Official High Elf Discussion Megathread

[Strippling]

Given I never claimed High Elves are a core alliance race, I don't get what you are getting at.

This thread is entitled "Official High Elf Discussion Megathread"..... I've bolded the word High Elf in case you missed it. Hence, the direction of my posts and everyone elses....

[Darththeo]

This thread is entitled "Official High Elf Discussion Megathread"..... I've bolded the word High Elf in case you missed it. Hence, the direction of my posts and everyone elses....

Yes, but I never made that claim so asking me to defend it is pointless. I do not consider High Elves nor Blood Elves core to there faction. I was replying to a person who made the claim that Blood Elves are a core Horde race.

[Strippling]

Yes, but I never made that claim so asking me to defend it is pointless. I do not consider High Elves nor Blood Elves core to there faction. I was replying to a person who made the claim that Blood Elves are a core Horde race.

I never asked you to defend your claim... I asked you what your claim was (ie define core race)??? because you were happy to state that Obelisk's definition was wrong but yet failed to offer the so called correct definition.

[Obelisk Kai]

They gave that exact same response ("No plans right now") when asked about Demon Hunters, just FYI.

Yes but they didn't precede that with a list of reasons explaining why it wasn't going to happen, or state that 'if you want a fast moving, dual wielding melee class, monks are there for you'.

[Darththeo]

I never asked you to defend your claim... I asked you what your claim was (ie define core race)??? because you were happy to state that Obelisk's definition was wrong but yet failed to offer the so called correct definition.

Because I am not offering a definition of core, I am merely stating the one used is useless because it is redundant (it means the same as playable) and irrelevant (because the sole reason to use it is to make it sound like Blood Elves are more important).

To me, the "core" races in WoW, if such a term should be used are the original eight races. So for Horde, that is Orc, Troll, Tauren and Forsaken.

[Obelisk Kai]

Again, I reject your definition of core because that is equivalent to "most played" and I don't view those as the same thing. And you basically are saying, you get personal bias, but I don't. Your bias is "Most played" is core. And just because they are playable doesn't make the core. That's a pretty weak definition of core, and on top of being weak is 100% useless. You are saying core to strengthen your argument when simply stating it is a playable race says all the same thing you are doing by calling them core. By calling them core, you make it seem they are 100% Horde only ... they aren't, only the playable version is and lore states they will do whatever is best for them. The Blood Elves would leave the Horde if it no longer suited their needs.

It's not an assertion ... it's a fact. You seem to struggle with facts. You accept only those that agree with you and reject all those that disagree. You have stated NO argument will ever sway you, so I ask what reason to you have for even posting here? You are just here to tell people they are wrong without evidence of them being wrong. This isn't an assertion, it's evidence by your posts.

The Blood Elves are a core Horde race. That they are a playable option for the Horde is reason enough to make this assertion. Almost all playable choices are core to their respective factions. The only playable race that I would not consider 'core' are the Pandaren, due to their neutrality and the low numbers of Pandaren relative to their overall population who commit to the Alliance and the Horde.

The argument against the Blood Elves not being core is rooted in two lines of thought. The first, call it the Old Horde point of view, is that the Horde should really consist of just Orcs, Trolls and Taurens. This point of view hasn't tolerated any addition to the Horde with the exception of Highmountain Tauren. They've not tolerated the Forsaken, they've not tolerated the Blood Elves, they've not tolerated the Goblins and they certainly haven't tolerated the Nightborne.

Any group that isn't tribal or living in primitive buildings does not belong in this conception of the Horde. As a result, anything not Orc, Troll or Tauren is labelled as non-core.

This point of view is ridiculous. Firstly because it is boring, a Horde consisting of those three races would be bland, mono-cultural and not a believable competitor for the Alliance.

Secondly, because it denies what the Horde actually became under Thrall, a haven for the outcast and despised races of Azeroth to band together, pool their strength and fight for their survival. Forsaken match this criteria. Blood Elves match this criteria. Goblins match this criteria. The reason the Horde today and the Alliance is seen as a mono-cultural and mono-thematic monolith is precisely because the Horde doesn't compel it's members to adhere to a singular vision of what the Horde should be.

The Horde has tribal races, these reflect very keenly what the Horde began as. But they do not represent a more valid part of the Horde than the groups who joined after. The different themes embodied by the different races that comprise the Horde are not some litmus test where the more apparently primitive you are, the more 'core' you are to the Horde. Defining your importance to the Horde on thematic grounds, and then saying these races are core because they better match the theme, completely misses the point of what the Horde is.

The Horde is a loose coalition of sovereign states bound together for mutual survival in a world that collectively hates their guts. Their differences define them, they argue with each other, there are passionate clashes over goals and tactics and on occasion the whole thing seems close to falling apart...but it doesn't. That is what it means to be a core race of the Horde, to throw your lot in with other beings who are staggeringly different from yourself but to find a commonality of purpose in serving the Horde.

The second line of thought is the pro High Elf point of view. As Blood Elves are High Elves, proving Blood Elves aren't a core Horde race leads to the obvious next question, where would they be a core race? Why within the Alliance of course. So attempting to de-legitimise the Blood Elves as a core Horde race is a transparent attempt at making Alliance High Elves seem logical and the case for them unanswerable. A transparent attempt doomed to failure.

[Darththeo]

The Blood Elves are a core Horde race. That they are a playable option for the Horde is reason enough to make this assertion. Almost all playable choices are core to their respective factions. The only playable race that I would not consider 'core' are the Pandaren, due to their neutrality and the low numbers of Pandaren relative to their overall population who commit to the Alliance and the Horde.

The argument against the Blood Elves not being core is rooted in two lines of thought. The first, call it the Old Horde point of view, is that the Horde should really consist of just Orcs, Trolls and Taurens. This point of view hasn't tolerated any addition to the Horde with the exception of Highmountain Tauren. They've not tolerated the Forsaken, they've not tolerated the Blood Elves, they've not tolerated the Goblins and they certainly haven't tolerated the Nightborne.

Any group that isn't tribal or living in primitive buildings does not belong in this conception of the Horde. As a result, anything not Orc, Troll or Tauren is labelled as non-core.

This point of view is ridiculous. Firstly because it is boring, a Horde consisting of those three races would be bland, mono-cultural and not a believable competitor for the Alliance.

Secondly, because it denies what the Horde actually became under Thrall, a haven for the outcast and despised races of Azeroth to band together, pool their strength and fight for their survival. Forsaken match this criteria. Blood Elves match this criteria. Goblins match this criteria. The reason the Horde today and the Alliance is seen as a mono-cultural and mono-thematic monolith is precisely because the Horde doesn't compel it's members to adhere to a singular vision of what the Horde should be.

The Horde has tribal races, these reflect very keenly what the Horde began as. But they do not represent a more valid part of the Horde than the groups who joined after. The different themes embodied by the different races that comprise the Horde are not some litmus test where the more apparently primitive you are, the more 'core' you are to the Horde. Defining your importance to the Horde on thematic grounds, and then saying these races are core because they better match the theme, completely misses the point of what the Horde is.

The Horde is a loose coalition of sovereign states bound together for mutual survival in a world that collectively hates their guts. Their differences define them, they argue with each other, there are passionate clashes over goals and tactics and on occasion the whole thing seems close to falling apart...but it doesn't. That is what it means to be a core race of the Horde, to throw your lot in with other beings who are staggeringly different from yourself but to find a commonality of purpose in serving the Horde.

The second line of thought is the pro High Elf point of view. As Blood Elves are High Elves, proving Blood Elves aren't a core Horde race leads to the obvious next question, where would they be a core race? Why within the Alliance of course. So attempting to de-legitimise the Blood Elves as a core Horde race is a transparent attempt at making Alliance High Elves seem logical and the case for them unanswerable. A transparent attempt doomed to failure.

*yawns* Do you just like hearing yourself talk? This is 100% pure grade A nonsense argument that has nothing to do with what I said. I feel like I wasted my time reading it. It boils down to then "Playable minus Pandaren because they are neutral!" That doesn't make sense along with the rest, you seem to only include that to avoid the problem of core being redundant with playable rather than anything else because Pandaren would still fit with the rest of your stance on core, it appears to rejected them solely it a bad attempt to avoid the redundancy of the term.

Also, no, even if Blood Elves weren't core to the Horde, it doesn't make them core to the Alliance. That just doesn't even make sense. A race doesn't need to be core ... that entire argument is flawed that a race has to be "core" somewhere. That's like me saying that the Ford Taurus isn't a best selling care in my area ... so the next question is where would they be? It doesn't make sense because there doesn't need to be a place where that is true. Blood/High Elves could be non-core everywhere.

[Ielenia]

Yes but they didn't precede that with a list of reasons explaining why it wasn't going to happen, or state that 'if you want a fast moving, dual wielding melee class, monks are there for you'.

Except Ion (I think that's the guy who said that) wasn't the guy in charge back them. Zarhym was the community manager who said that. Different people communicate the same thing differently. On top of that, don't you think they're under some kind of contractual obligation to not disclose what they're currently working on, under wraps? It'd be like saying, during Wrath or early Cataclysm: "You want to play as a pandaren? Why don't you wait an expansion or two, then?"

I mean, when you put things in perspective, back in vanilla, don't you think it'd be valid to say "if you want to play paladins, the Alliance is there for you"? Or "if you want to play shamans, the Horde is there for you"?

[Obelisk Kai]

*yawns* Do you just like hearing yourself talk? This is 100% pure grade A nonsense argument that has nothing to do with what I said. I feel like I wasted my time reading it. It boils down to then "Playable minus Pandaren because they are neutral!" That doesn't make sense along with the rest, you seem to only include that to avoid the problem of core being redundant with playable rather than anything else because Pandaren would still fit with the rest of your stance on core, it appears to rejected them solely it a bad attempt to avoid the redundancy of the term.

Also, no, even if Blood Elves weren't core to the Horde, it doesn't make them core to the Alliance. That just doesn't even make sense. A race doesn't need to be core ... that entire argument is flawed that a race has to be "core" somewhere. That's like me saying that the Ford Taurus isn't a best selling care in my area ... so the next question is where would they be? It doesn't make sense because there doesn't need to be a place where that is true. Blood/High Elves could be non-core everywhere.

You are arguing for playable High Elves without providing anything in the way of evidence beyond continually restating your subjective opinion and then complaining that nobody is listening to your 'facts'. Seems like a waste of time to me regardless so reading my responses shouldn't be too much of a change.

You don't accept that being playable is the mark of a core race. THAT is the ridiculous position, because playability is the obvious criteria. When you set off this mini argument over 'core' races by focusing on my use of the term, you moved swiftly to discount being playable as THE criteria for an obvious reason. It's the obvious answer.

Blood Elves are a core race because they are playable on the Horde and unique to the Horde. This differentiates the Blood Elves, and other playable and unique races from the non-core races. Like Hozen, who are part of the Horde but are not a core Horde race. Or Taunka. Or Stonemaul Ogres. Or Drogbar. Or on the Alliance the Jinyu or the Dryads or the Keepers of the Grove or the Broken Draenei.

The fact that they are playable means they represent a major part of the Horde, both narratively and in terms of perception by players in that if you see an Orc or a Troll or a Blood Elf you think, Horde.

That is what it means to be a core race of either faction.

Now if you deign to reply perhaps when you attempt to refute my argument you could provide your own criteria for a core race as others have asked?

- - - Updated - - -

Except Ion (I think that's the guy who said that) wasn't the guy in charge back them. Zarhym was the community manager who said that. Different people communicate the same thing differently. On top of that, don't you think they're under some kind of contractual obligation to not disclose what they're currently working on, under wraps? It'd be like saying, during Wrath or early Cataclysm: "You want to play as a pandaren? Why don't you wait an expansion or two, then?"

I mean, when you put things in perspective, back in vanilla, don't you think it'd be valid to say "if you want to play paladins, the Alliance is there for you"? Or "if you want to play shamans, the Horde is there for you"?

If the source of the Demon Hunter 'no plans' comment was Zarhym, then there is no equivalence between him and Ion.

I found the quote once you provided the source.

https://twitter.com/cm_zarhym/status/420667313461792768

"There are no plans to share at this time about the possibility of a Demon Hunter class in WoW."

Firstly, Zarhym was a community manager, not a developer. Community managers are not in a position to really comment on developer matters and only know what the development team deigns to tell him.

He posted this in early Jan 2014 when WOD was in full development.

He probably asked and was told 'no plans to share'.

That is open to a lot of speculation. Maybe they hadn't moved onto the bones of Legion yet and hadn't decided to add the Demon Hunter at that point.

Maybe they HAD decided to do a Demon Hunter but literally told Zarhym there were no plans to share. In that there were plans, but they weren't going to talk about it yet.

However you slice it, a Community Manager cannot give you the full picture due to their limited insight into what the development is doing. CMs are not developers, which the Pro High Elf community should bear in mind for the future given that when the CMs attempted to moderate the incessant spam on the official forums on this topic the pro High Elf community thought that this meant they were being listened to and that it was a big step forward in pursuit of their goals. CMs are just CMs. They manage communities and forward feedback. But they are NOT developers.

Ion is not a Community Manager. Ion is the Game Director. Unlike Zarhym, who was outside the development team, Ion is at the apex. Ion said no plans for High Elves, but he preceded that with a list of reasons as to why they aren't happening. The primary reason is that they already happened and are a part of the Horde. The secondary reason is that they granted a variant in the form of Void Elves to the Alliance.


As for your vanilla example, the situation between Paladins and Shamans was unique. All the other classes in the game were shared between both factions, Paladins and Shamans were the outliers and this had begun to have a negative impact on each as they had to be balanced against each other. This was a moment when gameplay issues outweighed any other considerations and the decision was taken to correct what was, frankly, a mistake from the alpha of having two faction unique classes.

High Elves for the Alliance are a question of faction integrity and not of gameplay. The two examples are therefore incompatible.

[Ielenia]

If the source of the Demon Hunter 'no plans' comment was Zarhym, then there is no equivalence between him and Ion.

You're missing the point entirely. You wrote a lot of words but not even once you approached the main point of my post: it doesn't matter if you're a community manager or a lead developer or a game director: you're contractually obligated to not disclose plans for the future expansions or future content.

It'd be like Zarhym, back in 2014, instead of saying "no plans", he said "just wait a couple more years". They cannot reveal details of what they're working on all willy-nilly like that.

He posted this in early Jan 2014 when WOD was in full development.

Blizzard already went on record saying that, while developing a new expansion, they're also already working on conceptualizing the next expansion as well.

[FlubberPuddy]

This was a moment when gameplay issues outweighed any other considerations and the decision was taken to correct what was, frankly, a mistake from the alpha of having two faction unique classes.

High Elves for the Alliance are a question of faction integrity and not of gameplay. The two examples are therefore incompatible.

Just like it's a gameplay issue that many high tier M+ players rolled BEs for Arcane Torrent then what happened? Oh they nerfed that

Just like it was a gameplay issue that Blood Elves were added to Horde due to huge population imbalances then what happened? Oh they're making Orcs and Trolls more appealing in BfA

"No plans for right now" when talking about High Elves makes sense since they'd be clashing with Void Elves being just released, and let's be honest they would overshadow Void Elves in a heartbeat.

This is similar to the question posed about DHs during WoD asking for if it'd be a future class, obviously they were planning on Legion expansion already since they've continually said they have 2 expansions happening in the pipeline ahead of time. Why would a CM, let alone any actual developer, reveal such a major feature for an expansion ahead of its release?

The fact that Wowhead and Red Shirt Guy both have issues with Ion's statements shows how easy and hypocritical they were. Doesn't even take being lore-knowledgeable to know, just look at the thread I linked earlier as well - people who don't care either way are also saying the way Ion handled it was bad.

And the whole diatribe about what a CM is vs what a Dev is wholly unnecessary. Everyone knows CMs aren't going to say anything that isn't approved nor can be shared, but the example was obviously meant to tack it up there with "we've heard them say no plans before, and then later on that very thing gets added."

But I guess if one is trying to stamp out hope for others then they need to attack every little comment that shows support for what they're against.

- - - Updated - - -

You're missing the point entirely. You wrote a lot of words but not even once you approached the main point of my post: it doesn't matter if you're a community manager or a lead developer or a game director: you're contractually obligated to not disclose plans for the future expansions or future content.

It'd be like Zarhym, back in 2014, instead of saying "no plans", he said "just wait a couple more years". They cannot reveal details of what they're working on all willy-nilly like that.

Blizzard already went on record saying that, while developing a new expansion, they're also already working on conceptualizing the next expansion as well.

LOL you said what I said in fewer words! Thank you good to know I was understanding you correctly!

[Evilfish]

I mean, when you put things in perspective, back in vanilla, don't you think it'd be valid to say "if you want to play paladins, the Alliance is there for you"? Or "if you want to play shamans, the Horde is there for you"?

Fair point actually. But there's a difference. We are talking about mechanics and overall, balance. This high elf shit is not about that, it's about a puerile tantrum of a vocal minority that cannot deal with and/or comprehend the meaning of "NO".

[Obelisk Kai]

You're missing the point entirely. You wrote a lot of words but not even once you approached the main point of my post: it doesn't matter if you're a community manager or a lead developer or a game director: you're contractually obligated to not disclose plans for the future expansions or future content.

It'd be like Zarhym, back in 2014, instead of saying "no plans", he said "just wait a couple more years". They cannot reveal details of what they're working on all willy-nilly like that.

And?

You are still trying to draw an equivalence between what Zarhym said and what Ion said. After all, the basic thrust of your argument is as follows.

'In 2014 Zarhym said 'There are no plans to share at this time about the possibility of a Demon Hunter class in WoW'. In 2018 Ion said 'Anything is possible in the future, no plans in the near term'. So if Zarhym said that, and Demon Hunters were a thing less than two years later, then Ion saying what he said doesn't preclude High Elves'.

You are relying upon the idea that Zarhym and Ion are contractually obligated NOT to reveal future plans for development and they probably are. But if that were true, all Zarhym had to do to obey that stricture was NOT answer the person posing the question.

Yet he did. And I reckon he answered it to the best of his knowledge, that there were no plans to share. And he was right, he almost certainly knew of no plans to share because he was a community manager. Talking about plans that don't exist can hardly be construed as spilling the beans on development secrets. I mean, the fact Blizzard almost certainly had a plan for Demon Hunters at this point shows that Zarhym was either lying or ignorant and given his position, ignorant is the most likely answer.

They don't develop games, they manage the community. That's their job. And to draw an equivalence between a community manager and the game director is another false hope. Zarhym as likely answering to the best of his knowledge, and as his knowledge was that there were no plans he wasn't betraying any confidences or trade secrets.

When Ion answered, he did so in his capacity as the game's chief developer. That makes him FAR more authoritative on this topic than Zarhym was on the topic of Demon Hunters. As the game director, Ion is incapable of being ignorant of what is planned at the moment for the future. He is the one planning it. And going on for a whole solid minute about why High Elves aren't going to be a thing BEFORE he ended with 'Anything is possible in the future' suggests to me, and I believe to the majority of people watching, that High Elves aren't on their radar at all.

If Zarhym had even approached a level of equivalence, he would have sent out five or six tweets saying Too many melee, too many leather classes, too many dual wielders, too many abilities in use by Warlocks...and THEN finished off with 'there are no plans'...

That didn't happen because Zarhym knew he wasn't in a position to say such things. He just said the bare minimum of what he knew 'no plans at this time'. Which I don't think breaks any contractual obligations whatsoever, because he was talking about nothing.

[Ielenia]

Fair point actually. But there's a difference. We are talking about mechanics and overall, balance. This high elf shit is not about that, it's about a puerile tantrum of a vocal minority that cannot deal with and/or comprehend the meaning of "NO".

Calling them "immature" does nothing to counter their arguments and only serves as an attempt to vilify them. Regardless, the issue is the same, "want to play as 'X', then come to the 'Y' faction."

There were those who just liked the concept of the paladin, the lore, and even looks of the paladin and their abilities, but didn't want to play Alliance. It wasn't really about mechanics and overall balance, since (when we consider how 'balanced' vanilla was) paladins and shamans were basically mirrors of one-another for each faction, minor some differences, like shamans having bloodlust, and paladins """being able to tank""".

[FlubberPuddy]

Zarhym as likely answering to the best of his knowledge, and as his knowledge was that there were no plans he wasn't betraying any confidences or trade secrets.

Everyone knows CMs aren't going to say anything that isn't approved nor can be shared, but the example was obviously meant to tack it up there with "we've heard them say no plans before, and then later on that very thing gets added."

Whoops I guess everyone doesn't know how CMs operate.

[Ielenia]

And?

Top notch argumentative skills, 10/10, would argue again.

You are still trying to draw an equivalence between what Zarhym said and what Ion said. After all, the basic thrust of your argument is as follows.

'In 2014 Zarhym said 'There are no plans to share at this time about the possibility of a Demon Hunter class in WoW'. In 2018 Ion said 'Anything is possible in the future, no plans in the near term'. So if Zarhym said that, and Demon Hunters were a thing less than two years later, then Ion saying what he said doesn't preclude High Elves'.

You are relying upon the idea that Zarhym and Ion are contractually obligated NOT to reveal future plans for development and they probably are. But if that were true, all Zarhym had to do to obey that stricture was NOT answer the person posing the question.

He didn't have to answer that question, at the same time Blizzard doesn't have to create a new Blizzcon every year, and doesn't have to create Q&A sessions. Just like Ion didn't have to answer that question about high elves.

The question would've keep coming up again, and again. Giving an answer like that, while technically true (as far as we know), would help dissuade may others from repeating that same question.

They don't develop games, they manage the community.

They're still beholden to the same obligation to not disclose details about what they're working on. If asked, they have to either not answer the question, or if they do, they should give vague answers.

When Ion answered, he did so in his capacity as the game's chief developer. That makes him FAR more authoritative on this topic than Zarhym was on the topic of Demon Hunters.

He's still just as contractually obligated as a community manager about disclosing what they're working on. Blizzard has never disclosed anything they were working on prior to the project's development being nearly complete, from community managers to game directors, from Burning Crusade to Legion. You haven't heard a single thing about draenei or pandaren until Burning Crusade was announced. Not even a whisper about death knights being playable before Wrath of the Lich King's announcement. Not even a single mention of worgen being playable before Cataclysm, etc.

[Obelisk Kai]

Top notch argumentative skills, 10/10, would argue again.


He didn't have to answer that question, at the same time Blizzard doesn't have to create a new Blizzcon every year, and doesn't have to create Q&A sessions. Just like Ion didn't have to answer that question about high elves.

The question would've keep coming up again, and again. Giving an answer like that, while technically true (as far as we know), would help dissuade may others from repeating that same question.


They're still beholden to the same obligation to not disclose details about what they're working on. If asked, they have to either not answer the question, or if they do, they should give vague answers.


He's still just as contractually obligated as a community manager about disclosing what they're working on. Blizzard has never disclosed anything they were working on prior to the project's development being nearly complete, from community managers to game directors, from Burning Crusade to Legion. You haven't heard a single thing about draenei or pandaren until Burning Crusade was announced. Not even a whisper about death knights being playable before Wrath of the Lich King's announcement. Not even a single mention of worgen being playable before Cataclysm, etc.

Just what point are you trying to make?

That ruling it out and listing the reasons why it is being ruled out is actually a sly hint that they are doing it because a couple of years ago an ex community manager on a different topic entirely said something similar that later turned out to be wrong?

Because that seems to me to be the point you are trying to make and it's not a very convincing one. It's grasping at straws.

[Ielenia]

Just what point are you trying to make?

I'm pleasantly surprised you finally deigned yourself to ask about my point. I did explain it more than once already, though.

That ruling it out and listing the reasons why it is being ruled out is actually a sly hint that they are doing it because a couple of years ago an ex community manager on a different topic entirely said something similar that later turned out to be wrong?

Because that seems to me to be the point you are trying to make and it's not a very convincing one. It's grasping at straws.

Thanks for explaining why you got things wrong. My point was: just because they're saying "if you want to play as a high elf, the Horde is there for you", it doesn't necessarily mean they'll never give high elves to the Alliance.

I'm not saying "they're saying they won't do it, that means they'll definitely do it!" Instead, I'm saying "they're saying 'no' now, but things can change in the future."

[Obelisk Kai]

I'm pleasantly surprised you finally deigned yourself to ask about my point. I did explain it more than once already, though.


Thanks for explaining why you got things wrong. My point was: just because they're saying "if you want to play as a high elf, the Horde is there for you", it doesn't necessarily mean they'll never give high elves to the Alliance.

I'm not saying "they're saying they won't do it, that means they'll definitely do it!" Instead, I'm saying "they're saying 'no' now, but things can change in the future."

That has always been the case.

But the example you used to make that point was terrible, quoting a community manager and trying to assign equivalence.

Zarhym answered as he did because he clearly didn't know, and he didn't know because that wasn't his job. He simply told the guy that there were no plans to share. And those plans hadn't been share with Zarhym.

Ion give a lengthy answer spelling out why High Elves weren't happening, and ended with a platitude that one day, maybe. As soon as High Elves are no longer pale or majestic. As soon as you reinvent the wheel in such a way that it isn't round.

Again, Zarhym was a COMMUNITY MANAGER. Ion is the GAME DIRECTOR. There is a big difference there.

In my company that would be judging what our CEO is saying because the Caretaker said something similar a while back.

But yes, ultimately you are right. Maybe one day they'll change their minds. I think it is almost certain they aren't going to based upon what has been said, not to mention the addition of Void Elves, but if grasping that one solitary straw is what is needed, go ahead and grab it.

[Ielenia]

That has always been the case.

But the example you used to make that point was terrible, quoting a community manager and trying to assign equivalence.

There is equivalence because both are employees of the same company, beholden to the same rules about secrecy toward current projects.

Zarhym answered as he did because he clearly didn't know, and he didn't know because that wasn't his job.

It doesn't work that way. If one doesn't know the answer, he needs to know the answer before giving it to the public, even if the answer is "don't share our secrets".

Again, Zarhym was a COMMUNITY MANAGER. Ion is the GAME DIRECTOR.

Again, irrelevant. Ion is just as shackled to the rules of the company as Zarhym was, at the time.

In my company that would be judging what our CEO is saying because the Caretaker said something similar a while back.

I wonder how successful (or unsuccessful) your company would be if the CEO was allowed to spew company secrets willy-nilly to anyone who asks.

Again, they're saying "not now", but that doesn't necessarily mean plans will never change as time passes.