Lack of Choice Nodes in Recent Trees

[thesmall001]

Preface 1: The number of choice nodes is not representative of the amount, value, or impact of choices across a given class or spec. The number of viable branches and the point efficiency of pathing is a key factor in the overall assessment of tree depth and potential.

Preface 2: The User Research Team (and UX Designers) likely have a rhyme and reason to why they are releasing different trees, in this order, in these time frames, in these combinations, individually or side-by-side etc. They are likely gathering feedback data based on particular variation of tree and trying to ascertain which base-design is the best received and what aspects get positive reception and negative reception. That'll be why they're going out so early.

Preface 3: It shouldn't need saying, but trees are far from final and seem to be being released well in advance of full implementation on test realms. Previews shouldn't be indicative of balance, favouritism, popularity, etc. right now as they are mid-development (if even that...) so don't draw conclusions too early.

With that out of the way: Sorry Rogues.



You can really see the legacy of hybridism, of how many truly comparable choices existed in the MoP-SL paradigm, and the design depth of classes so far. I think these trees will likely push some historical, systemic, design disparities between classes to breaking point. Pure classes are such an antiquated design. The end point of this experiment may well be that The Trinity is also too limited, and ultimately homogenous, of a design space for class design to remain engaging.

I might try to do some graph theory or regression to calculate the actual level of variance in each tree to address Preface 1. That'll give a more indicative picture of the designs so far, but I'm curious what people think about the significance of choice nodes. Obviously, not all choice nodes are created equal right now, sometimes they are minor choices between similar utilities, sometimes they're choices between major cooldowns, sometimes it major passive vs. major or minor cooldowns, etc.

[klaps_05]

Blizzard doesnt release stuff that is not 99% final, so what we see currently will most likely be the final setup.

On a 2nd note, to understand the current trees, before making selections, you need to select the mandatory nodes/paths (AMZ, PI, Antropic for Assa, Raid blades for Outlaw, etc.) and then look at what points remain and which skills are accessible.

[loras]

Preface 1: The number of choice nodes is not representative of the amount, value, or impact of choices across a given class or spec. The number of viable branches and the point efficiency of pathing is a key factor in the overall assessment of tree depth and potential.

Preface 2: The User Research Team (and UX Designers) likely have a rhyme and reason to why they are releasing different trees, in this order, in these time frames, in these combinations, individually or side-by-side etc. They are likely gathering feedback data based on particular variation of tree and trying to ascertain which base-design is the best received and what aspects get positive reception and negative reception. That'll be why they're going out so early.

Preface 3: It shouldn't need saying, but trees are far from final and seem to be being released well in advance of full implementation on test realms. Previews shouldn't be indicative of balance, favouritism, popularity, etc. right now as they are mid-development (if even that...) so don't draw conclusions too early.

With that out of the way: Sorry Rogues.



You can really see the legacy of hybridism, of how many truly comparable choices existed in the MoP-SL paradigm, and the design depth of classes so far. I think these trees will likely push some historical, systemic, design disparities between classes to breaking point. Pure classes are such an antiquated design. The end point of this experiment may well be that The Trinity is also too limited, and ultimately homogenous, of a design space for class design to remain engaging.

I might try to do some graph theory or regression to calculate the actual level of variance in each tree to address Preface 1. That'll give a more indicative picture of the designs so far, but I'm curious what people think about the significance of choice nodes. Obviously, not all choice nodes are created equal right now, sometimes they are minor choices between similar utilities, sometimes they're choices between major cooldowns, sometimes it major passive vs. major or minor cooldowns, etc.

Complex systems reduced through numerical analysis?
My, this has never gone wrong before.

You should revisit the fundamentals of a model-driven approach, and wait for data regarding the way it works out in practice.

Plenty of pretense through statistical abuse after all.
Which is not to say you are necessarily like that, just that you're more than a little early. And that there are some, ah, "undue influences" on your motivations visible through the cracks.

[Aleksej89]

If you think these talent trees are not 90% final you are seriously kidding yourself.
With blizzard in the past what you see is what you get, at best.

From the point of a druid player the new talent system is awful, especially the "general" talent tree.
Makes zero sense to sacrifice multiple valuable role-performance-enhancing general talents to take some near useless off-spec filler general talents just to reach that one off-spec talent that is kinda cool.