If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Triceron]

Was it one of main selling features, though? Was it really? I think people were more interested in a martial arts/unarmed class than the combat system itself.

Curious, what level is your Monk? And why isn't it max level?

A game's player base almost never goes back to the numbers they had at release.

WoW saw years of growth. So did Overwatch, Starcraft 2, Hearthstone, and plenty more. What do you mean almost never? Blizzard built its empire on growth of their franchises. Those numbers didn't just start dropping after the first year of release the way Diablo 3 did.

Gameplay. Gameplay features.

Then you missed my point and continue to change the goalpost by taking it out of context and attacking a strawman.

I consistently remind you that I am talking about Marketability. You are conveniently ignoring that context and arguing gameplay only, which is irrelevant to my example.

We could talk about how the Bard Class could literally play like Guitar Hero like the April Fools concept, but we both know it ain't gonna happen. Those are gameplay hooks and concepts that might fit in a more exploratory game like Heroes of the Storm or Hearthstone, not in WoW.

What I mean by marketable gameplay hooks are things like Death Knights having Death Grip or summoning armies of Ghouls or raising people into Ghouls. That's what the hook of a non-auto attack Monk was meant to be. It was a defining feature that people looked forward to seeing

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...nks-autoattack

It's not just a gameplay feature that made it into the game *and got swapped out later*. As much as I hate bait and switch, at least it works and people still get hooked in and get a feel for what the class would play like. You can't get hooked on a class you aren't interested in playing, if you understand what I mean.

To take this back to new classes, we can take a look at some potential concepts and apply it back here on a conceptual level.

Necromancers command armies of minions and could turn into Liches
Dark Rangers could get Sylvanas style Banshee powers and those crazy cool Jailer Chains arrow shots
Tinkers get Mech forms and all sorts of Rockets, Lazers and explosives
Dragonsworn could turn into Dragons and use powers of the Aspects/Dragonflights

Bards play instruments and do similar things to Priests using sound instead of magic.

At a conceptual level, there has been nothing outstanding about a Bard outside of forcing non-Bardic concepts (Magicka, ETC, Lucio) onto it to make it seem more interesting. My criticism is the Bard's complete lack of cohesion and identity within Warcraft's setting and lack of wide-market appeal. It's not a concept that you can sell to your gamer buddy who knows World of Warcraft as that Leeroy Jenkins game.

"Dude, you gotta try out the new class. You can play MUSIC!" just doesn't cut it. People want Arthas, people want Illidan, people want classes that make em say WOW. Blizzard isn't gonna bank on a Monk 2.0 or anything less.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying you weren't wrong about this;

Well Paladins and Shamans were faction split though. Druid population was still overall high because it was a healer on both factions.

I didn't say Paladins and Shamans weren't healers, I answered why you thought Druid was so popular at the outset. So were Paladins and Shamans but their numbers were much lower due to faction exclusivity.

Shamans actually remained popular until many years later, when they started dipping below the Pures.

Tinker would have been a better pick for a Legion-themed expansion over Demon Hunters? Stop, because you're clearly not being serious here.

Weren't you the one saying Tinkers would fit perfectly in a Demon themed expansion because of Fel Tinkers and Demons using technology? Ah right, you are that same Teriz.

But no, my point would be that they could have gone with a more sensible Tinker-savvy expansion, like South Seas or a less-Demon Invasion centric Legion that focused more on the Broken Isles and South Seas. More like BFA with Island Expeditions, Mechagon etc. That would have sufficed for Tinkers.

[BB8]

I will try a tinkerer, but I still would like to see another cloth caster class.

Witch
Blood: Healer with alot of transfusions
Bones: Tank with Golem tank pet
Rituals: Range Caster with witch craft

[Unbelievable]

Paladin would also likely fail to be added as a Modern Class in WoW. It's only reason for existence is based on legacy design terms. It's too late to remove any class that's already in the game to fit in more niches.

It's completely designed today to be a compelling Hybrid class, whereas in Vanilla it was absolutely added as a Support class for raids. That design wouldn't exist today. ALso, Paladin has a direct relation to WoW's pantheon and class identity; they existed since Warcraft 2 and I fully support the addition of Paladins in WoW (in Vanilla). Bard however has zero identity in WoW, and needs to be built from the ground up. It's not even a playable class in the Pen and Paper RPG; consider this.



ETC is a Warrior with musical theme.
Lucio is a DJ on Skates, which has nothing to do with Bards.

Neither of these are Bard concepts.

Is anyone who wants an actual Bard class asking for ETC and Lucio gameplay in WoW? I'm even going as far as calling it out as being completely dishonest to the concept of a Bard class.

Just like how Mistweaver and Windwalker popped out of nowhere.

Well, no... But, that's all i have to rely on, in terms of Blizzard universe. and the fact that they have very similar play-styles (despite being different characters from different games), may suggest that's how Blizzard views a music class:

Powerslide
60 Mana Cooldown: 12 seconds
Slide to a location dealing 91 damage and stunning enemies hit for 1.25 second.

Heavy Casters
Push Off no longer Slows enemies, and instead Stuns them for 0.5 seconds.

Face Melt
55 Mana Cooldown: 12 seconds
Deals 68 damage to nearby enemies, knocking them back.

Soundwave
30 Mana Cooldown: 7 seconds
Deal 105 damage to enemies in an area and knock them back.

Guitar Solo
40 Mana Cooldown: 9 seconds
Regenerate 66 Health per second for 4 seconds.

Healing Boost: Passively heal Lúcio and nearby allied Heroes for 15 health per second.

Stage Dive
100 Mana Cooldown: 75 seconds
Leap to target location, landing after 2.75 seconds, dealing 330 damage to enemies in the area, and Slowing them by 50% for 3 seconds.

Push Off
Cooldown: 20 seconds
While moving alongside terrain, activate to slide towards a targeted location. Enemies hit take 100 damage and are Slowed by 75% for 1 second.

Rockstar
After E.T.C. uses a Basic or Heroic ability, he gains 20 Armor for 2 seconds. This effect does not stack with itself.

Slip
Passive: Wall Ride grants 20 Armor.

Allows Powerslide to travel over walls and terrain. If no enemies are hit, reduce the cooldown by 5 seconds and refund the Mana cost.

Push Off
Cooldown: 20 seconds
While moving alongside terrain, activate to slide towards a targeted location.

Speed Metal
Using a Basic or Heroic ability also gives nearby allied Heroes 20% Movement Speed for 2 seconds.

Speed Boost: Increase the Movement Speed of Lúcio and nearby allied Heroes by 10%.

Storm Shield
Cooldown: 45 seconds
Active: Activate to give all nearby allied Heroes a Shield for 20% of their max Health for 3 seconds.

Sound Barrier
100 Mana Cooldown: 80 seconds
After a 1 second delay, grant yourself and all nearby allied Heroes a 1296 point shield that rapidly decays over 6 seconds.

It was permanent in WC3, and in early HotS it was permanent as well. Further the NPCs piloting mechs also have it as a permanent form as well.

In short, all signs point to Mech form (robo-Goblin/Gnome) to be permanent.

Then, what's the point of having a claw pack, when you can be in mech form all the time?

The cool thing for tinker fans is that they don't have to wait to enjoy their fantasy, they can do it right at this moment:



https://www.wowhead.com/item=132531/...ed-combat-mode

Thank you for posting it. Now, whenever Teriz says playing a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon, Sea Witch, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster or Warden is, already, in the game - i'll post this video as a proof of a Tinker (even, though, he doesn't realize i'm all for Tinkers).

These are some things that makes DK and DH vastly superior in concept to a Monk. This is why a relatively unknown concept like Dragonsworn would be much more awe-aspiring than a Bard. It's about a particular fantasy to play as, and for the Bard WoW simply doesn't support the Role that it's expected to fulfill. A Bard has no existing identity in WoW; no Races to represent them and no gameplay to identify with. Bards are known for a Support role, and WoW isn't built to support that kind of gameplay. The only known Bards in WoW are ETC and the April Fools Bard concept. These are not things that are very appealing to the WoW audience at large.

The best alternative is a Class Skin, which fully supports Bards, Necromancers, Dark Rangers and more.

That's the thing. This post isn't about the next class, necessarily. It is about possible future classes. So, there's no reason to compare one class' awesomeness to another one. It's not like the addition of a Bard would prohibit the addition of a Dragonsworn, or the other way around. By all means, do add a Dragonsworn first. It's not a competition on who's first to be added but, what are the possiblities at any given time in the future.

As for Bard races, we already have the Dwarf, the Kul Tiran, the Zandalari Troll, the Night elf and the Orc:
Elegy, pg. 6
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Hired_Bard
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Grenja
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Jay_the_Tavern_Bard
https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Boisterous_Bard

The thing about class skins is that no race/class combination in lore is considered a Bard.

Bards play instruments and do similar things to Priests using sound instead of magic.

If Bard are, simply, priests then, why add Anduin and Whitemane to Heroes of the Storm, alongside E.T.C and Lucio? Their gameplay styles should be too identical.

[Teriz]

Well Paladins and Shamans were faction split though. Druid population was still overall high because it was a healer on both factions.

I didn't say Paladins and Shamans weren't healers, I answered why you thought Druid was so popular at the outset. So were Paladins and Shamans but their numbers were much lower due to faction exclusivity.

You said that Priest and Druids were the only healers in vanilla, so yeah you were saying those two classes weren’t healers.

Weren't you the one saying Tinkers would fit perfectly in a Demon themed expansion because of Fel Tinkers and Demons using technology? Ah right, you are that same Teriz.

Uh when did I ever say that?

But no, my point would be that they could have gone with a more sensible Tinker-savvy expansion, like South Seas or a less-Demon Invasion centric Legion that focused more on the Broken Isles and South Seas. More like BFA with Island Expeditions, Mechagon etc. That would have sufficed for Tinkers.

Given Blizzard’s statements about how classes need to fit the theme of a given expansion, it’s rather obvious why a Tinker hasn’t been implemented yet. Just like why a Demon Hunter wasn’t implemented until Legion.

[loras]

It has seriously been months that you started this fruitless discussion, Lelenia and Teriz, and even now the points that keep being regurgitated seem familiar to the start.

Have you considered seeking a way out of this looping mess?
Go ask Blizzard to play arbiter over your arguments or something, that way you'll have an answer.

[Teriz]

It has seriously been months that you started this fruitless discussion, Lelenia and Teriz, and even now the points that keep being regurgitated seem familiar to the start.

Have you considered seeking a way out of this looping mess?
Go ask Blizzard to play arbiter over your arguments or something, that way you'll have an answer.

Have you considered that people are allowed to discuss topics on a forum for as long as they like as long as they aren't breaking the rules?

It always amazes me that ONE topic about future classes on a forum with thousands of topics bothers people so much.

- - - Updated - - -

Then, what's the point of having a claw pack, when you can be in mech form all the time?

In WC3 the Claw Pack transformed into a mech Druid style (in that you could toggle in and out of the mech form at will), so Blizzard could go that route for a mech-based Tinker. Switching between a mech and a claw pack in combat could be an interesting form of gameplay, with the mech form offering abilities unavailable in the Claw Pack and vice versa. Perhaps something akin to how Demonology utilized Metamorphosis in WoD, where you built up your resource in order to transform into a demon until your resource ran out and you turned back into a Warlock again. Shadow Priests have something similar with Void, but it isn't quite as dynamic as Demo Metamorphosis was. Not so much a cool down as a state change controlled by your resource.

Conversely, mech form outside of a Tank spec could just be a cooldown if the Claw Pack is employed.

Again, just one of the many possibilities of a Tinker class. If only other class concepts had that level of possibility without tripping over themselves into the territory of existing classes....

Thank you for posting it. Now, whenever Teriz says playing a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon, Sea Witch, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster or Warden is, already, in the game - i'll post this video as a proof of a Tinker (even, though, he doesn't realize i'm all for Tinkers).

Yeah you're free to do that, but it's utter nonsense to pretend that Reeves is the same situation as the Hunter class being a Ranger class and the Warrior or Rogue class making a Blademaster or a Warden class pointless.

[loras]

Have you considered that people are allowed to discuss topics on a forum for as long as they like as long as they aren't breaking the rules?

It always amazes me that ONE topic about future classes on a forum with thousands of topics bothers people so much.

- - - Updated - - -



In WC3 the Claw Pack transformed into a mech Druid style (in that you could toggle in and out of the mech form at will), so Blizzard could go that route for a mech-based Tinker. Switching between a mech and a claw pack in combat could be an interesting form of gameplay, with the mech form offering abilities unavailable in the Claw Pack and vice versa. Perhaps something akin to how Demonology utilized Metamorphosis in WoD, where you built up your resource in order to transform into a demon until your resource ran out and you turned back into a Warlock again. Shadow Priests have something similar with Void, but it isn't quite as dynamic as Demo Metamorphosis was. Not so much a cool down as a state change controlled by your resource.

Conversely, mech form outside of a Tank spec could just be a cooldown if the Claw Pack is employed.

Again, just one of the many possibilities of a Tinker class. If only other class concepts had that level of possibility without tripping over themselves into the territory of existing classes....



Yeah you're free to do that, but it's utter nonsense to pretend that Reeves is the same situation as the Hunter class being a Ranger class and the Warrior or Rogue class making a Blademaster or a Warden class pointless.

It doesn't bother me, it amazes me is all.
I did not mean it maliciously, but rather hoped to help your discussion go somewhere, since you two seem to be stuck in a loop that seems like it doesn't help or entertain either of you.

[Teriz]

It doesn't bother me, it amazes me is all.
I did not mean it maliciously, but rather hoped to help your discussion go somewhere, since you two seem to be stuck in a loop that seems like it doesn't help or entertain either of you.

The debate is mainly between Ielenia and Triceron currently. I haven't really responded to Ielenia for multiple pages.

[MCMLXXXII]

665 posts by Teriz
281 by Ielenia
205 by Triceron
Says enough.

[Revamp Man]

It has seriously been months that you started this fruitless discussion, Lelenia and Teriz, and even now the points that keep being regurgitated seem familiar to the start.

Have you considered seeking a way out of this looping mess?
Go ask Blizzard to play arbiter over your arguments or something, that way you'll have an answer.

its their form of foreplay with the next class reveal being sex

[Unbelievable]

In WC3 the Claw Pack transformed into a mech Druid style (in that you could toggle in and out of the mech form at will), so Blizzard could go that route for a mech-based Tinker. Switching between a mech and a claw pack in combat could be an interesting form of gameplay, with the mech form offering abilities unavailable in the Claw Pack and vice versa. Perhaps something akin to how Demonology utilized Metamorphosis in WoD, where you built up your resource in order to transform into a demon until your resource ran out and you turned back into a Warlock again. Shadow Priests have something similar with Void, but it isn't quite as dynamic as Demo Metamorphosis was. Not so much a cool down as a state change controlled by your resource.

Conversely, mech form outside of a Tank spec could just be a cooldown if the Claw Pack is employed.

Again, just one of the many possibilities of a Tinker class. If only other class concepts had that level of possibility without tripping over themselves into the territory of existing classes....



Yeah you're free to do that, but it's utter nonsense to pretend that Reeves is the same situation as the Hunter class being a Ranger class and the Warrior or Rogue class making a Blademaster or a Warden class pointless.

What can the claw pack provide that the mech suit can't?

The Metamorphosis and Voidform situations are, exactly, my point. They are not permanent.

Yeah... like how the explosives and technological devices trip over the Hunter and the Engineering domains.

Oh, like saying "go equip a Dark Ranger's hood"? yeah... you use the same tactics.

[Teriz]

What can the claw pack provide that the mech suit can't?

Mobility (faster move speed), enhanced weaponry, more armor, etc. It could even take on some attributes from WC3 where you could become mechanical, and be healed via repair like a machine.

The Metamorphosis and Voidform situations are, exactly, my point. They are not permanent.

And they're not cool downs either. However, it's up to Blizzard to decide to which way they want to go. They can go permanent ala Druid forms, or they can go more like Demonology Meta or Voidform.

Yeah... like how the explosives and technological devices trip over the Hunter and the Engineering domains.

Except neither Hunters or Engineers are within the domain of a potential Tinker class. Hunters are definitely in the domain of a Ranger class though.

Oh, like saying "go equip a Dark Ranger's hood"? yeah... you use the same tactics.

Uh no. Again, the Hunter class allows you to perform class roles, and the abilities you want in this ranger class are currently available in the Hunter class. On the other hand, we're talking about a combat module with highly limited usage, can only be used for a set amount of time, can't loot corpses, can only be used on one map in the entire game, is a horrific pain in the butt to even put together, etc. It's not remotely the same thing.

[Ielenia]

Curious, what level is your Monk? And why isn't it max level?

And what is the relevance of this? Are you using me as a barometer for how successful a class is or is not?

WoW saw years of growth. So did Overwatch, Starcraft 2, Hearthstone, and plenty more. What do you mean almost never? Blizzard built its empire on growth of their franchises. Those numbers didn't just start dropping after the first year of release the way Diablo 3 did.

Re-read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned the game has an initial period of growth that can last from weeks to months depending on how successful the game is, and then eventually it starts to decline, and then the decline starts, the game's player base almost never returns to how it was during its peak, save rare few exceptions.

Then you missed my point and continue to change the goalpost by taking it out of context and attacking a strawman.

You literally used the monk's original gameplay (no auto-attacks, pure resource-based attacks) as part of the class' appeal, i.e. marketability.

"Dude, you gotta try out the new class. You can play MUSIC!" just doesn't cut it.

It doesn't cut for you. That's a big difference. "Dude, you gotta try out the new class! You can summon UNDEAD!" doesn't cut it for many people who are not interested in the death knight class, for example.

[Unbelievable]

Mobility (faster move speed), enhanced weaponry, more armor, etc. It could even take on some attributes from WC3 where you could become mechanical, and be healed via repair like a machine.



And they're not cool downs either. However, it's up to Blizzard to decide to which way they want to go. They can go permanent ala Druid forms, or they can go more like Demonology Meta or Voidform.



Except neither Hunters or Engineers are within the domain of a potential Tinker class. Hunters are definitely in the domain of a Ranger class though.



Uh no. Again, the Hunter class allows you to perform class roles, and the abilities you want in this ranger class are currently available in the Hunter class. On the other hand, we're talking about a combat module with highly limited usage, can only be used for a set amount of time, can't loot corpses, can only be used on one map in the entire game, is a horrific pain in the butt to even put together, etc. It's not remotely the same thing.

Mobility (faster move speed)? while carrying this giant thing on your back? i doubt that.
enhanced weaponry? that's what the mech suit provides.
More armor? you're, literally, in a metallic suit. what can be more tanky than that?
Nothing the claw pack does is more effective than the mech suit.

Doesn't matter if they are cooldown abilities or resource-related. The point is that it's not permanent. As for Druid forms:
The Cat and Bear form provides you the ability to perform your spec. Without it, you can't do shit.
Moonkin form enhances your damage and does not provide new abilities.
Tree of life form is exactly that - a cooldown ability.
And all of them are not the size of a fucking giant.

Well yes, they are. When the Gnomes were said to train in the ways of the Hunter, they used their technological ingenuity, not their love for nature. As for Engineering, you yourself said the Tinker is a type of an Engineer, and i, already, posted Engineering items that both Gazlowe and Mekkatorque are associated with, as Tinkers.

The magic word is "Currently". Just like Metamorphosis, Mana Burn, Immolate, Evasion and Death Coil were, at the time, "Currently" in the Warlock, Priest and Rogue classes.

Well, that's not my problem. If we're going by your logic, "if it's in game, then it's already represented".

[Triceron]

If Bard are, simply, priests then, why add Anduin and Whitemane to Heroes of the Storm, alongside E.T.C and Lucio? Their gameplay styles should be too identical.

Er, Heroes of the Storm isn't balanced anything like WoW. It isn't marketted the dame as WoW at all and is not comparable.

Heroes of the Storm doesn't care about overlap or gameplay restrictions because it doesn't exist. WoW classes are designed to be balanced around rotations, global cooldowns, talents, etc. You are comparing two very different games here. We aren't talking about Bards in HOTS, we are talking about Bards in WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

You said that Priest and Druids were the only healers in vanilla, so yeah you were saying those two classes weren’t healers.

Paladins and Shamans were also healers in Vanilla.

Happy?

Given Blizzard’s statements about how classes need to fit the theme of a given expansion, it’s rather obvious why a Tinker hasn’t been implemented yet. Just like why a Demon Hunter wasn’t implemented until Legion.

A Tech themed expansion seems to be taboo, more likely.

[Syegfryed]

Id fully agree with this. This is why I am not using the same Bard arguments against Tinker or Dragonsworn; even if these concepts are not completely solid within WoW they have far more potential as a featured class than any Bard would. It's easy to imagine how it could be designed with mass-market appeal. Bard, not much so, because all of its hooks are tied to gameplay concepts that don't exist in WoW.

And the alternative of making X new class completely easy to play and completely overpowered is only a fad. It rarely lasts the test of time.

Bards are such a "buffer"/support class, that i can't see working in wow right, in D&D they had to make the bard a full spellcaster being similar to mages and sorcered, there you can still be a support and all, but in wow where every metric count, and every class need to give a decent dps, it would be rly hard to not step on everyone else toes.

they need to be overpowered and easy at the start, to grab attention, they can nerf later, i think by now DH are not tht absurd anymore, but still hella easy

[Triceron]

And what is the relevance of this? Are you using me as a barometer for how successful a class is or is not?

This whole Bard class charade is nothing but an argument for the sake of argument. I don't think you actually want a Bard class, you just want to argue the possibility that it could be made despite the complete lack of identity in WoW making it not worth Blizzards time and effort to create.

You are now arguing for the sake of the Monks gameplay and popularity despite not actually being much of a Monk player yourself, or regarding that many players aren't playing/maining this class for the same reasons you don't - it isn't interesting enough compared to other classes.

I think you have become too defensive in the argument to simply refute any 'evidence' against the class and not listening to simple reasoning like the fact that saying Bard and Monk were not very marketable does not mean it can not be made, but rather that it would not likely be picked to be made. I'm asking where you stand with the Monk yourself, in hopes that you to reflect on your own personal opinion of why you aren't playing a Monk right now. You seem to think that just because I'm saying the Monk is not popular it must not be true because so many people play Monks; yet you yourself probably don't play one for the very reasons I'm stating; it just doesn't have the big hooks that a class like Demon Hunter has in comparison.

Consider that the Necromancer and Runemaster lost out against a DK class concept, and were in turn scrapped and held back. They weren't scrapped because they weren't viable as their own class, they were scrapped because there's only room for 1 new class at a time and the Death Knight was more marketable; ie in higher demand, more wide-spread appealing, more familiar to the Warcraft brand etc.

This is the Bard situation; it is up against stronger class concepts like a Dragonsworn or a Tinker or a Dark Ranger, and Bards would likely be held back, possibly indefinitely. A lot of this has to do with the lack of identity within WoW for people to fully acknowledge, the lack of associated gameplay that people expect of a Bard class, and the general disconnection to any potential major expansion theme to present it all in. It's more effort than it's worth when another class with all the bells and whistles is already ripe for the picking.

You literally used the monk's original gameplay (no auto-attacks, pure resource-based attacks) as part of the class' appeal, i.e. marketability.

It was a listed feature of the class that was a significant part of its appeal. Let us not confuse this with being the ONLY factor of appeal; I'm simply answering your direct line of argument focused on this aspect. We should acknowledge there are plenty of missteps that made Monk less popular than it could have been, and much of it due to a complete mixed reaction to Mists of Pandaria at announcement.

In the case of the no-auto attack system, this was a big feature that many people talked about during the development of MoP and a driving reason people were actively interested in playing a Monk.

Comparisons were even made to The Old Republic gameplay, which had a no-auto-attack system in play, and how people felt the Monk lost its feeling of burst and impact when Blizzard ultimately added auto attacks back into the game. Like I said, the designed failed to aspire to what it was originally marketted as, and as a result many people who would have tried out the Monk did not stick with it over the long run because it just wasn't interesting enough to drop their mains.

And this is a very strong indicator that Blizzard would likely not go down the same route as the Monk class and push out something 'mediocre', something privvy to mixed reactions. They did right by the Demon Hunter by choosing a complete fan favourite, and focusing on the fantasy and simply making it fun. It did not fail what it was marketted to be. It was a Demon Hunter, full package.

Whatever Blizzard does with a Bard class, it would not be a full package without carving out a heavy Support role within WoW. It's as simple as that. The Music theme is also in direct competition with the already established Tech theme, Dragon theme and Necromancy themes that are much more appealing overall. We're not talking about just one thing holding the Bard back, like a lack of gameplay or a lack of appeal. It's the whole package. I think you realize this, but you simply don't want to accept it because it goes against your idea that a class should be playable because Blizzard can make it happen ala the Monk. What you're not doing is heeding the lessons learned by Blizzard to avoid the mistakes of the past and how they're trying hard not to repeat them.

It's not that Blizzard CAN'T make a Bard, it's that Blizzard HAS NO REASON to choose to develop the Bard concept into its own independent class. - And let's be clear, this is absolutely subjective, because it's privy to belief. If you choose to believe Blizzard can and will make a Bard class, there is nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise. And I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to state a strong opinion informed by Blizzard's own direction of the game and intentions over the years. There is no right or wrong, and if you choose to disagree with me then do so on the basis of your own opinion, rather than this pointless excersize of 'proving me wrong'. I am being clear here and now that this is opinion, and whatever reason you have to regard it any more than opinion is going to be on you.

[Teriz]

Mobility (faster move speed)? while carrying this giant thing on your back? i doubt that.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml

Engineering upgrade increased the move speed of the Tinker in both standard and mech form. I wouldn't be surprised to see that passive reappear as a talent in the eventual Tinker class.

enhanced weaponry? that's what the mech suit provides.
More armor? you're, literally, in a metallic suit. what can be more tanky than that?
Nothing the claw pack does is more effective than the mech suit.

I think you're getting the forms confused, so let's try again; The mech form would give the Tinker higher armor, enhanced weapons, and faster move speed if we're talking about claw packs. If we're going mech-only (ala like Druid forms) then the mech form would open up abilities the Tinker pilot mode (like the Druid caster mode) wouldn't have access to.

Doesn't matter if they are cooldown abilities or resource-related. The point is that it's not permanent. As for Druid forms:
The Cat and Bear form provides you the ability to perform your spec. Without it, you can't do shit.
Moonkin form enhances your damage and does not provide new abilities.
Tree of life form is exactly that - a cooldown ability.
And all of them are not the size of a fucking giant.

What's your point?

Well yes, they are. When the Gnomes were said to train in the ways of the Hunter, they used their technological ingenuity, not their love for nature. As for Engineering, you yourself said the Tinker is a type of an Engineer, and i, already, posted Engineering items that both Gazlowe and Mekkatorque are associated with, as Tinkers.

Uh no they're not. The Hunter class contains none of the abilities of the Tinker, and the Tinker concept doesn't revolve around pets.

Well, that's not my problem. If we're going by your logic, "if it's in game, then it's already represented".

My logic is that if it already exists in the class lineup then it's covered. Reeves' Combat Module is not part of the class lineup.

- - - Updated - - -

A Tech themed expansion seems to be taboo, more likely.

Or we just haven't gotten to it yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw, I think an expansion based on Undermine and the War could be quite appealing to a wide variety of players.

[Ielenia]

This whole Bard class charade is nothing but an argument for the sake of argument. I don't think you actually want a Bard class, you just want to argue the possibility that it could be made despite the complete lack of identity in WoW making it not worth Blizzards time and effort to create.

Yes. I really don't want a bard class. That's why I have been talking about the bard class for a few years now, searched far and wide through WoW's NPCs and abilities, and have dedicated my time to write in a brief concept for a bard class.

Because I don't want a bard class. What's next? Are you going to claim I don't want a necromancer class, too? Or that Teriz doesn't want a tinker class?

You are now arguing for the sake of the Monks gameplay and popularity despite not actually being much of a Monk player yourself, or regarding that many players aren't playing/maining this class for the same reasons you don't - it isn't interesting enough compared to other classes.

So you're assuming my leaning, or lack thereof, toward the monk class despite me not having told you if I have a max level monk character or not? You were the one who brought the monk class' "failed design" argument for their lack of popularity. I simply pointed out that there are more than one singular factor that may be influencing their low popularity.

I think you have become too defensive in the argument to simply refute any 'evidence' against the class and not listening to simple reasoning like the fact that saying Bard and Monk were not very marketable does not mean it can not be made, but rather that it would not likely be picked to be made.

And you come off as too condescending and arrogant by implying you know my standing regarding the monk class, and by stating I'm arguing in bad faith (i.e. claiming I do not want a bard class).

I'm asking where you stand with the Monk yourself, in hopes that you to reflect on your own personal opinion of why you aren't playing a Monk right now. You seem to think that just because I'm saying the Monk is not popular it must not be true because so many people play Monks; yet you yourself probably don't play one for the very reasons I'm stating; it just doesn't have the big hooks that a class like Demon Hunter has in comparison.

That was never my argument. Which makes me feel that your accusation that I'm "arguing in bad faith" is just projection in your part. I never claimed that the monk class is popular. I simply rejected your notion that this so-called "failed design" claim of yours being the reason for the class' lack of popularity, because, as I pointed out already, there are other factors influencing their popularity.

It was a listed feature of the class that was a significant part of its appeal.

So was the "tank in all specs" feature of the death knight class.

And I'm done discussing things with you, considering you so boldly (not to say 'arrogantly') assumed my affinity regarding the monk class, accused me of not wanting a bard class and just arguing for arguing's sake, and misrepresented my argument. That tells me you're not looking for an honest discussion, you're here to rant against me despite what my actual positions are.

[Unbelievable]

Er, Heroes of the Storm isn't balanced anything like WoW. It isn't marketted the dame as WoW at all and is not comparable.

Heroes of the Storm doesn't care about overlap or gameplay restrictions because it doesn't exist. WoW classes are designed to be balanced around rotations, global cooldowns, talents, etc. You are comparing two very different games here. We aren't talking about Bards in HOTS, we are talking about Bards in WoW.

Then, you forget that WoW classes have overlapping themes and playstyles.

Consider that the Necromancer and Runemaster lost out against a DK class concept, and were in turn scrapped and held back. They weren't scrapped because they weren't viable as their own class, they were scrapped because there's only room for 1 new class at a time and the Death Knight was more marketable; ie in higher demand, more wide-spread appealing, more familiar to the Warcraft brand etc.

Whatever Blizzard does with a Bard class, it would not be a full package without carving out a heavy Support role within WoW. It's as simple as that. The Music theme is also in direct competition with the already established Tech theme, Dragon theme and Necromancy themes that are much more appealing overall. We're not talking about just one thing holding the Bard back, like a lack of gameplay or a lack of appeal. It's the whole package. I think you realize this, but you simply don't want to accept it because it goes against your idea that a class should be playable because Blizzard can make it happen ala the Monk. What you're not doing is heeding the lessons learned by Blizzard to avoid the mistakes of the past and how they're trying hard not to repeat them.

Runemaster and Necromancer were not tossed aside. They were integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes. If you have a future class to integrate the Bard into, please do tell me.

Well, you have the Priest class. The only class with 2 healing specs. It didn't stop it from being added to the game. Who would have thought a Priest would DPS, as well, when it was, mostly, known as a support role in fantasy games. Yet, here we are. The same would apply to a Bard.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml

Engineering upgrade increased the move speed of the Tinker in both standard and mech form. I wouldn't be surprised to see that passive reappear as a talent in the eventual Tinker class.



I think you're getting the forms confused, so let's try again; The mech form would give the Tinker higher armor, enhanced weapons, and faster move speed if we're talking about claw packs. If we're going mech-only (ala like Druid forms) then the mech form would open up abilities the Tinker pilot mode (like the Druid caster mode) wouldn't have access to.



What's your point?



Uh no they're not. The Hunter class contains none of the abilities of the Tinker, and the Tinker concept doesn't revolve around pets.



My logic is that if it already exists in the class lineup then it's covered. Reeves' Combat Module is not part of the class lineup.

"Engineering upgrade increased the move speed of the Tinker in both standard and mech form" - so, why would anyone choose to be in standard form?

Yet, you're talking about having both the claw pack and a mech. If a mech is available at all times, and is better than standard form, why bother to stay in normal mode, at all? (basically, making the claw pack useless).

Well, the Hunter had:
Big Game Hunter
Level 15 Beast Mastery hunter talent
Passive
Increases the critical strike chance of your auto shot and Cobra Shot by 60% on targets who are above 80% health.

A Gazlowe talent. So, it is in the class lineup, as you would call it.

And the Tinker does utilize robotic pets:
Deploy Spark Bot — Mekkatorque periodically calls in Spark Bot units to seek out his enemies.