View Poll Results: Will the "hybrid" tax on shamans be reduced?

Voters
520. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    119 22.88%
  • No

    267 51.35%
  • Patched in post-launch

    39 7.50%
  • I'm not sure

    95 18.27%
Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
18
... LastLast
  1. #141
    The hybrid "tax" need to be bigger. Prolly up in the 15% area. The pure classes are getting lesser and lesser representation. There are around twice as many lvl 80 Paladins as lvl 80 Rogues - only Hunters and Mages(the only really pure dps class currently) can compete with the lesser popular hybrids - upping the tax would make Rogues and Warlocks a more specialized dps class which they should be. Newermind that homogenizing is bad for RPG games.

    Up the tax to around 10-15% but ( and this is important) make the Hybrid playstyle emphasize more on offhealing/offtanking in pve.

    Ditch meters which solely meassures dps. Hps/dmg absorbed from a hybrid class should count just as much as dps ( if values really matter that much). Thats what hybrid class should "specialize" in - hybrid gameplay.

    A team should have midfield players - who both excell in defense and offense, Hybrids is a raids midfielders.

  2. #142
    Dreadlord Shambulanced's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Maine, aka THE FROZEN NORTH
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by verdamte View Post
    The hybrid "tax" need to be bigger. Prolly up in the 15% area.
    Only if it's a consistent tax--hybrids are not taxed equally, as is evidenced by logs.

    There are around twice as many lvl 80 Paladins as lvl 80 Rogues
    There have always been more pallies than rogues around.

    Nevermind that homogenizing is bad for RPG games.
    The tax won't alleviate homogenization. Bringing back unique buffs will--but then raids feel required to bring those classes and balance around them. Pick your poison.

    Up the tax to around 10-15% but ( and this is important) make the Hybrid playstyle emphasize more on offhealing/offtanking in pve.
    While this is an interesting idea, it would be very difficult to pull off--and frankly, if you're going to have someone who is "not quite as good as a maintank/healer" then why not just bring a real tank/healer in that spot? Hybrids aren't hybrid because they do more than one thing mid-battle: they have the ability to swap specs. You don't see a Treeform druid dropping starfall, or an enhancement shaman tanking (although, at one point, that is what they did, and it never felt entirely correct).

    Ditch meters which solely meassures dps.
    Good luck getting 85% of the playerbase to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by flick86 View Post
    It is not and never will be elitist to expect another player to know how to play his class and carry his own weight.
    #Blizzardplsdontdodis

  3. #143
    A large reason so many people are experiencing lackluster dps is due to the fact you need insane gear to be competitive, double haste pots and possibly a TOTT from your rogues or PI from your disc priest who love you.

    So because the OP put "hybrid tax" in the topic means people can't cite all the many reasons for a shamans current state? REALLY?

  4. #144
    Mages and warlocks have more tanking opportunities in WoW than fury warriors. On top of that, if a possible low % wipe is coming, I can't tank the boss anywhere near as long as a rogue or hunter could. We had our first Firefighter and Sindragosa HM kills thanks to deflection. By this I'd say pures are the better main spec tanks over hybrid dps, respeccing/gearing is a BS excuse.

  5. #145
    Although, I must commend the OP for being extremely unbiased, which is actually refreshing, I'm ashamed to admit I don't exactly understand what you are trying to argue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timberwolfe View Post
    There is a solid hybrid tax in place.

    How much do is cost in time and Gold to maintain 2 seperate spec?

    ALOT.

    Two sets of gear for current content will take close to twice as much time to round up as a pure dps class will need to spend.

    Two sets of gear for current content will take twice as much gold to gem and enchant.

    With the exceptions of complete morons,(moron = looking at meters to the extent that the nice orange colour under their feet is completely un-noticed) every one playing a pure or hybrid is doing so because they like the play styles of different classes and/or specs. i.e. wether a % tax is around or not, all classes will be played.

    Due to the cost of having more than one spec for a hybrid, I do not see the point in us/them (dependant on which of my 80's) getting further penalized.
    I must disagree with the first couple things you said. Gearing my pally for holy/prot was much easier than gearing my rogue for different specs. Whether people want to believe it or not Rogues do have off spec gear. Take assassination and combat for example. One needs a ton of Arpen and the other needs none. So to have ideal Assiss. gear you want no arpen and gem all AP. If you were to switch to combat with that gear you'll do laughable dps as you need arpen gear gemmed with all arpen. Due to the ignorance of most players out there, it would be extremely hard to convince a raid that a rogue is truly rolling on off spec gear without everyone thinking he's just trying to take everything for himself.

    I am Warlock - Play Free Online Games

    99.99% of my posts are done via iPhone. Expect typos as it likes to change my words and doesn't pick up on MMO lingo very well.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Uzume View Post
    Im gonna sound like a real douche now but, you are one of "the better ehance shamans worldwide" but yet you gem 6 to all stats? Oo
    Off-topic, but you were wrong.
    With that meta, +10 to all stats and +6 (6 agi, 6 str, 6 int + 8 agi socket bonus = 26 ap + a bit of crit and int, better than 20 AP/15 stam) to all stats are the proper gems to use while activating it. He probably shouldn't be using that meta with his gear, but while he is he's doing it correctly.
    A better comment would be asking why 23 Agi to cloak over 23 Haste or why they have points in Elemental Focus/Shamanistic Focus.

    More on-topic, like other people are saying.. I wouldn't have a problem with a hybrid tax as long as it was done equally. I know I throw out chain heals on Sindragosa and in the frostmourne room when we do HLK and that's something pures can't do. I don't think I have as much of a problem with it as some people here though, I'm content with my DPS and even if the feral druids are rocking the meters I'd hate to be in their shoes having to stop what I'm doing and battle rez or innervate people.
    Last edited by Autonomy; 2010-08-04 at 07:16 PM.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    I've read that post, several times.
    Not entirely accurate. In fact, not accurate at all. GC sidesteps the issue quite deftly.

