World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> What's so wrong with mandatory talents?

Darde

< Reckoning >

Bronzebeard

0. what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 11:58:33 AM PST

I'd love for killing spree to be awesome and feel "mandatory" like TG instead of something that's just better than the alternatives (since combat doesn't have access to 21 point talents thanks to blizzard more or less forcing us into variations of 15/51/5). it's a bigger dps upgrade than a 16th point in assassination or a 6th in sub, but it's not even usable on every fight (and sometimes, like thad, you could go and wipe the raid)

your 31, 41, and 51 talents should feel mandatory, I think... that was one of the things I always hated about my warlock, spec'ing destro and skipping the 31 and 41 point talents without much hesitation.

[ Post edited by Darde ]

Bof

Aggramar

1. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:02:11 PM PST

Mainly because talents being mandatory would kill the point behind customizable talent trees in the first place.
Titan's Grip exists as it does because there's no balancable (in terms of talent budgeting) way to keep the concept of two 2H. The penalty either is trivial (current, that's why it's being removed) or worthless (old, never touched).

Sagart

The Venture Co

2. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:06:19 PM PST

There are still several mandatory talents in the game.

I don't need my 51 pointer to be mandatory but I'd like it to suck less.

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

3. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:20:24 PM PST

There is nothing wrong with "mandatory" talents per se. Generally the community considers them mandatory because they are very good talents. We don't want a bunch of trees with a bunch of mediocre talents. We love the depth that comes from players endlessly debating which spec to use or comparing talents to each other.

Where it crosses the line in when it starts to restrict player options too much. It's okay if almost all warriors take Cruelty and slightly less okay if almost all warlocks take Ruin. If there was a 31-point talent that all specs took, then it starts to hurt the other two trees in that class. Cookie-cutter specs are okay when they are something used by players who are new to a class and don't want to spend the energy just yet learning every nuance of the class. Ideally, there are a few points that come down to player preference. As an example, before Lich King the three tanking classes had very choices in their talents -- they needed to spend almost all their points just on mitigation.

The extreme alternative is something where every talent tree is equally viable. That might sound good in theory, but it makes the discussions a lot less interesting. "What's the best talent build for a Balance druid who wants to do 5-mans and Arenas?" "It doesn't matter, dude. Just take whatever and you'll do fine."

So we usually land somewhere in the middle -- talents that you pretty much are always going to have, mixed in with some that come down to player preference.

Smokelock

< Rest in Pieces >

Dethecus

4. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:22:00 PM PST

Q u o t e:
There is nothing wrong with "mandatory" talents per se. Generally the community considers them mandatory because they are very good talents. We don't want a bunch of trees with a bunch of mediocre talents. We love the depth that comes from players endlessly debating which spec to use or comparing talents to each other.

Where it crosses the line in when it starts to restrict player options too much. It's okay if almost all warriors take Cruelty and slightly less okay if almost all warlocks take Ruin. If there was a 31-point talent that all specs took, then it starts to hurt the other two trees in that class. Cookie-cutter specs are okay when they are something used by players who are new to a class and don't want to spend the energy just yet learning every nuance of the class. Ideally, there are a few points that come down to player preference. As an example, before Lich King the three tanking classes had very choices in their talents -- they needed to spend almost all their points just on mitigation.

The extreme alternative is something where every talent tree is equally viable. That might sound good in theory, but it makes the discussions a lot less interesting. "What's the best talent build for a Balance druid who wants to do 5-mans and Arenas?" "It doesn't matter, dude. Just take whatever and you'll do fine."

So we usually land somewhere in the middle -- talents that you pretty much are always going to have, mixed in with some that come down to player preference.

Buff kiting.

"Your wise men dont know how it feels....to be thick as a brick"

Kallio

< Theoretical Physicis… >

Illidan

5. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:22:01 PM PST

You start to get pigeon-holed into specs, allowing for less diversity in competitive play.

Shayera

< Meridian >

Garithos

6. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:26:36 PM PST

Welcome to 11 points in Disc. :O

Mirte - 80 Warlock ► Lichslappéd - 74 Deathknight
Watermasta - 69 Mage ► Shayeri - 64 Warrior

Q u o t e:
did you Blizzard really too stupid to read?

What is this I don’t even?...

Nocuous

< Fatal Union >

Kargath

7. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:26:58 PM PST

Q u o t e:
There is nothing wrong with "mandatory" talents per se. Generally the community considers them mandatory because they are very good talents. We don't want a bunch of trees with a bunch of mediocre talents. We love the depth that comes from players endlessly debating which spec to use or comparing talents to each other.

Where it crosses the line in when it starts to restrict player options too much. It's okay if almost all warriors take Cruelty and slightly less okay if almost all warlocks take Ruin. If there was a 31-point talent that all specs took, then it starts to hurt the other two trees in that class. Cookie-cutter specs are okay when they are something used by players who are new to a class and don't want to spend the energy just yet learning every nuance of the class. Ideally, there are a few points that come down to player preference. As an example, before Lich King the three tanking classes had very choices in their talents -- they needed to spend almost all their points just on mitigation.

The extreme alternative is something where every talent tree is equally viable. That might sound good in theory, but it makes the discussions a lot less interesting. "What's the best talent build for a Balance druid who wants to do 5-mans and Arenas?" "It doesn't matter, dude. Just take whatever and you'll do fine."

So we usually land somewhere in the middle -- talents that you pretty much are always going to have, mixed in with some that come down to player preference.

Please replace soul link with real (i.e., baseline) survivability so it's no longer mandatory for warlocks who want to pvp.

Dumdum

< Onslaught >

Mug'thol

8. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:27:46 PM PST

Q u o t e:
You start to get pigeon-holed into specs, allowing for less diversity in competitive play.

QFT, i hated the spec for innervate or DIAF days on my druid.

Kill until dead then repeat.

Dumdum

< Onslaught >

Mug'thol

9. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:33:02 PM PST

Q u o t e:
Welcome to 11 points in Disc. :O

is it just me or do a lot of the disc talent icons look like frustrated ppl (maybe from beating on a shield, not callin it OP(calm down) just using a reference).

[ Post edited by Dumdum ]

Kill until dead then repeat.

Sagart

The Venture Co

10. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:33:15 PM PST

Q u o t e:
Welcome to 11 points in Disc. :O

14 imo.

Ayumiko

< Praetorian >

Darkspear

11. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:33:43 PM PST

What about talents like Pathfinding which are so horribly bad that nobody with any concept of how this game works would ever take them?

Vux

< with Pancakes >

Dragonblight

12. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:34:27 PM PST

Q u o t e:
It's okay if almost all warriors take Cruelty and slightly less okay if almost all warlocks take Ruin.

But almost all Warlocks do?

[3.0/WotLK] Vux's Guide to Affliction (Sticky)

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=12065092735&sid=1&pageNo=1#0

Razormaid

Staghelm

14. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:39:18 PM PST

Q u o t e:

But almost all Warlocks do?

Blizz really should make haunt the filler DD spell for affliction.

Ishkael

< Bushwhack >

Burning Legion

15. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:41:48 PM PST

14 Disc is pretty much standard.

Ishkael

< Bushwhack >

Burning Legion

16. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 12:45:40 PM PST

Q u o t e:

is it just me or do a lot of the disc talent icons look like frustrated ppl (maybe from beating on a shield, not callin it OP(calm down) just using a reference).

Most look like we got a major headache.

Periå

< Prophecy >

Dark Iron

17. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 01:10:33 PM PST

Q u o t e:
There is nothing wrong with "mandatory" talents per se. Generally the community considers them mandatory because they are very good talents. We don't want a bunch of trees with a bunch of mediocre talents. We love the depth that comes from players endlessly debating which spec to use or comparing talents to each other.

Where it crosses the line in when it starts to restrict player options too much. It's okay if almost all warriors take Cruelty and slightly less okay if almost all warlocks take Ruin. If there was a 31-point talent that all specs took, then it starts to hurt the other two trees in that class. Cookie-cutter specs are okay when they are something used by players who are new to a class and don't want to spend the energy just yet learning every nuance of the class. Ideally, there are a few points that come down to player preference. As an example, before Lich King the three tanking classes had very choices in their talents -- they needed to spend almost all their points just on mitigation.

The extreme alternative is something where every talent tree is equally viable. That might sound good in theory, but it makes the discussions a lot less interesting. "What's the best talent build for a Balance druid who wants to do 5-mans and Arenas?" "It doesn't matter, dude. Just take whatever and you'll do fine."

So we usually land somewhere in the middle -- talents that you pretty much are always going to have, mixed in with some that come down to player preference.

id like to just reiterate the lack of awesome that is killing spree, GC. On numerous fights killing spree can't really be used safely. The 2 minutes cooldown for 2.5 seconds of slightly elevated dps is so lackluster in my opinion. The 41 point combat was cool in that it had a static effect of more damage to certain abilities with the unique feature of our finishers not being dodged.

Killing spree is a unique ability, but only for 2 seconds every couple minutes. I would like to ask that you add a static effect to killing spree, combat is lacking now anyways compared to a pve mutilate build.

-peria

-Peria (dark iron rogue)
-Felyn (dark iron priest)
-Veice (dark iron hunter)

Periå

< Prophecy >

Dark Iron

18. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 01:13:42 PM PST

Q u o t e:
Welcome to 11 points in Disc. :O

rogues are no stranger to mandatory talents my priestly friend.

points into assasination and now subtlety are absolutely mandatory for any pve build.

moving relentless strikes to a 5/5 in subtlety really hurt us more in that way.. it is absolutely mandatory for pve, and takes more talent points than ever before, and it is in a tree that you dont use for pve.

dam you GC

(beaver dam that is)

-Peria (dark iron rogue)
-Felyn (dark iron priest)
-Veice (dark iron hunter)

Ibakecookies

< Mighty Wizard IRL >

Tichondrius

19. Re: what's so wrong with mandatory talents? 01/12/2009 01:15:30 PM PST

PER SE

█▀█ ░█▀█
█░█ ░█░█
▀▀▀█ ▀▀▀█

Forum > CLASS ROLES > DAMAGE DEALING