Following up on an intriguing tangent from the Data Mining comments, I wanted to take a look at the notion of Dual Specs and the “Holy Trinity of combat” that we see in World of Warcraft.
It’s caused no small kerfluffle in message boards and blogs, and the inherent flexibility of dual specs is altering the perception of hybrid and “pure” classes. In a nutshell, each class has three “talent trees” that are more or less mutually exclusive when it comes time for character customization. Specialization in one tree means very little ability to adopt elements from another tree, so each tree more or less represents a “play style”. As such, each class has three major playstyles. (Yes, that grossly oversimplifies it in some ways, but I’m trying to keep this relatively “high level” design.
Class identity is derived from these playstyles. The thing is, these three playstyles don’t necessarily map to different combat roles. (Those being the trinity; Tank/Damage Dealer/Healer.) A Rogue, for instance, will pretty much be a damage dealer no matter which tree she specializes in. A Druid, on the other hand, can be a tank, a ranged damage dealer, a melee damage dealer or a healer. (Yes, that’s four roles; the tank and melee damage dealer both fall under the Feral Combat tree.) Druids are inherently more flexible than a Rogue, able to fill more combat roles. As such, a Rogue and a Druid will have different value estimations of the ability to dual spec. The Rogue may well shrug and note that spec doesn’t significantly change their role, while a Druid now has the ability to switch between roles much easier than they once did.
I happen to really like the ability to make that sort of choice, and to have two “main” specs to switch between. That said, it definitely has a way of watering down the roles of pure Damage Dealing classes, as they really don’t gain much flexibility from the dual spec system. Yes, they gain something, but it’s nowhere as significant as what a Druid or Shaman will stand to gain. Where’s the balance in that?
OK, so lots of words to describe a known problem to most of you. Still, I like to give context to try to illustrate what I’m getting at a bit more clearly.
Question: What if those three talent trees were mapped roughly to the trinity of roles (tank/DPS/healer) for each and every class? That would be the ultimate in “bring the player, not the class” design ethos that seeks to make WoW raiding more accessible to more players. Anyone can be anything, and can change mid-stride if necessary via the dual spec system.
The obvious problems are the whole “if everyone’s Super, no one is” concern (the loss of class identity) and the thematic silliness of giving a Warlock of Warrior a healing role. I think the thematic concerns could be handwaved away if there really was a will to make this sort of mechanic reality. It would certainly be an exercise in creativity, but it could be done. Blizzard isn’t one to shy away from bending story and lore to mechanical ends.
Mechanically, though, the greater questions are “should it be done?” and “how would it be done?” Splitting that pair, the “how” would again be fairly easy, comparing the two. Yes, it would likely mean coming up with ways for the classes to still feel different and unique, while still being able to fill different roles (meaning, a Warlock should heal differently from a Priest). That’s a trick, to be sure, but it’s doable. They are still making money with the game, right?
I suspect the larger problem would be selling the playerbase on such a concept. Beside the notion that it would be a relatively huge change from the norm (which is always scary), there are players with huge emotional investment in their characters. Making the classes different on so fundamental a level would probably lead to plenty of crying and quitting that would have to be balanced against the advantages of such a design change. (Greater accessibility and flexibility, unique twists on tired old combat role mechanics, and stronger talent tree identity.) Would new players come in and play with the new tools, in sufficient numbers to replace those who quit? Would those players come back as they realize that their personal ability to play their role in combat isn’t diminished by letting someone else take a crack at it? (Unless player skill really doesn’t mean anything in WoW, that is…)
…and as usual, WoW probably isn’t the best test bed for this sort of thing, since it’s the 800 lb. gorilla stuck in a rut of mud. Change doesn’t come easy to such a beastie. OK, then, what of Runes of Magic? The native ability to dual class there has at least superficial similarities to such a system, where a single player with any “core” class can be plenty flexible given the second class and spec builds. What of Darkfall or Ultima Online, with their skill systems and the ability to “build your own adventurer”? (Of course, those aren’t offering the same flexibility as dual specs in WoW, with the “change on the hoof” ability.) Could a new WoW killer distinguish itself that way?
