Are Evokers getting a new spec?

[Gurbz]

It's not tanks that give that, it's the class. Every Paladin has Blessings and Auras. Every DH gives Chaos Brand.

A Buff Tank would have the exact same problem as Disc Priest did for the longest time after Legion when they were still more "damage-through-healing" focused: They are either half-assed tanks because they support, or they are overpowered because they are good at tanking and also buff your entire group.

If they are even remotely good at tanking, every single M+ Group will be tanked by Evokers just because they would offer so much more than any other tank. If they aren't good at tanking, then they will never be taken because you need some baseline tankability.

A Support Class HAS to be a DPS.

I agree. I believe Soul's assessment is spot on. The most boring option is the most likely outcome, and if its going to happen at all it will be a DPS/Support hybrid.

Even that doesn't remove the balancing challenge. It just makes it slightly less of a headache. The devs would have a little more wiggle room to make adjustments, but would still be threading a needle. Ultimately, I think it would just end up being in a similar place as Survival hunters. A niche spec that very few play unless it happens to be super OP during a particular tier/season, but mostly a slightly less than average DPS spec that gives your group some interesting buffs.

[Staccato]

It's not tanks that give that, it's the class. Every Paladin has Blessings and Auras. Every DH gives Chaos Brand.

A Buff Tank would have the exact same problem as Disc Priest did for the longest time after Legion when they were still more "damage-through-healing" focused: They are either half-assed tanks because they support, or they are overpowered because they are good at tanking and also buff your entire group.

If they are even remotely good at tanking, every single M+ Group will be tanked by Evokers just because they would offer so much more than any other tank. If they aren't good at tanking, then they will never be taken because you need some baseline tankability.

A Support Class HAS to be a DPS.

I agree. You would think that people would gravitate towards the DNC class from FF14 as an example, but I guess that's not as wildly known. Either way, at the very least the class has to be a DPS. if it was a second healing spec, I'd be curious to see how they'd fit earth into that lol.

[Teriz]

It's not tanks that give that, it's the class. Every Paladin has Blessings and Auras. Every DH gives Chaos Brand.

A Buff Tank would have the exact same problem as Disc Priest did for the longest time after Legion when they were still more "damage-through-healing" focused: They are either half-assed tanks because they support, or they are overpowered because they are good at tanking and also buff your entire group.

If they are even remotely good at tanking, every single M+ Group will be tanked by Evokers just because they would offer so much more than any other tank. If they aren't good at tanking, then they will never be taken because you need some baseline tankability.

A Support Class HAS to be a DPS.

Okay, since you and Staccoto don't think its going to be a tank spec, is it possible for the new spec to be a dual role DPS/Heal spec that can choose between healing and DPS depending on talent choices ala old feral druid?

[Makorus]

Okay, since you and Staccoto don't think its going to be a tank spec, is it possible for the new spec to be a dual role DPS/Heal spec that can choose between healing and DPS depending on talent choices ala old feral druid?

I think it's gonna be a DPS, that has a bigger focus on buffing. Not really any type of healing. You are not gonna give a healer spot for a healer that does half the healing of an actual healer, just because they got some buffs to throw about.

That's the only way it's gonna work balance-wise. And even that is gonna be rough in terms of Dungeons

[Teriz]

I think it's gonna be a DPS, that has a bigger focus on buffing. Not really any type of healing. You are not gonna give a healer spot for a healer that does half the healing of an actual healer, just because they got some buffs to throw about.

That's the only way it's gonna work balance-wise. And even that is gonna be rough in terms of Dungeons

But would DPS players want to play a spec that isn’t a chart topper? If it can flex role, Blizzard can maximize both aspects of DPS and support and create a competitive damage dealer and a competitive healer.

[Staccato]

But would DPS players want to play a spec that isn’t a chart topper? If it can flex role, Blizzard can maximize both aspects of DPS and support and create a competitive damage dealer and a competitive healer.

My best guess would be that if you're playing a "boosting" spec you don't exactly care about topping the meters? I suppose I could see a talent or two that could make spot healing ok to do every once in a while, but I do believe the spec fantasy would be strongly dominant in the "boost your allies, do some damage" lane.

[Stickiler]

I definitely get what Blizzard has been saying, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming; We have Emberthal and her Weryn using melee weapons, and the Evokers have weapon proficiencies that only melee specs can use effectively. I don't see Blizzard giving them a melee DPS spec, because that runs too much into Enhancement and Survival. However, there's no tank spec in the mail column, and we're dealing with black dragons who utilize the earth element.

If we really think about it, no other role is better for boosting allies and debuffing enemies than a tank.

There's a couple of problems that I see with this "overwhelming" evidence.

1. Emberthals WHOLE story is about coming to terms with, and rejecting, the power/path that Neltharion set out for the Dracthyr/Evokers. It would be very strange for her to then immediately return to the life that Neltharion constructed for her. It would be completely within reason for Emberthal to turn around and go "I'm going to use this Black Dragonflight Essence to support my allies, rather than attack my enemies", and for the spec to be some kind of buffing healer.

2. Whatever spec is going to exist, is one they've been working on since well before release. So sure, a certain number of players have been asking for a Tank spec, but the spec has been in development for too long for players comments to have influenced any decisions about what role it would be. Which says to me that their comments about "no tank spec" still hold true, and it'll be either a healer, dps, or some kind of buff/debuff class. Personally I'd like a new healing spec, but I don't think there are any good hints either way between those options.

[Teriz]

My best guess would be that if you're playing a "boosting" spec you don't exactly care about topping the meters? I suppose I could see a talent or two that could make spot healing ok to do every once in a while, but I do believe the spec fantasy would be strongly dominant in the "boost your allies, do some damage" lane.

But don’t you think a dual role spec could achieve that better and create a better received spec? I can just imagine a lot of folks avoiding the spec if its DPS is hindered because it’s offering support at the same time.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a couple of problems that I see with this "overwhelming" evidence.

1. Emberthals WHOLE story is about coming to terms with, and rejecting, the power/path that Neltharion set out for the Dracthyr/Evokers. It would be very strange for her to then immediately return to the life that Neltharion constructed for her. It would be completely within reason for Emberthal to turn around and go "I'm going to use this Black Dragonflight Essence to support my allies, rather than attack my enemies", and for the spec to be some kind of buffing healer.

That’s definitely a fair point. Good observation.

[Triceron]

Judging by what people keep throwing around about this "augmentation" spec, yes, that is a support spec. Andin this discussion both are technically one and the same in terms of concept. Much like discussing healing and the priest's holy spec abilities in a priest class sub-forum technically are the same thing.


Now imagine that and much more coming from a single spec.

Yes, I can. It's called Disc Priest and it isn't necessary for every raid at all.

Evoker right now has a bunch of utility that no other class has, and they're not requited for raids either. Doesn't seem like it's anything game breaking.

[Teriz]

Yes, I can. It's called Disc Priest and it isn't necessary for every raid at all.

Evoker right now has a bunch of utility that no other class has, and they're not requited for raids either. Doesn't seem like it's anything game breaking.

Hmmm, a DPS version of Disc Priest…. That could explain Azure Prowess, which operates similarly to the Disc spell Power Infusion.

Interesting.

[Staccato]

But don’t you think a dual role spec could achieve that better and create a better received spec? I can just imagine a lot of folks avoiding the spec if its DPS is hindered because it’s offering support at the same time.

On second thought I believe if we do get a buffing spec it will be split between doing more damage, or doing more buffing. It would only make sense in Mythic + Situations to allow it to at least survive in an environment where DPSing matters. Off healing will most likely be between Emerald Blossom and Living flame along with a "heal more" buff of some sort.

[Teriz]

On second thought I believe if we do get a buffing spec it will be split between doing more damage, or doing more buffing. It would only make sense in Mythic + Situations to allow it to at least survive in an environment where DPSing matters. Off healing will most likely be between Emerald Blossom and Living flame along with a "heal more" buff of some sort.

You’ve probably already mentioned this, but what about a reversed Disc Priest-style spec where you deal competitive damage via providing support/healing?

[Staccato]

You’ve probably already mentioned this, but what about a reversed Disc Priest-style spec where you deal competitive damage via providing support/healing?

Hm...I dont know. I mean it sounds interesting, though we've never seen something like that in game before. It would still fulfil the support category and a DPS category too. If it could be fun and engaging then yes I'd try it! Now I DO think that would be a tall order for devs but I would like to see that sort of mechanic in game. Could be fun!

[Ielenia]

Yes, I can. It's called Disc Priest and it isn't necessary for every raid at all.

Evoker right now has a bunch of utility that no other class has, and they're not requited for raids either. Doesn't seem like it's anything game breaking.

The dishonesty in your post is mind-boggling.

This isn't about a class having an unique utility ability. This is about a singular spec having a lot of utility, because that is what the spec's role is about: utility. Support.

[Triceron]

The dishonesty in your post is mind-boggling.

This isn't about a class having an unique utility ability. This is about a singular spec having a lot of utility, because that is what the spec's role is about: utility. Support.

But that's my point.

We don't know that it is and how it would be different from regular specs. There's no frame of reference to make any arguments about its role or how balanced it would be.

Right now we could look at Disc and see it has boost abilities. Would you call it a Support spec? Does Blizzard consider it a support spec? The term 'Support spec' is being used speculatively by the community, not as some sort of confirmed-to-be new role that will become necessary for all raids in the future. There's no reason to believe, right now, that it would be a new necessary role for raiding. Nothing has been confirmed about what the role actually is or how it would play, let's be clear.

If you want to talk about dishonesty, then it's all in assuming that 'Support' is somehow a confirmed role and will immediately be imbalanced for it even existing. Feel free to speculate, but don't just make wild claims as though you actually know.

Like I said, the only thing dishonest would be implying anything here as being confirmed. It isn't, it's just all in the realm of potential and possibility.


Even if we talk about what we know of Augmentation, it seems to proc a buff to random players when you cast a certain DPS ability, as well as has a Power Infusion-like direct buff ability. So it sounds like it could be a DPS spec that has buff utility. Or the information could be completely fake, who knows. We need to know more before we know what Augmentstion spec would actually play like.

[Staccato]

The dishonesty in your post is mind-boggling.

This isn't about a class having an unique utility ability. This is about a singular spec having a lot of utility, because that is what the spec's role is about: utility. Support.

Well I mean Its not dishonest. We already associate "support" with Disc not only in the lore, but in practical raiding. They offer a lot of non-healing and I mean, no one think disc priests are broken (just good)

[Ielenia]

But that's my point.

We don't know that it is and how it would be different from regular specs.

If it is a new role, i.e., support, then we know it will be different from regular specs. And judging by the name of the role, we can assume what the role would be about.

- - - Updated - - -

Well I mean Its not dishonest. We already associate "support" with Disc not only in the lore, but in practical raiding. They offer a lot of non-healing and I mean, no one think disc priests are broken (just good)

Discipline priest is not support, though. It's a healer. A healer with some support abilities, just like every single healer spec in this game.

[Triceron]

If it is a new role, i.e., support, then we know it will be different from regular specs. And judging by the name of the role, we can assume what the role would be about.

But you're outright claiming it won't work based on baseless assumptions.

Doesn't that sound presumptuous?

It's the same bullshit logic Teriz pulls on a traditional Bard not working in WoW. You understand this right? Like, literally making up a conclusion that it won't work, with no actual reasoning to support the assumption, just claiming that 'it wouldn't work'.

This spec would be new, so there's no frame of reference to gauge its performance. We can't really talk about balance or performance or necessity based on assumptions alone.


That being said, IF it were a spec that had Utility to the point of being necessary for raids, it would be a very bad idea. I just don't think there is any reason to assume this is what Augmentation would be.

[Teriz]

It's the same bullshit logic Teriz pulls on a traditional Bard not working in WoW.

Nah, that's simply logic. They won't work in WoW for several reasons.

However, that's another topic for another thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Hm...I dont know. I mean it sounds interesting, though we've never seen something like that in game before. It would still fulfil the support category and a DPS category too. If it could be fun and engaging then yes I'd try it! Now I DO think that would be a tall order for devs but I would like to see that sort of mechanic in game. Could be fun!

If devs follow Discipline's mechanics, they could pull it off, just for DPS instead of healing. I really don't think Evoker works as a 2 heal 1 DPS class like Priests.

That said, I would prefer a dual role spec, since I wouldn't want the support and the DPS to be hampered by one another.

[Ielenia]

But you're outright claiming it won't work based on baseless assumptions.

I did not claim "it won't work." I simply said "it's highly improbable".

What I'm saying here is that if evokers gain a new spec, and if this new spec is a support spec, then this would, in a sense, "break things" as we'd not only be getting a new spec but also having the "trinity of roles" system of the game fundamentally changed in a way that would up-end the meta in a huge way.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, that's simply logic.

You mean lack of logic, or illogic, perchance?

They won't work in WoW for several reasons.

None of those reasons are valid.

However, that's another topic for another thread.

That's the only thing you wrote in that post of yours that is actually correct.