1. #6261
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    30,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Khaza-R View Post
    Which makes no sense because the world before the titans was violent, chaotic and full of ritualistic sacrifice. Not some utopia.
    For some, that's literally their definition of utopia.

    I enjoy the simplicity of the Incarnates' motivations far more than the mystery box bullshit of Sylvanas, the Jailer, and the first ones.

  2. #6262
    Quote Originally Posted by Utsuko View Post
    It's much deeper than just "lol we're mean, we hate titans and we want to kill aspects".
    There is evidence in-game that the titans want to control the dragons via imbuing the waters of Uldorus with order magic.
    But we don't know exactly why and what the purpose is. Tyr was also researching aspects and proto-dragons. We still lack information.
    There is somewhat more to them than being evil dragons, but the core of their grievance and the archetype they represent is that. That adds to that point. Not only are you no longer apex predators where your natural strength and influence are relevant, but powers alien to the world want to change your mindset and then put chemical in the water to ensure your entire species work based on their design. This is also spelled out in game, the only points of ambiguity are on how the Titans will end up being framed on this, not so much on how the Incarnates view it and why it makes sense given their perspective.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

    Tinkers will be the next Class confirmed.

  3. #6263
    Quote Originally Posted by Khaza-R View Post
    Which makes no sense because the world before the titans was violent, chaotic and full of ritualistic sacrifice. Not some utopia.

    Its entirely possible they are building towards some subversive plot where the titans are liars and what we think we know about Azeroth before their ordering is false. In fact I think they tried to even hint as such with one of the Uldaman books. But again that goes make to my original point that they are repeating the same mistakes yet again.
    The thing is, that concept fall flats when examined in the greater Warcraft narrative, especially immediately after SL were the magical gay unicorns tells us how they went super saiyan to fight the Old Gods destroying their world. No Titans intervened in Fyzandi to paint the "utopian" Black Empire black. If they wanted to let a subversive plot be possible in which the Black Empire was "not so evil after all", why on earth did they do that story??? Nah it's subversion for its own sake; everything sacred must be evil because some people discovered post structuralism with a 70 year delay (and no colonialist framing to make it make sense).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Utsuko View Post
    It's much deeper than just "lol we're mean, we hate titans and we want to kill aspects".
    There is evidence in-game that the titans want to control the dragons via imbuing the waters of Uldorus with order magic.
    But we don't know exactly why and what the purpose is. Tyr was also researching aspects and proto-dragons. We still lack information.
    The entire idea of Order imbuement is Noblesse Oblige. It is paternalistic conservatism imposing order to the Anarchy of the natural order. The idea that this is somehow obscene is peculiar because the argument of the Incarnates and the Void is Might Makes Right so why exactly we are trying to find the moral advantage between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil is beyond me (and historically it was nearly universally a step taken before representative systems).
    It is really not so deep. We are just coded to believe that. It's an allusion to decolonization written by people who have no understand of it.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2023-05-21 at 06:07 PM.

  4. #6264
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    The thing is, that concept fall flats when examined in the greater Warcraft narrative, especially immediately after SL were the magical gay unicorns tells us how they went super saiyan to fight the Old Gods destroying their world. No Titans intervened in Fyzandi to paint the "utopian" Black Empire black. Nah it's subversion for its own sake; everything sacred must be evil because some people discovered post structuralism with a 70 year delay (and no colonialist framing to make it make sense).
    You don't even need to go back as far as SL for it. We see the Black Empire in DF, as shit as ever, and the whole current patch is based around how the void is associated with madness and self-destruction. Not that this'd put Blizzard off from some 'tarded subversion, but the Odyn book has zero relation to what we actually see. So far, the portrayal of both the Titans and the Black Empire has been fairly consistent.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

    Tinkers will be the next Class confirmed.

  5. #6265
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    You don't even need to go back as far as SL for it. We see the Black Empire in DF, as shit as ever, and the whole current patch is based around how the void is associated with madness and self-destruction. Not that this'd put Blizzard off from some 'tarded subversion, but the Odyn book has zero relation to what we actually see. So far, the portrayal of both the Titans and the Black Empire has been fairly consistent.
    The thing with Fyzandi is, we got a third party observation of a Black Empire in a world that does not involve Titans. I don't disagree with what you are saying but they still had room to retcon. And they may still do this because they lack narrative cohesion and basic discipline in their collaborative storytelling so the fact that Fyzandi enhanced the framing of the existing narrative has probably flown past them.

  6. #6266
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    The thing with Fyzandi is, we got a third party observation of a Black Empire in a world that does not involve Titans. I don't disagree with what you are saying but they still had room to retcon. And they may still do this because they lack narrative cohesion and basic discipline in their collaborative storytelling so the fact that Fyzandi enhanced the framing of the existing narrative has probably flown past them.
    Given how Blizzard operates, I place emphasis on the importance of the current portrayal. Everything that happens before they likely forgot, if the same people even made it. But in DF proper, it's depicted in the same way as ever. The only way to sensibly interpret the book in light of what we actually see is that it's covering up how void-created creatures can have motives and a culture and that the void can be used to any kind of productive end (but naturally doesn't tend towards that). That is something you'd want to do to make sure no one fucks with it. But in general I think it's just a half-assed setup for a subversion that they haven't actually done in favor of doubling down on the present portrayal. I agree that there's nill guarantee they won't pivot no matter how little sense it makes, but they haven't so far.
    Dickmann's Law: As a discussion on the Lore forums becomes longer, the probability of the topic derailing to become about Sylvanas approaches 1.

    Tinkers will be the next Class confirmed.

  7. #6267
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkarath View Post
    They would not change existing specs into supports ones. There are people that enjoy those specs, It would provoke unnecessary backlash. I see new specs happening, though.
    Ehhh.... they did make Survival from ranged into melee. That's the most obvious go-to answer.

    Then we have the death knight. Those who enjoyed Unholy or Frost tanking in Wrath were forced to now move to Blood if they wanted to continue tanking, and those who liked blood DPS back in Wrath were forced to now go to Frost or Unholy for DPS.

    And then we have the monk's Mistweaver spec, which went from the usual mistweaving healer to now needing to go fistweaving to be competitive.

  8. #6268
    Scarab Lord MCMLXXXII's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Delta swamp of the west
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Ehhh.... they did make Survival from ranged into melee. That's the most obvious go-to answer.

    Then we have the death knight. Those who enjoyed Unholy or Frost tanking in Wrath were forced to now move to Blood if they wanted to continue tanking, and those who liked blood DPS back in Wrath were forced to now go to Frost or Unholy for DPS.

    And then we have the monk's Mistweaver spec, which went from the usual mistweaving healer to now needing to go fistweaving to be competitive.
    I want my blood DPS back. But tbf I enjoy unholy now

  9. #6269
    Herald of the Titans Nightshade711's Avatar
    1+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Location
    K’aresh
    Posts
    2,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Then we have the death knight. Those who enjoyed Unholy or Frost tanking in Wrath were forced to now move to Blood if they wanted to continue tanking, and those who liked blood DPS back in Wrath were forced to now go to Frost or Unholy for DPS.
    Tbh I miss when any of the DK specs coulda been either Tank or DPS. I thought it was a cool concept and it’d be cool to have hybrid specs like that return.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Chen isn't a Monk

  10. #6270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightshade711 View Post
    Tbh I miss when any of the DK specs coulda been either Tank or DPS. I thought it was a cool concept and it’d be cool to have hybrid specs like that return.
    I sincerely doubt dual-role specs are ever coming back, especially due to how talent trees are designed today. Giving it a "dual role" means half the tree would have to be dedicated to tanking talents, while the other half would be dedicated to DPS talents, giving less talent options to either role.

    And we'd go back to the vanilla Feral druid situation, who wasn't a decent dps, or a decent tank.

  11. #6271
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightshade711 View Post
    Tbh I miss when any of the DK specs coulda been either Tank or DPS. I thought it was a cool concept and it’d be cool to have hybrid specs like that return.
    Doesn't really work practically in the current ecosystem. It only worked because of the pre-MoP class design wherein the majority of your kit was class-wide. Also, as someone who switched to DK for Wrath, I feel like the concept didn't actually pan out gameplay wise. The three specs felt extraordinarily same-y. If the concept were brought forward, it would look a lot like old Feral: very awkwardly pulled in two directions.

    I do think what should be done is that tank specs should all get some talent in the vein of Gladiator stance; sharply cutting their defenses and threat generation and boosting their ST damage 25-30%.

  12. #6272
    Brewmaster Jekyll's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Dracthyr are merely the playable form of WoW’s dragon characters. Evoker is the name given to dragon power set. In short, you get race/class called Dracthyr Evoker because you can’t have a race/class called Dragon Dragon.

    The idea that they came from nowhere is absurd, since they’re steeped in draconic lore.
    in other words, I can't wait for the humanoid spider playable race that have the power of Cryptlord and Necromancy.

  13. #6273
    Quote Originally Posted by Jekyll View Post
    in other words, I can't wait for the humanoid spider playable race that have the power of Cryptlord and Necromancy.
    In my dream version of WoW, the Forsaken faction would have had playable nerubians!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitei View Post
    Doesn't really work practically in the current ecosystem. It only worked because of the pre-MoP class design wherein the majority of your kit was class-wide. Also, as someone who switched to DK for Wrath, I feel like the concept didn't actually pan out gameplay wise. The three specs felt extraordinarily same-y. If the concept were brought forward, it would look a lot like old Feral: very awkwardly pulled in two directions.

    I do think what should be done is that tank specs should all get some talent in the vein of Gladiator stance; sharply cutting their defenses and threat generation and boosting their ST damage 25-30%.
    Tbh given the width of the talent tree system they introduced in DF, they absolutely could make specs that can play two different roles.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I sincerely doubt dual-role specs are ever coming back, especially due to how talent trees are designed today. Giving it a "dual role" means half the tree would have to be dedicated to tanking talents, while the other half would be dedicated to DPS talents, giving less talent options to either role.

    And we'd go back to the vanilla Feral druid situation, who wasn't a decent dps, or a decent tank.
    But don't you feel the talent tree has enough space for both roles? Right now each talent tree tends to allow for 2 builds with some small variations. You'd effective still have two builds for the spec, just each of them would be in a different role.

  14. #6274
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    But don't you feel the talent tree has enough space for both roles? Right now each talent tree tends to allow for 2 builds with some small variations. You'd effective still have two builds for the spec, just each of them would be in a different role.
    But both builds still share the majority of the talents they use.

    Not to mention that this has the potential to make good tanks with damage-dealing potential that greatly exceeds the other tanks without sacrificing much, if any, survivability; or good DPS with survivability potential that vastly exceeds other DPS specs without sacrificing much, if any, damage.

  15. #6275
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    But both builds still share the majority of the talents they use.

    Not to mention that this has the potential to make good tanks with damage-dealing potential that greatly exceeds the other tanks without sacrificing much, if any, survivability; or good DPS with survivability potential that vastly exceeds other DPS specs without sacrificing much, if any, damage.
    I think it would depend a lot on the design; e.g. if a main ability gets modified by an early choice talent to choose between Active Mitigation and DPS spender, it means if you pick the DPS ability you cannot effectively tank. You could dip into strong defensives but you would be giving up significant dps talents). It would absolutely be a massive design constraint which is why they probably would never do it ofc.

  16. #6276
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    30,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Jekyll View Post
    in other words, I can't wait for the humanoid spider playable race that have the power of Cryptlord and Necromancy.
    That actually isn’t a bad idea. I’d support something like that.

    Also don’t forget Crypt Fiends from WC3 and Anub Arak from HotS.

    EDIT: Gotta say, this concept is really intriguing me. Might have to make a thread about it.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2023-05-21 at 09:16 PM.

  17. #6277
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I think it would depend a lot on the design; e.g. if a main ability gets modified by an early choice talent to choose between Active Mitigation and DPS spender, it means if you pick the DPS ability you cannot effectively tank. You could dip into strong defensives but you would be giving up significant dps talents). It would absolutely be a massive design constraint which is why they probably would never do it ofc.
    Sounds like a lot of redundant extra work that could be avoided by simply giving the class another spec instead. Not to mention that, returning to a previous point you made, we have usually two different builds inside a single talent tree, but if we add "dual role"... guess what? That number would be reduced to one singular build if the player isn't interesting in tanking, or DPS'ing.

    A dual-role spec greatly restricts build variety at best, and makes unbalanced tanks/dps at worst.

  18. #6278
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Sounds like a lot of redundant extra work that could be avoided by simply giving the class another spec instead. Not to mention that, returning to a previous point you made, we have usually two different builds inside a single talent tree, but if we add "dual role"... guess what? That number would be reduced to one singular build if the player isn't interesting in tanking, or DPS'ing.

    A dual-role spec greatly restricts build variety at best, and makes unbalanced tanks/dps at worst.
    Sure. I am just a person who cares about theme a lot more. If we get more archetypes I am happier and unless the two builds are also variant thematically, they don't mean much to me and for many specs, they are not. Again, not saying it will or should happen; this is not how WoW is designed after all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitei View Post
    I do think what should be done is that tank specs should all get some talent in the vein of Gladiator stance; sharply cutting their defenses and threat generation and boosting their ST damage 25-30%.
    Heck, simply give them a pure offensive spender.

  19. #6279
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Sure. I am just a person who cares about theme a lot more. If we get more archetypes I am happier and unless the two builds are also variant thematically, they don't mean much to me and for many specs, they are not. Again, not saying it will or should happen; this is not how WoW is designed after all.
    Sure. I just think classes are what represent "themes", while specs represent specific sub-themes. Like the warrior class represents the fighter theme, with its three specs representing the specific team of the weapon mater (arms), the barbarian (fury) and the defender (protection).

    Giving dual roles actually muddles up the subtheme being represented by the spec, in my view.

  20. #6280
    Field Marshal Abraxan's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    People were basing that on a cinematic. Iridikron is just using typical earth magic, not light magic.

    That said, yes I do see the next major enemy in WoW being light-based. The void as an enemy is rather tired, and having a light based enemy would push the point that there are no “good” or “evil” cosmic forces.

    The avatar of this cosmic force?



    EDIT: There is also talk that Yrel’s army is the new Burning Legion, only light-based instead of demon-Fel based, since both were created to defeat the void.

    Interestingly, both are largely commanded by Draenei twisted by cosmic forces.
    I tend to agree on Yrel being the Light antagonist. I don't recall much from the mag'har scenario, is there an active gateway between AU draenor and azeroth? If no, the upcoming bronze dragonflight story points seem like an easy way to get there again.

    I think next expansion as light versus void set on Avaloren seems like a safe prediction. Many ways we could get there. Light invasion pushes heroes there, we take refuge with "good" void followers, primalists go there to get allies against order, etc.

Posting Permissions

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