View Poll Results: Is this class a good idea or bad idea?

Voters
154. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good Idea, significantly different than Hunters

    80 51.95%
  • Bad Idea, still too much like Hunters

    74 48.05%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    I say either convert one of the Hunter's current specs into a non-pet ranger or add a fourth spec. I don't see why a new class should be made since a hunter is, in essence, a ranger. Just minus the pet and it's the ranger that a lot of people want.

  2. #42
    Herald of the Titans MrHappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,514
    sylvanas is technically a hunter with pets/minions being the entire race of undead :P
    www.cherishyourit.ca MCTS - Win 7, MCTS - AD, A+, Security+

  3. #43
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    Maybe if your doing hc's, but there is a reason that blizz is going away from ability's that trigger from enemy's dying. Think of how many raid bosses this signature spell would be beneficial to

    Blizz is trying to get rid of these types of abilities? They just gave it to their new class in the most recent expansion.

    You are right it's also works like Life Drain, but is also similar to drain soul (a channeled warlock ability that gave you soul shards if the target died when you where channeling) thats where i got it from
    I think you mean Drain Life. The Dark Ranger's ability was called Life Drain.


    Searing Arrow: Fires an arrow imbued with flames. This applies a DoT after initial damage.
    Have you ever played a survival hunter? Hint: this is explosive shot.

    Explosive Shot:
    You fire an explosive charge into the enemy target, dealing x Fire damage initially and every second for 2 sec.
    Come on. Granted it has initial damage and a DoT afterwards, but its not the same thing. The animations would be different for starters.

    Concussive Shot
    40 yd range
    Instant 5 sec cooldown
    Requires Hunter
    Requires level 8
    Requires Ranged Weapon
    Dazes the target, slowing movement speed by 50% for 6 sec.


    And this is Cold Arrow, it only works on players and adds and the general beneficial part of this outside pvp is often limited i would say especially in raids.
    Concussive arrow dazes. Cold Arrow would slow just like a Mage's frost spell.


    No matter who the ability was meant for first doesn't really matter? right now it's a known and used rogue spell and this is what people would react to if you just gave it to another class.
    Yes it matters because you think I'm ripping abilities from Rogues or Hunters, when in fact I'm staying true to the WC3 heroes that this class is based upon.

    Pretty sure every mage would be pissed off that their "signature spell" was given to someone else. You might think that it's better that it's like blink and not Shadowstep but really the issue would be the same.
    I seriously doubt a Mage would be upset that another class got a short range teleportation ability with a different name, and a different spell effect. For example, Warlocks didn't get pissed that Monks got Transcendence.

    And did you edit your post? i could have sworn there was a spell called sinister strike in there that worked a lot like the basic melee rogue ability.
    Yeah, I accidently typed Sinister Strike in one of the ability lists. I meant to type Shadow Strike since that is the actual Warden ability.

    I think the Tinker would be awesome in WoW so i hope you make your vision of it feel more fresh and new, than the ranger did in this case for me.
    Well in either case I have to be faithful to the source material. If I go too far off the pasture, I'm no longer making a WoW class.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 02:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Constellation View Post
    But it is. It's just not unique to them because racial unique spells cause balance QQ balancing inequities, which why the old racial specific priest abilities were removed or homogenised.

    Arcane Shot - Magic Arrow
    Cobra Shot - Nature based Magic Shot
    Serpent Sting - Nature based Magic
    Explosive Shot - No different from your Searing Arrow, Magic
    Chimera Shot - Deals pure nature damage, refreshes SS, heals you, Magic
    Aimed Shot - Archer Skill, powerful ranged attack
    Black Arrow - More generalised, hunter friendly version of the Dark Ranger's signature shot, no skeleton from corpse, Magic
    Powershot - Archer skill, deals massive damage
    Glaive Toss - A signature ability of a Night Elf huntress
    Rapid Fire - all archer skill
    Scare Beast - calling upon nature magics to send a beast fleeing in terror
    Camouflage - Homogenised version the original iteration of Shadowmeld well, where a Huntress would fade into the shadows when she stopped moving (at night, ofc)
    Where is Searing Arrow? Where's the Owl Scout? Where's Charm? Where's Black Arrow that raises skeletons? Where's the Dryad influence? The Archers, Dark Rangers, Wardens and Huntresses of WC3 didn't have animal pets running around with them. You don't even see Sylvanas' Dark Rangers with pets in WoW.

    I view Hunters more like Woodsmen or trackers. Something anyone could be if they dedicate themselves. Sort of like Warriors. A class like this would be more representative of the Elven archers. More exclusive and specialized. Kind of like Paladins.

  4. #44
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well in either case I have to be faithful to the source material. If I go too far off the pasture, I'm no longer making a WoW class.

    (dazed pretty much works the same way as the mage frost bolt works btw, except the target turns blue)

    Ok so i get that you don't want to acknowledge that a class would never be made with so many pretty much identical spells with other classes, but common none of the WoW classes are really faithful to the source material. You start out by picking a class and you build it's specs and spells based of actually fitting into the game but still "feels" like the class, and not what the lore dictates them to have. The main reason Rangers feels like a clone Hunter is because the hunter pretty much already have all the spells that the Ranger class should have in lore, and giving them new spell effects, icons and-what-not does not make a significant new class.

    Frankly people would be pissed off, i mean a lot already complained that WW monks felt too much like a rogue and they at least had a new fighting style and interesting spells but the same resource. Think of the monk since it's the newest class, how many of the spells and interactions between them are similar to other spells and ability's of other classes, and then compare to the list you made with 90% directly copied spells with new names and a slightly different wording. This would have been fine if people couldn't spot and name the spells within a few seconds


    Don't force yourself to stick to archetypes that fits lore, it is counterproductive and won't work if you try and fit it into the actual game, and that was the intention right, making a class for the game and not just defining what spells you think the class would have in the lore?

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    [...]
    Ok so i get that you don't want to acknowledge that a class would never be made with so many pretty much identical spells with other classes, but common none of the WoW classes are really faithful to the source material. You start out by picking a class and you build it's specs and spells based of actually fitting into the game but still "feels" like the class, and not what the lore dictates them to have.
    This was explained to OP in various threads already. Good luck with that, and +1 for effort.

    The main reason Rangers feels like a clone Hunter is because the hunter pretty much already have all the spells that the Ranger class should have in lore
    Which can be worked around.

    and giving them new spell effects, icons and-what-not does not make a significant new class.
    Agreed.

    Don't force yourself to stick to archetypes that fits lore, it is counterproductive and won't work if you try and fit it into the actual game, and that was the intention right, making a class for the game and not just defining what spells you think the class would have in the lore?
    The main reason OP makes these threads is to support his own theory that the tinker is going to be the next class, while dismissing the alternatives for various silly reasons (such as "too much like class X or "doesn't fit the lore") and completely ignoring valid reasons.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  6. #46
    One major problem for implementing rangers as a separate class is armor types. To use bows, it would have to be an agi user. Only leather and mail have agi. However leather is saturated with rogues, druids and monks using it for multiple specs. If you use mail, they share all gear with hunters which is dumb especially since they do the same thing. Personally I think they should use leather for the better movement and lack of sound for stealth. For this reason they should just make it a 4th spec option for hunters that doesnt use a pet and has some signature abilities. Its still not ideal though since they just had to add so many pet abilities in MoP; the only thing they could do is have the pet abilities do something different in ranger spec.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 01:23 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    Which can be worked around.
    If they did make a ranger spec it would be awesome if they reworked hunter along with it to be more like the beastmaster in WC3 with specs like huntress, remove the signature ranger abilities and give them to the new class. In this case they would be wise to let you choose to class change your current hunter to a ranger since a lot of people only play it because its ranged. This change would have to be irreversible though and if you wanted you could reroll the new spec. I just dont think it would be fair to totally redesign a class and make a new one like the old class and not let people migrate.

  7. #47
    Not sure I agree on agi. I completely forgot it, but it is also not very relevant. Only on cloaks and trinkets. (Weapons need a different analysis, it isn't covered in this post!)

    In Cata I did a lot, a LOT of PuGing and I always found my ranged DPS the most difficult to gear up. Why?

    Lets see...

    Int/hit DPS has 5: Shaman, Druid, Priest, Warlock, Mage.
    Int/spi DPS/healer has 5: Shaman, Druid, Priest, Paladin, Monk [1], [2]
    Agi has 5: Monk [1], Rogue, Druid, Enhancement, Hunter.
    Str DPS/tank has 3: Warrior, Paladin, DK.

    But the Str users need 2 gearsets due to tanking, so that makes 6, and also given the nature of str (melee) they compete with the agi group on spots esp in 10m which I will explain soon, bear with me.

    Notice the discrepancy in the agi list? 4 out of 5 are melee! Melee are however rare in 10m, as is enhancement shaman. Therefore, that makes hunter easy to gear up.

    Now, say we add another agi user this time a ranged DPS (using mail). I already said in the linked post in my previous message how this makes sense for the guns/(x)bows and for mail, and it'd make sense in the context of 10m as well since ranged are preferred over melee.

