To late to get dark ranger/dot spec?

[Tyris Flare]

BFA SV seems like it is going to be amazingly fun in PvP. Tons of utility and 2 charges with FS. And you somehow do get peeled, you can still put out decent pressure at mid range.

[Sim]

a braindead 3-button low skill cap spec.

WoW has no high skill cap classes anymore after they pruned and bubble wrapped everything. The last vestiges of high skill cap ended with WoTLK.

Now I am curious however. In Legion of all things since you gave the bar at BM. What do you consider a high skill cap spec?

[Bepples]

BFA SV seems like it is going to be amazingly fun in PvP. Tons of utility and 2 charges with FS. And you somehow do get peeled, you can still put out decent pressure at mid range.

So, basically, a shittier version of what it was before Legion. Cool.

[Tyris Flare]

One of these days you're going to actually have to let go.

[Zabatakis]

Yes, one is easier than a full class. However, I honestly doubt Blizzard is just going to add an extra spec to just one class. I believe they'd add an extra spec to at least three classes, but it's more likely they'd add an extra spec to all classes, maybe except druids. Maybe.


It's not the same thing. Adding a new spec to an existing class is different than adding a new class. As for the druids, giving them a fourth spec was a necessity, because balancing tanking and dps in the same spec and talent tree was just not feasible. So either one of the two were removed, or the two were separated into their own separate specs.

No class in the game needs an extra spec. Any extra spec added would just "a bonus". And I honestly don't think that it'd sit well with the player base that, if Blizzard added a new spec to just one class (or two or three), they'd have to wait for next expansion for a chance that their class of choice gains a new spec. If ever.

Right but the thread is about 1 spec, specifically dark ranger. Everything you say make sense until you realise you are talking about activision blizz, and not old blizzard. I would not be surprised at all if they just started giving 1 new spec to a class on some lottery basis each expac or anytime subs dip low before a earnings call.

[Ielenia]

Right but the thread is about 1 spec, specifically dark ranger. Everything you say make sense until you realise you are talking about activision blizz, and not old blizzard. I would not be surprised at all if they just started giving 1 new spec to a class on some lottery basis each expac or anytime subs dip low before a earnings call.

That would not work and would be basically shooting their own foot. Assuming they do a new spec to one class per expansion, each expansion lasting 2 years (assuming how it went with Legion), they do a new spec every expansion, not one every two expansions like they do with classes and races, and we have 12 classes, that means, on average, you're looking at 12 years before you see your preferred class gain a new spec.

[Zabatakis]

That would not work and would be basically shooting their own foot.

Ok 2 things. 1, this is all kinda moot. They will or they won't, me saying they might and you saying they won't have zero impact. 2, so many people would say the same about releasing a class with only 2 specs, or balancing a spec around a single trinket from guldan, or so on and so forth. It all sounds so stupid... until they do it.

[Ielenia]

Ok 2 things. 1, this is all kinda moot. They will or they won't, me saying they might and you saying they won't have zero impact.

This is kind of a meaningless argument to make, considering it can be applied to basically every discussion around here, regarding this game. And also? This is a discussion. Saying "what we say or don't say has no impact" is irrelevant.

2, so many people would say the same about releasing a class with only 2 specs,

I don't think so. I mean, I see no reason to, especially if the concept becomes diluted if split unnecessarily into more specs just to fit the minimum quota of 3.

[Zabatakis]

This is kind of a meaningless argument to make, considering it can be applied to basically every discussion around here, regarding this game. And also? This is a discussion. Saying "what we say or don't say has no impact" is irrelevant.


I don't think so. I mean, I see no reason to, especially if the concept becomes diluted if split unnecessarily into more specs just to fit the minimum quota of 3.

Ok, so just for clarity sake here then, despite Activision already doing the following things:
class with 4 specs
class with only 2 specs
class with 3 specs given 1 more spec when all other classes at the time had 3 and still do not have 4
updated race specific druid models for new races, but openly stated no plans for old races to get this
outright shit on a spec (wod demo) for half an expac to make the new as of yet unanounced class more unique
and so on

Despite all these things and more it is your position they wouldn't do such a thing as add just 1 more spec to only one class like they did before?
Then I must say, I disagree.

[Ielenia]

class with 4 specs

No class was created with four specs.

class with only 2 specs

What's the problem with having two specs? Especially if the damage-dealer concept doesn't lend itself to be split into two separate forms.

class with 3 specs given 1 more spec when all other classes at the time had 3 and still do not have 4

Your very basic post heavily implies that a class was given an extra spec out of random. That wasn't the case. The druid's Feral spec, as it was, with it being both tank and dps, was unsustainable. Either one was removed, which wouldn't sit well with the player base, or that spec was split into two.

updated race specific druid models for new races, but openly stated no plans for old races to get this

Didn't druids just get a whole expansion full of many new shapeshift forms? I could be wrong, but won't they be able to keep the forms they unlock for food?

outright shit on a spec (wod demo) for half an expac to make the new as of yet unanounced class more unique

Yeah. That totally was Blizzard's line of thought: "let's shit on the demonology warlocks! it'll be so fun, lolz!"

Despite all these things and more it is your position they wouldn't do such a thing as add just 1 more spec to only one class like they did before?
Then I must say, I disagree.

Again, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: your very basic post heavily implies that a class was given an extra spec out of random. That wasn't the case. The druid's Feral spec, as it was, with it being both tank and dps, was unsustainable. Either one was removed, which wouldn't sit well with the player base, or that spec was split into two.

The druid case was a case of necessity, not because someone thought "hey let's give one class a new spec" and then randomly picked druid.

[Zabatakis]

No class was created with four specs.

Never said they did. Just like the OP that you quoted to never said 12 specs is easier than 1 class. You have a strange habit of making arguments you have lost into entirely new arguments.

What's the problem with having two specs? Especially if the damage-dealer concept doesn't lend itself to be split into two separate forms.

Was pointed out to illustrate a precedent for the unfairness of spec count, which you claim would be shooting themselves in the foot. Apparently, with you tho, it is only shooting themselves in the foot if they do it again. If its wrong or not is another argument entirely.

Your very basic post heavily implies that a class was given an extra spec out of random. That wasn't the case. The druid's Feral spec, as it was, with it being both tank and dps, was unsustainable. Either one was removed, which wouldn't sit well with the player base, or that spec was split into two.

And yet they removed hunters ranged dot spec instead of giving them a 4th melee spec when they wanted to do another. Hmmm, its almost like they don't have consistency with this sort of thing. Hmmm, it's almost like that is my whole point.

Didn't druids just get a whole expansion full of many new shapeshift forms? I could be wrong, but won't they be able to keep the forms they unlock for food?

Again that's not the argument. Race-specific? No. So the new races get all of those + race specific, old races just get half of that. If you keep creating new arguments with yourself you may well win a lot of them.

Yeah. That totally was Blizzard's line of thought: "let's shit on the demonology warlocks! it'll be so fun, lolz!"

Oh hey, you took a point I made about a history of doing unfair things regarding spec and responded to some point you made up yourself. You are at least consistent I guess. If they thought it was fun or not doesn't matter here at all, the fact is they did do it, and in doing so set, no, continued a precedent for unfair things regarding that.

Again, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: your very basic post heavily implies that a class was given an extra spec out of random. That wasn't the case. The druid's Feral spec, as it was, with it being both tank and dps, was unsustainable. Either one was removed, which wouldn't sit well with the player base, or that spec was split into two.

The druid case was a case of necessity, not because someone thought "hey let's give one class a new spec" and then randomly picked druid.

So let me be abundantly clear here since you have a reading comprehension problem: When I said this is moot, what I really meant was arguing with someone like you specifically is moot. You say they won't do a thing, I say they actually already did that and a great deal of other silly things, you say it's not the same because that was on a Wednesday and today is Thursday, or just create some new argument entirely... it's pointless. At the end of the day, this was over 1 thing: It would, in fact, be easier to make 1 new spec than a whole new class. And they have done it before. Period. 12 new specs vs 1 new class is an argument you fabricated yourself, and since its just between you and you, you both win and lose it. This is my last reply. Feel free to defend yourself to the 3 people that will read this now derailed thread, but I will no longer be a party to it.