Page 46 of 47 FirstFirst ...
36
44
45
46
47
LastLast
  1. #901
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Are Demon Hunters the same as Warlocks in lore? No...they aren't.
    Does that matter when Warlocks already ARE Demon Hunters in all but name? No.

    EJL
    It matters to the people who matter - the Demon Hunter fans. If not to please us, why else are Demon Hunters worth existing?

    It's not a matter of how plausible Warlocks are from becoming Demon Hunters, it's about what maintains the Demon Hunters unique identity. Again, just agree to disagree and move on. You really have no argument against how we will view Demon Hunters and their place and relevance within WoW. It's about BEING a Demon Hunter, not just a Warlock who hunts demons.

    You're constantly trying to raise proof against our opinion. I still don't see why you see it necessary to make us believe that playing a Dual Wielding Warlock is anything we want to see as a Demon Hunter. If Blizzard says so, then we will accept that as canon. Just like saying Elves are part of the Horde, or Pandarens are a neutral race. They may have been questionable changes in lore, but we still hold canon in high regard. Demon Hunters are not Warlocks until there is definitive lore saying so.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-10 at 11:48 PM.

  2. #902
    Deleted
    Damn OP you are trying too hard. There is no demon hunter in wow.

  3. #903
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    20,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    But the ingame Demon Hunters which have Shadowbolt or Shadowfury or Curse of Flames or use Chaos Blast or are surrouded by demons are acceptable? Lets not also forget that NElfs also do shun DHs as well.
    And even Nelf DHs would shun Warlocks of the other specialisations.

    In this scenario, Warlocks would already have DPS specs and have the same melee DPS capability as other tanks. A dedicated melee dps would not be needed.

    EJL
    It's needed about as much as Warlocks need it as a tank spec. Both are about want, and when it comes down to want, DHs as a standalone class would be more wanted.

  4. #904
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    It's needed about as much as Warlocks need it as a tank spec. Both are about want, and when it comes down to want, DHs as a standalone class would be more wanted.
    This pretty much.

    What we want on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being very much, 1 being don't want.

    Demon Hunter as a playable class - 10
    Demon Hunter never happens - 5-6 (above average because it's expected it won't happen)
    Demon Hunter as Warlock spec - 1
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-11 at 12:16 AM.

  5. #905
    Gais demon hunter is totally warlock
    warlock can has demon and make look like angry demon man too
    warlock can set guis on fair and demon man can set self on fire

    is easy see?

    Real talk, I would hope that if anyone was going to get a demonhunter spec it would be rogue and it would be a tank/DPS spec. I mean, just set a rogue on fire and you're halfway to a demon hunter anyway.
    Last edited by Jerakal; 2013-08-11 at 04:18 AM.

  6. #906
    @ The Night Elf Warlock argument:

    Or, you could reason that there are no NEW Night Elf Warlocks. It would be fairly easy to reason that all current Demon Hunters date back to pre-sundering or early post-sundering, and their ways are such an extreme anathema among their own people that they haven't been able to train more until they found like-minded individuals of other races. Motive wise, they would only need to find one Warlock whose motives matched their own; It wouldn't be difficult. The knowledge could spread from there like it did with the Council of the Black Harvest. Maybe this has already happened with Kanrethed, before he followed in Illidan's footsteps, and we just haven't mastered it yet, represented by our currently gimped Demon Hunter Glyph.

  7. #907
    Rogues would fit better than Warlocks, I agree. They probably share most of the races that a Demon Hunter could cover as well.

    I'd probably fit them in around 4 in the scale. The lore still isn't 100%, but at least they're a 'shadowy melee' class.

  8. #908
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    And even Nelf DHs would shun Warlocks of the other specialisations.
    How such players would choose to roleplay their character would be up to them.

    It's needed about as much as Warlocks need it as a tank spec. Both are about want, and when it comes down to want, DHs as a standalone class would be more wanted.
    Yes, arguably players would want a viable melee DPS spec even though they would have THREE Ranged DPS specs and a melee tanking option available to them - not to mention the existing GoDH. However, right now, Warlocks...like all pures...only have a DPS role. There is a string argument that a diversification for all pures is needed, to address issues of flexibility, burnout through variety of play, and to try and reduce the queue times.

    As for want - that also is the case for Hunters as I've seen calls for a more melee orientated Hunters in the past. Just because some players ask for it doesn't mean it'll happen.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-08-11 at 06:38 AM.