    Make hybrid tax fair, or get rid of it. Frankly, people play specific roles in a raid anyway--I'm rarely asked to drop my dps gear and swap to heals because we HAVE a healer who is better geared and practiced and shows up on time. So the hybrid "bonus" is often ephemeral at best. In situations like that (which will be more common in Cata, where there's a shared lockout and far more 10-mans running around) the only reason to bring a hybrid is for utility. Take away their utility, and you might as well take the superior dps.
    Heh, this is what most people don't notice, but some people are able to read between the lines.

    WARNING! Semi-long post, but it's worth the read, I promise. I'll be demonstrating using GC's words why the hybrid tax exists and why the tax itself keeps changing over time and will never achieve what Blizz ultimately says they want on the surface.

    The original GC post concerning the hybrid tax was very much like many political statements you see (dressing up issues, trying to make everyone happy, etc). I understand the practice, as in this game is a business investment, and keeping as many people happy as possible generates more revenue. Pissing off your entire player base isn't good for business.

    As for the actual content, most people don't really see what he said. First of all, GC acknowledged there is a hybrid tax, he just dispelled the idea that there's an exact percentage used as a tax model. When he states that the hybrid tax has largely evolved in WotLK and plan to use the design into Cataclysm, guess what... the tax exists in some form or another.

    GC explains that the hybrid tax existed in vanilla, but it was enforced by making one spec of a hybrid class the only viable raiding spec (tanking or healing, no DPS role). GC goes on to explain how they attempted to apply a hybrid tax in BC but didn't use it for all hybrids (aka warriors designed to be the best tanks and put out DPS at levels of pure DPS)... also they used powerful buffs and utility as a balance for the low DPS of the hybrids. GC then states that these buffs and utility were spread out in WotLK and they plan on refining the buff placement into Cataclysm.

    Alright... on the surface, GC is explaining how the actual hybrid tax has evolved and was implemented. What he doesn't tell you is WHY they had to keep changing the hybrid tax. It's simple, it revolves around the other tenant resonanting in the halls of Blizz: "Bring the player, not the class."

    The list of statments prior to GC explaining how the hybrid tax has evolved over time actually touches on this matter of why the tax kept changing. I'll list a couple of the statements from the post so you can see the progression.

    "We think the pure classes would start to disappear over time, at least from high-end raiding, if there was no advantage for being a pure. "

    "...the Blizzard definition of hybrid in this context has nothing to do with the power of certain buffs or class synergy. We want all classes to bring useful tools to the raid. "

    "If your guild or raid has no more need for damage-dealers, there is no way for these classes to raid with you. By contrast, the six other classes always have the option to respec for another role either temporarily or for the long haul."

    First statement is why there is a tax, Blizzard is afraid if pures and hybrids had the same DPS potential, pure DPS classes would die out and no one would play them at least in high-end raiding. Simplified, Blizz wants there to be a balancing method for classes so that any player has a chance to get a raid spot regardless of which class they choose... "bring the player, not the class."

    Second statement says the definition (keyword: definition) of a hybrid isn't the measure of class buffs or class synergy. In BC, how did they compensate for hybrids doing less damage? That's right, GC specifically stated Blizz gave them powerful buffs and utility to compensate for their lower DPS (so there was a reason to be brought to raid over a pure DPS). Bringing a player because they bring a buff/utility... wait a second, that sounds more like "bring the class, not the player,"... I'm sure people raiding in BC knew what ultimately happened, stacking shamans for Heroism/Lust in each group, needed to bring enough paladins to cover the 10-billion pally buffs, etc... this is why the BC model didn't get ultimately applied to warriors and why this model didn't stick around in WotLK. People were bringing the class and not the player, and their change for WotLK (and ultimately Cataclysm) was to spread out these unique buffs and utilities to... yup, give them to the pure DPS classes, and in Cataclysm 20 of the 24 raid buffs/debuffs listed by GC earlier are brought by pure DPS classes.

    Chugging along, Blizz needs to stay true to "Bring the player, not the class." Third statement, Blizz states if there is an excess of DPS, a pure DPS class doesn't have the option of switching to tank/heals and would get sat out... but by contrast, a hybrid class could spec to heals/tank and be kept in raid. What GC fails to address is the following situation, and this pops up quite a bit now: what if there is an excess of tanks or heals? Put your thinking caps on, ladies and gentlemen, let's tackle this situation. If you are a hybrid tank or healer, what are your options? You have the flexibility to switch to DPS if you so choose. Now... WHY would the raid want you to DPS as a hybrid if they have the option of bringing in a pure DPS? Keeping the definition of a hybrid and the direction Blizz is headed, a hybrid should be doing less damage than a pure DPS, in WotLK and into Cataclysm the hybrid's buffs/debuffs have a very high probably of being brought by a pure DPS class... wait, if there's no difference between the buffs/debuffs a hybrid will bring to your raid over the pure DPS and the pure DPS is going to put out more damage when I don't need a healer or tank, why would I not want to bring a pure DPS over a hybrid?

    Here's the problem: in an effort to penalize hybrid DPS in order to have raids/guilds bring in pure DPS instead, Blizz creates the scenario where buffs/debuffs and utility do not separate hybrids from pures, and there is no reason to bring in a hybrid DPS at all if a pure brings everything to the table plus more DPS. This is what happens when you try to enforce a "hybrid tax" and "bring the player, not the class" at the same time... it's impossible.

