Community Manager
|
We’ve recently posted a Dev Watercooler in which Ghostcrawler lays out several different models for how class roles could be designed in World of Warcraft in the future. We’ve locked down comments in the blog post and are instead asking that if people would like to discuss the topic, they do so here in this thread.
Please first read through the entire article, and if you have any comments or would like to discuss the pros and cons with others, that you please do so in this thread. Thanks! |
#1
2/8/2012
|
|
Edited by Martouff on 2/8/12 6:07 PM (PST)
No matter how they do it, some people will love it, and some people will hate it. Good article as always though.
|
|
I like it, we really feel like we are expendable nowadays and that people don't feel as if they're unique.
|
|
Edited by Aesis on 2/8/12 11:16 PM (PST)
I think the game has matured thus far to the point where people roll a class with the expectations to only play one spec. I think people should be able to play what they want in any situation, but I also think the classes should feel and play differently enough that changing specs has a meaningful impact on the player experience. I think all specs should be able to aoe, burst and long term dps. I also think utility between specs is the key on making them feel different. Ghostcrawler pointed out in the past that the game feels like it has 30 specs that need balancing rather than 10 classes. I agree with his sentiments.
I like Model three- This model, where you swap to bring different utility is a good one. All Dps and healers need to be able to do their job in both single target and aoe as a fundamental rule. Utility is a different thing all together. Different utilities help specs feel different. I might gem my fury war differently than my arms war because i know he has that 5 percent crit buff attached to his spec. I still however feel confident with both specs being able to fundamentally do their job. Having a boomkin give knock back when a feral cannot is fun. Its fun to be able to do different things (not directly relating to dps) between different specs. Right now it appears that with mop alot of the utilities are up for grabs between all specs. The combination of different rotations, unshared utility, different stat priorities, and application of kit can help the specs remain distinct to the player. The one thing that scared me about three was you mentioning (the “utility” spec who does middling DPS, but brings a lot of synergy and utility that improves all of the other specs). Utility should not be given at the cost of dps. Spread Utility out between specs, but keep the dps constant. Dislike Model four- the spec with a pve choice and a pvp choice is the one I dislike the most. The point of having multiple trees is to give a sense of choice. It sucked back in the day when druids could only heal in pvp, and I like being able to have choice on my play style in both pvp and pve. It breaks up monotony and offers new avenues of play even if you only like to pvp or only pve. I would rather tell the game I want to pvp as a fire mage, rather than the game telling me I have to pvp as a frost mage. Dislike Model two - Everyone has specialties- This just feels like a variation of model four. Specialties is what makes certain specs viable for pvp and certain specs not viable. I could see an aoe spec that simply handles pvp dps differently but is still viable under certain comps. Still it feels like the probability of a person playing the specs is rooted in what it does, rather than how it feels and the kit behind it. I dislike this. In a perfect world people should play a spec based on the kit behind it, not what it offers. For example Mages can cc well. I like fire. I shouldnt have to go frost to cc well as a mage. I sorta like Model one but...- This is where the game is heading and I dont think its a good direction to go. Model one suggests a situation where people will *never* want to leave their current spec. Its also a situation where specs with similar roles dont feel very different. If your affliction spec can do everything your destruction spec can, whats the point of having a destro spec? Specs need to feel different, but in ways that dont make one inherently better than the other. Specs need to be able to burst and be able to have sustained dmg ,yes, but I dont like giving every class a 1 min cd. Hybridization is something to beware. I suggest balancing extreme instances like spine of deathwing around raid mechanics. If burst is needed frequently, then have a feature specific to the fight that enables that burst. I Dislike Model Five This is something that probably isnt a good idea given how we are now seven years used to how our trees offer multiple roles of the same thing. I dont support it, because even if it were the right decision, right now isnt the time to be considering it. One interesting thing is how you said if you could do it over, you would design the trees differently. Both Rift and Swtor have talent trees with redundant roles present. Its surprising how the other developers remain fairly consistent on talent trees despite how old the concept is. In Summation, I like model three the most. Give all specs the ability to do their jobs( aka burst and aoe when needed). Similar dps, fairly similar burst uptime ( but the extreme requirements like those of spine need to be met through raid dynamics rather than forcing everyone to have the same cd up and downtime). Make specs feel different through class specific utility. Things that fit niches, but are not mandatory on paper. Utility does not have to be limited to buffs as im sure you know. PvP wise, strive to make all specs viable in pvp. PvP wise, let all specs be able to burst, cc, and otherwise, within the limits of their class design, but make sure they do it differently. Dispelling destro might stop its burst, where as for affliction you need to focus on interrupting. Everyone is capable of burst, but both do it in different ways and are suppressed in different ways. WoW is seven years old and showing its age, but I have to hand it to you devs for pushing the genre forwards in regards to game design. Rift came with alot of extraneous talents similar to the wrath of the lich king trees. Swtor has a smaller talent offering with only a few talents to choose after the main spec is fulfilled, similar to the cataclysm rendition. I can only imagine guild wars 2 will have something resembling Mists of Pandaria trees. Thanks for reading and posting an excellent blog -Cheers ;-) TLDR: Dislike 4 ( being able to pvp or pve only as one spec was terrible back in bc), Dislike 2( specializations are bad business you roll the spec because you like its kit not because it does more aoe). 1 is ok but leads to homogenization, 5 is unrealistic or at the very least beyond the scope of MOP. 3 is a nice way to handle things. Utility is the difference maker, but production remains consistent |
|
i vote number 5
|
|
Edited by Lorinall on 2/8/12 6:09 PM (PST)
Please first read through the entire article, Request denied. edit Okay, for the sake of being constructive, I will say that I like the new logo you're using. Also, the forums are a much better place to have this sort of discussion than the blog post. Those got filled with meaningless spam pretty quickly. |
|
Why didn't GC just post the thread himself? :P Silly crab. Makes a blog then sends us to the forums to talk about him without ever replying.
|
|
Edited by Alona on 2/8/12 6:17 PM (PST)
I read through the entire blog and I agree and disagree on some points. I disagree that none of those ideas is the right one because the idea is that you need to get a combination of the feel of all of them in order to provide what you guys are looking for. However, I have never liked the idea of just reverting all characters to hybrids. When I sign on to a certain class I generally play that class in one role. I hated having to gear my hybrids for multiple roles for those nights when someone would ask if I could swap to heals/DPS because so and so was missing. But the vanilla model was awful as well because it meant that as a shaman, I was resto. Period. End of story.
I do think the game should be about bringing the player and not the class, and people should be able to play the spec/role that suits them the most. The uniqueness that has been lost in terms of paring down the talent trees and spellbooks could be found elsewhere in characters through things that you guys haven't even scratched the surface of. Transmog was a great start to make us feel more unique, but tauren female characters have had the same hairstyles for going on 7 years now. When you strip the uniqueness from character mechanics, you need to add it back in elsewhere so that the balance isn't lost for the players. Time and time again these kinds of things have been put on the backburner. The dance studio, the mostly failed hair salon, character skins, etc. have all fallen by the wayside. Perhaps if you all explored these avenues more people would complain less about their characters not being unique to them anymore. I also think that PVP and PVE specs should be separated again if anything than for the fact that it's so much easier to balance them when it's like that. It certainly pigeonholes PVP talents, but at the same time everyone is already using cookiecutter builds anyway. At least if you made dedicated PVP specs you could tweak those talent trees as you saw fit to give people more options within them rather than just kind of muddling them with PVE stuff. I'm pretty terrible at PVP, but even I can see that the development of PVP related things has fallen a bit by the wayside. We have three specs, we can only use two at any given time anyway. PVP should never be sacrificed for the sake of PVE mechanics, and vice-versa. So in all I think the game has made great strides towards game balance. I feel like the stacking in the raid fights is the result of what happens every time heroic modes go into the game. Certain fights work better for certain classes and eventually the rest catch up. It kinda sucks but short of making it so that raid bosses all use the same mechanics over and over again there's nothing that can be done. It gets to be a problem when certain classes (*cough resto shaman at the start of cata*) are never brought or stacked (*coughdruids*) continually. And at that point it becomes a matter of looking at the class being left out and figuring out why it's happening and whether it's the fault of the raid model or the class itself. So in short, nothing is ever easy. You just have to take things day by day and hope it works out. |
|
Edited by Frostfel on 2/8/12 6:17 PM (PST)
I like what Ghostcrawler wrote. Now all Specs wil lbe more or less equal/pure. no more mixing and matching talents.
Mages, you want the movement bonus from Blink? You must now roll Arcane. Plates, you want Bonus 3-10% armor? You must now roll Tank spec. No more dipping into other trees. I actually think that's fair. |
|
Edited by Coriel on 2/8/12 6:19 PM (PST)
There is a model missing.
Model 6: Do not have multiple specs for certain classes. There is only one rogue, hunter, warlock, mage spec. Balance that spec against the other classes. Two warrior specs: tanking, melee dps. Two priest specs: healing, ranged dps. Three shaman specs: healing, melee dps, ranged dps. Three paladin specs: healing, melee dps, tanking Four druid specs: healing, melee dps, ranged dps, tanking This is like Model 5, but no need to add new specs into the game to cover totally new roles. Just remove specs. Of course, a lot of players woud howl. I don't think this would be a good solution in the current WoW. But it would get rid of the arms race between Arcane Mage and Fire Mage. There would be only Mage. |
|
I was under the impression Model 2 was the design intent of MoP (at least when the details at Blizzcon were released). But of those, a combo between 2 and 3 would probably be the best choice going forward.
|
|
Thank god this isn't about Tanking or Healing, since model 1 pretty much must apply to those roles. At least for critical functions.
In terms of DPS I think model 2 is probably the "best" option. The biggest problem with it is that suddenly "hybrid" classes (Druid/Shaman/Paladin) may suddenly find themselves without the tools necesarry to fill their intended role. Further having to maintain two distinct viable gear sets (Feral vs Moonkin, Enh vs Ele, Ret vs Anything) is a pretty big strain on a character that the "pure" classes don't really have to deal with. That could easily be fixed by toning the DPS checks the hell down and requiring more execution based encounters than simply stacking one class composition because they have the highest kind of DPS you need. As for the rest of them.... Model 1 is easily the hardest (See tanks and healers), and probably not worthwhile to bother with anymore unless / until PvP and PvE are split entirely. Model 3 I don't really have a problem with either, as long as the options exist. What the heck is a Ret Paladin to do with only 1 DPS spec? What about the Monk? If we're moving most of the "utility" to the talents themselves then the problem goes away and this suddenly becomes the ideal option. Model 4 is dead and died in BC. Leave it that way. Model 5 would certainly be interesting, but I think the ROI on it is drastically too small to attempt. Especially this late in the game. |
|
Varieties and competitiveness are equally important. All dps specs must be variable in both pvp and pve. Make all must-haves things such as short burst cooldowns and pvp cc talents and make people choose. What this boils down to is spec equal flavors and talents equal power.
The closest model would be #1 I guess. |
10 Undead Warrior
50
|
Edited by Seneselina on 2/8/12 6:26 PM (PST)
Can we do something about being unable to switch specs without visiting a reforger and spending 300+ gold.
Because, say, fire and arcane, have completely different stat rankings, you would have to reforge almost every piece of gear, change gems, and enchants, just to use another spec to be optimal on one fight. |
|
The correct decision is a melding of model 3 and model 5. Every "pure" DPS spec needs to become a hybrid, but not by getting a tank or healer spec, but by being given a true fourth role.
The problem with the way this model was implemented in Burning Crusade is because the utility specs weren't really utility specs. They were DPS specs who brought utility while performing a DPS rotation. The poster child of this, the Shadow Priest, had no option to do DPS at all since the other two specs were both for healing. It was too specialized, as you had to have a Shadow Priest, not any of a handful of specs that brought utility. To really make model 2 work you have to really commit to it. Dungeon finder needs to create groups of a healer, a tank, a utility spec, and 2 dps. They need their own forum, and the way they bring utility shouldn't be exactly the same as doing dps, except they do less of it. A true utility spec should have different gameplay and be making different decisions then a damage dealer. Take all of those interrupts, crowd controls, offensive dispels, and non-damaging debuffs and put them on one spec. Give the arcane mage time warp, polymorph, etc... Make it so those players that choose Survival, or Affliction, or Assassination are those DPS party member who are always looking to interrupt, or the first to volunteer when something needs dispelled or cc'd. Then support that fourth role in your dungeon design. It could be good for the game in a lot of ways. It would reward those former dps players who excel at those tasks extra tasks and want to shine at helping their party in a different way than tanking/healing. Plus they would probably have shorter queues than their pure damage dealing alternate specs. It also clearly communicates that when you choose damage dealing, that's what you will be doing: dealing damage. Those players who only want to pew pew would only have to worry about not standing in the fire and not all that other stuff they thought they were going to get to avoid by picking dps. It could also help dismantle the "arms race" of every spec getting their own interrupt/cc/dispel/self-heal...etc... It could also be damaging by increasing queues and making it a little bit harder to form a party. But there would no longer be anything called a "pure." And Players supposedly hate homogenization right? Adding a fourth role would be a big, bold step away from homogenization. |
|
Edited by Empirical on 2/8/12 6:27 PM (PST)
I personally prefer "Model Four – There is just a best spec for PvP and PvE" for the same reason DKs were changed so Blood = Tank spec. It allows 1 spec to be focused on and get all the goodies, without worrying about blowing balance out of the water. As someone else said, people are just going to gravitate towards one spec or the other anyway, all Blizzard would be doing is saving a trip to an outside forum for a talent/spec calculator. That said, I think all specs should be allowed in pve and pvp, with the understanding it just isn't going to be as good.
edit: As far as pve goes, I'm happy with what you've been doing. You keep arcane good for a couple tiers, buff/nerf and I get to play fire for a few :P I really miss Wrath launch Frostfire bolt spec though! |
