The Zealot Masteries

[Gemini]

From the Feburary newsletter:

Zealot Career Masteries
The Zealot is a fanatical orator, intent on spreading the glory of the Raven God throughout the land and serving the will of the Great Changer. Draped with ritual vestments and tools of sacrifice, the Zealot can imbue various talismans and potions with the primordial power of Chaos. These items become potent magical conduits through which he can mend wounds, enhance his allies, and plague his enemies with unholy scourges.
Zealot Mechanic
Zealots are some of the few mortals who can call forth a Mark of Tzeentch upon living flesh, branding their allies as sanctified soldiers of the Changer of Ways. These marks will not only bolster their holders' powers far beyond normal human limitations, but also serve as direct conduits to the powers of Tzeentch himself, allowing their bearers to gain entirely new abilities. A Zealot can also desecrate a patch of land with Dark Rituals & Rites, marking that spot as claimed by Tzeentch and crippling any nonbelievers who dare to tread upon it.
Zealot Masteries
Path of Alchemy
The Path of Alchemy is the Zealot's primary healing mastery. A specialist in Alchemy will become a mighty healer, capable of mending the most grievous wounds and ensuring that Tzeentch's armies live to see their enemies fall before them. While a player who selects this mastery may not necessarily gain the most powerful offensive capabilities, they will have absolutely no problems finding allies to protect them and do their bidding.
Path of Ritual
The Path of Rituals is focused on warping the entire balance of power across a battlefield, skewing the fight to bring about the inevitable triumph of Tzeentch's followers. They are just as proficient at enhancing their allies as they are at stunting their enemies - and, in fact, can do both at the same time.
Path of Witchcraft
The Path of Witchcraft is for a Zealot who chooses to make himself into a talon of Tzeentch, reaching out to slaughter his enemies through magical attacks. These manifest themselves as deadly portents of chaos. Flocks of shrieking ravens may fall upon a Zealot’s foe to consume their flesh, or strange demonic manifestations may appear out of thin air to lash at his foes.


One thing that interests me is the Path of Ritual, namely this part:They are just as proficient at enhancing their allies as they are at stunting their enemies - and, in fact, can do both at the same time.Does that mean rituals having positive effects for nearby allies is back in? If they hadn't said at the same time I would assume our Marks of Chaos are in that path, but at the same time to me implies rituals will once again have a positive effect for nearby allies. If this is so, I say hooray and hoorah!

So, which do yall like, which do ya hate, and which do ya want to take?

[lindhsky]

Have to say that the witch-craft way sounds like fun. I hope it doesn't make you get a bad reputation as you got in some games when you specced damage instead of heals as a "healer-type".

[Commentaris]

for me the decision to play a zealot will stand and fall with how good and how practical the rituals are. assuming they're any good i'd definitely go spec heavy in the ritual mastery, backed up with alchemy probably for 'ultimate' support class.

[R-dawg]

Have to say that the witch-craft way sounds like fun. I hope it doesn't make you get a bad reputation as you got in some games when you specced damage instead of heals as a "healer-type".

I completely agree with you on getting a bad rep for not speccing "healer." Those masteries do all seem very interesting to me. Pretty sure I will go for healing but it's a toss-up between where the rest of the points will be going.

[Tom_Hobbes]

Have to say that the witch-craft way sounds like fun. I hope it doesn't make you get a bad reputation as you got in some games when you specced damage instead of heals as a "healer-type".

Uh, there's only one offensive spec line there, so even if you put all the possible points in that, you still have a bunch left over that you'll have to put in at least the enhance line, which conveniently provides active boosts to your healing abilities (protective spells, kill speed enhancers, etc).

So, no, there's no real danger of you leaving healing totally unspecced.

[Dunhill]

Im pretty sure the Zealot and Runepriest will have mechanics that mirror eachother. That seems to be a trend they are doing with classes on either side. Like Archmage to shaman, and bright wizard to sorcerer, and warrior priest to disciple, etc.

[Gemini]

Im pretty sure the Zealot and Runepriest will have mechanics that mirror eachother. That seems to be a trend they are doing with classes on either side. Like Archmage to shaman, and bright wizard to sorcerer, and warrior priest to disciple, etc.

Yeah, we know that the Zealot and Runepriest are similar, but I don't really see what that has to do with this thread.

[Lucrece]

Hmm, can you hear that? It's the iconic sound of healbotting. Come on, repeat with me: H-E-A-L-B-O-T!~

It's not about having leftover points for other trees; it's the fact that you're forgoing archetypal efficiency by speccing a damage spec instead of healing+buffing/debuffing.

[lindhsky]

Uh, there's only one offensive spec line there, so even if you put all the possible points in that, you still have a bunch left over that you'll have to put in at least the enhance line, which conveniently provides active boosts to your healing abilities (protective spells, kill speed enhancers, etc).

So, no, there's no real danger of you leaving healing totally unspecced.

Sounds great, I haven't read up that much in how you spend points between the different trees, but that sounds good.

[Lucrece]

Sounds great, I haven't read up that much in how you spend points between the different trees, but that sounds good.

No good in there. What that comment missed is the importance of "effectiveness".

Even if you spec some points into buffing/healing, you won't be as good as a full heal/buff and vice versa spec Zealot. Groups bring you to heal, not for your offensive capability. If there is a spec designed to maximize that archetypal role, you WILL be forced to spec in it.

[Reihan]

Im pretty miffed with this news.

Im pretty sure i read some thing about masteries not totally changing the way an achetype works, and this news is pretty opposite.

Why is there a heal, buff / debuff and DPS path? i just know that youll struggle to find groups unless you are Alchemy spec.

As much as we hope it isnt so, people will bring a WoW mentality to the game (if you arent speced alchemy then your healing sucks kind of thing)

I might be jumping the gun here, but i already fear the worst... and i really wanted to play a zealot, but now i have a feeling itll just be an alt

[juggernaut]

*edited for content*

[juggernaut]

Im pretty miffed with this news.

Im pretty sure i read some thing about masteries not totally changing the way an achetype works, and this news is pretty opposite.

Why is there a heal, buff / debuff and DPS path? i just know that youll struggle to find groups unless you are Alchemy spec.

As much as we hope it isnt so, people will bring a WoW mentality to the game (if you and speced alchemy then your healing sucks kind of thing)

I might be jumping the gun here, but i already fear the worst... and i really wanted to play a zealot, but now i have a feeling itll just be an alt


you wont have trouble getting a group if you spec DPS. Those groups will have trouble getting the healer THEY want. some heals > no heals. So when I spec buff/debuff and dps and am out on teh battlefield wrecking bishes, the idiots who would like to force a spec on you will be stuck in LFG channel spamming LF1M alchemy zealot or the like.

[Lucrece]

Incoming moderation ;).

[juggernaut]

Incoming moderation ;).

don't be scrrd.

[Lucrece]

you wont have trouble getting a group if you spec DPS. Those groups will have trouble getting the healer THEY want. some heals > no heals. So when I spec buff/debuff and dps and am out on teh battlefield wrecking es, the idiots who would like to force a spec on you will be stuck in LFG channel spamming LF1M alchemy zealot or the like.

1) Read the forums rules before you post. Getting an infraction for using profanity would be a pity, I would guess.

2) PuG's=/= high end, competitive gameplay, which is what most people would like to achieve. There will be plenty of in-spec healers available to replace outliers such as yourself.

[juggernaut]

1) Read the forums rules before you post. Getting an infraction for using profanity would be a pity, I would guess.

2) PuG's=/= high end, competitive gameplay, which is what most people would like to achieve. There will be plenty of in-spec healers available to replace outliers such as yourself.


owning guys like you is worth any infraction the moderators might place on me.

[Lucrece]

owning guys like you is worth any infraction the moderators might place on me.

Well, that's too bad. You could easily go into any flame wars forums and "own", with whatever limited faculty you perceive yourself as possessing, without having to get banned out of such an interesting site as this one.

Anyways, I have a challenge for you: How about you try "owning" with some semblance of punctuation and cogency?

[juggernaut]

Well, that's too bad. You could easily go into any flame wars forums and "own", with whatever limited faculty you perceive yourself as possessing, without having to get banned out of such an interesting site as this one.

Anyways, I have a challenge for you: How about you try "owning" with some semblance of punctuation and cogency?

it must suck to have everyone dislike you.

[Lucrece]

it must suck to have everyone dislike you.

I thought someone with your behavioral pattern would have opted for the more appealingly juvenile word "hate". I must admit, you've surprised me.:)

[LookinGreen]

I would have liked to see some semblence of a gimmick to prevent healbotting. If your going to spec damage, why take you instead of a Magus which is presumably better in the DPS department? I agree people should be spec as they wish but I fear the worse for what will be expected from zealots in groups situations.

[juggernaut]

I thought someone with your behavioral pattern would have opted for the more appealingly juvenile word "hate". I must admit, you've surprised me.:)

and I would have thought someone as "intelligent" as you claim to be might be able to spell behavioural.

[Lucrece]

and I would have thought someone as "intelligent" as you claim to be might be able to spell behavioural.

Americans apparently are not as intelligent as your European ilk. We even have different spellings, such as judgment, color, and valor!:roll:

[juggernaut]

back to the discussion at hand. my apologies to everyone, carry on.

[juggernaut]

Americans apparently are not as intelligent as your European ilk. We even have different spellings, such as judgment, color, and valor!:roll:

ahhh, I had you pegged as a canadian.

[Lucrece]

ahhh, I had you pegged as a canadian.

Now you've gone too far!:mad:

[ManiaCCC]

Im pretty miffed with this news.

Im pretty sure i read some thing about masteries not totally changing the way an achetype works, and this news is pretty opposite.

Why is there a heal, buff / debuff and DPS path? i just know that youll struggle to find groups unless you are Alchemy spec.

As much as we hope it isnt so, people will bring a WoW mentality to the game (if you arent speced alchemy then your healing sucks kind of thing)

I might be jumping the gun here, but i already fear the worst... and i really wanted to play a zealot, but now i have a feeling itll just be an alt

I really don't understand what masteries have with changing of archetype... because WoW talents work that way.. so masteries must too?

[Keldorn]

I really don't understand what masteries have with changing of archetype... because WoW talents work that way.. so masteries must too?

It basically boils down to "what does a group need?" and "what can a class do?"

For masteries to have any meaning, there needs to be a significant difference between two players of the same class, but with different masteries.

So, a "heal" Zealot will be a better healer than a "damage" Zealot, while the latter will likely do more damage.
The problems are 1:"Damage careers" are usually prefered by the majority of players
and 2: Healing is restricted to the healer archetype ( though the "cauterize wounds" stuff with the bright wizard got me interested)

That means, groups will usually have an abundance of damage classes and look for a "healing specced" zealot. Zealots who aren´t specced that way are frowned upon, as the group isn´t interested in more damage careers and many consider that mastery a "waste" of a healing career.


Will a damge-zealot still be able to heal? Probably. But endgame content - be it PvE or PvP - often concentrates on the optimal combination of classes. Encounters have to be balanced around a near-optimal group, since those balanced for a group of five marauders and one damage-zealot will be too easy for the dedicated tank + dedicated healer + 4 DPS setup. Likewise, there´ll probably surface the "ideal" zealot specc for PvP - and it won´t be damage, other classes are better at that.


In short: Considering that "healing" is a major aspect of the supporter archetype, giving it a separate mastery-tree ( instead of spreading it equally among, say, buffing, debuffing and damage ) can easily result in groups avoiding the other two masteries as they don´t provide what they need/are looking for.

A game is heading down a risky path when the first question every player looking for a group gets is "what´s your mastery?"

[juggernaut]

and maybe, just maybe, Mythic geared end game content around each classes base line spells. thus, choosing between the different masteries has no effect end game. (wishful thinking, I know)

[Keldorn]

and maybe, just maybe, Mythic geared end game content around each classes base line spells. thus, choosing between the different masteries has no effect end game. (wishful thinking, I know)

Well, thats possible, but its kind of a predicament: Either the masteries mean a significant difference within a career - then an alchemy-zealot would outheal zealots with other masteries.
Or the careers will be able to perform comparably in all their aspects - making the choice of your mastery merely "cosmetic".


In other words: If an alchemy-zealot doesn´t provide better healing and lower damage than a witchcraft-zealot... what purpose do the masteries serve, then?

[ManiaCCC]

Keldorn...there is NO-way how to desing masteries and avoid some people/groups/guilds forcing you to specific build ... belive me.. even if they will make all trees with healing + damage + buffs/debuffs bonuses...people will always find build which suit "them" the best... But just learn one thing..you are playing for yourself...not for them.

And IMO.. this way (strictly diversive spezialiozations) is the best way to go.. it will offer you much more options (if trees are done right) than some hybridly trees...

The only challange they have is balance all these trees in two ways.. don't make any tree usless or overpowered and Do not put any key abilties into these trees (so damage speced zealot can still heal effectievly)

[Gemini]

Well, thats possible, but its kind of a predicament: Either the masteries mean a significant difference within a career - then an alchemy-zealot would outheal zealots with other masteries.
Or the careers will be able to perform comparably in all their aspects - making the choice of your mastery merely "cosmetic".


You don't think there can be a middle ground? Does it really have to be so black and white?

[XShrike]

One thing that interests me is the Path of Ritual, namely this part:Does that mean rituals having positive effects for nearby allies is back in? If they hadn't said at the same time I would assume our Marks of Chaos are in that path, but at the same time to me implies rituals will once again have a positive effect for nearby allies. If this is so, I say hooray and hoorah!

When they first announced this class they talked about how the Zealot could debuff one target, that debuff would also buff your group. So you debuff one guy so he gains moral at a slower rate but, your group is buffed to gain moral at a faster rate.

[Valentino]

While I was hoping for integrated trees, where going down one particular mastery will enhance all aspects of your character, but in different ways (Eg, Maybe the Ritual Mastery would enhance your aoe healing capabilities along with certain debuffs) im still pretty happy with what we've got.

Lets be honest. Healer classes are still healers, first and foremost. We don't even know what's in the masteries yet, so there's no point in worrying. Take WoW for example. There's about 4 different cookie cutter talent builds, which is pretty decent. You can be the shadow priest, dealing damage and supporting your group with mana/life regen. People actually ASK for these to come to raids. You can be the ultimate PvE healer, with your extra AOE party heal and beefed up regular heals. You can be the ultimate PvP healer, with efficient quick casts, extra defensive moves and less reliance on standing still and casting. Or, you can be a hybrid healer and dip your toes into both trees.

So here's to hoping that all the trees make us awesome...who knows, maybe a Witchcraft/Ritual Zealot will be the absolute BEST 6th man in a group, acting like bards in many other MMOs.

[Tlear]

For those that like to drag WoW into this, some time check the top of the Arena ladder. The only healer class that specs all out healing is paladin. Priest, druid and shaman almost always use combo specs. This was even mroe true for DAOC, where vast majority of the best pvp healers used non pure healing specs

[iCanada]

ahhh, I had you pegged as a canadian.

Thanks for being racist...

If i play a zealot i will defenatly go into the alchemy/witchcraft trees. Sounds fun to me!

[Gemini]

When they first announced this class they talked about how the Zealot could debuff one target, that debuff would also buff your group. So you debuff one guy so he gains moral at a slower rate but, your group is buffed to gain moral at a faster rate.

I know, thats what i meant. It made a dissapearence for a while, at least in the convention builds, but it seems that it might be back now.

[Aqueous]

While the zealot does still sound like a very fun class, I must say I was disappointed by these masteries. I hope that either the masteries don't make huge enough of a difference for there to be an undersirable spec, or each is made valuable enough in its own way. Back in the day, in DAoC I played a cave (offensive) shaman, and back then nobody wanted you with that spec. It was aug (buffs) or nothing for groups. I really hope the zealot doesnt end up this way, but the masteries seem pretty much the same.

[Lucrece]

For those that like to drag WoW into this, some time check the top of the Arena ladder. The only healer class that specs all out healing is paladin. Priest, druid and shaman almost always use combo specs. This was even mroe true for DAOC, where vast majority of the best pvp healers used non pure healing specs

Um, no.

Druid: Resto 40+ points

Priest: 30+ in either holy/disc tree, but only in those two. Shadow was only viable with a Rogue or Warlock in 2v2, and that ladder was not the competitive ladder.

Shaman: Elemental/Resto. Only on 5v5, though, as their damage buffs and burst is viable there. Resto on 2v2/3v3. Resto on PvE.

Paladin: Holy, always.

If you cared to look at the arena stats, the great majority was forced to spec into the healing tree, and at top 10 all, except for the odd one out, was healing specced.

Offensive healer specs are well past nonviable in that game, and the same case has repeated in other MMOs.

Mythic promised no one would be pigeonholed; it's about time we started holding them accountable on their word.

[Foofmonger]

Mythic promised no one would be pigeonholed; it's about time we started holding them accountable on their word.

Just because there is a healing mastery does not mean it automatically makes the class pigeonholed, and vice versa.

There are still far too many variables to account for to make such a judgment based on our limited information.

[Ryuuku]

Saying you won't get invites unless you spec healing is an overreaction. There's no telling which spec will be most effective and for what as of yet. No point in jumping to conclusions. Groups obviously need healers, but they don't need all classes that can heal, actually healing.

[Gemini]

Saying you won't get invites unless you spec healing is an overreaction. There's no telling which spec will be most effective and for what as of yet. No point in jumping to conclusions. Groups obviously need healers, but they don't need all classes that can heal, actually healing.

More importantly, you don't need a healing spec to heal. Although we may not have the mechanic the other healer/support classes do (besides the RP), from everything I've seen you'd have to be a bloody idiot to not want your Zealot to use their buffs and debuffs, that's what makes them special.

[juggernaut]

Um, no.

Druid: Resto 40+ points

Priest: 30+ in either holy/disc tree, but only in those two. Shadow was only viable with a Rogue or Warlock in 2v2, and that ladder was not the competitive ladder.

Shaman: Elemental/Resto. Only on 5v5, though, as their damage buffs and burst is viable there. Resto on 2v2/3v3. Resto on PvE.

Paladin: Holy, always.

If you cared to look at the arena stats, the great majority was forced to spec into the healing tree, and at top 10 all, except for the odd one out, was healing specced.

Offensive healer specs are well past nonviable in that game, and the same case has repeated in other MMOs.

Mythic promised no one would be pigeonholed; it's about time we started holding them accountable on their word.

the difference is WoW is NOT balanced around pvp. with warhammer being predominantly pvp, I find it hard to believe they wont balance the classes and masteries around pvp. Stay in WoW if you want to force specs, you canadian.;)

[juggernaut]

Thanks for being racist...

