Talent Trees are not cohesive. They're clearly built by entirely separate groups.

[Alcsaar]

Talent trees lack serious cohesion and themes between classes. A lot of the design decisions are completely opposite.

Some classes just get back things they had before and very few or no new things, while other classes get all their good stuff base line, and then much of the stuff in the trees is new.

Then we have other super weird inconsistencies, like classes that don't get their interrupt base line and have to spec into it, while classes like warriors, rogues, and mages do.

We all know that these trees are built by different teams, but how hard is it to sit down with each other and at least come up with a general formula for the trees? Some teams did a really great job, and then others just completely shit all over the trees for the respective classes, and that is not fair to those classes getting shafted.

[George]

Good, the more different classes are, the better. Homogenization among classes is not something to be desired.

[micwini]

Talent trees lack serious cohesion and themes between classes. A lot of the design decisions are completely opposite.

Some classes just get back things they had before and very few or no new things, while other classes get all their good stuff base line, and then much of the stuff in the trees is new.

Then we have other super weird inconsistencies, like classes that don't get their interrupt base line and have to spec into it, while classes like warriors, rogues, and mages do.

We all know that these trees are built by different teams, but how hard is it to sit down with each other and at least come up with a general formula for the trees? Some teams did a really great job, and then others just completely shit all over the trees for the respective classes, and that is not fair to those classes getting shafted.

what is interesting is that these are the original interupt classes. Pala for example didnt hve one until cata.

[Alcsaar]

Good, the more different classes are, the better. Homogenization among classes is not something to be desired.

I completely disagree. Some level of homogenization is required in order for there to be BALANCE. And the homogenization is still there, its just bullshit that some classes have to spec back into it while others dont.

Its time to stop using homogenization concerns as an excuse for making some classes simply better than others. Balance is far more important to the game than making everyone feel like a snow flake, while some get fucked and others get to be overpowered.

[hulkgor]

I completely disagree. Some level of homogenization is required in order for there to be BALANCE. And the homogenization is still there, its just bullshit that some classes have to spec back into it while others dont.

Its time to stop using homogenization concerns as an excuse for making some classes simply better than others. Balance is far more important to the game than making everyone feel like a snow flake, while some get fucked and others get to be overpowered.

Absolutely disagree.

Not every class needs the same utility kit. It's actually absurd that at this point every class is the same, that you can use the same keybind scheme across your characters. A movement ability, an interrupt, a single target stun, a dispel\purge, etc etc.

Some distinction between them is very, very important. If its through the talent trees, fine.

[fatgunn]

Absolutely disagree.

Not every class needs the same utility kit. It's actually absurd that at this point every class is the same, that you can use the same keybind scheme across your characters. A movement ability, an interrupt, a single target stun, a dispel\purge, etc etc.

Some distinction between them is very, very important. If its through the talent trees, fine.

Hear Hear. I swear half of the specs you can slip into without even paying attention. Builder on 1, spender on 4, interrupt on .......etc.

[Alcsaar]

Absolutely disagree.

Not every class needs the same utility kit. It's actually absurd that at this point every class is the same, that you can use the same keybind scheme across your characters. A movement ability, an interrupt, a single target stun, a dispel\purge, etc etc.

Some distinction between them is very, very important. If its through the talent trees, fine.

SOME distinction, not complete opposites of balance. Classes have plenty of "Some" distinction as is. Resto druids are hot healers, paladins are single target healing monsters, mistweavers are something idk, and resto shamans are a balance of aoe healing and single target healing.

That is all the distinction that is required. What isn't required is removing core abilities like interrupts and forcing some people to spec back into them and not others.

We are not going to see eye to eye on this. You would rather allow some classes to be overpowered just because "its unique", where as I would rather sacrifice uniqueness in the name of balance so everyone is on a fair(er) playing ground, and people don't feel like they are forced to reroll to the OP FOTM class constantly, instead of just playing what they enjoy thematically.

[Biomega]

Some distinction between them is very, very important.

SOME, yes. But they don't need to be completely different, either.

The reason there's some utility homogenization is practical/mechanical - while it's great fantasy to have people be very unique, the reality of the gameplay situation is that you just need certain things. Interrupts are a prime example: there's a reason they added them to everyone, because it's such a crucial ability to have if you want to perform well, especially in smaller-group content.

