Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
30
... LastLast
  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Um, no. 'Class balance' also means reducing/increasing even just one single ability in the game. Say, for example, that Frost DKs were fine in all their abilities, but their Artifact ability, Sindragosa's Fury, was doing way too much damage (or way too little). Nerfing (or buffing) only said ability is still 'class balance'.
    But we're talking about vanilla, not just a single DK ability. In Vanilla most specs were useless and most classes were relegated a single role to play competitively. You're also ignoring all the huge changes to itemization and other systems throughout the expansions and patches so that the Frost DK in your argument only needs a single ability change to attain that "Frost DKs were fine in all their abilities"

    Are you naive enough to believe that simply changing the damage of class abilities will be enough to attain class balance for all the classes in Vanilla WoW?
    Last edited by corebit; 2017-11-21 at 03:42 AM.
    When we looked at the relics of the precursors, we saw the height civilization can attain.
    When we looked at their ruins, we marked the danger of that height.
    - Keeper Annals

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I do hope you know that it doesn't mean it didn't come from inexperience or oversight.


    Blizzard rarely, if ever, admits their mistakes. They're not adverse to fixing things if they indeed are mistakes, but they won't admit it was a mistake. They'll claim it was what the players wanted, or that they're trying new things, but say "we were wrong in doing X?" I don't think Blizzard has even said anything to that effect even about the no-flying fiasco that happened during WoD.

    Because making a nigh 30% "tax" on dps for hybrid classes? The tax itself alone is a bad idea, but 30% is just way overkill. The excuse that "people wouldn't use pure-DPS classes" does not work for such a gigantic tax. Because you're not giving incentive for players to use the pure-DPS classes to DPS. You're basically forcing them to. Again, as I said before: it throws all the development time and resources used on those dps and tank specs completely meaningless because you killed any chance of those specs seeing any real use beyond this "hey, what's this?"
    So...when did you start playing WoW?

    And why are you so bent on being right about them being wrong? Why can't you accept that they made intentional choices about their classes and evolve them as they collected feedback? It doesn't HAVE to be considered a mistake just because we don't do it that way anymore. It was pretty different than anything else in the landscape. Things can evolve without being wrong.

    Also, even pure-DPS couldn't DPS, they were gated behind threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiili View Post
    Murder can be justified and to a certain extent I believe genocide can be justified aswell.

  3. #383
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Mindark View Post
    And why are you so bent on being right about them being wrong? Why can't you accept that they made intentional choices about their classes and evolve them as they collected feedback?
    One statement does not preclude the other. Also, yes, it doesn't necessarily have to be considered a mistake just because later it was modified... however, even back then, I imagine the idea of 'wasting resources' was still basically the same as it is today. This is how I see things: we only have two options. Either the developers created the "hybrid tax" and made impossible for paladins and druids to tank fully aware of the possible consequences, thanks to their know-how and experience, then that makes them incompetent and wasteful, for assigning so much development time and resources on things that are very unlikely to be used by the vast majority of the players, if at all. However, if the "hybrid tax" and the druid/paladin tank issue was intentionally made without realizing the real possibilities of making such specs nigh-unviable, then that makes them inexperienced, or that they had an oversight.

    This is how I view the situation.

    Also, even pure-DPS couldn't DPS, they were gated behind threat.
    Another thing I attribute to inexperience/oversight. Because the idea has a bit of merit... but the execution was horrendously bad. Again, in my opinion.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I hope you realize you just made my case about inexperience/oversight.
    Or poor execution/implementation.

    Also it really depends on their design goals. I.e. If their intention is to maximize the playerbase within a raiding context (which we can assume it was and is, especially at later dates), it is bad design. If their intention to capture 'old-school' RPG feels (which seems to be their earlier guiding philosophy, with some accessibility twists thrown in to differentiate from their competitors of the time), then it was a good decision.
    Last edited by RapBreon; 2017-11-21 at 05:08 AM. Reason: Clarity of phrase.

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Mindark View Post
    So...when did you start playing WoW?

    And why are you so bent on being right about them being wrong? Why can't you accept that they made intentional choices about their classes and evolve them as they collected feedback? It doesn't HAVE to be considered a mistake just because we don't do it that way anymore. It was pretty different than anything else in the landscape. Things can evolve without being wrong.

    Also, even pure-DPS couldn't DPS, they were gated behind threat.
    When did you start playing? I'm trying to get some perspective of where you're coming from. Why do you keep dodging this question? I promise, it isn't to be used against you.

    You're speaking of this from the viewpoint of 2017, not one that understood the game as it was in 2004. You cannot do that. You don't understand what the game was, but you're taking it upon yourself to judge it. If WoW Vanilla was released today, your points will be valid. But it wasn't. It was released 13 years ago. Things were different. You're looking at everything form a raiding viewpoint. That was 3% of the population. That wasn't end game. They didn't cater towards raiders. Most of what you're saying is irrelevant and out of context.

    Threat management was important for both tanks and DPS. It was mostly the sign of a tank though. Again, I can't really speak to any real examples that you would personally relate to, because I don't know your WoW experience.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiili View Post
    Murder can be justified and to a certain extent I believe genocide can be justified aswell.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by pateuvasiliu View Post
    The whole purpose of hybrid classes is that they cannot match a pure DPS class. If Hybrids could DPS as good as pure classes there'd be no point in playing the pure breds.

    The Vanilla manual clearly states Druids can turn into other classes but are weaker at the cost of versatility.
    I can accept lower dps. But I believe Blizzard overvalued utility when they set the hybrid tax so high. Halve it and see what happens.

  7. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    Because being a paying customer of a company you actually expect something from is apparently detestable.
    Because they should bend to every paying customers will?
    I'm a thread killer.

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by blankfaced View Post
    Because they should bend to every paying customers will?
    Businesses are known to earn income by pleasing customers.

  9. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by blankfaced View Post
    Because they should bend to every paying customers will?
    well its always better to bent to payin customer then to non-paying one who wants everything for free

    at the end of the day its called buisness not charity

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaver View Post
    I don't think it was the intended design in 2004 to make Ret, Feral and Shadow bad for raiding.
    it wasnt intended in 2004 to have the game run for over a decade...or for the raid bosses to drop loot since that was a hotfix

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Talvindius View Post
    As rational as this post is there's 0 chance of everyone agreeing with this. Apparently some of the charm of Vanilla was having actual useless class specs, god knows why.

    If classes were re-balanced and the rest of the content remained the same I think that's a successful upgrade from retail Vanilla. It's all that's probably needed to improve the experience aside from maybe some graphical updates.
    someone brought up
    tbc talents as a way to fix some specs

    prot pally gains a shit ton and warriors become worse

    now lets say just number tweaking

    specs are buffed but bosses will keel over quicker and the pure dps classes lose spots to utility classes

    vanilla was not designed in a way that would allow class balance without a ton of reworking because while specs like shadow were shit in raiding they were good in pvp so buffing them for raiding means buffing them in pvp at the same time because it wasnt separated at that point.

    as some other posters have pointed out blizz is a business and they will do what makes the most sense from a business perspective: relaunch it as it was with little to no extra changes in order to conserve resources
    i really want someone to give me an example of a class change that will work without knock on effects

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulthane View Post
    Well they actually can "balance" the classes and still keep it Classic.

    By Balance I mean which patch do we want to have? Would it be jarring to keep going through patches over and over?

    Or would it be safe to take the best iteration of any given spec from a patch and implement it?

    Example: Holy Strike and Crusader Strike on Paladins still (Which wasn't removed until a later patch in vanilla)

    Biased bs opinion: Classic for me was when I was able to use those abilities in tandem with other spells. That is my version of classic. huehuehue

    But no seriously: Take best moments for classes in a patch and put it in. gg
    yeah totally put things like reckoning bomb in again....nothing wrong with that

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by Excellion View Post
    You mean just how Dankdruid called someone else the problem just because he had a different opinion than him?
    You should read that post again. He wasn't calling him out for having a different opinion.
    You come from the greatest country in the world. Act like it.

  12. #392
    Another you think you do but you dont.

  13. #393
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Mindark View Post
    You're speaking of this from the viewpoint of 2017, not one that understood the game as it was in 2004.
    Yes, I am using a viewpoint of 2017, because the game will be re-released in 2018+ (I'm assuming it won't be ready in just one month, considering what little they've shared about the project). I readily admit that the state of vanilla classes in terms of DPS were an intentional design decision, thanks to the "hybrid tax". I'm also willing to assume the state of paladin/druid tanking during vanilla was also intentional design.

    However, those decisions being intentional does not mean they're not a product of inexperience and/or oversight. The hybrid tax was a mistake, because it means shadow priests couldn't be anything other than mana batteries, feral druids were just the guild's pet mascot, and prot/ret paladins were the guild's jester (kind of hyperbolic, I know, but I hope you get the point).

    If the intention was to have paladins be healers (and only healers, if the vanilla tier set bonuses were anything to go by), then adding a dps and prot spec to the class was, indubitably, a development waste.

    Perhaps, one the reasons people liked the way it was back then, was because there was no other alternative. People didn't know paladins and druids could be viable tanks, because those specs were intentionally hamstrung. Shamans, priests, paladins and druids couldn't be dps because, again, those specs were intentionally held back. That is not good design. Not today, not back then. How do I know? Take a look at Diablo 2, from 2000. Four years before WoW. All classes had three "talent trees". Let's look at the sorceress: fire, frost and lightning. Fire was consistent damage, frost was low damage but snare/freeze, and lightning was very high damage with the caveat of also possibly doing very low damage (basically all spells had 1-XXXX damage range). All three were viable. Can you imagine how not fun it'd be if only one of those three specs was really viable, with the other two drastically under-performing?

    You can argue that Diablo 2 wasn't designed with group play being its focus, and I'll grant you that. However, that doesn't excuse what was done to player classes in vanilla. Games existed for a long time before WoW. So did RPGs. Blizzard wasn't exactly threading uncharted terrain when developing WoW.

    Threat management was important for both tanks and DPS. It was mostly the sign of a tank though.
    I'll admit I do like the threat managing bit, but not to the extent that it was back in vanilla, when tanks had to spend most of the time worrying about threat than keeping themselves alive. I wish Blizzard reached a 'happy medium' instead of going to the other extreme, of not having to worry about threat at all.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by zantheus1993 View Post
    i really want someone to give me an example of a class change that will work without knock on effects
    What if they change the aura system so that they apply to raid instead of just the group you are in?

    As an example, the feral druid attack power crit buff, or the paladin bonus armor aura. Wouldn't this make some hybrid classes inherently more valuable without changing anything they do in other parts of the game?

    Edit: Basically I'm saying, what if instead of buffing the class, they instead doubled down on the hybrid bonuses and made what they brought to the raid more valuable to everyone else?
    Last edited by Kilee25; 2017-11-21 at 04:13 PM.
    "Falling from heaven is not as painful as surviving the impact."

    DPS Loss - my guild on Proudmoore
    The Old Guard - my guild on Earthen Ring
    Revenant - my guild on Echo Isles

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by Uselessrouge View Post
    "we want vanilla"

    but we want class balance , transmog , account mounts , looking for group , name change , server change , dual spec , raid buffs , no buff mats , wow tokens , and new raids


    oh wait you got all that.. play the lattest version of the game.. poeple wanted classic for a reason just stop wanting stuff now why not enjoy the old feeling , if you dont like it dont play it?
    You're being so dramatic. I have seen so many people complaining about how people want a vanilla LFG/LFR but have never actually seen someone suggest or ask for it yet.

    I want all the vanilla inconveniences but I don't want to play a game with bugs and only 4 viable specs. This slippery slope argument doesn't make much sense, there is a huge difference between making vanilla a bit more playable and making it more convenient to play and I trust the developers to see the distinction.

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Mindark View Post
    I asked what gave holy its identity. It's easy to see how prot has theirs. But when holy plays exactly the same as disc, what is their identity?

    So far, you've dodged asking multiple times what a disc priest is and now what vanilla's holy identity was. Spoiler alert. The fantasy of a PRIEST is to heal. That fantasy is not reserved to a spec, but the class. Shadow deviated from that. Because who wants a 3 spec healing class (member those threads? I member)?

    So, I'll ask again. What was vanilla's holy priest identity? Difficulty: The answer cannot apply to discipline priests.
    First of all let's make something really clear, when you guys say disc spec, it's actually holy. It's a 21/30 build to get the spirit buff, that was the regular cookie cutter priest build in vanilla that almost everyone was running because respec was a bitch, spirit is good for 5man and lightwell was useless no one clicked it. Only fucking weirdos went 31 in disc for PI to become a mage's bitch and heal for less and lose the synergy with spiritual guidance. It was a loss, not a gain, but dps liked it cuz in their selfish mind it was good for them. That's a lot of good talents wasted to get something that in the end doesn't do much.

    Everything in the holy page improves the holy spell, even shit for the holy dmg spell. Disc did like arcane, increase magic dmg by flat amount, mana management shit, all generic crap that helps other spec without being a spec of its own. There nothing more obvious than the fact that discipline is a filler spec. Holy identity is healing people through the holy power of light. Most holy spells have names and descriptions that fit this fantasy and the tree improves on that. Disc is about being sturdy and stoic, preventing dmg rather than healing it, but the spec has so little that it needs to do holy stuff to become useful.

    The thing is not that both specs have the same identity, it's that disc has no identity so it steals it from holy or else it's just gonna stand there doing nothing.
    You see how specs are different now and have been for a while. Notice how disc changed far more than Holy? That's because holy is the core healing spec of priests when class design was made. Back then it was fine to have an entire talent page that was not really a spec. Arcane is the same thing. People didn't pick a spec like they do today, they played a class more than just a spec. Disc was also where the extra points were for shadow priests, cuz disc is the filler page with helpful generic talents for priest in general.

    So, I'll ask again. What was vanilla's holy priest identity? Difficulty: The answer cannot apply to discipline priests.
    That's your made up rule that doesn't work. Priest is about the conflict and control of good vs evil, light vs shadow, either by controling the light as holy, controling shadows as... well shadow and being the stoic figure of authority, balancing both forces in the middle as discipline, using neutral magic to prevent harm because of the lack of holy power to heal allies. The problem is that there is not enough active disc spell to make this fantasy come to life so it has to be filled by the use of holy spells. They made a good class fantasy job with disc when all they did was spam shields but it was too OP so it got nerfed to the ground, lost its popularity, now it's some clunky shit that use holy magic to do dmg which heals. At least it has its own playstyle but the fantasy is fucked up again.

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    I can accept lower dps. But I believe Blizzard overvalued utility when they set the hybrid tax so high. Halve it and see what happens.
    They definitely didn't. Paladin is very strong in PvP.

    Ele Shaman can 1v1 a lot of classes with some PvP gear.

    Here's your problem, those specs aren't meant to do good in both PvE and PvP, they're meant to be good for one thing only. If Ele Shaman could PvP AND PvE it would be broken and there'd be no reason to go pure DPS class.

  18. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by Uselessrouge View Post
    you dont think making all classes balanced will make the content trivial? i think if they change classes content will become lfr mode when evry class does 3 times more dmg then they actualy did
    There is a difference between making classes OP and overtuned, and making it so every class' spec has the proper tools for it to do its job in a group (e.g. every tank spec SHOULD have a taunt, that really isn't a tool that is optional to do your job efficiently).

  19. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by Swalload View Post
    That's your made up rule that doesn't work. Priest is about the conflict and control of good vs evil, light vs shadow, either by controling the light as holy, controling shadows as... well shadow and being the stoic figure of authority, balancing both forces in the middle as discipline, using neutral magic to prevent harm because of the lack of holy power to heal allies. The problem is that there is not enough active disc spell to make this fantasy come to life so it has to be filled by the use of holy spells. They made a good class fantasy job with disc when all they did was spam shields but it was too OP so it got nerfed to the ground, lost its popularity, now it's some clunky shit that use holy magic to do dmg which heals. At least it has its own playstyle but the fantasy is fucked up again.
    What the fuck are you going on about, neutral magic? Show me where in Vanilla OR Chronicals where this nonsense is true.
    The tooltip of it was, "Draws on the soul of the party member to shield them."

    Bubble botting wasn't fun or a good fantasy. They didn't do a good job with the fantasy because it just required spamming one spell. Also, if you were locked out of your holy school you couldn't cast it. OH MY GOD BUBBLE BOTS WERE HOLY ALL ALONG!!!!

    Current disc fantasy is MUCH better imo, and our opinions differ and that's fine. What isn't fine is you're wrong again! Current disc playstyle varies situationally - shadow mend is used a lot more in 5 mans than raids, and atonement healing is used more in raids than 5 mans (when 7.0 dropped, anyway.) ALL damage is converted to healing, not just holy damage. Having a higher skill-cap doesn't make it clunky, sorry it's not as mindless as your preferred one-button-win bubble bot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swalload View Post
    Look man, no one wants to read about how little you know about warlocks, it's a fucking waste of everybody's time. Stop being wrong, learn from me, I know more than you. It's really that fucking simple, not everyone knows the same thing in this world, you just happen to stumble in a situation where you don't know shit. The best thing you can do is learn instead of making a clown out of yourself.
    Take your own advice about disc. Everything you've said since my initial reply has been bullshit and back pedaling.
    Disc was a specialization, that's why it had its own tree.
    Pre 1.12 lasted a lot longer than 1.12 did, Divine Spirit was the end of the disc tree in that one, not Power Infusion.
    Just because disc didn't have a fantasy associated with it didn't mean it wasn't a spec.
    Just because spells overlapped in the Spellbook tabs didn't mean it wasn't its own spec.
    As I mentioned before, both holy priests and disc priests used six spells from BOTH sides.

    Also, Light Well was the strongest heal per mana and the most mana efficient heal in the game, you played with bad people who didn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swalload View Post
    I'm just wasting my time at this point. No one is willing to learn. I don't get anything out of this lol, you either learn or stay wrong, the outcome cannot change my day.
    Take your own advise, nobody agreed with you and you've got at least three people calling you out on your shit.

  20. #400
    Bloodsail Admiral Moggie's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,144
    Redo this spec, add that aura, take away that ability, etc... I mean, do some of y'all realize you're more or less asking for a whole different game than what Vanilla actually was? Blizz even said they're not going to have a huge team to devote to this. But jeez, some of these 'wants' or 'suggestions' are just idiotic. Why not make a new toon, level to 60 and stop xp (is that a thing anymore? I think you can still do that?) if you want Live WoW conveniences with a Vanilla flavor. Why was this even pushed by folks if all they want are easy mode content? Cause that's what you create if you add more debuff slots, hybrids being able to do everything. Bosses would die within minutes. PvP would be outlandish and ridiculous to even bother with. What is the point? You change one or two classes or other stuff and it will domino to every single aspect of a so-called 'Classic' 'Vanilla' 'Original' game.

    At some point, you just have to simply sit back and accept things which you should not be tinkering with. Nobody's going to reclaim that Original WoW game feeling, be it frustrations or joy. There are non game changing things they could add (Connected FP, Updated Graphic, Mass Looting) which do not affect classes, balance as it was or such. Those are fine. But wanting new abilities added which never even existed in Vanilla, or One xpacs talent system superimposed into Vanilla or anything which touches PvP or PVE is a bad bad idea.
    Last edited by Moggie; 2017-11-21 at 05:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •