Talent system is a failure

[Sosoulsu]

That's a joke, right?

Because I'm quite sure you never actually played with the Old Talent Trees if you're saying that.

- - - Updated - - -



Which is why they're taking a look at Talents and doing changes to them in 7.1.5.

I feel a slight choice as a Frost DK, but there's certain instances. Most of those instances involve 3 things: mobility, cleave fight, or single target.

And, in that case, there's virtually a cookie cutter for each spec, but I feel better about it than having the literally same 51 or 32 points in my trees from back in the day.

Hey there, started at the kickoff of BC.
Tell me when exactly would you switch talents around?
When would you go to your class trainer. Pay a ramping up gold cost to swap your tree around. And go back to the raid?
Frost Mages want that slow on Blizzard, or 4% added crit.
Wow, what a difference!

People change talents way more often nowadays. The system is way more interesting.

[Banard]

Welcome to life my friend. There's no choice, it's all an illusion. You will always pick the best option in any situation based on the information available to you. Even if you pick the "wrong" option you do it because you think it's the "right" thing to do. I'd rather have the illusion than nothing at all. Please elaborate a better system, would you rather have no talents at all?

as i said earlier in the thread...yes bake them in. At he bare min DPS ones should be removed and they should be pure utility only.

people are switching mainly because the situation cause for the switch..a common one is single vs aoe dps. What does baking them in mean? We just don't re-talent...classes get a more define (1) single target rotation (2) aoe target rotation

and potentially increase game style by adding a bit of depth "what rotation do i use and when."

It is just a very antique part of the game system.

[Wavebossa]

The idea is to get rid of the tier differentiation by mixing dps and utlity in each row. By making utlity more important in raids the dps talents will be less precious than before, gives a player less pressure to dps and perhaps even more challenge by performing the desired utlity well.

Those are still tiers...

If you reach a stage where you have options and you must choose only one of said options, that is a talent tier.
Doesn't matter if 1 is dps and 1 is mitigation, its still a tiered system.

A non-tiered system would be, you have 21 talents, pick any 7 and do work.

[Rogalicus]

I'd much prefer the return of cookie-cutter builds to what warlocks have now, when there is one build for AoE (which makes your single target DPS atrocious), one build for single target/cleave (which pretty much destroys your AoE) and also bucnh of talents no one will ever take (like Mortal Coil, Howl or Mana Tap). There is nothing good about that system, you just agree to spend 300g to switch talents before every fight or to be significantly underperforming for half the time.

[Wavebossa]

then why write an untrue fact?



if you dont want advocate then dont advocate yourself...

I dont think you know what advocating means.

[Banard]

People change talents way more often nowadays. The system is way more interesting.

agreed 100%..but the point is? we just click one a tome/hearth to respec to the next cookie cutter situation?

maybe i'll try a different angle...

why? why do we NEED this game? What purpose does it server?


another angle...been playing way to much wow since release....working my way through mythic EN...and as i sit here..as a hunter....for the life of me i cannot remember what some of the talent choices are.

I am glad for that, don't get me wrong. I do not want to be changing every boss. Something is not right...and its been three xpacs of this.

[Deleted]

A non-tiered system would be, you have 21 talents, pick any 7 and do work.

This just opened my eyes on how cool it could be

Also as Shadow priest or Surv hunter i change 1 talent for raid or myth, so in my prospective this talent tree is like the old one but even worse (imho)

[Tenjen]

actually i use many different setups, even on my rogue. I switch between poison and bleed specs dependings on the type of boss. High movement, add fights, high switchings, getting to stick to a boss. how often i have to get away from the boss. They all decide which one i go with.

This is even MORE true on my healadin. Having a group talent switch item so guildies can switch around during progress has more than once turned out to be the turning point in downing the boss.

It is annoying that we have to use a rather resource consuming item to change talents now but i still keep a few around to adapt my spec when relevant.

[Banard]

I'd much prefer the return of cookie-cutter builds to what warlocks have now, when there is one build for AoE (which makes your single target DPS atrocious), one build for single target/cleave (which pretty much destroys your AoE) and also bucnh of talents no one will ever take (like Mortal Coil, Howl or Mana Tap). There is nothing good about that system, you just agree to spend 300g to switch talents before every fight or to be significantly underperforming for half the time.

see you are half there...you have two cookie cutter builds...one for aoe and one for single...so bugger the talent trees and bake the talents in. Then you have 1 rotation for aoe and 1 rotation for single target.

