No I do. You’re saying a Rogue would perform better at higher ratings if he were a Warrior. Although you’re original claim also included WW and Druid, but I think you’ve seen that’s just not true.
Nope not what I’m saying at all and this is where your lack of experience is showing.
I never said rogues weren’t 2200+ viable. Just because rogues are at 2200+ doesn’t make them in a great position either.
I’m using warrior as an example because of how glaringly obvious the difference is might make some sense due to your extreme lack of exp.
Sub is still on the scoreboard? They better get nerfed!
2 Likes
Never said you did. I may lack PvP experience, but you’re clearly not very good at this.
You’re using low hanging fruit to prop up your argument that Rogues are “not in a great position?” How awfully convenient. So play a Warrior then and make it past 2400 for once to test your theory.
Well once again we are very below average again
I mean in PvE yea, which is what this topic is about lol, but now we’redebating their place in the PvP hierarchy.
You don’t lack pvp experience you lack a clue.
Considering I have played warrior to 2200 I probably could if I had the free time to level my warrior and gear it.
Again you completely missed the point. I’m not talking about rerolls. I’m talking about flat out pros and cons of each of the mentioned classes and currently rogues can be replaced with one of those classes and the team will have better synergy.
It’s not really a debate. You can’t tell the difference between how strong classes are and are using current ladder to validate synergy between classes.
Looks to be tied to mage performance
Sure, but that doesn’t guarantee more success. That’s what we’re talking about, success. Not theory but actual results and only in the case of Warrior would your claim be acceptable. Because we can see from the current statistics Rogues are on equal ground with the rest.
1 Like
No I’m just not making the mistake of conflating synergy with successful results. Nobody cares about better synergy if it’s not resulting in positive results.
It also doesn’t prove there wouldn’t be more success because there’s no way to actually look at individual matchups.
And again false because rogues main issues right now are lack of damage outside of dance and mediocre survivability.
The above mentioned classes don’t have those issues.
You would have to be a clueless sub 1750 DH to think mages arent 100% skewing those statistics because most
Mages are going to play with the same people even if a Druid or monk would be better in the current season because things infact do change.
No you’re just thinking that because rogues have x amount of players in the top y number that makes them equal because of it.
Representation means practically nothing.
Representation is important. It does contradict your claims, and only in the case of Warriors would your claim be valid. Which is nothing more than a whataboutism and doesn’t show that Rogues “aren’t in a great spot.”
You’re currently sub 1750 yourself with a 50% win rate in 3s and 46% win rate in 2s, and were 2200 nearly a decade ago. You’re clearly under the illusion your past accomplishments amplify your words when your current self is only average. I’d say your attitude towards the class is due to lack of current success. All you’re doing is whining about how so and so has more than you, which really just comes off as an excuse and not the sort of behavior I would expect from a competent player.
1 Like
Representation shows nothing but what people are playing. The sooner you learn that the better you will be.
You think I have been sub 1750 this entire season? It’s the curse of LFG as I don’t play on a consistent basis enough to actually push rating. Never said rogue was why I’m at the rating I’m at.
Also just because my achievements are 10 years old doesn’t mean that was the last time I was above 2200 or rogue is the only class I have been over 2200 on. Nor does it imply that just because I haven’t pushed anything serious means I don’t understand how the game works.
You clearly can’t tell why say a KFC versus thug match favors KFC between having disarm to stop a trap on the cc chain for thug or intervening a trap or that warrior having a ranged stun also benefits their goes. If you can’t tell that then you’re not going to notice the differences of the other classes.
And yes being 2300+ 10 years ago is better credibility than never breaking 1750 as a DH.
Sadly this happens every expac for sub, starts out strong then gets nerfed into the core of Azeroth never to be seen again
Blizzard won’t do that because of PvP. They could, but they won’t.
Oh sorry you’re clearly not very good at your Rogue and grasping at straws to justify your lack of success.
Yet you speak as if you are. Judging by your lack of history you made this Rogue in late BFA. I don’t think you’ve ever been above 1800 on a Rogue.
Yes, please use more cherry-picking. It really makes you look like you know what you’re talking about. It does holds no water when you haven’t actually experienced it at the ratings we’re talking about.
Your current winrate is indicative of your skill as a Rogue, which is average. Stop pretending you’re a good one.
You do realize that people have multiple characters right?
This rogue wasn’t leveled till the end of BFA because I swapped from alliance and decided to save myself $60.
I have been 2200+ on rogue/war/DK and 2k+ on lock 
Your clear lack of a clue is clearly showing in this thread.
Again been playing in lfg with people that can’t poly or fear off of a cheapshot/kidney shot.
You’re not good at any class so stop pretending you are.
I highly doubt anyone at the ~1600 rating is so incompetent they can’t perform a simple CC combo. Honestly, you’re becoming less and less credible the more excuses you come up with. If you use addons it’s unbelievably easy to keep track of CCs and chain them together.
Again, you’ve a 50% win rate in PvP and Rogues are carrys. If you had any skill you’d at least be 1800 in 2s. 100+ games and sub 1800 try your BS on someone else.
1 Like