1. #65401
    Quote Originally Posted by Gifdwarf View Post
    They're never going to let you fight in visage form because then 99% of the players will just be discount blood elf mages who never use dracthyr form.
    Man they should have just changed the stance of these models.. the silliouette is to well known, to not say.. hey thats the blood elf model.

  2. #65402
    Scarab Lord The-Shan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Badlands
    Posts
    4,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Imo it only makes sense for Evokers to be Drac'thyr. The only thing that would make sense otherwise is something BUILT to be an evoker; a Chromatic drake or someone Dragonsworn to all five flights. Neither is really likely.
    Expanding Visage options for Evokers by itself would allow you to play Evoker as any race though, especially if they give the option to stay in Visage form in combat with quick shifts in and out of form when you use specific abilities; the problem is that however quick they may be, shifts still eat into animation time so it would mean that letting you stay in visage form would change how the class looks animated completely (probably by speeding up those skills so they can squeeze in the quick shifts).

    It absolutely makes sense to giver Drac'thyr other classes. I think it will happen and imo it may well happen DURING 10.0 especially for any class that is less animation intensive.
    It wouldn't be too hard to overcome. Eyebeam for the DH for example transforms them into their metamorphosis form. Deep breath could transform you into the dragon for that duration, it would require an altered animation and a bit more work, but I don't see why it couldn't fit with a puff of smoke like the dracthyr-to-visage transformation.
    thinly veiled high elf thread

  3. #65403
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Gifdwarf View Post
    They're never going to let you fight in visage form because then 99% of the players will just be discount blood elf mages who never use dracthyr form.
    And so many abilities depend on Drac'thyr anatomy. I could see breaths being useable in Visage form but anything that references tails, wings (or flying), talons? You'd have to shift

  4. #65404
    Scarab Lord The-Shan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Badlands
    Posts
    4,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Gifdwarf View Post
    They're never going to let you fight in visage form because then 99% of the players will just be discount blood elf mages who never use dracthyr form.
    Locking an entire class behind a controversial appearance is super weird, honestly. Some people feel uncomfortable with the Dracthyr's appearance, or don't feel like they could identify with it. Expanding it to their other form makes sense, because it broadens the accessibility of the class, and people who can accept it as a core fantasy. Character customization and appearance is a huge topic of interest for a lot of players.

    If it means 2x the people try Dracthyr and enjoy it, and it fulfills their warcraft dragon fantasy, then that's great. That's what the class was meant to do in the first place. Part of the warcraft dragon fantasy is being a pretty elf-adjacent character to some people, given our greatest impressions of dragons are often times their visage forms. Providing that choice makes more people happy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    And so many abilities depend on Drac'thyr anatomy. I could see breaths being useable in Visage form but anything that references tails, wings (or flying), talons? You'd have to shift
    actually ingame a good portion of the rotation wouldn't require the Dracthyr anatomy.
    thinly veiled high elf thread

  5. #65405
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of the Astral Star View Post
    So... anyone catch these under string changes yet?

    Why would they separate Drac'thyr and Evoker if they're the same thing? Why would one get the Evoker popup as opposed to the Drac'thyr popup and vice versa? Am I looking too far into this or am I being an idiot?

    maybe bcs in future if they make other evokers or other dracthyrs they wont have to rework and separate it then, better to have it done on first time

  6. #65406
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Imo it only makes sense for Evokers to be Drac'thyr. The only thing that would make sense otherwise is something BUILT to be an evoker; a Chromatic drake or someone Dragonsworn to all five flights. Neither is really likely.
    Expanding Visage options for Evokers by itself would allow you to play Evoker as any race though, especially if they give the option to stay in Visage form in combat with quick shifts in and out of form when you use specific abilities; the problem is that however quick they may be, shifts still eat into animation time so it would mean that letting you stay in visage form would change how the class looks animated completely (probably by speeding up those skills so they can squeeze in the quick shifts).