    Lets talk about 25m. In 25m you can have more melee and therefore there's less issue with competing on the int gear. And also in 25m the problem we discuss is marginalized due to loot being far easier to spread out w/o the risk of it being discarded.

    [1] Tho back in Cata where my observation comes from there was no monk class we cannot discount it right now. I have PuGed very little in MoP.
    [2] Priest has 2 specs, but the stat priority is similar. In theory a healing priest with 2 healing specs could eventually construct 2 healing gearsets to save costs on reforging/regemming/reenchanting. In practice the VP upgrade system in 5.1 (removed in 5.2) doesn't make this currently viable.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 02:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Prokne View Post
    If you use mail, they share all gear with hunters which is dumb especially since they do the same thing.
    Don't agree here. Warriors and DK also do the same thing, and wear the same armor. Same for rogues and monks. Or warlocks and mages.

    Personally I think they should use leather for the better movement and lack of sound for stealth.
    That's a fair point though.

    For this reason they should just make it a 4th spec option for hunters that doesnt use a pet and has some signature abilities. Its still not ideal though since they just had to add so many pet abilities in MoP; the only thing they could do is have the pet abilities do something different in ranger spec.
    Maybe like warlock's GoSac. When the pet is sac'ed the "command demon" ability the warlock has (which normally makes the pet use its core ability such as felhunter's interrupt) is changed so the warlock can use the ability (without the range requirement!)

    In this case they would be wise to let you choose to class change your current hunter to a ranger since a lot of people only play it because its ranged. This change would have to be irreversible though and if you wanted you could reroll the new spec. I just dont think it would be fair to totally redesign a class and make a new one like the old class and not let people migrate.
    Would be a first. Interesting mechanic. Would meddle with Realm First, although RAF also meddles with that already. Or if it is a hero class let it start at a higher level? Such as in TBC somewhere?
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  8. #48
    This would be awesome, or if the hunter had the magic component from marks dropped and pet optional with a glyph or talent choice or something.

  9. #49
    Love it. I wish Blizzard would read this thread.

  10. #50
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Thanks guys. Though I doubt this would ever be implemented, I think it would be very cool to be an Dark Ranger and a Warden in a single class.

  11. #51
    Pandaren Monk Solzan Nemesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where ever the Regent-Lord needs me to be
    Posts
    1,955
    No, because I do not need a reason to delete my hunter and re-roll her. I RPer as a Farstrider all ready and thous a ranger too. Also in you list of ranger like classes you for got one, Elven Ranger or just Ranger. It is a good idea though but the hassle it would give me makes me say no. Why I voted on the still to much like Hunters I thought you did a good job and made it different.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-19 at 08:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerdus View Post
    I say either convert one of the Hunter's current specs into a non-pet ranger or add a fourth spec. I don't see why a new class should be made since a hunter is, in essence, a ranger. Just minus the pet and it's the ranger that a lot of people want.
    Also in Warcraft "Lore" Rangers have the ability to summon wild animals to fight for them, like Dire Beast dose. I do agree I want it as a fourth spec to, but I would like Melee Hunters first.
    Last edited by Solzan Nemesis; 2013-02-19 at 03:58 PM.

  12. #52
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Darkside of the Moon
    Posts
    291
    I would so play this class! Its just awesome how you have set this up. But, yes there must always be a but, for Horde Races i would use Blood Elfs and Trolls. Why trolls? Well they have something called a Shadow Hunter... which fits perfectly in this set up.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Beriohtarion View Post
    I would so play this class! Its just awesome how you have set this up. But, yes there must always be a but, for Horde Races i would use Blood Elfs and Trolls. Why trolls? Well they have something called a Shadow Hunter... which fits perfectly in this set up.
    A shadow hunter is a voodoo shaman, not a hunter. Trolls should be included in any ranged weapon using class since they have the racial for it(even though Blood elves should have it since trolls have only ever used thrown weapons in Warcraft games).
    Last edited by Prokne; 2013-04-13 at 08:37 AM.

  14. #54
    It's VERY hard to have a class that deals bow/xbow/gun damage and say "But it isn't like a hunter!" Taking the pet away just means it's a hunter without a pet. Also, for the fella who tossed around the cute "huntard" title; I'm glad that the only hunter you remember is that one guy who forgot to turn off growl that one time.

    Edit; The problem with having a petless spec, is what if it sims as better dps than a pet spec? The hunters who want to play with their pets will now have to take a cut in dps, even though their style has been around far, far longer and is a core mechanic of the class. Also, no pet = no buffing (which may or may not be an issue); no crit, no mastery, no attack/casting speed, etc.
    Last edited by zenyatta; 2013-04-05 at 08:14 PM.

