Possible future hero classes.

[DelusionalBear]

Necromancer will never be a class in game. Imagine 5 of them in raid where each of them has 5 skeletons and golem. That would be total clusterfuck and RIP for potato PCs.

same concern can be applied to the DKs with an army of the dead, yet they do exist.

[Hitei]

same concern can be applied to the DKs with an army of the dead, yet they do exist.

This. BM Hunters also frequently have 3-5 pets out.

[Rotted]

Dragon Knight is a possibility, using the last of the Aspects' power to train them.

Passive to turn into a dragon instead of a mount ftw

[Deleted]

This. BM Hunters also frequently have 3-5 pets out.

BM hunters has pets only for few seconds. and army is only on start on the fight.

[DelusionalBear]

and army is only on start on the fight.

still, its like 40 seconds of potato PCs dying left and right. outrageous!

[Hitei]

BM hunters has pets only for few seconds. and army is only on start on the fight.

BM has 2 pets out all the time. In just 850 gear, my alt hunter has a 10s CD on dire beast (up for 8 seconds) which means that for 80% of a fight, I am guaranteed to have 3 pets out. Dire beast CD has a 20% chance to be reset anytime a BM hunter crits with an auto-shot. In high end gear you are probably looking at 4-6 pets out for the majority of a fight.

[Lodreh]

...SHADOW HUNTER

Looks like a Shaman to me: Link

[Teriz]

I think witch doctor/shadow hunter type of troll class which communicates deeply with the Loa and uses voodoo, nature magic, yet also physical weapons like ranged weapons for one spec, and spear, daggers or glaives for the other dps spec and probably staff for the healing spec. It would make sense if we get to see Zandalar in the next expansion. Also shamans have so little voodoo stuff it would definately fill a gap. Also troll lore is incredbly cool! Might fuse some alchemy into that class aswell. So much potential.

Eh, Shaman got the majority of the voodoo stuff from the WC3 units. The entire concept of totems came from the Witchdoctor and Shadow Hunters. Healing Totem and Sentry Totem can be traced directly back to the Witchdoctor, Healing Wave, Searing Totem, and Hex can be traced directly back to the Shadow Hunter. Only thing the Shaman class is missing from the voodoo characters is Big Bad Voodoo, and since they already have talents called Voodoo Totem and Voodoo Mastery, it wouldn't be surprising if they just gave that to them as well. It actually would fit perfectly in the Restoration spec.

You'd also have to come up with an explanation of how Voodooism spread beyond the trolls and into the Alliance. Voodoo is pretty strictly a troll practice, which is why Blizzard just wrapped it into the Shaman class. Orc Shaman and Farseers, Troll Witch Doctor and Shadow Hunters, and Tauren Spirit Walkers form the backbone of the Shaman class.

Secondly I see tinker being a possibillity but I think the witch doctor type of class makes a lot of sense. I know what hero I thought was the most badass in WC3... the troll shadow hunter and playing survival in Legon feels more like a tinker than that. Its tragic what kind of spec fantasy they did for survival.

Wielding/throwing a spear, dropping traps, and chucking grenades is really nothing like a Tinker.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like a Shaman to me: Link

Exactly. 10/chars

[Blackmist]

Something ranged. Don't care what. Blizzard has not added a single ranged spec to the game at any point, unless you count unlocking shaman for alliance.

[TriHard]

Point is that while Tinker MIGHT become a thing, you shouldn't expect it in the near future. That's probably many many years away and realistically, will you still play the game 4-6 years from now?

I HIGHLY doubt they'll do another class for 8.0 so don't expect it to be anytime soon.

[Konteil]

i think maybe adding a new spec to existing classes to allow for more diverse gameplay could work. much beyond that i think were pretty full up at this point.

[Hitei]

Point is that while Tinker MIGHT become a thing, you shouldn't expect it in the near future. That's probably many many years away and realistically, will you still play the game 4-6 years from now?

I HIGHLY doubt they'll do another class for 8.0 so don't expect it to be anytime soon.

I've been playing it for 12 years, why wouldn't I still be playing it in a few more?

[HeiAggra]

Well... yes but not for the reason you're thinking. They're called hero classes because Warcraft 3 had heroes and those heroes had classes. A hero class is a class that is 100% straight from a hero class in WC3. This is also the reason why Paladins and Shamans were exclusive to the horde and alliance. Paladins were a hero class in WC3. Shamans were... not really but they closely resemble the Farseer hero and I guess Blizzard thought they were close enough to be the class of the horde.

Here's a list of hero classes from Warcraft 3 http://wow.gamepedia.com/Warcraft_III_heroes


Edit: This is also why you keep seeing suggestions of Dark Rangers or Shadow Hunters as new hero classes.

Sorry but that is a list of Hero's in WCIII not Hero classes.

[Teriz]

Point is that while Tinker MIGHT become a thing, you shouldn't expect it in the near future. That's probably many many years away and realistically, will you still play the game 4-6 years from now?

I HIGHLY doubt they'll do another class for 8.0 so don't expect it to be anytime soon.

You're more than likely correct. I'll probably still be playing, depending on how the next expansion turns out. Wasn't a huge fan of WoD or Legion. Loved MoP though.

[Kiradyn]

Point is that while Tinker MIGHT become a thing, you shouldn't expect it in the near future. That's probably many many years away and realistically, will you still play the game 4-6 years from now?

I HIGHLY doubt they'll do another class for 8.0 so don't expect it to be anytime soon.

Don't be so sure.

Blizzard released races back to back in Cataclysm and MoP, so patterns mean nothing.

[Ielenia]

I'm talking about abilities.

And none of them have 'unarmed' abilities.

Which isn't the point. The point is that he's a Monk that isn't Pandaren based, and existed prior to MoP.

It wasn't the point? Sounds like you thought it mattered enough to (wrongly) point it out:

There was also Eramas Brightblaze who had several Monk style abilities, including a potion that he drank to heal himself.

That real-world differentiation doesn't apply to video games though. There's plenty of games where "Monk" is synonymous with a priest who fights with their bodies and some type of magic.

And those games focus solely on the eastern type of monk, not the western.

Before MoP, there were several examples of Monk characters that had melee abilities and martial art moves that weren't associated with the Pandaren Monks.

I'll give you melee abilities, but.. 'martial arts moves'? Nope. None of them had anything of the sort.

[TriHard]

Don't be so sure.

Blizzard released races back to back in Cataclysm and MoP, so patterns mean nothing.

Well, I hope you're right. I hope they realize that a new class, although it brings a few balance nightmares, do carry at least 25% of an expansion if not even more.
I find new classes to be very important to the game's life cycle.

Same goes for races and new race / class combos.

[Fyersing]

The point is that you don't know how Blizzard views the performance of the Monk or Pandaren class, thus saying that Blizzard views those statistics a certain way is grossly inaccurate.

I don't really want to argue the point anymore.

Your position is that how well-received something is/isn't is somehow irrelevant, or that Blizzard is jubilant about something they've released being largely ignored, relative to other releases. It's possible, certainly, but not likely when you consider the purpose of a business.

Actually it does, because if people find a class enjoyable, they will play it. Which is why a class like Druid is consistently extremely popular. Interestingly, a Tinker class could take many positive aspects of the Druid class.

As a preface to this comment, we'll both have to concede that fun is absolutely relative to the player.

That being said, it's interesting that you don't see many threads either on MMO-C or the official forums wherein the subject matter is a general critique of Monks as being "unfun", and yet they're still highly underplayed; meanwhile, you'll find dozens of threads about how Demon Hunters (specifically, Havoc) are extremely lackluster and even clunky if you're not blessed by RNG-Oranges, yet they're the second most played class in Legion content.

So it's fairly evident that the theme of any given class is an important factor, perhaps even the most important factor, that the average players considers when selecting a class. To suggest otherwise is, well, naïve.

Except none of the current available classes for Gnomes or Goblins are thematically linked to their racial cultures, so we don't know how someone would react to a class based largely around their racial culture. For all we know, part of the reason these races are less popular is because the available classes are too much of a clash with the high tech nature of Goblins and Gnomes.

So your position is, "yes, people don't play them, but not because they don't like them... but because they actually want more of them than we have". Noted.

Actually Worgen existed in the game world as villains before they were introduced into game. Additionally, Worgen were linked the highly popular Druid class, and became the second alliance race to be able to play as a Druid. Druid remains the most popular class for Worgans. Draenei were the first alliance race to be allowed to play Shaman in TBC, AND they are able to roll Paladins.

1) I said they didn't exist in their current form, which they didn't.
2) The rest of this is just a list of contrived excuses for why Gnomes/Goblins didn't jive well with the playerbase -- unfortunately the rationale that would make this relevant doesn't really apply, otherwise Tauren would be the most popular race Horde-side because of how many of the most popular classes are available to it and probably likewise with Dwarves.

Incorrect. The Monk class is a perfect example of your "Outlandish" and "Fantastical" arguments earlier that turns off a typical WoW player. Are you now arguing that a main staple of your argument is unimportant and unrelated to class popularity?

Not at all, it's simply a matter of severity.

The class, Monk, is probably best described as being slightly less-than-outlandish, slightly less-than-fantastical, and more of a bizarre novelty -- a foreign concept, to be sure, but certainly not as discordant with the existing setting as a Tinker. That said, clearly, their somewhat playful/comical/whimsical inspiration(s) has detracted from the class overall. They, Monks, are almost as underplayed as Pandaren/Gnomes/Goblins despite being available to almost all of the races.

Which suggestion would that be? A mech-based Tinker class wouldn't use any of those things, except probably a few fire-based abilities.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ss-Idea-(Long)

So then, I shouldn't take your words at face-value?

Again, an important detail because it prevented established players from picking up a Monk as an alt, or even as a main switch.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

It wasn't an issue, because while Monks began at level 1 (and everyone else, at 85) anybody who was seriously planning on swapping to Monk was capped to 90 only a few hours behind those who began at 85. This is because Monks have 50% experience boost buffs, which essentially last forever, that works alongside heirlooms and (at the time) guild perks. If you had a Monk and a DK race to 100, right now, the Monk would almost certainly win.

Not on the level of the Monk class. Mistweaver spec for example was changed multiple times in MoP. So yeah, wrong again.

Blood DK's in Ulduar. Frost/UH DK's had their roles changed in Cataclysm. Survival Hunters. Combat Rogues. Warlocks, numerous times.

If you genuinely think that some Chi costs being raised or lowered is the same level of design change as others have seen throughout the years, you're delusional.

The difference between Tinkers and Monks is that the only way a Tinker has been shown is via the Goblin and Gnome mode, since those races are the home of mechanical technology in WoW. Additionally, WoW players have had experience with Gnomes and Goblins piloting mechs, so a class that does the same wouldn't be too much of a shock to them.

It's not about it being a surprise, it's about it feeling out-of-place. Not sure why this is hard to understand.

As for Tinkers not getting support, or being an unpopular concept, again, there's Tinker threads popping up throughout the related forums. The Tinker is easily one of the most popular WoW class concepts out there. Also based on the number of FM Tinker examples in game, you could say that Blizzard is giving them support in game.

The problem is, utilizing forum posts as proof of concept is even less representative than just /yelling out questions about who would/wouldn't play Tinkers in Dalaran. The number of unique people who'll weigh in in /trade in a 120-second period will be more than the number of unique people who'll weigh in on this thread for it's entire life.

Which is like saying that Demon Hunters were an unpopular concept until 2016 when Blizzard released the class in Legion.

Not really. I was speaking to the fact that an unpopular race isn't likely to become popular solely because Blizzard implements Tinkers (who're entirely based on said unpopular race). Not only were DH's extremely popular conceptually, already a distinction between them and Tinkers, but so were Night Elves.

Oh look, another example of you trying to push your personal opinion as fact.

It's based on anecdotal evidence, sure, but it's not a personal opinion. It's my belief that Tinkers would be entirely acceptable, assuming as I do that they wouldn't ever be implemented in the way you and a few others have described previously; but it's also my understanding that restricting them to or drawing inspiration solely from the least popular race on each faction is a terrible idea.

Maybe when you grow up a bit you'll associate with a better swath of people who don't consider something they dislike "gay".

You don't get to choose who responds to you in /trade, unfortunately. We can't all live in the massive delusion you do, where Gnomes and Goblins are popular and will save World of Warcraft in ways nothing else can. /sarcasm

This simply shows you don't know how WoW classes work. Outlaw Rogue is a Buccaneer, Rangers are Hunters, and every Dragonsworn concept overrides a variety of classes. The internal conflict is pretty obvious, because Blizzard would have to take abilities from existing classes in order two construct 2-3 viable specializations. That leads to the feeling of every class feeling the same, and leads to boredom among the player base.

This is how they've always floated bedrock aspects of would-be classes. This isn't new, and it isn't something I'm confused about.

That you think your methodology is better than Blizzards suggests you may need to turn your accusations inward. Your statement should've started with, "This simply shows that you don't know how WoW classes should work, according to me, Teriz. He who thinks forcing you into things you don't like, will suddenly make you like them..."

A Tinker class would be unlike any other class in the game, so those conflicts wouldn't exist. As your posts have shown, the only thing that supposedly works against this class concept are certain people who dislike Gnomes and Goblins for whatever reason. I highly doubt Blizzard uses that criteria when it comes to class creation. Why? Because while there are people who dislike Gnomes and Goblins, there are people who love, like, or don't mind them. That's the audience that Blizzard would aim for if they ever decided to introduce this class into the game.

The class not being popular isn't solely because people don't like Gnomes/Goblins, there are naysayers for every race, they've got a problem with how many people actually like them. The percentage of players who play Blood Elves (16.9%) is fairly high, meaning if something comes out that is new and exciting for Blood Elves you've got a fairly sizable fan-base who will be fairly inclined to play it without any regard for how fun/unfun the class is -- conversely, the percentage who play Goblins (3.2%) is exceptionally low, meaning if something comes out that is new and exciting for Goblins you're got only a very small portion of the fan-base who will be inclined towards playing it unconditionally.

There are a little over 2.5 million Blood Elves that are between levels 100 and 110, of which 26.5% (668,000+) are Demon Hunters. So let's assume that rate-of-play would hold true for any/all future race-restricted classes, meaning we're assuming that Tinkers are just as popular among Gnome/Goblin players as Demon Hunters are among BE/NE players, this is what the spread might look like:

There are 308,715 Goblins between 100 and 110. At 26.5% rate-of-play, that means we'd see about 81,000+ Tinkers.
There are 439,413 Gnomes between 100 and 110. At 26.5% rate-of-play, that means we'd expect to see about 116,000+ Tinkers.

This would mean a total count of somewhere around 200,000+ Tinkers.

As a comparison, consider that Monks are the least played class by a fair bit and even then they're sitting somewhat comfortably at the 726,000+ range. Even if Tinkers somehow doubled, or tripled, the total number of people willing to play Gnomes/Goblins, it'd still be less popular than Monks and a coinflip in terms of monetary success (risky moves aren't really Blizzards thing, if you haven't noticed). Just, isn't likely. Now, if they were to open the class to other races we can then have a more realistic discussion, but then the class isn't really "Tinker" anymore if you've got Blood Elves using Anima Golems and Humans using Arcane Construct Suits, is it?

Hence, why I figured out of all your suggestions, Artificer was the more likely one.

Addendum: I don't really care to back-and-forth anymore. You're position(s) rest upon Blizzards right to creative liberty and excess, while I'm just asserting that such liberties and excesses run contrarily to intelligent business decisions -- it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong, Blizzard gon' do what Blizzard does. All we can do is be ready for the "I told you so's" when they do/don't do something.

[Thimagryn]

Sorry but that is a list of Hero's in WCIII not Hero classes.

Where do you think the concept of Hero classes come from? Paladin and Shaman was planned be a 'Hero' class before they implemented it as faction-specific core classes in Vanilla. Our current knowledge of potential core and Hero classes are still being derived from Warcraft 3.

[Ielenia]

Where do you think the concept of Hero classes come from?

Not from the WCIII unit list. Rather, it comes from the lore developed for said class.

Paladin and Shaman was planned be a 'Hero' class before they implemented it as faction-specific core classes in Vanilla.

Were they? I don't recall ever reading anything of the sort. Got any sources?

Our current knowledge of potential core and Hero classes are still being derived from Warcraft 3.

Wouldn't that make the Monk a hero class as well, considering the Pandaren Brewmaster was a hero unit in WCIII as well? It's even listed in that list you linked earlier.