Don't make the same mistake WoW did with its hybrid classes. Dont wait 3 years to learn this lesson.

Basically for the entire duration of vanilla wow, hybrid classes such as retribution paladin, feral druid, dps shaman, etc were at best memes but never actually functional, never actually viable for anything.

If someone wants to be a hybrid dps-healer you shouldn't give him half the damage a full dps does. Thats just bad design, nobody will want to play that.

What you should do (let's compare an assassin and a templar) is this:

Both should deal good damage. Sure give the full dps a slight edge.
The rest of the templar's performance should come from healing, buffs and resilience, which are his classe's theme.
The rest of the assassin's performance should come from his stealth, high mobility and crowd control, which are his classe's theme.

Don't make hybrid classes memes and jacks of all trade, in practice, they will end up being only disappointments.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Songcaller

Dygz wrote: »

That remains true for all types of augments. The playstyle of the Primary Archetype feels radically different despite using the same Active Skills, while also still serving the same role.

Yeah, I understand about Augments. I've also chosen:

For my Py-rai Assassin or Predator (Depends on the class designs though.)

Azherae

I did, it's just that I had put 'fun' in quotes for a specific reason there too.

For some people, perfection is fun. For others, efficiency, as you noted with the Option-2 and Option-3 players.

I personally believe that both these player types have similar reactions, but in the case of those who don't care about efficiency with the encounter or maximizing their chances of clearing it, they do the same calculation, that's why I ended up using that term. It's probably not quite correct, but once I start thinking in English instead of meta, it can be hard to translate my meta-thoughts into more descriptive strings.

So I call it 'fun' because 'Players who just want to have the experience against the encounter who are waiting for one of the people from a group they know to be chatty and fun or maybe roleplays' may go 'let's just ask that person, I know that they at least aren't going to bitch at us for being suboptimal, they won't talk to the group or anything but it's better than waiting around'.

You're absolutely right, that it is 'the cost of waiting around' but I didn't want it framed through any concept of 'efficiency', if that makes sense.

People got to the point of 'not even bothering to invite Rangers to non-arrowburns because those Rangers would always be waiting for that party type and might complain if the normal-distribution party was not going to do as well'. But some Rangers could still be invited and overall help the group have fun even if they were just going through the motions, because it enabled the smooth flow, and the Ranger didn't hate it (or didn't indicate they did).

beaushinkle

Azherae wrote: »

I did, it's just that I had put 'fun' in quotes for a specific reason there too.

For some people, perfection is fun. For others, efficiency, as you noted with the Option-2 and Option-3 players.

I personally believe that both these player types have similar reactions, but in the case of those who don't care about efficiency with the encounter or maximizing their chances of clearing it, they do the same calculation, that's why I ended up using that term. It's probably not quite correct, but once I start thinking in English instead of meta, it can be hard to translate my meta-thoughts into more descriptive strings.

So I call it 'fun' because 'Players who just want to have the experience against the encounter who are waiting for one of the people from a group they know to be chatty and fun or maybe roleplays' may go 'let's just ask that person, I know that they at least aren't going to bitch at us for being suboptimal, they won't talk to the group or anything but it's better than waiting around'.

You're absolutely right, that it is 'the cost of waiting around' but I didn't want it framed through any concept of 'efficiency', if that makes sense.

People got to the point of 'not even bothering to invite Rangers to non-arrowburns because those Rangers would always be waiting for that party type and might complain if the normal-distribution party was not going to do as well'. But some Rangers could still be invited and overall help the group have fun even if they were just going through the motions, because it enabled the smooth flow, and the Ranger didn't hate it (or didn't indicate they did).

Something I want to be really careful with is that the option-2/option-3 distinction is more general than just about efficiency vs fun. It comes up any time your own goals don't perfectly align with the group's goals, whatever those may be. Maybe the group would overall have the most fun if you were willing to play such-and-such build (and other people are making similar concessions). If everyone strictly did what they selfishly wanted it might be a disorganized mess, so people compromise.

Folks draw the line at how much they're willing to be a team player at different spots. Some people are willing to be a team player so long as they get to play the primary class they wanted. Some people are willing to be a team player so long as they get to choose their primary and secondary. Some people are willing to be a team player so long as they get full freedom over everything about their character and build (the team can dictate my play but not my character). Some people aren't team players at all, and want full autonomy, you can either play with them as they want to play or not at all.

