|
by Tzatziki, Level 17
Last updated at October 1, 2007, 3:27 pm
|
So if we take my hypothesis as true, and we assume that gear will continue to progress in the same fashion, damage will outscale mitigation from Season2 to Season3. In fact, it may be even more noticible, because many people have already hit their resilience cap, so there won't be much resil increase seen across the board.
So what will the "new" 2345 be? The old 2345? Possible - it will still be a powerful composition. It's also possible we will start seeing some more interesting 4dps combinations - double melee perhaps, what with the new rogue mobility changes? - but I'm not holding my breath.
I think that if any composition rises up to challenge 2345 (other than the 4dps teams that already have, of course), it will be mirror with resto shaman instead of elemental. What with the mage changes (10% more damage) and changes to healing/dmg&healing (resto shamans can still pull some decent burst), 2345 with resto shaman will have near the same DPS as the current 2345, if perhaps not quite as much as classic 2345 would have come Season3. But the big difference is that it's a true 2.5 healer composition, actually perhaps approaching a 3 healer composition. With the shaman as resto, the priest can afford to take a bit more of an offensive role, and when that burst starts to come out from the other team - well, it's a hell of a lot harder to control 3 healers than it is to control 2, and 3 heals is a hell of a lot more healing than 2 if you're assuming no cs/lock/earthshock/whatever. Also, you're denying the opposition one of the more attractive targets in a 2345 - the elemental shaman - since resto shamans are ****ing annoying to kill, and it's not like you're stopping their dps or their heals by going on him.
But I've never played 2345, so I can't really say that I'm right. So those who have: why wouldn't the above composition dominate everything come 2.3 changes?

20 comments
depz Oct 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm
+1 votes
It's not the sustained DPS of a elemental shaman that is important, it's the burst DPS. While this is being nerfed slightly and the gap between ele and resto will be less, without EM, lightning overload, numerous damage increase talents etc. a resto shaman will have no where near the burst that a ele shaman does and that is why you're way off imo.
Tzatziki Oct 1, 2007 at 4:09 pm
+1 votes
I know that burst DPS is the important role of ele shamans, I stated that several times in my post 
My point is, if teams are bursting Warriors down by simply outbursting heals, without even counterspelling them, then what burst restoshams lose over eleshams will still not be enough to negate a burst with a CS and earthshock (and possibly sheeps and fear) up. Not to mention that mages are getting a fairly substantial burst increase next patch.
You're sacrificing some of the offensive power of old 2345, but if you coordinate well I think you still have enough burst to take someone down, and you pick up an enormous amount of extra healing.
My point is, if teams are bursting Warriors down by simply outbursting heals, without even counterspelling them, then what burst restoshams lose over eleshams will still not be enough to negate a burst with a CS and earthshock (and possibly sheeps and fear) up. Not to mention that mages are getting a fairly substantial burst increase next patch.
You're sacrificing some of the offensive power of old 2345, but if you coordinate well I think you still have enough burst to take someone down, and you pick up an enormous amount of extra healing.
Joliiz Oct 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm
+1 votes
Good post. The talent changes we've seen s3 gear are going to be a major problem.
Craptor Oct 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm
+1 votes
You are a retard, a mage will run oom, 2 dps is not enough to kill anything.
Tzatziki Oct 1, 2007 at 5:03 pm
+1 votes
More like 2.5 (or somewhere in between 2 and 2.5, if you must), and I think that as damage keeps scaling and mitigation keeps staying the same (unless there's a massive upgrade in stam compared to what we've been seeing), we'll see 2.5 become viable.
And if not a mage, how about a warlock? No ooming problems, and now you have a rediculous amount of outlast potential, plus two drains with bloodlusted manaburns. Granted you lose a hell of a lot of burst, but the point I'm trying to make is that unless something about shamans gets really nerfed, come season3 2345 will be able to overwhelm 2 healer-based compositions even more than they did before.
And if not a mage, how about a warlock? No ooming problems, and now you have a rediculous amount of outlast potential, plus two drains with bloodlusted manaburns. Granted you lose a hell of a lot of burst, but the point I'm trying to make is that unless something about shamans gets really nerfed, come season3 2345 will be able to overwhelm 2 healer-based compositions even more than they did before.
gso Oct 1, 2007 at 5:14 pm
+1 votes
lots of trihealer lock/warrior/sham/priest/pally teams exist now
Tzatziki Oct 1, 2007 at 5:17 pm
+1 votes
But not to the dominance tune of 2345s; I'm trying to figure out what the most likely 2345 of next season will be.
Craptor Oct 1, 2007 at 8:45 pm
+1 votes
HEY RETARD IT PROBABLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT WARLOCKS DONT RUN OUT OF MANA WHILE MAGES HAVE WELL KNOWN ISSUES WITH MANA EFFICIENCY AND LONGEVITY OVER THE COURSE OF LONGER FIGHTS
Tzatziki Oct 1, 2007 at 8:57 pm
+1 votes
How does that insult address anyone's points? I fail to understand its relevance...could you quote the sentence it is a reply to?
Craptor Oct 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm
+1 votes
the point is the idea of a pure 3 healer team with a mage just simply won't work because of mana issues. Any 3 healer team will most likely be double warrior or warrior lock. double warrior is far more effective and you have x2 the burst of windfury and a great cc if you run a druid instead of a priest (which you should anyway) and obviously a pally and a resto shaman would be your other healers. Also running a priest in a 3 healer team makes him THE prime target and 3 dps on a priest with little to no cc = dead priest before 2 dps will be able to kill one player on the other team.
entrails Oct 1, 2007 at 5:06 pm
+1 votes
3 healer comps may be the future if 4dps starts to truly dominate 2345 in the rankings instead of splitting the first page 50/50, but I don't think mage would be a very good choice for 2nd dps class if teams start making that switch. Without EM/NS/CL or the chance for lightning overloads 2345 with a resto shaman is going to be relying much more on wearing their opponents down and a lock would probably be better then a mage if they make that transition fully.
We've been running a 3 healer group with warrior/felguard lock/resto shaman/resto druid/paladin and it's been going very well despite being under geared rerolls. We've gone almost undefeated to 2200 with that lineup, we just haven't had a chance to push higher because of scheduling and having to constantly make up lost points from 4dps teams that rape our other comp with our terribly geared, still learning mage (war/lock/mage/shaman/pala). Side Note: Originally I thought not having a priest would be crippling to the kind of out last setup we're running, but having a druid who can limit an enemy warrior's damage against classic/2345 teams, is probably just as good as a priest who'd be getting focused and unable to mana burn 90% of the time anyway. And I think a druid is definitely better against 4 dps.
We've been running a 3 healer group with warrior/felguard lock/resto shaman/resto druid/paladin and it's been going very well despite being under geared rerolls. We've gone almost undefeated to 2200 with that lineup, we just haven't had a chance to push higher because of scheduling and having to constantly make up lost points from 4dps teams that rape our other comp with our terribly geared, still learning mage (war/lock/mage/shaman/pala). Side Note: Originally I thought not having a priest would be crippling to the kind of out last setup we're running, but having a druid who can limit an enemy warrior's damage against classic/2345 teams, is probably just as good as a priest who'd be getting focused and unable to mana burn 90% of the time anyway. And I think a druid is definitely better against 4 dps.
Tzufry Oct 1, 2007 at 7:42 pm
+1 votes
Dont think you will have enough burst with a lock, and no cc on enemy warrior can hurt in the end i guess...
if u dont do enough dmg, which i doubt u will with a lock/warr dming, ure opening for the enemy priest to burn ure mana like :/
think replaceing a rogue for a warrior will be the new trend in the near future, simply cuz of all the 4dps teams playing atm.
4 of the top 5 teams in our batlegroup is 4dps, we're currently ranked 5 and don't stand a chance against the top teams atm, we might be lucky and keep the warrior up but we lose like 70% of the games...
-Tzufry
if u dont do enough dmg, which i doubt u will with a lock/warr dming, ure opening for the enemy priest to burn ure mana like :/
think replaceing a rogue for a warrior will be the new trend in the near future, simply cuz of all the 4dps teams playing atm.
4 of the top 5 teams in our batlegroup is 4dps, we're currently ranked 5 and don't stand a chance against the top teams atm, we might be lucky and keep the warrior up but we lose like 70% of the games...
-Tzufry
Virtua Oct 1, 2007 at 10:47 pm
+1 votes
if your going to play tri healer then might as well replace that mage with a lock
NUBBEY Oct 2, 2007 at 12:06 am
+1 votes
2345 is crap, we haven't lost to that in over a month
nubbey
rank1 bg6 5v5
nubbey
rank1 bg6 5v5
« Previous |
1 |
Next » |
Because I don't want to clutter up my other blog...here are some rants, insights, and randomnesses from someone who's never been near the top, but is starting to knock at the door.
No Subscribers
Started October 1, 2007
2 Total Entries
2 Total Entries



Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...