How I Would Fix Drakthyr

[bruxx]

They said we'd be getting a post with Dracthyr model stuff soon nearly 2 weeks ago, part of me wonders if they might not be adding bulkier body shapes based on the initial feedback here and elsewhere. All I can hope for with that is that they keep it as a choice, instead of making them buff at the expense of giving us the option for skinny, because options are better than forcing choices.

It's what I'm thinking as well. Personally hoping with the slight changes proposed by ercarp, I believe it was over the super swole steroid gorrilla with scales.

[Teriz]

While I don't think the super huge Dracthyr is going to happen, I do think changes like below are possible;



However, even that might not happen, due to how it was presented to Blizzard.

[Veluren]

However, even that might not happen, due to how it was presented to Blizzard.

I think that's the big thing to take away from this thread. So many people are unable to present their complaints constructively, even if they're valid, in favor of being quick to attack pretty much everyone who has even the slightest "but" to it, it extremely shoots any point they want to make, again no matter how valid, in the foot.

Or the people who are throwing around borderline Xphobic rhetoric, but that's another can of worms.

[Sluvs]

I think that's the big thing to take away from this thread. So many people are unable to present their complaints constructively, even if they're valid, in favor of being quick to attack pretty much everyone who has even the slightest "but" to it, it extremely shoots any point they want to make, again no matter how valid, in the foot.

Or the people who are throwing around borderline Xphobic rhetoric, but that's another can of worms.

Many people voiced their concerns in a mature and constructive way but were shouted down by people in this thread.

[Makaloff]

I agree with most of the changes, especielly the option to have the visage being all races. however i dont like the androgyneus look they have (it should ofcourse be a option to keep so i dont want to remove it). however it would be nice to have a option to have female forms like the other races have, so you have 1 male, 1 female and 1 nonbinary (androgynous) body type to choose between.

[Teriz]

Many people voiced their concerns in a mature and constructive way but were shouted down by people in this thread.

I think the problem was the artist from another game redrawing one of Blizzard’s designs in order to “improve” it. That’s a big no-no in artist/design circles, no matter what your intentions are.

[Gigantique]

Dracthyr and Evoker are one in the same. Ion said as much.

Perfect example, replying with something irrelevant and wrong presented as a rebuttal to avoid the actual point made.

Evoker is a class, with mechanics I could find really cool and to have interesting playstyles.

Dracthyr is a race with aesthetics, animations, armor restrictions and eyecolours I dislike which has no effect on how I feel about the gameplay of Evoker.

So no, they are not the same which is why they're named the Evoker class and the Dracthyr race and not just Dracthyr.

[Teriz]

Perfect example, replying with something irrelevant and wrong presented as a rebuttal to avoid the actual point made.

Evoker is a class, with mechanics I could find really cool and to have interesting playstyles.

Dracthyr is a race with aesthetics, animations, armor restrictions and eyecolours I dislike which has no effect on how I feel about the gameplay of Evoker.

So no, they are not the same which is why they're named the Evoker class and the Dracthyr race and not just Dracthyr.

The Evoker's mechanics are based on the draconic body of the Dracthyr.

The Dracthyr's body and overall concept was designed with the Evoker's abilities in mind.

They're one in the same. Blizzard literally calls them Dracthyr Evokers;

https://dragonflight.blizzard.com/en-us/

[Gigantique]

I would say it's both easier than you'd think but more work than you'd expect. If the base is strong enough you can alter it pretty well by just dragging or changing variables in the model making software, but I'm more familiar with say, Skyrim or Oblivion than I am WoW's engine. For all I know, you could move a vector by .5 and it freaks an animation out so badly that the dracthyr's arm suddenly turns into its leg.

Though I agree dodging the issue with Worgen is partially why I'm content with what we have, I would rather have a race that looks good even if it's not what was envisioned (I would have been fine with ultra beefy drakonid), than have a rush-job redo based on feedback that might or might not be the vocal minority that ends up making it look like hot garbage for 8+ years.

They said we'd be getting a post with Dracthyr model stuff soon nearly 2 weeks ago, part of me wonders if they might not be adding bulkier body shapes based on the initial feedback here and elsewhere. All I can hope for with that is that they keep it as a choice, instead of making them buff at the expense of giving us the option for skinny, because options are better than forcing choices.

100% agree, I don't agree much with the Dracthyr model but I would never want it replaced with a more imposing model, that would be dumb and unfair to the people that DO like the model and risk ending up with a Worgen 2.0 scenario which nobody should want.

- - - Updated - - -

The Evoker's mechanics are based on the draconic body of the Dracthyr.

The Dracthyr's body and overall concept was designed with the Evoker's abilities in mind.

They're one in the same.

Yet I could change the model, structure and animations of the Dracthyr race and yet the gameplay mechanics, dot durations, damage modifier of certain abilities, cooldowns and resource generation of the Evoker would be unaffected, no?

No gameplay mechanics of the Evoker are dependent on the Dracthyr remaining as it is, that's you opining and presenting it as fact. I could have a T-posing Human stand-in for the Dracthyr model and gameplay would be the same while looking goofy af.

This is a weird hill for you to die on man.

[Teriz]

Yet I could change the model, structure and animations of the Dracthyr race and yet the gameplay mechanics, dot durations, damage modifier of certain abilities, cooldowns and resource generation of the Evoker would be unaffected, no?

Change the model in what way? They're going to have wing and tail attacks, and several abilities are going to be based on flying around and using draconic breath attacks. So regardless, you're going to have to have wings and tails on Dracthyrs. The wings and tail also limit the potential size you can make this creature, which is why a slender yet tall form makes sense.

No gameplay mechanics of the Evoker are dependent on the Dracthyr remaining as it is, that's you opining and presenting it as fact.

See above.

[Gigantique]

Change the model in what way? They're going to have wing and tail attacks, and several abilities are going to be based on flying around and using draconic breath attacks. So regardless, you're going to have to have wings and tails on Dracthyrs. The wings and tail also limit the potential size you can make this creature, which is why a slender yet tall form makes sense.



See above.

See above example on how I could swap the model out for a T-pose Human and the Evoker class would play out identically on a mechanical level.

Oh wait you deliberately decided not to quote that section. How convenient!

[Nyel]

While I don't think the super huge Dracthyr is going to happen, I do think changes like below are possible;



However, even that might not happen, due to how it was presented to Blizzard.

The right face is so so so much better already. So is the entire posture.

[Teriz]

See above example on how I could swap the model out for a T-pose Human and the Evoker class would play out identically on a mechanical level.

Oh wait you deliberately decided not to quote that section. How convenient!

I ignored it because it was a ridiculous response. How are you going to have a human with a draconic body, wings, and a tail? That wouldn’t be a human.

[bruxx]

The right face is so so so much better already. So is the entire posture.

Yeah, honestly it doesn't take much to make a model that I think most people would be fine with

[Teriz]

The right face is so so so much better already. So is the entire posture.

Yeah, but they screwed up “correcting” Blizzard’s design. That’s a bad thing to do. Should have just done it without doing a paint over of the original.

[Gigantique]

I ignored it because it was a ridiculous response. How are you going to have a human with a draconic body, wings, and a tail? That wouldn’t be a human.

I don't know if this is just your defense mechanism to an argument you can't respond to or if you're genuinely struggling with grasping this concept, but I'll do it step by step then;

Let's take a random class and a random ability, oh I don't know a Warrior's Warbreaker talent. The animation is identical across all races (your character does a stomp on the ground) so it's inherently locked to the class that Warbreaker = stomp just like an Evoker Tail Swipe = swipe tail.

Now, I am perfectly able to discuss the mechanical side of Warbreaker, how it applies a debuff to targets around me for 6s that gives them 30% more damage taken from me, without thr stomp animation having anything to do with it. The ability could literally have my character stand still and just magically apply the debuff without an animation and I can still discuss the gameplay element of the ability. Maybe I really like the concept of creating a 6s window to destroy enemies with 30% damage but think the stomp animation looks silly.

Ergo I like the class ability mechanically but dislike the look of it.

Now let's translate this to the Evoker Wing Flap ability. Let's say it does a knockback effect and the animation is the Evoker flapping its wings forward to do so.

I am perfectly capable of liking the ability, how for example it only has a 10s CD, maybe it stuns a target if it hits a wall and I really like that.

But I dislike the wing flap animation the Dracthyr does and wish it was just a cast like the Druid Typhoon.

