Blizzard says that Dracthyr Evoker COULD get a third spec, but it won't be a tank....

[Xath]

Which is working as intended? I dunno what else to say here.

Pure DPS blames class design for long wait times in mid level PUGs. News at 11.


I mean there are plenty of solutions to your problem which don't involve you having to change your spec to tank. Run with a consistent group instead of pugging, for one. You even admit above that you know plenty of boomkins who will tank. Well, run with one consistently 8 times a week on your main, since you don't seem assed to roll a hybrid main yourself.

Expecting Blizzard to change the game to fix your specific problem, which has clear work arounds, is not a solution. I totally get your sentiment, but it's also incredibly myopic and unrealistic if you expect Blizzard to start adding tank specs to Pure DPS because your PUG wait time for mid level content takes too long.

You're operating on a solution for a problem that's purely based on confirmation bias. You're playing a Pure DPS class and waiting long PUG times, and you wouldn't mind tanking if you had the choice, therefore you conclude that the problem must be coming from your Class' lack of choice.

As the saying goes, If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. Your Pure DPS main is your Hammer.

Okay for the 20th time I'm not expecting blizzard to change the game. They said they might add another spec it makes no sense to add another melee dps spec it does make sense to add another tank spec since there is very little crossover between classes with ranged dps specs and the ability to tank. It also thematically fits since you could use the dragon knight concept. Also I don't spend time waiting I run my own key and fill it quickly due to io and at this point just running it at 15 since I already got my unlocks.

Now articulate why it is you are so against adding a tank as the third spec what on your mind does it hurt and what makes adding another healing, melee dps, or ranged dps spec better to a class that already has two of the three and a game that is massively oversaturated on the the third

[Triceron]

Okay for the 20th time I'm not expecting blizzard to change the game. They said they might add another spec it makes no sense to add another melee dps spec it does make sense to add another tank spec since there is very little crossover between classes with ranged dps specs and the ability to tank. It also thematically fits since you could use the dragon knight concept. Also I don't spend time waiting I run my own key and fill it quickly due to io and at this point just running it at 15 since I already got my unlocks.

Now articulate why it is you are so against adding a tank as the third spec what on your mind does it hurt and what makes adding another healing, melee dps, or ranged dps spec better to a class that already has two of the three and a game that is massively oversaturated on the the third

I'm not against it, I merely see it as being less feasible for them and more effort than they intend to put into it considering the nature of the entire design of the Evoker is built around Ranged and Spellcasting.

If you analyze the Evoker and Dracthyr design, they're actually built to be specific to spellcasting, and I would assume (personal speculation) that they did this to cut corners and avoid having to support animations or gear combinations that are expected of a class.

The Dracthyr is exclusive to one class, meaning it it does not need to support all animations for class combos like Monk animations or Bladestorm spinning. In fact, it has never been shown attacking with weapons at all. Being a pure spellcaster form, the Dracthyr has only so far been shown to attack with spells and fire breaths and wing buffets. We have seen zero melee or weapon animations.

So if they do go around and make any melee spec, they would need to put more effort back into the class. And they're definitely not doing so now, because they already are 'cutting corners' by making this race and class mutually exclusive, practically designing the Dracthyr as a literal NPC that does not need to support visual gear or armor or weapons at all. Like the Dracthyr combat form is effectively the Demon Hunter'a Demon Form, as a class; except designed with spellcasting in mind.

And if they want to add in Tanking, they could. But it's clear they don't feel the need to, and I think that's fine too. Know why they don't feel the need to? Because they have the same data that supports the very thing I've been explaining to you - that more Tank specs does not actually alleviate the demand for tanks. If it did, then of course I would support more tanks. But it doesn't actually do that in practice, and we know this because we had literally the past 3 classes all show how tank supply was not improved with the addition of 3 more tank classes.

The trend remains that even after adding 3 new tank viable options, the percentage of tanks overall remains at a paltry 14% of the player base, while Tank demand remains relatively high demand all around for all group content. That has never changed with the addition of new tank specs, and even if we look back at Cataclysm when Hunters, Shamans and Warlocks DID have viable tanking forms for mid level content.


Your own specific problem as a Pure DPS lacking Tank soec as a significant contributor to the overall tank supply problem is literally due to your own confirmation bias. Hammer solving nails problem.

All your arguments so far have been geared towards proving that you see the problem as a nail, even if its not a nail at all.


Tldr;. Evoker tank spec is unrealistic because Blizzard knows it doesn't solve the tank problem and they don't see Evoker as a tank class.

[Hctaz]

You already made my point though.

If there is so little overlap between Ranged spellcasting gameplay and Tanking that Boomkins aren't interested in playing a bear, we should be considering giving Tanking specs to the Spellcasting Evoker because..?

I didn't say anything about ranged spellcasting and tanking GAMPLAY, I stated that there is little overlap in FLAVOR.
Gameplay isn't necessarily the end all of what you decide to play. I refuse to play Unholy DK whenever possible because I don't like the color green, I don't like DoTs, and I don't like pets. It's not really related to whether or not the gameplay feels the same, I just won't do it unless absolutely necessary (fuck Legion for that. Twice.)

My point is that somebody who chooses druid because they like boomkins or healing isn't going to enjoy any aspect of swapping to a bear more than likely. They might not like bears. Somebody playing an Evoker might just want to be a cool looking dragon thing and not care what role they fulfill as long as it still has cool dragon things. Some people refuse to play Boomkin because they think the form looks stupid as hell.

[Triceron]

I didn't say anything about ranged spellcasting and tanking GAMPLAY, I stated that there is little overlap in FLAVOR.
Gameplay isn't necessarily the end all of what you decide to play. I refuse to play Unholy DK whenever possible because I don't like the color green, I don't like DoTs, and I don't like pets. It's not really related to whether or not the gameplay feels the same, I just won't do it unless absolutely necessary (fuck Legion for that. Twice.)

My point is that somebody who chooses druid because they like boomkins or healing isn't going to enjoy any aspect of swapping to a bear more than likely. They might not like bears. Somebody playing an Evoker might just want to be a cool looking dragon thing and not care what role they fulfill as long as it still has cool dragon things. Some people refuse to play Boomkin because they think the form looks stupid as hell.

But you have to see this from a game design point of view as well.

Why would Blizzard not make a class with 3 specs and only make 2 specs? Why would Dracthyr only be playable on one class and not all 12 others? Why is Evoker only playable through one race?

These are all limitations of design. They are intentionally limiting their gameplay design in order to be able to get this class even made.

So you are right that the gameplay is not the end-all for what we decide to play, but what we decide to play is ultimately based on what Blizzard can provide. And it's clear by looking at the state of the Evoker's design right now, as a 2 spec one-race exclusive class that has no visual weapons displayed in combat; that they are intentionally limited in providing us a wealth of new gameplay options.


If we could pretend that all gameplay design was free and effortless, then yes, I would agree with you that there's no reason not to have a Tank spec for the sake of flavour and diversity. Unfortunately, that is not how Blizzard is designing the Evoker class, and why they even have to stipulate that a 3rd spec is only possibly explored sometime in the far future.

[Xath]

I'm not against it, I merely see it as being less feasible for them and more effort than they intend to put into it considering the nature of the entire design of the Evoker is built around Ranged and Spellcasting.

If you analyze the Evoker and Dracthyr design, they're actually built to be specific to spellcasting, and I would assume (personal speculation) that they did this to cut corners and avoid having to support animations or gear combinations that are expected of a class.

The Dracthyr is exclusive to one class, meaning it it does not need to support all animations for class combos like Monk animations or Bladestorm spinning. In fact, it has never been shown attacking with weapons at all. Being a pure spellcaster form, the Dracthyr has only so far been shown to attack with spells and fire breaths and wing buffets. We have seen zero melee or weapon animations.

So if they do go around and make any melee spec, they would need to put more effort back into the class. And they're definitely not doing so now, because they already are 'cutting corners' by making this race and class mutually exclusive, practically designing the Dracthyr as a literal NPC that does not need to support visual gear or armor or weapons at all. Like the Dracthyr combat form is effectively the Demon Hunter'a Demon Form, as a class; except designed with spellcasting in mind.

And if they want to add in Tanking, they could. But it's clear they don't feel the need to, and I think that's fine too. Know why they don't feel the need to? Because they have the same data that supports the very thing I've been explaining to you - that more Tank specs does not actually alleviate the demand for tanks. If it did, then of course I would support more tanks. But it doesn't actually do that in practice, and we know this because we had literally the past 3 classes all show how tank supply was not improved with the addition of 3 more tank classes.

The trend remains that even after adding 3 new tank viable options, the percentage of tanks overall remains at a paltry 14% of the player base, while Tank demand remains relatively high demand all around for all group content. That has never changed with the addition of new tank specs, and even if we look back at Cataclysm when Hunters, Shamans and Warlocks DID have viable tanking forms for mid level content.


Your own specific problem as a Pure DPS lacking Tank soec as a significant contributor to the overall tank supply problem is literally due to your own confirmation bias. Hammer solving nails problem.

All your arguments so far have been geared towards proving that you see the problem as a nail, even if its not a nail at all.


Tldr;. Evoker tank spec is unrealistic because Blizzard knows it doesn't solve the tank problem and they don't see Evoker as a tank class.

There is no way in hell they don't have weapon animations do you have any idea how much rage rp people would have if they couldn't do weapon stuff and there are rp folks at blizz. It doesn't solve the tanking problem but it will help it how much it will help is open to debate but it will 100% help it.

[Triceron]

There is no way in hell they don't have weapon animations do you have any idea how much rage rp people would have if they couldn't do weapon stuff and there are rp folks at blizz. It doesn't solve the tanking problem but it will help it how much it will help is open to debate but it will 100% help it.

You realize that no spellcaster has weapons visible in combat, right? You play a Mage or Warlock, so you already know 100% of your spellcasting is done by 'rubbing your hands' with your weapon completely sheathed.

And you realize that none of the Dracthyr we've seen so far have shown visible weapons or weapon-based combat, right?

[Xath]

You realize that no spellcaster has weapons visible in combat, right? You play a Mage or Warlock, so you already know 100% of your spellcasting is done by 'rubbing your hands' with your weapon completely sheathed.

And you realize that none of the Dracthyr we've seen so far have shown visible weapons or weapon-based combat, right?

You realize that people use melee weps in rp duels even when playing casters right?

[Triceron]

You realize that people use melee weps in rp duels even when playing casters right?

Yeah and none of those melee weapons actually show up during your spellcasting animations, which you're implying that RPers are raging about.

Like, why the fuck am I explaining this to you when you main a Spellcaster? You KNOW that you can't use weapons during your spellcasting animations already. It just gets sheathed.

And for Dracthyr, we haven't even seen any equipped or sheathed weapons.

I'm honestly not even sure what you're arguing against here. It's like you're arguing for the sake of arguing when I'm literally just pointing out what we've seen and know about Dracthyr. Next thing I know you're gonna flip your shit when I tell you we haven't seen the Dracthyr model display tabards.

[Xath]

Yeah and none of those melee weapons actually show up during your spellcasting animations, which you're implying that RPers are raging about.

Like, why the fuck am I explaining this to you when you main a Spellcaster? You KNOW that you can't use weapons during your spellcasting animations already. It just gets sheathed.

And for Dracthyr, we haven't even seen any equipped or sheathed weapons.

I'm honestly not even sure what you're arguing against here. It's like you're arguing for the sake of arguing when I'm literally just pointing out what we've seen and know about Dracthyr. Next thing I know you're gonna flip your shit when I tell you we haven't seen the Dracthyr model display tabards.

And I'm saying you wouldn't build a player character model and not include melee swing animations

[Triceron]

And I'm saying you wouldn't build a player character model and not include melee swing animations

I didn't say they don't have melee swing animations, I said we haven't seen visible weapon attack animations.

By all means, we haven't seen Dracthyr with visible weapons at all.

They could absolutely build a player character model and not include melee weapon animations because the Dracthyr form has been shown exclusively used for spellcasting combat, which could be implied to visually work like Vengeance Demon form or Bear form, both of which also do not visually display any weapons.

It's unconfirmed whether the Dracthyr model will have weapons visually displayed in its form, like Worgen, or be treated exclusively as a Spellcasting form that will not show any weapons at all. They could do either way considering Dracthyr are exclusive to one class.

[Mrbleedinggums]

I'd really love to see another Disc Priest style where it's a mix between dps and healing. Though with how min-max people are, I'm sure they would hate to have someone be able to utilize a bit of both.

[Xath]

I'd really love to see another Disc Priest style where it's a mix between dps and healing. Though with how min-max people are, I'm sure they would hate to have someone be able to utilize a bit of both.

That seems likely to already be the case with their current healing spec or at least seems likely since they have said it isn't pure greenflight.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say they don't have melee swing animations, I said we haven't seen visible weapon attack animations.

By all means, we haven't seen Dracthyr with visible weapons at all.

They could absolutely build a player character model and not include melee weapon animations because the Dracthyr form has been shown exclusively used for spellcasting combat, which could be implied to visually work like Vengeance Demon form or Bear form, both of which also do not visually display any weapons.

It's unconfirmed whether the Dracthyr model will have weapons visually displayed in its form, like Worgen, or be treated exclusively as a Spellcasting form that will not show any weapons at all. They could do either way considering Dracthyr are exclusive to one class.

This is just getting beyond troll at this point. You do not make a player character model that doesn't have full rigging. Even if they did something that monumentally stupid you could still do it like druid bear form and have them be a dragon which already have melee attack swing animations from the numerous bosses that are dragons.

[Triceron]

This is just getting beyond troll at this point. You do not make a player character model that doesn't have full rigging. Even if they did something that monumentally stupid you could still do it like druid bear form and have them be a dragon which already have melee attack swing animations from the numerous bosses that are dragons.

???

How am I trolling you when I'm literally describing what we've seen of Dracthyr so far?

If your argument is that they're gonna give em a Dragon form to tank, then yeah, they could do that.

But we know they probably won't. Cuz they said they probably won't.

[Dark-Zarupia]

Because dragons can fly and breathe fire, whereas bears can just bite and swipe things with claws up close.

If I'm a dragon fighting an ogre, I'm flying 50 feet above its head and torching it from afar. If I'm a bear, I have to charge the ogre and fight it toe-to toe. That's the basis of this; Blizzard doesn't view dragons as close-range fighters. I tend to agree.

Then by that logic shouldn't all dragons in wow be completely invulnerable.. If they could just fly all the time an breath fire on us.

It's just silly imo a dragon has scales, a tail and wings that could deflect lesser attacks. While a bear would just get stabbed by a sword.

For me this class has been wasted, i don't think it's because Blizzard sees dragons as range fighters, but they stated it that they already made the last 2 hero classes tanks so they felt like it was not necessary to turn the next one into tanks which to me sound absolute ridiculous.

They just decided to make it 2 specs only so they wouldn't have to put more effort into it, and that's sad.

Dragonflight has barely any new features, the new class and dragon flying(because sure that will be relevant with end content..), so the least they could do is polis the Invoker a bit more so that it would be accessible to all types of players, since the Invoker is the only real "new feature" in this expansion.

[Aydinx2]

They could have a 3rd spec that uses a bow with fire and earth magic.

That makes literally no sense. Why would they need to use a bow if they can breathe fire on their enemies? Or have claws?
A melee spec would make more sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard doesn't view dragons as close-range fighters. I tend to agree.

This is blatantly false. Almost every single dragon in the game is engaged in melee range and physically attacks the player (with a few notable exceptions).
And before you try to argue "that's for gameplay", it clearly proves gameplay > lore when it comes to dragon combat, meaning a Dracthyr melee is entirely possible.

[Xath]

That makes literally no sense. Why would they need to use a bow if they can breathe fire on their enemies? Or have claws?
A melee spec would make more sense.

- - - Updated - - -



This is blatantly false. Almost every single dragon in the game is engaged in melee range and physically attacks the player (with a few notable exceptions).
And before you try to argue "that's for gameplay", it clearly proves gameplay > lore when it comes to dragon combat, meaning a Dracthyr melee is entirely possible.

A melee tank spec makes sense a melee dps spec is just another spec that will go unplayed.

[Ghanir]

It does make sense for the more slender and feeble Dracthyr to be more attuned with their magical side, but as a people it doesn't make sense for them not to have some sort of frontline aswell.

When you think of ancient, indigenous people they generally have a lot of spear-throwers, dart-shooters and melee fighters while also having shamans or the like. The Evoker would be the shaman in this case.

[Unholyground]

That makes literally no sense. Why would they need to use a bow if they can breathe fire on their enemies? Or have claws?
A melee spec would make more sense.

- - - Updated - - -



This is blatantly false. Almost every single dragon in the game is engaged in melee range and physically attacks the player (with a few notable exceptions).
And before you try to argue "that's for gameplay", it clearly proves gameplay > lore when it comes to dragon combat, meaning a Dracthyr melee is entirely possible.

Because there needs to be another bow using spec and that could be interesting.