Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Eapoe]

Really? Didn't know the Tinker lost to the Evoker? Any statement of that matter?



What does her melee fighting have to do with tanking?

TBC was perfect for the Demon Hunter. Illidan was the main character and the initial final boss.
Cataclysm was perfect for the Evoker. Deathwing was the main antagonist and the Dragonflights combined forces to take him down.
Warlords of Draenor was perfect for the Tinker. Technology took center stage and was pivotal to the threat of the Iron Horde.
Battle for Azeroth was perfect for the Tinker. We got Mekattorque as a raid boss, Mechagon as a zone and a new robo suit for Gallywix.
Shadowlands was perfect for the Necromancer. We went to the realms of death, visited its place of birth - Maldraxxus, and dealt with the true god of death.

Never say never. After the aspects lost their powers, no one expected a Dragon expansion again, until the mention of the Dragon Isles.



Yes, it is an excuse to be lazy.
Why work hard when you can just repaint?



Pretty sure when you quote an entire wall of text and expect someone to know what you are referring to or remember you, it's not going to work.

Seemed to work here. Learn to keep your posts in order, I guess.

[Alanar]

Darkfallen aren't a new creation, it's just a new name that is retroactively being applied back to all Undead Elves, whereas the name was not previously directly associated before.
.

Its actually not a new name either, the name was used on the wotlk beastery page, directly linking to the San layn. They were already called darkfallen.

The new info just add dark rangers to that name and indeed specify then as a race. As in undead elves

[Triceron]

If Dracthyr could have been other classes, like a Mage for example, would you say it already fulfills the Evoker fantasy?
Or even the Pandaren. Do they alone constitute the entirety of the Monk class?
Because as of right now, you claim races can do just that.

1: It depends on what race and what fantasy we're talking about.
2: It depends on what Blizzard defines as a particular Fantasy.
3: It depends on what Blizzard is doing to support that Fantasy.

If we're talking about a Classes that would be better represented through new Allied Races, I don't see why not. Mok'nathal would help us make a more true Beastmaster hero. I don't think the chances of it would be likely and still have my doubts that Blizzard would be interested in adding it, but I would not be opposed to its addition. I would still say that Blizzard has shown little interest in developing them any further than Rexxar, and there is no story development that hints at Mok'nathal becoming playable in the near future. If we ever do get hints of them being playable like a 10.0 datamine with a Mok'nathal quest line, or a datamined Mok'nathal specific/related mount? Then yeah, I would absolutely take up that opportunity to speculate the possibilities. But until that happens, there's nothing indicating they would be playable any time soon, wouldn't you agree? Just because it could happen in the future doesn't make it a legitimate reason to consider it happening.

Speculatively speaking, right now it is more likely for Tuskarr to become playable than a Mok'nathal. This is directly because of the story and setting of Dragonflight, as well as the Tuskarr's new mounts and customization options. We're not just talking about wishful thinking for Tuskarr, we have actual talking points to consider their possibility. It all depends on whether Blizzard plans to implement them, and because of the work we've seen put into them they are more likely to become playable than, for example, the Mok'nathal.

Are they? Because as far as i know, they're only part of the Horde.

Yes, so far in the story it seems that way. By all means, Dark Rangers were always a Horde exclusive NPC faction, right? So I wouldn't put it past them to keep things that way. I wouldn't prefer it, but it's always a possibility, one that I wouldn't deny.

We would have wait and see how things develop.

Just like how they modified the Dragonsworn to be an Evoker? Or the Death Knights' way of creation from falling to darkness to being raised? Yeah... those kind of things usually happen with new classes.

I never dismissed the possibility of that happening.

The difference is that Dark Rangers have lore concluding such things, in both the game's quests and now through a novel. There's nothing usual about the Dark Ranger situation having their story and roles neatly resolved and their method of creation and powers disconnected from Sylvanas.

Again, that is the reason this entire topic exists. Dark Ranger has become an identity that could be reasonably achieved through customizations.

If you acknowledge that, you need to acknowledge other options.

I acknowledged that the chance of Evokers being a class was much higher than any other possibility because it was literally a New Class leak, supported by multiple individuals. "Evoker" was never rumored as customization options or covenants. There's no reason to speculate an Evoker class if we didn't have the leaks to discuss.

The reason why we're even talking about Dark Ranger customizations is because it's been a topic that Blizzard themselves have been open to talk about recently, and because we had datamined information to corroborate their recent statements as potential Allied Race and/or Dark Ranger customization options.

Sun is just another variation of Light. What is dark magic a variation of in the Hunter class? Would you say Death Knights' magic is just a variation of Paladin magic?

It would be regarded similarly to how Void magic is sourced from a Void Elf race rather than any particular class. Void Elf Warriors can use Void magic because of their racial attribute.

I did learn my lesson.
That they come from the RPG sources instead of WC3.

That's definitely a start. Disconnecting from your WC3 pattern is a big one, one that I will happy say "I told you so" considering how much of a headache it was trying to discuss any other class options with you. It was totally pointless, since Blizzard has never stuck to having to make WC3 Heroes into classes, and always had the freedom to explore any concept they wished.

People were saying there are too many races after allied races and that there's no possible way that they'd add more.
And, here we are, with playable Dracthyr and possibly another race.

I wasn't one of those people, and I would just the same say that would be quite pointless since no one can define there being 'no possible way'. There's always a possibility for everything. It's just a matter of how likely certain things would be over others.

I know that it was a candidate. Once for vanilla, second time for WotLK. I've read its RPG description. Since then, it was integrated into the Monk and Death Knight classes and little have been shown about them either in game or outside sources.
Would Blizzard add another martial artist after adding the Monk? I doubt it but everything is possible. It is an RPG class unrepresented in current classes. I suggested for it to be a class skin for Monks, since the martial gameplay is there. Can it cover rune casting? I don't know.

Yes, and if you can see it being a customization option instead of a class, then Dark Ranger is literally no different. The only argument is that it would be doubtful and unlikely, because there's literally nothing indicating a Runemaster class would ever happen.

And if say in the future Blizzard opens up Iron Dwarves being a future allied race, then attaching Runemaster as a customizable identity for Iron Dwarf Shamans or Monks would be a decent way of representing Runemasters.

Would it be better if Runemasters were a class instead of customizations? Sure, I would say a class would be better. But if we already have a Monk that covers a large part of the Martial Arts style gameplay, then 'Rune casting' isn't going to be a strong argument to have a new separate class. Rune casting could just as easily be a racial trait of the Iron Dwarves, and having them made into an Allied Race would be a big step towards any playable Runemaster identity.

[Soimu]

Dark Rangers will be added after Thinkers.

[Teriz]

Really? Didn't know the Tinker lost to the Evoker? Any statement of that matter?

Coming out of Shadowlands, most acknowledged a new class was coming. The two options were Tinker or a dragon-based class. The issue with the dragon class was that there was no basis for such a class in WoW unless Blizzard Allowed players to play as dragons, due to HotS. Because of that, Tinkers had a slight advantage until the title and cover leak.

What does her melee fighting have to do with tanking?

Because it gives an excuse for a DR melee spec.

TBC was perfect for the Demon Hunter. Illidan was the main character and the initial final boss.
Cataclysm was perfect for the Evoker. Deathwing was the main antagonist and the Dragonflights combined forces to take him down.
Warlords of Draenor was perfect for the Tinker. Technology took center stage and was pivotal to the threat of the Iron Horde.
Battle for Azeroth was perfect for the Tinker. We got Mekattorque as a raid boss, Mechagon as a zone and a new robo suit for Gallywix.
Shadowlands was perfect for the Necromancer. We went to the realms of death, visited its place of birth - Maldraxxus, and dealt with the true god of death.

There’s a host of reasons why you’re wrong in every single case here. There’s ZERO reason for DRs not becoming a class in SL beyond Blizzard simply not wanting the class.

[Ielenia]

Coming out of Shadowlands, most acknowledged a new class was coming.

Most also acknowledged that we would get a class in Shadowland, too, remember?

The two options were Tinker or a dragon-based class.

And bards... and necromancers... and dark rangers... and blademasters... the point is, there were many options, not just two.

Also, funny how the only two options in your list just so happen to be the two classes that you like. Funny how none of the options is of a class concept you don't like.

The issue with the dragon class was that there was no basis for such a class in WoW unless Blizzard Allowed players to play as dragons, due to HotS.

It was no issue, really. Blizzard is not denied the opportunity of making new stuff and thinking out of the box.

Because of that, Tinkers had a slight advantage until the title and cover leak.

In your mind, tinkers always "have the advantage". Meanwhile, in reality, tinkers always lost. Any normal person would stop, do some introspection, and realize that what they think they know about the subject is wrong.

