This game can probably use a purely tank class;

[Irian]

I'm sure this has been brought up a ton in this thread already, but uh... there's a reason why they don't make classes purely for one role other than DPS, it's intentional. There's no benefit to trying to force someone to tank constantly when they might want to dps or heal on occasion instead. What do you even think that'd accomplish in the long run?

I feel like this idea just kinda fundamentally misses the reason why there's a shortage of tanks to begin with. The problem isn't that there aren't enough options for tanks, it's that tanking in WoW is just not very fun. They could turn half the game into tanks and people still wouldn't want to play them if the gameplay is shallow and unrewarding.

[bloodmoth13]

no, terrible waste of resources. Though Death knights launched with all 3 specs tank viable which was cool.

[Raven]

And what would a class with pure tanking add ?

They have already tried tank spec for pure tanking and even with a spec for damage to change into the only thing that happened was tanks crying and demanding more damage abilities becouse of damage meters.

[epigramx]

Do you tank? Do you know how enjoyable it is to do the simplest daily where your sitting there pressing buttons for what feels like forever, hoping someone else will come along needing the same quest because you didn't change out of tanking spec?

Tons of fun...

I imply even at the text you quoted (if you read it all), that I want a mixed-class (e.g. current warrior with an extra spec). I make that clearer in later replies.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't some vague far off notion... hell people didn't take demon hunters to the first tier of sl beyond the token spot for the magic debuff.

You don't understand the game close to well enough to make the claims you are making. There have been tiers without any druids bar healers in mythic. Hell I vaguely recall a time in mop where you didn't even want that

Your idea is so awful it's on par with conduits on how it would play out.

Why in the world do the details of who got nerfed and when matter? In fact it helps my point that specs are nerfed and buffed here an there like a yoyo.


That's precisely the method they use to not make semi-pure classes like the priest dominate all others in their role; they nerf as appropriately.

- - - Updated - - -

no, terrible waste of resources. Though Death knights launched with all 3 specs tank viable which was cool.

You are contradictive. Why is it a waste of resources and at the same time cool?

Besides: it can be VERY limited: e.g. a 4th spec on a current class.

[Coniferous]

We have years and multiple expansions of proof. Having a lock in the game does not kill the game for balance druids; in fact druids (the quintessential non-pure class) is extremely popular; or having a priest does not kill healing: they nerf them here and there all the time (the price you pay for playing a pure/semi-pure class is that you must change specs each major patch/expansion if you are a min-maxer).

Though to be honest I'm not exactly sure what your counter-point is with "specs go extinct"; It doesn't counter my position; it supports my point because many here say "pure classes would kill all other classes" (which is wrong).

Look at healing and tank diversity in mythic raiding. In healing, the last time monk healers were well represented was... never. The last time holy priests were was... TBC? Wrath? The last time resto druids were was maybe mop or wod. The community ends up picking the spec that has the utility that matters, and for a long time it's been shaman because of cooldowns, and paladin because of single target healing/dps/utility. Tanking is more flavor of the month - for a while it was monks, but druids, dks, and dhs have had their day in the sun fairly recently, with other tanks fading into oblivion for an expansion or two. So no, we don't have years of proof.

To take a recent example, I started out this expansion playing a monk tank and it was a disaster, I just took too much damage for pug healers to handle. Switched to druid and I was tankier at 205 than my monk at 218, and suddenly blasting through content that my monk couldn't do. This type of shit happens all the time, and it's fixed incredibly slowly, you're lucky if you catch up within a year, it's more typically to get it somewhat fixed by the last patch.

The core of your argument - that priest is a pure healer class where you have to switch specs as necessary - is nonsense. Holy priests have been bad for a decade; people who do high end content have either played disc when it was op, or switched to shaman/paladin when disc was bad.

[Musta]

No. It's extremely easy to keep a pure-role class not dominate the role and they can keep the character diverse; they do it all the time; we have explicit proof for years.

E.g. the priest class had extremely diverse healing specs for years; they had nerfs to keep them non-dominating; it's still a class that many dedicated-healers love.

- - - Updated - - -


It's off topic. The suggestion I made has nothing to do with "make more tanks"; they might as well become fewer with the suggestion; in any case I don't give a crap if they are more or less.

This is strictly about making a better game for people that are dedicated and in depth tanks (or at least the ones that would want a pure/semi-pure tanking class).

and thats why i said you get it.

[Triceron]

You are contradictive. Why is it a waste of resources and at the same time cool?

Explained to you multiple times, but you don't seem to understand that something cool can also be a bad idea that is utterly pointless.

More Gnome subraces? Cool, and also a waste of resources because it's a lot of effort for little payoff. Not many people are going to be interested in more Gnome variants, and that's time and resources better spent on something more worthwhile.


For everything else, there's an incredible disconnect between how you think the game is designed and played, and how it actually plays out through all the data and stats that we know of from the game itself.

[epigramx]

Explained to you multiple times, but you don't seem to understand that something cool can also be a bad idea that is utterly pointless.

You first have to prove that the priest class has to be deleted then. Because it's exactly the equivalent case; a semi-pure class on healing; it has not "destroyed" healing and it is not boring for healers and it is not "useless" that it has 2 specs on healing.

[Triceron]

You first have to prove that the priest class has to be deleted then. Because it's exactly the equivalent case; a semi-pure class on healing; it has not "destroyed" healing and it is not boring for healers and it is not "useless" that it has 2 specs on healing.

Look at the person replying to you. Read their name and comment before replying.

Did it look like I said anything about Priests?

I said that something that is cool and something that is a waste of resources is not mutually exclusive. You can have something that's cool for WoW that is also a waste of resources to add. More Gnome subraces is an example of that. Why you've suddenly started talking about Priests, I have no fucking clue.

[bloodmoth13]

I imply even at the text you quoted (if you read it all), that I want a mixed-class (e.g. current warrior with an extra spec). I make that clearer in later replies.

- - - Updated - - -


Why in the world do the details of who got nerfed and when matter? In fact it helps my point that specs are nerfed and buffed here an there like a yoyo.


That's precisely the method they use to not make semi-pure classes like the priest dominate all others in their role; they nerf as appropriately.

- - - Updated - - -


You are contradictive. Why is it a waste of resources and at the same time cool?

Besides: it can be VERY limited: e.g. a 4th spec on a current class.

It was cool for deathknights because they had 3 tank specs and 3 dps specs. they werent pure tank, they had a lot of flexibility, or you could just double down on a single spec and be either dps or tank as say frost or blood or unholy.

and OP said adding a new class that had 3 tank specs, or pure tank class, adding a 4th spec isnt the same as that.

IMO i think blizz should break up the class structure as it is more constricting than anything. Instead just have specs that fill in a matrix of magic school and weapon type and allow players to pick 2 or 3 bonus specs that are adjacent to your first spec on either magic school or weapon type.

like for instance demon hunter = fel/light melee, ret pally is light/heavy melee, shadow priest is shadow/light caster, subtlety rogue is shadow/light fighter etc etc.
If i picked destro warlock i could also pick havoc demon hunter or vengeance demon hunter since they are all fel school, or if i picked unholy death knight i could also pick necromancer and dark ranger, two specs that dont have enough behind them for a full class but would make fantastic one off specs. Or frost mage can also pick frost DK etc.

If they did that they could add in a huge number of unrepresented specs that would feel amazing for the game, classes, or rather specs, like dark ranger that dont make sense added to any existing class are great examples. Too light to fit into death knights and too edgy for hunters. There isnt enough lore to support 2 bonus specs for it without fudging some BS into existence, all they need is a single spec added to the game.

[Trumpcat]

Rather see all classes have at least one spec for each role.

[Alkizon]

There isnt enough lore to support 2 bonus specs for it without fudging some BS into existence, all they need is a single spec added to the game.

In fact, as I once said, if hunters have "nature" as base magic, then DR have "shadow" as base magic. We have already touched on this in sufficient detail, they are more spelcasters than archers, hence it turns out that using normal "old" architecture (there are even couple of concepts for modern architecture, though they don't really imply me, you know why) , adding 2 more directions of development to them will not be difficult. Since they are shadow mages, then one of directions will be a bias in "attacking" shadow, as spelcaster, and second defensive/support which are abilities related to necromancy, but this is just approximately. Here one of such discussions:

in other words, it could have 3 dev.directions (int-stat bow here could also be returned): banshee as spellcaster (hence justification for dark casual abilities), DR as direct fighter (give "using bow&daggers" as projection tool together with thematically appropriate fighting style) and third (here I would say "necromancer" - to justify corresponding complementary branch, but being afraid, that for this I'll be eaten alive for example) witch doctor as souls'user (direction with dark part of voodoo rituals)... kind of

Well, in general, I have already eloquently expressed that presence of "shadow magic" (regardless of used weapons) by itself in no way adds anything rogues' to DR's concept. And also it's quite literally being said in cited by you message about where their power comes from and how it works - this is just shadow mage in skin armor, who very skillfully enchants own weapons and corresponding specific (non-rogue) skills. In other words, neither fighting style nor their abilities are in any way associated with what rogues have, and this is especially true of all that (abilities, effects; their source of dodges, parries, strikes and other things are magical, and not physical, like rogues'; any similarity is only visual, even in-game warriors have more in common with rogues than DRs does; they fight in melee sometimes, no doubt, but their fight is closer to enh.shaman's "battle mage" performance in mechanics than rogue's) was shown in regards to DR or in videos with Sylvanas

There is nothing rogue's in DR and full-fledged hunter's too, they're more of "agile mind-ed shadow mage", all its weapons are defective in themselves, but they are enchanted, magic is their weapon... but they aren't necromancers either, there are some common elements that intersect, but these are attacking and protecting spells, and not a full-fledged life/death force manipulation (for the same reason DK can't act as full-fledged necromancer).