I’m really not sure how it would all settle out, but it’s at least an intriguing idea. As a designer, I’d want to figure out unique ways for each class to fill each role, yet feel distinct and interesting to maintain “class identity”. Of course, this is built on the assumption that the combat trinity design is firmly lodged in the design DNA. A game with a different approach to combat would do different things. That’s why this is framed in WoW terms in the first place; they do things just a bit differently from an Ultima Online or the like, and like it or not, they are the major example in modern MMO design. (Even if it’s only to the numbercrunchers, who are the ones with the purse strings.)
Still, I can’t shake the mental image of a Dual Wielding Warrior, holding aloft a pair of huge hammers that heal whomever they bop on the head. There’s precedent for that sort of action in the Final Fantasy world, and silly as it may seem, it’s actually a tactical advantage at times, since it doesn’t consume magic (or trigger magic related conditions, so it can slip past Reflect and the like) and can be built on the Warrior’s natural combat efficiency. (Rather than their typically pitiful magic proficiency.) If nothing else, that would give more ways to build itemization, which a gear-centric game will always love.
Just thinking…
I’ve always said “there’s only 4 classes in WoW: tank, healer melee dps and ranged dps (including casters).” This is because WoW homogenizes every class to the point where it doesn’t matter what you play anymore, really. If you play a druid you can do it all! Seriously. There’s no real need for anything but a guild of 25 druids.
People play different things because they’re under the impression that they are, in fact, different. They’re not. The dual spec thing only serves to further this.
Now, in the latest iteration of D&D, the idea of the “battle cleric” was put to even more use by having “procs” in the game. Your cleric can attack and do damage, proc’ing heals as they do so. First time implemented in a D&D setting, methinks. But in EQ2, you have Inquisitors which are plate wearing healers that have the option to turn their spells into melee strikes with the same effect, so you’re meleeing (and doing pretty insane damage) while healing.
AoC and WAR kind of have the battle cleric mentality down as well with their respective classes that heal better with the more damage they do (and subsequently do more damage the more healing they do).
We will NEVER get to where we need to be in an MMO, freedom-wise, without a skill based, classless game though. People WILL tailor their skills to have a specific set of them that make it LOOK like they’re a rogue or warrior or whatever, but there will be those who mix healing and tanking, or healing and dps and break the molds.
That’s really all the next-gen MMO needs to do: do away with levels and classes. Let the player choose based on what they do in battle, not what they’re “supposed” to do.
I agree with Wiqd – if every class can take every role, I question the utility of maintaining the pretense of a class system.
Heh, I’ve questioned it for a while. I think a classless system is the ultimate evolution of a “bring the player, not the class”.
Call this a thought experiment, thinking things through, rather than anything I’d ever suspect Blizzard would take seriously. 😉
For WoW:
Either Hybrids were second best at everything – and they will be 2nd choice all the time.
Or they are just as good as specialist, or only the ominous “5% worse” in a given spec – and then they trump specialists.
My suggestion: Too late to change this. Sad, but true. Dual Speccing made the gap even wider.
Heavily class based system have to be more careful with Jack of All Trade classes. WoW’s designers really failed there, and Kaplan proved right: He was known as hybrid-hater, take a look at the situation now, and you see his hissy fits about Paladins already in EverQuest in another light. But also why they really had suffered and hungered for some dev love for years.
Solution: Skill system a la Ultima Online, no classes. Let people spec as they want. What they do makes them what they are.
