Premade Discussion
- Thread starter Ertai
- Start date
Quara
OG
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
5 Shaman + 1 Priest Offense
Totally serious. Hear me out.
The potential burst damage is just stupid now, and now that Shock CD's are split from their interrupt, Shamans - if coordinated can completely lock down at least one, probably two healers WHILE just wailing away at the FC. Obviously they would all be Engineers for bomb-throwing; I'm not sure if there's a DR on bomb stun, but even if NOT, the burst-potential of a group of shamans is just stupid (remember the multi-boxing shamans in endgame arenas? same idea - 5 chain lightnings + shocks were hard to counter.)
Oh, also this would be much more efficient horde side, where they could all be Tauren - between war stomps and bombs, I really can't see a way out of the lock. *Oh, and the priest is a Blood Elf for added spell-negation* And all that it requires is for, say, two shamans to catch up to the FC - before the others would be in shock (25 yd range now?)/bomb range as well (hell, even a Mind Blast!)
It's hard to keep a Shaman off his target (while in Ghost Wolf, even Hamstring/WC only drop them too normal run speed, remember) and they have the capability to keep pace with the FC if left unhindered - certainly once Debuff hits, and the priest is dispelling the inevitable Frost Bolts, this should not be too difficult.
In fact, it's even gotten even MORE burst-heavy now with the silly new "Fire Nova" spell or whatever. The Shaman offense could pretty much pull their 'Alpha Strike' into a single chain of commands
-Two cast War Stomp, on a healer and on FC; another does a hair later, in case he tries to trinket (lolol)
-All Earth Shocks are cast (simply make macros of /cast Earth Shock [target=<FC's name>]
-They take turns throwing Big Bronze Bombs
And while waiting:
-Lay a Searing Totem
-Whack him with your club or hell, the initial WS'ing/Bombing shaman could even toss in a Lightning Bolt!
-Activate Fire Asplozions
And the Stomp/Bomb/Healer-Shutout SHOULD hold long enough for a second round of Shocks to go up.
In the above situation, even if only 3 of the Shamans were in range at the time (plus Healer), let's look at an estimate of the damage output:
-4 Bombs (priest should be able to catch up a few seconds later) = 400 damage (more if a couple of them use Heavy Dynamite!)
-6 Earth Shocks (if they manage two rotations: only 6 seconds of spell negation would be required...easy) = 6(64 + .4*(SpellPower)) = Conservatively let's say 625 damage
-3 Fire Novas = Not sure the exact damage, but if it's 3(52 + .3(SP)) = 270 damage
Add in a few melee hits, perhaps a Lighting Bolt or two (it's hard to say how difficult that would be to pull off, under such pressure), a few pings from the Searing Totem, a Mind Blast or a couple wands, and assume slight imperfections in the damage and you get AT LEAST 1,300 damage. Easy.
Oh, and that's not factoring in crit percentages. Too lazy to wade through those numbers. But realize that these shamans would be decked out in Spell Power and Crit gear.
In practice, I think you would usually end up doing much more than this. Even if - big if - a healer breaks breaks free of the chains of wind shears and fears, the best they can do is heal chunks of ~450-500 every 2.5 seconds - hots and shields are useless of course. Over a little time, the damage output will completely overtake this healing - once the burst is over, the offense can simply nuke the remaining life (if there is any...probably not, if debuff is up) with lightning bolts and another wave of shocks.
/crazyrant
5 Shaman + 1 Priest Offense
Totally serious. Hear me out.
The potential burst damage is just stupid now, and now that Shock CD's are split from their interrupt, Shamans - if coordinated can completely lock down at least one, probably two healers WHILE just wailing away at the FC. Obviously they would all be Engineers for bomb-throwing; I'm not sure if there's a DR on bomb stun, but even if NOT, the burst-potential of a group of shamans is just stupid (remember the multi-boxing shamans in endgame arenas? same idea - 5 chain lightnings + shocks were hard to counter.)
Oh, also this would be much more efficient horde side, where they could all be Tauren - between war stomps and bombs, I really can't see a way out of the lock. *Oh, and the priest is a Blood Elf for added spell-negation* And all that it requires is for, say, two shamans to catch up to the FC - before the others would be in shock (25 yd range now?)/bomb range as well (hell, even a Mind Blast!)
It's hard to keep a Shaman off his target (while in Ghost Wolf, even Hamstring/WC only drop them too normal run speed, remember) and they have the capability to keep pace with the FC if left unhindered - certainly once Debuff hits, and the priest is dispelling the inevitable Frost Bolts, this should not be too difficult.
In fact, it's even gotten even MORE burst-heavy now with the silly new "Fire Nova" spell or whatever. The Shaman offense could pretty much pull their 'Alpha Strike' into a single chain of commands
-Two cast War Stomp, on a healer and on FC; another does a hair later, in case he tries to trinket (lolol)
-All Earth Shocks are cast (simply make macros of /cast Earth Shock [target=<FC's name>]
-They take turns throwing Big Bronze Bombs
And while waiting:
-Lay a Searing Totem
-Whack him with your club or hell, the initial WS'ing/Bombing shaman could even toss in a Lightning Bolt!
-Activate Fire Asplozions
And the Stomp/Bomb/Healer-Shutout SHOULD hold long enough for a second round of Shocks to go up.
In the above situation, even if only 3 of the Shamans were in range at the time (plus Healer), let's look at an estimate of the damage output:
-4 Bombs (priest should be able to catch up a few seconds later) = 400 damage (more if a couple of them use Heavy Dynamite!)
-6 Earth Shocks (if they manage two rotations: only 6 seconds of spell negation would be required...easy) = 6(64 + .4*(SpellPower)) = Conservatively let's say 625 damage
-3 Fire Novas = Not sure the exact damage, but if it's 3(52 + .3(SP)) = 270 damage
Add in a few melee hits, perhaps a Lighting Bolt or two (it's hard to say how difficult that would be to pull off, under such pressure), a few pings from the Searing Totem, a Mind Blast or a couple wands, and assume slight imperfections in the damage and you get AT LEAST 1,300 damage. Easy.
Oh, and that's not factoring in crit percentages. Too lazy to wade through those numbers. But realize that these shamans would be decked out in Spell Power and Crit gear.
In practice, I think you would usually end up doing much more than this. Even if - big if - a healer breaks breaks free of the chains of wind shears and fears, the best they can do is heal chunks of ~450-500 every 2.5 seconds - hots and shields are useless of course. Over a little time, the damage output will completely overtake this healing - once the burst is over, the offense can simply nuke the remaining life (if there is any...probably not, if debuff is up) with lightning bolts and another wave of shocks.
/crazyrant
Ertai
OG
Grabco said:
Basically you have to consider whether any extra mitigation you get from a Warrior FC is better than what a Druid has to offer. A Warrior gets the ability to block, slightly higher armor, Shield Block, and Defensive Stance. Druids have higher health and the ability to instantly remove snares on themselves. Is the Warrior's mitigation worth it when you take into consideration he will spend a considerable amount more time in melee range because he'll be constantly snared to 50% speed, whereas a Druid will be able to escape snares (even spamstrings and spamclips if your D is doing it's job).
Eliot said:
It's a logical reason to use a Shaman, but for the most part if the Druid is leaving the Priest/Mage behind purposely it's because he can get away from the other team as well. If a Druid is travel forming away but still needs a healer with him, he's probably doing something wrong.
Kore nametooshort said:
Tremor's are definitely awesome, but the shaman needs to be smart in his timing and placement since most offenses take out totems as soon as they see them.
Grunge said:
The only current guild I've heard of using a non-kiting defense is We Trinket War Stomp, and I don't have any idea what kind of set-up they use (or if they actually do what I've heard).
Grunge
OG
2 things:
1. has anyone ever considered using a feral druid on O? seems to me that the only thing that can keep up with a druid is another druid.
2. Why doesn't anyone do standing D anymore?
I used to run 5/5 with alot of success, Warrior/palli on fc, then a palli for bubbles and LoH, priest for instants, rogue and a hunter.