    It absolutely makes sense to giver Drac'thyr other classes. I think it will happen and imo it may well happen DURING 10.0 especially for any class that is less animation intensive.
    I rather see them bring in those cooler models of those guards as allied races or make it a body type 3 to be available like that with other classes. They could be cool warriors... ngl.

  7. #65407
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by The-Shan View Post
    It wouldn't be too hard to overcome. Eyebeam for the DH for example transforms them into their metamorphosis form. Deep breath could transform you into the dragon for that duration, it would require an altered animation and a bit more work, but I don't see why it couldn't fit with a puff of smoke like the dracthyr-to-visage transformation.
    Then you need to think it over more carefully. Eyebeam is a channeled ability that is built to include the shift (in the initial frames were your pose changes); it also has a fairly long duration. A tail sweep is meant to look swift and to connect with the opponent. It would have far less frames since it is a faster attack and it would be in constant motion while Eyebeam maintains a sequence throughout the channel. Cutting frames to add the quick shifts in and out while still fitting an animation that is meant to MATCH the cast/GCD of the ability is a different beast. There are no extraneous or repeating frames you can just replace. You'd have to change the speed or cut into the duration of the actual animation. Both are problematic since the first would make your motions spastic and the latter would either sacrifice detail or sacrifice responsiveness.

    Blizzard does an excellent job creating responsive animations. The last thing we need is for our characters to look like someone from ESO (or Diablo Immortal . . .) stuttering through their frames like a shonen filler episode with no animation budget.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lolites View Post
    maybe bcs in future if they make other evokers or other dracthyrs they wont have to rework and separate it then, better to have it done on first time
    You need to make the check both when a class is picked AND when a race is picked since you can pick EITHER first during character creation. It's not that deep.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    I rather see them bring in those cooler models of those guards as allied races or make it a body type 3 to be available like that with other classes. They could be cool warriors... ngl.
    The thing is, Dragonspawn are sworn to their flights. Drac'thyr are the successful version of the chromatic experience, infused with the power of all flights. By necessity whatever the dragon class would be, it had to be chromatic. Now we could find a batch of chromatic dragonspawn eggs together with Chromatus . . .

  8. #65408
    Scarab Lord The-Shan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Badlands
    Posts
    4,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Then you need to think it over more carefully. Eyebeam is a channeled ability that is built to include the shift (in the initial frames were your pose changes); it also has a fairly long duration. A tail sweep is meant to look swift and to connect with the opponent. It would have far less frames since it is a faster attack and it would be in constant motion while Eyebeam maintains a sequence throughout the channel. Cutting frames to add the quick shifts in and out while still fitting an animation that is meant to MATCH the cast/GCD of the ability is a different beast. There are no extraneous or repeating frames you can just replace. You'd have to change the speed or cut into the duration of the actual animation. Both are problematic since the first would make your motions spastic and the latter would either sacrifice detail or sacrifice responsiveness.

    Blizzard does an excellent job creating responsive animations. The last thing we need is for our characters to look like someone from ESO (or Diablo Immortal . . .) stuttering through their frames like a shonen filler episode with no animation budget.
    I can imagine a way it could go over deep breath very easily, considering the puff of smoke transformation is instant, it wouldn't really need to have any extra frames, frame 1-3'ish of initiating it is merged in with the puff of smoke, seamlessly winding into the fly over, the final 3'ish frames is merged with the puff of smoke.

    The transformation isn't like the worgen transformation, its instant, not channeled.

    Keep in mind deep breath is a long animation, but it the transform about as long as the 'dismount' animation of that puff of smoke. As far as I am aware, dismounting doesn't add any extra frames to a spell.
    Last edited by The-Shan; 2022-08-03 at 09:33 AM.
    thinly veiled high elf thread

  9. #65409
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlord Hanibuhl View Post
    I'm still very much anxious to hear the Dracthyr voices.. both male and female ... if there even is a difference.

    Nothing in the current build right now right?
    I’m sure you meant „Voice Type 1“ and „Voice Type 2“. How dare you assume the voice defines a gender.
    Vanilla Good, TBC Bad, Wotlk Good, Cata Bad, MoP Good, WoD Bad, Legion Good, BfA Bad, SL Good, ??? Bad

  10. #65410
    The Insane Feali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cornelia Street
    Posts
    15,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Gifdwarf View Post
    I think DH and Monk can really benefit from these new trees as they never were created with these in mind unlike other classes. Hopefully Demon Hunter gets a bunch of brand new stuff.
    Monk also has such a rich history of playstyles that were all gutted in the more recent expansions. Monk in MoP was so incredibly fun and I hope they bring it back!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aradur View Post
    I’m sure you meant „Voice Type 1“ and „Voice Type 2“. How dare you assume the voice defines a gender.
    You know this "joke" is already old right?

  11. #65411
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradur View Post
    I’m sure you meant „Voice Type 1“ and „Voice Type 2“. How dare you assume the voice defines a gender.
    *sigh* here we go again...

  12. #65412
    I am currently completely out of the loop regarding WoW. I just know that Draconflight will be released later this year. I stopped mid-SL after my previous guild died and I am considering starting playing again.

    Do we already have any information regarding the daily/weekly "chores"? I know we are not forced to do them but I would prefer to have access to Mythic raids and M+ without spending hours for each character as I like to play multiple characters.

    Thanks!

  13. #65413
    Quote Originally Posted by glszino View Post
    Do we already have any information regarding the daily/weekly "chores"?
    DF is essentially WOD 2.0 - you can just log and raid/m+/pvp as no other content will give you any char power.

  14. #65414
    Quote Originally Posted by klaps_05 View Post
    DF is essentially WOD 2.0 - you can just log and raid/m+/pvp as no other content will give you any char power.
    WoD had almost 0 stuff to do outside of raiding, even stuff that was just for cosmetics or casual content. DF seems to have a lot of that. Also: Profession overhaul should provide some extra content on that front too.

  15. #65415
    Quote Originally Posted by klaps_05 View Post
    DF is essentially WOD 2.0 - you can just log and raid/m+/pvp as no other content will give you any char power.
    Well, that sounds great, thanks!

    I am okay with some things for the story but it gets old real fast when you usually play all healers.

  16. #65416
    Quote Originally Posted by klaps_05 View Post
    DF is essentially WOD 2.0 - you can just log and raid/m+/pvp as no other content will give you any char power.
    WoD didn't have M+, so should be quite a bit different in the sense that you would probably want to fill out the weekly vault options, whereas in WoD it was truly raid or die. You logged on for your weekly raiding, and then had no reason to log on after at all.
    The world revamp dream will never die!

  17. #65417
    Figured this might be interesting to some.

    Blizzard and Netease were working on a mobile WoW MMO. I say were because they cancelled it.. As the tweet says, it would've been set in the WoW universe but at a different time period.

    Interesting what could have been. Though as it would've been a mobile MMO and seeing the stuff with Diablo Immortal...

  18. #65418
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    43,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiivar86 View Post
    Figured this might be interesting to some.

    Blizzard and Netease were working on a mobile WoW MMO. I say were because they cancelled it.. As the tweet says, it would've been set in the WoW universe but at a different time period.

    Interesting what could have been. Though as it would've been a mobile MMO and seeing the stuff with Diablo Immortal...
    I think we're better off without that game existing.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

  19. #65419
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    I think we're better off without that game existing.
    Yep. Miss me with that mobile shit.

  20. #65420
    The Insane Arafal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Nextdrassil
    Posts
    17,746
    The time adventure quests are a treasure.

    We even get to meet ourselves.
    https://twitter.com/Portergauge/stat...262400/photo/1



Posting Permissions

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