Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    Yeah, it was obvious tank spec isn't happening since the moment they've announced Evokers. Not sure what people were expecting.
    Yeah, it's not like we're waiting for a third DH spec since 2016. Evoker will stay exactly as it is, a two spec class.
    MAGA - Make Alliance Great Again

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Nyel View Post
    Yeah, it's not like we're waiting for a third DH spec since 2016. Evoker will stay exactly as it is, a two spec class.
    I don't think there will be a 3rd spec for evoker but isn't the difference between demon hunter and evoker that Blizzard straight up said a 3rd demon hunter spec would only make 2 mediocre specs instead of 1 good one whereas they straight up said a 3rd spec is not off the table?

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I never said you lied. I said you were being dishonest, because you're apparently just fine with the other poster making statements of fact without a single shred of evidence to back it up, but the moment someone challenges that statement with their own opinion, you suddenly have a problem with the challenger. Feels rather... double-standard-ish.
    That's not dishonesty. I'm talking to you, not him, so I don't know why you think my replies to your comments and opinions concern anyone besides you.

    As I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. I gave you absolutely no reason to think his original comment was 'just fine'.


    As someone pointed out above, it's not something anyone can actually prove. You are right that the other guy could be completely full of crap, and could have come to his conclusion completely baselessly. Yet there is still a chance that it could still be true and he could be right. And if you're claiming that you are 99% sure that they are wrong, you're pretty much saying you're 99% sure that the Devs didn't make Evokers 2 spec because they wanted to. Now, my question is how would you be 99% sure the Devs didn't just want 2 specs because they wanted to? This isn't exactly information that is available to public knowledge, at all. Even with the previous statements on Demon Hunters, you clearly put a 'maybe' there. Yet you're 99% sure this time that he's wrong.

    It's the particular phrasing you used that makes it sound like you know something the rest of us don't. Usually people don't throw out a 'I'm 99% sure' when regarding something that generally isn't knowable by the public. Unless they're intentionally being pretentious, but who am I to assume this?
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-04-29 at 06:36 AM.

  4. #64
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That's not dishonesty. I'm talking to you, not him,
    And that is your mistake. You're attacking me for posting an opinion. You accused me of not being able to "prove my opinion", while completely ignoring the poster who actually made a statement of fact with zero evidence.

    At no point whatsoever you responded to them and said "you can't prove your claim".

    As I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. I gave you absolutely no reason to think his original comment was 'just fine'.
    The only two "wrongs" here is you, and the poster who I originally responded to. They, because they actually made a statement of fact with zero evidence, and you for falsely accusing me of doing the same, while at the same time ignoring the one who actually made a statement of fact without evidence.

    It's the particular phrasing you used that makes it sound like you know something the rest of us don't.
    My wording was just fine, especially if you actually bothered to read the actual conversation instead of taking a singular post in a vacuum.

    You like to claim you "point out the dishonesty in people's posts" but apparently are either incapable or unwilling to do the same to your own posts. We're done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The only two "wrongs" here is you, and the poster who I originally responded to. They, because they actually made a statement of fact with zero evidence, and you for falsely accusing me of doing the same, while at the same time ignoring the one who actually made a statement of fact without evidence.
    Eh, I'm not making any claims or stances regarding what the devs know. I'm pointing out that no one does, and that no one should be claiming that it can be proven.

    When you make an accusation you also need proof to back it. In my own case here, my proof is that the situation is literally unprovable, and no one should be outed as being 'wrong'.

    I didn't say you were wrong. I said you had no way of explaining how you came to the conclusion of being 99% sure someone was wrong about something that no one can be sure of. Simple as that.

    My proof is literally the fact dev decisions are not public knowledge. We would only know if they explicitly explain it for this particular situation, and they have not.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-04-29 at 01:58 PM.

  6. #66
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'm pointing out that no one does, and that no one should be claiming that it can be proven.
    No, you're claiming that I'm wrong, not the poster I responded to. After all, you dedicated six posts to erroneously call me out, while at the same dedicating a grand total of zero posts to the other poster.

    When you make an accusation you also need proof to back it.
    Which I did. Which you would you know if you didn't, you know, take my singular post in a vacuum like you.

    I didn't say you were wrong. I said you had no way of explaining how you came to the conclusion of being 99% sure someone was wrong about something that no one can be sure of. Simple as that.
    So, according to you, my mistake here was that I did not claim absolute certainty, that I did not say I'm "100% sure" like the poster I originally responded to. Since they're walking scot-free.

    Y'know, the guy who actually made a statement of fact when he said "the reason literally is"?

    Got it.

    Lesson learned. (/sarcasm)

    Good day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, you're claiming that I'm wrong.
    Never said your statement was wrong. You could be completely right about the Devs wanting to keep 2 specs to maintain the fantasy of the class, like they did for Demon Hunter.

    Your argument of being 99% sure is wrong, because the situation is literally unknowable. Both your and his arguments are wrong in implying either of you actually have knowledge of what the dev's reasons are for making a 2 spec class. That is what I was referring to "2 wrongs don't make a right".

    I called the other guy out as well.

    So, according to you, my mistake here was that I did not claim absolute certainty, that I did not say I'm "100% sure" like the poster I originally responded to. Since they're walking scot-free.
    I was merely surprised by your choice of words in disagreeing with someone's speculative claims with your own speculative opinion that implied you were 99% certain their statement was wrong. Without knowing what the devs actually planned and decided, how did you reach a conclusion to be 99% sure they were wrong? Your own previous reasoning was based on a highly speculative 'Maybe they treated it like Demon Hunter 2 specs'.

    You went from maybe they are wrong to 99% sure they are wrong, without any any explanation how you came to that sudden conclusion. That's what I was observing.

    Whether you consider it a mistake or not is well beyond my observation. I don't actually know if you have insider information.

    Y'know, the guy who actually made a statement of fact when he said "the reason literally is"?
    You can call him out on it then. But thing is, no one actually knows if they are actually right or wrong. Even a wild speculative claim could end up being right.

    If you're 99% sure he's wrong, it implies you know something the rest of the public doesn't.

    Like if Person A made w claim that 'There is alien life in the universe' and Person B said 'I am 99% sure you are wrong'.
    Well no one knows or can prove the situation either way, and Person B's statements make it seem they have some unexplained insight that gives them a near-certain conclusion. I would find the choice of words curious, especially if unexplained.

    But anyways, this has little to do with the rest of the thread. Good day.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-04-29 at 03:08 PM.

  8. #68
    A bit sad since a Black Dragon themed tank spec is something I've seen a lot of requests for. I've seen it mentioned in several interviews, and every time the Blizzard people looked boggled by the idea. It's interesting how much the community can want something (though certainly not all of the community) and just how confused they can be, and push back against it. The reaction really wasn't much different from how they reacted to early feedback on the covenants.

    I don't think the game "needs" a black dragon themed tank spec for the evoker, but that the devs were that caught off guard by a concept I'd seen all over the place before the interviews tells me that they're a bit out of touch. It's not like people talking about that stuff was hidden. It's out there, on very visible and popular platforms.

  9. #69
    Yeah, but turn that around: why does the community want a Black Dragon Tank spec? Why do we never hear of a desire for a Blue Dragon tank spec, or a Bronze Dragon tank spec? What about Black Dragons demands a tank spec? Earth is hard and armor is hard? Deathwing had metal bolted onto him?

    It's just a weird meme passed around the community, and Blizzard doesn't have to make all memes real.

  10. #70
    black dragon tank spec would be pretty cool. ogre race would be cooler. would settle for black dragon tanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futhark View Post
    Yeah, but turn that around: why does the community want a Black Dragon Tank spec? Why do we never hear of a desire for a Blue Dragon tank spec, or a Bronze Dragon tank spec? What about Black Dragons demands a tank spec? Earth is hard and armor is hard? Deathwing had metal bolted onto him?

    It's just a weird meme passed around the community, and Blizzard doesn't have to make all memes real.
    meme only get popular if people spread. if peoples spread they probably like meme. something being meme doesnt mean it should be dismissed.

  11. #71
    Warchief shade3891's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Boat to the Dragon Ilses
    Posts
    2,194
    I would like a Claw, Bite, Tailsweep ,Fire, Fire ,Claw and Fire spec

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by snugglestheogre View Post
    black dragon tank spec would be pretty cool. ogre race would be cooler. would settle for black dragon tanks.



    meme only get popular if people spread. if peoples spread they probably like meme. something being meme doesnt mean it should be dismissed.
    But are they really cool though. Think about the dragons we've been facing and they have basically 3 melee moves, hand and tail swipes and face smash. Draconids have the weapon twirly thing. When you translate them into player moves, they make more sense if you give them to existing characters.

  13. #73
    Basically, Blizz says "F*** you if you want to play a Black aspect tank." just like they said "F*** you if you want to play a proper highborn." And you know what, F*** you too Ion, you piece of pig vomit.

  14. #74
    a tank spec could be focused on black dragonflight and albino (white) since there is also white drac'thyr customization

  15. #75
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    14,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfezen View Post
    a tank spec could be focused on black dragonflight and albino (white) since there is also white drac'thyr customization
    If they make one.. Which they probably won't. Look at the title and the OP

  16. #76
    It's funny how there are all these people crying out for more tank specs when every single new class added so far has had one, and there is a tank shortage, meaning that most of these people probably won't play a tank.

    Black dragonflight does not equal tank. If anything, they have a closer association between the black dragonflight and rogues. But we don't need more tank specs. Lorewise, it is more logical that Neltharion would engineer a race to supply what his dragonflight lacks or what is most needed at the time. From what we know now, the Evokers were created in response to the primal dragonflight. Instead of countering the primalists with "smashy smash", he decided he wanted adaptable casters. Makes sense to me.

    From a game design standpoint, the game needs more ranged casters and healers. Raids and dungeons are too melee heavy, and they have been for a long time now. Just look at any group you try to put together either in M+ or just trying to get a pug raid together. You're going to see a crap ton of melee, and no where near enough ranged. And this creates a very large design problem. Large-scale dungeon mechanics, whether it be in raid or in 5-man dungeons, are designed with ranged in mind. Need a soak? Ranged. Need to rapidly target swap between separated targets? Ranged. Need to orchestrate movement? Ranged. Need to get a mcguffin from one side to another? Ranged. (Sure, they did design some clever exceptions, but this idea is the main stay.) If you try to have a melee do these things, they're not going to be able to dps the boss as much since they still have to run to the boss after doing the mechanic. Just listen to Max from liquid talk about how many slots are allocated to ranged dps, and how many are allocated to melee. You need way more ranged dps.

    So you might be asking, "Scry, what relevance does this have on a TANK." First off, Blizzard's encounter designs are orchestrated around melee tanks. There will be no ranged tanks; ranged tanks would fuck up so many encounters and make it so much harder for them to design and balance. So ranged tanks will never happen. So the tanks will have to be melee. Well there's two problems with this. First is that if you make a melee tank, then you have the players screaming for another melee dps, and they'll argue that you're already most of the way there with all of the melee tank abilities (which is hard to argue against!). Kind of like the joke where if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for milk. And that's going to mess with their objective in getting more ranged (dps and healer) players out there.

    The second problem is that you already have TWO tanks with a very similar mechanics system -- paladin and monks -- to essence. Now, if that were the only thing, then you might be okay arguing it, but there is the second mechanic being introduced, and it is INCOMPATIBLE WITH TANKING. And that mechanic is the empowered system. You cannot have a tank that uses the empowered system. You literally cannot have a tank that does nothing for several seconds. You will wind up with a dead tank. How do I know? I play healer and tank. Now picture having half of the abilities where you have to stand still, doing nothing, for several seconds to get the most powerful effect. Yeah, it's not going to work out well.

    You want more tanks? There needs to be a better way to show routes in dungeons, and people need to stop being dicks to new tanks. Period. Someone tries tanking, and with the smallest screw up, the dps all dogpile the poor guy. So of course they're not going to keep tanking. That's madness.

    If I had to guess, it is far more likely that they'll allow Drakthyr to become additional classes in the future. They'll have to add additional animations, figure out how they want to manage displaying 2-h weapons, and figure out how they want to manage racials (since they're modified by talents). You might eventually get a tanking dragon, but it won't be an evoker. You'll be more likely to have Drakthyr warriors, monks, and DKs instead.

  17. #77
    Same case as for DHs.

    They're just cool class, nothing more. Don't expect much.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrysis View Post
    Black dragonflight does not equal tank. If anything, they have a closer association between the black dragonflight and rogues. But we don't need more tank specs.
    I dont get why people are mimimi about people who want a tank spec for Evokers. I mean we dont need new Range DPS/Healer aswell. We dont need a new class overall. But its fun to get a new one. And even if Evoker would be Tank/Healer/DPS it wouldnt effect anything. We just have a new class that can tank aswell. Nobody has any disadvantages.

    If DHs get a third Spec we dont have any disadvantages aswell.

    If you dont play m+30 or mythic progress raids your setup doesnt matter at all. If you wipe you do cause your group sucks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrysis View Post
    The second problem is that you already have TWO tanks with a very similar mechanics system -- paladin and monks -- to essence. Now, if that were the only thing, then you might be okay arguing it, but there is the second mechanic being introduced, and it is INCOMPATIBLE WITH TANKING. And that mechanic is the empowered system. You cannot have a tank that uses the empowered system. You literally cannot have a tank that does nothing for several seconds. You will wind up with a dead tank. How do I know? I play healer and tank. Now picture having half of the abilities where you have to stand still, doing nothing, for several seconds to get the most powerful effect. Yeah, it's not going to work out well.
    You have absolutely no clue what u are talking about. As a Tank you dont need to run around/move 24/7 like a headless chicken. Also a 2 Second Chargeable Abillity could be a skillshot, a cooldown you have to use in the right moment or you could have passives so you get a defensive bonus if u charge up your abillity.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by saixilein View Post
    I dont get why people are mimimi about people who want a tank spec for Evokers. I mean we dont need new Range DPS/Healer aswell. We dont need a new class overall. But its fun to get a new one. And even if Evoker would be Tank/Healer/DPS it wouldnt effect anything. We just have a new class that can tank aswell. Nobody has any disadvantages.

    If DHs get a third Spec we dont have any disadvantages aswell.

    If you dont play m+30 or mythic progress raids your setup doesnt matter at all. If you wipe you do cause your group sucks.



    You have absolutely no clue what u are talking about. As a Tank you dont need to run around/move 24/7 like a headless chicken. Also a 2 Second Chargeable Abillity could be a skillshot, a cooldown you have to use in the right moment or you could have passives so you get a defensive bonus if u charge up your abillity.
    You clearly like to ignore the relevant parts of posts, so I'm not going to even go there. Instead, I'm going to pose a real series of questions.

    Do you want a new tanking spec, or do you want Dracthyr to have access to a tanking spec? HUGE difference.

    If you want a new tanking spec, what problem is it supposed to solve?

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Eazy View Post
    Same case as for DHs.

    They're just cool class, nothing more. Don't expect much.
    What is this even supposed to mean?

Posting Permissions

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