New Hero Specs for Midnight

Community General Discussion
21

I think it is realistic. They are such a huge company with incredible funds.

But like every company they only care for big shares for the shareholders instead of investing into the product to get more players to then reap even bigger shares.

I really love blizzard but sometimes I think they do the bare minimum

22

It’s not about being able to do it. Sure, they could if they really wanted to.
But they’d have to hire even more people if they don’t want their other content and development timelines to suffer.

It just doesn’t make financial/business sense.
And at the end of the day, they’re a business.

They DID invest in WoW. The team is many times larger than it was.

23

But if they invest why does it feel like it gets worse?

Like I said I really love blizzard this is not some vailed I hate this company post.

But sometimes it feels like they did better once. I struggle to put it into words but where are things like glyphs. Where are the class quests. Where are the customisations.
Some of our races have one page of options and other have three.
Why don’t we have hight slider? It took them 20 years for something like that and it’s only through a potion that ofcourse is only temporary.

I don’t even expect new classes or specs all the time to be honest but in customisations alone they are really lacking.

And then there is stuff like the evoker. An absolute wildcard of a class.(Not saying it’s bad) Locked to one race and then this race has no tmog. And they can’t tell me they could not make a cool dragon race AND put armour on them.

I don’t know man it just feels of at the moment

24

I agree, but also bard can play us backround music while we wonder what we should do with the original classes.

Any home worth its coziness only becomes more cozier with a good tune from bard :dracthyr_a1:

1 Like
25

They could also give every player $1000 for funzies, but as you said, they are only interested in profit, I suspect we’ll get less and less as each new expansion goes by.

27

I think before we ask what’s realistic and/or speculating about company budgets and resources, they need to have a deep look at all existing classes/specs and ask themselves the following questions:

  • What identity and fantasy is this class/spec portraying?
  • How does the gameplay differ?

For example WW Monk, HDH, rogue (any spec). How do we make sure that these 3 classes aren’t just recolours of each other? That destro lock isn’t just a purple fire mage, or that ret paladin aren’t just golden arms warriors?

Speaking for DK more specifically, there seems to be a bit of a crisis at the heart of the class. They don’t really know what they want it to be. They’ve got the Lich King fantasy enriched with some vampiric ideas that is meant to be the slow impending doom, a kind of relentless terminator that stops at nothing until you’re dead. Yet somehow we’ve got some weird spammy specs that rely on so many other things in order to do basic damage.

Until they sit down and analyse what they got, there will always be shaky foundations for some. You can see how classes that got iterated upon enough times do quite well (mage, shaman, rogue) they’ve always got something going on, one spec that always performs well etc. Then you got weirder specs like uh dk or demo lock that are either on the very top or the very bottom, but never quite seem to have a happy medium. Fury warrior is another explosive one that goes from top to last pick in the span of a season. They don’t really know what they want from classes like that.

Fury warrior fantasy wise is very different from any rogue specs. But why isn’t that they feel entirely redundant gameplay wise? That’s the kind of philosophical questions they need to ask, once they figure this out, tuning and new additions will be way easier.

I for one would love to see a hybrid range demon hunter, that swaps from melee to range, using more projectiles. Or some sort of battle mage. Though imagine the hell they’d end up in trying to differentiate those sort of classes from what already exists.

28

You mention very different things and I don’t disagree with several of them. Can they do better? Sure.
But look at what improved with their investment into WoW:

  • We have timely patches, no content draught for ages, which was the norm for many years.
  • We have had experimental new evergreen systems - no longer stuff that will be useless once the expansion is over. And there’s more on the way.
  • The storytelling has vastly improved imo (not talking about the actual storylines here - since that’s very subjective).
  • They are actually listening. Could they implement changes faster? Maybe. But, Blizzard is a big company. Things go slow at big companies; there’s red tape everywhere.

And sure; I’d love more class content again; it’s one of the things that I loved about Legion. But if you look at it from a company perspective: Make content everyone plays or make content that 1 class plays and you have to make that 13 times (!). Realistically the first option is the one that just makes more sense.

Sorry, I’m not into that sort of thing for WoW. It just doesn’t fit Warcraft imo.

I love bards in DnD. But imo keep 'm out of WoW.

29

While I do like that we get more evergreen content I would also like to see stuff like the artifict weapon again.
I know I know borrowed power is not a well like thing but I kinda liked it I don’t know why.

The story telling is better that is true (it’s better if we don’t talk about the story… Sl left a deep scar)

You are right with all your points. I just sometimes feel like it could be more/better.
I really enjoy the game it’s not like I am burned out I just miss some things I guess.

Class content in particular was something cool. I think a lot it was nice to see different things when I play different chars but ofcourse that’s a lot of work for blizzy

2 Likes
30

Its alright, and in case they ever add bard Ill make one from gnome and run circles around you and everyone I see in the game, playing my lute and whatever other instruments they give for it to play. Im hoping somesort of bardic guitar atleast. Mostly I am hoping for the tinkerer and sorceress however, bard will be just funny :smiley:

31

I totally agree with you. I wasn’t one of those people who complained about borrowed power.

I complained that some of the borrowed power systems we got (Heart of Azeroth, Corruptions to name a couple), just weren’t fun for me.

It definitely can be better. And I would hope that the goal of the devs is always; try to make it better.

I totally agree. I liked it too.
And Legion was the only time -with the exception of Vanilla- in which I actually leveled alts for nearly all classes.

Come to think of it; I never did do the priest and warrior class campaigns. I hate how priest plays and with the warrior… The lore just didn’t appeal to me.

Agreed. :smiling_face:
Although I would still prefer more specs for the existing classes. I just think that’s more interesting.

32

That’s funny priest is the only class I never played.

I’m not a healer you are probably better of without a healer then with me as your healer^^
And as a affliction main shadow never looked that appealing since I already had a dark dot caster

33

Indeed, few sub classes would be maybe best. Game already has quite many classes as it is, but adding something new to the old wouldnt be so bad.

34

I think Blizzard talked up the idea of an expanding Hero system to hype up the feature as being more than it actually is, perhaps in a spur of the moment.

I don’t think it’s going to happen.

It doesn’t feel like the system lends itself well to being expanded upon. There isn’t much to gain from it when many of the Hero talents are somewhat lackluster to begin with, and many classes don’t have enough gameplay niches to explore more Hero talent fantasies that make a lot of sense.

It’s not really a well-made system, or an overly successful one, so why seek to expand on it? I doubt they’ll do it.

35

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.