Alliance Shaman + Horde Paladins

[SurfD]

going to have to agree with Jpark onthis one

Most of the trees for pretty much every class do have some fairly good distinction between them.  I mean, sure, they really need more breadth to their itemization, but even with the curent stuff, there is still a lot of distinction between class specs.

Large raids is not really a good place to look for build playstile distinctions, since your role is fairly basic. In smaller groups, or 1 vs 1 situations (pve or pvp) spec has a drastic effect on playstle.   Dagger rogues play very differently then sword rogues.  Ice mages play differently then fire mages (and both mage flavours play differently depentind on how much arcane you have).  Protection wariors are VERY different then Fury warriors.

Shamans are are fairly varied, since enhancement / resto is a very effective party buff / heal build, while elemental shaman with good gear can approach mage like dps, and play COMPLETLEY differently.

Druids also have wide flexability (but good feral gear seems to be only available from 40 man shit.)

Warlocks and hunters?  Completely different playstyles depending on spec.

If they actually had the gear diversity to really push people to wildly different builds, it would be very interesting.  Perhaps with the expantion, and 2 new talent tiers, we may see signifigant diversity if the gear comes with it.  Only time will tell.

[Sairon]

Compared to other games, it's a very weak game when it comes to classes imo. I can agree that the ones in there are very fleshed out, but when you PvP it's all to easy to see the shortcomings. Learning the diffrent abilities that may be thrown at you and how to play vs the diffrent classes took very little time. Here comes a rogue, okay he started with that skill, now I know he's on a backstab build and all that comes along with that, if he took the x remaining points in +x% crit or +x% dodge or whatever, it doesn't really change how you kill him or how you perceive him. In general there were a PvP build and a raid build for the classes. Then of course there were people who would spec something shitty, either because they didn't know better, or because they wanted to be diffrent. These were a minority though. I played a shaman for example, if I wanted to raid seriously I needed to be heavy restoration. If I wanted to PvP I had to spec heavy elemental. Another thing which adds to this problem is that races mostly does jack shit in the larger picture.

Lets compare to for example Anarchy Online. There's 14 classes, I would guess every class has about the same amount of abilities and spells that the classes in WoW have. Depending on how you spec you get access to diffrent lines of these, you can get them all if you want to sacrifice points in other areas. On top of this you have a perk system which adds another layer. Races in Anarchy Online also makes loads of difference. And since there's loads of options when it comes to equipment you're differentiated further.

Find me a AAA MMORPG released this millennium with as many clones as you find in WoW and I'd be surprised.

[foobar88]

going to have to agree with Jpark onthis one

Most of the trees for pretty much every class do have some fairly good distinction between them.  I mean, sure, they really need more breadth to their itemization, but even with the curent stuff, there is still a lot of distinction between class specs.

Large raids is not really a good place to look for build playstile distinctions, since your role is fairly basic. In smaller groups, or 1 vs 1 situations (pve or pvp) spec has a drastic effect on playstle.   Dagger rogues play very differently then sword rogues.  Ice mages play differently then fire mages (and both mage flavours play differently depentind on how much arcane you have).  Protection wariors are VERY different then Fury warriors.

Yes, every class has the ability to spec into two or possibly three different areas to get a differentiated play style and unique abilities, synergies, and efficiencies.  The complaint about lack of character customization comes from the fact that beyond the few talent builds, there really isn't a way to differentiate your character.  Yes, ice mages and fire mages play differently, but most fire mages are built according to the SAME talent build as each other, in the same way that most frost mages are similar.  (though I may be an exception: my mage is specced 7/0/44 heavy frost...)  The point is, however, that for most classes there are two and at most three common builds.  That really isn't a lot of differentiation when compared to other games with much more comprehensive hybridization systems.

[Threash]

I honestly don't see what you guys are complaining about.  I've played almost every other game and none of them had the variety in the classes that wow does, they might have had a higher number of classes but most of them felt and played exactly the same only with different names and numbers on their abilities.  In wow every class is like a different game, in some cases every spec.  The rogues energy/combo point/finisher system and the warriors rage based system for example, in every other game a warrior is a rogue with less dps and more armor/hps, a warlock isnt just a mage with less damage and a pet its a completely different way of playing the game.  Druids (with the right equipment) can make viable nukers/healers/tanks/dps, and not just suck at all of them but actually excell and in some ways be better at the role they are trying to emulate rather than a half assed version of a rogue/mage/priest/warrior.

Just because a game has warriors, knights, berzerkers, skirmishers, rogues, corsairs, assassins, brawlers doesn't mean it has more varied playstyles when they all play exactly the same.  Wow has more variety than any of the other games ive played, the only class that could use some help in this are the paladins who aren't much fun to play.  Itemization could use some work but raiding gear has always been designed with beating the next challenge in mind so it will always be tailored for raiding specs.  It would be hard to make raiding_intance_017 a challenge when raiding_intance_016 was full of shadow priest, feral druid and fury warrior gear.

[jpark]

The class distinctions in this game are extremely well done.  I give wow top marks for this.

Other  games that have done a great job with classes in terms of dintinctions were Shadowbane and City of Heroes.

A great example of a shitty implementation of classes (becoming less shitty overtime) is EQ2.

Time for a little test:

Review the cinematics for WoW and EQ2.  How easily can you identify the classes depicted in each?  How many different classes can you identify?

Saying a class exists on paper is one thing.  Depicting a vision of what that class actually does that can speak to a viewer and immediately tell us who he is and his purpose is quite another matter.  Classes on paper do not mean that these are classes players actually can really even notice or have a visceral reaction to.

This should really be the litmus test for class design:  if a player cannot identify what the hell class it is based on the actions depicted - then the class is not distinct enough to warrant implementation.

[Kail]

This should really be the litmus test for class design:  if a player cannot identify what the hell class it is based on the actions depicted - then the class is not distinct enough to warrant implementation.

I don't know why this would be the case.  I can make some supremely differentiated classes by giving one plate mail, one leather armor, and one a robe.  Hey, great, you can tell that they're different just by looking at them in a cinematic.  Does it mean anything in terms of gameplay?

What I'm hearing from Sairon and foobar is that having very precise, clean, clear-cut class distinctions is not a universally good thing because it stifles customizability.  You have a Rogue in WoW, he does these five things.  They're very distinct, very identifiable, they set the class apart from the others, and so on.  But they also limit what the class can do, they limit the extent to which you can customize your character, they limit your ability to surprise your opponent or to think creatively.

WoW's classes are quite distinct and defined, but that isn't an argument against the claim that there isn't much variation within the classes.

[squirrel]

Compared to other games, it's a very weak game when it comes to classes imo. I can agree that the ones in there are very fleshed out, but when you PvP it's all to easy to see the shortcomings. <other stuff deleted>

More classes != more options necessarily. I'll point to DAoC as an  example. With all 3 realms and expansions there's what - 45 classes? But they essentially all boil down to 3 or 4 tactics. There's the PBAE class, the range nuker, the defensive tank, the offensive tank, buffers and the stealthers. Admittedly DAoC does have more variety than WoW but in the PvP environment it was still very predictable - and within the classes themselves specialization choices were *more* limited than WoW's in most cases. (hampered further by the respec model). Fighting a caster? Go for interrupts. Fighting a melee? CC is the win. etc. Late additions such as warlocks and banshees added more variety but also horribly unbalanced the game. I'm not saying WoW is stronger - i think Shadowbane had the best set of balanced but unique classes - but I do think it's important to realize that choice is not equal to quantity. It's got more qualitative components than just Game X with 15 classes is better than Game Y with 8.

EDIT: One other thing I like about WoW that DAoC frustrated me with and Shadowbane did as well to a lesser degree = in WoW your character still has access to most abilities of the class without being specialized in them. For instance my Rogue can still produce pretty decent DoT damage without spending talents in the 2 DoT attacks - Improved Rupture and Improved Garrote, although less effectively than someone who had those talents. In DAoC you couldn't use even the baseline skills if you hadn't specc'ed in a tree - particularly as a caster - due to the damage and resist model. So you might have 35 spells, but you could only effectively use 15 of them. Shadowbane wasn't quite as frustrating as you had more pick and choose ability for the skills, but some classes were hampered by bad design decisions *cough*Wizards*cough*.

