Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    Not adding something for the sole reason it will give people what they want instead of making them settle for second best, is a stupid argument.
    I agree. I was just saying Warlocks who liked the 'Dark character' concept did move over to Death Knights when they were introduced because it opened up melee and tanking to them if that's where their ideals lay. Not saying Warlocks wouldn't loose players, I just think DKs and Rogues would be more 'at risk' as it were; and again I don't even think that's necessarily a bad thing as it allows players who aren't entirely happy to move to something they're more looking for.

    I really do think it would be better for everyone to have Demon Hunters as their own class as it would automatically resolve all the issues raised in this and other threads, and allow the designers to focus totally on the design of them from the ground up without breaking things for existing players of this or other classes.

  2. #42
    I would love a Warlock Tank Spec. I have played a Warlock since vanilla and adore everything about the lore. I also love being a tank and helping my group out. My solution has always been to keep two characters leveled at once, but if Warlocks could tank then I would put aside my other character in a heartbeat.

    There is simply nothing important to be gained by playing a Pure Spec, unless you use it as a method of avoiding the responsibility of playing another role that your group might need.

  3. #43
    Stood in the Fire Queen Ultima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ireland, home of the Potato, Whisky, Drunks and Drunk Fighting Tournaments
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Iry View Post
    There is simply nothing important to be gained by playing a Pure Spec, unless you use it as a method of avoiding the responsibility of playing another role that your group might need.
    Okies, I have to ask, how many people consider DPS to be a "lesser" role than tanking or healing? Because in my mind, they're equal. DPSers are more common because more specs have them (due to the relative ease it is to make competing DPS specs unique than competing healing or tanking specs unique) and because DPS could be considered by some to be more fun due to playstyles, etc. Also, take this from someone who has a Warlock, a Shaman healer, and a Paladin tank.

    But your post sounds like it assumes that your "responsibility" is to fill any role your group needs automatically*. Simply it can't. Paladins have the potential to be healers, DPS or tanks, but any particular Paladin is not a tank-healer-DPS three-in-one. Even with Dual Spec, I doubt it's taken as a given that you have equal level gear for both roles. And if a Warrior or Paladin or Monk or Druid wants to dual-spec DPS and/or choose not to heal/tank, then their decision should also be accepted. And if it is assumed that you "should" (which is a horrible word) take it upon yourself to cover that role then that's another reason why a new tanking spec should be given to a new class rather than an existing, pure, class: Because we want to DPS. That's why we chose Warlocks, if not for the ability to DPS exclusively, than with the knowledge that we will DPS exclusively. And yes, this is coming from someone who started to play WoW before she knew about the class roles.

    *Unless you believe that tanks and healers have more responsibility in a boss-fight than DPS in any given group, which on a Patchwerk I might agree, but given bosses with mechanics which DPSs have to look after, activate, jump out of, and mobs that need to be bursted down before various nasties happen, I disagree.

    And there is a LOT to be gained by playing a Pure-DPS class. Mechanically: The ability to swap between three unique, fun and challenging specs without having to change gear. The utility offered to the classes (a Warlock's demonic portals, a Mage's teleports and Time Warp/Alter Time, a Rogue's stealth, a Hunter's ability to swap between nearly every buff/debuff in the game at a time), the unique specs and flavour (like Demonology, for example, which IMO is the single most flashy spec in the game now), personal preference, and, of course, the ability to set yourself to the role you prefer, DPS, and be able to master it. Sure, some expansions we're weak, some we're strong, but we're always DPSing away.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by kalathoran View Post
    i want to start off with a disclaimer that i dont believe 'blues' should respond to this. i dont believe this should be a petition for wow devs. i dont believe this should be taken so seriously someone needs to rage. just a 'what if and how would you go about it'

    that being said, i believe if a lock were to tank it would be either a mechanic that has shared hp w/ the minion or the lock themselves would be tanking in metamorphasis. i think the meta version would be similar to a dk in that it would rely on self heals, where as the minion version would be based on the locks stats (and there would need to be some form of conversion for stats like int = dodge on the minion, etc, etc.


    any ideas or am i drinking to much?
    Simple answer, we might be useful.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Iry View Post
    There is simply nothing important to be gained by playing a Pure Spec, unless you use it as a method of avoiding the responsibility of playing another role that your group might need.
    To quote myself from earlier

    There's nothing wrong with pures, it gives a person who wants to dps a class they can roll that has three potential specs. When the rotation of one (or all) is changed up heavily, they're far less likely to be left with zero options, as you would if you simply didn't like Ret. It also gives you the option to play a different spec depending on fight mechanics, I'd likely have ended up leveling up an alt for H-Spine if my only option was affliction back in Cata, thankfully - being a pure, I was able to go demo (despite not liking how it played) and at least function.

