Hi,
I’ve been watching a bit of the MLG 3v3 comp and listening to the commentary and statements made by some of the top players in the world. It seems that the same opinion has been reiterated by all of them.

“Blizz are trying to make all specs viable in arena, this is a laughable idea. With the complexity of this game and so many abilities available to all specs of a class and the addition of dual spec people have to stop ignoring the fact that they have more than one spec available to them. We half expect Blizzard to abandon this design philosophy soon and concentrate on just giving each class only one tree that is viable in pvp.”

Although I think laughable isn’t the word to use (admirable would be a better word) I do agree with this idea, that I have heard time and time again the last couple of days.
99% of the talk that is going on the forums at the moment is about this spec wanting buffs, that spec wanting nerfs to another spec. Anyone with any kind of idea of what is going on has to agree that although Blizz might be “one of the best” or “the best” development teams around, it simply is not possible for you to achieve this goal.

I think the most important question at the moment is –

Are you going to continue using your time to try to achieve this and possibly never get there, or are you going to cut your losses, admit defeat and concentrate on the more achievable goal of giving each class one spec that is viable?

In the short term this might loss you some customers and I have not dissolutions about this game, you are first and foremost a business, but in the long run a game that has a stronger feeling of balance will attract and keep more customers.
The current number of people interested and playing in arena the last 2 seasons compared to previous must make you wonder if you are going forward or backward.

is there a stream of the 3v3s?

---

Q u o t e:
is there a stream of the 3v3s?

---

Yeah go to mmo-champion. It's on the front page.

thanks

this is a good question are all 3 specs still going to be viable or will 1 spec

right now blood DKs need buffs but Unholy is quite strong. Unholy plays better with the Dk mechanics than Blood really the only way DKs will spec blood over Unholy is if the dmg is so insane that u dont need to fall back on your basic mechanics and just faceroll a win

my point being that blizz needs to look deep into the class mechanics and see what spec plays towards that

Why are people putting so much emphasis on what a couple of commentators are saying?

Oh, and it's funny. I'm told hybrids should be taxed because we can dual spec between healing and DPS or whatever two roles, but here I'm being told I'm suppose to dual spec PvE and PvP. Both sides can go !@#* themselves.

---

Q u o t e:
Why are people putting so much emphasis on what a couple of commentators are saying?

Oh, and it's funny. I'm told hybrids should be taxed because we can dual spec between healing and DPS or whatever two roles, but here I'm being told I'm suppose to dual spec PvE and PvP. Both sides can go !@#* themselves.

---

the idea was brought up by a commentator but he isnt the first one to ask the question.

If u want to tank heal and dps in PvE and dps and heal in PvP why shouldn't you have to pay 50g when other classes can dps or dps?

---

Q u o t e:
Why are people putting so much emphasis on what a couple of commentators are saying?

Oh, and it's funny. I'm told hybrids should be taxed because we can dual spec between healing and DPS or whatever two roles, but here I'm being told I'm suppose to dual spec PvE and PvP. Both sides can go !@#* themselves.

---

I am not asking Blizz to agree, they may say "We will cont to work on all specs being viable" but if they do, the players need to be realistic and know this might takes years.

As for the hybrid tax - if blizz said "we are only going to make one spec viable" that is kinda good news and solves problems, because - healer hybrids would have to heal in arena BUT only pures, DKs and warr would be dps in arena, this would alow blizz to make hybrid pve dis on par with pure because people would still roll pures for arena.

---

Q u o t e:


the idea was brought up by a commentator but he isnt the first one to ask the question.

If u want to tank heal and dps in PvE and dps and heal in PvP why shouldn't you have to pay 50g when other classes can dps or dps?

---

Because, not only is a 50 gold respec required, but a trip to the trainer, and an adequate set of gear at hand as well. It's not just 'hey i'm a healer, now i'm a tank' that fast with nothing else in between, of course, unless the player is merely dual specced that way, and in which case, they probably don't have a pvp spec, or are pvp specced one way and pve specced the other. That isn't uncommon either, as I am ret for pvp and prot for pve, sometimes doing prot for pvp as well.

I digress and will probably derail this topic though.

---

Q u o t e:


Because, not only is a 50 gold respec required, but a trip to the trainer, and an adequate set of gear at hand as well. It's not just 'hey i'm a healer, now i'm a tank' that fast with nothing else in between, of course, unless the player is merely dual specced that way, and in which case, they probably don't have a pvp spec, or are pvp specced one way and pve specced the other. That isn't uncommon either, as I am ret for pvp and prot for pve, sometimes doing prot for pvp as well.

I digress and will probably derail this topic though.

---

im pretty sure that is easier then lv from 0 to 80 and THEN getting all the gear

---

Q u o t e:


Because, not only is a 50 gold respec required, but a trip to the trainer, and an adequate set of gear at hand as well. It's not just 'hey i'm a healer, now i'm a tank' that fast with nothing else in between, of course, unless the player is merely dual specced that way, and in which case, they probably don't have a pvp spec, or are pvp specced one way and pve specced the other. That isn't uncommon either, as I am ret for pvp and prot for pve, sometimes doing prot for pvp as well.

I digress and will probably derail this topic though.

---

The problem is, people with half a brain are not dissagreeing with you. In a perfect world, all specs SHOULD be viable, but in a perfect real world there would be no war, no hunger and no sickness. Like in the real world you need to know what IS possible and focus your energy on that, or you will be wasting your time.

I do not see how giving each class a single viable PvP spec is going to "balance" Arena or PvP in general. What it would boil down to is:

Arms Warrior.
Muti/Prep Rogue.
Resto Shaman.
Resto Druid.
Holy Paladin.
Disc Priest.
Frost Mage.
Unholy DK.
Surv Hunter.
Aff (?) Warlock.

In that combination of specs, some are going to be clearly better than others in different brackets. Even if the point is to buff them to be basically equal, what you end up with is 4 different versions of healers and 6 different versions of DPS. Making Frost Mages as dangerous as Unholy DKs and Arms Warriors and Muti/Rogues is not a direction I imagine most players would enjoy the game going, for example. And nevermind the fact that it never mentioned on the character select screen for Druids, Paladins, Shaman, or Priests that healing was going to be only possible option in endgame PvP. It would be more than merely a slap in the face, it would be a betrayal of the time spent leveling the character.

Blizzard's current design, as far as I can tell, is to try and make at least 2 spec viable per class. The problem that happens is that DPS specs like rogues and mages, etc, can easily choose which is the best and they will merely stick with that one exclusively, so it appears that they only have one "viable" spec when they might actually have two. Warlocks have two obviously viable specs, for example. Warriors do not. Rogues probably do not. Mages, in my experience do (although Frost is better at surviving melee and works better in RMP).

What I does is alow them to work on 10 classes not 30specs and as you know changing one has effects on all 29 others, it is not a simple csae of one going up makes one come down. Balancing 30 is not 3 times as hard as balancing 10. It is 100s of times harder, Blizz already had huge problems balancing 10-12 do you really think they have hopes of 30???

---

Q u o t e:
I do not see how giving each class a single viable PvP spec is going to "balance" Arena or PvP in general. What it would boil down to is:

Arms Warrior.
Muti/Prep Rogue.
Resto Shaman.
Resto Druid.
Holy Paladin.
Disc Priest.
Frost Mage.
Unholy DK.
Surv Hunter.
Aff (?) Warlock.

In that combination of specs, some are going to be clearly better than others in different brackets. Even if the point is to buff them to be basically equal, what you end up with is 4 different versions of healers and 6 different versions of DPS. Making Frost Mages as dangerous as Unholy DKs and Arms Warriors and Muti/Rogues is not a direction I imagine most players would enjoy the game going, for example. And nevermind the fact that it never mentioned on the character select screen for Druids, Paladins, Shaman, or Priests that healing was going to be only possible option in endgame PvP. It would be more than merely a slap in the face, it would be a betrayal of the time spent leveling the character.

Blizzard's current design, as far as I can tell, is to try and make at least 2 spec viable per class. The problem that happens is that DPS specs like rogues and mages, etc, can easily choose which is the best and they will merely stick with that one exclusively, so it appears that they only have one "viable" spec when they might actually have two. Warlocks have two obviously viable specs, for example. Warriors do not. Rogues probably do not. Mages, in my experience do (although Frost is better at surviving melee and works better in RMP).

---

Can you with a straight face tell me that the 2 spec system is working?

---

Q u o t e:
The problem is, people with half a brain are not dissagreeing with you. In a perfect world, all specs SHOULD be viable, but in a perfect real world there would be no war, no hunger and no sickness. Like in the real world you need to know what IS possible and focus your energy on that, or you will be wasting your time.

---

Oh, please.

What you are basically saying is that all those doctors in Africa trying to alleviate AIDS and malaria are "wasting their time" since AIDS and malaria are not things that can be permanently solved within whatever arbitrary timeframe you choose. There is still value to be had in working toward a goal that either may merely seem insurmountable or at least improving the quality of life even if a bad end is inevitable. Why bother treating terminally ill cancer patients when its wasting resources, right? We use those resources in that way because it is worth it to the cancer patients.

---

Q u o t e:
What I does is alow them to work on 10 classes not 30specs and as you know changing one has effects on all 29 others, it is not a simple csae of one going up makes one come down. Balancing 30 is not 3 times as hard as balancing 10. It is 100s of times harder, Blizz already had huge problems balancing 10-12 do you really think they have hopes of 30???

---

You are pretending that by "cutting their losses" and focusing on 10 specs only is actually going to generate a better balanced PvP experience when that is not the case at all. Like I said, you end up having to, for example, make Frost Mages as dangerous as Arms Warriors, Muti/Prep Rogues, and Unholy DKs. If you don't make Frost Mages as dangerous, then what is the point of going down to 10 specs when only 3-4 will be viable anyway? If Frost Mage/Resto Shaman cannot beat Arms/Resto druid then you may as well keep the current system.

---

Q u o t e:
Can you with a straight face tell me that the 2 spec system is working?

---

If by "working" you mean people are playing the classes and specs they enjoy playing in PvP, then yes. If by "working" you mean perfect, mythical balance then no. If you are going by the latter, I would ask you to tell me with a straight face that those 10 specs I listed could ever actually be balanced around each other.

This design philosophy is the best design philosophy that has come out of WoTLK. I don't know why people magically attribute it to the game being less balanced. The game wasn't more balanced when hybrid damage specs all sucked horribly, now was it? For the most part, the class/specs that dominate are the same specs that have always dominated and the introduction of this philosophy has done little to change this fact.

If they did drop this philosophy, I'd probably quit the game. Chug along Ghostcrawler, some people do recognize that you've taken a much better direction with the game. The people advocating otherwise are just pessimists looking for a scapegoat.

---

Q u o t e:

Oh, please.

What you are basically saying is that all those doctors in Africa trying to alleviate AIDS and malaria are "wasting their time" since AIDS and malaria are not things that can be permanently solved within whatever arbitrary timeframe you choose. There is still value to be had in working toward a goal that either may merely seem insurmountable or at least improving the quality of life even if a bad end is inevitable. Why bother treating terminally ill cancer patients when its wasting resources, right? We use those resources in that way because it is worth it to the cancer patients.

---

No I am not,
But do you think we can stop people from getting sick altogether?
Do you think we can have everyone in the world rich???
If you do, you need a lot more education than I can give you.

---

Q u o t e:
You are pretending that by "cutting their losses" and focusing on 10 specs only is actually going to generate a better balanced PvP experience when that is not the case at all. Like I said, you end up having to, for example, make Frost Mages as dangerous as Arms Warriors, Muti/Prep Rogues, and Unholy DKs. If you don't make Frost Mages as dangerous, then what is the point of going down to 10 specs when only 3-4 will be viable anyway? If Frost Mage/Resto Shaman cannot beat Arms/Resto druid then you may as well keep the current system.

---

No, what I am saying is, blizz only has so much time and money. Can they balance all 30? Yes, but do they have 20yrs to do so?

---

Q u o t e:
If by "working" you mean people are playing the classes and specs they enjoy playing in PvP, then yes. If by "working" you mean perfect, mythical balance then no. If you are going by the latter, I would ask you to tell me with a straight face that those 10 specs I listed could ever actually be balanced around each other.

---

I have friends that love to play boomkin, they play in BGs but do you think they are showing their faces in Arena? No, focusing on balancing dps, healing and tanking in pve is one thing, as long as they try to have 30specs viable in arena you will just have 3 to 4 specs that dom all others . This IS also what happened in the past (to a degree) but then you had 5-6 classes unhappy, now you have 27specs that are unhappy.
Making your job hundreds of times harder when you can't do it in the first place is not the way to go, even if it does make a few people happy.

First we need to get all classes viable!