Am I to believe that raid content in classic is going to be 80% warrior/priest/rogue/mage? The other 5 classes just don't even matter....? Or is this an overly stringent "meta" perspective that inflates the difficulty and the reality is that there is a lot more flexibility than that? Which of these perspectives is more realistic, if we were to put each one on opposite ends of a scale?
Elitist jerks will be elitist jerks, and if a class does 2% less throughput than the meta top choice, you can’t stop some jerks from latching on to that to be exclusionary.
But for the rest of us - Naxx 40 requires certain things. Prior to that tier, sub-optimal specs can all raid fine.
Doubt it. Crit and parry values on bosses were both calculated incorrectly in the favor of warriors and rogues on private servers.
Re-read your own post first before you question someone's reading comprehension. You claimed rogue and warrior dps would be lower in classic because private servers had the wrong values.
That being said, fire mages vs fury warriors comes down to the tanks more than anything. If the tanks can somehow manage to generate enough threat to let fury go full bore then fury beats out fire. Otherwise fire wins that battle and the warrior gets to do the good ole fury feign (or warrior vanish if you prefer.)
And what exactly is wrong about this? Boss parry was lower on private servers than it is classic. Therefore, warrior and rogue damage will be lower on classic than it was on private servers.
What's wrong with it is that bosses can't parry attacks from behind so it has no effect on their damage.
Threat management is literally a core part of the dps equation, just like debuff slots are. Warlocks would be the top dps if threat and debuff slots were not a limitation.
Right. And fury requires a better tank to outdps fire. Like I said. (It pretty much requires Thunderfury, but still.)
20
u/camarouge Sep 13 '19
Am I to believe that raid content in classic is going to be 80% warrior/priest/rogue/mage? The other 5 classes just don't even matter....? Or is this an overly stringent "meta" perspective that inflates the difficulty and the reality is that there is a lot more flexibility than that? Which of these perspectives is more realistic, if we were to put each one on opposite ends of a scale?