Like I said earlier, every time he lies about what Ghostcrawler actually said, he should be infracted or (probably) banned. Intentionally and repeatedly lying about what another person said can only be interpreted as malicious intent and gross misconduct, especially when the offender has been repeatedly shown how his claims are false. He clearly won't stop doing it until somebody forces him to stop.
Last edited by Cooper; 2013-09-02 at 12:45 AM.
user Mynsc on August 2nd. Around August 30th, Tom Chilton and Chris Robinson were interviewed: Chilton said the speculation (about Mists being the expansion name) was, "wildly overhyped." He added, "if you look at traditionally how we've handled that race it's been in those secondary products because we haven't realized it in the world. Most of the time when we do anything panda-related it's going to be a comic book or a figurine or something like that."
I don't know what the next class will be, both DH or tinker or something else could be fun if done right, but if it's not a Tinker coming here to read about it will be amusing me thinks....
EDIT: IMO they need a class using Int plate other one spec for one class, I think ret should use INT plate and maybe UH or Frost DKs, my 2 copper.
As far as the DH is concerned....is there any design space not already occupied by the Warlock? The Hunter? The warrior? The Death Knight?
The answer is "no". Given the DH people want....warriors (and rogues) have the combat style. Warlocks have the theme and look and many built in abilities. DKs (and rogues) have the anti-hero vibe. Hunters have the hunting theme.
GC pointed out what is a pretty major drawback to the DH class - the lack of design space. To create that design space, you'll need to create a new class from the ground up.
GC asked a question. What's more...it was a rhetorical question, with an obvious answer.Sure...it's not a literal "No". But if you want a "yes, there is some design space not covered", perhaps you could provide a hint as to what it could be? What design space is left?
Thing is...the simple fact the question was asked is problematic. Its a question that didn't need to be asked if the answer was yes. And even if there was some design space open and free, its going to be limited. The DH has constraints because so much of its design space is already taken. Constraints other class concepts don't have, at least not to the same level
Yes. And it would also depend on Blizzard finding some design space to build it around.A dh implementation would depend on the treatment.
Death Knight: Undead Mastery and disease.
Also a need and desire to add plate/leather armor, and tie players into the relevant XPac.
DHs bring nothing unique. They don't use mail armor, their demon theme, looks and story tie-ins are filled by Warlocks. Warriors and rogues have their fighting style. Whats left would be specific abilities and a combat system that any class can bring. Essentially, anything you want to add to DHs can be added to an existing class already and not be out of place.
Overall, Blizzard can add whatever class it wants, when it wants. But a class being too "whimsical" is a lot easier to fix than a class with no design room.
Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-02 at 01:32 AM.
And of course they don't give you a straight answer, if they wanted to announce the new expansion now they would. They are clearly planning to announce it at Blizzcon. Just wait until Christmas morning to open your damn presents!
Well, however you feel about Demon Hunters as an idea, you can't say that they won't instantly clear the field of "ties players into the relevant expansion" the very first time the Burning Legion shows back up.
That leaves basically Monks as the closest - which he didn't even name. Lightly armored, agility-based, can tank... but unarmed combat, no relation to demons, little if any magic. Nor did he name enhancement shamans, who might be a fair argument.
So out of the three that are actually somewhat similar (Rogue, Monk, Shaman), he didn't name a single one, and did name one that is just completely out of left field (hunter).
Similarly he made a comment like "is the Tinker too whimsical for Warcraft?".
In neither case has he outright said they won't do them. Or that they aren't considering options. I'd put my money on neither of them being the plan for next expansion (probably no new class, too soon after Monks IMO), but maybe them or other options being on the table for future expansions. People also probably overestimate how fixed Blizzard's plans are, they often change their minds behind the scenes when they don't like an idea or get a better one. Didn't they say they were halfway through building an expansion when they scrapped it for MoP instead?
TLDR: we don't actually KNOW anything until they announce it. Blizzcon (probably).
- - - Updated - - -
It would be the first time a class doesn't have some kind of basis in the RTS (well actually, Rogues are mostly new to WoW) but hey, they can't keep drawing on the RTS forever, WoW has to make its own path.
Merely pointing out the overabundance of dual wielding melee already in the game.And fury warrior? Fury warriors are basically plate-wearing berserkers that dual-wield two-handed weapons, whereas Demon Hunters rely on agility to avoid damage and fight with fast weapons. Rogues? Dual-wielding and agility based, sure, but Rogues fight dirty and Demon Hunters are far more up-front and tanky.
There isn't much difference between utilizing demonic magic to dominate demons, and utilizing demonic magic to destroy demons.Warlock? Caster versus Melee, different attitudes towards demons - not even close.
DKs and Warlocks both use Shadow Magic. Shadow Magic is a school within demonic magic.Death Knight? Potentially problematic as a class that combines melee and magic, but it's different schools, and DKs are (again) a strength based, plate-wearing class. Also very different lore-wise, with a potentially interesting dichotomy: DKs were forced into their life as outcasts, Demon Hunters are outcasts by choice.
Monks being added to the game makes a DH introduction even more doubtful.That leaves basically Monks as the closest - which he didn't even name. Lightly armored, agility-based, can tank... but unarmed combat, no relation to demons, little if any magic. Nor did he name enhancement shamans, who might be a fair argument.
Ghostcrawler making a half-statement that could be interpreted multiple ways? Well I never!
In other news, some guy made another Tinker thread.
If anything, Blizzard should add a tech class just because it would make sense for Gnomes and Goblins. It just seems weird that those two races can't be a tech class. Just seems weird that their racial identity is based around technology, and neither race has a class that reflects that identity.