Transmog yourself into an Avenger!
6 blue posts to read before Diablo 3's launch
Cross-realm zones coming soon
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsWhat they really meant by "bring the player, not the class"
by Eliah Hecht 
Mar 4th 2009 at 9:00AM
We here at WoW Insider and others around the WoW community have talked so much about the term "bring the player, not the class" that I'm a little surprised we haven't started shortening it to "BTPNTC." But apparently I, at least, have not really understood what Blizzard meant by it when they said it was part of their new philosophy of balancing for raids.
Ghostcrawler basically QFTs another forum poster who said the following: "Blizzard has repeatedly stated they didn't mean any class will be identical to all other classes in effectiveness for your last raid slot. Blizzard has provided a bunch of options you can choose from to get Replenishment, but expects you to choose one of those options. If any choice were a valid choice, there would be no incentive to think about the choice you make. Blizzard wants you to think about your group composition."
As you may have gathered, this is in the contest of "A plea to remove Replenishment." What Blizzard, then, apparently means by BTPNTC is that it's now easier to get your (semi-)required buff and debuff coverage, not that you can do it with any old group. Sort of like threat for tanks, the mini-game of group composition has been made easier, but not made a non-issue. Honestly, I do think Replenishment should be removed – I don't see how requiring my 10-man raid to bring one of five specific DPS specs, or face the consequences, makes the game more fun. But it's good to have some insight into the developers' mindset.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Raiding
Reader Comments (Page 4 of 4)
Hoggersbud Mar 4th 2009 1:08PM
I actually welcome the Replenishment mechanic because it is powerful and useful. It was shown to be that way when Shadow Priests first got it.
Of course, since they were the only ones with it, they started to get stacked in raids, and Blizzard recognized that, and a few other cases of stacking, and decided they didn't quite want things to go that way. So they've broadened it up to the five specs it'll have soon.
And it really works. The game is about managing your resources, yes? Health is one resource. Mana is another. You can increase the amount of health used in a fight by expending the other. But what can increase the amount of mana you bring to a fight? Well, there has been mana regeneration in the game from the start, otherwise spell-casting would quickly become boring. But potions, clearcasting, and regeneration can only go so far. Replenishment just adds a way to increase your mana pool in a fight. Sure, Blizzard could tune fights to be doable without the buff of Replenishment, but then what are they left with to increase interest in given classes? Unique fight mechanics? Raw DPS? Some of that might be doable on occasion (I think rogues are going to end up the raw DPS class), but do we really want more encounters with only one solution, or things to simply be a DPS race?
There's only so much idea space, at least Replenishment is wide enough to hold more than one or two classes in it.
Jon Do Mar 4th 2009 1:34PM
Well, as others have said...
"Bring the player, not the class" = "Bring the buff, not the class"
"The buff" (in this case, replenishment) is typically spread over many classes
Some call this "generic"; that is, that unique class functions are now spread over many classes (specs). Others just call it "dumbing-down".
The bottom line is that this is the casual design direction of WoW for now, and probably for the rest of WotLK at least.
But in contrast, another of today's articles about tanking classes points out that currently the DK has benefitted from the general nerf to physical damage (such as crushing blow), but the DK has been granted strong anti-magic tanking skills that have not been generically applied to the "old" tanking classes (warrior/paladin/druid). It is an interesting read, pointing out a design error (in the comments there is a link to GC basically saying "Uh, um, well... We'll get back to you on that").
Sorrowind Mar 4th 2009 3:56PM
Bliz fundamentally failed to abide by this rule for Naxx....not only do you NEED a shadow priest on faerlina, you also NEED a hunter/rogue on gluth for enrage effect.
You also need some sort of kiting class or two off tanks on gluth, and then you need at least four classes that can heal (not necessarily healers) on four horseman.
Let's just say that this instance had some gimmicks that work well when you have 40 people, and 25 generally is good, but with 10 people, your options are somewhat restricted and definitely not reflective of BTPNTC.
Ezrael Mar 4th 2009 4:13PM
Replenishment and buffs aren't the only problem with the idea of BTPNTC because in same cases you have no choice but to have a specific class in order to advance. One example is Instructor Razuvious. No priests? No kill. No advancement.
Bryond Mar 4th 2009 5:14PM
"Honestly, I do think Replenishment should be removed – I don't see how requiring my 10-man raid to bring one of five specific DPS specs, or face the consequences, makes the game more fun. But it's good to have some insight into the developers' mindset."
I get frustrated at how this comment is so greatly misrepresented.
Saying that encounters are designed with the assumption of replenishment does not remotely mean that anything is required.
They make a bunch of default assumptions when they define encounters.
They assume X DPS.
They assume Y Tank Health
They assume Z damage avoidance
They assume Q downtime of melee effectiveness The list goes on and on.
Replenishment is also on that list.
The sum of all these factors define the difficulty of the scenario.
All of them are assumed and none of them are required.
If you only have 90% of X DPS, you are going to need better health and or avoidance and better heals.
X DPS is the balance point. It is assumed for design purposes. And if the party doesn't have it they must make up for it in some other way or they will fail. But it is not required.
yeah, there are gear checks. For Patchwerk, your DPS = target or you fail. But those examples are clear cut. There is nothing like this for replenishment.
If you don't have replenishment you have in no way whatsoever failed to meet a design requirement. You simply have to compensate. DPS faster so the same mana gets the job done. Or last longer so you can regen the mana with replenishment. Either of those options work and I'm certain there are groups out there proving it.
To keep repeating the severe misrepresentation that a design assumption constitutes a "requirement" is a really counter-productive effort.
FifthDream Mar 4th 2009 5:27PM
This is why i don't do raids. It's all accounting. It's just a mathematical formula. "We need this much of this, and you need this much of this armor, and this many on this weapon" until you either conform to the numbers, or you don't play.
The only numbers i care about are my hit points versus theirs. If i can beat something, awesome, if i can't, i wait and come back and try again when i'm stronger. I'm old school. I don't see the appeal of memorizing The Best Everything and working and working to get it. I make do with what i have, and if it's not good enough, i wait and come back when it is. I'm so not into crunching numbers and assembling players like tetris blocks until my numbers > the raid's numbers. Not fun at all.
Maana Mar 4th 2009 8:50PM
Should probably change it to "Bring the buff, F##K the rest"
Yada Mar 4th 2009 9:27PM
You don't *have* to bring replenishment. Like anything else, it's a tradeoff. I've been in lots of raids where for one reason or another there was no replenishment class, and all it means is you may need to manage your mana a bit better.
jbodar Mar 5th 2009 4:57AM
No. Just no. If I wanted spam, I'd have ordered the bento.