Anyone NOT that hyped for 'return to class'?

[Gungnir]

I've not played in a while (baring them putting back in a ranged SV hunter I may not) but you can still get schools of magic locked out too right?....

Yes. Which is always nice if you only use a single school of magic.
Arcane mage is a joy to play sometimes due to that.

PvP had too many tools, remember stuns? It's pure grieving. Stuns are unlikely to come back. The rest even less so without Talents rework (they mentioned it's changed?). They wanted players to specialize one thing in their class, not specialize in everything.

And yet I enjoyed MoP arenas over Legion/BfA by quite a long shot, as even though there were many stuns and movement abilities, you had a lot of tools to deal with such things whether be it through damage mitigation, avoiding it or self-healing.

They pruned back stuns and caster movement and CC capabilities, while melee still have so many gap closers that it's actually insane how much uptime they have nowadays. Outside of that, you just do a PvE rotation whenever you connect with an opponent, it's rather dull.

[Doffen]

They listened to the public and saw that a lot of people felt like they had too many buttons. So we basically got shafted by people unable to just ignore the abilities they don't use/don't want to use.

Citation needed. And now I can citate you, since they listened to the public, maybe the public didn't think class design in MoP was that great? Food for thought.

Where am I upset about this? Feel free to provide a citation.

I am not sure, why was the other poster you quoted upset? Why is everyone else not able to discuss this without you insulting them, while when we are like you the victim complex comes up at once? You throw a tantrum whenever we don't agree with you, I don't think a citation is really needed. This thread is proof enough.

And class/spec design do matter when it comes to gameplay, in fact the class and spec design dictates what the gameplay will be.

Citation needed. And not at all. Class design got jack shit to how gameplay will be. How abilities work with each other is dictating how the gameplay will be. A two-button spec can be awesome if the talents and abilities, being passives etc works well with each other. If a spec got 4 spec-spesific abilities, and 10 class abilities and none of them work properly with each other, gameplay will be shit. How can you not get that is beyond me.

If you design a class to be a heavy-laden, plate clad behemoth and compare that to something like a monk, the plate-clad behemoth will have a slower type of gameplay and flow compared to the monk.
Class and spec design are the philosophies they base the gameplay on.

Citation needed.

I mean.. as previously stated by Blizzard in regards as to why they decided to prune things for WoD, people were complaining about specs being needlessly complex and having a lot of buttons they didn't know what to do with, and might've confused new players.

Citation needed.

Feel free to provide a citation to where I've stated that.

Because you think MoP was the pillar of WoW when it comes to class design. And I think you have said it 2 times in the last 3 pages alone(shall I cite them?), and sorry to say, it won't be like that again.

I just want to play a class that feels good to play, I don't give a shit if it's strong or not. I've only been playing Survival Hunter in BfA since it's the only spec that feels somewhat complete and didn't get hit as hard as other classes from losing the Legion legendaries and artifact weapon, and Survival Hunter is far from OP in any way.

It's because with Survival they took away some abilities so it would flow better. Great huh? It's like we say, how many buttons you got doesn't mean jack shit.

I mean that's just going back to what we had from TBC up to Legion, which I also think is a good thing.
People seem to think that 'going back towards class identity over spec identity' somehow means that every spec will be EXACTLY the same except like two abilities, but it's far from that extreme.

Like WoD sure.

[bloodmoth13]

We're talking about baseline stuff here, not talents, that's a separate issue.


very poorly.

This literally hasn't happened since Cata.

I disagree entirely.



In many cases, it was.

Id rather classes designed with more selective but impactful utility than broad and non impactful, thats how you get homogenization

[Pigglix]

You know, I've seen tons of people ONLY using this specific example.
And I care, because I loved having the ability to throw an ability that cause ignite on rogues or druids that jumped me.

But sure, demonize me for unfortunately enjoying the fact that I had tools I could use outside of Patchwerk raiding, I truly apologize for my terrible transgression and I hope we can convince Blizzard to prune things down to Frostbolt and Ice Lance only, not having that pesky Blink or Time Warp on my bars because god forbid I have something other than frost spells there.
That would be truly awful.

Sorry, your fireball wont ignite shit if you're outside of fire spec

Man i cant really wait to start weaving those fireblast inside of frostbolts and arcane blast casts... will be so much fun!

And mop the peak of class design? This meme only started on bfa, mop was one of the most hated xpacks when it was current( i love the xpack, but not because of class design)

Im really affraid to go back to macro shit to unprun my bars and go back to the iwin single buttom macro.

Plus this talk about class identity really concern me because if they also start to use class identity to dictate wich class should do more dmg as default than others, thus bringing a hybrid tax 2.0.

Ill legit skip this xpack if that becomes true.

[bloodmoth13]

This is why most of the specs felt better in Legion than in a long time really. Specifically as a mage, going into depth of one spec is a good feeling. Can argue for druids and paladins having more class spesific spells for all, but as a mage, I really like that I am an Arcane Mage, not delving into the sub-schools of magic.

For that reason I do like paladin auras, ress dead for DK, Hunter's mark for hunters, cyclone for druids etc. Having fire blast as an Arcane Mage, not so much. Just feels off.

Some i wont mind, but if auras stay the same as they were then im not interested. If they raise the power but reduce rance to 10 yrds i might be interested.

[Anastacy]

Lore-wise specs don't exist.

So Lore-wise, pyromancers don't exist?

Or did you mean spec-swapping?

[Polybius]

Yes. Which is always nice if you only use a single school of magic.
Arcane mage is a joy to play sometimes due to that.



And yet I enjoyed MoP arenas over Legion/BfA by quite a long shot, as even though there were many stuns and movement abilities, you had a lot of tools to deal with such things whether be it through damage mitigation, avoiding it or self-healing.

They pruned back stuns and caster movement and CC capabilities, while melee still have so many gap closers that it's actually insane how much uptime they have nowadays. Outside of that, you just do a PvE rotation whenever you connect with an opponent, it's rather dull.

I'm not surprised, I'm sure you enjoyed FotM classes like Rogue, Mage, and Priest. Sucks to be on the same level as others now.

[Schizoide]

You know, I've seen tons of people ONLY using this specific example.

It's the most obvious one but sure, I'll bite.

Why do you care if your frost DK has Scourge Strike in his spellbook?
... if your marks hunter has Kill Command?
... your WW monk has Soothing Mist?
... your outlaw rogue has Backstab?
... your ele shaman has Stormstrike?
... your aff warlock has Incinerate?
... your fury warrior has Mortal Strike?

You should never use any of these abilities as those specs, so why have them in the spellbook? They're just newbie traps.

[Gungnir]

Citation needed. And now I can citate you, since they listened to the public, maybe the class design in MoP wasn't that great? Food for thought.

Aye, sure it wasn't, hence why they're going back to that philosophy with SL.

I am not sure, why was the other poster you quoted upset? Why is everyone else not able to discuss this without you insulting them, while when we are like you the victim complex comes up at once? You throw a tantrum whenever we don't agree with you, I don't think a citation is really needed. This thread is proof enough.

Where did I say that he was upset?
Where are you getting any of these things from outside of your own imagination?

Citation needed. And not at all. Class design got jack shit to how gameplay will be. How abilities work with each other is dictating how the gameplay will be. A two-button spec can be awesome if the talents and abilities, being passives etc works well with each other. If a spec got 4 spec-spesific abilities, and 10 class abilities and none of them work properly with each other, gameplay will be shit. How can you not get that is beyond me.

Ah yes, this is why they didn't actually design any classes in Vanilla, they just made abilities and used a dartboard to assign them.
Also it's specific*, just letting you know for future reference.

You also seem to say 'how you can not get that is beyond me' as if you somehow have an insight into Blizzard in order to be sure that they don't actually use anything resembling class or spec design. Funny isn't it, I somehow doubt that since they have been using the terms 'class' and 'specs' the last 15 years.

Citation needed.

Any plate class compared to any leather class since the start of the game.

Citation needed.

Look up the Blizzcon where they revealed WoD and the articles following thereafter.
There are also some later blue responses from mid Legion IIRC regarding it. I am sure you can find it yourself, you're a good boy.

Because you think MoP was the pillar of WoW when it comes to class design. And I think you have said it 2 times in the last 3 pages alone(shall I cite them?), and sorry to say, it won't be like that again.

You're right, I sure am glad we're still going to have Legion and BfA spec identity.
Oh wait..

It's because with Survival they took away some abilities so it would flow better. Great huh? It's like we say, how many buttons you got doesn't mean jack shit.

They actually revamped most of the talents to not be shit to deal with, I am sure you'd know this if you decided to compare the two.

It's a bit cute that I have a follower, but you're going to get into a fair bit of trouble by being this needlessly hostile and trolly, you're trying desperately to incite a response here bud.


------------------------------------------------

Sorry, your fireball wont ignite shit if you're outside of fire spec

It used to before they doubled down on spec identity.

Man i cant really wait to start weaving those fireblast inside of frostbolts and arcane blast casts... will be so much fun!

What?
You never, ever used a different element than the one you were specializing in when it came to raids, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

And mop the peak of class design? This meme only started on bfa, mop was one of the most hated xpacks when it was current( i love the xpack, but not because of class design)

Im really affraid to go back to macro shit to unprun my bars and go back to the iwin single buttom macro.

MoP was hated for the pandas, not the gameplay.
Secondly, after seeing the mess that WoD became, many people realized that MoP was in a much better state gameplay-wise and it's true.

Plus this talk about class identity really concern me because if they also start to use class identity to dictate wich class should do more dmg as default than others, thus bringing a hybrid tax 2.0.

Ill legit skip this xpack if that becomes true.

Again, I am not sure where you're getting any of this.
Hybrid taxes stopped being a thing in TBC and the game had class identity > spec identity up until Legion, and we had much better gameplay flow compared to the BfA iterations we have now.

[Doffen]

nonsensical bs

It's cute that you think we all agree with you, so you'll get disappointed when we are not. I guess everyone is your follower since they argue with you?

Citation needed, and you can't even do it yourself. Patethic.

You're right, I sure am glad we're still going to have Legion and BfA spec identity.
Oh wait..

We will, with a sprinkle of class abilities with some niches. It won't be like MoP class design, and thank god for that.

They actually revamped most of the talents to not be shit to deal with, I am sure you'd know this if you decided to compare the two.

I am sure that you find an excuse for everything that goes against you. They pruned Survival, and you thought it was better. Argument you use against class design in legion/bfa. Some times I think you are just messing with us, but I can't really say for sure.

[Dch48]

I don't think it's any big deal. I like how my toons play now.

[Vesoha]

I played wow since vanilla beta. A warlock and shaman at that, we had so many abilities, but in the end warlocks sacrificed their succubus and spammed shadowbolts, and Shamans used chain heal 80% of the time.

There will always be an optimal way to play in a certain encounter. Why shackle a spec, the good players will still find out what abilities are the right ones and everybody will have alot more fun not feeling forced to only use "the specific class fantasy" spells.

The real question is not what spells a certain spec can use, but how the talents will reflect the returned spells, if at all.

[Polarthief]

As I've played since WoW launch, I am DYING to get back to class identity rather than spec identity.

I agree, but...

The last two expansions since their whole 'spec identity' shtick has been the worst expansions thus far when it comes to class design and I don't think that's a coincidence.

I disagree when they actually put the time and effort in. With Artifacts and Legiondairies, it actually felt pretty good. The problem is when you remove all that for virtually nothing (AKA: Azerite and now shitty ass essences), it shows how shallow the base design is.

Bottom line: Legion actually felt pretty good, but without the artifacts and legiondairies, it would have been as shit as BfA. That said, I'm excited for class identity again, but I do hope the specs still feel varied enough.

Also: Just because a Mage has Fire Blast back doesn't mean non-Fire specs are actually going to use it. That's called "bloat" for a reason: It's unnecessary and should be an ability tied to the spec. Frostbolt, Blizzard, and Arcane Explosion however, I can all see being useful in different scenarios, but if any are too niche, they should just be put back on the spec.

[Gungnir]

It's cute that you think we all agree with you, so you'll get disappointed when we are not. I guess everyone is your follower since they argue with you?

Citation needed, and you can't even do it yourself. Patethic.

Who said I think that you agree with me?
With how angry you seem to be, in what universe would anyone assume that you would be in agreement with me?

And of course not, because it's easily found by a simple search.
You have fingers and the tools to find the information should you need it, not sure why it matters though since you can just look at the most recent Blizzcon and realize that Blizzard is moving away from spec identity.

----------------------------------------

I'm not surprised, I'm sure you enjoyed FotM classes like Rogue, Mage, and Priest. Sucks to be on the same level as others now.

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.

-----------------------------------------------

It's the most obvious one but sure, I'll bite.

Why do you care if your frost DK has Scourge Strike in his spellbook?

DK never had Scourge Strike.

... if your marks hunter has Kill Command?

Marks hunter never had Kill Command.

... your WW monk has Soothing Mist?

WW monk never had Soothing Mist.

... your outlaw rogue has Backstab?

Outlaw nor Combat ever had Backstab since TBC.
Backstab did existed for Combat back in Vanilla and were a very viable spec.

... your ele shaman has Stormstrike?

Ele Shaman never had Stormstrike.

... your aff warlock has Incinerate?

Affliction warlock never had Incinerate.

... your fury warrior has Mortal Strike?

Fury warrior never had Mortal STrike.

You should never use any of these abilities as those specs, so why have them in the spellbook? They're just newbie traps.[/QUOTE]

If you are going to attempt to use examples to 'prove your point', use ones that actually were a thing.
They aren't going to add THE iconic Arms ability to Fury for example, nor are they going to add any of those abilities to any of those specs.

You seem to misunderstand what they're attempting to do, I suggest you look up gameplay videos from MoP, Cata or WotLK to see what they're aiming to do rather than assume.

--------------------------------------------------------

I disagree when they actually put the time and effort in. With Artifacts and Legiondairies, it actually felt pretty good. The problem is when you remove all that for virtually nothing (AKA: Azerite and now shitty ass essences), it shows how shallow the base design is.

Bottom line: Legion actually felt pretty good, but without the artifacts and legiondairies, it would have been as shit as BfA. That said, I'm excited for class identity again, but I do hope the specs still feel varied enough.

Certain specs did feel pretty good, but as you said, when you remove those it's pretty clear that the specs themselves were very barebones and unfinished compared to previous iterations as they were contingent on those tools to function at a basic level.

I don't thnk it's a good thing for them to leave classes and specs feeling unfinished and hope that they expansion McGuffin they had will bridge the gaps so to speak.

I don't think you have much to worry about, specs will still feel distinct.
Hell, specs have felt very distinct ever since WotLK.

[derpkitteh]

I was talking about the player character, not most Mages.

Lore-wise, we are supposed to be in the story. And we can change specs.

well, that's simple. we're just that good.

that is the one way they show us being archmages, that we are masters of frost, arcane, and fire. but true archmages do like khadgar and use them all at once.

[Doffen]

Who said I think that you agree with me?
With how angry you seem to be, in what universe would anyone assume that you would be in agreement with me?

And of course not, because it's easily found by a simple search.
You have fingers and the tools to find the information should you need it, not sure why it matters though since you can just look at the most recent Blizzcon and realize that Blizzard is moving away from spec identity.

It's hilarious that you expect citation from others, but not from yourself, that in itself tells me that you are just pretending to be like this.

How angry I am? Shall I citate those outburst you have had everyone that disagree with you? I am sure you can google it. And they are moving away from spec identity yes, who said differently? Just not as much as you think they will. With no overhauls like they said on the same blizzcon(did you get that, maybe not?) it will mostly be niches which doesn't affect gameplay and the spec identity that much. For some reason, you got that in your head that they are changing it massively.

[Pigglix]

snip

Did you really played a mage? Because back then fireblast was like the 2nd highest priority button to push if you didint had a brain freeze/FoF proc

So as you can see, a single ability will disrupt a nice flowing thematicly rotation.

Another thing that trigger me is Kill Shot returning because that will either make hunters do shit dmg until execute phase or will make kill shot hit like a wet noodle.

[StillMcfuu]

"Unpruning" is a step backwards, so I hope they realize what they are doing and doing it right, I'm not super hopeful at this point.

[Nero Duskwind]

So does this unpruning mean rogues will get to stun with DW mace auto-attacks again? Because that shit was Ba-RO-ken!

[Alkizon]

Polybius
As a long time rogue I fail to see how Combat and Subtlety had any identity. Wow Combat rogues use two 1h weapons and specialize in parrying, so DEEP.

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 -

It was master of weapons, agile blade fighter (speed, passive bonuses, more health and surviving, less been controlled), somehow like old survival for hunters. And outlaw with pistols out of rogue class, because they shouldn't have stealth_mechanic+poisons+weapon_master - rather middle_range_fight+engenering stuff they specializing, BUT every rogue must have stealth+poisons+lock_picking+trap_disarming+melee_fight_prioritet. They aren't pirates, never were. By the way, classic rogues weren't so weapon attached, combat in this sense was even better then others - could specialised the weapon they more prefer the same way as classic arms warriors (like spec-in-spec, as gladiator+grip_fury warriors and fDK's part of the tree, which were a very good innovation), but transmogrification in some way killed sense in this cosmetic RPG-wise part of the game. Doesn't metter that you didn't like it; someone did. It just wasn't fit your style of play, so you could.. I don't know.. don't play it?

For the reference, about the 'classic-specializations':
Subtlety
- stealth (burst, bonuses, functionality), armor decrease, bleeds, mobility
Combat
- passive bonuses weapons+stats+energy_recovering+survival+face-to-face_combat
Assassin
- more energy, combat points generation and stronger crits, poisons
but mechanics (basic set of skills and abilities) for all representatives of the class were the same, because this is what class really means, and they could specializing a little in every direction and choose from the stuff what suit their style better, because this is what spec really means. So people who claiming that they were all alike are mistaken in the same degree as people claiming the similarity of old hunters specializations.

- 02.08.2017 -

I don't want to enter into polemics with you, because I generally like opinions, dialog is good, healthy dialog is what ActiBlizzard really need, but opinions should based on some more general arguments+facts and I already gave you some. It's absolutely not important whether you agree with them or not, like it or not, this how it works and that's -point on Celestalon- how not. Since you didn't bring them, I will try to bring the most significant of mine. Your opinion concerns only you, and you could play when there were some significant changes, could play incorrectly or don't understand certain moments. Therefore, my main argument is: I know at least 3 people who won't agree with you. They chose different as mains and they liked it, which means that everything suited them and they didn't want to change build. You know that I'm not wrong and people realy used and prefer different so they were different enough, this means I'm not lying and now you should try to beat it, could you? It's funny that in Pandaria, when mobility was extended to whole class, combat began used much more for PvP.
More examples of inconsistency of your reasoning:
(in fact, links are dead, but I think it’s not difficult to find these typical builds yourself)
- 15/31/5 daggers - <url>
- 19/32/0 swords - <url>
I believe, my friend, that you will say that they don't differ :} since this is the same 'spec', am I right? But they differ in a couple of significant points that will affect choice of race, preferred gear and abilities. checkmate. As you can see, classic combat because of these 'differences in combat that there were were awful' was one of the main choices in PvE <url> + <url> (funny comments, Киджи after 12 years still played with no information, because always liked it this way), because unlike brothers in arms, it was about 'combat', and not about 'tricky killing people'-outlaw..<url> With taking approach, on which you insist, integrity of the class will be violated (read earlier stuff for I don't want to repeat myself), even bigger problems with balance begin because of this, so balancing 13 classes is one thing, but 40 is quite another and many other unpleasant stuff. Formally this is just imaginary uniqueness. Build - that's what's important, and not different icons with different skill names (- these uniqueness in LK was more than enough without ruining classes). That's s-o-o unique:
<url> <url> <url>
- I insist in reading last topic to the end, it ended funny -

- - - snip - - -

Every rogue can be pirat, but not every pirate can be rogue - that the difference ;] Here you go (don't forget links):

But charm of the old talent-trees/approach to classes was just that they could withstand <url> the most unusual combinations <url>, but "new fancy" yet so narrow that consciousness is necessary to be huddle so much for fitting into this framework <url>

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 they can’t even choose anything on their own without indication/limitations?

<<BACK | NEXT>>