Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Then, i take it they are like you and perhaps even worse?
Becaue that sure doesn't look like WoWedia.

you must be aware that the formatting on a forum isn’t going to be the same as on a wiki and are just pretending to be daft at this point.

Like I could easily write up some trite like.

The Dark in “Dark ranger” refers to the way Sylvanas viewed the rangers while still a banshee.

As she could only see black and whites she looked upon a newly raised ranger in the dead scar and said, “sure is dark” and for ever more referred to them as Dark rangers. [69]

Citation [69] World of Warcraft: Sylvanas page 420.

as that’s more or less what bunch of wowpedia is but with either no citations or linking to random unlinked stuff.

Nothing he says suggest he was using it to replenish his magic.
It might not be used to fix his hand, but his energy.

you can see him use it directly to power for his spell.

In the second picture I linked the power is coming off the body in the first panel, he grasps it in the 4th and then turns it on the centaur in 5-6.

And I have no idea what you could possible mean by “fix his energy” if not magic related as undead do not tire so he obviously wouldn’t turn it to Stamina, as in energy not the stat.

So, look for the Pitlord who died there?

I’m not even sure if the Pitlord (or any demons other then the two commanders) are named as the battle is from the perspective of the demon hunters as they watch and then engage with the flanking force that is mentioned in chronicles.

Wowpedia could in theory have info on it some where but given that it’s not on the path of glory or dark portal pages I wouldn’t hold my breath.

[wowrefugee]

The year is 2034. Dark Rangers have been in the game for 4 years.

The same few posters are still going back and forth in this same thread.

[Triceron]

Evoker existed. As Dragonsworn.

Not at all. Evokers never existed prior to their announcement. Their origin is completely new.

While we can't say what the future holds, we also can't say the opening is closed for this or that.

I have agreed and have been making this very point from the start.

And just because the doors aren't completely closed does not automatically assume any particular class would be made playable at some point in the future. We speculate on what we think has plausability, right? Otherwise, it's not a default assumption that every class has an equal chance of becoming playable in the future just because their doors aren't completely closed. Some ultimately have a better chance than others.

Yet, here we are with a Warlords of Draenor expansion.

Which did not take place in the past, but in a completely alternate universe and timeline. A place where Garrosh and Thrall were never born.

Pretty sure we knew Death Knights were coming alongside a Lich King expansion.

How? Even Blizzard didn't settle on DK's when they planned the Lich King expansion. They actively planned on a Runemaster and Necromancer on that shortlist as well. If you're saying we knew it was coming then you're using confirmation bias to support your argument.

Either way, you are quick to flip your opinion once the tiniest of bits are thrown out there.

Which is how theories get proven and disproven. I mean, you understand how the scientific method of logic works right? The more evidence you have that supports a certain theory, the more inclined you are to believe it to be true. If there exists evidence of the contrary, then you have something to speculate and question the ongoing theory until you have more information that helps prove or disprove the theory itself.

If you have one belief that is unchanging even in the face of new evidence that shows the contrary, then you are acting on belief. Such as the belief that Santa Claus is real; there is nothing to prove that he actually is or that someone is able to travel the world delivering presents to all children worldwide in the span of a night. If you believe it to be true then that is your opinion and your belief. No amount of evidence would then change that belief, because it is belief.

In terms of what we've seen.

In terms of what you wish to see. Again, confirmation bias. You wish to acknowledge that Mawsworn Kyrian would follow Sylvanas without any actual basis in the story indicating that they would or care to. It's what you want to believe would happen.

I wouldn't mind that. Blood elves need their identity back. As for his return, i don't know if he is planned to do so, but we know Vol'jin is, for example.

Would you equate that to formally recognizing that he would come back?

I wouldn't mind if Kael'thas came back too. But it would be quite different if I said I theorize that Kael'thas will come back and become Sun King and he will bring new Blood Mage class with him. You see the difference?

And Calia wouldn't be one to forgive her?

What does Calia's forgiveness have to do with anything?

No. Using other, existing corpses.

So you think we will play as new Mawsworn Dark Rangers that use Night Elves souls in random corpses?

Well, I am not convinced then.

Genn didn't get the development Sylvanas and Tyrande got.
We already have Death Knights, so Anduin's change isn't relevant.
Got any other potential classes getting such treatments?

I don't really believe Blizzard is intent on more classes.

If they do, I think we would need to come to a point in time where it would make sense to start up another prediction. But right now, considering all their efforts are directed into Evokers and Dragonflight, it's a complete wait and see.

We don't even know at this point whether they even want more classes in the future.

I would say right now, Tinker is probably the only legitimately discussable concept that has any realistic chance of being made, and everything else is literally based on wild speculation considering there's absolutely nothing indicating any other class concept becoming playable. None whatsoever.

Tinker is only kept open by the mere fact that Undermine is known and not yet presented. As for your predictions of Zin Azshari in the past, I personally do not regard that as being a realistic prediction because you directly drew from a historic source which is as good as wildly speculating that they're going to do a War of the Ancients or War of the Shifting Sands expansion in the future. We don't know if they ever would touch on those subjects, at all.

Undermine is a tangible location that has future potential, and a missing major character who has direct ties to that location and to the main story.

Right. It didn't happen. Because Arthas and Illidan were big enough characters to warrant their own classes.

Do you consider Alexstrazsa a bigger character than Sylvanas then? Because we have Dracthyr and Evokers now instead of Dark Ranger.

Two abilities based on an equippable item? That's not even on the Warlock Metamorphosis level, which was taken out in the end. That's a weak case right there. Ever heard of borrowed power? That's what it is.
Not to mention it is also present in the Rogue, which you keep forgetting.

So are you denying that Hunters have access to Dark Ranger abilities? Because you said they don't have any Banshee abilities, not that 'it's only 2 abilities'. Seems like you're shifting goalposts here. What is it you actually want?

I can tell you exactly what you want. You want to play as Sylvanas and Tyrande. The Dark Ranger class and identity itself is just a means to an end to your own wants to play as Sylvanas and Tyrande.

If i would, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Honestly, it's a discussion not worth having in the first place. We're going back and forth on you telling me that you can't change your beliefs, while I'm telling you you're free to have whatever belief you want.
The rest is just me explaining my position and how you're misconstruing practically everything I'm saying as though you think I'm attacking your beliefs. I can clearly say I am not. I'm clearly saying that I disagree with your position and that there is a very strong precedent for Dark Rangers to be Hunter customizations; which you've clearly been denying as being capable of representing Dark Rangers at all.

You wouldn't get Evokers.
They planned Evokers years in advance. Dark Ranger never had a place in Shadowlands to begin with.

I believe Dark Rangers WERE planned, but changes in development screwed up many of those plans.

And taking a good look at Evokers and analyzing how they're being developed, I would say they aren't something that need to be planned years in advance at all. The fact that they are a single race exclusive class means they can literally design this class the way they do NPCs; with no accountability to any existing lore or gameplay combinations. They literally do not affect any previous or future story and exist outside of it all. They don't even have accountability of being creations of Neltharion; so much time has passed in seclusion makes them completely disconnected from Deathwing when he became evil.

Dark Rangers don't have that benefit at all. They have accountability to the storyline. Just as Demon Hunters and Death Knights had accountability to the storylines, and needed to be explained and contextualized as playable classes through new (and retconned) story revelations.

Is she? I don't recall her being much of a Hunter in Sanctum of Domination.
They don't officially regard something as separate until they add it. So, you'll need to wait for its addition in order to discuss it.
What are Darkfallen Rogues? Also Dark Rangers?

Darkfallen Hunters are Dark Rangers. Darkfallen Rogues can be whatever Blizzard wants them to be.

And again, Raid bosses do their own thing with their own unique abilities. Jaina can raise a fucking battleship and she's still a Mage. I don't see any other Mages being capable of raising Battleships that shoot arcane cannonballs, do you?

[Teriz]

Why?

I guess that's a no.

Evoker existed. As Dragonsworn.

Incorrect. Dracthyr Evokers are extensions of long-established draconic lore. Specifically Nefarion and Chromatic dragon lore where black dragons did experiments to create dragons with the combined powers of the dragonflights.

Dragonsworn are essentially Druids and Mages, or hired mercenaries that work for the Dragonflights (Black Talon and Timewalkers).

[username993720]

you must be aware that the formatting on a forum isn’t going to be the same as on a wiki and are just pretending to be daft at this point.

Like I could easily write up some trite like.


as that’s more or less what bunch of wowpedia is but with either no citations or linking to random unlinked stuff.

Okay. Sure, dude. It's not professional whatsoever.

you can see him use it directly to power for his spell.

In the second picture I linked the power is coming off the body in the first panel, he grasps it in the 4th and then turns it on the centaur in 5-6.

And I have no idea what you could possible mean by “fix his energy” if not magic related as undead do not tire so he obviously wouldn’t turn it to Stamina, as in energy not the stat.

It looks like a similar spell, but what he says doesn't coincide with that: "your soul will serve to replenish mi-", mine magic?

"Some, if not all, undead might pick up the warlock arts in order to feel more alive: Even the dead might feel alive, with the warlocks' power coursing through them. Undead warlocks have to tread very carefully when dealing with sacrificial magics though, their souls are imperfectly attached to their bodies as it is."

I’m not even sure if the Pitlord (or any demons other then the two commanders) are named as the battle is from the perspective of the demon hunters as they watch and then engage with the flanking force that is mentioned in chronicles.

Wowpedia could in theory have info on it some where but given that it’s not on the path of glory or dark portal pages I wouldn’t hold my breath.

It seems like we're at a dead end.

Not at all. Evokers never existed prior to their announcement. Their origin is completely new.

It's a different version of the RPG Dragonsworn. Someone who uses the Dragonflights' powers.

I have agreed and have been making this very point from the start.

And just because the doors aren't completely closed does not automatically assume any particular class would be made playable at some point in the future. We speculate on what we think has plausability, right? Otherwise, it's not a default assumption that every class has an equal chance of becoming playable in the future just because their doors aren't completely closed. Some ultimately have a better chance than others.

Those that feature and are expanded upon?

Which did not take place in the past, but in a completely alternate universe and timeline. A place where Garrosh and Thrall were never born.

Same scenario. 35 years ago.
An ancient Kalimdor expamsion would also happen in an alternate timeline because Blizzard is not interested in changing the past.

How? Even Blizzard didn't settle on DK's when they planned the Lich King expansion. They actively planned on a Runemaster and Necromancer on that shortlist as well. If you're saying we knew it was coming then you're using confirmation bias to support your argument.

We knew Northrend and Arthas will feature from WC3.

Which is how theories get proven and disproven. I mean, you understand how the scientific method of logic works right? The more evidence you have that supports a certain theory, the more inclined you are to believe it to be true. If there exists evidence of the contrary, then you have something to speculate and question the ongoing theory until you have more information that helps prove or disprove the theory itself.

If you have one belief that is unchanging even in the face of new evidence that shows the contrary, then you are acting on belief. Such as the belief that Santa Claus is real; there is nothing to prove that he actually is or that someone is able to travel the world delivering presents to all children worldwide in the span of a night. If you believe it to be true then that is your opinion and your belief. No amount of evidence would then change that belief, because it is belief.

9.2.5 is not even out and you already eulogize Dark Rangers.

In terms of what you wish to see. Again, confirmation bias. You wish to acknowledge that Mawsworn Kyrian would follow Sylvanas without any actual basis in the story indicating that they would or care to. It's what you want to believe would happen.

Leaderless Undead tend to do so.

Would you equate that to formally recognizing that he would come back?

I wouldn't mind if Kael'thas came back too. But it would be quite different if I said I theorize that Kael'thas will come back and become Sun King and he will bring new Blood Mage class with him. You see the difference?

But, i'm not grasping at straws. We know she's on a redemption path. You don't do that to get rid of her in the end. They could have easily killed her off.

What does Calia's forgiveness have to do with anything?

Sylvanas has to find her place in the world at the end of the day.

So you think we will play as new Mawsworn Dark Rangers that use Night Elves souls in random corpses?

Again with the Mawsworn Dark Rangers. I never said anything about Mawsworn Dark Rangers.

I don't really believe Blizzard is intent on more classes.

If they do, I think we would need to come to a point in time where it would make sense to start up another prediction. But right now, considering all their efforts are directed into Evokers and Dragonflight, it's a complete wait and see.

We don't even know at this point whether they even want more classes in the future.

I would say right now, Tinker is probably the only legitimately discussable concept that has any realistic chance of being made, and everything else is literally based on wild speculation considering there's absolutely nothing indicating any other class concept becoming playable. None whatsoever.

Tinker is only kept open by the mere fact that Undermine is known and not yet presented. As for your predictions of Zin Azshari in the past, I personally do not regard that as being a realistic prediction because you directly drew from a historic source which is as good as wildly speculating that they're going to do a War of the Ancients or War of the Shifting Sands expansion in the future. We don't know if they ever would touch on those subjects, at all.

Undermine is a tangible location that has future potential, and a missing major character who has direct ties to that location and to the main story.

The Darkspear Islands and First Home aren't accounted for a well. Does it mean Shadow Hunters are coming?

We know Tinkers are a plausible option because it is unrepresented in WoW classes and we could see it being developed through Mekkatorque's appearance in the Battle of Zul'dazar raid.

Do you consider Alexstrazsa a bigger character than Sylvanas then? Because we have Dracthyr and Evokers now instead of Dark Ranger.

Because that was planned. I already told you about their expansion pattern.

So are you denying that Hunters have access to Dark Ranger abilities? Because you said they don't have any Banshee abilities, not that 'it's only 2 abilities'. Seems like you're shifting goalposts here. What is it you actually want?