  9. #909
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    There is a string argument that a diversification for all pures is needed, to address issues of flexibility, burnout through variety of play, and to try and reduce the queue times.

    EJL
    The need for tanks in the game doesn't stem from the lack of Tank options in the game. This is an issue that's been addressed by GC before, and it's been addressed by players if you just look around in the forum. Just because there are more options for tanks doesn't mean more players will be tanks.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-11 at 07:04 AM.

  10. #910
    Perhaps making DHs a cloth wearing class that uses a "Intellect/Spirit -> Agility/Expertise" conversion passive would make them easier to implement, but the issue of huge overlaps with Warlocks and even a bit of Rogues still remains.

    Blizzard would have to make a new class (the WoW DHs) that are a fusion of Warlock magic and Rogue fighting - but without further infringing on the Warlock and Rogue class, as well as changing/removing certain aspects of Warlocks (and even Rogues) that overlaps too much with the Demon Hunters.

    And even then it is a huge risk that the War3 DH fans would not like the new improvised WoW DH class - which would prompt for yet another redesign that costs precious resources (MONEY).

    It is DOABLE, but it is more realistic to expect Blizzard to utilize some other unused sources of "hero materials" (like Tinker+Alchemist).

  11. #911
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    The need for tanks in the game doesn't stem from the lack of Tank options in the game. This is an issue that's been addressed by GC before, and it's been addressed by players if you just look around in the forum. Just because there are more options for tanks doesn't mean more players will be tanks.
    To be fair, GC was referring to adding the new tanking classes not adding to many tanks as many of then were rerolls from other tanking classes. I think they will be pleasantly surprised if they open up new possibilities within the existing classes. I would tank, and the warlock tanking community is proof that others would as well.

  12. #912
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksej89 View Post
    Blizzard would have to make a new class (the WoW DHs) that are a fusion of Warlock magic and Rogue fighting - but without further infringing on the Warlock and Rogue class, as well as changing/removing certain aspects of Warlocks (and even Rogues) that overlaps too much with the Demon Hunters.
    I'm curious.

    Prior to Death Knights and Monks, what pre-existing classes would you have compared them to? And would you find those class comparisons withstanding after knowing their differences?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orloth View Post
    To be fair, GC was referring to adding the new tanking classes not adding to many tanks as many of then were rerolls from other tanking classes. I think they will be pleasantly surprised if they open up new possibilities within the existing classes. I would tank, and the warlock tanking community is proof that others would as well.
    I agree that Warlock Tanking would be an interesting draw a new crowd to tanking. I do hope Blizzard would implement a stat-priority change between armors, but I don't think they'll do it. I've pushed for the removal of Int Plate gear before, because as a Paladin, i'd always have to carry multiple sets of gear depending on the situation. On top of that, it always sucks in a raid when the one thing that drops is Int. Plate. It's always the first to get DE'd.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-08-11 at 08:00 AM.

  13. #913
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    The need for tanks in the game doesn't stem from the lack of Tank options in the game. This is an issue that's been addressed by GC before, and it's been addressed by players if you just look around in the forum. Just because there are more options for tanks doesn't mean more players will be tanks.
    Which I've stated before. The big problem with tanks (and healers) is not the number of classes open to that role, it is the number of players wanting to take on that role.

    Having said that, providing more playstyle options for tanks isn't in itself a bad idea and presenting a different playstyle and the DH image may indeed draw a few more players into the role. It's also the role the DH actually fills in game when its used and its a role Warlocks have, in the past, taken on. Doing so would still provide additional flexibility for the Warlock class.

    In short, there are arguments for implementing a DH in its traditional tanking role, especially if it is added to the Warlock class instead of being a standalone class. There is much less of an argument for a DPS spec in a similar situation - Warlocks already have DPS options, they have a melee option through the GoDH and the DH spec and the DHs existing in game aren't presented as a DPS spec. Players might indeed want a viable DH melee DPS option, but that doesn't mean they'd get one if DH were fully implemented as a Warlock spec instead of a standalone class.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-08-11 at 08:46 AM.

  14. #914
    As I've mentioned before, Warlock Tanking has nothing to do with Demon Hunters. It's Dark Apotheosis, not Demon Hunting. Blizzard would be foolish to try to combine the two, considering they could create new lore to explain the tanking form instead of destroying existing Demon Hunter lore.

  15. #915
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    20,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Which I've stated before. The big problem with tanks (and healers) is not the number of classes open to that role, it is the number of players wanting to take on that role.

    Having said that, providing more playstyle options for tanks isn't in itself a bad idea and presenting a different playstyle and the DH image may indeed draw a few more players into the role. It's also the role the DH actually fills in game when its used and its a role Warlocks have, in the past, taken on. Doing so would still provide additional flexibility for the Warlock class.

    In short, there are arguments for implementing a DH in its traditional tanking role, especially if it is added to the Warlock class instead of being a standalone class. There is much less of an argument for a DPS spec in a similar situation - Warlocks already have DPS options, they have a melee option through the GoDH and the DH spec and the DHs existing in game aren't presented as a DPS spec. Players might indeed want a viable DH melee DPS option, but that doesn't mean they'd get one if DH were fully implemented as a Warlock spec instead of a standalone class.

    EJL
    Unless you remove the notion of pures from the game in the process, then you'll potentially push more people away from the class than you might draw into tanking. And if you remove pures from the game, there's real potential for alienating players from the game entirely, while as an idea itself I don't see it as a major draw. Pures are still popular, Hunters being the second most played class and DPS by far the most popular role.

    I just don't see the point in adding Demon Hunter as a spec for Warlocks when it's such a popular class idea for two distinct roles; it would be massively underwhelming and completely defeat the object of the attempt to give players what they actually want.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2013-08-11 at 08:59 AM.

  16. #916
    The Lightbringer Agoonga's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,272
    Demon Hunter doesn't not have enough unique abilities to be its own class. Just be happy that Warlocks have some of them because that's the only way you'll get to use them. I would like to play as a Beastmaster, but I know they aren't unique enough to be separate from Hunters with Beast Mastery, so I don't argue for them.

  17. #917
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Unless you remove the notion of pures from the game in the process, then you'll potentially push more people away from the class than you might draw into tanking. And if you remove pures from the game, there's real potential for alienating players from the game entirely, while as an idea itself I don't see it as a major draw. Pures are still popular, Hunters being the second most played class and DPS by far the most popular role.
    You really think adding an extra option and leaving the others intact would drive people away? That players are so invested in the idea of a pure DPS class with no other role possible that they would rather drop the game than accept they have another option?

    That seems very doubtful to me. I can't see a MM Hunter, for example, dropping the class because Blizzard added a 4th spec that allowed him to heal but left MM alone.

    I just don't see the point in adding Demon Hunter as a spec for Warlocks when it's such a popular class idea for two distinct roles; it would be massively underwhelming and completely defeat the object of the attempt to give players what they actually want.
    Why would they add it as a spec instead of a standalone class? Because Warlocks already are Demon Hunters. Right now. This minute. You can log into the game and play a Demon Hunter. You just have to accept they are called Warlocks. It lacks viability and it doesn't have dual wield but if you wanted to go around as a demon hunter...that's already in the game. Same look, same theme, same moves. Players got excited during the Beta about getting to play Demon Hunters and tanking and were disappointed when the viability of that got nerfed. But actually BEING a Demon Hunter? Warlocks do that right now. What they lack is the ability to dual wield and viability in the role.

    If Warlocks just lack Dual Wield...is it realistic to expect Blizzard to add another class that is effectively the same in many ways? And if you redesign the class so its different...is it realistic to expect Blizzard to call it a Demon Hunter and so weigh it down with the baggage and in game lore of the existing version?

    So, to answer your point....it IS viable to add a spec for Warlocks that reflects a viable melee role for what the Warlocks already have for a tanking role that it already fills in game. A viable melee DPS spec would only need to be developed if the DHs were added as a standalone class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    As I've mentioned before, Warlock Tanking has nothing to do with Demon Hunters. It's Dark Apotheosis, not Demon Hunting.
    Dark Apotheosis gives them tanking abilities including a taunt and swaps a ranged nuke for a short range attack and is derived from a Glyph known as the Glyph of DEMON HUNTING. Your argument, however, refers to how Warlock tanking USED to be done..draintanking. Drain tanking is something different and while it is possible Blizzard could redevelop warlock tanking around that, its also largely unnecessary to give them two separate tanking styles.

    So sure...Blizzard could do that But why bother when all it has to do it tune the existing Warlock into viability instead of redeveloping a new style of tanking. And even were Blizzard to develop it, that wouldn't change the fact that Warlocks are Demon Hunters right now. You'd have to actively remove abilities and options from the class to change that. Which again, isn't impossible but ti does seem unlikely

    Blizzard would be foolish to try to combine the two, considering they could create new lore to explain the tanking form instead of destroying existing Demon Hunter lore.
    They could indeed create new lore. Why would they need to? They also do NOT need to destroy the little Demon Hunter lore that exists. Which is minimal. They use Rituals, and they are shunned. Sounds very much like warlocks. They wouldn't even need to destroy the non-canon RPG info since little, if any, of it actually contradicts the supposition that DHs can be seen an offshoot of Warlocks.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-08-11 at 09:58 AM.

  18. #918
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    You really think adding an extra option and leaving the others intact would drive people away? That players are so invested in the idea of a pure DPS class with no other role possible that they would rather drop the game than accept they have another option?

    That seems very doubtful to me. I can't see a MM Hunter, for example, dropping the class because Blizzard added a 4th spec that allowed him to heal but left MM alone.
    4th spec threads do tend to draw a few complaints of that very nature. Not a significant number, and I expect the majority of players, who don't post on forums, would react with curiosity about what their new specs can do.


    Players got excited during the Beta about getting to play Demon Hunters and tanking and were disappointed when the viability of that got nerfed. But actually BEING a Demon Hunter? Warlocks do that right now. What they lack is the ability to dual wield and viability in the role.
    Nope. Having been part of those threads during beta, warlocks really didn't care about the glyph's name, only the role it offered: main tank. We didn't talk about getting to be a demon hunter, or even a melee fighter; we talked about the mechanics and tools of being a cloth geared, pet toting tank. The possibilities were tested, the spec was pushed to its limits, and it was proven to be OP and was thus nerfed.


    Dark Apotheosis gives them tanking abilities including a taunt and swaps a ranged nuke for a short range attack and is derived from a Glyph known as the Glyph of DEMON HUNTING. Your argument, however, refers to how Warlock tanking USED to be done..draintanking. Drain tanking is something different and while it is possible Blizzard could redevelop warlock tanking around that, its also largely unnecessary to give them two separate tanking styles.

    So sure...Blizzard could do that But why bother when all it has to do it tune the existing Warlock into viability instead of redeveloping a new style of tanking. And even were Blizzard to develop it, that wouldn't change the fact that Warlocks are Demon Hunters right now. You'd have to actively remove abilities and options from the class to change that. Which again, isn't impossible but ti does seem unlikely
    To be accurate, DA's taunt isn't legit since it doesn't work on raid bosses.

    Despite the glyph name, nothing about DA really screams demon hunter. You get a 10-yard range instant spell, a growl-type threat move, an all-purpose damage absorb, and the same general threat bump and damage reduction that all five real tanks get. No actual melee attacks, no melee weapons, and I don't find that it feels like a melee combatant. When I play with DA, I still feel like a caster, just one who can take a punch or five. And I say that as someone with all five tanking specs between 85 and 90.

    DA was not at all balanced for the new paradigm of active mitigation tanking. It might have worked in Wrath or Cata, but it had to be nerfed hard before MoP went live. It needs at least as much redesigning as warlock's three real specs got before MoP.

    Plus, right now DA repurposes all the cool things about Demo. Demo is in a pretty great place IMO, and will hopefully carry into the next expansion with only balance tuning. If they go forward with a tanking 4th spec, it's highly reasonable that it will get all new spells, and a new secondary resource.

    When 4th spec threads come up I always say I want an Apotheosis spec built on health stealing and damage redirection for its active mitigation. The warlock already has the history and the basic tools in place to create a drain tanking style different from the five tanks already in game. Why should Blizz shoehorn demon hunterish things onto Warlocks to make them tanks when they could resurrect SL/SL instead? Warlock tanks would be better for it, and the class would be better served to stay within its own identity.

    I could see a DH tanking spec going a few other ways in its AM: high damage absorption, high damage evasion, or high effective health. There's no need at all to believe that it would lift the few tools out of DA and just tank with those.

  19. #919
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtree View Post
    4th spec threads do tend to draw a few complaints of that very nature. Not a significant number, and I expect the majority of players, who don't post on forums, would react with curiosity about what their new specs can do.
    I expect the number of players so invested in their idea of a class that they'd drop it would be very few.

    Nope. Having been part of those threads during beta, warlocks really didn't care about the glyph's name, only the role it offered: main tank.
    So was I. And there was talk about the Demon Hunter. Of course, there was also talk about the DH and Warlocks when Meta was introduced.

    To be accurate, DA's taunt isn't legit since it doesn't work on raid bosses.
    Yes, and the Glyph itself is only meant to be there for fun. As pointed out, it isn't meant to be a serious tank. As GC pointed out, the chnges necessary for that go beyond the scope of a Glyph.

    Despite the glyph name, nothing about DA really screams demon hunter.
    You get to fill a DHs core role, albeit in a limited fashion. You get to look and act like a DH.

    You don't get any melee moves apart from auto-attack - but you do end up getting into short range in your face combat while hitting things with your sword and casting spells and being "tanky".

    in other words, you do what a DH does while looking like a DH.

    You want strikes? You want actual melee combat? Then you are looking into going beyond that into a VIABLE self contained tanking spec which uses an active mitigation model. Thats a bit beyond a mere Glyph.

    Plus, right now DA repurposes all the cool things about Demo. Demo is in a pretty great place IMO, and will hopefully carry into the next expansion with only balance tuning. If they go forward with a tanking 4th spec, it's highly reasonable that it will get all new spells, and a new secondary resource.
    Possibly. I could see them doing that, or simply keeping the Demo system as a workable base that requires minimal changes. They could even drop that DH system completely as a tanking model and go back to drain tanking.


    Why should Blizz shoehorn demon hunterish things onto Warlocks to make them tanks when they could resurrect SL/SL instead?
    Principally because, despite it lack of viability, the core problem is that - as far as gameplay is concerned - Warlocks already are Demon Hunters.

    They aren't viable as Demon Hunters - they don't have the melee tools, active mitigation system or tanking toolkit for that - but they do have the looks, they do have the spells, they are positioned into a tanking role and while they don't have the actual strikes, they are capable of running into melee hitting things with a sword.

    Viable? No...but that doesn't mean they don't already do everything a DH would.

    Horns and Tattoos? They got those.
    Meta? They got that
    Melee combat with a sword? They got that
    Associated and identified with demons? Yes
    Do they cast Shadow based spells? Do they use curses? Can they control demons? Yes.
    Tanking role? Yes

    Everything a DH needs to make him a DH...Warlocks have. Anything else - strikes, tanking and survival tools, etc - goes to viability in the role.

    It doesn't change what they currently have. It just means they can't tank Garrosh.

    At the end of the day, though, the issue is clear.

    Blizzard COULD indeed design a standalone DH class. Will it? Unless its a lot more popular than it appears, then it simply doesn't appear to be worth the effort. It has a large overlap with Warlocks in identity, theme and toolkit, and with the rogue in terms of presumed gameplay - AGI based dual wielding meleer who makes use of sme shadow based abilities and a limited selection of ranged attacks.

    Gameplaywise...the class is effectively already in game, Blizzard has been moving Demo Warlocks in that direction for years and the class brings nothing new to the game. Other classes already do what it does

    Blizard could also bring it in as a Warlock/Rogue subspec. Neither ption breaks any lore for DHs, and the Warlock class especially is essentially set up as the class already.

    Either option would work and bth are plausible directions. It's just the standalone option has problems that the sub-spec option doesn't. The standalone would allow for more indepth development but the sub-spec requires less work.

    Do I expect Blizzard to go down this route? I personally don't see a standalone class as viable; there is too much overlap in too many areas with not enough return.

    The sub spec? On the one hand, it'll add some variety to the class and players were excited with the thought during Beta. On the other, Warlocks have just had a major reworking and is vastly improved in many ways so Blizzard may decide resources are best used elewhere. If this XPac is Azshara, it may also be thematically appropriate to hold off until the BL XPac.

    EJL

  20. #920
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Frost DKs are based on the Lich hero. A mixture of frost and shadow magIc.
    No. Frost DKs are based on the DK hero.


    Liches have frost nova, a ritual move for mana, the WCII death knight death and decay, and frost armor. Frost nova and frost armor are mage spells. Dark Ritual is a magic card.


    Death Knights are based on Death Knights.

Posting Permissions

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