Its incredible that there hasn't been a new ranged class added to the game.

[jellmoo]

Honestly, I think there's wayyy too much overthinking on this. Blizzard absolutely will not handcuff themselves with the idea that "if we implement a Tinker it absolutely has to be ranged!" or "...it absolutely has to be melee." Nor will they say that if it wasn't in a game that they released 18 years ago that they cannot make it in WoW. That would be utterly ridiculous game design. In a game where they can create, modify and retcon lore on a whim, there really aren't any "rules".

Their criteria is almost certainly something like:

1) Does it make sense in conjunction with, and enhance the content we are creating in the expansion? Tossing a Tinker in an expansion themed around traveling through the realm of the dead and seeing vampires and angels would be weird. Conversely, adding a Necromancer class in an expansion centered around Mechagon like content would be bizarre.

2) Do they have cool ideas on how to make the class unique? If they decided to make a Tinker class but couldn't brainstorm a really unique set of ranged abilities but had amazing ideas for a melee Tinker, you can bet your bottom dollar that you'd get a melee Tinker. And the reverse is equally true.

3) At the end of the day, the litmus test is "would this class be fun?" and that will guide their class development. This can mean different things as the state of the game is constantly in flux, and the development team is constantly changing, but if they take an idea that meets the above criteria byt still doesn't connect in a fun way, I'm pretty sure they won't implement it.

But arguing about a unit from WC3 being such and such a way means that a class based on it must absolutely reflect it is silly. No game design team is going to handcuff themselves on the design choices made in an 18 year old game that was made by different people.

[LionSinMaikeru]

The game released 16 years ago, and in those 16 years we've had 3 new classes added, and every single one has been a melee class.

Is that not absurd to anyone else? The ranged class options in this game has become stagnant, and I'm starting to realize its one of the reasons I haven't been playing as much anymore.

This expansion was the perfect opportunity to release a new ranged dps class, especially a cloth based one, and we got nothing. Nothing about Shadowlands looks like its going to be the huge win that WoW needs to skyrocket back into success.

Yeah, it's pretty dumb.

If *current* Blizzard didn't half-arse stuff, then perhaps the Demon Hunter would have gotten a 3rd spec and it would have been a ranged spec with throwing weapons / demon spells.

[Teriz]

Again, you're just confirming that you're treating it as a rule. "Other expansions did it, so it must be so".

That would be your opinion. I'm merely pointing out the facts in the case. Further I'm also pointing out that the Tinker concept lines up almost perfectly with the qualities of the previous expansion class inclusions.

Considering we have a much richer wealth of possible concepts in fantasy universes outside of Warcraft, why shouldn't Blizzard take inspirations from those to add more variety to their own universe?

Because Blizzard tends to stick with concepts within their own franchise. It gives WoW a sense of cohesion.

It's not out of context. It was a rule I made up, using the Warcraft 3 game like you do, and you kept denying said rule exist... just like everyone does when you bring out your "rules" in other people's class concept fan threads.

At this point the rule that you made up clearly doesn't exist since Shaman and Hunters negate it. So why are you still arguing?

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, I think there's wayyy too much overthinking on this. Blizzard absolutely will not handcuff themselves with the idea that "if we implement a Tinker it absolutely has to be ranged!" or "...it absolutely has to be melee." Nor will they say that if it wasn't in a game that they released 18 years ago that they cannot make it in WoW. That would be utterly ridiculous game design. In a game where they can create, modify and retcon lore on a whim, there really aren't any "rules".

Their criteria is almost certainly something like:

1) Does it make sense in conjunction with, and enhance the content we are creating in the expansion? Tossing a Tinker in an expansion themed around traveling through the realm of the dead and seeing vampires and angels would be weird. Conversely, adding a Necromancer class in an expansion centered around Mechagon like content would be bizarre.

2) Do they have cool ideas on how to make the class unique? If they decided to make a Tinker class but couldn't brainstorm a really unique set of ranged abilities but had amazing ideas for a melee Tinker, you can bet your bottom dollar that you'd get a melee Tinker. And the reverse is equally true.

3) At the end of the day, the litmus test is "would this class be fun?" and that will guide their class development. This can mean different things as the state of the game is constantly in flux, and the development team is constantly changing, but if they take an idea that meets the above criteria byt still doesn't connect in a fun way, I'm pretty sure they won't implement it.

But arguing about a unit from WC3 being such and such a way means that a class based on it must absolutely reflect it is silly. No game design team is going to handcuff themselves on the design choices made in an 18 year old game that was made by different people.

I agree. It's quite silly to believe that the auto-attack of a WC3 hero would dictate the spec configuration of an entire class. Yet here we are with people actually trying to argue something so ridiculous. I'm laughing just thinking about it.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, the way to go for Blizz to do a Necromancer class would be to copy off some aspects of the Diablo 3 Necromancer. Which would be something I support. Monk already should have been more inspired by Diablo, considering that the Diablo 3 Monk is simply more interesting in concept and abilities. Hell, I would be even down for a Tinker class if they borrow from Overwatch, considering how gnomes are extremely underdeveloped and unpopular in the game while Overwatch offers the potential to borrow the fantasies of iconic and popular classes like D.Va or Reinhardt. I mean, here even you have to admit: Almost anyone would rather have the fantasy of being like one of the more popular tech related Overwatch heroes than being Mekkadril. And Overwatch offers more interesting ideas what to do with the tech concept. I mean, on tank alone it could be either a mecha-tank or an Ironman suit. Demon Hunters worked as classes tailored specifically to two races, because it was elves and elves are always popular. With the case of Monks, we see that classes who are tailored towards less popular and more gimmicky races will simply take off.

Blizzard should finally start allow other Blizzard properties to inspire their class design. This is why FF14 classes work, they are most often designed after something we know and love from older Final Fantasies, like Gunbreaker who is designed after Squall Leonhart.

Uh, why would Blizzard need to borrow from non-Warcraft games when they already have those concepts within Warcraft itself? Granted you may not like the Monk being derived from the Pandarens, but it was definitely an original take that quite a few players enjoy. Implementing the Diablo monk into WoW would have been off-putting and eventually generic. It works in Diablo because the Diablo universe is far darker than the Warcraft universe.

The Necromancer is completely taken care of by the Death Knight and the Warlock classes. If you want to play a dark spell caster who curses its targets or summons evil minions, play a Warlock. If you need to summon undead monstrosities and wallow yourself into Necromancy, roll a Death Knight. The latter has all of the abilities of a Warcraft necromancer, so there should be no problem there, no a need to implement a copy-cat class that takes attributes from both DKs and Warlocks.

[Shiza]

Uh, why would Blizzard need to borrow from non-Warcraft games when they already have those concepts within Warcraft itself? Granted you may not like the Monk being derived from the Pandarens, but it was definitely an original take that quite a few players enjoy. Implementing the Diablo monk into WoW would have been off-putting and eventually generic. It works in Diablo because the Diablo universe is far darker than the Warcraft universe.

The Necromancer is completely taken care of by the Death Knight and the Warlock classes. If you want to play a dark spell caster who curses its targets or summons evil minions, play a Warlock. If you need to summon undead monstrosities and wallow yourself into Necromancy, roll a Death Knight. The latter has all of the abilities of a Warcraft necromancer, so there should be no problem there, no a need to implement a copy-cat class that takes attributes from both DKs and Warlocks.

Because classes simply don't work well and don't tend to be popular if they don't have an iconic character behind them and are instead build arround more gimmicky aspects of the game. We saw this with Monks. Designing them after Monks visually was just a moronic decission, because barely anyone enjoys this aesthetic and they tend to be not that popular despite more often than not since their inclusion being one of the strongest classes of the game. Death Knights and Demon Hunters worked out well, because they have the fantasy of the two greatest Warcraft Icons behind them. Arthas and Illidan are among the most iconic characters of the franchise. This is why Dark Ranger would also be a good decission, even if I'm not that enthusiastic about them. They represent another iconic hero fantasy and they would be centered around elves, which are simply popular in any fantasy franchise.

The problem with the Tinker is, it has no heroic fantasy behind it and it would be designed after gnomish and goblin aesthetics, which are among the least popular races of the game. I think if we combine Horde and Alliance Pandaren, Gnomes are even the least popular traditional race. A gnomish style would just plain hurt the class because nobody outside of a tiny minority likes gnomes. When Mecha-Gnomes came, there was more shit and hatred around them than anything else, they are still called amputee fetish diaper gnomes. This is why I think Tinker would work better if they would be designed more with Overwatch in minds. In Overwatch, they have popular tech-based characters and skills. People would love to play some Reinhardt-like mech-suit tank or a D.Va style mech pilot. How many people outside of you would enjoy playing around with gnome aesthetics, with robot chickens as their ultimate damage cooldown?

And I can say the same, if you want to play a tinker, play a hunter and pick engineering, throw around bombs and even have a laser canon with the BM artifact. No reason to implement a class that is designed after the diaper wearing amputee fetishists. Because you know it, the gnome themes are simply unpopular in the game. Hell, if Blizz would listen to you and actually restrict Tinkers to Gnomes and Goblins, it would be a dead class immediately after it is created.

[Teriz]

Because classes simply don't work well and don't tend to be popular if they don't have an iconic character behind them and are instead build arround more gimmicky aspects of the game. We saw this with Monks. Designing them after Monks visually was just a moronic decission, because barely anyone enjoys this aesthetic and they tend to be not that popular despite more often than not since their inclusion being one of the strongest classes of the game. Death Knights and Demon Hunters worked out well, because they have the fantasy of the two greatest Warcraft Icons behind them. Arthas and Illidan are among the most iconic characters of the franchise. This is why Dark Ranger would also be a good decission, even if I'm not that enthusiastic about them. They represent another iconic hero fantasy and they would be centered around elves, which are simply popular in any fantasy franchise.

Chen Stormstout was actually a very popular and iconic Warcraft figure before MoP. I'm pretty sure he still is. The problem with Monks was they weren't OP when they were released, and you had to start them at level. DKs and DHs benefit from having inherent level boosts, so you don't have to start at level 1 to play them. The Dark Ranger would add nothing to the game. Hunters fulfill any niche they would bring into the game.

The problem with the Tinker is, it has no heroic fantasy behind it and it would be designed after gnomish and goblin aesthetics, which are among the least popular races of the game. I think if we combine Horde and Alliance Pandaren, Gnomes are even the least popular traditional race. A gnomish style would just plain hurt the class because nobody outside of a tiny minority likes gnomes. When Mecha-Gnomes came, there was more shit and hatred around them than anything else, they are still called amputee fetish diaper gnomes. This is why I think Tinker would work better if they would be designed more with Overwatch in minds. In Overwatch, they have popular tech-based characters and skills. People would love to play some Reinhardt-like mech-suit tank or a D.Va style mech pilot. How many people outside of you would enjoy playing around with gnome aesthetics, with robot chickens as their ultimate damage cooldown?

It's important to note that Gnomes and Goblins aren't played much because there is no class that matches their racial lore or aesthetics. It's quite jarring to start a mage in an irradiated factory full of robots, or as a Hunter in leather with a pet crab in a sprawling city complete with highways and cars.

And I can say the same, if you want to play a tinker, play a hunter and pick engineering, throw around bombs and even have a laser canon with the BM artifact. No reason to implement a class that is designed after the diaper wearing amputee fetishists. Because you know it, the gnome themes are simply unpopular in the game. Hell, if Blizz would listen to you and actually restrict Tinkers to Gnomes and Goblins, it would be a dead class immediately after it is created.

The difference being that NONE of the Tinker's WC3 or HotS abilities exist in the Hunter class or Engineering. ALL of the Necromancer's WC3 abilities exist in the Death Knight and Warlock classes.

[Jastall]

Honestly, I think there's wayyy too much overthinking on this. Blizzard absolutely will not handcuff themselves with the idea that "if we implement a Tinker it absolutely has to be ranged!" or "...it absolutely has to be melee." Nor will they say that if it wasn't in a game that they released 18 years ago that they cannot make it in WoW. That would be utterly ridiculous game design. In a game where they can create, modify and retcon lore on a whim, there really aren't any "rules".

Their criteria is almost certainly something like:

1) Does it make sense in conjunction with, and enhance the content we are creating in the expansion? Tossing a Tinker in an expansion themed around traveling through the realm of the dead and seeing vampires and angels would be weird. Conversely, adding a Necromancer class in an expansion centered around Mechagon like content would be bizarre.

2) Do they have cool ideas on how to make the class unique? If they decided to make a Tinker class but couldn't brainstorm a really unique set of ranged abilities but had amazing ideas for a melee Tinker, you can bet your bottom dollar that you'd get a melee Tinker. And the reverse is equally true.

3) At the end of the day, the litmus test is "would this class be fun?" and that will guide their class development. This can mean different things as the state of the game is constantly in flux, and the development team is constantly changing, but if they take an idea that meets the above criteria byt still doesn't connect in a fun way, I'm pretty sure they won't implement it.

But arguing about a unit from WC3 being such and such a way means that a class based on it must absolutely reflect it is silly. No game design team is going to handcuff themselves on the design choices made in an 18 year old game that was made by different people.

Indeed. In WC3 Demon Hunters had nothing even close to Vengeance's abilities and Meta was a ranged form, for example. Death Knights were basically Unholy DKs, with 0 ice-based magics and only Death Pact as something that could maybe fit Blood. Existing units/heroes informed the concept, but they don't have to stick to it like glue.

Having said that, I'm not even sure we'll get a new class anytime soon. If Blizz wanted to introduce Necromancers, Shadowlands would literally have been perfect for it, and they didn't. 12 classes and 36 specs is probably already too much for them to design well and balance properly, and they're hesitant to add yet more classes.

[Ielenia]

That would be your opinion. I'm merely pointing out the facts in the case.

Facts that are useless in the way you're treating them. Just because "things happened this way in previous expansions" doesn't mean that "things will happen this way in the following expansions". Shadowlands is one big example of that: an expansion without any new class when it should have brought a new class, according to this "things happened this way in previous expansions" pseudo-rule.

Because Blizzard tends to stick with concepts within their own franchise. It gives WoW a sense of cohesion.

Again, treating things like a "rule". I think you'll find a lot of people who disagree with you when you bring out Mists of Pandaria. It "stuck" to concepts "within their own franchise", but a bucket-load of people think it doesn't fit with Warcraft's theme at all and is quite "jarring". And again also: how would a necromancer class go against this "sense of cohesion" you speak of? We have necromancer characters already in the game, so it's not like anything new would be added to the game, now would it?

And speaking of "cohesion", funny you mention that, as it does look quite jarring to see player classes being the traditional "sword and sorcery" concepts... and then we have this "odd one out" throwing goblin-shaped walking bombs, carrying a mecha-backpack, dropping gun turrets, spam-creating huge factories out of nowhere and calling air strikes.

At this point the rule that you made up clearly doesn't exist since Shaman and Hunters negate it. So why are you still arguing?

Hunters don't "negate" it, and shamans are simply an exception to it. Exceptions don't "negate" rules. That's like saying everyone is allowed to run through red lights, because there is an exception to the rule, that cops, ambulances and fire trucks are allowed to ignore red lights when attending emergencies. So by your logic, everyone is allowed to ignore the red lights.

- - - Updated - - -

Chen Stormstout was actually a very popular and iconic Warcraft figure before MoP. I'm pretty sure he still is.

The only ones who knew of Chen were the ones who played Warcraft 3, and even then, only a fraction of them did. Chen only got passable mentions during WoW before MoP. He may be a relevant lore character, but "very popular and iconic" before MoP? No chance. He was a very obscure character prior to MoP.

Mankrik's wife was a more "popular and iconic Warcraft figure" than Chen Stormstout before MoP.

- - - Updated - - -

It's important to note that Gnomes and Goblins aren't played much because there is no class that matches their racial lore or aesthetics.

And it's even more important to note that what you wrote there is nothing but bullshit. And you've even been proven wrong already. There are many reasons why one does not play gnome or goblin.

[Teriz]

Facts that are useless in the way you're treating them. Just because "things happened this way in previous expansions" doesn't mean that "things will happen this way in the following expansions". Shadowlands is one big example of that: an expansion without any new class when it should have brought a new class, according to this "things happened this way in previous expansions" pseudo-rule.

Yeah, what happened with Shadowlands is pretty irrelevant to what we're talking about here. In the case of Shadowlands, no new class concept matched the theme of the expansion, so no new class was introduced. I'm talking about Blizzard sticking to their franchises and concepts with their new class inclusions, and typically that comes from WC3 and increasingly HotS.

Again, treating things like a "rule". I think you'll find a lot of people who disagree with you when you bring out Mists of Pandaria. It "stuck" to concepts "within their own franchise", but a bucket-load of people think it doesn't fit with Warcraft's theme at all and is quite "jarring". And again also: how would a necromancer class go against this "sense of cohesion" you speak of? We have necromancer characters already in the game, so it's not like anything new would be added to the game, now would it?

Yet MoP is now considered one of the best expansions in the history of WoW.

Hunters don't "negate" it, and shamans are simply an exception to it. Exceptions don't "negate" rules. That's like saying everyone is allowed to run through red lights, because there is an exception to the rule, that cops, ambulances and fire trucks are allowed to ignore red lights when attending emergencies. So by your logic, everyone is allowed to ignore the red lights.

If Hunters didn't negate your made up rule, why were Hunters a completely ranged class for 12/15 years of WoW, and why is the spec based on Rexxar (BM) still a ranged spec?

You're comparing your made up rule to actual laws. It's laughable.

The only ones who knew of Chen were the ones who played Warcraft 3, and even then, only a fraction of them did. Chen only got passable mentions during WoW before MoP. He may be a relevant lore character, but "very popular and iconic" before MoP? No chance. He was a very obscure character prior to MoP.

Mankrik's wife was a more "popular and iconic Warcraft figure" than Chen Stormstout before MoP.

According to Blizzard, Pandaren were one of the most requested races leading up to their release in MoP.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/History_of...en_in_Warcraft

[SkagenRora]

I guess it is still better than SWTOR where no class or spec has been added since release.

I like to believe it's the fact that every class has it's own class story, and it would be a massive under taking to make an entire new class story.

[crakerjack]

Mistweavers are ranged due to being healers, that's good enough for me.

[Teriz]

Indeed. In WC3 Demon Hunters had nothing even close to Vengeance's abilities and Meta was a ranged form, for example. Death Knights were basically Unholy DKs, with 0 ice-based magics and only Death Pact as something that could maybe fit Blood. Existing units/heroes informed the concept, but they don't have to stick to it like glue.

Blizzard based the Demon Hunter class more on the HotS incarnation than the WC3 incarnation. In the case of DKs, Blizzard merged all of the Undead heroes in WC3 into one class, and that included the Lich, which is why DKs have the Frost spec supposedly trained by Lichs, and have the Lich hero's ultimate ability Death and Decay.

Having said that, I'm not even sure we'll get a new class anytime soon. If Blizz wanted to introduce Necromancers, Shadowlands would literally have been perfect for it, and they didn't. 12 classes and 36 specs is probably already too much for them to design well and balance properly, and they're hesitant to add yet more classes.

I would argue that we still need a technology-based class since we have races that have a strong technology-based concept and no class that matches it. That makes players less inclined to play those races.

[jellmoo]

I would argue that we still need a technology-based class since we have races that have a strong technology-based concept and no class that matches it. That makes players less inclined to play those races.

A similar argument could be made about Worgen though. We constantly see them attacking with their natural weapons in cutscenes but there isn't really a class that lets them do this in game, with, oddly enough, Monks possibly being the closest. While not the most popular race, they aren't as under represented as Goblins or Gnomes are.

[Teriz]

A similar argument could be made about Worgen though. We constantly see them attacking with their natural weapons in cutscenes but there isn't really a class that lets them do this in game, with, oddly enough, Monks possibly being the closest. While not the most popular race, they aren't as under represented as Goblins or Gnomes are.

Both Shaman and Monks use fist weapons and Worgen should be allowed to be both classes. Also they should have a werewolf feral form as Druids.

[xGLxAnubis]

Ranged
1. balance
2. restoration
3. beast master
4. marksmanship
5. arcane
6. frost
7. fire
8. mistweaver
9. discipline
10. holy
11. shadow
12. restoration
13. elemental
14. affliction
15. demonolgy
16. destruction

Melee
1. blood
2. frost
3. unholy
4. havoc
5. vengeance
6. feral
7. guardian
8. survival
9. brewmaster
10. windwalker
11. holy
12. protection
13. retribution
14. assassination
15. outlaw
16. subtelty
17. enhancement
18. arms
19. fury
20. protection

A. Bit weird to include healers in Melee/Ranged breakdown.
B. Mistweaver is melee for similar reasons that Holy Paladin is, if you're going to go with that.

[jellmoo]

Both Shaman and Monks use fist weapons and Worgen should be allowed to be both classes. Also they should have a werewolf feral form as Druids.

I think the animations would be strange with Monks or Shaman, unless they received custom ones.

And yes, that would make a lot more sense than a werewolf turning into a cat.

But, my point was more that the popularity of a race is more complex than there just not being a class truly tailored to it. The reality is that adding a Tinker (which, to be fair I would love to see) would either result in the class having a low representation because it would be limited to those unpopular races, or if it were open to other races, Gnomes and Goblins may still very well not be the most popular races of the class despite it being up their alley (I could easily see Humans and Blood Elves remaining the most popular races for the class).

[Teriz]

I think the animations would be strange with Monks or Shaman, unless they received custom ones.

And yes, that would make a lot more sense than a werewolf turning into a cat.

But, my point was more that the popularity of a race is more complex than there just not being a class truly tailored to it. The reality is that adding a Tinker (which, to be fair I would love to see) would either result in the class having a low representation because it would be limited to those unpopular races, or if it were open to other races, Gnomes and Goblins may still very well not be the most popular races of the class despite it being up their alley (I could easily see Humans and Blood Elves remaining the most popular races for the class).

I disagree. I think the concept of the Tinker is so strong that it would lead to an explosion in the popularity of the Gnome and Goblin (and Mechagnome) races. Keep in mind, we're talking about the ability to pilot mechs, which is a very popular concept in of itself. Allowing these races to pilot mechs eliminates the majority of the reasons people dislike playing those classes. Of course a lot of that depends on if Blizzard implements the class correctly.

[Jastall]

I disagree. I think the concept of the Tinker is so strong that it would lead to an explosion in the popularity of the Gnome and Goblin (and Mechagnome) races. Keep in mind, we're talking about the ability to pilot mechs, which is a very popular concept in of itself. Allowing these races to pilot mechs eliminates the majority of the reasons people dislike playing those classes. Of course a lot of that depends on if Blizzard implements the class correctly.

You can keep hoping. Monks haven't made Pandaren very popular even when the class was tailor made for them and launched in the same expansion.

[Teriz]

You can keep hoping. Monks haven't made Pandaren very popular even when the class was tailor made for them and launched in the same expansion.

Well no, because almost every race can be a Monk, so you don't need to play a Pandaren to be one. If the Tinker is only available for Gnomes, Goblins and MechaGnomes (as they should be), then those races would get the population boost.

Further, less races means more customization for the class.

[Jastall]

Well no, because almost every race can be a Monk, so you don't need to play a Pandaren to be one. If the Tinker is only available for Gnomes, Goblins and MechaGnomes (as they should be), then those races would get the population boost.

Further, less races means more customization for the class.

You just end up with a class even less played than Monks, then. Demon Hunters could get away with it because people like elves. People don't like gnomes and goblins, and most players are casuals who select races based on looks above all, and aren't going to switch to a shorty even if Tinkers are OP.

Furthermore, the archetype is too broad to be limited to three races. Draenei, Forsaken, Dwarves and Orcs have proven that they can build gadgets and mech suits as well, and the class having different skins per race to an extent would help the fantasy a lot more than pigeonholding them into gnomish or goblin aesthetics, neither of which are especially popular.

[Aresk]

A similar argument could be made about Worgen though. We constantly see them attacking with their natural weapons in cutscenes but there isn't really a class that lets them do this in game, with, oddly enough, Monks possibly being the closest. While not the most popular race, they aren't as under represented as Goblins or Gnomes are.

The big issues with natural weapons are that you don't find a fresh claw on a boss, rip off your current one, and then stick the new one in. I agree it really cheapens the fantasy of playing a werewolf, but I'm guessing that's part of the reason. When 1h fury was a thing (I haven't followed warrior news that closely, but I gather it's not viable anymore?), one could get closest to the werewolf fantasy by getting some decent fist weapons and then transmogging them to the hidden fist appearance.