If i play a zealot i will defenatly go into the alchemy/witchcraft trees. Sounds fun to me!

canada is a race?

[exx]

i agree with lucrese's argument that this information on masteries proves that bots are going to be in war.

with a line being set as healing and another as damage. damage healers will be shunned.
and over all other healers zealots will be the most shunned seeing as they dont have to build up any pool to heal effectivley like a shaman or a deciple. and seeing these masteries it looks like shaman and deciple masteries will be pretty much along the same line but more accepted since they have to dmg to heal.

so looks like zealots are the chaos bots and i would expect runeies to be the order bots.

but that doesnt mean that the debuffs that they will be able to wield arent going to own everyones bootie.

personaly i like playing healers cause you can treat your pug like dirt when they suck and they have to take it, cause your a leet healer bot

[shoi]

testers worry about the same things we do
don't get too worried imo

[Xyphos]

I'm pretty sure if Mythic has said they don't want to pigeon hole people, and don't want heal bots all of you doom sayers should take a step back and realize it's still closed beta, and what information they've given is vague. Just wait for the game to come out and chill till then.

[Moridan]

While this information is... enticing, its no more then a light kiss compared to the badaboom. Everyone knew there was going to be a healing mastery, and a damage mastery, and most likely a buff/debuff mastery. So all this really does is to sate the info junkies for another few weeks.

Until they release some hard information, as in what actual abilities you can get down each mastery (and what those abilities actually do), then all we can do is continue the speculation.

Which can only be done so much before... <falls asleep>

[Keldorn]

Keldorn...there is NO-way how to desing masteries and avoid some people/groups/guilds forcing you to specific build ... belive me.. even if they will make all trees with healing + damage + buffs/debuffs bonuses...people will always find build which suit "them" the best... But just learn one thing..you are playing for yourself...not for them.


True. It´s just as often not the players, however, who force each other to do anything, but rather the game itself. If a certain encounter requires a dedicated healer to be beatable, groups are forced to take one along - if alchemy zealots provide a certain skill that is tremendously useful in PvP, groups will specifically ask for zealots with this mastery.

Classes capable of healing often have the problem that groups are keen to ask or invite them... and as quickly disregard them when they find out they "are not real healers" - simply because these groups are desperately looking for the unpopular but important career of the dedicated healer.
And it might be worth noting that the "pure" damage careers don´t get asked for groups in the first place, as there never is a shortage of them.



You don't think there can be a middle ground? Does it really have to be so black and white?

No, it doesn´t. It might be that a group with two witchcraft zealots can do just as well as a group with an alchemy zealot and a "pure" damage career. Each mastery might include certain talents that prove helpful in PvP, after all, WAR will hopefully be designed with PvP in mind.

Still, the way the masteries, both those of tanks and now healers, unfold, are moving away from the fresh ideas that were supposed to eliminate "pure" support classes that wouldn´t be able to do anything but their base roll.
It doesn´t have to turn out this way, its just that the more information about masteries are revealed, the more I fear it *might* yet turn out this way.

[Rorance]

I'm still holding Mythic's word that nobody will be pigeonholed close to my heart.

I can easily, really easily, see each tree having aspects of the other trees mechanics integrated into eachother; like maybe the last ability on the Witchcraft tree will do some moderate dmg, whether it be DoT or DD, and maybe de-buff the enemy, or buff you and/or you allies, or heal you and/or your allies.

Maybe something like "Talon of Tzeentch"
400-500 dmg
puts the mark of Tzneetch on target (I dono, just an upgraded version of the Harbinger spell)
heals allies in range for a % of the dmg done
costs however much Harbinger does AP wise

Just a stupid example I pulled outa somewhere, but you get the idea; and maybe the super healing ability will be on the same lines, maybe heal your allies and make there moral go up a tad, or there AP regen up a tad for like 10 seconds.

Like people have said, stop bringing the WoW mentality here; don't judge a book by it's cover.

*Grammer and spelling*

[Eliphas-WorldBearer]

ok lets recap theres a...

HoT/Heal Tree
Buff/Debuff Tree
DoT/Nuke Tree

Sigh they really should have mixed it up more since everyone and there mum will pick the Witchcraft/Damage dealer tree for most of their career...

[Ryuuku]

ok lets recap theres a...

HoT/Heal Tree
Buff/Debuff Tree
DoT/Nuke Tree

Sigh they really should have mixed it up more since everyone and there mum will pick the Witchcraft/Damage dealer tree for most of their career...

That's assuming that you're only allowed to go into one tree. It's too early to make assumptions like this, let's be reasonable here.

[Galtrok]

No good in there. What that comment missed is the importance of "effectiveness".

Even if you spec some points into buffing/healing, you won't be as good as a full heal/buff and vice versa spec Zealot. Groups bring you to heal, not for your offensive capability. If there is a spec designed to maximize that archetypal role, you WILL be forced to spec in it.

Nobody can force you to spec in any mastery tree (that stuff happens in WoW a lot though) because with the whole renown points being explained all you have to do is basically be around people and do your own thing.

[Bhanqwa]

Nobody can force you to spec in any mastery tree (that stuff happens in WoW a lot though) because with the whole renown points being explained all you have to do is basically be around people and do your own thing.

They can, and they will.
If the word is out that there's a healing tree, there will be enough tards requiring you to specc fully in it if you want to join their guild/group.

[Ryuuku]

They can, and they will.
If the word is out that there's a healing tree, there will be enough tards requiring you to specc fully in it if you want to join their guild/group.

You're overreacting. Plan and simple. You've obviously had some bad experience with some game, but just so you know that's like 2% of the playerbase that "force" people to spec certain ways. If you happen to run into a guild like that, there's a simple solution ... leave the guild.

[ManiaCCC]

They can, and they will.
If the word is out that there's a healing tree, there will be enough tards requiring you to specc fully in it if you want to join their guild/group.
Yes.. right.. so the best what normal players can make it's just ignore these tards and find normal and friendly group of people...

But i know where people like Keldorn are comming from.. so I understand their afraids. But in game "which-shall-not-be-named"..two worst problem in hybrid classes are not talents.. but itemization. How much shaman's end game gear has mixed healing, spell crit, attack power, meele crit, etc? Or how much Paladin's end game gear has mixed armor, defense, stamina, spell damage and spell crit?..this si why we see so large gap between specs in "this" game.. Also..in talent trees we can find talents which are absolutly vital for certain specs.. How can Shaman cast lightning effectievly without lowering casting time of main spells by 1 sec? Or how can warrior fight effectievly without getting one of the 31pts attacks?

If Mythic can avoid these two errors, i think mastery system will be rock solid and the only problems will be "uber" players whos know every class and how these classes must be speced.

[Bhanqwa]

You're overreacting. Plan and simple. You've obviously had some bad experience with some game, but just so you know that's like 2% of the playerbase that "force" people to spec certain ways. If you happen to run into a guild like that, there's a simple solution ... leave the guild.

Why the percentages, I've never applied to a guild that would pidgeonhole me but I've experienced exactly 78.54% to be the pidgeonholing kind.
And I'm not overreacting, I never said everyone and their momma will expect you to spec healing but with a healingcapable class that has a tree focussed on healing there'll be folks
that say spec this or leave.

[Kiminara]

When they first announced this class they talked about how the Zealot could debuff one target, that debuff would also buff your group. So you debuff one guy so he gains moral at a slower rate but, your group is buffed to gain moral at a faster rate.


that's originally how they worked, yes. but they changed it, so it didn't do both at once. They did this with other classes too, like what the shaman's special bar effects and such. Being able to do both buffs and debuffs with one ritual was deemed too powerful I guess, and that's why it was changed.

It would be nice if it was reverted back. Who knows, maybe with the ritual spec, it does do both harm and good with just one.

[Kiminara]

oh, and to me, the ritual spec seems awesome. look at it this way. Healing tree, other classes have that. Damage tree, other classes have that. Rituals.....are zealot specific. It's the unique tree for us, and having amped up rituals and the like, just sounds awesome.

[Keldorn]

Ytwo worst problem in hybrid classes are not talents.. but itemization. How much shaman's end game gear has mixed healing, spell crit, attack power, meele crit, etc? Or how much Paladin's end game gear has mixed armor, defense, stamina, spell damage and spell crit?..

That might actually prove to be the "redeeming" factor for WAR´s support classes. In "that game" hybrid usually meant "you can choose between different functions, but only one at once, and the better you are in one, the weaker you´ll be in all others".

If the mechanics for support careers remain the same regardless of mastery - basically a mixture between supporting and attacking - you won´t end up with players who "refuse" to heal/support, as they would only hamper their own damage output in doing so. Or it could end up as an obligatory annoyance - having to "waste" your actions for something pointless so you can do what you really want. Its a new mechanic, after all, and like all new ideas probably needs some fine-tuning.

Still, devoting a careers mastery to what many players feel should be that career´s basic role doesn´t strike me as the most sensible decision.

[exx]

the ritual line seems to me to be the most interesting, and if there is a good heal spec already in a grp, you would realy want a pure debuffer around, but thats just if the lines are dedicated to one scope of your skills instead of integrating all your skills into each of the tree with just slight variations to bonuses.

zealots seem to be the only real healer on the whole "bad" guy side seeing as disciples and shaman are required (from what little we know) to do dmg in order to heal. that would. it seems, make them the class expected to be some what skilled in the tree of healing.

i would think that mythic will have the skills for the zealot based around healing and support with some additional spells that aid in it, just slightly leaning this way and that depending on the specific line you go. basicaly allowing you to (debuff debuff dot heal heal dot dot debuff heal)

i realy realy hope they dont make their trees like wow or daoc did where depending on what tree you go. thats prety much all you can do.
but regardless of how the lines pan out, i fear zealots are going to be considered the primary healers for destruction

meaning there will always need to be at least one heal spec zealot around in a grp or raid to do any of the hard pve stuff that is out there. or a castle siege in pvp. in basic pvp scenario stuff it probably wont be that important. i mean realy, how much healing gets done in a little instanced capture the flag scenario. basic heals will work for that.

and i find it hard to believe a zealot specd to debuff and dmg will be more adept at damage than a damage class unless the zealots dmg spells are just totaly awesome with secondary utility.

im a purist though, i dont realy like hybrids, i like tanks to tank, dps to dps and healers to heal/buff/debuff....but thats just me

im planing on playing a shaman depending on what there lines end up looking like, im hoping for a waagh reducing heal line and a buff/debuff line myself for him

of coarse this is all speculation till we get a break down of what each tree looks like

[exx]

Still, devoting a careers mastery to what many players feel should be that career´s basic role doesn´t strike me as the most sensible decision.[/quote]

i disagree as long as the developers make enough class variety.

and it seems to me like they have made a very good variety. each side has 3 completely differnt mele/dps, range/dps, mele/tank, and healer classes to choose from.

believe it or not, if you make one of the three healer classes, your going to be expected to heal

if you make one of the three mele/tank classes your going to be expected to be the guy who runs up to the big nasty mob and draw his agro.

once you get into a guild that has a dedicated base you can easily decide whose going to do what and easily be able to spec in one of the off branches. cause yes tanks who do a bit more dmg than a defense tank(not as muich as a mel dps) will have more defense than a mele dps which can be useful at times, but why, if you need a tank for the other...lets say 7 members of the grp to be able to go on a pve encounter, why expect those 7 people to take a guy who is a tank class but not specd to do what they need and then spend an hour finding out that they realy need a pure tank to do what they need.

i hope this makes since because suport classes wanting to dps is a sore topic for me. even if war ends up being specd to heal/buff/dps for your three lines, as someone who can spec in heal and buff do that...if you want to dps be one of the 6 dps careers for your side

but like ive said before this is all speculation...i realy hope all three lines are integrated enough to alloow someone who is dps specd as a healer to still have good enough heals to do what is needed but just have some realy awesome dps spells that actualy matter...instead of a dot like every other dps class, or nuke or what not

[Galtrok]

They can, and they will.
If the word is out that there's a healing tree, there will be enough tards requiring you to specc fully in it if you want to join their guild/group.

If you're going to let a few retards ruin your gaming experience by all means let them but if I paid $50.00 for this game plus $30.00 for the game time card I'm going to play the game however I want. The part of this game that makes it cool is how everyone fights and there are no healbots. If every Runepriest and Zealot is going to be forced to be a healbot I see them being underpopulated/non-existent.

[Ryuuku]

Why the percentages, I've never applied to a guild that would pidgeonhole me but I've experienced exactly 78.54% to be the pidgeonholing kind.
And I'm not overreacting, I never said everyone and their momma will expect you to spec healing but with a healingcapable class that has a tree focussed on healing there'll be folks
that say spec this or leave.

Of course there will, and what I was getting at is that those people make up a very miniscule part of the player base so what's the point in even brining then up.

[Weezel]

I'm the proverbial healbot. So I like what they did. Maximizing healing and buffing/debuffing without dragging myself down with forced damage paths is ok by me. I'd rather not be some gimped hybrid class that "fills in" for whichever pure class can't be found at the moment.

GJ so far Mythic! ;)

[Estebar]

I realise that most people are going to want to follow this tree, and that many groups will refuse Zealots who follow this tree, but COME ON!

Path of Witchcraft
The Path of Witchcraft is for a Zealot who chooses to make himself into a talon of Tzeentch, reaching out to slaughter his enemies through magical attacks. These manifest themselves as deadly portents of chaos. Flocks of shrieking ravens may fall upon a Zealot’s foe to consume their flesh, or strange demonic manifestations may appear out of thin air to lash at his foes.

That last part sounds very interesting indeed! Perhaps I'll have the daemon-summoning cultist of Chaos I always wanted? I wonder if treading a single path long enough will give you abilities that treading other masteries would otherwise lock?

Screw groups. My Zealot's going Solo anyway. :mrgreen:

[Xyphos]

Screw groups. My Zealot's going Solo anyway. :mrgreen:

I'd imagie you'd get black listed pretty quick from most organized RVR groups.

but that's not important. I have a firm belief in WAR's ability to fix the whole mastery/itemization issue. They've said in the past that it wouldn't make sense for a healer to not heal, so that shouldn't even be an issue. Will there be l33t d00ds running around saying they're DPS spec? Sure. Will you know from the get-go they're a little "special" when they say they cant' toss a heal because they're too busy DPSing? Heck yes!

I wish I knew more about the Zealot Mechanics, because as of now I know the shaman has waagh which decreases his heal cast time (to where there'd be no point in NOT tossing it out to someone), and the DoK/PoS (haha, POS...moving on) both have their own seperate resource for healing (Essence, and righteous fury respectively), so they'd truly have to be dumb as rocks to not toss a few heals out...

[Emeraldw99]

I'm the proverbial healbot. So I like what they did. Maximizing healing and buffing/debuffing without dragging myself down with forced damage paths is ok by me. I'd rather not be some gimped hybrid class that "fills in" for whichever pure class can't be found at the moment.

GJ so far Mythic! ;)

I'd hardly call the other support gimped hybrids. We know all the other mechanics work with damage in mind and it would not surprise me in the least that zealot is no exception. Or maybe they use buff/debuff to build something up for healing. We don't know. But Mythic said there will be no healbots in war so you may be disappointed.

[Moridan]

I honestly think that those people who are so concerned about what other people will think of a healer that is damage specced, really need to lighten up.

The problem with healer classes that spec damage is not that they can't heal that well, its simply that they DON'T heal. Even a shadow specced priest from WoW could heal, but they were usually too busy DOTing everything in sight and not watching their parties health bars.

Mythic has already stated that all of the classes main functions (healers... heals) will be available regardless of which career mastery path is chosen.

On another note, a good offence is the best defence so in RvR, often if you as a healer can help kill an enemy faster, its less healing you have to do in the long run.

[Pyke]

I'm just praying that I don't have to go witchcraft till I max out my char to solo grind(cause as I will most likely crack out on WAR the 1st month most people I play with won't keep in my level range). I would really like to be ritual from the start and stay that way.

And as for witchcraft Zealots... If your good at your class then I have found in most MMO's you will find a group. So if you play a spec that is viewed as unsavory by the majority of the sheep that play WAR then you just have to try harder then others to actually excel. So instead of oh your a zealot what spec are you. Then its oh hey (your name here ) I hear your great at RvR we need another for our group.

[ManiaCCC]

Enyalios, your point of view on this is pretty limited. But i am not saying you are wrong.. just you are comparing 2 the most simple things.. damage and healing... While all trees will offer more then these too... so maybe it will be like this..

-Enyalios is specced alchemy..his healing is absolutly great
-But wait "insert name here" is ritual speced..did you see this ritual? It's pure ownage.. hell yes..it is..and still good at healing...
etc.. (i hope you catch my point)...

Anyway, for many people like me there will be probably other reason why they(and me) will always have a group regardless of spec.

-Hey guys..nice group..what is your zealot speced?
-Witchcraft..why?
-Lol, take me. I am alchemy. We will own with my heals
-No, thank you, his is our friend and its fun playing with him.

[exx]

i pretty much agree with everything your saying env, specialist beat out hybrids any day. but it takes working together with the group to accomplish the grp that can take on the hardest of the obstacles.

[exx]

i plan on having either a zealot or a shaman, i realy like disciple idea but i want to be able to function in either a mele or range grp so disciple wont fill both spots like shaman and zealot will

but for an alt i will for sure have a silly off spec class to play around with just for kiks

but i still stand by my hope that there arent any off specs for a class that completely changes the characters dynamic and playability...though from what masteries ive seen thats not going to be the case

[Wild]

The way things are going to play out...

While everyone is leveling, healers won't be that big of a deal. The *real* competitive RvR won't be taking place yet. Yes, RvR exists in the lowest level zones, but consider those "Little League" because as the magnitude of damage dealt/taken increases the apparent demand for a dedicated healer will make itself painfully obvious.

It will hit you suddenly because of this. Everyone will merrily believe that such a scenario exists in which "everyone is fighting and there are no healbots." In reality, the true dynamic of these classes won't become fully realized until 40. Experienced MMO'ers from DaoC will pick up on the function sooner (some already have imo). When you get into the high end the game shifts into a desperate rush for efficiency and tactics.

Who are the most efficient damage dealers?
Who are the most efficient healers?
Who are the most efficient support classes? (buff/debuff)

The spirit of competition and constant WAR will prompt the demand for more efficient healing. It's really no different than economic markets. Everyone has the set objective in the game to have fun, and for the vast majority of us that means winning.

From that point, the simple fact that an alchemist zealot will heal more efficiently than any other type answers the question for us about who will be in demand.
The fact that groups can only consist of a fixed amount of players answers another question for us, that being... who isn't going to be in demand.

I don't really mind it being so dichotomized personally, I consider it the market having its way.

Me personally, I'm going to be the best healer in game... and when I'm fighting against Order in game they are going to wonder, "Why are they stomping us so hard?"

One answer among many will be, "Because we can't kill anyone on account of Enyalios ownage healing everyone!!!!" The next thought will be, "We need some ownage healers like Enyalios if we're going to win! Boot that crap zealot out and get a real healer in here please kthx..."

It's a natural progression.
It's the way it's going to be.

Again, me personally, I like being in demand.


Well at TBC Shadow Priest became in demand at end which before that wasn't the case.People are now in WoW looking priests not only for healing role but also for dps.People like SP cause he can support(rez,debuff,stamina buff and do very high damage)also heal when needed and heal pretty nice with Vampiric Embrace.People demanded them for raids,heroic instances and arena.Considering that Zealot won't be limited by something like Shadow form which stops him from using holy spells the healing ones and Zealot doesn't have such problem i think same could happen for Zealot and even better.He already has nice debuffs,buffs,and dark rituals.

And if his damage is good he could be popular.So as you can see LFG Alchemist Zealot you might see LFG Offensive Zealot :D.Of course the purely healing types will be demanded too.Considering action points are regenerating and there is no mana to preserve and save if you only heal you could damage your group more then do good.Thats why Mythic said healers won't be forced into heal bots.I think they can make this come true.

It is already known for some skills that do both heal and damage and are connected to work like:
Ritual of Exsanguination-Dark Ritual that deals damage to the Harbinger bearer and heals groupmates within 60 feet for a portion of the damage.
Crippling(?) -Deals high damage to all enemies within __ feet, and heals your entire group for a portion of the damage dealt.
Steal Life -Your target suffers high damage over _ seconds and you are healed for a portion of the damage dealt.
Phylactery Eye of Tzeentch -Deals damage to the Harbinger bearer, and heals you for a portion of the damage dealt.
Warping the Spirit - Whenever the bearer of your Harbinger dies, you gain ___ action points and are _____ healed.
The Hand of Destiny - When Harbinger bearer dies, your group is healed. Cannot occur more than once every 20 seconds.
There are also damage spells that you need to use to greatly weaken your opponent and who knows what else will be in game.

So all i saying is every type of Zealot will be in demand and everyone will add great benefits to group each mastery something different.

You already have cases where healing priest gets rejected over shadow priest :).But we will see how will that gonna work in WAR.

[Commentaris]

The spirit of competition and constant WAR will prompt the demand for more efficient healing. It's really no different than economic markets. Everyone has the set objective in the game to have fun, and for the vast majority of us that means winning.

From that point, the simple fact that an alchemist zealot will heal more efficiently than any other type answers the question for us about who will be in demand.
The fact that groups can only consist of a fixed amount of players answers another question for us, that being... who isn't going to be in demand.

I don't really mind it being so dichotomized personally, I consider it the market having its way.

Me personally, I'm going to be the best healer in game...
i understand your motivation, but i have another point of view.

i dont think that being the most effecient healer will be the way to go. on each side there are potentially 3 classes that can heal, so focussing on healing seems almost overdoing a bit.

imo the defining mechanic of zealots is not healing, it's their rituals. therefor i think that speccing into rituals will be the way to go, backed up with healing. this may not make the most effecient healing class, but it will make for a the best support class, which is what i'm after. buffs + debuffs + heals = win ... i hope so at least :)

[Noli me Tangere]

People can get so worked up so easily, and usually over nothing.

What the specs say they do, and actually do is of literal consequence in comparison to how they perform. To clarify, it's a matter of viability. If each of the three specs performs their function by equally viable means in all possible circumstances (Solo pve, group pve, large group pve, small group rvr, large group rvr, etc . . . all of it) then there's no problem in terms of actual function.

At that point, assuming they are all equally viable in each possible circumstance comes the real problem. The players.

Let me clarify that by saying "the players" I mean the ones who, no matter the viability of a spec, are absolutely convinced that a class with healing abilities should do nothing but heal. And only that. Ever. Regardless of additional function, and regardless of the viability (even the need) of those functions.

-

The specs sound fine to me. The concepts seem solid. One buff/debuf line, one healing line, and one damage line. As long as they each perform well, and are desirable to spec into, I can imagine any one of them being fun. In the end, I just want each and every line to have a role to play in every possible line of PvE and RvR.

-

Someone wants to go the Healing line? Great. Let's hope the developers have it equally viable and desirable in PvE and RvR of various types.

Someone wants to go the Buff/Debuff line? Great. Let's hope the developers have it equally viable and desirable in PvE and RvR of various types.

Someone wants to go the Damage line? Great. Let's hope the developers have it equally viable and desirable in PvE and RvR of various types.

Someone wants to Mix and Match the lines? Great. Let's hope the developers have that equally viable and desirable in PvE and RvR of various types, as well.

-

That that line of thought to each support archetype, and each archetype in the game, in general, and you've done something more friendly to gamers than any MMO that's come before. The most important thing to consider then will be: "Why? Why you over someone else? What do you bring that no one else can?"

The answer there is within the specs. If a Zealot is buff/debuff spec there needs to be a reason to bring them to a group over someone else, and not as a heal spec. If a Zealot is damage spec there needs to be a reason to bring them to a group over someone else, and not as a heal spec. If a Zealot is heal spec there needs to be a reason to bring them to a group over someone else, and not another healer.

The idea here is flavors. Something equally viable each one can bring to a group in the end game. With a healer it's fairy obvious, they heal. Everyone likes being healed when they're taking damage.

The problem then comes in off specs. WoW is a hard topic to bring up here, but the discipline and shadow specs for priests in WoW used to have a hard time being brought into groups.

The shadow spec used to be a damage spec, and a pvp spec at that. The disc spec was the spec people went into "just a little" to accent their holy (healing) or shadow (damage spec).

But things changed. Shadow still does damage, but it brings something to a group and raid that makes it just as desirable as a pure damage spec. It's not that it out damages them. It's that while doing damage it restores mana and health to the group.

Now, whether or not WoW is the best example or not is a rough subject. My point isn't that WoW got it right, it's only in pointing out ways to make particular specs viable, besides the healing spec, when it comes to support archetypes. There needs to be a reason to bring each one for the Zealot. And there needs to be a reason to bring them to any content you might face. And I'd add that that should go for all archetypes, not just support archetypes.

But I'm likely dreaming.

-

Still we mostly need to keep in mind that we do not know how this will work. It's entirely possible that in each line there's potential for more than is advertised at face value. The damage line may be damage, but it may also open up other properties.

It's not unheard of a a support archetypes to have lines that are multifaceted. Opening up more opportunities than the line initially suggests. The debuff/buff and damage lines may get their own lines of heals, of some sort, that prevent them from being ineffective healers. The healing line may get some debuff/buff and damage abilities to prevent them from being unable to solo, or meet certain challenges.

-

We just don't know yet. So let's edge our fingers off the trigger, and just wait and see.


DAoC's Friars, Heretics, Clerics, and Wardens all taught me that support archetypes could do more than "just heal" and still be quite effective, and quite wanted, all at once (During the time I played mind you, I've no clue of their current state).

[Noli me Tangere]

This isn't possible for a few reasons.
If all circumstances were "equally viable" then the game would become boring because a player would find himself in similar circumstances from lv1 - lv40, in PvE, PvP, and RvR... so the circumstances have to be different to provide variety in the gaming experience.

Not true. Making something viable in more than one facet of the game doesn't require everything be the same, it just requires the specs be dynamic. Something I touched on in the original post, to an extent.

DAoC and WoW both have examples of this, since WoW is generally better known I'll use it. The Shadow tree that was part of the Priest tree. In its current form it's viable in several modes of the end game: Solo, five-man, heroics (harder versions of the five-man content), ten-man raids, twenty-five man raids, BG pvp, and small scale arena pvp.

Shadow Priests do this by a offering something that makes them useful, viable, and more importantly desirable. They do damage, but not as much as say.. a rogue. Why take them over the rogue? Because, being a support archetype, they bring more to the table.

1. They do damage. But not simple damage:

Their damage does three things: a. it increases all magical damage by 5% and all shadow damage by 10% (meaning a mage in the group gets a 5% damage increase, and a warlock in the group gets a 15% damage increase). b. Their damage returns (a % of their damage as) health to the group while they do damage. It does not make up for straight healing, rather it simply makes the healers job easier. c. Their damage returns (a % of their damage as) mana to the group.

2. Their have some crowd control use:

The ability to mind control mobs, shackle undead creatures, silence casters, mana burn casters, and even have a fear. Not all of these abilities are exclusive to shadow priests, other priests bring some of them, but many of them are useful in various aspects of the game, though not all at and not all the time.

3. Synergy. The off spec has synergy. In the same way that a tank and their main healer has synergy, Shadow Priests have synergy with specific classes and specs. Warlocks and Paladins at one point benefited the most, I don't know about current.

Mind you, that's not a "WoW is great, go play WoW" set of ideas, it's an example of making a support archetypes specializations viable in more than one mode of content. Now, not all of WoW's off specs have that. I'm not saying that they do. I am only saying that it's an example of a support archetype, with an off-spec, that is not only viable and useful, but desirable.

I feel that most classes in any MMO, this should be true of. I see no reason to punish players for picking any specialization line that they happen to like the sound of. My view of any matter is that "if a player picks spec A they're be just as useful, though through different means, as another player who picked spec B".

And this can be done. It doesn't require all classes be the same. It doesn't require all content be the same. It only requires that any class with any spec has some useful, effective, and desirable function. A thing that's hard to manage. A thing that I don't expect any developer to get wholly right, for that matter.

It's just something that's possible. And the only thing that ever hurts an effort like that, to make a game fun, regardless of how you choose to play, tends to be the players themselves. Usually the ones going: "You have healing abilities, and a healing spec. Thusly, you will do nothing but heal, and spend points in nothing but that spec."

I put that to an extreme, or not, in some cases, and maybe I clean up the text to be somewhat more readable, but it's an opinion other MMOs have seen from their players. And the players really can be the worst problem, even if a spec is really useful, viable, and desirable.. some people will always just be.. dense.

Everything we have heard to date suggests that RvR is going to be the central mode of play, accented with PvP and PvE. In instanced RvR I think the highest player scenario is something like 50v50.

Hypothetically lets say that a guild could queue up together all at once (like in old school Alterac Valley). You have a group balance issue and a tension that exists between those that can fulfill roles in the most efficient manner. Lets say 10 groups of 5, or however they end up structuring the "Raid" group. You want to have a certain number of healers per number of players in the group... if you have a healing deficiency you are not going to win. So, a tension then emerges between someone of a hybrid nature like a "non-healbot zealot" and someone with a class catered to doing damage (like a Magus).

That sort of min-maxing makes games less fun, at that point of logic, there's no point in discussion in the minds of such people, regardless of whether or not a support archetype's off-spec is all at once viable, useful, and desirable or not.

The thing that matters there is not what the person running the group make-up thinks. It's whether or not the zealot is actually capable of being useful, viable, and desirable in its non-healing lines. The buff/debuff line and damage line, if they are made well, will have reason for their presence.

When it comes to a straight comparison I imagine the magus to do more damage, but for the buff/debuff spec zealot and the damage spec zealot to have something to their specs that makes them just as desirable, useful, and viable despite.

The way it will play out, again, is that a non-healbot Zealot will probably offer one or two significant benefits to a group of people, but it won't be significant enough that they invite very many of them to a 50v50 RvR match. Where we might see a spread of 10ish healers, perhaps 4-6 of them being healbot Zealots and the other being Shaman/Disciples, you'll only see 2-3 Zealots focused on other things which give those minor benefits.

Who says very many of them have to go? Going back to the shadow priest example up above, the ten man raids generally only took one shadow-priest, the most I ever saw in a twenty-five man raid was one. There never were more than two or three shadow priests in pre-set BG pvp, and I've never seen more than two in successful arena teams.

It's a matter of how they're built. If you're taking a damage spec zealot, I imagine it's because their damage "does something" that makes it very desirable, despite not actually doing as much as a Magus. It might be one, two, three or more things even. I don't even know what it was.

But, in theory, because this is a support archetype at its heart, there has to be some twist to it. I don't expect pure unrelenting DPS from a support archetype's damage spec. I expect their to be some evil little stroke of genius in there, that turns the tide of the battle right under the opponent's nose, some added effect, or several. Various things that the damage-specced zealot can do, that the magus can't.

The same goes for the buff/debuff main-specced zealot. I expect there to be something there, within the spec, that makes it worth taking alone, just as readily as something more damage oriented, it could be as simple as it causes your opponents to die faster, or it could be something more complex. It's a matter of the creativity of the developers, and Mythic made DAoC.. there was no lack of creativity with many of the classes there.

Perfectly balanced? No. But I don't expect that. It's just not possible to perfectly balance a game. I just expect them to try and make the game as fun as possible for people, especially when it comes to something as taste-related as a specialization.

You are going to see a HIGH demand for Zealots who are heavily Alchemists/Ritualists, and very little demand for Witchcraft.
[/font]

People used to say that about Shadow Priests in World of Warcraft. They've said similar things about Support archetypes in similar situations in other games. If mythic makes this game well, there will be a reason for that specialization (and any spec under any archetype, for that matter) existing throughout the game and its modes of content. It's that simple.

Again, it's generally the people that spoil it for everyone. Not the actual specializations, if they're made well.

[Lucrece]

Not true. Making something viable in more than one facet of the game doesn't require everything be the same, it just requires the specs be dynamic. Something I touched on in the original post, to an extent.

DAoC and WoW both have examples of this, since WoW is generally better known I'll use it. The Shadow tree that was part of the Priest tree. In its current form it's viable in several modes of the end game: Solo, five-man, heroics (harder versions of the five-man content), ten-man raids, twenty-five man raids, BG pvp, and small scale arena pvp.

Shadow Priests do this by a offering something that makes them useful, viable, and more importantly desirable. They do damage, but not as much as say.. a rogue. Why take them over the rogue? Because, being a support archetype, they bring more to the table.

1. They do damage. But not simple damage:

Their damage does three things: a. it increases all magical damage by 5% and all shadow damage by 10% (meaning a mage in the group gets a 5% damage increase, and a warlock in the group gets a 15% damage increase). b. Their damage returns (a % of their damage as) health to the group while they do damage. It does not make up for straight healing, rather it simply makes the healers job easier. c. Their damage returns (a % of their damage as) mana to the group.

2. Their have some crowd control use:

The ability to mind control mobs, shackle undead creatures, silence casters, mana burn casters, and even have a fear. Not all of these abilities are exclusive to shadow priests, other priests bring some of them, but many of them are useful in various aspects of the game, though not all at and not all the time.

3. Synergy. The off spec has synergy. In the same way that a tank and their main healer has synergy, Shadow Priests have synergy with specific classes and specs. Warlocks and Paladins at one point benefited the most, I don't know about current.

Mind you, that's not a "WoW is great, go play WoW" set of ideas, it's an example of making a support archetypes specializations viable in more than one mode of content. Now, not all of WoW's off specs have that. I'm not saying that they do. I am only saying that it's an example of a support archetype, with an off-spec, that is not only viable and useful, but desirable.

I feel that most classes in any MMO, this should be true of. I see no reason to punish players for picking any specialization line that they happen to like the sound of. My view of any matter is that "if a player picks spec A they're be just as useful, though through different means, as another player who picked spec B".

And this can be done. It doesn't require all classes be the same. It doesn't require all content be the same. It only requires that any class with any spec has some useful, effective, and desirable function. A thing that's hard to manage. A thing that I don't expect any developer to get wholly right, for that matter.

It's just something that's possible. And the only thing that ever hurts an effort like that, to make a game fun, regardless of how you choose to play, tends to be the players themselves. Usually the ones going: "You have healing abilities, and a healing spec. Thusly, you will do nothing but heal, and spend points in nothing but that spec."

I put that to an extreme, or not, in some cases, and maybe I clean up the text to be somewhat more readable, but it's an opinion other MMOs have seen from their players. And the players really can be the worst problem, even if a spec is really useful, viable, and desirable.. some people will always just be.. dense.



That sort of min-maxing makes games less fun, at that point of logic, there's no point in discussion in the minds of such people, regardless of whether or not a support archetype's off-spec is all at once viable, useful, and desirable or not.

The thing that matters there is not what the person running the group make-up thinks. It's whether or not the zealot is actually capable of being useful, viable, and desirable in its non-healing lines. The buff/debuff line and damage line, if they are made well, will have reason for their presence.

When it comes to a straight comparison I imagine the magus to do more damage, but for the buff/debuff spec zealot and the damage spec zealot to have something to their specs that makes them just as desirable, useful, and viable despite.



Who says very many of them have to go? Going back to the shadow priest example up above, the ten man raids generally only took one shadow-priest, the most I ever saw in a twenty-five man raid was one. There never were more than two or three shadow priests in pre-set BG pvp, and I've never seen more than two in successful arena teams.

It's a matter of how they're built. If you're taking a damage spec zealot, I imagine it's because their damage "does something" that makes it very desirable, despite not actually doing as much as a Magus. It might be one, two, three or more things even. I don't even know what it was.

But, in theory, because this is a support archetype at its heart, there has to be some twist to it. I don't expect pure unrelenting DPS from a support archetype's damage spec. I expect their to be some evil little stroke of genius in there, that turns the tide of the battle right under the opponent's nose, some added effect, or several. Various things that the damage-specced zealot can do, that the magus can't.

The same goes for the buff/debuff main-specced zealot. I expect there to be something there, within the spec, that makes it worth taking alone, just as readily as something more damage oriented, it could be as simple as it causes your opponents to die faster, or it could be something more complex. It's a matter of the creativity of the developers, and Mythic made DAoC.. there was no lack of creativity with many of the classes there.

Perfectly balanced? No. But I don't expect that. It's just not possible to perfectly balance a game. I just expect them to try and make the game as fun as possible for people, especially when it comes to something as taste-related as a specialization.



People used to say that about Shadow Priests in World of Warcraft. They've said similar things about Support archetypes in similar situations in other games. If mythic makes this game well, there will be a reason for that specialization (and any spec under any archetype, for that matter) existing throughout the game and its modes of content. It's that simple.

Again, it's generally the people that spoil it for everyone. Not the actual specializations, if they're made well.


Just a little update, since I think you haven't played WoW for a while. Your point for shadow priests holds only for when TBC first released. Currently, they are only viable in PvE; they're quite dead in balanced, competitive arena.

None of the WoW hybrids function well in their offensive specs; the only one that gets close is the shaman as elemental in the 5v5 ladder.

