Why Dark Ranger will be the next class added to World of Warcraft.

[DotEleven]

You make 0 sense and you piss me off. I rather not have further discussion with such a person because it will only lead to a ban at this point.

I make plenty of sense. I use the games logic itself.

BTW, I have 3 polls, one only got a few you're right, the others are 500 and 1000 people, which for a board like this is a pretty decent representation especially when considering that the polls are open to anyone. All of which come to similar results with Tinker being ahead of the next class by about twice as many votes.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, if you take the polls from this forums as representative of the community as a whole (which probably isnt) then Tinker has a better chance of becoming the next class, but we will never know for certain because blizzard would have to do a poll to the entire playerbase to know.

Im not sure what your point here is to be honest, why are you so adamant on dark ranger not becoming a class, if is it ever added, then just dont play it.

Polling the entire playerbase is an impossibility. That's why you use polls by polling a section of random people, then using that you extrapolate for the size of your population to get a general feel. This works especially well on the internet because you can have ANYONE in the poll, unlike real life where you end up polling a specific place.

It's not that I don't think Blizzard would ever make Dark Ranger a class, it's that why would they if they could fit it in hunter and moreso than that for people to just acknowledge the possibility and yes, that lorewise, they are Hunters.

Like, this is what has happened every time. A Dark Ranger thread gets created. I've stated my opinion that as a form of hunter it's more likely they'd be a hunter spec than a full blown class on it's own. These crazy people than start blasting me with their unfounded beliefs that Dark Rangers have absolutely nothing to do with hunters and would never in a thousand years be linked to that class.

[Dragtox]

even Delaryn Summermoon joins the horde this is lore and alliance dont seem likly to get dark ranger so it most be void ranger but that depends on lore
the night elf that did not join sylvanas was is wisp/spirit forms so they did not turn into dark ranger and dark warden just something to think abut
i know somon people dont like the point i am saying but this is just a lore problem but you can hope but wuld add in hope alliance get void ranger based on alleria windrunner to fill in the alliance version
then they make them use simlair attacks but visual different becus of faction but who knows if blizzard are thinking of doing class thing simlair to allied race that we get more in time but that really depends if they are willingly walking awey from 2-3 spec classes and do 1 spec classes then later expansion give them more spec

[Piamonte]

I make plenty of sense. I use the games logic itself.

BTW, I have 3 polls, one only got a few you're right, the others are 500 and 1000 people, which for a board like this is a pretty decent representation especially when considering that the polls are open to anyone. All of which come to similar results with Tinker being ahead of the next class by about twice as many votes.

- - - Updated - - -



Polling the entire playerbase is an impossibility. That's why you use polls by polling a section of random people, then using that you extrapolate for the size of your population to get a general feel. This works especially well on the internet because you can have ANYONE in the poll, unlike real life where you end up polling a specific place.

It's not that I don't think Blizzard would ever make Dark Ranger a class, it's that why would they if they could fit it in hunter and moreso than that for people to just acknowledge the possibility and yes, that lorewise, they are Hunters.

You are going on circles here, the people that want to play as a dark ranger, want to play it as a class, not as a spec for hunter, making it as a spec for hunter is pointless because it would force people to play hunter which is not what they want.

I seriusly dont get you, im starting to think that you main hunter and thats the reason you want dark Ranger to be a spec and not a class.

[DotEleven]

You are going on circles here, the people that want to play as a dark ranger, want to play it as a class, not as a spec for hunter, making it as a spec for hunter is pointless because it would force people to play hunter which is not what they want.

I seriusly dont get you, im starting to think that you main hunter and thats the reason you want dark Ranger to be a spec and not a class.

Oh, I main hunter. But I don't have any interest in being a Dark Ranger tbh.

Of course, that's also one reason why I can be non-biased and logical and see what these people for some reason refuse to. The people want a Dark Ranger. It would be no difference if the Hunter spec Dark Ranger played exactly as the "Class". Especially since Dark Ranger if it was a class would be in a similar situation as Demon Hunter in which they would have to find a way to stretch out their foundation into 2 specs to even get that. (A Dark Ranger's culmination is in use of necromantic powers and ranger training and people somehow want like one spec focusing on bows, one spec focusing on magic, and then you're just pushing a single aspect of the Dark Ranger).

But go back, once again, I've never ONCE said that Dark Ranger can't be a class, just that it's much more likely to be a spec due to how closely it's linked to hunter, the lore background it has in hunter, the fact they joined the Unseen Path, but people can't even acknowledge this possibility. That's all I'm trying to get people to do, acknowledge the possibility that Dark Ranger just might not have enough to it to be a class, especially when it's so closely tied to one already existing. To the point that people have quite successfully created "Dark Ranger" skins for Marksmanship.

Now, this does cause issues because we'd have 4 dps specs, but I mean, we'd be adding in more mail-wearing dps specs anyway with Dark Ranger as a class, so meh.

[Piamonte]

Oh, I main hunter. But I don't have any interest in being a Dark Ranger tbh.

Of course, that's also one reason why I can be non-biased and logical and see what these people for some reason refuse to. The people want a Dark Ranger. It would be no difference if the Hunter spec Dark Ranger played exactly as the "Class". Especially since Dark Ranger if it was a class would be in a similar situation as Demon Hunter in which they would have to find a way to stretch out their foundation into 2 specs to even get that. (A Dark Ranger's culmination is in use of necromantic powers and ranger training and people somehow want like one spec focusing on bows, one spec focusing on magic, and then you're just pushing a single aspect of the Dark Ranger).

But go back, once again, I've never ONCE said that Dark Ranger can't be a class, just that it's much more likely to be a spec due to how closely it's linked to hunter, the lore background it has in hunter, the fact they joined the Unseen Path, but people can't even acknowledge this possibility. That's all I'm trying to get people to do, acknowledge the possibility that Dark Ranger just might not have enough to it to be a class, especially when it's so closely tied to one already existing. To the point that people have quite successfully created "Dark Ranger" skins for Marksmanship.

You are just being selfish, you are totally biased.

[DotEleven]

You are just being selfish, you are totally biased.

I am not. I have no issue with Dark Ranger being in the game or not. I have no want to play it or not. I'm just using what the lore actual provides and seeing the avenue that would most likely be taken considering how closely related they are to something already existing in the game and the background they are provided with.

You believe otherwise and that they aren't interlinked with hunter then show me some proof. Because I've got lore stating they use ranger tactics. We've got 2 of the biggest names in Dark Rangers labeled as hunters and using hunter abilities. We've got the Dark Rangers themselves being members of the Hunter Class Order. Up until literally this last expansion we had Black Arrow ever since Dark Rangers were introduced to WoW in WotLK.

[Piamonte]

I am not. I have no issue with Dark Ranger being in the game or not. I have no want to play it or not. I'm just using what the lore actual provides and seeing the avenue that would most likely be taken considering how closely related they are to something already existing in the game and the background they are provided with.

You believe otherwise and that they aren't interlinked with hunter then show me some proof. Because I've got lore stating they use ranger tactics. We've got 2 of the biggest names in Dark Rangers labeled as hunters and using hunter abilities. We've got the Dark Rangers themselves being members of the Hunter Class Order. Up until literally this last expansion we had Black Arrow ever since Dark Rangers were introduced to WoW in WotLK.

I think you cant separate what you want from what is logical, i have another question, are you a teenager??

[DotEleven]

I think you cant separate what you want from what is logical, i have another question, are you a teenager??

No, I'm not. I can separate what I want from what is logical because I have no great want one way or another for Dark Rangers. That's why I can acknowledge that they COULD be implemented. The question is how and my belief is that they would MORE LIKELY be implemented as a Hunter Spec due to the reasons above.

No one ever brings anything to refute this because they can't and instead just shout "LUL Dark Rangers are nothing like Hunters".

[Triceron]

You are just being selfish, you are totally biased.

He just doesn't get that Hunters aren't gonna have a 4th spec called Dark Ranger. He's in too deep. If he were reasonable he wouldn't be making bold claims like Dark Ranger will never be a class and that it will be a 4th Hunter spec just waiting to happen.

4th specs aren't even being hinted at, ever. I keep telling him this and he put me on ignore, goes to show that he simply doesn't wanna hear it and continue in his little bubble.

[Salvager23]

Yes, if you take the polls from this forums as representative of the community as a whole (which probably isnt) then Tinker has a better chance of becoming the next class, but we will never know for certain because blizzard would have to do a poll to the entire playerbase for that.

Why would the polls here be skewed in favor of the Tinker, but be less biased elsewhere? From the post I've observed on this forum, the vocal crowd despises the idea of the Tinker class, yet when it comes to vote for the next class, the Tinker wins hands down.

[DotEleven]

He just doesn't get that Hunters aren't gonna have a 4th spec called Dark Ranger. He's in too deep. If he were reasonable he wouldn't be making bold claims like Dark Ranger will never be a class and that it will be a 4th Hunter spec just waiting to happen.

4th specs aren't even being hinted at, ever. I keep telling him this and he put me on ignore, goes to show that he simply doesn't wanna hear it and continue in his little bubble.

Please, I'd love to go back and quote a single time where I've said Dark Ranger will NEVER be a class. I've stated multiple times that I've said I believe they are MORE LIKELY if they were going to be implemented they would be a spec rather than a class.

But keep making that up.

[Piamonte]

The question is how and my belief is that they would MORE LIKELY be implemented as a Hunter Spec due to the reasons above.
.

This is an example of you not thinking in a rational way: as triceron just said, no one wants a 4 spec for hunter, the people that wants dark rangers in the game, wants a new class, with its own specs, its own lore and if it is a hero class, its own starting zone.

Also if you were able to think rationally, you would realize that you are probably biased because you main hunter.

[DotEleven]

This is why i think you cant think in a rational way, as triceron just said, no one wants a 4 spec for hunter, the people that wants dark rangers in the game, wants a new class, with its own specs, its own lore and if it is a hero class, its own starting class.

Also if you were able to think rationally, you would realize that you are probably biased because you main hunter.

So, because I have no want either way, I'm somehow the biased one, while the ones shouting that Dark Ranger has no link to Hunter have 0 bias?

I think you don't know what rational or bias means.

Like, here's the thing. If they add Dark Ranger or not, I don't have strong leanings either way. If it's added as a class, I'll play it simply because I play all classes. If it's not added, I won't mind. If they add it as a spec, I probably won't play it because it doesn't interest me as much as either Beast Mastery or Marksmanship. If they add it as a class skin, I probably won't use it over the normal Marksmanship skin because I don't find much interest in it.

So somehow despite all this I'm biased purely because I say it's MORE LIKELY to be implemented as a spec than a full blown class while citing the in game lore and background while others just shout out "Dark Ranger isn't a hunter."

[Piamonte]

So, because I have no want either way, I'm somehow the biased one, while the ones shouting that Dark Ranger has no link to Hunter have 0 bias?

I think you don't know what rational or bias means.

im going to give you an example of a rational inference: you main hunter, you say dark ranger fits better as a 4 spec for hunter, people argue with you and say you dont make any sense, the most logical inference is that simply you are biased.

[Triceron]

Please, I'd love to go back and quote a single time where I've said Dark Ranger will NEVER be a class. I've stated multiple times that I've said I believe they are MORE LIKELY if they were going to be implemented they would be a spec rather than a class.

Fair enough, you haven't stated that specifically. But statements like this:

It's not that I don't think Blizzard would ever make Dark Ranger a class, it's that why would they if they could fit it in hunter and moreso than that for people to just acknowledge the possibility and yes, that lorewise, they are Hunters.

Are akin to 'I'm not racist but _says something racist_'. Just because you say you don't think that Blizzard won't ever make it doesn't jive with your assertion that you think they are just Hunters. When anyone brings up the contrary, you always go back to this point, even though there is actually nothing in the lore that states they are Hunters.

All the lore in the game implies a close relationship. That being said, there is nothing in lore talking about Tinkers either, but we know they exist and that they can be more than just a name for 'Engineer'. That implication is not sustained by lore, nor is it implied. It is just an ambiguous situation that has no actual official lore behind it.

And Dark Rangers have never been officially stated as Hunters in the lore. Not once. Therefore there is no reason for you to treat it as official lore.

If it were official, we wouldn't need to discuss the matter. It's open and close. The point is - There isn't any lore about them being the same thing any more than there is any lore stating that Death Knights are officially the same as Necromancers etc.

People have used this same tired argument to try and discredit the Demon Hunter for being a Warlock, using the Green Fire questline as an example of 'Warlocks have Metamorphosis and learned from Illidan. They use Fel magic against Demons, and hunt them.
That's enough to make them Demon Hunters'. Lorewise, that is true, and there is a connection between what Warlocks do and what Demon Hunters are. But there is no lore that states that this is what a Demon Hunter actually is. And believe you me, it was nigh impossible to argue against someone with that mindset because they were already deep in their head-canon that Warlocks who learned metamorphosis based on observing Illidan were already considered Demon Hunters. The connection is inseparable after we were given lore hooks.

