+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: If you could make a class...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,096
    Monks, a class that could have a melee healing tree, DPS tree and a Tank tree. Their individual trees would need to be differentiated enough from Paladins though.

    Necromancers. DKs are not Necromancers, sorry.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Eisen View Post
    We have that. it's called warlock.
    I think you missed the part where it's a healer hybrid.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by swelt View Post
    I think you missed the part where it's a healer hybrid.
    I didn't. The problem is there's way too much similarity even with that to an existing class.

    If you REALLY change the mechanic (maybe take away mana and have it depending on draining hp from a mob in order to heal, or something), it might work. but there's so little difference between a lock concept and a necro looking at them from a base description. The only real difference is your necro idea heals more.

    Lulia: Monks are an awesome idea. But we need Pandaren before we can do that.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    We have fist weapons on enhance shaman and on rogues. I think we've got monks covered.

    Unless we're truly going for the no-weapon monk, which would generate a whole slew of problems: where do they make up the stat loss from those slots, do they use a ranged slot? What keeps them from being OP on new content and terrible at the end because they don't have weapon scaling? Why is there yet-another melee dps in my raid?!

    AHHHHHHHH!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,783
    I think the problem with a new class is that all the basics -- with some overlap -- are already covered.

    If a new class was introduced, it would have to be sufficiently different that it wouldn't be easy to say (to steal from an earlier example in this thread) "hey, that's just a warlock with heals!"

    And a good example of what that might be?

    I'm drawing a blank. :P

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    388
    I like the monk idea or the straight support class.... really cool idea.... but would absolutely suck for soloing or unnecessary if you already have 1 of the support class....

    What I think would be cool is if you could attain a certain level and transform toons into new classes, absorbing your old one. Like maybe a hunter or rogue could become a monk... something like that.
    Deeps for show..... tank for dough.....

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Proletaria View Post
    We have fist weapons on enhance shaman and on rogues. I think we've got monks covered.
    This sort of thinking is not one I like. When I first considered the game I asked about Necros and was told "Oh, Warlocks are like Necromancers"

    Now, granted, in time I have learned to like my Warlock for Warlock purposes, but a Warlock is not a Necromancer, it does not satisfy my desire to play a Necromancer (nor do DKs for that matter).

    The same is true here. A rogue is not a Monk. An enchance shaman is not a Monk. Just because they share the quality of fist weapons does not make them a Monk. It just means they share that quality.

    In addition, I used to be deterred by the "But, X class already does that role" argument, but not anymore. Blizzard's philosophy is a good one "bring the player, not the class" and so, more and more, classes are sharing abilities and utility. The difference between classes is becoming more about flavor, some playstyle, and that's about it. So, taking Necros for example. Yeah, Warlocks already have pets, they already have curses and affliction spells. Necromancers would have that too, but if they can be made to have enough of a flavor that is different and makes their playstyle unique, that's what matters in my opinion.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oxford, Michigan
    Posts
    12
    Maybe a caster focusing around the stars and celestial bodies? A caster who could heal, but uses an unlimited energy system with specific limits.

    Their resource system would be of 130 (energy) with being able to be talented to 150. The energy would replenish at 13/s, and most spells would cost 20-40, while big spells being around 60.

    Their specs :
    Celestial Attunment - DPSing spec. Focused on nuking with celestial bodies. Commanding asteroids and small stars would be the primary mean of damage. Mostly instant damage spells.
    Astral Attunment - Healing spec. Focused on switching to the astral plane and healing your allies by bending the astral plane. Common spells are phase heals which are spells that heal instantly, then heal over 6 seconds for 50% of the damage healed (not the heal number, but damage healed, this would make them excellent deficit healers.)
    Astrologist - Utility dpsing spec. They would be focused on survival, while placing mostly DoTs on the target. Placing void zones and damage AFTER time would be their speciallties however. Their main damage spell would be a spell that places an undispellable debuff, which after 6-18 seconds would deal damage, amplified by void zones and certail debuffs.

    They would have a phase shift system to switch between dpsing and healing. In the normal plane, they would be dps casters. They would use their energy like a rogue does, but casting mostly AoE ranged spells. However, in the astral plane they would be limited to healing spells only. While in the astral plane your energy would not regenerate, but you can cast healing spells for 5-30 energy each, most of these would be instant cast spells. You would automatically switch to the normal plane when your energy reached 0, switching you back to a dpser until your energy regenerates.

    Switching into the astral plane costs 30 energy untalented. If you spec into the healing tree, the cost would be reduced to 0, and you would gain the spell "focus energy". This would immoblize you, but increase your energy regeneration by 1.5x. It could be cancled at any time, and would only be usable for 5 seconds after breaking from the astral plane. Your damage delt would be reduced by 50% for 10 seconds after completing the spell, to prevent people speccing into the healing tree just for this talent.

    Races allowed :
    ALLIANCE - Gnomes, Humans, Dwarves
    HORDE - Blood Elves, Undead, Goblin

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    536
    No, the more I think about it, the more I LOVE the monk idea.

    Unarmed. We all have it, it's useless. A class that could use it for damage would be awesome.

    Staves. There are physical-combat oriented staves, and they're all either stat candy on a hunter's back, or on a feral druid where no one can see it.

    I'd like to incorporate healing in there, but still working on ideas for how their resources would work. I DON'T want another mana class, and I'm not keen on rage/energy/focus either. I'd like to see something new.

    My real worry though is armor. Initially I see them as a cloth class, wearing as little armor as possible. But that means a set of melee-oriented cloth armor of some sort. I suppose leather would work, but then the druids and rogues have more competition.

    Really you can't win.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Lulia View Post
    This sort of thinking is not one I like. When I first considered the game I asked about Necros and was told "Oh, Warlocks are like Necromancers"

    Now, granted, in time I have learned to like my Warlock for Warlock purposes, but a Warlock is not a Necromancer, it does not satisfy my desire to play a Necromancer (nor do DKs for that matter).

    The same is true here. A rogue is not a Monk. An enchance shaman is not a Monk. Just because they share the quality of fist weapons does not make them a Monk. It just means they share that quality.

    In addition, I used to be deterred by the "But, X class already does that role" argument, but not anymore. Blizzard's philosophy is a good one "bring the player, not the class" and so, more and more, classes are sharing abilities and utility. The difference between classes is becoming more about flavor, some playstyle, and that's about it. So, taking Necros for example. Yeah, Warlocks already have pets, they already have curses and affliction spells. Necromancers would have that too, but if they can be made to have enough of a flavor that is different and makes their playstyle unique, that's what matters in my opinion.
    We could generate a lot of classes by playing off the subtle details. My biggest argument against any melee is that raids tend to have more of them anyhow and the last new class was melee aswell.


    I for one like the berzerker idea. It's ranged (which relieves the problem of there being too many melee dps already) and it could potentially be a ranged tank since there always seems to be a shortage of random tanks about.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    To approach this from a different angle...I would choose to not add another class.

    Ever.

    As DKs have shown, adding classes results in huge balance headaches, and basic probability shows that for each new class added you will exponentially increase the difficulty of balancing the classes against each other.

    The game needs to be expanded in other ways, or else a class needs to be removed when another is added (good luck with that!).

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    18

    alas

    When a new hero class for WoTLK was announced, I did wish it was going to be a clever combination of the Tinker & Alchemist from WC3, expanding on the Healing Spray concept for healing and Cluster Rockets / Acid Bombs for ranged dps. Could've even been a vehicle class, allowing any race to become this new class; more healer choices would be nice. Alas...

    Quote Originally Posted by TomHuxley View Post
    I would choose to not add another class.

    Ever.

    As DKs have shown, adding classes results in huge balance headaches, and basic probability shows that for each new class added you will exponentially increase the difficulty of balancing the classes against each other.
    I agree 100% with this, now in the WoTLK era. But we all know hindsight is 20/20.
    - Ryan
    Oft hope is born when all is forlorn - LoTR3: RoTK

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by TomHuxley View Post
    To approach this from a different angle...I would choose to not add another class.

    Ever.

    As DKs have shown, adding classes results in huge balance headaches, and basic probability shows that for each new class added you will exponentially increase the difficulty of balancing the classes against each other.

    The game needs to be expanded in other ways, or else a class needs to be removed when another is added (good luck with that!).
    Oh I agree with that sentiment entirely, however; I assumed this thread was wishful thinking and fun rather than practical theory about what new class should be cooked up for the next avalible expansion.

    Though i'm not sure deathknights would have been nearly as much of a problem had blizzard not gone out of their way to make all three trees capable at everything from the get-go. That design plan, which was quite ambitious, turned out to be more of a burden on balance than anything else.

    TBH even the 'cooldown tanking niche' which everyone points to as a big problem for balance probably could have been worked out by now had we just one or even two tanking trees to choose from, rather than three. The dk, by design, turned into three classses in one. That is why it was such a nightmare (and still is) to bring them in line and keep them competetive at every aspect they are supposed to have access to in the game for pve and pvp.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    Prol, I can't really disagree with your assessment that the balancing act was made harder by the over-ambitious plan of letting all trees be everything to everyone, but the point remains that every time you add another class it becomes progressively harder to balance.

    @ryan: Fair enough, and I'm not begrudging those who are floating fun ideas. Just wanted to get my 2c in on the realities of the issue. Personally, some of the Diablo III classes look fun to me if they were in WoW.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by TomHuxley View Post
    Prol, I can't really disagree with your assessment that the balancing act was made harder by the over-ambitious plan of letting all trees be everything to everyone, but the point remains that every time you add another class it becomes progressively harder to balance.
    I certainly agree with every new class comes another set of balance issues to whichever role that class can fill (ranged dps, melee dps, healer, tank, etc.), but I think the example of the DK isn't a good one for those reasons.

    I mean, had the deathknight been given a standard setup (for the sake of argument: blood = pve dps, frost = tanking, unholy = pvp) then you would probably have seen fewer balance issues that remained to this day.

    IMO without the huge problems that the deathknight class created in terms of class balance, there would be a lot less reason to fear another class being added to the mix.

    Once again, i'm not saying that a new class would go in without issue, or that we are likely to see one anytime soon (if at all), but realistically this hesitance can be blamed in large part on the dk fiasco.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by TomHuxley View Post
    To approach this from a different angle...I would choose to not add another class.

    Ever.

    As DKs have shown, adding classes results in huge balance headaches, and basic probability shows that for each new class added you will exponentially increase the difficulty of balancing the classes against each other.

    The game needs to be expanded in other ways, or else a class needs to be removed when another is added (good luck with that!).
    But see....


    This post was not needed. Ever.

    The original poster isn't making new classes, he is encouraging creative development for the fun of it. Some people like to imagine and create, why exactly would you post such negative comments to the thread? Your point is entirely off-topic to the actual nature of the thread.

    My post shouldn't be needed either, I don't understand why people can't simply be civil. It's one thing to disagree and another to put your opinions in a place that wasn't meant for them. If the original poster had asked "Do you think there should be another class? What would it be?" or something to that effect, this would make sense. But it doesn't in the present context.

    Does it bother you that people are actively working their imaginations in creative endeavor?


    ... anyways ... the actual reason I came to look at this thread was to post a response that is on-topic. First, Proletaria, I meant to bring up Monks just because others had an I hadn't seen it. But really I didn't have anything developed because it's not something I care about or even see a use for.

    Necromancers though... I could get behind designing spells and trees for them just for the fun of it. Of course, I'd have to find time. First though: Enough of this one pet junk. A Necromancer goes around with a virtual army of undead things! Ugh. :P

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,193
    If I would introduce a class it would be a "leeching" class. Put some debuff on your target and use its own life/energy against.

    An example of how this works is when you're on the healer drake in Occulus. People often forget the "2" button. Touch of Nightmare, which consumes life to deal quite some damage and reduce his. But you already have ofcourse 3 stacked the Leeching Poison which transfers your life back.

    Ofcourse this doesn't have life but can be another kind of energy.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    372
    personally... i've been thinking about a game without classes. and even without levels... OMG.

    why can't a "tank" heal?

    lets say you visit a "fire" professional, and learn fire ball. use it 100 times and you get better at "fire spells" and maybe learn a new one... don't use "frost" for 30 days and it degrades...

    i wonder what that would end up looking like... would it break the trinity of damage/aggro sponge=tank, keep others alive=heals, do damage/without attracting attention=dps?

    who thinks a classless RPG might work?

    Doc

  19. #39
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    302
    I think you need to play EVE: Online Doc. It has no classes, all skills are trainable by all players, just they take time (Although they train whilst you're offline if you log out in a station), the downside is that it takes something like 21 real life years to train every skill in the game

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Lulia View Post
    But see....

    This post was not needed. Ever.

    The original poster isn't making new classes, he is encouraging creative development for the fun of it. Some people like to imagine and create, why exactly would you post such negative comments to the thread? Your point is entirely off-topic to the actual nature of the thread.
    /sigh

    Look, at the end of the OP. it says verbatim:
    Anyway, what would you put in the game, if you had to make a new class? Realistic or silly, all new class ideas are welcome!
    My idea was realistic. I would not do it. I have no issue at all with exercises in creativity, and I clarified in my second post specifically to say so (which was prior to your rant). Several of the posts contain ideas that are clearly serious concepts that could be applied to game design (some of them are quite good IMO) rather than pure fantasy.

    My post shouldn't be needed either, I don't understand why people can't simply be civil. It's one thing to disagree and another to put your opinions in a place that wasn't meant for them. If the original poster had asked "Do you think there should be another class? What would it be?" or something to that effect, this would make sense. But it doesn't in the present context.
    Um, if I had said "boy, you sure are a bunch of dummies to have engaged in this stupid exercise" I would have been uncivil. In point of fact (and as I've posted previously) I have no issue at all with the purely creative aspect taken by some posters. In fact, to establish the difference I specifically started my first post by saying: "To approach this from a different angle...".

    Does it bother you that people are actively working their imaginations in creative endeavor?
    Not in the slightest. Are you so insecure in your creative endeavors that you can't simultaneously hold a conversation about both serious and purely imaginative aspects of class design? The OP didn't seem to, nor anyone else in the thread. You're treating this like a black and white issue, like someone taking a more serious approach is therefore ruining the fun of being imaginative with it. I have no problem at all with the fact that there are shades of gray here; it's fun to appreciate the many creative ideas and it's fun to discuss the serious aspects. In fact I thought this was a very interesting thread until you derailed it.

    Necromancers though... I could get behind designing spells and trees for them just for the fun of it. Of course, I'd have to find time. First though: Enough of this one pet junk. A Necromancer goes around with a virtual army of undead things! Ugh. :P
    See, now that's a cool idea. I wonder if something like that could be made into a final talent for the warlock demonology tree? IMO it would have to not feel too much like Army of the Dead, and it would have to be cool enough to want to use without being a "win button".

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts