View Poll Results: What do you think?

Voters
758. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yeah, it makes sense.

    408 53.83%
  • Nah, it has to be a New Class!

    86 11.35%
  • Nah, it'll just be one or the other.

    141 18.60%
  • Nothing will be added in the next expansion.

    123 16.23%
Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
... LastLast
  1. #261
    The Lightbringer shise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Spaniard in Copenhagen
    Posts
    3,791
    4th spec would be like wondering if they should add diesel cars to replace our mounts.


    It simply doesn't fit in the game.

  2. #262
    On one hand, I can see it happening. There's a lot of gear drops these days that are barely used. (eg. Int plate, spirit cloth)

    So adding the extra specs would create a lot more variety for players and add in a whole ton of utility.

    But with that, a whole lot of other complications come into play.

    First of all, the balancing of 4 specs across 11 classes would be a nightmare and a half. Especially for PVP.

    Second, with 4 specs, dual spec would just be expected of all classes. Which would mean carrying around more gear and making more gear readily available. Otherwise the point is pretty much lost with it all.

    Also, designing fights around new specs would make things even more difficult for 10m raid teams who may struggle to find the optimal raid makeup.

    And that's just at the top of my head... I dunno. It's possible, but it's a lot of work and it does complicate things a bit too much.

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by rogas View Post
    enhancement shaman is allready on the brink of being a tank... some minor adjustments and it's a tank. Don't see a dk or warrior being able to heal with tiny minor adjustments...
    demonology warlocks are much closer to tanking than enhancement shamans ever were. in vanilla, enhancement could tank only up till level 40 dungeons. warlock dark apotheosis was so good at tanking blizz had to take away demo's crit reduction and make our taunt not work on raid bosses just to make sure warlocks wouldn't replace the "proper" tanks in normal and heroic raiding.
    Warlorcs of Draenorc made me quit. You can't have my stuff.

  4. #264
    Dreadlord Aronaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    784
    I'd love to tank as a shaman! Good thread.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by shise View Post
    4th spec would be like wondering if they should add diesel cars to replace our mounts.


    It simply doesn't fit in the game.
    Wow is 3 letters so 3 specs? There's something in the lore that states only 3 specs? I don't understand.

  6. #266
    Free Food!?!?! Tziva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    WHEREVER I WANT AINT NO ONE GONNA DO NOTHIN ABOUT IT IMMA T-REX
    Posts
    10,843
    Adding a fourth spec to all the classes would be really cool in theory but I think would be an enormous task for Blizzard. It would be effectively like adding eleven new classes, as far as balance goes.

    It would be way, way, way easier for them to just add a new class if they were going to.
    AbathurSnuggles: Blizzard Alpha Videos

    For Moderation Concerns, please contact a Global:
    TzivaDarsithisRaduxArleeSimcaElysiaZaelsino

  7. #267
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Tziva View Post
    Adding a fourth spec to all the classes would be really cool in theory but I think would be an enormous task for Blizzard. It would be effectively like adding eleven new classes, as far as balance goes.

    It would be way, way, way easier for them to just add a new class if they were going to.
    I think the massive Demon Hunter thread has forced me to disagree with this belief. For starters, you'd have to develop this new class from scratch. You would have to make sure it fills a niche that is absent or underrepresented. Then you have to create the necessary lore functions for this class to be in the game. Once you have that in place, you need to develop class flavor and uniqueness. That requires new abilities, new talents, and completely new animations. Then you need to 3 distinct specs that again cannot overlap significantly with other classes.

    Certainly the numbers are higher with 4th specs, but 4th spec depth is a lot lower. Not to mention it boosts the current classes in the game.

  8. #268
    Herald of the Titans Uzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Moravia
    Posts
    2,993
    Quote Originally Posted by shise View Post
    4th spec would be like wondering if they should add diesel cars to replace our mounts.


    It simply doesn't fit in the game.
    Let's pretend goblin mounts don't exist.

  9. #269
    I actually love that idea. Would add an entirely new twist to the game. As long as everything was very balanced, I would much rather love that idea than a new race and class

  10. #270
    mage one might be interesting. rest are already in game

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I think the massive Demon Hunter thread has forced me to disagree with this belief.
    And I think you had a preformed opinion before you even started the threads.

    For starters, you'd have to develop this new class from scratch.
    Which has been done before in 2 expansions. Its just 3 specs which are sortof related to each other due to being same class.

    You would have to make sure it fills a niche that is absent or underrepresented.
    True, if there's no need, don't deploy it.

    Then you have to create the necessary lore functions for this class to be in the game.
    It has to fit in the expansion's theme (which DK and monk were). It will be intertwined with this theme from the ground up, so what you state here is merely part of the development of the content.

    Once you have that in place, you need to develop class flavor and uniqueness.
    No, that is largely the same as
    You would have to make sure it fills a niche that is absent or underrepresented.
    without that, you won't even bother to consider implementing the new class (which, contrary to what you imply, you do before the expansion is finished).

    That requires new abilities, new talents, and completely new animations. Then you need to 3 distinct specs that again cannot overlap significantly with other classes.
    Yes, and as we've demonstrated throughout all these threads your ability to accept "distinct specs that cannot overlap significantly" isn't very great. For example, you vehemently insist an other, second class getting (x)bow/gun somehow makes hunters completely irrelevant and by itself is already not providing niche. This while the hunter is the only class in-game who have a monopoly on these weapon drops. How many times did you do DS "and the bow dropped again"?

    Certainly the numbers are higher with 4th specs, but 4th spec depth is a lot lower.
    It was about 30% more specs in-game. These specs need to have a kind of unique mechanic, feel, and abilities. They need to be balanced within themselves, within the other specs the player hsas within PvE solo, in PvE 5m, in PvE in 10m/25m/25LFR, in PvP 1v1, in PvP arena, in PvP (rated) BGs. Adding new specs is incredibly complex (except for druid which was already 2 specs with 1 in-between hybrid style which is now still in talents), and so is adding a new class with 3 new specs, but the difference is not 3 vs 10 because of all the relations and possible combinations. Blizzard is failing this right now. Monks in PvP? Hunters and warriors in PvP? And those are the obvious examples. It is already incredibly hard and complex.

    Consider the hypothesis: you have a bowl with 25 balls in it. If you take one ball out there's a 4% chance the ball is 1. But the possible combinations you can get with ball #1 are 24. If you were to take ball #2, it'd be same. And this is only if we grab only 2 balls (1v1). The combinations we get are much more complex because they involve more than 2 players!

    Not to mention it boosts the current classes in the game.
    Which they don't need. We need classes and specs to be unbroken instead, and maybe a few new abilities which add depth.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by rogas View Post
    enhancement shaman is allready on the brink of being a tank... some minor adjustments and it's a tank. Don't see a dk or warrior being able to heal with tiny minor adjustments...
    Don't recall ever saying anything about DK healing. I just want my variety and choices back, it was a cornerstone of the selling point of DK's. No reason we couldn't get a 2nd tanking spec. And to respond to what you're saying, no Enhancement is miles away from where it used to be with regards to tankability. See below:



    Quote Originally Posted by checking facts View Post
    demonology warlocks are much closer to tanking than enhancement shamans ever were. in vanilla, enhancement could tank only up till level 40 dungeons. warlock dark apotheosis was so good at tanking blizz had to take away demo's crit reduction and make our taunt not work on raid bosses just to make sure warlocks wouldn't replace the "proper" tanks in normal and heroic raiding.
    Pretty much.

    In vanilla Enhancement was 1h/board until like level 40 you could spec for 2h. You could spec for dodge and armor boosts, Frost Shock had a threat modifier. Enhancement, since it has become a DW spec, has not been this close to "tanking" since.

  13. #273
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    And I think you had a preformed opinion before you even started the threads.
    You can tell from that title that I had a pre-formed opinion. However, my belief that adding a spec compared to a class was formed during that 52-page long thread.

    Which has been done before in 2 expansions. Its just 3 specs which are sortof related to each other due to being same class.
    Yes, but that becomes harder and harder due to both the addition of new classes, and specs changing over time. For example, adding a Demon Hunter class seems less likely now because Blizzard morphed Demonology utilizing aspects of the Demon Hunter unit.

    No, that is largely the same as without that, you won't even bother to consider implementing the new class (which, contrary to what you imply, you do before the expansion is finished).
    I never implied that. Also filling in a niche isn't the same as class flavor. For example, Monks fill the niche of a martial artist class that uses kicks and punches. Their flavor derives from the Brewmaster unit, and the Pandaren culture, which differentiates them from other types of monks in the game.

    Yes, and as we've demonstrated throughout all these threads your ability to accept "distinct specs that cannot overlap significantly" isn't very great. For example, you vehemently insist an other, second class getting (x)bow/gun somehow makes hunters completely irrelevant and by itself is already not providing niche. This while the hunter is the only class in-game who have a monopoly on these weapon drops. How many times did you do DS "and the bow dropped again"?
    You misunderstood the argument. It was having a class called Demon Hunters next to a class called Hunters. Both of which using physical ranged abilities and traps. That's called class overlap. If you implement a Demon Hunter class that is using Metamorphosis and Demonic abilities, you cause class overlap with Warlocks. However, if Warlocks get a Demon Hunter spec, or Hunters get a Demon Hunter spec ala Diablo 3, no class overlap occurs.

    It was about 30% more specs in-game. These specs need to have a kind of unique mechanic, feel, and abilities. They need to be balanced within themselves, within the other specs the player hsas within PvE solo, in PvE 5m, in PvE in 10m/25m/25LFR, in PvP 1v1, in PvP arena, in PvP (rated) BGs. Adding new specs is incredibly complex (except for druid which was already 2 specs with 1 in-between hybrid style which is now still in talents), and so is adding a new class with 3 new specs, but the difference is not 3 vs 10 because of all the relations and possible combinations. Blizzard is failing this right now. Monks in PvP? Hunters and warriors in PvP? And those are the obvious examples. It is already incredibly hard and complex.
    Except its not quite that complex. Building a spec for a new class is quite a bit different than building a spec for an existing class. Let's say I wanted to develop a class called Geomancer, and I wanted it to tank/dps/heal. They would be forced to wear mail armor, shields, and probably wield axes and maces. Right off the bat I'm running into problems because lore dictates that Geomancers are elemental warriors. There's already an elemental warrior in the game, and that is Shaman. Now I not only have to develop new spells, I have to develop new spells and mechanics that won't overlap with Shaman. I also need to figure out what stats this class is going to use, what type of range and melee this class is going to use, I'm going to have to develop an entirely new talent tree, etc.

    Meanwhile, if I just create a Geomancer Shaman spec, the majority of those problems are gone because the theme of the class is firmly in place. The talents may need some tweaking to get the spec to fit properly (though some may need an overhaul), but in general, I won't need to come up with an entirely new system for this spec to operate in. I won't even need to come up with all new abilities. I can use abilities from other specs, and even use some old ones from old WoW that may have been discarded. Right off the back, if we're building a Shaman tank we can immediately bring back toughness and 2 handed specialization, or shield specialization, and anticipation. We can utilize Rockbiter weapon and maybe even Frostbrand Weapon right off the bat since they are barely used. We could take Primal Strike and make it into a powerful ability since Enhance barely uses it. We know that this new spec will probably share the elemental shields from the other specs since that is a class theme, so we can give this tank Lightning, Water, or even Earth Shield. Heck, we could even make a brand new shield. We have the 4 elemental shocks. We have Ghost Wolf for mobility. We have the totems for utility.

    The skeleton for a 4th spec is in place, and we didn't even create any new abilities yet. New abilities will need to conform to the general style and flavor of the class, which isn't a huge deal because we have 3 older specs to pull from and model after. Class overlap isn't a huge danger because the Shaman class is an established part of the overall class balance. As long as we stay in the perimeter of what Shaman are, their lore, and their general style, the new spec will fit fine with the older specs and the other classes in general.

    I don't even know where to start with the Geomancer class.....

    Which they don't need. We need classes and specs to be unbroken instead, and maybe a few new abilities which add depth.
    If you're talking about PvP, PvP will always be unbalanced and broken. It will never be equal across the board.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-01-30 at 09:27 PM.

  14. #274
    The implementation of a fourth spec for the other ten classes is already in place. With no talent trees, all Blizzard has to do is come up with ten cool themes/ten different Masteries. Then copy/paste a couple spells, shake well, and they're done. People who enjoy the thematic qualities of a particular class get to enjoy different roles, shorter queue times, and more depth without having to reroll.

    I agree with Teriz that the resources involved with creating 10 new 4th specs if FAR less than an entirely new class. Hell, they could probably do a "warlock-green-fire instance" for each one to unlock them and still come out ahead.

    The people crying about balance issues after this feature are probably the same people who cry about balance today, i.e. they have no argument about the change itself just Blizzard's balancing issues. Take that somewhere else.

    No one gets "forced" into healing or tanking if your class has it available. Oh, your guild does? Well, your crappy guild doesn't make four specs a bad feature for everyone else. And why don't you grow a pair?

    It's a great idea that doesn't harm the existing classes (like taking away my precious Frost DK Tank did) and gives players more options (2Hd Shaman Tank!!!).
    Last edited by Futhark; 2013-01-30 at 09:51 PM.

