What's good for the goose is for the gander?

#0 - Jan. 15, 2009, 8:40 p.m.

A Thread was launched in the damage dealing forums asking the question "hey the hybrids brought a bunch of utility, and now they also bring very good DPS, how is that fair?" and got the following explanation from GC:

The question:

Q u o t e:

For a while, I had in mind that there were "pure" classes that were only brining damage to the raids and hybrid/support classes that were there to boost their damage.

But it seems that at lvl 80 the pure and the hybrids will do the same (or nearly) DPS and I would like to know why the devs chose that? Do you think the 5% margin is fair? Do you plan on giving more utility to the current pure classes?

The answer:

Q u o t e:

Our logic worked out like this:

1) Buffs are breaking the game. There are many examples you could insert here, but here are a few:
-- Ret paladins can't get into the melee group because of all the buffers in there.
-- Stacking shamans for Bloodlust rotations.
-- Stacking Shadow Priests so mana conservation would be irrelevant.
-- Mages getting shut out of raids, in part because it was better to bring yet another lock to benefit from Curse of Shadows.
2) We decided to consolidate buffs such that similar ones would not stack, but we extended the effects to raid wide.
3) Thus, in a 25-player raid, you need far fewer than 25 players to get the buffs you need, allowing you to fill those remaining slots with who you want.
4) Without the benefits of those buffs, those remaining slots would most likely just go to pure dps classes. Shamans, for example, might go from 5 per raid to 1 (or 1 death knight instead).
5) So we buffed hybrid dps a lot.
6) But we knew at the other extreme that pure dps classes risked getting shut out of raids if hybrids could do their damage.
7) So we made sure the pure classes could still do superior dps given similar skill and gear. We wanted you to risk having lower dps if you brought all hybrids.

We don't go into a lot of detail about how much higher or lower certain classes should be, because we noticed that players respond to this by posting WWS parses that shows their class in the #10 spot and get all bent out of shape about it (and totally ignoring the bit about equal gear or skill).

The net result is that hybrid dps is much higher, but not as high as pure classes. If you are an awesome hybrid player, then you will sometimes top the damage meters depending on your gear, skill and the specific encounter. But you probably won't do it as much as a rogue, mage, warlock or hunter (again depending on their skill).

I know the edge here sometimes seems fuzzy. It is. WoW's combat system is pretty complicated and hard and fast rules can only get you so far. But that is the basic model in very simple terms.

Replace every instance of "DPS" with "healing" and you would have the same question priests are repeatedly asking. It's a very good point but when we ask it, it's being ignored. The situation for us seems to be worse, because GCs response that "well they bring more DPS but not as much as 'pure' classes" doesn't even apply here. In many situations the hybrid healers now bring as much or more healing to the table.

I'm sorry GC if you feel like I'm twisting your quote somehow to suit my needs, but I'm not at all. I'm asking the same question posited to you in the DPS forum but from a healer's perspective: Hybrid classes now bring as good or better heals to priests. They also bring more utility. Is this balance?

Now I'm sure people will bring up shackle and fort, but the DPS forums could as easily have brought up sap, blind, kick, scatter shot, pet off tanking, traps, etc.

Ghostcrawler

#10 - Jan. 15, 2009, 9:21 p.m.

Yes, Brayne has it right. From our POV, hunters, mages, warlocks and rogues are pure classes. All other classes are hybrids. Priests are hybrids because they have a viable dps spec.

The problem for dps essentially comes down to the fact that there are many more dps trees than raid slots available. Healers by contrast are needed in greater proportion as you go from 5-player to 25-player content. If the average 25-player raid has 6-8 healers, then all 5 healing specs have room, and we try to make sure a raid that brings them all feels rewarded for it. (We also try to make sure that a raid that has only say Holy paladins does not wipe repeatedly on every encounter.)

Now, one thing you need to remember is that the current raid content is undertuned on purpose. It's easy. We wanted a lot of players to see Naxxramas and not to hit a brick wall when they tried to graduate from heroics to raiding. But you need fewer healers for easier content and swapping in more dps can just speed up the whole run. (Naxx can be done pretty quickly, but it's not Karazhan).

Ulduar will be more difficult and bringing more healers will be the norm. The only downside is it will shine a harsher on light on any class imbalance and players will become more concerned about not getting a spot.

We think the new system is a big improvement, especially compared to the way groups had to stack for Sunwell. Let me be clear though: it's not perfect and we're going to have to continue to improve situations where a dps or healing spec just doesn't bring enough to the table.

Ghostcrawler

#101 - Jan. 15, 2009, 11:01 p.m.

Q u o t e:
I don't understand the use of "hybrid" on these forums anymore. Hunters are a pure class because they do damage, and can't do anything else. But every other class can only do one thing at a time too, so isn't that a moot point? Isn't this why druids were buffed in all three roles? Shouldn't the definition of hybrid be a class that fulfills a role (ie, damage dealing) but also brings handy raid buffs and utility (ie, Bloodlust, totems)? In this scenario a hunter brings much less than an elemental or enhancement shaman in terms of his raid buffs (I think this is true currently), and so does more damage to compensate.

Players use "hybrid" often in different ways:

1) A class that has the potential to heal or tank (or both) in addition to damage. This is the definition I am almost always using. Warlocks are not hybrids because they cannot heal and tank only in very contrived circumstances (e.g. Curator). Priests are hybrids because a priest can always go repsec and change their role from damage to healing. The guy who plays a warlock and wants to heal has to reroll.

2) A class that has the potential to do multiple roles at once. An example might be the Elemental shaman who throws out the occasional heal. This gets brought up a lot in theoretical arguments, but I don't think it contributes much in reality. Unless that heal was at a really crucial moment, overall it doesn't amount to much. (This is different from the Elemental who respecs for a fight or who puts on healing gear and heals the entire fight.)

3) A class that does relatively low damage but brings very powerful buffs. We are trying to move away from this concept as much as possible. The goal is that everyone has good buffs and everyone can do damage. Hybrid classes do slightly less damage, but are so close that player skill and gear will almost certainly swamp any differences between potential output. Players can (and do!) argue that certain buffs or utility spells are more valuable than others. This is a good discussion and as I posted above, one of the things we want to do is make sure that anyone who didn't quite benefit enough from the Great Buff Overhaul of 2008 gets brought up to par. That debate is very subjective though. Some groups can't survive without battle rez, while others view it as a crutch that they rarely need. Divine Intervention is helpful but far from mandatory. Kings is a great buff. Might gets overwritten by Battle Shout. Spirit doesn't compete with Flametongue. Etc. These are all rough spots in the new system that we are trying to polish out.