Every expansion that does not introduce a new class is crap!

[Beuargh]

As said in the title: every expansion that does not add a new class is crap, period. I don't care about the balance of the game, or how pvp gets more f***ed because of adding a new class and that there are so many classes already in the game blabla as some people even here in the forums always argue if blizzard should add more classes. It's not a surprise that not having a new class on a new expansion makes the game much worse and as we saw it in the history of WoW, every expansion that didn't add a new class was guttercrap.

Snip

I have dk, monk and dh as rerolls now but I never created them during the xpac they came with so IMO an expension being crap has nothing to do with a new class being introduced with it or not.

And it doesn't matter if you "don't care about the balance of the game, or how pvp gets more f***ed because of adding a new class and that there are so many classes already in the game blabla".... because those are valid arguments against new classes even if you don't care.

[Kauko]

Kinda agree. Maybe its a coincidence. Or maybe they have to spend so much time balancing the new class and everything around it, that they don't have time for inventing all that new systems that nobody wants...

[Soikona]

Devs don't like new classes, because they need to support them in a long term and they don't like to "inflate" xpack budget. Their argument is usually "We don't have many unique class mechanics, so from game design point of view we should keep number of classes minimum". Major problem - classes aren't about gameplay and game design only. They're about RP and immersion. Players usually don't care, if classes have unique mechanics or not. They care about imagining something like "I'm Tinker, I control my robots, I have missiles and it's so cool to have dual guns!!! It's so fun and epic!!!". And Blizzards' overdesigned game is boring as hell.

Basically this. I have raided from world 300 to world 3k, as a ret because I enjoy the immersion and style of a paladin. I might play a few different classes for keys, but ret will always be my main due to immersion, it’s story and looks. Not gameplay, it’s a boring ish class, which is why I don’t really do keys with it.

[Alanar]

Eh, whatever. The fact no new class, what I looked forward to every other expansion, was introduced in SL was a contributing factor of my boredom with WoW making me quit since last February.

Ye what ever, every one has their reasons to quit.

[Daedius]

Ye what ever, every one has their reasons to quit.

That they do, and some also choose to be an obnoxious sod such as yourself.

[Alanar]

That they do, and some also choose to be an obnoxious sod such as yourself.

I guess you missed the part were you started with the what ever.. and then you truly expect me to care for your sad story then?

You are obnoxious here, now move along.

[Triceron]

You're accusing me of semantics... and yet you're the one defending the "Horde getting paladins is the same as adding a new class to the game" argument, .

I checked the post you responded to. No one said that either.

That's twice now that you've brought up statements that no one has explicitly made.

Your paraphrasing is quite messed up here, as no one has said 'Horde getting Paladins is the same as a new class'. If that is what you are arguing against, then I will straight up tell you that no one has made that statement. You literally linked the post you replied to and nothing to that effect was stated at all.

Again, you're arguing semantics, and frankly it seems also a strawman argument.

[arkanon]

Eh, whatever. The fact no new class, what I looked forward to every other expansion, was introduced in SL was a contributing factor of my boredom with WoW making me quit since last February.

My desire for a new class grew as my enjoyment of the existing classes headed south. I had to correct myself and accept that any new class they introduce will follow the same design philosophy as the current crop of classes, so it ultimately would be more of the same. As such, I shifted more into a "fix whats there before adding more" mindset, however to be clear, those who enjoy the current classes would obviously not agree.

- - - Updated - - -

I checked the post you responded to. No one said that either.

That's twice now that you've brought up statements that no one has explicitly made.

Your paraphrasing is quite messed up here, as no one has said 'Horde getting Paladins is the same as a new class'. If that is what you are arguing against, then I will straight up tell you that no one has made that statement. You literally linked the post you replied to and nothing to that effect was stated at all.

Again, you're arguing semantics, and frankly it seems also a strawman argument.

This is probably the post being spoken about:

Technically Shaman was introduced to Alliance and Horde got Paladins.

This was in response to someone saying that TBC was great even though it had no new class.

[Triceron]

This is probably the post being spoken about:

This was in response to someone saying that TBC was great even though it had no new class.

Right, and I still don't see that saying Horde getting Paladins is the same as a New Class. The context is the same - these classes got introduced to the Factions for the first time, and it falls in line with the OP's wording that these factions got a new class, as in a class that is new to each faction.

[Ielenia]

I checked the post you responded to. No one said that either.

That's twice now that you've brought up statements that no one has explicitly made.

By "twice", perchance you mean "zero"? This is from the post I originally replied to:

Now lets list all xpacs, that featured a new class:

TBC (Paladin/Shaman Faction additions)

[Triceron]

By "twice", perchance you mean "zero"? This is from the post I originally replied to:

And what is wrong with that? It clarified that the new class was in context to faction additions.

It is a class that is new to those factions. Your understanding is simply that new class has to mean nee to the game, and yet the context is clarified in the parenthesis. Where is your misunderstanding?

In both cases where the OP and the post you replied to are concerned, neither are referring to Shaman and Paladins as classes that are New to the Game, and clarify them as new to the Factions. So really, when you say these people are comparing Horde Paladins to a New Class to the game, that's not what any of that has explicitly stated, at all. They are calling it a new class, and then framing the context a class that is new to the factions, and in that context the wording is absolutely valid.

You're just implying that they are talking about classes that are new to the game explicitly, but the mention of the factions already clarifies the context.

Like I said before, the example of 'What new class should I play' is ambiguous enough to apply to classes that exist in the game, or classes that are new to the game, because the context is about classes that are New to Me and that includes classes that aren't available yet. If you read the statement as-is and interpret to mean a class that is new to the game, then that is perfectly valid.

If I add in (I haven't played Paladins yet) then that should reframe the context to include existing classes.

And in framing the Shaman and Paladin as Faction additions, it reframes the context of a New Class as ones that include classes that are new to the Factions

[Femininity]

Thread title should be

Every expansion past wrath is crap.

(Minus Cata and WoD, great xpacs, tragically underappreciated)