  15. #55
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Beriohtarion View Post
    I would so play this class! Its just awesome how you have set this up. But, yes there must always be a but, for Horde Races i would use Blood Elfs and Trolls. Why trolls? Well they have something called a Shadow Hunter... which fits perfectly in this set up.
    Trolls aren't a bad idea. I could understand why they could be this class. Also since the Alliance has more paladin races than the Horde, there shouldn't be much of an issue with one faction having more available Ranger races than another.

    I'll consider it.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-13 at 03:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by zenyatta View Post
    It's VERY hard to have a class that deals bow/xbow/gun damage and say "But it isn't like a hunter!" Taking the pet away just means it's a hunter without a pet.
    Well there's always the Tinker class.

  16. #56
    Stood in the Fire Sonridor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Planet Ten
    Posts
    404
    One thing I always thought about petless-hunters ideas is about the Shots spells. I think casted shots would fit the role better, since they are focused on aiming and enchanting their arrows. I just always thought a Ranger class needed to follow Marksman-like style, casting the shots instead of instant. Of course, most shots would be able to cast while moving.

    Incredible concept so far, keep it up!

  17. #57
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,651
    Added some new images for the spells and for the warden. Just thought it fit better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonridor View Post
    One thing I always thought about petless-hunters ideas is about the Shots spells. I think casted shots would fit the role better, since they are focused on aiming and enchanting their arrows. I just always thought a Ranger class needed to follow Marksman-like style, casting the shots instead of instant. Of course, most shots would be able to cast while moving.

    Incredible concept so far, keep it up!
    Thanks. I don't think its my best work by a long shot. But I appreciate the positive feedback.

  18. #58
    I would approve. Another ranged bow-y class would be pretty awesome, and I always loved Wardens and Dark Rangers.

    Avatar by Ely
    My deviantART

  19. #59
    I apologize for the Necro, but didn't feel like making a new thread since this is already covered a lot here.

    I think if Alleria is thrown back into the storyline, we may very well see a Ranger. Here are a few reasons:

    1. Alleria had a 3-gem necklace. A sapphire, an emerald and a ruby. Each of the Windrunner sisters, who happen to be Rangers, have a gem. Alleria has emerald, Veressa has the ruby and Sylvanas the Sapphire. What I find interesting is that these 3 gems almost perfectly represent the 3 different specs of a Ranger that I would expect them to teach. So just for fun's sake, imagine Ranger is the new class. If you start a Ranger on the horde you talk to Sylvanas, if you're Alliance, you talk to Veressa. They both received a message from Alleria's message bird... Fennath? I forget it's name, but she's depicted in Stormwind with a statue and has her bird on her arm. They both think it's some sort of trap or deception, so they ask you, one of their trusted Rangers to join them in seeking her out. When you arrive in the woods wherever it may be, it becomes a sanctuary. Alleria mediates between the alliance and horde forces and reminds the sisters of their strong bond. The 3 sisters feel their alliegance is to each other above both the alliance and the horde. This would set up a sort of DK Archerus/ Monk temple feel for the Ranger starting area.

    So on those 3 specs:

    Veressa (Ruby) - Red rage, her husband was just killed in Theramore. I see her being the Warden, using Spirit of Vengeance and heavy melee attacks. Maybe this can be the glaive wielding class we all want so much?

    Sylvanas (Sapphire) - Cold death. I see her using frost arrows and the Dark Ranger arsenal from WC3. Much of how Teriz has outlined in the OP, I especially like bringing in the necromancer touch that everyone wants.

    Alleria (Emerald) - A classic archer. Green, wise, ancient. I see her using some druidly Huntress of the Moon stuff. Owl scout, etc. Maybe she can even be the true Demon Hunter everyone wants? She was, in fact, lost in the twisting nether battling demons. Maybe she went the way of Illidan and now is infused with fel energy? That emerald would represent the glowing green Fel power she now has. That could be interesting.

    2. Another point... I find it curious Blizzard adds an option to warlocks to go petless, but not Hunters. I know their reasoning was simply "hunters pets are their friends, you wouldn't sacrifice them." Obviously they aren't going to kill their wolf and like infuse it's essence into them, but is it so outlandish to maybe have a hunter who hunts petless? I really don't think so. It sounds like maybe they wanted to distinguish the Hunter from a class they were already thinking about, the Ranger.

    3. It would definitely help with the loot system. More people making use of bows, guns and crossbows, and most likely using up some Agility or Intellect Mail.

  20. #60
    Elemental Lord Arbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    8,019
    Blizzard could just remake the Hunters & use your wonderfully written concept .
    I'm neither Pro or Anti Flying, I just have a different opinion on the matter.

Posting Permissions

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