View All »

2h	Pet Battle Updates in Beta
5h	How old are the people that play this game?
7h	Watch the Live Q&A VoD with Ion Hazzikostas Here!
7h	List all large random battlegrounds here
7h	8 Second Silence.

10h	Cant create character
10h	Access but not access
11h	Nagrand(outland) - birth of a warchief questline
1d	WoW Arena World Championships: Summer Season 2018 Reveal
12h	What's the most you've spent on stuff ?

New Ghostcrawler Blog: The Role of the Role

posted 2012/02/08 at 8:12 PM by Ashelia

LFR Roll Clarifications

Blizzard Entertainment

Dungeons & Raids

Players no longer benefit from a role-based need bonus on the second of multiple copies of the same item on a single Raid Finder boss kill. For example, a player who chooses Need on two set piece tokens or two weapons (and wins the first) will only automatically roll 1-100 for the second from that particular boss.

Dev Watercooler: The Role of the Role

Ghostcrawler

The Deluge
A monsoon is coming. We will soon inundate you with Mists of Pandaria information, starting with the upcoming media event and everything that follows. It’s going to be a very exciting time for World of Warcraft, and we are all super impatient for it to happen.

But… we’re not quite there yet. I want to make that clear upfront, because this blog isn’t directly Mists of Pandaria related. You won’t find any announcements here, just a philosophical discussion that you may or may not find interesting. If you’re looking for thrilling announcements, you know what I’m going to say: Soon™.

Multiple DPS Roles
I said this blog isn’t directly relevant though, because I want to discuss a topic that we did struggle with a lot during Mists development, and indeed through most of World of Warcraft. We have classes with multiple DPS specs, and for mage, warlock, hunter, rogue, warrior and death knight, there isn’t even a melee vs. ranged distinction between those DPS specs. The question comes up all the time: “what is the role of these roles?” I don’t think there is a right answer here, and we’ve even changed the design a few times over the last several years. Again, I’m not couching this in terms of an imminent announcement or anything. This is fundamentally one of those designs that could go in a lot of different directions. It’s something we discuss a lot, and we figured given the strong opinions of our forum-posting community, many of you probably do as well.

A paladin can choose from among specs that let her be a tank, melee DPS or healer, and can shift around which role she fills in a raid or BG team from week to week. Through the Dual Spec feature, she can even do so within a single evening. If her group doesn’t need another healer, or if she needs a break from tanking, she can become a DPS spec fairly easily without having to swap to a different character. A warlock doesn’t have that luxury. Yet, the warlock still has three specs. Is the idea, then, that you are supposed to swap from Destruction to Demonology and back depending on the situation? Is the idea that you play Affliction if you like dots and Destruction if you like nukes? Or do you just switch to whatever theoretically does 1% more DPS for the next fight?

Players are sometimes cavalier about throwing around the claim that there’s a “lack of design direction” when they want their character buffed. Of course, classes always have a design direction; players just sometimes disagree with it. My point is that just because we debate whether the current design is the best possible one doesn’t mean there isn’t a design at all. That distinction is important. And of course, we do have a directive for which DPS spec you should play: whichever one you enjoy the most. But that doesn’t mean that is the best model or that it can’t ever change. There are other models we could try.

Model One – Everyone is equal all the time

If your DPS and utility are the same across specs, then you just play whichever one you prefer. Maybe you like the kit of the Frost mage, or maybe you like the rotation of the Fury warrior, so you play them. As I said above, this has been the model we have used for a while now, with mixed success. The challenge is that “all the time” caveat. We can get all of the DPS specs pretty close together on target dummies, and indeed they actually are very close on target dummies today. Our encounters aren’t target dummies though. Having some adds increases the damage of dot-specs. Having lots of adds increases the damage of strong AE specs. Having to move on a fight, and how often and far you have to move, can cause DPS to go up or down differently. Even if DPS is only off by a few percentage points, many players will respec to the one with the highest DPS (even if it’s theoretical, even if for them they will do lower personal DPS than if they had stuck with a more familiar spec). A mage who just loves Fire might be frustrated if he ever has to go Arcane, while another player might be happy that he gets to try different specs for different fights.

The class stacking we’ve seen on the Spine of Deathwing encounter relates to the need for massive burst damage in a specific window, such that the difference between a one minute DPS cooldown and a two minute DPS cooldown matters. Even if we could make sure every spec had the same AE vs. single target damage, do we now need to also ensure every spec can do the same DPS in burst windows of various lengths? Is that even mathematically possible? Or do we just test every spec for every raid encounter of the current tier and tweak class mechanics around for whatever is the current status quo? That implies a high rate of change, and I wonder if we’d lose a little bit of the fun of experimentation and theorycrafting if it was basically accepted that you could take any spec to any fight and do about the same damage. It’s more balanced, yes, but does it lack depth or flavor? Is it fun?

Model Two – Everyone has specialties and you match the spec to the situation
Under this model, we would establish spec specialties. For example, Arcane could be good for single-target fights while Fire is great at AE fights. Some of that design already exists in the game, but we try not to overdo it. If you really like playing one mage spec, or really detest constant spec swapping, then this model isn’t going to be to your liking. Furthermore, we don’t want to overstrain our boss design by having to meet a certain quota of AE vs. single target fights and movement vs. stationary fights and burn phase vs. longevity fights or whatever. It is also really hard to engineer these situations in Arenas or Battlegrounds (for example, both mobility and burst are extremely desirable in PvP), so in those scenarios there still may just be one acceptable spec.

Model Three – You swap specs to gain specific utility
If we used this model, then you might switch out to a different spec to gain a specific spell. Again, we have some of this today. A DK might want Unholy’s Anti-Magic Zone for a certain fight. Hunters might go Beastmaster to pick up a missing raid buff. Mages might go Fire for situations where Combustion shines. Druids might go Balance when they need the knockback from Typhoon. A little of this sort of thing goes a long way though. As in Model One, not every player wants to have to swap specs. If you just like Survival, you might resent having to go BM to just to buff someone. If knockbacks are too potent, then it really constrains your raid composition and makes even casual guilds feel like they need to keep a stable of alts or benched players for every fight. If, for example, there wasn’t a boss in the current raid tier for which warrior abilities really shine, then warriors start to feel like a third wheel, yet trying to make sure every boss in a tier has a moment for every spec to shine is a pretty daunting task.

The extreme case of this is the “utility” spec who does middling DPS, but brings a lot of synergy and utility that improves all of the other specs. This was the Burning Crusade model, where classes like shaman and Shadow priests were brought to raids just to make the pure classes (and warriors, who were always treated as pure classes back then for some reason) do better DPS. In Lich King, we changed the design to make different raid buffs and abilities more widespread and give groups much more flexibility in their raid (and to some extent dungeon) comps. We heard from Shadow priests that they wanted to do competitive damage, not just be there to make everyone else more awesome. But even today we get a lot of requests to improve the utility of someone’s spec so that they are more likely to get invited to a group.

Model Four – There is just a best spec for PvP and PvE
This was the model of vanilla World of Warcraft, and we understand some players wouldn’t mind it returning. In this model Arms and Frost and Subtlety (and other specs) were designed to be good for PvP, while others, Fury and Fire and Combat perhaps, were designed to be good for PvE. The PvP specs might have better mobility or survivability or burst damage, while the PvE specs have better sustained damage over the course of a 6-10 minute boss fight. A lot has changed since vanilla. We don’t make many raid or dungeon encounters these days where DPS specs can just stand in one place and burn down a boss. Mobility, survivability, and burst damage can all be really useful on particular encounters, sometimes trumping the higher DPS offered by a competing spec. (There’s that old adage that dead do zero DPS.) In addition, if there is a PvP spec and a PvE spec, then for pure classes that implies that your third spec lacks much of a role. (The good leveling spec? Is that exciting?) Furthermore, our Mists of Pandaria talent tree design explicitly takes away some of the tools from the traditional PvP specs and makes them available to other specs in the class. If this works out, then you can take your Frost mage raiding, or have an Arcane mage for PvP who uses some of what traditionally were Frost’s control and escape tools. That’s great if you PvP and love Arcane, or PvE and love Frost. It’s less cool if you were the kind of player who was totally comfortable with the simpler (and possibly easier to balance) design of having dedicated PvP vs. PvE specs.

Model Five – Don’t have multiple DPS roles
This is the most controversial model and the one that would require the most change, meaning we are almost certainly never going to do it. For sake of completeness though, you can argue that classes never should have been designed with multiple specs that fill the same role. In this model, either Arms or Fury goes away and gets replaced with something. (Archery? Healing?) Warlocks and other pure classes would need a massive redo to end up with say a melee and tanking warlock. Everyone becomes a hybrid. The hardest decisions becomes whether you want to be the ranged or melee DPS version of your class (like druids or shaman). This idea is elegant from a design perspective because it un-asks all of those questions about how much more damage pure classes should do than hybrids to justify their narrower utility. But, perhaps counter-intuitively, elegant designs often aren’t the strongest ones (I could write a whole blog on that topic alone). Model Five is the kind of rhetorical question you could go back in time and ask before WoW launched, but not the kind of thing we could change today without taking an enormous amount of effort, to say nothing of the irate players who would feel bamboozled that we were so dramatically changing their character out from under them. I try to never say never, but this model isn’t the kind of change you make in a mature game. It’s here only for completeness and because I suspect some of you will bring it up.

But Which is the Best Model?
Hell if I know! I fundamentally believe that none of these models is, without question, the obvious right one. All of them have advantages and disadvantages, and there are probably other models you could come up with that are variants on these five, or perhaps even something new. Like I said, we’re not announcing a philosophy change yet. If we get enough feedback for one model or another, we might eventually change our minds. Also for this blog we’re going to lock the comments and ask that you post your replies in this forum thread. Just remember that even we don’t believe that there is one correct answer, so please keep that in mind when you’re composing your feedback.

Greg “Ghostcrawler” Street is the lead systems designer for World of Warcraft and holds the world record Wild Strike crit… at least until beta starts.

Comments

1 2

Next › Last »

Comment by Elladaryn Damn! That guy is really smart... I didn't read the whole thing but he looks like a genius to me :3 Comment by DartVader I have to say that I agree 100% with the last bit- that no one model is the best one for every situation. To put it simply, you're never going to be able to please everyone- people are just too unique for that to work. My philosophy is to try to focus on the good parts, and find a way to live with the bad. For example, I was REALLY bummed when they changed the way Unholy Blight works. For a while at the beginning of Wrath, I used Unholy spec as my tanking spec because of all the AOE bonuses I had could help me keep threat on multiple targets. When they changed UB from an AOE centered on the DK to a proc effect off of DC, I didn't like it much at all. But I learned to live with it- and I still enjoy being a DK today- esp now that another of my favorite abilities, Corpse Explosion, is making a comeback in MoP. Now if I could just convince Blizzard to let Army of the Dead change a bit to allow it to bring back dead group members as ghouls for a bit, like Raise Ally used to work... lol, that would be awesome, but I doubt it's going to happen. Like I said- focus on the positive, learn to live with the stuff you don't like as much, and maybe you'll find that it's not so bad after all. Happy playing- and thanks to Blizzard for making this such an inviting story to play. Comment by Magician22773 It seems pretty simple to me...You can't please all of the people, all of the time....so stop freakin trying to!

As long as there is more than 1 class, whatever class is on top needs a nerf, and whatever class i play needs a buff. The same goes for specs. Whatever spec is number-crunched to be the "best" is gonna be...the best.

Really, IMHO, the Vanilla model is the best, just without the extremes we had in Vanilla. I was fine with Shammys being the only class with a Bloodlust. I was fine with Druids being the battle-ressers. And pallies for the major buffs. Giving each class something special to bring to the raid was a big part of what made your class unique. Putting together a good raid composition was part of being a good raid leader. Having geared alts, and knowing how to play them, to fill spots as needed was what made a good guild member. Being willing to roll a new toon just to help your group out REALLY made you something special.

Now, it doesn't matter, all you need are 2 tanks, 3 heals, and 5 DPS and you got a group. "But someone might get left out!"......big deal. Find a new group...roll a new toon...start a 2nd group...there are tons more options other than just making the only real difference between classes and specs be cosmetic. Comment by TheReal Game design is hard.Comment by AngelicMew So far (to me) the best is sounding like what was said in the post and now in comments. Combine some of the old. It's not like the "making everyone's DPS/Class the same" has been super successful (from what I've seen). I love playing with my druid and shaman... but I'm easily left out because they can just replace me with a mage or DK for Heroism or Battle rezz. My druid (feral) is my main and I try and gear it as well as I can, but they'd rather replace me with that DK who's iLVL is better then help me gear up. Having made everyone the same has narrowed the "let's help get some good gear for <Insert char>" and replaced with "Let's just take <Insert Char>"
I'm probably missing a few points on this, but having one class with something no one else had made the class needed and "forced" people to open up their groups and get some people geared. Now a days you just replace with the highest iLVL becuase it will have the mechanic your looking for. If your group had to be one of each class, wouldn't that open up some loot too? You can easily leave out a druid and rogue these days and have leather drop in RAID's just to get sharded and everyone in the group looses then. To me, enchant mats should come from Dungeons, not RAID's. Comment by ThePinkDragon
Perhaps if Blizzard would weave webs of complimentary buffs, we wouldn't see class stacking. Heck, build the buffs right into the specs! Scorch might increase Flame Shock damage, and Flame Shock's DoT could significantly buff something DKs do.Comment by Ahrendel
Perhaps if Blizzard would weave webs of complimentary buffs, we wouldn't see class stacking. Heck, build the buffs right into the specs! Scorch might increase Flame Shock damage, and Flame Shock's DoT could significantly buff something DKs do.Comment by Interest I saw this before it came here...Not sure exactly what to say though, since my brain can't seem to process the information atm. I'll be back with my opinions on it sometime.