Temporary access. And so did Warlocks have, to Demon Hunter's.
So, now dark arrows are Banshee abilities? I thought you said no Dark Ranger exhibited Banshee abilities

I can tell you exactly what you want. You want to play as Sylvanas and Tyrande. The Dark Ranger class and identity itself is just a means to an end to your own wants to play as Sylvanas and Tyrande.

As funny as it would seem, it's not Dark Rangers or Night Warrior that i desire. It's Shadow Hunter.
I just feel obligated to fight for them since i speculate on their addition.

Honestly, it's a discussion not worth having in the first place. We're going back and forth on you telling me that you can't change your beliefs, while I'm telling you you're free to have whatever belief you want.
The rest is just me explaining my position and how you're misconstruing practically everything I'm saying as though you think I'm attacking your beliefs. I can clearly say I am not. I'm clearly saying that I disagree with your position and that there is a very strong precedent for Dark Rangers to be Hunter customizations; which you've clearly been denying as being capable of representing Dark Rangers at all.

I guess we'll just have to wait for 9.2.5.
A customization option might supplement a class, maybe even temporarily represent it, but not replace it.

I believe Dark Rangers WERE planned, but changes in development screwed up many of those plans.

And taking a good look at Evokers and analyzing how they're being developed, I would say they aren't something that need to be planned years in advance at all. The fact that they are a single race exclusive class means they can literally design this class the way they do NPCs; with no accountability to any existing lore or gameplay combinations. They literally do not affect any previous or future story and exist outside of it all. They don't even have accountability of being creations of Neltharion; so much time has passed in seclusion makes them completely disconnected from Deathwing when he became evil.

Dark Rangers don't have that benefit at all. They have accountability to the storyline. Just as Demon Hunters and Death Knights had accountability to the storylines, and needed to be explained and contextualized as playable classes through new (and retconned) story revelations.

You can believe whatever you want. But, as it seems now, they are adding classes in equivalent expansions who hadn't got one (Cataclysm - Dragonflight), while not adding in those that did (WotLK - Shadowlands).

Darkfallen Hunters are Dark Rangers. Darkfallen Rogues can be whatever Blizzard wants them to be.

And again, Raid bosses do their own thing with their own unique abilities. Jaina can raise a fucking battleship and she's still a Mage. I don't see any other Mages being capable of raising Battleships that shoot arcane cannonballs, do you?

Because that is preposterous, even for Jaina.

If Rogues aren't Dark Rangers, why did they give them a Dark Ranger ability with Edge of Night?

Can i have the quote saying Darkfallen Hunters are Dark Rangers?

I guess that's a no.

Giving up on Dark Rangers and Night Warrior is giving up on Tinkers as well.

Incorrect. Dracthyr Evokers are extensions of long-established draconic lore. Specifically Nefarion and Chromatic dragon lore where black dragons did experiments to create dragons with the combined powers of the dragonflights.

Dragonsworn are essentially Druids and Mages, or hired mercenaries that work for the Dragonflights (Black Talon and Timewalkers).

Same concept. Someone using the Dragonflights' powers.
They just update it for modern times.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Okay. Sure, dude. It's not professional whatsoever.

I assume you are referring to me putting in citation 69 page 420, because wowpedia isn’t any more “professional” then what I wrote out otherwise and they even give a disclaimer them selfs.

This website is an open wiki. Please note that articles and information found within this wiki have not necessarily been reviewed by members of the Warcraft development or publishing team or by Fandom, Inc.

Although much of the information presented on Wowpedia will be accurate and up-to-date, Fandom cannot guarantee the validity and quality of the information. It should be understood that the content of any article may be modified or changed at any time by any member of the community.

It looks like a similar spell, but what he says doesn't coincide with that: "your soul will serve to replenish mi-", mine magic?

"Some, if not all, undead might pick up the warlock arts in order to feel more alive: Even the dead might feel alive, with the warlocks' power coursing through them. Undead warlocks have to tread very carefully when dealing with sacrificial magics though, their souls are imperfectly attached to their bodies as it is."

what he’s saying doesn’t coincide with healing or any other kind of restoration either as at that point he has taken no injury’s and he literally can not get tired due to the nature of the undead, at most it could be a return of mana or a soul shard as he summoned a void lord right before that point.

and Making one “feel alive” obviously isn’t literal as that’s what the Light does it makes them Feel every thing there body is actually going through and as the last page I linked showed is not a pleasurable experience for the undead.

The only thing that actually indicates what is happening there is the pictures them selfs as is Felgrim Draining the centaur and then getting interrupted before harnessing the power still coming of the body and turning it on his actual attacker.

[Triceron]

It's a different version of the RPG Dragonsworn. Someone who uses the Dragonflights' powers.

Which means it's not a Dragonsworn.

A Demon Hunter is someone who uses the same Fel magic as Warlocks. A Paladin is someone who uses the same Faith/Holy based powers of a Priest. They're just 'different versions' if you're going to broadly generalize them like that.

They are completely different concepts, and not interchangeable whatsoever. Evokers are not related to the TTRPG Dragonsworn.

And to top it off, Dragonsworn was merely the generally-agreed upon name that the community used to speculate any Dragon-themed class. People were not regarding the specific TTRPG archetype. I don't think anyone was sourcing the RPG directly as a source for origin and gameplay. I mean if that were the case, we wouldn't be bringing up Heroes of the Storm Alexstrazsa into the conversation would we?

Those that feature and are expanded upon?

Depends on what we're talking about. Everyone has a subjective opinion on the subject, don't they? One person thinks Tinkers are featured and expanded, others think Bards, others think Shadow Hunters, others think Night Warriors. And all are validly discussable, while we can also regard some of these concepts as being unlikely to realistically become playable classes.

Same scenario. 35 years ago.
An ancient Kalimdor expamsion would also happen in an alternate timeline because Blizzard is not interested in changing the past.

Then we're just basing it on wild speculation. Where has WoW hinted at revisiting Zin Azshari of the past? Was this somehow hinted in BFA's Zin Azshari? I'm looking for precedence, not confirmation bias through a snippit in Chronicles.

I mean just the same, I wouldn't put any regard in a War of the Shifting Sands expansion just because it was detailed in Chronicles. There is no precedence for it as future content in WoW. We literally have nothing that potentially hints towards it happening.

We knew Northrend and Arthas will feature from WC3.

And we also knew that they planned on Death Knights being planned to be a high level character being sacrificed to turn into a Death Knight.
Or having Warriors at level 40 be able to choose to become Death Knights.

9.2.5 is not even out and you already eulogize Dark Rangers.

Hardly. Blizzard could make Dark Rangers their own class even if 9.2.5 adds them as customizations. I've said this many times already.

But, i'm not grasping at straws. We know she's on a redemption path. You don't do that to get rid of her in the end. They could have easily killed her off.

Killing characters off does nothing to whether they return in the story or not. Both Arthas and Illidan have returned to the story in some capacity despite being dead. So has Kael'thas, and he's died, what, twice now? Kel'thuzad died maybe four times?

Sylvanas won't completely go away because the writers are total Sylvanas simps. Yet the decision to have a playable class isn't defined by the writers.. So what we have is an impass where the writers are doing their best to keep this character alive and relevant, while the designers have shown literally no intention in honoring Dark Ranger as a fully playable class.

Sylvanas has to find her place in the world at the end of the day.

Have you read the novel? Yes or no?

The Darkspear Islands and First Home aren't accounted for a well. Does it mean Shadow Hunters are coming?

We know Tinkers are a plausible option because it is unrepresented in WoW classes and we could see it being developed through Mekkatorque's appearance in the Battle of Zul'dazar raid.

IMO, Setting and story plays a much more important part than representation. I mean, what do you think Evokers are representing here? A class concept that literally never existed in Warcraft 3 or WoW until now? If we went with representation as a priority precedent, then a 'Dragon themed class' would never have been in consideration. And that's exactly the problem I point out with using that as a baseline way of predicting future classes. It's a fallacy more than a pattern we can legitimately rely on.

Because that was planned. I already told you about their expansion pattern.

Then, based on their expansion pattern, when would Dark Rangers feasibly be playable? Where do Dark Rangers fit?

So, now dark arrows are Banshee abilities? I thought you said no Dark Ranger exhibited Banshee abilities

Dark Arrows are Dark Ranger abilities, which Hunters have access to, including Black Arrow historically. Marksmanship used to contain much more Dark Ranger flavour than it does today. I believe Black Arrow's removal to be a sign that they were planning a Dark Ranger standalone class. I simply think they had a change in plans, and that change significantly diminishes the chances of having a standalone Dark Ranger class.

I don't see them going out of their way to make a new class just to represent Banshee abilities, unless there was a very good reason for it that I don't know about.

As funny as it would seem, it's not Dark Rangers or Night Warrior that i desire. It's Shadow Hunter.
I just feel obligated to fight for them since i speculate on their addition.

Whatever the case, I think your speculation is way too wild to be considered realistic. It's based more on belief than by any means of reasonable assessment.

I guess we'll just have to wait for 9.2.5.
A customization option might supplement a class, maybe even temporarily represent it, but not replace it.

Again, it depends on how Blizzard treats it.

Would you consider Beastmastery a temporary representation for a Beastmaster class?

You can believe whatever you want. But, as it seems now, they are adding classes in equivalent expansions who hadn't got one (Cataclysm - Dragonflight), while not adding in those that did (WotLK - Shadowlands).

Then you're suggesting a nail in the coffin for Dark Rangers. You're suggesting that the Death Knight as the defactor Death-themed class. That implies that any other unused Death related classes could be passed over indefinitely.

[Teriz]

Giving up on Dark Rangers and Night Warrior is giving up on Tinkers as well.

I'm fine with that.

Same concept. Someone using the Dragonflights' powers.
They just update it for modern times.

Nope. Dragonsworn are Paladins, Mages, Druids, etc. granted draconic abilities as gifts for their servitude.

Dracthyr are artificially created dragons/drakes who possess the powers of all five dragonflights, in the same vein as Neferian's Chromatic drakes. Primatic powers as it were.

[username993720]

I assume you are referring to me putting in citation 69 page 420, because wowpedia isn’t any more “professional” then what I wrote out otherwise and they even give a disclaimer them selfs.






what he’s saying doesn’t coincide with healing or any other kind of restoration either as at that point he has taken no injury’s and he literally can not get tired due to the nature of the undead, at most it could be a return of mana or a soul shard as he summoned a void lord right before that point.

and Making one “feel alive” obviously isn’t literal as that’s what the Light does it makes them Feel every thing there body is actually going through and as the last page I linked showed is not a pleasurable experience for the undead.

The only thing that actually indicates what is happening there is the pictures them selfs as is Felgrim Draining the centaur and then getting interrupted before harnessing the power still coming of the body and turning it on his actual attacker.

At this point, we're not arguing about the topic of this thread.
So, i don't see a reason to continue.
Have a good day. I'll be discussing with Triceron.

Which means it's not a Dragonsworn.

A Demon Hunter is someone who uses the same Fel magic as Warlocks. A Paladin is someone who uses the same Faith/Holy based powers of a Priest. They're just 'different versions' if you're going to broadly generalize them like that.

They are completely different concepts, and not interchangeable whatsoever. Evokers are not related to the TTRPG Dragonsworn.

And to top it off, Dragonsworn was merely the generally-agreed upon name that the community used to speculate any Dragon-themed class. People were not regarding the specific TTRPG archetype. I don't think anyone was sourcing the RPG directly as a source for origin and gameplay. I mean if that were the case, we wouldn't be bringing up Heroes of the Storm Alexstrazsa into the conversation would we?

Why not? A Dragonsworn would be using her powers.

Depends on what we're talking about. Everyone has a subjective opinion on the subject, don't they? One person thinks Tinkers are featured and expanded, others think Bards, others think Shadow Hunters, others think Night Warriors. And all are validly discussable, while we can also regard some of these concepts as being unlikely to realistically become playable classes.

That's why i asked you which ones did.

Then we're just basing it on wild speculation. Where has WoW hinted at revisiting Zin Azshari of the past? Was this somehow hinted in BFA's Zin Azshari? I'm looking for precedence, not confirmation bias through a snippit in Chronicles.

I mean just the same, I wouldn't put any regard in a War of the Shifting Sands expansion just because it was detailed in Chronicles. There is no precedence for it as future content in WoW. We literally have nothing that potentially hints towards it happening.

Same was for Zul'dazar. We knew it was sinking back in Cataclysm. So, it was rather counter-intuitive. Yet, here we are.

We knew Draenor became Outland. Who would have thought they would pull a pristine Draenor back into relevancy.

And we also knew that they planned on Death Knights being planned to be a high level character being sacrificed to turn into a Death Knight.
Or having Warriors at level 40 be able to choose to become Death Knights.

Their method of addition might have changed, but they were added nonetheless.

Hardly. Blizzard could make Dark Rangers their own class even if 9.2.5 adds them as customizations. I've said this many times already.

Then, what are we arguing for?

Killing characters off does nothing to whether they return in the story or not. Both Arthas and Illidan have returned to the story in some capacity despite being dead. So has Kael'thas, and he's died, what, twice now? Kel'thuzad died maybe four times?

Sylvanas won't completely go away because the writers are total Sylvanas simps. Yet the decision to have a playable class isn't defined by the writers.. So what we have is an impass where the writers are doing their best to keep this character alive and relevant, while the designers have shown literally no intention in honoring Dark Ranger as a fully playable class.

What? Writers have no say in the matter?
Who does? The forum users?

Have you read the novel? Yes or no?

How is this relevant?
After she's redeemed, you think she'll just hang out in the Maw for all eternity? Or serve Night elf souls in Ardenweald as a slave for further repent?

IMO, Setting and story plays a much more important part than representation. I mean, what do you think Evokers are representing here? A class concept that literally never existed in Warcraft 3 or WoW until now? If we went with representation as a priority precedent, then a 'Dragon themed class' would never have been in consideration. And that's exactly the problem I point out with using that as a baseline way of predicting future classes. It's a fallacy more than a pattern we can legitimately rely on.

RPG class - the Dragonsworn.
They don't pull them out of their asses.

Then, based on their expansion pattern, when would Dark Rangers feasibly be playable? Where do Dark Rangers fit?

Probably after 13.0.
Expect a class drought, as the second part of this Cataclysm franchise wouldn't add a new class and neither would the MoP equivalents 12.0 & 13.0.
Hope i'm wrong.

Dark Arrows are Dark Ranger abilities, which Hunters have access to, including Black Arrow historically. Marksmanship used to contain much more Dark Ranger flavour than it does today. I believe Black Arrow's removal to be a sign that they were planning a Dark Ranger standalone class. I simply think they had a change in plans, and that change significantly diminishes the chances of having a standalone Dark Ranger class.

I don't see them going out of their way to make a new class just to represent Banshee abilities, unless there was a very good reason for it that I don't know about.

That's not what i asked.
Are Withering Fire and Wailing Arrow Banshee abilities?
Is Banshee's Blight?

Whatever the case, I think your speculation is way too wild to be considered realistic. It's based more on belief than by any means of reasonable assessment.

You're entitled to your own opinion.
I just look at the stuff they put in-game and do the math.
Dark Wardens? Hardly a reason.
Night Warrior? Barely paid off.
Sylvanas' numerous new abilities? Couldn't be better.

Again, it depends on how Blizzard treats it.

Would you consider Beastmastery a temporary representation for a Beastmaster class?

No. It was added from the start. It is the name of the spec. It can't be any more obvious. I don't know why you're hanged up on that.

Then you're suggesting a nail in the coffin for Dark Rangers. You're suggesting that the Death Knight as the defactor Death-themed class. That implies that any other unused Death related classes could be passed over indefinitely.

Sure. That would have made sense a while back. But, they've strayed away from that theme for the Dark Ranger. Dark Arrow no longer summons Undead minions. It summon a Dark Sentinel (i wonder why ). That's what i've been talking about. They're reforming the class concept. Same with Priestess of the Moon. They stray away from the archer archetype because it is probably too similar to the Hunter.

I'm fine with that.

Yeah, right.

Nope. Dragonsworn are Paladins, Mages, Druids, etc. granted draconic abilities as gifts for their servitude.

Dracthyr are artificially created dragons/drakes who possess the powers of all five dragonflights, in the same vein as Neferian's Chromatic drakes. Primatic powers as it were.

You're talking technicalities. I'm talking broad concept.
They were both meant to fulfill a Dragon class fantasy.

[Triceron]

Why not? A Dragonsworn would be using her powers.

I mean if you're making this argument, then Hunters are just using Dark Ranger techniques and could be the same class. End of discussion right? It was all a matter of perspective and you now figured it out.

That's why i asked you which ones did.

The ones that Blizzard felt fit the story and setting they wished to pursue at the time. That is how they have been prioritizing classes. Story and setting comes first, then they see what Class fits, and decides to add them at that time.

Otherwise we could have assumed that any class could be added at any given time regardless of any thematic ties or waiting for the right moment, right?

Same was for Zul'dazar. We knew it was sinking back in Cataclysm. So, it was rather counter-intuitive. Yet, here we are.

I don't know how that would be counter-intuitive at all. You're comparing a sinking island to a historic location being explored through yet another alternate dimension and timeline.

New islands appearing from the depths has been a thing since Warcraft 2 and Gul'dan raising the Broken Isles/Tomb of Sargeras from the sea. I don't think anyone ever discounted Zandalar on the basis of it merely sinking.

We knew Draenor became Outland. Who would have thought they would pull a pristine Draenor back into relevancy.

The initial concept for the game was that Garrosh would go to Outland as it currently exists and would use a horn of Nozdormu to resurrect the fallen warlords and invade Azeroth. The idea was changed in order to give players a new setting.[5]

Exactly. There was no realistic way to predict Warlords of Draenor. Not everything is predictable.

Like, nothing is preventing there being an Australia based continent. Yet my point here is that if that were ever to happen, we would not be able to actually predict it happening. All we can do is discuss it on the basis of being baseless, wild speculation. It'd be a wild theory.

Their method of addition might have changed, but they were added nonetheless.

^ This is an example of correlation. Confirmation bias after it's already happened, regardless of the methodology being inconsistent with your argument.

"I know I said it was raining outside and it ended up being a leaky hose, but the ground is wet nonetheless"

Then, what are we arguing for?

You tell me. You are the one who keeps telling me how the door isn't closed while I've been telling you I never said the door was closed in the first place. For pages.

What? Writers have no say in the matter?
Who does? The forum users?

Game Director and Designers have final say. Writers progress the story and recontextualize gameplay back into the story.

Metzen was creative director of the game at the time. Look at Metzen's history of requests of the game and how the game drastically changed in favour of gameplay instead. He wanted Druids to be Night Elf exclusive, he wanted playable Naga and Ogres from the start, he wanted Pandaren as early as TBC. Look how differently the game turned out.

End of the day, it was up to Tom Chilton to decide what new classes would have been added to the game and when they would be added. If it were up to Metzen, Demon Hunters would probably have been added as early as Vanilla or TBC.

How is this relevant?
After she's redeemed, you think she'll just hang out in the Maw for all eternity? Or serve Night elf souls in Ardenweald as a slave for further repent?

The Dark Rangers which we know of are no longer exclusively loyal to her and are actively serving under Calia.

All we are discussing here is how you are speculating Sylvanas (current or future iteration) being relevant to Dark Rangers becoming playable.

RPG class - the Dragonsworn.
They don't pull them out of their asses.

Evoker is absolutely an asspull. You're telling me Dracthyr also existed in the TTRPG? You're telling me the Evoker name and class appear in the RPG?

Dragonsworn in the TTRPG is a completely different concept which involves mortals adopting Dragon powers.

Probably after 13.0.
Expect a class drought, as the second part of this Cataclysm franchise wouldn't add a new class and neither would the MoP equivalents 12.0 & 13.0.
Hope i'm wrong.

What comes after 13.0 that would fit a Dark Ranger class? We've gone over the idea that any Death related expansions get connected back to Death Knights haven't we?

That's not what i asked.
Are Withering Fire and Wailing Arrow Banshee abilities?
Is Banshee's Blight?

In Heroes of the Storm, Wailing Arrow and Withering fire both displayed Banshee connections to them. I'm not sure how Withering fire looks in WoW, and whether it makes shadowy afterimages of your character or not. So difficult to say.

Banshee's Blight seems obvious. So yes, it looks like Blizzard is willing to pawn off the Banshee theme as borrowed power so far, doesn't it?

You're entitled to your own opinion.
I just look at the stuff they put in-game and do the math.
Dark Wardens? Hardly a reason.
Night Warrior? Barely paid off.
Sylvanas' numerous new abilities? Couldn't be better.

Again, it depends on how Blizzard treats it.

Yeah but I don't understand why you single these out while assuming that Blizzard doesn't put effort into concepts without taking it the full way into realizing them as a standalone Player Class.

We have had plenty of NPC classes designed and not pushed forward as a new class. Look at all the Engineer NPCs in BFA Island Expeditions that used Tinker abilities from Heroes of the Storm. Look at Mekkatorque and Gallywix's mech battle in Dazar'alor. Look at the addition of Mechagon and all the new tech we have access to from there. Did that end up paying off with a Tinker class?

Sometimes Blizzard will put effort into a theme and a potential class without paying it off as a playable thing. And now, we have seen that they can instead choose to add a completely new concept that never existed before instead, like Evokers.

Sure. That would have made sense a while back. But, they've strayed away from that theme for the Dark Ranger. Dark Arrow no longer summons Undead minions. It summon a Dark Sentinel (i wonder why ). That's what i've been talking about. They're reforming the class concept. Same with Priestess of the Moon. They stray away from the archer archetype because it is probably too similar to the Hunter.

You can't say they strayed away from the Death archetype while asking for Banshee abilities to be represented

[Aedruid]

I welcome any number of additional classes / specs to the game. Makes WoW more enjoyable.

[Teriz]

You're talking technicalities. I'm talking broad concept.
They were both meant to fulfill a Dragon class fantasy.

I would argue that conceptually playing an experienced adventurer gaining draconic powers by serving a dragon is far different than playing as a dragon with dragon powers.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

I really hope Darkfallen are added in 9.2.5

[username993720]

I mean if you're making this argument, then Hunters are just using Dark Ranger techniques and could be the same class. End of discussion right? It was all a matter of perspective and you now figured it out.

Huh? What do you think a Dragonsworn would use?

The ones that Blizzard felt fit the story and setting they wished to pursue at the time. That is how they have been prioritizing classes. Story and setting comes first, then they see what Class fits, and decides to add them at that time.

Otherwise we could have assumed that any class could be added at any given time regardless of any thematic ties or waiting for the right moment, right?

I didn't ask what classes are fit to be added.
I asked which ones did they develop and expand? It certainly wasn't the Runemaster. But, it definitely was the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Tinker through Sylvanas, Tyrande and Mekattorque.

I don't know how that would be counter-intuitive at all. You're comparing a sinking island to a historic location being explored through yet another alternate dimension and timeline.

New islands appearing from the depths has been a thing since Warcraft 2 and Gul'dan raising the Broken Isles/Tomb of Sargeras from the sea. I don't think anyone ever discounted Zandalar on the basis of it merely sinking.

Why wouldn't it be discounted? It was supposed to be underwater. Same for Broken Isles. It was nothing more than Night elven ruins.

There's so much untapped potential in these gorgeous artworks of Zin-Azshari and Dire Maul.

The initial concept for the game was that Garrosh would go to Outland as it currently exists and would use a horn of Nozdormu to resurrect the fallen warlords and invade Azeroth. The idea was changed in order to give players a new setting.[5]

Exactly. There was no realistic way to predict Warlords of Draenor. Not everything is predictable.

Like, nothing is preventing there being an Australia based continent. Yet my point here is that if that were ever to happen, we would not be able to actually predict it happening. All we can do is discuss it on the basis of being baseless, wild speculation. It'd be a wild theory.

But, we do have something. Chronicles Artwork. I went through every single location presented there, and those were the only original ones we didn't explore.

^ This is an example of correlation. Confirmation bias after it's already happened, regardless of the methodology being inconsistent with your argument.

"I know I said it was raining outside and it ended up being a leaky hose, but the ground is wet nonetheless"

If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You tell me. You are the one who keeps telling me how the door isn't closed while I've been telling you I never said the door was closed in the first place. For pages.

Are you kidding me? You're the one who tries to counteract me at every single turn. You've dismissed it from the very beginning. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't have gotten to 50 pages. "Dark Rangers would be just an allied race and a Hunter customization option" rings a bell?

Game Director and Designers have final say. Writers progress the story and recontextualize gameplay back into the story.

Metzen was creative director of the game at the time. Look at Metzen's history of requests of the game and how the game drastically changed in favour of gameplay instead. He wanted Druids to be Night Elf exclusive, he wanted playable Naga and Ogres from the start, he wanted Pandaren as early as TBC. Look how differently the game turned out.

End of the day, it was up to Tom Chilton to decide what new classes would have been added to the game and when they would be added. If it were up to Metzen, Demon Hunters would probably have been added as early as Vanilla or TBC.

You're not taking development time into consideration. They've just added 9 classes in vanilla. You think it would be reasonable to add another one right away at the whim of a creative director? It's a group decision, not a single person's.

By the way, who are the game directors and designers now?

The Dark Rangers which we know of are no longer exclusively loyal to her and are actively serving under Calia.

All we are discussing here is how you are speculating Sylvanas (current or future iteration) being relevant to Dark Rangers becoming playable.

Because gameplay would obviously be based on her.
Death Knights are also no longer loyal to the Lich King, and there are Demon Hunters who oppose Illidan. Loyalties mean shit.

Evoker is absolutely an asspull. You're telling me Dracthyr also existed in the TTRPG? You're telling me the Evoker name and class appear in the RPG?

Dragonsworn in the TTRPG is a completely different concept which involves mortals adopting Dragon powers.

"At BlizzCon 2010, it was mentioned in an offhand comment that something called a "dragonman" was based on unused concept art for a scrapped idea for a playable race."

An Evoker is just an upgraded version of the Dragonsworn. It is a 20 years old RPG concept after all. It needs a breath of fresh air and an overall update. Same with the Dracthyr.

What comes after 13.0 that would fit a Dark Ranger class? We've gone over the idea that any Death related expansions get connected back to Death Knights haven't we?

What? How did you get to that conclusion? And who said she needs a Death expansion of all things?
We'd need to see how they release expansions after 13.0 to determine anything.

In Heroes of the Storm, Wailing Arrow and Withering fire both displayed Banshee connections to them. I'm not sure how Withering fire looks in WoW, and whether it makes shadowy afterimages of your character or not. So difficult to say.

Banshee's Blight seems obvious. So yes, it looks like Blizzard is willing to pawn off the Banshee theme as borrowed power so far, doesn't it?

So, your whole bullshit argument that Dark Rangers do not present any Banshee abilities just got flushed down the drain.
Now that we've settled that, we can agree that they can, and would, pull abilities from Sylvanas.

Yeah but I don't understand why you single these out while assuming that Blizzard doesn't put effort into concepts without taking it the full way into realizing them as a standalone Player Class.

We have had plenty of NPC classes designed and not pushed forward as a new class. Look at all the Engineer NPCs in BFA Island Expeditions that used Tinker abilities from Heroes of the Storm. Look at Mekkatorque and Gallywix's mech battle in Dazar'alor. Look at the addition of Mechagon and all the new tech we have access to from there. Did that end up paying off with a Tinker class?

Sometimes Blizzard will put effort into a theme and a potential class without paying it off as a playable thing. And now, we have seen that they can instead choose to add a completely new concept that never existed before instead, like Evokers.

Tinkers are definitely being expanded upon. I expect it to pay off someday.

You can't say they strayed away from the Death archetype while asking for Banshee abilities to be represented

I meant that unlike the Necromancer, for example, Dark Rangers do not tread upon Death Knight themes.

I would argue that conceptually playing an experienced adventurer gaining draconic powers by serving a dragon is far different than playing as a dragon with dragon powers.

playing.
The concept is still around using Dragon powers.
Again. You and Triceron need to realize that old concepts require update and adjustments for modern era. That's what the Evoker is.

[Triceron]

Huh? What do you think a Dragonsworn would use?

Dragon powers.

I didn't ask what classes are fit to be added.
I asked which ones did they develop and expand? It certainly wasn't the Runemaster. But, it definitely was the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Tinker through Sylvanas, Tyrande and Mekattorque.

What's the difference?

Why wouldn't it be discounted? It was supposed to be underwater. Same for Broken Isles. It was nothing more than Night elven ruins.

You think we're gonna get an underwater expansion after the mess that was Vashj'r? That's the whole reason Nazjatar wasn't an underwater zone. We literally already have Zin Azshari in the game.

But, we do have something. Chronicles Artwork. I went through every single location presented there, and those were the only original ones we didn't explore.

Yeah and we also have entire novel trilogy of the War of the Ancients. It doesn't mean we're gonna get an expansion out of it, does it?

If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Are you kidding me? You're the one who tries to counteract me at every single turn. You've dismissed it from the very beginning. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't have gotten to 50 pages. "Dark Rangers would be just an allied race and a Hunter customization option" rings a bell?

You're not taking development time into consideration. They've just added 9 classes in vanilla. You think it would be reasonable to add another one right away at the whim of a creative director? It's a group decision, not a single person's.

By the way, who are the game directors and designers now?

Ion Hazzikostas is the Game Director, who isn't giving you a Dark Ranger and is giving you an Evoker.

Because gameplay would obviously be based on her.
Death Knights are also no longer loyal to the Lich King, and there are Demon Hunters who oppose Illidan. Loyalties mean shit

If you say so. I mean, if loyalties mean shit then there's no reason why we even have to talk about Sylvanas to have Dark Rangers playable. We already have them in the story through Calia Menethil.

An Evoker is just an upgraded version of the Dragonsworn. It is a 20 years old RPG concept after all. It needs a breath of fresh air and an overall update. Same with the Dracthyr.

Hard disagree. They're ultimately different concepts because Dracthyr are not servants of Dragonflights nor mortals blessed with Draconic powers. The concept of a Dragonsworn hinges on transferring Draconic power from a Dragon to a Mortal, or a Mortal capable of wielding Draconic power. It is not a power born within an individual.

The only way it could be considered an evolution of Dragonsworn is if the Evoker ends up being playable by other races, with new lore to support that possibility.

What? How did you get to that conclusion? And who said she needs a Death expansion of all things?
We'd need to see how they release expansions after 13.0 to determine anything.

What setting and story would 13.0+ be in order to make sense of a playable DR class? Why wait that long even? We're talking at least another 6+ years at that point. Is it even worth discussing something so far in the future? Like I said, by then Microsoft would have completely taken over Activision and we don't know what the direction of the game would be by then.

So, your whole bullshit argument that Dark Rangers do not present any Banshee abilities just got flushed down the drain.
Now that we've settled that, we can agree that they can, and would, pull abilities from Sylvanas.

Could. Not would. Blizzard has already established existing classes being able to draw the same themes from Sylvanas, including having Black Arrow that summoned undead minions.

Tinkers are definitely being expanded upon. I expect it to pay off someday.

So is that 16.0 and beyond?

I meant that unlike the Necromancer, for example, Dark Rangers do not tread upon Death Knight themes.

Sure they do. That's the whole reason why they were omitted from Shadowlands. Because they literally tread the Death Knight themes.

[username993720]

Dragon powers.

And what are Alextrasza's powers?
You pretty much answered yourself.

What's the difference?

The difference is that it has nothing to do with current story. But, we see bits and pieces of the development of some concepts that might soldify into a new class.

You think we're gonna get an underwater expansion after the mess that was Vashj'r? That's the whole reason Nazjatar wasn't an underwater zone. We literally already have Zin Azshari in the game.

No. The realistic expectation was that we're not going to see it. Yet, then came BfA which pretty much retconned it, with only Nazmir being flooded at some areas.

Yeah and we also have entire novel trilogy of the War of the Ancients. It doesn't mean we're gonna get an expansion out of it, does it?

I'm not talking old books. I'm talking about Chronicles, which was meant to set things straight in terms of lore and was seeded with all kinds of hints, like the Zul'dazar artwork.

Ion Hazzikostas is the Game Director, who isn't giving you a Dark Ranger and is giving you an Evoker.

There wasn't supposed to be one. I don't need to explain it every single time.

Refresh my memory, please. Is Ion part of the old group of devs? Because we might have some hope. Because i don't trust the new generation. Though, he is responsible for all of the borrowed power system fiasco.

If you say so. I mean, if loyalties mean shit then there's no reason why we even have to talk about Sylvanas to have Dark Rangers playable. We already have them in the story through Calia Menethil.

As long as the gameplay is based on her character, whoopi fucking doo.

Hard disagree. They're ultimately different concepts because Dracthyr are not servants of Dragonflights nor mortals blessed with Draconic powers. The concept of a Dragonsworn hinges on transferring Draconic power from a Dragon to a Mortal, or a Mortal capable of wielding Draconic power. It is not a power born within an individual.

The only way it could be considered an evolution of Dragonsworn is if the Evoker ends up being playable by other races, with new lore to support that possibility.

Dragon powers nonetheless.
The method of wielding it is just different.

What setting and story would 13.0+ be in order to make sense of a playable DR class? Why wait that long even? We're talking at least another 6+ years at that point. Is it even worth discussing something so far in the future? Like I said, by then Microsoft would have completely taken over Activision and we don't know what the direction of the game would be by then.

Karazhan, Electric Boogalooo.

Right now, the only thing i can think of is an elven centric expnasion like my old Kalimdor concept.

Could. Not would. Blizzard has already established existing classes being able to draw the same themes from Sylvanas, including having Black Arrow that summoned undead minions.

Blizzard also did it with the Demon Hunter and the Warlock.
Black Arrow didn't last, did it? And it would probably no longer summon and Undead.
You know, you're so hanged up on an equippable item that might go away soon. Not to mention the themes being found in the Rogue as well, yet you won't call the Rogue a Dark Ranger.

So is that 16.0 and beyond?

When we're old and shriveled.
Probably a Kezan expansion. Or a Titan one. Who knows.

Sure they do. That's the whole reason why they were omitted from Shadowlands. Because they literally tread the Death Knight themes.

*facepalm*

They were omitted because the Evoker was being developed. How can you not see that?

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Syl...ics)#Abilities
Does this remind of a Death Knight?

[Triceron]

And what are Alextrasza's powers?
You pretty much answered yourself.

So do Evokers. And we are clear that Alexstrasza is neither a Dragonsworn or Evoker, right?

The difference is that it has nothing to do with current story. But, we see bits and pieces of the development of some concepts that might soldify into a new class.

Yet as Blizzard indicated themselves, the class itself is informed by setting and story.

I wouldn't amuse the idea of Blizzard adding Dark Rangers or Tinkers in Dragonflight just because they have their class concepts readily available.

We got Evokers because they are thematic to Dragonflight.

No. The realistic expectation was that we're not going to see it. Yet, then came BfA which pretty much retconned it, with only Nazmir being flooded at some areas.

I'm not talking old books. I'm talking about Chronicles, which was meant to set things straight in terms of lore and was seeded with all kinds of hints, like the Zul'dazar artwork.

Your argument is all over the place. Kezan got damaged during Cataclysm as well and we saw that first hand with the Goblins evacuating. The expectation for Undermine and Kezan being revisited is as strong as ever.

Zandalar was absolutely expected. They were strong enough to appear in full force alongside Mogu in Mists of Pandaria, and we hadn't even seen the formal introduction of Rastakhan yet.

I'd say it would be a realistic expectation of not seeing Zandalar if Rastakhan and Prophet Zul made formal appearances outside of their realm and removed any further purpose from exploring it as an entire zone. Much like how the Emerald Nightmare parts of Legion pretty much diminished any future expectations of a full blown Emerald Dream expansion.

There wasn't supposed to be one. I don't need to explain it every single time.

Refresh my memory, please. Is Ion part of the old group of devs? Because we might have some hope. Because i don't trust the new generation. Though, he is responsible for all of the borrowed power system fiasco.

Ion was the lead raid encounter designer for many years before being promoted to Game Director. He prioritizes maintaining raid balance. He could be considered the one responsible for all the borrowed power for the last 2 expansions, and arguably, the one who finalizes decisions like having Covenants. Hard to tell if you would consider that being 'hope' for more classes in the future. I mean, he is responsible for no new class in 9.0.

The reason why Evokers are even playable today is likely part of the owning up they're doing from all blowback they got on Shadowlands. He officially came out to admit that they took the game in the wrong direction and are now trying to correct course. I can see the decision to add a new class being made to placate fans and build back hype for 10.0.

As long as the gameplay is based on her character, whoopi fucking doo.

Well that's sorta my point. Hunters already have access to her abilities and gameplay from Heroes of the Storm. All they would have to do is formalize a few abilities as either customizations or as permanent Hunter abilities, if they chose to do so. That is a possibility.

Dragon powers nonetheless.
The method of wielding it is just different.

Method of wielding is the difference between Shamans and Monks, Priests and Paladins and Demon Hunters and Warlocks.

I mean if we're just talking about Bow user that uses Dark powers, then Hunter with Sylvanas' bow and quiver already cover both aspects.

Karazhan, Electric Boogalooo.

Right now, the only thing i can think of is an elven centric expnasion like my old Kalimdor concept.

What would Dark Rangers have to do with old Kalimdor?

Blizzard also did it with the Demon Hunter and the Warlock.
Black Arrow didn't last, did it? And it would probably no longer summon and Undead.
You know, you're so hanged up on an equippable item that might go away soon. Not to mention the themes being found in the Rogue as well, yet you won't call the Rogue a Dark Ranger.

IMO, it didn't last because they were positioning to make Dark Ranger a playable class. And for whatever reasons, they ultimately cut those plans, so Black Arrow remains absent because of those original plans to make room for a standalone Dark Ranger class.

And as for Rogues, there's no reason for me to assume them to be Dark Rangers since Blizzard hasn't actually tied them to being Dark Rangers in the lore; but I could see them being a multi-class title if Blizzard was inclined to do so.

Like the 9.2.5 Velonara datamine quest specifically refers to Huntsmaster, not any other class. If it also referred specifically to Rogues, then I'd draw that connection too.

Just based on weapons though? Alone, it isn't enough to draw a comparison. My argument is the full package here.

When we're old and shriveled.
Probably a Kezan expansion. Or a Titan one. Who knows.

Kezan could be featured as early as 12.0. I don't see any reason for them saving it for an expansion 12 years down the line.

*facepalm*

They were omitted because the Evoker was being developed. How can you not see that?

You don't actually know that is the reason though. We have an Evoker class and we don't have a Dark Ranger class. We don't actually know the reasons why one was chosen over the other.

'Because Evoker was being developed' is not something that either of us can see, only something we can baselessly assume through correlation. We have no inside knowledge to any of the actual reasons why Evoker is a new class and why Dark Ranger is not.

For example: Let's swap your argument with Demon Hunters and Death Knights.

"Demon Hunters in TBC were omitted because Death Knights were being developed. How can you not see that?"

Would you agree with the above statement? I wouldn't, at all.

Expansion story and setting come first, then they see what features fit into the story and setting. It doesn't work the other way around where they are actively developing a certain class years ahead of time, before they even figured out the next expansion. We know that their own plans for story and setting shift in concept, like their explanations of the Mongrel Horde and an Azeroth-based 6.0 expansion instead of what eventually became WoD.

[OMGTwitchTV]

[SIZE=4][B][COLOR="#B22222"]DARK RANGER CUSTOMIZATION AND GEAR THAT WE WANT IS ALREADY IN GAME!!

2:1 not in favor. That's probably why. Want for Pandaren Monks was far greater, lik mor than 90% interest. 33% of this tiny sample size is not enough to encourage $100k worth of man hours and production.

[cocomen2]

Want for Pandaren Monks was far greater, lik mor than 90% interest. .

This is how Mechagnomes killed me, dying from laugh. 90% out of these 100 furry people?

[OMGTwitchTV]

This is how Mechagnomes killed me, dying from laugh. 90% out of these 100 furry people?

Not sure what you were going for here. We technically already have the equivalent of a Dark Ranger. Void Elf + Rogue or Hunter class. You might want to work on your insults/humor. It's not particularly clever when you are the only one who gets the joke.

But hey, put it on the main forum in 10 years. You might get your wish.