This game can probably use a purely tank class;

[hulkgor]

No, it's creative and enriching the gameplay.

Or it's just forcing a weird idea that has no legs to stand in from the get go for the sake of , well, who the hell knows.

Classes have fantasy associated with. A Warrior or a Warlock healing, is not it.

But extra points for the creativity, i guess. Might aswell give every class stealth and bloodlust while we're at it.

[Postmasters]

It falls under the same problem any new class idea I've seen hit... the question of why?

Classes shouldn't just be added randomly they should fill niches the other 36 specs don't. Wow is a pretty complete game when it comes to playstyle... maybe you could fit in a weird mid range caster but most types of damage, tanking, and healing already have a spec centered around them.

[Teriz]

It falls under the same problem any new class idea I've seen hit... the question of why?

Classes shouldn't just be added randomly they should fill niches the other 36 specs don't. Wow is a pretty complete game when it comes to playstyle... maybe you could fit in a weird mid range caster but most types of damage, tanking, and healing already have a spec centered around them.

We're missing a petless physical ranged class. A technology class fills that void rather nicely.

I would even argue that we should create a physical ranged tanking spec to go along with it.

[Postmasters]

We're missing a petless physical ranged class. A technology class fills that void rather nicely.

I would even argue that we should create a physical ranged tanking spec to go along with it.

MM and theme isn't a class kite. Range tanking is moronic and should never be in the game.

[Teriz]

MM and theme isn't a class kite. Range tanking is moronic and should never be in the game.

MM is only petless via talent, and most MM players go with pet because Petless sucks. You need a class DESIGNED to not have pets. A technology class using a bevy of ranged weaponry and high tech gadgets can do that.

As for ranged tanking, it’s always a possibility. It’s a playstyle not in the game, but would drive interest if implemented. Again, a technology-based class could fit that thematic.

[paragraphgorilla]

MM is only petless via talent, and most MM players go with pet because Petless sucks. You need a class DESIGNED to not have pets. A technology class using a bevy of ranged weaponry and high tech gadgets can do that.

As for ranged tanking, it’s always a possibility. It’s a playstyle not in the game, but would drive interest if implemented. Again, a technology-based class could fit that thematic.

How would a ranged tank work? The boss just doesn't move? You are constantly kiting the boss in circles?

[Postmasters]

MM is only petless via talent, and most MM players go with pet because Petless sucks. You need a class DESIGNED to not have pets. A technology class using a bevy of ranged weaponry and high tech gadgets can do that.

As for ranged tanking, it’s always a possibility. It’s a playstyle not in the game, but would drive interest if implemented. Again, a technology-based class could fit that thematic.

No... no mm goes with a pet beyond maybe pvpers who are not playing bm or surv for whatever weird reason.

You don't design a class around theme you design around kit. Ranged tanking is moronic and it shows you have next to no concept of how this game works if you think it can be incorporated.

[Teriz]

How would a ranged tank work? The boss just doesn't move? You are constantly kiting the boss in circles?

That would be up to Blizzard to decide.

- - - Updated - - -

No... no mm goes with a pet beyond maybe pvpers who are not playing bm or surv for whatever weird reason.

You have any evidence to back this up?

You don't design a class around theme you design around kit. Ranged tanking is moronic and it shows you have next to no concept of how this game works if you think it can be incorporated.

No, you design a class around concept. For example, we had the Demon Hunter, Brewmaster, and Death Knight concepts from WC3 long before they became WoW classes. Blizzard took their basic abilities and themes and constructed an entire class around it.

We currently have the Tinker hero from WC3 that gives us plenty of concepts for a technology class.

[Postmasters]

That would be up to Blizzard to decide.

- - - Updated - - -



You have any evidence to back this up?



No, you design a class around concept. For example, we had the Demon Hunter, Brewmaster, and Death Knight concepts from WC3 long before they became WoW classes. Blizzard took their basic abilities and themes and constructed an entire class around it.

We currently have the Tinker hero from WC3 that gives us plenty of concepts for a technology class.

Hundreds of thousands of logs? This kind of moronic lazy thinking is why I support blizzard having hidden forums. Your so utterly ignorant you don't know how the game is currently played much less have the slightest notion of what could be done realistically in the system.

The tinker hero can't exist outside a rts without being shit. Even in mobas that kind of class is utter dogshit and dropped out of any kind of meta.

Let those who know more then you guide you for the woods are dark and no place for novices.

[Teriz]

Hundreds of thousands of logs? This kind of moronic lazy thinking is why I support blizzard having hidden forums. Your so utterly ignorant you don't know how the game is currently played much less have the slightest notion of what could be done realistically in the system.

Link to these logs?

Here’s the point; A class where EVERY spec can have a pet is not a class designed to be petless.

The tinker hero can't exist outside a rts without being shit. Even in mobas that kind of class is utter dogshit and dropped out of any kind of meta.

Let those who know more then you guide you for the woods are dark and no place for novices.

The entire point of this back and forth was about playstyles not currently present in the class lineup. Why is it now about your opinion on what is suitable for class inclusion? Why didn’t you simply say that this isn’t about what’s missing from the class lineup, but instead what you personally want?

[Triceron]

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

I think this is a strong point.

They tried very hard to double down on Class Fantasy in Legion, and I give em props for what they attempted and executed. However it doesn't have strong lasting value since most of that fantasy came with Artifacts, and they completely removed them from the equation afterwards, leaving Specs feeling very incomplete, in both fantasy and gameplay mechanics.

My personal view is that it should have always been Vanilla style of design, where specs just inform the class, and you only really had one or two viable builds for raiding or PVP or whatever. And the roles themselves could be flexible enough to allow hybrids and support specs to exist, not just double down on DPS meters and berserk timers.

[Postmasters]

Link to these logs?

Here’s the point; A class where EVERY spec can have a pet is not a class designed to be petless.



The entire point of this back and forth was about playstyles not currently present in the class lineup. Why is it now about your opinion on what is suitable for class inclusion? Why didn’t you simply say that this isn’t about what’s missing from the class lineup, but instead what you personally want?

No mm hunter that knows what they are doing uses a pet outside of pvp.

My knowledge of the game shows why your idea is a bad one.

I don't see anything missing myself that wouldn't be a negative to add or redundant.

[Teriz]

No mm hunter that knows what they are doing uses a pet outside of pvp.

So no evidence to support your claims? Got it.

My knowledge of the game shows why your idea is a bad one.

Again, a discussion about what playstyles are missing in WoW is a worthwhile conversation, while a discussion of what you personally view as “shit” is not. Hopefully at some point we can return to the former conversation.

[Triceron]

So no evidence to support your claims? Got it.

There's plenty of evidence, not quite sure you'd call that out on someone without actually, you know, doing it yourself.

https://www.wowhead.com/guides/marks...%20Lone%20Wolf.

Do Marksmanship Hunters Use Pets?
Typically no. In pure single target situations, pets are comparable damage to using Lone Wolf. As soon as any additional targets are added, using a pet is a DPS loss versus rolling with Lone Wolf. Outside of damage, pets give us some additional survivability via Predator's Thirst so it's not a bad idea to use them if you need a bit of survivability.

Pet juggling is another common misconception. It is NOT worth to use Primal Rage and then dismiss your pet immediately before an encounter. After dismissing our pets, Marksmanship Hunters incur a 20-sec penalty where Lonewolf will ramp up to its standard 10% damage gain. During this time (during the Bloodlust you just used) you will be gimped for 20 sec until Lonewolf has a chance to fully ramp. If you're going to use a pet for lust or survival, keep it until the end of the encounter. Wasting time dismissing it or suffering through the ramp of Lone Wolf is not worth it typically.

All it takes is a quick googling.

Here's another example

https://eu.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...no-pet/62762/3

In terms of pure DPS, lone wolf is your go-to. 10% is a solid buff that your pet just can’t outdamage (especially in AoE situations). In raids you obviously want your 10% buff.

In openworld, your pet is your free tank even after you hit 120 - MM itself is very squishy and needs a frontline.

That doesn't really provide any precedent for Ranged Tanking as a formal Raiding spec design. I'd say it's about equivalent of the Glyph of Demon Hunting giving the Warlocks a temporary ability to tank some open world and outgeared dungeon content, otherwise nothing really to consider as a Raiding spec.

[Teriz]

There's plenty of evidence, not quite sure you'd call that out on someone without actually, you know, doing it yourself.

https://www.wowhead.com/guides/marks...%20Lone%20Wolf.




All it takes is a quick googling.

Which shows that MM Hunters DO use pets outside of just PvP, which is quite the opposite of what was claimed by the person I was responding to.

Anyway, the point once again is that a class where every spec is capable of having a pet can not be considered a petless class.

[Triceron]

Which shows that MM Hunters DO use pets outside of just PvP, which is quite the opposite of what was claimed by the person I was responding to.

Anyway, the point once again is that a class where every spec is capable of having a pet can not be considered a petless class.

Yes, they use it outside of PVP. So are you suggesting a new spec that works outside of PVP and Raiding for the sake of it? Sounds absolutely counterintuitive if that is what your point ultimately comes down to. I don't think the game needs more 'fun but useless in end-game' specs. They were nice when we had them in Cata and MoP, but really no one used them all that much, and it wasn't even worth considering making into a full new role.

[Postmasters]

Which shows that MM Hunters DO use pets outside of just PvP, which is quite the opposite of what was claimed by the person I was responding to.

Anyway, the point once again is that a class where every spec is capable of having a pet can not be considered a petless class.

They don't outside of pvp... my post was showing you know jack shit about how wow works and you proved it to a T.

[Teriz]

Yes, they use it outside of PVP. So are you suggesting a new spec that works outside of PVP and Raiding for the sake of it? Sounds absolutely counterintuitive if that is what your point ultimately comes down to. I don't think the game needs more 'fun but useless in end-game' specs. They were nice when we had them in Cata and MoP, but really no one used them all that much, and it wasn't even worth considering making into a full new role.

Nope, I’m suggesting a physical ranged class that doesn’t use pets at all.

[Triceron]

Nope, I’m suggesting a physical ranged class that doesn’t use pets at all.

Then that's even worse :P

It would break most mechanics in the game since Raid bosses have particular positioning to maintain, and ranged tanking would overly complicate that through unnecessary complexity to have a Ranged tank be able to position a boss or engage at a distance without physically having a boss run up to you. Also it complicates certain raid mechanics, where a Tank should be positioned away from any other Ranged due to raid mechanics, like Tanks being the target of some massive AoE attacks or getting a debuff that passes on to all allies around them; or worse Ranged getting some debuff that spills back onto the Tank.

At the end of the day, either the Ranged tank would end up having to be positioned with the rest of the Tanks in melee, or all raid mechanics have to be changed to suit a new tank standing alongside the casters and healers. Absolutely counter intuitive.

Sounds like an idea from someone who doesn't do much raid tanking, to be honest.

[Teriz]

Then that's even worse :P

Why would that be worse? People want another physical ranged class.