I’m surprised they didn’t rename it to ‘zookeeper’ during bfa.
DH have it worse. One dps spec and is at the button. At least MM is doing good.
I think it would help if Blizzard set a benchmark for themselves and an expectation for the player base. Something like “there will be no more than a 10% damage difference between the very top and the very bottom performing classes.”
With that philosophy in mind, all specs would be viable. 10% is the maximum, so ideally they would be even closer. But having a hard number like that would keep everyone accountable and give the players an expectation for every spec.
Maybe that means BM performs 10% worse than MM. Maybe Fury performs 10% worse than Arms. But at least there would be an upper threshold that players could count on.
Right now it feels like anything goes.
I don’t actually expect Blizzard to impose this kind of restriction on themselves. But it would be nice.
2 Likes
Will there be a time when we skip these obvious, substance-less arguments?
Being at the bottom by some small margin on a given fight doesn’t disturb people.
Having no reason to be taken, period, does.
Which means… what, exactly, to people who want to play Havoc?
And for all this talk of “Hybrid Tax” where’s the “Has-three-different-options-by which-to-fine-tune-to-particular-fights Tax”? In an actually balanced world, if still specs managed not to become homogenous, the latter (found on every “pure” DPS) would be significantly more valuable to any progression raid guild than the prior.
The only reasonable “hybrid tax” is that the class merely has fewer tries therein to get a decent spec for a given role — no more, no less. Some classes do fine on one try, and some get screwed across all of them, but that’s all it is or should be.
lol aim for like 3 to 5%. not 10% Cause when blizzard balance the numbers they only sim it not counting on things like mechanics and no human error. With Mechanics and human error like missing a proc orhave to readjust position that count as dps loss.
Sure. I was just making up a number for the sake of brevity. Something like 5% would of course be better. I mean 1% would be even better but that probably a little unrealistic.
The point is that if there were a self-imposed restriction on class damage like that, and players could show with data that a certain class wasn’t within the lower limit, it would create an impetus to focus on buffing that class. Or nerfing a class that was performing way above average.