Sorry, mostly talking about tuning, not design.
Its obvious the work load for it is just too much for them to keep up with, so adding more is not good.
The strongest necromancer is the lich king, a DK. We have seen them raise all sorts of things, the bigger stuff that’s not on their capabilities were made by scientists of the scourge.
Paladins don’t practice priesthood. DKs practice necromancy.
Ok Rhielle be honest. you think the current bombs and so of Eng are worth anything at all? they aren’t you know this and you know they will never be worth anything.
So why not add a class that can actually play the potential of tech creation to its full range? and leave the utility stuff for eng like a profession should anyway and like it works currently anyway.
Quite frankly, the workload wouldn’t be anywhere near as bad if they didn’t feel the need to reinvent every class/spec every expansion… we don’t need new class mechanics built from the ground up every expansion… we don’t need full class overhauls for every class every expansion… save the overhauls for the ones that actually need it, and just do tuning to the ones that are in good spots… in layman’s terms “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
The constant overhauls have turned some specs from perfectly fine and fully functional into unplayable garbage at times… case and point… just look at my spec! Enhancement Shaman was fine where it was… but now, what the hell am I even playing? Is this actually a spec anymore?
Tweek and tune classes that have a good feel to their play style but are underwhelming in terms of performance, and only overhaul when a class/spec has an unenjoyable play style.
Oh ya, there are a variety of ways to help solve this issue.
But that’s what they do, and its a main reason to exclude any further classes into the mix.
It really wouldn’t, engineers would be useless as tinker would do what they do already. Jewlercrafers are needed to make the gems for our gear sockets, and inscriptions continue to thrive because of raid buffs/glyphs.
Technically, Arthas was never actually a true Death Knight… hell he was never even undead… Arthas was set to be one of the most powerful Paladins that Azeroth had ever known, but he allowed himself to be corrupted by a dread lord and completely broke when he was influenced by the power trapped within Frostmorne. His power as a “Necromancer” came from artifacts, not himself… it was Frostmorne that allowed him to strip the souls from those he slew and turn them into banshees under his command, and it was Ner’zhuls power through the helm of Domination that latter allowed him to raise massive armies of undead and learn the secret to creating Death Knights to serve as his armies’ commanders.
If you’re talking about tuning and not design then you are definitely, empirically wrong. The smallest spread between DPS in Classic WoW is around 40% in AQ. In Legion, after we got yet another class, for a total of four more DPS specs than Classic/BC, we had DPS spreads as low as 12% and it’s been routinely, significantly better than 40% since then. More classes and specs has not resulted in worse tuning.
Again, its not about more or less.
Its about the load being too high for them now.
They aren’t going to remove classes to make this the case, so they shouldn’t be adding any more.
All you need to see is the difference between Monk and Demon Hunter, right?
Honestly, first time I have ever heard some one argue against this haha
What are you even talking about? You said the issue was tuning, which means it is about “more or less” at least if you’re talking about DPS figures. And how is the load too high now if balancing is empirically, measurably, numerically better after having added three classes and four DPS specs than before?
All you need to do is see the difference between DPS Warriors and Balance Druids in Classic AQ. Balance is better after having added more classes and DPS specs. Anyone can go to Warcraftlogs and look at the DPS parses. I’m sorry that you’ve only encountered people making arguments from emotion before, but this is a matter of the factual record.
Because it isn’t. I am just trying to dance around the topic because there is no point in engaging in this as neither you or I have the facts on this topic.
Yes, obviously Classic was worse than modern day.
That has nothing to do with this though.
And this has nothing to do with this thread at this point, so just gonna move on.
Either way, no class for the next two years.
I told you where the facts are. You can go to Warcraftlogs and look at the parses. You can even compare WoD, which didn’t have Demon Hunters, to Legion and see that the minimum delta between DPS specs was lower in Legion than in WoD.
I couldn’t care less whether they add Tinkers or not, but your “tuning/balance” argument against them is provably false whether you pretend the data doesn’t exist to show it or not.
How did you become an MVP?
I’m not a statistician, but comparing WoD to BFA is not favorable.
Both expansions featured a Mage spec miles ahead of just about every spec.
It doesn’t matter though.
I’m not talking about a statistical analysis of the specs.
I am just saying its pretty clear that they aren’t able to keep up with the balancing and class stuff they have on their plate, so adding another class would not help.
You think it WOULD help?
Its just an odd position to take around here, I feel.
The lowest difference between DPS specs in WoD was 28.94% in Blackrock Foundry. The lowest difference between DPS specs in Legion, after Demon Hunters were added, was 11.62% in The Nighthold. If we bring Classic back into the equation, the lowest difference between DPS specs was 41.92% in AQ without world buffs.
Keep in mind, this is the best balance state from these expansions. There were absolutely worse balance states during other raids. Mages, which you point, were particularly disgusting in Hellfire Citadel.
What I am saying is, the data does not bear out the claim that more classes/specs lead to worse balance. The conclusion we can draw is that Blizzard can balance the game with many classes and specs, but simply chooses not to. One more class with one or two more DPS specs isn’t all of a sudden going to destroy class/spec balance.
I think its the “common sense” thing to think that more classes and specs makes balance harder. I don’t care what common sense tells us we should think, I care what the data says is true.
I know you like tinker’s… but don’t you already have an active thread about this?
Why does a new class HAVE to help existing class balance?
This thread is about adding a potential new class. Yet your argument seems to be based on how current classes are designed.
A new class wouldn’t make existing classes better. And while that’s true it’s also completely irrelevant.
If you want to have blizzard prioritize class balance over new classes then you should go make your own thread about that.
Of course. I doubt that will ever happen.
New classes look good as marketing material.
Which one sounds better?
“Come play the new class?” Or “come play wow, it’s balanced this time we promise”
Right, its not going to make it worse, but its not going to make it better.
That’s all I’m saying.
They should not do it until they can commit to making the classes we have better.
They probably will anyway, because classes sell, but I don’t think its good for the game.
Because of what has happened with Demon Hunter and Monk recently.
Adding a third class that is either going to be horrible or amazing is not something they should be doing.
imo
Really hope that isn’t the next class to come, Im hoping for another magical ranged dps.
I’m in the tinkerer ship here, I think they would make a new ranged dps that fits the bill for a new class, along with spell-blade.
But by that logic they shouldn’t have added Death Knights, Monks, or Demon Hunters because they hadn’t shown they could reasonably balance the specs before any of those were added either. If adding a new class won’t make balance worse or better then it’s a non-argument.