People shouldn't accept classes with 2 specs

[Stone Dude]

They did it for the Demon Hunter and people went "oh well, if they can't think of anything unique, better to just go with 2 specs than to come up with a lackluster 3rd one"

Now 2 specs is the new standard. They have to put in less effort. Why should they design 3 specs if the community accepts 2 just fine?

There is no reason why there couldn't have been a 3rd spec at least. It's a dragon, that can be a ranged caster and a healer. There's absolutely room for a melee dps or a tank spec and especially considering it's a dragon race, that has been created by Deathwing, the leader of the black dragonflight.

People will object to this and say "we have enough melee dps and tank specs".

1. We also have enough ranged dps and healers. There was no need for any class at all. Classes are put into the game cause it's fun to have something new. Not because we need more of them.

2. The argument from people is that having more melee dps specs than ranged dps specs leads to having too many melees in a raid, and it gets really cluttered around the boss and raid groups already have to be designed in a way where they don't take too many melees.

But whenever the tank problem is being brought up and the old story comes up of Blizzard designing more tank classes in the hopes that that solves the tank shortage problem, people point out that more tank classes doesn't actually equal more people playing tank. Ok. I think that's probably true. So then what is the problem with for example having another tank spec on this class? Doesn't mean more people will play tanks. So the argument that "we have enough melee specs already" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many you have.

In reality people will play whatever they like, and if they like melee dps classes, they are already playing them.

If they don't like them, then they won't start playing them just because there's another spec.

And if a new class might entice some people to try out the melee spec, just because it's a new class and they are curious, then the original argument is flawed, and maybe a new tank spec could give us more players willing to tank. Which would be a good thing.

3. You literally lose nothing by getting another spec onto the class. Why would you be against that? It's more content.

No, we don't need another melee dps spec or another tank spec. We don't need another healer or ranged dps either. We don't need anything. But it surely doesn't hurt to have more. Especially when 2 specs for classes is becoming the new standard.

So please stop defending this and at least come up with good arguments. If you don't like tank specs, stick to the ranged specs of the class.

[Jinpachi]

You can only play one spec at a time, quit your bitching.

[Triceron]

Pfft burner account.

[Ersula]

Yes, it does feel like it's the second half of Demon Hunters people were asking for. I'm not entirely against a sort of archetype race.

But it does tell us when they said they were "considering opening up Demon Hunters to new races" they were lying. They're now embracing the idea of more classes, like Dark Ranger or Tinker, at the expense of making them less unique.

Flavor-wise, Evoker is not largely different from a Mage. Who's going to want to play mage when Evoker is an option?

[ercarp]

I think 2-spec classes are generally fine but in this case they could've easily managed a 3rd spec for tanking since it fills in the Black dragonflight's theme perfectly. I'm a bit confused as to why they didn't.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I don't think every class needs a spec (no idea how to make a third spec for DHs that differentiates itself from the other two. Bow wielding DHs?), but there is definitely a lack of new classes/specs being added to WoW in general. Guild Wars 2 has added 27 new specs since launch, and FFXIV has 17 combat jobs. FFXIV and GW2 have been running for half the time WoW does, and yet WoW has only added a mere 3 classes. Blizzard definitely is lazy.

[Stone Dude]

You can only play one spec at a time, quit your bitching.

And what is that comment supposed to tell me?

People play different classes and different specs.

You can switch your spec at the push of a button and barely even need to switch out gear.

[Mysterymask]

I don't think every class needs a spec (no idea how to make a third spec for DHs that differentiates itself from the other two. Bow wielding DHs?), but there is definitely a lack of new classes/specs being added to WoW in general. Guild Wars 2 has added 27 new specs since launch, and FFXIV has 17 combat jobs. FFXIV and GW2 have been running for half the time WoW does, and yet WoW has only added a mere 3 classes. Blizzard definitely is lazy.

I mean in comparison to those games wow technically added 10 classes
6 ff14 classes with Monk and DK and another 4 with Demon Hunter and Evoker

[Bakis]

BLZ stated specifically that the game doesnt need more melee dps and I personally happen to agree.
And as a tank, I dont think that fit. Even though I dont give a shit about lore most of the time, dragons are like THE magic beings if any in WoW, would just be completely silly.
What about Blood DKs? The name gives a hint.

That warriors have a spell reflect is lame as hell too (speaking of nothing)

[trapmaster]

Didn't demon hunter third spec was scrapped? Wasn't it ranged spec?

[Stone Dude]

BLZ stated specifically that the game doesnt need more melee dps and I personally happen to agree.

I already addressed that. Read the post before you comment.

And as a tank, I dont think that fit. Even though I dont give a shit about lore most of the time, dragons are like THE magic beings if any in WoW, would just be completely silly.

What nonsense. A dragon doesn't make sense as a tank, because magic? Yeah nothing tanky about a big ass dragon. Especially one created by the literal Aspect of Earth.

[Jester Joe]

Yes, it does feel like it's the second half of Demon Hunters people were asking for. I'm not entirely against a sort of archetype race.

But it does tell us when they said they were "considering opening up Demon Hunters to new races" they were lying. They're now embracing the idea of more classes, like Dark Ranger or Tinker, at the expense of making them less unique.

Flavor-wise, Evoker is not largely different from a Mage. Who's going to want to play mage when Evoker is an option?

Remember that time mages grew wings and breathed fire while flying?

[OneTripleZero]

Flavor-wise, Evoker is not largely different from a Mage.

And you know this how? From a handful of 2 second clips?

Who's going to want to play mage when Evoker is an option?

Someone who doesn't like how the class plays/performs? Someone who doesn't like the lore, or the race you have to play to be one? Someone who just plain likes the idea of being a mage?

I swear, if you took the hyperbole out of this place the whole forum would collapse.

[Echiyo]

I agree they should have a tank spec via earth magic. People have been asking this for shamans since Vanilla, and the fantasy perfectly fits an earth-magic wielding dragon.

But I personally don't think 2 spec classes is inherently problematic. For example, I think 2 specs is perfectly fine for Demon Hunters.

[Ringthane]

And what is that comment supposed to tell me?

People play different classes and different specs.

You can switch your spec at the push of a button and barely even need to switch out gear.

And you still can only play one spec at a time. My warrior can play Arms, or Fury, or Protection. Not all three at once. It doesn't matter if they have two specs, or three, or 47. You can still only play one spec at a time. Don't like either spec? Plenty of other specs and classes to go wild on.

[Ersula]

And you know this how? From a handful of 2 second clips?

Maybe not mechanics, but aesthetic? Yeah, Mages thing was fire, ice & dragon shit. Evoker is literally synonym for Mage.

[Bakis]

I already addressed that. Read the post before you comment.


What nonsense. A dragon doesn't make sense as a tank, because magic? Yeah nothing tanky about a big ass dragon. Especially one created by the literal Aspect of Earth.

I read your post: try to add my original posts two parts "no more melee dps" + "they dont fit as tank".
If you disagree is another thing but dont try to correct me when its you that is daft.

[Jester Joe]

Maybe not mechanics, but aesthetic? Yeah, Mages thing was fire, ice & dragon shit. Evoker is literally synonym for Mage.

And both warlocks and DHs use fel.

[Stone Dude]

But I personally don't think 2 spec classes is inherently problematic. For example, I think 2 specs is perfectly fine for Demon Hunters.

Even if you are fine with 2 specs for the Demon Hunter, you are setting a precedent by accepting this, showing to Blizzard that it's ok to deliver a class with just 2 specs, therefore increasing the likelihood that the next class will also only have 2 specs, as we can now see with the Dracthyr Evoker. And the next step will be only one spec. And players will defend it.

And you still can only play one spec at a time. My warrior can play Arms, or Fury, or Protection. Not all three at once. It doesn't matter if they have two specs, or three, or 47. You can still only play one spec at a time. Don't like either spec? Plenty of other specs and classes to go wild on.

Only getting 2 specs on a new class instead of 3 means getting less content.

- - - Updated - - -

I read your post: try to add my original posts two parts "no more melee dps" + "they dont fit as tank".
If you disagree is another thing but dont try to correct me when its you that is daft.

Again, I already addressed what you said before you said it, and you refuse to refute what I said. You're just repeating something that I've already shown to be nonsensical claims.

[Swnem]

Look, it's clear that the budget went down the drain with so many failures and player loss.

Let's be happy we have a new class at all. It says nowhere that they need to have 3 specs.