Seeing the Forest for the Talent Trees

[Gurbz]

Please dont mock us, there are already forums about exact specs players should choose from merely based off of the talent tree. Sure depending on the encounters that come up and the numbers behind the players and gear will change them but to say there is not more cookie cutters is outrageous. There always will be. There is no way to get around them unless no matter what talent you choose from, the dps/healing/threat will always be the same. On elitist jerks for the rogue community they will spend hours on a test dummy just to test out a .05% gain. Compile data and as a community make sure that the current proposed build is correct. Then add changes for each fight, and yes there are already proposed talent builds. So as you would tell us. You're wrong. Next!

Way to not get it. The talents are not done, so all those forums you are talking about are working on incorrect and incomplete data. Further, GC even says that there might be builds that are better for a specific given fight. But overall there should not be an "always best" build. In fact, the system as they have proposed it means that for all but the bleeding edge progression guilds, spec will matter far less than it does now when talking about your overall performance. So you could go against what is commonly accepted as the "best" build for that fight and not lose so much that you are dragging the rest of the raid down.

[Deleted]

So while RIFT gives us a choice of any of the nine trees per class, WoW gives us six choices. If TRION can balance 224 combinations, why can't Blizzard balance 3? Other games on the market are giving more choice, but Blizzard is going backwards (60, 40, 6)

Rift has the worst balancing of any game I've ever played. So no, Rift can't balance 224 combinations which is why no-one else is trying to.

It also has the most uninteresting talents trees I've ever seen. I had to change my warrior's spec every 2-3 weeks due to constant changes to the game, but never once did I actually care what the talents did because at the end of the day every spec played nearly exactly the same.

[Vallius]

And this is why I'll be subscribed to two MMO's at the same time. Blizzard are a corps of designers that take the time to do these little water cooler talks, communicate their ethos and philosophy, and genuinely engage their player-base. As an appeal to fanboys, when have you heard Bioware (as an example) say, "So, let's shoot the shit with you about Dragon Age 2 and explain where we're at and talk about player feedback"? They haven't because they probably don't have the capability to interact with it's player-base in the same way, but, regardless they just don't go out of their way to engage that base like Blizzard does. No one does. This is why Blizzard have been the cream of the crop (in terms of game developers) for the past decade, arguably since the late 90's. Please don't misunderstand, I love Bioware. My point is that no big box developer does what Blizzard does for it's community, at least not to this extent.

I personally love the new talent system. The amount of possible hybridization is staggering to view across all the classes. I've been playing my Warrior since 1.1 and it's incredible to look back over the past 7 years and see just how much this game has changed, for the better, imho.

[crsh1976]

Oh look, more rhetorical drivel from Ghostcrawler.

[Mikaelo]

"I have fewer choices."
This is the big one, and the truth is it is ultimately correct. You will have fewer choices. But you will have more choices that *matter*. One of the important philosophies of game design is that interesting choices are fun. The word ‘interesting’ is key. Choosing between a talent that grants 10% damage and one that grants 5% damage, all else being equal, isn't interesting (unless perhaps you’re a superstar role-player). Choosing between a talent that grants you 5% haste or 5% crit might be interesting, but more than likely there is still a right answer (and like most of us, you'll probably just ask someone else what the answer is.) Choosing between a talent that grants you a root or a snare can be interesting. Which does more damage? Hard to say. Which is better? It depends on the situation.

This is why we don't have a clear damage, tanking, and healing talent choice every tier. In the case of the old trees, choosing the talent you want from among the talents that don’t interest you isn’t an interesting decision -- it's a multiple choice test, and an easy one at that. Are you Ret? You probably want the damage option. But what if the Ret player had to choose from three healing talents and couldn't sacrifice healing for damage? Now it gets interesting. Worst case scenario is the player just picks one at random because he refuses to heal. However, he has the ability. Maybe he'll use it in some situation. Meanwhile, other players will be happy that they can benefit more from the hybrid nature of the paladin class without having to give up damage to do so.


I remember the people that were routing the new talents giving numbers on how many billions of specs you will have in the new talent tree...:P
with mathematical equations and the like(put equation cause i don't know any better English word for what i wanted to say :P )

It's not about the number of raw permutations, it's about what you have to balance any one ability against. If you look at the choices, each tier pretty much follows a theme. So you're picking things like which of the movement enhancers you want. You don't have to balance that against which of the CC abilities you want, because there's little if any synergy between them.

[burghands]

I love these we're-getting-sick-of-being-mocked/bashed-by-the-community-so-we're-gonna-argue posts. Blizzard is gaining a reputation of arguing with its customers who don't think they're doing it right. Way to engage the vocal minority.

[Vallius]

Oh look, more rhetorical drivel from Ghostcrawler.

Not sure if serious.

To the point, he isn't trying to persuade us to do anything. He's just saying, "Hey, s'up? So, here's where were at with this thing and here's why we're doing x and y and why were not doing suggested z.". I think you may have your conversational terminology mixed up.

[garion55]

at this point with the way they are going they should just remove the entire tree. the 'B' team just doesnt have the skills to keep this game running.

[Deleted]

I love these we're-getting-sick-of-being-mocked/bashed-by-the-community-so-we're-gonna-argue posts. Blizzard is gaining a reputation of arguing with its customers who don't think they're doing it right. Way to engage the vocal minority.

The vocal minority are regarded by most as a total pain in the arse, so I'm not sure why Blizzard would even want to engage with them. I've seen many game forums which much more agressive mods/devs than Blizzard.

Simple fact is, Blizzard make the game how they want to make it. If you don't like it, quit and stop moaning. No-one (including Blizz) cares.

[Deleted]

Guys...Lets take a look at how many talent choices there are.
3*3*3*3*3*3=729

You are wrong, NEXT!

[slimj091]

So while RIFT gives us a choice of any of the nine trees per class, WoW gives us six choices. If TRION can balance 224 combinations, why can't Blizzard balance 3? Other games on the market are giving more choice, but Blizzard is going backwards (60, 40, 6)

i wouldn't say Trion can balance all of the talent combination's. since at any one time 98% of them are absolutely useless compared to the best spec's.

[Vallius]

I love these we're-getting-sick-of-being-mocked/bashed-by-the-community-so-we're-gonna-argue posts. Blizzard is gaining a reputation of arguing with its customers who don't think they're doing it right. Way to engage the vocal minority.

I agree with Simca about posts like this. Are you seriously suggesting that because GC is engaging the player-base in dialog that he is somehow arguing with us? Really?? I'm trying to wrap my mind around your post and failing hardcore. You're mad that a game developer is sharing his thoughts about game progress and direction and stuffing it into some fuzzy area of logic by claiming he's engaging the "vocal Minority"? Come again?

[Deleted]

So many contradictions in those feedback answers that my head started to hurt near the end......

[romara]

WOAH. Have some fucking patience.

That's all they keep saying isn't it? Wait until this xpac or that xpac, they'll get around to it. You keep following the carrot on the stick, I'll never play another Blizzard game again.

This is the big one, and the truth is it is ultimately correct. You will have fewer choices. But you will have more choices that *matter*

People will have more choices that matter to the devs, not the player. Every time I read one of GC posts, I dislike him even more.

[Jerakal]

I love how their solution to not having a good PR face was to make a well-spoken asshole their PR face.

[Vallius]

So many contradictions in those feedback answers that my head started to hurt near the end......

Please cite examples. I'd be interested to debate that with you

[Jocke]

why cant blizz implement a pvp spec, so u can have 3 speccs and one is only pvp.. instead of having us spend a point in things we really dont want/need as pve. Shamans for example, 15,30 and 45 point are pvp stuff, sure some can be used in pve aswell but then look at 60 all could be great for a healer.. They really need to look into this, imo have 3 trees where one can be pvp.. OFC this is not final but announce this tree so early and just looks like shit was plain stupid.

[ElAmigo]

And this is why I'll be subscribed to two MMO's at the same time. Blizzard are a corps of designers that take the time to do these little water cooler talks, communicate their ethos and philosophy, and genuinely engage their player-base. As an appeal to fanboys, when have you heard Bioware (as an example) say, "So, let's shoot the shit with you about Dragon Age 2 and explain where we're at and talk about player feedback"? They haven't because they probably don't have the capability to interact with it's player-base in the same way, but, regardless they just don't go out of their way to engage that base like Blizzard does. No one does. This is why Blizzard have been the cream of the crop (in terms of game developers) for the past decade, arguably since the late 90's. Please don't misunderstand, I love Bioware. My point is that no big box developer does what Blizzard does for it's community, at least not to this extent.

I personally love the new talent system. The amount of possible hybridization is staggering to view across all the classes. I've been playing my Warrior since 1.1 and it's incredible to look back over the past 7 years and see just how much this game has changed, for the better, imho.

I can't help but agree with this post

[burghands]

I agree with Simca about posts like this. Are you seriously suggesting that because GC is engaging the player-base in dialog that he is somehow arguing with us? Really?? I'm trying to wrap my mind around your post and failing hardcore. You're mad that a game developer is sharing his thoughts about game progress and direction and stuffing it into some fuzzy area of logic by claiming he's engaging the "vocal Minority"? Come again?

I've never mentioned being mad. I think it's a waste of effort to argue with the never pleased crowd.

[Swiftrunner]

I agree with Simca about posts like this. Are you seriously suggesting that because GC is engaging the player-base in dialog that he is somehow arguing with us? Really?? I'm trying to wrap my mind around your post and failing hardcore. You're mad that a game developer is sharing his thoughts about game progress and direction and stuffing it into some fuzzy area of logic by claiming he's engaging the "vocal Minority"? Come again?

I think it's less about the fact the GC is talking about how the dev process is going, and more about the way he said it. If I had to put my finger on it, what irks me the most about GC's post is the fact that he uses such a confrontational tone at times.