Yet the separation was always there because there was nothing to officially say 'They are Demon Hunters'. Just as nothing in lore says 'Dark Rangers are Hunters' or 'Tinkers are Engineers'. None of this is official, therefore we should treat it as that.

That means whatever you bring up saying 'They're just Hunters' is completely nonsense. No, you can't use that as an argument because it's not true at all.

[DotEleven]

im going to give you an example of a rational inference: you main hunter, you say dark ranger fits better as a 4 spec for hunter, people argue with you and say you dont make any sense, the most logical inference is that simply you are biased.

That isn't very logical when the people who argue I "don't make sense" don't bring up any logic themselves outside "Dark Rangers aren't hunters." While I cite and provide background based on the lore we have been given by Blizzard. What I am doing is called rational and logical. When you let your feelings persuade your assumptions because "You want something in this specific way" that is when you are being biased and irrational. I haven't said Blizzard can't, but why would they if they could do it this way, while this way also makes completely logical sense and has been in the game forever.

Fair enough, you haven't stated that specifically. But statements like this:



Are akin to 'I'm not racist but _says something racist_'. Just because you say you don't think that Blizzard won't ever make it doesn't jive with your assertion that you think they are just Hunters. When anyone brings up the contrary, you always go back to this point, even though there is actually nothing in the lore that states they are Hunters.

All the lore in the game implies a close relationship. That being said, there is nothing in lore talking about Tinkers either, but we know they exist and that they can be more than just a name for 'Engineer'. That implication is not sustained by lore, nor is it implied. It is just an ambiguous situation that has no actual official lore behind it.

And Dark Rangers have never been officially stated as Hunters in the lore. Not once. Therefore there is no reason for you to treat it as official lore.

If it were official, we wouldn't need to discuss the matter. It's open and close. The point is - There isn't any lore about them being the same thing any more than there is any lore stating that Death Knights are officially the same as Necromancers etc.

I didn't say they are just hunters, but that they are in fact a subset of hunters. The lore states they are rangers. Rangers are a form of hunters. They use their ranger tactics. The lore states that explicitly. The biggest names in Dark Rangers are quite verifiably hunters. One being a Hunter trainer himself. The reason I come back to the point is because no one refutes it and instead just shouts "Dark Rangers aren't Hunters." No one ever provides any kind of evidence or lore to disprove this because they know the lore itself backs up my claims and not theirs.

Like I said, I've never said Dark Ranger couldn't be a class, but that it's MORE LIKELY were it to be implemented that it would be so as a Hunter Spec of some type. But the people that are so focused on Dark Ranger as a class refuse to even acknowledge this as a possibility and stand firm that Dark Ranger is in no way connected to the Hunter class despite everything in their background saying otherwise.

[wanax]

Fair enough, you haven't stated that specifically. But statements like this:



Are akin to 'I'm not racist but _says something racist_'. Just because you say you don't think that Blizzard won't ever make it doesn't jive with your assertion that you think they are just Hunters. When anyone brings up the contrary, you always go back to this point, even though there is actually nothing in the lore that states they are Hunters.

All the lore in the game implies a close relationship. That being said, there is nothing in lore talking about Tinkers either, but we know they exist and that they can be more than just a name for 'Engineer'. That implication is not sustained by lore, nor is it implied. It is just an ambiguous situation that has no actual official lore behind it.

And Dark Rangers have never been officially stated as Hunters in the lore. Not once. Therefore there is no reason for you to treat it as official lore.

If it were official, we wouldn't need to discuss the matter. It's open and close. The point is - There isn't any lore about them being the same thing any more than there is any lore stating that Death Knights are officially the same as Necromancers etc.

People have used this same tired argument to try and discredit the Demon Hunter for being a Warlock, using the Green Fire questline as an example of 'Warlocks have Metamorphosis and learned from Illidan. They use Fel magic against Demons, and hunt them.
That's enough to make them Demon Hunters'. Lorewise, that is true, and there is a connection between what Warlocks do and what Demon Hunters are. But there is no lore that states that this is what a Demon Hunter actually is.

This is the same loose connection you're trying to bridge between Hunters and Dark Rangers. There is nothing specifically linking the two. Would you agree?

Not to split hairs but in the lore...pre WoW werent there NO hunters? I mean there were rangers and beast masters and shadowhunters etc but there wasnt one hunter was there?

If I'm being totally honest yall are all just shouting at a wall because no matter what proof you give or what opinion you share its not going to convince a DR class person to switch to a DR spec or Tinker opinion.

