So... Why don't we have Tri-Spec yet?

General Discussion
Prev 1 31 32 33 84 Next


No one has been able to explain how multi-specs damage the game. Just some flawed notion that a spec is sacred that I don't get.


These are the very same people that said 40 man raiding was a must, that the PvP title ladder in vanilla had to be because... well we would certainly see why. Im still waiting.

Edit: The game is old, the ideas its based on are old, and some of the people designing the game played MMOs in the old fashion. It took Wrath before we saw dual spec and LFD. Inevitably I see them adding additional specs, the problem probably has to do with the age of the game.
An oldie but a goodie! :D

The question used to be, why don't we have a way to keep a spec for PvE and PvP? And to a lesser extent, wouldn't it be great if I could swap roles with my hybrid if needed without having to hearth and make everyone wait on me?

Those are the specific reasons for why we agreed with the sentiment of those questions, and dual spec now exists in the game. It's great (kind of) that some people have found uses for it outside of that, having two slightly variant builds of the same spec for different situations, however, it's not our intent with multiple specs to encourage that type of gameplay, and thus it's not our intent to offer tri or quad or quint, etc. specs.

Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle.

A lot of people like to throw the phrase 'slippery slope' at us when we make certain changes, and dual spec is actually truthfully one of those systems. Once we have two specs, why not three? If three, why not four? But, we have our hiking boots on, and don't intend to lose footing on this just yet. BUT sliding down muddy hills is a lot of fun, so you never know.
Will SOMEONE please tell me what consequence there is besides time and G to choosing a spec?

Is there some magical rule that once you pick spec you're locked into it? Unless that's true, multiple specs at once isn't a request for laziness, it isn't a request for anything but saving time.

No one has been able to explain how multi-specs damage the game. Just some flawed notion that a spec is sacred that I don't get.


Blizzard might be able to if they wanted to participate in the discussion.

Edit: /shaks fist at Bashiok Where were you 6 minutes ago?

Right now they seem to be ok with making it a LOT more convenient to add a second spec to switch between. You're still able to respec pretty much at will, only it takes quite a bit more time and a marginal expenditure of gold.

Addons can make the respec process a bit more streamlined, but it's still not as seamless as dual-spec. That barrier seems to be enough to keep people from making that choice.

I, for example have dual-spec on every character, but I rarely - if ever- respec.

That type of choice seems to be exactly what Blizzard wants. You'll have to ask them a little more directly if you're curious about why they feel those choices are important.
It would be a very, very bad idea.


Not only would it make looting horribly unconvenient ('Hey, can I need for other spec?' 'Oh yeah, me too.' 'I need it for my main spec.'

But it would make your character very unindividual.

Also, I have a feeling there would be those people who queue as tanks or healers for a faster queue, but actually suck at it, just doing it because its faster.
03/01/2011 2:04 PMPosted by Loganisis


There is nothing wrong if a player who abuses the system experiences a timesink. A player is not suppose to change specs on a regular basis.


You are obviously not a tank. And you are obviously not a min-maxer. You wouldn't be the type of person that would make use of it. But yes, if you are progression raider, you ARE going to be swapping specs, evne as DPS, for fights when usually useless talents are very useful for certain fightes.

03/01/2011 1:52 PMPosted by Eco


I want to address this argument first. The whole concept of "if you don't like it don't do it" doesn't float with me. If I have to make the critical decision to choose a spec, then every player must make that choice. Choosing a spec should be a standard, not an option. It's not that I don't want tri-specs, its also that I don't want to see anyone with tri-specs.


That's fine you think this. But this isn't the reality. With high DPS, a tank will need a more TPS-centric build, especially in hardmodes. In gear-approproate heroics, an AoE spec is better. Then there are utility builds, OT builds, and pure survability builds. The world isn't the way you think it should be. Your whole arguement is flawed because it assumes a 1-size-fits-all cookie-cutter spec will always be best, and it won't.




Just because the mass population wants it, doesn't mean Blizzard should cater to it. Populism is not a good argument. Even if 99.9% of players favored tri-specs it would still be a bad idea.


Agreed for many cases. This isn't one of those points. This is a case where there's no detriment to you if I have this option. It's not like dumming down a boss fight to make it more accessible to other players and making it too 'easy' for top players. This has no impact on other players. It's not a bad idea, you just don't want it.

As for your other arguments, I have covered all of them in a previous post.

The system was not designed for a player to change specs on a regular basis. Players are suppose to choose two specs at most and stick with them. Honestly, I look down upon players who constantly change specs on a regular basis because that was not how the system was designed. Player's are not suppose to have access to all 3 talents, but instead choose 2 out of the 3.


If the system was not designed for a player to change specs on a regular basis but the reality is players want to change specs on a frequent basis, is it the player that is broken, or the system?

It's not like choosing a spec makes it happen, you also need to glyph, gear, enchant, gem, and reforge. It's not like adding access to more than 2 specs suddenly makes everything under the sun avialble at the same time. It allows the player more options without investing mass amounts of time.

Your arguements are flawed because they assume the system is perfect, if it were, there wouldn't be a stated request for a change, and they assume everyone should be happy playing the game the same way you find it enjoyable.

Both are false. In order min/max, you ARE required to change specs, sometimes on a per-fight basis. And in order to enjoy the game, I don't need to enjoy it the same way you do with your main being mage.

I'm DPS and Tank. I only really need 1 DPS spec, but it's pretty easy to come up with a half dozen different tank specs that are all valid and useful for different parts of the game when I'm tanking.


Well my whole point is that min-maxing should not be supported. Every encounter in World of Warcraft can be completed without min-maxing. That is why I call it abusing the system. Because a raid or guild is able to complete all raids just by dual-specs. I am not saying that min-maxing should be banned, but it should not be supported, and there should be an unofficial price to pay for it, which is time. I know many raiding guilds that do not resort to min-maxing.

Even if min-maxing is exercised throughout the community, it doesn't mean that specs were meant to be changed on a regular basis. The reason why a player can change his/or her spec is when the player felt they made a mistake. Therefore they must pay gold and time to redo their talent.

You shouldn't call the system flawed, and by all means its the player that is the problem, not the system. Tri-specs and challenging the system is not the answer.

The only argument to support tri-spec is convenience, but that is the least important priority. Other values that are important such as choice, diversity, and lore are all more important than convenience.
An oldie but a goodie! :D

The question used to be, why don't we have a way to keep a spec for PvE and PvP? And to a lesser extent, wouldn't it be great if I could swap roles with my hybrid if needed without having to hearth and make everyone wait on me?

Those are the specific reasons for why we agreed with the sentiment of those questions, and dual spec now exists in the game. It's great (kind of) that some people have found uses for it outside of that, having two slightly variant builds of the same spec for different situations, however, it's not our intent with multiple specs to encourage that type of gameplay, and thus it's not our intent to offer tri or quad or quint, etc. specs.

Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle.

A lot of people like to throw the phrase 'slippery slope' at us when we make certain changes, and dual spec is actually truthfully one of those systems. Once we have two specs, why not three? If three, why not four? But, we have our hiking boots on, and don't intend to loose footing on this just yet. BUT sliding down muddy hills is a lot of fun, so you never know.


/agree

THis
An oldie but a goodie! :D

The question used to be, why don't we have a way to keep a spec for PvE and PvP? And to a lesser extent, wouldn't it be great if I could swap roles with my hybrid if needed without having to hearth and make everyone wait on me?

Those are the specific reasons for why we agreed with the sentiment of those questions, and dual spec now exists in the game. It's great (kind of) that some people have found uses for it outside of that, having two slightly variant builds of the same spec for different situations, however, it's not our intent with multiple specs to encourage that type of gameplay, and thus it's not our intent to offer tri or quad or quint, etc. specs.

Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle.

A lot of people like to throw the phrase 'slippery slope' at us when we make certain changes, and dual spec is actually truthfully one of those systems. Once we have two specs, why not three? If three, why not four? But, we have our hiking boots on, and don't intend to loose footing on this just yet. BUT sliding down muddy hills is a lot of fun, so you never know.


