Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Well, okay, but meaning remains the same, as a whole I talked about historical justice, that is, about base laid down by original devs themselves (they said so themselves, it’s classic).
    The issue with that argument is that uses a rather flawed design as basis.

    For example, all of those four enchants had pretty much one purpose:
    Increase auto attack damage.

    Outside of Enhancement Windfury, it was four times the same spell of varying reliability.
    Vanilla's design doesn't necessarily needs to be put on a pedastal in every case, sometimes it was just weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    it’s excusable for me to be mistaken in small details since I never played a shaman.
    This in itself is already hypocritical to begin with.
    You make here on massive sweep over people who actually play Shaman, tell them what Shaman is supposed to be and what the class should have, then flat out admit that you've never played one.

    If you would have played one, you could perhaps understand why Totems (especially Searing totem) are not to everyone's liking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Still main enchants were 4, 5th was added simply because they decided to promote nature theme separately
    No.
    It was added because Blizzard decided to make those weapon enchants attractive for Ele and Resto as well, where they've been useless.
    Flametongue gave some spelldamage bonus and earthliving +heal with a proc chance on a hot.

    If you believe that it's some thematical idea behind every new spell, you're just wrong.
    Earthliving was simply added because there was no healing themed enchant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    it's in some sence is true, but that was only the beginning, "WotLK-supports"
    In larger groups, that was irrelevant, because almost any buff was covered multiple times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    it puts you in predicament or distress, then this is your personal problem.
    Who talks about "distress"?

    Because i don't like something, doesn't mean i'm in a predicament or "in distress".

  2. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by xZerocidex View Post
    Spec identity wouldn't be so bad if they gave players interesting things that adds to spec identity. The problem is that they didn't.

    They took away stuff but gave nothing interesting in return for each spec. It was worse when BfA came because we no longer had artifact weapons to add to our spec.
    Well the weapon in Legion was part of the class design in Legion, and it gave us both active and passive abilities. The problem going into BfA however is how you describe, we lost all that and got nothing. Legion was just overall better because of this. Spec identity in Legion was that because of the iconic weapon and what they gave in regard to gameplay. We just lost some of that in BfA.

    Which is why I personally don't mind going back to more class stuff if it makes sense. If it gives it some kind of identity to the class/spec it's allright. If it improves gameplay, great!
    Horde bad, smash monkey. Who is a good monkey? You are!

    Let loot be loot.

  3. #463
    No Burst of Speed for rogues no hype.

    Simple as that.
    (Removed for Violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    The sane approach would simply be to
    A.Make a similiar statement like regarding stances, making it clear that said design is simply "outdated" and thus one shouldn't have major expectations.
    B.Update those spells that they have a modern design and are fun to use.
    Right. But I don't think they will do that. I think they will overreact, as they so often do, and shamans will have to spend a GCD before every single fight again to put up boring passive buffs/DoT.

    Re Burst of Speed, F YEAH. I miss that so much.
    Last edited by Schizoide; 2019-11-14 at 06:39 PM.

  5. #465
    Bloodsail Admiral Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Increase auto attack damage.
    That's why I talked about predominance of "passive + procs" gameplay for them in message you quoted before. It would be part of their gameplay, which gave them opportunity to free up time for "other" actions without making them completely useless in general. Everything normal with this part, what are bothering you so much?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    This in itself is already hypocritical to begin with.
    It’s not true, it’s rather on contrary - funny, because “these shamans” speak exclusively from “their own” preferences, while ignoring design as a whole. I don’t need to play shaman to understand design in general (especially when it comes to fantasy or fundamental mechanics). For the same reason, if, for example, I make design of concrete class, I won’t immediately become its master, it will be question of “technical adaptation”, but I still will remain fully competent within its design, won't I?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    No.
    This is unprovable on both sides, simply because it is.

    ...and they added 4th "shock" so that there was cheap interrupt that won't generate unnecessary threat, right? I can come up with many different reasons, theme of "class fantasy" didn't have any marketing significance before, now it does, it would be interesting how they introduced such changes now... maybe we will even hear it soon I don’t see any reason now to stir the air, think whatever you want, but I'll remain with my opinion about this part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    In larger groups, that was irrelevant, because almost any buff was covered multiple times.
    I already said, I don’t mind ... it’s only buff superimposed at group only before, not full raid, therefore eg. shamans were distributed according to their talents into different groups. Do you remember when they began with "full raid" such buffs? (nevertheless, except buffs, supports have much more work, that’s why they still found great use in PvP some time even after specified events (especially in mass ones), it was and remains, but here I should direct you to topics where we discussed it, still you already ignored them in previous posts, which puts me in some quandary) I don’t see what you're trying to prove here, I thought that we more or less agreed on this part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    don't like something
    I think that here is more likely some kind wander of translation, that's exactly what I meant - discontent, dislike, protest, desire to dispute
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2019-11-14 at 07:55 PM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  6. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    That's why I talked about predominance of "passive + procs" gameplay for them in message you quoted before.
    If a random damage proc is gameplay to, then i think you're just extremely easy to please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    It’s not true, it’s rather on contrary - funny, because “these shamans” speak exclusively from “their own” preferences, while ignoring design as a whole.
    If other classes aren't restricted as extremely like totems did Shaman, then yeah, that's an opinion formed by looking at the greater picture.
    If you just look on this one class and say "this is their identity" ignoring any drawbacks and looking what other classes have, you are ignoring the greater picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    I don’t see what you're trying to prove here, I thought that we more or less agreed on this part.
    Because it's extremely unlikely that Blizzard moves back to support totems, let alone permanent ones.
    Blizzard is already extremely picky with buffs (as we've seen with BfA, there are just three, five you include monk / dh debuff), they're not going to throw in a bunch support totems.

    Especially because as said, the concept is a support class has been dead since Wotlk and Blizzard hasn't shown much to change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    I think that here is more likely some kind wander of translation, that's exactly what I meant - discontent, dislike, protest, desire to dispute
    Then it just goes back to the original point.
    This saying is utterly nonsaying.

    If someone has a problem with something, they're not automatically wrong simply because someone likes it.
    I am aware of the fact that people have different opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    theme of "class fantasy" didn't have any marketing significance before, now it does, it would be interesting how they introduced such changes now... maybe we will even hear it soon
    You're reading too much into that.
    Because Blizzard primarily said, you won't lose spells when respeccing and they'll "de prune".

    On top of that, massive reworks have also been taken off the table.

  7. #467
    Honestly if anyone is opposed to class identity returning then literally just un sub forever.

    Regardless the feature itself, its one of the most screamed after, long awaited news the player base has been after. Never once did we see anyone making posts "No I dont want that". Now we finally have it every tom dick and harry is complaining
    Desktop: Zotac 1080 TI, I7 7700k, 16gb Ram, 256gb SSD + 1TB HDD
    Laptop: Zotac 2070 MaxQ, I7 8750, 32gb RAM, 500gb SSD + 2TB SSD
    Main Game: Warcraft Classic

    Haters gonna hate

  8. #468
    Y'alls interaction is actually funny bc shaman still have windfury.

    The whole idea of "buffing your melee attacks" is still there with flametongue and frostbrand. You know, enhancing yourself.

    Stormstrike was a 31 point talent and was your only actual melee attack, until they put in lava lash in what, tbc?


    And searing totem was always a horrible spell. An uncontrollable, stationary pet that did less damage than a warlock's imp. Sign me tf up

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rotted View Post
    Honestly if anyone is opposed to class identity returning then literally just un sub forever.

    Regardless the feature itself, its one of the most screamed after, long awaited news the player base has been after. Never once did we see anyone making posts "No I dont want that". Now we finally have it every tom dick and harry is complaining
    You haven't been paying attention then, but that's not surprising.

    OR WAIT, YOU WANT SENTRY TOTEM BACK HUH? Lmao.

  9. #469
    One big problem we used to have with to many abilities it confused ALOT of people so the skillcap was even wider. There are other ways to deal with class and specs. Just look now there people who cant do a opener or even brake 20k dps with current gear adding more spells will not improve that.

  10. #470
    It's not a skillcap issue really, the problem was many of those abilities acted as newbie traps. They would spec deep into the frost tree and then cast fireball. Why? Well, it's in their spellbook, so they felt like they should use it.

    I do strongly prefer spec identity to class identity. I like that Outlaw is a pirate, and Unholy is exploding DoTs, and Arcane is all about mana conservation, and I like that Frost Mage uses all frost spells and has the spec-specific icicle mechanic, all of those things make these specs feel special to me.

    Now if they add back class-wide abilities that we aren't supposed to use, well, that'll confuse newbies but it won't impact me at all so I'm cool with it. But like I've said throughout this thread, Blizzard always overcompensates with these high-level design changes, so I do expect a lot of the spec identity added throughout Legion and BFA, stuff which I personally really appreciate, to be lost.

    And I wouldn't be at all surprised if all three hunter specs are forced to blow a GCD casting Hunter's Mark on every single target they attack.
    Last edited by Schizoide; 2019-11-14 at 08:48 PM.

  11. #471
    Bloodsail Admiral Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    If a random damage proc is gameplay
    They shouldn't satisfy neither me nor anyone, just follow design, and this is our business how and what to be satisfied with, this is the point, have different ways. You still don’t want to understand this. This class had such "fantasy" (= game mechanics), another different one. That's all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    If other classes aren't restricted as extremely like totems did Shaman
    Other classes have other limitation and other design/mechanics = they have their own "totems". Insolvent argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Especially because as said, the concept is a support class has been dead since Wotlk
    And? still can't see what you're trying to prove to me... I'm not Blizzard
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    This saying is utterly nonsaying.
    No, they are wrong because they don't follow original design, but try to change it instead of adapting to it, try to object to its key points. So... his statement is completely consistent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    You're reading too much into that.
    I read as much as I want, especially knowing the “motivation” of their previous actions. They say one thing, show the second, and do the third. You can’t predict it. But still I have full moral and historical justification to discuss this in a such vein

    It's funny that roh doesn't understand difference between requirement to constantly update during the battle (to be part of rotation) and buffs, which occupies part of limited number of slots (= have to choose, but then be part of passive gameplay), between passive own buff about which you can forget completely since it don't required any you participation and buff that again take part of limited number of slots, but then still would be part of passive strategy... oh yes it’s a-a-a-all the same - this exactly stuff which is "buttons for the sake of more buttons", just to press-press-press and repeat, so that there is less time to think about others, and more about beloved yourself, so that hands be busy and head doesn't work.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2019-11-14 at 10:04 PM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  12. #472
    You people who keep saying fireball is useless for a frost mage.. that's the thing.. it's a mage, you specialize in frost, you're not a "frost mage".

    Plus it's the game design that evolved and you don't have frost resisting npcs anymore in game that forced you to use fireball. You do in Classic.

    Personally the spec has always been a stupid idea from Blizzard when they removed your "specs" to do the current specializations.. before you could have a pve and pvp spec, not a "frost" or "fire" spec. Those type of specs should be role related, not "spec" related.. your TALENTS should be what makes you specialize.

  13. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by Spotnick View Post
    You people who keep saying fireball is useless for a frost mage.. that's the thing.. it's a mage, you specialize in frost, you're not a "frost mage".

    Plus it's the game design that evolved and you don't have frost resisting npcs anymore in game that forced you to use fireball. You do in Classic.

    Personally the spec has always been a stupid idea from Blizzard when they removed your "specs" to do the current specializations.. before you could have a pve and pvp spec, not a "frost" or "fire" spec. Those type of specs should be role related, not "spec" related.. your TALENTS should be what makes you specialize.
    "your specialization is not how you specialize, thats what you use talents for"

    lmao

    prime mmo-c

  14. #474
    I just think it is a weird direction to then also use as a marketing item. It's just weird. Like who the hell asked for less spec focus and more class focus lol.

  15. #475
    Pit Lord Advent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Other Side.
    Posts
    2,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    No, they are wrong because they don't follow original design, but try to change it instead of adapting to it, try to object to its key points.
    That doesn't make them wrong. It's their original design, and they have a right to change it however they see fit. That isn't up to us. We can provide feedback to help guide the process somewhat, but we're basically passengers on this flight. We aren't the Captain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    I just think it is a weird direction to then also use as a marketing item. It's just weird. Like who the hell asked for less spec focus and more class focus lol.
    No idea, I actually enjoy the spec focus because I'm theory it allows them to deliver more nuanced game play. The problem is that without the artifacts, they've dropped the ball and turned nearly every class/spec into resource builder/spender play styles. Not everyone enjoys that. I think it is their job to diversify the play styles between specs. Arms and Fury for example, play almost nothing alike.

  16. #476
    Bloodsail Admiral Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,043
    Advent
    That doesn't make them wrong.
    They = players in this sentense, they asked to change something that didn't fit their playstyle, while all that was required of them was to adapt or find exactly what fit out of proposed options, there was broad choice, there is simply no such choice right now, but... if you yourself started talking about this. Even if they = devs, they're still mistaken because it was they who (by their indulgence/connivance?) brought situation to such deplorable state. So, again it's not true what you said, they are also wrong, because it’s just they don’t follow first/original design, no-no-no

    I understand that this is their game, so they can spin it round and round wherever (and don't care about originals, or rules, or players) they want bla-bla-bla, well, but they’ve twisted out to the way, that they turned in the end to opposite direction, so why was need to change working system after all? Greed? Incompetence? Spinelessness? I'm not to judge here, just point out how it was when it worked. Choice remains absolutely completely with them. You see, that I don't put any ultimatums, I just explain the way.

    By the way, all that we discussed with regards to “passive/procs” gameplay is relevant to paladins' mechanics as well, but it was implemented in a different manner: as mentioned in one of friend’s quotes I used before, they had (more reasonable than current, a little similar to that, shamans' "weapon buff" mechanics) mechanics of seals and judgments, and their “totems” were auras (but being simpler to use so had less "bonus part", that is, they had their own version of limitation). The only thing is that vanilla version was still quite crude in implementation (but not in idea itself, everything was good with original idea), they were developed further and everything fell into places. For the same reason, I recall here (in support discussion), good old range SV (dot~passive/procs so have time to control (assistant) gameplay = mechanics).

    ps. My ultimatums ended in new models discussion, in fact it still remains main and almost single "unplayable" key pretensions for me:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    The same mistake they made when they introduced new models into the game. Since they didn't become adequate replacement for old (they completely different), they had to organize it at least through customization system (which would be more adequate and fairer), but they didn't, which resulted in game abandonment for certain group of subscribers... like myself (I'd endure many different changes in game organization, but not this one, no way)
    - - - Updated - - -

    Thelxi
    I just think it is a weird direction to then also use as a marketing item. It's just weird. Like who the hell asked for less spec focus and more class focus lol.
    People have been since it all started, that is, for more than 3 (I wouldn't be afraid to even put 5 number here, but I just don’t have so old archival data to refer to it) years in a row already. And by the way, my congratulations to you about finally opened connection

    <<BACK | NEXT>>
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2020-01-29 at 06:53 AM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  17. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    I’m too lazy now to make any specific brain movements to write you something in framework of this issue, but this isn't necessary, because everything about it is in link from the quote, that you used (in fact, there is a discussion of this particular issue, that's friend's stuff). Quote of justice:
    - 01.08.2017 -


    - 02.08.2017 -

    It's about mechanics, as you can see, as for “stylistic” features, they didn’t exist, moreover, they aren't needed, because these are exclusively personal preferences of each RP-customization... or maybe players have become so poor on “fantasy”, that now without indication/limitations they can’t even choose anything on their own?

    <<BACK | NEXT>>
    You can switch Roll the Bones for Slice and Dice, even then rolling dice is also associated with gambling. Outlaw is not exclusively pirates. You have to use talents and transmogs to customize it into a pirate. Or are you suggesting they go back to minimalist animations and particle effects that are no longer visible in modern encounters?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post

    I played a Ret paladin in MoP actually, we were far from FOTM.
    But I'm glad to see that in your pursuit to justify your bitterness that you jump to assumptions.
    .
    If you exclusively played paladin you wouldn't have boasted about playing other classes earlier. Reading your other comments one can find irony in the tone of your posts.

  18. #478
    if they dont give me back my army of dead on my dk frost, the game is rip

  19. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by Razion View Post
    Power Word: Shield in Shadowform? Yuck. Frost Nova as a Fire Mage? Gross.

    Spec bleedover feels appropriate in a lot of classes for me - DK, DH, Paladin, Rogue, Shaman, Warlock, and Warrior. But classes like Druid, Hunter, Mage, Monk, and Priest I am a lot more picky about spec bleed over because for these classes specs seem so much more polarizing, opposite, or distinct from one another.

    Some of these are more egregious than others. Monks can follow Yu'lon, Xuen, Niuzao, and Chiji all at the same time, but to some extent it would feel very wrong to see yellow orbs or summon Niuzao as a Windwalker, y'know? It also feels wrong to me to use a ranged Serpent Sting as a Survival Hunter, when I feel like I should be using a melee Lacerate.

    Some abilities have great spec bleed-over and are just pure "fun". But some abilities can just feel so very wrong to use in certain specs, and I hope they keep that in mind.
    I completely disagree with everything you said. Imo it's beyond stupid that we forget how to cast basic spells just because we're specialized as a certain spec. As for Shadow Priests casting PW Shield: they're still priests. I know it's hard to remember with how they changed them to be old god wannabees in Legion, but it's the truth. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to cast their basic, essential spells. They could make a glyph to turn it purple for those that wanna go full void, but it's great that they're returning to class.
    change can't wait.

  20. #480
    Its a con, plain and simple. So they can say, "Look we listen to the players, yada, yada, yada, etc." If they really listen to players, we would have seen talent trees back with meaningful choices and no stupid filler talents. So the player can be really rewarded when hitting that next level. Nope, they just want to give classes a few spells back.

Posting Permissions

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