View Poll Results: What do you think?

758. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yeah, it makes sense.

    408 53.83%
  • Nah, it has to be a New Class!

    86 11.35%
  • Nah, it'll just be one or the other.

    141 18.60%
  • Nothing will be added in the next expansion.

    123 16.23%
Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ...
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Pandaren Monk Solzan Nemesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Where ever the Regent-Lord needs me to be
    I think magi should get necromancers.
    Last edited by Solzan Nemesis; 2013-01-27 at 04:45 PM.

  2. #122
    Titan Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Beach City
    Quote Originally Posted by dokhidamo View Post
    I want you to think about how the arcane can heal. Or how stealth can take large amounts of attention and aggro.

    You probably think Blizz doesn't care about lore, but they do.
    Mages already can heal themselves via Arcane. There's the glyph of Evocation, there's Temporal Shield, and there's Alter Time. The latter two have healing components in them. Temporal Shield especially.

    Temporal Shield:
    Envelops you in a temporal shield for 4 sec. Damage taken while shielded will be healed back over 6 sec. This spell is usable while stunned, frozen, incapacitated, feared or asleep, and is not on the global cooldown.
    Alter Time:
    Alter the fabric of time, causing the caster to return to their current location, health, mana, buffs, and debuffs, when cast a second time, or after 6 sec.

    Effect negated if the caster dies within the 6 sec before the effect occurs or moves too far away.
    See the connection? There's no reason why Blizzard couldn't expand the concept of Temporal Shield and Alter Time into a full healing spec.

  3. #123
    I wouldn't mind Mages getting a Necromancy spec (Kel'Thuzad was a mage!) with lots of temporary pets, if it wasn't for the fact that they already have three caster DPS specs
    Adding a fourth is just a bit pointless

  4. #124
    I'd probably say yes to new models, no to fourth specs on a basis of practicality. Blizzard might like to do them, but it would take a lot of work to do. I would personally rather they improve the talent system beyond what it is at the moment.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  5. #125
    This, like everything else, has up- and downsides. The main issue I see is that 9 more specs would be pretty overwhelming to implement, and if they chose to keep some DPS pure and give some other hybrid specs (warlock/hunter | mage/rogue in your example concept), there'd be a huge community backlash from people considering it unfair that *their* class wasn't put in either camp. While everything a company like Blizzard does can cause controversy, changing existing classes around would risk causing an extreme amount.

    On the other hand, I really love the concept. Funnily enough, as a druid player it wouldn't even affect my main, but still. I especially enjoy the idea of making rangers and demon hunters specialization choices of existing classes rather than classes of their own. It makes a lot of sense. While we can only speculate about what actually does happen at the very least until Blizzcon'13, I personally would really like this in implementation.
    PvE:er to the bone. Plays a druid. Also plays DotA and a whole bunch of other stuff. Listens to mostly everything.
    "We actually contracted out the creation of the equally-epic-yet-non-loot-dropping-non-boss mobs in Throne of Thunder to a giant snail. I think he did a pretty good job."
    - Blue Q&A

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Fooicus View Post
    This contradicts the rest of your post.

    For fairness, if blizz made your suggested changes, it would have to be spread out among all classes. Otherwise, inc massive WoW player base tantrum :P
    How so? It is an exception to the other specs. An exception isn't the same as a contradiction. All it'd say is "druid is an extremely versatile class." It'd fix also the massive balance issues Blizzard has now, allows them to toss some of these horrible "half done" or broken specialisations. Heck some you could put back as talents.

    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    That's not true at all. Support specs exist in other games and could exist in this game as well. If your dps is "too good", it just means your healing output is also good. Then they can start tuning raid encounters around needing support classes, just like Rift does.
    Enrage timers would like a word with you.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 06:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Aciaedius View Post
    This, like everything else, has up- and downsides. The main issue I see is that 9 more specs would be pretty overwhelming to implement
    10 more specs; ie. all classes except druids (ie. 11 - 1 = 10).

    FWIW, I still don't like this idea at all, I rather see effort put in class redesign on my class than a 4th class. Sometimes, less is more.
    Last edited by lolalola; 2013-01-27 at 05:40 PM.
    "When i am done with you, you won't trust your own mind."

  7. #127
    Pandaren Monk Solzan Nemesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Where ever the Regent-Lord needs me to be
    Quote Originally Posted by Imnick View Post
    I wouldn't mind Mages getting a Necromancy spec (Kel'Thuzad was a mage!) with lots of temporary pets, if it wasn't for the fact that they already have three caster DPS specs
    Adding a fourth is just a bit pointless
    We could keep them pure. I see no problem.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Solzan Nemesis View Post
    We could keep them pure. I see no problem.
    The problem is that they haven't even managed to get 3 specs competitive with each other

  9. #129
    I don't know about adding a full-fledged 4th spec to all classes. Most of the suggested specs seem like rather small niches that straddle two/three of the current classes.

    I would rather see Blizzard addressing some of these niches by adding an additional level to the talent tree (or to the glyph ui) that let you form an augmentation (akin to a druid's symbiosis, but more complex than simply sharing one spell) between one max level character and another and blur the class lines in some way. For example:

    A max lvl hunter could choose to be augmented by her max lvl rogue - wherein she would gain the ability to dual wield crossbows and lose her pet.
    A max lvl DK could gain additional ranged abilities if they chose to augment from a max lvl caster, while forfeiting some of their snares or other utility.
    A mage augmented with a priest might have a temporal shield placed on allies equal to the number of enemies she freezes in her frost nova.
    Last edited by Dispersedshadow; 2013-01-27 at 06:34 PM.

  10. #130
    I really do like the idea, but I don't know if it's something they'd spend the resources on. It would make the old classes fell fresh, especially if they rework some of the older specs along with adding the new ones. I would love to see the 4th spec unlockable only through an epic quest line, only availble at max level. I know some people would qq because they couldn't start a toon with that spec, but it would be a nice way to reintroduce class specific quests for everyone. Plus, it would also give max level players a sense of accomplishment because its a spec that they earned. It's probably a pipe dream, but I've always loved class specific content.

  11. #131
    Titan Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Beach City
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    The Runemaster class is pretty poorly defined. Exactly what niche do you expect them to fulfill?
    A rough idea would be to have a spec where DKs are capable of empowering their runes (Blood, Unholy, and Frost) to such a point that it enhances both their Runes, and the spells associated with those Runes. For example, if a DK decides to empower his Frost rune, all of his Frost based abilities would be enhanced, and he'd get a couple of new ones. This would make the DK a psuedo-caster. Wearing INT Plate could also work, making this a nice counterpart to the Shockadin 4th spec. However, DKs already do solid spelldamage without INT, so that probably wouldn't be necessary.


    Spell: Empower Frost Runes

    Empowers your Icy Touch, and Chains of Ice abilities. In addition, you gain the ability Frozen Armor and Freezing Breath.
    Your weapon is imbued with the power of the Frost Rune, dealing frost damage, and granting your weapon attacks a 10 yard range.
    Reduces the cooldown of your Frost Runes. Lasts x minutes.
    Icy Touch because Ice Nova (an AoE nuke just like Frost Nova from WC3)
    Chains of Ice= Basically traps a target in ice. This ability would have a cast time and a CD.
    Frost Armor= Just like the WC3 ability.
    Freezing Breath= Conal blast of frost damage. Similar to Cone of cold, just quite a bit stronger. Could even apply some sort of status effect.

    There would also be an Empower Blood Runes, and an Empower Unholy Runes. They couldn't all be used at once.

    There would also be Runic-based abilities specific for the spec, as well as something dealing with Death Runes.

    Sample abilities:

    Shield of Runes
    1 Rune
    Covers the caster in magic runes, absorbing up to X damage. If X damage is absorbed, this damage in converted into a powerful burst of energy, increasing the caster's damage by X% for 15 sec.

    Rune of Power
    1 Rune
    40 yard Range
    1.5 sec cast
    Summons a Rune of Power under a random friendly target. This rune increases damage by X% of all friendly and enemy targets within 5 yards. Lasts 1 min. Only one Rune of Power can be summoned at a time per DK.

    Rune of Death
    X Runic Power
    40 yard range
    Summons a Rune of Death at a random enemy target's location. This rune deals X Shadow damage every half-second to anyone within X yards of that location.

    Runic Presence: Increases the range of your empowered abilities by 5 yards. Increases spell power and attack power by X%. Increases your maximum amount of Runic power by 20.

    (Thank you Runemaster Molgeim!)

    Again its rough, but I like it better than Necromancers for DKs. And of course, the Empower UH Runes could work like a mini-Necro spec anyway.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-01-27 at 07:40 PM.

  12. #132
    I am Murloc! Conscious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    South Boston, MA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flaks View Post
    WoW needs some real innovation in the gameplay department. I was never for this before but I'm 100% behind the idea now.
    I second this, besides I'm fairly sure this would freshen the feel up. Only thing I'm concerned with is how well they'd be implemented.

  13. #133
    My buddy and I were talking about this the other night, and we both think if they do anything they will be adding a new class, not 4 trees across the board. Mainly that was because it just seems like much less work to come up with three specs total, and then the stuff the class is based around than it would be to come up with an extra spec for every single class.

    The other issue is while I think some would be very easy to come up ( mainly the pures), the hybrids would be a bit more difficult to imagine without getting into some silliness.

    I could see adding a tanking tree into Shaman, healing tree for mages, tank tree for locks, tank or healer for hunters, tank for rogue, etc.

    The problem for me is when you get to say Paladins. We though up a DWing Ret pally of sorts with more of a SM monk feel, or a ranged Pally build, but that border lines on Disc Priest in a lot of way.

    The same goes with Priests. I cant see adding a tank tree or melee tree ( basically a Paladin then) and Disc is already kind of a Holy DPS tree. I mean they could add a Holy DPS tree but it just seems like it would steal some of Disc thunder.

    Then you get into the money aspect of it. Its alot more exciting for people to see " new class" than it is to see " same class with new trees".

    I honestly don't care one way or the other, but I think we will see another new class before we see across the board 4th trees.

  14. #134
    I prefer the Character models to a new class personally.

  15. #135
    I am Murloc! Khaza-R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Darkside of the Moon
    I don't believe that new models are sufficient expansion material. New models should be something Blizzard is updating to keep the game relevant. Its not new content, and it should never be a primary selling point of an expansion. See Cataclysm for what happens when you do that.

    As for 4th spec. I can see certain instances where this would easily work, while still keeping the classes unique and interesting. I think splitting Demonlogy and Demon Hunting into two trees is the best example of this. On the other hand though, it could also be a huge problem if this just would homogenize the classes even more. Which is something we don't need. Adding a ranged rogue, or melee mage doesn't really add anything to the game. Its just repeating more of the same.

  16. #136
    4th spec is a bad idea, a step in wrong direction. Blizzard already made a mistake when around Wrath players stopped being "classes", and became "specialisations".

    For me, this should change, this is a totally outdated system. Warrior should be simply a warrior. He should be able to tank or dps, your call, but for each fight he prepares to do a certain role - so if he tanks, he cannot dps meanwhile. Mechanics used in whatever he is doing are just "warrior" mechanics and abilities, so he is not stripped from some skills when changing spec. Priest should know both Shadow and Holy magic, and be able to both DPS and heal, but if their role is "to heal" they don't have time to DPS anyway. Each player should make his own specialisation, not choose one of premade.

    For me - no specialisations at all, and more classes, to make things more bright. I feel it would be easier to balance than doing those gimmicks between specs.

  17. #137
    Scarab Lord foxHeart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Inside Jabu-jabu's Belly
    10 more specs instead of 3 new specs? Not ever going to happen. lol

    I can see player models maybe having an effect on whether or not we get a new race, but who knows. Also, I think wow races are just about at critical mass, anyway. Unless they want to give us furbolgs and ogres next expansion......
    Look! Words!

  18. #138
    The Lightbringer Uzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    I've always been a fan of this idea and hoped for it all the time.

    My favourite class is the Hunter so I most thought about that, and what I would do with hunters is this:
    Marksman - Pure ranged weapon DPS, no pet
    Beast Mastery - Tanking through pets - make it possible to switch control between the pet and the Hunter, add threat channeling abilities between Hunter and pet
    Survival - Make this an "old hunter" spec, add a few melee abilities AND a deadzone, let him shoot only from small range but not from melee.
    Ranger - Ranged DPS with pet

    Although these changes are probably too big to ever take place.

  19. #139
    Stood in the Fire Zarintha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Carmarthen, Wales, United Kingdom.
    I'd prefer just to have the updated player models with better customisation than anything else. I know they said they're updating the models, but I still would prefer to be able to have more customisation like height/face etc.

  20. #140
    I can see Blizzard adding more specs to the current classes. It makes sense especially with the new talent system. I don't see them adding 10 new specs all in 1. It would take them 3 expansions to balance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts