Ghostcrawler and the "hybrid tax"
Ghostcrawler has put a significant sticky up on the forums about what he calls the "hybrid tax" in terms of PvE play -- there's been some back and forth lately on the forums about hybrid classes and what they should and shouldn't be able to do, and GC wants to put any confusion about what Blizzard intends "hybrids" to be to rest. Very basically, he says that there are three roles in the game (tanking, healing, and DPS), and if a class can respec to perform a different role, it's considered a hybrid class. Otherwise, it's a "pure" class. This means a few things: pure classes, he says, should have slightly higher DPS ("all things being equal," and when does that ever happen?), because they don't have the option to switch out. There's no rule as to how much better that is, but as a tradeoff of rerolling being the only way for "pures" to switch, they get to be a little better. That's the "hybrid tax," and mages, hunters, rogues, and warlocks don't have to pay it.
Hybrids, however, do, and that means that paladins, druids, priests, shamans, and to a certain extent, warriors and death knights, will in Blizzard's view never be able to equal "pure" classes in terms of DPS output, with everything else being equal. You may love your ret pally, and he may be in uber gear, but he should never be able to pour out as much damage as an equally specced and geared hunter, because you can switch to healing, and the hunter can't.
Is that wrong? Not at all -- it may disappoint some people (and Ghostcrawler probably knows, but we'll remind him anyway that posting even this clearly on the forums won't put a lot of complaints to rest), and it may cause some rerolls, but it definitely makes sense. Flexibility is an asset, and not having that flexibility in a pure class does mean that they should get out of paying that tax. If you only do one thing, you should be able to do it better than someone who has the option to do all three. And as he says, what you want to do with the class has nothing to do with how Blizzard is balancing them overall. It doesn't matter if all you wanted to do when you rolled that priest was play shadow -- they need to be balanced as hybrids.
GC says that Blizzard has played around with roles in the past, but going forward, this is the philosophy: if you're playing a hybrid class, you'll never be able to fulfill a role as well as if you were playing the "pure" class meant to serve that role.
Hybrids, however, do, and that means that paladins, druids, priests, shamans, and to a certain extent, warriors and death knights, will in Blizzard's view never be able to equal "pure" classes in terms of DPS output, with everything else being equal. You may love your ret pally, and he may be in uber gear, but he should never be able to pour out as much damage as an equally specced and geared hunter, because you can switch to healing, and the hunter can't.
Is that wrong? Not at all -- it may disappoint some people (and Ghostcrawler probably knows, but we'll remind him anyway that posting even this clearly on the forums won't put a lot of complaints to rest), and it may cause some rerolls, but it definitely makes sense. Flexibility is an asset, and not having that flexibility in a pure class does mean that they should get out of paying that tax. If you only do one thing, you should be able to do it better than someone who has the option to do all three. And as he says, what you want to do with the class has nothing to do with how Blizzard is balancing them overall. It doesn't matter if all you wanted to do when you rolled that priest was play shadow -- they need to be balanced as hybrids.
GC says that Blizzard has played around with roles in the past, but going forward, this is the philosophy: if you're playing a hybrid class, you'll never be able to fulfill a role as well as if you were playing the "pure" class meant to serve that role.
Filed under: Druid, Classes, Raiding, Virtual selves, Analysis / Opinion, Patches, Warlock, Shaman, Rogue, Priest, Paladin, Mage, Hunter, Death Knight







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 12)
Taylor B. Oct 27th 2009 4:08PM
Where's the QQ'ing?
mtsadowski Oct 27th 2009 5:10PM
I think the hybid tax costs the same as freedom. Costs about $1.05
Moonkinmaniac Oct 27th 2009 5:29PM
Here's the QQ.
Take The Class Not The Player.
G Oct 27th 2009 5:55PM
Dey took our jobs!
Dey tuk er jeobs!
Durka Dur!
Raynier Oct 27th 2009 5:59PM
@Moonkinmac
Not really. I'd vastly prefer a competent Feral Druid over a key-smashing rogue with no concept of threat. Of course, given the choice between competent druid or competent rogue I'd look to overall class balance in the raid, but I'm not going to actively turn someone away just because they're playing a hybrid DPS class.