[Typhon]

[...]it's important to realize that choice is not equal to quantity. It's got more qualitative components than just Game X with 15 classes is better than Game Y with 8.

I completely agree.  I much prefer a game with fewer classes that have no gimps or uber-broken classes to a game with many classes and Thanes/Berserker's. 

Oh look, the former Thane is still bitter.

[Zane0]

AO had 14 classes or so.  They were all superficially distinct, but many lacked core differences that were balanced or any good.  It would unfortunately take years for some of them to get a review or any real attention at all.  So yeah, I'm probably not as unique in WoW, but I get a heckuva lot more attention.  I'll probably take the latter after having to deal with playing a pet class whose pet didn't path properly for quite some time.

[Jayce]

Another game I would give high marks in variety to is AC1.  Some combinations of abilities were not even discovered until a year or so into the game.  The only bad part was that some of these builds that were discovered were not really capable of doing damage, ergo leveling until something stupid like level 90.  I hear that they implemented full respec now, which probably changes things for the better in that regard.

I think you can't compare the gamey world of WoW to the worldy worlds of say, UO or Eve, whose systems are a lot more varied and customizable than any of the diku crowd.  Comparing apples to apples, AC1 and DAOC are good examples of games that have a lot of diversity but as previously noted, have run into balance issues and the occasional useless class.  On the other side we have EQ, where your class is basically on rails until you hit max level and start getting AAs (or so I gather).  I think WoW does a pretty good balancing act.  It does not have the most variety of anything out there, but its variety is manageable.

[Margalis]

Is the 24 hour clock gone? That really sucked given I could only play past 9 PM or so. I saw the world in daylight ONCE ever. Retarded.

[Koyasha]

Personally I like the 24 hour clock.  It's a lot better than an entire day/night cycle lasting an hour or two.  At least to me, on an RP server.  It seemed a lot more appropriate to me to have my character around at certain times of the day, and not around at others.

[foobar88]

I agree with what was said that more character classes != gameplay variety.  Obviously, as you add more classes into the mix, the distinctions between each class will begin to break down, and you will end up with a bunch of hybrids, with each class having more than a few similarities to other classes.

I also agree that WoW does a great job of creating distinct classes with unique roles and playestyles, while still allowing for some leeway in group composition (for 5 man pve anyways, which is dead till the expo...)  My main criticism is that within those classes, players are pretty much confined to one of very few "cookie cutter" builds.  You are either an ice mage or a fire mage; a feral druid or resto; fury, arms or prot warrior...

Compare this system to a game like Diablo 2.  There were few classes, and each had 3 talent trees.  However, not all fire sorcs played the same: you could get hydra or meteor, and you could further chose to spend points to create uber-synergies or you could spread them out to be more diverse.  Even though there are a similar number of classes in WoW and D2, there is a LOT more room for character customization in D2, both through gear and through character spec.  IMO, what really makes an RPG worth playing in the long run is the ability to create a unique character that feels powerful and fun.  What fun is it when you have some standard talent spec (give or take a few trivial points) and are going for the same gear as everyone else?  Give me rare, powerful, distinct drops with powerful bonuses to stats and abilities over generic specs and armor anyday.

[jpark]

This should really be the litmus test for class design:  if a player cannot identify what the hell class it is based on the actions depicted - then the class is not distinct enough to warrant implementation.

I don't know why this would be the case.  I can make some supremely differentiated classes by giving one plate mail, one leather armor, and one a robe.  Hey, great, you can tell that they're different just by looking at them in a cinematic.  Does it mean anything in terms of gameplay?

"actions" mate, not just "looks".

[El Gallo]

  That really isn't a lot of differentiation when compared to other games with much more comprehensive hybridization systems bigger class balance issues.

I'd rather have fewer, broader, better-balanced classes than a ton of imbalanced, narrowly specialized classes.  Frankly, I'd like WoW more if they folded all the interesting talent abilities into the base classes (balanced as necessary, of course) and axed talent trees alltogether.

Different strokes I guess.

[Simond]

Can you spot what's changed?
Hint: Legolas.

[Merusk]

Yeah they'd said a while back that Hunters would be an option.  Considering how freaking many there already are it's double crazy that both they and Draeni can be Hunters.   The last thing my guild currently needs is more hunters or rogues, and yet that's all that applies.  I love the class, but they're becoming less and less useful in the endgame of things and there's more and more every day.

