5 reasons why Artificer (DH+Tinker) is the next class in WoW.

[Teriz]

Your concept has nothing of the Warcraft Demon Hunter at all other than "I guess I'll just say it takes from the Demon Hunter from Warcraft history to appease the Demon Hunter fans, even though it drawns nothing from it."

In the OP, I say that the main influence is the Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, though some ideas do come from Illidan in HotS.

I did. I saw nothing that connects to the Warcraft Demon Hunter there. At all.
Oh, and as for armor, if you're taking from the Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, it's leather.
If it's the Warcraft Demon Hunter, which you clearly are not, it's cloth.
'Mail' only comes from your 'tinker' idea.

Come to think of it, almost every 'tinker' picture I've seen has them wearing common clothes. Cloth.

Hunters are fairly agile, and they wear mail. I'm not seeing a problem with them wearing mail.

- - - Updated - - -

1- There are no 'one-handed guns' in WoW, nor will it be added for the sake of a single class. Unless you're talking wands. They're one-handed.
2- 'Turrets' would encroach too much with shamans. Grenades with engineering.
3- Blizzard does not want ranged tanks.
4- Means, at best, a more annoying beginning for the class as mobs will just reach the hunter and bash his skull in?
5- A 'mail wearer' cannot be more agile than a leather-wearer, by logic alone. Rogues and Monks are arguably the most agile classes, because leather is lighter than mail. As for mobility, too much mobility is a bad thing for in-game balance.
6- ... I got nothing.

1. I gave the class a skill called "Tinker". Tinker would allow a player to break down the 2 h guns or crossbows into 1 handed weapons.
2. Totems are cooldowns, turrets could easily be designed to be different. Engineering isn't a class, so it doesn't count.
3. Link?
4. The class should have abilities that allow it to survive without pets. Mages, Priests, Warlocks, and eventually Hunters can all survive without pets. Why couldn't these guys?
5. Who said anything about being more agile than Monks or Rogues? They could be less agile than those classes, but more agile than other mail wearing classes.

[Viradiance]

Nobody wants the Diablo III Demon Hunter in WoW. It's not the same thing as a Warcraft Demon Hunter, which has been heavily requested since before the game even launched.

Might as well just suggest incorporating the Dark Ranger, it's closer to D3 Demon Hunter class concept.

Keep your thoughts to yourself. I for one would greatly prefer the Diablo III Demon Hunter to the Warcraft Demon Hunter (granted, I hate them both)

[Teriz]

Edit: For the dual-wielding weapons thing, it could be awesome, but I'd do something like a tier token drop for ranged weapons. Or, have a bow drop from a boss, and you can bring it to the vendor who will exchange it for two 1 handers with the same stats (including wf and tertiary stats.) That way, you can use a 2h or 2 1hs.
They could hand dual wielding to hunters too, but that'd fill the loot tables with more weapons that only 2 classes could use. *cough daggers cough*

Yeah, I prefer the Tinker system where the Artificer takes a 2h weapon and reconstructs it into a one handed weapon. That way the loot tables aren't screwed up, and Hunters and Artificers are even more distinct from each other.

It allows the scrap system to function too.

[Yig]

Keep your thoughts to yourself. I for one would greatly prefer the Diablo III Demon Hunter to the Warcraft Demon Hunter (granted, I hate them both)

Consider not telling people what to do, even if they dare to disagree with you or use the figure of speech "nobody" in a figure of speech rather than if they actually intentionally and literally meant objectively not a single person in the world disagreed with them. This childish bickering and pretentious taste mongering over actually "hating" a fucking class in a video game is beyond ridiculous, consider an exercise in practicing more emotional maturity and possibly easing up on the judgemental superiority over a game about super heroes in a fairy tale world which at it's heart is unabashedly based on childish indulgent juvenile foundations it openly relishes in and celebrates. If all else fails, consider going to tell a pregnant death knight what you think of them in the role playing forum. I fear you may be too sophisticated for your own good, perhaps a vacation is in order. Cabo?

[Raiju]

Consider not telling people what to do, even if they dare to disagree with you or use the figure of speech "nobody" in a figure of speech rather than if they actually intentionally and literally meant objectively not a single person in the world disagreed with them. This childish bickering and pretentious taste mongering over actually "hating" a fucking class in a video game is beyond ridiculous, consider an exercise in practicing more emotional maturity and possibly easing up on the judgemental superiority over a game about super heroes in a fairy tale world which at it's heart is unabashedly based on childish indulgent juvenile foundations it openly relishes in and celebrates. If all else fails, consider going to tell a pregnant death knight what you think of them in the role playing forum. I fear you may be too sophisticated for your own good, perhaps a vacation is in order. Cabo?

I hate warlocks. Just throwing it out there.

[Gothicshark]

As punishment you must go play 2nd Edition Dark Sun.

With 1st Edition Psionics rules.

Oh hey, love Dark Sun, ... wait 1st ed Psionics.... (Vader voice) NOOOOO

[Rhamses]

Keep your thoughts to yourself. I for one would greatly prefer the Diablo III Demon Hunter to the Warcraft Demon Hunter (granted, I hate them both)

Same here actually. I simply think the DH is too close to Warlocks, and that the next class needs to be ranged, and compete with Hunters for ranged weapons.

Also Teriz's idea is pretty damn cool.

[Deleted]

Not bad. Much better than Tinker concept.

but I still like more normal ranger class with no nature connection like hunter but simple military context of this class so ranged mix of rogue/warrior and maybe using technology in one spec :P

but to be serious it not rly connected with DH as every DH-lovers wants and not rly connected to Tinker as all imagine :P

[The One Percent]

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to put a random class that literally has no background in lore over demon hunters or tinkers.

It's a cool concept, though. Just definitely not happening over demon hunter and tinker.

[-Superman-]

These threads are always fun.

They're really not. I would hand Blizz a check for $10k if one of them would just sit Teriz down and tell him they will never use any of his ideas.

On Topic: At least we have another 100 page thread to look forward to on a class that will not be used in WoW. We don't need any more classes. We have enough problems balancing the ones that already exist.

[Raiju]

They're really not. I would hand Blizz a check for $10k if one of them would just sit Teriz down and tell him they will never use any of his ideas.

On Topic: At least we have another 100 page thread to look forward to on a class that will not be used in WoW. We don't need any more classes. We have enough problems balancing the ones that already exist.

"Blizzard talked to me about my class ideas! IM IN!"

[rarhyx]

so when I and some other people had pretty cool ideas to mix WC3 DH with D3 DH, it was a no-go like hell.
now you're mixing D3 DH with your tinker idea and suddenly it's ok?
wat.

I don't know what to say anymore.

[Revi]

so when I and some other people had pretty cool ideas to mix WC3 DH with D3 DH, it was a no-go like hell.
now you're mixing D3 DH with your tinker idea and suddenly it's ok?
wat.

I don't know what to say anymore.

So because he dislikes a certain class concept, he's not allowed to like a different one?

[Ielenia]

-Turrets would not encroach shamans much, especially if they had a spec that centered around them. Shamans use totems as utility (for the most part) and they have no specs that revolve around them.

Shamans don't have a 'spec' dedicated to totems because their whole class is dedicated to totems. Totems to attack, protect, buff and heal!

Turrets would be what the damage revolves around and managing your turrets by having spells that buff/debuff/do whatever with turrets would be a very different concept than totems.

This means they'd have more than one turret dealing damage, which brings us a design challenge: from a designer's perspective, do we make those turrets' damage weak to allow more than one to be placed, or do we make the turrets not immune to AE damage? Otherwise, from a PvP standpoint, all the 'Artificer' has to do is keep dropping those turrets to force the opposing players to focus on the turrets, if they do deal substancial damage and are immune to AE, which would be unbalanced for the enemy players; but if their damage is weak, enemy players would just basically ignore them and attack the 'artificer' which would be bad against the class; and if their damage is substancial but not immune to AE, a simple cleave ability would make short work of the turrets. See the design issue with that?

-Engineering has grenades yeah, but it's a profession. Why is it that a class can't come anywhere near a profession? you enchant things, DK's enchant their weapons using dk abilities, so why do they exist if they're all up in enchantings face?

You're comparing magic to technology. DKs can't make any of the Enchanters' enchants, nor can the Enchanters make any of the DKs enchant. DKs enchant with runes.

I just want to note, If they gave them a very unique resource, they would quite easily fill a gap in design space without stepping on hunters. [...]

The kind of resource a class use doesn't mean much about filling a gap or overcoming overlaps, to be honest. I think we all can agree that a tech class wouldn't be using mana as a resource, and I think it'd most likely be using energy, like rogues, monks and, to an extent, hunters, because of their unique focus resource. I am not saying it's impossible to do, but I can't come up with any kind of secondary resource that feels 'unique' compared to all the 'holy power', 'runes', 'chi', 'combo points', etc already in WoW.

I think the problem in this thread, is that he tried to make people think he was putting the WoW demon hunters concepts into this. [...]

It's one of the major points against it, in my opinion. There is nothing 'Warcraft Demon Hunter' in it only than simply mentions of 'inspired by WC3 DH' lines. Nothing in its design reminds us of the WC3 DH.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh hai, Teriz.

1. I gave the class a skill called "Tinker". Tinker would allow a player to break down the 2 h guns or crossbows into 1 handed weapons. Again, no new weapon type would be created for the sake of only one class.
2. Totems are cooldowns, turrets could easily be designed to be different. Engineering isn't a class, so it doesn't count. read what I wrote above.
3. Link? The last time we had a 'ranged tank' was back in BC. If nothing of the sort happened again, it speaks clear of their intent.
4. The class should have abilities that allow it to survive without pets. Mages, Priests, Warlocks, and eventually Hunters can all survive without pets. Why couldn't these guys? I'll give you that. But it still feels a lot like an engineering Hunter for me.

[Teriz]

Oh hai, Teriz.

1.It wouldn't be a new weapon type. It would be a class ability that alters an existing weapon. Sort of like Spellstones or Weapon Imbues but far more expansive. You would basically turn the equipped weapon into a conjured item that you couldn't sell once you're done with it.

2. I did. It's really not as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

3. Actually, the last time we had a ranged tank was MoP bet with the DA Warlock tank. By all accounts it was a perfectly viable tank, and is only not tanking raids right now because Blizzard felt that a tank spec should be more than a glyph swap.

4. The goal is Tinker/Warden with smatteringsvof the WC DH and the D3DH to bind it all together.

Hopefully when I post the concept's specs and abilities, people will get a better idea of what I'm thinking. I'll going to try to pacify the WC DH fans as much as I can.

No promises though.

[Ielenia]

1.It wouldn't be a new weapon type. It would be a class ability that alters an existing weapon. Sort of like Spellstones or Weapon Imbues but far more expansive. You would basically turn the equipped weapon into a conjured item that you couldn't sell once you're done with it.

Weapon item or weapon ability, Blizzard would still have to design dozens and dozens one-handed crossbow/gun to accommodate for all the different two-handed crossbow/bow/guns graphics there is. An alternative would be to have a single design throughout level 1 and max level, but that would be boring, since the class' armor graphics would change all the time as he progresses, so why not the weapon?

2. I did. It's really not as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

Perhaps you're not giving it as much thought, maybe? There is a design reason behind every mechanic in the game. It's the reason totems and pets are immune to AE, but temporary pets like Army of the Dead are not immune to AE. Turrets, despite being 'permanent', would have to fall in the 'Army of the Dead' category if you can drop more than one of the same type.

3. Actually, the last time we had a ranged tank was MoP bet with the DA Warlock tank. By all accounts it was a perfectly viable tank, and is only not tanking raids right now because Blizzard felt that a tank spec should be more than a glyph swap.

Actually, it's wrong to say that because it's a simple gimmicky thing, the Dark Apotheosis which is needed nowhere at all in the game. In BC was the only time a 'ranged tank', in that case a mage, was needed to tank Krosh Firehand in the Ogre Council encounter in Gruul's lair.

4. The goal is Tinker/Warden with smatteringsvof the WC DH and the D3DH to bind it all together.

Remove mentions of Warcraft 3 DH and I'll be good. There is basically nothing of the hero unit in the concept it feels like a blatant lie and baiting to actually say it's based or inspired by it.

Hopefully when I post the concept's specs and abilities, people will get a better idea of what I'm thinking. I'll going to try to pacify the WC DH fans as much as I can.

Here's a tip: don't post the abilities. You might not feel they would be overpowered, but lots of people will probably thing they'd be, which would generate lots of unnecessary back-and-forth arguments about the abilities themselves. Post the Specs, post their description, post an overall feel and description of what the specs' abilities would be, but don't post the abilities themselves. That'd leave the spec theme and design defined enough to be judged on its own merits, while at the same time leaving it vague enough to not be the target of focused attacks against its abilities.

[Saffa]

Get over it. No new classes. Find a game with the class you want and go and play that.

Hmm

Probably then you will fill its forums with why they should have DKs lol.

Infracted, post constructively.

[Joker of Muerte]

I just had a feeling Teriz either started this topic..or posted in it *sigh*

[Keltas]

Shamans don't have a 'spec' dedicated to totems because their whole class is dedicated to totems. Totems to attack, protect, buff and heal!

This means they'd have more than one turret dealing damage, which brings us a design challenge: from a designer's perspective, do we make those turrets' damage weak to allow more than one to be placed, or do we make the turrets not immune to AE damage? Otherwise, from a PvP standpoint, all the 'Artificer' has to do is keep dropping those turrets to force the opposing players to focus on the turrets, if they do deal substancial damage and are immune to AE, which would be unbalanced for the enemy players; but if their damage is weak, enemy players would just basically ignore them and attack the 'artificer' which would be bad against the class; and if their damage is substancial but not immune to AE, a simple cleave ability would make short work of the turrets. See the design issue with that?


You're comparing magic to technology. DKs can't make any of the Enchanters' enchants, nor can the Enchanters make any of the DKs enchant. DKs enchant with runes.


The kind of resource a class use doesn't mean much about filling a gap or overcoming overlaps, to be honest. I think we all can agree that a tech class wouldn't be using mana as a resource, and I think it'd most likely be using energy, like rogues, monks and, to an extent, hunters, because of their unique focus resource. I am not saying it's impossible to do, but I can't come up with any kind of secondary resource that feels 'unique' compared to all the 'holy power', 'runes', 'chi', 'combo points', etc already in WoW.


It's one of the major points against it, in my opinion. There is nothing 'Warcraft Demon Hunter' in it only than simply mentions of 'inspired by WC3 DH' lines. Nothing in its design reminds us of the WC3 DH.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh hai, Teriz.

First, I'll gladly drop the dual wield thing, because I know blizzard would never add a new type of weapon at this point (new animations, new models, takes up drop space or requires a new type of tech related to obtaining them.)

Shamans hardly revolve around totems anymore. If they pushed back that direction then they could close the design space for it a little bit, but they seem to be doing the exact opposite. You don't interact with your totems, they are drop and forget. The class also wouldn't focus on their turrets unless that's the direction it was pushed, which isn't what I'd imagine it to be. It'd be a single spec of the class.

As for turrets in pvp specifically, They could be suceptible to CC like a mob, not like a player, and potentially have no DR. As for AoE damage, they could take an amount that isn't immunity, but doesn't make them worthless. (50% as example) On top of that, a GOOD player would drop turrets spread out enough to keep someone within their range while kiting them and so that they cannot be aoe'd down. They'd also obviously have some form of cooldown or a charge system, so you can't spam them everywhere, that way ignoring them could be devastating, but you aren't spending 24/7 focusing them.

They could have an explosive or technology based tree using some other concept, although just because engineering has grenades, doesn't mean it's unacceptable to even mention a grenade based spec. Fire mages and destro locks are thematically similar on two different classes. (yeah they're fundamentally different sources, but seriously, it wouldn't be 100% grenades and it wouldn't be all up in engineering face outside of using grenades. Why should grenades be forced into being a crappy item that a profession makes, and aren't very useful outside of giving you a marginal dps increase that equals out to be less than a crit.)

The unique resource is to keep them away from feeling like hunters. If you were to give locks and mages the same looking spells with generic names, they'd still feel different. I want to write up a new resource, but I'm tired as hell and it would revolve around what abilities they had so I'll come back and edit this in a minute or two.
How about this for a resource system; You have three resources, a very large energy pool (1000+) unusable scrap and usable scrap, using an ability generates both based on the ability, usable scrap can be used to empower abilities(Like soulburn for affliction, it would empower the next ability) While unusable scrap is used to feed your turrets ammunition. Or, it can be used to empower/create shrapnel grenades, or maybe thrown around on the ground and causing bleeding on those who walk onto it. Both of the scraps would require specific amounts of empower the different abilities (so you'd have a pool of 100 of each, and using your "filler shot" would generate 15 scrap each. while the CD shots could generate more.)
Energy would work but I'd go with something new, like a huge energy pool with a low return, but empowering an ability also makes it free or returns some, maybe even unusable scrap can be converted somehow, so managing your overall energy would be required, and if you were poor at managing it, you would run out.

Another small idea as I type this, you could have maybe 2-3 "basic" abilities, and you can have 3-4 different types of empowers, two for each type of scrap. Each shot can be empowered in different ways, so maybe shot 1 does triple damage with empower 1, but with empower 2 does half damage and restores a large amount of energy. While shot 2 empower 1 lowers their armor, but shot 2 empower 2 causes a bleed. ( actually really love this idea after typing it, but I'll leave the above alone for now.)


Yeah, he shouldn't of related it to wow DH's. I think that's why so many people are pissed in this thread.

[Daffan]

the demons in diablo are like satan

no such thing as religion heaven and hell in wow is there?