Page 47 of 49 FirstFirst ...
37
45
46
47
48
49
LastLast
  1. #921
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleugen View Post
    Easily solved. Fourth spec, melee centric warlock, allows dual weild.

    Why is that such a hard concept for you?
    Actually i dont even know why im fighting. Thats what i want, and have accepted that if warlocks get a melee tree it could be demon hunter capable. I think i just hate teriz.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

  2. #922
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Haven't you noticed? The base argument for the DHs implementation is that "it's popular".
    And it is. Do you deny that?

  3. #923
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post

    If you answer no, which you should unless youve lost it, then warlocks arent demon hunters.
    And Shaman aren't Farseers or Shadow Hunters. On your way out, think about why Shadow Hunters and Farseers will never be classes in WoW.

    Thanks for posting.

  4. #924
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And Shaman aren't Farseers or Shadow Hunters. On your way out, think about why Shadow Hunters and Farseers will never be classes in WoW.

    Thanks for posting.
    Dude come off it. Shaman are far seers lol. Its the exact same class/playstyle. The only thing shadow hunters have is a glaive they throw at people that differs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

  5. #925
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    And it is. Do you deny that?
    I never have. However, popularity among the hardcore fans isn't a good platform to implement a class that heavily overlaps with existing classes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    Dude come off it. Shaman are far seers lol. Its the exact same class/playstyle. The only thing shadow hunters have is a glaive they throw at people that differs.
    Where's the Farseer totems?

    Only thing Demon Hunters have is DW Melee.

  6. #926
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    Actually i dont even know why im fighting. Thats what i want, and have accepted that if warlocks get a melee tree it could be demon hunter capable. I think i just hate teriz.
    I'm not a fan of the 'Next class must be Tinker' attitude, but he usually makes sound, logical arguments. At least from what I've seen, I haven't frequented the forums until recently.

    I'm open to all new class ideas (Currently, Timewalker is my favorite, but I know how strange it would be to implement given that mages are now learning time magic), I'm just more than likely going to try to pull them all apart any time I see them. Especially ones like Demon Hunter, which are dependant on 'What if' and 'You can't prove they don't exist' to make an argument. Which is easily fixed, because I'm not here to prove they don't, I'm expecting people to prove to me they do.

  7. #927
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleugen View Post
    I'm not a fan of the 'Next class must be Tinker' attitude, but he usually makes sound, logical arguments. At least from what I've seen, I haven't frequented the forums until recently.

    I'm open to all new class ideas (Currently, Timewalker is my favorite, but I know how strange it would be to implement given that mages are now learning time magic), I'm just more than likely going to try to pull them all apart any time I see them. Especially ones like Demon Hunter, which are dependant on 'What if' and 'You can't prove they don't exist' to make an argument. Which is easily fixed, because I'm not here to prove they don't, I'm expecting people to prove to me they do.
    Well see what hes currently trying to bs his way through right now? Thats what i hate. I could deal with tinkers. Its just shoved down my throat on every single thread.

    Tdlr teriz shut up we get your point

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I never have. However, popularity among the hardcore fans isn't a good platform to implement a class that heavily overlaps with existing classes.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Where's the Farseer totems?

    Only thing Demon Hunters have is DW Melee.
    Far seer totems? Huh? Is that a fifth ability i didnt know they had?

    http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/units/farseer.shtml

    Exatly the same. In every aspect.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post

    Only thing Demon Hunters have is DW Melee.
    Yeah but the dw melee is the most important part of a playstyle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

  8. #928
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    Yeah but the dw melee is the most important part of a playstyle.
    It's pretty trivial. Fury Warriors, Rogues, Enh Shaman and Windwalkers all have pretty distinct playstyles. The basis of a class, mechanically, is its resources and base abilities.

    The other basis is lore, which... Well. If you were to paraphrase every class into five words or less, ideology and writing-cliche wise, Demon Hunters and Warlocks would be pretty much the same- Fight fire with fire.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  9. #929
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    They like the concept, they like the look, they like how they imagine it will play.
    You can't speak for people who do not share this idea. You're assuming that anyone who wants to see a Demon Hunter represented as a class will automatically be okay with it being incorporated as a Warlock spec instead. That's simply not true, and many of us are telling you straight up how we feel about that. You need to open your eyes here and stop pretending 'they' will like it.

    And if a DH is introduced as a Warlock who simply focusses on melee based combbat, that will be the case. At least as much as a Blood Knight/Paladin or Shadow/Holy priest or Arms/Fury warrior.
    If Blizzard does it I'm fine with that. But they haven't, and indications show that they won't. We have a clear separation of classes based on their roles, and unless 4th spec becomes a reality across the board and new spec/role combinations are open to all other classes, this is still an unlikely scenario.

    Blood Knights and Shadow Priests have no relevance to this. It's not a matter of lore but game design that makes a Melee Warlock unlikely to happen. A Warlock simply doesn't have the gear to support a melee spec, which would require stats like Expertise. On top of that, you would have to assume that Blizzard would allow Warlocks to use their Int-based gear and convert stats. If this is so, why continue to have Int Plate? They could have done away with that by converting Strength into Int long time ago and removing an unnecessary drop from the already bloated loot tables.

    The idea was quite popular during Beta when Warlocks got the DH as a tanking spec. As it was in LK when they got Meta. Or in live when it got the Illidan armor. The similarities have been noted several times before and there have been fw if any pople saying Warlocks shouldn't get DH move or absorb the DH identity into its own.

    EJL
    Hunter pet tanking, Boomkin tanking and Rogue tanking were all possible at one point. It doesn't mean that these classes should become tanks either.

    Because the Warlock can incorporate the DH does not mean it should. That's what I feel should not happen. Many of us would rather see the Demon Hunter not become playable than see it being folded into the Warlock, where it would become a shadow of its former identity. On top of that, I believe that it would be disrespectful to the Warlock class itself to force the identity of another class onto it, however similar they may be.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-10 at 06:57 PM.

  10. #930
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    It's pretty trivial. Fury Warriors, Rogues, Enh Shaman and Windwalkers all have pretty distinct playstyles. The basis of a class, mechanically, is its resources and base abilities.

    The other basis is lore, which... Well. If you were to paraphrase every class into five words or less, ideology and writing-cliche wise, Demon Hunters and Warlocks would be pretty much the same- Fight fire with fire.
    Like i said. When my warlock can dual wield viably and have melee capabilities. Ill admit to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

  11. #931
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    The other basis is lore, which... Well. If you were to paraphrase every class into five words or less, ideology and writing-cliche wise, Demon Hunters and Warlocks would be pretty much the same- Fight fire with fire.
    Except where Demon Hunters ritually blind themselves. Growing eyes back from swapping out of a spec would be a little strange.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-10 at 07:05 PM.

  12. #932
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleugen View Post
    Easily solved. Fourth spec, melee centric warlock, allows dual weild.

    Why is that such a hard concept for you?
    Not a difficult concept, no. But what role does it fill?

    Does it Tank, as per Demon Hunting Glyph's original design? What then of those who want DHs as a DPS spec?

    Does it DPS to fulfill the populist ideal for a Demon Hunter class? What then of those who wanted a tanking spec for Warlocks that we so nearly had?

    See where I'm going with this? If we have 2 specs already covered for Demon Hunters, why not go all out for a new class? It is afterall a bit too much to ask for two new specs for Warlocks.

  13. #933
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Except the where Demon Hunters ritually blind themselves. Growing eyes back from swapping out of a spec would be a little strange.
    Don't kid yourself; if Blizzard were to implement Demon Hunters, there'd be a clause somewhere in there so that people didn't have to burn their eyes out.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  14. #934
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    Don't kid yourself; if Blizzard were to implement Demon Hunters, there'd be a clause somewhere in there so that people didn't have to burn their eyes out.
    Why's that though? Death Knights were given priveledge to maintain their identity and not have a clause where they come back to life. They've got the pale skin and glowing blue eyes, it makes them special. A blind, tattooed badass is what I, and many others, want to see as a playable Demon Hunter. If not, why bother?

    Who is asking for a Demon Hunter that isn't a blind, tattooed badass?

  15. #935
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Why's that though? Death Knights were given priveledge to maintain their identity and not have a clause where they come back to life. They've got the pale skin and glowing blue eyes, it makes them special. This is what I, and many others, want to see as a playable Demon Hunter. If not, why bother?
    They don't need to have the pale skin. You can take one of the old skin tones; you're not forced to take an icky skin tone. The only thing that you're absolutely forced into is the blue eyes.

    Seriously, if you want to have a blindfold? There's already more than one in the game. I even used one on my warlock. There are better ways to fulfill an aesthetic desire than implementing an entire class.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  16. #936
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    They don't need to have the pale skin. You can take one of the old skin tones; you're not forced to take an icky skin tone. The only thing that you're absolutely forced into is the blue eyes.

    Seriously, if you want to have a blindfold? There's already more than one in the game. I even used one on my warlock. There are better ways to fulfill an aesthetic desire than implementing an entire class.
    It's aesthetic and lore.

    I'm fine if you believe it is plausible for a Warlock to dual wield, use warglaives, wear blindfolds and fight demons, but that's still a far step from being a Demon Hunter. It's like calling a Priest a Paladin if it could wear plate mail and hold a shield. There is more to it than that.

  17. #937
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    You can't speak for people who do not share this idea. You're assuming that anyone who wants to see a Demon Hunter represented as a class will automatically be okay with it being incorporated as a Warlock spec instead. That's simply not true, and many of us are telling you straight up how we feel about that. You need to open your eyes here and stop pretending 'they' will like it.
    Anyone who doesn't like the concept, look or theme is attracted to how they THINK the class will be implemented in game. Which probably isn't going to be the case as gameplay style will depend on what Blizzard does and is relatively independent of the class. An AGI based meleer who dual wields swords, uses Shadow Magic and has a limited selection of ranged moves available describes the rogue pretty well as an example.

    If lore, theme, identity, backstory doesn't interest you, if you are interested mainly in the playstyle you think the class should have have - why not play a rogue?

    unless 4th spec becomes a reality across the board and new spec/role combinations are open to all other classes, this is still an unlikely scenario.
    Blizzard has changed spec roles in the past before. They've also implemented a DH style tanking gameplay via a Glyph. However yes...to do the idea justice, you would need to either retarget Demonology to that role or give Warlocks a fourth spec.

    The question, as before, isn't "Can Warlocks be DHs?". Gameplaywise, they already are. The question is "Will Blizzard do the work necessary to make them viable in that role?".

    Blood Knights and Shadow Priests have no relevance to this. It's not a matter of lore but game design that makes a Melee Warlock unlikely to happen.
    Then people should stop using lore as a reason why a Warlock bassed DH cannot happen.

    A Warlock simply doesn't have the gear to support a melee spec, which would require stats like Expertise.
    A supposition which is nonsense.

    Suppose I gave Warlocks a spell called Demon Strike, which cost mana, was instant, had a 5 yard range, did damage, was treated as any other spell but required a 1H weapon as a focus and triggered a weapon animation. Would that require Expertise or Melee Hit? And there are several other solutions to this problem as well.

    On top of that, you would have to assume that Blizzard would allow Warlocks to use their Int-based gear and convert stats. If this is so, why continue to have Int Plate? They could have done away with that by converting Strength into Int long time ago and removing an unnecessary drop from the already bloated loot tables.
    Because doing that would create even more issues given the number of players who would be competing for the same drops.

    Because the Warlock can incorporate the DH does not mean it should. That's what I feel should not happen. Many of us would rather see the Demon Hunter not become playable than see it being folded into the Warlock, where it would become a shadow of its former identity.
    The problem, as I see it is yes...the DH would be better realised as a separate class if it was developed and integrated as a standalone entity.

    HOWEVER - it's too late. For all intents and purposes, Warlocks already ARE DHs. Right now. They already have everything that makes a Demon Hunter a Demon Hunter.

    What they lack is viability. A Warlock can equip a sword, can use the Glyph and then melee as a DH to his hearts content....but that doesn't make him viable. Blizzard can improve the cosmetic similarity by allowing Warlocks to dual wield. Even more by adding a blindfold and allowing NElfs. But all of that is cosmetic.