    Why some people act like pure dps classes are some obsolete standard that needs phasing out is beyond me, they still fit into the game perfectly - if you rolled one and want to tank or heal, that's not an excuse for horseshoeing in a 4th spec, you knew it was a pure when you rolled it, you clicked the wrong button.
    Playing a pure is the ONLY way to have three different ways of dpsing.

    Affliction was complete and utter ass on spine of deathwing, playing a pure is better than feeling obliged to roll an alt, completely nullifying all of the gear you've had previously.

    I also missed the part where I was obliged to play every role - I play my dps offspecs more than the rest of my guild play theirs. We have a WW monk and ret paladin that occasionally tank when one of our MTs can't make it and a shadow priest that sometimes heals, but both of our tanks, the rest of our dps and all of our healers generally just play their MS - it's generally more productive to swap for a main of the role you need than it is to faff around using an offspec, unless you're a pure - in which case you can swap to what spec the encounter favors.

    Also makes us far less likely to be in the rut, some expansions a hybrids dps spec will just be crap - at that point they either don't dps or they dps as best they can, but have an inherent disadvantage. It's not often a pure can't find at least ONE spec that's decent.
    Last edited by Nagassh; 2013-02-07 at 03:02 PM.

  6. #46
    TL;DR:

    My thoughts are simple. I chose warlock as a pure because I didn't want a multi-role.

    I don't want Affliction, Demonlogy or Destruction to be screwed around with because of a new tank option. And lets face it, it will happen. I like warlock the way it is right now and I don't want the class I chose to be complicated by the addition of a tank role. If you want to tank, roll a warrior, monk, death knight, paladin or druid. I rolled a warlock because I wanted it to be my "pure" and I do not want the ability to tank. If I can tank, that open up the pathway of, "well... you know... warlocks are really strong tanks on this fight..." and that is NOT what I signed up for.

  7. #47
    Brewmaster Skayth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Backwards Country
    Posts
    1,274
    sorry femto. I did not roll a warlock because it was a pure class. I rolled warlock because, 1 it is the evillest class in game, 2 was very underrated (in vanilla) and 3, I cursed them to death. Now making it a hybrid would make it skyrocket (if it turns out to be the spec i think it would be)

  8. #48
    Stood in the Fire Queen Ultima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ireland, home of the Potato, Whisky, Drunks and Drunk Fighting Tournaments
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
    sorry femto. I did not roll a warlock because it was a pure class. I rolled warlock because, 1 it is the evillest class in game, 2 was very underrated (in vanilla) and 3, I cursed them to death. Now making it a hybrid would make it skyrocket (if it turns out to be the spec i think it would be)
    You may not have rolled it because it was a pure, but you rolled it with the knowledge that it was a pure. And I highly doubt making warlocks hybrids would skyrocket class population, I'd be surprised if we aren't near-saturating the amount of rerollers we'd get in already from Green Fire or the Resource changes (or other Mist changes). Most people who want tanks are (presumably) already playing or levelling tanks. Sure, some would be come interested in the spec, but anyone who would have the mobility to move to another class and are looking for a tank would, again, probably be levelling one already.

    And out of interest, what is the spec you think it would be? Mechanics? Resource? How would it apply to pets (and the choice to sacrifice) and ranged spells (which no other tank class has)?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Ultima View Post
    Most people who want tanks are (presumably) already playing or levelling tanks. Sure, some would be come interested in the spec, but anyone who would have the mobility to move to another class and are looking for a tank would, again, probably be levelling one already.
    Most likely, blizzard have said before that adding new tank specs does NOT mean more tanks, existing tanks just play a different class. You'll certainly have anecdotal evidence of some people who suddenly decided the wanted to tank when monks were added, but the numbers don't change to any significant degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Ultima View Post
    And out of interest, what is the spec you think it would be? Mechanics? Resource? How would it apply to pets (and the choice to sacrifice) and ranged spells (which no other tank class has)?
    a) Warlocks stop being warlocks and become something completely different - the tank spec deviating so far from the source that it doesn't have any right to be part of it.
    b) The tank spec instead deviates from the tanking paradigm - I can only imagine this ends in it being either grossly under or overpowered.

    I'm open to being impressed, but there's enough trouble balancing classes / specs that stick to the paradigms, god forbid trying to balance ones that don't operate within them.

  10. #50
    Brewmaster Skayth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Backwards Country
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Ultima View Post
    You may not have rolled it because it was a pure, but you rolled it with the knowledge that it was a pure. And I highly doubt making warlocks hybrids would skyrocket class population, I'd be surprised if we aren't near-saturating the amount of rerollers we'd get in already from Green Fire or the Resource changes (or other Mist changes). Most people who want tanks are (presumably) already playing or levelling tanks. Sure, some would be come interested in the spec, but anyone who would have the mobility to move to another class and are looking for a tank would, again, probably be levelling one already.

    And out of interest, what is the spec you think it would be? Mechanics? Resource? How would it apply to pets (and the choice to sacrifice) and ranged spells (which no other tank class has)?
    Really? U think i rolled this with knowledge of it being pure? let me tell you something. I rolled warlock because they were the evil class of wow. At that time, I had never... NEVER... played an mmo before. the rpgs i played were final fantasy, and what were the tanks in those, oh, wait, there were none. I didnt know about hybrids or pures. I didnt read the damn manuel, because I wanted to play a game based off wc3. I came from RTS to this. Not pure vs hybrids bs.

    I have plenty of tanks in game. yes. But, I want to play my favorite class to the fullest, not one players interpretation of it. (means you).

    And you want to know the mechanics? Spec? Simple. Demon Hunter. Oh why oh why would it have to be demon hunter? Well, if they add this "spec" to a class that is on the decline, a highly popular hero class from WC3, might I add, it will skyrocket the class in popularity. Not only will it simply add the "class" but rather, it will also add the a duel wielding melee clothy (or whatever armor blizz decides to give it) and duel wield tank. Those 3 will make the class popular. Sorta like DKs in wotlk. Now this was written in the intent of "demon hunter class" but also as a spec, but less lore driven.

    -Demonic- Tank spec.

    Lore: You gain a grimore of Demonic names (or something similar), that ingest into you and corrupt your body entirely (ie. Illidan's similar demonic look.), but you hold onto your sanity, but you are constantly fighting with the will of the legion and your sanity. Yet, your demonic form gives you strengths that others would not think of, as you can stand against any foe.

    Stance: Grimore: Defensive, you gain, pending your race, a new look. (n.e. you look similar to illidan, orc you look similar to diablo from d2 and fel orcs, human you become closer looking to Nathrezim, Draenai kiljaeden, Blood elf a cross between illidan and felblood elves, trolls an appearance closer to doomlords (kazzak).)(plus a neat button to push to go from regular race to demonic race, sorta like the human to worgan button)
    ~ all the normal crit reduction, dodge and parry, and defence for a stance.

    Duel Wield spec. (slower the weapon, the better the threat).(cannot be parry gibbed, as the second sword acts similar to a shield, but still hits regardless of hit/exp, but not as much as a regular offhand would.)

    Resources: Demonic Rage, and Fel Runes. (runes are the tattoos on ur body if you did not know)
    Start Our with max Rage and your regular strikes use up the rage, but makes runes available. Runes are used to increase threat and make use of your Mastery (1 and 2), consuming a fel rune increases your demonic rage regeneration, so you will not want to hoard up to max runes, or you run out of rage.

    Cleave: Corrupting Slash (think heart strike, cleave, swipe, hammer)
    Single: Fel Strike (think devastate, blood strike, mangle/maul, crusader)
    Threat: Demonic slash (runestrike, revenge, mangle (with lacerate))
    Aoe: Immolation (consecration and dnd)
    Taunt: Demon's Howl (regular taunt)
    Interrupt: Winged shadows (interrupt, but flaps wings to interrupt) (note if lock, then simply use carrion swarm)
    Mastery Usage 1: Demonic Tattoos - Your Skin Hardens, like a demons, taking X percent less damage.
    Mastery Usage 2: Glaive Demon - Consumes Fel Runes to increase parry by X percent, blocking damage with both your blades.
    ShieldWall: Evasion (ups parrying and dodging stupendously, while upping defense by like 10% (rather than a flat 50% shield wall, you have a huge chance of missing the hits rather than taking. When taking just takes 10% off off the damage)
    Minor Cooldown: Parry
    1 Dot: Chaos flames (gives threat and adds the tank debuffs)(think bleed, plague, censure, and lacerate)

    As Warlock, in this spec you also gain Felguard. (note this is mainly for sacrifice for charge, since in the spec as tank, you will be doing about equal damage as other tanks, pending if you decide to have pet out above or below others.) If it is a warlock tank, then they may want to have their pets out as damage increase/threat increase, with supremacy as a sustained dmg/thrt and service as burst. Sacrifice will give all the normal "spells" it usually does. As not all the time, will they want vw, they may want to be mobile with charge, or a range interrupt with spell lock, or a knock back with whiplash, or a dispel with the imp, as it is situational on what the raid needs.


