You decide: New class, Class skins, 4th specs, or New combos

[Triceron]

I think it would be complicated regardless. What do you do if sub is overperforming compared to Outlaw and Mut, but fine or underperforming on the dark ranger compared to MM and the domination spec? Suddenly you're in a situation where you're forced into not touching a spec that needs to be addressed because it's balancing is bound to two different classes. Outlaw and Mut might be in a really perfect spot, but you can't nerf sub now without also nerfing Domination, and now MM is completely broken for dark rangers, but you can't balance MM without also considering the current state of BM and Survival on actual hunters.

Not quite sure how this is being equated in this theorycraft.

So how I'm looking at it is based on an overall graph, say we list all performances for specs for the current patch, top down to the worst performing spec.

In theory, if Outlaw and Mut are overperforming (I take this as top of the list), while sub is underperforming, then in theory Dark Ranger's sub would also be considered underperforming since it is the same spec. They're relatively tied together, and shouldn't really deviate more than a couple ranks away from each other at best. If Sub is underperforming, then I would see this applying to Dark Ranger as well since it is meant to be a gauge on overall performance.

Same with MM. It can be balanced as seen fit for the overall graph, as should be the full aim. I don't see the point of just balancing it beside BM and Survival alone. Specs aren't really ever balanced among themselves outside of regard of other classes, or at least I don't see a reason for Blizzard to balance this way. Min-maxers will pick the best Spec to play if it outperforms, and will stick to the one they prefer if it doesn't perform top-tier so long as it's within reason on full graph of Specs. I mean isn't that the general meta of WoW anyways? That you should be bringing your Best spec to the raid if you're looking for top performance? Then that applies the same to playing the best class for the job and the meta demanding as such. People trying to stick with Druid healing and struggling when Shaman outperforms it completely would be part of the way the game is designed, and there's no real fixing that meta whether we factor in new classes or not. As long as these specs are balanced *within reason* I think that's the main goal here.

And just to be clear, Domination is what I'm calling the new Dark Ranger spec, it's not a renamed Subtlety. I noticed you tying Subtlety to Domination in your example, and I just want to clarify that the 3 Dark Ranger specs would be Marksmanship, Subtlety and Domination (New spec). If Sub Rogue goes down, then it directly affects Sub Dark Ranger, but not Domination or Marksmanship. And for the sake of discussion, I'm fully accepting if one spec happens to wildly out-perform other specs as long as it's all specs in the game are universally balanced within reason.

https://www.wowmeta.com/shadowlands/dps-rankings

Like in this example, you can see Afflic and Demonology are doing fairly well while Destruction is piss-poor at the bottom. Well, yes, that sucks, but that's the way Classes and Specs are generally balanced. And all things considered, Afflic and Demo numbers are pretty damn good for the class overall. I'm fine if Marksmanship underperforms while Subtlety overperforms within the same class, because the Warlock is a much more extreme example of a spec that falls to the wayside while the class itself is considered performing fairly well. And that's kind of the way we have to look at all existing classes and specs in general; not every spec is going to be viable all the time and Blizzard isn't going to be designing new classes in the future based on the idea of them having to be top-tier performance. Numbers like the Windwalker and Havoc DH are absolutely fine to me as long as people are allowed to have fun with the classes of their choosing, while the min-maxers continue playing the specs that perform best regardless of any new additions to the game.

There's two camps to this - either you are a min-maxer/power gamer, or you're an underdog. I'm not offering a solution because I don't see it being a problem. I see it exactly working as intended, and the shifts-in-power as being something Blizzard already takes into account for every class, whether they choose to tweak the specs or not.

Druids are just the class that has a lot of readily apparent cross-spec spells, but all classes have that. Are Dark Hunters getting sprint? Stealth? poisons? Evasion? Vanish? Blind? Sap? Can they kick? Do they get one kick (Sub) and lose the other (MM)? If they are getting sprint, stealth etc., do they only have those in sub and then just have a 100% completely different spell list and tool kit when they switch specs? Do they get shroud? If so how do you balance that rogues are taking a significant utility hit by having another class able to just switch specs and bring their exact capabilities but with the added versatility of not being melee when they switch spec? If you have three completely isolated specs with zero crossover spells (which is basically mandatory to maintain any sort of balance without making two separate sub/MM specs), how do you resolve the fact that the dark ranger doesn't feel like a class, but like three different classes with completely different mechanics taped together? It's not going to feel good hitting that button and watching every single spell on your bars go away and replaced by a new set that share no mechanics at all.