I plan on rolling a Horde Pally. Willing to flip servers if any of you high end raiders' guilds wants it. I at least know a pallys role isn't Crit/Ret spec. and will hotkey "Cleanse" to 1 and "short heal" (From best-friend healer) to 2.  :-D

[Simond]

Yeah they'd said a while back that Hunters would be an option.

Back at Blizzcon last year Blizzard said hunter or rogue...but definately warrior. Then at E3 they said rogue and warrior, but no hunter. Then they announced paladins friday before last (bringing the roster up ro 6 classes)...and now, today, Blizz went "Did we say warriors? We meant hunters!".

And there was much rejoicing, except amount the people who already have L60 NE hunters called 'Legolaz'

[tazelbain]

> character classes != gameplay variety
DAoC and GW added new classes later that added more options.  I think most developers are creative enough to add new classes with different play-styles, but they loathe to do so because it may upset the balance they work so hard to prefect.

[Kail]

Hang on, so Blood Elves won't be able to play as Warriors?  That seems a bit wierd.  Wouldn't that make them the only race in the game with that restriction?  I'd always pictured Warriors as kind of like the "base" class for the game.  Hunters fit the Elf stereotype more, but still... seems wierd.

[Merusk]

Yeah, it is a bit weird, but they're getting Pallies so they do get one plate class.  I suppose the twisty logic is that BEs are Magic-addicts, so having a class that doesn't use mana doesn't make sense... but then that doesn't explain Rogues.

[Simond]

Rogues have more style than warriors. 

[jpark]

  That really isn't a lot of differentiation when compared to other games with much more comprehensive hybridization systems bigger class balance issues.

I'd rather have fewer, broader, better-balanced classes than a ton of imbalanced, narrowly specialized classes.  Frankly, I'd like WoW more if they folded all the interesting talent abilities into the base classes (balanced as necessary, of course) and axed talent trees alltogether.

Different strokes I guess.

Interesting.  If that happened I would quite WoW.  I love the talent trees - however minor they are - it gives you a chance to experiment and try to customize your character.  I love experimenting with the trees and seeing which combination of talents are best for raiding, 5 mans, pvp and soloing (and different roles with some of those contexts on top of that).

[WindupAtheist]

IMO, what really makes an RPG worth playing in the long run is the ability to create a unique character that feels powerful and fun.

[driveby]

I was at the Daemon Temple in UO the other day, when I met a guy who would have been identical to me if he had dropped Parrying for Battle Focus.  Other than that, no one I've met has come close.  Even then, his robe-and-quarterstaff outfit looked nothing like my red and black plate.

[/driveby]

[caladein]

Yeah, it is a bit weird, but they're getting Pallies so they do get one plate class.  I suppose the twisty logic is that BEs are Magic-addicts, so having a class that doesn't use mana doesn't make sense... but then that doesn't explain Rogues.

I sort of see the Blood Elf Hunters as akin to say... English Longbowmen, in the sense that the Blood Elf populace was either trained in the use of Magic, or in Archery from an early age (English boys would hold stones out to train their left arm, to the point that, if someone was a longbowmen, it was pretty obvious from their skeleton). For mechanical purposes, they have Paladins, so the Plate doesn't go to waste and they do have the foot soldiers (very magically-attuned ones, like WC3's Spell Breakers).

But, I guess (ignoring Rogues, although since there isn't a mana-based a melee DPS class, you're essentially stuck using Rogues to fill that mechanical hole), the BE Hunters are very much the other race's Warriors, the mainstays of the peasant defense (that, and the whole Ranger Lord thing).

Then again, why apply logic to the expansion that will give us Space Paladins!

[Jayce]

IMO, what really makes an RPG worth playing in the long run is the ability to create a unique character that feels powerful and fun.

[driveby]

I was at the Daemon Temple in UO the other day, when I met a guy who would have been identical to me if he had dropped Parrying for Battle Focus.  Other than that, no one I've met has come close.  Even then, his robe-and-quarterstaff outfit looked nothing like my red and black plate.