    If you want truly viable Demon Hunters in game, then you'll want a Armor spell for melee, you'd likely copy Demos resource system and ability list, you'd add a couple of strikes, appropriate melee utility and survival abilities and develop a rotation and active mitigation abilities for tanking....and do so via a fourth spec.

    Other possibilities do occur however...what if, instead of fourth specs, each class can choose 1 or 2 master classes at L100...with DH being available to Rogues and Warlocks? Or Warlocks being able to dual class into Rogue and so gain melee viability hat way? Or...ok, fanciful ideas but still showing the possible ways DH can be brought in as an "official" spec.

    On top of that, I believe that it would be disrespectful to the Warlock class itself to force the identity of another class onto it, however similar they may be.
    And yet we are back to Blood Knights and Sunwalkers sharing the Paladin spec. Arms and Fury have very different identities as well...both fighters but one a trained professional, the other a raging berserker. Holy and Shadow priests....very different in many ways.

    If the lore positions a Demon Hunter as a Warlock who simply channels his energies into melee ranged abilities as opposed to the Demon summoning Drmonologist, the nuking Destro or the DoTTing Aff...is that really going to undermine the identity of a Warlock as someone who uses Demons an Demon magic that much?

    What if they go the Sunwalker route and state that Demon Hunters are essentially totally different lorewise? Then that NElf Warlock is actually a Demon Hunter (no matter which spec) just like the Tauren Paladin is a Sunwalker? A human Demon Hunter would then be a Warlock who stole DH ablities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Not a difficult concept, no. But what role does it fill?

    Does it Tank, as per Demon Hunting Glyph's original design? What then of those who want DHs as a DPS spec?
    Since when have Demon Hunters ever been a DPS spec? Sure...people think of them as DPS but there in't any obligation for Blizzard to portray them that way, even if they do bring in the class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It's like calling a Priest a Paladin if it could wear plate mail and hold a shield. There is more to it than that.
    Pretty much describes what the first Paladins actually were - in lore anyway.

    EJL

  18. #938
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Anyone who doesn't like the concept, look or theme is attracted to how they THINK the class will be implemented in game. Which probably isn't going to be the case as gameplay style will depend on what Blizzard does and is relatively independent of the class. An AGI based meleer who dual wields swords, uses Shadow Magic and has a limited selection of ranged moves available describes the rogue pretty well as an example.

    If lore, theme, identity, backstory doesn't interest you, if you are interested mainly in the playstyle you think the class should have have - why not play a rogue?
    You're ignoring the big question - Who is asking for a Demon Hunter spec for Warlocks?

    Fans who want to see a Demon Hunter want to see them represented as their own class. There is no logic or reasoning you can use to disprove what we want to see. It's very simple. You see Warlocks as Demon Hunters. It's clear that you don't understand our sentiment. Don't tell me what I want is to play a Rogue or Melee Warlock. I have a Rogue alt and 2 Warlock alts. To me, these are not Demon Hunters.

    Blizzard has changed spec roles in the past before. They've also implemented a DH style tanking gameplay via a Glyph. However yes...to do the idea justice, you would need to either retarget Demonology to that role or give Warlocks a fourth spec.

    The question, as before, isn't "Can Warlocks be DHs?". Gameplaywise, they already are. The question is "Will Blizzard do the work necessary to make them viable in that role?".
    A Warlock with a Tanking or Melee spec has little to do with being a Demon Hunter. You are mixing two arguments up because you see it as being convenient.

    I don't really care if Warlocks get a 4th 'Dark Apotheosis' spec. Warlock players may be asking for that, and that's fine to me. However, I don't believe there are people who are actually going out of their way to ask for Demon Hunters to be incorporated as a Warlock spec. It's a case of convenience where people don't really care about Demon Hunter lore would say 'If the Demon Hunter was going to happen, they might as well be made into Warlocks'. Very few people are advocating an actual Demon Hunter spec for Warlocks. Just look at the polls made made in the past week asking if people thought Demon Hunter's Demon Form would be the same as Warlocks. The majority doesn't see it as the same thing.

    Then people should stop using lore as a reason why a Warlock bassed DH cannot happen.
    It's not a reason why it can not happen. It's a reason why it should not. Warlock Spec advocates are assuming that Demon Hunters have no lore other than a motivation to fight demons. I'm simply stating otherwise, and that there is reasonable evidence for Demon Hunters to maintain a separate identity. This is an opinion shared by many others throughout this thread.

    Suppose I gave Warlocks a spell called Demon Strike, which cost mana, was instant, had a 5 yard range, did damage, was treated as any other spell but required a 1H weapon as a focus and triggered a weapon animation. Would that require Expertise or Melee Hit? And there are several other solutions to this problem as well.
    Expertise is required for any and every melee class. It mostly affects white damage, unless your intent is to have a melee class that has no white attacks like how Blizzard wanted to make the Monk originally. Even then, Expertise is required for a number of melee-based abilities. This isn't an excuse, it's a core mechanic that would need to be addressed. I'm not saying Blizzard wouldn't be able to do it. I'm telling you that it's an integral part of Melee.

    Just take a look at Enhancement shamans and how it affects them. They are a spell-using melee hybrid, yet they still require Expertise (a lot for DW cap). This is further complicated by the fact that Expertise is hard to acquire on Mail Agi gear, since Hunters, Resto and Elemental don't use it. Would it not have been easier if they made spell-based melee abilities as you suggested? Yet they have not done so, and show no reasonable evidence that they ever plan to.

    The problem, as I see it is yes...the DH would be better realised as a separate class if it was developed and integrated as a standalone entity.

    HOWEVER - it's too late. For all intents and purposes, Warlocks already ARE DHs. Right now. They already have everything that makes a Demon Hunter a Demon Hunter.
    And until Blizzard goes out of their way to say they are exactly the same, I will maintain otherwise, as will all others who respect the lore for what it is, not what it looks to be. Just like Shadow Hunters and Witchdoctors are different from Shamans in lore. It doesn't build any better case for them to exist as a class - but no one is asking for that to happen. There is no reasonable plausibility to have them in the game.

    Demon Hunters are widely asked for, they fit in with a Legion-based expansion, and they have potential to expand beyond the Warcraft 3 archetype. It's not a case that they SHOULD be made, but they're good reasons for any new class. If it does not happen, then it does not happen. I don't understand why people go out of their way to prove it shouldn't happen. It's something that is desired with reasonable plausibility, that's it.

    And yet we are back to Blood Knights and Sunwalkers sharing the Paladin spec. Arms and Fury have very different identities as well...both fighters but one a trained professional, the other a raging berserker. Holy and Shadow priests....very different in many ways.
    There is lore explaining what Blood Knights and Sunwalkers are. They're simply represented in the game as Paladins, despite their differences.

    There is no lore stating that Demon Hunter are Warlocks. If Blizzard creates this lore, I will be happy to see it, and willing to accept it. However, just because it is possible doesn't mean they have already done it, and as it stands, Demon Hunters are not Warlocks in the lore.

    Pretty much describes what the first Paladins actually were - in lore anyway.

    EJL
    Yes, and it would be reasonably plausible to replace Paladins with a Plate-wearing Priest Melee specs. Of course, no one is asking that to happen.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-10 at 09:49 PM.

  19. #939
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Since when have Demon Hunters ever been a DPS spec? Sure...people think of them as DPS but there in't any obligation for Blizzard to portray them that way, even if they do bring in the class.
    While it's entirely possible that Demon Hunter as a Warlock spec could be for tanking, I don't think that's very likely. Consider the players who want it, we've already established are likely playing Rogues or Warriors for their Dual Wielding meleeness. I think they'd feel somewhat cheated if the 'true' Demon Hunter was given to Warlocks, and unable to be used for DPS (and unable to be a Night Elf. And consider the lore consequences of allowing Night Elf Warlocks of the other specs - they should be Satyr I believe).

    The original discussions for Warlock tanks are also pretty wide of the mark for where Glyph of Demon Hunting ended up; compare the caster using drains and self healing, rather than a demon form with high active mitigation and using melee attacks.

  20. #940
    Bloodsail Admiral Hextor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    1,072
    A rogue in late TBC with dual Glaives is the closest thing you'll get to a Demon Hunter. Demonology warlock is the closest thing you will get to Illidan's Transformation ability. Stop it with the "we demand DH class". It's pointless.

Posting Permissions

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