WoW BlueTracker Home | RSS | News | Contact
Recent | Search | Archive | CS Posts
Poster: Naile at 2007-01-24 23:49:33
Subject: Are we all hybrids?
  
By Blizzard's definition, are we now all hybrids?

I'm not shallow, I just have great taste in women.

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=1&sid=1#0
 
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 10:18:53
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  
Found this thread last night. Want to see what happened to it. Stay tuned...

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=1&sid=1#7
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 10:18:53
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  
In some respect, yes. Hybridization shows its effects in different classes in different ways. Now, if you begin with the conventional 'holy trinity' of tanking damage and healing you can define your primary classes as Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest. Then, you throw in the added elements of survivability, utility, debuffing, crowd control, etc. which fill out a variety of spells and abilities that may share some usage between classes, such as fear for both Warlock and Priest or stun effects between a Rogue and a Paladin. With these added elements you can share 'jobs' of the main three groups with other classes by having an exchange of a variety of abilities and tasks. With hybridization, the devs may occassionally mirror abilities from one class to another, but usually what they are trying to do is spread out functionality between classes, so that the group as a whole has responses or counters to a variety of situations, rather than single classes defined by a single type of response.

Consider Priest and Mage dispelling effects. One design path could dictate that the mage should be all things arcane and be proficient in all aspects of arcane study. By this reasoning, they should have a dispel magic ability. However, by having the Priest be a dispeller, it provides a response for the Priest to magic-using classes. Alternately, the Mage has a response in decursing, which could be argued as the providence of Warlocks, the primary curse-caster. By spreading out abilities and magic-types, the classes are placed in a balance scheme of attacks and counter-attacks, which defines the core philosophy of rock-paper-scissors.

Now, all classes may be affected by hybridization, but that doesn't mean that all classes are 'pure' hybrids. A particular note about this game is that the designers have strived to give solo-ability to each class. Each class should be able to progress through the game in a reasonably comparative fashion. In the 'holy'trinity', damage lends itself to this task easiest. All classes have to have some proficiency at dealing damage in order to progress through a solo game of this type. Therefore, the ability to deal damage becomes more common among all classes and therefore becomes competitive, as players invariably gauge performance in some part by damage dealt. Utility, crowd control, escape tactics, etc. are then used to give variety of use and appeal to groups. As mentioned before, the over-arching idea is to provide options for a group to respond to any given situation, not just an individual.

Now, it has been mentioned before that Warriors are a tank/melee hybrid. With core classes, the idea of hybridization translates more as, "Warriors are a primary tank, with the option to specialize into a damage-dealing mode." In the case of Rogues, who are probably the most singular in their role of damage-dealing it translates into "Primary melee damage with support of crowd control and utility." The drive of hybridization is to provide options and varied game play for any one class. By strictly defining roles, you pidgeon-hole players into just tanking or just dps'ing because of an initial class choice.

I often see the question of "what's my role?" on these boards. To that I would probably ask "Well, what tools do you have available to you and how to you use them?" While the designers do concentrate classes for certain roles, they also want to provide room for player choice and give classes the potential to be defined by the player, through varied use.

Anyways, I thought the OP's question was concise and interesting and a platform for good discussion. Sometimes, the most obvious or simple questions are the best.

[ Post edited by Tseric ]



...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=1&sid=1#7
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 10:48:27
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

Uh... What?

Uh, editing. ;)

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=4&sid=1#65
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 10:18:53
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  
In some respect, yes. Hybridization shows its effects in different classes in different ways. Now, if you begin with the conventional 'holy trinity' of tanking, damage and healing you can define your primary classes as Warrior, Rogue, Mage and Priest. Then, you throw in the added elements of survivability, utility, debuffing, crowd control, etc. which fill out a variety of spells and abilities that may share some usage between classes, such as fear for both Warlock and Priest or stun effects between a Rogue and a Paladin. With these added elements you can share 'jobs' of the main three groups with other classes by having an exchange of a variety of abilities and tasks. With hybridization, the devs may occassionally mirror abilities from one class to another, but usually what they are trying to do is spread out functionality between classes, so that the group as a whole has responses or counters to a variety of situations, rather than single classes defined by a single type of response.

Consider Priest and Mage dispelling effects. One design path could dictate that the mage should be all things arcane and be proficient in all aspects of arcane study. By this reasoning, they should have a dispel magic ability. However, by having the Priest be a dispeller, it provides a response for the Priest to magic-using classes. Alternately, the Mage has a response in decursing, which could be argued as the providence of Warlocks, the primary curse-caster. By spreading out abilities and magic-types, the classes are placed in a balance scheme of attacks and counter-attacks, which defines the core philosophy of rock-paper-scissors.

Now, all classes may be affected by hybridization, but that doesn't mean that all classes are 'pure' hybrids. A particular note about this game is that the designers have strived to give solo-ability to each class. Each class should be able to progress through the game in a reasonably comparative fashion. In the 'holy'trinity', damage lends itself to this task easiest. All classes have to have some proficiency at dealing damage in order to progress through a solo game of this type. Therefore, the ability to deal damage becomes more common among all classes and therefore becomes competitive, as players invariably gauge performance in some part by damage dealt. Utility, crowd control, escape tactics, etc. are then used to give variety of use and appeal to groups. As mentioned before, the over-arching idea is to provide options for a group to respond to any given situation, not just an individual.

Now, it has been mentioned before that Warriors are a tank/melee hybrid. With core classes, the idea of hybridization translates more as, "Warriors are a primary tank, with the option to specialize into a damage-dealing mode." In the case of Rogues, who are probably the most singular in their role of damage-dealing it translates into "Primary melee damage with support of crowd control and utility." The drive of hybridization is to provide options and varied game play for any one class. By strictly defining roles, you pidgeon-hole players into just tanking or just dps'ing because of an initial class choice.

I often see the question of "what's my role?" on these boards. To that I would probably ask "Well, what tools do you have available to you and how to you use them?" While the designers do concentrate classes for certain roles, they also want to provide room for player choice and give classes the potential to be defined by the player, through varied use.

Anyways, I thought the OP's question was concise and interesting and a platform for good discussion. Sometimes, the most obvious or simple questions are the best.

[ Post edited by Tseric ]



...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=1&sid=1#7
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 10:57:18
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:
I'll use a baseball example. You can play many positions, but everyone bats. Pitchers aren't as good of a batter as outfielders, but they bat regardless.

A hybrid (or "utility") baseball player is one that could play infield or outfield, like Alfonso Soriano.

Someone who only plays 1 fielding position is not a "hybrid" just because they play the field and bat.

This is why CC does not belong in this argument. Everyone can do it in some form.

Interesting analogy. In my first response, I think I would equate batting with damage dealing. Everyone is pressed to do that in some regard.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=4&sid=1#73
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:02:07
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:
Back to the topic "Are we all hybrids?". Wouldn't that depend on the defenition of "hybrid". And people keep saying that Blizzard defines a hybrid... where has Blizzard, or any direct representative used a defenition of hybrid, in any discussion?

I'm not trying to troll or argue, but I think we are using terms that the player base of many MMOs over the last 10 years have come up with. Calling a class a "tank" came from thinking of a certain class as having heavy armor. Most of these MMOs are designed from a mid-evil perspective where our idea of a "tank" (heavily armored battle machine) would hold no meaning. So, in order to really answer the question, we need to define it.

So Tseric, you trolled this bad boy up, how 'bout defining it? ;)

I think the devs would regard 'hybridization' as a catalyst idea for game play. The are less concerned with the 'role' of hybrid, but rather want to utilize the qualities of hybridization with various classes.

When I see people talk about 'roles', it appears that many people want to have a sort of job security by having the lock on a particular task. I like to think of it as having jobs or tasks that are required of the group. Someone has to CC the adds, someone has to keep the group buffed, etc.

In the end, it would appear that the devs are whittling down and blurring the lines of strict roles.

Hybridization becomes an element to a class, not a category of class.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=4&sid=1#79
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:09:02
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

That's exactly what all the whining is about lately. Warriors have gotten used to the idea that ONLY warriors can tank. Now druids and paladins can tank too. The warriors aren't handling it well.

I adjusted to druids and paladins/shamans being able to replace me as healer. Time for the warriors to get over themselves.

Well, it's a period of change, which can be frightening. However, the devs intention is to use Warrior threat generation as the baseline for all other classes, which would suggest that they are the more primary tank. When the warriors start gearing up as a whole more and begin hitting end game en mass, the devs can get a lot more hard data to compare with feedback on the performance of the class as a whole and make adjustments accordingly.

[ Post edited by Tseric ]



...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=5&sid=1#93
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:15:40
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

"The more primary tank" is a far cry from "the only tank" however.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. However, I might have a response. ;)

The basic situation that sharing roles alleviates is being singularly dependant on one class for one role and not having one of those classes online or available for play. With strict roles, if you don't have primary tanking, healing and dps all on at the same time in the same group ready to run the dungeon, players end up waiting around.

Hybridization allows players to use less than optimal groups to actually play the game.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=5&sid=1#97
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:29:57
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

Utility? UTILITY?!? WHAT utlility? Do we have the ability to summon people? Create food and water? Buff fellow players?

Stop lying about the supposed "utility" rogues have, Tseric. Blizzard has consistantly, time and time again, dropped the ball on any sort of "utility" rogues could have. The only thing in the game that we are needed for (and you really only need one rogue for it) are the surpression traps in BWL.

There are no mobs to pickpocket, special doors that ONLY rogues can lockpick (way to give blacksmiths a craftable item that negates the position of possibly having to have a rogue to unlock something in an instance there, buddy), traps that only we can see, mobs especialy vulnerable to a specific poison, none of that. Even the mobs in the raid instances that actually matter (sorry, but Hellfire Citadel is pathetically easy) are completely immune to our supposedly all-mighty stuns.

As far as sap goes, it's PATHETIC CC. Sap cannot be re-applied, many mobs are immune to it, and ultimately, mages' polymorph is far superior in every way.

There was a whole world of possibilities to giving rogues utility and additional roles in instances - Blizzard failed in every way possible to make it happen. That's why virtually everyone in the game - including rogues themselves - sees rogues as good for nothing except DPS.

Tell me, why are rogues the only class in the whole game completely incapable of buffing fellow players in any way? And don't give me that stupid excuse of the dictionary definition of "rogue" as being lone wolves and whatnot. Hunters, who are supposed to be wild loonies who hang out in the woods alone all day, avoid cities like the plague and talk to animals get buffs/auras and do many things out of character with the spirit of the class. Hell, if you're going to go with the idiotic lore excuse for rogues not being more group-friendly, then priests should no longer be considered priests when they spec in the Shadow tree. There's no reason rogues shouldn't have a buff of some kind to offer groups and raids.

Take a deep breath and count to ten. We're having a good discussion here, so the injection of a lot of emotion isn't going to help anyone. I said that rogues are far more defined and singular in their purpose of dealing damage. Yes, that does make the rogue distinct when we are looking at broad comparisons of hybridization.


Q u o t e:

Tell me, why are rogues the only class in the whole game completely incapable of buffing fellow players in any way?

Because not every class has access to every type of ability. Warlocks only have marginally more group buffs than rogues. Underwater breathing?

The issue with rogues is that their utility can quickly become a dependancy for PvE situations. If a lock can only be opened by a rogue, the group requires a rogue for any type of progression. We are still looking into ways to provide function for rogue abilities in such settings and I can inquire more about this, if you like.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=6&sid=1#112
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:33:01
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:
Lot of good insight here. However, I have one question:

I really like the point you made about not having to wait around for a "primary X" to log in as hybrids can substitute into that role. However, with ppl specialized in certain tress and spending their DKP/tokens on "that tree", isn't Blizzard kind of driving them towards specialization. On the other hand, if they don't specialize then for top level instances, they are going to be mediocre at best in every role.


