1. #5421
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    But, what about different lore background for the different race that differentiate them between one another?

    Even second generation of Human Death Knights were different from the first generation of Orc Death Knights.

    Just giving it to everyone without explanation, or a short simple one, just makes everything bland.
    My tie in would be pretty much the same as with Death Knights. They are members of all races reborn in undeath as Dark Rangers. Maybe in this case, instead of fallen heroes, they volunteer. They want the dark powers and to serve the will of the Lich King. People from all over come to Icecrown to be reforged into agents of infiltration and shadow. They now have a collective identity (like Death Knights) that resonates more than their racial one. Blizzard could create a character creation scenario like they did with Death Knights and Demon Hunters to explain the origin.

  2. #5422
    For classes left to add id say there is only 1 that will have no overlap with others: tinker.
    possible others being bard, necromancer or dragonsworn.

    Possible specs though there are a TON of potential specs that blizz could add, for example there are a ton of magical archer characters in lore, tyrande, voljin, sylvanas etc, some of the biggest names combine magic with archery and none of them would make sense as specs for hunters.

    Id like to see blizz move away from classes (3 specs bound to 1 character) and move to a more flexible system bound by schools of discipline and armor classes.

    This system would plot existing specs on a matrix of magic school and armor class and attempt to flesh out missing pieces.

  3. #5423
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Oh, you're talking about Gul'dan?

    You mean the Orc who used Necromancy to create the Death Knights in Warcraft 2 then, right? Which is what Warlocks are based on, yes? Using Necromancy?

    Or the fact that Gul'dan was never actually shown in WC2 or WC3 summoning any demons?


    Warlock in WoW is a mishmash concept. It takes demon summoning from Dreadlord and Eredar, Fiery AoE and Fear abilities from Pitlord, curses from Necromancers and Warlock Creeps, Banish from Blood Mages, Life Drain from Dark Rangers. There was no one unit or hero you could equate to a Warlock class. The Warlock class is itself a collection of concepts centered on a general (and loose) concept of Fel magic. Even back then they never really tied "Fel Magic" directly to the Warlock, the traditional Green Flame variety. It was just a much more general 'Dark' magic which could have included Necromancy, Void and any number of magical subthemes that we have clearly separated now.
    This pretty much. Warlock is mostly a stand in for the classical warlock, which usually involves some demon worship and a bit of debuffing and WoW's need to have a pet caster class that isn't necromancer, because those were simply unacceptable from a story point back then. The result is the wild hodge-podge that is warlocks in WoW. Which is also why I think the gameplay space for necromancers doesn't really exist in WoW, since most of the classical gameplay theme is already used up to make affliction and demonology warlocks.
    Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2021-04-09 at 01:17 AM.
    You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.

  4. #5424
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    The magic word is 'again'.
    If we had two death expansion, or two demonic expansions, even two off-world expansions, then a second asian-themed one is not a out of the question.
    Sure. I mean, I really have nothing left to add here, because we're talking about repeating something that isn't really hinted at being repeated. I'm just making a note that with the other examples you pointed out, we had *direct* hints from the game (and media) hinting at it being a thing in the future. We don't need characters talking about Black Empire and Emerald Nightmare to know that we would have been going to those places, but we knew they were definitely options. If we're just talking about a general Asian-themed place with no real ties to the Blademaster class, then I don't really see the point.

    The Blademaster class itself is sourced to the Burning Blade clan, so the more obvious route to me is to explore this culture more deeply. Expand upon it the way we have Kul Tirans exploring a new connection to Druidism through the Drust or how Zandalari have opened up our knowledge of the Loa. This isn't exactly the same as how Monks and Brewmasters are inherrently connected to a specific race and culture that we haven't explored yet. We technically don't need another Asian themed expansion just to have Blademasters; yet at the same time I don't see what the catalyst would be to incorporate Blademasters properly. They're not exactly integral to any potential story the way DK's and Demon Hunters are. And yes, they can just pull a Monk and have zero connection to existing, but that's also a terrible way to introduce a class.... (Yes I think how they handled Monk class was a big mistake)

    I didn't know how you got to it from what i wrote, but okay.

    Never meant Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters in any way. Meant that a spec addition is very close in essence to a class addition. It's like Allied races - cutting down on time and effort.

    Funny how you would consider the Brewmaster as a Monk spec, but not the Beastmaster as a Hunter spec. It is, clearly, the same situation with the name (and description) implying on its origins. And yes, we have - Hearthstone and WoW. Putting Rexxar in the Hunter class order hall and as a representative. I don't know where you got the idea that he isn't one.
    So here's the thing. What makes a Brewmaster a proper representation from the Monk spec? The fact that Blizzard themselves tie Chen DIRECTLY to the Monk class. It's official, it's canon.

    It's not a case of fans just assuming there is a connection. Blizzard has officially cemented that connection.

    Now, when it comes to Beastmaster and Hunter, it's the same as (Metamorphosis) Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters. There is no direct connection between these classes or Heroes. There is implied connections, and we even have that explained in Warlock Green Flame quest. But Blizzard has not officially said that Rexxar's brand of Beastmaster class is a subset of the Hunter class. Again, I'm basing this on evidence from the game or from official sources, not just tying in *what I think* the Beastmaster Hero is or could be.

    If we're talking about what spec emulates and covers the theme of a Beastmaster, then yes I agree with you that a Hunter does this. But a Hunter is not a Beastmaster Hero just like a Warrior is not a Mountain King Hero or a Chieftain Hero from Warcraft 3. They're not. They simply cover the themes and emulate the gameplay, but a Warrior is itself a Warrior class and not anything beyond that.

    As I said pages ago, it's the same as us assuming that dark skinned Dwarf customization options were Dark Irons. Blizzard never officially made that connection, so all we had to go on was assuming they were the same. It wasn't until Allied Races that we could *CONFIRM* that they actually weren't the same, and that dark skin Dwarves are just dark skinned Bronzebeard Dwarf options. And the official stance is still in the air about Wildhammers, even though we have new 'Wildhammer' customization options for the basic Dwarf. We don't actually know if those are 100% Wildhammers, there is no *direct* connection (as far as I am aware, I could be wrong if there is new lore behind these customizations that I am unaware of)

    Marsksmanship contained two archetypes - archer and sharpshooter. So, you can get an idea where they came from.
    Sure, that's fine to say. There's no specific 'Marksman' Hero to apply that to, and we don't need one. The spec is just a sharpshooter archetype which you can find in any general RPG or the RTS games. There's no specific WC3 Hero being attached here, which is my point. No one is saying 'Dark Ranger is the Marksmanship class because they had Black Arrow' or "POTM is the Marksmanship Hunter because they have Trueshot" or "WC3 Campaign Ranger Class is the Marksman Hunter" There's no need to associate it directly to any particular hero. Marksmanship is a collective specialization of all of the above, applied to an Archer or Gunner ranged combat specialist.

    There are playable Tauren chieftain and Mountain King. Not good ones, though. If you'd use your analysis skills, you'd see that.
    In about the same way that there are playable Blademasters, if you use those same analysis skills.

    In about the same way those analysis skills had Tinker fans saying Demonology Warlock was already a Demon Hunter. It's all based on generalizing gameplay of existing classes as being a Hero, even though it's not. We acknowledge there are differences. That acknowledgement should stay consistent to apply to all Heroes that have a different name or title than any current existing class.

    I think you are too afraid to label classes and specs, for some reason. Like it's not political correct or something. I can claim you can't play as a Death Knight, Monk or Demon Hunter because i don't like forced categorization. That wouldn't be true, though.
    It's because we can easily head-canon any existing class as being or representing something that's not playable, given there is enough 'roleplay' involved. And why is this bad? Because the only reason to label a class is to dismiss it as not being worth considering as their own class.

    Why would someone say Dark Ranger is already a Hunter? To dismiss the Dark Ranger as a potential class. Why would someone say Blademaster is already a Warrior? To dismiss the Blademaster as a potential class. Why would someone say Warlock is already a Demon Hunter? To dismiss the Warlock as a potential class.

    Nothing *good* comes out of New Class discussion by appropriating any WC3 Hero or RPG class archetype to an existing class. Why bother with labels when they only serve the purpose of denying their possibility as a new class?

    What would be the positive purpose of labeling the Tinker class as an Engineer? There is none. It only complicates the discussion for Tinkers being their own independent class.

    Go see my thread on the lore forum for that:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ia-and-Tyrande
    I have taken some time to read through this thread, and the comments within. I value your interpretation, but I agree with many posters there that this is too much of a stretch.

    I agree with one of the comments that if Blizzard wanted to make this connection, they would make it *painfully* obvious, and without doubt. They wouldn't just tie in some obscure reference that someone with in-depth knowledge of Sumerian gods would be able to connect. On top of that, Korthia doesn't really have any connection to Kur other than two letters.

    It's a nice theory, but until Blizzard actually ties it together unambiguously, I see no connection.

    Then, where did the hate come from?
    It came *AFTER* they announced it.

    This is the first real time that they ever faced a popular and in-demand concept being made into reality, with the full package, as being a complete misstep to understanding what *other* fans might actually want or like. This is the first time real time when any Race/Class addition had real controversy behind it.

    And yes, I know Draenei had its love-hate fans, and Blood Elves also get shat on for being on the Horde sometimes, but it wasn't literal 'I'm cancelling my WoW sub!' levels of vitriol.

    I don't agree with any of the hate. I don't understand the arguments that it's a 'Furry game' since we already had Tauren and Worgen years before. I don't know where the hate actually comes from, but knowing it's there is something to consider.

    And that same level of 'hatred' exists against Gnomes too. I don't know why people hate them, but we know there are haters and they're vocal about it.

    I honestly don't think Blizzard wants to do a repeat of Pandaren 2.0. This contributes to why Pandaren are barely in the story any more. Blizzard kind of just wants to quietly sweep it all under the rug, like Warcraft 3 Reforged. They're not gonna cancel or remove it, but they'll just silently pay no attention to it when they don't have to.

    I didn't say they were the iconic race for it. They won't even be the representative one. Noggenfogger and Goblins will. But, it will definitely be available to them.
    What relevance does Noggenfogger have to the story as a whole? Do you see him coming to the forefront of the story? If anything, we have stronger Goblin representatives to take up that role. Why pick Noggenfogger if we already have Gazlowe? Gazlowe is the stronger character overall. And in recent lore, he's actually being given a much larger role, since he's taking Gallywix's place as Racial Leader.

    There's little reason to pass up Gazlowe and Mekkatorque and a Tinker class to pursue Noggenfogger and an Alchemist class. I'm not saying this as a definitive, I'm saying this as reasonable, logical, common sense.

    Wanting every new class to be cool, epic and strong, like Demon Hunters and Death Knights.
    And then, there is the Monk. So, not everything has to be one.
    Monk is arguably the least played class in the game, and I personally view it as a failure. Not the best example to me, IMO.

    If it were so easy to add a new class, then there's no reason why Shadowlands shouldn't have a class. Wouldn't you agree? We should have had at least one new class this expansion, right? Doesn't matter if it's a Dark Ranger or Necromancer or Shadow Hunter or Blademaster; there should have been *something* given to us right?

    And I don't think it's a matter of just lacking resources, because we see how much resources they have devoted to creating the Covenant system. Dozens of new abilities for each class, dozens of customization options, whole bunch of traits and more.

    You, clearly, called everything that is not cool, epic and strong mediocre. and that applied to the Tinker, which you considered comical.
    Is it me who considers it comical, or is it Blizzard? Ask yourself this.

    Am I the one preventing Tinker from being added to the game? Am I the one who decided Demon Hunter should be added before a Tinker class in WoW? Am I the one who chose Shadowlands to be made as the new expansion theme instead of Undermine or a follow-up to Mechagon in BFA?

    I'm not the one to blame here. Doesn't matter what *I* consider them to be if I'm pointing out the problem that *Blizzard* has to deal with.

    Again, the Pandaren hate ties in to Gnome (and lesser, Goblin) hate, which ties in to approaching Tinkers with a bit more careful consideration. Otherwise I see no problem with a Tinker class if they threw in Blood Elf and Draenei Mech suits; it's just not the same class that many other TInker fans (like Teriz) would be expecting from Blizzard. And ultimately, it's not *my* decision for whether the Tinker will be playable or not, it's Blizzard's, right?

    There's a limit to how many classes you can attribute to a certain expansion.
    I disagree if we consider the potential of Class Skins (New Class Identities built over top existing class mechanics; like Paladin to Spellbreaker or Warlock to Necromancer; no lore relation to the original class) or Prestige Classes (Evolutions of existing classes, like Druid to Archdruid, Warrior to Mountain King/Chieftain/Warlord/Highlord; similar to Guild Wars 2 Paths system)

    Interesting fact: Wrathion was present in BFA's beta Alliance Embassy, probably to introduce an Allied race.
    I mean, what *race* could he even add? The Black Dragons aren't actually high in number or under Wrathion's direct control. The only resurgence of Black Dragons we know of are from the Island Expeditions stuff that includes Chromatic Dragons; just rogue Black Dragons that aren't under Wrathions' wing.

    Pretty much, confirming what i said.
    And yes. Every other race that adopts the Monk learns Pandaren Martial Arts.
    Sure.

    So how is that different from D&D where a Monk adopts Martial Arts and Chi, which are Chinese-culturally derived concepts? I mean, you were trying to say one is Chinese based and the other isn't, but in both settings the whole concept of Martial Arts and Ki comes from a more pop-culture influenced interpretation of Chinese culture. Unarmed combat specialization, monastic and spirutual connections, deadly use of inner spiritual energy; we're talking about the same cultural sources that inspire this RPG archetype.

    Neither is mine, but i do small grammatical corrections, not whole paragraphs.
    More power to you.

    *Kiljaeden gif*
    Demons use Fel magic. We see this from the Pit Lord and from Demons like Kil'jaedan, that's well understood.

    No mortal Warlock unit in WC3 uses green flame. Warlock class itself didn't get green flame until Cataclysm. All we know is Demons used Green Flame, not Fel magic users.

    Kael'thas was a Blood Elf who got empowered by Fel magic, sucking life force of Demons. All his flame spells are still red, and his Verdant Spheres in lore aren't directly connected to Fel magic (Legion even gives them to the Mage class). Chaos Orcs who drank Mannoroth's blood all got infused with fel magic, yet none of the spellcasters used Green Flame fel magic. Fel Green Flame was not associated with Warlocks directly until Cataclysm. Before that, it was just implied that they used 'Dark magic'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-09 at 02:02 AM.

  5. #5425
    Pandaren Monk cocomen2's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    Id like to see blizz move away from classes (3 specs bound to 1 character) and move to a more flexible system bound by schools of discipline and armor classes.

    This system would plot existing specs on a matrix of magic school and armor class and attempt to flesh out missing pieces.
    You mean like this? (that many to balance .... maybe in 2050)
    Please, there a perfect example of hypocritical thinking:
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If Tinkers had anything to do with Hunters, but they don’t. Unlike Bards which are linked to Rogues.

  6. #5426
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    You mean like this? (that many to balance .... maybe in 2050)
    Sort of. Basically slotting existing specs into a grid like that but divided by magic school and armor/weapon class and being able to choose any 3 specs from either column or row.
    The magic schools i can think of now are the 6 major powers, 4 elemental and then basic military.

    So i would try divide each magic school into several disciplines that go something like this:
    Light melee (rogue/demon hunter/monk)
    Heavy melee (enhance shaman, arms warrior, unholy DK)
    tank (current tank classes)
    archer (currently only BM and MM, this area needs the most expansion)
    mage (all caster specs, this is currently VERY well fleshed out)
    healer (healing specs)

    So for example, Fel magic school has light melee (havoc DH), mage (demo, destro, aff), tank (vengeance DH) but is missing archer (fel hunter?), healer (some issues with that) and heavy melee (fel knight?)

    Light has 3 healer (holy pr, disc, holy pal), heavy melee (ret) tank (prot) and is lacking light melee (zealot?) mage (inquisitor?) and archer (sort of like priestess of the moon?)

    void is severely lacking, it has mage (shadow priest, kinda aff?) healer (half of disc i guess) and thats it. Sub rogue could kind of get slotted as a filler since they are very shadow based if they felt like fleshing out lower level non-void god cthuluesque shadow magic

    Military has light melee (3 rogue specs) heavy melee (arms/fury) tank (prot war) and archer (marksman) and is understandably missing mage and healer
    Death has tank (blood) heavy melee (unholy) and is missing mage (necromancer) archer (dark ranger) healer (blood based healer?) and light melee (cultist?)

    I think death is a great example for a magic school missing specs that would be great additions. For example dark ranger and necromancer are both very popular options for players but frankly i dont think either would make sense as a cohesive class, but as individual specs that arent forced together i think they would be amazing additions.

    So overall most existing classes would fit snuggly into and flesh out my concept of a new character customization system. Not all customization options would need to exist (like military healer, medic maybe? bit of a stretch) but it would be a good way to introduce new specializations to the game that dont overlap with others without the necessity of adding in unneeded extra specs. Some existing classes could be reworked into new ones, like sub fitting into the shadow school instead of being military.
    Other ideas were like making 'fury warrior' a fire heavy melee spec and having the options through talents to have more fiery visuals or regular weapon ones. That allows an existing spec to fill in a missing slot reducing the need for more classes. frost DK could be the frost heavy melee spec, bring back glad war spec for earth heavy melee and make a blademaster spec for heavy wind.

    I think the system has merit. The goal isnt to remake everything from the ground up but to allow more character customization (even without my proposed new specs) for example i could pick a outlaw, marksman and prot warrior for one character.

  7. #5427
    Titan Maxilian's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Dominican Republic
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    they being alive completely invalidate the reason of why a dark ranger should exist in the first place

    if anything who cast a frost arrow or other shenanigans the hero in wc3 could do then you can add that as talent to normal hunters and they can RP as dark ranger with a edgy transmog.

    They could do those kind of things primarily because they were undead like Death knights
    Well yes being undead was the reason of their creation, but unlike DK powers, living beings can wield the shadows.

    Though yeah, i do agree that they could easily just do as they did in Legion, and add Dark Ranger style abilities to the Hunters and be done with it (or maybe even create a whole spec based on them)

  8. #5428
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Demons use Fel magic. We see this from the Pit Lord and from Demons like Kil'jaedan, that's well understood.

    No mortal Warlock unit in WC3 uses green flame. Warlock class itself didn't get green flame until Cataclysm. All we know is Demons used Green Flame, not Fel magic users.

    Kael'thas was a Blood Elf who got empowered by Fel magic, sucking life force of Demons. All his flame spells are still red, and his Verdant Spheres in lore aren't directly connected to Fel magic (Legion even gives them to the Mage class). Chaos Orcs who drank Mannoroth's blood all got infused with fel magic, yet none of the spellcasters used Green Flame fel magic. Fel Green Flame was not associated with Warlocks directly until Cataclysm. Before that, it was just implied that they used 'Dark magic'.
    Do you mean the green fire scenario quest? That was Mists. Or did you mean that instant cast spell Fel Flame?

  9. #5429
    Quote Originally Posted by Calfredd View Post
    Do you mean the green fire scenario quest? That was Mists. Or did you mean that instant cast spell Fel Flame?
    Ah, thank you for the correction. Yes i meant green fire quest from MoP

  10. #5430
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Ah, thank you for the correction. Yes i meant green fire quest from MoP
    Think that actually makes your point stronger. Warlocks didn't get green fire until halfway through WoW's 4th expansion.

  11. #5431
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    You mean like this? (that many to balance .... maybe in 2050)
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/images/...Class_List.jpg
    Some of these look really weird as well. Bards have nothing to do with sorcerers in the classical sense, yet they are the requirement for it in that system. It's always a bit of a downside with systems like these that if you want to open a matrix with them you end up with weird forced combinations that don't make much sense, yet you need to find something to fill the vacant space in the system. I prefer class trees with variable requirements that not neccessarily yield a result in class unlocks in all cases(*). It's also why I'm advocating for "4th" specs not as a "fair" system for every class, but only for those where they actually fit well and aren't forced. If that means one class get's nothing while other class might get 2 additional specs, so be it.

    (*) like you need x of 1st tier class swordsman and y of 1st tier class mage to get the option to pick 2nd tier class battle mage, but the reverse wouldn't neccessarily have a 2nd tier class associated with it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxilian View Post
    Well yes being undead was the reason of their creation, but unlike DK powers, living beings can wield the shadows.

    Though yeah, i do agree that they could easily just do as they did in Legion, and add Dark Ranger style abilities to the Hunters and be done with it (or maybe even create a whole spec based on them)
    This. I don't think anything they have is really specific to being undead. Wielding necromancy is done all the time by humans which are still alive, stuff like the banshee wail (which isn't even neccessary) is just a variant of psychic scream. Shadow magic is already used by warlocks, priests and rogues. None of that requires being undead.

    Even for DKs it wouldn't really be neccessary, and it's mostly to fit the flavor text of stuff like Icebound Fortitude; you know the stuff that makes your blood freeze according to the flavor text. You even need a special ability to be considered actually undead like Lichborne.
    Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2021-04-09 at 06:09 AM.
    You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.

  12. #5432
    Titan Maxilian's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Dominican Republic
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post

    This. I don't think anything they have is really specific to being undead. Wielding necromancy is done all the time by humans which are still alive, stuff like the banshee wail (which isn't even neccessary) is just a variant of psychic scream. Shadow magic is already used by warlocks, priests and rogues. None of that requires being undead.

    Even for DKs it wouldn't really be neccessary, and it's mostly to fit the flavor text of stuff like Icebound Fortitude; you know the stuff that makes your blood freeze according to the flavor text. You even need a special ability to be considered actually undead like Lichborne.
    To be fair, the banshee's ability are Sylvanas only thing so far, it can be changed to make a whole new class, but i don't think there's a need for that, a 4th subclass could easily fill the void, also i don't think that all class need to be equal in the quantity of pecs, look at DH who only have 2 options.

    The Dark ranger could fill the void of those that miss the old Survival Hunter who is based on DOTS with the Dark ranger theme, they could make it a pet-less spec or go with the Legion option of a talent that give you buff if you don't have pets (though i can see a lot of people picking undead like pets if the pet is also an option)

  13. #5433
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxilian View Post
    To be fair, the banshee's ability are Sylvanas only thing so far, it can be changed to make a whole new class, but i don't think there's a need for that, a 4th subclass could easily fill the void, also i don't think that all class need to be equal in the quantity of pecs, look at DH who only have 2 options.

    The Dark ranger could fill the void of those that miss the old Survival Hunter who is based on DOTS with the Dark ranger theme, they could make it a pet-less spec or go with the Legion option of a talent that give you buff if you don't have pets (though i can see a lot of people picking undead like pets if the pet is also an option)
    I completely agree. You even had a Dark Ranger join the Hunter's Lodge oderhall in Legion. I feel like they would be too specific to be their own class (we don't ever see them do much tbh), but as a recovery effort to get ranged specs back to the count where they were 15 years ago - as a spec for hunters - it would solve many issues in one move. Depending on the amount of effort that Blizzard wants to put into it they could either make it a new design concept ("4th specs" as the community dubbed it) that adds a bit of flavor like allied races did, or it could just be a one-off if Blizzard wants to stick with their old ideas.
    You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.

  14. #5434
    Brewmaster Alkizon's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,439

    Unhappy

    *sighs sadly* People keep seeing specs same way as system's separate "classes" *leaves with disappointment*
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2021-04-10 at 03:52 AM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  15. #5435
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I'm both pointing out your misuse of it, and explaining that whichever meaning you ascribe to it, you're still wrong because the differences you claim exist between "vanilla classes" and "expansion classes" do not exist.
    Yes, it does. Because you can't attribute all of them to Hero units.

    That's a non-sequitur. Chen being the "representative" of the class in the game does not mean that the WC3 unit was made as the basis for the monk class. A NPC being used as a representative for a playable class does not mean said NPC was used as a basis for said class.

    As I pointed out: a strong argument can be made that the WC3 unit was just used as flavor for the concept.
    Of course it can. He fucking featured in the cinematic trailer and on the game box.
    That's like saying Arthas and Illidan weren't for the Demon Hunter and Death Knight.

    That's a demon, not a warlock. All demons use demon magic (a.k.a. fel magic).
    The unit is called "Eredar Warlock". -_-

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    My tie in would be pretty much the same as with Death Knights. They are members of all races reborn in undeath as Dark Rangers. Maybe in this case, instead of fallen heroes, they volunteer. They want the dark powers and to serve the will of the Lich King. People from all over come to Icecrown to be reforged into agents of infiltration and shadow. They now have a collective identity (like Death Knights) that resonates more than their racial one. Blizzard could create a character creation scenario like they did with Death Knights and Demon Hunters to explain the origin.
    That's my problem. Giving everyone the same background. That's just cheapening the lore and uniqueness of different races' cultures.

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    For classes left to add id say there is only 1 that will have no overlap with others: tinker.
    possible others being bard, necromancer or dragonsworn.
    And necromancer doesn't overlap?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    Which is also why I think the gameplay space for necromancers doesn't really exist in WoW, since most of the classical gameplay theme is already used up to make affliction and demonology warlocks.
    *Affliction Warlock and Unholy Death Knight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Sure. I mean, I really have nothing left to add here, because we're talking about repeating something that isn't really hinted at being repeated. I'm just making a note that with the other examples you pointed out, we had *direct* hints from the game (and media) hinting at it being a thing in the future. We don't need characters talking about Black Empire and Emerald Nightmare to know that we would have been going to those places, but we knew they were definitely options. If we're just talking about a general Asian-themed place with no real ties to the Blademaster class, then I don't really see the point.

    The Blademaster class itself is sourced to the Burning Blade clan, so the more obvious route to me is to explore this culture more deeply. Expand upon it the way we have Kul Tirans exploring a new connection to Druidism through the Drust or how Zandalari have opened up our knowledge of the Loa. This isn't exactly the same as how Monks and Brewmasters are inherrently connected to a specific race and culture that we haven't explored yet. We technically don't need another Asian themed expansion just to have Blademasters; yet at the same time I don't see what the catalyst would be to incorporate Blademasters properly. They're not exactly integral to any potential story the way DK's and Demon Hunters are. And yes, they can just pull a Monk and have zero connection to existing, but that's also a terrible way to introduce a class.... (Yes I think how they handled Monk class was a big mistake)
    Well, maybe because you didn't consider the Ankoan to be a hint. Not for an Asian-themed expansion, though. But, at playable Blademasters.
    And that's where the problem arises. We don't, necessarily, have to associate it with the Burning Blade clan, because it is the most famous. There are other races, like Ankoan, Lightforged Draenei, Saberon, Saurok and Mantid.

    So here's the thing. What makes a Brewmaster a proper representation from the Monk spec? The fact that Blizzard themselves tie Chen DIRECTLY to the Monk class. It's official, it's canon.

    It's not a case of fans just assuming there is a connection. Blizzard has officially cemented that connection.

    Now, when it comes to Beastmaster and Hunter, it's the same as (Metamorphosis) Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters. There is no direct connection between these classes or Heroes. There is implied connections, and we even have that explained in Warlock Green Flame quest. But Blizzard has not officially said that Rexxar's brand of Beastmaster class is a subset of the Hunter class. Again, I'm basing this on evidence from the game or from official sources, not just tying in *what I think* the Beastmaster Hero is or could be.

    If we're talking about what spec emulates and covers the theme of a Beastmaster, then yes I agree with you that a Hunter does this. But a Hunter is not a Beastmaster Hero just like a Warrior is not a Mountain King Hero or a Chieftain Hero from Warcraft 3. They're not. They simply cover the themes and emulate the gameplay, but a Warrior is itself a Warrior class and not anything beyond that.

    As I said pages ago, it's the same as us assuming that dark skinned Dwarf customization options were Dark Irons. Blizzard never officially made that connection, so all we had to go on was assuming they were the same. It wasn't until Allied Races that we could *CONFIRM* that they actually weren't the same, and that dark skin Dwarves are just dark skinned Bronzebeard Dwarf options. And the official stance is still in the air about Wildhammers, even though we have new 'Wildhammer' customization options for the basic Dwarf. We don't actually know if those are 100% Wildhammers, there is no *direct* connection (as far as I am aware, I could be wrong if there is new lore behind these customizations that I am unaware of)
    What? you have to be crazy to not associate Rexxar with the Hunter class. Have you looked into his lore and background, at all? his abilities and theme?

    Is it because he's a Mok'nathal and they aren't playable like Night elves Warlocks? Because that is a loose connection that shouldn't be a factor.

    Rexxar is a Beast Mastery Hunter without a doubt. Saying Blizzard, clearly, associated the Brewmaster with the Monk, but not the Beastmaster with the Hunter is turning a blind eye on purpose.

    You, clearly, disregard the spec's name and description, for some reason, and call it a fan speculation. You'll have to do better than that.
    Blizzard did, officially, refer to it in their legion spec description.

    Sure, that's fine to say. There's no specific 'Marksman' Hero to apply that to, and we don't need one. The spec is just a sharpshooter archetype which you can find in any general RPG or the RTS games. There's no specific WC3 Hero being attached here, which is my point. No one is saying 'Dark Ranger is the Marksmanship class because they had Black Arrow' or "POTM is the Marksmanship Hunter because they have Trueshot" or "WC3 Campaign Ranger Class is the Marksman Hunter" There's no need to associate it directly to any particular hero. Marksmanship is a collective specialization of all of the above, applied to an Archer or Gunner ranged combat specialist.
    Well, there's actually a Dwarven Sharpshooter unit.
    But, my point is that it, basically, referred to any race associated with sharpshooting and Archery in lore.

    In about the same way that there are playable Blademasters, if you use those same analysis skills.

    In about the same way those analysis skills had Tinker fans saying Demonology Warlock was already a Demon Hunter. It's all based on generalizing gameplay of existing classes as being a Hero, even though it's not. We acknowledge there are differences. That acknowledgement should stay consistent to apply to all Heroes that have a different name or title than any current existing class.
    No, not class abilities that can be borrowed.
    Racial abilities, like War Stomp and Endurance mirroring the Tauren Chieftain's War Stomp and Endurance Aura. Stoneform, often referred to as Avatar, and of course Might of the Mountain.

    It's because we can easily head-canon any existing class as being or representing something that's not playable, given there is enough 'roleplay' involved. And why is this bad? Because the only reason to label a class is to dismiss it as not being worth considering as their own class.

    Why would someone say Dark Ranger is already a Hunter? To dismiss the Dark Ranger as a potential class. Why would someone say Blademaster is already a Warrior? To dismiss the Blademaster as a potential class. Why would someone say Warlock is already a Demon Hunter? To dismiss the Warlock as a potential class.

    Nothing *good* comes out of New Class discussion by appropriating any WC3 Hero or RPG class archetype to an existing class. Why bother with labels when they only serve the purpose of denying their possibility as a new class?

    What would be the positive purpose of labeling the Tinker class as an Engineer? There is none. It only complicates the discussion for Tinkers being their own independent class.
    Well, they do it because they don't want a certain class or don't believe it will be added.
    I do it because i've carefully examined the mindset of class additions and those that are intended by Blizzard to be in-game, using hints.
    It's not that i'm against or don't like it. But, more like my calculations have brought me to that conclusion.

    I have taken some time to read through this thread, and the comments within. I value your interpretation, but I agree with many posters there that this is too much of a stretch.

    I agree with one of the comments that if Blizzard wanted to make this connection, they would make it *painfully* obvious, and without doubt. They wouldn't just tie in some obscure reference that someone with in-depth knowledge of Sumerian gods would be able to connect. On top of that, Korthia doesn't really have any connection to Kur other than two letters.

    It's a nice theory, but until Blizzard actually ties it together unambiguously, I see no connection.
    If you think everything has to be obvious, then you run into the same problem as the others. As was said there, O and U are sometimes interchangeable and Thia is used as a suffix, like many names in game.

    It came *AFTER* they announced it.

    This is the first real time that they ever faced a popular and in-demand concept being made into reality, with the full package, as being a complete misstep to understanding what *other* fans might actually want or like. This is the first time real time when any Race/Class addition had real controversy behind it.

    And yes, I know Draenei had its love-hate fans, and Blood Elves also get shat on for being on the Horde sometimes, but it wasn't literal 'I'm cancelling my WoW sub!' levels of vitriol.

    I don't agree with any of the hate. I don't understand the arguments that it's a 'Furry game' since we already had Tauren and Worgen years before. I don't know where the hate actually comes from, but knowing it's there is something to consider.

    And that same level of 'hatred' exists against Gnomes too. I don't know why people hate them, but we know there are haters and they're vocal about it.

    I honestly don't think Blizzard wants to do a repeat of Pandaren 2.0. This contributes to why Pandaren are barely in the story any more. Blizzard kind of just wants to quietly sweep it all under the rug, like Warcraft 3 Reforged. They're not gonna cancel or remove it, but they'll just silently pay no attention to it when they don't have to.
    I don't mind the Pandaren, either, or any furry, for that matter, because they have a culture behind them. Unlike eastern games that add them for their cute value.

    Though, i don't think you can say it wasn't there and just, 'suddenly', erupted with their appearance on the MoP expansion's features. It must have been under the surface, for a time.

    And i don't get Gnomes and Goblins hate, either. They, literally, have an interesting and distinct culture, aside from being 'cute'. Yes, when you apply them to classes like Warriors, they look ridiculous, but that is the whole point. They are more of a scientific/technology race.

    What relevance does Noggenfogger have to the story as a whole? Do you see him coming to the forefront of the story? If anything, we have stronger Goblin representatives to take up that role. Why pick Noggenfogger if we already have Gazlowe? Gazlowe is the stronger character overall. And in recent lore, he's actually being given a much larger role, since he's taking Gallywix's place as Racial Leader.

    There's little reason to pass up Gazlowe and Mekkatorque and a Tinker class to pursue Noggenfogger and an Alchemist class. I'm not saying this as a definitive, I'm saying this as reasonable, logical, common sense.
    Gazlowe is the Tinker representative. Noggenfogger is the Alchemist's.
    If you combine the two, then i guess Gazlowe sure takes the lead.

    Monk is arguably the least played class in the game, and I personally view it as a failure. Not the best example to me, IMO.

    If it were so easy to add a new class, then there's no reason why Shadowlands shouldn't have a class. Wouldn't you agree? We should have had at least one new class this expansion, right? Doesn't matter if it's a Dark Ranger or Necromancer or Shadow Hunter or Blademaster; there should have been *something* given to us right?

    And I don't think it's a matter of just lacking resources, because we see how much resources they have devoted to creating the Covenant system. Dozens of new abilities for each class, dozens of customization options, whole bunch of traits and more.
    And that's, probably, why they couldn't add a new class alongside it.

    I don't view the Monk class as a failure. I mean, they can't just add Hero classes all the time, that are based on the villainous characters.

    Why not, simply, do it? because it is a monumental task, overall. And doing it every other expansion must be exhausting, alongside balancing it all with the other classes.

    Is it me who considers it comical, or is it Blizzard? Ask yourself this.

    Am I the one preventing Tinker from being added to the game? Am I the one who decided Demon Hunter should be added before a Tinker class in WoW? Am I the one who chose Shadowlands to be made as the new expansion theme instead of Undermine or a follow-up to Mechagon in BFA?

    I'm not the one to blame here. Doesn't matter what *I* consider them to be if I'm pointing out the problem that *Blizzard* has to deal with.

    Again, the Pandaren hate ties in to Gnome (and lesser, Goblin) hate, which ties in to approaching Tinkers with a bit more careful consideration. Otherwise I see no problem with a Tinker class if they threw in Blood Elf and Draenei Mech suits; it's just not the same class that many other TInker fans (like Teriz) would be expecting from Blizzard. And ultimately, it's not *my* decision for whether the Tinker will be playable or not, it's Blizzard's, right?
    Right. But, you speak as you are some sort of their spokesman, in regards to opinions on the races and classes. I don't think they hate it as much as the playerbase does. They made it, themselves, after all.

    I disagree if we consider the potential of Class Skins (New Class Identities built over top existing class mechanics; like Paladin to Spellbreaker or Warlock to Necromancer; no lore relation to the original class) or Prestige Classes (Evolutions of existing classes, like Druid to Archdruid, Warrior to Mountain King/Chieftain/Warlord/Highlord; similar to Guild Wars 2 Paths system)
    But, we're not talking class skins.

    I mean, what *race* could he even add? The Black Dragons aren't actually high in number or under Wrathion's direct control. The only resurgence of Black Dragons we know of are from the Island Expeditions stuff that includes Chromatic Dragons; just rogue Black Dragons that aren't under Wrathions' wing.
    Dragonman, perhaps?

    Sure.

    So how is that different from D&D where a Monk adopts Martial Arts and Chi, which are Chinese-culturally derived concepts? I mean, you were trying to say one is Chinese based and the other isn't, but in both settings the whole concept of Martial Arts and Ki comes from a more pop-culture influenced interpretation of Chinese culture. Unarmed combat specialization, monastic and spirutual connections, deadly use of inner spiritual energy; we're talking about the same cultural sources that inspire this RPG archetype.
    Pretty sure Kharazim speaks in a russian accent, like the Draenei. And Zenyatta is said to be from Nepal.

    More power to you.
    Thanks, i guess.

    Demons use Fel magic. We see this from the Pit Lord and from Demons like Kil'jaedan, that's well understood.

    No mortal Warlock unit in WC3 uses green flame. Warlock class itself didn't get green flame until Cataclysm. All we know is Demons used Green Flame, not Fel magic users.

    Kael'thas was a Blood Elf who got empowered by Fel magic, sucking life force of Demons. All his flame spells are still red, and his Verdant Spheres in lore aren't directly connected to Fel magic (Legion even gives them to the Mage class). Chaos Orcs who drank Mannoroth's blood all got infused with fel magic, yet none of the spellcasters used Green Flame fel magic. Fel Green Flame was not associated with Warlocks directly until Cataclysm. Before that, it was just implied that they used 'Dark magic'.
    Like i told lelenia: This is an Eredar Warlock unit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxilian View Post
    Though yeah, i do agree that they could easily just do as they did in Legion, and add Dark Ranger style abilities to the Hunters and be done with it (or maybe even create a whole spec based on them)
    Well, they could do it with everything. But, you wouldn't want that, would you?
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-09 at 02:05 PM.

  16. #5436
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    That's my problem. Giving everyone the same background. That's just cheapening the lore and uniqueness of different races' cultures.
    It's kind of unavoidable though, unless you go for the non timelocked type of class, in which case you have to try and create a reason for each individual race to have a logical reason for the class to be a part of their ranks. It's a lot more work and I'm not quite sure what you'd really get out of it, as class/race identity largely isn't a thing in the game right now.

    For my money, how a race reacts is actually the more interesting story. Let's imagine a scenario where they implement a Dark Ranger class into the game, and to keep it simple, we limit it to 3 races on each faction. Let's say:


    • Blood Elves
    • Nightborne
    • Forsaken
    • Humans
    • Night Elves
    • Void Elves

    The Lich King has risen into undeath a group of infiltration agents, equipped with powers to do things that Death Knights cannot do. Then, because he's a nice and cool Lich King, he goes to each racial leader and lets them know that he's done this, and that when he doesn't need these heroes to do his spooky bidding, they are at the disposal of their racial leader.

    The narrative here could be how each race deals with that knowledge. Blood Elves, still reeling from what the Scourge did to them, might be disgusted by members of their race voluntarily choosing undeath.

    Maybe Forsaken are conflicted. Somebody choosing a second death? Perhaps Calia thinks the deed is monstrous whilst Lillian Voss thinks that they are a perfect weapon that the Forsaken can use.

    Humanity may see it as an outright abomination. Choosing to go into undeath? Blasphemy. This is the sort of thing the Light warns you against. But perhaps whomever is leading the Alliance (Anduin, Turalyon, Genn, whomever) will publicly condemn the idea, whilst secretly using them for his purporses.

    What if Night Elves are actually sympathetic? Tyrande understands full well what it's like to grab at whatever power is made available, no matter the cost. Maybe she sees these individuals as misguided, but to be supported and cared for.

    I don't think that a unified origin means that it has to be homogenized. The narrative can be crafted around something after it has been established rather than before, which could actually give some interesting storytelling opportunities.

  17. #5437
    Titan Maxilian's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Dominican Republic
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post

    Well, they could do it with everything. But, you wouldn't want that, would you?
    I... actually wouldn't mind, Dark Ranger is not a class that i WANT, it would be cool, yeah, but i wouldn't feel bad if it became another spec for Hunter, even if it became just a couple of extra abilities for Hunters i wouldn't mind that much (Like Legion), though i would prefer it as another spec, as a new class? Yeah it would be cool, but not an idea I'm die hard for.

  18. #5438
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,870
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Yes, it does. Because you can't attribute all of them to Hero units.
    I and others have literally shown you that we can. Death Knights come from a myriad of different sources, and the majority of the monk class itself come from sources outside Warcraft.

    Worse: part of the demon hunter's abilities and concept also seem to have taken inspiration from Heroes of the Storm, considering his HotS ability "Sweeping Strike" could be argued to be the inspiration for Fel Rush and Momentum. The Metamorphosis ability also works kind of like the HotS version, making the DH jump and land on a target location, dealing damage as they transform.

    Of course it can. He fucking featured in the cinematic trailer and on the game box.
    That's like saying Arthas and Illidan weren't for the Demon Hunter and Death Knight.
    Being featured in the cinematic trailer and the game box is irrelevant, because that does not tell us if the character was used as the basis of the class' design or not. All it tell us is that Blizzard decided to use Chen as the centerpiece because he's the most famous pandaren known in lore. And, frankly, the only pandaren in existence at that moment in time.

    As for Arthas and Illidan, they are indeed representatives of their respective classes, because: a) the playable classes are called "death knight" and "demon hunter", i.e. the exact names as the WC3 units; and b) we have explicit lore saying that the death knights and demon hunters we have today is because Arthas and Illidan, respectively, created/trained them.

    The unit is called "Eredar Warlock". -_-
    But it's a demon. And I'd assume it's basic knowledge that demons cast demonic magic (i.e. fel magic). We have no examples of Azerothian warlocks using fel magic and summoning demons.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  19. #5439
    After binge watching first two seasons of Castlevania on Netflix I started to think. Hmm. We really dont have traditional vampires in WoW. Clearly very vampire in revendreth but anima is replaced with blood.

    Could a vampire hero class fit in the wow universe?

  20. #5440
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I and others have literally shown you that we can. Death Knights come from a myriad of different sources, and the majority of the monk class itself come from sources outside Warcraft.

    Worse: part of the demon hunter's abilities and concept also seem to have taken inspiration from Heroes of the Storm, considering his HotS ability "Sweeping Strike" could be argued to be the inspiration for Fel Rush and Momentum. The Metamorphosis ability also works kind of like the HotS version, making the DH jump and land on a target location, dealing damage as they transform.
    I was referring to the Vanilla classes.
    But, to answer your argument:
    HotS is based on the Warcraft 3 Hero. Not the other way around.
    Monk's Mistweaver and Windwalker was, indeed, outsourced. You can't, really, tell me from where. But the basis for the class was the Pandaren Brewmaster.
    Death Knight integrating different units into it is not a problem. In the end, it was based on the Death Knight Hero unit.
    What you refer to here is what those classes are made of, instead of what classes have been added.
    At the end of the day, they are all WC3 Hero units.

    Being featured in the cinematic trailer and the game box is irrelevant, because that does not tell us if the character was used as the basis of the class' design or not. All it tell us is that Blizzard decided to use Chen as the centerpiece because he's the most famous pandaren known in lore. And, frankly, the only pandaren in existence at that moment in time.

    As for Arthas and Illidan, they are indeed representatives of their respective classes, because: a) the playable classes are called "death knight" and "demon hunter", i.e. the exact names as the WC3 units; and b) we have explicit lore saying that the death knights and demon hunters we have today is because Arthas and Illidan, respectively, created/trained them.
    * Chen is a Pandaren Monk (Brewmaster). Not just a general Pandaren.

    The Brewmaster spec tells you the same as the class' name.

    But it's a demon. And I'd assume it's basic knowledge that demons cast demonic magic (i.e. fel magic). We have no examples of Azerothian warlocks using fel magic and summoning demons.
    Demonic-corrupted race. Not an original one. Like Fel orcs. And they have no difference in Warlock from the Green orcs.
    And you can't just assume that it derives from them being demonic and not a Warlock. Because they have other classes. That doesn't mean they all use green fel fire.

    It doesn't have to be azerothian. Draenei are not from azeroth. Neither are Orcs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffmeister View Post
    After binge watching first two seasons of Castlevania on Netflix I started to think. Hmm. We really dont have traditional vampires in WoW. Clearly very vampire in revendreth but anima is replaced with blood.

    Could a vampire hero class fit in the wow universe?
    No, but playable Venthyr are coming. Fits perfectly with the Blood Death Knight.

Posting Permissions

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