0%
0-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
Caster vs physical ranged is a big mechanical difference.
At most you're probably looking at four abilities (damage, utility, healing) including Pocket Factory, depending on how extensive the turret system might be, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be very extensive.I'll just repeat myself: yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not?
Meanwhile, Shaman have over a dozen different totems.
Mechanic-wise, not much. They're both ranged.
So you're basing the whole class around something so whymsical it has almost as much chance of being made into WoW as Capcom has of making Megaman Legends 3? I.E. the "hammer tank".At most you're probably looking at four abilities (damage, utility, healing) including Pocket Factory, depending on how extensive the turret system might be, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be very extensive.
Meanwhile, Shaman have over a dozen different totems.
And yet noone has ever shown Demon Hunters don't have an overlap problem. Indeed, they can't. Even Blizzard has commented on it a tie or two.
I'll paraphrase GCs challenge here for you.
Is there any design space not taken up by existing classes?
My answer is no. The class concept of "a deal ith the devil" is the same as Warlocks. The class theme of Demons is covered by Warlocks. Class lore shows differences in the specifics, but both DH and Warlock lore cover Demons, the BL, Sargeras and Illidan. The iconic look for DHs is used for Warlocks. The iconic moves and aspects of gameplay for DHs are also used by Warlocks.
What difference of you speak of? What is there? If you wna the answer to be "yes - there is room" where is going to come from? What is it? Gameplay is the area where DHs have some room for development, but it's largely separate from the rest.
And yet the main aspect of similarity that you keep coming up to show this is "they use the same school of magic" with the occasional diversion into "some of the original paladins were priests".Quite the opposite, in fact. Again, you are just unwilling to see the whole picture by any different light than your own.
When you can't sustain your own argument pure repetition, it's gard to atke seriously
If you truly believe that the Paladin and priest have the smae degree of overlap in their design space....show us.
Whats aspect of the Priest them covers Justice? What Priest set looks like a Paladins suit of armor? Which abilities do they share? If you saw a priest could you ever mistake one for a Paladin? What class themes are shared between the two?
And so on. Don't just tell us the design spaces overlap to the same degree. Show us. Point it out. They share a school of magic? Yes. And the lore that goes with that? Yes. And were some of the original Paladins priests? Yes. And beyond that, similarities get hard to point out. Ranged vs melee. Justice vs Faith and Spirit. The Light vs Heaven and Angels.
EJL
There'd be mechanics involved to make it not abusable. You could have it so they could only shoot a targetted enemy in range, say with a debuff that the Tinker places on a character. They would focus fire one target at a time depending on which targets get that debuff. This wouldn't affect PVE, since the player would always be shooting at their targets, while in PVP it forces them to stay on a target and draw them into the turrets, else find new targets who get into range.
Of course they would also have abilities to make the Turrets seek any random closest target, but it'd be more of a cooldown ability rather than have Turrets auto-lock anything and everything all the time.
I see it as a big pile of opportunities, myself. There isn't anything they could ever do or add that would appeal to everyone. That can't be a deterrent for doing or adding things. Now if they did want to do this reskin thing, as much as I hate to misuse the word so, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, as they would have essentially added eleven tech classes and I would have a veritable smorgasboard of aesthetic and lore choices. If they went the option of making it a new class, they could compress the most iconic of the ideas that go into combat engineers in the lore into one place and make the techiest tech class possible, which I would reroll in a fricking heartbeat.
Now as to which option I would prefer, that would be the class, for a couple reasons. First, classes get tier sets, and the current choices engineers get for transmog are, in a word, godawful. Second, it would give engineering a chance to actually focus on creating gear for one armor type, and make it synergistic with a class besides hunters, which I would regard as a major positive step for the profession. If they didn't go this route, however, I wouldn't consider the tech theme squandered.
The only thing which would make me think they were squandering the tech theme would be if they continued to represent it entirely through the profession system. Which means business as usual. Any integration with the class system is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
That or a "planting" mechanic, such that turrets and some other robots have mobile and immobile modes, and can only attack or otherwise act at full strength while stationary. For an example, the siege engines in Tol Barad. Then the player could order them to uproot and follow him to his new position, or proceed to a targeted location, for replanting.
Gameplay wise, you could easily turn a Shaman into a Tech based class. Rename the abilities and give them suitable graphics. And in doing so, you'd need to give them a suitable lore and background and identity.
But you could make mages a Tech based class. Warriors. You could reskin Warriors into a caster class.
This particular argument serves little purpose. Gameplay is important, but gameplay alone isn't enough to define a class. Indeed, in many ways, its the least important aspect because it is so readily swapped out.
When creating an actual class, other elements are more important. They define what the class is. They define its theme. Its look. They define the place it has in the gameworld. And they define the look and names of the class abilities.
So yes...you could take the gameplay for any class and attach it to the Tinker. And it'd be a Tinker....not a Shaman. Not a Warrior. Even were the gameplay to be the same, it shoudl woudln't be those classes just as a Guardian isn't a warrior, nor a feral a Rogue.
EJL
You're kidding right? Casters are mana based, have cast times, usually have to stand still while casting, can be interrupted, can have their attacks reflected, etc. Physical ranged is completely different from that.
I never thought I'd see beer tossing Pandaren in WoW as a class either. The Monk inclusion taught me that everything from WC3 has a chance of making it into the game. Especially since Blizzard (and other game makers) appears to like the concept.So you're basing the whole class around something so whymsical it has almost as much chance of being made into WoW as Capcom has of making Megaman Legends 3? I.E. the "hammer tank".
So big difference that hunters happily used mana for years. You have a depleting resource bar and you shoot at things from range. From game design perspective it's the same thing with different flavor.
Most casters are too mobile today. Still the same thing.
Thematically tinker class overlaps too much with engineering skill and those two will never co-exist. You can have one but never both at the same time in WoW.
So out of all those differences I mentioned, you decided to focus on the fact that all resources deplete upon use?
Again, Casters are mana based, have cast times, usually have to stand still while casting, can be interrupted, can have their attacks reflected, etc. Physical ranged is completely different from that.
You need to keep up on the WoD patch notes. Caster mobility is being severely reduced in WoD. When asked if Hunters were also going to get their mobility reduced, Blizzard replied that Hunter mobility will still the same. Again, caster vs physical ranged.Most casters are too mobile today. Still the same thing.
Enchanting and Mages co-exist just fine. A profession and a class don't exist within the same design space. Additionally, crafting mounts and toys has no effect on a class tanking or healing a raid.Thematically tinker class overlaps too much with engineering skill and those two will never co-exist. You can have one but never both at the same time in WoW.
No pro-'Demon Hunter' is denying there are overlaps. But just like there are overlaps with Priests and Paladins, that didn't stop them from being their own class, why should it stop the Demon Hunter?
I'll quote Ghostcrawler: "It depends on the tone." and "would depend on the treatment." all are very applicable here.I'll paraphrase GCs challenge here for you.
Is there any design space not taken up by existing classes?
I never said 'paladins used to be priests'. I was drawing a comparison.And yet the main aspect of similarity that you keep coming up to show this is "they use the same school of magic" with the occasional diversion into "some of the original paladins were priests".
Yellow, red, dark blue or light blue resource bar, it doesn't make a difference. Physical attacks can also be reflected. And you still have to remain standing if you are using a physical skill that requires a cast time.
Pandaren aren't a class. And you got a wrong lesson from it, as the Pandaren Brewmaster is barely 1/10 of the whole Monk class. Like I said before: if the tinker ever makes it to WoW as a class, it'll be heavily different from its WC3 iteration, just like the Monk class is. Whymsical stuff like the mecha-backpack and possibly the factory will be removed.I never thought I'd see beer tossing Pandaren in WoW as a class either. The Monk inclusion taught me that everything from WC3 has a chance of making it into the game. Especially since Blizzard (and other game makers) appears to like the concept.
DH and Warlocks would share Fel magic in this case.
And we're shown many Demon Hunters who became hungry for power, which is thematic to Warlock's motivation. The original Demon Hunters were motivated by fighting the Legion, which is very much a motivation of Vengeance. They weren't looking for personal power, the power they obtained was a means to fight Demons, their goal. Warlocks differ through the goal. They aren't gaining power to fight Demons, they are gaining power for the sake of power.And were some of the original Paladins priests? Yes. And beyond that, similarities get hard to point out.
It's very clear that the Warlock is themed on obtaining personal power. This is what separates them from the Mage class, who is equal in spellcasting skill, but will not delve into the dark arts.
Same difference between DH and Warlock.Ranged vs melee.
Vengeance vs Power-lust.Justice vs Faith and Spirit.
Anti Magic and Fel magic not derived from Demons vs Demon Summoning.The Light vs Heaven and Angels.
The parallels can exist the exact same way. The idea of Heaven and Angels did not exist in Warcraft 3, and Priests were using the exact same faith as the Paladins. It's clear that no Priest used any Shadow spells prior to WoW, and you can not excuse the use of Shadow magic as being a part of lore prior to the Priest class. Even Dark Troll Shadow Priests of War3 had Healing and Abolish Magic, nothing to indicate Shadow magic.
Paladin and Priest classes are pure inventions of WoW. This is why we need to address a potential DH (or Slayer) class as a pure invention of WoW, not limited by any Demon Hunter before it.
This is why I maintain that a Demon Hunter (Slayer) class can be explained as using a Non-Demon based source of Fel magic (Derived from Twisting Nether or the Void, for example). With an Order that places responsible use for their powers to avoid corruption, it would differ from Warlocks, who see no limitations to the use of Fel magic.
Last edited by Thimagryn; 2014-03-17 at 10:33 PM.
So the Hunter class is mechanically just like Mages, Warlocks, Shadow Priests, etc?
Yet my Pandaren Monk tank is still throwing barrels of alcohol at people in Siege of Ogrimmar........Pandaren aren't a class. And you got a wrong lesson from it, as the Pandaren Brewmaster is barely 1/10 of the whole Monk class.
Because they are being who made a deal with demons to gain demon power in order to fight demons and protect their people from demons and to do that they make use of demons, demon magics and turn into demons to the poitn they are known wide and far for hunting demons.
Call me mad, but I sense a running theme there. Warlocks aren't as tightly focussed on Demons as Demon Hunters. You might argue that they don't "need" to be tied into Demons. And the answer to that is its too late - Blizzard already developed that theme. I'm not goignt o look at a Dmeon Hunter and say "Ooh...Vampires better watch out".
Even were you to grow and expand that theme, that core identity would still be present, still be there, still causing issues with the overlap it presents. It can't be dropped, and it can't be modified. Not without changing the design space we have.
And that isn't likely either.
There is a problem with the design space overlap. Do we want to change that design space? No. Players have certain expectations of a Demon Hunter and that ties things down. There is no point saying you are going to give them a Demon Hunter and then giving them a Slayer.
No. They don't need to. But the ability to summon Demons isn't an aspect that ties them into the Demon theme. Getting rid of it won't break that link.You said it yourself, Demon Hunters do not need to summon Demons. They don't need to go down that Warlock path, it is purely optional even though it is represented by others.
Nor do we want to. The issue here is that we want a Demon Hunter. Not a Slayer. A Demon Hunter.
The core central DH theme is Demons. The core concept is dealing with the devil. They made a pact to gain power. The fine detail that differs between the Warlocks and DHs does not alter what their core tenets are. Nor can it hide the fact those core tenets are the same.A Demon Hunter also has other themes and motivations to gain their powers. They have different backstory considering what we know of the Writings of the Dark Embrace, which Warlocks do not even know about. The only thing shared are a couple abilities that Warlocks were inspired by and took into their own class.
Hence the overlap. There are differences between the two certainly, but only the differences that exists between specs. There isn't enough design space left for the DH, and there isn't any benefit to redesigning or reworking it. Game design limits what they can do given player expectatiosn and what already exists amongst existing classes.
