View Poll Results: Make sense?

Voters
152. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    71 46.71%
  • No

    81 53.29%
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
... LastLast
  1. #141
    I am Murloc! Gothicshark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    In Thrall's loving embrace, all hail ThrallChrist.
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Lastlivingsoul View Post
    What they have planned next could only coincide with whether we will actually see the Legion next expansion.
    Thats really the issue isn't it. If we get a class it will relate to the expansion. If they redesign Outland, add in new content based on the Legion the odds are it will be Demon Hunter with all the lore breaks that will entail. If they do a south seas Expansion Tinker would be on the list. If we revisit undead we will see a Necromancer.

    Now the question then becomes what is the more likely expansion?

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-09 at 08:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Jtree View Post
    It is silly to break out pet DPS specs as something significantly different.

    It's also silly to separate "ranged" and "caster".

    DPS splits into two overarching categories, melee and ranged, based solely on how close to the enemy they have to be. Hunters, mages, boomkins, etc. all stand back and bombard their target. Everything else is flavor.
    That's a good way to look at it if you are building a Raid, however when building a game you have to calculate in different game play styles. Which is why pet classes really do count as different. Yes, in a raid when nothing matters but what a meter says it might be hard to see the different in play styles, but when solo or PVP becomes the test they become very distinct. And have to be measured by how a class/spec feels to the player and in the world.

    Honestly You could say there are only three types of players and be right, Tanks, healers, DPS. But for game design you have to categorize every distinction.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-09 at 08:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by kensai666 View Post
    I agree with the above interpretation. Whether the resource mechanic is mana or focus or runes or whatever new snazzy name someone comes up with for a new class is irrelevant, and whether the class has permanent pets or timed minions or no minions at all etc is of no consequence. Only the range to the target is relevant regarding actual playstyle, so the division is melee dps, ranged dps, tanks and healers. Blizzard did some small experimentation with the 'melee healer' idea but considering how little it caught fire I doubt we'll ever see 'ranged tanks' or other crazy ideas and instead any new class is just more of what we already have but in a new shiny package.

    I'd rather just see the existing classes made more specialised. 3 new disciplines or specialisations for each of the 3 existing specialisations for a total of 9 sub classes per class for a total of 99 different types of playable characters in the game. Roleplaying games are full of these so it won't be hard to make them at all (abjurers, conjurers, necromancers, invokers, diviners, necromancers, buccaneers, swashbucklers, smugglers, assassins, spies, etc etc). Just invent a few new and interesting abilities to each of them coupled with some visual player model changes that accompany the discipline choice. On top of that the only thing needed is a new continent with plenty of zones and updated player models and graphics and the next expansion is a huge hit once again. Perhaps bigger than ever. A new class attracts only those eager on re-rolling, but a proper rehaul of the existing ones will have a much larger impact.
    As a game designer who once developed a game system like this, I can tell you it is a headache of unbelievable magnitude trying to balance more than a few specs per class.

    My idea was for a RPG game which never went far, basically each Class was based on an Element and could be almost any flavor. yah we ended up with a list of over 1000 class possibilities. it was too much.

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Blizzard is not going to create a bow/crossbow class called a Demon Hunter. It would cause too much class confusion with Hunters.

    Its the same reason you will never see "Battle Mages", or "Arch Druids" in the game as classes.
    This^
    Do Bliz need another class to balans?
    Also I not understand a point of giving a "sniper"/"petless"-spec anyone, but not a Hunters

  3. #143
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    I see you don't play a pet class, As an Unholy DK, and a Demonology Warlock. I can tell you these classes play entirely different from Fire mages and Fury Warriors, which I also play.
    As they should, since they are completely different classes.

    As a Pet Class you have to be aware of what your pet is doing, you have to manage to positions and your dps at the same time, the game play of an Unholy DK and a Demon Warlock is nearly identical.
    No, it really isn't. An Unholy DK is a melee fighter with plate armor and a 2h weapon. A Demonlogy lock is a spellcaster that can transform into a demon for a few moments and fight in melee range. The two have completely different playstyles. Both of them are very different than Hunters whom you lumped them with just because they have pet aspects to their DPS. A pet doesn't place you in a brand new DPS category. Warlocks are casters. DKs are melee.

    In fact with the updates with Warlocks, I usually play right in the sphere of melee range anyway. The point is Pet classes play very differently to Non-pet classes, and must be considered separately when classifying roles of a class/Spec.
    It really doesn't matter how you play. The point is that pet specs can't be lumped together as if they're all the same. They aren't.

    Blizzard did just that by naming the Ranger a Demon Hunter in Diablo 3. You hate the idea because it is clear what Blizzard plans to do, it will brake the lore. But they have shown in the past that they will break the lore. The choice by Blizzard to name the Ranger in Diablo 3 a Demon Hunter was significant and game changing, since they made the only ever Demon Hunter RPG class in the history of RPGs.

    In case you haven't noticed, we're not talking about Diablo 3. We're talking about World of Warcraft.

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    That's a good way to look at it if you are building a Raid, however when building a game you have to calculate in different game play styles. Which is why pet classes really do count as different. Yes, in a raid when nothing matters but what a meter says it might be hard to see the different in play styles, but when solo or PVP becomes the test they become very distinct. And have to be measured by how a class/spec feels to the player and in the world.

    Honestly You could say there are only three types of players and be right, Tanks, healers, DPS. But for game design you have to categorize every distinction.
    We would be right to say that there are only three types of play in WoW, because it is designed around that holy trinity. You can see that every time you open up the LFD and LFR screens.

    Pets are interesting, but they're not so game-changing that they can be singled out as a whole different game experience. There are 23 DPS specs in game. Each one plays at least a little different than any other. There are a lot of mechanics that vary between them, from resources to dots, utility to sturdiness. Pets are just one more way to give a different flavor to the same basic role in game.

  5. #145
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtree View Post
    It is silly to break out pet DPS specs as something significantly different.

    It's also silly to separate "ranged" and "caster".

    DPS splits into two overarching categories, melee and ranged, based solely on how close to the enemy they have to be. Hunters, mages, boomkins, etc. all stand back and bombard their target. Everything else is flavor.
    I disagree. Physical ranged has some pretty significant differences from magic casters.

    At least we agree with the pet DPS thing.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-10 at 04:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lastlivingsoul View Post
    Only pattern I could possibly see would be whatever class is introduced by Diablo has the potential to be a Warcraft Class. The similarity between spells is no small coincidence.

    Diablo II: Lord of Destruction introduced the Assassin and the Druid.

    Diablo III: Introduced the Monk Class

    What they have planned next could only coincide with whether we will actually see the Legion next expansion.

    Druids in WoW come directly from WC3 Druids and the Keeper of the Grove hero.

    WoW Monks' direct source material is the WC3 hero the Pandaren Brewmaster. They have little in common with the D3 Monk class beyond the name.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-05-10 at 04:24 AM.

  6. #146
    I like the idea of a Tinker. The only issue I have is how it would thematically fit in with the expansion.

    Granted Worgens and Goblins had very little to do with the Cataclysm, Death Knights and Monks are very well integrated into how they are presented and follow the theme of the expansions as well. What would be the Tinker's hook?

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Lastlivingsoul View Post
    Only pattern I could possibly see would be whatever class is introduced by Diablo has the potential to be a Warcraft Class. The similarity between spells is no small coincidence.

    Diablo II: Lord of Destruction introduced the Assassin and the Druid.

    Diablo III: Introduced the Monk Class

    What they have planned next could only coincide with whether we will actually see the Legion next expansion.
    Similarities? D2 Druids are very different from WoW druids, D3 monks have pretty much nothing in common with WoW ones and Assassins have no direct analog in WoW.

  8. #148
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    I like the idea of a Tinker. The only issue I have is how it would thematically fit in with the expansion.

    Granted Worgens and Goblins had very little to do with the Cataclysm, Death Knights and Monks are very well integrated into how they are presented and follow the theme of the expansions as well. What would be the Tinker's hook?
    Who knows. That is dependent on Blizzard. My goal here is simply to show that the next logical class is more likely to be mail-wearing, physical ranged, and tri hybrid.

    It just so happens that Tinkers fit that mold better than anything else.

  9. #149
    Don't forget pattern:

    Caster plate is being monopolized by Holy paladins.....and that is just wrong!!!

    Signature infractions suck especially when they are just about the size of TEXT! WTB token limit!

  10. #150
    They could make a healer/ranged dps bow/gun/melee dps spellsword kind of class. That would be different enough from hunter. I would play it over hunter. They also mentioned that more tanking classes does not warrant more tanks, so probably no reason to make new full hybrid class.

    My part in this story has been decided. And I will play it well.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Vasti View Post
    Don't forget pattern:

    Caster plate is being monopolized by Holy paladins.....and that is just wrong!!!

    OMG we are getting Battle Mages!!!

  12. #152
    One thing:There is fewer mail wearers than cloth or plate wearers, this is true. But there are fewer INT plate wearers than mail wearers(1 single spec out of 1 single class)...wouldn't it make sense to have another class use int plate? I mean, it takes up slots on loot drops, there's whole tiers of it designed for PvE and PvP, 8 pieces of gear for blacksmiths to learn(wait, double that, one set for PvE and one for PvP), all for ONE SINGLE SPEC? Seems it would make more sense to add another user of that IMO. I mean, even ranged weapons have 3 specs that use them(though still one class, true), and Agi daggers are used by 2(also one class), which STILL puts them ahead of Int plate...

  13. #153
    i'd like a true support class with better debuffs and buffs [and better cc while having cc on other classes toned down] than other classes while having lower dps :\

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by dremnit View Post
    i'd like a true support class with better debuffs and buffs [and better cc while having cc on other classes toned down] than other classes while having lower dps :\
    Won't happen. It didn't work for hybrids in vanilla.

  15. #155
    We need Ironman class

    Mana shields for tanking, mech armor Titan powered with one arm for ranged dps and one for healing/blasting energy.
    Can use the druids forms system so the artists only need to design 3-4 cool looking mechas.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by SodiumChloride View Post
    Won't happen. It didn't work for hybrids in vanilla.
    you seem to be confusing "support class" with "buffbot". the only argument against a support class is that wow isn't as group centered as say ffxi or other mmos that have had support classes work just fine. but i still think it can work just fine in wow if the right person knows how to design it for the game. as for solo levelling, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a pet-like assigned npc that is disabled in groups and pvp that you can gear out as you level for players to learn how to play the class

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by dremnit View Post
    you seem to be confusing "support class" with "buffbot". the only argument against a support class is that wow isn't as group centered as say ffxi or other mmos that have had support classes work just fine. but i still think it can work just fine in wow if the right person knows how to design it for the game. as for solo levelling, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a pet-like assigned npc that is disabled in groups and pvp that you can gear out as you level for players to learn how to play the class
    Doesn't change that it is completely incompatible with Blizzard's "bring the player, not the class" design goal.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by dremnit View Post
    you seem to be confusing "support class" with "buffbot". the only argument against a support class is that wow isn't as group centered as say ffxi or other mmos that have had support classes work just fine. but i still think it can work just fine in wow if the right person knows how to design it for the game. as for solo levelling, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a pet-like assigned npc that is disabled in groups and pvp that you can gear out as you level for players to learn how to play the class
    It's the way raids in WoW work. There is tank, healer and DPS. Nothing else. The "support class" role doesn't exist.

    Every hybrid eventually given a viable DPS/tank/healer spec. /shrug

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I disagree. Physical ranged has some pretty significant differences from magic casters.
    No more so than the difference between a warrior's purely physical DPS and a magic-heavy enhancement shaman. The details are different, but the overall behavior in a fight is the same.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by mykro9 View Post
    Back in the day, a holy paladin could wear mail down to cloth with no penalty. But other classes rolling on those pieces got pissed that they could not also role on the int plate. Flash forward to losing a big chunk of usefulness by not using your classes main armor type. Now, paladins cannot use other armor types, without taking a performance hit.

    SOLUTION: Give holy paladins a pass to use int mail. Problem solved. Drop int plate. Why does a ranged healer need heavy armor? For that matter why do elemental and restoration shaman need mail, or even shields. Hell, I don't want to cast lightning wearing a lightning rod, lol. Dropping int plate would take some int mail roles from both ele and resto, but it would be easier to add more chances for it to drop, than to make an armor set only one spec in the entire game can use.

    Ranged weapons do not suffer the same problem. Unless I am mistaken, warriors and rogues can still equip them, if not use them. Besides, there are at least 3 specs out of 34 that can use ranged weapons, compared to 1/34 for int plate.

    Thoughts?
    Reworking paladins to use mail and receive the bonus would take a bit more work than you initially believe. It is doable, but it would take a couple time intensive options. Either a) you have to go through all int plate and mark it transmoggable with mail, for paladins only. or b) you have to go back through all the int plate and change it to int mail, for paladins only.

    It would then stick all the holy paladins that love the plate look into transmog gear only; which considering the amount of years it has been available, not too bad of a trade off.


    There is another option for ranged weapons ... just remove them. You don't need a quiver any longer, or arrows in your bags. So you wouldn't technically need to have ranged weapons any longer ... this also comes into the same problem with int plate ... you need to flag the ability to transmog all ranged weapons as transmoggable by hunters to all weapons they are able to equip.

    A secondary lesser problem to this, is all the heirloom gear, int plate and ranged weapons, that people have spent quite a few justice on purchasing and possibly upgrading.


    I believe a ranged weapon using melee class is the better solution ... we could use another ranged non-spell damage class; but it needs to be unique enough to not feel like a petless hunter.

    I think an alternative for holy paladins is allow them to benefit from strength, as if it was intellect, as paladins have had talents similar in the past ... would have to be cautious about conversion strengths (do holy pali in same ilvl as ret have about equal int and str respectively? would a holy pali choose prot gear instead, for mitigation, and we end up with tanky healers? or would you make the stats not convert as well on the holy spec?).


    I think Rangers could work, but, how to differentiate from a hunter? I think demon hunter is nearly rolled into warlock as it is; maybe retool demo a bit, then give locks a 4th spec that is a tanking tree, called demon hunter

    Don't know much about tinkers, but it might be the most viable ... and though bows may not seem to fit, crossbows and guns, from the picture given, I could see it. Don't like using a bow as a tinker; well, you can transmog.

    I think they need to be patient, and very thorough when implementing a 12th class. I feel this would be the last one we get, and they need to get it right. I just don't see us being at 16+ classes 10 years from now.

    I also don't see us getting a ton of extra specs. I think giving the warlocks and shaman a tanking spec would be enough. I believe the stuff on beta was an experiment with lock tanking, one they weren't ready to implement (and maybe an idea of xelnath that will never see the light, just to spite him, as they did with the cataclysm spell).

Posting Permissions

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