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 18 of 24 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
20
... LastLast
  1. #341
    Fourth spec is a ridiculous idea.. its not needed at all. And i am sure there is no need for explaination.

  2. #342
    I am Murloc! Huntingbear_grimbatol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway, Trondheim
    Posts
    5,433
    Paladins and Shamans need the 4th spec like Druids got, there's not alot of specs that use agi mail and only one spec that use plate int, filling those makes alot more sense than giving hunters a 4th dps spec.
    9thorder.com | 14/14 Heroic 25-man | West 114 | Recruiting for Warlords of Draenor!

    Follow our raids on Twitch!Bear - Retribution PoV

  3. #343
    New models are already ingame. Where? Whare is new dwarf models for example? Have you ever seen Alliance hero while doing 5.1 dailies? And about specs and classes. There will be at least one more class, just because we have gear imbalance now - it will be mail wearing class. 3-spec hybrid most likely, just to keep heals vs tanks balance too(we have 5 heal and 5 tank specs now). I can at least guaraty, that it won't be pure dps. Why? Just because implementing of new class will most likely cause situation, where most of players will at least try t. And if it will be pure dps, then we will have even more problems with tanks and heals, than we have now. For example we had no problems with heals and tanks in WotLK just because we had two OP classes - DK and Paladins. No new classes in Cata, nerfing of Palas and DK - and we had lack of tanks and heals as result.
    PurePVE Addon: If Blizzard refuses to solve our problems, we will find solutions by ourselves.
    Sorry for my bad english. My signature.(Warning! 9.6Mb gif animation)
    I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios┬ęBashiok
    "No flying - no sub" Club "No tiers in LFR - no sub" Club

  4. #344
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Feio View Post
    As much as I'd like to see it, Blizzard probably won't do it. There is just too much work for them to do with balancing and all that stuff along the lines. Balancing a new class from scratch is (pure speculation here) easier than balancing a whole load of new specs.
    Well keep in mind, Blizzard redesigned Druids, Mages, Warlocks, and SPriests in MoP. That's 11 specs right there. Also they added an entirely new class and race to the game.

    Adding a new spec to each class would be considerably less work.

  5. #345
    Bloodsail Admiral Galm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Paladins: Crusader. Basically a DPS spec that does long range holy damage. (Shockadins) INT plate.
    Or how about that Polearm + Shield spec we've all been waiting for?

    I'd love to see a Warlock tanking spec.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Elapo View Post
    [...]

    Don't underestimate making a new race/class. A new race requires all new animations (and maybe the new class too, like the kicks and roll for monk), new voices, ect... a new class requires all new spells (a new spec inherits a bunch of spells from the main class), spell animations to go with them, ect...
    New class != new race. They're a separate thing.

    The fallacy lies in OP's agenda. You can notice it from merely the thread title:

    4th spec and New models instead of new class and new race?

    The thread title assumes a tinker, ranger, demon hunter, [...] class would imply also a new race which is pure, freshly dumped horseshit since the two are not mutually inclusive.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  7. #347
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    New class != new race. They're a separate thing.

    The fallacy lies in OP's agenda. You can notice it from merely the thread title:

    4th spec and New models instead of new class and new race?

    The thread title assumes a tinker, ranger, demon hunter, [...] class would imply also a new race which is pure, freshly dumped horseshit since the two are not mutually inclusive.
    What the heck are you even talking about?

    The reasoning behind this thread is that every expansion Blizzard releases either a new class or new races. The question behind this thread is this; Since MoP introduced both a race AND a class, what will be in the next expansion?

    There is no agenda. I simply created this thread because I thought it would a good discussion topic. Considering its size and participation, it appears that I'm correct. Also it would appear that the majority of readers in the thread agree that 4th specs is a possibility.

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    What the heck are you even talking about?
    Although I am replying in the thread you started I wasn't replying to you. My point is that you're inaccurate and biased and unfortunately not many are calling you out on it. I normally don't bother with threads like this tho I skim through them, but you've caught my attention.

    The reasoning behind this thread is that every expansion Blizzard releases either a new class or new races. The question behind this thread is this; Since MoP introduced both a race AND a class, what will be in the next expansion?
    Yes, I know every expansion has either a new class or a new race with the last expansion having both. Your thread title however is manipulative in the sense that it assumes both. Why would you do that? Oh, right...