None of these ways to play are wrong! All I'm saying is that these sorts of playstyles aren't particularly compatible with each other. Folks that are willing to sacrifice their own personal goals for the team's goals will feel taken advantage of (and they are) by folks that demand full autonomy. What ends up happening is that these players separate out and form separate guilds, since they tend to clash ideologically.

This also happens on a server-level, since pick-up groups need to have some sort of default social behavior. Is the default social behavior to pursue your own goals at the expense of the teams, or is it to pursue the team's goals at the expense of your own (if you have to choose)? In WoW, you're expected to do the second. In some games (like FFXIV), you're expected to do the first, and any attempt to pressure anyone into the second gets you reported.

ariatras

Ironhope wrote: »

Basically for the entire duration of vanilla wow, hybrid classes such as retribution paladin, feral druid, dps shaman, etc were at best memes but never actually functional, never actually viable for anything.

If someone wants to be a hybrid dps-healer you shouldn't give him half the damage a full dps does. Thats just bad design, nobody will want to play that.

What you should do (let's compare an assassin and a templar) is this:

Both should deal good damage. Sure give the full dps a slight edge.
The rest of the templar's performance should come from healing, buffs and resilience, which are his classe's theme.
The rest of the assassin's performance should come from his stealth, high mobility and crowd control, which are his classe's theme.

Don't make hybrid classes memes and jacks of all trade, in practice, they will end up being only disappointments.

This isn't true. Paladins, for example. Were wonderful for tanking dungeons. Ret paladins did great leveling up and do PvP and ofc healing was for your raiding.

Pretty much the same for Druids. Feral was useful in multiple ways, as was resto. And Boomkin, like Shadow was quite good for PvP

You just can't do all things well.

daveywavey

Swifty00 wrote: »

If you think about it long enough and you read about secondary augments, this is a total non-issue.

Yeah, we've tried to make the same point on all their other "DAAANGER DAAAAAAAAANGER!" threads, but they don't seem to want to listen.

Ironhope

ariatras wrote: »

This isn't true. Paladins, for example. Were wonderful for tanking dungeons.

While leveling (and they did a worse job than warriors or druids).

For raiding they were useless.

ariatras wrote: »

Ret paladins did great leveling up

''At least you level fast so you can find out quickly you suck at max level and all your leveling was for nothing''.

ariatras wrote: »

and do PvP

Unless we're talking about friends or something, nobody would take you for BG premades. Nobody.

ariatras wrote: »

and ofc healing was for your raiding.

Because prot and ret were useless. Which is what I was saying.

ariatras wrote: »

Pretty much the same for Druids. Feral was useful in multiple ways, as was resto.

''In multiple ways'' meaning ''not damage''.

ariatras wrote: »

And Boomkin, like Shadow was quite good for PvP

Shadow Priest maybe.

Boomkin? No. I've done hundreds of premade bgs.

Don't think I've seen one premade with one boomkin in it, ever.

And if I would have seen one, it would have probably been because the guy was someone's friend and thats the only reason he got invited.

ariatras wrote: »

You just can't do all things well.

Nobody said a thing about ''do all things well''

Nobody talked about a spec which can dps like a dps spec, heal like heal spec and tank like a tank spec.

However, having class-specs that are utterly useless, which people will choose, have passion for, level to max, only to find out their whole time was for nothing, only to have their imersion **** on, is horrible design.

beaushinkle

Just checking in to let the folks at home know that everything Ironhope is writing about ret/prot paladins was right for both vanilla wow (circa 2006) and was amplified in the rebooted classic wow.

I think folks like ariatras had a completely different experience with the game, probably depending how their own social circles played. It may have seemed like protection paladins were wonderful tanks if none of the damage dealers in their dungeons were anywhere near optimized. If the DPS were optimized, it wouldn't have been possible for the pally to hold threat off of them, or for them to do larger pulls.

If all of the group members were equally ineffective, they probably don't notice that the paladin has to drink for mana after every pull (because they do too), but effective classes don't have to do this, and would be slowed down and annoyed by a tank that has a mana bar (none of the other tanks have mana).

Songcaller

The Tank in Ashes has Mana, at least when I played the Tank in Ashes. I think all the classes in Ashes will have Mana.

Ironhope

Neurath wrote: »

The Tank in Ashes has Mana, at least when I played the Tank in Ashes. I think all the classes in Ashes will have Mana.

I really like that.

Didn't like the WoW energy and rage systems.

They felt very restrictive, always made you feel starved for energy/rage, made the drinking mechanic useless for many players and just didn't fit the theme often.

beaushinkle

Sorry - I'll be more specific. The protection paladin was the only tank in wow that wasn't able to chain pull (it had to drink water between fights) and had a time limit (mana) for how long it was able to be effective in fights. Every class in wow that has mana (all of them except rogue and warrior) had different ways to manage mana, and all of them had varying levels of mana management problems. Some classes were able to effectively chain pull whole dungeons when well-optimized without stopping. Protection paladins weren't.

Ironhope

It was a horrible experience for me and a very notable number of players to see these awesome classes, with an awesome theme, awesome lore, awesome everything... which weren't actually playable.

I don't imagine they will get all 64 classes viable at the launch.
I don't imagine they will get all 64 classes viable in the first 5 years of the game.

I however expect heavy-name classes like Warlock, Necromancer, Templar, Shaman, Paladin, Beastmaster, Broodwarden, etc to be viable.

These are heavy names.
Solid themes.

You will have thousands upon thousands of RP-er flocking to them.

If they aren't viable, you will have a much higher number of people disappointed than if ''anonymous'' classes like Scion, Acolyte, Apostle, Soul Weaver, Strider, etc are unviable.

Ironhope

beaushinkle wrote: »

Sorry - I'll be more specific. The protection paladin was the only tank in wow that wasn't able to chain pull (it had to drink water between fights) and had a time limit (mana) for how long it was able to be effective in fights. Every class in wow that has mana (all of them except rogue and warrior) had different ways to manage mana, and all of them had varying levels of mana management problems. Some classes were able to effectively chain pull whole dungeons when well-optimized without stopping. Protection paladins weren't.

Its not only that man.
I don't remember the math exactly like 2 years later but Prot Paladin stats are all messed up and unlike Prot Warrior or Feral (bear) Druid, Prot Paladin gets hit by crushing blows, so he gets hit as if it was a dps or support, not a tank.

Cant say 100% this was the case but back then some prot pallies explained to me why they dont play prot pally in classic too and this is how it sounded.

beaushinkle

Ironhope wrote: »

beaushinkle wrote: »

Sorry - I'll be more specific. The protection paladin was the only tank in wow that wasn't able to chain pull (it had to drink water between fights) and had a time limit (mana) for how long it was able to be effective in fights. Every class in wow that has mana (all of them except rogue and warrior) had different ways to manage mana, and all of them had varying levels of mana management problems. Some classes were able to effectively chain pull whole dungeons when well-optimized without stopping. Protection paladins weren't.

Its not only that man.
I don't remember the math exactly like 2 years later but Prot Paladin stats are all messed up and unlike Prot Warrior or Feral (bear) Druid, Prot Paladin gets hit by crushing blows, so he gets hit as if it was a dps or support, not a tank.

Cant say 100% this was the case but back then some prot pallies explained to me why they dont play prot pally in classic too and this is how it sounded.

I mean, they straight up don't have a taunt. Like, they weren't a finished class full stop.

Catmonkey

Aerlana wrote: »

I really hope the bard will be close to what it is in game like FFXI for example : bad DPS, bad heal (not even 5/10 on both. . . Bard were not meant to heal or DPS but just improve all other.) or like RDM, here to help healers, and mainly put lot of debuff on bosses.

I kinda hope it's more like Lucio in Overwatch. He puts out good AoE healing, and packs a punch if the team is grouped up. Same with the speed buff. He's relatively weak when the team are spread out of course.

As a long time spriest (in the days before that became "a DPS spec") and Moira player, I think that's my ideal. Decent, but not great damage. Decent, but not the best heals. For PvP at least. In PvE I'm more inclined to be a main healer, although a bit of druidic catweaving was fun.

Child Item