If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Alkizon]

But it made balancing a problem. It also meant that feral druids and death knights of any spec had less choices to make regarding their spec's talent trees. On top of that, the death knights were a BEAST that dominated PvP and PvE because even tanks they would out-DPS practically everyone in the group, without much effort. Worse: frost tanks could EASILY out-AoE-threaten a protection paladin.

Perhaps you liked the way it used to be, and that's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make the old Feral druid or death knights 'better' than they are today.

They were "beasts" solely because of unsuccessful mathematical layout, that is, balance was hidden only in numbers, and not in "possibilities" then, there was no need to change most of things... besides, at the start of WotLK those your "beasts" were pwned by paladins as little chickens... Was this due to mechanics? Of course not, it's all about commonplace mathematics. Druids didn't have any balance problems (*jokingly* it were devs who did), they didn't need separation, only a softer set of talents that would take into account priority of certain characteristics. Let me take into account for the sake of completeness: talents didn't have the structure that they have now, there was no heresy like mastery, which marked separation of specs in Cata, this is very first stone thrown out of many who buried good old system.

It was Cata ( horrible tree) because of mastery introduction (bad implementation because it's based on specializations division, much better was to add each bonus point for every point in each branch, so won't need to mess with specializations), I remember playing muti-prep build (something like that) without need of having hanger in WotLK. (not sure about what "1st tier" means, I believe that "1st talent points")

In any case, after first balance patches and when people nevertheless got used to/understood their mechanics, so "unskilled" people could no longer kill everyone with "two buttons", that is - in the end hands, head and equipment begin to rule (as intended), but not just class itself...

And one more thing, there were no conditionally any "feral" druids, there were just druids (same as DK) and just even for this sole reason they are better than what you have now.

ps. Could some of mechanics be kind of expanded? - absolutely, but to engage in such a division - in no case.

[Teriz]

the dk class is as based on necromancy as the monk class is based on brews

No, the DK class is based on Necromancy as much as the Monk is based on Martial Arts. Every DK spec is based on an aspect of WC Necromancy.

[Ielenia]

They were "beasts" solely because of unsuccessful mathematical layout, that is, balance was hidden only in numbers, and not in "possibilities" then, there was no need to change most of things...

And if they lowered the death knight's damage so the DK tanks were more in line with other tanks... the DPS players would suffer. :/

besides, at the start of WotLK thouse your "beasts" were pwned by paladins as little chikens...

Were they? I don't remember that, to be honest.

Let me take into account for the sake of completeness: talents didn't have the structure that they have now, there was no heresy like mastery, which marked separation of specs in Cata, this is very first stone thrown out of many who buried good old system.

No offense, but it seems to me your arguments regarding what is better or worse are steeped more in your personal preference than an actual objective look at the systems, from where I'm standing. Like I said: it's fine if you liked the old system better. Many do. But that doesn't make the old system better than today's from an objective standpoint.

[Alkizon]

But that doesn't make the old system better than today's from an objective standpoint.

No, it's precisely approach in design's consistency is very argument of being better. A simple counter argument is that for them to have now everything working as it should, they need to divide all specializations into classes. Literally. Set hard boundaries, and then specifically THIS part will begin to work, but it will be big mistake both from point of view of fantasy and from point of view of rational logic (and they know this), classes will be "very narrow/limited/closed", moreover, this will not save their poor talent system, a lack of a strong/solid/formed system of characteristics, this will add a lot of problems in terms of even their stupid newfangled systems, the only positive thing that will happen is that they will be able to add without fear of anything all wilderness of "4th specs" that people are asking with tears.

There is nothing good in new system, starting with inconsistency of characteristics, inappropriateness of talents and ending with external "temporary" system of private "specialized" progress. And this is if we don't concern separately organization of itemization and all sorts of terrible scaling. And all this is in conflict because they don't observe the very simple and understandable hierarchy, which is basis of old system. They just threw it aside, and now any new idea turns in bunch of uncomfortable questions, any new innovation - in bunch of tangled problems.

rules become flexible (as they try to please multiple mutually exclusive systems)

[Ielenia]

No, it's precisely approach in design's consistency is very argument of being better.

Again, I can't accept your idea that the class design from the early days of WoW (vanilla - Wrath) was better from an objective standpoint because all you wrote feels to me like this is just your personal opinion: you prefer the classes being more "flexible" in their roles and builds. You prefer the old system. And that's fine.

I don't. I think today's system is better. I like my frost death knight feeling like a frost death knight in more than just the name. Am I bummed that I cannot tank as frost anymore? Yes. I never said the current system is perfect. But, in my opinion, it's better.

[Alkizon]

from an objective standpoint

New system violates design rules, it creates/leads to conflict situation, and therefore it doesn't matter what you/me/devs think about good or bad/like and don't like, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with my preferences or opinions, this is a banal requirement to the system in terms of design. Do you understand? there are certain rules/criteria for system functioning, in cases of non-fulfillment, it begins to create controversial and conflict situations both with participation of dev/player and without them, and it's to them I appeal here, and not to some kind of my "opinion".

Therefore, all this rubbish, is empty shake of information space, and their moving in this direction will only aggravate discord in design with all ensuing consequences... and it’s absolutely not important here what I/you/devs want, main thing is what design should be like for system to fulfill its functional purpose.

literally, so

Well, impressions are relative/individual, but from mechanics point of view - this was the worst option of "old system". For example, MoP was the best option of "new system" but! new one is worse than old in coherence with RPG component of this game. Ie, I can say that I liked MoP classes design, but I continue to argue that in general it's bad system for this particular game. Is that more clear? Mastery was crap in way they implemented it, but reforging was good. Glyphs was added during WotLK, in fact, they were additional "talent" options and could be easily realized inside talent trees, but they found a good place for a new profession, which isn't bad in itself.

- I could like smoking, but this still doesn't mean that it's healthy for my organism.

I may like system, but this doesn't mean that it's correct/better. Just as for current game design, todays class system design is appropriate (*shudders&frowns* it's disgusting to associate this filth with word "design" in general, but let's say this way), but here already conflict is much more global and flawed is entire game design, because it was created in attempt to divide indivisible (аnd the first steps were laid exactly by Cataclysm with its "separation into specs"/LFR/CRZ/phasing attempts). Most evident and obvious present ex.

The team wants to see more class representation in Mythic + and the MDI and will consider this when adding affixes in the future.

- it was needless to take into consideration such shitty additions during class design in MoP (as well as in previous expansions), so... but exactly Cataclysm was transition from old global design to new one, and it fully concerns class design too - it wasn't old and it wasn't new, it was transitional hybrid that had no independent future, because it had disadvantages of both systems together.

What follows from this +:
- game rules (design) are more important than desires and capabilities of subscribers AND! developers together.
Ie it's necessary to listen to everyone whenever possible, but make decisions according to rules for not disturbing game world harmony and not spoil relations with/within community. There is no reason to blame community for what happened, decisions weren't ultimately taken by them. Something like this.

I repeat, opinion is a non-permanent and relative thing, there is nothing wrong with any opinions, but... Rules and laws (basics of your game design: you change it - you get another game, other clients, another attitude towards yourself, you make someone unhappy; maybe it's worth to stop right away on creating another game?) should always be higher than opinions when making a decision, then you don't have to justify it for someone. By adhering to this you will preserve game and customer base integrity. Moreover, they will be much more confident and kinder (psychological climate) because they won't be afraid that someone else will come tomorrow, then ask to change something and company will find it expedient (more profitable = money are worth of loss reputation, trust, fairness and people together). And all responsibility for this lies solely on developers. They must be guardians, not intruders.

ps. Do you know why so-called Blizzard fans' behavior is very offensive sometimes? Is it because they also aren't trust developers, understanding that they can just same way change/return everything back? Is it because these developers have already done so in the past (neglected rules, betrayed their old customers), which means that this can happen with current ones?

There's a world behind the world, Professor Robinson. Lie once, cheat twice and everything becomes clear. Do not mistake my deception for a character flaw. It is philosophical choice, a profound understanding of the universe. It is a way of life. (c)

It's like arguing with laws of nature, which is very topical given growth of individual inadequacy in places in relation to current global situation.

There is certain dependence of actions to obtain certain result, you can call it rotation, and so devs don't observe this very rotation, because their performance suffers significantly and party (players) isn't very happy about this, it amuses someone, someone even expresses respect for their principled position, but boss continues to kill everyone regardless of any "kind of opinions". The end.


- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard establishes their own design rules

There are rules that they can't change, no matter how much they want, how they danced around fire, but it'll not rain, so we return straight to this place:

No they don't, they kind of... well:
"You haven't beaten me. You've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." - Henri Ducard
They can't change rules, for that they are rules, since there are certain requirements for functioning of particular system and whether you like it or not, but you have to reckon with them, because otherwise there is completely exact mathematically calculated resultant of your failure... all they do is ignore them and this obviously doesn't help them in any way, but only complicates each subsequent task.

Lore is a little different thing, but yes, this all started much earlier for it, but even for lore there are some rules of safety, retcon doesn't grow from scratch.

There are general rules for everything, logic of action and reaction. Conclusions are drawn on their basis, which in ancient times were popularly called "predictions".

"old design" is better than the "modern design".

because it follows required rules, not because it's "old design". Moreover, it didn't immediately become so, a number of fairly significant balance changes were made in right direction (before beginning of "era of cutting") to make it good.

You "like frost", well, in old system you're frost by your choice (you decided to use only frost and take appropriate talents, that will support this direction in first place), but in new system you're frost because you have no choice. You have your boundaries outlined without your participation and aren't allowed to go beyond them even a little bit (you aren't allowed to make it/system assumes that user is to stupid to make it by self, define that boundaries), so here you choose from ready-made solutions, you don't design anything, which means you don't make a meaningful choice, you just obey some of system's ones. So which one is better, which limits or encourages choice?

ps. Do you have friend, who is engaged in design of control systems? I have one and I'm sure that they first of all were taught at university about rules and requirements in design of these systems, and these were not some specific "this" or "that" systems, these were general rules that are valid for any. I don't know how to explain it even easier, except to "throw apple in your head"...

- - - Updated - - -

They can't change certain rules, all they can change is "their design" because it's "their design", with making by that an obvious mistake... and that's about what we're talking now. You don’t make any deliberate choice, you’re just lazy to make it and apparently don't even want to admit it for yourself

Then go ask this so-called "friend" of yours instead of guessing.

In fact, this is exactly what this person said after the very announcement of Legion ("they don't seem to want to go back" and "further in this direction it will only get much worse"). Using wording "I'm sure" I was just ironic, since I have already given link to that analysis (in some of them talking was specifically about classes and with unambiguous formulations) on that date many times in the past (at least since the moment I started such conversations on this forum). Everything I say now is essentially from there and everything that happened after only became result (this happened long before appearance of new forum; in essence, it somehow resembles a similar situation since days of WotLK, when people openly talked about problems associated with organization of "cross-realm activity" and dangers lurking in auto-search organization and design), confirmation of rightness of this (however, not only this, there were more than enough such people then) person.

not all players mindlessly follow/obey their "perversions", but continue to criticize/persuade them to point out their mistakes (I don't mean myself, I'm, rather, just little person who voices something somewhere, moreover what even based initially not on own considerations)

So when I say "I'm sure" I mean exactly that "I'm sure"... but okay, you can blindly assert the opposite (I'm not sure if this wall has any foundation, but it obviously won't give in to me due to incredible pressure from within), it looks like you and Teriz found each other for a reason

- - - Updated - - -

You speak of me and Teriz, but you're just as bad as him, stating your opinions as fact and using a nebulous

yeah, yeah, whatever.

By the way, nothing personal here, the fact that I challenge your opinion doesn't mean that I don't respect/want to offend, so when I'm somehow comparing I don't mean two of you as individuals, only your approach to building and analyzing logical conclusions in specific, apparently especially important place for you. I believe that in another situation/on another issue it will be quite possible to reach you. Just wanted to clarified (this is not our first discussion on a similar topic).

[Ielenia]

New system violates design rules,

Blizzard establishes their own design rules, and are free to change them as they see fit. And on top of that, we don't know what those rules are today, or what they were back then. Because Blizzard never revealed those rules.

It's like arguing with laws of nature

Right. Again you keep posting opinions as fact, here, defending your claim that the "old design" is better than the "modern design".

[LemonDemonGirl]

Elder Scrolls Online also has a Necromancer class with a summoner/corpse mechanic I believe every class in that game can Tank/Heal/DPS since weapons (including healing staves) and class abilities are seperate and every class has a tanking, damage and support/heal skill tree, think theres room for interesting mechanics since summoning as the primary mechanic is only really seen in Unholy and Demonology both dps specs.

Another nice thing BFA and Shadowlands gave us is a variety of lich models, a Necromancer class could certainly have a Lich transformation perhaps with a unique look based on spec.

Bone Necromancers would get the classic/standard bony lich
--snip--

Anima/Soul Necromancer could get a more spectral version akin to Margrave sindane
--snip--

Poison/Plague is a bit more open, could be plague/slime coated (something similar to margrave stradama?), have insects surrounding them or maybe something similar to the troll lich model with it's webs and jars
--snip--

Theres also room for a variety of options regarding your normal summons, skeletons (including different races skeletons), maldraxxus skeletons, small constructs, slime skeletons, zombies. Ghouls should probably be avoided due to how Ghouls being unholy's main summon (especially since a large number ghouls gets created by army of the dead/apocalypse)

The Lich forms could be racial too



- - - Updated - - -

(Not my art, found this on reddit lol)

[Ielenia]

There are rules that they can't change, no matter how much they want,

Wrong. There are no rules regarding class design they can't change. Because they established their own rules. Blizzard created their own class design rules, and it's their prerogative to change those rules in any way they see fit, at any time they decide it's time to change said rules.

because it follows required rules,

Rules you do not know what they are, rules you do not know if they have been changed or not, no matter how much you seem to act like you do. It is impossible for a gaming company to "violate design rules" when they're the ones who not only designed these "required rules"-- assuming such a thing even exists, in the first place-- but also they're the ones who have the complete freedom to change said rules any time they want, in any way they want.

I'm sorry, but there isn't any "objective set of hard-set rules" that every gaming company has to follow regarding the design of their games that they must follow and never break lest they invoke the wrath of some kind of god or gods. There isn't a centralized governing body that established mandatory laws and irrefutable regulations on how gaming companies should design their own games. Each and every gaming company are free to set their own rules.

You "like frost", well, in old system you're frost by your choice (you decided to use only frost and take appropriate talents, that will support this direction in first place), but in new system you're frost because you have no choice.

Wrong. Objectively so. I am frost because I chose to be frost. I consciously made the choice to be frost, and I know I can change to blood or unholy any time I wish. I didn't pick or stay frost "because I had no choice".

ps. Do you have friend, who is engaged in design of control systems? I have one and I'm sure that they first of all were taught at university about rules and requirements in design of these systems,

Then go ask this so-called "friend" of yours instead of guessing. And make sure you let him know you're talking about player class design rules in a video game specifically.

And this is my last reply to you, considering you keep stating opinions as facts, here.

[Revamp Man]

No, the DK class is based on Necromancy as much as the Monk is based on Martial Arts. Every DK spec is based on an aspect of WC Necromancy.

frost damage and spells
diseases
blood magic

yep totally the same as all the necromancers we see in WoW

[Ielenia]

it looks like you and Teriz found each other for a reason

You speak of me and Teriz, but you're just as bad as him, stating your opinions as fact and using a nebulous, undisclosed "friend" to back up your assertions. In this entire conversation, at no point whatsoever you brought any actual evidence to back up your assertion that there are "immutable, undeniable rules of player class creation in gaming that Blizzard must adhere to and respect" that you claim exist. And your own personal opinions and preferences are not evidence.

[Teriz]

(1) frost damage and spells (2)diseases

yep totally the same as all the necromancers we see in WoW

Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts or the black arts) the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead. Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can (2) conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and (1) chill the living with the power of death. Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed. Necromancers are the enemies of life itself, and all hands are raised against them. Some of the worst evils in Azeroth's history have been perpetrated by necromancers, and they deserve their malevolent reputation. Few things are as abhorrent and horrifying as necromancy.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

As for Blood magic, Vampirism, Cannibalism, San'Layn, Revenderth, etc. It all relates back to undeath and thus necromancy.

[Ielenia]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Necromancer

And everything holy relates to paladins, considering paladins already take up three possible roles holy magic can take: tanking, melee dps'ing AND healing, as well as having a considerable amount of ranged abilities meaning, by your logic, that they take up the ranged holy dps role as well.

And yet the priest still has one entire spec dedicated solely to holy magic.

As for Blood magic, Vampirism, Cannibalism, San'Layn, Revenderth, etc. It all relates back to undeath and thus necromancy.

And moon magic relates to arcane and thus the domain of the mage... yet I don't see you saying the druid's moon magic should have been given to the mage class, instead.

Also, I'll repeat what I told you last time:

I just gave you a reason why this isn't really feasible, Teriz. The Death Knight class is already set in its concepts, and to add more to the class means removing the focus of the class' current specs. It doesn't matter that the death knight class has one or two abilities that belong to this foreign concept. That does not mean the class has "ownership" of the concept to the point that "all abilities of this concept should go to the death knight class".

And the death knight specs having one or two abilities that are off their specs' central concept is fine, because it doesn't affect the spec's focus on its concept. Frost being able to use Death Strike or summon a ghoul in nothing detracts from the spec's central theme, which is frost. The death knight's frost spec remans still, first and foremost, a spec centered around the use of frost magic.

To have a class explore a concept, it means making one of its specs focus of it. And that means having said spec either share its focus with its original theme, or replace the theme altogether. And Blizzard has shown that they don't like doing that: the druid's Feral spec had two focus: tank and DPS, bear and cat, making the spec not only excel on either, but lack on both. What did they do? They split the spec in two, making the Feral spec focus on cat DPS, and created the Guardian spec to focus on bear tanking. The survival hunter: focus on both melee and ranged. What did Blizzard do? Remove the melee components of the spec at first, and later on remove ALL the ranged components of the spec and replace it all with pure melee attributes.

And then we have the death knight: all three of its specs not only shared their focus with both DPS and Tanking, which was removed one expansion later, but all three specs had the same focus in terms of themes: all three specs had minion management, all three specs dealt with the same 2 diseases, and had almost the same rotation. Today? Blood is only about blood, Frost is only about frost, and Unholy is only about unholy, each having their own abilities, rotation and diseases.

With all of that in mind, it's easy to see why saying "just pile this concept onto the death knight instead of giving it to a new class." is not a sound argument to make because doing so causes bloat in the class, leaving it unfocused. I mean, why do you think we have warlocks and mages as separate classes? Blizzard could have easily just made a single spellcaster class by putting all of those concepts together. It would still be a 'mage' class because fel magic and demon summon magic is still magic, and mages deal with magic, but we would end up with a class that has no specialization, as it would do "a little bit of everything" instead of having its specs be focused on a concept and do "a lot out of a few."

Which is what would happen if we just piled the concepts of "bone magic", "blood healer", "poison magic", etc., into the death knight class. It would muddle the specs' identities, as they would no longer be able to focus on a single concept like they do today, and therefore end up losing their identity.

[Teriz]

And everything holy relates to paladins, considering paladins already take up three possible roles holy magic can take: tanking, melee dps'ing AND healing, as well as having a considerable amount of ranged abilities meaning, by your logic, that they take up the ranged holy dps role as well.

And yet the priest still has one entire spec dedicated solely to holy magic.

Yeah, you're comparing a huge magic school like Holy to a branch of Shadow magic like Necromancy.

And moon magic relates to arcane and thus the domain of the mage... yet I don't see you saying the druid's moon magic should have been given to the mage class, instead.

Because their arcane magic is linked to nature magic. In some cases Arcane and Nature is combined into Astral magic (Stellar Flare, New Moon, Fury of Elune, Star Surge, Starfall).

[Imperator4321]

Yeah, you're comparing a huge magic school like Holy to a branch of Shadow magic like Necromancy.

Spell Schools are not lore Necromancy has been it's own thing since Chronicle Volume 1, Necromantic abilities are classified under frost and shadow for the sake of gameplay (resists, lockout, immunities, ect), not because Frost mages and Death Knights are using the same source of magic, or Unholy Death Knights and Shadow Priests.



Necromancy is not "Branch" of Shadow magic it has no association beyond the using the "shadow" spell school for damage and for when effects like resist, immunity or school lockout are in effect, if spell schools are canon the way you seem to think they are then Warlocks and Demon Hunters are holy magic users because the "Chaos" spell school is all spell schools combined.

By the way the "Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases, harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy, and chill the living with the power of death." comes from "The Schools of Arcane Magic - Necromancy" in Wrath of the Lich King So what is it? is it Arcane magic or Shadow magic? because your taking two mutally exclusive positions here, it can't be both arcane and shadow magic and if it is why don't necromancy abilities use the spellshadow school which is arcane + shadow, if according to you spell schools are reflective of lore why isn't a frost mages spells all use the Spellfrost school, why isn't frost Death Knights abilities all Shadowfrost? because spell schools are not meant to be lore, they are a gameplay element, stop confusing the two.

The Chronicle and Shadowlands is the most recent lore we have on Necromancy, the Chronicle (as shown above) says that its an entirely different cosmic force from Shadow/Void, In Shadowlands the Paragon of Courage states "Light, Void... such trifling powers have no purchase here". Stop using out of date and retconned lore.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, you're comparing a huge magic school like Holy to a branch of Shadow magic like Necromancy.

First: shadow magic doesn't have "branches". The fact fel, necromancy and void are all shadow magic in WoW is just a game mechanic, nothing more, just like being hit by rocks and being hit by lightning are both "nature magic" in the game.

Second: "holy" and "necromancy" are on the same level.

Because their arcane magic is linked to nature magic.

It's not linked. Just because the balance druid casts both nature and arcane magic doesn't mean they're "linked".

[Teriz]

Spell Schools are not lore.

We're talking about gameplay, not lore. In lore there are non-Pandaren-based Monks. You think we're ever getting a non-pandaren-based monk class? The same applies to Necromancers and DKs. We have both in lore, but we can only have one in the class lineup.

In terms of gameplay, Necromancy is a branch of Shadow magic. Shadow is the predominant school of magic within the DK class which is predominantly using necromantic magic.

[Cæli]

I think at this point there isn't anything to be added class wise that wouldn't be a mix of existing mechanics; the only way to renew the gameplay would be to release a wow 2 with a slightly different gameplay, maybe more action and timing/movement based rather than button pushing based

[Teriz]

First: shadow magic doesn't have "branches". The fact fel, necromancy and void are all shadow magic in WoW is just a game mechanic, nothing more, just like being hit by rocks and being hit by lightning are both "nature magic" in the game.

Second: "holy" and "necromancy" are on the same level.

Again, we're talking about gameplay, not lore.

It's not linked. Just because the balance druid casts both nature and arcane magic doesn't mean they're "linked".

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Astral

- - - Updated - - -

I think at this point there isn't anything to be added class wise that wouldn't be a mix of existing mechanics; the only way to renew the gameplay would be to release a wow 2 with a slightly different gameplay, maybe more action and timing/movement based rather than button pushing based

I think mech piloting would be a very original mechanic.

[Ielenia]

Again, we're talking about gameplay, not lore.

Then your whole argument about "whole school" and "branches" become null and void. Because, in game terms, "magic damage" is just a term that bears no significance aside from the fact that it describes the type of damage a given spell deals, not its actual school.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Astral

I'll repeat: it's not linked. Just because the balance druid casts both nature and arcane magic doesn't mean they're linked. Starfire is not an astral spell. Moonfire is not an astral spell.

I think mech piloting would be a very original mechanic.

It's no different than a druid's shapeshift form, mechanically: the player character gaining a new graphic, different HP, and allowing the use of certain abilities.