The last 2 classes only had 2 specs. Now with this one they didn’t even bother to model gear appearances onto it. It really is nothing but laziness at this point. If the game is still alive by the time they release an other new class I wouldn’t be all that surprised if it only had a single spec. It’s just the direction Blizzard’s efforts are going when they release new things like this.
3 Likes
I don’t trust Blizzard to make a class with melee+ranged options without bleeding them together somehow. Look at all the enhancement Shaman who’re unhappy about being expected to use ranged spells in their melee rotations.
I want Evoker to be as pure mid-range Caster as they can be. If you want to play them in melee range, feel free to do that.
We don’t need a bunch of conflicting utility spells in our main class talent tree. As it stands now, our options are all focused on mid-range casting and they synergize well.
If you throw a melee spec into the mix, suddenly those talents have to be reworked and spaced around the idea of there also being a melee spec attached to the class.
I like things to have a focus. Not every class needs to have hybrid stuff going on.
7 Likes
Fair enough but two specs isnt acceptable to me. This is two classes in a row that the player base has been robbed of another spec - another chance to enjoy their class of choice.
What else can you call it but lazy. All the classes prior to DH had three specs and its just not good enough to deliver only two and say its done.
3 Likes
Then play a class with three specs. There are a lot of those.
6 Likes
So your reading comprehension sucks, eh? Okay.
1 Like
when you have a ranged dps spec and a ranged healer spec, it makes no sense to have a tank.
4 Likes
Its hardly a “ranged dps”. Most of the attacks can be done instantly. A melee spec is conceivable.
2 Likes
No. I’m telling you that if two specs is unacceptable, then you can play a class with three specs. Having two specs isn’t actually a bad thing. It lets the development team focus more of their attention on one perfect version of the DPS spec instead of dividing its design real estate into making 2-3 separate ones with the same core utilities.
There are very few times in WoW’s history in which all three of a class’ specs are perfect or high-performing. Fewer specs = easier balance, more focused design changes.
I don’t want them to remove any specs from the existing classes, but if they want to make classes with 1-2 specs from now on so they can really focus on making those specs as good as they can be, then they have my full support.
1 Like
A valid reason is that they’re the designers and they didn’t want to add a tank spec.
2 Likes
It is not the lack of classes / specs that gives you a healer / tank shortage in pugs.
Its the attitude of the players in there and the lack of slots in guilds for tanks and healers. You simply put only go with 1-2 tanks and 3-5 healers in a 25 men raid, while you have about 18 DD slots.
Playing heal or tank, is just so unrewarding in this game.
2 Likes
Lol, sorry
I was never planning to play the class.
Yeah it is. Every class had three specs. Thats how the game was made. Two specs is one less that every other class that came prior to Legion. Laziness or offering less. Not acceptable.
Thats chicken crap.
There have been many times when all three specs of a class are preforming well so I reject your bs.
One spec? 
You can be ok with getting shafted but not I.
4 Likes
Pure opinion and a bad one at that. However, Ill agree that tanking is the role that needs to be more informed about the instance than the others. Tanks, and healers to a lesser extent, get harassed if things arent going well. Many players just dont want that responsibility therefore pass on playing the tank role.
Then why are you so bent out of shape? I plan on maining my Evoker, which is why I’m speaking on the subject. What does it mean to you if a new class has 2 specs instead of 3, if you weren’t planning to play it anyway?
If a class with three specs had one of those specs removed I would be with you on that. I don’t think an existing spec should ever be removed–to this day I’m annoyed by what they did to Survival hunters, changing it from a Ranged DoT spec into a melee spec.
But if a class is designed from the ground up to only have 2 specs, I see no problem with that. You’re not “losing” one spec, you’re gaining two specs that weren’t in the game before. It’s a net gain.
Do you think it’s easier for a development team to create two specs, or to create three specs? It’s just common sense.
But there’s always one that’s straggling a bit behind the others, or at least significantly lower on the list. Few people play those specs.
Not that I’d prefer there only being one spec, but like I said above–a gain of one or two specs is still a net gain. You’re not “losing” anything if a new class comes out without three specs.
1 Like
Smh. Ive reiterated why more than once in this thread. Come on…
Nah, thats backwards logic. Its just not good enough to only give two specs when EVERY class prior has had three. Its actually dismissive. You may have enjoyed that third spec even more than what youre playing now - but youll never know because Bliz has gotten kind of lazy when it comes to designing specs.
I dont think its rocket science. This is their jobs and players have expectations. You honestly said it would be ok for a class to have ONE spec so I see you as willing to just take the least effort and smile about it.
Three specs is what every other class outside of the DH has. DH should have had three too. Its a bad trend where players GET LESS.
3 Likes
But that third spec never existed, so what’s the value in this statement? Maybe I would have enjoyed a Tinker class, but it doesn’t exist, so what’s the actual purpose of saying it?
You didn’t answer my question. All I said is that it’s easier to make one spec feel good than it is to make two separate DPS specs that both feel good at the same time.
Technically, we’re getting more. You have not demonstrated how adding two specs to the game is somehow resulting in less content.
We’re getting two, not losing anything.
4 Likes
Yes but is should have. Thats the entire point of this back and forth. A tinker class isnt something that should have been - where as a third spec was not to be unexpected since all other classes have three specs except the DH. I mean, are we done with three specs? The next class going to be two specs too? What else can one say but it feels like we got cheated out of a spec.
I dont agree with that. There are no classes where one spec is completely rejected by the player base.
What kind of backwards logic is this. Classes come with specs. They have historically come with three specs. This new team now reduces it to two and you cheer them on. Come on now…
If they had made three specs, you wouldnt be posting in general saying: This class should only have two specs!!!
3 Likes
Evokers were announced to have two specs. Devastation and Preservation. At no point was there ever a suggestion that they would have three specs. If you have to add exceptions to your rule, a.k.a. “all classes have three specs except another class that’s been out for 6 years” then you’re not really standing on solid ground.
Demon Hunters are a popular class and they only have two specs. There has been two-spec precedent for six entire years, so I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that “all classes have 3 specs,” when clearly they do not.
“Completely” is a strong word, but every pure DPS class has its black sheep spec that most players don’t play. Looking at data I found for Shadowlands season 1 (outdated, maybe, but still a viable snapshot of recent DPS population), I found this to be true.
Warlocks on this data: Affliction had 2,000,000 runs, Destruction had 2,000,000 runs…Demonology had 580,000. So, clearly, the majority of Warlock players were choosing not to use Demonology for that season.
Unholy DKs in that time period recorded 3,500,000 runs. Frost DKs recorded 845,000.
3,300,000 Outlaw Rogues, but only 596,000 Assassination Rogues.
That’s my point. Specs vary wildly in popularity, and they tend to trade back and forth with buffs or reworks, and it’s got to be straining on the development team to feel the need to try to balance classes against themselves.
Hence…a class with only one DPS spec never has these issues, and they can focus on making that one spec as good/versatile as they want without worrying about how the other DPS spec from the same class stacks up against it.
It frees up a lot of design resources that way.
Or two, as demonstrated with Demon Hunters. That was 6 years ago, dude, it’s time to accept it lol
4 Likes
Pedantic
They’re popular because of their simplicity of play, visual flare, and other vectors despite being just 2 specs. Hardly a qualification especially given people were lampooning the devs over their 2 spec decision on launch of the class.
The current doomposting about ret proves that otherwise. You can have just 1 dps spec and it’ll still be so bad it’s not worth taking. But this is about the inclusion of a tank spec, stay on topic.
2 Likes
But who still worries about that? It happened, it’s fine, the class plays well and is popular. What’s the actual downside to a class only having one DPS spec instead of 2-3? There are so many classes with 3 specs, it’s really not that big of a deal.
But they can focus on fixing just that one spec instead of now balancing it against another Paladin DPS spec that also has divine shield/blessing of freedom/lay on hands/etc. to factor into the equation. They can get one spec right instead of juggling two.
I was responding to a particular person who said that “everyone wants a melee spec,” not just a tank spec.
We don’t need a tank spec gumming up our class talent tree, either.
2 Likes