    Blizz has been trying to make the hybrid tax work ever since vanilla, but Blizz finds out each time that when they try to give a reason to bring a class over another class via hybrid taxation, it goes against bringing a player instead of a class. This whole concept really boils down to simple logic, honestly, you cannot give reasons to bring one class over another and expect people not to bring a class over a player. But in reality, with logic so simple, it's easy to see that they aren't doing all this out of logic... it's pure political motivation to keep the majority of people happy that Blizz is trying to bring equality to all in WoW and keep the subscriptions coming in. Again, not saying I blame them for what they are doing, because business is business.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2010-08-07 at 03:28 AM. Reason: Fixed some typo's
    *Since I'm tired of reposting the link:* EH vs TTL and Hybrid Tax

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Autonomy View Post
    More on-topic, like other people are saying.. I wouldn't have a problem with a hybrid tax as long as it was done equally. I know I throw out chain heals on Sindragosa and in the frostmourne room when we do HLK and that's something pures can't do.
    My issue with this is that as a ret paladin im already stretched to the gills on my mana, my heals are effectively peanuts and mutiple judgements are just passively over-ridden not stackable. So as long as there are more than 2 pallies per raid my utility beyond the standard kings/wis/might (all of which are replaceable although generally not the case) what is MY utility? They dont have int on my gear, and as far back as i've played ret they havent had a conversion of int > ap for my class.

    In order to be at the top of my game I have to take gear which is strictly itemized and not even the type of gear I would like (agi gear in a lot of cases is technically BiS).

    So that leaves me with salv, and HoP. Salv's tend to be on cd when they are needed as most rets I know need to use them for initial threat reduction. HoP's are very situational and theres a very good chance that unless its a planned HoP you wont get it off on time due to vent lag, or trying to find someone via raid frames.

    As ive said before, Im ok with doing less damage just give me another kickass reason to be in the raid, I loved that I was number 5 on our damage charts and top healer the first time my guild got OS3D. I felt proud knowing that while I wasnt on top, I did solid damage and contributed massively to my guilds kill.

    The simple fact is that there is a hybrid tax, and it varies from hybrid to hybrid. Just because warriors and druids seem to be somewhat immune to it doesnt mean that shamans, priests, and pallies are (which I maintain are the real hybrids).
    I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want.* If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money; but what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I've acquired over a very long career, skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.* If you let my daughter go now that will be the end of it.* I will not look for you, i will not pursue you but if you don't;* I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

  9. #149
    Pit Lord
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Daez View Post
    There is a combination yes/no answer there since the "hybrid tax" HAS NOT EXISTED SINCE TBC. Blizzard has quoted countless numbers of times that hybrids that are played well can do as much if not more damage than pures. The current top dps specs are shadow priest (normally on top of the meters or gtfo), blood/unholy dks and fury warriors. All of those are hybrids not pures so they are perfect examples to shoot your non-existent "hybrid tax" out of the water. Also, well played elemental/enhancement shamans can easily earn a spot in the top 5 if they don't suck.
    The hybrid tax is not in terms of individual performance, but in terms of how things are balanced. For the most part, a purist can beat a hybrid, given equal skill and gear.
    Part of this is broken right now, because Shadowmourne is not a useful weapon for any purist. Thus, we get higher numbers out of warriors, ret, and DKs. ArPen scaling is also pushing some hybrids pretty high. Why shadow priests are high is a bit harder to figure out, but it hasn't been the case constantly, it's just that sometimes specs roll high, some roll low.

    Elem/hance are, on paper, about on par with the non-Shadowmourne hybrids. If played well, on the right encounter, they can put out very competitive numbers. Problem is, for many encounters they lose a lot due to mobility. Hance is a little too heavy on spell damage to scale with ArP like most other melee dps, and elem has too few tools to match the situations they run into.

    The tax is there, it is real, it just isn't rigorously applied yet. Mastery is intended to give Blizz the ability to tune DPS more precisely, and if that pans out, the tax can be applied cleanly as well.

    ---------- Post added 2010-08-04 at 12:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by bigskurrah View Post
    Thanks for arguing blizzards semantic argument, which is total bullshit I might add. If you are specced into a dps role your heals are shit as is your longevity. 99.9% of the time you are there to provide said dps and will not be providing any heals WHATSOEVER. How does it make sense to rape a class of 30% (just a number -- throw in whatever you want) in a hybrid tax for a role or spell they use a whopping 1% of the time? I don't see warlocks nerfed into the gutter because they can tank a fight once in a while.
    It has nothing to do with being able to heal or tank suddenly while you're DPSing. It has everything to do with being able to change your spec and gear to match a non-DPS role. Yes, it's semantics, but it's also completely critical.

    Also, there is no hybrid tax anywhere near 30%. If you take the lowest class and compare to the highest class, the gap is generally about 15%. If you correct for things being changed in Cata (i.e., known balancing issues like Shadowmourne, rage, arpen), then the gap is under 10%.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigskurrah View Post
    Either way, shaman numbers were kept low for most simply for the amount of buffs a shaman can bring WITHOUT talenting for them as stated per GC. This has been the case for as long as this game has been around, and most likely will not change until shaman numbers drop into the gutter.

    PS: The single largest reason shaman dps is kept low I suspect is because it is 10x more difficult to find a healer then it is to find a dps, in effect pigeon-holing many shamans that wish to raid into resto. Just a thought.
    Shaman numbers in LK were not kept low for their array of untalented buffs. Shaman DPS isn't really even that low, it just doesn't match encounters properly. If there was a double tax on shaman DPS, it was because of Bloodlust. We have no solid evidence one way or another whether they balanced around that.

    As for your quasi-conspiracy theory that shaman DPS was low to push more shaman to heal, that seems a bit silly. Why not keep priest dps low? Twice as many heal specs to potentially switch to, making it more likely those respecs would "stick". Why not any other hybrids?

  10. #150
    It has nothing to do with being able to heal or tank suddenly while you're DPSing. It has everything to do with being able to change your spec and gear to match a non-DPS role. Yes, it's semantics, but it's also completely critical.

    Also, there is no hybrid tax anywhere near 30%. If you take the lowest class and compare to the highest class, the gap is generally about 15%. If you correct for things being changed in Cata (i.e., known balancing issues like Shadowmourne, rage, arpen), then the gap is under 10%.
    I think you are attempting to make that argument seem larger then it really is, same as people agreeing with GC in saying pures would totally disappear if hybrids were brought closer to pures in terms of DPS. Fact of the matter is; you are brought to dps if your raid requires you to spec into a dps spec, you should be able to perform up to par regardless if you can heal,tank or shit a purple fucking twinkie.

    I would have provided ruby sanctum but I didn't see one posted. If you were to look at the current dps class comparisions across the board the gap is nowhere near 10-15% for most. Not sure where you learned math but 3-4 thousand is not 10-15%. Here, I've taken the liberty of finding one for you. wowmeteronline.com/rank/classrank/dtb/9/0/3




    As for your quasi-conspiracy theory that shaman DPS was low to push more shaman to heal, that seems a bit silly. Why not keep priest dps low? Twice as many heal specs to potentially switch to, making it more likely those respecs would "stick". Why not any other hybrids?
    " By contrast, druids, paladins, priests and shaman were intended to be competitive healers"

    Quasi huh?

    And there is a double tax on shamans, it's been said by Kalgan himself that we were taxed too hard for having bloodlust as well. Throw that into the mix with the fact we are a hybrid and what do you get?

    I've played a shaman for a long time and as such even kept up with alot of the news -- hell I even remember when Kalgan called elem shamans a one dimensional burst class and said that was going to change, but we would have to sacrifice certain things in order to gain a little. Sacrificed plenty yet -- I don't see a whole lot returned.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbimojo View Post
    As for your quasi-conspiracy theory that shaman DPS was low to push more shaman to heal, that seems a bit silly. Why not keep priest dps low? Twice as many heal specs to potentially switch to, making it more likely those respecs would "stick". Why not any other hybrids?
    For all those commenting that shaman DPS is low because of the hybrid tax....

    The answer is yes and no.

    Yes, shamans are hybrids because they can DPS or heal. Therefore, they fall under the jurisdiction of hybrid taxation, and consequently shamans are supposed to be the target of lower DPS compared to pure DPS output. For those that see Heroism/Bloodlust as the reason shamans DPS is taxed so much, if this was true shamans healers would be penalized in some way compared to other healers and shamans in their current state would not be brought to raids in Cataclysm with mages (a pure DPS class, no less) getting an equivalent buff. For those that can see how this situation breeds a much worse situation independent of the hybrid tax, see my signature link to my hybrid tax post!

    No, shaman DPS is low (even compared to other hybrids) because of all the recent encounters are extremely poor in terms of complimenting shaman DPS playstyle. Especially in ICC, cleave classes will reign surpreme in DPS and damage, just the ugly facts of life. On fights w/o cleave, most classes deal with boss and positional movement much better than shamans in term of sustaining DPS.

    Granted this topic is in the shaman forums, the thread topic of hybrid taxation is more than just about shamans. For ease, I've added my comments concerning the hybrid tax in my signature.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2010-08-04 at 08:22 PM.
    *Since I'm tired of reposting the link:* EH vs TTL and Hybrid Tax

  12. #152
    Pit Lord
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    ...
    It doesn't address the inequities. The hybrid tax is not a flat tax: druids, warriors, shadow priests, and DKs can end up far above other hybrids on damage meters, and it's not just because of one or two fight mechanics or player skill or itemization (although those can, and often do, play a part)--it can be across the course of a raid purely because of class balance.

    I don't have a problem with hybrids being taxed. I have a problem with all Hybrids not being taxed evenly.
    Well, the tax has been fairly even on-and-off through the expac, and where it hasn't been applied, there's been justification.
    Warriors: again, arpen, a legendary, and the traditional end-of-expac ragecapping.
    DKs: 3 specs to balance means at any time DKs had a good chance of being high DPS. They've also scaled well with arpen and shadowmourne. Additionally, they have a lot of survival tools (+DS heals) that let them play with a bit more risk meaning superior uptime for skilled players. Also just some new mechanics Blizz has had to fight, like Wandering Plague and having their AOE not subject to caps.
    Feral: Average DPS is actually not that exceptional, because the average player makes mistakes. It isn't that feral is extremely difficult, it's just more difficult for an average player than most specs. Thus it's balanced around that, though as Blizz gradually chills out the difficulty (1min mangle, etc.), they won't be able to justify the high top-end. Feral also scale extremely well with arpen.

    As I said above, with Mastery, more normalization of mechanics (DK diseases/loss of survival in the dps specs, warrior rage, ferals moved more into bleeds, loss of arpen), and the extra balance room granted by higher PVP health pools, the tax should be easier to apply fairly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    Shaman are a key case. Let's take elemental, for example. Simple rotation, simple to gear (especially if you use a spreadsheet). Yet, they often lag far behind other classes/specs. Enhancement shaman can really lay on thick dps--but that is greatly hurt (as another bluepost addressed) by movement where other class/specs may not lose as much.

    As a poster pointed out on the first page, there are a lot of variables; however, there's a lot of variables in everything in WoW--that's not a valid excuse to give a class the shaft.
    I don't know that I'd say elemental lag "far behind" other specs. The WMO digging I've done suggests they do fine where you would expect, given their mobility-related issues (AOE requires they run to an enemy, relatively low damage-while-moving, damage generally not wrapped into cooldowns so they don't get compensated for the downtime). In fact, from what I've seen of charts, it seems Elem is in a better place than Hance for raw output. Nevertheless, virtually every elem I see does low damage, so I'm not sure what drives that difference of experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    Not entirely accurate. In fact, not accurate at all. GC sidesteps the issue quite deftly.

    Make hybrid tax fair, or get rid of it. Frankly, people play specific roles in a raid anyway--I'm rarely asked to drop my dps gear and swap to heals because we HAVE a healer who is better geared and practiced and shows up on time. So the hybrid "bonus" is often ephemeral at best. In situations like that (which will be more common in Cata, where there's a shared lockout and far more 10-mans running around) the only reason to bring a hybrid is for utility. Take away their utility, and you might as well take the superior dps.
    That's just your experience. You acknowledge 10s in Cata, and I can say even now they're quite different: Since ToC I've been running a 10man guild. Due to the type of people we recruit (highly skilled players who don't want a heavy raiding schedule, ~4hrs/week raiding, and who want the ability to skip raids when life suggests it), we commonly have to shift roles around. E.g., we'd rather have an exceptional DPS switch to heals (who is also exceptional heals) than pug a healer.

    Whether the "bonus" is, over the population, significant or not is something nobody in this thread can really argue. Blizzard feels it is, and they're the only ones in a position to have actual data on whether or not it's significant.

    In any case, the tax only needs to be strong enough to keep people rolling purists. 1% might be enough, it might not. That's for Blue to decide.

    ---------- Post added 2010-08-04 at 01:48 PM ----------

    Well, I had been hoping someone would follow my last post so I wouldn't have to create an entire page of just me, but maybe readers can pretend each quote starts a new post. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    Chugging along, Blizz needs to stay true to "Bring the player, not the class." Third statement, Blizz states if there is an excess of DPS, a pure DPS class doesn't have the option of switching to tank/heals and would get sat out... but by contrast, a hybrid class could spec to heals/tank and be kept in raid. What GC fails to address is the following situation, and this pops up quite a bit now: what if there is an excess of tanks or heals?
    ...
    Now... WHY would the raid want you to DPS as a hybrid if they have the option of bringing in a pure DPS? Keeping the definition of a hybrid and the direction Blizz is headed, a hybrid should be doing less damage than a pure DPS, in WotLK and into Cataclysm the hybrid's buffs/debuffs have a very high probably of being brought by a pure DPS class... wait, if there's no difference between the buffs/debuffs a hybrid will bring to your raid over the pure DPS and the pure DPS is going to put out more damage when I don't need a healer or tank, why would I not want to bring a pure DPS over a hybrid?
    How often does that really happen, though?

    The numbers I've chewed on earlier in the thread are these: (going to use what we're going into with Cata, rather than live, due to DK changes)
    5man: 20% tank, 60% dps, 20% healer
    10man: 20% tank, 50% dps, 30% healer
    25man: 8-12% tank, 64-72% dps, 20-24% healer
    Specs: 13.3% tank, 70% dps, 16.6% healer (actually, feral should make this add up to more than 100% heh)

    Now, I'm not going to even try to claim that people choose a random spec out of 30 or anything. However, we know from LFD that there are far more DPS than heals, and more heals than tanks. That means the real numbers of people trying to LFD are skewed towards DPS. Say there are just the right number of tanks. Then for every tank that queues, we've got maybe 1.5 healers queued (1 needed), and maybe 6-10 dps (3 needed).

    Any given group/guild/raid could have any ratio of tank:heal:dps, but overall the DPS will be the ones needing to sit.

    Certainly, it happens the other way, but the tax is a population dynamics argument anyways. It doesn't matter if, in your situation, there's pressure to switch to DPS. In fact, they rely on the idea that people will want to switch DPS, and that when doing so they will have some reason to roll a purist. That's why the tax exists, right?

    As for "why" you might go with a hybrid dps rather than pure: If you're in this situation, you already know your role can change, and you (presumably) know you liked to heal/tank previously. So, maybe you want to stay on that hybrid so you have the option to pick up excess loot to maintain your other gear? Maybe you want achieves (which, so far as we know, still aren't going account-wide with Cata release. Maybe later?) on the same character, maybe you want to get Invincible because you're a mount collector... Who knows? People get attached to characters.

    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    Here's the problem: in an effort to penalize hybrid DPS in order to have raids/guilds bring in pure DPS instead, Blizz creates the scenario where buffs/debuffs and utility do noy separate hybrids from pures, and there is no reason to bring in a hybrid DPS at all if a pure brings everything to the table plus more DPS. This is what happens when you try to enforce a "hybrid tax" and "bring the player, not the class" at the same time... it's impossible.
    ...
    This whole concept really boils down to simple logic, honestly, you cannot give reasons to bring one class over another and expect people not to bring a class over a player. ...
    I generally agree that they've put themselves into a situation that is fundamentally going to be uncomfortable for designers and for players. Whether they will work their way out or not remains to be seen.

    I don't think it's impossible, but I also don't think they have any interest in "enforcing" "bring the player, not the class". They've disabused us of the idea that it is a "law" of design for them or any such thing at this point, just that it is a good goal.

    They could probably have taken it all in a better direction if they just made it so buffs were based on player performance a bit more. That way, you'd know the difference between an amazing enhance shaman and a poor one. With those buffs being flat, there was very little difference, and that's why we got the BTPNTC idea revved up after BC's raiding debacle.

  13. #153
    Just to keep one of my post-semi short for once, I'll omit quoting the above post by rabbimojo. However, I will say I agree of your assessment concerning of why the DPS/damage difference between shamans and other hybrids has nothing to do with the hybrid tax and everything to do with scaling and raid content.

    I think most people are trying to say (just not stating it correctly) is how the hybrid tax is slated to hurt shaman representation in Cataclysm. Heroism/Bloodlust will no longer be exclusive to shamans and given to a pure DPS class, all the raid buffs provided by shamans can be supplied by other classes (many of them pure DPS classes in Cataclysm)... people are wondering if shamans cannot provide a unique buff since a pure DPS class can bring the buff plus more DPS, why would you bring a shaman with inferior DPS innately?

    Now, you can replace the class shaman with any other hybrid class, and ask the question "why would I be brought to raid as a DPS when the raid has the option of bringing a pure DPS class that brings all the same buffs/debuffs/utility that I do plus more DPS on top of it all?" The situation completely flips the scenario around on Blizz: people rolling hybrids and hybrid representation as DPS in raids would disappear (in reality, it's similar to how vanilla for classes pigeon-holed into roles since it's the only role that would be brought to raids since their DPS potential was inferior to pure classes... the implementation method is just different).

    Just reinforces that a hybrid tax and "bring the player, not the class" cannot coexist.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2010-08-04 at 08:51 PM.
    *Since I'm tired of reposting the link:* EH vs TTL and Hybrid Tax

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    Blizz has been trying to make the hybrid tax work ever since vanilla, but Blizz finds out each time that when they try to give a reason to bring a class over another class via hybrid taxation, it goes against bringing a player instead of a class. This whole concept really boils down to simple logic, honestly, you cannot give reasons to bring one class over another and expect people not to bring a class over a player. But in reality, with logic so simple, it's easy to see that they aren't doing all this out of logic... it's pure political motivation to keep the majority of people happy that Blizz is trying to bring equality to all in WoW and keep the subscriptions coming in. Again, not saying I blame them for what they are doing, because business is business.
    Good post. I was on paper in favor with this concept of "hybrid tax" but your post made me realise there is a real dichotomy between:

    A) Bring the player not the class.
    B) Hybrid tax.

    However, I think "Hybrid tax" is both a misnomer, bad politics, and even likely has no link to its implementation.

    The easiest way to see this is to imagine everyone playing the exact same base class but bringing different buffs to a group situation. As WoW has evolved, the categories of buffs have been reallocated from one set of players to now as many players as possible. However, the only "buff category" which has not been reallocated and no intent to reallocate is Damage. Blizzard have decide to keep the Damage buff category to pures exclusively. In other words, when you bring a pure to your raid, you're not just getting the normal buffs but you gain an additional Damage buff. The cost of that Damage buff to the player and the group is the lack of role-changing flexibility (not total lack mind, since Blizzard decided not to include warriors and dks as hybrids). Therefore, "Pures Damage Buff" rather than "Hybrid Tax" (a positive rather than negative intent) is better politically and likely more accurate name due to implementation.

    There is an argument that if Blizzard balance around the Damage Buff category for pures against the environment, then for pures their damage is a type of survival buff since you can eliminate an "ordinary" threat before it kills you much like you can outlast the threat as a hybrid since you are able to heal yourself. However, I think the game has come a long way since inception and this form of balancing is minimal not least because there are now a full 21 viable dps specs in PvE.

    That said, there is another category of buffs which has not been reallocated: crowd control. Since the importance of this category is returning in Cataclysm, I really do wonder if Blizzard have taken into account that the values of pures in a non-nuke-or-gtfo-WotLK environment is a lot higher. Half the problem with parts of the previous expansion is that some classes even well before the endgame, namely mages and less so rogues, had enormous damage compared to other damage dealing specs and yet had the strongest battlefield control. This reduced the demand (drastically in some cases) for hybrids who played dps specs. The only hope is that Blizzard have come a long way in tightly controlling class balance and buff balance since then and the likelihood of one class being so far ahead that it fills most raid dps spots by itself is fairly small.

    However, I will be levelling a mage in Cataclysm, just in case!

    In respect to shamans, I cannot put it better than this since its so blatantly obvious (Blizzard have said it themselves and are trying to figure out how to fix it in Cata - especially for enhancement):

    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    Just to keep one of my post-semi short for once, I'll omit quoting the above post by rabbimojo. However, I will say I agree of your assessment concerning of why the DPS/damage difference between shamans and other hybrids has nothing to do with the hybrid tax and everything to do with scaling and raid content.
    Exochaft omits the word "mobility" directly but it is implied with "scaling".

    Finally, a very important point is that I believe the vast majority of players roll a hybrid precisely because its a hybrid, i.e. they want the role flexiblity. In my experience, there are very few people who roll a hybrid because from the very start to the very end they will play one role and one role only come hell or highwater on a hybrid. So, those arguing that an imbalance could exist the other way around in terms of the availabilty of hybrids vs pures just because of damage dealing spec alone, this argument can only go so far. The baseline are players who want to be hybrids for their inherent role flexiblity, imo.
    Last edited by squeeze; 2010-08-04 at 09:12 PM.

  15. #155
    Pit Lord
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by bigskurrah View Post
    I think you are attempting to make that argument seem larger then it really is, same as people agreeing with GC in saying pures would totally disappear if hybrids were brought closer to pures in terms of DPS. Fact of the matter is; you are brought to dps if your raid requires you to spec into a dps spec, you should be able to perform up to par regardless if you can heal,tank or shit a purple fucking twinkie.

    I would have provided ruby sanctum but I didn't see one posted. If you were to look at the current dps class comparisions across the board the gap is nowhere near 10-15% for most. Not sure where you learned math but 3-4 thousand is not 10-15%. Here, I've taken the liberty of finding one for you. wowmeteronline.com/rank/classrank/dtb/9/0/3
    Your attitude isn't appreciated.

    I was reiterating the reason that Blizz has maintained the hybrid tax. I'm not making anything "seem larger than" it is, I'm just clarifying facts. (Modulo political posturing by devs)
    Also, nobody is arguing pures would "totally disappear" if hybrids were brought in line. The argument is just that there is a population drain from pures to hybrids because of the popularity of the different roles, and that over time if left unchecked that will result in a dwindling population of purists. It's of course ludicrous to suggest people wouldn't play purists, which is why nobody's arguing it. People do a lot of things against the grain.

    Regarding the tax magnitude and "30%": There's a difference between a tax and fight/class mechanics. I understand that this is the Interblogoweb and all, so you may be assuming I'm an idiot and incapable of forming precise statements - neither is true. I said tax and I meant tax.

