Jump to content


Photo

Class Roles + Rebalancing


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#1 Vectivus

Vectivus

    foreign contaminant

  • Members
  • 5,727 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 07:32 PM

If this doesn't merit its own thread, I apologize in advance.

I'm wondering how people feel about the direction the different classes are going with the continued (and increasingly more significant) changes that are being made to the classes within WoW. Is Blizzard trying to open up new avenues to incorporate additional Hero Classes? Or are they trying to dilute the class discrepancies, so that no class brings something that can't be done (comparably, if not as well) by another?

What got me thinking about this was the major changes that have been proposed or noticed in regards to Hunters. As a class with no real 'niche' in WoW, Hunters have long been reasonably-good DPS, moderately-okay CC... up until Burning Crusade released, they really had no defining role. Now, their PvE role is Misdirect.

Blizzard seems to be struggling to find a way to give Hunters more utility, in order to make them a more central part of the game. It feels like too much at once, though - no dead zone (admittedly, a well-deserved buff), a possible healing debuff on Aimed Shot (part-Warrior), a possible ranged Disarm (unconfirmed, part-Warrior part-Rogue), a dispel effect on Arcane Shot (that is reportedly dispelling Ice Block? - part-Shaman), and the list continues.

Although there's "never" going to be 'class patches' again, where we'll see an extensive rework of an individual class, many of the changes coming in 2.3 seem to fit that mould - Warriors changed more significantly in 2.3 than they did in 1.6, in my opinion (deadly phrase, but there it is).



I guess what I'm asking is this - what end-state is class balance designed to arrive at? The game will continue to evolve, but at what point will classes have defined roles, static talents, and a niche that isn't subject to intense change on a bi-monthly basis? I'm not suggesting we'll ever see true balance, but what form will 'close enough' take? And after 3 years less a month of WoW, are we in sight of 'close enough' yet?

Frankly I don't know how you non-Nordic people can breed in good conscience.


#2 Vykromond

Vykromond

    the staleness of Max's dumps

  • Moderators
  • 7,777 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 07:37 PM

One other thing to ponder about large class changes is their impact on PVP. If Blizzard is serious about WoW as a competitive game (and this may no longer be the case post-WSVG, I don't know), it doesn't seem like significant changes to the roles of classes every 3 months would be the way to go about it- at least not without amending the system of changing classes.

#3 Vectivus

Vectivus

    foreign contaminant

  • Members
  • 5,727 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 07:49 PM

One other thing to ponder about large class changes is their impact on PVP. If Blizzard is serious about WoW as a competitive game (and this may no longer be the case post-WSVG, I don't know), it doesn't seem like significant changes to the roles of classes every 3 months would be the way to go about it- at least not without amending the system of changing classes.


To be honest, a significant portion of the changes being made seem to be rather heavy-handed attempts to level the relative percentage of classes represented in the Arena ladders (recall Caster's data on the WoW General Forums - see theoretical impending Hunter changes). Some of the changes, like the new Warrior Whirlwind and Sweeping Strikes, clearly have PvE motivations - but swapping Sweeping Strikes and Deathwish appears to be motivated by the desire to alter the 'cookie-cutter' MS Warrior spec. I'm not omniscient, I don't know, but it seems more and more like the class roles in this game are predominantly being defined by their PvP utility, and their PvE value is assumed ("We balanced the whole game around PvE until battlegrounds came out, I'm sure it's fine!").

Maybe I'm restating or overstating the obvious, but I can't rationalize what Blizzard's vision of their spectrum of classes is supposed to look like right now, much less in the future as the game evolves.

Frankly I don't know how you non-Nordic people can breed in good conscience.


#4 PSGarak

PSGarak

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,390 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 07:53 PM

There's also an issue of spec roles, within a class. For example, the Beast Mastery tree used to be the non-scaling leveling-up spec, then with TBW it became the PvP spec, then with TBC it and marksmanship traded places for raiding PvE and competative PvP. Arms has a similar, but not as drastic, story to tell: it used to be the middle-of-the-road spec, a dps spec that had some tanking ability, but after Prot got buffed the viability of a 31/4/16 MT was scuttled, and with fury getting the gear necessary to support it, it has become pigeonholed as a PvP dps spec rather than a general dps spec. Fire and Frost have flipped as the PvP vs PvE specs for mages. Etc.
Blizzard still needs to decide what to do with discipline, and has admited as much, and there are a few other trees that probably need a similar amount of focus and attention, like survival and retribution.

Just because they aren't doing "major class revisions" anymore doesn't mean that the class roles are set in stone. The entire hunter system as we know it, gearing talents dps role whatever, could be turned on its head if the shot system were tweaked slightly. The healing role of a tree druid could be entirely inverted if healing touch becomes a tree-form spell, and the viability of moonkin in a raid environment could approach that of elemental shamans if they reduced the shapeshifting cost or allowed some heals in moonkin forms. Hell, I wonder just how small a change it would take for everyone to want their priests to respec holy again.
What you're not going to see anymore is the entire talent tree getted dumped and re-done. That doesn't mean sweeping changes can't still be made.
I would note however that the warrior and warlock "class changes" patches should not be used as a benchmark. Blizzard was still timid at that point, and it was not until the third class revision (hunters?) that they finally manned up and gutted trees that needed it. Warlocks and warriors did not get proper class revisions until 2.0.

#5 Vectivus

Vectivus

    foreign contaminant

  • Members
  • 5,727 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 08:02 PM

True, and I'm not suggesting 1.6 be the benchmark by which we measure class revision.

I understand that the classes are going to evolve and change, but what I'm questioning is the end-product that Blizzard (and, by extension, we as players) are chasing. I don't disagree that a few minor alterations could fundamentally change the way the game is played - if Lifebloom loses on-use trinket bonuses when the trinkets fade, will all Resto Druids be respeccing Feral?

The changes to Hunter shot rotations didn't overhaul Hunters' class role - giving them a healing debuff, a dispel, and a disarm might. What does that mean for the other classes? For raid setups? I can't imagine not taking a Hunter for Aimed Shot on bosses that could heal, and a dispel they can use as part of their regular DPS cycle has immense viability.

Where is the game going, and how are these class changes a part of that vision? That's what I don't understand.

Frankly I don't know how you non-Nordic people can breed in good conscience.


#6 Stormheart

Stormheart

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:00 PM

Overall, I think that they are balancing a lot of things in directions that make sense, with maybe the exception of the hunters. The thing is, with so many of those changes unconfirmed, I don't think its fair to assume any of them at this point.

For warriors:

Overall, the changes make a good bit of sense. Having DW in arms might actually promote some incentive to PvE with it on a more regular basis. While previously it was certainly possible, it was not frequent either. Moving sweeping strikes to fury reinforces the theme of the tree, but at the same time, it really adds nothing to your raid tree since you will get yourself killed 50% of the time you pop it imo in a raid situation. The real buff for warriors is the -10% aggro in berserker. If you had aggro issues, then you are gaining a minor bit of dmg, otherwise you are losing some because of DW. In the end, the fury tree dps should be within 5% of previous one way or the other, while arms should go up about 5-10%, assuming DW is always on cooldown.

In a nutshell, some of the classes trees need work, and blizzard is committed to doing it. Don't be surprised to see mage frost tree get reworked at some point now that they have arcane and fire aligned to a perfect balance. They want every tree to be viable for every class, and we are seeing more of that, especially in the ways of enhancement shaman, prot/ret pallies, etc. In the end, I think this is a good thing for both PvE and PvP, as it adds variety to an environment that can be very dull occasionally.

#7 Peekaboo

Peekaboo

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 92 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:02 PM

Blizzard bit off more than they could chew. Balancing three trees for every class for PVP and PVE is impossible. There aren't enough "defining roles" to go around. And some defining roles (like high dps) are so crucial pretty much every tree for every class cries out for more.

#8 snape

snape

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 777 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:09 PM

In regards to the comment about Fire and Frost switching PvP / PvE roles - Fire was never the spec for PvP. Frost has always been, because of Ice Block alone.

Further, Frost was only a PvE spec because of Fire immune mobs in MC / BWL - the "Mage Patch" happened about 3-4 months after the opening of AQ I believe, and many many Mages [myself included] switched to Fire (which was better DPS even before that Patch) as soon as we had 8/8 NW and/or started completing the Enigma set. It was like pulling teeth to make the other Mages in my guild that 5/5 Enigma was higher DPS than 8/8 NW (the proc just allured too many of them).

#9 Nadiar

Nadiar

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 11:07 PM

In regards to the comment about Fire and Frost switching PvP / PvE roles - Fire was never the spec for PvP. Frost has always been, because of Ice Block alone.

Further, Frost was only a PvE spec because of Fire immune mobs in MC / BWL - the "Mage Patch" happened about 3-4 months after the opening of AQ I believe, and many many Mages [myself included] switched to Fire (which was better DPS even before that Patch) as soon as we had 8/8 NW and/or started completing the Enigma set. It was like pulling teeth to make the other Mages in my guild that 5/5 Enigma was higher DPS than 8/8 NW (the proc just allured too many of them).


Well, previously, frost was always competitive for overall DPS, even when you factored out the fire

I spec Frost because I like to PvP sometimes, and I don't want to respec to do it. My problem with frost, and the reason I basically switched to my druid full time is that do do "adequate" DPS as a Frost spec requires you to know what you're doing and stay on the ball 100% of the time, and to be full specced into Frost. To PvP you have to spec Frost/Arcane. However, by the time you get the 2 piece Tier 5, or start into Tier 6, Frost isn't even viable as the lesser spec.

I'd like to see Blizzard differentiate the Mage spec's by DPS patterns.

Arcane: Average Efficiency, average damage, largest delta between normal damage and Burst Damage, some control over burst DPS (Arcane Power)
Fire: Lowest Efficiency, High average damage, 'average' delta between normal damage and Burst Damage, minimal control over burst DPS (Combustion, Molten Fury)
Frost: Highest Efficiency, lowest damage, lowest delta between normal damage and burst damage, highest control over burst dps (cold snap + Water Elemental, or Nova + Ice Lance)

Efficiency should be calculated by essentially Theorycrafting the Mage doing DPS non-stop for 3 minutes (number used for example only). At this point Mages with identical gear access should be doing pretty close damage. At the second minute Arcane Mages and Fire Mages would have the same average damage, and after the third minute, Frost Mages would also have the same average damage. After the 3rd Minute, the 3 spec's would largely blur together, as timers would be on staggered cooldowns to keep everything within range.

Survivability can be used to balance when its actually applicable to the class. If Survivability is going to be the important balancing factor, they should be like Boomkins in mitigation.

------

Avoiding a double post, what I really think Blizzard should do is stop adding so many talents to each tree every expansion. Its weird that there are talent trees you can't possibly max out. Compounding this fact is that some tree's have entire branches of their own. For example, Resto Druids can choose HoT healing, or Direct Healing, and they're completely separate Resto Talents. I think that the best designed spec's in the game right now are Feral Druids, and Prot Paladins. That doesn't mean there aren't problems with either tree, but after you get all of your main talents in the tree, you end up putting several points in one of the other tree's. 61 points in a single Tree shouldn't be encouraged.

#10 Ribeye

Ribeye

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 94 posts

Posted 15 October 2007 - 11:48 PM

I think the OP is looking at the continuing evolution of classes and wondering, when does it all end? When do we get the finished product and everyone who is currently in an unrepresented class or spec just accepts it and we move towards bigger and better things like new classes alltogether.

To this I would guess never. A static game is basically a dead game, and as long as the world changes around us we too will have to adjust in our roles. Changing how a class or spec is played and percieved is really not much different than introducing a new class to many people who wouldn't bother to play it till they start hearing some of the chatter. I for one was never interested in Druids in the early game, but when I heard about upcoming changes to the class I tried it out and was sold immediately.

The idea that all the "defining roles" have been cast already and that there is no room for new ones is much like saying all the great novels have already been written and there will never be another. There is plenty of room for innovation to boss mechanics which could then create a new niche for a certain class to shine. I believe Blizzard has created a game where at least 1 of every class is neccessary in every raid and in the future I see them fine tuning classes to create a more equal representation and reducing the percieved need to stack.

#11 Xavias

Xavias

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 179 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:03 AM

They have definitely moved towards giving every class and spec viability or something to offer in the game. And by that I don't mean the classes themselves, but the actual dynamics in the game, such as raid encounters, Arena's, farming etc. This is very evident in the way raid content is designed. Every encounter entails a certain number of classes to outshine others, and this rotates on an encounter-to-encounter basis. While this can lead to raid-stacking, its actually working pretty well (with the exception of Hunters). I mean would anyone have ever thought that a Elemental/enhance Shaman, Spriest, Feral Druid etc would ever be viable before TBC was released?

I think its also very important that at the end of the day, that a DPS spec/class is a DPS class. A tanking spec/class is a tanking class. etc. The last thing we want to see is a DPS class/spec given shitty DPS output because they have the ability to FD, or CC, or have totems. Or a tanking class/spec being inferior to another, because they can also do DPS when in Cat form.

As long as every class gets a (close to) equal time to shine.

#12 Stormheart

Stormheart

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:07 AM

My point is that they are clearly making an effort to integrate the talent trees of all classes to relative equality. Arcane used to be a generally poor pve tree, now it is easily as good as fire when played by a good mage with gear. Frost will be buffed at some point just like all the sub-optimal trees of shaman/paladins are now, you can take it to the bank. They do not want Pvp/pve trees for the most part based on what they have been doing to talents. The only real exception to this sort of rule is tanking, cause you just can't tank in pvp.


In regards to the comment about Fire and Frost switching PvP / PvE roles - Fire was never the spec for PvP. Frost has always been, because of Ice Block alone.

Further, Frost was only a PvE spec because of Fire immune mobs in MC / BWL - the "Mage Patch" happened about 3-4 months after the opening of AQ I believe, and many many Mages [myself included] switched to Fire (which was better DPS even before that Patch) as soon as we had 8/8 NW and/or started completing the Enigma set. It was like pulling teeth to make the other Mages in my guild that 5/5 Enigma was higher DPS than 8/8 NW (the proc just allured too many of them).



#13 crimsonsentinel

crimsonsentinel

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,725 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:09 AM

Avoiding a double post, what I really think Blizzard should do is stop adding so many talents to each tree every expansion.


I really believe this is something that can not be stressed enough. This is especially true of all the hybrid classes (all the classes that can do something besides dps). The deeper and more specialized you make each tree the more that class becomes 2 or 3 different classes completely. This is already apparent in TBC, with certain classes that play completely differently depending on their spec.

Healing specs are going to be totally different from tanking specs and DPS specs; the game is going to have to be balanced around not 10 classes but dozens of class-specs, which will make PVP and gearing a huge hassle not only for the players but for the dev team too. I really do not want to see the classes in the game turn into something like this, so hopefully they do some kind of side-grade form of advancement either in WoLK or later expansions. I personally would also like to see more hybrid-ness out of the hybridspecs, and make the fact that they can perform multiple roles accentuated not diminished as they are currently.

#14 Opioid

Opioid

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 366 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:26 AM

There are basically only 3 roles in WoW, healer, tank and DPS, but spread out amongst nine (soon ten) classes. Everything that messes up goes back to that. At its core, there just isn't enough variety to keep everything unique and interesting.

I think the hunter changes are based on that stumbling block that existed from the beginning. Hunters started WoW with an actually unique and interesting role, that of the "safe DPS" that made them somehow different from everyone else and interesting to bring to a raid or judge their relative worth based on who was online that night. Even if Blizzard does succeed in making hunters a viable raiding/PVP class, the changes will be underwhelming, because in the end they will just be another viable DPS class. They can polish the turd all they want, but it will never be as interesting as hunters once were, or add the depth and consideration to strategy raidleaders once gave hunters so long as they obsessed with their ubiquitous enrage times.

Blizzard bit off more than they could chew. Balancing three trees for every class for PVP and PVE is impossible. There aren't enough "defining roles" to go around. And some defining roles (like high dps) are so crucial pretty much every tree for every class cries out for more.


Nail on the fucking head. Remember the original WoW manual, that promised mages were so powerful they did the most DPS and only rogues could come close (the original vision?)

Well they didn't see the fundamental flaws in the original model: when you look at the trees and their intended major role right now:

3 Tanking talent trees
5 Healing talent trees
19 DPS talent trees

They have just stacked and stacked and stacked DPS roles and now it kills a lot of the strategy because everyone wants to, at the end of the raid, average at least as well as any other DPS role in the raid, so Blizzard can't differentiate like they had originally planned. Everyone is gonna want to take the high DPS flavor of the moment, so the only way to prevent massive Naxx-level stacking is to make the delta between DPS options smaller and smaller, or risk pissing off entire class-bases. The game, by popular demand, *has* to move towards average DPS parity across a raid, and thus towards undifferentiated, ridiculous blandness, and thus the game has to tend towards either unfairness and complaining if its not fixed (doesn't make economic sense) or towards keeping people happy with the marginalization.

#15 Opioid

Opioid

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 366 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:40 AM

To be honest, a significant portion of the changes being made seem to be rather heavy-handed attempts to level the relative percentage of classes represented...

Maybe I'm restating or overstating the obvious, but I can't rationalize what Blizzard's vision of their spectrum of classes is supposed to look like right now, much less in the future as the game evolves.


Pure conjecture, but I get this feeling too. Since Blizzard can't physically put out the same man-hours as the playerbase in figuring out every class in every situation, and so they probably looked at the population counts and judged from that.

So many of the nagging problems that don't get fixed make sense if you assume Blizzard is doing a lot of their balancing to try to make the populations of the different options equal (since logically one would expect an even distribution)

Why did rogues and DPS warriors go through the period of being pretty bad choices to play in early TBC and why did they let it linger?

Why do humans and night elves, with their terrible, uninspiring racials not get adjusted at any point to match the majority of other races in the game?

Why do druids and warlocks receive buff after buff and tons of attention and a few intermittent nerfs, when they're doing alright (and people cry about the latter being much too powerful very frequently?)

If one were to make decisions based on population totals, the logical motivator of economic decisions, so to speak: rogues, warriors and hunters have high populations and are popular, so they're powerful enough. Humans and night elves blow away most any other race in terms of players, so they must have something to offer because people aren't quitting over the racials. Warlocks and druids have traditionally been underrepresented, so they probably need to get more powerful until things even out.

I only have my gut feeling, but I would guess its these sort of logical-but-incorrect judgments about population dynamics that has led to a lot of the questionable decisions or inaction made internally, because it explains a good deal of the things that get complained about time and again but never change and the only other explanation I've seen is "favoritism," which is childish and I sincerely doubt.

#16 Macblade

Macblade

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 239 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 01:13 AM

As a rogue I whole heartedly agree with the idea that there are far to many DPS specs and the idea that they should all balance is probably what blizzard is thinking.

One thing that people have not brought up is the gimmic fights that exist out there. I'm sure that blizz intends for all of the raid fights to be beatable with a wide array of class composition. However, clearly there are some fights that are MUCH easier to beat with a certain combination. Aran, with two warlocks, Karathress, with a shaman to drop grounding totem, etc.

I hope that blizz doesn't see people crying out for a wider variety of roles as their chance to go out and make more of these gimmick fights.

Personally I like what enhance shaman and Spreists are right now, they are a utility class, there DPS is okay but their true use is the massive buff they give to their party/raid.

Also, and I'm sure that I'll catch a lot of flack for this, there are plenty of pure DPS classes out there, is it really necessary that Elemental Shaman, Balance Druids be given viable individual DPS roles? I think that the game as a whole would be better if blizz found a way to make these as usefull to their party as Spriests and Enhance shaman (instead of the more or less token buffs that they have now) and correspondingly lower their individual DPS. If they went this direction I think that it would also open up a lot more interesting ways to put together raids as well. If Ret Paladin, Moonkin Druid, and Ele Shaman all had a utility spec that was on the order of what Spreist and Enhance shaman were then it could really get interesting decided what to put in or take out. It might also get us out of the rut or there being, more or less, one perfect composition and into a situation where whole raid fights could have different stratagies based on the composition with the utility classes taken into account.

So you might say that there are 4 classes, Tank/DPS/Utility/Healers. Utility being severly underrepresented. I would be really interested in seeing what other ideas people had for "classes."

#17 Opioid

Opioid

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 366 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 01:36 AM

Also, and I'm sure that I'll catch a lot of flack for this, there are plenty of pure DPS classes out there, is it really necessary that Elemental Shaman, Balance Druids be given viable individual DPS roles?


I'm with you here, about the trees in general. Warlocks have affliction/destro raid viability choices and affliction/demonolgy PVP viability choices and Druids have 2 (more or less) raid-and-PVP viable talent trees (with feral being maybe the most successful 2-role talent tree already,) and now they keep working on inching towards 3 when some classes are kinda scraping by on one or one and a half? Its silly.

#18 Obligatory

Obligatory

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 02:13 AM

Honestly, I feel like the big problem with balance stems from three things:

1) PvP (or PvE, depending on your point of view ;))
2) The need to balance solo vs. group play
3) Group roles and the mechanics of those roles are too generic

The problems presented by having both PvP and PvE have been discussed ad nauseum, and I personally believe that it will never be possible to have them both be 100% balanced at the same time. I think that the best blizzard can hope for is that every class has at least 2 specs that are viable in both categories.

The other issue is blizzard's desire to make solo play viable. Thus, DPS must be integrated into every role in order to ensure at least a basic level of solo-ability. Whether or not this is a good thing is a debate for another thread

But the biggest problem imo is that group roles are too generic. Most people talk about the "holy trinity" or tank/heal/DPS, but in most cases, there are actually several other roles, the most prominent being buffing, CC, and debuffing. The problem is that these roles are most often integrated with either healer (Buffing), or DPS (CC/debuffing).

With the introduction of Death Knights in WotLK, there will be a total of 30 class/spec combos. Making each one useful to a raid without making each one required and/or identical seems like a tough task under the current system. But if we vary things a bit, it seems like less of a challenge.

One way to increase the viability of several different specs that do the same thing is to give them radically different mechanics. Blizzard has started down this road a bit, with the differences between the various tanks and healers, but mostly, these amount to giving different strengths and weaknesses, instead of giving a totally different approach to the role. For instance, what if the 4 tanking classes looked something like:

-Warrior: The "tough" tank. Mitigates damage via innate class abilities. Tanks with a 2-Hander, and relies on a variety of timers to reduce the damage taken from individual attacks/spells*. Has a moderate amount of "oh shit" buttons.

-Bear Druid: The "armor" tank. Mitigates damage via extreme amounts of armor and resists*. Minimal emergency buttons.

-Paladin: The "shield" tank. Mitigates damage via blocking attacks/spells* with his shield. Also has minimal emergency buttons.

-DK: The "avoidance" tank. Doesn't mitigate damage, but instead avoids an enemy's attacks/spells*. Dual Wield tank, with a very high avoidance, and the highest variety of "oh shit" abilities to ensure than bad luck doesn't result in his death.

The result is four tanking classes that are very distinct, yet (in theory) can all be made equally good at the tanking role.

*since I'm creating my ideal WoW, I figure I might as well give spells and melee similar mechanics, which is something that's bugged the hell out of me for a long time.

Similar things could be done for all the other roles. Imagine if warlocks were a true debuff class, that did minimal personal DPS, but instead increased raid DPS by a very large amount, or if paladins were true endurance healers, having weaker heals overall, but never running OOM because they used some sort of rage-like system.

The second (and probably easier) solution is to add more roles (or, more properly, diversify the existing ones). As an example, let's consider the current classes that have an in-combat CC, and their roles (omitting tanking, because the current mechanics make trying to cast a CC while tanking a very bad idea :P):

-Mage: Polymorph (DPS)
-Warlock: Banish, Fear, Seduction (DPS)
-Hunter: Ice Trap, Scare Beast (DPS)
-Druid: Cyclone, Hibernate (DPS or Healing)
-Priest: Shackle (DPS or Healing)
-Paladin: Turn Undead (DPS or Healing)

Now, Druid, Priest, and Paladin CCs are rarely used because they are extremely limited, either because most common mobs are immune, the duration is too short, the cooldown is longer than the effect, or some combination of the 4. Now, the roles are already somewhat separated due to the type restrictions on some CCs, but what if this was done even more so. For instance, it could look something like:

-Mage: Humanoid Control (polymorph), Elemental Control (some other spell)
-Warlock: Humanoid Control (Fear), Demon Control (Banish)
-Hunter: Beast Control (Scare Beast), Giant Control (Some other spell)
-Druid: Beast Control (Hibernate), Dragonkin Control (Some other spell)
-Priest: Undead Control (Shackle), Elemental Control (Some other spell)
-Paladin: Undead Control (Turn Undead), Demon Control (some other spell)
-And several other spells for a few other classes

Basically, if every CC class could CC two types of mobs, each type of mob could only be CCd by 2 classes, and many boss encounters featured several types of adds that needed to be CCd, you suddenly have a wide variety of roles that need filling. As another example, tanking could be expanded to include Main tanking (Warriors and Paladins), add tanking (Feral Druids and Paladins), off tanking on bosses that have temporary aggro reductions (Feral Druids and Death Knights), and off tanking on bosses that fear (Warriors and Death Knights).



Basically, I think that in the development of TBC, blizzard was shooting for the diversification of roles, but as the game has dragged on, it really feels like they've changed courses and are now heading towards the homogenization of the various classes/specs, which I think will eventually result in a very bland and uninteresting game. Hopefully the current trend of changes are just stopgaps until they can introduce some radically revamped talents/abilities for the weaker class/spec combos, like they did with 2.0/TBC.

#19 Vhex

Vhex

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 02:21 AM

Having pure DPS classes/specs at all is the root of the problem. It would take too much of an overhaul at this point to even begin to fix the issue so there isn't much point really to go deeply into it.

Honestly, the best we can hope for is if they maybe push the synergistic capabilityes of classes and just have them be raid wide, inflate mob HP accordingly.

#20 Grogzor

Grogzor

    Huntard Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • 809 posts

Posted 16 October 2007 - 02:56 AM

Didn't EQ have a few pure DPS classes that were left to the wayside because they didn't offer anything more to a raid?

Personally, I would give up 10% of my DPS as a hunter if it meant I brought something more to the raid other then DPS. DPS is fun and all, but I can still do that while providing some form of Utility other then Misdirect.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users