What exactly are "Class Devs"

Battle for Azeroth Items and Classes
11/12/2018 04:22 PMPosted by Nyhlia
11/12/2018 04:03 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
First off, Utility is not on the list that Blizzard laid out. Its damage, mobility, and survivability with sub categories for damage (ie: AoE vs ST). So no ranged make the list but melee classes do? Lets go into your second point.


What? They talk about spec utility all the time. Moreso to the point, cherry picking this one thing to argue about out of a list of things is laughable.

11/12/2018 04:03 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
Havoc DH is squishy if you can catch them. I play ELE and ENH and I am not concerned with their survivability at all and if I can catch one they are an easy kill. IF I CAN CATCH ONE. They are not usually the first or primary target because their mobility is easily unmatched.


Are you confused? Do you think anyone in this thread, besides you, is talking about PvP solely or even primarily? It's even more hilarious when you consider the state of casters in pvp. How did warlocks fare? What about shadow? What about elemental? You know, all the casters that aren't mages with blink/shimmer. It's rhetorical, you don't need to answer. We know the results of the tourny. And casters performed poorly in general. It was heavily melee dominated, which even if we were primarily talking about pvp (no one was) your position would still be a joke because it's mongoloid melee 4tw there too.

11/12/2018 04:03 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
I am no white knight for Blizzard, I have plenty of posts where I think they failed. Class design is atrocious. At the same time how realistic can you expect Blizzard to be if you cant be realistic yourself? Just because Blizzard may be hypocritical that doesnt mean the community cant or isnt.


While your point is sound and I understand what you're saying, it is entirely reasonable to point out when the logic given not to buff an underperforming spec, whether in pve or pvp, isn't consistent with the methodology they're clearly balancing other specs with that are far superior. More importantly, quibbling over insignificant details which doesn't change the overall situation, which is what you're doing, isn't productive at all. Sorta like pointing out you aren't a white knight while you are obviously doing so, regardless of whether you have shared opinions in the past that clearly weren't.


1. They have previously said classes were balanced around 3 things, I believe this was in a Q&A with Ion. Those 3 things were: Damage, Survivability, and Mobility. DPS classes should fall in two of those not all 3.

2. PvP does have effect on how they balance classes. ENH had mana regen and off heals nerfed because of this. It wasnt because of M+ because the AoE just isnt there perform in those. I used PvP as an example to demonstrate that I disagree about the survivability of Havoc, as we can agree that damage is over performing and so is their mobility.

3. Being argumentative doesnt demonstrate your point further including your ad hominem attacks. Fact is that while in my post I say nothing about how Blizzard is consistent or inconsistent with class design/balance, or whether or not how they implement the communities solutions are effective and accurate or ineffective or inaccurate. I merely suggest the notion that there are, and continue to be, solutions in the community that raised that just flat out do not fit their vision that they have laid out. So instead of asking for what you wont get, ask for what you will get constructively and you may get it.

There is also another approach one can take which includes being uninformed on their vision for this xpac and just continue to complain with no results and bring up ad hominem and strawman arguments to illustrate their complaints.

I know which path I chose. Also, the final in the arena tournament was RSham/SPriests/Rogue vs RSham/Balance/Havoc, since you brought up the tournament. Just to inform you.
11/12/2018 04:54 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
1. They have previously said classes were balanced around 3 things, I believe this was in a Q&A with Ion. Those 3 things were: Damage, Survivability, and Mobility. DPS classes should fall in two of those not all 3.


I believe...so you can cite what you're referencing? Because I don't care about your opinion of how they balance. While that's certainly a topic we could have a discourse about, that's not the discourse we're having. You stated they don't balance around utility. Prove it. Point me at where they explicitly state this. I won't hold my breath waiting. And what does 'DPS classes should fall in two of those not all 3' even mean?

11/12/2018 04:54 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
2. PvP does have effect on how they balance classes. ENH had mana regen and off heals nerfed because of this. It wasnt because of M+ because the AoE just isnt there perform in those. I used PvP as an example to demonstrate that I disagree about the survivability of Havoc, as we can agree that damage is over performing and so is their mobility.


Whether you agree or disagree isn't relevant. What is is the objective metrics we can track. And in that regard Havoc is king of the hill. It has a strong showing in PvP and a strong showing in PvE in all content, whether raiding or mythic+. It has no real weakness. Hell, even if I accept what you say about Havoc at face value (I don't) even you make the point that it doesn't have a weakness because you reference that it's not a target due to it's mobility. It entirely avoids damage by being as mobile as it is. It doesn't need strong defensive cooldowns (which it has anyways). That's survivability too, it's just not damage mitigation. But we're not just talking about damage mitigation when we talk about survivability, it's the whole package from damage mitigation, self sustain, and damage avoidance (through immunities and other means including mobility).

3. Being argumentative doesnt demonstrate your point further including your ad hominem attacks. Fact is that while in my post I say nothing about how Blizzard is consistent with class design/balance, or whether or not how they implement the communities solutions are effective and accurate. I merely suggest the notion that there are, and continue to be, solutions in the community that raised that just flat out do not fit their vision that they have laid out. So instead of asking for what you wont get, ask for what you will get constructively and you may get it.


Again, you're deflecting from the point I made. My point and the point you attacked initially was not, 'ignore the vision we're told they're going by' it's 'the vision doesn't make sense and isn't consistent'.

11/12/2018 04:54 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
There is also another approach one can take which includes being uninformed on their vision for this xpac and just continue to complain with no results and bring up ad hominem and strawman arguments to illustrate their complaints.


See above. We're not uninformed or willfully ignorant of the vision. What limited information we've been given about their vision doesn't make sense because it conflicts with what design we see and they refuse to actually communicate and engage with the community on what the vision is. We get very small snippets that make zero sense out of context of the rest of it and are forced to interpret how it fits together when the reality is we have no way to actually do so. Which culminates in a lot of frustrated players who take the tidbits we do get and tries to understand how it makes sense when what we see Blizzard do contradicts the information they gave us. An easy example is the whole bit about not having enough time to put together 8.0 changes for dps shaman and shadow, and then when those changes are revealed they are simply numbers tuning and no substantial mechanical changes at all which did not necessitate 5 months of delay to implement.

11/12/2018 04:54 PMPosted by Meadamemnon
I know which path I chose. Also, the final in the arena tournament was RSham/SPriests/Rogue vs RSham/Balance/Havoc, since you brought up the tournament. Just to inform you.


Another situation where you cherry pick data, not unexpected. What about the rest of the tournament, eh? I watched so I know what the representation was. How many warlocks did we see? What percent of games did shadow show up in? lol so terrible.
Also want to say shadow is only viable because it has a talent reduce all incoming damage by 20% at the cost of the specs major mechanic and becoming a setup bot with no burst damage. And yet the games that contained shadow priests, the shadow was STILL trained into the ground outside of the Turbo v RPS games.

If your spec has perma 20% mitigation and still gets trained to death I'm not sure what to say.
11/12/2018 05:54 PMPosted by Hpellipsis
Also want to say shadow is only viable because it has a talent reduce all incoming damage by 20% at the cost of the specs major mechanic and becoming a setup bot with no burst damage. And yet the games that contained shadow priests, the shadow was STILL trained into the ground outside of the Turbo v RPS games.

If your spec has perma 20% mitigation and still gets trained to death I'm not sure what to say.


You can cherry pick the very few games it was used to pretend that it's in the same league as rogues or havoc as one thing you can say I guess. Heh.
11/10/2018 07:50 AMPosted by Diora
"Ele and SPriests were told months ago that these Class Devs "didn't have time" to complete the necessary changes before 8.0" . This right here says it all. Just from the outside looking , this seems so lazy and money hungry. Their stance was always we wont release till its done. Now its like every 1st tier is paid beta testing.

By all appearances it's one guy working part time on the weekends.
Definitely feels like the team isn't big enough to give all 36 specs the attention they deserve. Not anywhere near that. Then we have players who main bad specs arguing with each other about who is worse because we all know the devs have a very limited amount of time.

I remember there was a period when Blizzard was talking about how they finally decided to grow their WoW team. Maybe they did because Legion certainly had more content than WoD, but it sure doesn't feel like they hired anyone new for the class design side of things. What's the point of larger and faster content updates if our classes aren't fun to play?
Class devs got tansferred to Diablo Immortal
They have no time because they are to busy playing mobile games. According to them they have switched from primarily playing PC games to spending many hours on mobile.

They are also working hard on "World of Warcraft Immortal".

11/12/2018 10:55 PMPosted by Barrineus
Class devs got tansferred to Diablo Immortal


Right now they have a company in china making the game for them. That company actually calls it what it is. The game is being ran on Netease engine that they built for other games on mobile. In other words Diablo Immortal is already built from another game using Diablo skins.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum