Hardest 19 to roll and play?

In other words, the class is less effective. It isn't harder.
right then... its less effective and therefor harder to make effective.

how do you define a hard class to play?
 
right then... its less effective and therefor harder to make effective.

how do you define a hard class to play?
A class that has enough tools to require some effort to utilize them to their maximal potential.
 
A class that has enough tools to require some effort to utilize them to their maximal potential.
'enough tools' is a very relative term... every class requires effort to play, but the more effort you put in them the more effective they are, no matter the class.

But I have a question, lets say you have a certain amount of skill and you have 2 chars, a hpala and a fury warr, we can all agree that warriors have a lower potential than hpalas, so if you put the same effort in both classes you should be able to be more effective as hpala. Does that make warriors harder to play? Since you apparently need more skill to be as effective as a hpala.
 
I tried cleaning the thread and there was a lot of collateral damage in the form of posts disapproving of the trolling, etc. Please report any other posts you take issue with!

Try to remember to take discussions between two people that are not related to the thread topic to PMs. :)

Some people typed up long posts containing some well written points, that sadly have nothing to do with the topic. If you want a copy of the deleted discussion to reuse in PMs or something, message me.

Remember that you can always bring across your points using polite language. I hope everyone stays on topic from now on. ^^
 
No it does not make warriors hard to play because they literally do not have the abilities required to actually do what a well played pally can do. Even if you were the best player in the world you couldn't make much of a difference.
 
'enough tools' is a very relative term... every class requires effort to play, but the more effort you put in them the more effective they are, no matter the class.

But I have a question, lets say you have a certain amount of skill and you have 2 chars, a hpala and a fury warr, we can all agree that warriors have a lower potential than hpalas, so if you put the same effort in both classes you should be able to be more effective as hpala. Does that make warriors harder to play? Since you apparently need more skill to be as effective as a hpala.
It is about how close you to the class' maximum potential you are. If you can play a class to its full potential and are still less effective than someone on another class not playing it to its full potential then you class is just worse, not harder.
 
A class that has enough tools to require some effort to utilize them to their maximal potential.
Would you say that hpala is a hard class to play then? They have a lot of tools that together with a lot of effort can have an incredibly high potential.
 
No it does not make warriors hard to play because they literally do not have the abilities required to actually do what a well played pally can do. Even if you were the best player in the world you couldn't make much of a difference.
I disagree with this, what you are saying is almost that gimped classes are not hard, right? Cause they can't be effective, and you can't play them 'badly'. I think the opposite, as I guess you have already understodd :p that because they are gimped, they are harder to play to be effective.

edit: sorry for doublepost
 
Would you say that hpala is a hard class to play then? They have a lot of tools that together with a lot of effort can have an incredibly high potential.
A hpala has less tools than for example a mage, lock, shaman or priest, so no.
 
Snack I have no idea what you are trying to say. If a class is gimped it is generally because it lacks tools. That means it literally has less jobs it can fulfill meaning you have less things to be aware of. That makes it easier to play. It is quite simple.
 
Snack I have no idea what you are trying to say. If a class is gimped it is generally because it lacks tools. That means it literally has less jobs it can fulfill meaning you have less things to be aware of. That makes it easier to play. It is quite simple.
Im just trying to understand your arguements, and I do now. But we are not of the opinion :)
 
The hardest class to play is the one whose mechanics and tools are the hardest to execute, which in my opinion are destro warlocks because your timing, positioning and CC'ing all have to be really good in order to play the class to its fullest potential.
 
The hardest class to play is the one whose mechanics and tools are the hardest to execute, which in my opinion are destro warlocks because your timing, positioning and CC'ing all have to be really good in order to play the class to its fullest potential.

Not to mention the amount of healers you need to not get 1-gimped :/

I'd still say the hardest classes to play are the ones currently gimped simply due to the fact that you're so much weaker - so to for fill your role to the best of its abilities is harder. When you don't have "the giant tool box" then you have to make use with what you have. Like getting that warbringer charge at a crucial time - using it at the best possible time (knowing when that is) - instead of just, like most do, throwing it out at random times together with all the other CC and pray for the best. (Zergfest, welcome to MoP I guess).

My 2 cents anyway.
 
Are we talking about "hardest to be able to compete in a pug" or "hardest to play to its fullest potential"?
 
So you think timing 1 charge is harder then timing multiple different abilities all on different people?
 
Monk pandas can easily roll on a flat surface. Probably the same for all other races that can be monks, but not sure. The rest is more of a challenge
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top