3 boxing vs 5 boxing for PvP

Hi all,

I am thinking of running 3 ele shaman's but am wondering how much 'ownage' am I giving up by not running 5? I'm probably going to just PvP on them and take the slow road to 80 (mostly BG's).

I figure once I hit 80 I could do 3v3 arena for some points and slow gear them out. Although with rated BG's (and having to queue with 5 people?) it is somewhat tempting to do a full 5.

The other consideration for me is cost. Although I can handle an extra $30ish a month I don't want to waste it nor do I want this to feel like a job with having 5 guys I have to take care of.

You should compromise and play 4 :P

Sticking with 3 to start just wondering if 5 is worth the effort for PvP battlegrounds. The way I kind of figure it is my team is probably more useful with 2 other real people than 2 more of me. I think there is an optimal amount for battlegrounds (not sure what is it). Obviously playing 10 guys at once you would lose horribly.

4 imo is the best number. It gives you enough firepower to wtfgib someone in a GCD or 2. Not sure that 3 have the power to do that.

What I found was controlling 5 toons is minimal work over 3. Past setting up macros, the small things you'll notice are toons getting stuck more often on terrain, fearbombs take a little more to get reorganized, etc.

I started with 3 and it was great fun, so I would never discourage anyone against it. Depending on gear, the CCs can be a lot worse, as you'll find one geared rogue can sap one, blind another and go to town on your last one, and even with trinkets, he'll just vanish rinse and repeat and that can be a little painful. With 4-5, you'll survive those scenarios a lot easier while gearing up.

I would recommend going with five.
Three will work, if you prefer.

With a predominantly pvp oriented group of five toons...
I'd look hard at 4x Shaman, 1x Druid (dual-spec).

Have the Druid go Boomkin (and never drop stance for healing), in pvp.
That gets you 13% additional damage on the other toons.
Which is probably a fair bit more total damage from 5 toons (even not managing Eclipse) then 5 shammies would produce.
You can approximate Eclipse with 3-4x Wrath, 3x Starfire chains, for roughly half the effect of Eclipse now.
And Eclipse is going to be far easier to manage in Cataclysm.
Also, the big plus... Dual-spec the Druid to Feral.
Which gets you a strong tank for PvE play... and badges (heroics) are faster PvP gearing then grinding battlegrounds.

Plus you can then run PvE for variety and such.

4 + find a handful of healers to join you in BG. It doubles my effectiveness and would always prefer that over 5 shaman. Besides that it's easier, relaxer to play.

I play 5 chars, but when I do raids/bgs/arenas I only run the 4 shamans. Better synergy and more fun getting a dedicated healer :)

With great power comes great responsibility.

It's great having 5 characters so that you can instagib a few people, but remember that you're literally half the team in WSG, and 1/3rd the team in AB/EotS. Every decision you make can have a huge impact on the game, and if you make mistakes everyone will blame it on you.

I settled with 4 because 3 is too weak and 5 is too many :)

I for one almost never win WSG. Maybe I just need more practice. Or maybe I need some heirlooms to twink with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toned

I play 5 chars, but when I do raids/bgs/arenas I only run the 4 shamans. Better synergy and more fun getting a dedicated healer :)

---

Ya this is something i have always wondered. Shaman big plus is they can heal and dps. When you get a dedicated healer then the plan will be to use the shaman to dps. Wouldn't a pure dps class such as mage be better in that case as they dps better, given you dont plan to use the shaman for healing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker

Ya this is something i have always wondered. Shaman big plus is they can heal and dps. When you get a dedicated healer then the plan will be to use the shaman to dps. Wouldn't a pure dps class such as mage be better in that case as they dps better, given you dont plan to use the shaman for healing?

---

4 shaman do more dps then any single dps.

1 healer heals more then 4 elemental shaman.

So you can or chose to spent time healing yourself if you want to paly at max efficiency or you can take a healer along and only heal when it's really needed.

I find that i'm double as effective when i got an awesome healer with me, since once you go defensive as 4 shaman without a healer, it's tough to get some proper offense going vs 3-5+ players.

Im on the 4 boxing boat as well.

For instances, I just 4 heal/dps with 4 ele shaman. it works.

For BGs/arena, get a healer to go with you. When the healer is getting trained, I can pour 25k heals on him every 1.5 sec, or I can chain heal myself as needed.

The reason a deidcated healer makes more sense is that if you are constantly getting damage poured on you, then when you stop healing to dps, you can only dps for just so long before your characters have to stop so heal the low hp toons back to full, before going back to kill your target, which has since been healed to full as well.....

I play 3.

I used to play 4 or sometimes 5, but I like 3 alot better.

I find it more enjoyable, since I am not counted on to carry the entire BG. (minus the 40 man bgs)

I enjoy 3v3 arena more than 5s so thats what I focus on. I play Lock-double healer and I play wiz cleave(lock/ele/druid) and double ele shammy- disc priest. Granted I cant play the same way other teams would with individual players, but that is a bonus when it comes to coordination.

I found that it is easier to setup cc, since I have them bound to my naga mouse for arenatargets. Playing 5s was just too much to handle regarding cc, so your only choice is to gib people.

You should try out everything and find out what works for you. It sometimes can differ than the standardized models voiced on this site.

I play 4.

3 chars can be good in cata (rated bg) but 4 chars are better now because it is the only way to play arenas

I almost always play 5. Just nice having a full team ready to go at anytime. I don't need to rely on anyone.

If you have 3 or 4 without a healer, it's a LOT less fun.

Quote:

---

When you get a dedicated healer then the plan will be to use the shaman to dps. Wouldn't a pure dps class such as mage be better in that case as they dps better, given you dont plan to use the shaman for healing?

---

The advantage of using shamans is they have a relatively uncomplicated spell rotation, while still being able to put out huge amounts of burst with a powerful lavaburst, fast chain lightning and elemental mastery to put the nail in the coffin. Combine that with the fact that they can pump out pretty alright heals if needed to (but i wouldnt rely on it or else your team begins to look like a 3/4/5 person pvp tank, quite expensive when you consider the size of most bgs)
To take your example of a mage, they are more complicated to multibox in comparison as they all have procs which you wouldnt be able to exploit, and trying to manage things like frostnovas and blinks all at the same time is going to be tough going - I can guarantee there would always be one that blinks off in the wrong direction. Pretty much all 'pure' dps classes have these elements, making them harder to multibox effectively.

Regarding team size, its really just a matter of personal preference. I'm currently rolling 3 shamans, more because I don't think a 4th would justify the extra monthly cost than anything. 4 is a sensible combo if you are considering 5v5 arena (you will do much better with 4 and a healer than 5 dps. You could always spec one of them resto, but that would get ugly quickly). 5 is good fun, purely because 5 lava bursts kills pretty much anything, but theres then a lot of pressure to perform in battlegrounds. Imagine a WSG with 10, individual people in. If 5 of those people all clustered together that is going to hurt your chances of winning pretty badly. That will only get worse if it is 1 person controlling all of those characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kicksome

If you have 3 or 4 without a healer, it's a LOT less fun.

---

Is your opinion ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littleburst

Is your opinion ;)

---

agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emenems

3 chars can be good in cata (rated bg) but 4 chars are better now because it is the only way to play arenas

---

Damn then what the hell have I been doin for the past 3 months.



The mindset of the boxer and their advice needs to evolve. Seriously.

im playing 4 eles and when 1 dies i feel like there is no pressure left to kill a healer or well geared people, so with 5 eles the "pwnage" will be much better than 3. Five groundings and tremors are also better than 3.

I ran around in bg's with 4 shammies and it wasn't to bad. WSG was actually pretty decent for me since I could kill the flag carrier despite massive pressure. SotA was terrible though. AV was juicy since you could protect a tower like no other (TS everyone out the window lol).

I keep wanting to try running the 3v3 arena, but either am too lazy or worry about not having enough resilience.