This could be a controversial topic I would imagine. I was just sitting here pondering the current state of current games and old games. With todays games its a common thing to have specs and talents to dictate your characters abilities. Looking into the future I am hoping that this game takes more of a traditional approach. I have pretty much played every game under the sun and still currently play one regularly. With that said I have always been a player who likes to make their character as strong as possible and play it to the best of my abilities. With that said as I reflect on my current roster of characters to my past roster I lean towards a roster where the root role is determined at character creation.
By that I mean if I roll a chanter or a monk I know what I am getting at the start. Not something to the terms of I will level dps as a monk then switch to healer at max level because that's what will be needed. I am ok with classes being designated from its origin on what role they will play. Classes do not need to have the ability switch specs on a given day. Perhaps I am a traditionalist but having my class abilities laid out for me with one path is ok if that makes sense. With that said I am a fan of the old AA system. I know it could be considered dated however the way current games handle max level content is mind numbing. I would rather grind out exp in a group for AA points for minimal agility or intel upgrades then grind daily quests simply for the sake of daily quests. At least with the old AA system I felt I was making my character stronger and working towards a goal. Now days the daily treadmill is blah with no real substantial character gains.
Would you prefer specs or are you ok with 1-50 (assuming max level) being predetermined with our ability to flavor it later on?
I think it is important as an RPGer to have the ability to specialize your character/class to some degree. I've always enjoyed class specialization and class specialization quests. With that said, I feel that a class, regardless of specialization, should have core strengths and weaknesses that other players should recognize. I used to like the idea of talents/talent trees, but after using them, I really started to dislike them. They become very min/max, and if the talents determine your abilities, make it hard to know what your grouping with. I remember in Rift, numerous times, I'd ask for cleanse or something, and our healer didnt have it spec'd (RIP).
I think it's a lot easier to make gear and items for a class/predetermined class specialization rather than a talent tree as well.
In VG they gave you class specs around lv 25-30. Once you completed your spec quest you started getting that specs abilities as you lv'd to 50. I would rather level my specialization with my character rather than some AA or talent tree post 50. You mentioned character progression at max level. I agree that making character power gains post max lv is important, though im not sure I would enjoy doing AAs. Don't get me wrong, daily quests are my bane as well, and I'd much rather do something to lv AAs. Maybe if the AAs had less to do with my class/abilities and more to do with my itemization capabilities or economy perks. Maybe even knowledge on different types of enemies and getting perks or different ways of exploiting an enemy type
I liked how EQOA did it with class masteries (similiar to AA's in EQ I believe). I liked them for the same reasons you did; to further advance your character. There was a max you could reach, but it would take you a very long time, and I think that always gave high levels a reason to group, besides to do raids or farm for gear. I also liked that classes could choose a path. Like Druids could go a heal path or a resist buff path. Necro's could go a blood path or a power path (health or mana) which could make them almost as useful as a healer or an Enchanter. I liked that, depending on what class masteries you purchased, you could become a special title with extra stats, like a Druid could become a Wilding or a Necro could become a Lich, Shadowknights could become Death knights, Wizards could become Sorcerers, Magicians could become Pyro, Hydro, Aero or Geomancers... etc. I really hope we can see things like that again in Pantheon.
Specifically specialization, i believe was made to add replay-ability to a single character a person really loved because in games where each class had a different play style, so a warrior tank was different then a paladin tank (wow) or a warrior/cleric/thief tank played differently had different strengths (rift). I think i already read that you can toggle spells to be single/aoe target, unless i am confusing my games, aka talents.
Anywho, i am tangenting on my tanget, specialization lets you stay in the same class longer and goes against a game that has lots of classes and wants replay-ability to be through playing different classes.
What i wish is to have two options, you create a character (one name) and you share reputations/achievements etc locally between any class under it or you create a new character name and those classes have to get those reps/achievements again. Some games made reputations/achievements account bound, and maybe there could be some of that. But i think the Character Name (your in game identity) should be separated from your classes, if you want a new Identity then sure, grind all the reps and achievements, that's the price to pay for anonymity.
a little bit of a tangent but that is what i think about talents/specs, as like all features that were added in over time, they were done mostly to combat some deficiency.
There are two main concerns when designing talents/specs:
A good way to design such talents were the EQ AA points, where a tank would get damage absorption (hp, ac, such stuff), dps caster would get spell crits, healer heal crits, casters in general mana efficiency, hybrids a bit of everything.
Basically, everyone got what was in line for his class, not something radically different.
Of course, this eventually again affects balancing - an encounter balanced around everyone having 300 AA on average is hard to impossible for a group or raid at 0 AA. An encounter designed for 0 AA is trivial for those at 500.
But that's the same as leveling - what's easy for level 60 is hard for level 45. No real difference there.
I prefer the more traditional approach of having a well defined class. However, one aspect of Everquest that I loved was alternate advancements, which allowed me to further improve my character beyond just leveling; it also allowed me to in a sense specialize my character differently than another player of the same class. (I could increase my dps abilities first while someone else may have chose to increase their survivability with defense and feign death abilities).
Phantomghost said:
I prefer the more traditional approach of having a well defined class. However, one aspect of Everquest that I loved was alternate advancements, which allowed me to further improve my character beyond just leveling; it also allowed me to in a sense specialize my character differently than another player of the same class. (I could increase my dps abilities first while someone else may have chose to increase their survivability with defense and feign death abilities).
Like you mentioned and others I prefer the AA style system of customization as well. One reason I think WoW came out of the gate like they did with the talent system was they new at max level they would not have that type of advancement so they wanted people to mix and match talents to their liking. The grind to achieve that was having the gold to do so. Early on gold was not easy to come by. We had one rogue in our guild who was a young high schooler who after each raid would basically beg for gold so he could respec and go pvp. That is another reason I prefer the EQ model is it is easier to balance a game based off straight class design rather then multi spec potentials.
As you mentioned you did have that freedom of what path to go with once you started AA's and that was cool. Like anything the min maxers quickly decided what they thought the best path was however we as a player still had a choice. I also loved how the class specific skills were sprinkled in even though you could take different routes to unlock them.
With that being said I did enjoy the vanilla WoW talent system. I even enjoyed the min/maxing through TBC and part of WoTLK. If I had a choice I would go with the EQ model obviously. The current system is garbage in my opinion. There is no choice really or any uniqueness anymore I dont know why they even still have specs they honestly could have just done away with them. It is a lot easier for people to understand now I guess so they accomplished what they set out to do.
I prefer EQ AAs as it enhances the already existing predefined class as a true form of alternate advancement/character improvement, which gives a player something to do endgame outside of raiding, rather than allowing a character to be completely redefined by a specialization.
It is also nice with EQ AA's that there was no penalty if you didn't choose the "best" route, as the only thing you lost was the time to achieve X number of additional AAs to choose the "better" skill next time.
If games have specializations, it never fails that I spend more time trying to find the perfect build than enjoying the game, and, ultimately, I end up with some cookie-cutter build as one build is always better than another.
I like the idea of using AAs to create unique roles so that even though every warrior is a tank not every warrior is the same. Some can tank raids better, some can tank single groups better, some dps better, etc. But from level 1 to max level they strictly address their role.
A warrior should address its tanking ability solely from level 1 to max level with no skill turning it into a healer. THEN with AA's they can fine tune their character into a specific type of role. A warrior could choose to either focus on a number of tanking techniques such as single target tanking, aoe tanking, group tanking, raid tanking, etc. OR the warrior could even choose to shy away from tanking and focus on its dps ability with AAs. This creates a system that defines the classes and what they should be by the time they reach max level and then with AA's they can create a unique identity to distinguish them from the rest of the pack.
I like a class system where each class has their role determined from the beginning. You have some classes that are strictly tanks, some are strictly healers, and some are strictly dps. You have support. And you have hybrids. Now, hybrids would be classes that didn't have one strict class. Hybrids would have their primary role and then their secondary roles. Their primary roles would be as good as their strict counterparts and should be able to handle up to raid content where their secondary roles should be adequate enough for single group content but never raid content. And NOT every class needs to be a hybrid (ie. RIFT).
A simple example of a hybrid class would be the paladin. It can be considered a tank hybrid because first and foremost it is a tank with a secondary role of healing (and possibly dps). It should be able to handle raid content just like the warrior only the paladin requires more finesse. Now, it's secondary role healing should be competent enough to heal single group content but never able to heal raid content.
I think healers, dps, and support should all have at least one hybrid class.
NOW, with AAs you can fine tune your hybrid (just like your strict classes). So the paladin could REALLY focus on an area such as tanking, or healing, or dps.