They would still go for the archetypes, but could re-train to another profession. My warrior became a bard for instance. And my Tamer was also great at alchemy, not only magery as most tamers.🙂
As a player, I love this. Of course, I am a player that loves Hybrids. With the homogenization of classes the first part of this has been achieved: Hybrids, when specced for a specific role can perform as well as their single serving class friends. A Feral Cat DPS is as good as a rogues: So is an Elemental Shaman. The “bring the player, not the class” is going to ruin what the do next.
If they firmly believe in bring the player, not the class, then they need to do exactly what you recommend. Every class can tank/heal/dps. If not, then they need to bump up single serving purpose classes so people actually play them (besides personal choice and mechanics) – we all know people gravitate to the road of least resistance: and that is going to turn into everyone playing a hybrid, so they are always needed in guilds/groups.
Of course, if they bump the single serving classes, then there will be outcry from everyone else: after all, that goes against the whole bring the player, not the class.
Me? I’m loving it. My Shaman is specced for Ranged DPS/Healing (which shares the basic stat itemization) and my Druid is now specced Feral Tanking/Feral DPS. Now I can perform every roll in WoW, as needed, on two classes.
On the flip side, I *miss* my classes being needed for specific purposes. Resto druids had innervate that often was a raid saver for guilds learning encounters and facing difficult bosses. You could get by without it, but people were stoked when it was available. Ditto for my Shaman – the class specific buff options are all but now gone as totems don’t stack with raid wide specific buffs – both were casualties in class homogenization. They are even doing that with tanks now – before each had a specific role (Paladin, multi mob tanking, druids with high health/armor for smash and grab tanking, and warriors with the most damage spike mitigation through abilities for certain bosses) – now they can all tank AOE, and every encounter. While more fair for “players”, makes strategies and encounters much more vanilla.
As mentioned by other commenters here, it is an issue with non-skill based class progression, but even the solution you put forth doesn’t work for WoW – the whole design of mechanics where 1 player “insults” incredibly stupid mobs (although they are world demons, and smart enough to take over the world) while squishy classes stand far away topping up their health bar just as fast as the giant mob can take away the health, while other classes do insane amounts of damage (unbeknowest to the mob, somehow. You would figure some of those mobs would begin to feel fireballs hitting them in the back, or being stabbed 2000 times in the back with daggers) points to an even larger problem. The MMO diku mechanics of healer/tank/dps has to go to begin with to make encounters more engaging. I’d link back to my little “Best movie ever” post that further explains this, and some solutions, but I am not sure if that is available in comments here =)
Great post!
Yup, Chris, you can do a plain old [ a href ] link hereabouts. The spam filter might choke on it, but I’m usually able to get it to cough up the good links. 🙂
I’m actually a bit of two minds on this. On the one hand, I like the design challenge of making every class have three talent trees correlating to the roles, and as a player, I’d love to pick a class based on the unique mechanics it offers, rather than on what role I think I want in the trinity (since it may well change, and rolling up a new character is a huge time sink).
On the other hand, it would most definitely throw WoW’s carefully crafted existing design to the wolves. Thing is, I think this dichotomy is entirely of their own making by embracing the DIKU trinity, and *whatever* they do is going to ruffle feathers. Either “more of the same” will wind up with people tired and bored, or radical surgery will wind up with people torqued and crying “SWG NGE, Bliz! You jumped the shark!” or some other epithet.
Thing is, games like this (MMOs) *must* innovate or die, and churn is inevitable. Would a move like this bring in more people than it would cause to /ragequit? I’m not sure, but if history is any indication, people like their WoW just the way it is. At least, many, many people do. I can’t help but be a little sad about that.
Easier solution: each class has only 1 role. Remove the vertical progression in the game that stops people from just rolling another class and jumping in with that.
That way everybody can have one character of every class. This would be ‘bring the player’ and ‘bring the class’ mentality…
Also, don’t get me started on the whole holy trinity thing in the first place, ungh.
The problem is, players LOVE classes. It’s not that you can’t have a workable game without them (cos of course you can), but it’s much easier for players to identify with a class than with a skill.
