New doesnt mean good. It just means new. And in no way shape or form is my argument a strawman. You literally recreated my argument and formed it to say new classes are bad, and no one is even talking about a new class, its a new spec to an existing class.
Your argument is the definition of strawman.
Druid had bear for tanking and cat for DPS. It split up 2 existing roles the druid could play. it didn’t add something out of the blue.
Currently, enhance shaman does not have a tanking variant that would be split apart. So no, its not the same. It has no tanking abilities. No tanking talents.
Both specs still have both forms. That is irregardless to how it worked with the old talent system. You could spec into tankiness or damage. Just like shaman.
Currently no. Hence I’d say it’s unlikely. Still though I don’t see any harm whatsoever in them looking at a 4th tank spec based on the old design.
Shaman can not spec into tankiness.
So like I originally said.
Due to there being zero tankiness about enhancement, it would be adding a new role/spec out of the blue. Which has never happened. The only time any class received a 4th spec is when they split apart 2 existing playstyles. Not adding a new one.
Every time I que as my shaman I can never find tanks, but when I play a tank class, tanks pop up. I wish my Shaman (main) had the option to tank to save up time. I also swap to Resto to save time in ques too
We used to, just like feral used to have to 
I get that. Which supports my statement you seemed to have disagreed with.
There has never been a class with a 4th spec added that involved adding a role out of the blue, and not merely splitting apart what was already present. I don’t see them breaking this precedent now. Especially for shaman.
For Blizzard to be consistent, we’d stay at 3 specs. That means we lose either enhance, elemental, or resto.
Again this 100% incorrect. In vanilla druid had 3 specs. Shaman had 3 specs. Both had tanking talents that they had to spec into and were off tanks at best. Literally identical hybrids.
Druid got a 4th spec eventually. We could get a 4yh spec.
I dont know how to explain it any better.
Right now. Shaman has zero tanking abilities. Adding a tanking spec to shaman. Right now. Would be “out of the blue”. It is not splitting apart 2 current roles and playstyle that shaman has.
So. no.
I am not incorrect.
The fact that shaman could be a completely horrible tank 12 years ago does not change anything I am saying, only able to do this on a part time basis because content was overly simple and easy…
This existed only in VANILLA. Druids are tanks in BC/Wrath/Cata/MoP/WOD/Legion/BFA. Shaman are not. Two totally different things. The talents dont exist for ENH to tank from BC onward. 1 XPac doesnt make it flavor or define it for the entirety of the class. So no. You keep going back to vanilla, and Im talking about BC forward.
Cool, make a post requesting that. See if people want that too. I dont.
Its not bad but its not S-Tier. The only reason its played in tourneys is to counter Mage/Lock. Tremor, Wind Shear, Grounding are all hard counters. And Mage/Lock happens to be the most popular comp for obvious reasons. Thats like saying that Ret are S-Tier because they were played into countering Jungle two Tournaments ago.
And if you go to Arenamate .com and look at the representation of ELE on the ladder, you will see its 2.4% of the ladder. Survival is at 2.3% so I guess they are S-Tier as well. Destro btw, is 11.8% and fire mage 9.1%. Thats S-Tier.
But it does. Just because you dont perceive it to, doesnt mean that perception is reality. The reality is they have a limited number of Developers, that have a limited amount of time. When adding in a 4th spec that removes time from them to balance other specs.
This was done because druids were tanking in every xpac after Vanilla as well. Not just vanilla.
/sigh that’s what I’m saying…
Adding a 4th spec would be entirely based on vanilla. Also when they added it to the druid spec it was ages ago too. Now has no relevancy on adding a 4th spec.
Additionally what’s your basis on them removing a spec is based on survival? So once they removed a spec and once they added one? Seems pretty 50/50.
Also as I said I would only be okay with it if it was a 4th spec. Either way I don’t think it’s going tj happen
Rogues would like to have a word with you as well.
Every single time a spec was added as something new, something was removed.
The only time a spec was not removed is when a spec was being split apart. Druids.
Right now, shaman do not have a tank spec that would be getting split apart. So the druid comparison is irrelevant.
I’m not sure what you mean… They were three specs and still are.
Uhhh no? A spec wasn’t even added with survival. It was changed. I’m literally asking for a new spec. Completely different. Also very unlikely.
