Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    That has nothing to do with the inadequacy or unacceptable traits of the class. That's a timing thing. That means they have approved the class, they're just waiting for the right timing. See how you're full of shit?
    Oh please, PLEASE provide any proof whatsoever that Blizzard have "approved the class"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teekey View Post
    It may have not been considered because it didn't match the expansion theme, etc. But we have no idea whether it was "rejected", and it's ridiculous to claim so absent more information.
    We do have evidence - it isnt in the game.

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Oh please, PLEASE provide any proof whatsoever that Blizzard have "approved the class"
    I can't. But you have no proof they have rejected it and you were the one who started this entire discussion with that claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    We do have evidence - it isnt in the game.
    For the last time, that's not evidence it's been rejected.

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by aevitas View Post
    I sort of liked spec identity, but in some cases it just changes classes too much.

    Class abilities should be the foundation, specs should further enhance the class to become whatever spec you decide to pick.

    Also too many classes can just do the same things now.
    I touched on this earlier, and agree completely. However, i believe it mostly comes down to the addition of Arenas starting this off, and then has been made FAR worse by M+. There was a time when certain specs had a really strong niche - ST, Cleave, Split Cleave, AOE, Sustain, etc. But with recent additions, and with pressure from the community, we have ended up with classes all feeling pretty similar. Obviously there are exceptions, and people always jump on those outliers and say "are you claiming a prot warrior plays EXACTLY the same as a holy priest?" which is obviously not the claim being made.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    I can't. But you have no proof they have rejected it and you were the one who started this entire discussion with that claim.



    For the last time, that's not evidence it's been rejected.
    For the last time, yes, it is - by the very definition of the word, thats EXACTLY what it means. The only way this is not true, is if no one at Blizzard is aware of the idea of a tinker class, and the discussion has never happened. See how that works?

    Either it has been proposed or suggested, but rejected for whatever reason, or, it has NEVER been discussed.

  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    I touched on this earlier, and agree completely. However, i believe it mostly comes down to the addition of Arenas starting this off, and then has been made FAR worse by M+. There was a time when certain specs had a really strong niche - ST, Cleave, Split Cleave, AOE, Sustain, etc. But with recent additions, and with pressure from the community, we have ended up with classes all feeling pretty similar. Obviously there are exceptions, and people always jump on those outliers and say "are you claiming a prot warrior plays EXACTLY the same as a holy priest?" which is obviously not the claim being made.

    - - - Updated - - -



    For the last time, yes, it is - by the very definition of the word, thats EXACTLY what it means. The only way this is not true, is if no one at Blizzard is aware of the idea of a tinker class, and the discussion has never happened.
    No, it's not. Just because I haven't asked that girl out doesn't mean I've been rejected.

    Once again, they could approve of the class, but not have the right timing for it to be released.

    You are completely wrong.

    Once again, rejecting is something like them specifically stating "We aren't going to do playable High Elves". High Elves have been rejected. Tinkers have not.

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    No, it's not. Just because I haven't asked that girl out doesn't mean I've been rejected.

    Once again, they could approve of the class, but not have the right timing for it to be released.

    You are completely wrong.
    So just to be clear, in your example, the girl is unaware that you would consider dating her, therefore you have not been rejected, as she is unaware of your intentions. In this context, that would mean Blizzard are blissfully unaware of the tinker class, and some peoples desire to have them added to the game. We both know this is not the case, therefore your analogy falls flat on its face.

    Interesting when things backfire isnt it?

    What you are trying to claim is that the girl knows you want to ask her out, but has always said "its not the right time, you dont suit my current phase, its not a good match" - REJECTED.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    So just to be clear, in your example, the girl is unaware that you would consider dating her, therefore you have not been rejected, as she is unaware of your intentions. In this context, that would mean Blizzard are blissfully unaware of the tinker class, and some peoples desire to have them added to the game. We both know this is not the case, therefore your analogy falls flat on its face.

    Interesting when things backfire isnt it?

    What you are trying to claim is that the girl knows you want to ask her out, but has always said "its not the right time, you dont suit my current phase, its not a good match" - REJECTED.
    No, she could be aware of my feelings and I just haven't asked her out yet.

    In this context Blizzard could be aware of the tinker class but it just isn't the right time yet.

    You are mixing up "Can't be done" and "Doesn't fit right now". Rejected is the first, not the second.

  7. #387
    Blizzard has said some things about going back to class identity vs spec, and I agree. But I also don't think they should just litter the spellbook with a bunch of useless abilities just to be like LOOK WE UNPRUNED!!! Like if they think that's what they want, it's wrong and if they go live with it in 9.0, we'll have to wait another 2 years before they fix it again in 10.0.



    This is my crude visual aid to explain how I feel on this topic.

    Left Side - Current Class Design
    Right Side - Ideal Class Design

    Current Class Design and Progression
    Imagine a new player. They see the list of 12 classes, and after some thinking, they decide on Hunter.
    Level 1 - You pick a class.
    Level 10 - You pick a specialization out of a pool of 3.
    Level 10-120 - A shit ton of levels with spotty predetermined abilities that usually seem like you get way too late... level 70 for an interrupt? 60 for a group buff? And the occasional talent choice.

    So currently, you pick your class and before you even fully grasp the breadth of what your class has to offer you're forced into choosing a specialization at level 10. They do this because each spec has pretty different mechanics and you need the core kit to play properly, so they package that up and offer it to you asap.

    The problem is, that's the biggest choice everyone makes for their character. It's made too early on, and everything else that happens afterward is either a small active/passive talent choice or an ability is handed to you. Kinda feels like shit.

    Then from that point on, you're looking at a gauntlet of pain and misery to grind out the remaining levels, and all you have to look forward to are about 7 choices of a single ability in each tier. Blizzard spoon feeds you your other stuff.

    Ideal Class Design
    On the right it's more of a natural branching form. You pick a hunter. You stay - just a hunter - for a while. Ideally this would have a foundation that includes properties of every other spec. And if you think of the baseline hunter as sort of a MOBA hero for a minute. It has a small kit of abilities that already work well together. That should be the core mechanics of the class that are fun. Then you get a little bit of Survival, a little bit of Marksmanship and a little bit of Beast Mastery to supplement the core "Hunter" mechanics. Let's say 9-12 abilities total make up a Hunter.

    You would stay a Hunter for at least a 3rd of the way through your levels. The abilities and talents you get up until this point would be the ones that are shared across all specs. Camo, Disengage, Traps (imo), etc.

    Then a major choice should occur at a point where you really have a grasp about what your class is. If the level cap is 120 in this example, let's assume the first major branching choice occurs at 60. And then even further specialization occurs closer to cap, maybe 100. You would still get minor choices up until that point, and you'll have 9 possible outcomes. BUT - because they are all built upon the same fundamental mechanics from the core kit, it should be much easier to balance. You aren't balancing 9 unique rotations, you're balancing the supplemental choices later down the road.

    For Hunter it might look something like this:
    Hunter > Beast Mastery > Dragon Tamer (can tame dragonkin)
    Hunter > Marksmanship > Dark Ranger (uses Shadow arrows)
    Hunter > Survival > Tinker (specializing in bombs and ammo)
    Hunter > Beast Mastery > Pack Master (3+ active pets)

    Each of these hunters will have a core kit that's fairly similar, but through supplemental choices can feel and play much differently. So Hunter will focus on what ability you use to generate focus, spend focus, a few CDs and some utility. Choices later modify those base items and customize utility.

    New Progression:
    Level 1 - You pick a class
    Level 2-59 - You pick 4 general Hunter talents. (4 rows) You'll also get abilities common to every hunter.
    Level 60 - You pick a specialization (Major branching choice)
    Level 61-99 - You pick 3 specialization talents based on your level 60 choice (3 rows) You'll also get abilities common to every hunter of your spec.
    Level 100 - You pick a subspecialization (Minor branching choice)
    Level 101-120 - You pick 2 subspecialization talents based on your level 100 choice (2 rows) You'll also get abilities common to every hunter of your subspec.


    "Spellbook Clutter"
    On the littering of the spellbook. Let's use Mage as example. I think if the Mage starts out with say: Frost Nova, Fireball and Mana Shield as part of their base kit, they can get a feel for each element and its properties, while each ability serving a unique purpose on your action bar. However, upon choosing a specialization, it makes sense Fireball would become Frostbolt or Arcane Blast, and the others change to fit as well.

    Mage Example

    Base kit includes: Fireball, Mana Shield, Frost Nova

    Fire Specialization: Fireball, Magma Shield, Blast Wave
    Frost Specialization: Frostball, Ice Barrier, Frost Nova
    Arcane Specialization: Arcane Blast, Mana Shield, Arcane Explosion

    This way the spellbook isn't just getting full of useless shit after you specialize, but the other abilities are recycled and replaced - customized based on your choices.

  8. #388
    The only BfA class identity is Demo lock, rest is Legion class identity.

  9. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    We do have evidence - it isnt in the game.



    I'm out. Good luck @DotEleven.

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Teekey View Post


    I'm out. Good luck @DotEleven.
    Yeah, honestly, I'm done with him. He's never going to get it but literally everyone but him can see and understand why he's so wrong, he just can't admit it himself.

    I mean, there's only so many times you can walk someone through why their logic is wrong before you just gotta save yourself the headache.

  11. #391
    I like spec identity when my spec has one. But Blizzard really didn't, and imo couldn't be expected to do great work on 36 separate specs.

  12. #392
    I liked it. I went from being able to find a few specs I enjoyed playing to 12 classes, none of which I have any particular feeling of connection to nor desire to play.

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    Then what's you're argument. Because you're arguing that Tinker was rejected because it wasn't in Shadowlands. That's the only thing making it rejected. Why wouldn't the other ones, with your logic that not being in Shadowlands means its rejected, means that others aren't?
    You are saying that other classes weren't rejected because they are not in Shadowlands. Arkanon isn't. Why do you need to lie to try and make your argument stronger? It's pathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven
    They didn't announce any other class in the Shadowlands announcement either. If Tinker was rejected because it wasn't in the Shadowlands announcement logic dictates all the other classes would fall in that same category as rejected.
    Yes.
    I removed your last sentence because it was added to prolong an internet fight based on the lie in the previous quote. It seems that only you are saying that other classes not included in Shadowlands, except, Tinker, have not been rejected. They all have.

    Tinkers are dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nizah View Post
    why so mad bro

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by ErrandRunner View Post
    Have faith in the Blizzard developers - they know what they are doing and have been doing it for a long time now.
    Yea and they've been doing such a great job with it in the past 4-5 years....lol *facepalm*

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by munkeyinorbit View Post
    You are saying that other classes weren't rejected because they are not in Shadowlands. Arkanon isn't. Why do you need to lie to try and make your argument stronger? It's pathetic.



    Yes.
    I removed your last sentence because it was added to prolong an internet fight based on the lie in the previous quote. It seems that only you are saying that other classes not included in Shadowlands, except, Tinker, have not been rejected. They all have.

    Tinkers are dead.
    No classes have been rejected. Just because it hasn't been added to this expansion doesn't mean they've rejected any class. Saying "We aren't adding a class this expansion" isn't rejecting a class, it's saying the timing isn't right to add one. They could have a ton of classes on the backburner they'd like to implement, but just need to wait for the right time for it.

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by gd8 View Post
    "class identity!!!" people are just parroting inane talking points they hear from classic youtubers and other forum posters, they're all anti-pruning yet scream for specs to be homogenized and made redundant all so that 36 unique play styles can be reverted back into 12. braindead logic
    You have a huge misunderstanding of what people are talking about on this topic.

    People want classes to be classes, and specs to be what that word actually is, specializations. So if you're playing a Warlock, you should have some basics that are always present, like demons, dots, and fiery destruction. Then, when you pick your specialization, like Demonology, your Demons and that aspect of your class are enhanced, but you're not losing your dots and fiery destruction. You won't be as strong of a dotter as an Affliction Warlock, and he won't have as strong of Demons as you, but you both have the basics. This example can be used with many classes, like Mages, you shouldn't lose Frostbolt because you chose to SPECIALIZE in Fire. You're not a Fire Mage, you're a MAGE who specializes in fire.

    You misunderstand the complaints about the classes and what people mean when they talk about homogenization. I'll give you some more examples. Classes are currently pretty boring, and they just feel...empty. The reason for this is that people cried "bring the player, not the class", so Blizzard made design decisions to make classes less unique. You saw it in things like Mages and Hunters getting lust, Paladins getting strong AoE heals, Rogues getting AoE DPS abilities. Hell, I saw a topic on here about a month ago or so of people really upset that Rogue AoE got nerfed, and that it was a "core" part of their class. It's amazing to me to read something like that considering Rogue had no AoE for what, four, five years? They had Blade Flurry (which was a 2 minute cooldown), and that's it until they got Fan of Knives in Wrath.

    I know a lot of people are going to read this and say "well, yeah, you should bring the player and not the class", but that's a bad way of viewing the game. I'm sorry if that hurts to hear, but it's true. Huge class stacking still exists. Guilds still do it all the time, so the goal wasn't achieved. We still have issues of certain classes just blowing ahead of the pack, and yet we had to sacrifice class uniqueness in the process.

    We keep going through this process where each class is given cool and fun abilities, and then the season ends and we lose. Yes, expansions are looked at as seasons now. You can see that in the design philosophy of each expansions big features (garrisons, class halls, etc). They build the game that each expansion they can do whatever and then after the expansion is over it doesn't matter anymore. They view classes the same way.

    The way classes are designed now is just depressing. If you're new(er) to the game I guess it's probably not even noticeable. I logged onto my Druid, who I made in Wrath, and it was so foreign. I had a mana bar but I really don't know why. I was spec'd Balance, and so many abilities that I had before are just locked behind other specs. I can't do cool things like before, like saving a group with a clutch Tranquility. Back to the mana bar though, I don't really know why I have one. None of my spells cost mana, the only exception is Regrowth. Regrowth costs mana and nothing else does, *and* it's now the only healing spell I have.

    It's hard to describe, and I probably didn't do a great job of it, but classes have been destroyed. You don't play a class now, you play a spec, and there's 5 other specs that can do the cool thing you used to be able to do exclusively, and now each class is just boring. Most DPS classes now are also "generator>generator>spender>generator>generator>spender" as the entire rotation, with a 3 min CD thrown in there. It just feels bad to play retail right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus
    A thread about how hard it is being a white dude is not really a reasonable topic.

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by Monoxide View Post
    You have a huge misunderstanding of what people are talking about on this topic.

    People want classes to be classes, and specs to be what that word actually is, specializations. So if you're playing a Warlock, you should have some basics that are always present, like demons, dots, and fiery destruction. Then, when you pick your specialization, like Demonology, your Demons and that aspect of your class are enhanced, but you're not losing your dots and fiery destruction. You won't be as strong of a dotter as an Affliction Warlock, and he won't have as strong of Demons as you, but you both have the basics. This example can be used with many classes, like Mages, you shouldn't lose Frostbolt because you chose to SPECIALIZE in Fire. You're not a Fire Mage, you're a MAGE who specializes in fire.

    You misunderstand the complaints about the classes and what people mean when they talk about homogenization. I'll give you some more examples. Classes are currently pretty boring, and they just feel...empty. The reason for this is that people cried "bring the player, not the class", so Blizzard made design decisions to make classes less unique. You saw it in things like Mages and Hunters getting lust, Paladins getting strong AoE heals, Rogues getting AoE DPS abilities. Hell, I saw a topic on here about a month ago or so of people really upset that Rogue AoE got nerfed, and that it was a "core" part of their class. It's amazing to me to read something like that considering Rogue had no AoE for what, four, five years? They had Blade Flurry (which was a 2 minute cooldown), and that's it until they got Fan of Knives in Wrath.

    I know a lot of people are going to read this and say "well, yeah, you should bring the player and not the class", but that's a bad way of viewing the game. I'm sorry if that hurts to hear, but it's true. Huge class stacking still exists. Guilds still do it all the time, so the goal wasn't achieved. We still have issues of certain classes just blowing ahead of the pack, and yet we had to sacrifice class uniqueness in the process.

    We keep going through this process where each class is given cool and fun abilities, and then the season ends and we lose. Yes, expansions are looked at as seasons now. You can see that in the design philosophy of each expansions big features (garrisons, class halls, etc). They build the game that each expansion they can do whatever and then after the expansion is over it doesn't matter anymore. They view classes the same way.

    The way classes are designed now is just depressing. If you're new(er) to the game I guess it's probably not even noticeable. I logged onto my Druid, who I made in Wrath, and it was so foreign. I had a mana bar but I really don't know why. I was spec'd Balance, and so many abilities that I had before are just locked behind other specs. I can't do cool things like before, like saving a group with a clutch Tranquility. Back to the mana bar though, I don't really know why I have one. None of my spells cost mana, the only exception is Regrowth. Regrowth costs mana and nothing else does, *and* it's now the only healing spell I have.

    It's hard to describe, and I probably didn't do a great job of it, but classes have been destroyed. You don't play a class now, you play a spec, and there's 5 other specs that can do the cool thing you used to be able to do exclusively, and now each class is just boring. Most DPS classes now are also "generator>generator>spender>generator>generator>spender" as the entire rotation, with a 3 min CD thrown in there. It just feels bad to play retail right now.
    No, he is right and you are wrong.

    I love that demo doesn't have any dots, fukken hate dots.

    Homogenization is buzzword and for me it means every class has everything. And peak of homogenization is classic where every class is mana based and some classes play exactly the same spamming one button.

  18. #398
    I've found that the majority of people who hate spec identity are the same people who play Hybrids; ie, Shamans, Druids and Paladins, whose identities are meant to be broad and they got pigeon-holed. I'm not going to say universally everyone else was content, but by far it was mostly those three who were understandably the most upset.

    Here I am, maining Mage, and I still don't understand why I should care that I can cast fire on a frost mage or arcane explosion on a fire mage. Shrug. I'm not excited because as a non-hybrid it simply isn't a feature to me. Its pointlessly dull.

    I get to add clutter I genuinely won't use on my bar. Y a y what an e x p a n s i o n feature that was totally worth an entire k e y n o t e.
    Last edited by Reivur; 2019-11-07 at 03:03 AM.

  19. #399
    At some point you people have to just stop engaging with arkanon. The guy is some sort of mentally handicapped, and by continually replying to him and giving him attention, you're just making him think he's actually making intelligent arguments.

    Just confine him to one of those replies everyone reads and then subsequently ignores because it's apparent he's on a whole other level of ignorant...

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomads View Post
    Spec identity turned 12 classes into 36. Who actually was against this? Were people asking Blizzard to give this up?

    I can understand some people not liking the identity Blizz chose for some specs, like losing 2H Frost or ranged Survival specs... but we gained a ton of replayability from it.

    Are we going to lose our 36 unique specs as a result of this "depruning"?
    Agreed. Never understood that. I understand that some classes feel a bit... bare boned... when i compare the action bars from my frost mage to my moonkin... glaring differences...

    But everyone wants a new class so desperately but at the same time wants the specs ( which are nearly classes at this point ) to feel the same? Why?

    I love how the specs felt different. It gives the spec more oomph. Like i am a druid an my life is completely devoted to healing why would i run around as a cat shredding stuff.
    Or i completely base my live around on the intricacies of shadow magic. But sure hear i shield you with light an because i feel like it take this glowing yellow ball to the face. Feel better?

    I would have liked to give the specs more identity. Like the different druid groups (claw etc.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    Yeah, honestly, I'm done with him. He's never going to get it but literally everyone but him can see and understand why he's so wrong, he just can't admit it himself.

    I mean, there's only so many times you can walk someone through why their logic is wrong before you just gotta save yourself the headache.
    But your logic is completely over the place. He has a logical path and nearly drawn it out for you AND even used your metaphor for better understanding.
    Bliz did reject it. For now. They can change their mind. But for now it is as it stands. Not in the game. So they decided against it.

Posting Permissions

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