Poll: Which class are you most hoping to see in WoW?

Page 43 of 55 FirstFirst ...
33
41
42
43
44
45
53
... LastLast
  1. #841
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Laughingjack View Post
    Yes is there a scenario beyond unrated where the gear can be drastically different where this doesn't happen?
    This Demon Hunter did it;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaaosejTzw

  2. #842
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I mean... no? DH have a lot of leech but there are weaknesses built into the class to the point they are not really considered viable in high rated pvp. They are extremely vulnerable to roots and lack enough burst to be threatening.

  3. #843
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Laughingjack View Post
    I mean... no? DH have a lot of leech but there are weaknesses built into the class to the point they are not really considered viable in high rated pvp. They are extremely vulnerable to roots and lack enough burst to be threatening.
    So you're saying that Demon Hunter in the video just didn't survive a 2 on 1 situation in PvP?

    Because he did. And from what I see on you tube, a 2v1 situation happens quite a lot in 2v2.

    Here's a Rogue doing it;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bLckLpEjKc

  4. #844
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except he won't be "unkillable". Similar to DvA from overwatch or even the caster form with Druids, a Tinker outside of their mech will have far reduced armor and abilities, and basically be a sitting duck. There should be a fair cooldown in place if their mech gets destroyed, and they have to wait until that CD is finished before they can summon their mech again.
    It does give the impression of "unkillable" because the moment the health bar reaches zero... ta-da, another health bar, and the player never died.

    In addition, in PvE, Tinker tanks should be allowed to have an additional mech on standby incase their initial mech gets destroyed. Something like that should be disabled for PvP though.
    Making the entire mechanic pointless. If a mechanic exists, it has to matter. And this "additional mech on standby" simply completely nullifies that particular mechanic. And again: a "tank tinker" outside his mech becomes a huge liability to the group, because not only he isn't dead, but is greatly diminished in power so it becomes a liability until the new mech can be resummoned.

    If your "logic" is based on breaking down various specs and ignoring various aspects of their abilities, sure.
    My logic? It's you logic. You hear that a fan class concept has X feature in it, which also happens to be a feature also present in another existing class, and you immediately go "has to remove ability from existing class(es)" or "is a copy of existing class/spec". You just admitted that you basically think void magic and necromancy are "one and the same" because both deal shadow magic, in-game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Demon Hunters and Monks collect soul fragments and healing spheres from the ground. What's wrong with Tinkers doing it?
    Well, it's your rule that fan concept classes cannot have mechanics or themes that are similar to mechanics and themes in currently existing classes.

    Or is it fine because it's the tinkers doing it, and not bards or necromancers?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  5. #845
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It does give the impression of "unkillable" because the moment the health bar reaches zero... ta-da, another health bar, and the player never died.
    Impression and reality are two different things.

    Making the entire mechanic pointless. If a mechanic exists, it has to matter. And this "additional mech on standby" simply completely nullifies that particular mechanic. And again: a "tank tinker" outside his mech becomes a huge liability to the group, because not only he isn't dead, but is greatly diminished in power so it becomes a liability until the new mech can be resummoned.
    Yeah, again no different than Paladins having Lay on Hands on standby to completely bring them back to full health.

    Also the Tinker should be able to fully perform its duties as a tank in pilot mode. However, there should be some level of penalty for losing the mech.


    My logic? It's you logic. You hear that a fan class concept has X feature in it, which also happens to be a feature also present in another existing class, and you immediately go "has to remove ability from existing class(es)" or "is a copy of existing class/spec". You just admitted that you basically think void magic and necromancy are "one and the same" because both deal shadow magic, in-game.
    In terms of gameplay, yes Void is Shadow magic. Which is why all Void magic does Shadow damage.

  6. #846
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, it's your rule that fan concept classes cannot have mechanics or themes that are similar to mechanics and themes in currently existing classes.

    Or is it fine because it's the tinkers doing it, and not bards or necromancers?
    I think this pretty much sums up every "argument" he tries to make.

  7. #847
    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    I think this pretty much sums up every "argument" he tries to make.
    Yup, absolutely 100%. Its one rule for him, and a contradictory set of rules for everyone else. Reminds me of a small child making rules up as they go playing in the playground.

    "no tag backs!"
    but you JUST tacked me back?
    "no, no tag backs FROM NOW ON!"

    The best part is when someone utterly dismantles one of his "arguments" and he starts saying "im not replying anymore because you are not being honest"

    which roughly translates to "im not playing anymore because you keep winning"
    Last edited by arkanon; 2020-05-19 at 09:55 PM.

  8. #848
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Impression and reality are two different things.
    In this context, they're basically the same. You work hard to kill a tinker, only to have it get a second full bar of health you'll have to chip down again. Especially with this "additional mech in storage" nonsense you posted.

    Yeah, again no different than Paladins having Lay on Hands on standby to completely bring them back to full health.
    Lay on Hands is an active ability, that could not be used if the paladin used Blessing of Protection in the last 30 seconds. Yours would be passively activated, any time the character died.

    Also the Tinker should be able to fully perform its duties as a tank in pilot mode. However, there should be some level of penalty for losing the mech.
    Again, you make the entire mechanic entirely pointless. Why even have this 'destruction of mech' if: (a) the tinker can still perform its duty; and (b) he can just immediately summon another mech again?

    Congratulations, you just made the Tinker the most OP tank ever because, unlike the other tanks when their health reaches zero.. they do not die.

    In terms of gameplay, yes Void is Shadow magic.
    Then the Destruction spec of the warlock class should not exist.
    Then the Holy spec of the paladin class should not exist.
    Then the Ret spec of the paladin class should not exist.
    Then the Frost spec of the death knight class should not exist.
    Then the Shadow spec of the priest class should not exist.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  9. #849
    i love how 40 pages ago, people were calling this out:

    "Oh cool! this EXACT same argument again! it certainly wont just devolve into "this is too similar to that, this is in hots, this is in wc3, thats just a warlock, thats just an engineer!, thats just a dk!""

  10. #850
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    In this context, they're basically the same. You work hard to kill a tinker, only to have it get a second full bar of health you'll have to chip down again. Especially with this "additional mech in storage" nonsense you posted.
    Yes, the pilot, with far less survivability, and far less options from its mech form.

    Additionally, if we're talking about PvP, the second mech can simply be altered in PvP form, like many other abilities are.

    Lay on Hands is an active ability, that could not be used if the paladin used Blessing of Protection in the last 30 seconds. Yours would be passively activated, any time the character died.
    Actually it wouldn't be passively activated, it would be an active ability.

    Again, you make the entire mechanic entirely pointless. Why even have this 'destruction of mech' if: (a) the tinker can still perform its duty; and (b) he can just immediately summon another mech again?
    They can only immediately summon another mech if they have it available. And while the Tinker can still perform its duty, it should be far more squishy.

    Then the Destruction spec of the warlock class should not exist.
    Then the Holy spec of the paladin class should not exist.
    Then the Ret spec of the paladin class should not exist.
    Then the Frost spec of the death knight class should not exist.
    Then the Shadow spec of the priest class should not exist.
    Again, you're conflating specs with entire classes.

  11. #851
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So you're saying that Demon Hunter in the video just didn't survive a 2 on 1 situation in PvP?

    Because he did. And from what I see on you tube, a 2v1 situation happens quite a lot in 2v2.

    Here's a Rogue doing it;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bLckLpEjKc
    No a Dh wouldn't survive there what you showed was a extremely rare example of a arena match running wow the healing debuff to the point he won a 1v1 against a rogue.

  12. #852
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Laughingjack View Post
    No a Dh wouldn't survive there what you showed was a extremely rare example of a arena match running wow the healing debuff to the point he won a 1v1 against a rogue.
    That's interesting, because you said that someone getting focus fired on (a 2v1 situation) ALWAYS dies in PvP. Yet here's two examples of that exact thing happening.

  13. #853
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yes, the pilot, with far less survivability, and far less options from its mech form.
    "Far less survivability"? Didn't you also say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Also the Tinker should be able to fully perform its duties as a tank in pilot mode. However, there should be some level of penalty for losing the mech.
    If the tinker has "far less survivability", then it cannot "fully perform its duties as a tank". So which is it?

    Additionally, if we're talking about PvP, the second mech can simply be altered in PvP form, like many other abilities are.
    I can't think of a single form that is changed for PvP. And it doesn't change the fact that this happens:
    • Tinker is in mech. Tinker's health bar reaches zero.
    • Mech dies. Tinker gains a second health bar.
    • Immediately summons new mech. Tinker gains a third health bar.

    Actually it wouldn't be passively activated, it would be an active ability.
    Right, right... so what would prevent the tinker from activating that ability? Paladins have forebearance, for example.

    They can only immediately summon another mech if they have it available. And while the Tinker can still perform its duty, it should be far more squishy.
    "Far more squishy". Then they cannot perform their duties as a tank.

    Again, you're conflating specs with entire classes.
    There is zero difference, here. Because specs are "mini-classes". As a max level character, you're not a paladin. You're a retribution paladin. You're not a mage, you're a frost mage. You're not a death knight, you're a blood death knight. Etc, etc. Your disqualifiers would still prevent other specs from existing.

    On top of that, you're acting like fan concept classes are like monoliths that are one way, and cannot deviate in any way, shape or form from the idea you have in your head.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That's interesting, because you said that someone getting focus fired on (a 2v1 situation) ALWAYS dies in PvP. Yet here's two examples of that exact thing happening.
    The problem, Teriz, is that you're listing extremes. As a general rule, in 2v1 situations, the one being outnumbered... 8 times out of 10, dies. The other 2 out of 10 times are "extreme" situations (giant skill or item level gap)
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  14. #854
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    "Far less survivability"? Didn't you also say:

    If the tinker has "far less survivability", then it cannot "fully perform its duties as a tank". So which is it?
    Exactly what it says. It's no different when any other tank blows their cool downs and is in critical condition. A Tinker who has lost their mech is in a very bad situation.


    I can't think of a single form that is changed for PvP. And it doesn't change the fact that this happens:
    • Tinker is in mech. Tinker's health bar reaches zero.
    • Mech dies. Tinker gains a second health bar.
    • Immediately summons new mech. Tinker gains a third health bar.
    It's an ability, and plenty of pivotal abilities are altered for PvP. Further, tanks do have a LOT of survivability in PvP. A Tinker should be no different. In addition, those health bars are simply an upside. The Tinker should have balanced downsides as well.

    Right, right... so what would prevent the tinker from activating that ability? Paladins have forebearance, for example.
    It could have any list of downsides. It could hold half the HP of a standard replacement mech, it could have a sizable cool down, you might not be able to summon it immeadiately after you lose your initial mech, etc.


    "Far more squishy". Then they cannot perform their duties as a tank.
    Sure they can. DKs and DHs are more squishy than Paladins and Warriors. Doesn't mean they can't perform their duties as a tank.


    There is zero difference, here. Because specs are "mini-classes". As a max level character, you're not a paladin. You're a retribution paladin. You're not a mage, you're a frost mage. You're not a death knight, you're a blood death knight. Etc, etc. Your disqualifiers would still prevent other specs from existing.
    Actually that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your notion that Destruction Warlocks are just like Fire mages, seemingly ignoring the fact that Destruction locks have shadow spells and control demons. You're classifying specs on the most basic level possible.

    On top of that, you're acting like fan concept classes are like monoliths that are one way, and cannot deviate in any way, shape or form from the idea you have in your head.
    Again, I simply asked a question.

  15. #855
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That's interesting, because you said that someone getting focus fired on (a 2v1 situation) ALWAYS dies in PvP. Yet here's two examples of that exact thing happening.
    Look you understand this game about as well as people who remade ghost busters understood what the fans wanted...

    You concept can't work in wow and I doubt it could work in any game even moba's dont have a concept like it that works. Let your awful idea die.

  16. #856
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Exactly what it says. It's no different when any other tank blows their cool downs and is in critical condition. A Tinker who has lost their mech is in a very bad situation.
    Not the same thing. A tank who has blown their cooldowns can still perform their duties as a tank because their armor is still the same, their health bar is still the same, and their skills are still the same.

    A tinker losing his mech heavily implies:
    • Much less armor;
    • Much smaller health bar;
    • Many of their skills blocked.

    After all, a tinker without a mech should not be able to perform abilities that require a mech. That would make the whole "escaping the mech" mechanic completely pointless. That's like saying the NE Guardian druid can just shapeshift back to night elf form when he's low on health and regain his whole health back, and still be able to perform as a viable tank while still in NE form.

    It's an ability, and plenty of pivotal abilities are altered for PvP. Further, tanks do have a LOT of survivability in PvP. A Tinker should be no different. In addition, those health bars are simply an upside. The Tinker should have balanced downsides as well.
    Then it falls on you to show how it would be "balanced".

    It could have any list of downsides. It could hold half the HP of a standard replacement mech, it could have a sizable cool down, you might not be able to summon it immeadiately after you lose your initial mech, etc.
    Not what I meant. I meant what would prevent the tinker from using the ability, like forbearance prevents the paladin from using Lay on Hands.

    Sure they can. DKs and DHs are more squishy than Paladins and Warriors. Doesn't mean they can't perform their duties as a tank.
    No, they're not. They have as much health and armor as paladins and warriors. Lacking a shield doesn't slow them down because their passives and active abilities mitigate that completely.

    And I'll repeat: a tinker outside a mech should not be able to operate as a tank because: D.Va from Overwatch, for example, has much less health, armor and abilities than she has inside her mech. And deals much less damage, too.

    Actually that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your notion that Destruction Warlocks are just like Fire mages, seemingly ignoring the fact that Destruction locks have shadow spells and control demons. You're classifying specs on the most basic level possible.
    The fact that destruction locks have shadow spells too is irrelevant, because you keep avoiding the fact that no class would be a carbon copy of another class. You're saying "X feature or Y theme is the domain of class A, so your class B that also uses X feature cannot exist", despite the fact we have many, many classes in the game sharing the same features and themes.

    A void-based class wouldn't even share the same "features" or "themes" as the death knight, and you still insist that they do. Which shows how dishonest you're being here, to avoid using a more appropriate term (in my opinion) that would likely get me infracted.

    Again, I simply asked a question.
    You're asking loaded questions.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  17. #857
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Laughingjack View Post
    You concept can't work in wow and I doubt it could work in any game even moba's dont have a concept like it that works. Let your awful idea die.
    D.va, HotS.

  18. #858
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    D.va, HotS.
    Dying game that isn't even close to the same genre and a dead game

  19. #859
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    D.va, HotS.
    I'd say that her mechanic works for HotS because it's designed for an objective-based MOBA that hinges on respawn.

    Her design centers around the concept that everyone has a respawn mechanic. That's why characters like Deathwing can exist with no heals but is unstoppable and has global flight; because it's designed around the concept that you will be fighting for objectives and that your character can respawn if caught and killed. The fact that there is a respawn mechanic and that the Mecha suit can be sacrificed in battle is a risk-reward system that works for an objective-based MOBA, because you can freely die without punishing your team, as long as your team maintains map pressure. This mechanic wouldn't see light of day in other competitive mobas like League or DOTA2.

    WoW arenas aren't designed to have secondary Vehicular life bars in mind. Arenas don't have the benefit of secondary objectives that promote high risk-reward strategies. The balance would be way too difficult to get right with this mechanic, mostly because it's a haphazardly shoehorned in from another genre.

    There are very similar reasons why we wouldn't see Cho'gall's mechanics appearing in WoW, like the April Fools ogre race.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-05-20 at 12:31 AM.

  20. #860
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Not the same thing. A tank who has blown their cooldowns can still perform their duties as a tank because their armor is still the same, their health bar is still the same, and their skills are still the same.

    A tinker losing his mech heavily implies:
    • Much less armor;
    • Much smaller health bar;
    • Many of their skills blocked.

    After all, a tinker without a mech should not be able to perform abilities that require a mech. That would make the whole "escaping the mech" mechanic completely pointless. That's like saying the NE Guardian druid can just shapeshift back to night elf form when he's low on health and regain his whole health back, and still be able to perform as a viable tank while still in NE form.

    Yes, they would have less armor.
    Yes they would have a lower health bar.
    They would have a different set of skills that would still allow them to tank.

    Then it falls on you to show how it would be "balanced".
    Funny, I thought that's what we were talking about here.


    Not what I meant. I meant what would prevent the tinker from using the ability, like forbearance prevents the paladin from using Lay on Hands.
    You should read more closely. I mentioned one possible downside is a cooldown that prevents you from activating the ability immediately after losing the mech.


    No, they're not. They have as much health and armor as paladins and warriors. Lacking a shield doesn't slow them down because their passives and active abilities mitigate that completely.
    Actually they don't. Vengenance DHs have less armor because they're leather instead of plate. Both DKs and DHs have less armor than Warriors and Paladins because they don't have shields. Brewmasters have the lowest HP and armor of any tanks. In short, various tanks survive because of proper use of their abilities and cool downs.

    And I'll repeat: a tinker outside a mech should not be able to operate as a tank because: D.Va from Overwatch, for example, has much less health, armor and abilities than she has inside her mech. And deals much less damage, too.
    I disagree. As long as the pilot is weaker than the Tinker in the mech, that conveys the same concept as D.va would when she loses her tank in Overwatch.

    The fact that destruction locks have shadow spells too is irrelevant,
    Actually it's very relevant because that's what makes Warlocks fundamentally different than Mages.

    A void-based class wouldn't even share the same "features" or "themes" as the death knight, and you still insist that they do. Which shows how dishonest you're being here, to avoid using a more appropriate term (in my opinion) that would likely get me infracted.
    I never insisted anything. I merely asked a question and iterated that Void and Shadow are one in the same in terms of gameplay.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Laughingjack View Post
    Dying game that isn't even close to the same genre and a dead game
    You asked for a MOBA that uses the mechanic. I gave you one.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'd say that her mechanic works for HotS because it's designed for an objective-based MOBA that hinges on respawn.

    Her design centers around the concept that everyone has a respawn mechanic. That's why characters like Deathwing can exist with no heals but is unstoppable and has global flight; because it's designed around the concept that you will be fighting for objectives and that your character can respawn if caught and killed. The fact that there is a respawn mechanic and that the Mecha suit can be sacrificed in battle is a risk-reward system that works for an objective-based MOBA, because you can freely die without punishing your team, as long as your team maintains map pressure. This mechanic wouldn't see light of day in other competitive mobas like League or DOTA2.

    WoW arenas aren't designed to have secondary Vehicular life bars in mind. Arenas don't have the benefit of secondary objectives that promote high risk-reward strategies. The balance would be way too difficult to get right with this mechanic, mostly because it's a haphazardly shoehorned in from another genre.

    There are very similar reasons why we wouldn't see Cho'gall's mechanics appearing in WoW, like the April Fools ogre race.
    You're saying there's no classes in WoW that allow instant respawns or health refills? That's pretty much what losing mech form and having to run around as a pilot in order to hopefully regain your mech would do.

Posting Permissions

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