The Next WoW class in 9.0

[Triceron]

I tend to believe they won't release new class. In the recent QA, Ion mentioned that adding 4th spec to each class would create balance issues, as they are already struggling to balance the current classes (Specs) in the game. Having said that, even tho new class would bring 2-4 specs and not 12 (or how many classes there are now in the game? ) I believe they won't do it.

First off, I think your opinion is sound and reasonable. I'm totally cool with people who think they won't release a new class on the basis that there's already a lot to work with.

However, I think Ion talking about 4th specs (which technically equates to adding 4 full classes at once) is unrelated to a new class. That he said adding 4th specs to existing classes creates balance issues doesn't have anything to do with a completely separate new class, which is balanced separately and not as a part of existing classes.

Think of it this way - People ask for an Earth-based Tanking spec for Shamans. If they add that, it creates balance issues within how the Shaman is designed. 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.

A new class built from the ground up doesn't have that baggage and is flexible enough to adapt to any current/future class balance changes.

[Freshouttajail]

Balance = homogenization

When you suck at balancing like Blizzard that's what it means. When you're good you don't have to.

[Teriz]

Icorrect. All you do here is splitting hairs, mechanically you change and get a new set of abilities. That is all that there is to it.

Not even close. Bear form is a derivative of Prot Warrior, Feral is a derivative of Combat Rogue, Balance is a derivative of Arcane Mage, and Resto is a derivative of Holy Priest. Changing forms is a tiny part of the equation. Demon Hunters change form, are they mechanically similar to Druids? What a silly argument to make.

Based on the WC3, HotS, and Island Expedition abilities, a Tinker would be a class that has a melee auto-attack, but entirely physical ranged abilities. More than likely utilizing a turret system in the DPS form, and ranged control abilities in the Tank form. Their healing spec would also be utilizing robotic summons which is also a departure from the Druid style of healing.

This is also different than what we see out of the Warlock class which uses summons for DPS (Demonology) because the Warlock is a caster. It is doubtful that a Tinker would have castable spells. In addition, the robotic summons would be upgradable like they are in WC3 and HotS.

If you honestly can't see that then yes, you are beyond help.

- - - Updated - - -

First off, I think your opinion is sound and reasonable. I'm totally cool with people who think they won't release a new class on the basis that there's already a lot to work with.

However, I think Ion talking about 4th specs (which technically equates to adding 4 full classes at once) is unrelated to a new class. That he said adding 4th specs to existing classes creates balance issues doesn't have anything to do with a completely separate new class, which is balanced separately and not as a part of existing classes.

Think of it this way - People ask for an Earth-based Tanking spec for Shamans. If they add that, it creates balance issues within how the Shaman is designed. 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.

A new class built from the ground up doesn't have that baggage and is flexible enough to adapt to any current/future class balance changes.

Ion was definitely talking about 4th specs. There's almost certainly going to be a new class in 9.0, but yeah, 4th specs are pretty much DOA.

[Hitei]

When you suck at balancing like Blizzard that's what it means. When you're good you don't have to.

No. That is what it always means because balance in a video game is directly related to similarity of conditions. There is no """"being good"""". You either make things very similar and achieve balance, or you make things different and have a lack of balance.

[Freshouttajail]

No. That is what it always means because balance in a video game is directly related to similarity of conditions. There is no """"being good"""". You either make things very similar and achieve balance, or you make things different and have a lack of balance.

That is completely false.
There's a lot of games out there, fighting, RTS, etc. that have very different playstyle across what players can choose and also achieved a level of balancing much tighter than WoW.

[Hitei]

That is completely false.
There's a lot of games out there, fighting, RTS, etc. that have very different playstyle across what players can choose and also achieved a level of balancing much tighter than WoW.

Yes, exactly. The games where two different players are using very minor variations of the same thing are the most balanced. Because the balance comes from homogenization. Fighting games have a high amount of balance because the variation is minor, this character has slightly longer range, less combo ability but harder hits, a slightly faster punish but slower block, but all around extremely similar toolkits. Ditto RTS games.

That is why the easily most balanced video game type in existence is FPS games with mirrored maps and weapon availability. Shootmania is 100% completely balanced, because everyone has identical capabilities. Chess is a game with a completely identical ruleset, and the sole source of imbalance is that one player goes first. Because difference = imbalance, similarity = balance.

It is very simple.

It is very easy to achieve fighting game level class balance in wow, you give everyone the same or extremely similar toolkits, with minor variations in cast times, cool downs, rate of damage, etc. And now you have mindnumbingly homogenized classes, as pointed out in the original post.

[Futhark]

If your fantasy is predicated on vehicle based combat, it is never going to happen.

You can play a "Tinker" today by choosing Gnome/Goblin* Hunter with Engineering. Ranged physical abilities, pets, traps, explosives. All of these mechs are available to you:

https://www.wow-petopia.com/family.php?id=mechanical


*even other races with Mecha-Bond Imprint Matrix = more Engineering!

[Freshouttajail]

Yes, exactly. The games where two different players are using very minor variations of the same thing are the most balanced. Because the balance comes from homogenization. Fighting games have a high amount of balance because the variation is minor, this character has slightly longer range, less combo ability but harder hits, a slightly faster punish but slower block, but all around extremely similar toolkits. Ditto RTS games.

That is why the easily most balanced video game type in existence is FPS games with mirrored maps and weapon availability. Shootmania is 100% completely balanced, because everyone has identical capabilities. Chess is a game with a completely identical ruleset, and the sole source of imbalance is that one player goes first. Because difference = imbalance, similarity = balance.

It is very simple.

Most characters in a fighting game have more options than what classes have in WoW and some have a roster bigger than the amount of classes in WoW. A race in a RTS has more different stuff going on than anything in WoW lol. You're not gonna convince me of your bullshit, you know you're wrong, at this point you're just trying to fight over the internet instead of admitting to be completely clueless on the subject.

[derpkitteh]

i vote dark ranger.

they're gearing up for a major shadowlands ordeal, and something we aren't expecting with sylvanas.

they've given new models for night elves dark rangers, and both male and female high/blood elven dark rangers.

death is everywhere this expansion.

[Hitei]

Most characters in a fighting game have more options than what classes have in WoW and some have a roster bigger than the amount of classes in WoW. A race in a RTS has more different stuff going on than anything in WoW lol. You're not gonna convince me of your bullshit, you know you're wrong, at this point you're just trying to fight over the internet instead of admitting to be completely clueless on the subject.

Lmao, yeah buddy. There are definitely balanced fighting games where two characters are more distinct from each other than a warlock and warrior are. You got me. Fighting games totally aren't predicated on characters all having similar capabilities and toolkits.

[Teriz]

If your fantasy is predicated on vehicle based combat, it is never going to happen.

You can play a "Tinker" today by choosing Gnome/Goblin* Hunter with Engineering. Ranged physical abilities, pets, traps, explosives. All of these mechs are available to you:

https://www.wow-petopia.com/family.php?id=mechanical


*even other races with Mecha-Bond Imprint Matrix = more Engineering!

Those are items, not abilities. You cant perform a class role using items, and its laughable to suggest otherwise.

If you're talking about Survival Hunter, the physical ranged abilities aren't available despite the lone grenade ability. Playing as Rexxar with an improvised explosive ain't a Tinker.

Finally, neither option mirrors the actual Tinker heroes from WC3 or HotS, all of which piloted mechs and could switch out of mech form to pilot mode just like a Druid could change from an elf into a bear. Mekkatorque, Gazlowe, and Gallywix mirror that version of the Tinker, not the profession mishmash you're describing.

[TigTone]

Watch them throw a curve ball and release two new classes. Highly unlickly but we can dream then get slapped by reality.

[Freshouttajail]

Lmao, yeah buddy. There are definitely balanced fighting games where two characters are more distinct from each other than a warlock and warrior are. You got me. Fighting games totally aren't predicated on characters all having similar capabilities and toolkits.

Yeah try to act like I said characters are ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT.

Also let's act like class roations in WoW are not all extremely similar in the first place. I mean. Seriously at this point I don't even know what to say I just feel like you'll twist shit around to make it fit your wrong point of view or just straight up not understand the most basic things everybody else already caught on.

Keep on the good fight buddy.

[Hitei]

Watch them throw a curve ball and release two new classes. Highly unlickly but we can dream then get slapped by reality.

I've thought for a while that it's fairly viable for them to implement multiple single spec prestige classes.

So instead of something like Monk which has a healing, dps and tank spec, you'd get "Dark Ranger" prestige class that is a single ranged DPS spec/set of talents with all the usual bells and whistles you'd get from general class spells, and a "Tinker" prestige class that is a single tank spec/set of talents with all its class spells, and a "Warden" melee spec prestige class, and a "Bard" healer spec prestige class.

So they could add in multiple flavored classes but still only be adding about what they'd add with a regular class (or maybe a class and a half). The healer/tank specs would have talent or spell options for doing more damage-y type stuff to make solo content easier to deal with (like a more DPSy less tanky mech stance for Tinkers and a more agressive song stance for bards, and so on.

Then with subsequent expansions you could theoretically add in an additional spec to some of them (potentially during expansions where normally you wouldn't get a class).

Yeah try to act like I said characters are ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT.

Also let's act like class roations in WoW are not all extremely similar in the first place. I mean. Seriously at this point I don't even know what to say I just feel like you'll twist shit around to make it fit your wrong point of view or just straight up not understand the most basic things everybody else already caught on.

Keep on the good fight buddy.

Hmmm, still waiting on that example. You seem pretty determined to cry about how I'm wrong and ignore basic evidence despite providing nothing to back up your claim that balance and difference aren't directly tied to each other.

[Triceron]

Yeah try to act like I said characters are ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT.

Also let's act like class roations in WoW are not all extremely similar in the first place. I mean. Seriously at this point I don't even know what to say I just feel like you'll twist shit around to make it fit your wrong point of view or just straight up not understand the most basic things everybody else already caught on.

Keep on the good fight buddy.

WoW isnt ever going to get the complexity or diverse gameplay you are comparing it to.

[Freshouttajail]

Hmmm, still waiting on that example. You seem pretty determined to cry about how I'm wrong and ignore basic evidence despite providing nothing to back up your claim that balance and difference aren't directly tied to each other.

My claim that what? I never made that claim, it's people like you who twist what others say to better fit their narrative that make me fucking sick. I said if you don't suck at balancing you can reach a good balance even with differences. Of course the more difference there is the harder it gets. But it's nowhere near impossible, which is your claim, and it doesn't make sense. I don't even need to ask you to prove it cuz I know it's impossible, spend more than a day playing games and you'll find some who did exacly what you claim is impossible to do. Get out of your WoW bubble for a minute and realize there's things much better than you can imagine out there.

- - - Updated - - -

WoW isnt ever going to get the complexity or diverse gameplay you are comparing it to.

Which means it's even more baffling that it never reaches a respectable level of balancing compared to more complex games that have better balance.

[Onikaroshi]

It has to be ranged, and preferably wear mail, so either tinkerer or dark ranger would probably work.

[Hitei]

My claim that what? I never made that claim, it's people like you who twist what others say to better fit their narrative that make me fucking sick. I said if you don't suck at balancing you can reach a good balance even with differences.

No, you made the claim that if you're good at balancing you don't have to homogenize.

When you suck at balancing like Blizzard that's what it means. When you're good you don't have to.

I pointed out that's simply outright false, balance is directly related to and stems from similarity between the things being balanced, and then you got all whiny about how fighting games are "s-super different playstyles!!!" but have tighter balanced. I pointed out the painfully obvious fact that such games are far more homogenized between characters than wow classes are, and you got even whinier and started backpeddling about how you didn't mean playstyles were different you just meant there were differences!!!

Of course the more difference there is the harder it gets. But it's nowhere near impossible, which is your claim, and it doesn't make sense. I don't even need to ask you to prove it cuz I know it's impossible, spend more than a day playing games and you'll find some who did exacly what you claim is impossible to do. Get out of your WoW bubble for a minute and realize there's things much better than you can imagine out there.

It's not a claim, it's an objective fact. If there is a difference, there is a degree of imbalance, see: Chess. Or literally any game. The second you introduce differences between players, you make one thing better than the other. The more difference you have, the less balance is possible, the more homogenization you have the more balance is possible.

If you want wow to be balanced, you have to introduce significant amounts of homogenization, period. You can get sick about how I'm pointing out your complete lack of evidence all you want, it isn't going to change the basic balancing logic of video games as established through decades of development. There is a reason that mirrored FPS maps are the most balanced map construction. It has fuck all to do with wow or wow's development. Which you'd realize if you weren't too busy freaking out to actually read what I've been typing the whole time.

[Triceron]

Which means it's even more baffling that it never reaches a respectable level of balancing compared to more complex games that have better balance.

Why should it? WoW has never been a direct competitive game. Arena and PVP are team-based and defined by shifting metas, and the PVE competition is more focused on players than classes. I don't understand why 'better balance' would make WoW a better game. For WoW, balance is a way to keep mechanics and classes functioning within reason, not a way to measure skill in competition. Competitive games need balance because they are direct tests of skill and execution, while WoW's competitive skill is measured by teamwork, communication and composition.

WoW is balanced like Poker. You're playing the strengths of what you have and you make the best of it. It's not a game of Chess, where your direct actions and reactions dictate your skill and your ability to win. In WoW, if you go in a raid with a tank in blues, then that's the card you're dealt and you make due with what you have. World First guilds make due with that all the time and don't have the luxury of farming BIS before attempting a final boss.

Honestly, people focus too much on min-maxing and making sure they are playing a class that tops charts or outperforms other classes. The goal of the game is to defeat the opponent, whether it's a human player or an NPC boss. The game is designed for any combination of classes to be able to overcome the obstacles. The game isn't designed to have every composition balanced to each other; some will be better at some bosses than others and that is the way the game is designed.

Poker is less balanced than Chess if you look at it from a per-game basis. But Poker isn't meant to be played on a per-game basis, it's about reading the table and reading the players; something you can't do by over-analyzing one game played.

[Freshouttajail]

No, you made the claim that if you're good at balancing you don't have to homogenize.

I pointed out that's simply outright false, balance is directly related to and stems from similarity between the things being balanced, and then you got all whiny about how fighting games are "s-super different playstyles!!!" but have tighter balanced. I pointed out the painfully obvious fact that such games are far more homogenized between characters than wow classes are, and you got even whinier and started backpeddling about how you didn't mean playstyles were different you just meant there were differences!!!


It's not a claim, it's an objective fact. If there is a difference, there is a degree of imbalance, see: Chess. Or literally any game. The second you introduce differences between players, you make one thing better than the other. The more difference you have, the less balance is possible, the more homogenization you have the more balance is possible.

If you want wow to be balanced, you have to introduce significant amounts of homogenization, period. You can get sick about how I'm pointing out your complete lack of evidence all you want, it isn't going to change the basic balancing logic of video games as established through decades of development. There is a reason that mirrored FPS maps are the most balanced map construction. It has fuck all to do with wow or wow's development. Which you'd realize if you weren't too busy freaking out to actually read what I've been typing the whole time.

Starcraft is factually more complex and has more differences, depth and options than WoW classes and it's more balanced.

All I see in your ignorant post is you saying that a bunch of bad devs didn't reach good balancing without making everything the same. It doesn't prove in any way shape or form that it's impossible to do, it only showed that THESE GUYS couldn't do it.

Once again the only thing you prove is that I'm right.