Blizzard says a future Tank spec for Evokers "unlikely"

[Nork]

https://www.wowhead.com/news/dragonf...danuser-326869



During the live chat, Ion also said:

It's a huge mistake not to add a tank spec based on the black dragonflight. It's not about adding a new tank spec, it's about what MAKES SENSE. As a Dracthyr, you're a creation of Neltharion, therefore, you must have any kind of power related to your creator. Evoker tank would have been an amazing idea. It's quite bewildering to see people saying stuff like "there are too many tanks". Guys, new classes shouldn't be subjected to how many specs there are; if you decide to create a new class, you should be consistent with its lore. I wouldn't have said anything if they hadn't stated that the Dracthyr were Neltharion's creation.

[Rageonit]

It's a huge mistake not to add a tank spec based on the black dragonflight. It's not about adding a new tank spec, it's about what MAKES SENSE. You're a creation of Neltharion, therefore, you must have any kind of power related to your creator. Evoker tank would have been an amazing idea. It's quite bewildering to see people saying stuff like "there are too many tanks". Guys, new classes shouldn't be subjected to how many specs there are; if you decide to create a new class, you should be consistent with its lore. I wouldn't have said anything if they hadn't stated that the Dracthyr were Neltharion's creation.

Creation is not a reflection, it's just your huge assumption. In your vision, they should have tanking abilities, and in Blizzard's vision they don't. There is no single way of going about it; otherwise writing stories would be the most boring and predictable thing ever.

[Futhark]

It's a huge mistake not to add a tank spec based on the black dragonflight. It's not about adding a new tank spec, it's about what MAKES SENSE. As a Dracthyr, you're a creation of Neltharion, therefore, you must have any kind of power related to your creator.

Blizzard doesn't seem to think "earth=tank", so the "blackflight=tank" does not make sense to them. The "earth=tank" meme seems to have attached to the community only.

[Lochton]

https://www.wowhead.com/news/dragonf...danuser-326869



During the live chat, Ion also said:

Sounds about right. I don't mind.

[Nork]

Creation is not a reflection, it's just your huge assumption. In your vision, they should have tanking abilities, and in Blizzard's vision they don't. There is no single way of going about it; otherwise writing stories would be the most boring and predictable thing ever.

It hasn't got to do with my vision, it's got to do with what makes sense. Very few creations are not imbued with the powers of its creator. A tank spec based on the black dragonflight makes a lot of sense and it should be added in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard doesn't seem to think "earth=tank", so the "blackflight=tank" does not make sense to them. The "earth=tank" meme seems to have attached to the community only.

In the end, I don't care whether it's a tank spec, a healer spec or a dps spec. There should be a spec related to the black dragonflight, and Blizzard more or less have acknowledged this.

[Usernameforforums]

Asking envoker to have a tank spec is like asking demon hunter to have a healing spec.

[Nork]

Asking envoker to have a tank spec is like asking demon hunter to have a healing spec.

Demon hunters as tanks made far less sense and here we are.

[Rageonit]

It hasn't got to do with my vision, it's got to do with what makes sense. Very few creations are not imbued with the powers of its creator. A tank spec based on the black dragonflight makes a lot of sense and it should be added in the future.

Thankfully, different things can make sense (and do). "Very few creations are not imbued with the powers of its creators" - where is this even coming from..? Anyway, tank spec is not coming, they said as much. Not sure what's the point of trying to deny that.

[Nork]

Thankfully, different things can make sense (and do). "Very few creations are not imbued with the powers of its creators" - where is this even coming from..? Anyway, tank spec is not coming, they said as much. Not sure what's the point of trying to deny that.

They said "unlikely". It seems you've got less faith than Blizzard.

[Rageonit]

They said "unlikely". It seems you've got less faith than Blizzard.

You could hear in Ion's voice that he doesn't want to give a definite answer for PR reasons. Tank spec is not coming - better believe it if you don't want to be disappointed later. And it's not about faith, faith has nothing to do with it. Everything about Evoker screams: "This is not melee". Do you honestly believe they will rework the whole class to suit tank spec...?

[Nork]

You could hear in Ion's voice that he doesn't want to give a definite answer for PR reasons. Tank spec is not coming - better believe it if you don't want to be disappointed later. And it's not about faith, faith has nothing to do with it. Everything about Evoker screams: "This is not melee". Do you honestly believe they will rework the whole class to suit tank spec...?

Your arguments are bewildering. They didn't say "no, we are not gonna make a tank spec". You're stating sentences like "tank spec is not coming" as if you were a Blizzard employee; chill a bit, pal. And yes, Blizzard would be able to rework a whole class if they wanted to, as they did with locks, hunters or rogues in the past; it's not as crazy as you think. But here's where you are most mistaken: adding a tank spec doesn't mean "reworking a whole class". Your statement is a stretch.

[Rageonit]

Your arguments are bewildering. They didn't say "no, we are not gonna make a tank spec". You're stating sentences like "tank spec is not coming" as if you were a Blizzard employee; chill a bit, pal. And yes, Blizzard would be able to rework a whole class if they wanted to, as they did with locks, hunters or rogues in the past; it's not as crazy as you think. But here's where you are most mistaken: adding a tank spec doesn't mean "reworking a whole class". Your statement is a stretch.

This is only my experience speaking; I play this game since release and I know what it means when Blizzard calls something "unlikely". You may not believe me if you don't wish to, but in my opinion there's a big chance you will simply disappoint yourself. Oh well, at the end of the day it's only up to you what you want to believe!

[McNeil]

Looking at their current models they don't even have the right body type to tank, getting outclassed by gnomes.

[Ielenia]

It's also a freaking dragon that's too afraid to get in close and personal. First, we have Enh Shaman to prove that magic specs could be melee as well and work pretty nicely. Secondly, all Blizz needed to do was, I don't know, not call it Evoker? The whole Race/Class combo could be called "Drakthyr" and have a melee spec, fitting for a guy with claws and fangs. Evoker could be just the name of the ranged magical spec.

Idk, even if I won't play much of the class, it's still sad there's one less spec than usual to play around with at start. And yeah, same was with DHs, there was nothing stopping Blizzard from giving them a ranged spec.

Except... Blizzard has gone on record that their intention was to make a ranged spellcaster class, not a melee or tank class?

[Ghanir]

I personally would've liked to see them represent all 5 main dragonflights in the Evoker, be it through a 3rd spec being tank, melee dps, or smth else.

The argument that Evokers as a theme doesn't fit with the idea of a bulky melee tank/fighter sounds reasonable, but only if you hold steadfast that the class must be called Evoker when in reality they could've been called anything and have a tank/melee fighter 3rd spec be slapped onto it.

This could also have been an opportunity to make the first tank, healer, ranged dps class available in the game. We have all other spec-iterations of a class.

[Okacz]

Except... Blizzard has gone on record that their intention was to make a ranged spellcaster class, not a melee or tank class?

In that case, as I said, it would be cool to have perhaps 2 ranged spellcaster specs to choose from. Variery is the spice of life. And I don't think it's too much to ask for new classes not to have less variety than existing ones.

[Dractier]

In that case, as I said, it would be cool to have perhaps 2 ranged spellcaster specs to choose from. Variery is the spice of life. And I don't think it's too much to ask for new classes not to have less variety than existing ones.

They have literally just said multiple times that they are thinking about adding another spec

[Ielenia]

In that case, as I said, it would be cool to have perhaps 2 ranged spellcaster specs to choose from. Variery is the spice of life. And I don't think it's too much to ask for new classes not to have less variety than existing ones.

Unique variety is good. But where's the "variety" if all you can have are apples, apples with the stem on, and apples with the stem with a leaf?

The point is that maybe Blizzard's line of thinking was the same as the one they had with the demon hunter: "we believe giving it two separate dps specs would dilute the concept."

[Okacz]

Unique variety is good. But where's the "variety" if all you can have are apples, apples with the stem on, and apples with the stem with a leaf?

The point is that maybe Blizzard's line of thinking was the same as the one they had with the demon hunter: "we believe giving it two separate dps specs would dilute the concept."

And yes, this is where I call it bullshit. Those guys are good, they came up with crazy stuff in World of Warcraft, including a daily quest where you make two seals fuck. Finding two unique and exciting ways for dragonpeople to use dragonmagic to deal dragondamage is a cakewalk compared to that.

Does Warlock feel diluted due to having a spec focused on destroying shit, a spec focused on summoning demons, and another focused on giving the enemy tuberculosis? No, those are 3 unique answers to the question "how would a corrupted magic used deal damage". Simple, and I don't think the game would be better if we boiled them down to 1 spec.

Same was with Demon Hunter. They came up with Vengeance on their own, this spec has 0 pre-Legion lore, and is fun as hell. Would it be that hard to make another melee DPS spec that feels unique to Fury? No it wouldn't. Especially since they literally created a DH character using soul-based magic and two handed weapons to deal DPS.

The choice to make it 2 spec, not 3 spec, is literally "because we didn't wanna make another spec". Well, I certainly would prefer it to have 3, so pointlessly vent on a forum I shall.

They have literally just said multiple times that they are thinking about adding another spec

Must have missed that one. All I saw was answer to the question of whether or not they'd add tank spec to Evoker, and it was a cautious "nope".

[Futhark]

They have literally just said multiple times that they are thinking about adding another spec

I didn't see that anywhere. The only quote I remember (provided below) says they don't want to say "no" to a third spec, but I'm sure they would say the same about Demon Hunters. It's a better PR response to say "someday maybe" than "no"

I don't want to close the door on [Evokers] ever getting a third [spec], but I don't know that 'tank' is the direction we would go here in particular. Our prior Hero Classes have all had 'tank' options. We think that is fairly well covered over the years. We'd like to give ranged DPS some love this time.