The "pure DPS" class has to have some reason to be played, beyond player preference. Hybrids tend to have an easier time finding raid slots because of their flexibility, if they're willing to use it. The fact that Ghostcrawler let us know that there is, after all, a reason to play a pure DPS class is Blizzard's way of assuring pure DPS that game balance isn't all about the hybrids.
And, for full disclosure, I play a hybrid class (Prot/Ret Pally) and am fine with the fact that the theoretical cap on my DPS would be about 5% lower than that of a "pure" class (warlock or a hunter) player.
Verit Oct 27th 2009 6:34PM
Every raid ever - because my shaman can out-dps all the mages/warlocks ;).
Now I have proof that they just need to suck less.
thebitterfig Oct 27th 2009 7:03PM
I think few people oppose the idea of some sort of Hybrid Tax, but just want to make sure it stays at 5%. That's within player margin of error, and doesn't cause an existential crisis for hybrid dps.
What people care about is when in practice hybrid dps drops down not 5 but 15 percent below. That's when the QQ starts, and Bliz is doing a lot to fix shadow priest damage in 3.3. It is the giant losses in relative power that get people motivated - even though there are a few places where more hybrid classes need to be buffed a little (Elemental Shaman need to scale better with group buffs, warriors could use a few tweaks as I'm sure Rossi can tell you, and i hear moonkin might need a slight boost).
Amaxe Oct 27th 2009 7:32PM
Never heard the term before but I remember being a 70 warrior at the time of TBC, thinking how frustrating it was for a druid to be better than me in all roles.
I do think the pure should be a bit better in what they specialize in, while the hybrid may be more versatile.
And my 3 80s are shaman, paladin and druid but I still agree with the concept
Fawx Oct 27th 2009 9:42PM
It has to be said!
If this is Blizzard's official stance, then why are the deepest hybrid classes (Druid/Paladins) STILL doing the BEST at all 3 roles.
At the same time, the lesser hybrid classes (Warriors/Priests/DK's) seem to be getting taxed the most.
jvferagola Oct 27th 2009 10:39PM
@Fawx
I think what they are trying to say is that they will not be in the next patch.
Byron Oct 28th 2009 12:29AM
Don't hybrids already have to pay a gear tax? For example, gearing a pally for holy and prot, or prot and ret, or holy and ret, is alot more time-consuming than gearing a rogue for Assasination and Combat, or a Mage for Arcane and Fire. The only hybrid that can just respec from one role to another and keep roughly the same gear are bear and kitty druids. Grinding emblems and raids for two sets of gear is a non-trivial time committment. Are we sure this additionaly dps tax on hybrids is necessary?
Sky Oct 28th 2009 12:54AM
@ Byron
Agreed. It is statistically much easier to gear a pure dps class compared to a hybrid.
Example: Koralon drops t9 hands and legs...
There is only 1 set of t9 hunter
There are 3 sets of t9 shaman
If you were a hunter youd only have to hope for the hunter t9 piece to drop
If you were a shaman, not only do you need a shaman piece to drop, but also you need the CORRECT shaman piece to drop
w Oct 28th 2009 1:49AM
What ghostcrawler's theory doesn't take into account is the fact that healers and tanks are always needed and in short supply. why punish tank and healer classes, when there is already a shortage of classes that can fill those roles when finding groups?
Terethall Oct 28th 2009 1:56AM
@sky and byron:
Are you kidding me? Just because there are three Tier sets for shaman and one for hunter doesn't mean that it's harder to gear the shaman.
Say they both want to do ranged DPS. They both only have to spec one way and get one set of gear. Perfectly equal. Now say they both want to heal. The hunter logs off and cries silently to himself as he rolls a shaman and has to get healing gear. The shaman just has to get the healing gear. I personally believe the dps tax should be significant enough to cause raid leaders to have to take a few pure classes. WoW is moving towards an environment where raid leaders will always prefer Shaman, Druid, Warrior, DK, Pally, etc. dps because the likelihood is that those hybrids can switch to something else for specific encounters, or at the very least something like an ele shaman can toss a heal or two in a pinch. And hybrid dps is almost imperceptibly lower as it is, so much that raid leaders aren't penalized for ignoring pure classes.
To be honest, as a raid leader/pug organizer, I avoid pure dps classes like the plague, even though I play one. I've recently all but quit my warlock, however, in favor of a shaman. Because hybrids simply have an easier time of EVERYTHING. Blizz either needs to balance it so that pure dps can get groups or simply make all classes hybrids.
Obeah Oct 28th 2009 5:55AM
@ Byron, Sky and Terethall
I agree with byron completely
I play shaman with enhance as main and resto as offspec. i am more and more fraquently asked to heal then dps in raids so i must make sure that i have all my gear enchanted and gemmed and have flasks for both roles ready. To get gear for both roles I have had to run naxx and HCs again and again after thinking that i had left them behind me after gearing my enhance spec. Now as i have a bigger role in our guild I am asked shaman advice but don't know enough about Elemental to comment confidently so I will likely need to do the same process all over again (gear/spec/enchant/gem) for elemental too :P
... I feel this is tax enough for a hybrid class. If I put the time and gold (which is time anyway :P ) into being able to do more then 1 role then I should be able to benifit completelty from that investment.
Knyle2 Oct 28th 2009 6:50AM
WELL the tax is obviously very light,
Im pretty sure warriors and dks still do amazing dps!
And its a little harder for a feral druid, but they can slang some deeps too!
Nirva Oct 29th 2009 5:26AM
@ w
tanks and healers arent being punished, its the opposite. as there are no 'pure' tank or 'pure' healer classes no one is better at it then the hybrids, just their dps is slightly worse then that of 'pure' dps classes, therefore prompting hybrid player to perhaps play tank or healer instead of dps, cos thats their optimal roll.
MinatorBearCat Nov 3rd 2009 12:57PM
The question is - if hybrids did the same damage as pures (compentancy being equal) - plus bring off heals, various buffs, etc. - why would you ever bring a pure DPS? Don't lie to yourself and say you'd still bring the rogue. Utility + DPS > DPS in that scenario. You wouldn't bring the class at all. Blizz can't have that. I think no one should out DPS a pure...they should always top the tables on their respective fights.
Moloth Oct 27th 2009 4:09PM
This is way i also took the classes in WoW to work... I've played hybrids and non-hybrids and i have NO problem with this stance on how the classes should compare to one another. It just makes sense.
If things were NOT this way, WHY would anyone ever WANT to bring a 'pure' class along? In other words, why bring a Rogue (DPS), when you could bring a Fury/Prot warrior (DPS or Tank, if needed)? or a Ret/Prot/Healadin? You'd be gimping the party with less-than-flexible character.
Rhabella Oct 27th 2009 5:01PM
Please understand I agree with you wholeheartedly in theory, but then real game mechanics step in…
1. As Alison Robert pointed out in her most recent shifting perspectives post, just because a hybrid can do something, doesn’t mean they actually do. Bear tanks are probably the best example. Just because he can shift out to toss an innervate or battle rez does not mean they actually can within the given parameters of WoW. It is absolutely impossible for a bear tank to do any of the unique he brings to the table when he is a tank in the raid. The hybrid tax doesn’t just apply to DPS, and the bear druid is one place where the tax is not only applied, but it’s tax bracket is even more punishing than in the dps brackets.
2. Blizzard has really failed to define what exactly hybridization means. Survivalist hunters, destro locks, and frost mages are all good examples of this. They, like the shadow priest or ret pally should be paying a hybrid tax for the replenishment they bring to a raid. When they choose to take a build that brings along a, according to the devs, mandatory buff, they too should be paying a hybrid tax, albeit not nearly as high a tax as the more traditional hybrids otherwise your logic of “If things were NOT this way, WHY would anyone ever WANT to bring a 'pure' class along?” applies here. That is if all the other trees bring equal dps but not the mandatory buff, why would any class with replenishment not spec into the tree which brings the buff?
Overall, you are correct and I totally agree with you, but because Blizzard doesn’t have a public hybrid tax code to really analyze benefits each class brings, it is very difficult to justify the code at all. It essentially equates to Uncle Sam coming to collect your income tax and taking more from you than your neighbor without actually explaining tax code and therefore making the tax brackets the arbitrary call of the developers. The saddest thing is with “bring the player, not the class,” it would be pretty easy to justify number differences between the classes, but instead we are left wondering exactly how much the hybrid tax is and if it is being applied to the standards Blizzard refuses to share with it gaming base.