My suggestion at Warlock stances.

[Malice83]

This might not be the most thought out idea of all time and I can already hear other people complain about it but here goes anyway.Wouldn't it be nice to have an offensive stance as a warlock that unlocks our encounter AOE's and makes them point blank with a max 8 target limitation (Like chaostorm and it's lower level counterparts)? I mean the nisch SOE has gives us is to be the gods of AOE and yet both paladins and shadowknights have more true AOE's than warlocks, although with a different damage output. I feel that warlocks are (for a lack of a better word) gimped when it comes to average grouping when the tank pulls several single mob heroic encounters, I think this solution would allow warlocks to use their safer AOE's at a nice range for raids etc and still be able to fulfill their purpose in group PvE.I also dislike that our encounter AOE's have max target limitations as I can't think of any situation where it would make us overpowered if the limit was higher in more than a very select few places as larger groups that we supposedly are the best class at handling hardly exist, but this is for another thread.<div></div>

[EpokSilvermo]

To be honest I do not like the idea of stances at all for anyone else than a fighter (and maybe semi tank capable rogues).But I think you did not describe your idea of stances fully. Do you mean one AE stance, as you describe, to make all AEs point blank and a second stance for single target ("wizard-stance" LOL)?The problem with PBAE is that your tank (if you group) needs to have the proper tools to hold the aggro you generate if you go all PBAE on multiple encounters. Guardians have only one PBAE attack that can be combined with a taunt (reinformcent). Of course there is Hold the Line and upgrades but it is not enough to secure aggro on multiple enounters that get owned by a warlock.I must admit I do not know about the PBAEs of crusaders but from the  experience with my level 70 warlock they are not able to hold aggro against me on multiple enounters with the tools they and I have today. So giving us even more PBAE would mean the tanks need to get more and improved PBAE attacks and taunts as well.

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Malice83 wrote:<BR>This might not be the most thought out idea of all time and I can already hear other people complain about it but here goes anyway.<BR><BR>Wouldn't it be nice to have an offensive stance as a warlock that unlocks our encounter AOE's and makes them point blank with a max 8 target limitation (Like chaostorm and it's lower level counterparts)? I mean the nisch SOE has gives us is to be the gods of AOE and yet both paladins and shadowknights have more true AOE's than warlocks, although with a different damage output. I feel that warlocks are (for a lack of a better word) gimped when it comes to average grouping when the tank pulls several single mob heroic encounters, I think this solution would allow warlocks to use their safer AOE's at a nice range for raids etc and still be able to fulfill their purpose in group PvE.<BR><BR>I also dislike that our encounter AOE's have max target limitations as I can't think of any situation where it would make us overpowered if the limit was higher in more than a very select few places as larger groups that we supposedly are the best class at handling hardly exist, but this is for another thread.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>just have the devs toss out the # of target limits on your aoes, and it will finally give you a shot at a few aoe encounters to be #1</P> <P>They honestly dont matter anymore, and for raiding if you could live through it on a few encounters actually make warlocks vital.</P>

[Slayer505]

I don't see the need for stances personally as you've described them.  I usually group with a wizard or necro if I'm doing heroic content with my warlock.  On multi-mob encounters I'll usually throw down Rift/Chaostorm and the wizard throws down fusion and then there's nothing left.  Same goes for grouping with a necro, but with them I'll throw down Netherous Realm at the start of the fight then between their AEs+Netherous Realm and Rift/Chaostorm/Apocolypse nothing lasts very long.  I'd add that on parses in multi-mob heroic encounters nobody touches me.  The closest is if it's only three mobs and the wizard hits all three with fusion, in which case he'll probably edge me out.  If it's more then three mobs forget about it.  Pre-Rift levels I agree our blue ae ability is a bit weak, but at 65+ nobody touches us.  Even fusion doesn't beat Rift.  Fusion has a much shorter range and it's a cone that can only hit three targets, Rift can hit up to 12 and is a PBAE with a 15 meter radius (even more radius/damage with the Enhance Rift AA).  Raiding/epic is another matter, but again I still come out on top if it's multiple mobs.All in all I'm really pleased with the state of the Warlock class post-EoF and I really don't see the need to throw a wrench in the works at this point buy adding un-needed additional mechanics to the class.<div></div>

[Malice83]

<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>butchrulez wrote:But I think you did not describe your idea of stances fully. Do you mean one AE stance, as you describe, to make all AEs point blank and a second stance for single target ("wizard-stance" LOL)?<hr></blockquote>No single target stance, just like it is now or the agressive stance with unlocked ecnounter AOE's.Zerkers are good at out of encoutner taunts, at least they were, guardians "taunt" when they get hit to a degree, shadowknights deal aoe damage and heal a lot to generate aoe aggro and finally paladins with amends that are just awesome. And as people tent to believe that Warlock aggro can be countered by having one or 2 utility classes to back the group up I don't think it will be impossible, besides you can always ask the healer to back you up a little. =)And it wouldn't change any of the existing mechanic in any way so if you don't like it you just stay as you normal self.<blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:just have the devs toss out the # of target limits on your aoes, and it will finally give you a shot at a few aoe encounters to be #1They honestly dont matter anymore, and for raiding if you could live through it on a few encounters actually make warlocks vital.<hr></blockquote>The max number of targets is more annoying but atm we are # 1 on thses fights, but there just isn't enough linked content for us to do this. Think of this as a way to still be able to do good AOE damage even if the mobs aren't linked at the cost of having to stand right on top of them.</div><blockquote><hr>Slayer 505 wrote:I'd add that on parses in multi-mob heroic encounters nobody touches me.  The closest is if it's only three mobs and the wizard hits all three with fusion, in which case he'll probably edge me out.  If it's more then three mobs forget about it.  Pre-Rift levels I agree our blue ae ability is a bit weak, but at 65+ nobody touches us.  Even fusion doesn't beat Rift.<hr></blockquote>Yes I know nothing comes near us on multimob encounters, and I consider Rift with it's 5 min reuse more a flare spell. At I've had m1 Rift hit (mostly criticals) for about 55k damage, and I've seen Fusion hit 3 targets for 17k each when it crits and that's 51k damage. So we can do even damage to Wizards on 11 mobs and more on 12 mobs. Still this is only once every five minutes and best case scenario it evens out to about 183 damage per second with this spell alone, not enough IMO for most content or to be considered much more than a fluff spell. How well do you do on parses in agains say 5 ^^^ unlinked mobs compared to a wizard/necro/conj? As the AOE specialist class Warlocks should be on top even in this situation and not reduced to one spell (Chaostorm) imho (although in this situation it would alone produce about 1400 dps with a decently geared Warlock and decent conditions). See my idea more as a tool to help Warlocks be able to do their job in these situations, even in the 64- levels.<p>Message Edited by Malice83 on <span class=date_text>11-30-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:00 PM</span>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Malice83 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote:<BR><BR>just have the devs toss out the # of target limits on your aoes, and it will finally give you a shot at a few aoe encounters to be #1<BR>They honestly dont matter anymore, and for raiding if you could live through it on a few encounters actually make warlocks vital.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The max number of targets is more annoying but atm we are # 1 on thses fights, </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Malice83 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-30-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:42 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>from my point of view you have a long way to go before you get to consistantly top #1 on aoe encounters.</P> <P>opening up the restritions would allow your class to truely achieve aoe superiority in large encounter fights where taking out adds in a hurry is vital.  I just dont get whats stopping the devs from making an obviously aoe centric class from being the best at it?</P> <P>I shouldn't probably say this but the wizard version of your apoc has no aoe restrictions on it (glacial winds) and on encounters with more than 5 mobs can out dps apoc simply due to hitting more mobs.</P> <P>so if the warlock dev is listening, just get rid of the warlock aoe restrictions please, I as a wizard do not care if a warlock can constantly out dps me on 3 or more epic mob fights.<BR></P>

[Malice83]

<div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div><p>from my point of view you have a long way to go before you get to consistantly top #1 on aoe encounters.</p> <p>opening up the restritions would allow your class to truely achieve aoe superiority in large encounter fights where taking out adds in a hurry is vital.  I just dont get whats stopping the devs from making an obviously aoe centric class from being the best at it?</p> <p>I shouldn't probably say this but the wizard version of your apoc has no aoe restrictions on it (glacial winds) and on encounters with more than 5 mobs can out dps apoc simply due to hitting more mobs.</p> <p>so if the warlock dev is listening, just get rid of the warlock aoe restrictions please, I as a wizard do not care if a warlock can constantly out dps me on 3 or more epic mob fights.</p><hr></blockquote>Off hand I can only think of about 5 encounters in game that the max number of targets would affect, although I haven't played much since KoS came out. These moments are, the fish in Anglers instance, the crabs in Anglers instance, the wisps with Everling in Nek2, and an encounter of tripple down fish in CoD, and the giants that run in and add on Drayek. Although in the last case I can use my other 3 AOE's. I'm quite sure there are a few other large groups out there, but in pre KoS the number of such encounters that can be considered vital can be counted on one hand. Considering that was all the content in the 1-60 level range, now with EoF there might be more, I haven't been there yet.</div>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Malice83 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote:<BR> <P>from my point of view you have a long way to go before you get to consistantly top #1 on aoe encounters.</P> <P>opening up the restritions would allow your class to truely achieve aoe superiority in large encounter fights where taking out adds in a hurry is vital.  I just dont get whats stopping the devs from making an obviously aoe centric class from being the best at it?</P> <P>I shouldn't probably say this but the wizard version of your apoc has no aoe restrictions on it (glacial winds) and on encounters with more than 5 mobs can out dps apoc simply due to hitting more mobs.</P> <P>so if the warlock dev is listening, just get rid of the warlock aoe restrictions please, I as a wizard do not care if a warlock can constantly out dps me on 3 or more epic mob fights.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Off hand I can only think of about 5 encounters in game that the max number of targets would affect, although I haven't played much since KoS came out. These moments are, the fish in Anglers instance, the crabs in Anglers instance, the wisps with Everling in Nek2, and an encounter of tripple down fish in CoD, and the giants that run in and add on Drayek. Although in the last case I can use my other 3 AOE's. I'm quite sure there are a few other large groups out there, but in pre KoS the number of such encounters that can be considered vital can be counted on one hand. Considering that was all the content in the 1-60 level range, now with EoF there might be more, I haven't been there yet.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>theres much more in KOS and also eof (ppr in dof too), quite a few zones have fun encounters with 8 heroic mobs in them, named mobs that spawn adds that are linked ect.</DIV>

[Malice83]

<div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div>theres much more in KOS and also eof (ppr in dof too), quite a few zones have fun encounters with 8 heroic mobs in them, named mobs that spawn adds that are linked ect.</div><hr></blockquote>Sadly I never did PPtR since my guild broke up around the time we got access, although we did try it a few times without much success. I still remember the first genie with his power drain and the trouble he caused. It's nice to hear that there is more grouped content in EoF and  KoS, I might explore these further. But there is still a large gap in the amount of linked encounters in the old world, my change would allow us to do our job even in the non linked AOE arena, because our description doesn't say encounter aoe specialists. And as I stated earlier I'm all for the increase of max targets for apocalypse, at least to 8, but there is very rarely an enounter with more than 8 mobs. But this is a discussion I would delv deeper into elsewhere.In short I want to be able to do my job as an AOE damage specialist even in situations where the mobs aren't linked. The offensive stance idea I suggested would allow this without nerfing any other aspect of our class as we can simply not use it and be as we are now when preferred.</div>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Malice83 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>theres much more in KOS and also eof (ppr in dof too), quite a few zones have fun encounters with 8 heroic mobs in them, named mobs that spawn adds that are linked ect.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Sadly I never did PPtR since my guild broke up around the time we got access, although we did try it a few times without much success. I still remember the first genie with his power drain and the trouble he caused. It's nice to hear that there is more grouped content in EoF and  KoS, I might explore these further. But there is still a large gap in the amount of linked encounters in the old world, my change would allow us to do our job even in the non linked AOE arena, because our description doesn't say encounter aoe specialists. And as I stated earlier I'm all for the increase of max targets for apocalypse, at least to 8, but there is very rarely an enounter with more than 8 mobs. But this is a discussion I would delv deeper into elsewhere.<BR><BR>In short I want to be able to do my job as an AOE damage specialist even in situations where the mobs aren't linked. The offensive stance idea I suggested would allow this without nerfing any other aspect of our class as we can simply not use it and be as we are now when preferred.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would open up a new realm for aoe dps, but that would also require yet another change in game mechanics.  There is no tank in the world who could hold agro off 4-5 separate encounters, and a warlock spaming all his aoes (if they were changed to be out of encounter)</P> <P>it would just get you dead in a hurry.<BR></P>

[Malice83]

<div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div>I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would open up a new realm for aoe dps, but that would also require yet another change in game mechanics.  There is no tank in the world who could hold agro off 4-5 separate encounters, and a warlock spaming all his aoes (if they were changed to be out of encounter) <p>it would just get you dead in a hurry.</p><hr></blockquote>No tank in the world can hold aggro off a single target if I go all out, except maybe the pre revamp paladin with master amends on me (god I miss that). So it's only naturaly that Warlocks would have to hold back even in these new AOE situations where the mobs aren't one encounter, but it should be the warlocks choice shouldn't it? You could assign a Defiler to keep the Warlock alive, or the Warlock could hold back, or just go with the method they use now. Zerkers are supposed to be the best when it comes to unlinked multimob tanking, Paladins have amends and some out of encounter AOE's and heals to help them hold agro, Shadowknights have their procs and lifetaps and generic AOE's to hold aggro and Guardians generate aggro when they get hit. They won't do this enough to let the Warlock go all out, but then again a Warlock can never go all out. But it should be possible for the tank to keep aggro in AOE situations even if the warlock decides to use an extra out of encounter aoe in adition to Chaostorm.Monks and Bruisers can't hold any AOE aggro in any situation anyway, so with them it would be as it is now. I don't consider these 2 classes as tanks but rather as scouts.And Warlocks always die in a hurry, it's our best way to get rid of aggro. =)There would be no need to hange any other class, no need to nerf any skill and no large mechanic changes, it would simply be another spell that doesn't need upgrades, and some small aditions to the 3 encounter AOE's Warlocks already have. It would be the Warlocks choice to use it or not, at no disadvantage to himself or anyone else compared to the current situation.</div>

[Norrsken]

I feel like chiming in as a sk.I have 5 AE attacks to deal with unlinked multiple mobs. I can glue aggro to me in a funky way with my multitudes of procs (and the weak version of the guardians taunt). Warlocks are my absolute favorite DPS dealers to group with since any linked encounter will drop in .5 s, and I will hold the aggro thru that burn. Ok, ok. The last survivng mob will rip off just the moment beofre the last dot tick kills it. (Actually, its true, thats how fights look with a warlock and me).Now, as a sk, my preffered way of fighting is pulling 3-4 grouped encounters with 3-4 mobs in each just to accomodate the warlock I most of the time have in tow (Why I always end up with warlocks in my group I dont know). We blaze thru that in no time at all. Now, I'd really like for warlocks to have open AEs for those stupid zones where I can oly pull single heroics.  still pull 3-4 of those, but the poor warlocks DPS hits the floor, and the mobs stand around longer, causing much greater power loss to me and hte poor healer that has too keep the crackpot tank alive. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> If the warlock could just go in and blast merrily away on them, given that I get about 4 seconds to lock down aggro, I think I could keep it pretty well. So, as my, and many other SKs preffered style to pull and tank, this idea is really nice.And bring a defiler. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Warlocks will rip aggro, its just a question of when. Hehe.<div></div>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Malice83 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote:<BR> <BR>I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would open up a new realm for aoe dps, but that would also require yet another change in game mechanics.  There is no tank in the world who could hold agro off 4-5 separate encounters, and a warlock spaming all his aoes (if they were changed to be out of encounter) <P>it would just get you dead in a hurry.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>No tank in the world can hold aggro off a single target if I go all out, except maybe the pre revamp paladin with master amends on me (god I miss that). So it's only naturaly that Warlocks would have to hold back even in these new AOE situations where the mobs aren't one encounter, but it should be the warlocks choice shouldn't it? You could assign a Defiler to keep the Warlock alive, or the Warlock could hold back, or just go with the method they use now. <BR><BR>Zerkers are supposed to be the best when it comes to unlinked multimob tanking, Paladins have amends and some out of encounter AOE's and heals to help them hold agro, Shadowknights have their procs and lifetaps and generic AOE's to hold aggro and Guardians generate aggro when they get hit. They won't do this enough to let the Warlock go all out, but then again a Warlock can never go all out. But it should be possible for the tank to keep aggro in AOE situations even if the warlock decides to use an extra out of encounter aoe in adition to Chaostorm.<BR><BR>Monks and Bruisers can't hold any AOE aggro in any situation anyway, so with them it would be as it is now. I don't consider these 2 classes as tanks but rather as scouts.<BR><BR>And Warlocks always die in a hurry, it's our best way to get rid of aggro. =)<BR><BR>There would be no need to hange any other class, no need to nerf any skill and no large mechanic changes, it would simply be another spell that doesn't need upgrades, and some small aditions to the 3 encounter AOE's Warlocks already have. It would be the Warlocks choice to use it or not, at no disadvantage to himself or anyone else compared to the current situation.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I dont think giving warlocks MORE agro is in line with the rest of the warlock populace.  You guys have some of the worst agro issues, and your suggesting to give them a boat load more?  just doesn't make sense to me with the current game mechanics. 

[Sesskia]

<div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Malice83 wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr> IllusiveThoughts wrote: <div></div>I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would open up a new realm for aoe dps, but that would also require yet another change in game mechanics.  There is no tank in the world who could hold agro off 4-5 separate encounters, and a warlock spaming all his aoes (if they were changed to be out of encounter) <p>it would just get you dead in a hurry.</p> <hr> </blockquote>No tank in the world can hold aggro off a single target if I go all out, except maybe the pre revamp paladin with master amends on me (god I miss that). So it's only naturaly that Warlocks would have to hold back even in these new AOE situations where the mobs aren't one encounter, but it should be the warlocks choice shouldn't it? You could assign a Defiler to keep the Warlock alive, or the Warlock could hold back, or just go with the method they use now. Zerkers are supposed to be the best when it comes to unlinked multimob tanking, Paladins have amends and some out of encounter AOE's and heals to help them hold agro, Shadowknights have their procs and lifetaps and generic AOE's to hold aggro and Guardians generate aggro when they get hit. They won't do this enough to let the Warlock go all out, but then again a Warlock can never go all out. But it should be possible for the tank to keep aggro in AOE situations even if the warlock decides to use an extra out of encounter aoe in adition to Chaostorm.Monks and Bruisers can't hold any AOE aggro in any situation anyway, so with them it would be as it is now. I don't consider these 2 classes as tanks but rather as scouts.And Warlocks always die in a hurry, it's our best way to get rid of aggro. =)There would be no need to hange any other class, no need to nerf any skill and no large mechanic changes, it would simply be another spell that doesn't need upgrades, and some small aditions to the 3 encounter AOE's Warlocks already have. It would be the Warlocks choice to use it or not, at no disadvantage to himself or anyone else compared to the current situation.</div> <hr> </blockquote>I dont think giving warlocks MORE agro is in line with the rest of the warlock populace.  You guys have some of the worst agro issues, and your suggesting to give them a boat load more?  just doesn't make sense to me with the current game mechanics. <hr></blockquote>Aggro got better with EOF in that we now have SOME way of countering it (rather than a 3% reduce on next spell).Instead of a stance, just change the classification of encounter to encompass 'any mob beating on a group member' rather than just linked mobs.  Problem solved.I rarely use PBAOEs because they have a habit of picking up unwanted adds, but I use my encounter spells all the time.  I hate it when there are two linked groups and the encounter spells don't hit both groups.</div>

[Malice83]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div>I dont think giving warlocks MORE agro is in line with the rest of the warlock populace.  You guys have some of the worst agro issues, and your suggesting to give them a boat load more?  just doesn't make sense to me with the current game mechanics. <hr></blockquote>Again, it wouldn't add more aggro issues unless you want it to, and then you do it of your own free will.Since it is a stance you can enable or disable it at any time you wish.So in my eyes your reason for not allowing the ability to decide how to use one's DPS does not make sense.<div><blockquote><hr>LloydPickering wrote:<div>Instead of a stance, just change the classification of encounter to encompass 'any mob beating on a group member' rather than just linked mobs.  Problem solved.I rarely use PBAOEs because they have a habit of picking up unwanted adds, but I use my encounter spells all the time.  I hate it when there are two linked groups and the encounter spells don't hit both groups.</div><hr></blockquote>Aye, PBAOE's do have their drawbacks, but if you want the spells to be the old encounter type in add heavy areas you can always just not use the stance.And your idea is just another way of implementing my idea, and not a bad one at that although it too has drawbacks.</div></div><p>Message Edited by Malice83 on <span class=date_text>12-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:05 PM</span>