But in the latter case, play style defines the spec'cing choices you make. A player who is running a lot of raids will spec accordingly. A player that PvPs will do the same, but with different choices. The core class allows branching into more specialty, but those choices aren't necessarily permanent, as you have the option to respec.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=6&sid=1#117
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:36:22
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:
Please do. Sorry for the outburst, but when someone says something that is so contrary to what I see and experience daily...I get mad.

Well, I was providing a loose description which you seemed to be interpreting as a hard and fast rule.

I wasn't saying all Rogues are Inspector Gadget, but they do have several abilities which are defined as 'utility' abilities. In some respect, you can regard stealth as an escape/utility ability.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=7&sid=1#120
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:40:28
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

That's interesting.

Could you pass on to the developers a couple of things?

1. Rage generation currently depends in part on damage taken. In lower instances, a well-geared warrior takes minimal damage and has difficulty generating rage in tank gear. My guildies get around this by taking their shield off and taking two-handed (either dual wield or with a 2 hander). Puts a bit more strain on the healer, but usually not enough to matter. This is something that many people resist. They "earned their gear" and expect to be able to use it.

A concise example. Thanks. ;)


Q u o t e:
2. With warriors as the baseline, should we expect adjustments to the other tanking classes (druids and pallys leap to mind) in the near future?

I think something has already been adjusted in the not too recent past. Didn't mangle get adjusted in 2.0.3 or something? Can't recall at the moment. I suspect it is something that will likely undergo more adjustment for all participating classes.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=7&sid=1#123
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 11:50:44
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

That's interesting to hear, and a contridiction to what is on the CE DvD (and in the past I heard of one Dev saying he hated the multiple tanks in EQ and only wanted one tank in WoW). During the Blizcon class panel discussions, a Blizzard Class Designer went on record (with a slide show) to say they didn't want hybrid classes outside of the druids in WoW (this is part of the reason water elementals were originally excluded from mages). This was on 10/2005 after TBC had been announced. The idea to focus more on hybrids came out only within a few months from that convention. Why such a drastic change in opinion in such a short period of time?

Could really use some more context for that. Druid is the most hybrid of any class, so he could just be refrring to the fact that they don't want to homogenize class balance by giving everyone a finger in every pie. Again, I don't really have the context to address your statement.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=7&sid=1#134
Poster: Tseric at 2007-01-25 16:02:38
Subject: Re: Are we all hybrids?
  

Q u o t e:

wait a second tseric... first you come out and openly say, that all classes are not balanced around solo play, and feed the warrior community BS about how we should bring a healer to be any good at pvp. Then you post this gem about how all classes are designed to have solo-ability. Solo is a word i see alot in that statement of yours, and then you have the balls to tell warriors that we arent supposed to be able to pvp solo?? should i bring a pocket healer with me while im out grinding in case horde come along??? that doesnt really mesh with the bull*#%@ you spit out at warriors.

Let me ask you something. Did you have a healer strapped to your back for the entire journey from 1-60? I'm going to assume that you didn't. That's what I am talking about in the paragraph you quoted. That is the solo-ability of this game. Progression through leveling via questing, which is primarily a solo experience. Perhaps if your anger and desire to call me a liar wasn't effecting your judgement, you might have seen that for yourself. Please refrain from cussing in the future.

...does it see into me clearly...or darkly?

  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=70698697&pageNo=22&sid=1#429
 

Is this thread News or Fluff? You Decide!
News!
- OR -
Fluff!
What are you talking about?

View all recent official Blue Posts

WoW Blue Tracker: Archiving World of Warcraft Blue Posts
since March 2005
Home | RSS | News | Contact
Recent | Search | Archive | CS Posts
 

Why Ads?