The Next WoW class in 9.0

[Triceron]

Yeah but a lot of people also consider these kind of luck games to not be competitive at all even if some aspects of it are actually player skills. A huge portion is luck and that turns people off. Just like a game with too much RNG makes people hate its competitive aspect because they feel there's too much out of their control, which is understandable.

Peoples opinions don't define what is competitive and what isn't, people define whether they enjoy it or not. All you are saying is that some people don't enjoy luck-based competition, which is a fair statement. That doesnt mean WoW is not competitive. It means these people don't like RNG in competition.

To be fair, there are more people who look past such frivolties and enjoy competitive WoW than there are critics, and the game is not being designed for people who have no interest in competition that involves RNG.

I can point out that theres a lot of people who shit on current WoW and tout Classic as the definitive version of the game, but it doesnt make the sentiment any more true either. It just means theres an audience who enjoys Classic more that also likes to vocally shit on current WoW.

[Hitei]

Look at all UFC fights that happened more than once (rematches) with different style match ups, a lot of them had the previous loser win the second fight. Some fights with very different stylistic match ups are very close in balance which once against proves me right and you wrong.

What? That is completely fucking unrelated. If I have 2 more basketball players on my team than you and win a match, and then your players play really well in the rematch and win anyway, that doesn't make 7vs5 basketball matches balanced. It means personal skill comes into play.

You can have an extremely imbalanced game and a pro player will still frequently beat a bad one, that doesn't make the game balanced.

Basically to prove me wrong you would have to demontrate the impossibility to ever create different classes that are balanced in a game. Which obviously is not possible, all that it demonstrable now is examples of games that have failed to reach this point but it never proves that it cannot be reached. It would be like trying to prove that aliens absolutely do not exist while I'm saying there is a possibility that they do exist.

No, it's like trying to prove that all cats experience gravity on earth because they are literally all pulled to the ground and you going "Wow that doesn't mean anything! If you had a cat that is light enough it wouldn't experience gravity!!! You can't prove that antigravity cats don't exist!!!"

[derpkitteh]

i actually don't even give a shit about class balance.

i think everyone should be op in some way. you should get blown up in pvp if you're not at the top of your game, or if a certain class catches you in a bad way it should just be over.

over-balancing is boring.

[Hitei]

i actually don't even give a shit about class balance.

i think everyone should be op in some way. you should get blown up in pvp if you're not at the top of your game, or if a certain class catches you in a bad way it should just be over.

over-balancing is boring.

Pretty much. Less focus on balance in general would probably be healthy for the game.

[Freshouttajail]

Peoples opinions don't define what is competitive and what isn't, people define whether they enjoy it or not. All you are saying is that some people don't enjoy luck-based competition, which is a fair statement. That doesnt mean WoW is not competitive. It means these people don't like RNG in competition.

To be fair, there are more people who look past such frivolties and enjoy competitive WoW than there are critics, and the game is not being designed for people who have no interest in competition that involves RNG.

I can point out that theres a lot of people who shit on current WoW and tout Classic as the definitive version of the game, but it doesnt make the sentiment any more true either. It just means theres an audience who enjoys Classic more that also likes to vocally shit on current WoW.

Same goes on both sides, just because people enjoy luck based competition doesn't mean it's competitive. Or is it competitive only because there's a feature that allows people to compete regardless of how competitive it really is?

- - - Updated - - -

What? That is completely fucking unrelated. If I have 2 more basketball players on my team than you and win a match, and then your players play really well in the rematch and win anyway, that doesn't make 7vs5 basketball matches balanced. It means personal skill comes into play.

You can have an extremely imbalanced game and a pro player will still frequently beat a bad one, that doesn't make the game balanced.


No, it's like trying to prove that all cats experience gravity on earth because they are literally all pulled to the ground and you going "Wow that doesn't mean anything! If you had a cat that is light enough it wouldn't experience gravity!!! You can't prove that antigravity cats don't exist!!!"

By the same criteria, a UFC fight with 2 people of different styles doesn't mean it's not balanced like you suggested, it could very well be that personnal skill made the difference and it was perfectly balanced in the first place, once again proving me right and you wrong because the POSSIBILITY is there.

And you cat story is straight up bullshit because you're tired of losing everytime I reply to you. Get out you need a break.

[Triceron]

Same goes on both sides, just because people enjoy luck based competition doesn't mean it's competitive. Or is it competitive only because there's a feature that allows people to compete regardless of how competitive it really is?

You are using the wrong word. You should not be using the word competition if you are talking about opinions on luck-based games.

Competition is literally the act of competing. Chance and luck has no bearing on the act of competing. Does this make sense? A 5 yr old competing with a 20 yr old on who can finish their peas first is considered a competition. Competition is not driven by fairness or equal probabilities. It is a literal word for the will to actively compete.

If you are talking about fairness and removing randomness, then say that instead. Your statement should be 'just because people enjoy luck based competition doesn't mean it's fair/skill-driven'. This depends on which idea you are trying to convey. I'm not sure if your definition of competition is on a basis of equity (every player has equal opportunity, less luck), or the basis of skill-driven competition. You can't just say it's not competitive because it is relies too heavily on luck, because all competition is based on varying measures of luck and skill.

[Freshouttajail]

So Poker isn't competitive? Are you serious?

You're pretty much waving away any type of gambling as not being able to be competitive. Which means you aren't even talking about competition, but something else entirely.

Competition is the action of competing. Chance and luck has no bearing on the act of competing. Does this make sense?

What you are doing is using the wrong word. You should not be using the word competition if you are talking about people's opinions on luck-based games

Nah, you said "Peoples opinions don't define what is competitive and what isn't" that means that just because someone thinks poker is competitive it also doesn't mean it really is, this statement does not represent my own opinion. Basically I'm asking what do you think is necessary for something to be objectively competitive?

[Triceron]

Nah, you said "Peoples opinions don't define what is competitive and what isn't" that means that just because someone thinks poker is competitive it also doesn't mean it really is, this statement does not represent my own opinion. Basically I'm asking what do you think is necessary for something to be objectively competitive?

It is because the definition of competition means the act of competing. It is competitive if people play it competitively. Opinions don't change this definition.

In regards to your statement of whether we consider something competitive or not, you are actually referring to social and professional interest rather than the basis of being balanced, fair or skill-based. Poker is regarded as competitive because there is collective interest to build a business, despite whatever imbalanced ruleset is being used. We don't consider lawn darts professionally competitive because there is no collective interest in making a business out of it. But you can't go around saying Lawn Darts is not a competitive game; it absolutely is a competitive game; just not popular enough to create a profession out of.

On topic; WoW is absolutely a competitive game in both the literal definition and professionally as an E-sport. There is no way you can go around saying WoW is not competitive on the basis that there are people who don't enjoy it.

I'm asking what do you think is necessary for something to be objectively competitive?

The objective definition of competition is the act of competing. However, based on this conversation, what you are actually talking about is professional competition; and the answer to that is all professional competition is subjective. There is no such thing as objective professional competition, because it's defined and fueled by interest. The movie Dodgeball is a (loose) example of what might happen if it were popular enough to be a professional sport. Competitive gaming is defined by interest, not by game balance.

[Aleksej89]

8.2 has a TON of robotic high tech science stuff, could be blizz is paving the way for a high tech science class in the future.

[seleri]

Tinker or Bard, plz. I like the dark and edgy DKs and DHs but I'm ready for another "normal" class like monks.

Also, more options > balance.

[Futhark]

8.2 has a TON of robotic high tech science stuff, could be blizz is paving the way for a high tech science class in the future.

Paving the way? 8.2 is the Tinker expansion. Blizzard is throwing punchcards and wheel-mounts at every player so whenever this Engineering class concept comes up again, they can point to Mechagon and say "We did that already!" I mean, everyone is getting Junkyard Tinkering. EVERYONE!

[George Lucas]

Paving the way? 8.2 is the Tinker expansion. Blizzard is throwing punchcards and wheel-mounts at every player so whenever this Engineering class concept comes up again, they can point to Mechagon and say "We did that already!" I mean, everyone is getting Junkyard Tinkering. EVERYONE!

Exactly. The 8.2 preview pretty much burries Tinkers as the next playable class, in my opinion. It feels like they want to implement this stuff to close that chapter.

[Unholyground]

They need new itemization (Str Mail, Str Shields, Str Weapons), new tanking spells, and overall they have to make sure the design of a tank fits with the rest of their general kit like Bloodlust or Ghost Wolf Form.

Actually itemization would be the easiest hurdle since they can do what they did for all gear and have stats specific to spec or class grey out when not useful for that spec and add useful ones for required specs.

[Nehem]

They should remove paladins and shamans from game E.O.T.

[Zyrinx]

Unfortunately it sure as hell looks like Tinker given this 8.2 stuff.

Ugh, zero interest in that.

[Triceron]

Unfortunately it sure as hell looks like Tinker given this 8.2 stuff.

Ugh, zero interest in that.

When I saw 8.2, I was thinking the exact opposite. With what they're adding here, there isn't really any need for a Tinker... You can make and customize turrets, use grenades, customize your mount etc. You don't even have to take up Engineering to do so.

[glowpipe]

Afte seeing the 8.2 reveal, i am more or less 98% convinced that if we see another class, after mechagon, its gonna be a tinker class

[Rolopolo]

Wish there was a mesmer type class.

[EbaumsTipster]

8.2 being about Tinkering is a bad sign for those who think it's happening, because this is how they're "scratching that itch". They wouldn't make everyone become a tinker and then make it a unique class as well.

It's very likely Necromancer with all the Shadowlands/Arthas hints.

[Zyrinx]

When I saw 8.2, I was thinking the exact opposite. With what they're adding here, there isn't really any need for a Tinker... You can make and customize turrets, use grenades, customize your mount etc. You don't even have to take up Engineering to do so.

Well, good. I hope you're right.