The major flaw with current hybrid design is that it forces the hybrid to choose between damage and healing. This needs to be fixed.

[Noli me Tangere]

Just a little update, since I think you haven't played WoW for a while. Your point for shadow priests holds only for when TBC first released. Currently, they are only viable in PvE; they're quite dead in balanced, competitive arena.

What is and what was are less important than the idea that it was able to function under multiple circumstances. Something that should be true of every specialization and class. Not necessarily in the same way, or in the same role, but in terms of pure viability in a given situation by some means.

None of the WoW hybrids function well in their offensive specs;

Not entirely true, I was curious at your statement, and I found feral druids, shadow priests, and even a couple ret paladins, of all things (what has the game come too? O_O ) in some of the top ranked teams. I do admit I see significantly more, say, Discipline Priests, than Shadow, but the Shadow Priests are still there.

I suppose when I talk about viable I don't mean to say "flavor of the month level power." I simply mean viable, the number of shadow priests I see there now says viable, but not necessarily optimal, and the number of discipline priests there says to me.. "fotm."

The major flaw with current hybrid design is that it forces the hybrid to choose between damage and healing. This needs to be fixed.

It's a problem with any game. One WAR seems to be trying to work with, and it's why I feel that their buff/debuff and damage specs for the zealot must have more to them than currently meets the eye.

[Lucrece]

What is and what was are less important than the idea that it was able to function under multiple circumstances. Something that should be true of every specialization and class. Not necessarily in the same way, or in the same role, but in terms of pure viability in a given situation by some means.

The update had its purpose: To illustrate the tendency with which such ideal examples become dysfunctional.

Not entirely true, I was curious at your statement, and I found feral druids, shadow priests, and even a couple ret paladins, of all things (what has the game come too? O_O ) in some of the top ranked teams. I do admit I see significantly more, say, Discipline Priests, than Shadow, but the Shadow Priests are still there.

I suppose when I talk about viable I don't mean to say "flavor of the month level power." I simply mean viable, the number of shadow priests I see there now says viable, but not necessarily optimal, and the number of discipline priests there says to me.. "fotm."
Go to SK-Gaming, which records the top teams and players in both EU, Asian, and US WoW arenas. If you take a look, feral druids are nearly nonexistent, as are retribution paladins, enhancement shamans, balance druids, and shadow priests. The exceptions you see are just that: outliers. Just because some people choose to stick to their favorite though less efficient spec does not mean they are not being carried by their team.

In the world of competition, especially PvP, optimal is all that matters. If you're not optimal, you won't be welcome into most competitive teams and guilds.


It's a problem with any game. One WAR seems to be trying to work with, and it's why I feel that their buff/debuff and damage specs for the zealot must have more to them than currently meets the eye.The Zealot and Runepriest currently are the only healers who do not have a mechanic that rewards them for being offensive. There might come something along the way that we currently can't see; but until then, I'll remain skeptical.

I'm simply pointing out that Mythic had the precedent available to use in order to avoid awkward situations, namely creating trees where one tree clearly favors the archetypal role. It would have been easy to approach the mastery paths in an innovative manner, but they chose to be lazy.

[Keldorn]

I'm simply pointing out that Mythic had the precedent available to use in order to avoid awkward situations, namely creating trees where one tree clearly favors the archetypal role. It would have been easy to approach the mastery paths in an innovative manner, but they chose to be lazy.

Exactly.

At this point, we cannot possibly tell how the careers will turn out, how different masteries will turn out as far as solo, group-PvE and group-PvP are concerned.

What we´re doing is commenting the direction the game is taking, and voicing possible concerns .


Adding the "healing" mastery means taking a step towards the "and I heal, and I heal and I heal" pigeonholing WAR promised to avoid.
No, it doesn´t mean thats what will happen, there a lots of ways it can and hopefully will be avoided.
But I don´t see how anyone can deny that dedicated "healer" masteries are moving us closer towards the "healbot" issue. It is certainly debateble how close we actually are - but we´re undeniably closer.

[Foofmonger]

The Zealot and Runepriest currently are the only healers who do not have a mechanic that rewards them for being offensive. There might come something along the way that we currently can't see; but until then, I'll remain skeptical.

I'm simply pointing out that Mythic had the precedent available to use in order to avoid awkward situations, namely creating trees where one tree clearly favors the archetypal role. It would have been easy to approach the mastery paths in an innovative manner, but they chose to be lazy.

You must realize that they did this on purpose Lucrece. There are a lot of people who want to play "healbots", meaning that they like being a completely supportive player. There are a ton that don't and thats why Mythic developed the majority of support classes in a way that they need to be offensive to support their allies.

I don't think it is about being lazy, it is about being smart. Mythic is catering to the largest amount of possible players by doing this. They want to allow people who want to sit back and heal, as well as buff/debuff, to be able to do that. Whether you like or not is irrelevant, I know I'm not playing a healing Zealot/RP, and I don't particularly like it either, but it is still a smart business decision.

[Lucrece]

You must realize that they did this on purpose Lucrece. There are a lot of people who want to play "healbots", meaning that they like being a completely supportive player. There are a ton that don't and thats why Mythic developed the majority of support classes in a way that they need to be offensive to support their allies.

I don't think it is about being lazy, it is about being smart. Mythic is catering to the largest amount of possible players by doing this. They want to allow people who want to sit back and heal, as well as buff/debuff, to be able to do that. Whether you like or not is irrelevant, I know I'm not playing a healing Zealot/RP, and I don't particularly like it either, but it is still a smart business decision.

They are not smart. That's being deceptive. They have pitched this game as not having "healbots". They said it quite clearly: If you want a healbot, this game is not for you.

Now, it is our responsibility to let them know the value of accountability. Do not go making promises and ripping on other games when you plan to break them and do the same. It's simply a matter of honesty.

[Xyphos]

I distinctly remember them saying Disciples of Khaine, Priests of Sigmar, and Shaman aren't healbots and don't cater to that mind set, but I don't ever remember them saying "We will NOT having heal bots! Ever! Go Find another game!"

I'd much appreciate it if someone could find where the whole "no heal bots ever" was said so I'm on the same page, and not left sitting scratching my head wondering if people are making this up to further their own arguments, or if I'm simply very confused.

[Lucrece]

I distinctly remember them saying Disciples of Khaine, Priests of Sigmar, and Shaman aren't healbots and don't cater to that mind set, but I don't ever remember them saying "We will NOT having heal bots! Ever! Go Find another game!"

I'd much appreciate it if someone could find where the whole "no heal bots ever" was said so I'm on the same page, and not left sitting scratching my head wondering if people are making this up to further their own arguments, or if I'm simply very confused.

Hold on; I'll go find the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXQBjWuDPOk&feature=related


I haven't been able to find the exact video with Paul, but here are his exact words:

"If you like to stand in the back and go 'and I heal and I heal and I heal' this game is not for you".

That makes it pretty obvious that there would not be any healbots; there was no particular division among different healer types.

[Keldorn]

I distinctly remember them saying Disciples of Khaine, Priests of Sigmar, and Shaman aren't healbots and don't cater to that mind set, but I don't ever remember them saying "We will NOT having heal bots! Ever! Go Find another game!"


Steve Marvin:
"...but Warhammer Online's commitment to making every career potent (and fun!) as a combatant can have an equally distracting aspect. Our healers don't just heal, but they had better not just fight, either!"

Paul Barnett: "... and I heal and I heal and I heal... BORING!"


The ideal Mythic presented to us was, that while the different careers can "just heal" as well as "just do damage", they wouldn´t be too effective this way. Healing and dealing damage were, ideally, supposed to strengthen each other, leading to the result that a support class mixing damage and healing would be considerably more effective than one "just" healing.

While some careers are "squishier" than others, no class is supposed to try it´s best to avoid combat altogether - at least not if they want to support their group to the best of their abilities.

[Lucrece]

Steve Marvin:
"...but Warhammer Online's commitment to making every career potent (and fun!) as a combatant can have an equally distracting aspect. Our healers don't just heal, but they had better not just fight, either!"

Paul Barnett: "... and I heal and I heal and I heal... BORING!"


The ideal Mythic presented to us was, that while the different careers can "just heal" as well as "just do damage", they wouldn´t be too effective this way. Healing and dealing damage were, ideally, supposed to strengthen each other, leading to the result that a support class mixing damage and healing would be considerably more effective than one "just" healing.

While some careers are "squishier" than others, no class is supposed to try it´s best to avoid combat altogether - at least not if they want to support their group to the best of their abilities.

Thanks for the additional quotes. Finding old videos is a pain.

But yes, what it all comes down to is consistency: If you're going to criticize WoW's healbots and claim that your game will be different, then you better back such claims with actions.

[Xyphos]

Well it sounds like, since that's the only example I have to go on, people are putting words in their mouth. I don't see anywhere in the above quotes the terms "never" or "always".

I mean, the zealot and rune priest don't just heal. They have some impressive AoE Debuffs/Buffs, as well as some nifty keen nukes. So by Paul's logic they're not just going "heal...heal...". Those two classes in particular are going "Nuke, Heal, heal, AoE Debuff/Buff" etc. Even if they spec full heal tree, they'd still be expected to throw a nuke now and then since they've no mana to conserve, and to most definitely drop some nifty keen AoE Debuffs/buffs.

Keep in mind this is me using the above quotes as referance. I'll happy take back what I've said if someone else comes up with a more definite "No heal bots, EVER!" quote.

[Haager]

They are not smart. That's being deceptive. They have pitched this game as not having "healbots". They said it quite clearly: If you want a healbot, this game is not for you.

Now, it is our responsibility to let them know the value of accountability. Do not go making promises and ripping on other games when you plan to break them and do the same. It's simply a matter of honesty.

Lucrece I agree with every point you have made about arenas and wow thats simply the truth. However RvR is different than arenas. Let me provide some points to illustrate this and how diversity in speccing will work and will be wanted.

If you have a small 6 man gank group I feel your points are valid you will want to optimize every spec you can to run the tightest group you can, but the more groups your guild can field the more diversity in speccs will be common place.

If you are in a guild that can regularly field 2 groups then a heavy buff/debuff Zealot would be worth their weight in gold. Its going to be the same dynamic for tanks,dps,every class in the game will literally benefit from large rvr and bigger guilds.

I think alot of people are still hung up on the speccs and are afraid of the 1 tree force feed speccs. I just dont see this happening in this game. In DaoC I had a warden a "healer" buffer class some how I managed to get him to RR8 with out ever speccing in my healing line. I was in a large guild at the time and benefited heavily from this, and the large scale RvR that was going on at the time.

So call me wrong or what you want I just think alot of people are comparing apples and oranges.

[Ryuuku]

But yes, what it all comes down to is consistency: If you're going to criticize WoW's healbots and claim that your game will be different, then you better back such claims with actions.

And what is there to back up your claims? The NDA hasn't been lifted, you haven't seen how the clases work AT ALL. Why make ridiculous assumptions and start nailing Mythic as liars based on a spec tree. Come on man, be patient.

[Lucrece]

Well it sounds like, since that's the only example I have to go on, people are putting words in their mouth. I don't see anywhere in the above quotes the terms "never" or "always".

I mean, the zealot and rune priest don't just heal. They have some impressive AoE Debuffs/Buffs, as well as some nifty keen nukes. So by Paul's logic they're not just going "heal...heal...". Those two classes in particular are going "Nuke, Heal, heal, AoE Debuff/Buff" etc. Even if they spec full heal tree, they'd still be expected to throw a nuke now and then since they've no mana to conserve, and to most definitely drop some nifty keen AoE Debuffs/buffs.

Keep in mind this is me using the above quotes as referance. I'll happy take back what I've said if someone else comes up with a more definite "No heal bots, EVER!" quote.

Well, apparently you don't understand what the gist of a healbot is. A healbot is a purely supportive character, and that includes buffs/debuffs/heals in one category. The ability to kill a person is the offensive aspect.

Now, if you've bothered to read recent gamesday reviews and watch some videos, you'll notice how pitiful the damage capability of the Zealot and Runepriest are. The Runepriest's primary nuke was doing 70-80 damage at average, while the damage was hitting an average 160-170. The casting times were the same, and the Runepriest gained no benefit to his support abilities for doing damage. That means that such negligible damage, since it's not linked benevolently with his support capabilities, is not worth the AP cost and cast time that could be spent healing others.

Of course, saying that we're putting words in people's mouths instead of connecting the dots with their quotes is not as nice as capriciously dismissing people's positions.

[Lucrece]

And what is there to back up your claims? The NDA hasn't been lifted, you haven't seen how the clases work AT ALL. Why make ridiculous assumptions and start nailing Mythic as liars based on a spec tree. Come on man, be patient.

I am not held by the NDA, thus any "mistakes" that come my way to give a clearer picture of the current state of things allows me actually know what's going on and what needs to be changed ;).

[Keldorn]

Keep in mind this is me using the above quotes as referance. I'll happy take back what I've said if someone else comes up with a more definite "No heal bots, EVER!" quote.

Technically, it is perfectly possible to interpret what we have learned about WAR so far as:"There are healers
who don´t just heal but rather mix healing and damage and all healers can do damage should they so choose, but there are also traditional healers who heal best when focusing entirely on healing".

The impression that was conveyed was that of moving support careers away from the traditional role, but I agree that impressions can mislead and intentions can change.


If that is indeed the case here, I´d consider it even more troubling, however. I´d be curious if a career that needs to combine damage and healing can compete for the spot of a group´s "main healer" against a career that doesn´t have to "bother" with participating in combat. And whether that means that these careers, when choosing a damage-mastery, won´t even have the incentive to heal at all.

[Xyphos]

Technically, it is perfectly possible to interpret what we have learned about WAR so far as:"There are healers
who don´t just heal but rather mix healing and damge and all healers can do damage should they so choose, but there are also traditional healers who heal best when focusing entirely on healing"...

So we have the two below quotes...

Steve Marvin:
"...but Warhammer Online's commitment to making every career potent (and fun!) as a combatant can have an equally distracting aspect. Our healers don't just heal, but they had better not just fight, either!"

Paul Barnett: "... and I heal and I heal and I heal... BORING!"

What they have said is all healers don't just heal, and that only healing is boring, Ok; No where do they say "we won't have people doing healing as their primary roll, while nuking and debuffing." Mind you, sure, the damage in some beta video's are low (I can't find any to prove this true or false), but if you look at one of the GD video's you'll see someone playing a rune priest and killing people in 3-4 nukes. I'd personally assume by that logic they were nuking for too much at one point, and now have been "nerfed" to the point where their damage is considered very low.

All I'm saying is don't crucify them for something you've inferred from their statements, we don't know what they have planned for the classes, we only have their mastery tree's... which is pretty vague in and of itself since there are so many factors that can define a character's roll in a group.

[Lucrece]

So we have the two below quotes...

Steve Marvin:
"...but Warhammer Online's commitment to making every career potent (and fun!) as a combatant can have an equally distracting aspect. Our healers don't just heal, but they had better not just fight, either!"

Paul Barnett: "... and I heal and I heal and I heal... BORING!"

What they have said is all healers don't just heal, and that only healing is boring, Ok; No where do they say "we won't have people doing healing as their primary roll, while nuking and debuffing." Mind you, sure, the damage in some beta video's are low (I can't find any to prove this true or false), but if you look at one of the GD video's you'll see someone playing a rune priest and killing people in 3-4 nukes. I'd personally assume by that logic they were nuking for too much at one point, and now have been "nerfed" to the point where their damage is considered very low.

All I'm saying is don't crucify them for something you've inferred from their statements, we don't know what they have planned for the classes, we only have their mastery tree's... which is pretty vague in and of itself since there are so many factors that can define a character's roll in a group.

And now you come up with strawmans. We never stated that what they said is that they wouldn't be support characters. What we said is that there wouldn't be healbots according to the quotes and archetype videos; this is not an incredibly complex detail to deduce.

Nevertheless, you still don't get the root of the concern. What is the point of their nuking if a) The damage is negligible and they don't benefit from doing damage that is easily covered by DPS classes, and b) By doing such negligible damage, they have to sacrifice a heal cast time with no apparent benefit?

The Shaman, Archmage, WP, and DoK all address this issue nicely through their secondary bar system, which neither the Zealot nor RP possess.

Furthermore, what's the point of the other healers if there's a definitive healer career? Why take a healer that has limitations set in his healing while there are careers that don't have limitations for pure healing? Please, you should know that if this comes into existence, the gap will be exploited. You can't just make this exception.

[Foofmonger]

They are not smart. That's being deceptive. They have pitched this game as not having "healbots". They said it quite clearly: If you want a healbot, this game is not for you.

Now, it is our responsibility to let them know the value of accountability. Do not go making promises and ripping on other games when you plan to break them and do the same. It's simply a matter of honesty.

They are smart, its a good business decision as well as a good decision from a gameplay standpoint.

You need to stop taking Paul's hyperbole as fact me thinks.

And regardless, we knew all along the Zealot/RP had no mechanic requiring them to DPS to heal. And we also knew all along that the AoE buff/debuff system for each class is not "and I heal, and I heal".

If you just came to this realization then... lol :p, this is old news.

[Lucrece]

They are smart, its a good business decision as well as a good decision from a gameplay standpoint.

You need to stop taking Paul's hyperbole as fact me thinks.

When it's not a fact, they correct it; they had no problem doing so in the Shadow Warrior's case. Consistency in advertisement is crucial.

It's not a smart gameplay decision because it places the other support careers in jeopardy by introducing a pure "support" character that can be exploited by competitive teams.

It's a bad business decision because it undermines their credibility. When people come in and say "Hmmm, this is all the same s**t just colored in another hue under a different IP.", you know something's wrong. They are marketing their product by drawing a distinct difference from previous games, particularly disgruntled hybrids.

The healbot audience they would lose is minimal in comparison to the audience that would realize that it has been duped, that it's all the same for hybrids.

EDIT: Seriously, though, why bring any healer other than a RP or Zealot?

[Keldorn]

...what's the point of the other healers if there's a definitive healer career?

Well, they could still support their group with healing and buffs, but you´re right, they couldn´t replace "real healers". Just like a shadow priest in "that game" could support a primary healer by healing minor group damage through vampiric embrace ( a curse that healed the party by a percentage of the shadow priest´s damage ), but he could not serve as the primary healer himself in challenging content.
In fact, even in trying he had to give up his damage completely to barely provide the necessary healing, if at all.

If career A provides only heals and career B provides healing and damage, career A will complain if career B heals as good as A - and rightfully so!
But that means that B´s healing will either not suffice for challenging content - or A will easily outheal content designed for B´s healing - and probably end up trying to do some damage himself out of sheer boredom... and in the end provide the same healing as B and less damage.


