactly 1000 dps. Yet for A it was a 99900% increase but for B it was a 49900% increase. Looks like A got about double the increase in percent, but in reality, they are still 1 dps apart.
Again, middle school math would help you a lot here. If its still not making sense that base/start damage doesnt matter, what if Ret started at 1000 dps and then ended at 3000 dps. That is a 200% increase. The most insane scaling class in the game!!! All you do is start the first number off low enough and you’ll automatically get the highest % increase. Fortunately, this is irrelevant because this number is not what scaling is.
this isnt even “lying with statistics.” Its just someone that doesnt know basic math trying to argue about math on a forum. You are correct. The base number is irrelevant to what “scaling” is in an MMO. Scaling has always referred to how much DPS you gain in a phase.
Take your hypo further. Arms warrior 1000 to 3000, a 200% increase, the most insane scaling in the game!!! lmao 
Using Jeynar’s illiteracy you can get a class to scale thousands of percent if you simply start the base damage off low enough.
1 Like
The DPS gained is a result of scaling, it’s not scaling itself. Saying 4k to 16k is x% is obviously a gross oversimplification, and not only cause it skips entire phases where differences in new stats change the game.
If warriors scaled the same as warlocks they wouldn’t be catching up to warlocks, ever.
https://tinyurl.com/iccprojections
And here are the ICC projections where fury beats warlocks on all but 120s fights (until phase 5 anyway).
Would you look at that, warriors are slated to be above warlocks?
I guess warriors don’t scale at all.
If you think the sims for warriors are wrong, the names of people responsible for it are in the sheet so feel free to nag them.
1 Like
There’s no way to fix it without reverting it entirely. And ret DPS isn’t out of line, so there’s no real need. The top DPS pack in the 16-16.5k range is all really tight and generally good.
I don’t understand any of the anger about which specs are allowed to be in that range.
Feral is the only spec above it due to buffs.
Your assertion that scaling is parallel is just incorrect. If it were, warriors would still be the worst DPS spec, and there would be no chance of them being a top DPS even with shadowmourne.
No its not, its a gross misunderstanding of what scaling is.
I didnt say there was perfect parallel scaling. The issue was “what is parallel scaling.”
Warriors do not scale hard. Some phases, other classes gain more dps (like rogue in phase 2). Sometimes, other classes gain a little less. DK and lock dont gain as much as other classes each phase, but they start so far ahead in phase 1 that theyre still ahead in phase 4.
The myth was that “warriors scale hard.” They do not. They scale slightly above average, and mostly in parallel. This means they dont go from first to last. If ilvl is matched, they go from dead last to middle of the pack at best.
You still dont understand what scaling is. You totally ignored the obvious math presented (i.e. if a ret had 1000 dps and gained 2k dps, its a 200% gain, totally negating your asserting regarding 50% increase and 33% increase above with the 4k to 6k and 6k to 8k example.) The base number is irrelevant. The lower you make the base number, the more the percent goes up, which isn’t even just misleading its simply incorrect.
No, that’s what you turned it into cause it’s the only way you could try to pretend warriors didn’t outscale other classes.
And we simply weren’t having it.
But this is just blatantly wrong.
Even in ToC this is just blatantly wrong.
https://classic.warcraftlogs.com/zone/statistics/1018
Even disregarding sims since you very clearly doesn’t trust them, warriors have gone from dead last to high middle of the pack in ToC.
That simply cannot happen in a parallel world.
The debate was about what parallel scaling was. No one ever suggested it was a pure parallel formula. Some phases, other classes got more dps than warriors, like rogues in phase 2. Some phases, warriors get slightly more. Locks and DKs generally get lower dps per phase, but still a lot, and because they started out so far ahead they stay ahead. The actual differences classes get per phase isnt that far off from being parallel scaling. Its very close.
The myth was that warrior’s scale hard. Like last place to almost first, first or tied for first w/ the legendary that has insane ilvl and is rare. Presuming you only get a heroic lich king weapon, you go from dead last to maybe middle of the pack. You generally scale slightly better than other classes, making you not as bad as in phase 1, but the hero arc of going from 0 to hero was misinformation. Anyone that could use a sim knew it would be misinfo in phase one. When Aggrend said warriors would be 252 kings, he either had no clue about the actual math or knew and intentionally said the wrong thing. Most likely answer is he bought into the myth too and had no actual idea. Especially considering how they made Feral #1 and Ret very strong and better than fury warrior, he likely just had no clue, even considering that he himself plays ret.
1 Like