    ^---- now with that they do not need to have an appearance change (per race) as that was simply gimicy and lore for the most part. But why would warlocks really be given demon hunting? 1 because it can easily be fitted with the lore (as the original demon hunters that were arcane mages that delved deeper to gain more power to fight against the demons (meaning fel), and illidan, the special case, was infused with demonic energies by sargares. But they are not greedy things, they try to protect others, and are self sacrificing. Illidan, the special case, did both at the same time, he gained power to kill tichondrias in felwood, but he also wanted the power. So he is greedy and aso self sacrificial. In the BT quest line, u can choose to help akama rather the an plunder BT, something self sacrificial (in terms). Player Warlocks (and the NPC trainers/questers) also do not have much lore besides being mages that wanted more power, some to fight fire with fire and other to just gain more.
    Last edited by Skayth; 2013-02-08 at 04:42 AM. Reason: added a tad

  11. #51
    I believe the existence of pure classes is stupid and a big part of the problem in role balance. hardcoding people that are interested in playing an offspec makes thing more difficult for everyone on just about all levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Ultima View Post
    Okies, I have to ask, how many people consider DPS to be a "lesser" role than tanking or healing? Because in my mind, they're equal.
    DPS is the role that require the least personal responsiblity. A messed up dps rotation is only an issue against enrage timers which the great majority of players doesn't have to concern themselves with and even in serious raiding you can play substandardly for some time in most situations other people need to be poor as well for it to actually be unrecoverable. When a tank or healer mess up cds and rotation it commonly directly punished in death and raidwipe.


    Paladins have the potential to be healers, DPS or tanks, but any particular Paladin is not a tank-healer-DPS three-in-one. Even with Dual Spec, I doubt it's taken as a given that you have equal level gear for both roles. And if a Warrior or Paladin or Monk or Druid wants to dual-spec DPS and/or choose not to heal/tank, then their decision should also be accepted.
    Of course, wonder if even 1% of all hybrid does more then try out an offspec. Which is why find the people crying over gaining a tank spec silly. You can't make someone to play an offspec seriously, the difference is that the pool of players willing and able to shoulder additional responsibilty increases if the class the play is able to do so.


    And if it is assumed that you "should" (which is a horrible word) take it upon yourself to cover that role then that's another reason why a new tanking spec should be given to a new class rather than an existing, pure, class: Because we want to DPS. That's why we chose Warlocks, if not for the ability to DPS exclusively, than with the knowledge that we will DPS exclusively.
    Who are we? I picked the warlock due to demonic coolness, and the advertized "great utility" The voidwalker could offtank I belive the class blurb said. I had no idea about the power balance between tank healers and dps. A lot of people, especially good players also cares for some variation after some years. So they reroll a class not hardcoded into ranged dps, I just think that every class should be free to develop in multiple directions.
    Also there is concept called teamplay that is closely associated to raiding. Raiding requires compromises. Without it very few raids would happen. Not everyone who plays are role does it because that is the one they enjoy the most, but because they rather make the raid happen then have everyone log of.
    And they don't suffer, It can actually be a great feeling to enable a raid and not just be a filler.
    You rarely need more then 2-3 people willing an able to play an offspec but its good thing if all players would be able to because there are plenty of teamplayers playing pure classes as well. That despite being willing to help is unable to.


    And there is a LOT to be gained by playing a Pure-DPS class. Mechanically: The ability to swap between three unique, fun and challenging specs without having to change gear.
    Compared to the advantages of being able to play a different role the differences are cosmetic. Raids are called when tanks and healer drops out, not if a warlock can't play his destro spec on a havoc friendly fight.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Filth the Warlock View Post
    If you consider the gear to be the same for warlock tanking and warlock dpsing, then it would be like a balance druid dpsing / resto druid healing. In which case I find it quite reasonable to expect them to be able to heal if that was required. Warriors and everything else you mentioned requires seperate gear sets and I doubt warlocks would get that, if we were to tank. Cloth with parry on".... really? Really?"

    I thought tanking on Illidan, Council and that guy in SSC was fun, but I see no reason to add a sixth tanking class to the game. Death Knights were supposed to replace us spelltanking warlocks, when they were introduced and it seems that they've done so.
    Monk tanks don't use any tanking stats, they use dps gear plain and simple. TBH the only difference would be like int gives you faster fury generation or some other such thing, or increases strength of your abilities that give mitigation, mastery buffs ur mitigation, and then maybe you want to reforge parry the way bear tanks reforge dodge. No leather gear has parry or dodge on it and no cloth gear would have to either.

