Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    It's just not reasonable to add ne classes at this point. They have to be supported forever, which is a huge deal, and add nothing new gameplaywise. There's nothing you can do with 43 specs that you can't do with 40. Adding classes just for different aesthetics is inane.

  2. #62
    Couldn't disagree more.

    As someone who has been maining the same character/class since wrath (with some gameplay breaks) I couldn't give a sh*t about a new class. At best it's gonna become another alt of mine. I'd take more game content to play over a new class any day.
    Armory Link
    Mount Collection

    Everything wrong with gamers in one sentence:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavox View Post
    I want Activision-Blizzard to burn, but for crimes against gaming, not because they got me too'd.

  3. #63
    AThis thread’s true logic

    1. Every expansion with new classes had coincidentally been good.
    2. Therefore, new classes must magically make an expansion good.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by AryuFate View Post
    AThis thread’s true logic

    1. Every expansion with new classes had coincidentally been good.
    2. Therefore, new classes must magically make an expansion good.
    It's not coincidence. It's simple patter. New class = enough resources are spent on making this xpack. Enough resources = good xpack.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Spazzix View Post
    It's a pretty strong argument you have going there but let me just put this one out there:

    Take BfA. Take the exact same dungeons. Take the same raids and content patches. Take its warfronts. Take its thick gob of bandage mechanics layered on top of one another. Take another few months of AP grinding. Take its RNG corruption lottery days. Take its Uldir holy paladins. Now add a new class. It's suddenly a good expansion? (I mean really, maybe even cut some of the content and features since resources needed to be put to the new class.)

    You're telling me WoD would have been right up there with Wrath if they just added necromancers?
    Tbh, I think a stronger argument would have been that expansions where they set out with mediocracy in mind and couldn't even be arsed to make a new class/spec, ended up being at best that? Though that is also just simplifying the issue.
    MMO-C should be glad that the British Empire is no more, because they'd want a piece of all the copium trade here.
    Angry players come to the forums to complain about the game... but what loser only comes to the forums to complain about the forums and its users?
    Felating Blizzard too eagerly may lead to oxygen deficiency and worst case asphyxiation. Long-term effects range from delusions up to cerebral necrosis.

  6. #66
    It's really sad to see that we have reached a "gaming culture" where players are not even trying to imagine HOW a game could be expanded upon;

    and that's because Blizzard just made you all believe that this shit they created is PERFECT and cannot be made better!
    Y'all defending this nonsense balancing bullshit, hey, just look at this exp, or any other, balance was NEVER achieved!

    And this is another "lie" from Blizzard, that somehow "balancing" the game takes up 80%+ of all their resources, "costing a raid tier" and such bullshit and you all believed it.

    I'm gonna give you a hard nuclear bomb:
    specs are balanced RELATIVE TO THE CURRENT CONTENT. Having 8 dungeons and 10 raid bosses up at a time is.. PATHETIC, let's say it! 15$ per month and we get 1 new dungeon every 2 years and 8-12 bosses every 6 months?!

    Of course players are "mad" at balance, we don't have toys to play with!
    Make 20 dungeons and 4 raids with 5-6 bosses PER TIER and let's see how "balance" is not a topic anymore. Design lots of different bosses that require certain compositions, AND make players easily catch-up on alts to their mains.
    It's simple as that.

    Make this game a "combat puzzler", as no one seriously likes the story of wow, it's all just a huge combat simulator, players enjoy that combat is fluid af, no game comes close to this.
    So make WoW's COMBAT the main selling point!

    Also no one wants 20 legendaries for their class, BUT make some that change the gameplay DRASTICALLY.

    Oh and don't tell me that in the age of MACHINE LEARNING balancing is so hard... just get a bot running through warcraftlogs and let it nerf/buff the outliers for +/- 5% per week end of story...

    So so easy and yet both Blizz and some fans are vehemently defending their design choices... uber stinky.

  7. #67
    Mechagnome terminaltrip421's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    [A] Azuremyst <US>
    Posts
    620
    maybe it speaks to how much the devs cared about the expansion when adding new classes. maybe adding a new class is what it took for them to seriously care about the expansion rather than just phone it in.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Strand NE View Post
    They were new to the factions.
    Still not new classes.

  9. #69
    Brewmaster Pheraz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Feralas, Mount Hyal, Quel'Danil Lodge
    Posts
    1,252
    Wrong. Bfa was awesome. And so was cataclysm. IMO
    Vynd | Zorn | Pheraz | Silwyna | Mondlicht | Eis | Blut | Emerelle - My personal Kaldorei army <3 Plus lots of voidy high elves <3

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by terminaltrip421 View Post
    maybe it speaks to how much the devs cared about the expansion when adding new classes. maybe adding a new class is what it took for them to seriously care about the expansion rather than just phone it in.
    I think this is a "better" way to look at it. Rather than saying "if there is no new class, teh expansion is crap!" because as many have mentioned, TBC was pretty damn popular and did not introduce any new classes. And no, allowing access to the other faction is not introducing a new class any more than me playing druid for the first time in TBC meant that class was "introduced" in TBC.

    I think if you look at it in a very simplistic way, yes, the expansions with new classes are very popular, but i think this is a prime case of confusing causation with correlation. I do think you have touched on something interesting though, to do with the devs passion and excitement with those expansions, possibly driving them to explore their options a little more.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefhammer View Post
    Still not new classes.
    Yeah that argument is honestly softer than a marshmallow, it just doesnt make any sense at all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orwell7 View Post
    snip
    You want specs swinging frequently by 5% one way or the other, and THAT is your "solution" to balance? Which logs does this machine look at? All logs? Or just those performing at a high level? Wont most specs then purely be balanced around the best players in the world? How does it differentiate balancing in pvp vs pve? Some specs perform extremely well in M+, but poorly in raids, how does it deal with that? Same with arena Vs RBG - Some classes are amazing in Arena, but less so in other forms of combat, how does it deal with that?

    I will ignore all the times you confused your personal opinion with what "everyone" thinks, because they are all just your opinion, and not worth discussing further.

  11. #71
    I love how the logic for why we should add Tinkers isn't applied the same as the logic for Necromancers.

    "We have DKs." Sorry, if we're going to use that same logic, we already have Engineers as a profession. If we're not going to say Tinkers and Engineering are the same, then no, DKs and Necromancers are not the same.

    Also, 100% of people who love Necromancer lore in all videos ever and love the idea of it, DK doesn't meet that in any way, shape or form. Similar to how people who want Tinkers don't think Engineering meets any of those standards.

    On the flipside, about 100% of RPGs have Necromancers (among other classes that could be fun like Bard), meanwhile 0% have "Tinker" because the whole idea of Tinker is just... engineering...

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Zentail View Post
    I love how the logic for why we should add Tinkers isn't applied the same as the logic for Necromancers.

    "We have DKs." Sorry, if we're going to use that same logic, we already have Engineers as a profession. If we're not going to say Tinkers and Engineering are the same, then no, DKs and Necromancers are not the same.

    Also, 100% of people who love Necromancer lore in all videos ever and love the idea of it, DK doesn't meet that in any way, shape or form. Similar to how people who want Tinkers don't think Engineering meets any of those standards.

    On the flipside, about 100% of RPGs have Necromancers (among other classes that could be fun like Bard), meanwhile 0% have "Tinker" because the whole idea of Tinker is just... engineering...
    Engineer is soOOo popular in guild wars (hint: its not. Nobody wants to do that crap. Look at mechagnomes)

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    I think this is a "better" way to look at it. Rather than saying "if there is no new class, teh expansion is crap!" because as many have mentioned, TBC was pretty damn popular and did not introduce any new classes. And no, allowing access to the other faction is not introducing a new class any more than me playing druid for the first time in TBC meant that class was "introduced" in TBC.

    I think if you look at it in a very simplistic way, yes, the expansions with new classes are very popular, but i think this is a prime case of confusing causation with correlation. I do think you have touched on something interesting though, to do with the devs passion and excitement with those expansions, possibly driving them to explore their options a little more.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yeah that argument is honestly softer than a marshmallow, it just doesnt make any sense at all.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You want specs swinging frequently by 5% one way or the other, and THAT is your "solution" to balance? Which logs does this machine look at? All logs? Or just those performing at a high level? Wont most specs then purely be balanced around the best players in the world? How does it differentiate balancing in pvp vs pve? Some specs perform extremely well in M+, but poorly in raids, how does it deal with that? Same with arena Vs RBG - Some classes are amazing in Arena, but less so in other forms of combat, how does it deal with that?

    I will ignore all the times you confused your personal opinion with what "everyone" thinks, because they are all just your opinion, and not worth discussing further.
    Not at all. Just because it wasn't on one faction doesn't mean it's a new class. It was the same old class with 1 slightly different ability. That just doesn't constitute calling it a new class.

  14. #74
    I agree with this sentiment, a million percent.

    Fuck balance.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Zentail View Post
    On the flipside, about 100% of RPGs have Necromancers (among other classes that could be fun like Bard), meanwhile 0% have "Tinker" because the whole idea of Tinker is just... engineering...
    Many games often don't have necromancers, because they are considered flat out evil which tends to be a not supported default playstyle. On the other hand tinklers do exist in many other franchises, they just call them engineers, gunners, artificers, machinists or whaterver. Naming them after an uneducated hack is just wow's special flavor of stupid.
    MMO-C should be glad that the British Empire is no more, because they'd want a piece of all the copium trade here.
    Angry players come to the forums to complain about the game... but what loser only comes to the forums to complain about the forums and its users?
    Felating Blizzard too eagerly may lead to oxygen deficiency and worst case asphyxiation. Long-term effects range from delusions up to cerebral necrosis.

  16. #76
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    23,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Val the Moofia Boss View Post
    I will never understand why Blizzard never added Necromancers or Tinkers. They are so obvious to design.
    They did, its called unholy dk, frost dk, blood dk, frost mage, affliction warlock.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Val the Moofia Boss View Post
    The core focus of the Unholy spec is the DK dealing DoT damage.
    lol that was killed pre-Cata patch. Wish it weren't so, but here we are.

  18. #78
    Elemental Lord Santti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,194
    I don't play anymore, but when I did, I was not a fan of having more classes. I dreaded it, in fact.

    Why?

    Because more classes meant more competition. Only few specs are considered "acceptable" for running (high) Mythic+, and I blame RaiderIO for reinforcing that particular behavior. You say you don't care about balance, but it's no fun having your favorite spec being among the shit-list. Make your own groups, you say. Play with friends, you say. But they, too, favored friends with the correct specs, and my disillusionment was complete.

    Maybe Shadowlands is different from Battle for Azeroth. Maybe it's not. I don't care anymore to check.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    Money laundering, especially prior to his election? I couldn't give a flying fuck.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Santti View Post
    I don't play anymore, but when I did, I was not a fan of having more classes. I dreaded it, in fact.

    Why?

    Because more classes meant more competition. Only few specs are considered "acceptable" for running (high) Mythic+, and I blame RaiderIO for reinforcing that particular behavior. You say you don't care about balance, but it's no fun having your favorite spec being among the shit-list. Make your own groups, you say. Play with friends, you say. But they, too, favored friends with the correct specs, and my disillusionment was complete.

    Maybe Shadowlands is different from Battle for Azeroth. Maybe it's not. I don't care anymore to check.
    Did you ever consider that your "friends" actually wanted to run with better players? Is it possible they hid behind "your spec isnt meta" to save your feelings?

    What you are saying is possibly correct, but too many times i have seen and heard people blaming their poor performance and difficulty finding groups on their spec, only to see other people playing the same spec perform far higher, and have no issues obtaining groups. Too many times i have seen multi page forum threads complaining about a certain spec being "nonviable" and impossible to find a raid spot, only to have world first raiders use them on first kills.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by durrtygoodz View Post
    They can't even make the classes they currently have fun to play
    Or if they are fun to play they make sure to ruin them next expansion like BFA Shadow to Shadowlands Shadow. Infinite Voidform was way more fun.

Posting Permissions

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