The apparent formula for new classes in WoW

[Teriz]

You're the one who made the first claim that Chen was popular prior to MoP because he appears in other media, implying the average WoW player bothers to buy books, comics, TTRPG, CCG, etc.

So you have no evidence to back up your claim that the average WoW player doesn’t consume other forms of WC gaming or media, gotcha.

.. Do you even read what you're writing? The Explorer's League existed in WoW since vanilla times. Hell, they were shown prominently in WotLK, six years before Hearthstone even launched! Thank you for proving my point, here.

I’m talking about the characters Reno Jackson, Sir Finley Mrrglton, and the other characters who first appeared in Hearthstone, got hugely popular and now appear in WoW.

And as many people already pointed out to you: the Burning Legion could have made landfall in Azeroth on any continent, old or new, and that would still be a good fit for the demon hunter class.

Yet Blizzard chose the Broken Isles, probably because it contained the Tomb of Sageras, which made it prime for a demonic invasion location. Can you come up with another new landmass on Azeroth that has something on the level as the Tomb of Sageras that would have been an equally fitting location?

Necromancy is not just "raising the dead".

It’s the main ability that makes Necromancy what it is. Warlocks in WoW were never going to get that ability. Hence opening up design space for a dedicated necromancy class: Death Knights.

And all that is irrelevant

LoL! Sure it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Draconic-like, maybe. Dragon? No. Dracthyr are not dragons.

That's like saying dwarves, gnomes, night elves, blood elves, void elves, trolls, orcs, etc are all humans because "we consider a four-limbed bipedal creature that can speak to be humans".

Has Blizzard ever called any of those races human?

Because they called Dracthyr dragons on multiple occasions.

[Ielenia]

So you have no evidence to back up your claim that the average WoW player doesn’t consume other forms of WC gaming or media, gotcha.

Says the guy who brought forth zero evidence that Chen Stormstout, a character that was optional in the original Warcraft III bonus campaign, a character that did not physically exist in WoW until 2012, a character who was only mentioned four or five times in eight years of WoW, somehow was a "popular character" before the Mists of Pandaria was even announced.

I’m talking about the characters Reno Jackson, Sir Finley Mrrglton, and the other characters who first appeared in Hearthstone, got hugely popular and now appear in WoW.

You said "explorer's league", dude.

Yet Blizzard chose the Broken Isles, probably because it contained the Tomb of Sageras, which made it prime for a demonic invasion location.

That does changes nothing in the argument.

Can you come up with another new landmass on Azeroth that has something on the level as the Tomb of Sageras that would have been an equally fitting location?

Except your qualifier is meaningless because there's nothing saying that other landmass candidates have to be "on the same level as the Tomb of Sargeras". This is a qualifier that exists in your own head. The Burning Legion could have chosen Winterspring, and attacked Hyjal. They could have chosen the Badlands and taken that entire zone before we could do anything. Etc, etc.

It’s the main ability that makes Necromancy what it is. Warlocks in WoW were never going to get that ability. Hence opening up design space for a dedicated necromancy class: Death Knights.

In your opinion.

LoL! Sure it is.

Way to dishonestly cut out all the argument to respond to a single out-of-context tiny part of the whole.

Has Blizzard ever called any of those races human?

Because they called Dracthyr dragons on multiple occasions.

No, they said you could play 'as a dragon', and it was a PR speech. Because the same Blizzard also goes on excruciating detail later on to show and explain how the dracthyr are not dragons, instead being draconic hybrids.

[Teriz]

Says the guy who brought forth zero evidence that Chen Stormstout, a character that was optional in the original Warcraft III bonus campaign, a character that did not physically exist in WoW until 2012, a character who was only mentioned four or five times in eight years of WoW, somehow was a "popular character" before the Mists of Pandaria was even announced.

The evidence would be that he showed up throughout the WC franchise and in WC merchandise and eventually headlined an expansion.

Still waiting for your evidence.....

You said "explorer's league", dude.

I meant the League of Explorers.

That does changes nothing in the argument.

What?

Except your qualifier is meaningless because there's nothing saying that other landmass candidates have to be "on the same level as the Tomb of Sargeras". This is a qualifier that exists in your own head. The Burning Legion could have chosen Winterspring, and attacked Hyjal. They could have chosen the Badlands and taken that entire zone before we could do anything. Etc, etc.

None of those zones are new landmasses though, and none of those zones have something on the level of the Tomb of Sargeras.

So if you're trying to pick a new landmass on Azeroth for the Legion expansion that's going to host the invasion of the Burning Legion, please point out a better or even equal candidate to the Broken Isles.

In your opinion.

We have Death Knights for a reason.

Way to dishonestly cut out all the argument to respond to a single out-of-context tiny part of the whole.

I cut out the rest of the argument because you saying that my argument was "irrelevant" was dishonest.

No, they said you could play 'as a dragon'

Which means that Dracthyr are dragons according to Blizzard. You believing its "PR speak" is truly irrelevant.

[arkanon]

Also a prime example of this is the Explorer’s League gaining popularity in Hearthstone, and then being implemented into WoW.

Um..........what? Explorers league has been in wow since vanilla, what on earth are you talking about? THIS is your "prime example"?

[Teriz]

Um..........what? Explorers league has been in wow since vanilla, what on earth are you talking about? THIS is your "prime example"?

I meant the League of Explorers.

[Darsyek]

I meant the League of Explorers.

The Explorers' League and the League of Explorers are the same thing. League of Explorers is just what the Hearthstone set is called, but the set itself is about the Explorers' League.

In the announcement cinematic trailer, the lyriccs even say, "We are the Explorer's League, and we are in need of explorers! Adventure we seek, 'cross land and sea, won't you come and join us?"

[cocomen2]

[Teriz vs human logic ACT IV] more at 10:00

[Teriz]

The Explorers' League and the League of Explorers are the same thing. League of Explorers is just what the Hearthstone set is called, but the set itself is about the Explorers' League

And I was clearly talking about the characters introduced/created in Hearthstone, and brought over to WoW due to their popularity.

[Darsyek]

And I was clearly talking about the characters introduced/created in Hearthstone, and brought over to WoW due to their popularity.

Evidently you weren't "clearly talking", otherwise there would be no room for confusion. Your statement was, "a prime example of this is the Explorer’s League gaining popularity in Hearthstone, and then being implemented into WoW." If you were talking clearly about the characters and not the organization, you would've said, "a prime example of this is the Explorer's League characters gaining popularity." Your statement is easily taken in multiple ways, definitely nothing "clear" about it.

[Teriz]

Evidently you weren't "clearly talking", otherwise there would be no room for confusion. Your statement was, "a prime example of this is the Explorer’s League gaining popularity in Hearthstone, and then being implemented into WoW." If you were talking clearly about the characters and not the organization, you would've said, "a prime example of this is the Explorer's League characters gaining popularity." Your statement is easily taken in multiple ways, definitely nothing "clear" about it.

So you’re telling me that you were seriously confused when I specifically mentioned the “Explorer’s League” characters introduced in Hearthstone?

[Darsyek]

So you’re telling me that you were seriously confused when I specifically mentioned the “Explorer’s League” characters introduced in Hearthstone?

Your first mention of the Explorers' League had no mention of the characters introduced in Hearthstone. It wasn't until you were first confronted about it that you named specific characters that were introduced in Hearthstone while acting as if the person that pointed it out should've been able to read your mind that you "clearly" meant the characters while making literally no mention of them prior. My point is that you're evidently not talking as clearly as you think you are.

[Teriz]

Your first mention of the Explorers' League had no mention of the characters introduced in Hearthstone. It wasn't until you were first confronted about it that you named specific characters that were introduced in Hearthstone while acting as if the person that pointed it out should've been able to read your mind that you "clearly" meant the characters while making literally no mention of them prior. My point is that you're evidently not talking as clearly as you think you are.

And my point is that anyone can look up Explorer’s League and Hearthstone and know exactly what I’m talking about despite the typo.

But whatever. Back to the actual topic of discussion…..

[Darsyek]

And my point is that anyone can look up Explorer’s League and Hearthstone and know exactly what I’m talking about despite the typo.

Except that's clearly not true considering how many people have pointed out the inconsistency. If you look up Explorers' League, you get a results that outline how the Explorers' League has existed since Vanilla. While it's true that searching League of Explorers gives you results related to Hearthstone (which is the reason behind why the Hearthstone set was named that instead of just being Explorers' League, fun fact), it still lacked the context from you that you were referring to the characters before the clarification. You can't get ticked off by people not understanding your full context while also not providing full context.

[Teriz]

Except that's clearly not true considering how many people have pointed out the inconsistency. If you look up Explorers' League, you get a results that outline how the Explorers' League has existed since Vanilla. While it's true that searching League of Explorers gives you results related to Hearthstone (which is the reason behind why the Hearthstone set was named that instead of just being Explorers' League, fun fact), it still lacked the context from you that you were referring to the characters before the clarification. You can't get ticked off by people not understanding your full context while also not providing full context.

Except I mentioned Hearthstone in the original post;

Also a prime example of this is the Explorer’s League gaining popularity in Hearthstone, and then being implemented into WoW.

Type in "Explorer's League Hearthstone" in Google and the first thing that pops up is this;

https://hearthstone.fandom.com/wiki/...e_of_Explorers

The second thing that pops up is this;

https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/ex...-of-explorers/

If you're confused by that, I can't help you.

[arkanon]

Except I mentioned Hearthstone in the original post;




Type in "Explorer's League Hearthstone" in Google and the first thing that pops up is this;

https://hearthstone.fandom.com/wiki/...e_of_Explorers

The second thing that pops up is this;

https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/ex...-of-explorers/

If you're confused by that, I can't help you.

Why would you type that into google though? I typed Explorers League into google and it took me to the warcraft wiki and everything was talking about their introduction in vanilla wow. You messed up, just take it on the chin and move on.

[Gumble]

Teriz are you still spending this amount of time defending the new class against people that don't like it? I get it man, you are all in and hoping to make this new class your thing, but given the amount of time and effort you spent on making a fully fleshed out dragon class (and while we had disagreements on how to do it, you certainly put forth the effort), I would think you truly do understand why people don't find this draconic, or dragon-esqe, or lizardmen, or DRAGON class to be their cup of tea.

Instead of making something with broad appeal, they made a nitch class that will only appeal to a small group of people. You have jumped on the bandwagon whole-hog, and good for you, but pretending to not understand people's issues with it...... dude..... please.


Hopefully they will itterate on it and make it a reasonable looking/playing class that a subsection of the playerbase will like. I likely won't even make one that goes beyond level 10 at this point, but I hope people enjoy it.

But to be already so diehard for a class you haven't played yet that does go against alot of the stuff you proposed for a class like this..... be a little less crazy about it. Obviously its not a class for everyone. Be happy if you're happy about it and move on.

There are bigger issues afoot.... like the fact that the talent trees suck.

[Teriz]

Why would you type that into google though? I typed Explorers League into google and it took me to the warcraft wiki and everything was talking about their introduction in vanilla wow.

Again, in the original post, I mentioned hearthstone. Why wouldn't you include "Hearthstone" in the search?

Oh yeah, because you're trying to be obtuse.

You messed up, just take it on the chin and move on.

Uh, I said it was typo several posts ago. My issue here are people who are pretending that they had NO idea that I was talking about the characters from Hearthstone, when that was clearly whom I was talking about.

I'm not the one who needs to move on here.

- - - Updated - - -

Teriz are you still spending this amount of time defending the new class against people that don't like it?

Uh, nope. That isn't the point of this discussion.

[Ielenia]

The evidence would be that he showed up throughout the WC franchise and in WC merchandise and eventually headlined an expansion.

None of that shows the character is popular. Again, Teriz: go learn the meaning of the word "popular".

What?

We don't know why Blizzard chose the Broken Isles. You're being dishonest by asserting as fact that it was because of the Tomb of Sargeras.

None of those zones are new landmasses though,

So what? Nothing says that the demon would have to invade on a new landmass. They could have easily re-used the Dark Portal as their invasion point, then spread out to other landmasses, both old and new.

and none of those zones have something on the level of the Tomb of Sargeras.

Which is irrelevant since you didn't provide a single piece of evidence that any landmass, old or new, "has to be on the same level as the tomb of Sargeras". See? You love to demand evidence, but here you are, failing to provide your own.

We have Death Knights for a reason.

And the reason is: because Blizzard decided to add the death knight as a playable class. To claim any other reason is to be dishonest.

I cut out the rest of the argument

Because you can't argue against what I wrote. See how it feels?

because you saying that my argument was "irrelevant" was dishonest.

I didn't just "say" it was irrelevant. I explained it.

Which means that Dracthyr are dragons according to Blizzard. You believing its "PR speak" is truly irrelevant.

Except it's not according to Blizzard. According to Blizzard, they're hybrids. And hybrids are not the same thing as one of their constituents by the very definition of the word "hybrid".
• Concrete is not the same thing as sand.
• Purple is not the same thing as red.
• Steel is not the same thing as carbon.
• Water is not the same thing as oxygen.
• Cake is not the same thing as flour.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, in the original post, I mentioned hearthstone. Why wouldn't you include "Hearthstone" in the search?

Dude, you're just stuffing your head deeper and deeper into the concrete. Sorry, the sand. You believe both are the same, amirite?

Your original post heavily implies, unambiguously, that the Explorer's League was first introduced in Hearthstone and then later added into WoW. You said absolutely nothing about specific characters.

And now that you've been called out on it, by multiple people, no less, you refuse to own up to your mistake.

[Teriz]

None of that shows the character is popular. Again, Teriz: go learn the meaning of the word "popular".

Why would Blizzard choose an unpopular character to headline their expansion?

And yeah, you have no evidence to support your claim that the average WoW player doesn't consume non-WoW WC media. Not surprising.

We don't know why Blizzard chose the Broken Isles. You're being dishonest by asserting as fact that it was because of the Tomb of Sargeras.

New Landmass with tons of history in WC
Tomb of Sargeras
Past lore with Illidan, Gul'dan, and Maiev
Ancient Night Elf connections

It's not that hard to figure out.

So what? Nothing says that the demon would have to invade on a new landmass. They could have easily re-used the Dark Portal as their invasion point, then spread out to other landmasses, both old and new.

Every WoW expansion utilized new landmasses to tell its story.

Which is irrelevant since you didn't provide a single piece of evidence that any landmass, old or new, "has to be on the same level as the tomb of Sargeras". See? You love to demand evidence, but here you are, failing to provide your own.

Again, EVERY WoW expansion has utilized new landmasses.

And the reason is: because Blizzard decided to add the death knight as a playable class. To claim any other reason is to be dishonest.

The other reason being that they needed a necromancer class to fit in the necromancer/undead expansion (WotLK)

Except it's not according to Blizzard. According to Blizzard, they're hybrids. And hybrids are not the same thing as one of their constituents by the very definition of the word "hybrid".
• Concrete is not the same thing as sand.
• Purple is not the same thing as red.
• Steel is not the same thing as carbon.
• Water is not the same thing as oxygen.
• Cake is not the same thing as flour.

Where has Blizzard ever said that a hybrid can't also be a dragon?

[DatToffer]

It's good that you put the emphasis on "apparent".

Because we've tried to see patterns and formula in Blizzard releases and designs. It fails most of the time.