  15. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yes, but that becomes harder and harder due to both the addition of new classes, and specs changing over time. For example, adding a Demon Hunter class seems less likely now because Blizzard morphed Demonology utilizing aspects of the Demon Hunter unit.
    They can morph it back, or overhaul the spec. Demonology didn't change that much, its just that Metamorphosis is now a burst CD which has to load up and can be unleased depending on how full the battery is. Speaking for my own class, I rather see them fix the various problems my class and its 3 specs have than adding a fourth. I really don't want some kind of Psion or Mesmer or whatever you can think about fourth spec, I want to see the 2 healing specs either competitive or have them merged and then have a third spec added. I rather see shadow fixed (which is utterly broken in 5.0, 5.1, and will remain broken in 5.2 by the looks of it) instead of a fourth spec. Problem here is, GC is the fellow who does the balancing and design of specs and classes.

    Lets have the hypothetic case for warlocks. Instead of the overhaul the warlock class received in MoP (removal of overlap, cruft, destro unique spells and mechanism, demo unique spells and mechanism, affli mostly like the original warlock) you'd rather have a fourth spec? I wonder what people who main a warlock think about that. I got 2 warlock alts level 90, and I sure as hell enjoyed them a lot due to the class overhaul. But if it wasn't needed, I rather not have them "make a class more complex than the sake of it" which means I support the notion of a 4th class if it makes sense, but otherwise I don't agree.

    I never implied that.
    You claimed it is some kind of after thought which is part of the end of development in class design. It isn't!! Only if the original design is very broken. Else, they'll try to do some minor tweaks or adjust some numbers.

    Also filling in a niche isn't the same as class flavor. For example, Monks fill the niche of a martial artist class that uses kicks and punches. Their flavor derives from the Brewmaster unit, and the Pandaren culture, which differentiates them from other types of monks in the game.
    Yeah, and it fits because our theme is Asian, Pandaria. All of this is decided at the beginning of the expansion design, not the end. The end is for fine tuning, redefining.

    You misunderstood the argument. It was having a class called Demon Hunters next to a class called Hunters. Both of which using physical ranged abilities and traps. That's called class overlap. If you implement a Demon Hunter class that is using Metamorphosis and Demonic abilities, you cause class overlap with Warlocks. However, if Warlocks get a Demon Hunter spec, or Hunters get a Demon Hunter spec ala Diablo 3, no class overlap occurs.
    I understand your argument all too well, I just find it ignorant. For example dismissing an idea because the class name is in another class name is plain ignorant. As if that means we gotta rule it out? If Blizzard really wants the class, they'll work around it (for example by renaming the demon hunter class, or by renaming the hunter class). They did the same with mortal coil and hunter pets. Traps? Who argued traps should be part of DH arsenal? Only you did!! Your other argument is physical ranged abilities: are you seriously willfully ignorant that you don't notice the similarites between a mage, a spriest, and a warlock using ranged magic? All 3 of which are wand users, while hunter has monopoly, all of which have overlap by magic type with other classes (ele shaman, boomkin, frost DK, and specs of the mentioned classes)? Class overlap is always there, and some of it is good.

    Except its not quite that complex. Building a spec for a new class is quite a bit different than building a spec for an existing class. Let's say I wanted to develop a class called Geomancer, and I wanted it to tank/dps/heal. They would be forced to wear mail armor, shields, and probably wield axes and maces. Right off the bat I'm running into problems because lore dictates that Geomancers are elemental warriors. There's already an elemental warrior in the game, and that is Shaman. Now I not only have to develop new spells, I have to develop new spells and mechanics that won't overlap with Shaman. I also need to figure out what stats this class is going to use, what type of range and melee this class is going to use, I'm going to have to develop an entirely new talent tree, etc.

    Meanwhile, if I just create a Geomancer Shaman spec, the majority of those problems are gone because the theme of the class is firmly in place. The talents may need some tweaking to get the spec to fit properly (though some may need an overhaul), but in general, I won't need to come up with an entirely new system for this spec to operate in. I won't even need to come up with all new abilities. I can use abilities from other specs, and even use some old ones from old WoW that may have been discarded. Right off the back, if we're building a Shaman tank we can immediately bring back toughness and 2 handed specialization, or shield specialization, and anticipation. We can utilize Rockbiter weapon and maybe even Frostbrand Weapon right off the bat since they are barely used. We could take Primal Strike and make it into a powerful ability since Enhance barely uses it. We know that this new spec will probably share the elemental shields from the other specs since that is a class theme, so we can give this tank Lightning, Water, or even Earth Shield. Heck, we could even make a brand new shield. We have the 4 elemental shocks. We have Ghost Wolf for mobility. We have the totems for utility.

    The skeleton for a 4th spec is in place, and we didn't even create any new abilities yet.

    I don't even know where to start with the Geomancer class.....



    If you're talking about PvP, PvP will always be unbalanced and broken. It will never be equal across the board.
    There is always overlap. Monks use energy -> not unique. Monks use mana -> not unique. Monks use chi -> similar to holy power. And so on, and so on. If you want to make the specs feel unique, merely theme isn't enough. We saw that in warlock, and after their design overhaul the 3 specs are each very unique and complex without reusing their signature spells. Their non-spec specific spells (the ones shared) only have to be designed once which goes against your argument because it means we only need to design the class once, and then give it 2 more specs (while still keeping the first spec unique). Designing the core of the class is part of the start development of the new expansion.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  16. #276
    Herald of the Titans RicardoZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    2,569
    I'd rather have 4th spec and a new class than new models. New models just isn't something that's on my radar, I don't understand why people are so uppity about it. Ironically, I tend to play the game zoomed in fairly close to my toon most of the time, whereas most people pull the camera out so far that they wouldn't even be able to see the new models anyway, but they're foaming at the bit to get them. *shrug*

  17. #277
    Meh, can't see it happen, these new specs will outshine the 3 other ones, which ain't a good thing

  18. #278
    I did prefer the other option of a priest specc. The moon version that someone listed. It would be a melee version
    No Envy, No Fear


  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Futhark View Post
    The implementation of a fourth spec for the other ten classes is already in place.
    Where?

    With no talent trees, all Blizzard has to do is come up with ten cool themes/ten different Masteries. Then copy/paste a couple spells, shake well, and they're done. People who enjoy the thematic qualities of a particular class get to enjoy different roles, shorter queue times, and more depth without having to reroll.
    Blizzard stated they're quite reluctant to this idea because they realize there's a good reason why pures roll pure (intentional). If you ever played a hybrid's DPS spec you surely heard "go tank" or "go healer" before.

    I agree with Teriz that the resources involved with creating 10 new 4th specs if FAR less than an entirely new class. Hell, they could probably do a "warlock-green-fire instance" for each one to unlock them and still come out ahead.
    You do realize 10 of these is a lot of work?

    The people crying about balance issues after this feature are probably the same people who cry about balance today, i.e. they have no argument about the change itself just Blizzard's balancing issues. Take that somewhere else.
    I can only speak for myself, stating I don't mind a 0-3% margin in terms of balance (which is really fine graining balance), but do mind if one class is simply unable to burst beyond ~6 sec while another can burst (much higher) for 20 sec. If said same class is also say the worst multiDoTer, and among the worst single target (both static and during movement) it doesn't take a genius to realize who's going to reroll, respec, be boosted, or be benched. And is it coincidence said class/spec combo was the one designed last in MoP? Since the same fellow who's working on class and spec design is also the one who's responsible for balance between classes and specs my argument makes a lot of sense. I rather have him work on class balance than new classes and then class balance those 44 specs which would, every tier, be a lot more work than it is now (as I explained the complexity is exponential not linear!!!!!!!!!!!)

    No one gets "forced" into healing or tanking if your class has it available. Oh, your guild does? Well, your crappy guild doesn't make four specs a bad feature for everyone else. And why don't you grow a pair?
    Life isn't as easy as you put it. People will be forced to reroll, play a certain spec in a PuG, some people roll a pure just cause they don't like playing an other member of holy trinity, etc.

    It's a great idea that doesn't harm the existing classes (like taking away my precious Frost DK Tank did) and gives players more options (2Hd Shaman Tank!!!).
    If you add a new spec, or change an old one, you always affect existing classes. Always in ways you did not foresee or intend. Class and spec balance, it is a huge, large, and complex ecosystem.
    Last edited by lolalola; 2013-01-30 at 10:29 PM.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  20. #280
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    They can morph it back, or overhaul the spec. Demonology didn't change that much, its just that Metamorphosis is now a burst CD which has to load up and can be unleased depending on how full the battery is. Speaking for my own class, I rather see them fix the various problems my class and its 3 specs have than adding a fourth. I really don't want some kind of Psion or Mesmer or whatever you can think about fourth spec, I want to see the 2 healing specs either competitive or have them merged and then have a third spec added. I rather see shadow fixed (which is utterly broken in 5.0, 5.1, and will remain broken in 5.2 by the looks of it) instead of a fourth spec. Problem here is, GC is the fellow who does the balancing and design of specs and classes.
    You're grossly underestimating the changes in the Demonology spec. Metamorphosis alone was a massive change from what it was in Cataclysm. It was already a burst CD in Cataclysm. In MoP its almost like a Druid form, with a lot more abilities. It also revolved around a resource system. There is also Imp Swarm, the shadowbolt changes, and the change to Hand of Gul'dan. And of course there's Dark Apotheosis.

    Demonology is nothing like what it was in Cataclysm.

    As for PVE specs being competitive, that's been an issue since Vanilla, and its never going to be solved. Holy had significant issues against Discipline in the previous expansion as well. Its probably never going to change. The game shouldn't be stifled because of that.

    Lets have the hypothetic case for warlocks. Instead of the overhaul the warlock class received in MoP (removal of overlap, cruft, destro unique spells and mechanism, demo unique spells and mechanism, affli mostly like the original warlock) you'd rather have a fourth spec? I wonder what people who main a warlock think about that. I got 2 warlock alts level 90, and I sure as hell enjoyed them a lot due to the class overhaul. But if it wasn't needed, I rather not have them "make a class more complex than the sake of it" which means I support the notion of a 4th class if it makes sense, but otherwise I don't agree.
    I think most Warlock players would jump for joy if they received a Demon Hunter spec. I can't imagine them being too upset about it, especially if it tanks, is melee or psuedo-melee.

    You claimed it is some kind of after thought which is part of the end of development in class design. It isn't!! Only if the original design is very broken. Else, they'll try to do some minor tweaks or adjust some numbers.
    Again, I didn't claim that.

    Yeah, and it fits because our theme is Asian, Pandaria. All of this is decided at the beginning of the expansion design, not the end. The end is for fine tuning, redefining.
    I never said any different. I was talking about flavor vs. niche and how they aren't the same thing.

    I understand your argument all too well, I just find it ignorant. For example dismissing an idea because the class name is in another class name is plain ignorant. As if that means we gotta rule it out? If Blizzard really wants the class, they'll work around it (for example by renaming the demon hunter class, or by renaming the hunter class). They did the same with mortal coil and hunter pets. Traps? Who argued traps should be part of DH arsenal? Only you did!! Your other argument is physical ranged abilities: are you seriously willfully ignorant that you don't notice the similarites between a mage, a spriest, and a warlock using ranged magic? All 3 of which are wand users, while hunter has monopoly, all of which have overlap by magic type with other classes (ele shaman, boomkin, frost DK, and specs of the mentioned classes)? Class overlap is always there, and some of it is good.
    The only overlap between those classes is that they all use magic. Since its established that there are different types of magic out there, it stands to reason that there would be different types of casters. Its pretty ridiculous to believe that anyone would consider a Mage who utilizes Arcane magic, fire magic, and ice magic is overlapping heavily with a Shaman who is using Elemental magic, totems, and restorative magic. Further I don't think anyone would imagine much overlap between those two casters and Druids who use nature magic from Plants, animals, and the stars.

    There is always overlap. Monks use energy -> not unique. Monks use mana -> not unique. Monks use chi -> similar to holy power. And so on, and so on. If you want to make the specs feel unique, merely theme isn't enough. We saw that in warlock, and after their design overhaul the 3 specs are each very unique and complex without reusing their signature spells. Their non-spec specific spells (the ones shared) only have to be designed once which goes against your argument because it means we only need to design the class once, and then give it 2 more specs (while still keeping the first spec unique). Designing the core of the class is part of the start development of the new expansion.
    Yeah, a resource being used by different classes isn't really the same thing. Its the abilities and a class' niche in the game that causes overlap. For example, a Shaman and a Paladin both use mana as a resource, but the classes differ from each other on multiple levels.

    As for Warlocks, several spells were re-used. They just were used in different ways. For example, Metamorphosis was changed significantly, as was Shadowbolt. Hand of Gul'Dan was changed completely, talent concepts were expanded, Blizzard gave the Warlocks new ways to interact with their pets, etc. Blizzard didn't reinvent the wheel with the new Lock specs, they just updated it using the previous themes and making them more distinct from each other. IMO they were very successful at that, and the rising Warlock population is proof of that.

    The point is; Its far easier to expand on an theme than it is to create a brand new one.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-01-30 at 10:32 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
  •