Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ...
24
32
33
34
  1. #661
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Except a woodsman literally does, half of the night elves and many of the orc clans such as frostwolf clan fit that identity, how about you do some research instead of trolling. Thanks.
    And there is also lore precedence for bow-wielding priests. So which 15-year-old priest spec is on the chopping block for that to happen?

    The playable Hunter class has always been centred around ranged weapons. If you want a melee-based Hunter, at the very most you should get a SUBSPEC of BM, i.e. a talent that swaps out the ranged weapon abilities for melee weapon ones in exchange for a damage boost. A dedicated melee spec is now thoroughly proven to be an infeasible, terrible idea.

  2. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Ill say it again, what part of the name HUNTER reads as RANGER. Google what a hunter is, in both modern and historical context. Hunters as a concept use bows and spears, traps, etc.

    Theres 0 reason why a melee spec cant exist and im personally glad it does and I dont care if you dont like that.

    Look you want the simple rundown. Yes it was a bad idea. Yes it peeved people off, but what do I think the perfect solution should be? I think Blizzard needs to make it a thing to have 4 specs if theres a place for them. I used to love SV hunter ranged, a lot more than MM sooooo, yeah I was annoyed it got removed, and it was TRASH in Legion, literally the worst spec in the game, it wasnt even developed, but do I love the concept, hell yes, its one of my favorites in the entire game.
    And I'll say it again: WoW Hunters were defined around ranged weapons. I don't care about what examples you can pull from real life, other RPGs, or even non-playable lore characters. The WoW Hunter class was defined around ranged weapons, period. And the game's 6th expansion is not the time to decide to go back on that. Could Hunters have gone with melee? Sure, but the game needs ranged weapon specs and it's a critically underutilised fantasy archetype.

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    And ill say it again, I dont care if you dont like my examples, they define my personal opinion. WoW hunters have always been able to use Melee weapons and Warcraft has tons of characters that would fit into the Hunter class that arent pure ranged, so tough shit. WoWs hunter class was original made around primarily ranged weapons, but that dosent mean there wasnt a place for a melee hunter spec. Period.

    How on earth you think that hunters ranged weapon specs are critically underutilised in fantasy archetypes is literally a million miles beyond me. Literally 99.9% of 'hunters' in games are pure ranged using bows almost exclusively so keep living in dream land.

    Ill say it again, if WoW's hunter was named Ranger, or Archer, then id let this argument go, but until that day happens, then no, I stand by my argument that it has a place.
    I'll agree with you, and go a couple of steps further. I wanted Demon Hunter to be a 4th spec added to Hunters to make them interesting again. Hunters losing melee, losing melee deadzone, losing conc shot and other key abilities (especially for pvp) really made them bland. I never took any of mine seriously, it's one of the few classes I would never main (Paladin, DK, DH, and Hunter) due to the way it's been designed (usually bastardized from other existing specs). Hunters at least had a lot of utility to offer, making them useful in a skilled players hands.

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I'll agree with you, and go a couple of steps further. I wanted Demon Hunter to be a 4th spec added to Hunters to make them interesting again. Hunters losing melee, losing melee deadzone, losing conc shot and other key abilities (especially for pvp) really made them bland. I never took any of mine seriously, it's one of the few classes I would never main (Paladin, DK, DH, and Hunter) due to the way it's been designed (usually bastardized from other existing specs). Hunters at least had a lot of utility to offer, making them useful in a skilled players hands.
    Hunter with deadzone and no aoe is dogshit to play, complicates a lot of things, you can't do a lot of runs (for instance, you're about as useless as balls on a dildo in the torch room in BRD)
    Hunters with mana is prob the single worse thing bc you have mana costs like a mage and 0 int on your gear. Fun stuff.