    They could easily add a tank spec to warlocks without changing gear one iota (and if you can't see that you aren't very smart). The question is entirely about whether they want to. Personally, I think it could be cool to see a Warlock tank; maybe they could even design some encounters around warlock tanking (Mannoroth's Fury would make them excellent for picking up mass groups of mobs that are spread out for example). You could incorporate the lock cds in the talents already as tank cds, give them a few other cds that come with the spec and some active on-use abilities involving some kind of dark energy source that is perhaps built from taking dmg or from dealing damage like warriors.

    It could work VERY well if Blizzard wanted it to, and there is definitely an audience for doing it. The only thing is once you do it then where does it end, because shamans could be tanks pretty easily also and then maybe you have to bring back shockadins and make a ranged dps paladin spec, etc. One thing I wouldn't mind seeing make a come-back and maybe make them more powerful is support specs where your primary duty as a raider is to bring constant utility to a raid kind of like bards in Everquest. Shamans used to fill that role but now they are just a general dps and the usefulness of buffs in raid design has gone way down. But I guess that is to please the masses, if they did go back to it I would want them to make it an active role not just "okay u bring mana tide totem afk in the corner now." but like constantly applying buffs to raiders that maybe you channel or have to complete sequences for them to go off (similar to Twin Consorts constellation sequence type stuff); could make for very interesting gameplay. Now I'm off on a tangent.

  13. #53
    Scarab Lord nightfalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    Most likely, blizzard have said before that adding new tank specs does NOT mean more tanks, existing tanks just play a different class. You'll certainly have anecdotal evidence of some people who suddenly decided the wanted to tank when monks were added, but the numbers don't change to any significant degree.
    Perhaps this is true, but also perhaps we have some bias. The only new specs (aside from Guardian and Blood becoming dedicated specs on tank classes) came on new classes. Usually people who make new classes, you are right, would be those who maintain their same role and making a new alt or main. But we never know what might happen if we expand the roles of existing classes without taking any old roles away.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    a) Warlocks stop being warlocks and become something completely different - the tank spec deviating so far from the source that it doesn't have any right to be part of it.
    First, what makes you think (aside from doomsday paranoia) that a tank spec will actually take away from the DPS specs? Especially if you got a 4th spec, and still kept your 3 existing DPS specs.

    Even if they did change a DPS spec to tank, you still only have dual spec in game. At any point in time, you are no less of a DPS than you were. Plenty of arms/fury warriors are proud to be DPS warriors, having the tank spec available and unchecked on their talent screen in no way diminishes them being DPS players.

    And out of those who have played the current DH glyph at both casual and high levels, I wager most do not believe whatsoever that the play style deviates so far from the source (as you say), because it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    b) The tank spec instead deviates from the tanking paradigm - I can only imagine this ends in it being either grossly under or overpowered.
    On this point, you're just plain wrong. Having played tank specs and having heard of Xelnath's original idea, I notice that the spec was actually built for the tanking paradigm - that of generating resources with abilities, and then using the resources to mitigate damage.

    The reason it did end up being either overpowered or underpowered simply was because there wasn't a dedicated spec on its own, with a talent and glyph system to support it at all. But that doesn't mean the basic paradigm isn't there.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 07:37 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Arawn View Post
    Who are we? I picked the warlock due to demonic coolness, and the advertized "great utility" The voidwalker could offtank I belive the class blurb said. I had no idea about the power balance between tank healers and dps.
    Many players feel this way, but even for those that don't, I ask again: How does getting a tank spec actually take away from being a DPS? Most of the "doomsayers" seem to think the pro-tank crowd want to take away all the swords on the class and replace them all with shields, when that's not at all what's being asked for.


    Finally on a more personal level, I think some of the people who are arguing "this is what you signed up for" don't realize that for a new player, the amount of personal investment into one's first class can be pretty huge even if the player had no clue what he was signing up for on the character sheet.

    I'm not saying your argument is invalid, but do think of that before just saying "This is what you signed up for, sucker! Enjoy your fresh 1-90 again."

    Personally I could care less if they actually put a tank spec in. It sure as hell won't make me switch mains back. Personally I'd much rather see a paladin ranged DPS spec than I would a warlock tanking spec at this point. But that doesn't mean that objectively, I don't think the warlock tanking spec is better for the game, because I do.
    Last edited by nightfalls; 2013-02-08 at 07:58 AM. Reason: made this more concise and less rambling

  14. #54
    Stood in the Fire Queen Ultima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ireland, home of the Potato, Whisky, Drunks and Drunk Fighting Tournaments
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    Most likely, blizzard have said before that adding new tank specs does NOT mean more tanks, existing tanks just play a different class. You'll certainly have anecdotal evidence of some people who suddenly decided the wanted to tank when monks were added, but the numbers don't change to any significant degree.
    I'm well aware, I believe it was said about DKs too. I thought I referenced that point myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
    Really? U think i rolled this with knowledge of it being pure? let me tell you something. I rolled warlock because they were the evil class of wow. At that time, I had never... NEVER... played an mmo before. the rpgs i played were final fantasy, and what were the tanks in those, oh, wait, there were none. I didnt know about hybrids or pures. I didnt read the damn manuel, because I wanted to play a game based off wc3. I came from RTS to this. Not pure vs hybrids bs.
    You should read my earlier posts. I joined WoW at 12, had absolutely no clue about class roles myself and (of course) rolled a Warlock. I had absolutely no clue about roles. Heck, I commend you, because when I joined WoW I couldn't defeat the spider-boss at the start of FF8. But ignorance of the rules cannot be a defence, and Warlocks were designed as pure DPS. There has to be a point where general aesthetic must be left for mechanical design. I want a Holy ranged DPS class, for example, but know that neither Priests nor Paladins will get one.

    Will address more as running dangerously out of time, including your tank, but wondering why the assumption that Warlocks should ideally stay within the 3 spec rule and as a pure be purely mine according to you, when it is in fact what we currently have and all I'm asking for is a continuation. Yes, Blizz can do what they like, but find it a bit odd that "one player's interpretation" is the current state of affairs and not the addition of a new, contriversial role.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspark View Post
    Perhaps this is true, but also perhaps we have some bias. The only new specs (aside from Guardian and Blood becoming dedicated specs on tank classes) came on new classes. Usually people who make new classes, you are right, would be those who maintain their same role and making a new alt or main. But we never know what might happen if we expand the roles of existing classes without taking any old roles away.
    There can still only be X amount of tanks though as they are a limited role in raids, which is all too frequently dropped for a DPS off-spec. And more tanking classes hasn't brought down my hour wait for LFR, nor has it reduced the number of Satchels of Exotic Mysteries available to me.

    First, what makes you think (aside from doomsday paranoia) that a tank spec will actually take away from the DPS specs? Especially if you got a 4th spec, and still kept your 3 existing DPS specs.
    There are overlapping abilities and mechanics for each spec for every class in game to maintain class identity (not least of all talents themselves), these would need to be balanced out. You could argue to change everything fundamentally between the specs, but at that point the Warlock Tank isn't really a Warlock anymore, is it?

    Even if they did change a DPS spec to tank, you still only have dual spec in game. At any point in time, you are no less of a DPS than you were. Plenty of arms/fury warriors are proud to be DPS warriors, having the tank spec available and unchecked on their talent screen in no way diminishes them being DPS players.
    It would be Demo we'd loose, I would not be impressed not least because it's my favourite spec; nor I imagine would other players. Even players of Warlocks who don't like the spec would however also loose out from the unique things the spec offers to allow them to shine on encounters in which it excels.

    And out of those who have played the current DH glyph at both casual and high levels, I wager most do not believe whatsoever that the play style deviates so far from the source (as you say), because it doesn't.

    On this point, you're just plain wrong. Having played tank specs and having heard of Xelnath's original idea, I notice that the spec was actually built for the tanking paradigm - that of generating resources with abilities, and then using the resources to mitigate damage.

    The reason it did end up being either overpowered or underpowered simply was because there wasn't a dedicated spec on its own, with a talent and glyph system to support it at all. But that doesn't mean the basic paradigm isn't there.
    The problem was that DH wasn't doing any of that, it was simply relying on stacking loads of stamina then using a "DPS rotation" to manage threat - it had completely regressed to Wrath style tanking. All those extra abilities necessary to give it the correct paradigm would have shifted the spec a million miles from the 'Warlock' paradigm because it is necessary to have overlap with the glyph and talent system to maintain that. I actually feel sometimes that the class has lost something with loosing such a lot of overlap between specs, especially when I look at the Glyph selection and see that so many are spec specific.

    Many players feel this way, but even for those that don't, I ask again: How does getting a tank spec actually take away from being a DPS? Most of the "doomsayers" seem to think the pro-tank crowd want to take away all the swords on the class and replace them all with shields, when that's not at all what's being asked for.
    I can only echo GC's own comment on it:
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Maybe they picked pure so they wouldn't have to deal with it.
    Finally on a more personal level, I think some of the people who are arguing "this is what you signed up for" don't realize that for a new player, the amount of personal investment into one's first class can be pretty huge even if the player had no clue what he was signing up for on the character sheet.

    I'm not saying your argument is invalid, but do think of that before just saying "This is what you signed up for, sucker! Enjoy your fresh 1-90 again."
    I think you realise long before 90 whether your class is going to fill the role you want it too, and even by probably 20 you'll know if a spec feels right for you.

    Personally I could care less if they actually put a tank spec in. It sure as hell won't make me switch mains back. Personally I'd much rather see a paladin ranged DPS spec than I would a warlock tanking spec at this point. But that doesn't mean that objectively, I don't think the warlock tanking spec is better for the game, because I do.
    Objectively and pragmatically, I think you're wrong.

  16. #56
    Scarab Lord nightfalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    There can still only be X amount of tanks though as they are a limited role in raids, which is all too frequently dropped for a DPS off-spec. And more tanking classes hasn't brought down my hour wait for LFR, nor has it reduced the number of Satchels of Exotic Mysteries available to me.
    Your point only reinforces mine: There are a limited amount of tanks needed for raid, meaning people will have less incentive to completely reroll a new class (DK, monk) just because they can tank. However, the more raiding mains you allow to have tanking off-specs (by giving new specs to players' main class), the more off-spec tanks you might see queue for LFD.

    LFR is a different story altogether (a big reason queues suck is because players can't choose what role to receive loot for, meaning even main-spec healers have to go as DPS and extend the queue to get their off-spec DPS gear). Personally I don't see the satchel that often, so I guess that is a moot point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    There are overlapping abilities and mechanics for each spec for every class in game to maintain class identity (not least of all talents themselves), these would need to be balanced out. You could argue to change everything fundamentally between the specs, but at that point the Warlock Tank isn't really a Warlock anymore, is it?...

    Even players of Warlocks who don't like the spec would however also loose out from the unique things the spec offers to allow them to shine on encounters in which it excels.
    Assume we added a 4th spec, then how would the other three specs lose class identity? Yes, some of the talent rows (oh, you know, the 4th row, the 6th row) that are already considered shit might "lose their identity" - if they even had one anyway.

    Also this can be debated over and over again, but sometimes I feel having three specs can be more of a crutch than an asset, and more of an excuse to just say "oh, you have X spec to fall on" when two specs are bad. How often in the last few years have you seen warlocks actually have three specs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    The problem was that DH wasn't doing any of that, it was simply relying on stacking loads of stamina then using a "DPS rotation" to manage threat... All those extra abilities necessary to give it the correct paradigm would have shifted the spec a million miles from the 'Warlock' paradigm because it is necessary to have overlap with the glyph and talent system to maintain that.
    Literally, all tank rotations are is stacking proper gear and using a DPS rotation to generate resources, then spending the resources on mitigation. DH didn't have the proper gear nor the mitigation, so they just stacked what they could (stamina) to compensate for lack of gear + mitigation. The active mitigation buttons are not what I would call "a lot of extra abilities" nor would I say there needs to be an incredible amount of glyph/talent changes. If you look at most tanks, only maybe 2-3 rows of talents are actually useful, and only a handful of glyphs are actually useful and not "add X damage here, take X damage less here" situation-type glyphs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    I actually feel sometimes that the class has lost something with loosing such a lot of overlap between specs, especially when I look at the Glyph selection and see that so many are spec specific.
    You can say that about all classes, but it's pretty safe to say that's the way design is going.

    Honestly, the only (and very strong) argument I have against simply ditching a DPS spec for a tank spec is the lack of overlap; the fact that each spec has something unique to it. If you had such an overlap, it would be a lot easier to argue for throwing out one of the DPS specs.


    Finally, your Blizzquote had nothing to do with my paragraph.
    Last edited by nightfalls; 2013-02-08 at 11:06 AM.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspark View Post
    Your point only reinforces mine: There are a limited amount of tanks needed for raid, meaning people will have less incentive to completely reroll a new class (DK, monk) just because they can tank. However, the more raiding mains you allow to have tanking off-specs (by giving new specs to players' main class), the more off-spec tanks you might see queue for LFD.
    This doesn't make any sense. If there's a limited number of positions for tanks in a raid, yet you open up the role to more classes; aren't you setting up players for disapointment that they aren't going to get the opportunity to fill that new role? Tanking in LFD isn't going to get you raid geared fast, and nor does it bear any resemblance to, you know, tanking in a raid. So all those players gearing up and shortening your DPS queues are doing it for naught. This is why new tanking classes isn't impacting tanking numbers - the demand just isn't there. People then focus on their DPS specs, because that's what they'll be using in raid; and if they want tanking as an OS, they'll get the gear from those raids in which they're DPSing, they stop doing LFD (as tank) and queues don't get any shorter.

    LFR is a different story altogether (a big reason queues suck is because players can't choose what role to receive loot for, meaning even main-spec healers have to go as DPS and extend the queue to get their off-spec DPS gear). Personally I don't see the satchel that often, so I guess that is a moot point.
    I pretty much answered this above. Demand just isn't there for tanks.

    Assume we added a 4th spec, then how would the other three specs lose class identity? Yes, some of the talent rows (oh, you know, the 4th row, the 6th row) that are already considered shit might "lose their identity" - if they even had one anyway.
    It's not that the other 3 specs loose theirs, it's more that the new 4th would be so far out on it's own that it lacks belonging.

    Also this can be debated over and over again, but sometimes I feel having three specs can be more of a crutch than an asset, and more of an excuse to just say "oh, you have X spec to fall on" when two specs are bad. How often in the last few years have you seen warlocks actually have three specs?
    Since ICC. Firelands aside, all three specs have been viable, in PvE at least.

    Literally, all tank rotations are is stacking proper gear and using a DPS rotation to generate resources, then spending the resources on mitigation. DH didn't have the proper gear nor the mitigation, so they just stacked what they could (stamina) to compensate for lack of gear + mitigation. The active mitigation buttons are not what I would call "a lot of extra abilities" nor would I say there needs to be an incredible amount of glyph/talent changes. If you look at most tanks, only maybe 2-3 rows of talents are actually useful, and only a handful of glyphs are actually useful and not "add X damage here, take X damage less here" situation-type glyphs.
    DH has no resource use for reducing damage taken. That's the difference. It may not be a lot of new, but it might be because it's either that, or a lot of rebalancing existing stuff, which then does impact on the existing specs.

    You can say that about all classes, but it's pretty safe to say that's the way design is going.

    Honestly, the only (and very strong) argument I have against simply ditching a DPS spec for a tank spec is the lack of overlap; the fact that each spec has something unique to it. If you had such an overlap, it would be a lot easier to argue for throwing out one of the DPS specs.
    The overlap is what makes a class a class, and not three different classes. There needs differentiation between specs, yes, but too much and you stop talking about Warlocks and start talking about Demon Hunters.

    Finally, your Blizzquote had nothing to do with my paragraph.
    It did, you may not be asking to replace swords with shields, but the point there is: What if players rolled those pures to avoid being asked, so neither of you ended up in that awkward situation?
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2013-02-08 at 11:41 AM.

  18. #58
    Elemental Lord Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Tya View Post
    I don't think anyone expects paladins, dks, druids, warriors or monks to have a tank spec. Why would warlocks be different?
    You think wrong. Every raiding guild I've been in, has always asked every member to have a secondary spec that is the most useful to the raid. In most cases, this means a Healing or Tanking set if those are available to you.
    Website: (W.I.P.) www.voodoo-gaming.net
    YouTube: Coming Soon™
    Twitter: @VoodooGamingUK
    Facebook: Coming Soon™
    Warcraft: Pandaren Brewmaster, iLevel 581, 14 / 14 Heroic Siege of Orgrimmar

  19. #59
    i don't understand the problem: i'd like a tank-spec melee/spell in demonology, AND a spec caster in demonology. If a player don't love to have a tank spec, don't use it and take demonology classic dps-spell spec. If a player love to tank a raid in demon form, take the melee-tanky version of demonology. A player can take also affliction or destruction to deliver DPS.

    I'd like a demon "dual wield" form with fel rune-tatoo and demonic rage suggestion in this topic

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    This doesn't make any sense. If there's a limited number of positions for tanks in a raid, yet you open up the role to more classes; aren't you setting up players for disapointment that they aren't going to get the opportunity to fill that new role?
    No, despite the introduction of more and more tank classes the number of tanks seems always to regulate themselves on the low end. Any decent tank I know is just as happy dpsing. and just because you want to perform in a role doesn't mean you will get to do so. In any competetive endgame setting you earn your spot at the expense of others.


    I pretty much answered this above. Demand just isn't there for tanks.
    I must imagine those trade spams asking for tanks or the 30 minutes queues when I level a pure gimped dps class.


    It did, you may not be asking to replace swords with shields, but the point there is: What if players rolled those pures to avoid being asked, so neither of you ended up in that awkward situation?

    I have trouble understanding why the warlock class should be a haven to 12 year old with self-esteem issues. If you find it awkward to be asked to play an offspec you don't like and is traumatized by saying no as grownup person I say it's good practice for real life were being asked to do stuff you don't like is a commonplace occurence.

Posting Permissions

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