NoobieDoo you articulate a great system, but I want to disagree with your hybrid definition. Hybrids should still be strictly in their defined role.
By EQ definitions: http://everquest.wikia.com/wiki/Hybrid or https://www.everquest.com/classes
"Hybrid is one of the 4 EverQuest archetypes, along with Caster, Melee and Priest.
Hybrids include bards, beastlords, paladins, rangers and shadow knights.
Hybrids are able to fight in melee range as well as using spells (or songs for the bard) to fight from a distance or to help other players."
The term hybrid is that they are mixing melee, healing and casting and it their Archetype.
Different from the ?role? an archetype performs: tank, healer and dps, support (mixture of previous?)
A Paladin if defined as a hybrid (archetype) tank (role) should be a tank, so even if they are defined as a hybrid (archetype) as a tank their healing should apply to self only.
But i really hate the idea of support role that means they can do 2 roles. That really destroys the trinity... either support the trinity or dont. Support role should just be instead a buffer/debuffer etc. But really support role should be dropped, their should just be different flavors of tank/heal/dps. a dps that gets the dps by debuffing. a healer that gets great heals by warding. etc.
Their have been many other systems attempted, i actually do like Rifts a lot. It really allows more of bring your friends and not the class.
Mippy said:
NoobieDoo you articulate a great system, but I want to disagree with your hybrid definition. Hybrids should still be strictly in their defined role.
By EQ definitions: http://everquest.wikia.com/wiki/Hybrid or https://www.everquest.com/classes
"Hybrid is one of the 4 EverQuest archetypes, along with Caster, Melee and Priest.
Hybrids include bards, beastlords, paladins, rangers and shadow knights.
Hybrids are able to fight in melee range as well as using spells (or songs for the bard) to fight from a distance or to help other players."
The term hybrid is that they are mixing melee, healing and casting and it their Archetype.
Different from the ?role? an archetype performs: tank, healer and dps, support (mixture of previous?)
A Paladin if defined as a hybrid (archetype) tank (role) should be a tank, so even if they are defined as a hybrid (archetype) as a tank their healing should apply to self only.
But i really hate the idea of support role that means they can do 2 roles. That really destroys the trinity... either support the trinity or dont. Support role should just be instead a buffer/debuffer etc. But really support role should be dropped, their should just be different flavors of tank/heal/dps. a dps that gets the dps by debuffing. a healer that gets great heals by warding. etc.
Their have been many other systems attempted, i actually do like Rifts a lot. It really allows more of bring your friends and not the class.
I think the term "Holy Trinity" in the gaming aspect has been diluted over the years. In early EQ the trinity was Warrior/Cleric/Enchanter. Once you had those three classes you then finished filling your group. As the game progressed and expanded a bit the trinity then evolved to tank/healer/Slow because if you didnt have a slow from a chanter/shaman/bard your tank was most likely going to get rocked a lot. And either of those roles could be filled by a couple different classes. Some were better then others but you could get by with different group make ups. Then WoW took it to the next level doing away with utility classes all together and we see the trinity as tank/heals/dps. So for me its not a matter of if I support the trinity or not I think its more about what version of the trinity do you support.
For me personally I am good with either of the first two versions however I do lean towards number 2. The reason for that is because of the hybrid classes. The hybrid classes in my opinion bridge the gap for group make up. But my definition of hybrid is different. A paladin is a hybrid between tank and heals. A druid is a hybrid between heals and nukes and so on. Each one might lean more to one side then other but thats ok. Quick side note I have no issues with warriors being the choice for main tanks in raids and clerics being the main healers with support from other off tanks and other healers. So back to speaking from a group stand point I think its ok for hybrids to bridge the gap. It was not until the PoP expansion if I recall that you would see a druid solo healing an exp group. If you didnt have a warrior/cleric duo you could take that pally/shaman/druid trio and still do well. That is another reason like the the group size of 6. It allows flexibility to mix and match classes. The idea of bring the friend not the class is good in theory but is not that simple to implement if you want class diversity. Sometimes friends need to decide what roles to play to have a group with just friends. Or you need to make friends with people who will fill the void.
WoW has implemented the bring the class not the friend idea and look at the current state of classes. They are all so homoginized it truly is bring the friend not the class because nothing is unique. The only real variable now is melee or ranged and that for some classes isnt even an issue. We have a druid in our guild for fights where ranged is better he goes boomchicken. On fights where melee is better he goes feral. Tanking is even worse. I have warrior tank and a monk tank. Both of my hot bars are set up identical on each one. This is because they both have identical abilities. They may have different names and different icons but they all to the same thing nothing is really different. The only thing my monk has that is somewhat different is toss my kegs at range for AE threat picking up mobs.