I think Blizzard’s talent tree system is junk, and talent trees don’t really work. I’d rather see a more freeform way to build up a class’ abilities without losing the core feel/ role.
But I actually think Blizz is ahead of the curve with the dual spec feature. Being able to smoothly switch from a grouping spec to a soloing spec (and to have a proper dps spec that is competitive enough to get into groups/raids as dps) puts it light years ahead of most of the other games I’ve played lately.
dps classes have been the optimal role in a diku for way too long. Pick that type and you get to be great at soloing (because soloing always means killing and faster is better), and also good in groups. Asking group friendly specs to give up personal dps was never a fair/ balanced request (because no game ever guaranteed that a group friendly class would find groups more easily, it was just down to what other players chose to play).
And question is, how valuable is it to a player to have multiple roles available (more potential depth of play) if they really only wanted to play one anyway?
Guild Wars does not have tank mechanics like taunts.
The mobs attack what is in range, and one must really send a supposed tank way ahead of the group and wait some time to ensure that it does not switch targets, which can still happen when you start attacking.
There are also areas where a specialist “killer-tank” who only works all alone, when all mobs go for him just kills a specialized group of enemies and then sits back till he is needed again, as the skillset/build so to speak is useless for anything else but this very special task.
What is amazing is that people impose the trinity on a system that is not as strict and pure in this regard. Monks are always wanted as specialist healers and most similar to the healer idea of the trinity.
@Melf_himself:
Guess what, Guild Wars had no vertical progression till they invented title tracks (achievements) and later even bound the effectiviness of certain skills tied to the title rank to it.
People had Rangers, Necros, Warriors – one was probably their favorite, main char, but this all changed.
Now their main char is the “title hunter” char, and if they need this or that for the achievement title track, it is very hard to convince people NOT to play this char.
I personally declare Melf to be an enlightened gamer being and start worshipping him right now. Feel free to join the “Cult of Melf” yourself!🙂
@ spinks: You’re right that sacrificing damage in favour of group-friendly-ness is a bad design decision.
But you’re wrong about WoW being ahead of the curve with the ‘dual spec’ thing… Guild Wars has allowed players to change their builds whenever they like any time they’re in town. You can even have an unlimited number of templates with the build and items that you want to use saved, and load them at will. So you can load your farming build if you want to go solo and get teh lootz, or you can load your grouping build if you’re doing a big dungeon run, etc.
I totally agree that giving classes more roles doesn’t really help much – because assumedly they chose class X because they liked some particular role that it plays.
@ Longasc: Yeah, I hate the title system, because I hate the grind, but then again I secretly covet the titles :p The vast majority of the titles however, don’t affect your power. Some of the lamer ones do, which is counter to the whole philosophy behind Guild Wars (see: Ursan Blessing).
I’m all for having achievements in games, people love it. But I wish that there were more available for doing something particularly difficult, as an alternate avenue for doing something that takes a long time.
My…. dream is to have a cult of followers on the internet who hang on my every word of wisdom. I annoint thee Disciple the First of the Church of Melf.
Melf, that latest comment of yours was the 1337th comment around here. I may just have to design a cult/church logo for you to commemorate the occasion.
I think that making the assumption that players picked their class with every intention of playing that role then and forevermore is a bit of a stretch, *especially* since people can’t typically just jump into raiding and see what role they like. People may change their mind, more than once, and when the game is geared around vertical progression, getting invested in a character that you grow displeased with is asking for trouble.
That’s why I like providing options, to let people change their mind without having to reroll a character from scratch. (And why I like GW’s system of free any-town respecs… but I’d have taken it further and opened up *all* aspects of character spec; not just the build, but the primary and secondary class choice as well.) Of course, yes, without vertical progression, people can jump around at a whim, sort of like what Team Fortress 2 or other quick-match arena games do.
