Dragonflight Alpha/Beta General Discussion

[Shadochi]

Move away from WC3 concepts to what exactly?

Developing new class concepts.

In the greater scheme the game needs to move away from depending on WC 3 in terms of lore, characters, pretty much everything. And start finally developing more new lore

[AOL Instant Messenger]

Developing new class concepts.

In the greater scheme the game needs to move away from depending on WC 3 in terms of lore, characters, pretty much everything. And start finally developing more new lore

Admittedly, I think there can be no class that isn't already iconic to some degree—Monks sort of deviated from that, admittedly, but every other class is based on something which is preexistent, and even Monks have some traditional associations with the Pandaren. I don't think we ever will, nor should, get a class that isn't embodied at least three expansions (arbitrary production, but it's something I think would give time for a character to grow and an archetype to be made) prior in a major or iconic character.

Now, this doesn't limit us only to WarCraft III, but I do think we shouldn't go too far into the realms of the new, though. We still need classes that fit expansion themes like a glove (Death Knights for WotLK, Monks for MoP, Demon Hunters for Legion etc.) and I doubt we'll be adding any class that isn't both preexisting in lore and suitable to a theme that we're likely to get as an expansion.

I'd say Dark Rangers are very unlikely, Necromancers are doubtful (maaaybe they fit Lordaeron enough, if the expansion really is just, specifically a revamp focused on Lordaeron?) and Tinkers also don't seem to fit much in the way of a theme. I'd say I was previously more opposed to Necromancers but they're slightly growing on me and I can see an opening for Lordaeron to make them a class, so it's not totally impossible. I'm actually not sure what we could get as a new class if the next expansion isn't Dragon-themed, but given it's likely to be a glass-breaker, I figure it's probably going to have a new class of some kind.

If it were Necromancers, it would have to be very much the WarCraft III incarnations, though, maybe with some lore fluff about Jailer ded = Necromancers erriwhere. I still don't see them as likely for intruding so much on other classes and not really fitting the theme as obviously and perfectly as other classes fit their expansion themes, but I'm not sure. If it's Tinkers, the expansion would have to have a very explicit segue into it, I think.

[Nightshade711]

Every single expansion we get this nightmare incarnated, the tinker fans. They are the main reason people hate the tinkers.

Tinkers will never happen. Never. Just deal with it.

Throwback to when people said Demon Hunters would never happen

[Zankai27]

Developing new class concepts.

In the greater scheme the game needs to move away from depending on WC 3 in terms of lore, characters, pretty much everything. And start finally developing more new lore

Careful, coming up with *new ideas* is dangerous. It's not like all the old devs are basically gone and the new ones are trying to *create new things*.

Maybe you've inspired me to go work on my First Ones-inspired class more after all

Edit: I just want to add that Tinker fans I interact with literally anywhere besides here are all cool, reasonable people with open-minded takes. It's here where it's a literal cesspool of gatekeeping weirdos.

[AOL Instant Messenger]

Throwback to when people said Demon Hunters would never happen

I think that "never say never" is a good idea in regards to any class that exists that doesn't aggressively impede on the existence of another class. Tinkers, Necromancers, anything else like that are possible—I think that when people get too arrogant and uppity and insist that something could never happen, they're taking a very undercalculated risk of being proven wrong.

[Teriz]

Developing new class concepts.

In the greater scheme the game needs to move away from depending on WC 3 in terms of lore, characters, pretty much everything. And start finally developing more new lore

Okay, but what type of classes are you talking about? WoW classes pretty much cover everything except the technology archetype.

[Zankai27]

Admittedly, I think there can be no class that isn't already iconic to some degree—Monks sort of deviated from that, admittedly, but every other class is based on something which is preexistent, and even Monks have some traditional associations with the Pandaren. I don't think we ever will, nor should, get a class that isn't embodied at least three expansions (arbitrary production, but it's something I think would give time for a character to grow and an archetype to be made) prior in a major or iconic character.

Now, this doesn't limit us only to WarCraft III, but I do think we shouldn't go too far into the realms of the new, though. We still need classes that fit expansion themes like a glove (Death Knights for WotLK, Monks for MoP, Demon Hunters for Legion etc.) and I doubt we'll be adding any class that isn't both preexisting in lore and suitable to a theme that we're likely to get as an expansion.

I'd say Dark Rangers are very unlikely, Necromancers are doubtful (maaaybe they fit Lordaeron enough, if the expansion really is just, specifically a revamp focused on Lordaeron?) and Tinkers also don't seem to fit much in the way of a theme. I'd say I was previously more opposed to Necromancers but they're slightly growing on me and I can see an opening for Lordaeron to make them a class, so it's not totally impossible. I'm actually not sure what we could get as a new class if the next expansion isn't Dragon-themed, but given it's likely to be a glass-breaker, I figure it's probably going to have a new class of some kind.

If it were Necromancers, it would have to be very much the WarCraft III incarnations, though, maybe with some lore fluff about Jailer ded = Necromancers erriwhere. I still don't see them as likely for intruding so much on other classes and not really fitting the theme as obviously and perfectly as other classes fit their expansion themes, but I'm not sure. If it's Tinkers, the expansion would have to have a very explicit segue into it, I think.

Honestly, while I get your spirit, I'm starting to agree that its fucking exhausting that this creatively-bankrupt vocal fanbase can only think of pre-existing concepts that are freshly laid out for them instead of building something new from existing lore, old or new.

What did all the classes we got have most in common? They were popular, visible suggestions. Ultimately, that is what matters, because the people making the game are human and like cool ideas too.

I think that's why people making new ideas is important. If people could visualize it, we wouldn't have to wade through this absolutely cesspool of people saying "X can't work because my 20 year old game didn't have anything like it."

This place starting to make me hate Warcraft 3, jeez.

Okay, but what type of classes are you talking about? WoW classes pretty much cover everything except the technology archetype.

Is it really that hard to think of anything besides what you've got in your sig? Get creative. WoW has tons of lore with interesting twists and turns just waiting.

At this point maybe going back in time and deleting Warcraft 3 is a good idea; people cannot function without the hero classes holding them up.

[Teriz]

Is it really that hard to think of anything besides what you've got in your sig? Get creative. WoW has tons of lore with interesting twists and turns just waiting.

At this point maybe going back in time and deleting Warcraft 3 is a good idea; people cannot function without the hero classes holding them up.

Again, like what? Name some class ideas that have some basis in Warcraft, but are nonexistent in the current class lineup.

[AOL Instant Messenger]

Honestly, while I get your spirit, I'm starting to agree that its fucking exhausting that this creatively-bankrupt vocal fanbase can only think of pre-existing concepts that are freshly laid out for them instead of building something new from existing lore, old or new.

What did all the classes we got have most in common? They were popular, visible suggestions. Ultimately, that is what matters, because the people making the game are human and like cool ideas too.

I think that's why people making new ideas is important. If people could visualize it, we wouldn't have to wade through this absolutely cesspool of people saying "X can't work because my 20 year old game didn't have anything like it."

I very much do agree that it's most about the popular, visible suggestions—keep in mind Blizzard were heavily leaning towards making Runemasters a class even though we never saw them once in WarCraft III, and Monks were also secondary and not extant under that general name—they existed only as Brewmasters. However, I also think it's wrong to say that we need to just be creative. It's also about consistency in the setting. I think desiring a reasonable amount of consistency in the setting is very reasonable, and I don't see the need for new classes that simply don't fit with it at all. There's a difference between trying something new and adding something that simply isn't suitable—especially since classes incur a huge opportunity cost. In addition to being long-term investments that need to be worthwhile (i.e. popular, attractive, and oftentimes something that is only good for the lore and consequently suitable), every class comes at the cost of another potential class.

I do think it's just harder to hype people up for "these guys use the powers of the First Ones!!!" with an entirely new concept than something with some grounding in the setting, like "these guys use the technology of the Goblins and the Gnomes!". The concept should be something recognizable, even if it's not something old. It doesn't have to come from WarCraft III—it can just come from elsewhere in the lore. But it definitely should at least be based on something well-established. The idea of, say, a class based around using the powers of the Titans or Odyn would be something that could make for a new class because it fits in the setting yet also is something entirely new. Conversely, a class that's simply not part of the setting at all (I do like the idea of Bards, but they generally go here because the only establishment we have for them is in a few, scattered NPCs and they also just don't fit the tone to me) is a little harder to swallow and more undesirable.

This place starting to make me hate Warcraft 3, jeez.

To be fair, hating concepts because the people who support them annoy you is illogical.

[Shadochi]

Okay, but what type of classes are you talking about? WoW classes pretty much cover everything except the technology archetype.

If you ever played different tabletop RPG games, far from it. Even when comparing to some of Blizz's other games.

Off the top of my head, WoW has plenty of lore to develop a unique twist on a Dragon Knight/Dragonsworn class.

A couple weeks back I pitched an idea of a class based on arts (one spec being bard, other inspired by the sylverian dreamer description).

Battle mages aren't explored at all in wow's playable classes. I was hoping fire mage might go this direction as semi melee when I saw the artifact but nope.

Psionic based class.

and many more.

[Teriz]

If you ever played different tabletop RPG games, far from it. Even when comparing to some of Blizz's other games.

Off the top of my head, WoW has plenty of lore to develop a unique twist on a Dragon Knight/Dragonsworn class.

Can you name a single Dragon Knight or Dragonsworn in lore to base such a class off of?

A couple weeks back I pitched an idea of a class based on arts (one spec being bard, other inspired by the sylverian dreamer description).

Battle mages aren't explored at all in wow's playable classes. I was hoping fire mage might go this direction as semi melee when I saw the artifact but nope.

Enhancement Shaman.

Psionic based class.

Shadow Priests.

[Zankai27]

Again, like what? Name some class ideas that have some basis in Warcraft, but are nonexistent in the current class lineup.

Is creating completely new content that difficult? I've already created new concepts before and am currently working on a First Ones-inspired class, but I'm not sharing any details until I'm done with it, and not really sure I'd want to share it with certain people because of gatekeeping and toxicity.

Look, honestly dude, you have got to understand that new concepts get made all the time, but I hope you also have enough self-awareness to understand why I'm not going to start listing them off to you. Please, PLEASE understand this. You're honestly awful to have these class discussions with, even if I admire your work at keeping class discussion going in general. However, any thread you're ever in (that isn't your own) that's about class ideas it's literally the same denigrating thing every time. If you want to hear people's ideas you've gotta earn it.

Can you name a single Dragon Knight or Dragonsworn in lore to base such a class off of?



Enhancement Shaman.



Shadow Priests.

Exactly the thing I'm talking about, ffs.

[AOL Instant Messenger]

Can you name a single Dragon Knight or Dragonsworn in lore to base such a class off of?

The entire Timekeeper faction and especially their preceding concept, the Bronze Watchers.

[Zankai27]

I very much do agree that it's most about the popular, visible suggestions—keep in mind Blizzard were heavily leaning towards making Runemasters a class even though we never saw them once in WarCraft III, and Monks were also secondary and not extant under that general name—they existed only as Brewmasters. However, I also think it's wrong to say that we need to just be creative. It's also about consistency in the setting. I think desiring a reasonable amount of consistency in the setting is very reasonable, and I don't see the need for new classes that simply don't fit with it at all. There's a difference between trying something new and adding something that simply isn't suitable—especially since classes incur a huge opportunity cost. In addition to being long-term investments that need to be worthwhile (i.e. popular, attractive, and oftentimes something that is only good for the lore and consequently suitable), every class comes at the cost of another potential class.

I do think it's just harder to hype people up for "these guys use the powers of the First Ones!!!" with an entirely new concept than something with some grounding in the setting, like "these guys use the technology of the Goblins and the Gnomes!". The concept should be something recognizable, even if it's not something old. It doesn't have to come from WarCraft III—it can just come from elsewhere in the lore. But it definitely should at least be based on something well-established. The idea of, say, a class based around using the powers of the Titans or Odyn would be something that could make for a new class because it fits in the setting yet also is something entirely new. Conversely, a class that's simply not part of the setting at all (I do like the idea of Bards, but they generally go here because the only establishment we have for them is in a few, scattered NPCs and they also just don't fit the tone to me) is a little harder to swallow and more undesirable.

Oh, I'm 100% for consistency with the setting. But that's part of being creative. Use the framework given to you and weave something new. It's what they did with Monks, and they can take that sort of thing even further. But remember, just because something isn't part of the setting now, doesn't mean it can't ever be. Just build it and work from there. These things take time and set up to make them good. (re: Bards)

To be fair, hating concepts because the people who support them annoy you is illogical.