So after all that said ...... its so hard to compare class structures in games today because they are so far gone from what a lot of us cut our teeth on. I for one am hoping the pendulum is swinging back the other direction.
Mippy said:
Hybrids should still be strictly in their defined role.
By EQ definitions: http://everquest.wikia.com/wiki/Hybrid or https://www.everquest.com/classes
The term hybrid is that they are mixing melee, healing and casting and it their Archetype.
Different from the ?role? an archetype performs: tank, healer and dps, support (mixture of previous?)
A Paladin if defined as a hybrid (archetype) tank (role) should be a tank, so even if they are defined as a hybrid (archetype) as a tank their healing should apply to self only.
But i really hate the idea of support role that means they can do 2 roles. That really destroys the trinity... either support the trinity or dont. Support role should just be instead a buffer/debuffer etc. But really support role should be dropped, their should just be different flavors of tank/heal/dps. a dps that gets the dps by debuffing. a healer that gets great heals by warding. etc.
Their have been many other systems attempted, i actually do like Rifts a lot. It really allows more of bring your friends and not the class.
Obviously we disagree on what a 'hybrid' class should be. Which is fine. But you give an EQ definition of the term and this is Pantheon not EQ. I tried giving my own spin on the term in hopes of something new.
Second, you said you hate the idea of support role that means they can do 2 roles but then you said you like Rifts system a lot. In Rift every single class can do all 4 roles so I'm a little confused at what you are trying to say.
I LOVE the holy trinity, well I love the necessity of individual roles. I'd prefer more than just 3 role types as I exclaimed 5 role types in my post. Which is why I do NOT support Rift's class system. Rift is a fun game don't get me wrong but if I were to create a game I would avoid its type of class system.
I love my description of hybrid because it allows a few classes to play multiple roles. Not every class, just a few. There WOULD be a trade-off for that ability though. A pure class (non-hybrid) would have its benefits for being strictly a tank or strictly a healer which would ensure that hybrids would not become OP. A class system where most classes play a strict role (tank, healer, dps, support, CC, etc) only becomes more dynamic if a few classes can be NOT so strict.
edit. And since we disagree on what a hybrid is our definition of a support class is sort of different I guess. Support roles to me are the debuffers and buffers. I guess it's a fine line of whether to determine a CC as support or as its own individual class. But IMO a support class, whether it is CC or not, usually falls under the DPS category. It's rather limited for a class to be solely support so in my eyes they tend to be higher on the dps charts than say the tank or healer.
great posts. yeah i totally agree that i hope we get back to unique classes. but i hope unlike eq1, it was managed better where all classes could be used in every group size ( i mean 1-2 tanks, 1-2 healers, 1-2 dps). And i agree this isnt eq1 and it shouldnt be... eq1 had a bunch of polished turd design choices, as i say from my extremely vast arm-chair mmo design experience.. eh eh eh eh, i mean obviously VRI is apprehensively sitting in their chair ... what is Mippy going to post now!!!
So i guess my vote is for any system where classes are unique but any can fit their role. All classes should be fully viable and easily slot-able in end game content. When people lose the hope that one day they can raid... they stop playing. Even people who have no intention of ever stepping foot in a raid quit, because i think most people have self respect and dare to dream.
But I wonder who would play a paladin tank if they couldn't tank endgame content. Why would they tank all the way up to end game content then switch to dps or heals. It doesn't make sense, make a warrior and stop playing it, if you want to dps in raids, make a dps so you learn the nuances of dps'ing as you group and level.
edit: i think i answered my own question on last paragraph. you dont want that... then you get what you see.. if the paladin is a tank they should be a tank, that way when you get that class in a group, you always know what you are getting and what people expect of you... not ... oh i dont have that talent/spec/AA yet. Or I'm gonna rogue heal you with bandages m'kay, not dps, i clearly said rogue heals, that's tongue in cheek. :)
Kayd said:
I don't like questions like this because somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that there are other options that we haven't seen yet in an existing game that the developers may have in mind (i.e. color mana system).
... i am intrigued. please explain. But in the end all the systems are controls for the dev's to be able to manipulate classes after they hit live. So how does this handle it? Is this a Skyrim'esque system? or i played a mobile mmo called Toram Online. where all the classes if you can call them that, used magic. no matter what all your special abilities used mana points, warrior/archer/mage/brawler.
Kayd said:
I don't like questions like this because somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that there are other options that we haven't seen yet in an existing game that the developers may have in mind (i.e. color mana system).
I agree there is stuff we have not seen that could be great. In a sense a good developer is always balancing the old, familiar and stable with the new, creative, and dynamic. But that is also partly scary because sometimes the developers set out to be so new, creative and innovative they leave the core altogether like Guild Wars 2 in my opinion. And even other games have distanced themselves so much the foundation gets lost. I believe this dev team has a solid grasp on what they want to accomplish. I would be lying though if I said there was not a small sliver of me that gets nervous when I hear things like "We have a new idea on how to improve system X". Ideas of how to improve stuff over the years have been ideas on how to completely try to reinvent the wheel .... then they wonder why it failed.
Mippy said:
Kayd said:
I don't like questions like this because somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that there are other options that we haven't seen yet in an existing game that the developers may have in mind (i.e. color mana system).
... i am intrigued. please explain. But in the end all the systems are controls for the dev's to be able to manipulate classes after they hit live. So how does this handle it? Is this a Skyrim'esque system? or i played a mobile mmo called Toram Online. where all the classes if you can call them that, used magic. no matter what all your special abilities used mana points, warrior/archer/mage/brawler.
If you are referring to the color mana system listen to part 2 of the last roundtable where it is explained in decent detail. It should be under the news sections.
I prefer the EQ1 style AA system where you grow it over time and can tweak with more granularity. This allows you to augment what you can already do better over time.
I think the trouble some games get into with an AA-type system is that they add abilities tied to certain point thresholds and those abilities become "must have" abilities causing cookie cutter paths which takes some choice away from players to customize more granular.
Ability thresholds work in theory, but probably tougher to balance, scale with content/level increase, and may be tougher to ensure there isn't any "must have" abilities over other abilities. This is why I prefer more of a stat-based which help a good bit of point-based ability balance and cookie cutting concerns.
The thing I list most about an AA system is it's ability to scale for the most part in both solo playing, group playing, or raid playing. You're always making steady progress at getting stronger be it through short-playtimes or long play-times. At the end of your session, you've likely inched closer to the next point and get stronger, even if you didn't level or change gear. The long-term play ability and growth is what I enjoy of the system.
spyderoptik said:
I prefer the EQ1 style AA system where you grow it over time and can tweak with more granularity. This allows you to augment what you can already do better over time.
I think the trouble some games get into with an AA-type system is that they add abilities tied to certain point thresholds and those abilities become "must have" abilities causing cookie cutter paths which takes some choice away from players to customize more granular.
Ability thresholds work in theory, but probably tougher to balance, scale with content/level increase, and may be tougher to ensure there isn't any "must have" abilities over other abilities. This is why I prefer more of a stat-based which help a good bit of point-based ability balance and cookie cutting concerns.
The thing I list most about an AA system is it's ability to scale for the most part in both solo playing, group playing, or raid playing. You're always making steady progress at getting stronger be it through short-playtimes or long play-times. At the end of your session, you've likely inched closer to the next point and get stronger, even if you didn't level or change gear. The long-term play ability and growth is what I enjoy of the system.
I like that last part you said about inching closer and getting stronger even though it was not changing gear or what have you. For instance just this morning I logged into a game did a couple daily quest then logged off because there was nothing really for me to do. Nothing I did had any significance or made my character stronger.
Mippy said:
But I wonder who would play a paladin tank if they couldn't tank endgame content. Why would they tank all the way up to end game content then switch to dps or heals. It doesn't make sense, make a warrior and stop playing it, if you want to dps in raids, make a dps so you learn the nuances of dps'ing as you group and level.
Not sure if you misunderstood me or if this was even directed at me at all in the first place.
What I meant by my example of the hybrid paladin was that FIRST and foremost they are a tank. A tank that can tank JUST as good as a PURE strict tank (ie warrior). The paladin could tank single group content, raid content, etc. BUT its secondary role, being the healer, could NOT heal just as good as a healer. The hybrid is not meant to be the end all class of classes, it's meant to be a class that has multiple play styles for those people who like to mix it up a bit. So the idea is for the hybrid's PRIMARY role is to perform JUST AS good as any other class who solely performs that role. A tank hybrid can tank just as good as a pure tank class, or a healer hybrid can heal just as good as a strictly healer class. It's the secondary roles that can't perform as well. The secondary roles can perform well in single group content (albeit the proper gear and set up) and be used as a main in those situations but should never be able to main tank or main heal a raid if that's what their secondary role is. They could possible be used as a back up in raid situations but that's another topic for another discussion for another day. ;)
Cheers!
- Noob
I too am a huge fan of the EQ AA system. I love that it gives you many months of things to do to improve your character long after you have maxed out in level. I would like this same system in Pantheon albeit an enhanced version of it. To me it would be nice if there were 3 types of AA for each given class. One type would be a general type that all classes could utilize (run faster, hold your breath longer, etc. etc.). The second type would be only those abilities available within your specific class. Thirdly I would like to see specific AA not only be class specific but also requiring you to choose some specialization path (i.e. Druids could focus more on heals or more on DD or more on improved buffs, etc.). If t his third category didn't make it into the game, no biggie, but I would *love* to see a system very similar to EQ's AA system.
Jason said:
I too am a huge fan of the EQ AA system. I love that it gives you many months of things to do to improve your character long after you have maxed out in level. I would like this same system in Pantheon albeit an enhanced version of it. To me it would be nice if there were 3 types of AA for each given class. One type would be a general type that all classes could utilize (run faster, hold your breath longer, etc. etc.). The second type would be only those abilities available within your specific class. Thirdly I would like to see specific AA not only be class specific but also requiring you to choose some specialization path (i.e. Druids could focus more on heals or more on DD or more on improved buffs, etc.). If t his third category didn't make it into the game, no biggie, but I would *love* to see a system very similar to EQ's AA system.
I agree with most of this, my only request would be that these abilities are very small. I always fear AA's will become needed for some content or make other content worthless. I honestly hated to see guilds out gear content (AA's can do the same thing). When execution became sloppy and the could still beat the encounter it lost satisfaction.
Do you guys feel the AA system in EQ was over powered? I quit at the GoD expansion so I do not know how it went after that. Eventually yes some things become staples like the Massive group buff one for buffers. Guilds wanted you to have that and stuff like that. But did you think the class ones were to OP? I remember my necro friend having wake the dead. That was such a cool one. Enchanters had some powerful charm like dire charm or something. At that particular expansion I dont recall anything being to game breaking that you had to have it for content or content being designed around the power of the AA. Am I mistaken or what is pretty balanced up until then? It has been a while since I have even looked at AA trees from way back then.
Raroic said:
Do you guys feel the AA system in EQ was over powered? I quit at the GoD expansion so I do not know how it went after that. Eventually yes some things become staples like the Massive group buff one for buffers. Guilds wanted you to have that and stuff like that. But did you think the class ones were to OP? I remember my necro friend having wake the dead. That was such a cool one. Enchanters had some powerful charm like dire charm or something. At that particular expansion I dont recall anything being to game breaking that you had to have it for content or content being designed around the power of the AA. Am I mistaken or what is pretty balanced up until then? It has been a while since I have even looked at AA trees from way back then.
I don't think they were over powered. But back when I played EQ, I never really looked at anything as OP. There were classes that were better at PvP than others, but I never really looked at balancing classes from a PvP standpoint. As far as tanks went most raids typically relied on a warrior as the MT, but it was overall any class could ultimately work for their specific roles.
There were AA's that definitely made a huge difference, the defensive AA's especially for the tanks, monks could get rapid feign and stonewall, reducing their FD timer and making it so spells did not break their FD. That enchanter Dire charm was not overly powerful but beneficial, I think it only worked on mobs up to level 51, so eventually the AA to control the enchanter pet was better.
From what I remember, higher end guilds typically had a set amount of AA points required to join but rarely any specific aa requirements. And really the only classes that needed specific AA's were tanks having their defensive aa's and maybe healers having their healing aa's in order to be most effective. Pulling kind of died out after PoP, that specific pulling aa's for monks were not required even. Pet classes usually required pet hold AA for raids, and the ability to control pet's and their push (not an AA).
Now eventually some of the abilities did get to be a bit much. I remember at level 75 as a monk there was a disc that you could use every 30 seconds that give you 3 strikes, with the appropriate crits, you could do some serious damage.