Blizzard says a future Tank spec for Evokers "unlikely"

[Ielenia]

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.

One: those are nowhere near the same thing, and two: those aren't the same people anymore, remember?

The choice to make it 2 spec, not 3 spec, is literally "because we didn't wanna make another spec".

And I'm 99.9% sure you're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't see that anywhere.

Blizzard's twitter Q&A:

Dracthyr
• A Tank spec is unlikely. This is a spellcaster class at its core.
• The team won't close the door on a third spec, but tank is unlikely. Previous Hero classes have had Tank options, so that's pretty well covered.

[Celvira]

I'm not upset over no tank option, but rather Evoker's bizarre lack of black dragonflight representation/magic. Quick edit to mention that yes, there is visual representation in cosmetic forms, but as far as I know, nothing has been said about black magic.

[Triceron]

And I'm 99.9% sure you're wrong.

I mean, you say he's wrong but you can't seem to prove it.

[Ielenia]

I mean, you say he's wrong but you can't seem to prove it.

I said I believe him to be wrong, I never said he is.

Also, he literally made a claim, stating the developers made a third spec to the evoker not because they thought a third one wouldn't work, but because they didn't want to. And he doesn't have any evidence to prove his case, either. But I don't see you getting on his case, for some reason.

Either way. Any claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Triceron]

Either way. Any claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So we can dismiss your belief :/

[Dractier]

So we can dismiss your belief :/

Just accept what he said was BS dude lol.

[TyrionLamperouge]

I really hope that they change their mind and add the tank spec later down the line. A magic based tank would be so cool (and a dragon to add)

[Flatspriest]

Yeah, it was obvious tank spec isn't happening since the moment they've announced Evokers. Not sure what people were expecting.

Most of the posts I had read were saying Blizz needed to come out with a mail wearing ranged class, and they did. Ranged is not tanking. Ranged is not melee. Ranged are healers or DPS.

[Ielenia]

So we can dismiss your belief :/

And? I honestly don't know what's your issue, here. It feels you're responding to me for no reason whatsoever other than just to be a contrarian.

My post literally contains nothing wrong. You then not only accuse me of making a claim (which I didn't) but also accuse me of "not being able to prove" said claim I never made, yet for some reason, the guy who actually made a claim he can't prove gets a pass?

And when I point out how your accusation is not only baseless, but wrong, your response is literally "then I dismiss your opinion".

[Triceron]

And?

And nothing.

You could have said you disagreed but instead you said you're sure 99% that he's wrong, without any proof that he would be.

All I've pointed out is you've got no proof to back your opinion. It is equally baseless. You said it yourself, "Any claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." What else are you gleaning from this?

[Teriz]

As I said on the other forum, I think the most likely scenario is a RDPS based on Deathwing HotS, who is an extremely sturdy, ranged brawler. Blizzard could even incorporate his two forms mechanic where he goes from standard black drake to a more violent and corrupt form. Perhaps utilizing a metamorphosis-like mechanic where the Dracthyr turns into a more robust, corrupt form? I’d recommend using the mechanics from WoD demonology.

Deathwing also has quite a few aerial abilities, so it would fit well with the DE playstyle.

[Ielenia]

You could have said you disagreed but instead you said you're sure 99% that he's wrong, without any proof that he would be.

Read that again. Slowly.

I literally said "I'm 99% sure you're wrong", which shows that I'm expressing my opinion against the guy who made a statement of fact without evidence.

All I've pointed out is you've got no proof to back your opinion.

And all I've pointed out is how dishonest you're being. You've literally made three posts responding to me to double- and triple-down on your own mistake, and zero posts responding to the poster who actually made a claim without any proof that he is right.

It is equally baseless.

And yet you focus on the one that stated an opinion, but ignore the one who actually made a claim of fact.

What else are you gleaning from this?

That's my question to you.

[Forgottenone]

I'm glad they can't be tanks. I hope it doesn't change within Dragonflight or the expansion afterwards.

[Triceron]

I literally said "I'm 99% sure you're wrong", which shows that I'm expressing my opinion against the guy who made a statement of fact without evidence.

Sure, and opinions can be claims as well. Like if I said 'I think your skin is blue', that's both an expression of an opinion, and a claim. In this case, it would be a baseless claim, and that's what I'm pointing out.

Just because you expressed an opinion does not mean you didn't make a claim. You said you are sure he is wrong, without presenting any reason why. Nothing to back up your counterargument there.

And all I've pointed out is how dishonest you're being.

What have I been dishonest about? You seem to throw that out a lot, but you haven't been clear about what I said that would be a lie.

who actually made a claim without any proof that he is right

Sure, but you did too. Two wrongs don't make a right, does it?

[dragonflight10]

Any who is asking for a tank spec is out of touch and most likely ask for alot of unreasonable stupid things here in MMO

The game already has alot of tanks, you want to play a dragon based tank why ? you will quit the spec most likely because it didn't meet your unrealistic expectations

[Firefall]

Of all the people complaining there isn't a tank spec, id bet most don't actually tank. Most were just hoping for more tanks to reduce queues etc, which in reality only works for the first few weeks, and then the bad tank players wash out and move on. Start of legion i wouldn't take a Vengeance DH most of the time, now we are at a point i prefer them.

Buzz off with that dismissive nonsense mate. I've been dreaming of a dragon class for ages but really only enjoy classes with a tank spec. I'm going to try it and hope I fall in love with it, but I'm worried I won't and won't have my fantasy dragon class to play because I'll get bored like I always do with non-tank classes.

- - - Updated - - -

I really hope that they change their mind and add the tank spec later down the line. A magic based tank would be so cool (and a dragon to add)

This so much. There's just so much unfulfilled fantasy for me.

[Ielenia]

You said you are sure he is wrong, without presenting any reason why. Nothing to back up your counterargument there.

Maybe if you decided to read the discussion instead of grabbing my latest post in a vacuum, you'd gave your answer. After all, I did say:

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."

That is my opinion. But the other poster said I'm wrong (in his own words) by saying that the actual reason for the evoker having two specs was "because Blizzard didn't want to make a third spec."

What have I been dishonest about? You seem to throw that out a lot, but you haven't been clear about what I said that would be a lie.

I never said you lied. I said you were being dishonest, because you're apparently just fine with the other poster making statements of fact without a single shred of evidence to back it up, but the moment someone challenges that statement with their own opinion, you suddenly have a problem with the challenger. Feels rather... double-standard-ish.

[Vozzek]

Maybe if you decided to read the discussion instead of grabbing my latest post in a vacuum, you'd gave your answer. After all, I did say:

That is my opinion. But the other poster said I'm wrong (in his own words) by saying that the actual reason for the evoker having two specs was "because Blizzard didn't want to make a third spec."


I never said you lied. I said you were being dishonest, because you're apparently just fine with the other poster making statements of fact without a single shred of evidence to back it up, but the moment someone challenges that statement with their own opinion, you suddenly have a problem with the challenger. Feels rather... double-standard-ish.

Man, he's got your goat good. I can't tell if he's being intentionally obtuse or not, but the discussion had read to me like this:

Opakz: I think this is the reason for the thing. (This is an opinion)

Ielenia: I think you're wrong that thats the reason for the thing. (This is also an opinion)

Triceron: Oh yeah? Prove to me that that's not the reason for the thing! You can't, can you!

Well, no, because it's all opinions about why the developer's made the decisions they made. No one can prove it right or wrong.

Anyways, this has been an enjoyable discussion about semantics and possibly trolling, that I can't really be sure about that last part.

[Nyel]

Yeah, it was obvious tank spec isn't happening since the moment they've announced Evokers. Not sure what people were expecting.

Yeah, it's not like we're waiting for a third DH spec since 2016. Evoker will stay exactly as it is, a two spec class.

[Calfredd]

Yeah, it's not like we're waiting for a third DH spec since 2016. Evoker will stay exactly as it is, a two spec class.

I don't think there will be a 3rd spec for evoker but isn't the difference between demon hunter and evoker that Blizzard straight up said a 3rd demon hunter spec would only make 2 mediocre specs instead of 1 good one whereas they straight up said a 3rd spec is not off the table?