@ Blizzard - GC quote and balance.

#0 - March 25, 2009, 11:21 p.m.

Let me start by saying this is not a QQ about warriors or nerf this. Just pointing out with this massive GC quote that something is obviously wrong. I would love people to refute this.

Q u o t e:
I'll try not to ramble here.

We like that DKs have three trees in which to tank. It accomplishes a few things. One is it lets a class keep their role while trying a different spec. A mage can switch from Fire to Arcane and still do pretty comparable dps. A prot warrior who wants to switch spec is doing something like choosing Imp Heroic Strike vs. Warbringer.

Second, I'm not sure that the Prot trees for warriors and paladins were huge success stories for us pre-LK. They had a ton of passive mitigation and threat talents that felt necessary, so they had very few talent points to spend on fun stuff (like Warbringer). Druids are in a slightly different boat since they get two roles in one tree.

Third, it lets the DK shift from tanking to dps a lot more readily than warriors or paladins (at least in a world without dual spec). I know what it's like to be the Prot warrior OT desperately trying to out dps the healers on fights where you are supposed to dps. That has improved, but I suspect a lot of players in that situation when dual-spec comes out will opt for a dps spec. DKs have to commit to tanking talents too, but they are more spread out, and they aren't having to give up things like Scourge Strike or Frost Strike to get them.

We don't know what any of this means for the future of older classes like the warrior. With the DK we had a chance for a fresh start. Can I see a world in which Arms warriors tank with a two-hander and Prot warriors do dps with a shield? Sure. Is it easy to get there. Not really. Are players even excited about going that direction? I think the jury is out on that. (And you don't need to turn this thread into whether or not you think that's a good idea.) It gets even more difficult when you talk about the dps Holy priest or the healing Boomkin. Lolz.

Rune Strike won't earn a premiere niche in the game design hall of fame. It does its job, but it's not a particularly fun ability like Shield Slam or even Scourge Strike. We implemented it to solve a problem, which was that DKs are so locked into their rotations that missing an early Plague Strike or whatever could totally botch DK threat generation. We would like to add other DK abilities that center around threat generation, but it's tricky. For one, Heroic Strike aint going into the hall of fame either. Again, it does its job but at some risk to the player (not the character). Second, any new DK abilities we added would have to also fit into their rotation while tanking but not while dps'ing. We can't just make Icy Touch 2.0 that generates a lot of threat. How is that different from Icy Touch? Yet if we make an ability that takes Blood+Unholy or something that takes 20 runic power, it has to fit in naturally to DK cycles while tanking yet be unattractive to DKs doing dps, who have abilities to contend with already.

That's a lot of text, so I'll just say in conclusion, that this is a new class for us all and I think sometimes players don't give enough credit to just how much iteration has gone on in the existing classes over the past 4-5 years. We've tried to make up for lost time with the DKs, but they still have a long way to go.

The good news is, players seem to enjoy tanking with them. :)

Now for the break down.

Part 1.

You say that you like how one class has 3 trees that do the same thing and "lets a class keep it's role while trying other specs." Two arguments to this which you have in the same post said. Dual spec erases this uniqueness and other specs doing things not common in their tree has been happening for a while. Moonkin healing in arena's, vanilla wow Arms warriors tanking, Holy paladins tanking murlocs, Feral druids doing DPS and tanking. This is not original just something that you guys got carried away with.

Part 2.

You say that the previous Protection trees were not huge a success. I can see where you are coming from with that but NOW you want to make specs AND glyphs mandatory to compete. Seems very hypocritical or that you have forgotten about fights needing specific talents or even that you have balanced the game around specific builds of a class making glyph slots not really something customizable but mandatory for various specs.

Part 3.

Here is where you mention Dual Spec. Yeah I've been the prot warrior dpsing on a boss. Yeah it sucks. Will dual spec change it? Not on fights like Kael where I need to OT Telonicus. Not on fights like KT where I need to grab a bug. Not on a lot of fights. Keep your dual spec garbage IMO.

Ghostcrawler

#18 - March 26, 2009, 12:13 a.m.

Aw, of course you're welcome to disagree with me. I'm just trying to understand if you think that design for DKs is fundamentally flawed or if you just think it's unfair. (Also, let's be adults and leave the "donkey" junk to Barrens chat.)

Q u o t e:
Part 1.

You say that you like how one class has 3 trees that do the same thing and "lets a class keep it's role while trying other specs."

You named examples where we are already accomplish this, and that's good. For a time, warriors could tank with a 31/5/15 build (I think I am remembering those numbers correctly). Later, they were pretty much confined to the Prot tree, plus Cruelty and a couple of other talents. Was one way better than the other? We're not sure, but we're trying to explore the tank who is more broad than deep a little more. If we love the way it turns out, we might retrofit the other tank classes. (As I said in the original post: might.)

Q u o t e:
Part 2.

You say that the previous Protection trees were not huge a success. I can see where you are coming from with that but NOW you want to make specs AND glyphs mandatory to compete. Seems very hypocritical or that you have forgotten about fights needing specific talents or even that you have balanced the game around specific builds of a class making glyph slots not really something customizable but mandatory for various specs.

"Mandatory glyphs" is a tough nut to crack. If we nerf them to make them feel weaker, then players might say their only glyph options are a bunch of junk. If we make them good, then they feel mandatory. If you feel there are glyphs you want but can't justify because others are too good, please bring those up and we will look at them.

Q u o t e:
Part 3.

Here is where you mention Dual Spec. Yeah I've been the prot warrior dpsing on a boss. Yeah it sucks. Will dual spec change it? Not on fights like Kael where I need to OT Telonicus. Not on fights like KT where I need to grab a bug. Not on a lot of fights. Keep your dual spec garbage IMO.

You can tank the KT bugs just fine without a tank spec. Now there will be fights where you do need multiple true tanks, but dual-spec actually helps us there. Otherwise we are essentially asking guilds to clear the whole instance with 4 tanks or swap out some dps for tanks on those few fights. It would be nice if the person swapping in and out were the same person (via dual spec). I also predict there will be plenty of MTs who have tanking specs for both of their specs. So can you explain why they are "garbage?" Do you not like the concept or do you feel it doesn't solve the problem (of tank dps being low)? It is certainly a lot higher than it used to be in BC.

To others, yeah I know the post is a little trollish and some of you will be frustrated that I responded here. But sometimes players are being negative because they feel ignored, and sometimes it may not take much to turn them around and get them excited about the game again. Once in awhile it pays to figure that out. I won't be able to respond to every post like this, but maybe responding to a few can serve as examples that we still care about the opinions of players who disagree with or discount us.

Ghostcrawler

#51 - March 26, 2009, 5:31 a.m.

Q u o t e:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:

GC, you previously said that you would not be balancing around the existence of Dual-Spec. The situation you just described is exactly what those of us who play "pure" DPS classes feared the most with the announcement of this feature. Why bring a mage (or a rogue or a warlock) if you can bring a warrior or DK who does just as much DPS, but can flip to tanking at the drop of a hat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will not be balancing around the existence of dual-spec. The example I used was a case we already have -- multiple tank fights, then single tank fights, then multiple tank fights. We didn't design that around dual-spec. We assumed you'd probably have an OT who tried to do dps on Saph. Dual-spec gives them a way to do better dps.

This is one of the reasons though that we think it's important to keep pure dps slightly elevated.

Mostly, though, dual-spec is a convenience factor. You can already run back to town and respec in the middle of a raid, and plenty of people did that already (and hated it).

Q u o t e:
Not to mention you bring up the problem with gear. With most loot systems nowadays there is no way for a tank to aquire two sets of gear until all the other melee have theirs where as if a mage needs to be frost for one fight and fire for another that isn't so bad but in what he described it just isn't going to happen that way. Just easier to summon the tank out and summon a dps in.

This is something we struggled with a lot. I fear loot may get more complicated with a dual-spec system. You'll have players arguing that their current spec isn't their main spec or whatever. I'm sure the community will adapt, but it is a concern. I predict dual-spec is going to change the game in ways nobody is quite anticipating yet.

Q u o t e:
This is a tool that will finally let hybrids be real hybrids, but at the cost of completely trivializing the talent system. I like talents because it forces me to make choices, and after investing 70 points, it gives my character a tiny bit of uniqueness in a game with 10 classes and 11.5M players. With dual-specs, there are no such "choices", a warrior would pick all tank talents for one spec and all dps talents.

We struggled with this a lot, but ultimately we do let players respec at will even today and just charge them for it. Plenty of Resto druids healed raids and then went Feral to do quests the rest of the week. Plenty of mages raid as Fire and PvP as Frost. We just thought in this case that the talent system got in the way of players enjoying the game rather than rewarding them for making good but hard choices. Commiting to being sub-optimal for parts of the game you enjoy was just a drag.

I expect some players may not use dual-spec at all, and that's cool. Others will change once a week and others may change multiple times a night. We wanted the system to be flexible. We didn't want it to allow players to not have to commit to talent builds though, which is why we limit you to 2 specs and not as many as you want.

Ghostcrawler

#91 - March 27, 2009, 7:03 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Why do you design single-tank fights?

1. You don't design single-healer fights or single-DPS fights. Why the double standard?
2. You don't force me to heal because I can. Why do you force me to DPS because I can?
3. One tank for a 25-man boss is absurd. There shouldn't be so much focus on the gear and skill of a single player.

Because we think they are fun. :)

If we could make fights with 1 healer or 1 dps fun, we would be doing it. The possibility of a fight that requires no healing and is just a dps check might be interesting.

Q u o t e:
Yes, Dual Specs help (a ton) except when you switch roles mid fight. Then, Prot trying to dps... is terrible. I guess it's the price you pay though. A tank specced DK does godawful dps in that situation too, even in dps gear. You're just missing too many dps talents. (I'm sure you know this, the OP doesn't seem to)

Yes. I'll hit this point again below, but it just depends on the encounter. Sometimes you can switch roles mid fight and sometimes the adds hit so hard that you need to dps as a tank until they appear.

Q u o t e:
2. There is the question of guild politics. Do I respec over to dps and use the gear i've been saving from sharding, or do I sit myself for a main-spec dps who has been collecting primarily dps gear? On progression fights its the latter. On farm content its the former. Most guilds dont run with exactly 25 :( Again i'm sure you know this, so i'll close by saying dual specs is a great way for extraneous tanks/healers to easily flip specs and be present on farm status content. But for progression.. it's only fair to sit the guy whose dps is his "off spec" in favour of the guy for whom dps is a full time job.

Yes, this is definitely the kind of thing that falls under my general prediction of "This feature is going to play the game in ways that none of us may be anticipating now." Some guilds charge DKP but offer a discount for off-spec pieces. That gets much more complicated now.

Q u o t e:
I already know some people who are planning on using the dual spec purpose just to swap optimal glyphs for certain fights. If they got rid of the lexicon requirement (like it is on the PTR) permanently then I can see them not doing it but real min/maxers will probably find a way to have 2 of the same spec built slightly different for different types of encounters.

The Lexicon is dead as a feature. You can swap glyphs whenever you want once 3.1 ships through dual-spec or just by applying a new glyph.

Q u o t e:
Can you explain how this is even possible? You will not be balancing around the existence of dual-spec. You know that offtanks will be able to switch into a dps spec to do more damage on single tank fights.

Well, for starters when we do our internal testing, we won’t take advantage of it. For another, if a designer came up with an idea that involved or invited a lot of spec swapping, we’d say no. We will also watch exactly how much raiders swap specs. We’ll keep an eye on it.

Q u o t e:
If that is the case, then every enrage timer in the game will be trivial unless it is on the boss that requires the most tanks in the instance.

Again, players can do that already. If the fight is too challenging, then you will see tanks porting home to respec or just stepping out for another dps. Dual-spec won’t suddenly make those situations trivial. They may make them slightly more convenient.

Q u o t e:
to me this seems naive - what's the point of being able to be in whatever spec you like if you're going to be in your prot gear to tank the adds? and if the arguement is going to be that i can slap on the sword and board (whilst in dps gear) during the portion of time the adds are up, then i have to believe the inclusion of the adds in the encounter is trivial, or worse yet, better designed for certain tank classes.

It just depends on the adds. Some require a tank-spec’d tank in tank gear. Others might require you to swap out a few pieces of gear. Others can be tanked by any plate weare. Others can just be zerged down without being tanked at all. If your dps or healing are really high you can often slide closer to the right side of that continuum.

Take Lurker Below as an example. On your earlier attempts you probably have multiple tanks doing crappy dps or just standing around waiting for the naga adds. Once you're geared up, you might be able to have some dps warriors or paladins handle the adds. When you out-gear the instance you can probably just dps it all down with a single tank on the boss.