ps. I don’t want to change subject, but there’s nothing to say about it, because OP self doesn't understand what wants. It's more like, "let's implement it because I have such an idea"... which, in other things, with such approach very much reminds me of gentlemen devs themselves *cunningly hinting at reason for appearance of hunters-grenadiers*

[bloodmoth13]

In fact, as I once said, if hunters have "nature" as base magic, then DR have "shadow" as base magic. We have already touched on this in sufficient detail, they are more spelcasters than archers, hence it turns out that using normal "old" architecture (there are even couple of concepts for modern architecture, though they don't really imply me, you know why) , adding 2 more directions of development to them will not be difficult. Since they are shadow mages, then one of directions will be a bias in "attacking" shadow, as spelcaster, and second defensive/support which are abilities related to necromancy, but this is just approximately. Here one of such discussions:


ps. I don’t want to change subject, but there’s nothing to say about it, because OP self doesn't understand what wants. It's more like, "let's implement it because I have such an idea"... which, in other things, with such approach very much reminds me of gentlemen devs themselves *cunningly hinting at reason for appearance of hunters-grenadiers*

See, my idea is to add single specs that dont necessarily fit into classes but can attach to existing classes that match either magic school, weapon type or armor class.
You are right in that we have too few archer specs in the game, wow players are oddly attached to the notion that only hunters can be archers. In lore we have priest archers (tyrande/priestess of the moon) necromancer archers (sylvanas/dark rangers) shaman archers (voljin/shadow hunters) void archers (alleria) and it really wouldnt be a stretch to add in arcane archers, elemental archers, fel archers, light archers etc.

The only problem is that none of these fit into the strict and rigid class system that demands 3 specs per class. We dont need a light archer class but we could benefit from a light archer spec.

I think the direction they took in Legion was the right direction where they tripled down on SPEC flavour and each spec felt like its own class, they just needed to go a step further and split specs from classes entirely and give players flexibility to pick different specs for their CHARACTER rather than class.

[Triceron]

and it really wouldnt be a stretch to add in arcane archers, elemental archers, fel archers, light archers etc.

We actually do have that if you make a class out of the Naga Sea Witch, which were a mix of Arcane/Elemental. I feel like it's a really underutilized subtheme of Archer, and prime to explore in a proper Naga-centric expansion.

Any new phys ranged spec would be appreciated, really.

[Samuraijake]

it would have to have 1 spec otherwise it could become too versatile and outshine the other tanks in too many different ways

[bloodmoth13]

We actually do have that if you make a class out of the Naga Sea Witch, which were a mix of Arcane/Elemental. I feel like it's a really underutilized subtheme of Archer, and prime to explore in a proper Naga-centric expansion.

Any new phys ranged spec would be appreciated, really.

Physical is kind of hard to do many different specs of. We have warrior, rogue and hunter thats just about all you need, you cant do physical caster or physical healer so its limited. You could have hybrid though and combining archery with every magic school would add a ton more archer specs to the game.

[Triceron]

Physical is kind of hard to do many different specs of. We have warrior, rogue and hunter thats just about all you need, you cant do physical caster or physical healer so its limited. You could have hybrid though and combining archery with every magic school would add a ton more archer specs to the game.

Oh I just meant in terms of gameplay, non-traditional caster ranged spec. Like more of a hunter's style of instant casts rather than any sort of channeled abilities.
Cooldowns over cast times.

[hulkgor]

Rather see all classes have at least one spec for each role.

This just seems silly.

- - - Updated - - -

Physical is kind of hard to do many different specs of. We have warrior, rogue and hunter thats just about all you need, you cant do physical caster or physical healer so its limited. You could have hybrid though and combining archery with every magic school would add a ton more archer specs to the game.

You could do a physical caster easily, conjuring all sorts of blades, dealing damage or applying bleeds, and other debuffs.

Wildstar "Esper" Class was something of the sort, with most of the kit being about conjuring knives or blades. It had some other stuff, but that was the jist of it.

[Alkizon]

I think the direction they took in Legion was the right direction where they tripled down on SPEC flavour and each spec felt like its own class, they just needed to go a step further and split specs from classes entirely and give players flexibility to pick different specs for their CHARACTER rather than class.

I'll never agree in my life that "this is right direction", but I agree that their next logical step was to turn specializations into classes by completely cutting off from each other and at the same time prohibiting change of them altogether. I even once mentioned, that even at the time of first Legion's announcement, friend laughed at their "new" architecture, pointing out fact, that their rules are forbidding change "classes", so what's the matter then, what's with rules' violation with this approach in design

...but then, when team driven only by design of raids'/instances' mechanic came to power, they were struck by idea that classes aren't needed at all, there are enough roles, and each spec-class began to be adjusted/cut-off solely for the sake of this "only important encounter", and then they stopped following trend of even this crippled design

[Trumpcat]

This just seems silly.
...

No, it's creative and enriching the gameplay.