[/driveby]

I have never quite understood why no MMOG except UO has given us dyes and dyeable items.  It adds customizability without the possibilty of player-introduced peen pictures.  Sure there would be some hideous combinations, but you take the good with the bad, right?

[bhodi]

There was a blue post about it long ago, the short answer is that WoW's engine can't support it, or it would be in right now.

[Merusk]

I have never quite understood why no MMOG except UO has given us dyes and dyeable items.  It adds customizability without the possibilty of player-introduced peen pictures.  Sure there would be some hideous combinations, but you take the good with the bad, right?

EQ and DAOC both have it as well.  EQ added it in aroun Luclin, which was "coincidentally" around when DAOC launched.

SWG had colored variants, but I think you could only do that to certain items, and only at creation.  Otherwise I'd have seen Orange Stormtroopers and Yellow Composite-armor "Bannana Troopers."  Oh that would have been fun. 

[caladein]

I have never quite understood why no MMOG except UO has given us dyes and dyeable items.  It adds customizability without the possibilty of player-introduced peen pictures.  Sure there would be some hideous combinations, but you take the good with the bad, right?

EQ and DAOC both have it as well.  EQ added it in aroun Luclin, which was "coincidentally" around when DAOC launched.

SWG had colored variants, but I think you could only do that to certain items, and only at creation.  Otherwise I'd have seen Orange Stormtroopers and Yellow Composite-armor "Bannana Troopers."  Oh that would have been fun. 

You just couldn't do it factional armors or uniforms (like Stormtrooper armor, when they finally made it craftable) and the palettes left a lot to be desired on armor (but yes, you could have Bright Yellow Composite, thankfully, I never ran into platoons of Bananatroopers).

Pre-CU there was this bug/feature where Composite's color could be changed on the fly from the radial menu (which was apparently a solution to a previous problem that reset all the Composite in-game to a ugly brown color), but apart from that, yes, it was only at creation. (Although, to be honest, a big part of my custom orders and repeat business as a Tailor was based solely things like, "I like this skirt, but make it match this top" kinda stuff. That's neither here nor there though.)

[SurfD]

Asherons call had a fairly in depth dye system also.

I imagine the problem with wow is that everyone starts to look the same at certain stages, simply due to the fact that everyone is collecting set gear at the top levels.  Once you have a 3 / 5 / 8 piece set, you generally dont like to break it unless you get some really good gear to replace that set bonus.

Personally, im not sure why the wow engine cant support dyeable gear.  I mean, 2/3 of their gear models in various level ranges are pretty much identical except for palette changes.  Maybe it has to do with some gear having a large number of different colour elements on them?

[Merusk]

  Maybe it has to do with some gear having a large number of different colour elements on them?

If I recall that was part 2 of their reasoning behind not doing it.   It was some months ago, that the discussion was had, though.

It's still silly, and I think it's just the influence of the more hardcore elements of Blizz's staff.  They wanted the high-end to look unique from the plebes, and in early production the colors were the only way of doing that.  The T1 and T2 models weren't added in until what.. 3-6 months after the actual armor was in game and being looted?

[Ironwood]

Let's be honest tho :  If they did it, how many would dye the Valor stuff to be Heroic ?

:)

[Jayce]

Let's be honest tho :  If they did it, how many would dye the Valor stuff to be Heroic ?

:)

Agreed, but I will take a break from my rampant WoW fanboism to say that if color is all that separates two tiers of your armor, then you have a real art asset problem.  I know Blizzard is hurting for money and all, but please.

[Simond]

Let's be honest tho :  If they did it, how many would dye the Valor stuff to be Heroic ?

:)

Agreed, but I will take a break from my rampant WoW fanboism to say that if color is all that separates two tiers of your armor, then you have a real art asset problem.  I know Blizzard is hurting for money and all, but please.

Tip: Never, ever play EQ2. :D

[WindupAtheist]

Minor note upon character customization.  Last couple days in UO, first I met a guy who had almost the same character setup as me.  If he swapped out one skill for another we'd have been identical.  It's the closest anyone I've met so far has come.  Then today I met my first paladin/tamer hybrid.  Ever.  He would sic his dragon on the target, then rush in beside it to melee.  I've never seen it before, but I'll be damned if it wasn't working.

Someone please give me this level of differentiation plus shiny.  Please?