If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Lodreh]

And I can see a druid saturating their shapeshifted forms with magic and "detonate", perhaps stunning those around them, sending the druid out of shapeshift form and leaving them unable to transform again for a limited time...

You lost this argument… in WoW nothing can stop a Druid from shapeshifting... it is one of the tenents of the class. Hell a root or snare can not even slow them down. And yes, you could retool any existing class to use any idea presented... but the fact remains that those classes are established as to working a certain way... I gave unique ways familiar ideas could be presented in a mechanical way that was not a copy and paste of any existing mechanics.

Using your logic we only need 3 maybe 4 classes with no additional specializations. Well we have a Tank... and we could give the Druid bear a shield bash and reflect fur ability so no need for Protection Warriors... maybe even bristle back fur that can shoot out like quills so no need for Paladins or Avenger's Shield... etc.

[Ielenia]

You lost this argument… in WoW nothing can stop a Druid from shapeshifting... it is one of the tenents of the class.

I didn't "lose" any argument, because what I'm talking about is how themes do not grant "unique gameplay", here. And as for your specific examples, druids could be made to become unable to shapeshift again for a short time if their bodies become too weak to be transformed again so soon after channeling too much magic through their bodies, for example.

And yes, you could retool any existing class to use any idea presented... but the fact remains that those classes are established as to working a certain way... I gave unique ways familiar ideas could be presented in a mechanical way that was not a copy and paste of any existing mechanics.

That's not the point. The argument has never been about "copy and pasting from existing mechanics". The point is about how the claim that "a mechanical theme offers unique gameplay" is a false statement, because a theme is nothing but a coat of paint over the mechanics. My whole point with my previous response to you was me demonstrating how those supposedly "unique gameplay that the mechanical theme offers" could also be offered by many other themes.

Using your logic we only need 3 maybe 4 classes with no additional specializations. Well we have a Tank... and we could give the Druid bear a shield bash and reflect fur ability so no need for Protection Warriors... maybe even bristle back fur that can shoot out like quills so no need for Paladins or Avenger's Shield... etc.

You're not using "my logic". Because the logic I'm employing here is simply pointing out that themes do not offer "unique gameplay", or even any gameplay, whatsoever. Game mechanics do.

Also, I have never said that new classes have to be anywhere near 100% unique to be viable. I have stated, multiple times through multiple threads, that it's fine for classes to share gameplay elements and/or themes. Because, guess what: we have classes, right now, that share gameplay elements, and classes that share themes.

[Triceron]

And I can see a druid saturating their shapeshifted forms with magic and "detonate", perhaps stunning those around them, sending the druid out of shapeshift form and leaving them unable to transform again for a limited time. :/

As a Druid main, that's a terrible ability to have. Doesn't fit the Druid fantasy at all, and it's way too shoe-horned.

If it's gonna be a Tinker ability, it should stay a Tinker ability, not be retrofit to a Druid. The concept of a Druid 'overloading' themselves so that they can't properly shift messes with the whole dynamic of having all your power contained within a certain form for a certain spec. It's counter-intuitive gameplay, from a Druid player perspective.

Staying in form or being able to shift forms freely is what the Druid fantasy is about.

[Katchii]

True it needs some consideration in how it functions mechanically... however, unlike a Druid I see a pilot being able to detonate the suit becoming a bit more vulnerable for a limited time before being able to call down a new one. Maybe even a talent that throws a AoE stun on detonation to allow a bit more survivability. I see an alchemist firing off a series of different injections... one to increase overall health, a direct heal, damage reduction, boost healing from all effects... very rapid fire without stacking multiple HoTs. I see a builder creating turrets that are immobile with set ranges and beefy hitpoints. Setup/ ramp up takes a bit but you are not reconstructing them every other cast. They can feel familiar yet different.

All true.

Only point I'm making is that the class would not be unique simply because it has a unique look or theme, the game play mechanics have to be unique as well.

Just look at Windwalker Monk vs Rogue, there are a lot of similarities. Both have builder spender type mechanics, both have energy that recharges over time and both are melee DPS, however their aesthetic and theme are obviously different, but WW Monk doesn't spend all of their Chi anytime they use a spender ability unlike Rogues that use all of their combo points on Finishers. The differences, while small, are profound and have a huge impact on game play feel and flow. But WW Monk didn't get to be uniquely different simply because it put on a Kung Fu aesthetic and theme, those small game play changes also had to be there.

