There are benefits in being hard to switch specs and it might be why WoW does it.

[Tyris Flare]

People need to Want to be better. .

The most accurate comment on this forum in some time.

The resources exist and are abundant. No weird forced locking is going to improve anyone. They have to want it.

[Alkizon]

Tyris Flare
The most accurate comment on this forum in some time.

The resources exist and are abundant. No weird forced locking is going to improve anyone. They have to want it.

Yes and no. New audience wants to be better, old audience wanted to fit/suit/be worthy their raid group and favorite pastime, this doesn't mean "better" than rest. Meanings and priorities are completely different. Not better, but more complete/useful, through cobination of preferences and needs of preferred audience (mostly friends). "Game world", that was, didn't require "fanatical/min-max" approach, just fulfillment of couple of three requirements of encounter. Game wasn't mechanically more difficult, it was more socially balanced and sometimes it was enough just to be a good and funny group member and you could get your content quite comfortably (absolutely same content, in exactly same form as everyone else, without indulgences and with own proud feeling in be full member of community)... maybe not with "peak" players, but when your group pulls up.

Participant who, spoke out, clearly didn't mean something like that.

Immediately, as usual, I'll make a reservation that there was min-max, but main content often didn't require such detailed approach, game was designed for "middle" class of players, but now, due to their "diversity", content received by different players became "different". This made people feel isolated from each other, both in gameplay/mechanically and socially.

It's not right for people to cultivate desire to be better (this is active/competitive/individualistic, requiring to win/rise above/separate from), but desire to be worthy is another matter.

In short, tendency of concepts is similar in terms of purpose, but means and program of rewards/management/organization are fundamentally different... so is the result.

ps. By emphasizing and nurturing differences, we make them even more stronger/almost automatic criterion for choosing/separating us from each other and therefore open to potential conflicts on its base... because "we're better!"?

OP wasn't talking about this, of course, but his problem is problem of organizing classes, and I have already written about this many times. Current system parasitizes on lower human feelings, ignoring conditions that require full-fledged hierarchy. It doesn't exist, rules aren't followed, system doesn't work and causes random "breakthroughs of errors" in one direction or another, which, naturally, careless devs can't even predict.

- - - Updated - - -

potis
Everything before the changes shows that 0.1% even saw the end patch raids

Firstly, figure isn't correct, secondly, it's not correct to measure accomplishments with patches, thirdly, people develop and absorb material at different rates (and if we also take into account date of "beginning of acquaintance with game" deviation)... and finally, virtually everyone saw everything that happened before, it was just a little later and there is nothing wrong with it. That's only player's choice and if someone will find desire for everything it will work out (as I said, content wasn't particularly difficult). As I understand it, you're worring about problem of organizing complexity, but we discussed this as well as everything else many times, all this can work without "artificial rigid separation" of world and players. However, speaking of "separation", I meant much more than just instance design. I meant all of their current design.

- - - Updated - - -

potis
- snip -

I played since TBC and didn't experience anything like this, I didn't know about any "best" guilds of our server, I communicated with people, I participated to extent of my very meager knowledge at that time in acquaintance with content. For example, I went through the whole BT only in the middle of WotLK with group of friends in mix with randoms. And you know what? I absolutely liked it, we went there several more times in the next half of year, and everything was fine, it felt like it was the way it should be, then it came to Sunwell and I realized that not everything is so scary, mechanics aren't something impassable, you just need to figure it out properly and begin to want to try more. And I haven't even slightest claim to anyone, and even more so to devs, since I received this content much later than the others, but still fully enjoyed every inch of it. And our guild ceased to exist in the end not because of "destructive global trends", but solely because of awkward gestures of devs, however, I have already said this more than once too.

I'll not argue with you now about "problems of high society", I will simply point out once again fact that eyes of fear see danger everywhere So world tendencies "on paper" look to me as something far-fetched and as something to somehow justify their subsequent unauthorized actions.

ps. As a mockery, I'll also note that percentage can be increased by, for example... decrease (and in some places even in catastrophic scales) in amount of that very audience. In short, their methodology raises more questions and smiles than respect for actions and analysis of results

[ClassicPeon]

I started in Wrath, and I definitely remember there being some envy about Druids having 4 specs, 1 for every role, and everyone else having just 3 specs.
I’m not saying it was some widespread pandemic and people complained about it all the time, but discussions were had.
People also have been talking/complaining about DHs only having 2 dps specs and have tried to theorycraft a 3rd spec for them.

Druids didnt have 4 specs. What they did have was 1 spec being able to cover 2 roles and then their offspec being able to heal - meaning they could effectively tank, heal or dps with 2 specs. Other then that i do think dual spec was the best version we have had in wow as it still put some importance of specs. You usually had a mainspec and an offspec. Besides that mainspec healers or tanks wherent totally fucked and neither where classes with a spec that was good for raids/pvp but was shit for questing/grinding.

It opened the game up.

Going back to 1 spec with a gold cost/cd or whatever negative cost to switch would be a deal breaker for me.

Just look at how bad covenant swapping has gone over. Its literally the same thing.

[potis]

Immediately, as usual, I'll make a reservation that there was min-max, but main content often didn't require such detailed approach, game was designed for "middle" class of players, but now, due to their "diversity", content received by different players became "different". This made people feel isolated from each other, both in gameplay/mechanically and socially.

I dont get why people keep repeating this.

Everything before the changes shows that 0.1% even saw the end patch raids, sure, a bigger amount of players entered ZG and Karazhan, is that somehow successful and different from now?

Or Cata/MoP because we had 10man, doing Normal mode "succesfully" 5 months later than they should, somehow that doesnt exist also?

The only thing that changed about the game, is the entitlement of the players, and maybe secondary, all the freebie gear, makes everyone finish things faster than they should, so instead of having Johnny "Normal Mode" taking 4 months to clear Normal, he clears it in 2 months from his +5 weekly chest and weekly HC chest quest and somehow whines about it after.

[ClassicPeon]

I dont get why people keep repeating this.

Everything before the changes shows that 0.1% even saw the end patch raids, sure, a bigger amount of players entered ZG and Karazhan, is that somehow successful and different from now?

Or Cata/MoP because we had 10man, doing Normal mode "succesfully" 5 months later than they should, somehow that doesnt exist also?

The only thing that changed about the game, is the entitlement of the players, and maybe secondary, all the freebie gear, makes everyone finish things faster than they should, so instead of having Johnny "Normal Mode" taking 4 months to clear Normal, he clears it in 2 months from his +5 weekly chest and weekly HC chest quest and somehow whines about it after.

On the other hand i went 4 months in classic wow in Molten core without getting a single item because of low drop chance on the loot that was good for fury warriors.
I quit classic after that - needless to say.

[epigramx]

Nope I fully reject your argument, it isn't fun to be limited in such away, never was and never will be will be. It's just plain annoying as a raider and "get gud" isn't a good game design.

You have the illusion it's not fun, but ALL games must have limits to be fun. For example you would hate raiding in WoW if anyone could enter a 20man to make it 21 at random points in the fight.

- - - Updated - - -

Having 1 spec you're forced into for what ever reason does Not increase skill.

You wrote half a book to supposedly refute me and you start with a strawman. I didn't say it increases skill generally in the player; I said almost the opposite; that mediocre players may play better in 1 spec if they are confined in one spec.

That's objectively the truth; even small children can become extremely good at a game if it only has 3 abilities for example; one could go into the neuances if body reflections are a handicap to 'boomers' but we didn't touch that.

[potis]

On the other hand i went 4 months in classic wow in Molten core without getting a single item because of low drop chance on the loot that was good for fury warriors.
I quit classic after that - needless to say.

Exactly in a way, they basically gave too much loot (all combined together) at some points in the game, as example BFA first 2 patches, Heroic Chest weekly quest, Warfront Heroic item level items and freebie M+ that was scaling above heroic, therefor even a +5 was above Normal raiding and the weekly chest was close to Heroic raiding, along with Titanforged chances and with some luck, you could be done in a month or two, without ever actually raiding HC or doing anything remotely challenging.

Yet somehow people complained about it, and there was a point to it, the way it was designed and with some luck, decent players could be done in mere hours, as example in 8.2 my alt was pretty much outgearing the mains of the 99% population in 5 hours played cause the M+15 we did literally dropped everything, obviously it wasnt the best trinkets and the best stats, but the character became overgeared way too fast.

So, Blizzard responded and removed most of those things, now gearing up became longer, and you actually have to raid for some things..and complains, go figure.

[iinverse]

Games can become better if they are defined in a more strict set of rules; they become simpler for the average human to understand them; if you have a very strict and limited set of rules: then you can more easily optimize inside those rules and reach optimal performance in their confines.

In practice in this game: the average human playing is probably playing badly if they spec-hop all the time; they may have determined if they stick to 1 spec then they "get gud" more easily so to speak; it is therefore indeed a form of hand-holding but not only without benefits.

Mind share your research?

Because according to raider.io and warcraftlogs, playing more specs/alts is irrelevant to average player preformance: good playrs mostly good at other specs/classes, bad players are bad at other specs/classes.

[epigramx]

You can't use systems to try and force bad players to be good. It doesn't work

I know it sounds correct to say that but it's objectively wrong. Even small children are extremely better at games that only have 3 buttons. On a larger scale: mediocre players become easily worse if they hop between specs because they go from "18 buttons" to "54 buttons" all the time without any process so by the mere simplicity of it they become better even if they don't plan to.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, i think limiting my play styles and fun is a great thing. Wouldn't want me to have too much fun.
I have FF for that afterall, where i can have all the classes in one character. Oh no, and i am dumb! I need to L2P cause i got so much choice! However will i cope? :P

I didn't tell you it's fun; that's a strawman; nowhere in the op did I say anything about how much fun the restricted player feels.
I said the devs might think that game in total might become more fun if mediocre players are restricted to fewer specs.
It's more nuanced though; humans are inherently partly maschochistic; "no pain no gain" is something that always haunts us.

- - - Updated - - -

Mind share your research?

Because according to raider.io and warcraftlogs, playing more specs/alts is irrelevant to average player preformance: good playrs mostly good at other specs/classes, bad players are bad at other specs/classes.

Where do I start; you have 2 fallacies there. First of all this is not ground breaking research; this is how all games are constructed in the history of the world: they have certain limits otherwise they would be bad games (e.g. you can not change the rules in the middle of Chess or you can not switch game-type of Chess all the time because it's already complex as it is etc.).

Secondly your second fallacy is blatant in that you limit your reasoning to the best players; this topic has nothing to do with limiting it to the best players; the entire point of it is that mediocre players may play better if they don't hop specs all the time and make it too complex to them to ever settle and learn anything well.

[potis]

Firstly, figure isn't correct, secondly, it's not correct to measure accomplishments with patches, thirdly, people develop and absorb material at different rates (and if we also take into account date of "beginning of acquaintance with game" deviation)... and finally, virtually everyone saw everything that happened before, it was just a little later and there is nothing wrong with it. That's only player's choice and if someone will find desire for everything it will work out (as I said, content wasn't particularly difficult). As I understand it, you're worring about problem of organizing complexity, but we discussed this as well as everything else many times, all this can work without "artificial rigid separation" of world and players. However, speaking of "separation", I meant much more than just instance design. I meant all of their current design.

What.

Thats one big paragraph for something you obviously dont know anything about.

The game design was "Everyone can progress as they want" from Vanilla to Mid-Wrath, in those 5 years, Blizzard noticed there was a massive community problem, of better guilds, destroying mid-range guilds by poaching, and same time mid-range guilds dying cause they were forced to play content they had already cleared months ago cause of attunements, and people werent having that, so mid-range guilds were completely blown apart, so everything ended up being removed.

Thats why most of AQ40/Naxx/Black Temple and Sunwell was barely "seen by anyone" , aka the 0.1% only saw it.

And the above is just the TBC raiding scene, i wont write the full WoW story, but the end result is, Blizzard decided to focus on the % of players that is actually playing the game and make sure they dont eat each other by making changes that would make that % of players have a healthier relatioship between each other, over if Little Billy would finally start raiding.

After that, they made changes for the Little Billies, LFR/Normal 10man, nerfed versions, everything, and it worked, "raid" participation hit new records by mid-MOP, and they continued since then.

The problem is that Little Billies, take way too long to do things and Blizzard changed the design to patch-gear-reset, over expansion-gear-reset.

[iinverse]

Where do I start; you have 2 fallacies there. First of all this is not ground breaking research;

So its just from your head and no real thing. kk.

this is how all games are constructed in the history of the world: they have certain limits otherwise they would be bad games

In Eve Online you can learn all skills in the game on one character. In FF14 you have all classes on one character with simple switch between it (many players enjoy to switch it because playing a long time on single class is pretty boring). Most of main FF games allows you to change classes/bindings on the fly, even in the middle of the fight. And you know, these games are actually very good. There are a lot of good games with or without strict limitations of player choice, no relevance here too.

(e.g. you can not change the rules in the middle of Chess or you can not switch game-type of Chess all the time because it's already complex as it is etc.).

As well as you can't change spec in the middle of the fight, but can change it in-between.
As for chess, I believe, you know that there are something like a hundred of chess varieties exists? Like I can play blitz chess, then switch rule sets to upside down chess, and after that I may want to play shogi.

Secondly your second fallacy is blatant in that you limit your reasoning to the best players; this topic has nothing to do with limiting it to the best players; the entire point of it is that mediocre players may play better if they don't hop specs all the time and make it too complex to them to ever settle and learn anything well.

I said nothing about best players, just good (50-75%) or bad (below 50%). Simple statistics is against you.

[epigramx]

So its just from your head

Your thoughts are contradicting each other; you have a delusion that games must have no limits and then you admit that they generally do; for example: you admit that you don't generally change specs in the middle of the fight in gaming.

I repeat: this is not ground breaking research; that's how games are defined since the known history of the world; they have a certain set of rules that limit them otherwise they would be horrible chaotic messes that bore you.

To help you clear the fog: what you actually want to say is "I think it can be more complex than 1 spec!"; this can be put to debate but I think it's not true for most players in this game; most of them are bad when they spec-hop.

[iinverse]

Your thoughts are contradicting each other; you have a delusion that games must have no limits and then you admit that they generally do; for example: you admit that you don't generally change specs in the middle of the fight in gaming.

And again you are trying to point on the statement I actually do not mention anywhere before.
I just like variety in the game. Most of people too.
Actually you can see how artificial limitations works on Shadowlands and how blizz trying to fix it. Try to limit spec switching/alt restriction now for example and you will have a dead game.

I repeat: this is not ground breaking research; that's how games are defined since the known history of the world; they have a certain set of rules that limit them otherwise they would be horrible chaotic messes that bore you.

Class/spec change is a part of the game rules, perfectly fits into gamepay.

most of them are bad when they spec-hop.

Mind the proof of it? Because you base your discussion on it, but it may be false actually. As I said, statistics is against you here.

[epigramx]

Mind the proof of it?

I don't know: play the game; if you have a delusion this game is full of hard core players it's your fault.

If I try to raid-lead pugs: I beat most casual guilds in this game on progress.

This game is filled to the brim with casuals who play badly.

[Geckoo]

Sure, the longer you get to practice with something the better you get at it. But this also includes getting better at playing it in the wrong way. This is specially true for any MMORPG with a few moving parts, rotations or priorities that come from an more or less open list of spells, talents and gear.

Let's say that a spec is has 5 spells. The most optimal way to play that spec would be to use those spells in this order: 4-3-5-1-2.
It also happens to get the best result if you have very specific amounts of critical strike and versatility.

Our first players is an informed or competitive player. He will always want to know that information and will try to play the spec that way.
Our second player is a less informed or casual player. He will not always know that information, he will use a comfortable rotation or even one that appears to make sense given what the spells do (not necessarily the optimal way). Gear will be whatever drops or feels good.

The first player will indeed get better with practice.
The second player will also get better with practice, but only within the universe of his wrong choices. That might lead to a better understanding of how the spec works and eventually making the optimal choices... or it might lead to just becoming really good at playing the spec in the wrong way.

My point is that having hard to switch specs or easy to switch specs is not as relevant as you think. It's not about how the game limits players, it's all about how the players want to play the game. I've known players that stick to one spec as well as players with multiple classes, specs and roles. I've found good and bad players on both groups.

Personally? i want freedom to play however i want, a game that makes it punishing or has too many arbitrary rules/restrictions is a game that i won't be playing for too long.

[epigramx]

Sure, the longer you get to practice with something the better you get at it. But this also includes getting better at playing it in the wrong way.

My point is that having hard to switch specs or easy to switch specs is not as relevant as you think.

You start with something that is correct but your conclusion is wrong. Of course someone may not improve beyond a certain point on a spec and of course multiple specs could make someone even better even on individual specs but all those effects are clearly not the dominating factor when it is about the average mediocre player.

How the problem you brought usually works in practice: the mediocre player restricted to 1 spec will see themselves perform adequately at some point and they may be foolish to have the delusion they can not improve anymore; they will still be better than spec-hopping and knowing nothing adequately.

[Geckoo]

You start with something that is correct but your conclusion is wrong. Of course someone may not improve beyond a certain point on a spec and of course multiple specs could make someone even better even on individual specs but all those effects are clearly not the dominating factor when it is about the average mediocre player.

How the problem you brought usually works in practice: the mediocre player restricted to 1 spec will see themselves perform adequately at some point and they may be foolish to have the delusion they can not improve anymore; they will still be better than spec-hopping and knowing nothing adequately.

Yes, but i rather have a game full of spec-hopping mediocre players than one where you can't even have spec-hopping above the average players.

What also happens in practice is that even with all the freedom to switch specs and as easy as it is to have alts, there are still players that absolutely stick to one spec and are still bad as hell with it. So again, your example is correct, but still misses that in the end is all about how each individual wants to play the game and any kind of restriction or lack of them is not that relevant.

[Alkizon]

Geckoo
- snip -

I already spoke on a similar topic here (Choice may be wrong for a particular set, but at the same time be very useful for another. What is important in this case (when discussing customization) is overall picture) when we generally discussed choices. But that will bring us back to architecture of class building discussion again. With a different (correct) architecture, choice won't always be obvious, and possibly never optimal, especially if we consider "any" case. In other words, what you're talking about comes from structure that's now...

...and here we will remember what you mean, but what you don’t want to voice: rotation and where it comes from. And here we'd like to talk about real freedoms in RPGs, about choice and other nonsense, but from all of above it only follows that everything, absolutely everything, starting from first button in current system is built so that there is simply no choice and there is only 1 way... 1 way = 1 spec = 1 solution = 1 choice and (attention!) = 1 rotation. There was topic somewhere on US forum in Legion area, where man posted arena videos pointing out this unfortunate fact. Regardless of what happened, people pressed the same buttons, over... over... and over again.

So, as I said, skill consists of correct assessment of picture as a whole. There is long-term choice, and there is momentary choice and there is hierarchy/rules that govern their subordination and interaction, but since latter is absent, it makes no sense to talk about any logic of what is happening.

You may be mistaken in choosing a strategy, but this won't necessarily mean fallacy of one/each of its individual elements. Is it clear? They can all be correct, but interfere with each other in this "sequence" ...be incompatible.

Such system requires more flexible setting/customization of spells/mechanics (wich are sphere of the whole class), but not their choice, this is sphere of talents (which in current system for the most part offer you to choose spells, and not customize them = spells used/rotation are imposed = there is virtually no choice; and all this is limited purely to your spec, which makes way even narrower)

ps. 2 "specs" is enough (no more), not as restriction of choice, but as, on one hand, flexibility, on other hand, ordering of this very choice. Consider this reasonable/moderating factor, whose task isn't to give you opportunity to play by all 3/4 "specs", but to choose 2 individual "builds" for specific areas of your gaming interests. Do you feel the difference? And this requires appropriate design, which, as I said, simply doesn't exist anymore.

[Soikona]

I don't know: play the game; if you have a delusion this game is full of hard core players it's your fault.

If I try to raid-lead pugs: I beat most casual guilds in this game on progress.

This game is filled to the brim with casuals who play badly.

So your “proof” is purely anecdotal? You suffer from the same name of a DH lego in Legion. Look it up.

[LedZeppelin]

Ranged DPS
Mele DPS
Tank
Healer

That's 4.

Just because Tank and Mele DPs shared most of a skill tree in the "spec" division doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered two effectively separate specs.

So death knights had 6 specs at launch?