    There is no agenda. I simply created this thread because I thought it would a good discussion topic. Considering its size and participation, it appears that I'm correct.
    There is an agenda in the sense that you're biased and trying to confirm your own bias with your threads. Your suggestions in class design are also seemingly creative, but actually are just the result of proper copying of other games. Credit where credit is due. Finally, you seem to still live under the impression Blizzard wouldn't bend the lore or gameplay while they already did before with the DK.

    Also it would appear that the majority of readers in the thread agree that 4th specs is a possibility.
    Anything is possible. Your sample size is too small, and your thread title is deceptive. I'm not even bothering with any possible deceptions in OP itself but if you want to challenge me call me on it and I'll shove it in your face.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  9. #349
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    snip
    Um.. Okay. I still have no clue what you're talking about bro.

    OT: The OP was updated.

    Hunters:I decided to keep Hunters as a healing class. Marksmanship could be the petless hunter spec.
    Hunters could heal using a system similar to what is seen in SWTOR using Focus instead of mana. SWTOR proved that you can create a healer without mana. I personally feel that the healing classes in SWTOR work great. Hunter pets could also be used for healing purposes. The term "Ranger" also fits, since Rangers have traditionally rescued people in danger.

    Mages: After checking out some Diablo 3 abilities like Slow Time, I'm even more convinced that a Mage healing/support spec based on Time would be a great fit. One poster even came up with a concept where a Mage would slow damage over a friendly target, effectively turning a big hit into a DoT that would be easier to manage. In short, Time magic like Hunter healing would be unique ways for these classes to heal, and separate them from current healers in the game.

    Monk: Pretty satisfied with a "caster" Monk spec. I think a lot of Monks (and players in general) would love a "super saiyan" style of Monk.

    Rogues: I've been checking out Ragnarok Online's new Ninja classes, and I think that would make a good foundation for a Rogue tanking spec. Obviously Blizzard would have to find ways to make it different than Monks. However, I think that a tank that moves in and out of shadows, uses illusions and dodges, etc. would be an interesting and fun way to tank.

    Warriors: Pretty surprised how little controversy this idea has caused. I guess people really dig the idea of a Blademaster warrior spec. I know I would.

    Thanks to everyone for their responses and votes. It's been a great thread overall. Given this thread and others that have popped up over the last few weeks, it seems that a lot of people really support the idea of 4th specs, and view it as a positive change for the game overall.

  10. #350
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Blorch - Home of the Slaughtering Rat People
    Posts
    15,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Um.. Okay. I still have no clue what you're talking about bro.

    OT: The OP was updated.

    Hunters:I decided to keep Hunters as a healing class. Marksmanship could be the petless hunter spec.
    Hunters could heal using a system similar to what is seen in SWTOR using Focus instead of mana. SWTOR proved that you can create a healer without mana. I personally feel that the healing classes in SWTOR work great. Hunter pets could also be used for healing purposes. The term "Ranger" also fits, since Rangers have traditionally rescued people in danger.

    Mages: After checking out some Diablo 3 abilities like Slow Time, I'm even more convinced that a Mage healing/support spec based on Time would be a great fit. One poster even came up with a concept where a Mage would slow damage over a friendly target, effectively turning a big hit into a DoT that would be easier to manage. In short, Time magic like Hunter healing would be unique ways for these classes to heal, and separate them from current healers in the game.

    Monk: Pretty satisfied with a "caster" Monk spec. I think a lot of Monks (and players in general) would love a "super saiyan" style of Monk.

    Rogues: I've been checking out Ragnarok Online's new Ninja classes, and I think that would make a good foundation for a Rogue tanking spec. Obviously Blizzard would have to find ways to make it different than Monks. However, I think that a tank that moves in and out of shadows, uses illusions and dodges, etc. would be an interesting and fun way to tank.

    Warriors: Pretty surprised how little controversy this idea has caused. I guess people really dig the idea of a Blademaster warrior spec. I know I would.

    Thanks to everyone for their responses and votes. It's been a great thread overall. Given this thread and others that have popped up over the last few weeks, it seems that a lot of people really support the idea of 4th specs, and view it as a positive change for the game overall.
    Has it occured to you that some people might play pures because they don't want to be pressured into gearing up a hybrid spec?

    People calling for fourth specs are, in my honest opinion, deluded and ignorant of the actual reason the Guardian spec was introduced in the first place; to delineate the tanking and melee DPS parts of a true 'hybrid' spec which as Blizzard learned with Death Knights, are basically impossible to balance in terms of abilities and gear sets.

    Fourth specs would be a massive waste of development time, especially for the pure classes; the simple reason being that adding new tanking and healing specs does not actually increase the number of available tanks and healers, and the difficulty in balancing these new specs would not in any sense be worth the minimal gain.

    TLDR: 4th specs will be about as successful as the customer-suggested McLean Deluxe.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  11. #351
    Scarab Lord MasterOfKnees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,666
    Sorry, but the chance of getting playable Ogres still makes me want them over new models for old races or a 4th spec.

  12. #352
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Has it occured to you that some people might play pures because they don't want to be pressured into gearing up a hybrid spec?
    Sure. People have numerous reasons for playing the class they play. However, if you're playing a class because you don't want to be "pressured" into healing or tanking, you're playing the game wrong. You should always play the class you want to play the way you want to play it, regardless of how others want you to play your class. This suggestion is merely giving pure players another option. Their DPS specs that they know and love are still intact.

    People calling for fourth specs are, in my honest opinion, deluded and ignorant of the actual reason the Guardian spec was introduced in the first place; to delineate the tanking and melee DPS parts of a true 'hybrid' spec which as Blizzard learned with Death Knights, are basically impossible to balance in terms of abilities and gear sets.
    Everyone understands why Druids got the 4th spec. The reason people like the idea of a 4th spec is because it opens up new ways to play their favorite classes, or it addresses issues that players have with their class and in-game lore or mechanics. For example Shaman tanking, Warlocks and DA, or Monks having nothing to do with the Red Crane celestial.

    Fourth specs would be a massive waste of development time, especially for the pure classes; the simple reason being that adding new tanking and healing specs does not actually increase the number of available tanks and healers, and the difficulty in balancing these new specs would not in any sense be worth the minimal gain.
    I don't think anyone is making that argument. The argument being made is that 4th spec opens up new options for various classes. In terms of wasting development, its only a waste if you look completely at the negative. Let's look at the positive:

    -4th specs would give players more options.
    -4th specs would revitalize the older classes.
    -4th specs would bring older players back to WoW who may have left for a variety of reasons.
    -4th specs allow Blizzard to avoid having to create a new class for the next expansion.
    -4th specs would improve existing specs by filtering new abilities into existing specializations.
    -4th specs could improve the population size of less popular classes.


    Seems like a win-win IMO.

  13. #353
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Blorch - Home of the Slaughtering Rat People
    Posts
    15,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Sure. People have numerous reasons for playing the class they play. However, if you're playing a class because you don't want to be "pressured" into healing or tanking, you're playing the game wrong. You should always play the class you want to play the way you want to play it, regardless of how others want you to play your class. This suggestion is merely giving pure players another option. Their DPS specs that they know and love are still intact.
    It is -a- reason, and a legitimate one. And regardless of whether or not their DPS specs are intact, the fact remains that the existence of a hybrid spec could and would create pressure for the player in a raid environment, the same way it does for current hybrid DPS players.

    Everyone understands why Druids got the 4th spec. The reason people like the idea of a 4th spec is because it opens up new ways to play their favorite classes, or it addresses issues that players have with their class and in-game lore or mechanics. For example Shaman tanking, Warlocks and DA, or Monks having nothing to do with the Red Crane celestial.
    If you understand it, why the hell are people using it as justification or an example for giving other classes a fourth spec at the risk of wasting a huge chunk of development resources and creating yet more imbalance.

    You think it would solve issues; adding more factors into an unbalanced equation never does balance the equation.

    I don't think anyone is making that argument. The argument being made is that 4th spec opens up new options for various classes. In terms of wasting development, its only a waste if you look completely at the negative. Let's look at the positive:

    -4th specs would give players more options.
    -4th specs would revitalize the older classes.
    -4th specs would bring older players back to WoW who may have left for a variety of reasons.
    -4th specs allow Blizzard to avoid having to create a new class for the next expansion.
    -4th specs would improve existing specs by filtering new abilities into existing specializations.
    -4th specs could improve the population size of less popular classes.

    Seems like a win-win IMO.
    If they aren't, the implications of the argument are; the fact that whenever such specs are introduced, the population of tanks and healers stays basically the same logically means that people don't play said specs, meaning it -would- be a waste of resources.

    - I don't see 'options' as a positive, I see them as yet more factors in an unbalanced equation when resources should be going towards balancing what is already there.
    - Warlocks were revitalized without having to resort to a 4th spec, there are a myriad of other ways.
    - The "bring older players back" argument is used for -every- new introduction, it's not a positive of a 4th spec.
    - Or they could just not create a new class for the next expansion, period.
    - Said abilities can be introduced by themselves without having to have a 4th spec.
    - There is no evidence it would do so, especially as I said since the less popular classes are often pure classes or ones that you are suggesting adding tanking or healing specs for.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  14. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Gweenz View Post
    Fourth spec is a ridiculous idea.. its not needed at all. And i am sure there is no need for explaination.
    Then you better get ready for disappointment, because yes, there is a need for explanation. Unless we're talking about something so obviously unworkable like building a house from cotton candy, you will always need to explain why something is "ridiculous".

  15. #355
    Instead of a 4th spec, they should change it to the following:
    1. Remove Feral as a spec. Quite frankly it's not required since it just makes a worse form of rogue with less options.
    2. Change Combat/Arcane to healing specs and Demo/BM to tanking specs.

    If they took out a 4th spec from druids and made everyone hybrids, we'd see a lot more balance as blizzard would be able to treat everyone more equally!

  16. #356
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Blorch - Home of the Slaughtering Rat People
    Posts
    15,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarella View Post
    Instead of a 4th spec, they should change it to the following:
    1. Remove Feral as a spec. Quite frankly it's not required since it just makes a worse form of rogue with less options.
    2. Change Combat/Arcane to healing specs and Demo/BM to tanking specs.

    If they took out a 4th spec from druids and made everyone hybrids, we'd see a lot more balance as blizzard would be able to treat everyone more equally!
    How about: no, don't touch my Arcane spec.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  17. #357
    First of all no, 3 specs is way more than we ever will need. Add triple- or even endless specialization - this is all I need to play my class like I want to.
    Second, GC already stated that they wont turn pure-dps into hybrids because it is a bad idea in general.
    The Mists of Pandaria coming on September 25

  18. #358
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    It is -a- reason, and a legitimate one. And regardless of whether or not their DPS specs are intact, the fact remains that the existence of a hybrid spec could and would create pressure for the player in a raid environment, the same way it does for current hybrid DPS players.
    It certainly is a reason, but it's a pretty weak one. We shouldn't have 4th specs in the game because some players are too meek to stand up to their Raid leaders? Okay. If your guild is pushing you to play something you don't want to play, you should seriously consider a new guild.

    If you understand it, why the hell are people using it as justification or an example for giving other classes a fourth spec at the risk of wasting a huge chunk of development resources and creating yet more imbalance.
    Because Druid 4th spec proved that 4 specs can work in the current WoW model without a huge amount of fundamental change. In other words, a 4th spec doesn't require more talents, or more glyphs than 3 specs do.

    You think it would solve issues; adding more factors into an unbalanced equation never does balance the equation.
    I never said that it would solve balance. Balance has been an issue since WoW began, and the game will never be balanced to satisfy everyone. Someone always will be on top, and somebody will always be on the bottom. The game shouldn't cease evolving because of that.

    If they aren't, the implications of the argument are; the fact that whenever such specs are introduced, the population of tanks and healers stays basically the same logically means that people don't play said specs, meaning it -would- be a waste of resources.
    In this case, the argument is that since the number of DPS specs would increase, the number of tanks and healers logically have to increase as well to offset the new spec balance. More to your point; The reason adding new tanks or healers to the game doesn't offset the spec balance is because every new class introduced has to have a DPS spec. The majority of players in these classes go to the DPS spec everytime, because the majority of players just want to DPS. Again, that really shouldn't stop Blizzard from adding new tanks and healers into the game. I'm sure Monks have brought a lot of people into tanking and healing because of the unique playstyle of that class.

    1.- I don't see 'options' as a positive, I see them as yet more factors in an unbalanced equation when resources should be going towards balancing what is already there.
    2.- Warlocks were revitalized without having to resort to a 4th spec, there are a myriad of other ways.
    3.- The "bring older players back" argument is used for -every- new introduction, it's not a positive of a 4th spec.
    4.- Or they could just not create a new class for the next expansion, period.
    5.- Said abilities can be introduced by themselves without having to have a 4th spec.
    6.- There is no evidence it would do so, especially as I said since the less popular classes are often pure classes or ones that you are suggesting adding tanking or healing specs for.
    1. Well that's your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it.
    2. Yeah, but it was through completely overhauling the class. You can't do that with every class because it would tick players off.
    3. However, IF it does bring back old players it would be positive.
    4. Then you should support this idea, since it wouldn't add a new class to the game.
    5. True, but not to the extent or scope that a 4th spec would deliver.
    6. Why do you think the pure classes are less popular? Why do you think this idea pushes hybridization of every pure class?

    How about: no, don't touch my Arcane spec.
    See. This is what I'm talking about. People don't want their core specs touched, but others want something a bit new in the older classes. This idea solves both problems.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-09 at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethas View Post
    Second, GC already stated that they wont turn pure-dps into hybrids because it is a bad idea in general.
    GC said the same thing about flying in the old world. Look where we are now.

  19. #359
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Blorch - Home of the Slaughtering Rat People
    Posts
    15,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It certainly is a reason, but it's a pretty weak one. We shouldn't have 4th specs in the game because some players are too meek to stand up to their Raid leaders? Okay. If your guild is pushing you to play something you don't want to play, you should seriously consider a new guild.
    This happens in every raiding guild, it's not a matter of finding a new one. The fact is, there is a significant advantage in having players with an off-spec healer or tank set.

    Because Druid 4th spec proved that 4 specs can work in the current WoW model without a huge amount of fundamental change. In other words, a 4th spec doesn't require more talents, or more glyphs than 3 specs do.
    No, it proved that Feral's tank and DPS components were irreconcilable and far easier to split up. That is all.

    I never said that it would solve balance. Balance has been an issue since WoW began, and the game will never be balanced to satisfy everyone. Someone always will be on top, and somebody will always be on the bottom. The game shouldn't cease evolving because of that.
    How about we -evolve- towards the direction of limiting imbalance rather than tossing new factors in?

    In this case, the argument is that since the number of DPS specs would increase, the number of tanks and healers logically have to increase as well to offset the new spec balance. More to your point; The reason adding new tanks or healers to the game doesn't offset the spec balance is because every new class introduced has to have a DPS spec. The majority of players in these classes go to the DPS spec everytime, because the majority of players just want to DPS. Again, that really shouldn't stop Blizzard from adding new tanks and healers into the game. I'm sure Monks have brought a lot of people into tanking and healing because of the unique playstyle of that class.
    So then, as I said, adding healer and tank specs to pure DPS classes would be a trivial waste of resources since a fraction of the playerbase would actually use them.

    For the record, I was against the introduction of Death knights -and- Monks.

    1. Well that's your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it.
    2. Yeah, but it was through completely overhauling the class. You can't do that with every class because it would tick players off.
    3. However, IF it does bring back old players it would be positive.
    4. Then you should support this idea, since it wouldn't add a new class to the game.
    5. True, but not to the extent or scope that a 4th spec would deliver.
    6. Why do you think the pure classes are less popular? Why do you think this idea pushes hybridization of every pure class?
    1. Good, I find it to be the correct one.
    2. You mean like how adding hybrid specs to pure classes and adding yet more specs to balance would tick players off?
    3. As I said, any new change has the potential to bring players back. It is not a justification for fourth specs.
    4. No, I shouldn't. I don't want either new specs or new classes. BC worked just fine without having a new class.
    5. You have no evidence to suggest that fourth specs would accomplish it more than just the abilities.
    6. A multitude of reasons, one being that many of the pure classes suffer from poor delineating between specs and lack of spec identity.

    See. This is what I'm talking about. People don't want their core specs touched, but others want something a bit new in the older classes. This idea solves both problems.
    The 'others' can be satisfied with what I said, class revamps, new abilities, bringing back class quests, etc. Fourth specs are an additional problem masquerading as a compromise.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  20. #360
    I'd love to have warlock tanks!

Posting Permissions

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