[slime]

I'd like a class that could take on the form of all other classes for short periods.

[Psykho]

I didn't "lose" any argument, because what I'm talking about is how themes do not grant "unique gameplay", here. And as for your specific examples, druids could be made to become unable to shapeshift again for a short time if their bodies become too weak to be transformed again so soon after channeling too much magic through their bodies, for example.


That's not the point. The argument has never been about "copy and pasting from existing mechanics". The point is about how the claim that "a mechanical theme offers unique gameplay" is a false statement, because a theme is nothing but a coat of paint over the mechanics. My whole point with my previous response to you was me demonstrating how those supposedly "unique gameplay that the mechanical theme offers" could also be offered by many other themes.


You're not using "my logic". Because the logic I'm employing here is simply pointing out that themes do not offer "unique gameplay", or even any gameplay, whatsoever. Game mechanics do.

Also, I have never said that new classes have to be anywhere near 100% unique to be viable. I have stated, multiple times through multiple threads, that it's fine for classes to share gameplay elements and/or themes. Because, guess what: we have classes, right now, that share gameplay elements, and classes that share themes.

If I may, allow me to put an idea I've come up with a mechanic for Tinkers that while not uniquely applicable for the Mechanical theme is thematically connected

The Pocket Factory
basically the tinker sets down a little station(probably a little bigger than a totem but not too much bigger) that passively generates small robots akin to the imps Warlocks summon with Hand of Gul'dan, and having a mechanic were it makes a stronger minion when the Tinker either uses a certain cooldown or a certain ability crits, of course having this be a central mechanic probably be a little unwieldly so it would probably work better as a strong cooldown for tougher fights
examples of how this could be plopped onto a different class is giving Warlocks a big cooldown demonic portal or having Necromancers plop down a few different graves that spawn certain types of undead

another proposal I have concerning the similarity between Totems and Turrets, is to differentiate them by having Turrets be comparatively less utility oriented, being more focused of pure damage(or healing in the case of the healing spec) for example instead having something like a Binding Totem, Tinkers would have a Flame Turret that does high damage in a short ranged cone in a certain direction

[Shadowferal]

I too would prefer 4th specs to a new class... but if Demon Hunters are any indication Blizzard would rather break classes into two than give 4th specs.

Break every class down to two specs..?
*sigh*
Thank you for typing that idea out...knowing Blizz's fondness for "great" ideas, (/s), I won't be surpised to see anytime in the future.
And you will have to live with that.

[Ielenia]

As a Druid main, that's a terrible ability to have. Doesn't fit the Druid fantasy at all, and it's way too shoe-horned.

If it's gonna be a Tinker ability, it should stay a Tinker ability, not be retrofit to a Druid. The concept of a Druid 'overloading' themselves so that they can't properly shift messes with the whole dynamic of having all your power contained within a certain form for a certain spec. It's counter-intuitive gameplay, from a Druid player perspective.

Staying in form or being able to shift forms freely is what the Druid fantasy is about.

I agree that, as a game mechanic, it doesn't fit very well for the druid's rotation, but the idea of a druid 'overloading' themselves with magic that it forces them out of shapeshift form for a time does fit in the theme of the druid, i.e., nature magic.

The point being is that there is no "unique gameplay" that can be applies solely to the mechanic theme.

- - - Updated - - -

If I may, allow me to put an idea I've come up with a mechanic for Tinkers that while not uniquely applicable for the Mechanical theme is thematically connected

The Pocket Factory
basically the tinker sets down a little station(probably a little bigger than a totem but not too much bigger) that passively generates small robots akin to the imps Warlocks summon with Hand of Gul'dan, and having a mechanic were it makes a stronger minion when the Tinker either uses a certain cooldown or a certain ability crits, of course having this be a central mechanic probably be a little unwieldly so it would probably work better as a strong cooldown for tougher fights
examples of how this could be plopped onto a different class is giving Warlocks a big cooldown demonic portal or having Necromancers plop down a few different graves that spawn certain types of undead

another proposal I have concerning the similarity between Totems and Turrets, is to differentiate them by having Turrets be comparatively less utility oriented, being more focused of pure damage(or healing in the case of the healing spec) for example instead having something like a Binding Totem, Tinkers would have a Flame Turret that does high damage in a short ranged cone in a certain direction

The pocket factory mechanic can be done for other class themes as well: a shaman's totem that constantly spawn mini-fire elementals that explode when they reach the target. Or a druid spawning a flower that releases spore that drift toward the target and explode on contact, etc.

And as for your proposal for totems and turrets, I can see what you're trying to do, but what's being discussed here is "how to make turrets work mechanically different than turrets". It's the claim that a mechanical theme for a class brings unique gameplay, or, in other words, gameplay that cannot be given to any other class theme.

[Psykho]

I agree that, as a game mechanic, it doesn't fit very well for the druid's rotation, but the idea of a druid 'overloading' themselves with magic that it forces them out of shapeshift form for a time does fit in the theme of the druid, i.e., nature magic.

The point being is that there is no "unique gameplay" that can be applies solely to the mechanic theme.

- - - Updated - - -



The pocket factory mechanic can be done for other class themes as well: a shaman's totem that constantly spawn mini-fire elementals that explode when they reach the target. Or a druid spawning a flower that releases spore that drift toward the target and explode on contact, etc.

And as for your proposal for totems and turrets, I can see what you're trying to do, but what's being discussed here is "how to make turrets work mechanically different than turrets". It's the claim that a mechanical theme for a class brings unique gameplay, or, in other words, gameplay that cannot be given to any other class theme.

Yeah, though Tinkers could be argued to be the class where a "minion spawner" is the most at home as Warlocks by comparison usually just summon them directly

to be honest yes, giving a class the mechanical theme doesn't by itself give it unique gameplay, Blizz has to give it fitting mechanics that make the class feel unique, that makes you feel like you are a master of tech, you can't really just give them a gun and turrets, it wouldn't feel like a tinker it'd feel like they gave a shaman a gun, if you just give them a combo gauge it's just a ranged rogue, but if you say give give them a fuel resource that can be used as either channeled flamethrower attack or as a "divert power to shields" type ability to passively up your defense while slowing spending the resource, yeah then it would feel like a Tinker, but of course blizz could just give it to another class if they wanted to, because it's their decision

[enderzone]

Some kind of mid range class that ideally would want to swoop into melee to fire off cds now and then. It is really the only missing type of class wow has that wouldn't involve toxic unworkable mechanics like turrets.

A lot of people get hung up on themes when gameplay should be the first focus then a theme built on top of that.

[Swnem]

I'd like a class that could take on the form of all other classes for short periods.

Lol the shang tsung of wow classes. XD

- - - Updated - - -

So how many expansions until that happens?

You'd think people would learn with shadowlands.
The sacrifice of a new class gave us nothing in return.

[Triceron]

I agree that, as a game mechanic, it doesn't fit very well for the druid's rotation, but the idea of a druid 'overloading' themselves with magic that it forces them out of shapeshift form for a time does fit in the theme of the druid, i.e., nature magic.

The point being is that there is no "unique gameplay" that can be applies solely to the mechanic theme.

I don't know about that. By what measure are you applying 'unique gameplay'?

What is 'unique gameplay'? Because the way I see it, any ability or gameplay mechanic can take up any theme. Nothing is unique. The only thing that makes any ability interesting is simply its mechanics, but no ability is tied to any particular theme.

DKs have a unique Death Grip ability, but the core mechanics could be applied to any theme. What abiliity mechanics would be 'unique gameplay'. Seems like an arbitrary thing to point out.

If mechanics get any sort of ability it doesn't need to be unique. It could simply be gameplay mechanics made exclusive to a technological class.

[Stricks]

I think those races are underutilized and would be a good opportunity to give them some spotlight. All the high tech stuff also doesn't really fit most of the other races.

Not as it stands but it could be worked into the story. Perhaps an age of technology that comes about to help seal the shadowlands off. Lore could be a need for such tech to be used by all capable and thus breeds an influx of tinkerers.

[Ielenia]

I don't know about that. By what measure are you applying 'unique gameplay'?

What is 'unique gameplay'? Because the way I see it, any ability or gameplay mechanic can take up any theme. Nothing is unique. The only thing that makes any ability interesting is simply its mechanics, but no ability is tied to any particular theme.

DKs have a unique Death Grip ability, but the core mechanics could be applied to any theme. What abiliity mechanics would be 'unique gameplay'. Seems like an arbitrary thing to point out.

If mechanics get any sort of ability it doesn't need to be unique. It could simply be gameplay mechanics made exclusive to a technological class.

That is part of my contention, here.

Every time I've seen someone claim "X theme brings unique gameplay", they either never gave any examples of it, or gave examples of abilities that aren't unique as they share mechanics that already exist in other classes.

I think we first need to define what makes a gameplay "unique". I define it as the synergy between the class' mechanics, i.e. its passives and active abilities, regardless if said abilities' and passives' mechanics are unique or not. Which is why I'm saying class themes, by themselves, bring no "unique gameplay", because gameplay is not tied to themes, but to mechanics.

But if by "unique" you (and I mean the general 'you', not you in particular) define it as "unique abilities", as in, the abilities themselves in a vacuum, by comparing them to similar abilities, we have do then define what makes an ability "unique" by itself: does the complete set of mechanics within the ability have to be unique for the ability to be considered "unique", or does it sufficiently qualify as "unique" if you have all mechanics that already exist in other classes, but arranged in a unique way? And either way, that "uniqueness" is still not tied to themes.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, though Tinkers could be argued to be the class where a "minion spawner" is the most at home as Warlocks by comparison usually just summon them directly

Then it begs the question: what's the difference between a "minion spawner" and a "minion summoner"?

to be honest yes, giving a class the mechanical theme doesn't by itself give it unique gameplay, Blizz has to give it fitting mechanics that make the class feel unique, that makes you feel like you are a master of tech, you can't really just give them a gun and turrets, it wouldn't feel like a tinker it'd feel like they gave a shaman a gun, if you just give them a combo gauge it's just a ranged rogue, but if you say give give them a fuel resource that can be used as either channeled flamethrower attack or as a "divert power to shields" type ability to passively up your defense while slowing spending the resource, yeah then it would feel like a Tinker, but of course blizz could just give it to another class if they wanted to, because it's their decision

It's even that. A theme has no influence whatsoever on how a class plays. I mean, you can fit basically any mechanic to basically any theme, really.

[Triceron]

But if by "unique" you (and I mean the general 'you', not you in particular) define it as "unique abilities", as in, the abilities themselves in a vacuum, by comparing them to similar abilities, we have do then define what makes an ability "unique" by itself: does the complete set of mechanics within the ability have to be unique for the ability to be considered "unique", or does it sufficiently qualify as "unique" if you have all mechanics that already exist in other classes, but arranged in a unique way? And either way, that "uniqueness" is still not tied to themes.

The thing is, I can get behind a certain class having unique gameplay and theme simply due to the way it was designed. No other class shares these same collection of themes and abilities in the same way. Paladin could easily be a Warrior or Priest spec if designed differently, but the way the class is now it has 'unique gameplay' simply because it was given a particular style of gameplay that fits the fantasy of being a Paladin, all without being 'overshadowed' by any other existing class.

That being said... there's nothing inherently unique about any class concept. Classes are all intentionally designed to carve their own niches. I'd agree that it isn't really something worth pointing out.

[deenman]

Void Knight

As it stands now, the Void is the ONLY cosmic force that does not have its own unique class. Meanwhile...

Death: Death Knight
Fel: Warlock, Demon Hunter
Light: Paladin, Priest (2 specs)
Life: Druid, possibly Shaman and Hunter (as they are both connected to the elements and/or the animal life)
Arcane: Mage (all 3 specs are derived from the Arcane)

Void? It has no unique class. It only has Shadow Priest, which is ONE SPEC of the Priest class.

Lorewise, we already have examples of Paladin-esque figures serving in the Twilight's Hammer, the apocalyptic cult that worships the Old Gods, who are beings of pure Void. These individuals are known as Twilight Vindicators.

Logically, 10.0 will be about the Void Lords. A Void-based class would therefore be the perfect tie-in, and it would be introduced to the Alliance and Horde by the Ren'dorei and Shadowmoon Mag'har respectively.

As well, marketing-wise, the trope of "Black Knight" tends to be massively popular and attract A LOT of people. One only needs to look at the massive hype that Death Knight, another class that fits this trope, generated.

shadow priest is void spec

i would like to see another mail healer spec,its by far the most lacking slot,a tinker that heals by repairing stuff would be fantastic,a tank or dps spec with some mech form or cd also

[Ielenia]

The thing is, I can get behind a certain class having unique gameplay and theme simply due to the way it was designed. No other class shares these same collection of themes and abilities in the same way. Paladin could easily be a Warrior or Priest spec if designed differently, but the way the class is now it has 'unique gameplay' simply because it was given a particular style of gameplay that fits the fantasy of being a Paladin, all without being 'overshadowed' by any other existing class.

That being said... there's nothing inherently unique about any class concept. Classes are all intentionally designed to carve their own niches. I'd agree that it isn't really something worth pointing out.

If I understood correctly, you agree with me that saying "X theme brings unique gameplay" is a false statement, and that you agree with me that gameplay (unique or not) comes from between the interactions between the class' passives and active abilities, and not the theme?

If so, would you agree with me that even if we have a class concept that many, if not most people would say "isn't that just Y spec X class?", it could still be given unique gameplay? For example, people say "isn't a barbarian just a fury warrior?" or "isn't an inquisitor just a ret paladin?" and stuff like that, but those classes could still have unique gameplay despite not having unique themes?

[Inoculate]

So how many expansions until that happens?

Probably never which is why we don't need a new class. Every trope is covered, sometimes multiple times over. They literally took away, my personal favorite,ability from demo locks to make a new class.

Why keep taking away from already watered down specs and classes to just keep making pale imitations?

[Alanar]

Shadow is not necessarily Void ("Shadow" as a term has been used to refer to both the Lich King and the Legion in the past). Voidwalker is ONE ability that they have, that's it. If that's your argument for "A Void class is already in the game", then we need 2 Void classes, since the Light has 2 classes. As for the Death Knights, their energies all come from the domain of Death.

If Void Knights overlap with Death Knights, then Warlocks overlap with Demon Hunters...

Another asspull? We already had void elves.. do we realy need another when we still have alot of options with much bigger fanbases left?
I though this idea already was criticized in the high elf thread, its just a reason to give void elves a paladin type class.. I rather see the missing classes from warcraft being added then something random like this honestly. Wow still has a couple of archtypes that players would realy like to see and I also think wow is in need of a new range class.

Shadow spec is also void.. Shadow is just the name of the spec now realy.

[Triceron]

If I understood correctly, you agree with me that saying "X theme brings unique gameplay" is a false statement, and that you agree with me that gameplay (unique or not) comes from between the interactions between the class' passives and active abilities, and not the theme?

If so, would you agree with me that even if we have a class concept that many, if not most people would say "isn't that just Y spec X class?", it could still be given unique gameplay? For example, people say "isn't a barbarian just a fury warrior?" or "isn't an inquisitor just a ret paladin?" and stuff like that, but those classes could still have unique gameplay despite not having unique themes?

There are two parts to answering that.

As a player and a fan, I believe any gameplay is possible. If they want a 'Demon Slayer' class added now with unique gameplay then it absolutely could exist and we could theorycraft it up on the spot.

Whether it should realistically exist and whether the devs have the resources to create it is the more important thing that should be answered. Just as I originally said, your example of the druid having an ability that locks them out of shapeshift is a good example of gameplay mechanics using any theme, but it is absolutely counter intuitive to Druid design, just as adding a 'Demon Slayer' now would be counter intuitive.

If we are talking about classes like Necromancers getting unique gameplay, I think its absolutely possible; however not with the current dev team or the design goals of WoW. The whole class situation is a mess of homogenized concepts they are trying to keep balanced through constant power shifting; I am doubtful they would want to add any more classes period. That is why I am a supporter of the Class Skin concept over actual new classes. To me, it is the more plausible path, especially if they didn't give us a class in Shadowlands.

Personally I'd love to see new classes. Realistically I don't think Blizzard has the balls to do anything truly creative any more. Check out the WoWhead video of the Blizzard employee that left recently, he was a class designer and he points out how WoW is not the same game it used to be. I think (not what he said, just my extrapolation) the homogenization of class mechanics, and more experimental abilities applied through 'borrowed power' is one part of that problem.