DR would be cool. I think you could work that and necromancer into the same class. Necromancer/ heal. Dark archer/ range dps. Dark ranger/ range/melee combo. Something to that effect

[Triceron]

I didn't say they are just hunters, but that they are in fact a subset of hunters. The lore states they are rangers. Rangers are a form of hunters.

Again, untrue. There is no lore that states Rangers or Dark Rangers are a subset of Hunters.

There is no official source on this matter. Zero.

That being said, Blademasters are not simply a subset of Warriors either. There is no lore to sustain this. Would you agree?

[Piamonte]

That isn't very logical when the people who argue I "don't make sense" don't bring up any logic themselves outside "Dark Rangers aren't hunters." While I cite and provide background based on the lore we have been given by Blizzard. What I am doing is called rational and logical. When you let your feelings persuade your assumptions because "You want something in this specific way" that is when you are being biased and irrational. I haven't said Blizzard can't, but why would they if they could do it this way, while this way also makes completely logical sense and has been in the game forever.



I didn't say they are just hunters, but that they are in fact a subset of hunters. The lore states they are rangers. Rangers are a form of hunters. They use their ranger tactics. The lore states that explicitly. The biggest names in Dark Rangers are quite verifiably hunters. One being a Hunter trainer himself. The reason I come back to the point is because no one refutes it and instead just shouts "Dark Rangers aren't Hunters." No one ever provides any kind of evidence or lore to disprove this because they know the lore itself backs up my claims and not theirs.

Like I said, I've never said Dark Ranger couldn't be a class, but that it's MORE LIKELY were it to be implemented that it would be so as a Hunter Spec of some type. But the people that are so focused on Dark Ranger as a class refuse to even acknowledge this as a possibility and stand firm that Dark Ranger is in no way connected to the Hunter class despite everything in their background saying otherwise.

dude you are the ONLY one here that says that dark rangers fits better as a 4 spec and coincidentally you main hunter, you really think those two things arent related?? you really think you can be impartial and fair on this topic??

[Triceron]

Not to split hairs but in the lore...pre WoW werent there NO hunters? I mean there were rangers and beast masters and shadowhunters etc but there wasnt one hunter was there?

If I'm being totally honest yall are all just shouting at a wall because no matter what proof you give or what opinion you share its not going to convince a DR class person to switch to a DR spec or Tinker opinion.

DR would be cool. I think you could work that and necromancer into the same class. Necromancer/ heal. Dark archer/ range dps. Dark ranger/ range/melee combo. Something to that effect

My stance on how the lore and how classes work is if it's not explicitly stated as a name for a class (such as Sunwalker for Paladins), then it is not that class.

A Beastmastery Hunter is not the same as a Beastmaster. An Assassination Rogue is not the same as an Assassin (as a formal designation, a formal class if one were to exist). That being said, Shamans are also not Spirit Walkers or Shadow Hunters or any of the closely related types; they can be a class that represents those characters but they are not one and the same. Vol'jin is not a 'Shaman'. He is a Shadow Hunter. Blizzard keeps this distinction, and it's clear that the lore continues to support this distinction by the fact that he is never referred to as a Shaman. This is different from Thrall, who is clearly a Shaman and is appropriately titled as such.

The reason these distinctions exist is because they hold significance. Classes are identities, not just a collection of themes and gameplay that can be applied to any one who fits the description. Players like to identify non-descript characters with existing playable classes, and that's normal - Yet it's not official lore either. We know Anduin is a Priest because he is called one. We don't know what Greymane is, because he has never been given an official designation. He is closest to a 'Warrior' and that's what people assume, but in reality he exists outside any playable class. Same as Mekkatorque. Same as Tyrande.

A Priestess of the Moon might share many similarities with Hunters, Priests and Druids; but it is not any of those classes. It is a Priestess of the Moon. By this standard, all classes should have their identities acknowledged as separate entities in the lore. Any comparison to an existing class is simply a generalization that makes it easier for players to understand, but at the same time, remain completely unofficial.

Dark Rangers are not Hunters by means of never having a direct association through titles. They are related, for sure, but they are not the same thing.

And that's my only point in this discussion. I'm not asking for every class identity to be playable, rather I'm dismissing arguments that say 'This class is just a Mage' or 'This class is just a Rogue' on the basis that they are not. And honestly, it's all up to Blizzard to decide whether to choose to ever elaborate on those classes and those archetypes. Personally I think Class skins would go far in resolving any ambiguity; we could have official Priestess of the Moon or official Witchdoctor/Shadow Hunters.