Come to think of it, the most successful fc's were actually rogues because they would fight back instead of just running away.
1. has anyone ever considered using a feral druid on O? seems to me that the only thing that can keep up with a druid is another druid.
2. Why doesn't anyone do standing D anymore?
I used to run 5/5 with alot of success, Warrior/palli on fc, then a palli for bubbles and LoH, priest for instants, rogue and a hunter.
Come to think of it, the most successful fc's were actually rogues because they would fight back instead of just running away.
Grunge said:
feral is completely lol, and anyway bear moves at normal speed. It would be far more effective to have a balance druid and a hunter on O to mess with the FC with hibernate and fear beast.
Grunge said:
If you were going to do that a warrior or shaman would be better, they have better mitigation and more "Oh shit!" buttons.
Grunge
OG
Kore nametooshort said:
i agree, on paper they are the best and they perform well, but in my actual experience my best fc's have been rogues. The lack of armor is a minus admittedly, but with evasion, sprint and gouge they're not bad.
hehe, i would get so much flak from theorycrafters running a standing d with a rogue fc lol
Ertai
OG
Grunge said:
Not really, it's a pretty terrible strategy. Only slows on the entire D are a dispellable Totem, only CC is a dispellable fear on a 30 second cooldown. One Frost Nova and the FC is free and clear for a large chunk of time, since no one's gonna be able to snare him and catch up. If the other team is running a Hunter on D it's even worse as a strategy.
Quara
OG
Ertai said:
They only have to catch up once. The mage could never catch them all in a Frost Nova unless they were terrible.
But like I said, it's hard to fathom in theory. I honestly can't tell if it would work or not.
I could deliver counter arguments to the mage argument: for example, what if they did the same burst tactic with the mage first? What if they split into two groups?
Can't know unless someone tries it
EDIT: They're not looking to slow the D, they're just looking to get within 25 feet of the FC.
Edit2: and hunter on de is terrible anyway
Ertai
OG
But they won't all catch up once. What're you going to do, send all five roof? Then we drop early and head to top of tun where we can see you coming from a mile away. Split up? Three Shaman coming roof and two on second? We drop early, take a couple shocks, CC those two and the other three are still too far behind.
If the other team gets in the game and sees a five shaman team you don't think they could possibly put a Hunter on D? They'd be stupid not to. You'd have a wing-clipped defense trying to catch a Druid with no snares on him, it would be hilarious.
And on the subject of Hunter on D being terrible, the two best premading guilds in Ruin in the past six months or so used D Hunter, perhaps there's a correlation.
If the other team gets in the game and sees a five shaman team you don't think they could possibly put a Hunter on D? They'd be stupid not to. You'd have a wing-clipped defense trying to catch a Druid with no snares on him, it would be hilarious.
And on the subject of Hunter on D being terrible, the two best premading guilds in Ruin in the past six months or so used D Hunter, perhaps there's a correlation.
Beachcomber
OG
We've played plenty of times with hunter and warrior interchangeable on D or O. Typically one hunter on O and one on D is fine.
When I play D on my hunter I pick off healers, apply wingclips to keep them off our heals or fc, and dps the shit out of people. I work with a mage very well. Their offensive priest is typically dispelling mage frostbolts, so if I'm focusing the priest or someone else it's very difficult for that person to keep up with the dispels and the mage can continue to do his/her work.
If our defensive priest/druid slaps heals on me while I'm burning people up, I can really screw with their offensive effort. If I am successful in flanking them I can hit them from the back where the offensive melee don't see that their healer is absorbing a lot of damage that needs to be addressed.
In short, don't call it terrible because it's actually quite a powerful setup.
When I play D on my hunter I pick off healers, apply wingclips to keep them off our heals or fc, and dps the shit out of people. I work with a mage very well. Their offensive priest is typically dispelling mage frostbolts, so if I'm focusing the priest or someone else it's very difficult for that person to keep up with the dispels and the mage can continue to do his/her work.