  5. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by asil View Post
    I don't think the content in BFA is bad on a fundamental level, outside of them forgetting to add things back to the game (mat vendors, for example) the primary issue with the game is spec/talent design. Most of the specs in the game just feel bad to play, they just aren't fun. You can blame some of this on the GCD change (which to this day makes no coherent sense to me) but many specs have such little talent diversity you could remove most talents and it wouldn't matter even slightly. There are talents in the game that are so bad, they're a dps loss over taking no talent at all. People will play bad content if the specs are fun to play, but when the specs aren't fun to play then no matter how good your content is people are just going to stop.

    I really just don't get the mentality blizzard had going into BFA, they were repeatedly warned by people playing the beta that many specs just felt awful and kept insisting azerite was going to fix it, and that never materialized. And because blizzard doesn't like doing large reworks mid xpac, we're now left with a bunch of specs that likely won't be fixed or fun to play until next expansion, if they're ever fixed at all.

    The only solution I can see going forward is to roll back some of the massive redesigns they've done over the years and restore classes to what they used to be, and then tune the numbers. Because when we do lose azerite and essences, we're going to be left in the exact same situation we're in now, specs that feel incomplete and clunky to play.
    To many the game is fine, albeit it's things that some find wrong with things in the game. Thousands of players still game for hours on end during the week. If things were so bad, why would the player base be as high as it is?:P Nobody is forcing them to play a game with *apparently bad class and talen design*
    I would say the majority of players are content with the current state of the game.
    The hunter hoe with the least beloe.

  6. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    And I'll say it again: WoW Hunters were defined around ranged weapons. I don't care about what examples you can pull from real life, other RPGs, or even non-playable lore characters. The WoW Hunter class was defined around ranged weapons, period. And the game's 6th expansion is not the time to decide to go back on that. Could Hunters have gone with melee? Sure, but the game needs ranged weapon specs and it's a critically underutilised fantasy archetype.
    Fun fact: Survival in vanilla wow was the spec you went if you wanted to play the fantasy of the D&D Ranger... Which included melee abilities in their repertoire. So, no, WoW Hunters were not entirely defined around ranged weapons, considering that one spec (the spec that has revisited being melee, mind you!) was the thematic for an archetype that was in D&D, much like many of the other classes were built to kind of feel a bit like that and/or EverQuest, since they were trying to appeal to players of that game at the time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    That is a few steps further yes but I can see where it comes from, hunter did become seriously bland, its my favorite spec concept wise along with DK but I do think SV ranged should have stayed, melee spec should have been added seperately but the game was desperately in need of that fantasy being filled, melee fighting side by side with the beast, the woodsman/hunter archetype is present in every culture worldwide, and almost all use spears/bows in combination, with a very strong emphasis on traps, mastery of the environment etc, and that is what SV is trying to be with the pet thing being mixed in.

    Hes saying you just want to play a warrior, Ive no clue how he equates these two. One is quite literally a hunter of animals/people, a woodsman, someone tribal, using spears, and bows to hunt/be stealthy, to a warrior, whom in WoW terms is all about power and armour, literally completely opposites.

    Id love to see more work to SV though, I still think its really boring, its 100x better than legion but id like to see more emphasis on its ranged ability, maybe they are doing that by going back to the ways of old where a hunter is always a hunter, with a slight twist based on spec. I always envisioned the melee hunter as someone who fights side by side in melee range with fast sweeping attacks with the spear etc, precise mastery of a spear etc, with exploding back to range, using their agility and whipping out their bow which they have equal mastery of, something like a CD where your entire ability set switches to pure range for like 30s or something.

    I think that would make for some seriously engaging gameplay aswell as making them extremely interesting having such a balanced blend of both melee and ranged ability.
    I wish that the melee spec for Hunters felt a bit more like the White Lion from the Warhammer MMO, or maybe like Beastlords from EverQuest. But I do enjoy having a melee hunter spec, I just think it needs some work.

  7. #667
    Quote Originally Posted by GenericDragon View Post
    Fun fact: Survival in vanilla wow was the spec you went if you wanted to play the fantasy of the D&D Ranger... Which included melee abilities in their repertoire. So, no, WoW Hunters were not entirely defined around ranged weapons, considering that one spec (the spec that has revisited being melee, mind you!) was the thematic for an archetype that was in D&D, much like many of the other classes were built to kind of feel a bit like that and/or EverQuest, since they were trying to appeal to players of that game at the time.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I wish that the melee spec for Hunters felt a bit more like the White Lion from the Warhammer MMO, or maybe like Beastlords from EverQuest. But I do enjoy having a melee hunter spec, I just think it needs some work.
    All SV hunter needs now is an aoe without a CD. If serpent sting hit every mob in a cone like wildfire bomb did, they'd be ridiculously good.

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    And ill say it again, I dont care if you dont like my examples, they define my personal opinion. WoW hunters have always been able to use Melee weapons and Warcraft has tons of characters that would fit into the Hunter class that arent pure ranged, so tough shit. WoWs hunter class was original made around primarily ranged weapons, but that dosent mean there wasnt a place for a melee hunter spec. Period.
    Show me the Hunter spec before Legion that totally lacked a ranged weapon and you'll have some ground to stand on. Until then, you are repeatedly and desperately reaching to try to prove that somehow having a melee aspect to Hunters in the past (as a stopgap for a handicap on our ranged abilities) justifies having a purely-melee spec now, after 12 years of iteration as ranged specs.

    There is no place in this class for a purely melee spec, and as far as I'm concerned the course of class design over the past decade has proven that there's little to no place for any melee at all. I'm willing to say there should be an optional melee subspec of BM via talent choice but that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    How on earth you think that hunters ranged weapon specs are critically underutilised in fantasy archetypes is literally a million miles beyond me. Literally 99.9% of 'hunters' in games are pure ranged using bows almost exclusively so keep living in dream land.
    They aren't utilised enough in WoW is what I was saying. We have one spec that focuses on them, a spec that uses them but isn't centred around them, and that's it. Meanwhile, look at all the varieties of "swing a stick".

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Ill say it again, if WoW's hunter was named Ranger, or Archer, then id let this argument go, but until that day happens, then no, I stand by my argument that it has a place.
    WoW's definition of Hunter was a ranged weapon user, period. You're just in denial now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I'll agree with you, and go a couple of steps further. I wanted Demon Hunter to be a 4th spec added to Hunters to make them interesting again. Hunters losing melee, losing melee deadzone, losing conc shot and other key abilities (especially for pvp) really made them bland. I never took any of mine seriously, it's one of the few classes I would never main (Paladin, DK, DH, and Hunter) due to the way it's been designed (usually bastardized from other existing specs). Hunters at least had a lot of utility to offer, making them useful in a skilled players hands.
    Christ, as bad as the current class developers are at least we don't have you in charge.

    Demon Hunters are an entirely different, incompatible identity to Hunters. Suggesting that they are anywhere close enough to one another to be part of the same class might be the most ridiculous take on class design I've seen all year, and that really is saying a lot.

    Your proposal for making Hunters "interesting" is also utterly reprehensible. I can assure you most of the class was more than happy to see the melee aspects go. They held us back and conflicted with our core identity. Any suggestion to bring them back can fuck right off. There is plenty of flavour in the ranged aspects so we do not need melee bullshit. This is the sort of suggestion that can only come from someone who self-admittedly would never play a Hunter.

    Also, we did not lose Concussive Shot and they still have a lot of utility to offer.

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Hes saying you just want to play a warrior, Ive no clue how he equates these two. One is quite literally a hunter of animals/people, a woodsman, someone tribal, using spears, and bows to hunt/be stealthy, to a warrior, whom in WoW terms is all about power and armour, literally completely opposites.
    You can dredge up all the emotive buzzwords you want, but melee combat is melee combat. Blizzard's goal for Survival, along with many of the people who play it, seem to me more in line with that of Warriors than Hunters. Look at the amount of people asking for Lone Wolf for Survival. It doesn't make sense for Hunters to depend on melee weapons in any capacity, and note that literally all of Survival's current identity and flavour depends on aspects other than the melee ones (those being just Raptor Strike and Carve, both abilities that would fit perfectly well in the Warrior class). Why keep it melee if it's just offering nothing to the spec but a handicap?

    Quote Originally Posted by GenericDragon View Post
    Fun fact: Survival in vanilla wow was the spec you went if you wanted to play the fantasy of the D&D Ranger... Which included melee abilities in their repertoire. So, no, WoW Hunters were not entirely defined around ranged weapons, considering that one spec (the spec that has revisited being melee, mind you!) was the thematic for an archetype that was in D&D, much like many of the other classes were built to kind of feel a bit like that and/or EverQuest, since they were trying to appeal to players of that game at the time.
    I linked the actual class definition from the original manual which literally says that Hunters are the ranged weapon class so your take on this is utterly and indefensibly wrong. All 3 specs had to use melee to some extent, so declaring that Survival included melee abilities is pointless. It was the spec that had talents to improve the melee abilities but that does not signal intent to exclusively play with melee abilities nor does it give precedent to making a spec that totally lacks a ranged weapon 12 years later. It didn't "revisit" shit. It invented something that never existed in the past and forced it on us at the expense of one of our ranged specs.

    I don't give a flying fuck about what D&D does. It's very notable how both you and JavelinJoe are both breathlessly bleating out how apparently Hunter concepts outside of WoW should have precedence over WoW's take on Hunters which was over a decade in the making.

    Quote Originally Posted by GenericDragon View Post
    I wish that the melee spec for Hunters felt a bit more like the White Lion from the Warhammer MMO, or maybe like Beastlords from EverQuest. But I do enjoy having a melee hunter spec, I just think it needs some work.
    Again with the pretense that other MMOs should decide what WoW does with Hunters.

    What Survival needs is to be dragged out behind the barn and shot. It's a failed spec. Every single patch since it first contracted the Melee curse you people have insisted that it just needs some tweaking and some more work and then people will play it. They remade the whole spec and it still didn't work. Enough is enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by rohoz View Post
    All SV hunter needs now is an aoe without a CD. If serpent sting hit every mob in a cone like wildfire bomb did, they'd be ridiculously good.
    Once upon a time it had this. It also had ranged weapons and was a far better spec. If you want Serpent Spread back for SV, ditch the melee weapon.

  9. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    Show me the Hunter spec before Legion that totally lacked a ranged weapon and you'll have some ground to stand on. Until then, you are repeatedly and desperately reaching to try to prove that somehow having a melee aspect to Hunters in the past (as a stopgap for a handicap on our ranged abilities) justifies having a purely-melee spec now, after 12 years of iteration as ranged specs.

    There is no place in this class for a purely melee spec, and as far as I'm concerned the course of class design over the past decade has proven that there's little to no place for any melee at all. I'm willing to say there should be an optional melee subspec of BM via talent choice but that's it.



    They aren't utilised enough in WoW is what I was saying. We have one spec that focuses on them, a spec that uses them but isn't centred around them, and that's it. Meanwhile, look at all the varieties of "swing a stick".



    WoW's definition of Hunter was a ranged weapon user, period. You're just in denial now.



    Christ, as bad as the current class developers are at least we don't have you in charge.

    Demon Hunters are an entirely different, incompatible identity to Hunters. Suggesting that they are anywhere close enough to one another to be part of the same class might be the most ridiculous take on class design I've seen all year, and that really is saying a lot.

    Your proposal for making Hunters "interesting" is also utterly reprehensible. I can assure you most of the class was more than happy to see the melee aspects go. They held us back and conflicted with our core identity. Any suggestion to bring them back can fuck right off. There is plenty of flavour in the ranged aspects so we do not need melee bullshit. This is the sort of suggestion that can only come from someone who self-admittedly would never play a Hunter.

    Also, we did not lose Concussive Shot and they still have a lot of utility to offer.



    You can dredge up all the emotive buzzwords you want, but melee combat is melee combat. Blizzard's goal for Survival, along with many of the people who play it, seem to me more in line with that of Warriors than Hunters. Look at the amount of people asking for Lone Wolf for Survival. It doesn't make sense for Hunters to depend on melee weapons in any capacity, and note that literally all of Survival's current identity and flavour depends on aspects other than the melee ones (those being just Raptor Strike and Carve, both abilities that would fit perfectly well in the Warrior class). Why keep it melee if it's just offering nothing to the spec but a handicap?



    I linked the actual class definition from the original manual which literally says that Hunters are the ranged weapon class so your take on this is utterly and indefensibly wrong. All 3 specs had to use melee to some extent, so declaring that Survival included melee abilities is pointless. It was the spec that had talents to improve the melee abilities but that does not signal intent to exclusively play with melee abilities nor does it give precedent to making a spec that totally lacks a ranged weapon 12 years later. It didn't "revisit" shit. It invented something that never existed in the past and forced it on us at the expense of one of our ranged specs.

    I don't give a flying fuck about what D&D does. It's very notable how both you and JavelinJoe are both breathlessly bleating out how apparently Hunter concepts outside of WoW should have precedence over WoW's take on Hunters which was over a decade in the making.



    Again with the pretense that other MMOs should decide what WoW does with Hunters.

    What Survival needs is to be dragged out behind the barn and shot. It's a failed spec. Every single patch since it first contracted the Melee curse you people have insisted that it just needs some tweaking and some more work and then people will play it. They remade the whole spec and it still didn't work. Enough is enough.



    Once upon a time it had this. It also had ranged weapons and was a far better spec. If you want Serpent Spread back for SV, ditch the melee weapon.
    I agree but I actually don't mind melee survival, and this is coming from someone who mained SV from mop to when they broke it from BRF>HFC

  10. #670
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    I linked the actual class definition from the original manual which literally says that Hunters are the ranged weapon class so your take on this is utterly and indefensibly wrong. All 3 specs had to use melee to some extent, so declaring that Survival included melee abilities is pointless. It was the spec that had talents to improve the melee abilities but that does not signal intent to exclusively play with melee abilities nor does it give precedent to making a spec that totally lacks a ranged weapon 12 years later. It didn't "revisit" shit. It invented something that never existed in the past and forced it on us at the expense of one of our ranged specs.

    I don't give a flying fuck about what D&D does. It's very notable how both you and JavelinJoe are both breathlessly bleating out how apparently Hunter concepts outside of WoW should have precedence over WoW's take on Hunters which was over a decade in the making.



    Again with the pretense that other MMOs should decide what WoW does with Hunters.
    I never said that they should take precedence over WoW's take on hunter, only that I expressed interest in having a fantasy similar to ones that are expressed in other games. Of which there is an in-game example of it being plausible in Rexxar. That being said, it would suit Beast mastery better (to tie it into Rexxar) than Survival.

    And frankly, it doesn't matter what your (or my own) preference on the matter is, since in the end Blizzard decides what it want to do with its classes. And it did in fact, despite what you believe, revisit the idea of Survival being melee. Original Survival had talents that made melee a part of its spec, just because they waited so damn long to change it doesn't change the fact that it was there in the beginning.

    I DO however think it was a bit silly to make a spec of one of the few purely ranged classes melee when there hasn't been a single ranged damage dealer class introduced into the game since its release. But that doesn't mean I don't like the idea behind it. Just my preference.

  11. #671
    Brewmaster Alkizon's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,439

    Unhappy

    *after moving through all 37 pages of this topic*

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    2. Characteristics (&shame to PvP talent system + time-gate/catch-up/Azerite-remark) +(+/+/+/+)+/+/+(+/+)+
    3.
    Classes philosophies+ (&thier coherence with whole design+resource/supports/balance) +(+/+/+/+/+/+)+(+)+/+(+)+
    4.
    Some words about talents (&their connection with classes, items=talents) +(+)+(+/+/+/+)
    ps. Really, people... well... for god's sake... just can't, all again
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2019-10-31 at 06:51 AM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  12. #672
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail
    Christ, as bad as the current class developers are at least we don't have you in charge.

    Demon Hunters are an entirely different, incompatible identity to Hunters. Suggesting that they are anywhere close enough to one another to be part of the same class might be the most ridiculous take on class design I've seen all year, and that really is saying a lot.

    Your proposal for making Hunters "interesting" is also utterly reprehensible. I can assure you most of the class was more than happy to see the melee aspects go. They held us back and conflicted with our core identity. Any suggestion to bring them back can fuck right off. There is plenty of flavour in the ranged aspects so we do not need melee bullshit. This is the sort of suggestion that can only come from someone who self-admittedly would never play a Hunter.

    Also, we did not lose Concussive Shot and they still have a lot of utility to offer.
    I just admit I don't play much hunter. We lost something vital and it's been a long time since that happened, forgive me for getting that wrong.

    Otherwise, I agree, it's good that I am not a glass designer. New classes might actually make sense and fill a useful niche instead of being stuck into the game for the sake of having something new to play with. One of the telling signs of poor class design is when it heavily occupies the same space as an existing class. The demon hunter design space is already occupied by 3 other classes (you hunt demons, hunters, warlocks, and even priests could do that), which is why it would have made sense to be a 4th spec of an existing class. You could pick hunters or warlocks and have the class evolve from a lore standpoint to be completely different than it was created to be for the expansion.

    Also, try to remember that class design is extremely fluid over the last 7 expansions. Classes don't really represent any standard template for what that class typically does in the RPG space, especially when we get to the classes we've gotten since the original 9, and account for everything lost since then. So acting like Hunter is this or demon hunter is that, defined by some canon that cannot be altered... kinda pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by det
    Oh man...you had to use that graph from 2013? I mean 6 years ago? The one where the grey area is a prediction, culminating in the "conclusion" that in 2015 WoW would shut down? Really? And you speak of facts?

    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...2#post29402702
    Um, You should go back and find the posts where I clearly explain the graphics I used. I fully acknowledged what information was relevant and how. I didn't count the grey area. And I just grabbed the first chart I googled. The numbers are solid (MINUS THE GREY AREA), all that matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    *after moving through all 37 pages of this topic*



    ps. Really, people... well... for god's sake... just can't, all again

    The post you link to is very heavily worded, lots of windedness. The old talent system offered a feeling of incremental progression that somehow felt good. The spacing at which you get talents determines how good they feel to acquire, and I don't think anyone has acknowledged how bad it feels right now to work towards talents as you level. Most players will likely be rolling high level characters and not deal with that. Some players however, will be playing Wow for the first time, will be trucking through Azeroth for the first time, getting talents every 15 levels, and those level ups between each talent, will feel awful.

    Because they do. Especially when it's a passive talent row that just makes a bunch of things happen to one ability. Columns and rows don't really offer much customization, it's not event same between each class. Some have shit talents and others have over the top talents. Talents were much more consistent across classes in vanilla. These talent changes were made because Blizzard created their own hard rules about Wow development, painting themselves into a corner of expectation and then having to do too much to the game to deliver. 'We added 10 new levels and a new talent row in the first expansion, we have to do that every expansion.'

    Seven expansions later, this is where we are at. Adding equipment with talents to the game so you can get something new that will be discarded next expansion, to avoid power creep and still over some sort of progression. I wouldn't call it meaningful, because these things are happening for the sake of change... not the sake of having a meaningful gaming experience. If that were the case, Wow would be developed like D3.

    One expansion and very little new or changed content in 8 years. Which is how it should be. That way the play experience can continue to mean something to players. I've said this before, there is no sniff test at Blizzard. No one going 'yeah, we have a good enough game system already, we don't need that.' Instead, it's been design by committee, change is always positive, 'let's see what the class balance team has for us this week' sort of game design at Blizzard Entertainment. Which is why D4 will be out in like 5 years and the next Wow expansion is reducing the cap to 60 again.

    Holy Shit. WhatisthisIdon'teven.jpg. The devs have gotten to the point where returning to the original Vanilla level cap is the next sweeping change to improve the game... Take a moment to appreciate the irony of that latest development announcement. We've just spent the last 15 years and 8 worlds (including vanilla) progressing characters... that will be no stronger than they were 13 years ago.

    Because of design inconsistency ruining their game. To fix it... Level 60 we go. I'm so glad I don't play much anymore, this would cause me to quit again. Despite the positives to lowering the cap, they will inevitably add a higher cap next next expansion again, undoing the fix they've just done to keep things consistent. I have no idea what level 60 cap means for old content, I can't imagine them updating every raid and dungeon to be doable as end game or appropriate leveling content. Scaling will likely ruin the feeling of having a level 60 cap, if they go hard with it.

    Doing TBC dungeons at level 20 alongside level 60s who don't get anything from it... will feel just as bad as it does now.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    That is a few steps further yes but I can see where it comes from, hunter did become seriously bland, its my favorite spec concept wise along with DK but I do think SV ranged should have stayed, melee spec should have been added seperately but the game was desperately in need of that fantasy being filled, melee fighting side by side with the beast, the woodsman/hunter archetype is present in every culture worldwide, and almost all use spears/bows in combination, with a very strong emphasis on traps, mastery of the environment etc, and that is what SV is trying to be with the pet thing being mixed in.

    Hes saying you just want to play a warrior, Ive no clue how he equates these two. One is quite literally a hunter of animals/people, a woodsman, someone tribal, using spears, and bows to hunt/be stealthy, to a warrior, whom in WoW terms is all about power and armour, literally completely opposites.

    Id love to see more work to SV though, I still think its really boring, its 100x better than legion but id like to see more emphasis on its ranged ability, maybe they are doing that by going back to the ways of old where a hunter is always a hunter, with a slight twist based on spec. I always envisioned the melee hunter as someone who fights side by side in melee range with fast sweeping attacks with the spear etc, precise mastery of a spear etc, with exploding back to range, using their agility and whipping out their bow which they have equal mastery of, something like a CD where your entire ability set switches to pure range for like 30s or something.

    I think that would make for some seriously engaging gameplay aswell as making them extremely interesting having such a balanced blend of both melee and ranged ability.
    I think class design has lost too much identity because of inconsistency. Going from one expansion to another where hunters are capable of melee defense before and then not so much after, is jarring. It feels bad to everyone who knew the way it felt before. Going from that to an environment where one spec is all of a sudden just melee again, is jarring. Again. Feels bad to everyone who knew the way it felt before. At least a 4th spec would give something tangible to the class. Adding a new class with barely enough design space to fill out one spec, takes away from existing classes.

    It's like an ad that tells you to shop at a competitor instead. And they bandy it about like it's a symbol of pride! Hey, check out our Bestest Expansion Ever now with more New Class! (We worked really hard, plz ignore the reused assets and rushed design). Sometimes I wonder who signs off and how much they really understand about the games we play. Seems like each new expansion is a marketing pitch to try and win a chance to release your departments Best Effort. I'd like to buy games featuring Competent Design from Blizzard.

    Really looking forward to the Netease project Diablo Immortal. Enjoying the hell out of Onmyoji across all my devices. Two accounts, Free to Play. Wish Wow took many of their design cues. Would be a much better fucking game if they did.

  13. #673
    Brewmaster Alkizon's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,439
    Eroginous
    - - - snip - - -
    Firstly, I didn’t say that described system was bad (it’s funny that after you criticized me for “verbosity”, then yourself threw out a couple of paragraphs of text, moreover, not specifically describing how it worked, but only basically own attitude to this thing), everything is quite opposite. Secondly, I described in what order and what worked, what had higher priority, and what was considered secondary, addition that controls lower stage of design, but... to explain this in a new way it was just unbearable to me already. If who understood, then understood, who didn't, well, apparently there's nothing to be done with this. And picture didn't mean anyone specific, but just a whole discussion, since it won't be possible to answer to all "mistaken", regardless of my desire (direct change of emotions in process of "the whole way").

    That's all.

    Given their recent statements, it's premature to criticize something "classes' specifically". In fact, at current stage, I have little idea of what will happen next. The only thing that became clear in terms of design is that they don't want to abandon current servers organization (still there is futile WM, goofy scaling and other automatics with under-design bells and whistles), but this, in principle, isn't related to discussed here in any way and may only directly hint that they still don’t understand what organization of characteristics should be (it’s somewhat less appropriate to talk specifically about itemization organisation in this topic, because, according to my link in previous message, system's hierarchy doesn't provide its influence on class design, with the one just being a secondary, complementary system for organizing process of role customization, but not change(class)/choice(talents) in mechanics/priority). They didn’t return “mandatory, separating sphere of content interest” (hit, expertise, def, mastery, mp5/spirit etc. and PvP-force, whatever they'd call it), which all means that PvP from design point of view will be same dead (being heavily under PvE progress influence; also I haven't heard (correct me if I'm mistaken) even about whether they going to cut stupid PvP perks (every), which shouldn't exist at all, and which exactly are invention of below mentioned mediocre character)... but about classes - have to wait and see. The most unpleasant of all was to see "laughing and joking" designer, who was responsible for all ensuing followed disgrace that happened after they broke original design, especially regarding PvP, this greatly puzzled and deprived whole event of large number of "trust" points.
    Also! (regarding story in last link about shamans' Shocks) only frost shock? only?! they had 4 shocks for each element and to mine it looked very “organically” with their class fantasy, not to mention expanding functionality with this; but what about weapons' enchantment, also one for each element, which is mandatory lore functional of this class, it's enough to read orc duels' rules; of course, shamans will say thanks for totems (btw, also too little of them, they had ~17! there much more them to return for different situations of their use, no-no-no! just "two" won't change situation much, it's not how they supposed to be), this is understandable, but this isn't enough (and I'm lazy to remind about types of judgement and seals for paladins), obviously don't ...also this+


    ps. Therefore, I have little idea of ​for ​whom and why you wrote these paragraphs after quote. Did we understand each other?

    - - - Updated - - -

    enigma77
    - - - snip - - -
    After they was told about this “millions” of times (not without our participation), they finally recognized this themselves:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    There are effectively 36 distinct classes.
    Finally! It was officially recognized (exactly this wording)
    and recently even “promised” something. So... wait and see, that’s all we can do for the moment.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2021-06-08 at 05:44 PM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  14. #674
    Herald of the Titans enigma77's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    2,677
    They made specs basically their own classes, which increased the amount of balance required tremendously. Then Legion came, pruned some stuff, added Artifacts and legendaries to make up for it and make them complete. Then all of these things were removed in BFA and not enough to replace those things was added.

    I think it was a mistake to create such massive differences between say a Fire and Frost mage. About the only difference should be casting Fireball instead of Frostbolt primarily. Maybe Pyroblast too.

    If I look at my Vanilla Warlock no matter what spec I choose my class plays pretty much the same. I cast Shadowbolt and apply Curses and Debuffs. I merely specialize into one aspect more than the other if I go deep into the Aff tree and I get another debuff. No big deal. If I go for aD Destruction heavy build I get Conflagrate. If I put most of my points into Demo I gain Soul Link. Easy to balance.

    Now? There are 3 Warlock classes. All of which have to be balanced individually.

    Big mistake.
    Last edited by enigma77; 2019-11-04 at 06:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

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