- Status
bigmoran
Legend
To everyone who says BM Monks and Warriors are more OP than Boomkins, I challenge you to play either of those classes in a premade and try to have fun. You will get out damaged, out pressured, out maneuvered the entire game. This again is why Boomkins are INFINITELY better than Monks/Warriors. They have:
-Higher damage
-Better mobility
-Better MELEE burst
-Offheals
-The ability to FC
ALL WHILE BEING ABLE TO DO OPTIMAL DPS FROM RANGE.
There is no good argument in favor of double boomkin. Again, the only people who want to run it are these braindead GSC morons who don't know what a flag is.
-Higher damage
-Better mobility
-Better MELEE burst
-Offheals
-The ability to FC
ALL WHILE BEING ABLE TO DO OPTIMAL DPS FROM RANGE.
There is no good argument in favor of double boomkin. Again, the only people who want to run it are these braindead GSC morons who don't know what a flag is.
Mvq
2016 TC Champion
A lot of people are stating that there's a secret counter. That's their arguement.
Seemed like every unbiased person was against it being banned?
If I'm wrong, and everyone is against it, then it should be banned, yes.
I'd obviously biased want it to not be banned, but I have the capability to look past my personal needs D:
Also ps, I'll take you up on that offer about the class comparison - I'm not personally for it at all, obviously in a 1v1 scenario, or straight up looking at the class, the boomkin is godlike, but I'll bet my left testicle that 2 warriors will run you over in mid more effeciently than a boomkin will lol. Infact base to base too
partygirl
Legend
Monks have better offheals, an op as fuck ranged slow, way tankier, about the same mobility if not better than a druid and an aoe starsurge thats instant, warriors have the most op dot at twinks, aoe slow, also way tankier than a druid charge to make for some mobility. Your description of how much better druids are than These two is absolutely fucking retarded
Realek Tarantino
Legend
not reading this whole thread but it had 6 pages of niggas 'debating' aka bitching what shouldnt be debated. Belt the fuck up, adapt, and learn to play the fuckin game. Double Boomy isn't instawin.
The main reason class/spec limits are put in place in tournaments is to encourage more fun and competitive games for both the teams involved and the community watching. How overpowered a class/spec is or how it compares to another class should not be the deciding factor on if it gets banned or not. If a class/spec is limited based solely on how overpowered it is, then why haven't Discipline Priests been limited to one? It's because much more has to be taken into account when deciding if a certain class/spec should be limited.
There are two big reasons why teams are limited to running one BM Monk and Arms Warrior. The first reason is that it encourages more fun and competitive games. The second reason is that the value added from running double BM Monk and Arms Warrior over their substitute is substantial. The value added over their substitute is the biggest difference between double BM Monk and Arms Warrior and double Boomkin. Teams would run double BM Monk and Arms Warrior at little to no cost. In order for teams to run double Boomkin, they must give up the best FC spec in the bracket and their ability to run a Rogue. The cost of running double Boomkin is greater than the cost of running double BM Monk or Arms Warrior.
It is disappointing that the dominant teams running double Boomkin are ignorantly sugarcoating their arguments in favor of double Boomkin because it is in their best interest to do so and the less dominant teams are ignorantly sugarcoating their arguments in favor of banning double Boomkin because it is in their best interest to do so. As Darkchewie mentioned earlier, all the rules should be looked at again to decide if we are promoting the best atmosphere for games and the future of 19s.
If I was the sole member of the rule committee, I would only have these three limits: 1) two per class, 2) one per spec, and 3) no Ferals. As Z3rgb3rg mentioned earlier, this guideline would be the simplest thing to do and it would require the least revisions each patch/expansion. It would allow for the most entertaining and competitive games, along with the widest variety of viable comps.
All that being said, I am not for or against the banning of double Boomkin. I strongly believe, as Muskie mentioned, the best team will win.
There are two big reasons why teams are limited to running one BM Monk and Arms Warrior. The first reason is that it encourages more fun and competitive games. The second reason is that the value added from running double BM Monk and Arms Warrior over their substitute is substantial. The value added over their substitute is the biggest difference between double BM Monk and Arms Warrior and double Boomkin. Teams would run double BM Monk and Arms Warrior at little to no cost. In order for teams to run double Boomkin, they must give up the best FC spec in the bracket and their ability to run a Rogue. The cost of running double Boomkin is greater than the cost of running double BM Monk or Arms Warrior.
It is disappointing that the dominant teams running double Boomkin are ignorantly sugarcoating their arguments in favor of double Boomkin because it is in their best interest to do so and the less dominant teams are ignorantly sugarcoating their arguments in favor of banning double Boomkin because it is in their best interest to do so. As Darkchewie mentioned earlier, all the rules should be looked at again to decide if we are promoting the best atmosphere for games and the future of 19s.
If I was the sole member of the rule committee, I would only have these three limits: 1) two per class, 2) one per spec, and 3) no Ferals. As Z3rgb3rg mentioned earlier, this guideline would be the simplest thing to do and it would require the least revisions each patch/expansion. It would allow for the most entertaining and competitive games, along with the widest variety of viable comps.
All that being said, I am not for or against the banning of double Boomkin. I strongly believe, as Muskie mentioned, the best team will win.
Revoman
Grandfathered
- druids dont do higher damage than warriors, i have seen a warrior put out 600k, have yet to see a boomkin do it
- druids also have to enter cat form and melee for 5 points before they can effectively burst, easy as fuck to punish, not mention points fall off if they are out of combat
- their offheals are less than BM surging mists lol what kind of point is this
that leaves the druids with the best mobility, which inherently means the ability to FC....
Warrior damage is on another level, put 2 of them on the same team and its unhealable, especially if 2 rends fall off at the same time and they both have crusader procc'd
BM's are the ultimate utility, everyone would be fucking waddling if there were 2 in the same game, not to mention they could aoe keg smash your whole team to death with landslide in t-1 second. Hard to get "out-manuevered" when their whole team is fucking waddling all game.
I'm failing to see you're point. All I agree with here is the fact they can FC (because of the superior mobility). Maybe someone can enlighten me?
Revoman
Grandfathered
I'm confused. How would you know what's in their best interest?
Members in this community have said the UGGTW vs HIA were some of the most exciting games they have watched in a long while. Funnily enough, the match up was, essentially, a trade-off between Boomkin and R-druid. These trade-offs are what make the "meta" at 19. If there weren't any viable trade-offs, then everyone would run the same comp. Sounds pretty boring to me.
I agree, as Pizza stated, the rules should be reviewed to promote the best atmosphere for games and the future of 19s. I also like the idea of the limits Pizza stated, but in order to change these rules, you first have to look at the implications. What trade-offs are being removed? What trade-offs are being gained? Is one comp vastly superior than the rest? You can't answer these questions over night. A huge change to the current rules that have already been explored for at least a year could be detrimental to the bracket. Looking at the Twink Cup Countdown, we're at 13 weeks. This is an important decision that could make or break this bracket, and I hope, whoever it is that makes the final decision, knows the importance of this situation.
Speaking for myself here, the only interests that serve me are keeping 19s enjoyable. I don't give a damn if double boomkin gets banned or stays. As long I, as well as other members of this community, are 100% confident the "meta" doesn't stagnate, I will support whatever decision this community comes to.
Magoo
Legend
People say that placing restrictions on rules for what can/cannot be played only brings less variety to games, this is neither true or false. What is known is that restrictions do need to be set place to a certain degree so that competitive games have a better overall structure essentially bringing out the best/most overall strategies/class combinations/scenarios/diversity possible to competitive games.
For example, there are many different aspects to look as a far as class combination and what should and should not be allowed. Hypothetically speaking, pretend x2 Boomkins beats every other class combination possible with the current rules set in place [whether it does or doesn't is not the point] it then comes to a decision to either allow certain restricted class combinations into the mix to even the playing field and/or have x2 Boomkins taken away so other class combinations can compete. Either way you look at this both options alter what class combinations can be viable and what cannot be viable and what strategies/scenarios can be played out which can effect the overall diversity, sometimes less is more and more is less.
Too many rules or not enough rules each will bring inbalance, the goal is to aim for balanced competitive games with the best/most overall possible strategies/class combinations/scenarios/diversity to have/choose from. This is what needs to be looked at and factored in when deciding what should and should not be taken away because even if it is a good decision to do one or the other you could essentially be taking away from somewhere else.
For example, there are many different aspects to look as a far as class combination and what should and should not be allowed. Hypothetically speaking, pretend x2 Boomkins beats every other class combination possible with the current rules set in place [whether it does or doesn't is not the point] it then comes to a decision to either allow certain restricted class combinations into the mix to even the playing field and/or have x2 Boomkins taken away so other class combinations can compete. Either way you look at this both options alter what class combinations can be viable and what cannot be viable and what strategies/scenarios can be played out which can effect the overall diversity, sometimes less is more and more is less.
Too many rules or not enough rules each will bring inbalance, the goal is to aim for balanced competitive games with the best/most overall possible strategies/class combinations/scenarios/diversity to have/choose from. This is what needs to be looked at and factored in when deciding what should and should not be taken away because even if it is a good decision to do one or the other you could essentially be taking away from somewhere else.
Last edited:
Bop
Remember the Treeline
I'm a relative newcomer to this bracket, and I would have preferred to just stay on the sidelines and observe the debate going on here. I would just like to address the references to other ESports and the adaptability of their meta-environments; specifically League of Legends.
Let me preface my opinion with the fact that I ended last season in Diamond (http://www.lolking.net/summoner/na/30976171, some of you will recognize that account name with my one of my IGNs), and I had the honor of playing with some of the players who represented North America in the LCS. I was also in a position to hear their personal opinions on the evolution of the meta of League of Legends, and I consider myself qualified to paraphrase their views here.
League applies buffs and nerfs, therefore changing the meta, based on the findings of its own balancing team. It does not change the meta based on public outcry, although often times the findings of the team coincide with public outrage over imbalanced champions/items/etc. The general opinion of the most highly skilled players in League is that most often Riot Games prioritizes lower levels of competitive play (where the population is larger) over actual inconsistencies in balanced gameplay (as would be indicated by the level of play closest to "perfect"; i.e., professional play).
I'm not sure that WoW 19s has the equivalent administration or population to reference the style of changes that Riot Games makes to the meta of League of Legends. They are very, very dissimilar. The equivalency would require there to be hundreds of TC teams and an administration that was capable of performing copious internal tests in order to tweak numbers.
Let me preface my opinion with the fact that I ended last season in Diamond (http://www.lolking.net/summoner/na/30976171, some of you will recognize that account name with my one of my IGNs), and I had the honor of playing with some of the players who represented North America in the LCS. I was also in a position to hear their personal opinions on the evolution of the meta of League of Legends, and I consider myself qualified to paraphrase their views here.
League applies buffs and nerfs, therefore changing the meta, based on the findings of its own balancing team. It does not change the meta based on public outcry, although often times the findings of the team coincide with public outrage over imbalanced champions/items/etc. The general opinion of the most highly skilled players in League is that most often Riot Games prioritizes lower levels of competitive play (where the population is larger) over actual inconsistencies in balanced gameplay (as would be indicated by the level of play closest to "perfect"; i.e., professional play).
I'm not sure that WoW 19s has the equivalent administration or population to reference the style of changes that Riot Games makes to the meta of League of Legends. They are very, very dissimilar. The equivalency would require there to be hundreds of TC teams and an administration that was capable of performing copious internal tests in order to tweak numbers.
Mutando
Legend
This times a thousand. This is all I've been trying to say. The rules/restrictions as a whole need to be re-examined.
Gankerixer
Grandfathered
I'm with pizza in this case, we need to take a look at revamping the limits as a whole, not just double boomy.
Bacon
TC Champ 2016
Bacon
TC Champ 2016
Yeah because 10 ferals sounds fun, idiot
Kunz
OG
I play boomkin, but I'd be fine with a double boomkin ban. That means I'm unbiased right? I believe that games are way more interesting to play and watch when rogues are involved, and there is really no good reason to run a rogue right now when double boomkin is allowed. It also makes flag carrying hilariously easy when there is no rogue threat.
Here are the restrictions I would go with:
No more than 1 specialization (excluding healers)
No weapon swapping (I'd love to ban weapon enchants all together, but that doesn't seem plausible)
No feral druids
2 class limit
2 stealth limit (excluding restoration druid)
Here are the restrictions I would go with:
No more than 1 specialization (excluding healers)
No weapon swapping (I'd love to ban weapon enchants all together, but that doesn't seem plausible)
No feral druids
2 class limit
2 stealth limit (excluding restoration druid)
- Status