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 22 of 24 FirstFirst ...
12
20
21
22
23
24
LastLast
  1. #421
    Mechagnome Weirdbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Me live Sweden
    Posts
    713
    Didnt Blizzard talk about hero classes integrated into every specc before DK came out? As in fury to mountain king. Arms to blade master.

  2. #422
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Weirdbear View Post
    Didnt Blizzard talk about hero classes integrated into every specc before DK came out? As in fury to mountain king. Arms to blade master.
    More than likely. However, that shouldn't stop Blizzard from drawing inspiration from the WC3 heroes. For example my Blademaster spec for Warriors. With War Banners in the game, and Bladestorm being a talent, you could construct a spec that is extremely close to BMs as they appeared in WC3.

  3. #423
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Stowmind Keep and Ogrimmar
    Posts
    361
    I like the idea of 4th specs... But it seems like they would just be redundant, unless they can think of some great way to execute them.
    Man, I've got bags under my eyes... BAGS OF MONEY!
    See ya later, peasants.

    Praise The Sun!

  4. #424
    Hunters: Ranger: Healing spec. Marksmanship is revamped to become the petless Hunter spec. Warden, PotM, and Dark Ranger abilities should be incorporated where necessary.
    Wat?

    Also not a big fan of adding a tanking/healing tree to pure classes, some of us actually like being pure DPS classes.

  5. #425
    The Lightbringer Gobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    /shrugs. Why? Name one DPS spec that can actually 'run out' of mana if they do their rotation correctly.
    Hunters, they always seem to be OOM
    But seriously i find it ridiculous how mana is so efficient now, I never dropped below 75% on my Ele shammy unless i was just spamming AoEs, but single target i finish a fight with 100% -.-
    Even my Resto Druid has a seemingly near infinite mana pool, And i PvP on him, so even with shift spams and lots of casts and CC etc, It takes a long time to run out of Mana

    As others have pointed out, Guardian was added for a reason, And adding these other "tank" and "heal" specs to other classes would be a big mistake IMO as in Raiding guilds people will end up having to play other Roles, Plus saying "they want more roles for the class they love" sounds redundant, because you love the class because of how it plays, if you add an entirely new role to it it's not the same anyway
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Stark
    They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far. I present to you the newest in Stark Industries' Freedom line. Find an excuse to let one of these off the chain, and I personally guarantee, the bad guys won't even wanna come out of their caves. Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration... the Jericho.

  6. #426
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Nearmyth View Post
    I like the idea of 4th specs... But it seems like they would just be redundant, unless they can think of some great way to execute them.
    I don't believe that Shaman tanking or Paladin ranged DPS would be redundant at all. It would be fresh takes on established classes.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-14 at 11:14 PM ----------


    Quote Originally Posted by Zergal View Post
    Wat?

    Also not a big fan of adding a tanking/healing tree to pure classes, some of us actually like being pure DPS classes.
    You never heard of Rangers saving people or giving them medical aid? Its actually the main job they do. Some even use animals to help them find victims. I think its a pretty workable concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gobra View Post
    As others have pointed out, Guardian was added for a reason, And adding these other "tank" and "heal" specs to other classes would be a big mistake IMO as in Raiding guilds people will end up having to play other Roles, Plus saying "they want more roles for the class they love" sounds redundant, because you love the class because of how it plays, if you add an entirely new role to it it's not the same anyway
    Again, we can't have 4th specs because some pure DPS players would be bullied into healing or tanking by their big bad Raid Leaders?

    In general, the benefits of class hybridization clearly outweigh the negatives.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-02-15 at 01:42 AM.

  7. #427
    The benefits of a playable Naga race (a fan favourite) outweighs the negatives (lack of legs for a mount) as well.

    It doesn't mean it should happen.

  8. #428
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    The benefits of a playable Naga race (a fan favourite) outweighs the negatives (lack of legs for a mount) as well.

    It doesn't mean it should happen.
    Actually in the case of the Naga race, the negatives outweigh the benefits by quite a bit.

  9. #429
    I still disagree with a Runemaster spec, primarily due to the fact a lore class already exists, and it's more in line with Monks than DKs...

    Necromancy just seems more suiting, provided it's implemented right. And with Unholy, change it so that the ghoul minion is disease focused, like a mobile plague spreader so-to-speak whereas the Necromancy minions are focused on providing direct damage in varying ways.

  10. #430
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Forsworn Knight View Post
    I still disagree with a Runemaster spec, primarily due to the fact a lore class already exists, and it's more in line with Monks than DKs...

    Necromancy just seems more suiting, provided it's implemented right. And with Unholy, change it so that the ghoul minion is disease focused, like a mobile plague spreader so-to-speak whereas the Necromancy minions are focused on providing direct damage in varying ways.
    Eh, either way. I could design a Necromancy spec for all you Necro fans out there if you want. It seems that you guys love the idea of a DK Necromancer. LoL!

    OP will be changed shortly.

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by FruitBat69 View Post
    Why were these iconic weapons never given to the player? With the addition of some of these specs these weapons could return too.

    Like an above poster said this would be win win as it would draw a lot of classic players back and definitely attact players to classes that are low populated (warlock and rogues).
    Probably because they realised that introducing racial weapons made no flipping sense in the game as it is.

    Doesn't mean i'm against including these weapons, just that i don't think they should be racially restricted.

  12. #432
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Pretty impressive poll results. Seems like most people who voted think that this is a good idea that COULD wind up being in the next expansion. I guess we'll find out soon enough at BlizzCon.

    I really think Blizzard should go for it. It would solve a lot of unresolved class issues.

  13. #433
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Pretty impressive poll results. Seems like most people who voted think that this is a good idea that COULD wind up being in the next expansion. I guess we'll find out soon enough at BlizzCon.

    I really think Blizzard should go for it. It would solve a lot of unresolved class issues.
    Two words: McLean Deluxe. Consumers have immense potential to be stupid and shortsighted.
    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. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well not necessarily. Remember, new specs borrow a lot from their existing class, so it won't be like constructing an entirely new class from scratch. Most specs only have a handful of unique abilities. Fire Mages for example only have 8.
    It would probably still be more than 3 new specs you would get with 1 new class. Classes with new specs different from the others like holy ranged paladins, ranged DKs, axe throwing warriors, ranged bow monks, melee demon hunter warlock or spell damage demon hunter rogue would be close to a whole new class.

    The only thing I ask is that for hunters one spec is ranged dps and doesnt use a pet. It can either be the new one or a revamp of the old specs deosnt matter.

  15. #435
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Two words: McLean Deluxe. Consumers have immense potential to be stupid and shortsighted.
    You'd have to explain how exactly 4th spec would be stupid and shortsighted given the structure of the game. If done correctly, 4th specs would be a huge improvement to the game. Given Blizzard's track record, they should have no problem doing it correctly.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-17 at 11:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Prokne View Post
    It would probably still be more than 3 new specs you would get with 1 new class. Classes with new specs different from the others like holy ranged paladins, ranged DKs, axe throwing warriors, ranged bow monks, melee demon hunter warlock or spell damage demon hunter rogue would be close to a whole new class.
    My point of contention was the notion that 10 new specs would be like 3 entirely new classes.

    I would argue that new specs wouldn't be that dramatically different than the specs currently in the game, even if they fulfill different roles. Take a 4th Monk spec for example, that spec would still utilize the Chi resource system, more than likely be VERY similar to Mistweavers, and still use most of the core Monk abilities like Fortify Brew, Jab, Black Out Kick, Tiger Palm, Spinning Crane Kick, and Transcendence. They would also utilize the talents and glyphs which Blizzard is going to make for all of the classes anyway. The only thing Blizzard would need to do is design spec-specific abilities, and make sure the new spec properly fits with the older specs.

    The only thing I ask is that for hunters one spec is ranged dps and doesnt use a pet. It can either be the new one or a revamp of the old specs deosnt matter.
    If this system was put in place and I had any say in it, I would make Marksman Hunter the petless hunter spec, and make the new spec Healing or Tanking. A melee spec for Hunters would be pretty sweet, but I think a healing spec based largely on the focus-based Ranged healing specs in SWTOR (Sawbones, Medic) would be a nice thing to see in WoW.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-02-17 at 11:40 PM.

  16. #436
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    My point of contention was the notion that 10 new specs would be like 3 entirely new classes.

    I would argue that new specs wouldn't be that dramatically different than the specs currently in the game, even if they fulfill different roles. Take a 4th Monk spec for example, that spec would still utilize the Chi resource system, more than likely be VERY similar to Mistweavers, and still use most of the core Monk abilities like Fortify Brew, Jab, Black Out Kick, Tiger Palm, Spinning Crane Kick, and Transcendence. They would also utilize the talents and glyphs which Blizzard is going to make for all of the classes anyway. The only thing Blizzard would need to do is design spec-specific abilities, and make sure the new spec properly fits with the older specs.
    If you look at Druids for example you have melee and ranged dps that are very different from each other and use different resource systems. Ele and Enh shamans are similar. So the more new specs that are fundamentally different, adding them all together, means a higher equivalent to a new class.

    Ranged monk vs WW: uses Chi and energy but not any melee ability, brews may be similar but the key damage abilities would be very different and the class would play different as ranged.
    DPS Fire mage vs DPS Time mage: different core spells and maybe a shift between casts, instant and dots but both are still ranged casters. Basically the spells are the same old ones with new names.

    The first one is pretty different than the original even though they use the same energy sources. The second one is just a repackage. So I get what you say that not all new specs would be different but I think there can be more distinction than you think is possible.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-18 at 12:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If this system was put in place and I had any say in it, I would make Marksman Hunter the petless hunter spec, and make the new spec Healing or Tanking. A melee spec for Hunters would be pretty sweet, but I think a healing spec based largely on the focus-based Ranged healing specs in SWTOR (Sawbones, Medic) would be a nice thing to see in WoW.
    Actually if I was doing it I would make MM petless, make BM melee DPS like in WC3, and add a dark ranger spec, also petless, that had some signature unholy abilities(dots, life drain, more poisons).

  17. #437
    i am confused about the poll results. a 4th spec for every class? would be nearly impossible to balance.

  18. #438
    I feel like this will never happen, because you can't just not give druids a new spec because they already have four. They've technically had four specs for quite awhile already. It would also force some pure dps classes to play a role they aren't comfortable with. Any hybrid class knows that you need to be able to play an offspec for any 10 man guild these days.

  19. #439
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,778
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    I feel like this will never happen, because you can't just not give druids a new spec because they already have four. They've technically had four specs for quite awhile already. It would also force some pure dps classes to play a role they aren't comfortable with. Any hybrid class knows that you need to be able to play an offspec for any 10 man guild these days.
    I doubt Druid players would mind if everyone else got 4th spec because they already have one. Kind of like how no one minds that Druids have 4 now while every other class has three.

    Also just because a 4th spec is added doesn't mean that pure classes need to go hybrid. Blizz could just give them a 4th dps spec.

  20. #440
    A caster dps Monk would be awesome.

    A pet-less Hunter would be awesome.

    A survival Hunter being more about survival would be awesome.

Posting Permissions

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