    I'm well aware of how to dig through WMO. Here's a link for you, to show more what I mean:
    http://code.google.com/p/simulationc...ampleOutputT10
    Of course, simcraft is only as good as its writers, and tends to lag reality a bit. More critically, it doesn't take into account the dynamics of most fights.
    So, I'm aware that the gap between the top parse for one class and another can be 30% or more. My argument was that it isn't an intentional gap (the tax), but an unintentional factor of fight mechanics. Talking about the tax in the context of those things is about as useful as talking about DPS balance on DBS, where you've got fundamentally different experiences for ranged and melee.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigskurrah View Post
    " By contrast, druids, paladins, priests and shaman were intended to be competitive healers"

    Quasi huh?

    And there is a double tax on shamans, it's been said by Kalgan himself that we were taxed too hard for having bloodlust as well. Throw that into the mix with the fact we are a hybrid and what do you get?

    I've played a shaman for a long time and as such even kept up with alot of the news -- hell I even remember when Kalgan called elem shamans a one dimensional burst class and said that was going to change, but we would have to sacrifice certain things in order to gain a little. Sacrificed plenty yet -- I don't see a whole lot returned.
    Yes, there were taxes on the characters traditionally. I've been playing since Vanilla beta, I remember the evolution of the tax quite well. That doesn't apply to LK, however.
    It is possible that elem/hance are extra-taxed for Bloodlust though I haven't seen any recent (since LK) comments to that effect, from Kalgan or anyone else. I'd be interested in seeing that, if you have a link. That said, such a second tax can hardly be inferred as existing with the intent to promote shaman healing. It may in fact be the case, but that would be a pretty bizarre departure from LK philosophy.

    Incidentally, lust can probably justify an additional couple percent (maybe as much as 5%) tax on hance/elem, in live. It'd be lame, considering that a resto shaman can bring it just as easily, and I imagine that's your argument (if double-taxed, then just have rsham bring it so you don't pay the hybrid part of the tax). Still, it is a pretty solid raid dps improvement, and it is limited to a single class.

    ---------- Post added 2010-08-04 at 01:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    ...
    Now, you can replace the class shaman with any other hybrid class, and ask the question "why would I be brought to raid as a DPS when the raid has the option of bringing a pure DPS class that brings all the same buffs/debuffs/utility that I do plus more DPS on top of it all?" The situation completely flips the scenario around on Blizz: people rolling hybrids and hybrid representation as DPS in raids would disappear (in reality, it's similar to how vanilla for classes pigeon-holed into roles since it's the only role that would be brought to raids since their DPS potential was inferior to pure classes... the implementation method is just different).
    Looks like I should have waited another minute!

    I think there is definitely a risk of people being pushed to pures. I think this is, frankly, more to do with perception than reality. Many people still believe hybrids are taxed for the buffs they bring, when the devs have said otherwise many times now. So for many, the loss of those buffs (well, as an advantage vs. pures) while still paying the tax they think is associated will make people go "Ohhhk, so hybrids are just useless?"

    It's unfortunate, but I think that is the PR situation Blizz has placed themselves in due to how vitriolic the whole topic was in Vanilla/BC.

    I'm still in support of the idea that purists and hybrids should, on paper, be equivalent DPS. I would then like to see purists given the ability to DPS around more mechanics. e.g., rogues cloaking a debuff might let them fight through it, achieving superior uptime. That way, they would still be ahead (and in a "my entire life is dps, forever"-matching way), but hybrids wouldn't be able to point to sim charts (like I linked above) showing themselves behind. That would also give Blizz a good way to determine whether a mastery rating needs to be tuned up or down.

    In reality, the likely outcome of Cata will be a near-abolishment of the hybrid tax. It's probably just not something they can get people to agree with, as fundamentally people don't want to know the game is balanced, they want to know that they are balanced. People want to feel in control of their own destinies, and the tax runs afoul of that.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbimojo View Post
    I'm still in support of the idea that purists and hybrids should, on paper, be equivalent DPS. I would then like to see purists given the ability to DPS around more mechanics. e.g., rogues cloaking a debuff might let them fight through it, achieving superior uptime. That way, they would still be ahead (and in a "my entire life is dps, forever"-matching way), but hybrids wouldn't be able to point to sim charts (like I linked above) showing themselves behind. That would also give Blizz a good way to determine whether a mastery rating needs to be tuned up or down.

    In reality, the likely outcome of Cata will be a near-abolishment of the hybrid tax. It's probably just not something they can get people to agree with, as fundamentally people don't want to know the game is balanced, they want to know that they are balanced. People want to feel in control of their own destinies, and the tax runs afoul of that.
    Good idea. Sort of adding mage-like survival control instead of a Pures Damage Buff.

    Yes, I think your final paragraph is spot on! It will just gradually be eliminated (if it hasn't been already tbh - its hard to tell due to scaling differences with different types of damage dealing). The interesting question is of course how!

  17. #157
    Pit Lord
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
    ...
    However, I think "Hybrid tax" is both a misnomer, bad politics, and even likely has no link to its implementation.
    ...
    Good post.

    I agree, they could sell the idea a lot better. I'm not sure if they coined the "tax" terminology or if that was the playerbase; lost in the sands of time, I imagine.

    Crowd control is being distributed gradually, so I'm not sure that will end up being the purist niche. Reliable and broad-application crowd control, maybe.
    Warriors: intimidating shout is moving to work more like repentance (duration-wise), I think? The AOE part removed.
    DKs: This is a really good question, since currently their only class-wide "CC" is the old BC warrior CC: Switch to tankiness, taunt. Frost do have the AOE incapacitate, I guess.
    SP: Disarm + fearbomb, shackle? Not sure how much shackling will be done.
    Shaman have hex, and are getting an elemental CC
    Ret: HoJ/repentance
    Feral: root, hibernate

    Thinking a bit on the "damage buff" pures bring, in your post... Maybe a bit ironic. Perhaps the tax should just be replaced with a set of purist-unique buffs, much as BC had hybrid-unique buffs? That would guarantee pures had continued value, but it wouldn't be something you'd ever try to stack.

    That role inversion makes me chuckle.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
    Good post. I was on paper in favor with this concept of "hybrid tax" but your post made me realise there is a real dichotomy between:

    A) Bring the player not the class.
    B) Hybrid tax.

    However, I think "Hybrid tax" is both a misnomer, bad politics, and even likely has no link to its implementation.

    The easiest way to see this is to imagine everyone playing the exact same base class but bringing different buffs to a group situation. As WoW has evolved, the categories of buffs have been reallocated from one set of players to now as many players as possible. However, the only "buff category" which has not been reallocated and no intent to reallocate is Damage. Blizzard have decide to keep the Damage buff category to pures exclusively. In other words, when you bring a pure to your raid, you're not just getting the normal buffs but you gain an additional Damage buff. The cost of that Damage buff to the player and the group is the lack of role-changing flexibility (not total lack mind, since Blizzard decided not to include warriors and dks as hybrds). Therefore, "Pures Damage Buff" rather than "Hybrid Tax" (a positive rather than negative intent) is better politically and likely more accurate name due to implementation.

    There is an argument that if Blizzard balance around the Damage Buff category for pures against the environment, then for pures their damage is a type of survival buff since you can eliminate an "ordinary" threat before it kills you much like you can outlast the threat as a hybrid since you are able to heal yourself. However, I think the game has come a long way since inception and this form of balancing is minimal not least because there are now a full 21 viable dps specs in PvE.

    That said, there is another category of buffs which has not been reallocated: crowd control. Since the importance of this category is returning in Cataclysm I really do wonder if Blizzard have taken into account that the values of pures in a non-nuke-or-gtfo-WotLK environment is a lot higher. Half the problem with parts of the previous expansion is that some classes even well before the endgame, namely mages and less so rogues, had enormous damage compared to other damage dealing specs and yet had the strongest battlefield control. This reduced the demand (drastically in some cases) for hybrids who played dps specs. The only hope is that Blizzard have come a long way in tightly controlling class balance and buff balance since then and the likelihood of one class being so far ahead that it fills most raid dps spots by itself is fairly small.

    However, I will be levelling a mage in Cataclysm, just in case!

    In respect to shamans, I cannot put it better than this its so blatantly obvious (since Blizzard have said it themselves and are trying to figure out how to fix it in Cata - especially for enhancement):
    Yay, someone that uses their brain and draws their own conclusions with said brain, there is much love in this thread now. <3

    Yes, survivability and CC are a good aspect to take in looking at this situation. Survivability has generally been a topic reserved for tanks only and CC has been forgotten by most outside of the realm of PvP. In Cataclysm, these concepts will become more pronounced (according to Blizz) for DPS classes. If resources are going to be much more limited in future raids, there will be more than damage potential of classes to worry about when picking and choosing raid members.
    *Since I'm tired of reposting the link:* EH vs TTL and Hybrid Tax

  19. #159
    Glad you posted all that which I will negate in a single sentence:

    What movement dynamic is there in a fight such as saurfang to put a rogue's physical hybrid counterpart -- an enh shaman 3k+ dps behind them?

    LK philosphy of bring the player not the class is garbage, everything was passed around sure -- but were we compensated for that? Hell, pallys are still the only class that bring a 10% kings buff.

    PS: Simply because blizzard hasn't screamed something from the top of their headquarters doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ergo; the hybrid tax is still in place as is the bloodlust tax.
    Last edited by bigskurrah; 2010-08-04 at 09:22 PM.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    Only if it's a consistent tax--hybrids are not taxed equally, as is evidenced by logs.


    There have always been more pallies than rogues around..
    Defenately not in vanilla

    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    The tax won't alleviate homogenization. Bringing back unique buffs will--but then raids feel required to bring those classes and balance around them. Pick your poison...
    There are plenty of RPG and MMO`s on the market which have real dps classes(doing consideral more dps) and real hybrid types, and yet all classes are getting played plenty. Wow have one big flaw compared to theese games - a flaw it didnt had in Vanilla(to same degree) and that is Recount and focus on its numbers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shambulanced View Post
    While this is an interesting idea, it would be very difficult to pull off--and frankly, if you're going to have someone who is "not quite as good as a maintank/healer" then why not just bring a real tank/healer in that spot? Hybrids aren't hybrid because they do more than one thing mid-battle: they have the ability to swap specs. You don't see a Treeform druid dropping starfall, or an enhancement shaman tanking (although, at one point, that is what they did, and it never felt entirely correct)..


    Good luck getting 85% of the playerbase to do that.
    You wouldnt need a main tank if you had to tank some lesser elite mobs instead of kiting or cc them, - especially if that offtank had one-two off/hybrid healers supporting him.
    Hybrids are - in usual rpg games, known as a character who can provided more than one roll. The hybrid tax whic is something different, is because the hybrid class can tank/heal/dps in raids and therefor in theory could pick up more raidspot as a class(not spec)then the class who only fit in the dps spots. All hybrid class could to some degree perform a decent support role on top of their dps, if the encounters where design around it. It would imo, allso be a way - WAY more interesting gameplay instead of just executing your rotation and macros, if you had to taunt a mob of a caster, or occasionel heal some in the group so they dont die. I actually remember doing this while leveling in vanilla(and tbc to some degree) and it was always accompanied with a "Gj".
    Cataclysm looks like it is going to put out a probe and try support healing and support tanking to a lesser degree - with the lesser mana pools and so on. If ppl just could loose focus on those Dps meters it wouldnt be a problem at all.
    If ppl cant enjoy the game without meters ensuring their uberness, then design a meter which count Hps/tps on equel footing as dps so they dont have to choose between their numbers or saving the life of a party member. Maybe even a official one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •