Thread: Tinker Class

Page 51 of 64 FirstFirst ...
41
49
50
51
52
53
61
... LastLast
  1. #1001
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    I would believe that most of those changes were done by the Warlock class designer, who at the time was known for radical changes. He doesn't work there any more.
    Yes. And guess what? He worked as part of a team. And his work needed to be signed off on. He did NOT have carte blanche. Those changes went through not because he liked them and thought them appropriate...but because BLIZZARD thought they were approrpriate.

    If they didn't, they would never have gone through. Thats made doubly clear by the fact that it was GC who commented on the nature of warlocks and tanking, as well as the Green Fire quest which established yet another link between the two classes AFTER the designer in question left.

    Illidan is also dead, and by fan decree, that is likely to be reversed. I believe 'too late' is an overstatement.
    Lore is easy to change. Game mechanics are not. It is too late to undo the design decisions of 6 years ago, especially when they now are seen as so important to the class.

    If DH is the reason people flock to Warlocks, it can have a massive negative impact on the existing Warlock community. Suddenly you have a slew of 'Demon Hunters' taking spots in raids, rolling on Warlock loot.
    What you'll have are Warlocks rolling on Warlock loot. Somehow, I don't see that as a problem. Just as I don't see an arms warrior taking loot a Fury warrior can use as an issue.

    They might not be taking your role, but they're definitely taking your gear. If they were actually given armor-type appropriate specs and a new class, they would at least be on a different token, sharing appropriate gear with classes that would befit their role.
    This argument is really weak. If you implement Demon Hunters as a Warlock subspec - they will be warlocks and fully entitled to roll on Warlock gear. They will even be expected to roll on Warlock gear. Just as Guardian Druids are fully entitled to roll on Druid gear.

    That's not to discount the possibility of an overall negative impact. But thats something neither you nor I can judge. And in that case, the most likely alternative is no DH class at all.

    The one class that Demon Hunters will be compared to are Death Knights, since that was their polarized opposite from Warcraft 3 TFT.
    I do not understand - polarised opposite?

    You can't have any of that because it's all tied to Warlocks. Specs don't get special priveldges that actual classes do.
    Monks didn't get those perks either. And they are a full class. And I'm not even counting the Warlocks fel steed.

    But is your objection now going to be you don't want Warlokcs to be DHs because now you won't get a cool class mount? Granted, thats not as lame as the "I don't want Warlocks taking Warlock gear" objection you used above but still....

    that doesn't excuse the fact that this would be a massive retcon.
    Big problem...lore nerd that I am....I don't see a retcon. I see an expansion of Warlock lore and story to encompass the DH. And I see enough overlap in theme and enough room in the lore of BOTH classes that Blizzard can get away with such a merger with no difficulties.

    What seems to be the big issue is not what is changed in the actual lore; what seems to be the issue is that you can't see Warlocks as good guys, can't accept DHs may be evil. Your objections don't seem to be centered on the lore of the classes but more on how you think DH should look, how you think DHs and Warlocks should act, what you think the motivations and aims and goals of bother classes should be.

    You think DHs have tattoos and blind themselves...but don't seem willing to ask - are these actually necessary to be a DH? Can you be a Demon Hunter who isn't tattooted? Who isn't blinded?

    The answer is yes. Illidari DHs are neither tattooed nor blinded. Nor did anyone question whether they were or were not DHs until they were used as an example to show how you and some others were wrong in how you saw DHs.

    And thats where we appear to be.

    At a stage where you object to the idea that the DH class can be appended to Warlocks ina convincing manner because:
    Illidan wasn't a Demon Hunter
    Warlocks will steal Warlock loot
    Those Demon Hunters with no tattoos or blindness? They aren't Demon Hunters.
    DHs won't get a cool class mount if they are a Warlock sub spec

    Of course, the most important one is "Warlocks as Demon Hunters does not match how I see Demon Hunters". Thats actually a very valid point. It is, however, a point that is all but destroyed by 6 years of class design convergence.

    EJL

  2. #1002
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by banestalker View Post
    [
    the origional Tinkerer did not use any weapons but my proposed model of Clockwork Tinkerer is more similar to Techmarines (Warhammer 40k) minus the badass power-armor which leaves a rifleman with a mechanical arm-pack that deploys/builds his creations.
    I like this concept as well. It would be interesting to see a ranged technology class that uses guns that can heal, tank, or DPS. SWOTR showed how a tanking class could use ranged weapons. I don't see why WoW couldn't do the same.

    So in essence, we have your concept, which uses guns and turrets. You have my concept of the Hammer Tank (robotic arms), we have the concept from Alesueis(sp?) that merges Tinkers with potion style alchemy, and we have the concept from Drilnos (I think) that involved spider tanks and sky golems.

    Many directions Blizzard could go. I think the chances for this class to be implemented gets higher and higher as the days go by. Might not make it into e next expansion, but I can't really imagine another class that has a better shot.

  3. #1003
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I like this concept as well. It would be interesting to see a ranged technology class that uses guns that can heal, tank, or DPS. SWOTR showed how a tanking class could use ranged weapons. I don't see why WoW couldn't do the same.

    So in essence, we have your concept, which uses guns and turrets. You have my concept of the Hammer Tank (robotic arms), we have the concept from Alesueis(sp?) that merges Tinkers with potion style alchemy, and we have the concept from Drilnos (I think) that involved spider tanks and sky golems.

    Many directions Blizzard could go. I think the chances for this class to be implemented gets higher and higher as the days go by. Might not make it into e next expansion, but I can't really imagine another class that has a better shot.
    more importantly it shows that Tinkers have alot of design space compared to other proposed classes. the aspect of "technology" is not used by any class, and if you look back you see both DK and Monk had the same situation (allthough Warlocks had DC but they were in no way associated with undeath.)

    DK = undeath magic
    Monk = inner power/martial arts
    Tinkerer = Technology

  4. #1004
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    One of the issues you need to resolve though is the lack of INT guns/bows/xbows. This is why I veered towards the Hammer Tank setup. If the Tinker's primary method of combat is coming through the tank, then there's no need to worry about equipped weapons, they would just provide stats. However in your case, you need to find an alternative solution for the INT spec.

  5. #1005
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    One of the issues you need to resolve though is the lack of INT guns/bows/xbows. This is why I veered towards the Hammer Tank setup. If the Tinker's primary method of combat is coming through the tank, then there's no need to worry about equipped weapons, they would just provide stats. However in your case, you need to find an alternative solution for the INT spec.
    If Tinkerer enters a "tanking form" then a stat converter can be created which converts each +INT points to hitpoints/armor once the Tinkerer is in tanking form. so Clockwork Tinkers who use the "armpack form" become kinda squishy compared to Steam Warrior/Hammer Tank Tinkers who use "Tank Form".

    as for the Clockwork issue : while the Tinker DOES deal damage with rifles he has only a few shooting abilities. those abilities deal additional damage based on Tinkerer's INT, however gun abilities and auto-fires are only 35% of the damage Clockworks should bring, and the rest of the damage is dealt by his turrets and the Tinkerer's general grenade abilities...drones can also help increase Tinkerer's gun damage by lazing any enemy the Tinker orders them to, which increases their dmg output on that target.

    in my model of Clockwork Tinkerers , they are quite dependant on their creations (like dealing damage). that's why most of their "clockwork excluse" abilities (this means abilities that Clockwork Tinkerers can use while they are in Clockwork form) are in-fact orders issued by them and carried out by their creations.

    Clockworks deal most of their damage and deliver most of their abilities via their turrets/stations/drones. whch means for example instead of -casting- AoE rocket barrage by themselves (like the vanila Tinker in W3) they order their turret to do so if the specified turret is deployed. so depending on their buildup (what turrets they have out) they can use (or can't use) certain abilities.

    the general idea for Clockworks is that while they have alot of useful abilities in their sleeve these abilities are directly linked to their specific turrets, and because Tinkerers are limited in the number of turrets they can deploy at the same time they can't use all their neat utilities. it does not hamper with their DPS but in PVP for example it can provide them with some obstacles.

    for example a Tinker fighting a ranged class may need dps turrets/interrupt turrets while a Tinker who's fighting a rogue/warrior may need turrets that slow down enemies around them or shield turrets to boost their melee defense.

    ----this may turn Clockworks a tad little complicated. ----

  6. #1006
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by banestalker View Post

    ----this may turn Clockworks a tad little complicated. ----
    LoL, I was thinking the same thing. I do believe you're on the right track though.

    If you're going to use a turret system, you should definitely divide them up based on jobs. For example, in my concept, I utilized Pocket Factory to do something different for each spec. Like tanking PF sends out repair bots to help your hammer tank from failing. Healing PF sends out robots that heal you and allies. DPS PF produces robot mines that seek out targets and explode. I think you did that already with yours though.

    I don't think you need to worry about stat conversions with Tanking. Your ranged tank can work just fine as an agility tank, and a DPS spec works fine with agility as well. The issue is with a healing spec. You're going to need a way to convert your AGI guns into INT weapons. There's a couple of ways you can get around that problem though;

    1. Give the healing spec a custom ranged weapon that is used for healing.
    2. Allow your Tinker to construct their own guns from existing ranged weapons (i.e. : taking a bow or crossbow and constructing a gun out of it.).
    3. Have your INT spec focus on robotics and healing, but use INT Melee weapons instead of ranged.

  7. #1007
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    LoL, I was thinking the same thing. I do believe you're on the right track though.

    If you're going to use a turret system, you should definitely divide them up based on jobs. For example, in my concept, I utilized Pocket Factory to do something different for each spec. Like tanking PF sends out repair bots to help your hammer tank from failing. Healing PF sends out robots that heal you and allies. DPS PF produces robot mines that seek out targets and explode. I think you did that already with yours though.

    I don't think you need to worry about stat conversions with Tanking. Your ranged tank can work just fine as an agility tank, and a DPS spec works fine with agility as well. The issue is with a healing spec. You're going to need a way to convert your AGI guns into INT weapons. There's a couple of ways you can get around that problem though;

    1. Give the healing spec a custom ranged weapon that is used for healing.
    2. Allow your Tinker to construct their own guns from existing ranged weapons (i.e. : taking a bow or crossbow and constructing a gun out of it.).
    3. Have your INT spec focus on robotics and healing, but use INT Melee weapons instead of ranged.
    Passive Ability : Weapon Customization: your melee / ranged weapons add intellect to your character equal to 25% of their total non-INT stat points. this may overlap with reforging a little bit, but it doesn't remove any stats. only adds additional INT to you based on your current weapons. so any weapon you equip will automatically increase your intellect based on it's stats.

    this is a very cheap way to fix the +AGI weapon issue but I'm sure Blizz can find a better way.

    +INT is used by turrets and other creations to increase their damage (the smarter a tinker = the more effective his creations.)

  8. #1008
    Banned But I Hate You All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The West Coast of the United States
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I want to be able to summon four quillbeasts that can fight in range, while I'm fighting in melee. Why can't I do that on my Hunter? You told me that the Hunter had ALL of the Beast Master's abilities. What gives?
    Summon pet

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    the Beastmaster doesn't tame animals. He summons them through abilities. Its a summon, not a pet. A good comparison would be the Shaman totem system. Its really nothing like the Hunter system.
    Well maybe they will add a BM in game than


    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The same concept doesn't equal the same ability.
    both abilities do the same thing

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Find me a level 90 Hunter wearing leather armor. Oh, and your leather-wearing Demon Hunter can wear cloth.
    Hunters can wear leather locks can't was the point

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Rogues have that ability. Unless you seriously want to argue exact abilities after attempting (and failing) to try to make the case that the Hunter pet system works like the Beast Master summon system.
    Rogues have a on use ability of it different than passive kinda like how dk and locks have death coil

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No longer exists in WoW. Let it go.
    Still an ability they had in wC3

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I can't be a half orc/ogre Hunter either.
    Hybrids are not playable race neither is ogres they could add a BM I am sure.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Tinkers:

    +Have all their WC3 abilities.
    most are too op for wow and the it was a april fools joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    +Have little to no overlap with existing classes.
    Conflicts with a profession theme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    +Fit in the mail armor slot.
    Well, if you do a breakdown of the classes and what armor they use...

    DPS Plate - 5
    Tank Plate - 3
    Int Plate - 1

    Agi Mail - 4
    Int Mail - 2

    Agi Leather - 7
    Int Leather - 3

    DPS Cloth - 7
    Spirit Cloth - 3

    We're totally getting a plate wearing caster next.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    +Add lore to two underutilized races.
    I don't see them adding a class for 2 races

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    +Could perform any role.
    Again do not see how a tinker could tank or heal. We have enough tanks in game as it is what notch in tanking could they fill? they going have 4 specs like druids? no

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    -Need a more serious tone than previously shown
    As blizzard said too whimsical


    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Demon Hunters:

    +Popular among hardcore fans
    Popular among fans also more will known than tinker

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    -Overlap with multiple classes
    2 abilities are overlaped with warlocks nothing more

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    -Melee only
    Monks were the same in WC3 but got 3 specs in wow

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    -WC3 abilities are farmed out to other classes.
    2 abilities to 1 class

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Well, there goes the Tinker discussion.
    not like this is thread 9 about them or anything

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Just cleaned that up a bit.
    Notice how he ignored it? lol

  9. #1009
    Just let it die. Teriz is trying to promote the idea. He bumps the thread every chance he gets.

    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.

  10. #1010
    Bloodsail Admiral DonQShot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Guimaraes
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I like this concept as well. It would be interesting to see a ranged technology class that uses guns that can heal, tank, or DPS. SWOTR showed how a tanking class could use ranged weapons. I don't see why WoW couldn't do the same.

    So in essence, we have your concept, which uses guns and turrets. You have my concept of the Hammer Tank (robotic arms), we have the concept from Alesueis(sp?) that merges Tinkers with potion style alchemy, and we have the concept from Drilnos (I think) that involved spider tanks and sky golems.

    Many directions Blizzard could go. I think the chances for this class to be implemented gets higher and higher as the days go by. Might not make it into e next expansion, but I can't really imagine another class that has a better shot.
    A tank that uses only ranged weapons is too SWTOR-like.
    A tank that mixes ranged weapons with piston hammers than that is more tinker-like. And more my style .
    I see you mentioned all these possible "directions" of many separate concepts that are supposed to work on their own but I felt like mentioning my concept since it is actually a perfect blend of all the above concepts put into one single, representation of the Tinker class.
    just my 2 and a half cents =)

  11. #1011
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    Summon pet
    Its Call Pet. And it doesn't do what the Beastmaster abilities did.



    Well maybe they will add a BM in game than
    Using the ridiculous arguments from DH proponents, they should, since clearly massive class concept overlap means nothing.


    both abilities do the same thing
    Please show me where Dire Beast is within the Beastmaster ability list.


    Hunters can wear leather locks can't was the point
    And leather classes can wear cloth. So a theoretical DH class could wear Warlock gear right?

    Rogues have a on use ability of it different than passive kinda like how dk and locks have death coil
    Um no. Evasion active does the same thing as Evasion passive. The only difference is that one's passive and one's active. Lock and DK DC were NOTHING alike.

    I also enjoy your ridiculous level of hypocrisy here. To you, Evasion Rogue isn't the same as Demon Hunter Evasion (even though Demon Hunter NPCs used the Rogue ability), yet you're trying to argue that Dire Beast is the same as the Beast Master's summon abilities?


    Still an ability they had in wC3
    Yeah, and Priests had it in WoW. Again ALL of the DH's abilities were taken by other classes.

    Hybrids are not playable race neither is ogres they could add a BM I am sure.
    You can't get an NE Warlock, I can't get a Ogre/Orc hybrid Hunter. Such is life.


    most are too op for wow and the it was a april fools joke.
    So were Pandaren and Brewmasters. Both are pretty awesome in WoW, wouldn't you agree?

    Conflicts with a profession theme.
    Professions aren't classes.

    Well, if you do a breakdown of the classes and what armor they use...
    We're totally getting a plate wearing caster next.
    And what class would that be?


    I don't see them adding a class for 2 races
    That's only one of many reasons.

    Again do not see how a tinker could tank or heal.
    You can't see how a technology class can tank when the very name "tank" comes from a technological device that mows over opposition? You don't see how a Technology class can heal when we have medical technology everywhere?

    Yeah....


    2 abilities are overlaped with warlocks nothing more
    And Rogues, and formerly Priests.

    Monks were the same in WC3 but got 3 specs in wow
    Brewmaster abilities were never farmed out to other classes. Additionally, Monk is a massive archetype.


    2 abilities to 1 class
    You keep forgetting Evasion (Rogues) and Mana Burn (Priests) for some reason.

    Notice how he ignored it? lol
    Just getting this thread back on track. No use wasting time talking about the Demon Hunter class in a thread dedicated to Tinkers.

    Consider this my last post in this thread dealing with this DH crap. I've made my point.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-09-14 at 07:28 PM.

  12. #1012
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Monks didn't get those perks either. And they are a full class. And I'm not even counting the Warlocks fel steed.
    They have their own training hub, their own trainers, their own gear, their own animations. Anything you propose for Demon Hunters will never be for Demon Hunters, they will be for Warlocks in general. They have to stick with a design format that would make sense for all other specs as well.

    You think DHs have tattoos and blind themselves...but don't seem willing to ask - are these actually necessary to be a DH?
    For a player character? Yes. It's one of the most iconic pieces of lore and a significant part of the reason why they are so badass. Take that away? You're just any other class who can use Warglaives. Might as well play a Rogue who transmogs with blindfolds. I mean really, I can do that right now, so why else would I be asking for a Demon Hunter class if what you are saying doesn't make any difference from a Rogue RPing as a Demon Hunter?

    Can you be a Demon Hunter who isn't tattooted? Who isn't blinded?

    The answer is yes. Illidari DHs are neither tattooed nor blinded. Nor did anyone question whether they were or were not DHs until they were used as an example to show how you and some others were wrong in how you saw DHs.
    You mean... Illidari Demon Hunter... trainees? They're trainees... They haven't gone through the full training yet. Leotheras the Blind is an example of one of the Illidari who have completed the training, and even in his background he is one of the 5 first to be trained, 3 having died during training. With that and the rituals in mind, it should be important and assumed that the Spectral Sight ritual is likely something that is given once training is completed. As well as being the thing that causes such a high mortality rate for the class.

    At a stage where you object to the idea that the DH class can be appended to Warlocks ina convincing manner because:
    Illidan wasn't a Demon Hunter - Never said that
    Warlocks will steal Warlock loot - Melee class using Cloth loot for tanking. There is no tanking cloth, so this affects Mages and Shadow Priests too.
    Those Demon Hunters with no tattoos or blindness? They aren't Demon Hunters. - Correct. Just as a Death Knight isn't a Death Knight if he were still living.
    DHs won't get a cool class mount if they are a Warlock sub spec - It's the full presentation. You will never get Demon Hunter-specific perks, like a hub zone, or special trainers. As a Warlock, you can swap specs any time. You could be an Affliction Lock sharing every same benefit a 'Demon Hunter' does.

  13. #1013
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by DonQShot View Post
    A tank that uses only ranged weapons is too SWTOR-like.
    Nah. Ranged tanking can work just like it does in SWTOR. Ranged tanks in SWTOR work just like melee tanks.

    A tank that mixes ranged weapons with piston hammers than that is more tinker-like. And more my style .
    I see you mentioned all these possible "directions" of many separate concepts that are supposed to work on their own but I felt like mentioning my concept since it is actually a perfect blend of all the above concepts put into one single, representation of the Tinker class.
    just my 2 and a half cents =)
    Sorry about that Don. I liked your concept as well. Just haven't seen you around these parts in awhile.

  14. #1014
    Bloodsail Admiral DonQShot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Guimaraes
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Nah. Ranged tanking can work just like it does in SWTOR. Ranged tanks in SWTOR work just like melee tanks.



    Sorry about that Don. I liked your concept as well. Just haven't seen you around these parts in awhile.
    thanks for the politeness but you didn't vote Yes on my concept yet. Just a joke to break the ice =p.
    But I still think that a full out based ranged "weapon"-not magic as in my invoker concept- is best suited for SWTOR or another space futuristic kind of game.
    A WOW tinker should not be capable of handling or building up heavy weaponry to fend off enemies without at least the help of magic- a la magetech.

  15. #1015
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by DonQShot View Post
    thanks for the politeness but you didn't vote Yes on my concept yet. Just a joke to break the ice =p.
    But I still think that a full out based ranged "weapon"-not magic as in my invoker concept- is best suited for SWTOR or another space futuristic kind of game.
    A WOW tinker should not be capable of handling or building up heavy weaponry to fend off enemies without at least the help of magic- a la magetech.
    Well we don't know which way Blizzard would go with a technology class, so everything is fair game. Only thing Blizzard has said on the topic is that it shouldn't be too whimsical or too silly.

    I still think the Hammer tank (robo-arms) version of a technology class is the most likely. Not only does it give the class a unique look, but it also removes a lot of problems like the lack of INT gear, and creating a firm separation from this class and Hunters. It also properly ties the class to Gnomish and Goblin roots.

  16. #1016
    Look, I don't hate tinkers. But Demon Hunters are def the next class in WoW. It's needed them since fucking alpha.

  17. #1017
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    Look, I don't hate tinkers. But Demon Hunters are def the next class in WoW. It's needed them since fucking alpha.
    Blizzard would never introduce a class into the game that shares the same name with an existing class. It would cause too much confusion within the classes.

    That along with the core Demon Hunter abilities being in the spell book of other classes.

    And of course we just got a new leather wearing agility class.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-09-15 at 12:35 AM.

  18. #1018
    Banned But I Hate You All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The West Coast of the United States
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Blizzard would never introduce a class into the game that shares the same name with an existing class. It would cause too much confusion within the classes.

    That along with the core Demon Hunter abilities being in the spell book of other classes.

    And of course we just got a new leather wearing agility class.

    How hello mr blizzard employee since you know so much on what blizzard will and will not do please tell me when epic gems are coming out

  19. #1019
    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    Look, I don't hate tinkers. But Demon Hunters are def the next class in WoW. It's needed them since fucking alpha.
    I really don't think the game needs another all melee class.

    And yeah, Demon Hunters would be all melee.

  20. #1020
    Banned But I Hate You All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The West Coast of the United States
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    I really don't think the game needs another all melee class.

    And yeah, Demon Hunters would be all melee.
    Just like how monks were

Posting Permissions

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