Developers tell Rogues Everything is A-OK

Posted 1 year, 5 months ago at 11:28 am. 11 comments

Everyone’s good buddy, Ghostcrawler, responded to the thread Are rogues “done” until WotLK content patch?  The reply was very large and the short answer is “Yes, Rogues are done.”  I’m not going to respond to all of it.  Just going to say that I find it interesting that many other classes out there such as Warriors, Hunters, Mages got some really kickass, fun abilities and on a whole, new Rogue abilities seem subtle, but we are being told they are really powerful.  Sure, everyone ohhs and ahhs at Killing Spree when they first see it, but the return on the ability seems very negligible.

One of the more interesting statements was hearing that Hemorrhage isn’t intended for use a primary attack.  I’m really curious why it shouldn’t be considered a primary attack like Sinister Strike and Backstab and enhanced slightly to work better in that role.

I think Ghostcrawler did an okay job responding and I did like his last words in the thread which I agree with.

We wouldn’t ship the game with non-viable specs. But this being Blizzard we always think there are ways to improve every aspect of the game.

I also predict that it’s entirely likely that the concerns we are all going to be talking about in a month are not the same list of concerns that players are bringing up now. The game has a penchant for going off in directions nobody expects.

11 comments

11 Replies

  1. I guess GC and I can agree to disagree on what constitutes broken. To me, shipping a pure DPS class with 2 specs that are weaker (in many cases significantly so) to the 3rd == broken. At least shoot for 2 out 3 man!

  2. I’m actually not quite sure where all the talk about Hemorrhage not being a primary attack comes from – doubly so when people talk how worthless it’ll be in Wrath. I’m perfectly aware that I might be missing some mathematics here, and I know it’d take quite a bit of weapon damage for it to stand equal next to Sinister Strike, but it still does 115% weapon damage talented, and for deep Subtlety it’ll cost only 30 energy compared to 40 for Sinister Strike.

    What’s so horrible about it? Nevermind that unless they do something like Ghostcrawler said they’d considered like putting the Hemorrhage debuff on backstab or somesuch, it needs to be a primary attack whenever you want to use that debuff in any kind of melee-heavy raid situation, seeing how fast 10 charges can go (and ideally you want them all used).

    I can fully understand them not wanting it to be as powerful as Sinister Strike for pure strike damage because the debuff adds quite a bit of it (115% weapon damage + 750 at level 80, all charges used is fairly hefty) even if it spreads it out. That said, I don’t understand why it isn’t a primary attack – what about it makes it NOT be a primary attack?

  3. “Just going to say that I find it interesting that many other classes out there such as Warriors, Hunters, Mages got some really kickass, fun abilities and on a whole, new Rogue abilities seem subtle, but we are being told they are really powerful”

    You are not alone, priests and especially shadowpriests are pretty much in the same boat.

  4. Pernox Nov 10th 2008 Gravatar

    I agree with Nhani. For sub-spec rogues, hemo is the primary attack, especially with 11 in Assassination (for vitality) and 5 in Combat (for Dual-wield). As sub is usually energy starved, the 5-10 less energy of hemo is a must for your rotations. Backstab to me isn’t a primary attack, its one of opportunity. Perhaps going with what seems to be the return of the dagger in Wrath, Blizz feels hemo isn’t a primary attack if you’re wielding a dagger? Which I will agree, as hemo benefits most from a slow, big damage main-hand like a sword or mace or fist. But it does feel like Blizz really wants rogues to use daggers.

  5. You mean Vigor, not vitality, right?

  6. Averaen Nov 15th 2008 Gravatar

    Assassination is going to be the highest dps out of the three trees, yes. But the build is not easy to play and requires a lot of focus. Keeping up Rupture/SnD/HfB while dodging aoe/adds is not easy. Combat Swords is only a percentage point or two behind assassination and I think a lot of rogues are going to end up going back to it for ease of play.

    That said, I’m excited for their to be a viable fun daggers/poisons build as that represents to me what rogues are all about.

  7. Averaen Nov 15th 2008 Gravatar

    @Malediction

    Rogue’s have always had one tree that does more dps than the other 2, combat. Did you think rogues were a broken class for the past four years?

  8. Yes, actually. It just happened to be in my favor. Doesn’t make it any more or less broken.

    This is before the new world order of “everyone play whatever, there are no wrong answers” touchy feely crap. If Blizzard was still holding on to the idea that it’s OK to have 1 spec for PvP, 1 for PVE and 1 for whatevs, I couldn’t bitch about things. I’d hate it, as I hate daggers/Ass with a passion, but it’d be all there was. But that’s NOT what Blizzard is saying. Now Blizzard is saying everyone is the same and specs shouldn’t be different and all that jazz.

    So all I’m looking for now is my slice. If everyone else and their mother gets to have their cake and eat it too, Combat/Swords should be equal to whatever your pet spec may be. Be it Combat/*, Sub or Assassination. If, at level 80, there’s no functional raid DPS delta between Combat/Swords|Fists and Assassination (sorry Subbies) then we have nothing to talk about.

    I never wanted to be better. I just want parity. I want my choice to be my choice and not the one I have to make because if I don’t I’m fucking over my team or am reduced to a 2nd rate contributor.

  9. Averaen Nov 17th 2008 Gravatar

    I don’t think Blizz is saying that every weird build should be viable. They’re just saying that if a hybrid specs dps they should be able to put out a good amount of dps, as their crazy buffs no longer stack. Comparing that to saying a tri-spec nutso build should be viable is a misinterpertation.

    If you hit up elitist jerks, combat swords is at worse a percentage point or two behind assassination. When you include the increased difficulty of playing assassination (keeping up HfB in addition to SnD/Rupture) I think a slightly higher dps is perfectly reasonable. Combat swords is not broken or out of parity atm by any math.

  10. Dude… this is unrelated to the post… Seriously, do at least one blog post a day. I want to read MOAR!!!

  11. I know that assassination and combat are the higher dps trees, and I’ve tried both combat and sub and i just can’t say enough good things about subtlety. it’s got the survivability (your dps drops pretty dramatically when you’re dead) and dance of shadows is just the best thing ever– I’ve found it both incredibly useful in pvp to add an extra cheap shot, garrote or ambush (or two) to the target, keeping the opposing player stunned and hurting for longer than they thought I could pull off and for pve, the extra burst with shadowstep and then throwing in some serious damage via again dance of shadows is incredible.

    But i agree that killing spree looks cool at first but overall has a bad return and really is better for grinding than raiding where you run the risk, like with any aoe of pulling mobs or raising threat on mobs that you shouldn’t be messing with at that time.

    I’ve never counted on hem as a main attack– it’s low energy and it is a nice multiplier and helps to stack combo points, but i assume if it were meant as a primary attack, it wold cost more energy, which would take away some of why it’s so useful– if i had to wait for it on the same timer as sinister strike or ghost strike etc, i would have little to get that 5th combo point when i really need to and i only have a few energy points as it is right now, sure it doesn’t do a whole lot of damage, but i use it all the time to help out with the other dps i’m doing and again to get that last combo point if i need to.


Leave a Reply