The example I used is not the common-practice, it's going to be the outlier for a class that has multiple fantasies to hit.

When it concerns having 'no common core abilities', I think it would be sufficient to have the New Spec be the bridge.

For example, if a Spellbreaker were to have Prot Paladin and Arcane Mage specs, then the 3rd spec should be informed by that design basis. Regardless of not being a true healer, Prot has healing spells, so the Prot Spec should keep them regardless. When dealing with the Spellbreaker spec, we can then choose whether or not to carry that over as a common ability. Same with Spell Steals or Spell-shields from Arcane. That would all inform and influence the design of the New spec, and it can pick and choose what concepts to bridge together and what concepts to keep exclusive to each spec.

Base utility like Ressurections or Raid Buffs should be handled as a Class-wide decision. I'm not concerned with factoring raid-wide utility into spec balance since it should be expected that *someone* would be bringing it regardless of an Echo class. We can discuss these on a class-by-class concept. A Prot Spec would still have Blessings available for themselves, but can be retooled to be self-only buffs for the sake of maintaining balance while altering the Raid Utility dynamic. This gives some reason to still play as Paladin, without compromising any balance by removing the spell entirely or double dipping into other Class-wide buffs from other specs.

There are going to be instances where keeping Class buffs exclusive to the Core class would be beneficial for differentiating the compositions, so it's not literally bringing a 'Paladin' to the group when you bring in a Spellbreaker. You're going to get the unique properties of having a Spellbreaker in your group, and it might be not having Paladin group buffs or Ressurection, but instead you gain some other form of utility, like being able to create Portals out of combat. While it's a really loose example, I'd liken a Guardian Druid as a Prot Warrior that has raid utility of a healer. You have the Rage mechanics, the Stuns, the Charges, the Interrupts and all the survival mechanics, while being a Druid gives you the benefit of having Healer-centric utility like heals and ressurection. And as long as we consider things like Bears having shitty-heals and ressurection as not being game-breaking when compared to a Prot Warrior's own brand of utility as a Tank, then we can move forward in considering what deviations we can allow for Raid utility between a Spellbreaker and a Paladin.



I'm not trying to dismiss the argument, and I think it is absolutely valid, but I don't see it being as big of a problem when considering how deviating certain specs already are within existing classes. If we're not taking specific Class Buffs into account like Blessings, then really Ret could be considered a very different theme from Prot, with mostly the Judgements and Holy Power resource being connective tissue. Outside of that, most of the gameplay and abilities are fairly self-contained, as opposed to how they were designed in Vanilla. Instead of shared AoEs, Prot uses Consecration while Ret is designed with Templars Verdict and Divine Storm in mind. Instead of everyone auto-attack proccing, Ret is given an assortment of different Strikes and Seals to activate, as well as their own DPS abilities. The only real commonality between them is Resources, Raid Utility and the barest of Common abilities like Holy Light.

And when you place Ret on the graph, it doesn't really matter how well Prot and Holy perform for the Paladin to be regarded as a whole. Ret could be bottom-of-the-barrel DPS while they're the best Healer in the game, and that would all be defined by the Meta rather than any intentional means of making them the 'Best Healer Class' of the game. If the spec needs to be buffed, then it can be buffed.

There's also that even if you have the three specs individually isolated, the above shroud example is just one of a bunch of balancing issues created here: outside of combat what you're describing is completely and totally broken. A class that can freely stealth around at full speed, spec swap and now have a hunter pet to tank for it and extreme kiting ability. That has access to tracking and lockpicking, that can bring sap and also bring traps if sap isn't working. That can bring shroud and heroism via pet. That can survive falls with disengage and also shadowstep upwards, directly counter stealth or make full use of it... and all of that is without even touching whatever capabilities the actual dark ranger spec brings. They also triple dip on new any potential new abilities.

There isn't going to be cross-polination of abilities between specs though. I'm not quite sure why you are assuming this. All Core class gameplay should be regarded as being self-contained and fully ported, 1:1. The main exceptions would be Raid utility and Class-wide buffs, which can be retooled to being self-only for the sake of balance.

Any common abilities would be bridged one-way to the New Spec. The New Spec is the bridge between the other two, picking and choosing what to carry over, what to keep exclusive.

An example could be bridging Prot Paladin and Arcane Mage as a Spellbreaker. Where do we have commonalities? Well it comes from an Arcane theme which would be encompassing the entire Prot theme, while Arcane Mage gets cosmetics for having Shields as weapons (purely visual). The gameplay of the specs themselves are fairly self-contained regardless of the classes they came from, and the connective tissue really gets pushed if you start seeing magical blue sparks come from your 'Judgements', and the iconic Magical runes above your head when you buff yourself with a 'Seal'. The resources? Arcane Power instead of Holy Power. The ability to use shitty heals? Arcane's ability to Spell-steal? Both of these can be introduced into the New Spec as a means to bridge the concepts, without actually having them cross into the existing specs.

So your example of Shroud? It would be exclusive to the Subtlety Dark Ranger as a self-only buff, *with the possibility* of being a carry over into Domination (but not likely, since it's very differently themed). All Core Class abilities should be considered to be self-contained. Any consideration of carrying this through as a Class-wide or Raid Utility buff would have be considered on a class-by-class basis, and for this example I would say this Raid utility should stay exclusive with Rogues, while Dark Rangers simply gain the benefit of a self-only cooldown for Subtlety, for the sake of maintaining spec-balance.

It just seems like you would have an easier time adding like 4 or 5 new specs to classes than you would constructing this one new class that in theory is only getting a single new spec.

It would be easier. I have no doubt that it would be easier to just add new specs to existing classes. I'm simply offering an alternative that would broaden the game more than simply adding 'more of the same' when we consider how limited certain classes like Rogues or Paladins would be if they are meant to stay within the same general themes of the classes, and sticking with the Core abilities. IMO it limits the amount of freedom they have to explore new identities. It's sort of like how I feel about Covenants, where it's cool that we're getting new abilities for every class but they don't really feel like they're all that necessary to exploring the class itself. Some Covenant abilities feel like they were additions for the sake of meeting certain 'status quo'.

At the end of the day, I'm pushing for exploring new identities, themes and fantasies. I don't see 4th specs being able to properly convey a "Warden" or a "Spellbreaker" or a "Shadow Hunter" the way a new class or Echo class could. The identities are bound to the core class, and every 4th spec has to play off that same identity.

[cocomen2]

New class for sure, but we have "big problem" with balancing team ->

1) Small indie company at 2008-2010, we have no money to hire more people to tweak balance each week. (and this for 1 new class)

2) Now when this actiBlizz monster that grabs money for mounts and ect, they sure must spend big to balance even 2 new classes at time, but we sure knew that bobby gonna buy new yacht before firing someone from balancing team.

[Selastan]

A healing spec for Warlocks would be so fucking awesome that I would actually resub. 4th specs all the way.

(And make their primary stat Stamina, too. Warlocks aren't fucking nerds, they are all about willpower)

[Swnem]

I am gonna say new class cause i believe there are mechanics the Tinker class in particular can bring that are unique, but from there onwards i think class skins make sense.
New class combos would be good too.

But, these are not mutually exclusive, and i want them all, except 4th specs. Though a shaman tanking spec would probably fit.

[FossilFree]

A healing spec for Warlocks would be so fucking awesome that I would actually resub. 4th specs all the way.

(And make their primary stat Stamina, too. Warlocks aren't fucking nerds, they are all about willpower)

That would be quite interesting! How would you imagine it working? I could see it being like a blood mage that siphons life force away from an enemy to channel it to allies. You could also do something like life tap, where the warlock uses their own life force to power their heals, hurting them in the process, and then draining HP back from enemies to keep from dying. Basically, HP is the resource used instead of mana.

[Ielenia]

New classes. Some class concepts simply cannot be brought to fruition with class skins.

I've yet to hear of at least one, though.

Sure, they might not be 100% brought to fruition, but that's the nature of the beast. However, as far as I know, they can all adequately fit the present classes as 'class skins'.

[Clash the DK]

Class Skins would be so incredibly lame.

People like new gameplay variations. Whether that manifests as a new class, 4th specs, or something else...that's the only way to truly keep the game fresh. The fact that we haven't seen significant changes to core gameplay since Legion is telling. There is a correlation with the decline in subs and the over all satisfaction with the game. Change is the only constant. Things get stale even when they are good. And these temporary borrowed powers are not getting the job done.

[Kaver]

I feel like getting more specs is pointless if Blizzard keep making systems like conduit energy that restrict us from changing specs.

[Cosmic Janitor]

A small selection of new specs seems infinitely more interesting to me than rerolling yet another dead FotM class that will somehow have to attempt to gain a permanent place in a group content enviroment via unique gimmiks.

Rough napkin math: 3 new 4th specs would give 25% of people the potential to do something new. Adding 1 new class means 7.7% of people get the option of something new to do, and that is if the new class would actually have a full split and doesn't end up like monks with their weak reception.

Edit:
Giving it a bit more of an indepth look: By comparison, giving 1 new spec to a trash-collector class like hunter means you instantly reach 12.5% of the playerbase (though admittedly, most of them are probably forever-BM). 4th specs also don't fuck with the overall balance of group content as much, since they don't have to bring a completely new group interaction profile.

I will also say though, I'd rather take a new class, over nothing but hot air and empty promises like the "return to classes over specs".

[Alkizon]

Quote of justice:

In fact, specifically none. What they really need before anything is overhaul of class hierarchy as a whole, towards which, judging by current organization of progress, they're completely...

...well, you know

Then and only when this happens, all conflicts will be excluded in form of stupid implementation like current svhunters, pirat~rogues, arrears on filling hybrids' and other spell books, requirements for mechanics, characteristics, universalization of equipment system, design of talents... only then there will be at least some sense in specific point changes (which, in fact, will bring system to aforementioned "common denominator").

Until then, it's just building castles in the air

Dear devs, you're trying to sit with one @$$ on two chairs, it will NEVER EVER work, and the sooner you understand this and return to original design, the sooner everything will return to normal, otherwise you won't be able to do anything good with classes' gameplay. Cheers.

Also full quote from almost similar, deleted topic:

2nd part - < Deleted with "4th spec" topic - saved from google cache >

How about they fix, at first, everything they broke, show players, that they understand hierarchy of priorities in design.
- - -
most of ideas presented here aren't constructive in any way, simply because majority continues to think in terms of "specs", not classes, and they don’t understand that in order to add new direction of specialization, it’s necessary to expand functionality of entire class (you want melee hunter+ (interesting threads, with a lot of good points here)? you give melee functionality to all hunters: 3rd slot for distant weapons with leaving first two for close combat, and additional mechanics&abilities), rather than split classes into specializations (otherwise it just doesn't work, see hierarchy), but within framework of their current mechanics vast majority of ideas mentioned here simply can't shove inside; even those in stock, are "castrated"
- - -
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.

Нow this all works? You take lore, clarify all possible classes mechanics, which will be their canonical distinguishing feature within the game (in this case, it can be easily skipped, because class design already had this state in framework of game’s history, suppose that it was somewhere between WotLK and BC, so next), sprinkle this functionality with functionally non-changing, but only complementary, tasty "dessert" mechanics of subsequent expansions (don’t see any reason to discard random good ideas even from “mediocre” former/current team members) - we get formed&working class system !of each of their representatives! What to do next? Now you need to think about talents that will make this or that class mechanics more convenient/preferable to use, while some mechanics can get, in sense, interdependent state thereby forming specialization area. After all this, we look at whether all available mechanics are taken into account in areas of specialization, if not... here already optional action will begin: let it be as it is, add them somewhere, or there could be formed additional specialization on their basis. Moreover! this choice had no dictatorial impact for player’s individual preferences regarding “RP” component, and no matter what mechanics were chosen as preferred, still rogue with any set of talents could be just duelist or pirate, secret agent, ninja and anyone else at player's will. [Axiom] Class' names aren't what "they" are within game system component (just conditional separation), but key mechanics are. They are your class, which means they are mandatory for each of its representatives (and there can be even no talk in framework of this design about "modern way" understanding of specs; build is your spec here). - set of posts in "after pre-SL" talkings - here some of later stuff +

...but not bloodthirsty charge into classes in berserk mode shouting "It's Time To Slice&Dice!"

ps. And then you look at what characteristics can help players in choosing their role, which ones will be mandatory for particular sphere of game content, and which are universal, which will be preferable for one role, and which for another... then it goes issue of itemization... and so on, and so on.

[Zantera]

New class - I'd say I'm pretty neutral towards this. At best I'd pick the new class for an alt option but I love my current main and I'm not looking to switch. A new class does bring some refreshment to the game but the new classes also tend to be overpowered initially and they always seem to struggle with the balance. It might be good to bring players back but for someone who wouldn't main the new class it won't really do much for me - aside from a possible new alt.

Class skins - Depending on how they do it, this is something I think could be cool. But I don't think it has to be limited down to "class skins", i think just adding more interesting unique class things in general is a great idea. Warlock with their green fire quest for example, or Druid's having alternative forms. I would love if every class got some more unique cool things they could obtain through a quest chain (or a hidden achievement type thing) that would give us unique options that could alter how our spells look for example.

4th specs - I think this would be a balancing nightmare and would probably do the game more harm than good honestly.

New combos - If by this you mean more class options for each race I think that would be cool. I know the people against it would say "but lore" and I get that too but I also feel for the people who love night elves but they equally love paladin for example. While I appreciate the lore behind certain races not being able to be certain classes, maybe it's time to free that up.

[mysticx]

Class skins or fourth spec for me, give me stuff to enjoy on my existing characters, instead of "This will only be fun/useful if you roll another alt", levelling is ruined too much to make rolling yet another alt any fun.

[username993720]

Other: all of them!

I have ideas for each and every one of them.

Classes: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

Class skins: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...20-Class-skins

4th specs: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations

New Combos: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...s-combinations

Example:

Dark Ranger is a well established concept from Warcraft 3. There's plenty of overlap with Hunters, and could easily be a class skin. However they have certain abilities that aren't present in Hunter class to be fully represented by Hunters. If made into a 4th spec, then we'd get some odd mixes of Tauren or Mechagnome that may not really fit the fantasy of a Dark Ranger.

As an Echo Class, a Dark Ranger would have full control over what weapon types it uses, what races can be played, and still have its full fantasy be carried out through a new spec designed specifically for them. Dark Rangers could adapt Marksmanship from Hunters as their bread-and-butter Ranged spec, adapt Subtlety from Rogues as a stealthy, shadowy assassin, and add an all new Domination spec that envelops the Charm and Possession abilities and spellcasting Banshee themes, while still retaining Physical-Ranged auto attack gameplay.

Might as well add them as a spec within a new class.

I don't think I ever saw a thread who could describe exactly how class skins would work and yet everyone seem to want it ?

I guess everyone does have a vague idea of how they want this.

You just slap new visuals onto it, in hopes it would somehow fulfill the fantasy you want (yes, they haven't thought it through).

This just doesn't make sense to me. Class skins doesn't fill the demand for more classes, as its the same class with new spell animations. It's A LOT of work for very little actual payoff imo. Considering the state of classes, I much rather them actually address issues with the class rather than spend so much time for just a cosmetic feature.

With their attitude, everything in the game would be merely cosmetics. New systems, abilities, raids, quests, gear and mounts.

I've yet to hear of at least one, though.

Sure, they might not be 100% brought to fruition, but that's the nature of the beast. However, as far as I know, they can all adequately fit the present classes as 'class skins'.

No, not really.

[Alanar]

A new class is nice, but like others have said.. the balance is this game is already pretty bad, they failed in balancing again in sl altho we didnt got any new class. So it doesnt matter it seems if the add a new one or not. So a new class would stil be oke and nothing realy changes.

But I voted class skins, because it would add in so many new things that would spark interrest on all classes instead of just one.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Oh and more combos as well. Give me all the combos that make even just barely any sense.

Other: all of them!

It's multi-vote so you can tick all boxes

- - - Updated - - -

I also feel like class skins would have needed different options for "new visual class with recycle mechanics" and "just a different flavor of existing class", as people clearly have one OR the other in mind.

[McNeil]

New classes and 4th specs, at least it adds to the gameplay even if it means that balancing will be a nightmare. But I've long accepted that the game will never see any kind of balance. Class skins would be nice too which would actually fit into 4th specs.

[Teriz]

I've yet to hear of at least one, though.

Sure, they might not be 100% brought to fruition, but that's the nature of the beast. However, as far as I know, they can all adequately fit the present classes as 'class skins'.

Tinker and Dragonsworn (Alexstraza) per their examples in WC3 and HotS. No existing class exhibits the mechanics shown in their abilities. In order to properly bring in those mechanics, you would have to alter how existing classes work. A better option would be to simply bring them in as new classes in the standard cycle (a new class every few expansions).

[Selastan]

That would be quite interesting! How would you imagine it working? I could see it being like a blood mage that siphons life force away from an enemy to channel it to allies. You could also do something like life tap, where the warlock uses their own life force to power their heals, hurting them in the process, and then draining HP back from enemies to keep from dying. Basically, HP is the resource used instead of mana.

I always imagined a Pit Lord pet. Couldn't fully subdued by one warlock, so they don't fight for you, but they follow you around chained, and the healing source is their blood. You siphon their blood for buffs and heals, and use your own mana to buff and heal the pit lord in return. Gameplay would be carefully draining your pit lord during high damage fights and healing it in between.

[Ielenia]

No, not really.

Thanks for the long, eloquent and detailed response.

A pity you forgot to actually write anything meaningful, like an example or an explanation why "no, not really" somehow applies.

- - - Updated - - -

Tinker

We've already been over this in a different thread, and several people have explained and demonstrated how it's rather easy to adapt the druid class' graphics and sound effects to work as a tinker class.

Dragonsworn

The dragonsworn concept can technically be adapted into the paladin class' mechanics, a character empowered by the boons of dragons instead of by the boons of the Light.

WC3 and HotS. No existing class exhibits the mechanics shown in their abilities.

Your problem is that you're looking for specific abilities that have to work exactly and perfectly like you see them in Heroes of the Storm and Warcraft 3 and not the concepts themselves. You're not looking for a tinker class, you're looking for a class that houses very, very specific abilities that have to work in very, very specific ways.

you would have to alter how existing classes work.

No, not really. All we need is a paintbrush to paint over the classes and done. Again, we've been over this in a different thread.

A better option would be to simply bring them in as new classes in the standard cycle (a new class every few expansions).

Or, again, make them into 'class skins' using an existing class' mechanics and just change the graphics and sound effects.

[Teriz]

We've already been over this in a different thread, and several people have explained and demonstrated how it's rather easy to adapt the druid class' graphics and sound effects to work as a tinker class.

Which were poor arguments. The Tinker would require mechanics specifically made for its concept such as mechanical-based summons and gameplay traits for mech piloting. The Druid simply could not be adjusted to match those attributes without fundamentally altering the class.

The dragonsworn concept can technically be adapted into the paladin class' mechanics, a character empowered by the boons of dragons instead of by the boons of the Light.

That isn't the HOTS basis. The HotS basis is Alexstraza shifting constantly in and out of dragon form, and its in line with what we see with WoW characters such as Wrathion, Kairoz, Kalecgos, and others. There's really no basis for a Dragonsworn in the Paladin class.

Your problem is that you're looking for specific abilities that have to work exactly and perfectly like you see them in Heroes of the Storm and Warcraft 3 and not the concepts themselves. You're not looking for a tinker class, you're looking for a class that houses very, very specific abilities that have to work in very, very specific ways.

No, I'm looking at new classes that follow the same methodology of implementation as the previous new class inclusions. I have no problem with utilizing class skins for something like Sunwalkers or Dark Rangers; Concepts that are merely alterations of existing classes. However, for new class concepts that have NOTHING to do with existing classes, you simply need to create new classes.