Potential Class Hype

[Teriz]

Warlocks in WoW being Necromancers.........Yeah the watered down baby in diapers version. If warlocks in wow are suppose to be the necromancers that everyone is screaming for then i see why the game is going in the direction that it is these days.

People don’t want a Necromancer, they want their warped view of a Necromancer. By any metric, the Death Knight is a Necromancer.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Considering the fact that they will water down the specs in the name of class fantasy, I see no reason why they wont add more classes.

Tinker, mail wearer, is my hope.

[dcc626]

Considering the fact that they will water down the specs in the name of class fantasy, I see no reason why they wont add more classes.

Tinker, mail wearer, is my hope.

we can have this chat again in 2 years before they announce the next xpac, because nothing is happening until then.

[Queen of Hamsters]

we can have this chat again in 2 years before they announce the next xpac, because nothing is happening until then.

Duh?

Doesn't mean one can't speculate and voice wishes. They read these forums, fyi.

[Aggressive]

People don’t want a Necromancer, they want their warped view of a Necromancer. By any metric, the Death Knight is a Necromancer.

I am not harping on the Death Knight class at all when I say this, But I don't even see them as Necromancers. I guess playing different games, reading comics have made me want a darker version of necromancer. I guess the closest of a necromancer class I have ever had fun with was in Rift with the necromancer talent tree. Now, to me, that was a fun version of a necromancer. Talent tree was loaded with nasty ass spells, STD's, and was just plain fun. Warlock spells om wow are stale and boring. And as for the death knight, I don't know much of that class, but what little I played did not do much to satiate my desire for a Necromancer

[Teriz]

I am not harping on the Death Knight class at all when I say this, But I don't even see them as Necromancers. I guess playing different games, reading comics have made me want a darker version of necromancer. I guess the closest of a necromancer class I have ever had fun with was in Rift with the necromancer talent tree. Now, to me, that was a fun version of a necromancer. Talent tree was loaded with nasty ass spells, STD's, and was just plain fun. Warlock spells om wow are stale and boring. And as for the death knight, I don't know much of that class, but what little I played did not do much to satiate my desire for a Necromancer

Your post pretty much illustrates my point; You desire a Necromancer from a completely unrelated game. Any WoW Necromancer is going to thoroughly be a Warcraft Necromancer.

[Triceron]

Warlocks in WoW being Necromancers.........Yeah the watered down baby in diapers version. If warlocks in wow are suppose to be the necromancers that everyone is screaming for then i see why the game is going in the direction that it is these days.

No, you misunderstand.

Tinkers aren't Druids, Bards aren't Priests and Warlocks aren't Necromancers.

Class skins are new class identities that would draw core gameplay from an existing class, but for a completely different theme and identity. Talents would be where any distinct class abilities would separate them from the core class they are based on.

So while a Neceomancer would be based on Warlock's gameplay (ie Reskin), they would have unique talents that allow them to better fulfil the Necro gameplay, like having skeletal summons, being able to spread plague and poison, and using life drains, all while using the core caster/summoner gameplay of a warlock. Talents could provide any necessary modifications to make it balanced, while adding much needed flavour. If Death Knight has talents to add a ranged pet to hos summons, then arguably the same can work for adding melee minions to a modify the Wild Imps ability. This opens many more options to play a summoner variant than just being pure copy-paste diaper baby Warlock.

[Saltysquidoon]

Class skins are new class identities that would draw core gameplay from an existing class, but for a completely different theme and identity. Talents would be where any distinct class abilities would separate them from the core class they are based on.

So while a Neceomancer would be based on Warlock's gameplay (ie Reskin), they would have unique talents that allow them to better fulfil the Necro gameplay, like having skeletal summons, being able to spread plague and poison, and using life drains, all while using the core caster/summoner gameplay of a warlock. Talents could provide any necessary modifications to make it balanced, while adding much needed flavour.

If there are gameplay differences then it's not a skin, it's a shittily implemented new class.

It would also be a balance nightmare; Imagine if necro was better then warlock, how would afflocks feel knowing 'plague' necro not only out performs them but outperforms them using their gameplay.

[Triceron]

If there are gameplay differences then it's not a skin, it's a shittily implemented new class.

It would also be a balance nightmare; Imagine if necro was better then warlock, how would afflocks feel knowing 'plague' necro not only out performs them but outperforms them using their gameplay.

Talents are already weighed accordingly within each spec and aren't q balancing nightmare at all. You could make the same argument right now about people picking any class over another because of balance reasons, no matter what you can't stop people from playing fad of the month classes. People still pick races based on Racials, after all, yet it didn't make Allied Races a balancing nightmare.

At some point you gotta realize this is already how WoW plays, and its never been a truly balanced game, but what this does achieve is the flexibility of opening more options without majorly affecting overall balance. The numbers for raiding and PVP can be controlled, and talents wouldn't necessarily deviate beyond the threshold that exists right now within classes and specs

[Saltysquidoon]

Talents are already weighed accordingly within each spec and aren't q balancing nightmare at all. You could make the same argument right now about people picking any class over another because of balance reasons, no matter what you can't stop people from playing fad of the month classes. People still pick races based on Racials, after all, yet it didn't make Allied Races a balancing nightmare.

You missed the point of what I said; If an aff lock and a 'plague' necromancer play exactly the same before you factor in talents and then talents make the necromancer better then the lock then there will be problems.
There's a difference between ret being better the affliction for a patch and affliction mk2 being better then affliction. You can't honestly believe there won't be an uproar if blizzard makes a 'skin' that is just warlock (but better).

If these class skins play differently to the class they're based on before talents, then it's just a shitty lazy way to implement new classes.

Skins would have to be all or nothing, they're either purely cosmetic or they're not skins.

[Shiza]

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this. After Shadowlands and the realignment of the DK as the Necromancer class in WoW, the thought of a Necromancer class should be dead (no pun intended).

Not really. If we look at unpruning, Covenants, Torghast and race customization, it is more than likely that this drew ressources away for a new class. After all, Blizzard should have known that people would have expected a class, any class. This kinda feels like a WoD Situation, where they did the model updates and so we didn't got anything new. I think a Necromancer is by far more likely than a Goblin and Gnome styled Tinker class, simply due to past experiences. Dark themed hero classes were always rather successful so far, while the light-hearted whimsical monk who was styled after an utterly unpopular race just failed to gain any traction, no matter how overpowered the class ended up being. Gnomes ended up being utterly unpopular, Goblins ended up unpopular, Pandaren and Monks ended up unpopular, Mechagnomes ended up being really unpopular. You have so far no arguments how a Tinker class would be a popular option for the actual community outside of polls on an inofficial forum for people who more likely than not got banned from the official ones and which has proven itself to have an disproportional presence of loud gnome fanboys, who make up one of the smallest minorities inside the actual class.

It doesn't even really matter if it ends up being a necromancer, a dark ranger or like anything else which is either dark or has an epic feel to it, inside the actual game all of them would be more popular than the whimsical joke class that is according to your vision only available to the most unpopular of core races. But then again, entitlement doesn't cares about facts in some people.

[Aggressive]

No, you misunderstand.

Tinkers aren't Druids, Bards aren't Priests and Warlocks aren't Necromancers.

Class skins are new class identities that would draw core gameplay from an existing class, but for a completely different theme and identity. Talents would be where any distinct class abilities would separate them from the core class they are based on.

So while a Neceomancer would be based on Warlock's gameplay (ie Reskin), they would have unique talents that allow them to better fulfil the Necro gameplay, like having skeletal summons, being able to spread plague and poison, and using life drains, all while using the core caster/summoner gameplay of a warlock. Talents could provide any necessary modifications to make it balanced, while adding much needed flavour. If Death Knight has talents to add a ranged pet to hos summons, then arguably the same can work for adding melee minions to a modify the Wild Imps ability. This opens many more options to play a summoner variant than just being pure copy-paste diaper baby Warlock.

I got you. Now I understand what you mean. Just not sure we will ever see that. As most of the time even though some people in the game want Necromancers, some do not, and some claim we should never ever get new classes any more as Blizzard needs to balance the game better before administering another class. But then the question pops up to what is "Balance" in this game, but that is another post all on its own.

[Shiza]

You missed the point of what I said; If an aff lock and a 'plague' necromancer play exactly the same before you factor in talents and then talents make the necromancer better then the lock then there will be problems.
There's a difference between ret being better the affliction for a patch and affliction mk2 being better then affliction. You can't honestly believe there won't be an uproar if blizzard makes a 'skin' that is just warlock (but better).

If these class skins play differently to the class they're based on before talents, then it's just a shitty lazy way to implement new classes.

Skins would have to be all or nothing, they're either purely cosmetic or they're not skins.

Only that they likely wouldn't play exactly the same, as Blizz, if something, at least has proven that it can make all specs feel differently. Demon Hunters and Monks are rather similar in theory, yet they play rather differently. The same with every class which uses some form of combo-points. Hell, Blizz has even past incarnations of both affli and shadow priests from which it can draw inspiration in terms of creating a new dot spec. All we know in the end is, that a whimsical light-hearted class styled after an unpopular joke race will probably not draw the attention of the actual player class as we have seen this experiment before and that Blizzard would likely do better by introducing anything, no matter what, which is at least dark instead of a class which panders towards the smallest minority of the playerbase.

Tinkers are like the idea of introducing anarchism just because a small minority online is really outspoken about wanting it.

[Kyphael]

I'd be interested in hearing how you would adapt Outlaw Rogue as Bard. What abilities do you think would cross over well? I'm not too well versed in Outlaw's gameplay, so I'm intrigued what you have in mind

I'm not the best at conceptualizing abilities, but I did post a Bard concept thread and it had a battle system relying on beats, similar to combo points. The Bard is similar to a rogue/thief, so I'd just prune out the abilities dealing with guns and give it to Assassination, and have the spec specialize in "axes", fashioned after guitars, and even off hand harps for buffs and healing spells. It could be like the Discipline Priest where it can deal damage while also buffing and some support healing.

[Teriz]

If there are gameplay differences then it's not a skin, it's a shittily implemented new class.

It would also be a balance nightmare; Imagine if necro was better then warlock, how would afflocks feel knowing 'plague' necro not only out performs them but outperforms them using their gameplay.

Agreed. Any time you add new talents or abilities balancing will come into play. As you said, it stops being a reskin and becomes a shitty new class. What's worse, what happens when a new expansion rolls in and the base class gets new abilities. Is the class skin also going to get reskins of those new abilities as well, or will it purposely have abilities omitted because they don't match the theme of the new skin? Well, that will require even MORE balancing to take place.

In the end, if you're going to go through all of that trouble, why not just make a new class?

[Ielenia]

I never said that only Tinkers should be allowed to wield wrench-looking maces, any class should be able to. I'm simply saying that Blizzard has a history of making special weapons for new classes, and Tinkers should be no different.

Um.... no. They don't "have a history". A single class gaining that treatment does not make it "a history". Demon Hunters are the only ones that received that treatment and it was because DHs fighting with their warglaives is iconic. Death knights and monks use the same weapons all the other classes do. And tinkers fighting with wrenches are not "iconic".

Also its 2/3rds of the level experience now. In MoP it was the entire leveling experience.

Doesn't change the fact it's one single simple model, and, even back in MoP, it only happened during the leveling experience.

Okay, it still looks like a wrench.

Except it just "looks" like that. It is not "a wrench".

I'm not seeing how a Tinker using a mech's weapons for combat goes against lore or the concept of a technology-based class.

You're moving goalposts. This was the question that "goes against the concept":

Not to mention we have whole "why would they be wielding a wrench and not an actual weapon?" question.

If I'm in the mood, I definitely will.

Examples were given.

One gives you soul shards that heal you after hitting enemies with certain abilities/attacks. The other gives you scrap that restores resources and reduces cool downs after your devices expire or are destroyed.

Those are two very different mechanics with some major differences.

How about we make an honest comparison for once? "One spawns an object when you kill a mob that heals, restores your resources and lowers the CD of one of your abilities. The other spawns an object when one of your constructs dies that restores your resources and lowers the CD of some of your abilities."

[Teriz]

I think a Necromancer is by far more likely than a Goblin and Gnome styled Tinker class, simply due to past experiences. Dark themed hero classes were always rather successful so far, while the light-hearted whimsical monk who was styled after an utterly unpopular race just failed to gain any traction, no matter how overpowered the class ended up being. Gnomes ended up being utterly unpopular, Goblins ended up unpopular, Pandaren and Monks ended up unpopular, Mechagnomes ended up being really unpopular. You have so far no arguments how a Tinker class would be a popular option for the actual community outside of polls on an inofficial forum for people who more likely than not got banned from the official ones and which has proven itself to have an disproportional presence of loud gnome fanboys, who make up one of the smallest minorities inside the actual class.

It doesn't even really matter if it ends up being a necromancer, a dark ranger or like anything else which is either dark or has an epic feel to it, inside the actual game all of them would be more popular than the whimsical joke class that is according to your vision only available to the most unpopular of core races. But then again, entitlement doesn't cares about facts in some people.

I can assure you that the player base would prefer a light-hearted class with new abilities and options currently unavailable in the class lineup over a rehash of an existing class that forces the other "dark" classes to give up abilities and concepts just so that "new" dark class is viable.

[Ielenia]

Necromancer - if Shadowlands, 'Death' expansion, 4 years after last class is not enough to introduce Necromancers, I'm sorry, dream is dead for maaany years (unless they would introduce class in patch like Allied Races, which I really doubt)

Maybe it'll never happen, maybe it will in the expansion after this one. We don't know. One thing for certain with Blizzard is that they love to throw curve balls. Every time we think we have them "pegged" in a pattern, they do something different.

Bard - the hell?

Why?

Imo Tinker is most obvious choice for 10.0 class.

To be fair... tinker has been "the most obvious choice for X.0 class" since over a decade and, so far, no show.

- - - Updated - - -

Necromancer would be perfect class for shadowlands. Considering this and that we have already death knights, warlocks and shadow priest I am pretty sure they are not gonna happen.

Shadow priests existing did not stop affliction warlocks from existing. Warlocks existing did not stop the demon hunters from existing. Paladins did not stop priests from existing. Why would any of those classes you mentioned "stop necromancers from existing"?

Bard? This is warcraft. They have absolutely no ground for this. Adding them would be nonsense. Almost like monks.

Why? Bard is a common fantasy RPG trope and we have the basis for bards in the game: spells cast through song and sound, and bards.

[Nihilist74]

I want to see a necromancer class. Bards are lame. Tinkers are lame too. If you want to play a tinker, go play transformers or something.

[Ielenia]

People don’t want a Necromancer, they want their warped view of a Necromancer. By any metric, the Death Knight is a Necromancer.

"By any metric, the paladin is a priest."

Keep that in mind.