Edit: Okay, just a formatting error overall, but "Model 2" and "Model 3" aren't bolded...

Model One – Everyone is equal all the timeModel Two – Everyone has specialties and you match the spec to the situation
Model Three – You swap specs to gain specific utilityModel Four – There is just a best spec for PvP and PvEModel Five – Don’t have multiple DPS rolesComment by TheReal
Perhaps if Blizzard would weave webs of complimentary buffs, we wouldn't see class stacking. Heck, build the buffs right into the specs! Scorch might increase Flame Shock damage, and Flame Shock's DoT could significantly buff something DKs do.Comment by Ahrendel Yes, there will always be a "best" way to do things, but you can't really blame Blizzard for anything except letting the best way be the best way over and over again. doAzerothComment by inkliizii Honestly, I really like the direction that classes and talents are going in MoP. As a shaman, I was elemental for the longest time, but just recently switched to enhancement. Not for a different buff, or higher dps, but because I wanted to. Of course, I'm just a casual raider, and I usually heal in raids anyways, but I think that choosing a different spec between two dps specs shouldn't be a matter of "which one has higher dps," or "which one is better for this specific fight," or even "which one will be more sought after for what I'm doing(raiding, pvp)." It should be a matter of choosing the spec that you want to play, if you're arcane, and you love playing arcane, but not fire, then don't choose fire. It seems obvious to me, but maybe not so obvious to hardcore raiders. Remember Blizz, the biggest percentage of your player base are still casual raiders, don't mess up their game because the guys that freak out over Realm First's had more than one fire mage on one fight. Let us play what we want to, not what our specs or the mechanics force us to. Comment by kirzan I really got hyped over MoP because of the talent system revamp. I got the impression that taking away the current system would make it possible for certain current specs to be equal with other current specs either in DPS or in PVP. I hope they don't screw it up and force me to play "spec of the patch" to be competitive.

I do, however, foresee a lot of casual game designs and the new system will most likely still favor specs. Call me pessimist, we've seen it all happen before. Comment by tobn I am really looking forward to hear more about MoP :). Comment by Gzer0
Perhaps if Blizzard would weave webs of complimentary buffs, we wouldn't see class stacking. Heck, build the buffs right into the specs! Scorch might increase Flame Shock damage, and Flame Shock's DoT could significantly buff something DKs do.Comment by ProphetManX Sadly, I'm all for Model 5. I have an 85 Mage since vanilla, he's got all the achievements and I've worked really hard to get everything i have on him. But recently I'm working on leveling my first alt to 85 (72 Worgen druid) and the more I play, the more I feel like i'm missing out.

You see some really epic videos online of people soloing Arthas and other crazy fights at lvl 85, and there is no way a Mage could even compare to that.

However if there happened to be a "Battle Mage" spec, then maybe they could have competed?

idk, just felt like ranting for a sec. Comment by YJMark Meh, I'd like a balance of 1 and 2. There is no reason to go extreme in any direction.

Blanced model 1) Not all specs have to be 100% equal in every situation, but they should be close enough (i.e. within 3-5%).

Balanced model 2) Each spec should have some level of specialty. Like Arcane Mage single target and Fire Mage AoE. However, it should not be like 20-30% better. It should be more like 5-8% better. That way, their "non-specialty" does not need to be really gimped. Only bleeding edge raiders will swap specs for each situation. But the other 99% of the raiders will be fine.

Just my thoughts. Comment by fozgaz
Perhaps if Blizzard would weave webs of complimentary buffs, we wouldn't see class stacking. Heck, build the buffs right into the specs! Scorch might increase Flame Shock damage, and Flame Shock's DoT could significantly buff something DKs do.Comment by TheReal
Perhaps if Blizzard would weave webs of complimentary buffs, we wouldn't see class stacking. Heck, build the buffs right into the specs! Scorch might increase Flame Shock damage, and Flame Shock's DoT could significantly buff something DKs do.Comment by Alreadytaken Wall of text crits you for 9999999

I agree with the last bit as well, though :) Comment by Darkerdesign Damn! That guy is really smart... I didn't read the whole thing but he looks like a genius to me :3

1 2

Next › Last »

« Next Post

2h	Battle Pet Philosophies in Battle for Azeroth - Nerfs, Buffs, Master Trainers
4h	Method Shakib Q&A, Windwalker & Marksmanship Mythic+ Guides
9h	Liveblog of the April 26 Battle for Azeroth Beta Q&A with Ion Hazzikostas
12h	Battle Pets from Dungeons in Battle for Azeroth
14h	Mage Tower Now Active Again on EU Realms

New Ghostcrawler Blog: The Role of the Role

Related Articles

Comments

Post a Comment