This would open Pandora's Box of nonsensical specs for several classes. Next thing we know, we'll have warriors and rogues healing with first aid kits or some similar stupidity.
Yes, even if demonology dps will be removed in the process.
Yes, but only implemented in an additional fourth spec.
Maybe, i'm interested but it may harm the class/game as a whole.
Maybe, i have no interest but more options are always good.
No, developer ressources should be invested elsewhere.
No, this is not the proper direction for the game/class.
For the record, and I didn't read through 18 pages of this so apologies if this was mentioned, but in MoP alpha and early beta warlock tanking was being fully developed as an end game viable role. The concept was scraped by GC and I'm about 80% sure arguments over this are what lead to Xel "leaving" the team. That being said, I'm not sure that it was the wrong call but it certainly wasn't scrapped due to any inability to implement it correctly or in a balanced manner but rather due to conflicts with design goals and "vision".
Any-who, carry on.
---------- Post added 2013-06-27 at 01:22 PM ----------
b) There were massive balancing problems, anyone who took part in the beta knows this, Xelnath mentioned it himself iirc in the "not listening to numbers guy".
c) Xel's departure certainly was NOT over demonology tanking, if anything it was a mix of him pushing too hard for certain things for warlocks in the face of opposition from the rest of the TEAM (Not GC, they have a team of designers, not Xelnath and GC over there) - not all of these changes would have been good ones either, they have a team for a reason (see Cataclysm, Xel's pet addition that didn't fix the pvp problems we had) and he was far too open with mentioning when he wasn't happy with the way things were going on the dev side in public spaces (Again, see the Cataclysm debacle).
I think the arguments were more about his taking on the unofficial public role of "Warlock lead", when there was never meant to be any 'class leads' for obvious reasons: That it would lead to bias which would pit them against the rest of the team, while at the same time detracting from the rest of the team's own efforts in the classes' development by making it look like it was all that one guy's work. I rather suspect he did both.
For the record, from Xel's apology thread:
"Yesterday, I said some very disrespectful and selfish things about the class design team at Blizzard. They decided as a team that Cataclysm was the right spell to go with for Destruction, but in my pride, I made it about myself. I felt powerless to influence the meeting and took out my frustration publicly.
That has led to a series of correct decisions on the part of the Blizzard, as a game designer does not speak for the company and doing so, especially in a negative light about the team he works with everyday is extremely destructive to team cohesion...."
So, he wasn't forced to leave purely over tanking, and people blaming GC should probably pay more attention to Xel's prior posts.
Last edited by Queen Ultima; 2013-06-27 at 01:07 PM.
It was, and it completly guted the dot and the mechanics tied to it. SB:SS made us the best choice in multidoting in mop, not the dots itself.Really? I had thought the point of MG was to have Afflocks focus on single target
TBH shamans were begging for a tank spec long long before locks were =p
I think it would be nice, vangeance would either give spell power or still attack power but make your pet deal more damage n stuff.
http://ptr.wowdb.com/items/97457-scissors is not a sword... or at least thats what my mom told me when I was 6.
I just don't consider it a good trade to go from
1) Dominates the few multidot fights we get
2) Still very strong at multidot fights, now feels like a shadowpriest, plagued by a multidude of pvp problems over an entire expansion, having major problems balancing movement (KJC malarkey).
I'm glad they're trying to fix problems, the soul shard system did NOT work for affliction in Cata - it really needed a revamp, but I think the changes revolving around multidotting / MG were a case of swing and, not quite miss, but they hit the ball through someones window, breaking it and not accomplishing much.
Actually, I'm going to go full circle and use this argument: Look at this small, immeasurable change: Affliction Warlocks, who previously Dotted and used Shadowbolt, get their nuke changed from a cast-time spell to a channel. Functionally, they're very much the same, you spend 2.5 seconds on Shadowbolt you get damage, you spend X seconds on MG (for lack of lookng at the full-cast time) you get damage. Sure, MG has the DoT mechanic on it, but arguably you spend the same time MGing as you do Shadow Bolting, or at least if the current rotation was the same save for the nuke the priority wouldn't be much different even if the feel and extra ticks are. Yet it's still a splitting factor in the community. Some people say it makes them feel like Shadow priests (personally I think channels make Aff feel as much as Shadow as cast-times make Destruction feel like Balance, it's just a mechanic that's honestly a little underused, but I digress, each to their own and valid opinions). Now this is a very small change, but big consequences, and it's a factor the community can't decide on because of those differences (Shadow Embrace vs Malefic Grasp's debuff) that make such a BIG difference in play. So, when you look at Warlock tanking in the view of the Affliction changes, you see that it'll probably be the one thing that wholly divides the Warlock community (heck, it's only really comparable to "Are Warlocks a pet class") if it's introduced. At least, that's my view on things, not being an elite or H raider I can't say much about the effects of Warlock tanking mechanically, whether ranged or not.
Anyway, thank you for clearing that up (I'm not a huge Affli fan admittedly). Got a bit tangenty there. Keep watching the skies... I mean skies. (That joke really doesn't work over text).