Ergo I like the Evoker ability for its mechanics and interactions but dislike the Dracthyr race for its animations when using the ability. My enjoyment of the Evoker class mechanics are not affected by the animations or aesthetics of the race model.

This is like basic understanding of discussion, nobody is taking into account that Arcane Explosion is a purple dome that shoots out from your character when discussing if they like its damage numbers, how it interacts with Arcane Charges or how much mana it drains etc.

[Mutineer]

Yeah, honestly it doesn't take much to make a model that I think most people would be fine with

The only things I don't particularly like about it are pretty minor nitpicks. Like the wing membrane doesn't attach to their back anymore in Thunderbrush's edit, and he also cut the little fins on the forearms.

[Auburst]

Again,that is your opinion as it is about taste. Some people like them some people dont. It doesn't make them bad it just means people have different tastes. And how are you supposed to portray a dragon since they are not real theres no standard to judge them against, even within the Warcraft universe dragons have changed and since Dracthyr are a whole new race they don't have to be carbon copies of current dragons.

Current Dracthyr model is shitfucked beyond belief. How to portray a dragon? By using for reference existing examples like dragons themselves, drakonid and dragonspawn. They have to look good and those spider lizards don't even register in light wavelengths observed by humans.

[Teriz]

I don't know if this is just your defense mechanism to an argument you can't respond to or if you're genuinely struggling with grasping this concept, but I'll do it step by step then;

Let's take a random class and a random ability, oh I don't know a Warrior's Warbreaker talent. The animation is identical across all races (your character does a stomp on the ground) so it's inherently locked to the class that Warbreaker = stomp just like an Evoker Tail Swipe = swipe tail.

Now, I am perfectly able to discuss the mechanical side of Warbreaker, how it applies a debuff to targets around me for 6s that gives them 30% more damage taken from me, without thr stomp animation having anything to do with it. The ability could literally have my character stand still and just magically apply the debuff without an animation and I can still discuss the gameplay element of the ability. Maybe I really like the concept of creating a 6s window to destroy enemies with 30% damage but think the stomp animation looks silly.

This is yet another example of a ridiculous response. You're comparing an ability where someone stomps into the ground versus multiple abilities that require wings and a tail to make sense. Every race has feet. No race has wings except the Dracthyr, and no race has a tail long enough to be utilized as a weapon except the Dracthyr.

Ergo I like the class ability mechanically but dislike the look of it.

Now let's translate this to the Evoker Wing Flap ability. Let's say it does a knockback effect and the animation is the Evoker flapping its wings forward to do so.

I am perfectly capable of liking the ability, how for example it only has a 10s CD, maybe it stuns a target if it hits a wall and I really like that.

But I dislike the wing flap animation the Dracthyr does and wish it was just a cast like the Druid Typhoon.

Then you're moving outside of the purpose of the Evoker, which is a class designed from the ground up to emulate a dragon's natural abilities, which in turn requires a RACE that has the dragon's natural attributes (wings, long tail, breathing fire, claws, scales, etc.).

If you don't understand this, I don't know how we can continue this conversation.

[Gigantique]

This is yet another example of a ridiculous response. You're comparing an ability where someone stomps into the ground versus multiple abilities that require wings and a tail to make sense. Every race has feet. No race has wings except the Dracthyr, and no race has a tail long enough to be utilized as a weapon except the Dracthyr.



Then you're moving outside of the purpose of the Evoker, which is a class designed from the ground up to emulate a dragon's natural abilities, which in turn requires a RACE that has the dragon's natural attributes (wings, long tail, breathing fire, claws, scales, etc.).

If you don't understand this, I don't know how we can continue this conversation.

No we clearly cannot, as you seem incapable of grasping how someone can like the hard math part of a class and dislike the aesthetics of the race it's locked into playing as. The animations and dependency of a tail is irrelevant when discussing or liking/disliking the interaction between a spell and a proc for a class, how a talent makes a spell behave differently or if the dot is easy to multidot with or has a long enough duration etc.

You keep circling back to aesthetics when I'm using mechanics to demonstrate how you can like or dislike a class irrelevant of aesthetics.

Hilariously proven by me painfully laying out how you can discuss Warbreaker while completely ignoring the stomping aspect of it for you to immediately use the stomping aspect as some silly rebuttal.

Inability to grasp the concept it is!