While it would be cool from an RP perspective to have very distinct, very different identities across classes, it is very NOT COOL to face exclusion from certain forms of content because of that differentiation. At the end of the day, what people want more than anything is to actually play the game; if that means a little less diversity, they're going to be okay with that.

Of course, in an ideal world you'd have it all. But that's not a reality we live in.

[Alcsaar]

SOME, yes. But they don't need to be completely different, either.

The reason there's some utility homogenization is practical/mechanical - while it's great fantasy to have people be very unique, the reality of the gameplay situation is that you just need certain things. Interrupts are a prime example: there's a reason they added them to everyone, because it's such a crucial ability to have if you want to perform well, especially in smaller-group content.

While it would be cool from an RP perspective to have very distinct, very different identities across classes, it is very NOT COOL to face exclusion from certain forms of content because of that differentiation. At the end of the day, what people want more than anything is to actually play the game; if that means a little less diversity, they're going to be okay with that.

Of course, in an ideal world you'd have it all. But that's not a reality we live in.

100% correct

People fail to see that classes thematically and mechanically are already very different from each other in a lot of cases. I'm never going to feel like I am playing a ret paladin when I'm playing a death knight. I'm never going to feel like I'm a mage when I'm playing a warlock.

Hell, even WW monks and rogues, who have very similar mechanical systems, feel pretty different in how they are played in a lot of cases.

[jeezusisacasual]

Good, the more different classes are, the better. Homogenization among classes is not something to be desired.

I expect balance similar to now ( excluding the 2 obvious outliers ) above all else. Nothing feels worse then not making the correct class or spec choice and being excluded because the community is so narrow focused and before people say it was not like this in classic look no further to the stacked raids currently going on over in the time capsule from 2007.

[talmir]

"Hey, I'd like to join the group"
"Sorry bud, you dont have interrupts"
"Oh, but I have this cool ability to bubble myself"
auto-reject

Yeah... that'd be great....

[InfiniteCharger]

I completely disagree. Some level of homogenization is required in order for there to be BALANCE. And the homogenization is still there, its just bullshit that some classes have to spec back into it while others dont.

Its time to stop using homogenization concerns as an excuse for making some classes simply better than others. Balance is far more important to the game than making everyone feel like a snow flake, while some get fucked and others get to be overpowered.

D&D classes were not built to be homogeneous. Each role is supposed to be unique and do things that others can not. That is not "balance" it is class fantasy.


Now in an MMO like WOW it becomes a problem where a group needs a rogue for a specific dungeon because of SAP and STUN and all the whining that came about. Or same thing for not being able to find a mage who could polymorph. But how often is any of that even needed anymore in the current game of go go go...

[Biomega]

D&D classes were not built to be homogeneous. Each role is supposed to be unique and do things that others can not. That is not "balance" it is class fantasy.


Now in an MMO like WOW it becomes a problem where a group needs a rogue for a specific dungeon because of SAP and STUN and all the whining that came about. Or same thing for not being able to find a mage who could polymorph. But how often is any of that even needed anymore in the current game of go go go...

That is an unfair comparison, though. The levels of complexity and adaptability are VASTLY different in those games.

Imagine if you were playing D&D and suddenly the DM went "okay, disarm this trap please" and you had no one in the group who could do it. "Too bad," DM says, "you now all die. Thanks for playing."

That doesn't happen in D&D because of the way the game is set up, but it can and does ABSOLUTELY HAPPEN in WoW, every day.

The demands of WoW are very specific for various reasons, and that specificity simply needs to be catered to if people want a well-rounded experience. Even at the expense of some immersion or fantasy.

[Alcsaar]

D&D classes were not built to be homogeneous. Each role is supposed to be unique and do things that others can not. That is not "balance" it is class fantasy.


Now in an MMO like WOW it becomes a problem where a group needs a rogue for a specific dungeon because of SAP and STUN and all the whining that came about. Or same thing for not being able to find a mage who could polymorph. But how often is any of that even needed anymore in the current game of go go go...

Bruh D&D? Really?

That's a stretch of a comparison, but lets for a second say its reasonable.

You have a DM controlling the game who can easily build or adjust the campaign around whatever party type you're playing. No DM is going to see your party lacks the capability to deal with something and decide to put you up against that. The campaign can literally be tailored to your party.

That isn't how it is for WoW. In a game like WoW, the content is designed a very specific way before hand, and you build your party around that. That is where the problem lies, in that some classes are just going to be much weaker than others in specific content, so why would you bother to bring them.

- - - Updated - - -

That is an unfair comparison, though. The levels of complexity and adaptability are VASTLY different in those games.

Imagine if you were playing D&D and suddenly the DM went "okay, disarm this trap please" and you had no one in the group who could do it. "Too bad," DM says, "you now all die. Thanks for playing."

That doesn't happen in D&D because of the way the game is set up, but it can and does ABSOLUTELY HAPPEN in WoW, every day.

The demands of WoW are very specific for various reasons, and that specificity simply needs to be catered to if people want a well-rounded experience. Even at the expense of some immersion or fantasy.

Yea, some one else who is logical. This is exactly what I just replied with.

[Harbour]

Good, the more different classes are, the better. Homogenization among classes is not something to be desired.

The topic is the difference in quality in the approach to talent trees, not that trees make classes different. They are different by default, different skills, different talents.

The topic is about how some classes get much of cool stuff, and others - not so much.

Some classes trees started off bad (Hunters) but get a multiple complete reworks with big commentaries,
some talent trees started off bad (Ferals, Mages, Paladins) and yet have no actual updates, with no commentaries,
some talent trees started off great (Shamans) and STILL get multiple updates with commentaries.

There is the very clear and distinct gap in competence and communication between the people that make different classes. That is what OP meant, and i agree with him. There is NO reason why some classes get interrupt baselined, while others dont. In 2005 the RPG component was completely different, so Blizzard could defend their decisions to not give interrupts certain classes, but this is 2022 with completely different PvE and PvP ecosystem, classes HAVE to be comparable in terms of CC capabilities.

[Alcsaar]

The topic is the difference in quality in the approach to talent trees, not that trees make classes different. They are different by default, different skills, different talents.

The topic is about how some classes get much of cool stuff, and others - not so much.

Some classes trees started off bad (Hunters) but get a multiple complete reworks with big commentaries,
some talent trees started off bad (Ferals, Mages, Paladins) and yet have no actual updates, with no commentaries,
some talent trees started off great (Shamans) and STILL get multiple updates with commentaries.

There is the very clear and distinct gap in competence and communication between the people that make different classes. That is what OP meant, and i agree with him. There is NO reason why some classes get interrupt baselined, while others dont. In 2005 the RPG component was completely different, so Blizzard could defend their decisions to not give interrupts certain classes, but this is 2022 with completely different PvE and PvP ecosystem, classes HAVE to be comparable in terms of CC capabilities.

You are correct, thank you.

[klaps_05]

the goal of the DF talent trees is to set a base. Thats the reason why theres little innovation and mostly rebuilding spellbooks. Once they get that right, in 11.0 they can start introducing new more interesting talents and player power outside of the talents. Point of DF is to create a baseline and calibrate it.

[MightyWarrior]

Warrior talent tree looks amazing

We get our interrupt baseline, and everything plus more from SL

Can't wait

[Alcsaar]

the goal of the DF talent trees is to set a base. Thats the reason why theres little innovation and mostly rebuilding spellbooks. Once they get that right, in 11.0 they can start introducing new more interesting talents and player power outside of the talents. Point of DF is to create a baseline and calibrate it.

Why do they need to create a "base" that reuses old skills? Why can't the base just be new interesting talents without impacting default core skills?

- - - Updated - - -

So make your own group?

Literally a garbage comment. Expecting people playing subpar classes to have to create their own groups for everything is mind boggling stupid. Oh your class is shit? Make a group so people can't possibly decline to based on that! Instead of just, you know, making the class desirable.

[aldahar]

I've played around a bit with the talent trees and don't see any glaring issues. This will sound a bit counter-intuitive, but having to make a value judgment on things is what actually provides value to them. Yes, back in the Vanilla days I could never level a warrior (no self-healing was a massive, massive issue). I created an alt simply b/c my main had zero shot at soloing ZG for a shot at the tiger. In DF, you can have multiple builds saved so that you can essentially pull out the build needed for the content you do. For a raid, you won't need 25 people with interrupts, for example.