US Wargames: Alternative Theme (W:A.T)?

Wereßear

Wereßear

Grandfathered
I am proposing that we ditch the standard every once in awhile by playing alternative speced wargames. These are specs that are underplayed or avoided due to the spec feeling weak, unviable, or not maxed out in a normal scenario battleground. I think it would be fun to play games where the standard specs are eliminated. It is just something I would find fun since I enjoy playing builds that are not mainstream.

Each class would be able to select between two of the three specs from the following list:

Druid: Guardian, Resto (healing, not FC)
Hunter: Beast Master, Marksman
Mage: Frost, Fire
Monk: Windwalker, Mistweaver
Paladin: Holy, Protection
Priest: Holy, Shadow
Rogue: Assassination, Subtley
Shaman: Elemental, Enhancement
Warlock: Demonology, Affliction
Warrior: Fury, Protection

This would make healing, field control, burst, and flag running more challenging. As far as rules are concerned, limits could be set to two of any class. Or, for a more interesting game, one of each class.

Feedback on this suggestion would be great. It is just something "different". If there is enough feedback, I can setup teams for an upcoming weekend.

WereBear
~Warsong Warlords~
 
I like this a lot.

I'd allow rsham, WW and MM hit hard af, just a push from those two would do heavy deeps.

What will FC?
 
Why not allow ret paladins? The spec hasn't been premade viable since BC/wrath Just because its the most viable spec doesn't mean you shouldn't play it.
 
Delayed said:
I like this a lot.

I'd allow rsham, WW and MM hit hard af, just a push from those two would do heavy deeps.

What will FC?
Click to expand...
Resto shaman are the only popular shaman spec currently played. It defeats the purpose of playing the lesser specs. I have nothing against them. It just does not sit well with my current idea about the theme. If I said okay, Resto Shaman are okay, it seems to nullify the idea of alternative specs. The same goes for ret paladins. Limiting players to 1 spec isn't as fun and giving players all three or four spec options (druid) would quickly equate to a regular meta game play.

I understand that WW are still a good spec and so is mistweaver. But of the three specs, Brew is hands down the best and the most played. That is why I choose MW and WW as monk options. Besides, with resto druid flag running out of the picture, WW would be the next best FC and may not be as overpowered if set in a FC role. Demo locks make good spot carriers, as well as hunters. And fury warriors are completely viable for holding flags with stacks using defensive stance.

We could always do a rotation of a few specs in future game, but I think the spec listing I posted fit the theme best.
 
Camo said:
Why not allow ret paladins? The spec hasn't been premade viable since BC/wrath Just because its the most viable spec doesn't mean you shouldn't play it.
Click to expand...
Ret paladins ARE viable. They are just very difficult to play because they take more damage than warriors and are usually put on the back burner for healing priority. I have seen plenty of ret paladins do well in current BGs double stacking crusader or just single. They are just in an odd position because they compete for healing with warrior and brew monks. They are the strongest spec for paladins currently which is why I chose to opt them out.
 
Yeah RSham is main stream, but it has some great utility that is really useful, why not make it like a 1 Rsham per team limit?
 
Wereßear said:
Ret paladins ARE viable. They are just very difficult to play because they take more damage than warriors and are usually put on the back burner for healing priority. I have seen plenty of ret paladins do well in current BGs double stacking crusader or just single. They are just in an odd position because they compete for healing with warrior and brew monks. They are the strongest spec for paladins currently which is why I chose to opt them out.
Click to expand...
Just because they are the strongest for a class at whole doesn't make it good.
 
Delayed said:
Yeah RSham is main stream, but it has some great utility that is really useful, why not make it like a 1 Rsham per team limit?
Click to expand...
It is hard for me to make a case for Resto shaman due to their strength and the fact that they are played by the majority of shaman players at 19. I discourage it because elemental shaman can heal almost as well as they can with straight healing (Non-HoT) and that elemental IS an option. There are plenty of healing specs to choose from still which is why I find them unnecessary for this theme.

I can, however, agree that the paladin class as a whole is widely underplayed for all three specs. An exception for Ret paladins could be made due to the fact that they are under-powered compared to other melee specs and under-played. The problem I see with allowing them is the fact that prot and holy may be under selected for games since ret is more versatile. I would be willing to amend the two spec limit to the paladin class if enough people agreed that they should be allowed. Consequently, this opens debate that other classes should have exceptions too which could destroy the idea if people got too hung up on the debate.

Currently feral is banned for premades and most people don't play feral druid because they find it cheap or broken to some degree. Because they don't see much play, you could technically consider them an underplayed spec and argue that they should be allowed too.

For simplicity sake, I think sticking to a two spec limit and excluding the main/stronger specs should be the standard. But keep the feeback coming. I am open to ideas and my only concern here is to ensure fun with this theme.
 
I like this idea, but it generally doesn't get a lot of interest. Kudos to you if you are able to get this off the ground.

I want to see some AB/EotS games coming in from some of the top NWL/TC guilds.

I feel like a change of format would make for interesting viewing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top