There’s a host of reasons why you’re wrong in every single case here.

Of which you'll mention none, of course.

There’s ZERO reason for DRs not becoming a class in SL beyond Blizzard simply not wanting the class.

Which you, again, is wrong. Classes fit the story being told, not the other way around. And there was no room to add a class in the story being told in Shadowlands.

[Teriz]

Most also acknowledged that we would get a class in Shadowland, too, remember?

Yes. Unfortunately Blizzard had no plans of incorporating a Necromancer or Dark Ranger class into WoW, so the new class was held over for the next expansion.

And bards... and necromancers... and dark rangers... and blademasters... the point is, there were many options, not just two.

Nope, there were just two.

Also, funny how the only two options in your list just so happen to be the two classes that you like. Funny how none of the options is of a class concept you don't like.

I have no emotional attachment to any class concept. I simply view some concepts more likely than others.

In your mind, tinkers always "have the advantage". Meanwhile, in reality, tinkers always lost. Any normal person would stop, do some introspection, and realize that what they think they know about the subject is wrong.

As I said before, with the release of Evokers, the chances of future classes have decreased considerably. That includes the possibility of a Tinker class.

Of which you'll mention none, of course.

We can start with Demon Hunters and TBC, where Blizzard felt they weren't ready to release a new class after the 9 they had released and were still balancing from Vanilla.

Which you, again, is wrong. Classes fit the story being told, not the other way around. And there was no room to add a class in the story being told in Shadowlands.

Yet there's room for a new class in Dragonflight? Evokers have literally nothing to do with the general plot of the next expansion. They're part of a retconned side story created completely out of thin air for the sole purpose of facilitating playable dragons. You're delusional if you honestly believe they couldn't do the same for Necromancers or Dark Rangers in Shadowlands.

[Ielenia]

[QUOTE=Teriz;53767299]Yes. Unfortunately Blizzard had no plans of incorporating a Necromancer or Dark Ranger class into WoW,/[quote]
Objection!!! Making claims without evidence!!!

Nope, there were just two.

Wrong. There were way more than just two. Your dislike of the other class concept ideas does not disqualify them.

I have no emotional attachment to any class concept.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Next you're going to tell me you don't post in forum threads?

As I said before, with the release of Evokers, the chances of future classes have decreased considerably. That includes the possibility of a Tinker class.

Which is ultimately irrelevant to your past behavior of always saying the tinkers were the "the next class", yet expansion after expansion, we never got tinkers.

We can start with Demon Hunters and TBC, where Blizzard felt they weren't ready to release a new class after the 9 they had released and were still balancing from Vanilla.

Okay. That is one reason for one expansion. Still waiting on the other four expansions the other poster mentioned.

Yet there's room for a new class in Dragonflight? Evokers have literally nothing to do with the general plot of the next expansion.

How do you know? Have you played Dragonflight yet? Do you know the plot of Dragonflight? Because no one else does. Again, you're making claims without evidence.

They're part of a retconned side story created completely out of thin air for the sole purpose of facilitating playable dragons.

They're as "retconned" as monks, death knights and demon hunters.

You're delusional if you honestly believe they couldn't do the same for Necromancers or Dark Rangers in Shadowlands.

The only "delusional" one here is you. Blizzard has stated that the class has to fit the story, not the other way around. No class fit the Shadowlands story because of the story being told. What you're advocating is saying that Blizzard would basically center the expansion around the class and make everything from there, which is not how they do things.

[Triceron]

And bards... and necromancers... and dark rangers... and blademasters... the point is, there were many options, not just two.

Coming out of Shadowlands? Chances for Necromancers and Dark Rangers diminished significantly.

[Ghanir]

Coming out of Shadowlands? Chances for Necromancers and Dark Rangers diminished significantly.

It is as he says.
Both Necromancers and Dark Rangers are on the "edgy" side of things, and coming out of Shadowlands there isn't much connecting these two class concepts becoming the next playable class unfortunately, outside of flashback injections like how we got the Demon Hunters. And even if that were to be the go-to excuse of an intro there's very little connecting anything to Necromancers specifically becoming the next class.

[Teriz]

Objection!!! Making claims without evidence!!!

The evidence being Shadowlands theme, what they focused on class wise, and the high level focus on Sylvanas.

Wrong. There were way more than just two. Your dislike of the other class concept ideas does not disqualify them.

You're free to believe that, but Evokers reinforced the notion that WoW classes require associated lore characters, heavy basis in WoW lore, expansions that match their theme, and a background in Blizzard's RTS/MOBAs.

Which is ultimately irrelevant to your past behavior of always saying the tinkers were the "the next class", yet expansion after expansion, we never got tinkers.

My argument was always that Tinkers have the pedigree of WoW's previous classes, and that their inclusion would shore up some holes in the class lineup. With the Evoker plugging those holes up, the need for a Tinker is greatly diminished. They still share the background of DHs, DKs, and Monks, but a Tinker inclusion at this point is a nice to have instead of a need to have.

As for the Tinker being the only logical future choice after Demon Hunters, that largely remained unchanged until 2017 when Blizzard introduced Alexstraza into HotS. That opened up another possibility for a future class.

Okay. That is one reason for one expansion. Still waiting on the other four expansions the other poster mentioned.

Cataclysm wasn't a perfect time for the Evoker because Blizzard had just introduced Death Knights in WotLK.

How do you know? Have you played Dragonflight yet? Do you know the plot of Dragonflight? Because no one else does. Again, you're making claims without evidence.

Yeah, the plot is basically that the Dragonflights return to the Dragon Isles to reconnect with their homeland and become guardians of Azeroth again.

You don't need Evokers to tell that story.

They're as "retconned" as monks, death knights and demon hunters.

The retcon I'm talking about is Deathwing successfully creating artificial prismatic/chromatic dragons. Again, this shows that Blizzard is perfectly willing to open up space for classes they want in the game.

The only "delusional" one here is you. Blizzard has stated that the class has to fit the story, not the other way around. No class fit the Shadowlands story because of the story being told. What you're advocating is saying that Blizzard would basically center the expansion around the class and make everything from there, which is not how they do things.

Nope, I'm just saying that if Blizzard wants a class in an expansion, the class will be in the expansion. The only requirement is that it matches the expansion theme. Evokers are a draconic class for a draconic expansion. That's all that's needed. NONE of the expansion classes were integral parts of the story. The expansion of their introduction would have worked just fine narratively without them.

Necromancers fit the theme of Shadowlands, which is why every class got a Necromancer ability. Blizzard simply didn't want a Necromancer class in the game.

[Ielenia]

The evidence being Shadowlands theme, what they focused on class wise, and the high level focus on Sylvanas.

That is a dishonest fallacy of confirmation bias. Not to mention that your exact same logic can be used to say that you are mute because I never heard you speak. Or that the sun revolves around the Earth because we see the sun moving but don't feel the planet moving.

You're free to believe that, but Evokers reinforced the notion that WoW classes require associated lore characters,

It didn't, because this is a notion that exists solely on your head.

My argument was always that Tinkers have the pedigree of WoW's previous classes,

And, time and again, expansion after expansion, this so-called "pedigree" has been shown to be bunk, over and over, as basically every other class under the sun, including one that did not exist in WoW in any way, shape or form was introduced before your beloved class idea.

As for the Tinker being the only logical future choice after Demon Hunters, that largely remained unchanged until 2017 when Blizzard introduced Alexstraza into HotS. That opened up another possibility for a future class.

It didn't. You're just desperately trying to not be shown to be wrong, as always. Blizzard doesn't need to put a character in a separate, non-canon game, to create a new class in WoW. That's stupid thinking.

Cataclysm wasn't a perfect time for the Evoker because Blizzard had just introduced Death Knights in WotLK.

Why? Are you going to dishonestly claim a rule that we can't have two expansions, back-to-back, that introduce a new class?

Yeah, the plot is basically that the Dragonflights return to the Dragon Isles to reconnect with their homeland and become guardians of Azeroth again.

So you're admitting you don't know anything about the plot other than what Blizzard revealed, meaning you don't know at all how Evokers fit into the narrative.

You don't need Evokers to tell that story.

We didn't need death knights to tell the story of Wrath of the Lich King.
We didn't need monks to tell the story of Mists of Pandaria.
We didn't need demon hunters to tell the story of Legion.
But, instead, all those three classes participated heavily in the story of those expansions.

The retcon I'm talking about is Deathwing successfully creating artificial prismatic/chromatic dragons. Again, this shows that Blizzard is perfectly willing to open up space for classes they want in the game.

Oh, so all your complains against dark rangers, blademasters, bards and necromancers are rendered null and void. Good to know.

Nope, I'm just saying that if Blizzard wants a class in an expansion, the class will be in the expansion.

And, once again, you're wrong. Blizzard may want to introduce a class, but if the class does not fit into the STORY being told, the class is not going to be added. That's a fact that you keep ignoring. Blizzard is not going to radically alter and maybe have to re-write the story they want to tell just to shoe-horn in a class.

Necromancers fit the theme of Shadowlands,

But not the story.

Blizzard simply didn't want a Necromancer class in the game.

Once again, making claims without a single shred of evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Coming out of Shadowlands? Chances for Necromancers and Dark Rangers diminished significantly.

But they were still possible. But the point that you're ignoring for the sake of being contrarian to me is that "tech class and dragon class" were not "the only two options available".

[Ersula]

While everything besides that last bit sounds all reasonable I dno if the Dark Ranger fits a "redeemed" Sylvanas coming off the shelf. If she's "redeemed" she wouldn't be very "dark" right? The Dark Ranger has a very gloomy theme, shadow magic and all, going for it which seem kinda contradictive of what a "redeemed" character would feel like.

So you're just unfamiliar with the premise of an Anti-hero, yeah? I can't blame you. Afrasiasbi & Danuser were confused by the concept too.

[Teriz]

That is a dishonest fallacy of confirmation bias. Not to mention that your exact same logic can be used to say that you are mute because I never heard you speak. Or that the sun revolves around the Earth because we see the sun moving but don't feel the planet moving.

Not really. It was pretty easy to predict that we were getting a dragon class once we figured out we were getting a dragon expansion. Just like people assumed we were getting a death class in a death expansion. The only difference is that Blizzard didn’t want a new death class for the new death expansion.

It didn't, because this is a notion that exists solely on your head.


And, time and again, expansion after expansion, this so-called "pedigree" has been shown to be bunk, over and over, as basically every other class under the sun, including one that did not exist in WoW in any way, shape or form was introduced before your beloved class idea.


It didn't. You're just desperately trying to not be shown to be wrong, as always. Blizzard doesn't need to put a character in a separate, non-canon game, to create a new class in WoW. That's stupid thinking.

“Nu-uh” is a rather weak retort for the mountain of evidence that shows exactly how Blizzard incorporates classes into WoW.

Why? Are you going to dishonestly claim a rule that we can't have two expansions, back-to-back, that introduce a new class?

It seems rather obvious that Blizzard likes to give itself a breather between introducing new classes. They said as much with Demon Hunters not being introduced in TBC.

So you're admitting you don't know anything about the plot other than what Blizzard revealed, meaning you don't know at all how Evokers fit into the narrative.


We didn't need death knights to tell the story of Wrath of the Lich King.
We didn't need monks to tell the story of Mists of Pandaria.
We didn't need demon hunters to tell the story of Legion.
But, instead, all those three classes participated heavily in the story of those expansions.

No, characters from that class participated heavily in the story, not the playable class itself. Just like Sylvanas, a Dark Ranger participated heavily in the story of Shadowlands.

Oh, so all your complains against dark rangers, blademasters, bards and necromancers are rendered null and void. Good to know.

You think it’s my complaints keeping those classes out of the game?

And, once again, you're wrong. Blizzard may want to introduce a class, but if the class does not fit into the STORY being told, the class is not going to be added. That's a fact that you keep ignoring. Blizzard is not going to radically alter and maybe have to re-write the story they want to tell just to shoe-horn in a class.

Doesn’t Blizzard write the story?

[Triceron]

But they were still possible. But the point that you're ignoring for the sake of being contrarian to me is that "tech class and dragon class" were not "the only two options available".

Who said they were the only two options available?

Because the argument is that these are the two most logical choices, or most plausible choices. No one has said they were the only possible options.

I will outright say I agree that these are not the only choices. And if anyone wants to discuss other choices being plausible, they would have to come up with a compelling argument for them. If not, there is nothing to talk about. This is the same thing I've been telling Username.

And frankly, considering the thread topic is about Dark Ranger as customization options, I'd say whatever other possibilities for new classes being discussed here is quite off topic. There's other threads for that.

[Ielenia]

Not really. It was pretty easy to predict that we were getting a dragon class once we figured out we were getting a dragon expansion.

Just like you, year after year, expansion after expansion, "easily predicted" we'd get a tinker class, or an Undermine expansion? How're those predictions going?

“Nu-uh” is a rather weak retort for the mountain of evidence that shows exactly how Blizzard incorporates classes into WoW.

First off, there's no "nu-uh" there. I explained coherently all the reasons. You, on the other hand, always go 'nu-uh' to everything that goes against your narrative. And second, you're-- once again-- dead wrong. Nothing "shows exactly how" because Blizzard has never "shown exactly how" they make classes aside from letting us know that story comes first. Again, you're employing the fallacy of confirmation bias to support your own opinions that you love to falsely state as fact.

It seems rather obvious that Blizzard likes to give itself a breather between introducing new classes. They said as much with Demon Hunters not being introduced in TBC.

Except they never said that. They never said "we plan to introduce new classes every two expansions". This is, once again, you dishonestly employing confirmation bias to support your opinions you love to falsely state as fact.

No, characters from that class participated heavily in the story, not the playable class itself.

Thank you for admitting that the classes I mentioned weren't needed for the expansions.

Just like Sylvanas, a Dark Ranger participated heavily in the story of Shadowlands.

Irrelevant, because-- no matter how much you like to ignore this fact-- dark rangers did not fit the story of the Shadowlands.

You think it’s my complaints keeping those classes out of the game?

Nope. But it's your complaints that pollute these forums every time someone wants to talk about any class idea that isn't a tech class.

Doesn’t Blizzard write the story?

Blizzard has already gone on record stating that the story comes first, and classes are added if they fit the story. They have an established process and rules-- which is, by the way, amusing that the only time Blizzard reveals a rule for class creation, you promptly ignore it since it doesn't fit your narrative-- and re-writing an entire expansion's story to fit a new class is simply not feasible since they're working on a timetable and have a deadline to meet.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said they were the only two options available?

... Are you this intent on proving you don't read what's being discussed and are just posting to be a contrarian to me?

Because the argument is that these are the two most logical choices, or most plausible choices. No one has said they were the only possible options.

He literally wrote "the two options were". He didn't write "the two most likely options were". He was heavily implying there were no other options.

[Triceron]

... Are you this intent on proving you don't read what's being discussed and are just posting to be a contrarian to me?

What proof do you need?

Can anyone prove there are other possibilities? What if Blizzard doesn't make any more classes, can anyone actually prove there will be more? If not, there is nothing to be contrarian about, because there is no singular popular opinion regarding future classes. It's just our own individual opinions and speculations.

There is nothing to prove when this entire discussion is predicated on pure speculation.

He literally wrote "the two options were".

Coming out of Shadowlands, for the 10.0 Expansion, there would have only been 2 options that could be plausibly discussed, while everything else would have been a baseless 'wild guess'.

Blizzard had openly stated story and setting informing future classes. At the time after Shadowlands, the two most logical story and settings that had any connection to speculated classes were Wrathion finding Dragon Isles having a connection to a Dragon themed class, and Gallywix's disappearance and the return of Undermine having a connection to a Tech themed class. There were no hinted future stories or settings that had any tangible connections to a Bard, Blademaster or Necromancer class after Shadowlands.

If you wanted to be technically right, you would be correct that there's more than two options. All other options are wild guesses. And I think Teriz has been clear about the two options being the most logical or plausible ones.

[Wylyth1992]

Honestly, rather have something like Shadowhunters, melee hunters using Shadow Magic. Though, we would need to find a way to bring it to the Alliance as well.

[Teriz]

Just like you, year after year, expansion after expansion, "easily predicted" we'd get a tinker class, or an Undermine expansion? How're those predictions going?

You're strawmanning my positions. I said the most logical choice based on the evidence was the Tinker, especially after Demon Hunters. Again, that largely changed after the dragon HotS heroes emerged and offered an alternative.

Again, I never "easily predicted" another class except for the Alexstraza-based draconic class where Blizzard would merge race and class together.

First off, there's no "nu-uh" there. I explained coherently all the reasons. You, on the other hand, always go 'nu-uh' to everything that goes against your narrative. And second, you're-- once again-- dead wrong. Nothing "shows exactly how" because Blizzard has never "shown exactly how" they make classes aside from letting us know that story comes first. Again, you're employing the fallacy of confirmation bias to support your own opinions that you love to falsely state as fact.

How is it confirmation bias when I predicted the class BEFORE it was announced?

Except they never said that. They never said "we plan to introduce new classes every two expansions". This is, once again, you dishonestly employing confirmation bias to support your opinions you love to falsely state as fact.

No, they said they weren't ready to introduce a new class in TBC, which indicated that they needed time to balance the classes they had just added in vanilla before adding a new class. This indicates that they need space between introducing new classes, and based on the time between DKs, Monks, DHs, and now Evokers, that makes sense.

Irrelevant, because-- no matter how much you like to ignore this fact-- dark rangers did not fit the story of the Shadowlands.

Sylvanas is a Dark Ranger and she fit in the story just fine. In fact, the story pretty much revolved around her.

Nope. But it's your complaints that pollute these forums every time someone wants to talk about any class idea that isn't a tech class.

I'm pretty sure i said multiple times in this thread that a tech class is looking far less likely now due to the Evoker's inclusion.

Blizzard has already gone on record stating that the story comes first, and classes are added if they fit the story. They have an established process and rules-- which is, by the way, amusing that the only time Blizzard reveals a rule for class creation, you promptly ignore it since it doesn't fit your narrative-- and re-writing an entire expansion's story to fit a new class is simply not feasible since they're working on a timetable and have a deadline to meet.

According to Blizzard, it's the setting moreso than the story.

“I’ll also add that when we’re making those choices for classes and races and things like that, a lot of it’s informed by setting and story,” said Kubit. And looking at the setting of the Shadowlands, there wasn’t a class that jumped out like the Demon Hunter did in the past with Legion for example. So a lot of our focus is more on building the world of the Shadowlands.”

https://www.polygon.com/interviews/2...ll-human-dwarf

Again, once the setting was known (Dragon Isles), and who was on the cover (Alexstraza), all we needed to do was find a MOBA/RTS hero that matched it (duh, Alexstraza). Ding, ding, ding. It'd be no different if the setting was Undermine and we had Gazlowe on the cover. At that point it's obvious what the next class is going to be.

[Ielenia]

You're strawmanning my positions. I said the most logical choice based on the evidence was the Tinker, especially after Demon Hunters. Again, that largely changed after the dragon HotS heroes emerged and offered an alternative.

Please. You were on a whole crusade on this forum to sanctify the tinker and tear down every other class idea for years. Every single time, year after year, it's "the tinkers are the most logical", "only tinkers make sense", "tinkers", "tinkers", "tinkers". And what made people dislike you is because the arguments you used against their class ideas could also be applied to your own idea, but there was always an excuse. Always a rationalization. Always "rules for thee but not for me".

How is it confirmation bias when I predicted the class BEFORE it was announced?

You do know broken clocks are right twice a day, right? You made a wild guess, and it just happened to be right. Congratulations. It happens.

No, they said they weren't ready to introduce a new class in TBC, which indicated that they needed time to balance the classes they had just added in vanilla before adding a new class. This indicates that they need space between introducing new classes,

It also indicates that they maybe they needed more time to properly balance things because WoW is literally their first MMO ever and they were learning things as they went. By the time WotLK came along, they could have easily gone for one class per expansion if they wanted to as they'd have learned enough about balance.

Sylvanas is a Dark Ranger and she fit in the story just fine. In fact, the story pretty much revolved around her.

You said it yourself: this was a story that focused on Sylvanas, not on the dark rangers. Specific characters are not classes. What you're doing is akin to saying that MoP was a "warrior expansion" because it focused on Garrosh.

I'm pretty sure i said multiple times in this thread that a tech class is looking far less likely now due to the Evoker's inclusion.

Which does not erase or change all that you have done over the years in other classes' threads.

According to Blizzard, it's the setting moreso than the story.

Yeah. And necromancers and dark rangers do not fit the setting, either. Because if you didn't notice, nothing in this setting is about "raising people from the dead" which is the whole necromancer shtick, since we're just making sure dead people stay dead and untortured.

- - - Updated - - -

Coming out of Shadowlands, for the 10.0 Expansion, there would have only been 2 options that could be plausibly discussed,

Why? We got setups for dark rangers, with them defecting to the Horde, therefore joining the ranks of their military again. We got a good chunk of Shadowlands showcasing how music and song does have magical power, especially in the Bastion stories and quests, which further sets up one of the concepts of the bard class.

If I recall correctly, we didn't have a single hint in the Shadowlands' story that we would be dealing with dragons. Even the 9.2.5 quests we got deal with the Scourge and are not dragon-related. So saying discussing dragon-based classes before we got that website leak was just as much a "wild guess".