So 50/50
Le sigh dude. Classes were originally designed with ideas in mind. Shaman and druid clearly filled a lot of those same ideas. Especially enhance and feral. It’s completely possible they meant to have shaman tank.
Yes they gave up on it. Yeah it’s unlikely. Doesn’t mean we can’t ask for it.
They played it into a melee cleave and won
Except ret got played once and lost. Ele got played a bunch and won a bunch. Ele is extremely good
And lost to Mage Lock. Only Team that won with ELE was Wildcard Gaming, beating Method Black. Spacestation gaming lost to Cloud9 playing ELE, all other comps didnt win a single tournament
So good they are 2.4% of the ladder. Under Shadow Priests (by your definition must be S-Tier) that are 4.4%. Im giving you stats, not hyperbole.
Shaman in general is one of the less played classes in general last time I looked.
Regardless there are at least 5 on the first page of the ladder, there multiple ele shamans in multiple comps in the toruney that won multiple games.
Once again, yes destro and fire are better, but ele is super close behind.
I do agree. We wear one of more sturdier armors yet we are squishier classes.
DHs are actually the lease played wow class last time I looked, but they are more represented on ladder than ELE or ENH or Resto.
If something is S-Tier, people will reroll it regardless. Its where FotM came from. Yet the overall representation states otherwise, regardless if there are 5 on the first page or not. ENH also won multiple games in the tourney, that doesnt make them S-Tier. Wildcard Gaming even won the finals using Turbo, and no one would say ENH is S-Tier. Something btw, an ELE comp has not done.
Ele is not super close behind. Rogues/WW/DH are super close behind. Everything else is far behind that.
They also have one pvp spec so every single person that plays dh is playing that spec on the ladder. Shaman is split between 3 specs.
Ele has the same number as dhs on the first page and saw more play in the tourney with also more success. If you think dh is strong then you have to realize how strong ele is
Dh is a noob killer and a 1v1 God. Doesn’t mean it’s good. Ele is not great 1v1, that doesn’t make it bad
It won one specific series into jungle as it was a hard counter to the only comp that the other team played (jungle). Enhance with corruptions and access to tournament realm tank trinket is okay.
Ele still saw more play, has more on the first page. Ele is top tier man.
Which is why I said OR. Arenamate has it organized by spec.
You are obsessed with “the first page” instead of looking at actual data. Like the fact there are more than double the number of of Havoc DH to ELE shaman. 5.5% to 2.3%. These are facts, not hyperbole or sentiment or looking at the top 50 players.
Its not bad, but its not S-Tier as you claim.
Yes I am aware why ENH was played. But thank you for proving my point for me on why ELE is played in the tournament. That being it is played to counter certain comps.
More on first page (why first page matters over actual numbers is beyond me) but yet less on the ENTIRETY of the ladder in the world in comparison to 13 other specs including Shadow Priest and DHs.
Why does 4 ELE in the top 100 players in the world matter? Joru is number 100 and he is an ENH. ENH is not S-Tier. You dont have an ELE in the top 25. You do have 8 Destros in the top 25, which is double the amount of ELE in the top 100. Destro is S-Tier, ELE is NOT. You have 4 mages in the top 25 which is the same amount of ELEs in the top 100. Fire Mage is S-Tier, ELE is not.
This is not conjecture, this is not hyperbole. The front page means very little to actual numbers on representation and strength of a class. It means very very very good players are successful at what ever spec they want. Look at Joru for example.
The first page is actual data. Multiple eles in the top with no problem. If it wasn’t top tier you wouldn’t see so many, aka enhance. This is literal fact.
Not in the top 100 there is not. Ask dilly how much he thinks total participation matters
Except it easy played multiple times into different comps. Enhance was literally picked into jungle.
The top of the ladder matters more than the rest of it because that’s what actual good players can do with it. If as many ele can get onto it as dhs they’re easily as good.
The rest of the ladder is newbs (including the two of us). Why would you base it off newbs? Just because dh is easy to pick up and feels op in a 1v1 people play it? Doesn’t make it good in any kind of organized setting.
Uhhh what? Smxn is most definitely top 25.
Uhhh again what? You need to learn to count. There are 4.
Definitely debatable. Ele is A tier at worst
Lol it means more than the rest of the newbs on the ladder man. If a pro can’t make mm work but 5 can make ele work that means it’s good. If you see it multiple times in the tourney it’s pretty good.
It’s no destro or fire but I don’t think there is another ranged out there as good.