An interesting Blue perspective on PvP balance

On the damage dealing forums, GC posted a general statement about PvP balance, that I thought was interesting.

Having all specs viable in PvP is a goal, but it’s a long term goal. It’s more important that every class has at least one PvP option.  Having all specs viable in PvE is also a goal, and we’re a little closer on that one, but not quite there yet.  PvP is harder to balance, which should be no surprise to anyone. When to make a change to PvE you often only affect one class or spec. When you make a change to PvP, you affect everyone.

This means that since tree form is almost always good in arena, and the druid class is represented in arena as a whole, having all 3 druid specs be pvp viable isn’t a primary short-term goal. Thinking in terms of having to balance 10 classes with 3 specs each, having 30 specs to worry about is a LOT of work. It’s hard enough getting some classes (as a whole) to be well represented in the first place…

In the long-term, the good news is that moonkin should get attention they need to be viable. I mean, they have buffed things like innervate and typhoon to try and help moonkin pvp (which has probably helped a little).

I tend to spend a lot of time talking about moonkin pvp here, mostly because it’s one of the weakest areas of the druid class (in my opinion).  Feral pvp could also use some attention, as well.

The class-based approach to PvP balance makes sense, and I’m not really going to disagree with it. In the end, the long term goal of having all class specs be represented in arena is a good goal. It’s not like balancing druids with other classes is easy, since we (ideally) should have 4 roles in PvE, and need 3 viable PvP specs, too!


2 Comments

  1. Aelinna
    Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Check your 3rd para

  2. Posted June 7, 2009 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    fixed. I think I just didn’t finish that thought…