In other words, if you can't change the design space of the DH, you can't get rid of the overlap and if you can't get rid of the overlap, then you have to deal with the problems associated with it.
I don't see any possibility of changing the design space sufficiently to get around the design issues. Change it enough to do so, and you have a different class. If you can't bring in a DH, why bother?
No. The Paladins class theme is Justice.Yet your entire argument of 'Design Space' is vague and generalized. Paladins fight for Justice. So does that mean no other person can fight for Justice?
Law. Order. Vengeance. Retribution. That doesn't forbid others fighting for those motives. Just that paladins are the class built with that theme.
Which you can't do with Demon Hunters. Why? Because the design space of monks and brewmasters was very open, very undefined. That isn't true for Demon Hunters.What I am doing is paralleling the Monk and Brewmaster's design.
I can accept one and reject the other and do so for the same reason. the need to hold true to the design space as exists in game. Brewmaster didn't have much of a design space. A few abilities, and the fact Chen was one. The design space for Demon Hunters is much more fixed, much more detailed...largely because they have had a far greater presence and influence in game. It is tied down a lot more.If you can not accept this Demon Hunter concept, then you should not accept the Brewmaster for the very same reasons.
Is Chen a Brewmaster? Yes. Did the Brewmaster have its abilites? Most of them.
The Design space for Brewmasters was kept.
I put Demon Hunters to the same test. It needs to meet and fill the existing design space. Your Slayer concept doesn't. Warlocks and other classses...do. Some only in part, Warlocks most of all.
Yes....they were linked. But there was nothing in their deisgn space to prevent it. Nor did any other class ahve the same theme, or class concepts. There'd been no lore, no development for the Monk to contradict either.They are a different class, yet they are completely representable as Brewmasters by retaining only TWO abilities - Breath of Fire and 'Dizzying Haze', a renamed ability.
But they were. And the breaking free was necessray to get to be players. A similar story isn't necessary for DHs.Death Knights are no longer Champions of the Scourge.
EJL
Respectfully disagree. For a number of reasons.
1) So long as the two have different schematics, even as far as having harder-hitting versions of otherwise identical items, they will be regarded as different schools.
2) Despite its number of schematics and abilities, the addition of engineering to a class has minimal effect on any class's identity. Even with transmog taken into account, there are as many tech-style helmets that drop out in the world as there are types of crafted goggles. It simply is not a substitute for class theme. It's barely even a garnish.
3) If Tinkers were to be added, Engineering could be redefined (going forward) to focus on creation and augmentation of gear, and creation of non-combat items. This would give it some much-needed focus and identity.
4) If that fails, and even if Engineering received no changes and continued to make new and chronically ineffective combat items (which it has been marginalizing for years), this is still a game where leaps of logic are made all the time in service of gameplay.
In any event, the fact stands that Engineering is the only profession which has no class that matches its theme. Some would say that this is a good thing. I am not one of those people. A Tinker with Engineering would be a more complete engineer, a renaissance man. A Tinker without Engineering would be a mercenary, interested only in killing power. A non-Tinker Engineer would be exactly what they are now, which is to say, not visibly an Engineer, despite possessing the odd extremely situational trick. That's how you get around what overlap there is, though you have to want to get around it if you are to accept that there exist ways around it.
Because the Paladins and Priest overlaps were of a type and magnitiude that left thsoe classes their own design space. There were aspects of the design space that didn't overlap, or had only a minor degree of overlap. That isn't the case for Warlcoks and Demon Hunters. Teh magnitude and scale of the overlap ther is much greater, with every assect of the design space affected
He was talking about Tinkers then. And about Demon Hunters before.I'll quote Ghostcrawler: "It depends on the tone." and "would depend on the treatment." all are very applicable here.
Is there design space not already filled by another class? Simple question. And he phrased it to give only one answer.
EJL
We're not talking about bare-bones. We're talking about the entirety.
Yet the whimsical elements of the Brewmaster hero unit still remains. In fact, its arguably the most popular aspects of the Monk class.Don't forget kicking, staggering, shuffling, spinning in the air, rolling, dropping ox statues... everything you conveniently forget about.