- You’re not tanks.
- They don’t need it, rockbiter and earth shock is insane threat.
Because shamans aren’t tanks.
2 targets is very feasible. Anything over 2 will require effort.
1 Like
Well, technically, if you play a pally tank properly you only need a few points in prot. All other leftover talent points are dumped in Holy or even Ret.
Search Blessing of Kings spam prot paladin.
Paladins generate way more threat
1 Like
The fault in our stars is the mentality that any class should be designed for a specific clearly defined role. But that’s also a product of how gameplay is designed in addition to the way in which classes are.
The way threat works in WoW puts the entire schematic of gameplay into a box from which it cannot escape as a function of PvE; where threat technically exists in PvP as well, people just don’t view or understand it as the same conceptual construct.
Consider the way mana works in retail – strict constraints limit the ability of the elemental shaman or retribution paladin from legitimately working in the same capacity as a resto or holy one due to the inherently limited nature of that resource – full restoration or holy players of those classes have longevity to continue healing for a disproportionately longer amount of time in reference.
Classic isn’t like that at all. You can spec 0 points into restoration or holy and cast healing spells for the full extent of that same mana bar; which is gear and not spec specific.
In that respect, I don’t necessarily think that increasing hybrid damage spec mana capacity is the answer, but rather to limit that of healers. But in Waracraft III, every hero had a mana bar. Even melee heroes like Mountain King and Blademaster.
shrug
But this is all old news, and obviously unsupported by the overall design of combat in the game’s current format.
1 Like
You’re greatly exaggerating the amount of work needed from others. We are literally talking about people carrying LIP (just in case) and in the worst case scenario ask rogues to cast Vanish.
P.S. Im assuming we’re talking about raids here.
This is silly. The very definition of classes and class distinction assumes differing roles. The entire history of RPG gameplay is built upon, and defined by it. Part of the reason Retail is so awful is because it has forgotten this one principle.
No, kinda, sorta. A Dem lock is sturdier but will need Bag of Marbles among a PLETHORA of fancy items and massive amount of effort from others to tank the same bosses as a Shaman tank. In THIS scenario you can say it’s unrealistic (but still possible). A Dem lock will need to switch to Destro at some point around ZG-ish, especially with the nerf to Flame Buffet.
P.S. MC is a complete breeze not considering it but looking at actual hard raids.
You’ve put yourself in a box and I guess you like it there
shrug
I would agree with you 5years ago on pservers, when people were still learning and number crunching but in 2020, not anymore. Pally tanks get away with no-Taunt thx to BoP and crazy threat stuff, ex: Gbok/Holy Shock (looking good and tfury is not even out yet). Taunt is not a necessity but a convenience, BUT I’ll admit Taunt is very much needed for casual/new guilds.
This is not an opinion but regurgitated data/results from many paladin tanks for many years now.
For AoE? yes. Single target, nah.
This isn’t a self-improvement course, it’s an RPG.
shrug
2 Likes
It’s for singletarget can generate 3000tps on one boss.
1 Like
Just because it’s an RPG doesn’t mean combat AI has to be braindead…
Consider comp stomp. Certainly the existance of intelligent NPC AI has (or should have) implications.
I like the sense in which hybrid mana capacity is much lower but regenerates quickly, allowing the use of abilities. I feel like group content survivability should be a combination of threat management, mitigation, and support – every single class has access to all of these functions in some capacity.
It’s dull to suggest that any single player should limit themselves to performing in only one of these role capacities, when combat could easily evolve to engage the player in all 3 of them essentially simultaneously.
You’re in the “big brain-dead boss, 1 tank 1 healer, 3 dps” box; which worked well in 2004. It’s 2020 now, and combat doesn’t have to look like that at all. It simply requires evolution in the synthesis between both encounter and class design.
The dungeon journal is a script on how to act out the encounter. I’m looking for open ended encounters that allow players access to creative solutions to the problems and mechanics they need to overcome; which are also in some sense randomized so that they’re not exactly the same every time you engage with them.
1 Like
It’s not 2020, it’s Classic. You have 100 games that have implemented the exact paradigm you’re arguing for, and they all suck, without exception. But if you like that type of gameplay, go for it. There is a literal smorgasbord for you to choose from.
The gameplay will still suck and you’ll be tweaking and complaining it’s not right forever, but go for it. I’ll stick with clear class distinction and the joy of genuine cooperation and defined role play that generates satisfying gameplay.
1 Like
What can I say?
I’m a hard person to please because I won’t stand for stagnation or mediocrity in that which I choose to contribute to.
Idk what year you’re in, but I’m playing WoW Classic in 2020.
That said, idk what I’ll be playing in 2021 or 2022. At any rate, I feel fortunate to have a forward and innovative mentality rather than being closed minded.
I don’t intend to propose changes to classic. But I do propose a theory that RPG’s don’t have to have strict class role requirements – provided that gameplay is designed around the premise of fluid and engaging combat mechanics.
I have opinions on this and many other things, and I have written many essays which are lengthy and enumerable about theoretical game elements and systems. I’m also certain nobody has really cared enough to read them.
…
shrug
2 Likes
Dude, you need to do some research into RPGs that have been and gone. It’s all been done before. You’re not the first person to come up with this idea. It’s been around since Runemaster, Rolemaster, and a score of other tabetop systems. It produces the exact thing you say you want to avoid - bland mediocrity.
Some of us have been down that road already. If you have to go down it again, be my guest. But don’t think it’s new. It’s as old as RPGing.
2 Likes
Ah.
But a video game is (with few exceptions) not a tabletop system.
Nor was I involved on any of those projects. They hardly have the capacity to represent a valid example of the design elements I would propose to implement as a means of eliminating strict roles from the schematics of RPG combat.
1 Like
You’re missing the point. Those systems influenced the first CPRGs, and there have been many. It’s all been tried before. The problem is you haven’t actually played enough games, and it shows. This stuff sounds great in theory, but in practice it falls flat. You’d know that if you had played the games that tried it. The best RPGs all have class distinction, and class fantasy. It’s what makes it all compelling to play.
Personal (class) limitations don’t reduce group dynamic, they empower it. And it’s obvious why that is once you think about it. It’s why we’re all here playing Classic, BTW.
4 Likes
I think I read somewhere that blizzard originally wanted shamans to tank, but they couldn’t get it to work. So they ended up dropping a lot of that elements before go live.