Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

ejangle wrote:
1 year ago
For what it's worth, one of the best PVP warriors in vanilla was undead (assuming you'll agree that Laintime deserves that distinction).

If you fancy the UD aesthetic, an extra CC break, or the ability to insult/cannibalize your enemy, rolling undead vs. orc isn't going to be the thing that makes you bad or good.
Yeah, a lot of us chose suboptimal specs because we didn't have the same access to information that we do now. The time investment it took to get 60 was/is immense. It was simply too late for most of us to switch once we had arrived at 60. In an era where keybinds separated you from the bottom tier of players, you had a lot of wiggle room to make poor choices and still win. The new generation that will be returning to Classic are used to min/maxing. The differences in racials will matter in the top tier of play. WoTF is not a bad racial, the issue is that +25% stun resist is massive. There are more stuns in the game than there are fears and warriors already have answers to fears, they only have a trinket to answer stuns (Good pvpers will be cycling trinkets and this may not even be equipped). Hardiness is superior to WoTF for warriors unless they are specifically fighting alliance warlocks, who will be underpopulated due to the fact that the horde will boast a whopping 40-50% undead populace. This increase in population discourages serious alliance PvPers to roll as a warlock in some circumstances. Regardless, stun resist will serve you better against the majority of your opponents. Even the competent warlocks you face will have grenades, meaning they will still have a meaningful ranged stun.

See Deathwish, Recklessness and Berserker Rage (30 second cooldown, immunity for 10 seconds). WoTF is overkill for a warrior who already has the ability to remove fear AND become immune to it in a variety of ways.

   ejangle
g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Psojed wrote:
1 year ago
Well, you can pick members for your premade however you see fit. But when I pick members for a premade, I won't look at which race you're playing, I'll look at how good you are at playing your class.
Yes, some racials are better than other racials. Hardiness is certainly not better than Will of the Forsaken.
Premades will win the majority of their games. You could run 10 prot warriors and have a good shot against unorganized groups of turds. The reality is that most "good" players, will make good choices and thus will min/max. Part of being good is being prepared by taking the best racial, spec, professions, consumes and gearing. Min/maxing your racial is one small part of being good. All these subtle advantages add up. Which is why good players will choose optimal racials. Hardiness is definitively better than WoTF as a general racial for warriors. To say otherwise is ignorant.
Psojed wrote:
1 year ago
Nobody asked you to :) Like I said, race is a personal preference thing. To each their own.
Agreed. Until we begin to enter the realm of what is optimal. Then there is a best. OP's questions are related to performance. If you dont care about your performance and prefer to make choices based on aesthetics, all the power to you! Just dont try to justify those choices by saying your choices can be justified by sub optimal racials... They cant be.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
Ashenvale
User avatar
Posts: 270
Likes: 160
Alliance
Shaman
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Whenever you see a pally doing its thing you're going to wish you were there.

But most of the time those Alliance warriors are toughing it out alone in the trenches. Most of those pallies are ret, and you don't want to be that guy trying to demand heals. a) Never works, b) They were once that guy and that's why they're playing a ret pally: to heal themselves.

Unless you heavily emphasize teamplay, or know someone already who will be the pally as @Stfuppercut already mentioned, the orc is going to be the choice for you since it seems you enjoy the lore and look better already. You're getting best PvE + PvP racials in one, not a bad deal at all.

   Stfuppercut
User avatar
Posts: 61
Likes: 30
Horde
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

One piece of advice that served me well solo queueing in rando-scrub BG's is to pick a healer (or healing class) and defend them in the battle early on. More often than not, they'll reciprocate and throw some heals back in your direction. Perhaps common sense, but I've found in MMO's that common sense isn't so common.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

ejangle wrote:
1 year ago
One piece of advice that served me well solo queueing in rando-scrub BG's is to pick a healer (or healing class) and defend them in the battle early on. More often than not, they'll reciprocate and throw some heals back in your direction. Perhaps common sense, but I've found in MMO's that common sense isn't so common.
You were lucky enough to join pugs and get healers?! Hahahaha. You arent wrong though, support your healers so that they are inclined to help you and keep queuing. Outside of premades, you will rarely see healers in battlegrounds. These guys get scooped up SO fast on teams. The reality of being a solo queue healer is pretty bleak, I dont question why so few bother to queue up.

   ejangle
g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 61
Likes: 30
Horde
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
ejangle wrote:
1 year ago
One piece of advice that served me well solo queueing in rando-scrub BG's is to pick a healer (or healing class) and defend them in the battle early on. More often than not, they'll reciprocate and throw some heals back in your direction. Perhaps common sense, but I've found in MMO's that common sense isn't so common.
You were lucky enough to join pugs and get healers?! Hahahaha. You arent wrong though, support your healers so that they are inclined to help you and keep queuing. Outside of premades, you will rarely see healers in battlegrounds. These guys get scooped up SO fast on teams. The reality of being a solo queue healer is pretty bleak, I dont question why so few bother to queue up.
True, true, which is why I caveated my statement with "or healing class" because many of the priests, paladins, shamans, and druids that solo-queue are meme specced for damage. That said, they still have the innate ability to heal (albeit mana inefficient, etc.) and in my experience, are willing to toss a few heals your direction if you pay it forward. It won't be the same as having a dedicated healer but in random BG's, it's kind of an "any port in the storm" scenario.

   Stfuppercut
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
9 months ago (1.13.3)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
I don't want to turn this into an Orc vs Tauren debate but if you are choosing a PvP race for warrior on horde side from a min/max perspective. Orc is the clear choice. This topic has been done to death on this forum (mostly because of me). Tauren increased range works both ways, making them one of the easiest warriors to kite and making taurens have a very difficult time dodging aoe's/snares. Depending on what version of leeway we get, tauren range could be substantial, but this will typically hurt you without a dedicated healer. If you have a dedicated healer, range is excellent though.

Sorry to Necro this but you seem informed!

For those of us lucky enough to always be playing with a pocket (gf priest), it feels like Tauren is an awesome choice. More range for SS+Whirlwind bombs and dealing with kiters. And the priest is a stun magnet

Should I still consider Orc?

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
9 months ago (1.13.3)
 •  Unread

Itwasfree wrote:
9 months ago
Sorry to Necro this but you seem informed!

For those of us lucky enough to always be playing with a pocket (gf priest), it feels like Tauren is an awesome choice. More range for SS+Whirlwind bombs and dealing with kiters. And the priest is a stun magnet

Should I still consider Orc?
In your circumstance, a strong case could be made for either. You should still consider orc, but you wouldnt be choosing poorly if you went with a tauren. In my experience, I would still prefer the stun resist to the additional range. The extra stun resist helps contribute to you being able to peel for your healer and not be CC'd, and it also contributes to additional damage or critical damage that you can do instead of being stunned. A taurens reach can be the edge that wins you a fight. An orcs stun resist can be the edge that wins you a fight. As predicted, a HUGE portion of the Classic playerbase is min/maxing and engineering grenades are being tossed constantly in PvP if you are on a PvP realm. Warstomp blends nicely with a healer as well, because they can combo a heal off of your stomp. Outside of PvP, the +axes is BiS for warriors on horde side in PvE and if you are serious about PvP, you will be getting some gear from PvE.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
9 months ago (1.13.3)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
9 months ago
Itwasfree wrote:
9 months ago
Sorry to Necro this but you seem informed! For those of us lucky enough to always be playing with a pocket (gf priest), should I still consider Orc?
A taurens reach can be the edge that wins you a fight. An orcs stun resist can be the edge that wins you a fight. As predicted, a HUGE portion of the Classic playerbase is min/maxing and engineering grenades are being tossed constantly in PvP if you are on a PvP realm.
Cheers for the advice! Glad to know I can't go wrong. Perhaps I'll go with aesthetics in the end. Not sure where I'll land, love Taurens' size, love Orc animations

Is there a resource to check out how the two look running around? YouTube is spotty

User avatar
US Incendius
Posts: 37
Likes: 11
Alliance
Warlock
9 months ago (1.13.3)
 •  Unread

Well if you go Undead you'll look super cool since not many people play it (honestly can't say I've ever seen an undead warrior now that I think about it...)

And if you can wreck face as undead you'll look 100x better because people know you didn't choose it for the racial

Also I think WoTF might be useful if you're caught outside of berserker stance by a warlock. Actually you'll counter warlocks pretty hard because a lot of them use Charm to win fights against warriors (I just face tank and wait for berserker rage to wear off :D)

User avatar
OC Felstriker
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
Human
Paladin
8 months ago (1.13.3)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
Latsiv wrote:
1 year ago
it looks like you and others are sold on orcs, and that's fine. taking a hammer of justice and then getting molested by a pally in gear that you wish you had, sucks. stuns are good in pvp and hardiness is awesome.

but i want to offer a different perspective, at least as it relates to warriors in pvp.

i prefer my strong abilities to be ones i can use tactically, not a passive chance of something not happening (and some classes have 0 stuns to worry about anyway). warstomp is amazing for warriors because it works best when you're in the middle of things - where a warrior is right at home. an aoe stun is useful against every class, in every facet of pvp (world pvp, bg's, duels, you name it).

you know what else is useful in pvp? health. health is always important, and tauren have the most of anybody. in vanilla it is 5% of your total hp, so all of the gear that increases your hp (are there many of those in pvp? :lol:) is 5% more effective.

how about one of our favorite auto clicker topics around here, tauren hitboxes! the increased melee "reach" is a slight disadvantage against melee enemies, but the bonus of hitting ranged characters from almost 2 yards farther away is godly. you get hit more because you're the easiest to click on? that's the healer's problem, just means more rage![

and if it's the sort of thing that matters to you, tauren have the biggest shoulder armor :cool:

I don't want to turn this into an Orc vs Tauren debate but if you are choosing a PvP race for warrior on horde side from a min/max perspective. Orc is the clear choice. This topic has been done to death on this forum (mostly because of me). Tauren increased range works both ways, making them one of the easiest warriors to kite and making taurens have a very difficult time dodging aoe's/snares. Depending on what version of leeway we get, tauren range could be substantial, but this will typically hurt you without a dedicated healer. If you have a dedicated healer, range is excellent though. The shitty reality for most warriors is that they will spend the bulk of their game time WITHOUT a dedicated healer.

I'd also like to touch on this... "some classes have 0 stuns". This is untrue. IF you are basing your race choice on performance, you should be making choices based on opponents of equal skill and preparedness which means ALL of your competent opponents will have engineering and thus, have a stun. A meaningful ranged stun that has potential to completely change the momentum of a fight.

When we look at classes though... Spriest has a stun. Warriors have multiple stuns. Rogues have multiple stuns. Druids have stuns. Fire mages have a stun. Hunters have stuns. Paladins have a stun. All of them have nades. Most of them will use other stun based gear pieces like tidal charm. This doesn't even account for prevalent weapons like Unstoppable Force which will be wielded by a LARGE portion of the playerbase as THE premier welfare epic 2hander.

This leaves us with Warlock and Shaman? Shamans will be on your team as horde so they don't really matter... So warlocks? Of your opponents as a horde warrior, Warlocks are the only class without a stun but ALL competent opponents will have engineering. We will have to see the final version of leeway and you will have consider if you have a dedicated healer who will quite literally follow you around at all times, but outside of this, Orc is far superior.

Tauren HP racial is base hp (is it not?) and is garbage for PvP to be honest. Warstomp is okay but is nothing compared to Hardiness. Add axe spec for PvE and Blood Fury and Orcs are definitively superior.

Choosing a race for alliance warriors is a bit more nuanced... Gnomes present an excellent case for PvP and Humans are BiS for PVE. Dwarves are no slouches and Shadowmeld has some great world PvP applications as well as flag defense in BG's. The nightelf and dwarf being the weakest two options here, but alliance warriors have a lot to think about. Horde do not.


Orc is nutty for both PvE and PvP. You want axes. Rogues cant use axes. You want plate. No other class uses plate. You will compete against warriors. Enhance shamans will take some 2handers but there are FAR fewer enhances than there are rets. Most serious alliance guilds will make room for a ret or two, most serious horde guilds MAY run a single enhance for nightfall, but even this can be rare. This is likely due to the shear population of Rets, there are a ton of them. Shammies result in far less competition for your 2handers.

Similar topics
to 'Horde and Alliance warrior: I've been trying to make a choice for weeks now'
Posts ViewsLast post

Latest Blue Posts

View all
  • Screenshot of the Month

    View gallery