Were there actually people who didn't like spec identity?

[Issalice]

I didn't like how the focus on spec dismantled so many classes to the point that some specs almost felt like a totally different class. One of my largest gripes with the game is the constant changing of classes, my pally hasn't been my pally for a very very very long time and I really miss it.

I'm happy to see them return more to a class identity over spec personally, I like the abilities that are going to be class wide, I think it's a good move.

[arkanon]

The problem is that we obviously know that's not true. In fact, it's been explicitly said that there's A LOT of factors that go into deciding whether a class will be added.

Im glad we agree - to this date, the Tinker concept has been rejected because it fails to meet the standard, or, 'factors' they use to decide if a class should be added.

[DotEleven]

See how that works? See how it fits the definition perfectly?

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?

[Teekey]

Im glad we agree - to this date, the Tinker concept has been rejected because it fails to meet the standard, or, 'factors' they use to decide if a class should be added.

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.

[aevitas]

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.

[arkanon]

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 - - -

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.

[DotEleven]

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.

We do have evidence - it isnt in the game.

For the last time, that's not evidence it's been rejected.

[arkanon]

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 - - -

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.

[DotEleven]

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.

[arkanon]

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.

[DotEleven]

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.

[ro9ue]

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.

[kaminaris]

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

[Teekey]

We do have evidence - it isnt in the game.

I'm out. Good luck @DotEleven.

[DotEleven]

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.

[Nadiru]

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.

[Alcsaar]

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.

[munkeyinorbit]

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.

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.

[Alcsaar]

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*

[DotEleven]

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.