Perfect Premade Setup.

[Rayu]

Gregi and Reflexes, take your flaming to PM please.

 

[Reflexes]

Ret pallies and rogues can do damage, yes, but aside from a rogue's sprint, they have zero speed increasing abilities. And the pally can't stealth either. A pally's only form of CC is a stun which can be dispelled. While the two classes can do damage, they are hardly in a position to do that damage for long, since they are so easily CC-able with snares, and simple avoidance since most defenses will be running ahead of the bulk offense where usually rogues and certainly paladins will be at. They are a terrible choice of trappers as well.



Under no circumstance do I see any reason to bring a ret paladin to a premade if there is another class that I previously mentioned of equal skill that is available to go. They do not bring enough to the table. LoH is a defensive spell only. The offense shouldn't be taking the damage to require it unless they are getting wiped, in which case LoH is just a waste of a cooldown. Freedom is not very useful either as it is most certainly going to be dispelled. Not to mention ever since it got nerfed several patches ago, paladins simply haven't been the same class. Paladin damage and CC ability is lackluster and underwhelming in almost every aspect. Your offense will be relying on the CC of your priest, locks, hunter, and warriors, and the dps of your locks, hunters, and warriors, all who are superior to a ret paladin.



As for rogues, they are mostly in the same boat. Sure, they can 'sneak' up on the offense in stealth, but they still can't leave the bulk of their O because without instant-dispels by a very smart priest, they're going to be useless as well because they're so easily CC'd. Their main boon is sap which is one of the best CC's in the game. To repeat, rogues are extremely reliant on dispels by their priest. Otherwise they're just going to get left behind with no way to catch up except via a 3 minute cooldown. And if the D has a hunter back with them like I propose, it's basically lights out for an offensive rogue sadly.



Against certain guilds, and maybe just for shits 'n giggles, I might take two rogues, but never just one. Doubling down on them has sometimes been successful when they can coordinate saps and sprints. But even this is situational, and the thread OP clearly asked for a generic premade set up which having a rogue or ret pally in certainly is not.



And I've honestly never understood the concept of 'burst'. No one is going to 'burst' down the EFC. When the offense usually gets in that mentality, they end up forgetting about the healers because they're too busy tunnel-visioning. I can't even begin to count the number of times GuP offense was guilty of this concept. The goal should be to isolate and wear down the defense, not sneak up on the FC and burst him down real quick. It's not going to happen. The HP-DMG ratio is still a pretty wide margin in the 19 bracket.



Take one of those classes if you want, or perhaps because good players happen to play those classes in your guild, but it certainly won't be an optimal line up. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to play one. But that's just my $.02 from playing against them in matches.

I kind of agree but meh...



I've been on O's w/ ret pallys/shamans etc..This is just my opinion.



Ret pally

Now, I do agree that other classes provide more utility and at the same time dish out a fair amount of DPS. At the same time, in the right hands paladins are GREAT on offense. If I can do my job as a hunter and the warrior can do his job then the ret pally should have enough openings to put out some serious damage. Between HOF, HOJ, and the insane burst ret pallies have I'd say they are pretty damn viable. You can spec into HOF and remove snare, HOJ either the fc or priest(combo w/ silence if you're BE) or just lay into kids on debuff..I'm not saying it's the BEST class..But I'd feel confident playing one in a premade. But I do see your point, and I don't feel as strongly as I do about a shaman on O



I have a lot of experience w/ running o shamans, multiple sometimes. This I have to disagree w/ you on for the simple fact that shaman is a beastly class, yo!!! It can burst, interrupt, slow,off heal, ghostwolf, and dispel. Do you know how crippling a shaman can be if he's somewhat good? It's almost a shame more guilds don't consider running one. Ask kozi, how fucked up shamans are on a priest/mage tremor, shock, earthbind, wut? if he knows jumps/can predict routes then he's going to at least tail you..I'd put a shaman on my lineup b4 another hunter..

Gregi and Reflexes, take your flaming to PM please.

Listen here! he's the one flaming me...I'm just making a true statement

 

[Ertai]

What can the 2nd hunter in your line up do that the 1st one can't? Are you trying to say doubling down is inefficient?

Nothing, the second hunter is purely accessory. After the five classes I listed, the choices in my opinion become either a rogue, ret pally, or double up a class. In my opinon the ranged DPS plus CC of a Hunter is the optimal class in that situation, although I'm open to discussion on that point.

My thinking comes from an FC perspective; I am more concerned with the double-charge capabilities of a warrior than I am a shaman or extra hunter. Rend bleed effect cuts through armor (and thus serves as the purest form of raw offensive dps), prevents bandage, and cannot be dispelled. Its long duration of 15 secs is also a boon. Warrior charges can also negate terrain advantages since they can charge up hills with ease. And if you're alliance, shadowmeld negates the usefulness of a smart D that can keep warriors in combat. And logistically speaking we know constantly keeping warriors in combat is not a feasible objective. In a bracket where 30 yards is the max range for spells, client->server lag alone prevents spells from getting a warrior in combat before the charge. The only effective means is a hunter pet which you conveniently don't have on D either. Spamstring is the worst enemy of a druid as well and can run most druids oom in just one loop around the base.

"My thinking comes from an FC perspective" that might be your problem here. Deeps and CC on an FC isn't what gets kills at 19s, CC on an FCs support is. An amazing Shaman will interrupt a Mage on either a poly or a Frostbolt and seriously impair their ability to CC. Your D would have no Priest on it, so an Shaman would be double effective with Earthbind being a full 5 sec tick.



A Hunter pet isn't going to keep any Warrior with half a brain in combat.

Shaman flame shock is dispellable. While ghost wolf is nice, he's not much use if he's ahead of his offense because he's easily cc-able. His totems work best indoors where there is tight quarters, but there's a drawback since GW cannot be used. Do you prize a shaman's spell interrupts? I think a warrior's shield bash, warlock/priest fears and pet stuns are enough. Not to mention a good healer can still fake cast. And any competent defense is going to have a defensive healing shaman, who if they are smart, will be stacking NR and popping magic resistance pots to make a shaman's shocks failsauce. Horde-side specifically, Tauren which are the only druids and the dominant choice for Shaman in WSG have an additional 2% chance to resist Nature spells.



Shaman totems are stationary and defensive in design, as are abilities such as Lightning shield, which is arguably their primary and certainly their most efficient form of dps. Shaman are most vulnerable to CC in the form of polymorph which they will only encounter when they are on offense. Additionally, since they will be in ghost wolf and most likely ahead of the bulk offense, a priest will not be available for dispels. If the hunters with him use a recombob, then they won't have it for the priest. (And with a 5 minute cooldown, it's probably wise not to be liberal with your use of recombobs.) On the flip side, the CC they will encounter against an offense while playing D will be fears and slows, which they can negate with tremor totem and GW respectively.



Shaman bring a few cute little tools in the table on an offense, but you're going to have an extremely hard time trying to convince me they are of better use than a warrior.



O shaman are not an optimal choice.

I prize a ranged interrupt on a short cooldown. No good defense is going to cast a heal or Poly in range of a Shield Bash or Psychic Scream. Being able to Purge keeps the Priests free to focus on friendly dispels, during fights a Priest isn't going to be able to full dispel both his team and the EFC. Earthbind gives you an AoE snare that can 50% a whole defense in the tight corners of the base. Taurens have a 2% extra chance to be missed by Nature spells, not resisted, so you can hit cap that out of the picture.



Where I come from offenses play together, so a Shaman is not going to be sprinting ahead of his team like a moron. We like to attack as a group instead of being random heroes. You make a bunch of points about why a Shaman is better on defense than offense but that's not what we're talking about so I'm not going to touch on them.



If your Warrior and two Hunters can't handle keeping three support slowed by all means bring another Warrior. If you're bringing it for more damage hell just bring a 3rd Hunter instead. If it's for another Shield Bash a Shaman does that better over the long run even factoring in resists.

 

[Reflexes]

A Hunter pet isn't going to keep any Warrior with half a brain in combat.

I still fully agree w/ u



but..a hunter w/ half a brain might yo

 

[Painaid]

"My thinking comes from an FC perspective" that might be your problem here. Deeps and CC on an FC isn't what gets kills at 19s, CC on an FCs support is. An amazing Shaman will interrupt a Mage on either a poly or a Frostbolt and seriously impair their ability to CC. Your D would have no Priest on it, so an Shaman would be double effective with Earthbind being a full 5 sec tick.

I'll take the CC they can slap on a mage, but I think this also points out your limited perspective as a mage because, as I pointed out, their ability to deal with the Defensive shaman is nullified by resists. Wind shear only knocks out one school. If he silences you in poly, throw in a frostbolt and vice versa. The only thing he does is share GCD's with you. And you can't have your cake and eat it too. Except when going around fence, earthbind won't be affecting the druid, hunter, or shaman on D since they have speed increases since you said your shaman would purposely be staying back out of GW.



And despite me having a D hunter, I recognize most defenses still run with a priest. With this aside, the fact earthbind is a magic ability that is dispellable makes it innately weaker than hamstring since it is a physical attack. And of course hamstring lasts a full 15 secs, 3x longer than EB and it can be spammed repeatedly with low rage cost. I would argue a warrior charge puts a mage out of commission faster than a wind shear + earthbind. It both interrupts spells, stuns, and followed up with an immediate hamstring, slows for 15 secs. This of course also implies that warriors are much better at closing range gaps than shaman are.

A Hunter pet isn't going to keep any Warrior with half a brain in combat.

I disagree. And hunters are the only class that can get off a range attack before charge range as well.

I prize a ranged interrupt on a short cooldown. No good defense is going to cast a heal or Poly in range of a Shield Bash or Psychic Scream. Being able to Purge keeps the Priests free to focus on friendly dispels, during fights a Priest isn't going to be able to full dispel both his team and the EFC.

Charge is also a ranged interrupt. The range interrupt can also be supplied by bat pets or warlock fears. And I don't see what purge is good for anymore. You going to purge my MotW? Damn, that hurts, lost a total of 15 health. Most defenses don't have HoTs and speed pots are no longer dispellable. Only thing it's good for is AGM.



And if the mere presence of a warrior or priest in melee range prevents a mage or shaman from even attempting a spell cast, then I would say that's a better 'interrupt' than a Wind Shear, lol.

Earthbind gives you an AoE snare that can 50% a whole defense in the tight corners of the base. Taurens have a 2% extra chance to be missed by Nature spells, not resisted, so you can hit cap that out of the picture.

When will the shaman be in range in the base to pull that off? He can't use GW to catch up. And my D would have a hunter for tracking for the very purpose of avoidance. I'd like to see an O shaman geared for that hit cap.

Where I come from offenses play together, so a Shaman is not going to be sprinting ahead of his team like a moron. We like to attack as a group instead of being random heroes. You make a bunch of points about why a Shaman is better on defense than offense but that's not what we're talking about so I'm not going to touch on them.

Shaman staying behind with their O negates the usefulness of Ghost wolf, so I fail to see the point being made. My point on shaman being better on defense is to show how badly D shaman counter O shaman. Not to mention, O shaman have no counters for some of the CC they will encounter while on O.

If your Warrior and two Hunters can't handle keeping three support slowed by all means bring another Warrior. If you're bringing it for more damage hell just bring a 3rd Hunter instead. If it's for another Shield Bash a Shaman does that better over the long run even factoring in resists.

This works both ways. If your warrior, hunter pets, and lock can't handle CCing a single mage and need a shaman's wind shear just to scrape by, then by all means bring a shaman. But why the shaman? Their damage is terrible and is outpaced by warriors, hunters, and warlocks. And their CC and snares is no better than a warrior's, hunter's or warlock's. And I disgree that hunters are better dps than warriors. Rend alone makes them better. Any retard hunter can go to a premade and top damage charts by tab targeting random targets. Warrior dps is more precise and there is no equivalent to rend. And I would argue charge coupled with shield bash is a better interrupt than wind shear which is only going to be primarily effective against the mage.



Edit: And maybe it's just me, but it seems when you add more than two hunters to the mix, all three become less efficient. Like in economics when you add so many workers they begin to become less and less efficient, so I think it is with hunters after the second one; they don't pull their own weight.

 

[Cyww.]

Too much text on this page. My eyes hurts

 

[Splenda]

Too much text on this page. My eyes hurts

I agree on your very intelligent statement.

 

[Kore nametooshort]

In my experience its easier for a shaman to deal with a mage than for a warrior. The shamans ranged abilities and ranged interupt allow it to gain distance and take down the mage much more easily than the warrior can. Adimttedly a supported warrior can keep on a mage, but without dispells he will just sit in nova, sheep or flounder in frostbolt. A shaman will be able to catch up with the mage much more easily than a warrior, and whilst it is in nova it can still be useful by healing, purging or ranged dpsing.



Hamstring is where the warrior comes more into its own however, there is nothing more satisfying/frustrating (depending which char im playing) than watching the FCs/my own mana bar take beats from multiple bear shifts if i get caught up by a warrior in FR. Time spent in FR is generally as little as possible thus a CCed warrior is great if you can pull it off. In that situation it is very nice having a second warrior since letting the FC get back into the open allows him much cheaper shifts. A shaman in this situation isnt nearly as much use, with a single EB drop.



From a dps PoV the warrior beats the shaman. A warrior can offload alot of damage on an FC, more than a shaman can. However the shaman does have slightly more utility, how often is the healer standing right next to the FC? i certainly try not to when im D healing, its just daft. This makes it hard for the warrior to interupt the healer, a job which the shaman can provide more easily with ranged interupt. Shield bash is a much more annoying inteupt than wind shear, it is infinitely annoying being interupted for 6 secs rather than a mere 2, however if your warrior is not suitably situated, which he wont be at all times, he will not always be able to interupt.



The shaman also brings purge, which is useful as it brings some pressure off the priest and his mana pool and will lead to faster dispells of AGM and Natures grasp as well as the occasional hot or shield you might see. Stripping Natures Grasp before it has a chance to affect your warrior is useful, it means seconds arent lost potentially resulting in the warrior losing the druid.



In my opinion a shaman brings nothing to the table that cant be brought by any of the classes already in the O, but it does take pressure off other members of the team. IMO a good warrior is preferable to a good shaman assuming everyone else can do their job.

 

[Tactics]

Shadow priest on offense nuff said

 

[Pizza]

Offense:



Hunter

Hunter

Priest

Shaman

Warlock



Defense:



Druid

Hunter

Mage

Priest

Shaman



This is not a simple composition to run. You need a group of players that all know their roles if you plan on making it work to the level we have.

 

[CIHC]

I disagree. And hunters are the only class that can get off a range attack before charge range as well.

If they are specced to have 36 attack range, then yes. Otherwise; no, minor glyph of charge makes a warrior's charge top at 35 yards. Most hunters generally don't spec 3/3 imp range.

 

[Splenda]

This is not a simple composition to run. You need a group of players that all know their roles if you plan on making it work to the level we have.

Im puking all over myself atm

 

[Pizza]

Im puking all over myself atm

Explain why no one else has tried running this set up when it has been proven to work?

 

[Reflexes]

Explain why no one else has tried running this set up when it has been proven to work?

I could, but you'd just get angry at me and say waw tawent #1

 

[Supadrood]

Offense:



Hunter

Hunter

Priest

Shaman

Warlock



Defense:



Druid

Hunter

Mage

Priest

Shaman

Explain why no one else has tried running this set up when it has been proven to work?

pizza, no one plays 5/5 against you, because a 5 man O will have a very hard time against a 5 man kiting D. with all that cc you pile on defense a team would usually bring more on O to deal with it, your 5 man offense works against other guilds running 3 and 4 man defense. if both teams were to run a 5/5 i would expect it to end in a tie unless one team severely outplayed the other.

 

[Pizza]

pizza, no one plays 5/5 against you, because a 5 man O will have a very hard time against a 5 man kiting D. with all that cc you pile on defense a team would usually bring more on O to deal with it, your 5 man offense works against other guilds running 3 and 4 man defense. if both teams were to run a 5/5 i would expect it to end in a tie unless one team severely outplayed the other.

Well, the problem is guild's defenses give in before ours does. Yes our offense is going against only 3-4 man defenses, but we only have a 5 man offense. You would think other guilds would try and counter or match our strategy by running 5-5 since 6-4 and 7-3 has been proven to fail.



I just don't understand where people come across that 5-5 is not viable. We have been running it for years and have yet to be disappointed with the outcome it brings.

 

[lindenkron]

If they are specced to have 36 attack range, then yes. Otherwise; no, minor glyph of charge makes a warrior's charge top at 35 yards. Most hunters generally don't spec 3/3 imp range.

I'm specced 2/3 Hawk Eye, and my top range is 39... you sure you got the numbers right?

 

[Supadrood]

Well, the problem is guild's defenses give in before ours does. Yes our offense is going against only 3-4 man defenses, but we only have a 5 man offense. You would think other guilds would try and counter or match our strategy by running 5-5 since 6-4 and 7-3 has been proven to fail.



I just don't understand where people come across that 5-5 is not viable. We have been running it for years and have yet to be disappointed with the outcome it brings.

people are dumb, there are lots of things that are viable in this game and aren't even considered options just because no one has tried them before. i'm just saying if i was running a game against a 5/5 i would probably send 6 O and hope to get the drop before they do, rather then stalemate with our offense and defense evenly matched.

 

[Pizza]

people are dumb, there are lots of things that are viable in this game and aren't even considered options just because no one has tried them before. i'm just saying if i was running a game against a 5/5 i would probably send 6 O and hope to get the drop before they do, rather then stalemate with our offense and defense evenly matched.

The only way I can see a guild beating us is running a 5-5 in which they would have to be more coordinated than us which is highly unlikely.

 

[Rayu]

Thought of one that would be interesting:



Offense:

Dagger rogue

Dagger rogue

Dagger rogue



Defense:

Shaman FC

Druid healer

Druid healer

Mage CC

Hunter

Hunter

Hunter



The rogues simply stealthing up on their target and timing their ambush.

But I don't really have a lot of premading experience so I wouldn't know if this would work.