And so is 90% of the human existence, what's your point? The gatekeeping in this community is some unreal toxic nonsense, and you'd have to be a fool to deny that. *My* point is that just like always, the vocal parts of the community are mostly creatively dead, and can only imagine ideas clearly spelled out to them by developers.

[Teriz]

Is creating completely new content that difficult? I've already created new concepts before and am currently working on a First Ones-inspired class, but I'm not sharing any details until I'm done with it, and not really sure I'd want to share it with certain people because of gatekeeping and toxicity.

Look, honestly dude, you have got to understand that new concepts get made all the time, but I hope you also have enough self-awareness to understand why I'm not going to start listing them off to you. Please, PLEASE understand this. You're honestly awful to have these class discussions with, even if I admire your work at keeping class discussion going in general. However, any thread you're ever in (that isn't your own) that's about class ideas it's literally the same denigrating thing every time. If you want to hear people's ideas you've gotta earn it.

However, we’re talking about a game that has adhered strictly to WC3 based heroes for almost 20 years. So while new concepts can certainly be created, WoW isn’t simply isn’t a game that really does that. They have been highly conservative with their class inclusions, and there’s zero evidence that they’re looking to deviate from that model.

[Shadochi]

Can you name a single Dragon Knight or Dragonsworn in lore to base such a class off of?



Enhancement Shaman.



Shadow Priests.

Shadow priests are way off psionic powers.

But I was answering a reply to my post saying they should develop NEW class concepts, not something based off X character in WoW/WC. And I mentioned that they have lore for dragons to be able to pull a Knight/Sworn class. Not that there is one ingame.

For Enchancement shamans, while not truly what I envision a battle mage is (a clothie using abjuration arcane to protect himself and enhancing his blows with magic), it is in some ways a melee class that relies on magic to empower attacks. I missed that, my bad.

[Therougetitan]

There does not need to be a precedent for the next class. Blizzard has broken precedents with almost every expansion. People apply arbitrary rules to what Blizzard can do. Almost every WoW expac name was argued that it couldn't be real because the naming convention wasn't done before. People didn't think they'd add demon hunters. People didn't think they'd add allied races. People didn't think we would go two expacs in a row with no class because of what happened with expansions before.

Trying to see a trend for numbers and forecasting like trying to figure out dates makes sense. For features it doesn't apply. Rules can be broken when they try something new.

[Teriz]

The entire Timekeeper faction and especially their preceding concept, the Bronze Watchers.

Yeah, Dragonsworn are established classes that acquire draconic abilities via their closeness with dragons. The Bronze watchers are made up of Hunters, Warriors, and others. It’s really no different than Druids having Ysera’s Tears or Mages having Alexstraza’s Fury.

[Zankai27]

However, we’re talking about a game that has adhered strictly to WC3 based heroes for almost 20 years. So while new concepts can certainly be created, WoW isn’t simply isn’t a game that really does that. They have been highly conservative with their class inclusions, and there’s zero evidence that they’re looking to deviate from that model.

It's kind of amazing how you can completely skip over the point of what I was actually saying. Every time.

At least I can sit with the knowledge that I actually know members of the dev team and how they operate. Popularity is what really sells class ideas. So creating ideas and getting people to see them and talk about them is what gets things out there.

[Teriz]

Shadow priests are way off psionic powers.

Mind Flay, Mind Sear, Dark Thoughts, Mindbender, Searing Nightmare, Mind Spike, Mind Control, Psychic Scream, Psychic Horror, Mind Vision, Mind Soothe, Psychic Link, etc. Since their abilities are derived from the Old Gods, they similarly deal with mental manipulation, control, and madness.

But I was answering a reply to my post saying they should develop NEW class concepts, not something based off X character in WoW/WC. And I mentioned that they have lore for dragons to be able to pull a Knight/Sworn class. Not that there is one ingame.

Which is fine. My question would be what exactly would such a class bring to the table that an existing class could not bring? We have plenty of melee, and we even have melee that already imbues their abilities with fire. Compound this with a lack of an example of such a class in a lore character or hero, and you have the problem that many "outsider" concepts have when they're considered for WoW.