And more depth because now you need to decide what rotation to use on what part during the fight...

[A dot Ham]

Not even remotely true. Many talents are changed depending on the content one is doing when playing optimally.

In other words. You don't have a choice, or you do but to choose a given talent not suited for the encounter is asinine.

Reading comprehension guys... (not calling you out personally because many others are making the mistake).

If for a given tier there is a single target ability and a multi target ability, and EVERYONE is switching to the BEST option for that specific encounter... there is an illusion of choice. Because if you choose a multi target spell on a single target encounter you are bad, stupid, etc.

Base line we all have situational abilities. What the OP is saying is stop with the illusion. Just bake those into baseline and we will use them as needed (aka situationally).

If for a given talent tree, talent tier, there is an obvious best choice either all the time or for a specific encounter, you have illusion of choice.

What the OP is saying is that the only way you truly have choice is if for a given tree or tier that all choices perform marginally the same and ultimately only effect play style.

[Wavebossa]

In other words. You don't have a choice, or you do but to choose a given talent not suited for the encounter is asinine.

Reading comprehension guys... (not calling you out personally because many others are making the mistake).

If for a given tier there is a single target ability and a multi target ability, and EVERYONE is switching to the BEST option for that specific encounter... there is an illusion of choice. Because if you choose a multi target spell on a single target encounter you are bad, stupid, etc.

Base line we all have situational abilities. What the OP is saying is stop with the illusion. Just bake those into baseline and we will use them as needed (aka situationally).

If for a given talent tree, talent tier, there is an obvious best choice either all the time or for a specific encounter, you have illusion of choice.

What the OP is saying is that the only way you truly have choice is if for a given tree or tier that all choices perform marginally the same and ultimately only effect play style.

This post is so good might need it to add it to the OP.

On the other hand, the fact that so many people have come in here and said exactly what you are replying to means that Blizzard has succeeded into tricking people with the illusion of choice.

People are literally in here describing how they use optimal cookie-cutter specs while proclaiming they've never had so much freedom in choosing talents.

Blizzard won, Blizzard has fooled everyone.

[Banard]

What the OP is saying is that the only way you truly have choice is if for a given tree or tier that all choices perform marginally the same and ultimately only effect play style.

close...but i am also saying it is impossible to do so **insert three xpac of blizzard trying to do this**.


The only argument people have been making here for the talent trees is character customisation. In reality, sorry if this sounds harsh...but talent trees are not in or should they be in the character customisation equation.

I totally agree Blizzard needs to add more character customisation, but no one should be thinking "i am a special snowflake because of my talent choices".

There is no "unique gaming" of wow talent system.

- - - Updated - - -

This post is so good might need it to add it to the OP.

good point ...and done.

[A dot Ham]

As an aside my opinions on some talents/spec/classes is that in some cases the 3 talent choices depend on effort and skill.

As in they have a good, better, best option. Now blizzard hasn't come right out and said this, this is more of my observation.

This goes hand in hand with what the player wants to be bothered/challenged with. Now this isn't every talent tier but some tiers have these "choices".

Passive - Good
Active - Better
Change to playstyle - Best

If all you do is run LFR and you really aren't overly concerned with performance and being competitive, maybe the passive appeals to you. If you are more of a novice player you create a macro and bind an active talent to a specific ability. If you are really interested in maximizing your performance and increasing your skillcap, the change to playstyle/rotation may appeal to you.

[Tenjen]

people redefining what cookie cutter means is utter bulshit. You can literally apply that ridiculous logic to everything in all games.

It isnt even what cookie cutter means. Cookie cutter has a broad application. When you have multiple shifting builds to go with different raid strategies, boss abilities and roles, it is no longer cookie cutter and has not become situational adaptation.

All i see here is hyperbole and badly thought out ideas for a new system. You look at the benefits of your suggestions without realizing the consequences of it. What we have now accomplishes what we need already. The best "issues" you offer are just minor inconveniences that are glossed over already.

[Banard]

As an aside my opinions on some talents/spec/classes is that in some cases the 3 talent choices depend on effort and skill.

As in they have a good, better, best option. Now blizzard hasn't come right out and said this, this is more of my observation.

This goes hand in hand with what the player wants to be bothered/challenged with. Now this isn't every talent tier but some tiers have these "choices".

Passive - Good
Active - Better
Change to playstyle - Best

If all you do is run LFR and you really aren't overly concerned with performance and being competitive, maybe the passive appeals to you. If you are more of a novice player you create a macro and bind an active talent to a specific ability. If you are really interested in maximizing your performance and increasing your skillcap, the change to playstyle/rotation may appeal to you.

yes but for some specs...the passive is the optimal choice for all situations....

[Ghâzh]

If for a given tier there is a single target ability and a multi target ability, and EVERYONE is switching to the BEST option for that specific encounter... there is an illusion of choice. Because if you choose a multi target spell on a single target encounter you are bad, stupid, etc.

It's hardly ever that simple. Sometimes there's add phases and single target phases in a given fight. Sometimes which area you choose to underline depends on your raid setup. Most often people think that there's a "cookie cutter" setup for something whereas there'd actually be room to improve if they were willing to put in the effort. The point is that you will have to choose from time to time whether that's based on your own idea or from somewhere else. The old talents gave little to no room for changes because there was so many passives.

[Schizoide]

Passive - Good
Active - Better
Change to playstyle - Best

Yeah, and those tiers are generally great.

Problem in many cases the design is subverted, and the passive talent is the highest damage, or the change to playstyle is actually a DPS loss, or one choice is better in all scenarios, or one is strictly single-target while the others are AE and single-target. Those are much more common than the proper tiers like you listed.

Lets go through the Havoc DH talents for example. DH is not my main, just a handy example-- as the new class, you would expect their talents to offer cool, interesting choices. But they just don't.

http://www.wowhead.com/talent-calc/demon-hunter/havoc

T99: Terrible. Fel Mastery is the best choice in all situations.

T100: Not bad, Prepared and Demon Blades both have their uses. Demonic Appetite is basically leveling-only.

T102: Terrible. Bloodlet is the choice in all PvE situations and most PvP. First Blood is situationally used in PvP.

T104: Terrible. Two options replace your main mitigation CD; one doesn't so everybody picks it.

T106: Terrible. Momentum is technically balanced with Nemesis but can be used essentially passively, even without Prepared, so it's up on every AE pack, not just bosses. Fel Eruption... maybe PvP?

T108: Terrible. Everybody takes Master of the Glaive. Other two cannot compete.

T110: Not bad, no design/mechanical problems, but the numbers aren't balanced. You essentially switch between Chaos Blades for single-target and Fel Barrage for AE. Demonic is primarily for soloing with Soul Rending in the 104 tier.

[Banard]

people redefining what cookie cutter means is utter bulshit. You can literally apply that ridiculous logic to everything in all games.

It isnt even what cookie cutter means. Cookie cutter has a broad application. When you have multiple shifting builds to go with different raid strategies, boss abilities and roles, it is no longer cookie cutter and has not become situational adaptation.

All i see here is hyperbole and badly thought out ideas for a new system. You look at the benefits of your suggestions without realizing the consequences of it. What we have now accomplishes what we need already. The best "issues" you offer are just minor inconveniences that are glossed over already.

how is it not cookie cutter? situation X means i do Y, situation W means i do Z?

I also don't think my idea of "baking them in" is the best of the best of ideas. Its just a idea. It will lead to the following situation X means use Y, situation W means i use Z. same thing just not hidden behind the illusion of choice.


this has been there for three xpacs now...guess the "only change in town" has highlighted more to me how silly these talent trees are. And before the next person says "qqing over cost"....i changed 1 talent once in two months. That isnt the issue.

[Wavebossa]

It's hardly ever that simple. Sometimes there's add phases and single target phases in a given fight. Sometimes which area you choose to underline depends on your raid setup. Most often people think that there's a "cookie cutter" setup for something whereas there'd actually be room to improve if they were willing to put in the effort. The point is that you will have to choose from time to time whether that's based on your own idea or from somewhere else. The old talents gave little to no room for changes because there was so many passives.

No its always that simple.

Name a dps spec and name a boss fight and I promise you there is a build that outpeforms all other builds beyond a margin of error for that said encounter.

People choosing incorrectly because they don't know any better does not mean that there isn't an optimal build.

[ComputerNerd]

"an optimal build and you ignore the rest"

Actually, I regularly tell my raiders to not play with certain "optimal" talents because they can't execute them well. I'd rather they use a passive that's 1% behind "optimal" than fail at the best and lose 5%.

Yeah, some people too readily equate optimal as meaning the best return.
Theoretical return maybe, but not in every circumstance.

The issue with the current system is poor choices within it.
Nothing else.

As a framework it is hugely better.

The new system offers more freedom to make choices.
It just suffers when those choices aren't actually that equal.