Warrior Feedback after interview

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

"

Gwonam#5505 wrote:

My somewhat-optimistic outlook is that the devs are mostly focused on how classes feel in campaign, and were caught off-guard by how many complaints focus on endgame. Jonathan's comment of "Warrior feels fine in campaign" seems to reflect this.

Which is bizarre. Because the Warrior feels awful in the campaign too.

It works. It's not fast at all, but it works just fine with the "GGG intended" mechanics and play with things like heavy stunning bosses for mega-sunders. Just requires luck with getting a decent weapon, mostly.

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

Which is bizarre. Because the Warrior feels awful in the campaign too.

No it doesnt

Yes it does. Everything is stunted and ineffectual. Compared to every other class in the game, the Warrior is objectively worse and I like the Warrior...

The flow of the class is just not there, the damage isn't there and the defensive abilities are not there. It just doesn't feel good to play.

I WANT A TANK.

Look I have always played a Tank class, in D&D, AD&D, my 5 years in WoW as a Main tank (first 5 years, not now) and now in pretty much all games I play a Tank/Melee char. And yea I suffer for it.

Give me the ability to eat all the damage, even if it takes me twice as long to clear a map or kill a boss. But that it, just twice as Long. Not this its impossible to play as a Tank/melee, that is happening now.

Melee is spouse to be able to take punishment, they never top the charts for DPS, or healing. But slow and steadily wear out their opposition. Trying to do this in SSF, rough.

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

Yes it does. Everything is stunted and ineffectual. Compared to every other class in the game, the Warrior is objectively worse and I like the Warrior...

The flow of the class is just not there, the damage isn't there and the defensive abilities are not there. It just doesn't feel good to play.

There is no trouble with warrior in the campaign. Its a hard skill issue on your part if that is the case.

Even Johnathan said he doesn't experience any issues in the campaign on warrior lol.

"

Gwonam#5505 wrote:

"

Axterix13#5693 wrote:

- Pretty much every serious warrior uses a 2h mace and shield. This speaks volumes as to how messed up the situation is defensively, and that 1h maces are way too weak compared to the 2h ones.

This one might be really difficult to fix, unfortunately, unless they give Giant's Blood some serious maluses that make you think twice about one-handing 2h weapons. My heart actually sank when I saw that node on the tree. It's the WoW Titan's Grip dilemma all over again: Why would I ever use a single 2h weapon or two 1h weapons when I could just use two 2h weapons, each with bigger stat boosts than 1h weapons?

It has a serious one, though, with the triple strength requirement. And I've already seen multiple people who play mace complain about that exact downside, that they have to invest too much into strength and/or feel like having the "lower requirements" mod line on the weapon is required.

Those complaints to me are a prime example of a situation where players know there is an issue, but don't exactly lay out the root cause of the issue. Here, they dislike the feel of 1h so much, feel it is so lackluster, that they don't even consider 1h. The problem, for them, therefore must be with Giant's Strength, rather than them feeling that Giant's Strength is a must have. Though I do think the lower stat requirements mod is a bit stronger than it should be.

But anyway, given that the node does have a pretty hefty drawback, I'm inclined to lean in the direction of the 1h mace being underpowered, and that shouldn't be that hard to fix, to close the gap between the two a bit. After all, the way it should go is, offensively speaking, is DW2h > DW1h >> 2h + shield > 1h + shield. But right now, I don't think that's really the case.

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

Yes it does. Everything is stunted and ineffectual. Compared to every other class in the game, the Warrior is objectively worse and I like the Warrior...

The flow of the class is just not there, the damage isn't there and the defensive abilities are not there. It just doesn't feel good to play.

There is no trouble with warrior in the campaign. Its a hard skill issue on your part if that is the case.

Even Johnathan said he doesn't experience any issues in the campaign on warrior lol.

Stop pretending I said things I didn't. I said it doesn't feel good. Many people have gotten Warriors to end game, a LOT of them will agree that it doesn't feel good to do so. These are different issues.

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

Stop pretending I said things I didn't. I said it doesn't feel good. Many people have gotten Warriors to end game, a LOT of them will agree that it doesn't feel good to do so. These are different issues.

Yeah, and I think the interviewers brought this up nicely. They basically mentioned the masochist aspect, or essentially, that people playing mace know it feels bad, but they play it regardless.

Mace feels the worst of all the weapons, and by a considerable margin.

And, honestly, if mace wasn't the only melee weapon (quarterstaff is way too ranged to feel melee), if sword, spear, and axe were there as alternatives, we'd probably see a lot fewer mace players. Assuming at least one of those was a proper melee weapon, and not all half-ranged like Quarterstaff.

"

Axterix13#5693 wrote:

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

Stop pretending I said things I didn't. I said it doesn't feel good. Many people have gotten Warriors to end game, a LOT of them will agree that it doesn't feel good to do so. These are different issues.

Yeah, and I think the interviewers brought this up nicely. They basically mentioned the masochist aspect, or essentially, that people playing mace know it feels bad, but they play it regardless.

Mace feels the worst of all the weapons, and by a considerable margin.

And, honestly, if mace wasn't the only melee weapon (quarterstaff is way too ranged to feel melee), if sword, spear, and axe were there as alternatives, we'd probably see a lot fewer mace players. Assuming at least one of those was a proper melee weapon, and not all half-ranged like Quarterstaff.

Yes, I think that adding more weapon choices might help the Warrior a lot.
Mace's always feel kinda slow and cumbersome in ARPG's. So I get it, but the big issues is have no other option at the moment.

2 words....
MAX BLOCK the warrior has more blocky noides than duelist had pre nerf ..im resting this theroy out

"

Soop#0082 wrote:

Yes, I think that adding more weapon choices might help the Warrior a lot.
Mace's always feel kinda slow and cumbersome in ARPG's. So I get it, but the big issues is have no other option at the moment.

Well, I don't think it helps "warriors" if there are other weapons. Because when people say warrior, they mean "mace". Sure, if axe exists, warriors can take the axe, but axe will be tied to Marauder, and Marauder will have the early nodes and ascendancies more tailored to it.

Rather, what I'm saying is that there's only one melee weapon right now, so anyone wanting to play melee has to play the lackluster Mace.