Yeah, but it's 6 to 4; not really a huge universe to make the argument with.Originally Posted by Kojiyama
The "hybrid tax" was an idea that was meant to address the issue of "real hybrids" existing...as in, the ability for any spec druid to still adequately fill most any role. Of course, that's not nearly the case now - and honestly it never really was for most classes - so the idea of a hybrid tax is just pointless.
yes... that was exactly my point.
"Dear Santoro, Your wisdom has enlightened me. Thanks!"
The idea according to GC was to allow pure dps classes an easier route into raids, the thinking being that hybrids had more then one way in and all things being equal if the hybrid dps was just as good as a pure dps class, then the thinking was "why take the pure dps class". I think it still holds true and I have seen nothing to support the statement that the hybrid tax was removed. Below is an original post I did on this, but the link, now that the forums are on battle.net is broken.
Not saying I agree or disagree or if it's good or bad, frankly, I don't really care that much about it, but it is what it is.
GC has stated that pure dps classes will, all things being equal, do slightly higher dps then hybrid classes. The justification according to GC, is that pure dps only have one way into raids. The tax has not been quantified, what GC has said is it is NOT 5% as some believe it was/is.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...77330431&sid=1
A "pure dps" will do slightly more damage than a "hybrid dps" if they are both played by a robot that is perfect at playing the class and applying cooldowns, both have the same latency and both have the same gear. In reality, however, being a "pure" dps is not a free ticket to the top of the damage meter as these conditions will never be equal (especially the "skill" part).
Well, considering that DKs and (now) Balance Druids have been beating many classes on DPS in many fights, it's safe to say that whatever margin they aim for is well within the margin for error of general balancing issues. The difference between melee and ranged DPS, for instance, is far greater than any noticable difference between 'pure' and 'hybrid' classes.
Maintainer of Rawr.ProtWarr theorycrafting tool. Feel free to PM suggestions or feature requests!
Wait... what do you classify as hybrid exactly? DPS/Tank hybrid, RDPS/MDPS/Healer/Tank hybrid, DPS/Tank/Healer hybrid?
If you classify them all as hybrids, there are VERY few classes that are pure classes. For me, the only true hybrid class is druid as they can literally 'do it all'. But I would concede that paladins are hybrids as well. The one thing I would say is that there is way too much focus on hybrid/pure classes. If they were all able to do everything, there would never be a reason to try a different class.
RNGesus - Saving you unreliably since BC.
http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/v...ellvarsig3.jpg
The concept of a Hybrid: A hybrid does two things at once.
The concept of WoW hybrids: A hybrid can spend (33 ^ X) Gold to become something ELSE.
Blizzard has put in an unreasonable number of restriction mechanisms to prevent hybrids from actually doing more than one thing at any given time.
That said.
Sure. I'd love to tank instances and raids on my hunter. The tank pets are too squishy to tank anything outside of a heroic as is. LFD queues would go a lot faster, too, I'd imagine.
sorry, but my recent "main" is a pally, and this thread sucks...
while i die a little inside when i see a pally or druid spam trade looking for "tank or healer, for quick H queue."
the gear set i would need to actually Heal an heroic, is SO DAMN DIFFERENT, than my prot set...
people play what they like.
would it make a difference if all classes had a healer and/or tank spec?
i dont think so....
It would make it boring. In the end, bottom line, this is a game and it's a game with a monthly fee, which means it needs time sinks to keep you coming back for more, one of those time sinks is leveling a new toon to try something different. I'm a sucker for it my 85s are DK, Pally, Priest, Hunter and Mage. Warrior is at 63 and I have a horde priest at 47 and on another server a horde DK at 69. I also have others waiting. If all classes could do all things, then why bother with alts?
Blizz is a business, a business who just shut down Guitar Hero because it had too many knock offs killing the market; it became boring, it became the same thing as everybody elses - sameness = failure in this industry.
tri-specs....nuff said.
How about this, instead of trying to change every class Blizz just deletes all the classes except Druids/Pally and merges the horde and alliance so that everyone can do everything and everything is even no matter what. Seems like that would be a lot more simple then changing everything in the game. Oh and it would make the game really streamline and sterile. It's not like Blizzard has been trying to make all these classes with tons of differences that each bring something DIFFERENT to the group.
That I would hate.
Wait... why would it make it boring when you as a pure DPS class could adopt a different playstyle than just DPS without the tedium (and often too much work involved) in making a new character completely and gearing it up?
Really don't see how offering a totally different perspective on the game in the same character could at all make the game more boring.
The game is not (usually) boring for Warriors or Druids which have hybrid specs...why would it be different for Warlocks?
Guitar Hero went out of business because it was fundamentally un-sequelable when they couldn't change any core mechanics to release a new game at full price. It has little to do with this issue at all. :P
People roll different classes for something else to do...not because they can't do what they want on their main. I rolled a Druid to DPS and Tank when I had a Warrior that can DPS and Tank. I could spec Moonkin on my Druid, but I still have a Warlock. It's not about that at all. Playing different classes is about playing things a different way--that doesn't mean having a different role.
Last edited by Kojiyama; 02-14-2011 at 01:11 PM.
Maintainer of Rawr.ProtWarr theorycrafting tool. Feel free to PM suggestions or feature requests!
What you're advocating is just make all the classes tri spec; why just warlocks, just do it for everyone, then all the classes can do all the things the other classes can do; but take it a step further and just have one spec that does it all, and maybe one stat. And it is like Guitar Hero, just do one thing, and one thing only and the run will come to an end. (Actually, Rock Band is making money because of releasing new music libraries - Blizz focused on new hardware and didn't embrace the new music library route. In the end a fake guitar, was a fake guitar, was a fake guitar) Here if you make all the classes the same and it will just kill the game. It's the separateness that keep different classes relevant.
Let's face it the OP was really motivated by wanting to limit long LFG wait times and still be able to gear some traditionally non-tanking toon.
It's an academic argument anyway, GC has said what they strive for is to make the classes different - they don't always do a good job of it, but that's a goal. So the idea of a tri-spec for all toons is, thankfully, DoA.
Who was advocating that? The OP was suggesting that the remaining 'pure' classes (Hunter, Mage, Warlock, Rogue) be given a secondary role like the other 6 classes in the game--not that every class needs to be tri-spec. Don't think anyone even came close to suggesting that.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Nobody is suggesting taking it that far or that the 'one spec' and 'one stat' would be a remotely resonable idea. In fact, nobody was even near anything resembling those suggestions. (Other than those using extreme examples in an attempt to arguing against it.)
Making Hunters, Mages, Warlocks, and Rogues have another potential role would do anything but kill the game. The fact that the other 6 classes have between 2 and 4 roles each and yet the game keeps trundling along with alts aplenty should be enough evidence of that.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with classes being less different. Rogues would obviously tank in a dramatically different way to any other tank, so how is that any less 'different' than having 3 DPS specs which all play nearly identical with different ability icons? Certainly Mages and Warlocks having a different secondary role would make them a lot more different than the slightly re-skinned but nearly identical DPS rotations they share nowadays, right?
Maintainer of Rawr.ProtWarr theorycrafting tool. Feel free to PM suggestions or feature requests!
Only some slippery slope arguments are fallacious other are perfectly cogent, and there are many examples in the law where taking step A, led to step B which facilitated step C. I see that happening here, why limit it to making all classes hybrids, when Pallys and Druids are tribrids, why do they get special treatment.
Keeping a separateness among the classes; some pure dps, some hybrid and some tribrid adds a flavor to the game. The pure dps classes are separated by having different dps trees - playing BM is different then playing Sur, then playing MM.
Making all the classes at least hybrids would ruin the game in my opinion.
I for one vote for less dilution. I definitely liked the old days when a certain class (mage) was the best AoE or (Rogue) the best single target. It's very nice having true diversity in the crowd and while I know this creates unfair issues for some people/classes as the pendulum swings around it definitely helps make classes/specs attractive. While I applaud "bring the player, not the class", I also secretly despise it because it further dilutes the game down towards, as some previous posters hyperbolically inferred: a single class called "Mr. Everything" with three buttons called "DPS, TPS, and HPS:, a single stat called "power". Ultimately that's the logical conclusion of dilution and I hate that WAY more than the alternative: Unfair but clearly defined roles for each class.
I don't know that this is a slippery slope or not, but there's definitely a continuum here, and I'd like to stay further away from bland dilution than from specific roles. While I definitely see the wisdom in avoiding overly specific roles its still nice for them to exist and for not every class to be able to fill them.
RIP Stormrage Horde ('05 - '11). Turaylon Horde since 11/11 where there's actually people
GM of Neolutum (always recruiting, PM me)
I guess it may just boil down to a matter of opinion on the definition of hybrid, but IMO blizz sort of missed the boat when they dubbed any class who can fill 2 roles.
Hybrid classes should be classified as any class that can fill 2 roles at once. Warriors were mentioned from vanilla. I spent most of MC as a dps warrior, but I switched weapons out multiple times a night. I was a hybrid. I COULD fill 2 roles in combat. A few adds spawned, I could switch stances, switch to sword and shield, and tank, once things were under control, I switched back. At this stage in the game, it still possible, but not on the same level as before.
I also dont think its blizzards fault hybrids were turned from support classes capable of doing multiple things in a single combat session (tank, heal, while dpsing etc) Its the player bases. Now, the ret pally who throws out a few heals during a run isnt admired as being an awesome asset. He is ridiculed for being 2k dps behind the rogue he was healing who stood in the fire.
I played a bard through a good bit of EQ, started as a cleric. The players I remember most fondly were the hybrid classes who made such efficient use of their class it made people run right out and roll an alt. The things a pally could do for a group, or a bard, or a Shadowknight, was a thing of beauty. I miss support classes, but with todays min max live or die by the dps/heal meters, they just wouldnt be welcome.
Its not blizzards fault. Its ours.
Oh and sorry, got a bit off topic, sorta.
As nobody is suggesting anything even remotely as far down as you are suggesting then it is definitely a fallacious argument. When B does not lead to C by default there is nothing to imply that C would be caused by B happening just because C is an extreme extrapolation of B. The arguments against C are in place even if B does or does not happen--especially considering there is nothing stopping people from jumping to C right away should they want to.
Every class being tri-spec is silly and I doubt anyone would suggest that. It would be impossible to balance and a little pointless. Every class having more than one role when the majority of classes already operate that way is a different argument, far more restricted in scope and goal, and a lot more respectful of basic laws of game design. The two are not connected at all.
(Just as having 'pure' classes in the game does not lead to the slippery slope of removing all hybrid specs from the game and converting everyone to 'pure' classes, all classes being 'hybrid' does not mean they all have to be super-hybrid.)
Last edited by Kojiyama; 02-14-2011 at 02:12 PM.
Maintainer of Rawr.ProtWarr theorycrafting tool. Feel free to PM suggestions or feature requests!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks