Rejoice! Demon Hunter is already playable in-game, but not clear enough, apparently.

[Verain]

They're wildly different from each other because you can't have a class-based passive evasion ability in WoW.

You actually could implement the DH's flat 30% chance to be avoided, but if you were to do that you'd make pvp frustrating and make them unable to be tanks. Evasion could probably just be used directly as rogues have it- that is more suitable for an MMO than just evading 30% of everything forever.

[Teriz]

Let's see...

I fully expect Blizzard to make Demon Hunters fill at least two roles (Tank and DPS) and provide both melee and ranged dps (my personal opinion is that it will be "physical" not caster DPS, see below).

The problem with that is all signs point to the 12th class being full hybrid (heal/DPS/tank).

You see whether you know who Illidan is or not, his look is GREAT for marketing. The dark hero who goes against all convention, the anarchist, the anti-social anti-hero...yeah you don't need to know Illidan's name to know he is a bad ass. Allowing a spec to be a bit more related to the D3 Demon Hunter could allow for some cross-pollination there, and tied to the proper expansion (aka Burning Legion) would make much more sense than "hey lets go kill some demons, bring the guy with the exploding goblins instead of the guy who is literally a Demon Eating Death Machine"...really?

Except we already have two dark hero classes (three if you include Rogues). Also, a bow-using Demon Hunter class causes identification problems with the existing Hunter class.

You see, you are attributing way too much to the casual player with regards to mechanics. They by definition don't delve that far into the game, they are generally happy to play (I am talking the 4 hours a week players here) and a new starting zone and such for almost any class will be welcomed as something else to waste a few hours doing.

Lastly what do you think brings in more money as a focal point for an expansion (about to be a bit snarky) Wolverine (demon hunter) or Inspector Gadget (Tinkerer)?

Casuals are by far the largest population in WoW. Blizzard caters to them before catering to hard core.

I think a wide variety of class choices, and class diversity brings in more money. Hence why Druids and Paladins are the most popular classes in WoW. One of the reasons I never got into Rift was that I felt the classes were too similar to one another.

[Johnkie]

As I've said several times, DH WC3 evasion and rogue WoW evasion are functionally wildly different, even more different than WC3 DK death coil and the spell warlocks had in BC and Wrath.

dont see a difference between wc3 evasion and wow evasion. evasion was passive in WC3 yep, but its world of warcraft wouldve been op with permanent evasion. Regardless thats were they got it from.

[Teriz]

You actually could implement the DH's flat 30% chance to be avoided, but if you were to do that you'd make pvp frustrating and make them unable to be tanks. Evasion could probably just be used directly as rogues have it- that is more suitable for an MMO than just evading 30% of everything forever.

That's what I mean; Rogue Evasion is DH Evasion in a WoW environment.

[Jtree]

dont see a difference between wc3 evasion and wow evasion. evasion was passive in WC3 yep, but its world of warcraft wouldve been op with permanent evasion. Regardless thats were they got it from.

If you want to over generalize, they're both just about evading attacks. So is Evasive Brew, Savage Defense, and a whole host of dodge trinkets over the life of WoW. So is stacking dodge rating and/or agility, if your class is so inclined.

And then there's parry, also helping some classes avoid taking hits.

As best as I can remember, the closest things to that DH passive dodge in WoW was a night elf racial for 1% dodge, and a Wrath-era frost DK tanking talent that increased chance to be missed by 3%.

The name 'Evasion' was repurposed in WoW for something different that what WC3 had, and trying to draw a direct connection between the two is such a stretch you're likely to pull a muscle.

[kensim]

The problem with that is all signs point to the 12th class being full hybrid (heal/DPS/tank).



Except we already have two dark hero classes (three if you include Rogues). Also, a bow-using Demon Hunter class causes identification problems with the existing Hunter class.



Casuals are by far the largest population in WoW. Blizzard caters to them before catering to hard core.

I think a wide variety of class choices, and class diversity brings in more money. Hence why Druids and Paladins are the most popular classes in WoW. One of the reasons I never got into Rift was that I felt the classes were too similar to one another.

Let's see Druids have two specs that play just like two others. Healers in general are looking for more diversification, and the latest class (monk) has the same resources as rogues (as do Ret paladins).

To be clear I am a dad of three and now a casual player. Please don't tell me what I want. All players are different.

What you think doesn't matter, what their own research into the issue and guides them does.

In fact let's ask the key question. In each expansion where a class was introduced, it was iconic to the expansion. So what is the expansion concept for tinkerer? Clearly Demon Hunter would involve demons.

[Teriz]

Let's see Druids have two specs that play just like two others. Healers in general are looking for more diversification, and the latest class (monk) has the same resources as rogues (as do Ret paladins).

That isn't what I'm talking about. As of now, the classes sit like this;

4 pure DPS (Locks, Mages, Hunters, Rogues)
4 two-role hybrids (DKs, Warriors, Shaman, Priests)
3 full hybrids (Druids, Monks, Paladins)

As you can see, the missing class type is the full hybrid.

To be clear I am a dad of three and now a casual player. Please don't tell me what I want. All players are different.

Thanks for the bio.

What you think doesn't matter, what their own research into the issue and guides them does.

True, which is why the latest class was a Monk, and more DH abilities and lore went to Warlocks.

In fact let's ask the key question. In each expansion where a class was introduced, it was iconic to the expansion. So what is the expansion concept for tinkerer? Clearly Demon Hunter would involve demons.

Any expansion really, including a Legion-based expansion. The Legion has very impressive technology last time I checked.

Tinkers could have been introduced in this expansion as well, considering all the tech introduced during MoP.

[kensim]

That isn't what I'm talking about. As of now, the classes sit like this;

4 pure DPS (Locks, Mages, Hunters, Rogues)
4 two-role hybrids (DKs, Warriors, Shaman, Priests)
3 full hybrids (Druids, Monks, Paladins)

As you can see, the missing class type is the full hybrid.



Thanks for the bio.



True, which is why the latest class was a Monk, and more DH abilities and lore went to Warlocks.



Any expansion really, including a Legion-based expansion. The Legion has very impressive technology last time I checked.

Tinkers could have been introduced in this expansion as well, considering all the tech introduced during MoP.

*Yawn* nice dodge of the expansion question, personally I would have used the latest announcement of Blizzard and that Steampunk group coming together on some promotion.

http://www.scrollsoflore.com/forums/...d.php?t=214503

Your welcome by the way, I am sure this will spawn a million new fascinations within your mind.

Regardless I don't really care what the next class is, I will alt it at the least. I would prefer DH, though I am happy with that occurring within the Warlock class if they do it ALL the way. In that case I get to play a DH, cool. Even easy to story it. You see all I am saying is that your reasoning is flawed and wrong, not predicting what will happen as I have already plainly said NO ONE (not me and not you) know what that is right now, regardless of outcome.

Also I don't really think Blizzard is really concerned about all these patterns you keep bringing up, been like that for years without any serious detriment. That being said many of the DH arguments are saying "Just make it the LOCK tank spec". Uhm that destroys your little numbers game does it not?

[Bryntrollian]

His point is that there is no way that Blizzard is going to make a class called demon hunter after they went through all of this trouble just to give warlocks the core demon hunter abilities...

[Verain]

This would not have been a good expansion for Tinkers. This is monk monk, only monk.

Tinkers COULD happen in a Legion expac, but Demon Hunters will instead- far more popular, and much more appropriate.

I think Tinkers could happen with a different type of expac. Emerald Dream would probably be a poor choice, but beyond that a lot of ideas could work- especially anything planar.

- - - Updated - - -

His point is that there is no way that Blizzard is going to make a class called demon hunter after they went through all of this trouble just to give warlocks the core demon hunter abilities...

The core demon hunter ability is dual wield melee. Locks ain't got that.


So yea, they will.

[kensim]

His point is that there is no way that Blizzard is going to make a class called demon hunter after they went through all of this trouble just to give warlocks the core demon hunter abilities...

Core abilities being the abilities from WC3 yes?

So you example would Meta and Immolation aura yes?

And those two abilities define DH's as a whole across the board. Really?

If that is your position then DK's would not be present in the game. I mean both them, and Paladins can summon horses...heaven's no!

OH NOES LOL SO CAN WARLOCKS!!!! GAAAAAH! THE HUMANITY!!!!

[Jtree]

Regardless I don't really care what the next class is, I will alt it at the least.

Same, lol.

You see all I am saying is that your reasoning is flawed and wrong, not predicting what will happen as I have already plainly said NO ONE (not me and not you) know what that is right now, regardless of outcome.

Also I don't really think Blizzard is really concerned about all these patterns you keep bringing up, been like that for years without any serious detriment. That being said many of the DH arguments are saying "Just make it the LOCK tank spec". Uhm that destroys your little numbers game does it not?

You know, back when death knights were added, there were other "gear holes" in the game. Int plate for holy paladins is the only one that still lingers, but back in Wrath there was completely separate gear for caster and healer shaman and druids, and the expansion also went live with defense leather still in place. Six gear sets that had only one spec using them, and instead of finding more users for them Blizz plugged in a new class using strength and tanking plate, on top of making prot and ret pallys fully progression viable in their respective roles.

[Teriz]

The core demon hunter ability is dual wield melee. Locks ain't got that.


So yea, they will.

That isn't an ability, that's a combat range. How many specs and classes are dual weapon melee?

When you think about it, the way Blizzard implemented the Demon Hunter into the Warlock was sheer genius. It created a unique and interesting spellcaster, without overlapping significantly with existing classes or specs.

[kensim]

That isn't an ability, that's a combat range. How many specs and classes are dual weapon melee?

When you think about it, the way Blizzard implemented the Demon Hunter into the Warlock was sheer genius. It created a unique and interesting spellcaster, without overlapping significantly with existing classes or specs.

Actually that's untrue. Melee is a range, dual wield is a style with set of rules around it. Rules a tinkerer would be subject to. How many specs are casters? Your point is idiotic to the point of non-existent. The sight of a demon hunter with two flashing glaives attacking a demon is iconic to the class. Much like how you apparently want dual pistols or robot arms iconic to your tinkerer class. Much like a rune weapon is iconic to a DK, or a water elemental is to a mage.

It has nothing to do with range, and the fact you have to resort to these LAME reasons to support your already disproved theory is amusing to me. You have entertained me, i enjoy watching someone make a mockery of general reasoning. I mean really you are going to dispute that DH's ability to dual wield glaives is not iconic? Really?

[Teriz]

Actually that's untrue. Melee is a range, dual wield is a style with set of rules around it.

Details. The point is that melee isn't an ability. At least not the kind ability we were talking about.

Rules a tinkerer would be subject to.

Doubtful, since the only melee Tinker spec would be a tanking spec.

How many specs are casters?

Relevance?

Your point is idiotic to the point of non-existent. The sight of a demon hunter with two flashing glaives attacking a demon is iconic to the class.

?????

Much like how you apparently want dual pistols or robot arms iconic to your tinkerer class. Much like a rune weapon is iconic to a DK, or a water elemental is to a mage.

Nah, I'm looking to refine my Tinker class thread.

It has nothing to do with range, and the fact you have to resort to these LAME reasons to support your already disproved theory is amusing to me. You have entertained me, i enjoy watching someone make a mockery of general reasoning. I mean really you are going to dispute that DH's ability to dual wield glaives is not iconic? Really?

Melee isn't a range?

Okay....

[kensim]

Melee is both a range and a style. You actually argued this yourself a few post back, stating that people want different styles of play and not just another melee character.

Your words man.

[Teriz]

Melee is both a range and a style. You actually argued this yourself a few post back, stating that people want different styles of play and not just another melee character.

Your words man.

Yeah, except I never argued that it wasn't a style......

- - - Updated - - -

You know, back when death knights were added, there were other "gear holes" in the game. Int plate for holy paladins is the only one that still lingers, but back in Wrath there was completely separate gear for caster and healer shaman and druids, and the expansion also went live with defense leather still in place. Six gear sets that had only one spec using them, and instead of finding more users for them Blizz plugged in a new class using strength and tanking plate, on top of making prot and ret pallys fully progression viable in their respective roles.

Blizzard normalized most of those issues. They couldn't fix INT plate though because no other plate class fit.

However, if you look at past implementation, you notice that Blizzard focuses on the large gaps, not the tiny ones. The tiny ones can be fixed by simple stat manipulation. Large gaps are filled by new classes.

For example; The mail armor is a large gap. Spirit cloth is a tiny gap.

[Aleksej89]

Not sure why you guys are arguing about such tiny insignificant things.

Facts are blizz would have to do MAJOR changes to warlocks and perhaps even some to rogues to make enough room for DHs - and then blizzard would have to make the new DH significantly different from Warlock spells/talents/gear sets/lore and pretty much the same for rogue spells/talents/gear sets/lore.
Anything less than such huge changes would make DHs a very bleak and bland clone of Warlock+Rogue that shames the War3 DH.

I already talked about that so i won't go into more detail - but the fact is implementing DH would require MASSIVE changes to existing classes, specs, abilities, class mechanics, gear sets, lore and perhaps even NPC characters...

Compared to implementing something as easy as Tinkers+Alchemists (as one class), DHs would take almost DOUBLE the resources to implement, PLUS you would definitely piss off Warlock and even Rogue fans because you are mutilating their classes just to make room for DHs.

There IS a chance for DHs to be implemented. HOWEVER that chance is extremely tiny, and it is almost non-existent as long as "unused class material" exists (such as Tinkers/Alchemists).

[Rhamses]

Wow, does the entire argument for Demon Hunters revolve around supposed popularity?

[kensim]

Not sure why you guys are arguing about such tiny insignificant things.

Facts are blizz would have to do MAJOR changes to warlocks and perhaps even some to rogues to make enough room for DHs - and then blizzard would have to make the new DH significantly different from Warlock spells/talents/gear sets/lore and pretty much the same for rogue spells/talents/gear sets/lore.
Anything less than such huge changes would make DHs a very bleak and bland clone of Warlock+Rogue that shames the War3 DH.

I already talked about that so i won't go into more detail - but the fact is implementing DH would require MASSIVE changes to existing classes, specs, abilities, class mechanics, gear sets, lore and perhaps even NPC characters...

Compared to implementing something as easy as Tinkers+Alchemists (as one class), DHs would take almost DOUBLE the resources to implement, PLUS you would definitely piss off Warlock and even Rogue fans because you are mutilating their classes just to make room for DHs.

There IS a chance for DHs to be implemented. HOWEVER that chance is extremely tiny, and it is almost non-existent as long as "unused class material" exists (such as Tinkers/Alchemists).

Blizzard has NEVER once released a new class based on any of those types of conditions. The decisions appear to be driven by the content of the expansion. If we go after the burning legion then Demon Hunters would be the most likely candidate for a variety of reasons, all pretty much discussed. If that were not the case they why do Monks? There were many threads of people thinking that they would infringe on the rogue's role. You may (as individuals) not think that, but many folks did (I was not one of them).

Blizzard did it anyway, because it fit the setting. In fact if I were taking your stance I would ditch the whole Warlock reasoning and use Monk as the example of why it would be recreating the wheel. Just saying, it would be a stronger argument.