The trick is trying to give people options if you’re assuming that vertical progression is a given. That’s where my dual classing, triple role tree thoughts come from. That’s why I keep coming back to skill systems, *with the ability to go back and change any choices you don’t like with minimal fuss and cost*. A skill-based system that locks you into decisions isn’t really progress. (Fate has that, and it’s still annoying that you have to effectively plan your character’s complete life/build from day one… without the necessary experience to make wise choices.)
Also… why do people like classes? Maybe that’s a tangent that deserves another post.
Nice Incredibles quote.😉
I favor a classless system in most regards. I think that trying to create a game that allows anyone to switch between DPS/Tank/Healing is an interesting concept, though there are the minor obstacles of character skill/feat progression and loot, which complicate the idea that any character can fill any role.
I’m more inclined to say, “Why do we need tanks anyhow? I mean, why are the monsters stupid enough to attack the huge dude in the armour, and not the little guy with the wavy fingers doing all the damage?” And then I continue by saying, “What’s with the dependance on healing in combat, anyhow? What if people only healed out of combat?” It’s not a 3-legged stool anymore at that point, but a pogo stick of various flavours of yummy, yummy DPS (plus buffs and debuffs and tactics and positioning and… and…). We’ve come to accept the trinity as The Truth, The Light, and The Way, and closed our collective minds to the basic assumptions being made here. Frankly, I’d like to play a game that tosses these assumptions out the window and challenges us to solve puzzles and develop tactics as players and as groups… instead of just having the right combination of classes to meet the predetermined success conditions.
I couldn’t resist the Incredibles quote. 😀
I strongly lean to jettisoning the trinity and classes, and when I do dig into class/trinity design, that naturally colors my expectations. That said, I think that a true “bring the player” design that gives power and flexibility to the player will naturally veer away from class and trinity design.
…that’s sort of the point of this article, to question things from a different angle. Maybe it’s not so subtle, but at least asking questions in different ways can illustrate my thinking, and get good responses as we’ve seen so far.
I’m assuming SOME level of vertical progression, so not like TF2. More similar to Guild Wars, where it just doesn’t take very long to get to the level cap and unlock one single build, so if you really feel that your guild needs you to be that one class with that one build, you can make it happen in a couple of days.
Going further and opening up all aspects of character spec isn’t desirable *for some people* because, I think, it seems “unrealistic” (whatever that means in a fantasy game) that a mage could “tank” a massive dragon, for example. For whatever reason, people seem to love having classes that play in a particular way, and have special powers unique to them. I can’t explain it, but I share this class-love just like the rest of the plebs, so I can’t help you out with that one ^^
I do, however, have an idea that takes a slightly different direction, which is to alter the enemies faced by a group depending on what classes are in the group:
http://word-of-shadow.blogspot.com/2009/04/customized-instances.html
I supposed I should be the last player to defend even the smallest aspect of the “holy trinity” concept, but I would like to second Melf.
I have huge problems with switching primary profession as well, Tesh.
It would require a different armor system than GW has as well, but I think character identity gets lost if I can just switch on the fly, or to be more precise in outposts/towns.
My Necromancer can do a lot of things in Guild Wars. I can pick skills and abilities of other professions that complement my playstyle or the challenge ahead, but my dark lady will always stay a Necromancer in the weaker necro armor, and not suddenly become Red Sonja and rival the prowess of the primary warrior class when it comes to melee combat.
I call it class identity, as I already said above – and actually, especially roleplayers should embrace this concept even more.
I second Melf’s idea to adjust the dungeon to the composition of the group.
The ideal world would see an automated system give players exactly the right challenge that does not overtax the group, but is not easy either. A human dungeon master is supposed to do this, and it is one of the qualities of a good DM.
But the implementation of an automated system/script doing the same… sounds difficult. Which does not mean that our dear designers should abandon the idea right away!🙂
Up to now every game that I played was like that:
There were dungeons and areas where melee fighters were screwed due to anti-melee hate of all kinds, but also areas where casters had to literally fight with their bare hands.
I.e. there are always areas that favor a certain class or classes, but the balance is that they excel in other areas.
The only other option is to make every class exactly the same.
We can do this, but I fear this would be boring. Superheroes style. There is nothing you can’t do, and you can do nothing better or worse than anyone else. Hmm… indeed boring!
The concept of advantages being countered by disadvantages is the core of all “class” concepts out there.
We just need to make sure that our classes are not so extreme that a primary healer class cannot kill even the most pitiful mob all alone.
I also hate the concept of respeccing in WoW. Player chars become ultra-specialized. They no longer have to make compromises between pure dps and survivability, for instance.
I loved my spec that allowed for some battleground pvp but also for raiding, but was not ultra-specialized for one or the other. Don’t you see it coming, players WILL go for classes. They will tell player one to be THIS, player two will be THAT, and player three is something ELSE that people agreed upon for this dungeon to be an efficient group build.
Try to swim against the stream in Guild Wars, and the party leader will tell you something, aka what you have to do or you will have to go.
Bottom line:
I say give people skill points for distribution, and they will create classes, archetypes. But still have more freedom than a pure class concept.
Longasc, my point is, and usually will be, that offering more choices doesn’t mean that players have to take advantage of them all. Just because you *could* switch professions, it doesn’t mean you would be *required* to do so. (Guild/raid leaders might try to force the issue, but to me, that means you should find a new guild.) That way, “identity” can be even stronger, as it’s something you choose and stick with (or not), as a direct consequence of *your* continued choices, not a potentially ill-informed one made at character creation. That’s how the point system works out, too; let people do their thing, and if they make their own class, there’s nothing wrong with that. If they change later on, there’s nothing wrong with that. If they stick with a tried and true “once a bard, always a bard”, more power to them. Let the player decide. 😉
Of course, if everyone turns out the same way, it’s a problem with grossly imbalanced or stupid design, and should be addressed. (Apparently Darkfall had that with Earth magic or something.) Also, yes, the concept of making significant choices (you can’t do everything all at once at top proficiency) with pros and cons should be there as well. If I remember correctly, FFXI does something interesting by allowing you to train all of the jobs in the game, but only actually use one (or two?) at a time. That allows anyone to step up and be the Tank if they have trained it up (though they might have to turn off their Healer job). That’s the sort of design freedom I’m looking for.
Longasc, it sounds like your concern with respeccing and specialization is more a complaint about Raid design and its playstyle disagreement with soloing/small groups. Making the perfect DPS gear for your guild’s raid machine does indeed make for characters that don’t work well elsewhere… but that’s taking us full circle, with some of the reasoning behind the Dual Spec system; the ability to switch between purposes, whether it’s a switch between a Raid spec and a Solo spec, or some other combination of roles.
Edited to add:
Oh, and Melf? I like the “customized instances” idea. It might be tricky to balance, but it sounds like a smart thing to shoot for.
[…] 2, 2009 by Tesh Following up on a comment from Spinks over in the Dual Wield Healing comments, I’ve wondered for a while why “players LOVE classes”. I suspect there […]
I agree with this Tesh. In fact I’ll do you one better and suggest that every class should have all 3 roles at all times, and effectively be druids.
I’ve been thinking of this in terms of Superhero games lately. It makes perfect sense for a superspeed character to tank by dodging, while a big brute tanks by absorbing damage.
A mentalist protects friends with heal spells, but a brute stands in front of them and funnels the damage onto himself.
For a sandboxy game with players who want to use their character as a vehicle for telling stories, I think a system like this would work really well. I’ll hopefully write about this soon, once I’m finished with the datamining stuff.
Mike
I’m looking forward to it, Mike.
I’ll readily admit that using WoW as a shared vocabulary does make these discussions difficult, as there’s too much baggage and too many preconceived notions. So it goes, perhaps.