New Classes

[Zyrinx]

People are tired of leveling new classes. This is why 4th specs are the best idea for everybody.

The biggest criticism to 4th specs is adding 12 new specs. Too much dev work to be feasible. A compromise would be 3 new specs that are shared across the existing classes according to the specs they lack. This would be the same dev effort as a new class, but greater depth to the class you already love.

Tank: Shaman, Warlock, Rogue, Priest
Ranged DPS: Paladin, Warrior, Monk, DK, DH
Healing: Mage, Hunter

These three roles can be based on any theme the expansion requires: Timewalkers, Shadowlands, Tinkers, Void, Light. Much more flexible than a single class that needs to represent a singular archetype. Also more fun and interesting to integrate what the new spec brings to the base abilities of the class.

I disagree. People are tired of leveling new races.

[crakerjack]

Yea there's more money behind allied races than there are new classes. What people forget is that new classes don't add anything to the game. As someone who has had every character to max level in previous expansion and 8 120's this expansion, I can safely say the only difference between classes are the animations of their abilities. What annoys me is how little people think about the implications of a new class. You can't just introduce some new crazy ability that's unique, so that means whatever class they add will be a mix of every other class with new animations.

More than not, people have multiple max level characters and would sooner spend $30 to race change rather than drop $60 for a boost or level all over again. Creating new races that don't require insane amounts of balancing/tuning is the easier/efficient route. If blizzard is smart, they won't add another class until the final days of WoW just to appease the few that think it's a good idea.

[Bas Prime]

People are tired of leveling new classes. This is why 4th specs are the best idea for everybody.

The biggest criticism to 4th specs is adding 12 new specs. Too much dev work to be feasible. A compromise would be 3 new specs that are shared across the existing classes according to the specs they lack. This would be the same dev effort as a new class, but greater depth to the class you already love.

Tank: Shaman, Warlock, Rogue, Priest
Ranged DPS: Paladin, Warrior, Monk, DK, DH
Healing: Mage, Hunter

These three roles can be based on any theme the expansion requires: Timewalkers, Shadowlands, Tinkers, Void, Light. Much more flexible than a single class that needs to represent a singular archetype. Also more fun and interesting to integrate what the new spec brings to the base abilities of the class.

I think there are more problems to it.
Leveling at itself is a problem. I agree with you, that many people are tired and I can imagine that many potential new players dont want to start a game where they have to level a toon from 1-120. Imo the number of levels needs to be changed, maybe cut in half. At the same time a more advanced scaling could help with the leveling. What I mean by that is, that you could join a level 15 char in ragefire with your level (now) 112 and both would be scaled.
4th specs are a great idea imo, and I think they could work great in combination with new (hero) classes (not necesarrily at the same time of course)
Antoher thing is the connection of classes to expansion themes. While this worked quite good in the past, and could work for future classes, I also lessens the number of possibilities and the creativity, and the potential. So I think a direkt tie to a expansion is not needed, I think a patch even a small one could work to introduce a new class

[Moonrage]

The only class I'd be interested in would be a Priestess of The Moon class, wich will likely never happen as it's a mix of balance druids, priests, warriors and hunters.

[Unholyground]

We do.

To be honest, I'd much prefer a complete reset on the class system; one that actually works with over-arched armour classes. So the top end sees four classes (Soldier with plate, Server with mail, Assassin with leather and Caster with cloth) that then each move into three specialised classes with two specs each.

So, for example:

- The Soldier becomes a Warrior (Protection or Fury), a Paladin (Retribution or Holy) or a Death Knight (Blood or Undead).
- The Server becomes a Hunter (Marksmanship or Beast Mastery), a Shaman (Elemental or Restoration) or a Monk (Brewmaster or Windwalker).
- The Assassin becomes a Rogue (Assassination or Outlaw), a Druid (Feral or Restoration), or a Demon Hunter (Havoc or Vengeance).
- The Caster becomes a Mage (Fire or Frost), a Priest (Holy or Shadow) or a Warlock (Demonology or Affliction).

You should notice that there are the same number of healers and tanks.

But of course countless players would complain about the loss of a spec they play, despite all of the issues such an approach would fix - namely the sheer difficulty in balancing the number of specs (24 rather than 35), creating different ones when the role is the same, the plate/mail/leather/cloth gear that's unbalanced, and the class-orientated identity that's been removed. It's also a big change from the game that we've had, so it's extremely unlikely to even be considered.

But that's the route I'd take.

They should never have worried so much about balancing in the first place and kept the old style talent trees and just made them more interesting so you could make interesting hybrid specs.

[Bas Prime]

They should never have worried so much about balancing in the first place and kept the old style talent trees and just made them more interesting so you could make interesting hybrid specs.

well they could start to add a bit more options. not that many and (imo) useless ones as in classic, but still a lot more than there are right now.

[Teriz]

With the same result.

Like seriously, it's like saying that Shadowfury and Cap Totem are totally different.

They're not totally different, but they are different.

WW Monk and Havoc DH have a similiar toolkit despite coming from two totally different directions.
That means nothing, the actual effect of abilities are just sprinkles that could very often be shaped to fit to any class, besides healing spells perhaps.

In what way do you believe that they have similar toolkits?

[Unholyground]

well they could start to add a bit more options. not that many and (imo) useless ones as in classic, but still a lot more than there are right now.

Ya, I mean, those 5% damage increases for example and so on could just be bonuses for spending so many points in that tree, it would have cleaned the trees up substantially and then a talent point every 2 levels instead of every level 10+

[Sentynel]

Tinker. Gnome & Goblin exclusive.

[Teriz]

You do know that group and unit movement can't be done with WoW's engine, right?

You mean like the AI we see out of the Island Expedition teams? You're telling me that Blizzard can do that but can't re-create an ability from a 15-year old RTS game?

Cobalt Frag Bomb
Item Level 71
Use: Inflicts 490 to 640 Fire damage and incapacitates targets for 3 sec in a 3 yard radius. Any damage will break the effect.

The frag bomb has no effect on creatures above level 83. (1 Min Cooldown)

There's many bombs that do the same thing, this also has an aoe.

Amazing....

That item is not the same thing as an ability that fires multiple rockets that stun in a much larger radius. I should also point out that it would be highly doubtful that Cluster Rockets would stop working on enemies over level 83.

By the way, incapacitate isn't the same as stun.

I linked you a rocket that was capable of being an aoe, and also stunned earlier.

Where? A single rocket isn't the same as a volley of rockets.

In WC3 you used the blade master clones to manipulate and move out of threat or make an enemy think you were heading off somewhere you weren't etc. And no, the delay ability copy that has zero movement is not at all close to a zero damage full range movement.

And in WC3 Metamorphosis allowed you to launch volleys of massive fireballs at targets from a distance. Things change from the RTS to the game. That doesn't make them different abilities, merely translations of abilities. The Blademaster attribute of being a stealthy assassin went to the Rogue class, so it's not surprising that they would get an Illusionary ability similar to Mirror Image. The overall point here is that it would be highly bizarre for Blizzard to bring in another melee class based around stealth, illusion, and assassination.

[MrWolly]

Nope, full 3 talents per class but all reskins of existing ones.

4th talent is going to be equivalent of adding 4 whole classes. Not worth the effort and may as well be 4 full classes, but that will never happen.

Class reskins is actually plausible while keeping thematics similar and manageable within reason, even if some things slightly change.

This sounds like something that would be cool for a Class Quest Chain akin to the green fire quest line for Warlocks, and it would be pretty cool. Fire in place of frost for DKs would be cool to get a more WC2 vibe, and a Void Knight option for Pallies would be cool.

[Quickie]

My point wasnt that it would stay that way. But, that for lore purposes, we would start off that way, and then midwy introduce them to the other side. It would weave story and gameplay much better then current state of things.

[AngerFork]

Count me firmly on Team Tinker.

As for the Dark Ranger/Warden split classes that the OP mentioned, I would be surprised if we saw anything like that. Putting aside the knowledge that each of these new classes would interfere with the marketing splash of the other, there's still the current disparity we've already heard about between Alliance/Horde getting high level boss kills. Whether right or wrong, people tend to give a lot of blame for that to racials as is. Separating out two classes by Alliance/Horde is just asking for the player base to be further up in arms than they are already.

[Kralljin]

They're not totally different, but they are different.

Is the end result that different?
Does one have significant upsides over the other? In particular in PvE?

Let's honest, look at the two spells, both have the same CD, stun the enemy for the same duration and both are extremely similiar in terms of usage.
Both spells might as well be identical, it would not be a huge difference.

If you cannot spot the similiarities between those two AoE stuns, look at the other bunch of AoE stuns and still think "we need more of those", then we just disagree on that and i see no further point in discussing the matter.

In what way do you believe that they have similar toolkits?

They wear leather, have high mobility, AoE stun, an Interrupt, reasonable cleave / Burst AoE, unique raid debuff and a ranged instant CC (Paralysis / Imprison).
At least the things from my head.

[Triceron]

I posted a thread on this a long time ago but I would rather see heroic 4th specs added than new classes. This way we could explore some unique classes that couldn't necessarily fleshout into 2-3 unique specs. We also wouldn't need to worry about them "catching up" with fluff like Order Halls.

The basic idea is that 2 classes get a combined new spec that offers a completely new playstyle for them both. Imagine if we still had our class orders but they decided to merge and create new orders. Examples below

- Mage + Warrior = shared 4th spec of Spellbreaker
- Priest + Death Knight = shared 4th spec of Necromancer
- Shaman + Warlock = shared 4th spec of Shadow Hunter
- Rogue + Hunter = shared 4th spec of Dark Ranger
- Demon Hunter + Druid = shared 4th spec of Cabalist
- Paladin + Monk =shared 4th spec of Celestial

Interesting idea, but what is the point of two classes sharing the same spec if they mechanically play differently?

I see it like Mage and DK both having frost, or Paladin and Priest both having Holy. They're completely different specs because each class has their own abilities and don't share them with others. Kind of defeats the point of sharing the same spec name/theme if they're separate designs. It's like adding two Spellbreakers or two Necromancers instead of branching off to something more unique, since the core classes share nothing in common with each other mechanically. If they play the same for both classes then that's even weirder.

[Teriz]

Is the end result that different?
Does one have significant upsides over the other? In particular in PvE?

Let's honest, look at the two spells, both have the same CD, stun the enemy for the same duration and both are extremely similiar in terms of usage.
Both spells might as well be identical, it would not be a huge difference.

If you cannot spot the similiarities between those two AoE stuns, look at the other bunch of AoE stuns and still think "we need more of those", then we just disagree on that and i see no further point in discussing the matter.

And Capacitator Totem is an instant cast totem, that takes 2 seconds to go off, and is electrical/nature based. Shadow Fury is a casted spell that is shadow-based.

Obviously they are two talents meant to serve similar purposes. The problem is that we're examining two spells in a vacuum and ignoring the differences in the two classes they're coming from. If you isolate two similar spells from two completely different classes, then obviously you get into this pointless argument that at the fundamental level there are spells that are similar to each other. However, we should look at it from the entirety of the class itself. Shaman are very different from Warlocks, and that help makes Capacitor Totem different than Shadowfury.

Which brings us back to the point of bringing in a Tinker class. A class that is fundamentally different thematically from existing classes helps make similar spells not feel so similar to each other.

They wear leather, have high mobility, AoE stun, an Interrupt, reasonable cleave / Burst AoE, unique raid debuff and a ranged instant CC (Paralysis / Imprison). At least the things from my head.

As do Druids and Rogues. In fact what you describe above is fairly common among the leather-based melee specs. Despite that, I would argue that WW Monks and Havoc DHs are very different from each other in many ways.

[Kralljin]

Not even going to bother to argue about Cap totem and Shadowfury, see reason above.

As do Druids and Rogues. In fact what you describe above is fairly common among the leather-based melee specs.

Balance / Resto does not have an Interrupt (Solar Beam is far different).
Balance has no real Burst AoE / Cleave (It's Multi dot, different to cleave).
Druid doesn't have an Instant Ranged CC (Cyclone has a casttime).
The Range CC of Rogue has a far longer CD and duration.

Neither mobility of Druid or Rogue comes even close to that of WW Monk / DH.
Neither Rogue nor Druid have an AoE stun.
Neither Rogue nor Druid have a unique raid debuff (Innervate / B-rez cannot be compared with Mystic Touch / Chaos Brand).

Neither DH nor Monk have stealth.

The list could go on.

[Teriz]

Not even going to bother to argue about Cap totem and Shadowfury, see reason above.

Unfortunate.

Balance / Resto does not have an Interrupt (Solar Beam is far different).
Balance has no real Burst AoE / Cleave (It's Multi dot, different to cleave).
Druid doesn't have an Instant Ranged CC (Cyclone has a casttime).
The Range CC of Rogue has a far longer CD and duration.

Neither mobility of Druid or Rogue comes even close to that of WW Monk / DH.
Neither Rogue nor Druid have an AoE stun.
Neither Rogue nor Druid have a unique raid debuff (Innervate / B-rez cannot be compared with Mystic Touch / Chaos Brand).

Neither DH nor Monk have stealth.

The list could go on.

I said melee. So Balance Druid wouldn't be part of that equation. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about all of that, but I really don't feel like digging through the ability lists to argue something that isn't really about the topic at hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, so these things that are the same mechanically yet not visually the same aren't the same, yet these things that aren't visually nor mechanically the same, just similar in name are the same. Got it.

Items and abilities are mechanically different by nature, just like classes and professions.

You're clearly not worth talking to anymore as you can't see past, let a lone recognize your own absurd bias.

Says the person who's main argument against the Tinker class is that they're "retarded".

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

They wont be able to get away with adding only allied races, especially with the terrible rollout and reception that they got over trolls and KT. Dark Rangers and Wardens could do alot of neat hybrid roles. Maybe only give them one or two specs. I do admit tho, they would have to make sure that Rangers dont cross with hunters.

sub classes. use many of the same abilities as their mother class, with some flavor additions / changes.

or just 4th spec

[Kralljin]

I said melee. So Balance Druid wouldn't be part of that equation.

You could make a similiar case with Feral, to whom a good chunk still applies (like the AoE Stun, Mobility, raid support, etc.)

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about all of that, but I really don't feel like digging through the ability lists

"I don't check it, but i'll just assume i am right".

Yeah thanks for the discussion, have fun continuing that drivel how new and amazing Tinker will be while championing abilities that other classes already have.