If our defensive priest/druid slaps heals on me while I'm burning people up, I can really screw with their offensive effort. If I am successful in flanking them I can hit them from the back where the offensive melee don't see that their healer is absorbing a lot of damage that needs to be addressed.
In short, don't call it terrible because it's actually quite a powerful setup.
Quara
OG
I called it 'terrible' just to echo Ertai's comment on the Shaman idea. But while I know it has its uses, I think that a Hunter on de will bring less to the table than most other classes could.
Obviously any class in any position will be 'beneficial' in some ways, based on their unique strengths; for Hunters, that means physical CC's and burst potential. Sweet. But allotting that position just means one less spot on your team for everything else, and in this case I do not think that the benefits of the Hunter will make up for the opportunity cost (putting either a different class on D or, say, moving that same hunter to O.) Now, there is always the matter of who is playing these classes. I'd much rather have a really talented Hunter (e.g. Pizza) on D than a half-assed second Mage (or something else). But assuming I had to choose any class from a selection of players with ~equal quality, I would say no way to Hunter. If I could bench Pizza (or, more likely, move him to O and bench someone else) and get to run...say...Snowshoes as a second mage or, hell, Painaid as a second Druid or Perf on a Pally, it would be much more beneficial to run with one of those options.
Given a base defense of Mage + Druid, I would much rather choose any combination of the following (within reason, of course) over a Hunter: Priest, Pally, Druid, Mage, Shaman, and possibly a Warrior. Warlocks and Rogues are both even less useful imo - though even then I'd rather run Praelium or Scourgé over a shitty secondary Healer.
As for the Shaman strategy, Ertai I will concede that a well-prepared De will probably be able to handle it. At the same time though, the defense that they would have to run would likely be a lot different than their normal one, which could severely hamper their Offense. And even with the right setup, they would have to play very accurately, as one opening is all the Shamans would need. I would still love to try it, and think it could be both awesome and brutally effective. An unwitting opponent will find themselves in deep sh*t very quickly.
It would require a ton of skillful coordination and understanding from the Shamans, and there's no question that it would fail in the hands of 'average' Shamans. But really, imagine staring down Velricc, Kunz, PP, DA, Ibe and Bone (for example), all going straight for the jugular. Not a pretty sight.
Obviously any class in any position will be 'beneficial' in some ways, based on their unique strengths; for Hunters, that means physical CC's and burst potential. Sweet. But allotting that position just means one less spot on your team for everything else, and in this case I do not think that the benefits of the Hunter will make up for the opportunity cost (putting either a different class on D or, say, moving that same hunter to O.) Now, there is always the matter of who is playing these classes. I'd much rather have a really talented Hunter (e.g. Pizza) on D than a half-assed second Mage (or something else). But assuming I had to choose any class from a selection of players with ~equal quality, I would say no way to Hunter. If I could bench Pizza (or, more likely, move him to O and bench someone else) and get to run...say...Snowshoes as a second mage or, hell, Painaid as a second Druid or Perf on a Pally, it would be much more beneficial to run with one of those options.
Given a base defense of Mage + Druid, I would much rather choose any combination of the following (within reason, of course) over a Hunter: Priest, Pally, Druid, Mage, Shaman, and possibly a Warrior. Warlocks and Rogues are both even less useful imo - though even then I'd rather run Praelium or Scourgé over a shitty secondary Healer.
As for the Shaman strategy, Ertai I will concede that a well-prepared De will probably be able to handle it. At the same time though, the defense that they would have to run would likely be a lot different than their normal one, which could severely hamper their Offense. And even with the right setup, they would have to play very accurately, as one opening is all the Shamans would need. I would still love to try it, and think it could be both awesome and brutally effective. An unwitting opponent will find themselves in deep sh*t very quickly.
It would require a ton of skillful coordination and understanding from the Shamans, and there's no question that it would fail in the hands of 'average' Shamans. But really, imagine staring down Velricc, Kunz, PP, DA, Ibe and Bone (for example), all going straight for the jugular. Not a pretty sight.
2 warrior 3 hunter shaman priest offense
dabest
dabest