In the end, separating between "real" healers and "supporting" healers would cause quite some potential for conflicts between healers - though that doesn´t mean it can´t be implemented.


And of course, what with "pure" healers that chose a damage mastery? Do they end up as supporting healers as well? Or damage dealers that can switch to healing, but without interdependence between those aspects? Or will it end up as a "solo" mastery designed to help players that want to solo their way to level 40?


Guess we´lll have to wait how everything unfolds, but I don´t like the thought of pitting "real" healers against "part-time" healers. One group tends to perform better, leaving the other unpopular and neglected.

[Lucrece]

Well, they could still support their group with healing and buffs, but you´re right, they couldn´t replace "real healers". Just like a shadow priest in "that game" could support a primary healer by healing minor group damage through vampiric embrace ( a curse that healed the party by a percentage of the shadow priest´s damage ), but he could not serve as the primary healer himself in challenging content.
In fact, even in trying he had to give up his damage completely to barely provide the necessary healing, if at all.

If career A provides only heals and career B provides healing and damage, career A will complain if career B heals as good as A - and rightfully so!
But that means that B´s healing will either not suffice for challenging content - or A will easily outheal content designed for B´s healing - and probably end up trying to do some damage himself out of sheer boredom... and in the end provide the same healing as B and less damage.


In the end, separating between "real" healers and "supporting" healers would cause quite some potential for conflicts between healers - though that doesn´t mean it can´t be implemented.


And of course, what with "pure" healers that chose a damage mastery? Do they end up as supporting healers as well? Or damage dealers that can switch to healing, but without interdependence between those aspects? Or will it end up as a "solo" mastery designed to help players that want to solo their way to level 40?


Guess we´lll have to wait how everything unfolds, but I don´t like the thought of pitting "real" healers against "part-time" healers. One group tends to perform better, leaving the other unpopular and neglected.

Exactly. They have made it quite obvious that they want all healers to be capable of the same results, but in a different manner. No competitive team will bring along a healer that needs to stop healing to drop a spell that will allow him to heal more efficiently in exchange for one who does not bear such a limitation in addition to possessing a more support oriented focus (i.e. buffs/debuffs; these are far more valuable to a group than some extra damage ever will be).

[Foofmonger]

When it's not a fact, they correct it; they had no problem doing so in the Shadow Warrior's case. Consistency in advertisement is crucial.


You know what is also not a fact? Your statements here, even though you certainly are trying to play them off as facts.

Not every company fixes every factual mistake they make, now thats a fact.


It's not a smart gameplay decision because it places the other support careers in jeopardy by introducing a pure "support" character that can be exploited by competitive teams.

It doesn't place them in jeopardy, this is nothing but a mere assumption, and once again not a fact. It doesn't place them in jeopardy because you have no idea what it does, and neither do I.


It's a bad business decision because it undermines their credibility. When people come in and say "Hmmm, this is all the same s**t just colored in another hue under a different IP.", you know something's wrong. They are marketing their product by drawing a distinct difference from previous games, particularly disgruntled hybrids.


3 years down the road, nobody will either care or remember this issue, and there will be plenty of satisfied Zealot/RP players, methinks you need to learn more about business.


The healbot audience they would lose is minimal in comparison to the audience that would realize that it has been duped, that it's all the same for hybrids.


No they really won't. Another assumption... meh, great.


EDIT: Seriously, though, why bring any healer other than a RP or Zealot?

Because they all do something besides healing that is valuable? If you want to talk about this issue further, lets take it to PMs (with me I mean), I'm pretty much done with this topic, as it really isn't going to go anywhere.

[exx]

haha somebody is bitter

the perverbial "lets take this outside" statement actualy made me laugh, first time today a post has amused me so

these are the funnest forums...fighting over speculation is wonderful

[Lucrece]

You know what is also not a fact? Your statements here, even though you certainly are trying to play them off as facts.

Not every company fixes every factual mistake they make, now thats a fact.

You know what's that called? Being fraudulent. Talking about assumptions, I'd suggest you stay away from stretched interpretations of motives behind my statements.



It doesn't place them in jeopardy, this is nothing but a mere assumption, and once again not a fact. It doesn't place them in jeopardy because you have no idea what it does, and neither do I.

Appeal to ignorance, lovely. Based on precedent, this is more of an educated guess, not mere assumption, though the latter description suits your argument better, doesn't it?

Also, it is recommended that one abstains from misrepresenting someone else's statements. The whole "this is also not a fact" mantra is dishonest, and you know it.

3 years down the road, nobody will either care or remember this issue, and there will be plenty of satisfied Zealot/RP players, methinks you need to learn more about business.

Hmmm, how did it go....? Oh, yes, "this is nothing but a mere assumption, and once again not a fact...you have no idea...and neither do I."

Will you also posit that this statement was an educated guess?

No they really won't. Another assumption... meh, great.

I'll let this one go, as I'm not about to make a poll on overall player preference between offensive/defensive styles of playing within the hybrid community.

As for this exchange of "assumptions", I'd be careful to express much disdain about their occurrence; someone might find it ironic that an individual can be so ready to denounce them while his own posts contain quite a few of them.

Because they all do something besides healing that is valuable? If you want to talk about this issue further, lets take it to PMs (with me I mean), I'm pretty much done with this topic, as it really isn't going to go anywhere.

Right, getting my inbox full over an over is a much more viable form of exchange. Threads designed specifically for this specific discussion be damned, I say! As for going nowhere, should I say: "Another assumption...meh, great"?

And what do you propose is valuable in a WP/Shaman/Archmage/DoK that a RP or Zealot cannot bring? Come, it's not so nice to tease me with so many assumptions!

[Lucrece]

haha somebody is bitter

the perverbial "lets take this outside" statement actualy made me laugh, first time today a post has amused me so

these are the funnest forums...fighting over speculation is wonderful

Funniest or most fun, actually. I'm not sure which one you mean: That these forums are fun to be in as a spectator; or that, as a spectator, you find these exchanges funny?

[Foofmonger]

Right, getting my inbox full over an over is a much more viable form of exchange. Threads designed specifically for this specific discussion be damned, I say! As for going nowhere, should I say: "Another assumption...meh, great"?


I guessed you missed the part when I stated I was done with this thread? I'm not into arguing semantics with someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about. If you want real info, you can PM me. It's a lot more informative then replying with "you're assuming that I'm assuming so you are no better then me" ridiculous arguments (not to mention that regardless of if I make assumptions, it does not somehow magically validate your assumptions, what it actually means is that both of us are making assumptions, and somehow, neither correct).

I'm well aware of the assumptions I make by the way, but the difference here is that my assumptions are in reference to you, and your assumptions are in reference to WAR. I know people and their behavior quite well, and I am sure you don't know the exact mechanics of WAR. The content of your posts is quite evident of this. Now, you may call it an assumption, but I know it isn't, its called the truth.

You could not possibly know exactly how each and ever support class will fit into the overall RvR metagame of WAR. I'm sure the devs don't even really know at this point. So once more, I must roll my eyes off to you. :rolleyes: (besides the fact that we have known for months the mechanics of the RP/Zealot classes in comparison to the other support classes and you are just now making a big stink about being "lied" to.)

So, that being said, I'm done with this thread (as far as replying to you goes at least). It's not very fun trying to convince someone who has their mind made up on an issue when they don't even have concrete info on it in the first place.

[Revolutionomni]

A game is heading down a risky path when the first question every player looking for a group gets is "what´s your mastery?"

Hear hear. I dislike WoW because of how specs effect game play and in turn effect how groups are built - if your in or out of the group based on your spec. Specs should add to the class, but not in such a way that it changes the role of the class, while also allowing the ability to get into combat. I really hope you don't have to go far down "Alchemy" to get "effective" healing, that way the rest of ones points can be spent on the other trees. Game play will tell us if Mythic has done a good job or not but I hope our specs either have little effect on the class, or putting max points into Alchemy isn't needed. :(

In WoW my priest was Dis/Holy and I couldn't afford to spend any points on Shadow and be an "effective" healer in instances. I don't want to be a Damage Dealer but I would like to get into combat as well. ;)

I really hope this game isn't going to clone WoW's mechanics, that shall be fatal indeed. :neutral:

[Lucrece]

I guessed you missed the part when I stated I was done with this thread? I'm not into arguing semantics with someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about. If you want real info, you can PM me. It's a lot more informative then replying with "you're assuming that I'm assuming so you are no better then me" ridiculous arguments. :rolleyes:

I'm well aware of the assumptions I make by the way, but the difference here is that my assumptions are in reference to you, and your assumptions are in reference to WAR. I know people and their behavior quite well, and I am sure you don't know the exact mechanics of WAR. The way you post is quite evident of that.

I bet you failed to notice the part where I could not care less when you're finished or not; clearly you aren't if you took the time to reply as a result of obvious vanity. However, we all know I don't know what I'm talking about or some such ridiculous argument you like to concoct when you lose all semblance of creativity in your advocacy of points (or lack thereof).

The assumptions I quoted were obviously all not in reference to me; your fondness for lying or flat-out skipping people's posts can get a little nauseating. I doubt you know people quite well. I think that's just a shameless way to disguise your presumptuous approach to arguments.

Pro tip: When you use the word "evident", you might want to, you know, point out the evidence. I have the slight suspicion that it wouldn't go so well, though; it's likely that you simply used it for its vague quality in order to further try to elevate a failing argument when you have nothing else to offer.

If, however, you are as erudite as you seem to think regarding WAR mechanics, feel free to call out my mistakes.

Now, you may call it an assumption, but I know it isn't, its called the truth.

You could not possibly know exactly how each and ever support class will fit into the overall RvR metagame of WAR. I'm sure the devs don't even really know at this point. So once more, I must roll my eyes off to you. :rolleyes: (besides the fact that we have known for months the mechanics of the RP/Zealot classes in comparison to the other support classes and you are just now making a big stink about being "lied" to.)

So, that being said, I'm done with this thread (as far as replying to you goes at least). It's not very fun trying to convince someone who has their mind made up on an issue when they don't even have concrete info on it in the first place.Watch out for the cybernetic ponds out there; you might actually be in danger of drowning in one of them. In the case your imagined omniscience should choose to leave you, it's best if you actually looked over the meaning of "truth".

I could possibly know the current state of healers in the game; it just takes a little searching, as you have done. I'm also sure that you're not as apt to read minds, including those of devs (not to mention overlooking the career profiles, which clearly lay out the plan for careers in the game), as you may think. I don't think the rolling of eyes is really a corresponding expression so much as a manifestation of what could be called your mental state; those psychic powers of yours must really take a toll, divinely favored or not. To further illustrate this, you amusingly take a shot on my "stink" on the mechanics (showing your "evident" lack of initiative for reading a whole thread before rushing to reply), when my "stink" is actually on the revealed mastery paths. Now, knowing the mechanics, how could you possibly say these are definitive? It seems a tad counterintuitive for Foofmonger to say anything not revolving around his mantra of "it's beta; you possibly can't know how things will turn out". How out of character.

But, wait, don't abandon me! I'll wilt as a result of your absence! Who would fill in your place and try to convince me with a whole slew of half-truths, self-contradictory actions, and sheer petulance; God knows I can't survive in here without that last one.:rolleyes:

[Rorance]

I think some people in this thread are still tied way to close to the way WoW did things.

It's safe to say that in WoW, going down a single path like Holy/Disc if you are a priest, instead of going all out shadow, increases your effective heals by almost upwards of 60%-80%, and your efficiency by upwards of 150%-200%. Pretty much almost doubling the amount your heals heal, applying armour buffs if they crit, costing less mana, gaining new spells and abilitys, and decreasing the casting time.

Now, as stated by Mythic, going all out into Alchemy and lets say the rest into Rituals, will only incease the efficient/effective amount of those spells under that category by 35% max.

That's a huge difference; I don't think people have enough faith in Mythic to believe they aren't doing what WoW is doing; to those people, leave. Your ignorance isn't welcome, albeit most of us are ignorant to this game except the testers; the difference with that is, we are going off what Mythic has told us, you are going off what Mythic has told us in the context of WoW. Which is fair I suppose, some people are arguing there points like WoW is the only game they have ever played, and for alot of people that holds true.

I don't think it's to hard to believe that going all out Witchcraft and Ritual (remember, you can only spend 75% of your mastery points into one mastery, as it will be maxed out), will leave you completely dead in the water for healing. You will not have the extra 35% into healing, but you will have gained that 35% into other areas of utility, like damage and de/buffing; how many times have you been in a PvP fight and you or the player you are fighting win by a hair? Well, that 35% of dmg and de/buffing is that hair.

Just, have faith in Mythic and throw out your stupid misconceptions that this is Blizzard making WAR.

Oh, and guess what? If you don't like the "Heal, heal, heal... BORING" type of play, there are 4 other support classes you can take; or just don't spec into the healing tree with the Zealot/RP. If people like Luc don't let you in there raid group because you aren't specced into healing and they are assuming you can't still provide the healing and utility to the raid? Assuming you are a good player; oh well, move on, I personally don't like to play with ignorant people like that.

[Revolutionomni]

It's sad to think that WoW would make me so paranoid, but it's true, and until I get to play, I'll be getting myself ready for the worse, which only leaves WAR to surpass expectations. I plan on going "healing"/"buffing&debuffing" spec as I realize both my role and my own play style. I hope to get into combat, allowing my allies to slaughter my foes more easily while healing as needed. ;)

In the end, if Zealot doesn't play out well, there's other race's support classes and there's bound to be one that will fit not only my play style, but everyones. :cool:

[Oak]

I'm glad we have the ability to min/max. I'm rolling a Zealot because it's a healing class.

If I wanted to fill a DPS role, I'd roll a Marauder.

It breaks my brain trying to understand why people always want to play off specs and then have them be just as effective as people that specialise in any given area. You can't have all things at all times, it's that simple. If you want to do damage with a class that isn't designed to do damage, you're already fighting an up-hill battle.

[Keldorn]

At least 3 of them, probably 4 ( Warrior Priest, Disciple, Shaman and , as an equivalent to the shaman the Archmage ) are designed in a way that encourages them to combine damage and healing/support.

2 careers, Runepriest and Zealot, do not possess any inherent mechanics to make their support and damage interdependent of each other. Technically, they can turn out as dedicated healers who "just heal". We need to know more about the workings of rituals and runes to pass judgement here, though what we have heard so far points in the direction of dedicated healers.


And yes, of course dedicated healers will put hybrid healers in jeopardy. If all they do, all they can do is healing, they won´t accept hybrid healers providing as much support to a group as they do. That isn´t a question of mastery any more, its a fundamental difference in the careers. One healer free to do some damage without reducing his healing but at the same time forced to do damage to heal, and a dedicated healer on the other side.
Its not difficult to guess which class will be expected when groups are looking for a "healer". Especially when facing difficult challenges. Where they can´t expect the healing of a "hybrid" class to suffice.



In the end, we don´t have any guarantees. Developers are too careful to make such commitments, and they are right not to make them. What we have is critique directed at the traditional tank/damage/healer "holy trinity" and promises that "every class will be a combat class" ( which might be covered by "can choose a combat mastery" ) or "everyone will be right in the thick of it".

Does that mean Mythic is bound by any law to avoid the "dedicated healer" among WAR´s careers?
They aren´t. We can hardly sue them if they do include them.

But I do think we have the right to feel disappointed and mislead should that really happen.
It is an inconsistency, when something heralded as a unique an fresh aspect of the game turns out to be replaced by something all too familiar.

[Gemini]

I agree with most of what ya said Keldorn, and I really think it's gonna boil down to the Zealots and RP's buffs and debuffs being so powerful (if used strategically) that you'd be an idiot not to use them. It also wouldn't surprise me if their healing power is a bit lowewr than the classes with a build-up mechanic to balance out their great buffs and their lack of a buildup.

[Ryuuku]

Furthermore, what's the point of the other healers if there's a definitive healer career? Why take a healer that has limitations set in his healing while there are careers that don't have limitations for pure healing? Please, you should know that if this comes into existence, the gap will be exploited. You can't just make this exception.

So what you're saying now, is that if RP and the Zealot are better raw healers, then the other healers are useless. Well, to put it bluntly you're completely wrong. If you want to take WoW as an example the best raw healer is the pally. His efficiency is great, he has good defensive abilities, and he has the fastest nuke heal. But for some reason, the representation of pallies is low when compared to druids and priests. You know why? Because pallies are all defensive, they have no offensive capabilities aside from a minute cooldown stun.

Another odd thing is that teams hardly ever attack pallies, want to know why? Because all they do is heal. They have nothing else that can turn the tide in a fight. If you leave a pally alone what is he going to do? Heal you to to death? If you don't attack a priest he can mana burn your healers, if you don't attack a druid he crowd controls everyone, if you don't attack a shaman he can pump out damage and interrupt every other heal.

Raw healers are not only more boring to play, they're also less effective. Now, if you consider a "healbot" someone who heals, buffs, and debuffs in a fight, well that's your own problem. Because that's not what I consider a healbot. There's obviously different types of healers. Shamans are more likely to use nukes while disciples will be in the fray melee'ing, but Zealots do seem to be more debuff/buff oriented as opposed to actual damage. Why does that bother you so much? If you want nukes, play a Shaman or disciple. If you want a support healer, play a Zealot. Complaining that not every career gets the best of every world doesn't make a class better, it normally waters down what he was already good at.

[Lucrece]

So what you're saying now, is that if RP and the Zealot are better raw healers, then the other healers are useless. Well, to put it bluntly you're completely wrong. If you want to take WoW as an example the best raw healer is the pally. His efficiency is great, he has good defensive abilities, and he has the fastest nuke heal. But for some reason, the representation of pallies is low when compared to druids and priests. You know why? Because pallies are all defensive, they have no offensive capabilities aside from a minute cooldown stun.

Another odd thing is that teams hardly ever attack pallies, want to know why? Because all they do is heal. They have nothing else that can turn the tide in a fight. If you leave a pally alone what is he going to do? Heal you to to death? If you don't attack a priest he can mana burn your healers, if you don't attack a druid he crowd controls everyone, if you don't attack a shaman he can pump out damage and interrupt every other heal.

Raw healers are not only more boring to play, they're also less effective. Now, if you consider a "healbot" someone who heals, buffs, and debuffs in a fight, well that's your own problem. Because that's not what I consider a healbot. There's obviously different types of healers. Shamans are more likely to use nukes while disciples will be in the fray melee'ing, but Zealots do seem to be more debuff/buff oriented as opposed to actual damage. Why does that bother you so much? If you want nukes, play a Shaman or disciple. If you want a support healer, play a Zealot. Complaining that not every career gets the best of every world doesn't make a class better, it normally waters down what he was already good at.

Pallies are the dominant healer in 5v5, fyi. Druids and priests only outnumber pallies in 2v2/3v3, the least balance ladders of arena.

Pallies are not focused as much because a) They have plate armor+shield, and b)Divine Shield gives them an extra HP bar. He may not be healing you to death, but he sure is healing and giving blessing of freedom to that warrior who's kicking your teammates' faces in.

My problem has nothing to do with the damage, but rather the offensive capabilities of these healers. While the Zealot at least has some offense through his debuffs, what have you got to say about the RP, who's all about buffs and heals? That's the pure definition of a healbot, someone who simply throws around heals and buffs, but doesn't fight.

There should be no "support" healer; they are all supposed to be support!

[Lucrece]

I think some people in this thread are still tied way to close to the way WoW did things.

It's safe to say that in WoW, going down a single path like Holy/Disc if you are a priest, instead of going all out shadow, increases your effective heals by almost upwards of 60%-80%, and your efficiency by upwards of 150%-200%. Pretty much almost doubling the amount your heals heal, applying armour buffs if they crit, costing less mana, gaining new spells and abilitys, and decreasing the casting time.

Now, as stated by Mythic, going all out into Alchemy and lets say the rest into Rituals, will only incease the efficient/effective amount of those spells under that category by 35% max.

That's a huge difference; I don't think people have enough faith in Mythic to believe they aren't doing what WoW is doing; to those people, leave. Your ignorance isn't welcome, albeit most of us are ignorant to this game except the testers; the difference with that is, we are going off what Mythic has told us, you are going off what Mythic has told us in the context of WoW. Which is fair I suppose, some people are arguing there points like WoW is the only game they have ever played, and for alot of people that holds true.

I don't think it's to hard to believe that going all out Witchcraft and Ritual (remember, you can only spend 75% of your mastery points into one mastery, as it will be maxed out), will leave you completely dead in the water for healing. You will not have the extra 35% into healing, but you will have gained that 35% into other areas of utility, like damage and de/buffing; how many times have you been in a PvP fight and you or the player you are fighting win by a hair? Well, that 35% of dmg and de/buffing is that hair.

Just, have faith in Mythic and throw out your stupid misconceptions that this is Blizzard making WAR.

Oh, and guess what? If you don't like the "Heal, heal, heal... BORING" type of play, there are 4 other support classes you can take; or just don't spec into the healing tree with the Zealot/RP. If people like Luc don't let you in there raid group because you aren't specced into healing and they are assuming you can't still provide the healing and utility to the raid? Assuming you are a good player; oh well, move on, I personally don't like to play with ignorant people like that.

Oh, that's original, characterize me as a min/maxing spec nazi. Let's overlook the little detail that shows that my concerns involve the maintainance of spec diversity! Nope, better to call me ignorant.

[Iwaxmybelly]

I've been reading your posts for so long, Luc, that i have forgotten if you are for or against this. It seems to me that from recent posts you want the zealot to not be able to compete in anything other than healing and that you look down upon anyone who does anything other than heal. I know it's probably not the case but it sure seems that way. I'll be speccing Ritual/witchcraft and I am looking forward to it. I don't expect to be doing as much damage as any other DPS class but I still expect a 1vs1 situation between us will be fairly equal due to the fact that I can heal myself. I don't think I'll have any trouble finding groups even in small rvr encounters. Because even if I don't dish out as much as the magus I can still throw that magus a heal once or twice if the primary healer is to busy. I'm sorry if my positive attitude disgruntles you but I don't believe your negative attitude makes anything better for anyone.

[Rorance]

Oh, that's original, characterize me as a min/maxing spec nazi. Let's overlook the little detail that shows that my concerns involve the maintainance of spec diversity! Nope, better to call me ignorant.

Easier to! :o

Haha, no seriously though; never said you were a spec nazi, just implied it after all your posts about how only Alchem specced Zealots will get into the "High End/Competitive" RvR/PvE.

The posts you have made in this thread, that I found anyway, aren't that constructive; just arguing your point that you are either angry with Paul for saying there will be no Healbots, and you assuming that's what an Alchem Zealot is (Ofcourse i'm assuming they won't be, or atleast don't HAVE to be to be effective, so); or the point that hardcore high end players will treat 4/6 of the support classes and Zealots/RP who don't spec healing, as red-headed step children who have rabies.

Not that arguing your points is a bad thing, that's what a forum is, just arguing the same point with 2-3 different people where all of them degrade into more then just an arguement, or less of an arguement and more of a race to the finish line of retardation that is fighting on the internet, always having to get that last word in.

BUT, like a previous poster has stated before me, i'm done with this thread, or atleast the part of it which involves arguing.

Now, on topic. I'm speccing into Alchemy/Ritual, have to play the game to figure out which one suits my play style more, but my points are going to be split up in those two in some way or another.

[Keldorn]

Supporting isn´t just about healing, as any mending/pacification healer from DaoC can testify.
The problem with pure support classes are, that they have a tendency to be boring and weak on their own/in the wrong situation and very powerful/important in the right group.

The former makes them unpopular and rare while the latter makes them valuable and sought after - a combination that is bound to cause some trouble.

Hybrid supporters were offered as a way out of this dilemma - able to balance supporting and dealing damage to their own or their group´s need, and most effective when combining both.

A "pure" support class seems like step backwards from that intention. While it works, most of us have experienced the disadvantages of this approach.


And "forcing" speccs isn´t entirely the fault of the players themselves. It also depends on the abilities of the careers, the advantages of speccs and the reliance on certain careers/masteries and their respective availability.
It is certainly possible to abstain from min/maxing - but depending on how skills and abilities ar distributed it may very well turn out as a requirement to compete with the "top" players.

Meaning, in its worst case: "You can take a witchcraft Zealot ( or healing-Disciple ) along... if you don´t mind losing to groups who bring a healer-Runepriest.

[Swarm]

Meaning, in its worst case: "You can take a witchcraft Zealot ( or healing-Disciple ) along... if you don´t mind losing to groups who bring a healer-Runepriest.

It's not entirely analogous; a zealot specced into witchcraft should be thought of as taking a DPS slot, not a healing one. The group with the witchcraft zealot is more then capable of bringing another healing zealot, or a shaman, etc. to fill that healing "slot."

----------------------

Viability of the non-alchemy trees will rest heavily on what unique attributes they bring to a given group. WoW did this fairly well with TBC; a lot of the class trees were given some ability that made that particular spec desirable, no matter how good of a healer that class would be otherwise (except paladin, sorry kids), the priest being the biggest example.
As long as the damage trees are given abilities and spells that are more then generic X damage equivalents, it will have some promise.

People see the extreme "sameness" of upper bracket WoW pvp teams as a sign of things to come, but I think the experiences of the WoW pvp game and RvR are are not going to be comparable enough for that.

[Petit-Trot]

It is still beyond me why some people would choose a character of a certain archetype to play the role of another archetype. I understand zealots wanting to amp up their damage output (especially if they plan to mostly solo), but their archetype is still that of a healer. And they'll never be able to replace another archetype.

A healer specializing in something other than healing isn't a liability anyway, it all depends on the group chemestry, especially in PVP. A good player is a good player, no matter what spec he is. In WoW, none of our guild healers (a 90% pvp guild) are specced mostly in healing and they're still keeping us alive while killing our opponents.

[Yavvy]

It's not entirely analogous; a zealot specced into witchcraft should be thought of as taking a DPS slot, not a healing one. The group with the witchcraft zealot is more then capable of bringing another healing zealot, or a shaman, etc. to fill that healing "slot."Thats what they're NOT doing. Spec will NOT change your archetype, only affect the way you do it.

Masteries will NOT have a very big impact. Someone fully specced in one path will become about 30% stronger at that, and you still have enough points to become 10% stronger in one of the other paths. Meaning if you spec full damage and the rest in healing, you'll only be 15% worse than a full healer, AND you do more damage, which means less healing is needed (a dead enemy does no damage).

From what I've heard, they had the same paths in DAoC, and non-healing specced healers had no problem getting groups. Blizzard is another company, don't assume Mythic will make someone else's mistake.

[Keldorn]

It's not entirely analogous; a zealot specced into witchcraft should be thought of as taking a DPS slot, not a healing one. The group with the witchcraft zealot is more then capable of bringing another healing zealot, or a shaman, etc. to fill that healing "slot."


Possible. Of course, then you´d still have to find a "real" healer - trying to take this witchcraft zealot along as your main healer is what wouldn´t work.

In DaoC, your class was far more important for determining your position in a group than in WoW, where your specc could mean the difference between tank, healer or ranged DPS in the case of a Druid.
The drawback was, that many support classes felt limited in some areas, especially when playing alone, which has become an important aspect even in MMORPGs.

[Lucrece]

I've been reading your posts for so long, Luc, that i have forgotten if you are for or against this. It seems to me that from recent posts you want the zealot to not be able to compete in anything other than healing and that you look down upon anyone who does anything other than heal. I know it's probably not the case but it sure seems that way. I'll be speccing Ritual/witchcraft and I am looking forward to it. I don't expect to be doing as much damage as any other DPS class but I still expect a 1vs1 situation between us will be fairly equal due to the fact that I can heal myself. I don't think I'll have any trouble finding groups even in small rvr encounters. Because even if I don't dish out as much as the magus I can still throw that magus a heal once or twice if the primary healer is to busy. I'm sorry if my positive attitude disgruntles you but I don't believe your negative attitude makes anything better for anyone.

And this is why people should read the complete thread. I'm advocating spec diversity, for people to have the freedom to play as they want without fear of negative repercussion from the min/maxers because there's no clear cut better spec. However, with the recent revelation of Zealot mastery paths, where one path focuses on healing, I'm voicing my concern about the viability of other specs.

[Lucrece]

Easier to! :o

Haha, no seriously though; never said you were a spec nazi, just implied it after all your posts about how only Alchem specced Zealots will get into the "High End/Competitive" RvR/PvE.

The posts you have made in this thread, that I found anyway, aren't that constructive; just arguing your point that you are either angry with Paul for saying there will be no Healbots, and you assuming that's what an Alchem Zealot is (Ofcourse i'm assuming they won't be, or atleast don't HAVE to be to be effective, so); or the point that hardcore high end players will treat 4/6 of the support classes and Zealots/RP who don't spec healing, as red-headed step children who have rabies.

Not that arguing your points is a bad thing, that's what a forum is, just arguing the same point with 2-3 different people where all of them degrade into more then just an arguement, or less of an arguement and more of a race to the finish line of retardation that is fighting on the internet, always having to get that last word in.

BUT, like a previous poster has stated before me, i'm done with this thread, or atleast the part of it which involves arguing.

Now, on topic. I'm speccing into Alchemy/Ritual, have to play the game to figure out which one suits my play style more, but my points are going to be split up in those two in some way or another.

Implication is just as bad as flat out saying it; it shows the same degree of laziness. My point was not that I was angry with Paul about his statement concerning healbots; please, I beg people to read the thread fully before rushing to reply.

[Lucrece]

Possible. Of course, then you´d still have to find a "real" healer - trying to take this witchcraft zealot along as your main healer is what wouldn´t work.

In DaoC, your class was far more important for determining your position in a group than in WoW, where your specc could mean the difference between tank, healer or ranged DPS in the case of a Druid.
The drawback was, that many support classes felt limited in some areas, especially when playing alone, which has become an important aspect even in MMORPGs.

Yup, self-sufficiency. Pure support classes don't possess this, which turns off a lot of people.

[Nightz]

Maybe the reason why some people play a support class and spec into DPS like myself is because you can still heal just not as good as a fully specced healer. I think a DPS might be more effective because they wont need to run and hide behind tanks they have a little more muscle for fending off others. Plus i like their whole ritual thing and ive never liked being a tradtional healer so.The class seems very interesting. And don't worry about others and how they spec worry about yourself. Im sure you can spec anyway you like and still be effecient with your main goal just maybe not as others who fully spec full healing.:cool:

And don't forget about quickloading tactics i could be specced Dps but have a full healing tactics which would help a lot :D

[ChaosEverliving]

planning on going alchemy/other trees to pick up as many supportive/healing abilities as I can. Should have very little trouble finding groups. Unless I suck at the zealot of course. :(

[Foofmonger]

The whole point of the mastery system is that it allows you a greater amount of flexibility then seen in past games.

Thus, you can potentially go like 75% down your alchemy path, grab a couple healing abilities, and go 75% down your damage path and get 50%+ of your debuff/damage abilities. (75% equals roughly 90-91% of the effectiveness of someone who goes 100% in a path).

Then you can have different tactic builds for different situations. One for when you are mainhealing, one for offhealing/dpsing etc...

This is not in response to anyone, just stating a fact. I'm honestly not worried about forced specs or support self-sufficiency.

[Ho Theos]

The whole point of the mastery system is that it allows you a greater amount of flexibility then seen in past games.

Thus, you can potentially go like 75% down your alchemy path, grab a couple healing abilities, and go 75% down your damage path and get 50%+ of your debuff/damage abilities. (75% equals roughly 90-91% of the effectiveness of someone who goes 100% in a path).

Then you can have different tactic builds for different situations. One for when you are mainhealing, one for offhealing/dpsing etc...

This is not in response to anyone, just stating a fact. I'm honestly not worried about forced specs or support self-sufficiency.

QFT. Unlike the Game-That-Shall-Not-be-Named, you won't be forced to spec into "cookie cutter" builds or most of the way in one tree and partially in another. The flexibility and diversity offered by the Masteries is as such that it prevents healbot specs. And can I also remind that the amount of times it's been said that all "healers" Deal damage and heal...not heal solely or heal mostly with a tiny bit of damage. The WoW mentality behind most posting is not conducive to healthy debate.

[Keldorn]

Thus, you can potentially go like 75% down your alchemy path, grab a couple healing abilities, and go 75% down your damage path and get 50%+ of your debuff/damage abilities. (75% equals roughly 90-91% of the effectiveness of someone who goes 100% in a path).


Uh... how do you know? For all we can tell, the best abilities could be at the very end of each mastery tree - or it could be the exact opposite and they´re at the bottom. We don´t know much more than the tree´s names.



...Unlike the Game-That-Shall-Not-be-Named, you won't be forced to spec into "cookie cutter" builds or most of the way in one tree and partially in another. The flexibility and diversity offered by the Masteries is as such that it prevents healbot specs.

Again, we do not know that. What we do know, however, that both of the revealed support classes´ masteries include an entire mastery tree devoted solely to healing. On top of that, the Zealot and Runepriest are apparently missing a mechanic that makes mixing healing/damage the most effective way to play them even as healer.

We´re more or less guessing and working with "what we have heard so far". And an alchemy specced Zealot sounds far closer to a "traditional" healer than I had hoped WAR would include.

And can I also remind that the amount of times it's been said that all "healers" Deal damage and heal...not heal solely or heal mostly with a tiny bit of damage. The WoW mentality behind most posting is not conducive to healthy debate.


Yeah, I read that too and interpreted it the same way - that no class will be most effective when playing purely as support. And its for that reason the way the masteries unfold troubles me - because it goes in the opposite direction. A "pure" healing mastery implies that not all speccs ofs upport classes will be equally effective healers with an emphasis on damage, buffing, debuffing, survivability etc. It implies that one mastery is the mastery for healers, while the others... aren´t.

Again, this is neither the end of the world nor the unquestionable proclamation "healbots have arrived!".
It is a step down the all too familiar path of the "dedicated healer" we´ve experienced in other games before, something we hoped - still hope - WAR will change.

[Valentino]

Who knows, a Ritual/Alchemy zealot might make an absolutely awsome aoe farmer. Sure, it probably wont be the fastest way to level, but you could always level as Witchcraft, then switch to Rituals/Alchemy and for all we know there could be some really great camps we can debuff into oblivion (I remember seeing a tactic WAYYYY back, where your rituals gained a small damage over time to them. That, in conjunction with any aoe abilities we get, might make it viable?) .

Kinda how a protection paladin (major tank) is a really great aoe farmer. There's a spot in the game, where he can pull about 20-25 mobs in one go, and kill them all in about 2minutes. Rinse and repeat every 5, and thats not a bad kill:time ratio considering you can go and mine waiting for respawns.

Another example would be dot kiting like a warlock. We're bound to have a dot spell or two, and with AP regen like it is, we may be able to dot multiple mobs and have them running through our rituals the entire time.

It's really nice to theorycraft, but I guess we'll just have to wait for more details... it's killing me!

[ManiaCCC]

Keldorn, the only real way to eliminate that some people will try Pigeonholed class which has heal more into pure healer class is remove masteries alltogether. I am absolutly sure (damn, but still it's just my opinion, right? :P ) this is the BEST way to go (wit these masteries)...And i hate healboting btw.

[exx]

Thats what they're NOT doing. Spec will NOT change your archetype, only affect the way you do it.

Masteries will NOT have a very big impact. Someone fully specced in one path will become about 30% stronger at that, and you still have enough points to become 10% stronger in one of the other paths. Meaning if you spec full damage and the rest in healing, you'll only be 15% worse than a full healer, AND you do more damage, which means less healing is needed (a dead enemy does no damage).

From what I've heard, they had the same paths in DAoC, and non-healing specced healers had no problem getting groups. Blizzard is another company, don't assume Mythic will make someone else's mistake.


where are these percentages comeing from? if its true yah, you have a point and i would be all for those percentages but just speculating something like that as if it where fact makes me sad

but your last part about daoc, thats not true at all, the masteries in daoc changed your character almost as totaly as it did in wow. a buff spec or dmg spec healer couldnt heal for poop. yah there buffs were freaking awesome and a mandatory thing for any pvp grp, but most pvp grps never took a dmg healer. folks in daoc specd healer/dmg, or buff/dmg pretty much for a 8 man grp...dmg healers were forced to play zerg surfer. tanks didnt have masteries and mage masteries pretty much just affected the kind of spells they cast and some basic utility spells

but anyway, ide like to think that your different mastery didnt affect your character all that much, just gave you a slight different feel and maybe a few different spells for flavor

[Foofmonger]

where are these percentages comeing from? if its true yah, you have a point and i would be all for those percentages but just speculating something like that as if it where fact makes me sad

but your last part about daoc, thats not true at all, the masteries in daoc changed your character almost as totaly as it did in wow. a buff spec or dmg spec healer couldnt heal for poop. yah there buffs were freaking awesome and a mandatory thing for any pvp grp, but most pvp grps never took a dmg healer. folks in daoc specd healer/dmg, or buff/dmg pretty much for a 8 man grp...dmg healers were forced to play zerg surfer. tanks didnt have masteries and mage masteries pretty much just affected the kind of spells they cast and some basic utility spells

but anyway, ide like to think that your different mastery didnt affect your character all that much, just gave you a slight different feel and maybe a few different spells for flavor

Percentages came from Mythic, its in the Mastery system info.

[Unforsaken]

1) Read the forums rules before you post. Getting an infraction for using profanity would be a pity, I would guess.

2) PuG's=/= high end, competitive gameplay, which is what most people would like to achieve. There will be plenty of in-spec healers available to replace outliers such as yourself.

How close minded are you?

This game will go two ways. One spec works for each class, the rest are average or bleh, meaning that they are not truly viable.

All specs will own, at their job, will be fun and highly sought after. Each spec will bring a lot to the table.


One of these options leads to a successful game, the other leads to a medicore game with low population.

Nuff said!

[Unforsaken]

1) Read the forums rules before you post. Getting an infraction for using profanity would be a pity, I would guess.

2) PuG's=/= high end, competitive gameplay, which is what most people would like to achieve. There will be plenty of in-spec healers available to replace outliers such as yourself.

How close minded are you?

This game will go one of two ways.

One spec works for each class, the rest are average or bleh, meaning that they are not truly viable.

All specs will own at their job, will be fun and highly sought after. Each spec will bring a lot to the table.


One of these options leads to a successful game, the other leads to a mediocre game with low population.

Did you see what I did thar?

[Bhanqwa]

How close minded are you?

This game will go one of two ways.

One spec works for each class, the rest are average or bleh, meaning that they are not truly viable.

All specs will own at their job, will be fun and highly sought after. Each spec will bring a lot to the table.


One of these options leads to a successful game, the other leads to a mediocre game with low population.

Did you see what I did thar?
I did, you denied the existence of WoW...

[jaw326]

1) Read the forums rules before you post. Getting an infraction for using profanity would be a pity, I would guess.

2) PuG's=/= high end, competitive gameplay, which is what most people would like to achieve. There will be plenty of in-spec healers available to replace outliers such as yourself.

In regards to #2:

With alot of in-spec healers available, then the minimal alchemy builds make viable secondary healers. Will I not be effective offering debuffs /buffs, a little DPS, and a secondary healer to a group? I dont think so.

[Rezwarius]

Masteries will NOT have a very big impact. Someone fully specced in one path will become about 30% stronger at that, and you still have enough points to become 10% stronger in one of the other paths.


Actually.. I thought i heard that you can spec 100% in one line 80% in another and 10% in the third.

stop me if Im wrong with a ling to a VIDEO or some JOURNALISM.

[Foofmonger]

Actually.. I thought i heard that you can spec 100% in one line 80% in another and 10% in the third.

stop me if Im wrong with a ling to a VIDEO or some JOURNALISM.

You can go 100% down two paths, but you won't be able to buy many abilities.

[Rezwarius]

You can go 100% down two paths, but you won't be able to buy many abilities.

how am i supposed to believe you if you dont link to a source?

[Foofmonger]

how am i supposed to believe you if you dont link to a source?

Trust?

I never link anything really. If you want to verify it, go look at the mastery information.

Why don't I link it? Because I don't have the info on me.. and my memory is quite good. So I'm not going to waste my time digging up something that I already know the answer to.

Irregardless, I have no desire to mislead you, all the info on the mastery system can be found in these forums, or on the Mythic website.

[Gemini]

I'm 90% sure Foofmonger is right, and I believe that info was revealed in the beta updates that can be found in the warhammer herald.

[Rezwarius]

I'm 90% sure Foofmonger is right, and I believe that info was revealed in the beta updates that can be found in the warhammer herald.

Well.. time to go delving for it..



OK I found it.. THIS paragraph here.. pretty much sums it up.

In the end every player can decide not only how deeply to Master each path, but also which additional skills they might want to purchase from that specialization choice. You may choose to go full-bore down one path, max out its Mastery and purchase every supplemental skill, making your character outstandingly good at that aspect...but you'll only have enough points remaining to Master another path halfway at the most. Do you go as far as you can in a second path? or do you split your other points between multiple paths? Do you purchase the supplemental skills in those other paths, or do you decide to push your Mastery as high as you can? Maybe you decide not to push one path to its limit, and instead purchase several supplemental skills from multiple paths - but remember, you need Masteries to make those skills more powerful, too! Our specialization system will be a rich and flexible tool to customize your character exactly the way you want them!

so there you have it.. This issue of the Herald is where I got it from, the entire thing looks like a good read. (http://herald.warhammeronline.com/warherald/NewsArticle.war?id=89)

[Rezwarius]

A quick note post haste my last entry.. Knowing this I will probably go Rituals 100% and Healing supplementary skills as many as I can, then pump its mastery level as high as I can after that.

[Derzhus]

I really hoped that Mythic would stick to their word when they said support classes. Healing is by no means the only way to support a group and I will use CoH/CoV as an example of this. The defender class was a support career that really wasn't reliant on heals, yes they could heal but really what you wanted from a defender was his Buffs/DeBuffs. The reason for this was because the Buff/DeBuffs were doing their job, they were significant enough to justify the generally low amount of healing in this game. For this reason I actually think that the Zealot might end up the weakest healer in WAR because their Buffs/DeBuffs will make them less necessary than other support classes that will not have the same ability to fortify their groups.

PS: I plan to spec Ritual 100% and put the rest in Witchcraft

[Foofmonger]

A quick note post haste my last entry.. Knowing this I will probably go Rituals 100% and Healing supplementary skills as many as I can, then pump its mastery level as high as I can after that.

He hath seen the light!!!!!!!! :twisted:

[LokitheMagus]

We need to give the designers more credit guys. They have said from the beginning that there will be no "heal, heal, heal, heal, heal, heal and heal some more" classes.
That knowledge in mind, they probably expect a Zealot to spec for damage with a bit of healing to level. That way, they can keep up a relatively good pace to reach level 40 along side the pure damage classes.
Now, once a Zealot reaches level 40 they should probably be expected to respec for better healing efficiency with some points put into damage. If we recall, Paul and Jeff have always said that classes that are able to heal will be expected to do damage to INCREASE their healing ability. So, if we factor this in one should expect a Zealot to at least put out a descent amount of damage so they can, in turn, heal more effectively. The more effective the healing, the more they will be sought after for groups.
So, we should expect people to expect a Zealot to be able to do some damage. We should not expect people to ONLY want Alchemy spec'd Zealots. If a player is smart, they will consider the game mechanics and understand that they NEED to be able to do some damage, but realize that they are a HEALING class at the same time. What will make an effective Zealot is one who knows how to juggle healing and doing damage.

[Rezwarius]

We need to give the designers more credit guys. They have said from the beginning that there will be no "heal, heal, heal, heal, heal, heal and heal some more" classes.
That knowledge in mind, they probably expect a Zealot to spec for damage with a bit of healing to level. That way, they can keep up a relatively good pace to reach level 40 along side the pure damage classes.
Now, once a Zealot reaches level 40 they should probably be expected to respec for better healing efficiency with some points put into damage. If we recall, Paul and Jeff have always said that classes that are able to heal will be expected to do damage to INCREASE their healing ability. So, if we factor this in one should expect a Zealot to at least put out a descent amount of damage so they can, in turn, heal more effectively. The more effective the healing, the more they will be sought after for groups.
So, we should expect people to expect a Zealot to be able to do some damage. We should not expect people to ONLY want Alchemy spec'd Zealots. If a player is smart, they will consider the game mechanics and understand that they NEED to be able to do some damage, but realize that they are a HEALING class at the same time. What will make an effective Zealot is one who knows how to juggle healing and doing damage.



Hi.. just wanted to repost this guys message without full Bold so I could read it..

[Lucretius]

You may choose to go full-bore down one path, max out its Mastery and purchase every supplemental skill, making your character outstandingly good at that aspect...but you'll only have enough points remaining to Master another path halfway at the most.

Exactly, it's nearly the same as WoW in this aspect. You will have three talent paths available and you will only have enough resources ("talent points") to strengthen two of them adequately. The talent system is "deeper" than wow in other areas (tactics, strengthening an entire tree instead of specific abilities, etc..), but this is so similar that the comparison is applicable.

[Foofmonger]

[/color][/b][/i]Exactly, it's nearly the same as WoW in this aspect. You will have three talent paths available and you will only have enough resources ("talent points") to strengthen two of them adequately. The talent system is "deeper" than wow in other areas (tactics, strengthening an entire tree instead of specific abilities, etc..), but this is so similar that the comparison is applicable.


Not really, because points are split between maxing out the mastery, and buying abilities. In WoW, buying abilities IS maxing out the tree.

So its a bit different then WoW. In WoW, no matter what you did, you only had enough points to max out one tree, and go down 20 points in another (roughly halfway). In WAR, while you can do that, you can also choose not to. You can choose to completely max out two paths if you wish. You can also go 75% down two paths, and still have a good number of points left over for abilities.

[Lucretius]

EDITED for content

[Foofmonger]

God damn people are stupid...

Read what I said...

You can't correct someone by restating the exact thing they said. I was pointing out a slight difference to qualify the comparison, in an attempt to communicate that it isn't a 1 to 1 comparison...


This is ridiculous, and don't call me stupid when you have no idea what you are talking about.

You made a comparison that the system was similar to WoW. I didn't "restate" exactly what you said, if you could read, you would know that I'm disagreeing with you.

The system is not similar to WoWs in that regard, sorry.

And, your statement is wrong, and not what I said. You specifically stated "strengthening an entire tree INSTEAD". There is no instead, you both have to focus on strengthening the entire tree, and buying specific abilities.

In fact, lets go through your entire statement, sentence by sentence.


Exactly, it's nearly the same as WoW in this aspect.
This is an unsubstantiated claim based on false evidence.


You will have three talent paths available and you will only have enough resources ("talent points") to strengthen two of them adequately.
There are numerous things wrong with this statement. First of all, adequately is a completely subjective phrase, that means nothing unless an actual constant is being discussed (or has been stated, which neither is the case).

Second of all, from what we know of the WAR mastery system, you will be able to put a good amount of points in all 3 paths. Technically, you would be able to strengthen these paths "adequately" (if by that you mean halfway), although you would not be able to purchase many (if any) supplemental abilities. Furthermore, in WoW, you can not possibly have enough points to split all three trees, or even completely max out two trees. In WAR, this is not the case. The system is not similar in this regard.


The talent system is "deeper" than wow in other areas (tactics, strengthening an entire tree instead of specific abilities, etc..), but this is so similar that the comparison is applicable.
Its not similar, because as it was just shown, the perceived similarities in this regard do not exist.

You fail to take into account that increasing the level of mastery paths, and buying supplemental abilities both cost the same resource, and thus, the system is much more diverse and flexible then WoWs talent trees. Thus, your comparison is not applicable, even by your own argument.

The main point of contention here, is that you are implying that because for some reason, you only think people will be able to "spec" in two paths "adequately" it makes the system similar to WoW. Unfortunately, this is not the case for WARs mastery system. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the mastery system info, but the end result of the flexibility of the mastery paths is nothing like WoWs talent trees.

[Lucretius]

EDITed for content

[Nightz]

Now back to the main point of this thread. After thinking about mastieries more I would want points in both rituals (dont recall the name) and witchcraft. Seeing as you could probably increase the area that they take up. Plus rituals play a huge role!

[Livistos]

Alchemy / Ritual build with emphasis on Alchemy for me.

Personally I like being a healbot. Some folks can complain all day about how they hate healing and would prefer a "shadow priest" experience, but I love it and I'm glad to see these masteries.

[Asmodean]

Has anyone a clue if it will be feasable to have a kind of tri-specc or go down one tree and put the rest in a second.

I assume the latter but any info would be welcome, that is if it isn't NDA protected :rolleyes:

What is your reading comprehension level?

Develop some basic manners.

[Gemini]

We don't really know at this point, but the devs are shooting for making it viable. I can see it being much more useful for a support class than say a tank class. The reason being that two of the tank masteries are 1h+shield mastery and 2h mastery, so going part way in both of those plus the third probably wouldn't be very effective. But as a Zealot, if you really do find yourself using spells from all three paths consistantly, and you have a rank 4 morale or two that you quite like, then it should work well.

[Lucretius]

You made a comparison that the system was similar to WoW.

I compared the fact that both have three "trees" or "masteries" for each class to choose from... that was as deep as the comparison went. The depth of the talent system in WAR goes way beyond WoW, and I said that too. Why you felt the need to insult me and call me a WoW fanboy because of one simply comparison, especially when you didn't actually correct anything I said... you just restated it with that tone.

Develop some basic manners.

Develope a brain.

(I'm sure your post insulting my manners will be fine, but my post insulting your intelligence will be "EDITED FOR CONTENT" ... gg WHA is turning into Only-WAR with forum admin nazi's)

[Foofmonger]

I compared the fact that both have three "trees" or "masteries" for each class to choose from... that was as deep as the comparison went. The depth of the talent system in WAR goes way beyond WoW, and I said that too. Why you felt the need to insult me and call me a WoW fanboy because of one simply comparison, especially when you didn't actually correct anything I said... you just restated it with that tone.


This is incorrect.

First of all, your comparison was based on the idea that in WAR, you could only "adequately" function with two paths, similar to the way in WoW, you could only have enough points to devote them to two trees. This has been proven false.

Furthermore, I never insulted you, or called you a WoW fanboy. You are the one who insulted me, calling me stupid. I suggest you re-read my initial response (which was neither condescending or insulting, although your posts certainly have been).

[Asmodean]

Develope a brain.

(I'm sure your post insulting my manners will be fine, but my post insulting your intelligence will be "EDITED FOR CONTENT" ... gg WHA is turning into Only-WAR with forum admin nazi's)

Thanks for proving my point.

Oh, and by the way, don't use fancy words like "Nazi" which you read in posts by people who want to sound pretty cool and tough without knowing what they actually stand for.

[Pyke]

Has anyone a clue if it will be feasable to have a kind of tri-specc or go down one tree and put the rest in a second.

Adam did a great video in Paris that went in depth about speccing a sorceress but it kind of gives you an idea on what your asking http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3480,warhammer_online_charakterentwicklun g.html

While speccing in two different fields IE alchemy/ritual will work(see the video above). I am not sure how well tri-speccing would work. I would think that it would make you weak at everything although this is just speculation.

[Asmodean]

Adam did a great video in Paris that went in depth about speccing a sorceress but it kind of gives you an idea on what your asking http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3480,warhammer_online_charakterentwicklun g.html

While speccing in two different fields IE alchemy/ritual will work(see the video above). I am not sure how well tri-speccing would work. I would think that it would make you weak at everything although this is just speculation.

Thanks a lot, Pyke

[Foofmonger]

Adam did a great video in Paris that went in dept about speccing a sorceress but it kind of gives you an idea on what your asking http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3480,warhammer_online_charakterentwicklun g.html

While speccing in two different fields IE alchemy/ritual will work(see the video above). I am not sure how well tri-speccing would work. I would think that it would make you weak at everything although this is just speculation.

Lets say you decide to tri-spec, but not buy abilities (which would allocate the maximum points per path to each path).

We know you can go 100% down two paths, so its feasbile to go 75% down two, and 50% down one, or roughly 60-something% in each path.

A path at 60-someting% mastery will be roughly 10% weaker then something with 100% mastery.

So lets say you split all even, and buy 0 abilities. This means that all your core abilities are 10% weaker then someone who went 100% mastery in that path.

So lets compare that to a guy on the other extreme, he went completely down 1 path, bought all abilities, and only has a minor in another path.

So I can't remember the Zealot mastery names off the top of my head, but lets say the 1 spec guy is full healing, with a minor in debuffs.

Zealot A is tri spec, Zealot B is single spec.

Zealot B would have 10% more effective heals then Zealot A, and a bunch more healing abilities. He would have 10% weaker debuffs, then Zealot A, and the same abilities, and he would have 20% weaker attacks then Zealot A, and the same abilities.

[Karandor]

my guess is the abilities will be very attractive

[Browncoat-WHA]

(I'm sure your post insulting my manners will be fine, but my post insulting your intelligence will be "EDITED FOR CONTENT" ... gg WHA is turning into Only-WAR with forum admin nazi's)

If you have a problem with our administrative policies, PM us. Don't clutter an otherwise legitimate point or post with stuff like this. Also, report offending posts. We'll at least take a look at them.

Just a reminder.

[Moridan]

If you have a problem with our administrative policies, PM us. Don't clutter an otherwise legitimate point or post with stuff like this. Also, report offending posts. We'll at least take a look at them.

Just a reminder.


I simple reminder to everyone in this thread: dont feed the troll.

Back on track, I really want to see what the mastery paths have as their abilities before deciding. I do like Witchcraft though, just to piss certain people more then any other reason.

[Pyke]

Lets say you decide to tri-spec, but not buy abilities (which would allocate the maximum points per path to each path).

We know you can go 100% down two paths, so its feasbile to go 75% down two, and 50% down one, or roughly 60-something% in each path.

Heres what I don't entirely understand. Is it a 100% down 2 paths or is it that you can reach the bottom of 2 paths but with alot of options you haven't spec'd. I thought it was the ladder.

Cause if you wanted to you could spend all your points in one tree with none left over...right? would this fill up the say Alchemy tree with all the skills offered or would even all your points not entirely fill up every little skill offered?

[Gemini]

Heres what I don't entirely understand. Is it a 100% down 2 paths or is it that you can reach the bottom of 2 paths but with alot of options you haven't spec'd. I thought it was the ladder.

Cause if you wanted to you could spend all your points in one tree with none left over...right? would this fill up the say Alchemy tree with all the skills offered or would even all your points not entirely fill up every little skill offered?

You can go all the way down two paths without taking any skills. And if you go all the way down one path and buy all the skills, you will still have a bit more left over.

[Foofmonger]

You can go all the way down two paths without taking any skills. And if you go all the way down one path and buy all the skills, you will still have a bit more left over.

Aye, Gem is right (as usual).

The point is that "maxing" out an ability, is in reference to maxing out the total stat number of that ability (ie, bringing a mastery path to 100%), but not purchasing all the abilities in that path (or any, it makes no reference to abilities bought).

If this makes any sense to clarify the issue, you can spend mastery points on two things. You can put points into the path, increasing its value from 0% to 100%, and/or you can buy abilities.

[Pyke]

Ah thanks Foof and gem. Your previous post now doesn't seem like gibberish now, Foof.

Lets say you decide to tri-spec, but not buy abilities (which would allocate the maximum points per path to each path).

Seems like something that would horribly gimp any class making tri-speccing something you would want to re-spec after trying.

[Gemini]

Seems like something that would horribly gimp any class making tri-speccing something you would want to re-spec after trying.


I can see how you can think that, and you might very well be right, but if you find yourself using spells from all three masteries a lot, it may very well be worth it. But then again, it might not be, we'll have to wait and see. And then we'll argue over it again, because even if the majority says it's great/useless/okay, there will always be something that disagrees.

As a fair warning for the future, I may be that someone, I was in Guild Wars. "Dude, what if I use these three mesmer skills and that necro skill?" And then my guild leader would yell at me, and then I'd do it anyway, and (sometimes) he'd have to eat his words. Hopefully I can find a guild leader that will put up with that crap in WAR, heheh.

</offtopicblabering>

[Foofmonger]

Well, a tri-specced character would actually potentially, be kinda strong. He would just lack of a bunch of abilities. However, he would have suped up core abilities compared to everyone else hehe.

You could potentially go 50% in all three trees and grab a couple abilities that you really want.

I'm sure some people will do it post release.

[Asmodean]

Nice! It sounds as if tri-speccing might work. I see a long time of head-scratching ahead puzzling out what specc I might like and which should be viable.
I guess it will also depend on the abilities at the end of the trees. However, this must be pretty hard to balance.

[Lucretius]

Oh, and by the way, don't use fancy words like "Nazi" which you read in posts by people who want to sound pretty cool and tough without knowing what they actually stand for.

You're about as ridiculous as they come. "Nazi" isn't a "fancy" word.
The reason the term "forum nazi" is applicable is because of the historical "gestapo" that were associated with Nazi Germany. The Gestapo were one of the final stages of the police state that developed in the country. The people were kept under strict control and while their individual freedoms became null all in the name of "not lettin the Russian terrorists win" their movements were monitored with checkpoints (Papers Please!) and the were essentially restricted to specific confinement grids throughout the country (should sound familiar, because the Dept. of Homeland Security is becoming the same thing). The METAPHOR itself is applicable because of this level of subjective force being applied unevenly.

So there you have it, I've connected the dots for you. Consider yourself enlightened.

/History Lesson off

This is incorrect.

First of all, your comparison was based on the idea that in WAR, you could only "adequately" function with two paths, similar to the way in WoW, you could only have enough points to devote them to two trees. This has been proven false.I told you what my comparison was based on, and intended for. You can't put words in my mouth and then criticize me for your subjective MISinterpretation of what I've said.
It works in politics, but not with me.

Your conception of "adequate" is definitely not the same as mine.

...and instead of just SAYING that it's been "proven false" how about you provide some links, or at least make an attempt at providing some evidence.

The video that Pyke linked after your post lends credit to my position much more than it does your position, and the general viewer will walk away with the same impression. Tri-specs will be gimped. Link (http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3480,warhammer_online_charakterentwicklun g.html)

Variety is utility, and utility is gained at the sacrifice of potency.
That is balance.

Edit: That is really quotable.
Variety is utility, and utility is gained at the sacrifice of potency.
That is balance.

[Pyke]

Well, a tri-specced character would actually potentially, be kinda strong. He would just lack of a bunch of abilities. However, he would have suped up core abilities compared to everyone else hehe.

I guess I am assuming that the abilities you will buy will be much stronger then the core abilities. I have nothing to back that up just seems to make sense to me. So yea Gem is right we will have to wait and see.

[flameseeker574]

comment withdrawn

[Hoodwink]

I really don't see how the mastery system is that different from WoW's or guild wars even.

There are really only two significant differences that I can see:

In WoW you have to choose which specific ability to improve, in WAR (and guild wars) each ability is improved across the board. This would make WoW more deep if there were more meaningful choices to make. As it is, most of the talents are clearly inferior to others on the same tier.

In WoW new abilities are cheap 'rewards' for going that far into the tree. I WAR new abilities are expensive and one might choose to forgo them in lieu of improving their existing abilities. We'll have to wait and see if the choices are actually meaningful.

Unlocking extra tactics is no different to me than having extra passive abilities. I can buy a tactic to reduce the magic damage I take in WAR or I can just max out a similar talent in WoW.

As to the masteries we have, I would greatly prefer that healing, damage, and support abilities were divided up among the different trees rather than segregated into one.

If I play a dps class I get three different trees to spec in that all improve that one role in different ways. Why should the healers be any different?

[Foofmonger]

I really don't see how the mastery system is that different from WoW's or guild wars even.


Really?


In WoW you have to choose which specific ability to improve, in WAR (and guild wars) each ability is improved across the board. This would make WoW more deep if there were more meaningful choices to make. As it is, most of the talents are clearly inferior to others on the same tier.
I don't think this in any way would make WoW more deep. WoWs system is actually less deep, because buying abilities, and putting points into the tree, are the same exact thing. Separating these things into a choice the player has to make is deeper.

Its different then Guild Wars, because in GW, buying abilities and maxxing out paths are completely different. They don't even use the same point system. WAR will be nothing like this.


Unlocking extra tactics is no different to me than having extra passive abilities. I can buy a tactic to reduce the magic damage I take in WAR or I can just max out a similar talent in WoW.
The big difference here is that tactics are not like WoW passives, they need to be equipped. They are much more like your ability bar in GW, in which you have a bunch of abilities (in WARs case, passives), but only a limited number can be equipped at a certain time. These can be swapped at certain times when you aren't in combat.

[Hoodwink]

I don't think this in any way would make WoW more deep. WoWs system is actually less deep, because buying abilities, and putting points into the tree, are the same exact thing. Separating these things into a choice the player has to make is deeper.

I don't think you understood what I said.

In WoW a player chooses which abilities to improve and gets all the extra ones.

In WAR a player improves all abilities and chooses which extras to get.

The only difference is where the player makes a choice.

It would even out except that there really isn't much choice in WoW. Frankly, I don't think there will be much more of a choice in WAR but there's no way to know that yet.

Its different then Guild Wars, because in GW, buying abilities and maxxing out paths are completely different. They don't even use the same point system. WAR will be nothing like this.

In GW each point you put into a path improves all abilities tied to that path. In that respect it's exactly like WAR. Which is also exactly what I said, so I don't know what good me re-posting this is going to do.

The big difference here is that tactics are not like WoW passives, they need to be equipped. They are much more like your ability bar in GW, in which you have a bunch of abilities (in WARs case, passives), but only a limited number can be equipped at a certain time. These can be swapped at certain times when you aren't in combat.

I know how tactics work but you're missing the point. I'm talking about how the mastery system is similar to WoW's talents.

Tactics fulfill the same function as passive abilities and you obtain them in almost the exact same manner.

[Foofmonger]

I don't think you understood what I said.

In WoW a player chooses which abilities to improve and gets all the extra ones.

In WAR a player improves all abilities and chooses which extras to get.

The only difference is where the player makes a choice.


Thats quite a big difference in my eyes. Which is exactly what I disagree with you about them being similar (and I do understand what you said).


It would even out except that there really isn't much choice in WoW. Frankly, I don't think there will be much more of a choice in WAR but there's no way to know that yet.


We have a lot of information about the mastery system. There will be much more of a choice.



In GW each point you put into a path improves all abilities tied to that path. In that respect it's exactly like WAR. Which is also exactly what I said, so I don't know what good me re-posting this is going to do.


This is true, but it is also totally different because you do not purchase abilities/passives through the GW paths. While it has a slight similarity, the differences easily out-weigh it.




I know how tactics work but you're missing the point. I'm talking about how the mastery system is similar to WoW's talents.


You realize you can buy tactics through WARs mastery path, and that there are no "passive" abilities that you buy in the path like WoW. Ignoring tactics, but talking about the mastery system in comparison to another is pretty inaccurate.


Tactics fulfill the same function as passive abilities and you obtain them in almost the exact same manner.

No they don't. Tactics, while passive abilities, are limited. They need to be "equipped" much more like abilities from Guild Wars, then the WoWs talent system.

And you don't really obtain them in the same manner. We have made the distinction already that in WAR, you need to spend your points on two things, improving the level of the path (like Guild Wars), and buying certain abilities (like WoW). These are both bought using the same point system (thus you need to make choices about whether to improve paths, or buy specific abilities/tactics), and are not directly connected. If you buy an ability or a tactic, the level of the path does not go up, like in WoW.

If you have 10 points in a path, and you buy 1 ability and 2 tactics. You still have 10 points in that path, but you have spent 13 points. In WoW, you would have 13 points in that path.

[Hoodwink]

We have a lot of information about the mastery system. There will be much more of a choice.

The only way there will be 'much more of a choice' is if passivly improving your abilities is just as good as a new ability.

I guess I should have said that there's no way I can know that because I guess you do.

You realize you can buy tactics through WARs mastery path...

Yes
and that there are no "passive" abilities that you buy in the path like WoW.

Tactics are passive abilities, that was my point.

Ignoring tactics, but talking about the mastery system in comparison to another is pretty inaccurate.

I never ignored tactics. You just disagreed as to their function. It feels like you're being overly combative.

No they don't. Tactics, while passive abilities, are limited. They need to be "equipped" much more like abilities from Guild Wars, then the WoWs talent system.

Whether or not you need to equip them isn't important. When I said they function the same I meant that they do the same thing a passive ability does.

If I spend five talent points to max a passive ability or five mastery points to get a new tactic, it's pretty much the same thing to me. The only difference is that I only get the passive benefit of the talent if I equip it, which doesn't have anything to do with masteries.

[viscanti]

I admit, I was upset at first with the Zealot trees. But the more I thought about it, the more I understood the underlying logic. Being a pure heal career will never be the most efficient way to play any of the classes. It can be done, but you still miss out on the other things each career can do.

With the Zealot you can Heal, Buff/Debuff and Damage. The best Zealots will know when to do each to maximize their importance to their group. Let's look at the full utility a Zealot brings to his/her group. A completely made up equation will help me illustrate my point.

Total Healing+Total Damage+ %Increase in Group Efficiency (Buffs)+%Decrease in Opponents Efficiency (Debuffs) = Total Zealot Contribution.

A couple caveats before we continue. Total Healing can also increase Group Efficiency if you're able to keep more of your teammates alive. Replacing over healing with Damage though maximizes the Zealots contribution to the group.

Where it gets interesting for me is Healing focus verse Buff/Debuff focus. If the buffs help your group kill things faster or take less damage as well as decrease the total output of damage from the opponent, a Buff spec'd Zealot would likely have more of a total group impact than a pure heal spec'd Zealot.

Knowing the class mechanics and knowing when to heal, damage or buff/debuff is going to make a bigger difference than any of the 3 specs. Zealots also need to know what role in a group they can best expect to fill. Damage/Buff spec might well be the best off healers in the game. Heal/Buff might be the best main healers. Buff/Debuff seems to me to be the most important tree as far as maximizing total group contribution.

[Moridan]

Honestly, I believe that the mastery system will be very similar to WoW (which is not neccessarily a bad thing). There are a few minor differences though.

Each system has three "paths", but in WAR putting points into one path effects all of the base abilities connected to that path.

Each system has special abilities that you can buy, whether they be abilties, tactic, or whatever.

I am sure that buying extra abilities will have a set minimum points in a path like WoW, but I believe that there will be much more choices to select from in WAR.


I am really excited to see what the final result will be for all of the career mastery paths. The devs mentioned that the top of each path will have one uber ability, and that one of the healer uber abilities was something along the lines of a mass-ressurection. I can't wait to see what the other paths uber abilities are.:twisted:

[Foofmonger]

The only way there will be 'much more of a choice' is if passivly improving your abilities is just as good as a new ability.


You have to also take split specs and other trees into account. It isn't just as cut and dry as, the only choice you need to make is whether to buy this certain ability or spend the point in the tree.



I never ignored tactics. You just disagreed as to their function. It feels like you're being overly combative.


I'm really not trying to be. If I have come off in this manner, I apologize.



Whether or not you need to equip them isn't important. When I said they function the same I meant that they do the same thing a passive ability does.


I disagree. I think the fact that they need to be equipped (and they have a limited space), is very important.

In WoW, when you buy a passive, you have it. Always. No matter what. In WAR, not only do you have to make a separate decision from buying abilities/putting points in the tree (to buy a tactic), but furthermore, in enables further specialization. Say you purchase a tactic, but only want to use it with a certain playstyle (say I buy a tactic that has do with my Marauders club arm), when I'm not using the club arm, I'm not using the tactic. Thus the tactic build that I would use would not include that tactic if I wasn't at that time, using that playstyle. Tactics are designed to give you a customization element that you can change for different circumstances.

Tactics are obviously, passive abilities. This is certainly true, but I don't think they compare to WoWs passive abilities gained through talent trees except for the fact that they are both passive abilities. Besides that, they are vastly different systems.


If I spend five talent points to max a passive ability or five mastery points to get a new tactic, it's pretty much the same thing to me.


Thats not how it works though. In WoW, you spend 5 points to max an ability, and you go 5 points further down the tree at the same time. In WAR, you go down the path, and separately have to choose to put points into tactics/abilities, instead of putting more points in that path.

The main difference is that if you spend those 5 points to get the tactic (I'd doubt they cost 5 points, probably just a single one, but thats besides the point for this comparison), you aren't 5 points deeper in the path. Also, unlike WoW passives, that tactic that your purchased may not be usable (or you may not want to have it equipped and active) at any given time.

Also, a good thing to note (which you already know but for clarification), is that putting points into a path scales abilities. This is very different from WoWs system, and much more similar to the way GW handles certain spec lines.


The only difference is that I only get the passive benefit of the talent if I equip it, which doesn't have anything to do with masteries.

I think it does, because that choice directly weighs into where you want to spend your points. In WoW, you have one option, you buy abilities/passives, and they push you further down the tree. In WAR, this choice is separate, you can choose to put points in the tree, or buy an ability, or buy a tactic. Doing any one of these things does not directly influence the other. If you devote the points to the tactic/ability, the level of your mastery path does not improve. Thus, you may want to pass over a certain tactic that you don't find particularly useful, but someone under the same path as you may choose that tactic instead. This would leave you more points for a secondary path then him, even furthering your specialization.

[Artimecion]

I personlly will go healing spec first, and buff spec second, and if there are so many points to put into mastires in this game, I'll trickle a few to my most used DPS/DoT spells. Healing is a Archtype I adore, and I hate it when people state that people will bring a mentality into WAR that of other MMOs... DUH! People pull from their personal experiences, the real question will be, can they learn to inter-mingle this new experiences? I know I'm really afraid that I won't be able to balance my DPS/Debuffing because all my MMO experiences tell me that its not good to do so, infact the last MMO I played that would actually give me the option was FFXI as a SMN/WHM. I was very skilled at healing with an avatar out, but the factor there, it wasn't socially accepted! I think that might be the Healing classes biggest obsticle, the ability for other archtypes to accept us. Thats so huge that it I belive it should be in the minds of the developers personally.

[Foofmonger]

I personlly will go healing spec first, and buff spec second, and if there are so many points to put into mastires in this game, I'll trickle a few to my most used DPS/DoT spells. Healing is a Archtype I adore, and I hate it when people state that people will bring a mentality into WAR that of other MMOs... DUH! People pull from their personal experiences, the real question will be, can they learn to inter-mingle this new experiences? I know I'm really afraid that I won't be able to balance my DPS/Debuffing because all my MMO experiences tell me that its not good to do so, infact the last MMO I played that would actually give me the option was FFXI as a SMN/WHM. I was very skilled at healing with an avatar out, but the factor there, it wasn't socially accepted! I think that might be the Healing classes biggest obsticle, the ability for other archtypes to accept us. Thats so huge that it I belive it should be in the minds of the developers personally.

Sounds good, but the only thing I'd like to add is that the very nature of pvp based MMOs allows for generally, a lot more useful off-specs, then a PvE based game (or if you want to put it this way, there is generally more variety). Why is this? Because fighting against players is dynamic and constantly changing, where as PvE is static and pre-planned strategies and playstyles will dominate. In PvP, your "weird" spec Zealot who is all debuff based may be very desirable for groups, and very effective in combat, even though you aren't focusing on healing.

[Artimecion]

To be honest Foofmonger, I really didn't understand you're reply to my thread, was it supposed to be an after thought, or a diffrent look at it? or even a flamefest? I guess what my OP was trying to convey where two things. 1) I will be playing with an emphisis on Healing (alchemy) I stated so because I thought that was the point of the thread. 2) My last statement about others not taking off speced archtypes wasnt a bash on other playstyles, it was mearly an honest opinion stated from years of experience that regardless how useful an off spec is, traditionalists of MMO, or even RPGs in general will still have bias towards off spec. Hell, im guilty of it myself, I belive Tanks should tank, DPS should DPS and Healers should heal, but I'm also excited that WAR wants to challenge those traditions, and will hopefully change the opinions of myself and other traditionalists.

[maven]

My feelings are heal first

Kill second

run away third

make my heals their best
make my dps its best then whatever debuffs skills etc which will let me escape melee dps third.

[Foofmonger]

To be honest Foofmonger, I really didn't understand you're reply to my thread, was it supposed to be an after thought, or a diffrent look at it? or even a flamefest? I guess what my OP was trying to convey where two things. 1) I will be playing with an emphisis on Healing (alchemy) I stated so because I thought that was the point of the thread. 2) My last statement about others not taking off speced archtypes wasnt a bash on other playstyles, it was mearly an honest opinion stated from years of experience that regardless how useful an off spec is, traditionalists of MMO, or even RPGs in general will still have bias towards off spec. Hell, im guilty of it myself, I belive Tanks should tank, DPS should DPS and Healers should heal, but I'm also excited that WAR wants to challenge those traditions, and will hopefully change the opinions of myself and other traditionalists.

Just a little extra clarification. I was just trying to help. (I saw you referenced FFXI, which is a PvE based game, and just wanted to discuss how "off-specs" are generally more useful in a pvp situation then a pve one.)

[Circasurvive]

/Eyes Fall Out...... can you put all of these wall o' text in Brale please?

[Hoodwink]

/Eyes Fall Out...... can you put all of these wall o' text in Brale please?

Bump, Bump, Two Bumps, Bump, Three Vertical Bumps, Four Bumps in a Square.

[NoNameMaddox]

I'm definitely planning to spec Alchemy/Ritual in some combination. I'm just waiting to see whether I want to focus more on Ritual or Alchemy and whether I should invest more in mastery or buying more abilities. If the Rituals are strong I'll probably spec more down that line.

[Pyke]

If the Rituals are strong I'll probably spec more down that line.

I would hope so it seems to be the big difference between the zealot and the other two healing classes. Without powerful rituals I'd have to go green and be a shaman.