Bashiok, one of the issues is that many players are already switching specs on an encounter by encounter basis. This is already the norm. If you don't want that to occur, it's too late to stop it. Having more than 2 specs just means that you aren't limited to just PvP and PvE, and you can keep up with the players who already have 2 PvE specs.

Tanks already have to switch to a dps spec for one tank fights. Hunters already switch pets based on the needs of the groups, which is akin to respeccing. Healers already respec to dps when there are too many heals in the raid or when it makes sense to have fewer healers based on fight mechanics. Rogues already change their weapon poisons based on the encounter mechanics.

The fact is that encounter min/maxxing is already the norm. Making respeccing time-consuming doesn't change that. It just makes the process more annoying. Having the ability to tailor your character to suit the encounter, if anything, enhances the depth of the play, because we have to make meaningful decisions about each fight.
03/01/2011 2:34 PMPosted by Bashiok
but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task.

You didn't really elaborate as to why this is a problem. There is nothing wrong with a hybrid, for example, being able to fulfill all three roles. There is nothing wrong with a warlock using Affliction over Destruction for a certain fight.

That would be a varied game play experience and it's important. That is at the heart of the argument for dual spec. You're right about one thing, that argument also applies to tri- or quad- spec as well as it is just as valid.
An oldie but a goodie! :D

The question used to be, why don't we have a way to keep a spec for PvE and PvP? And to a lesser extent, wouldn't it be great if I could swap roles with my hybrid if needed without having to hearth and make everyone wait on me?

Those are the specific reasons for why we agreed with sentiment of those questions, and dual spec now exists in the game. It's great (kind of) that some people have found uses for it outside of that, having two slightly variant builds of the same spec for different situations, however, it's not our intent with multiple specs to encourage that type of gameplay, and thus it's not our intent to offer tri or quad or quint, etc. specs.

Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle.

A lot of people like to throw the phrase 'slippery slope' at us when we make certain changes, and dual spec is actually truthfully one of those systems. Once we have two specs, why not three? If three, why not four? But, we have our hiking boots on, and don't intend to loose footing on this just yet. BUT sliding down muddy hills is a lot of fun, so you never know.


What is the slippery slope? A slippery slope arguement refers to making a small bad decision that leads to a slightly bigger to a slightly bigger to a slightly bigger, and then it's a full on avalanche of bad.

What is the harm of multiple specs? You've said you don't want more than 2, but you've arranged raids and offered options where there can be 2 or 3 or 4 variations to optimally progress through the content.

"We don't want it" doesn't give a reason, it just states a preference. And yes, as the designers of the game, it is your perogative to design as you want. But in this case, it seems to be holding a hard and fast line for an undecipherable purpose.

I guess the question boils down to, what is the purpose of limiting players to experience only parts of the content or run sub-optimally at any given time?
From page 3:

02/28/2011 11:04 AMPosted by Ramin
I would gladly pay the gold for the respec and reglyph. I just don't want to waste my time actually respecing and reglyphing and redoing my bars. The gold is not a problem.


Now this is a better idea than tri-, quad-, octo- or howevermanyyouwant-speccing.

Instead of outright giving players the specs to swap into/out-of, give players a "spec bank;" an NPC with slots similar to bag spaces that you have in your bank. Instead of holding bags for items, you can purchase slots for saving spec setups, glyphs and gear.

Sell spec slots at said NPC for...what? 200-250 gold each? Maybe up to 10 total slots?

For each slot, allow players to create a:

+ Personalized name & description for that spec.
+ Gear setup for that particular spec; allow players to keep offspec gear sets in this 'bank;' like a wardrobe.
+ Glyph setup.
+ Action Bar setup.

Allow players to do what they do now; 'carry' no more than two specs with them at a time. If they every want to swap out, all they do is visit the NPC spec-banker and trade-off one of their two 'carried' specs for another. Whenever a player 'takes out' one spec to replace one of the two they 'carry,' levy the normal gold 'respec' fee.

Take this posting hunter for example. Let's say I have a BM spec and a Surv. spec. Maybe in the future I want to try out Marks. So I take a trip over to said NPC, create a gear/spec/glyph setup, buy a slot at the NPC for X gold, and save the Marks. spec in there for a later date. Whenever I want to try out my Marks. spec, I just go visit the NPC, swap out one of my two 'carried' specs for it (Surv. or BM), and pay Y amount of gold for 'respeccing.'

This way, you can keep the cost of respeccing in, but leave out most of the hassle with having to click-recreate, re-glyph, and re-tool action bars with every respec.

Keep the gold-sink, ditch the time-drain.
It would be a very, very bad idea.


Not only would it make looting horribly unconvenient ('Hey, can I need for other spec?' 'Oh yeah, me too.' 'I need it for my main spec.'

But it would make your character very unindividual.

Also, I have a feeling there would be those people who queue as tanks or healers for a faster queue, but actually suck at it, just doing it because its faster.


because only people who have 3 very different loot needs want this system?

what about feral druids for example (lol), who want a pve dps spec, a pvp dps spec, and a tanking spec?
Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task.


How is this different from what happens now? How many priests are holy for output fights, and disc when barrier matters? How many rogues are using mutilate for single-target, combat for multi-target, and subtlety for survival? How many mages and warlocks are swapping to Fire and Demonology for AoE situations?

I really hope that you'll reconsider why the arbitrary number "2" is good enough for what you're trying to achieve.
03/01/2011 2:24 PMPosted by Reev
There's still a consequence. If I'm specced Holy for a fight, I can't use the Disc abilities. I choose at any time which specs I am using and not using. When I'm specced for shadow, I've stopped my ability to heal well. When I'm specced for Holy, my shields aren't as strong. You still have to make meaningful choices. The difference with multi-spec is that when you make those choices, you aren't forced to go through a lengthy respeccing process that takes gold and tedium to complete.


That's a different decision, though. I'm not arguing that what spec you are currently playing isn't a meaningful decision, I'm arguing that what specs you have immediate access to and which ones you don't are meaningful decisions, and tri-spec takes away that meaning.

Say I'm a healer for a 10m raiding guild. With dual specs, I have to take a lot of things into account when I go to choose my second spec:

How many healers does the guild have versus how many does our raid group run with?
Are there encounters where we would be better served by having a healer go dps?
Do those encounters tend to favor melee or ranged dps?
How many melee versus ranged dps do we run with?
Do we have any melee or ranged main-spec dpsers who frequently need their raid spot covered?
Am I likelier to compete for gear with our main-spec dps as ranged or as melee?
Do I have better access to the gear for my class's melee or ranged spec?
Does my class's melee or ranged spec offer better utility or cover a buff that our group is normally missing?
If they both have one, which spec's buff is more beneficial to our group?
Does covering that buff make up for range/melee being unfavorable on fights that I'm likely to be called to go dps for?
Do I enjoy melee or ranged dps better than the other?
Which of these criteria matter most to me?

With tri-spec, I just take all three specs and play whichever one is most beneficial at the moment. I put no forethought into it, no planning, no effort. There are no consequences to choosing which specs I have with me, because I have them all. There's no actual choice, and the specs themselves lose meaning.
An oldie but a goodie! :D

Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle.



Thanks for responding to this thread, Bashiok, and providing your thoughts.

Unfortunately, I don't think your point made above is conclusive, as this is essentially what top-tier guilds are already doing for raiding content. Furthermore, many people are already shifting multiple times per day/week for pve/pvp/farming/etc. Implementing a spec-manager (similar to the gear-manager) would not cause people to start doing this constant shifting, it would make a significant quality of life improvement for those of us who are already doing it anyway.

I recognize there is a fine line here between convenience and inconsequential, but I think the developers of WoW need to also be very careful that WoW doesn't get passed over by newer gamers which are instituting features playing are asking for in order to preserve an idolized form of either the way the game used to be, or the developers think it should. This decision feels like an easy one to me in that is provides additional convenience and play-style options for players without degrading a core game mechanic. Others, obviously, disagree.

P.S. My hat is off to those who are contributing thoughtfully to this discussion.
Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle.


Thank you for replying, Bashiok.

However, the flaw in that assertion is the fact that this already happens on a regular basis. Especially in 10-mans where composition is extremely tight and important. People already switch specs, hearth out and head to their trainer and switch to another spec for a different fight, rinse and repeat.

This has been going on for a very long time. Even before dual spec existed, people were swapping specs in and out for different encounters.

At no point did this harm the game in any way. In fact, rather than restricting the content you could produce, it allowed for much more variation and freedom because players were able to be more flexible.

So we can see that we already have the ability to do exactly what you're saying would hurt the game, and we've been doing it for years. I still assert that it has helped the game much more than harm it.

However, the frustration comes from the fact that there is a very clumsy and time-consuming interface element at play here. Not a gameplay element, but a pure and simple interface issue. Ideally players ought not to have to fight the interface itself in order to play the game, and this is exactly what is happening every time a player wishes to utilize every aspect of their class.

I would urge Blizzard to give this concept serious consideration. Right now the system prevents nothing and produces nothing except a time sink and frustration. Please don't give in to the, "It shouldn't be that way because it's not that way now." types of arguments and truly give some consideration to this. I know it had been shot down in the past, but times change, ideas come and go, and new doors can always open.
You know what specs are for? Game balance. Here is what Druids can do:
Feral: Cast moonbeams, heal, turn into a bear and maul faces, turn into a cat and bite & scratch.
Balance: Cast moonbeams, heal, turn into a bear and maul faces, turn into a cat and bite & scratch.
Restoration: Cast moonbeams, heal, turn into a bear and maul faces, turn into a cat and bite & scratch.

The difference is numbers, and numbers alone. It would have looked silly for Gandalf to have been called a fire mage, or Voldemort to be called a destruction warlock. It would also look silly to have numbers pop up in a movie.

I'm collecting some PvP resto gear to play in battlegrounds. And while there I don't have access to balance talents. Because that would make me too powerful. But if then in the next game I went balance, my heals would be significantly weaker. 3 or more specs wouldn't change game balance in the slightest.

With tri-spec, I just take all three specs and play whichever one is most beneficial at the moment. I put no forethought into it, no planning, no effort. There are no consequences to choosing which specs I have with me, because I have them all. There's no actual choice, and the specs themselves lose meaning.


The forethought, choice, and consequences are the same as though you went with one spec. You have to select the set-up, action bars, learn the tree, get the correct gear, and ultimately get familiar with the needs of the spec.

Your argument is ridiculous.
How can anyone say min-maxing should not be supported, where it's Eco or Bashiok when the game is DESIGNED to be run optimally through min-maxing and in fact the biggest min-maxers in the game, the members of Paragon and Method and other are CELEBRATED.

That which is glorified, by Blizzard themselves (inviting Paragon to Blizzcon) is clearly promoted.

If the desire is that min-maxing not take place then Blizzard, you've failed and failed completely. If this is truely what is desired, the only design that would work is you pick a tree and you get every point in that tree and no points in any other tree. In that world, you can't min max.

But that's not the way you've designed the game. You've designed the game so players have flexability and control and can optimize their characters.

And yet this optimization which is glorified, is somehow bad, but you can't explain how?

None of this makes any sense.
I don't really see a slippery slope argument against tri/multi specs. The more casual raiding guilds would accept players who don't switch specs per fight whereas the hardcore players, who already do switch specs, would continue to do so.
I'm sure it's happened to a lot of people:

You're sitting around after a raid night and someone asks you "do you want to do X?"

You've got the time to do X. You've probably got at least some of the gear and skill to do X. The one thing you're lacking is the spec to do X.

And so you say "No" - because you don't want to put forth the minimal time, effort, and cash to redoing your talents, action bars, and glyphs, only to swap them back for the next raid night.

X can be anything, from tanking a heroic when you don't have a tank spec, to doing a few arena games, to having some fun in rated battlegrounds. Regardless, it's the little annoyance of respec'ing - however little effort it takes to do - that prevents you from doing something fun.



Why don't we have tri-spec (or even quad spec)?

Seriously, respec'ing is purely an annoyance at this point. It's based on some archaic belief that having more specs makes your "decisions" less meaningful, when in reality, it's just flat-out annoying.

By forcing players to go through the annoying task of respec'ing, you're not making talent choices "meaningful" - you're just creating annoyed players.



http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/there_is_a_windmill_in_my_beard.jpg

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum