Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ...
9
17
18
19
20
21
... LastLast
  1. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Strawman number 8 for you. I have challenged you to provide a quote where i said anything even remotely similar to this, and you continue to refuse - just like with your other 7 strawman arguments - just dig your head in the sand and ignore the challenge.
    Because that's what "REJECTING" a class means. It means we're not getting it. No one's claiming we are getting it in Shadowlands, we're claiming that the potential for the class is there and it is. Rejecting is Blizzard stating "No, we aren't going to do them."

    You literally don't understand your own argument. And it's hilarious how you claim fake strawmans while half your posts are such.

    BTW, you want hard proof. Here's your damn hard proof that Blizzard sees Tinker as a potential class. Like I said, they've done it before so they've hardly "rejected" it.

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Core_class
    Last edited by DotEleven; 2019-11-07 at 01:13 AM.

  2. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    Because that's what "REJECTING" a class means. It means we're not getting it. No one's claiming we are getting it in Shadowlands, we're claiming that the potential for the class is there and it is. Rejecting is Blizzard stating "No, we aren't going to do them."

    You literally don't understand your own argument.
    reject
    verb
    gerund or present participle: rejecting

    dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.

    ^ this is what i am saying. That the tinker class has failed to meet the standard required for Blizzard to add it to the game. I have proof they have been rejected - they are not in the game. You have zero proof that they will be added to the game.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    reject
    verb
    gerund or present participle: rejecting

    dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.

    ^ this is what i am saying. That the tinker class has failed to meet the standard required for Blizzard to add it to the game.
    No they haven't. Show me where they have stated "Tinker fails to meet our standards and won't be added to the game."

    Your only evidence of that is "It wasn't added to Shadowlands". And neither was any other class. And if so, if they're all inadequate then logic dictates we aren't ever getting a new class because they've all been "rejected"

  4. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    No they haven't. Show me where they have stated "Tinker fails to meet our standards and won't be added to the game."
    15 years in, and they have not been added to the game.

  5. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    15 years in, and they have not been added to the game.
    15 years and neither have Dark Rangers and Wardens and Spellbreakers and Necromancers and any other potential class. So once again, your claim is now "We aren't getting any new class because they haven't added it in 15 years and as such they've been rejected"

  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomads View Post
    Spec identity turned 12 classes into 36. Who actually was against this? Were people asking Blizzard to give this up?

    I can understand some people not liking the identity Blizz chose for some specs, like losing 2H Frost or ranged Survival specs... but we gained a ton of replayability from it.

    Are we going to lose our 36 unique specs as a result of this "depruning"?
    you're forgetting something, before the current spec identities we had talent trees, talent trees that had 3 different paths, paths you could choose to split between, meaning instead of a class having 3 identities, it could have 6

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    ^ this is what i am saying. That the tinker class has failed to meet the standard required for Blizzard to add it to the game. I have proof they have been rejected - they are not in the game. You have zero proof that they will be added to the game.
    Accusing people of logical fallacies while completely pulling stuff out of your ass to defend your argument? Big Yikes.

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by Teekey View Post
    Accusing people of logical fallacies while completely pulling stuff out of your ass to defend your argument? Big Yikes.
    It's hilarious and he can't even see it when it's being spelled out right in front of him.

  9. #369
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    15 years and neither have Dark Rangers and Wardens and Spellbreakers and Necromancers and any other potential class. So once again, your claim is now "We aren't getting any new class because they haven't added it in 15 years and as such they've been rejected"
    Strawman #9 are you going for a record?

    Any class that has not been added yet clearly has not met blizzards threshold to be added, i really fail to see why this is a hard concept for you to understand.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teekey View Post
    Accusing people of logical fallacies while completely pulling stuff out of your ass to defend your argument? Big Yikes.
    Im using logic - if it hasnt been added, its because it has not met blizzards requirements for a new class, how is that "pulling stuff out of your ass"? i think its a VERY simple concept.

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Strawman #9 are you going for a record?

    Any class that has not been added yet clearly has not met blizzards threshold to be added, i really fail to see why this is a hard concept for you to understand.
    No it hasn't. It just might not be what they're looking to add right now.

    Demon Hunter wasn't a class until Legion, doesn't mean it "didn't meet Blizzards Threshold to be added". DKs didn't come till WotLK and monks until MoP. All of these were already in the lore but none of them had been implemented. That didn't mean it "didn't meet Blizzards Threshold" they just didn't think it was the time to put them in until then.

    But your claim is that they've been flat out rejected. So only new class claims can be available somehow? Nothing that currently exists like Shadow Hunter or Blademaster can be added because it's been 15 years and Blizzard hasn't added them yet and as such they've been rejected?

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Im using logic - if it hasnt been added, its because it has not met blizzards requirements for a new class, how is that "pulling stuff out of your ass"? i think its a VERY simple concept.
    Because everyone but you can see you're pulling stuff out of your ass.

  11. #371
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Im using logic - if it hasnt been added, its because it has not met blizzards requirements for a new class, how is that "pulling stuff out of your ass"? i think its a VERY simple concept.
    Your logic is completely asinine. Not adding a class (yet) doesn't mean they've rejected ever adding it. That's such a ridiculous leap in logic.

    You've just dug such a dumb hole you don't know how to get yourself out of it, so you're doubling down on the stupid.

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    No it hasn't. It just might not be what they're looking to add right now.

    Demon Hunter wasn't a class until Legion, doesn't mean it "didn't meet Blizzards Threshold to be added". DKs didn't come till WotLK and monks until MoP. All of these were already in the lore but none of them had been implemented. That didn't mean it "didn't meet Blizzards Threshold" they just didn't think it was the time to put them in until then.

    But your claim is that they've been flat out rejected. So only new class claims can be available somehow? Nothing that currently exists like Shadow Hunter or Blademaster can be added because it's been 15 years and Blizzard hasn't added them yet and as such they've been rejected?
    To this date, right now, the Tinker class has been rejected by Blizzard. So much so that numerous other classes have been added, but still no Tinker. You agree with me in your first sentence, and dont even realize - it is not what they are looking to add right now, meaning it does not meet their threshold for adding it into the game. This really isnt difficult at all - until they do introduce it, if ever, it remains rejected by blizzard, probably multiple times.

    So either :

    Blizzard have never considered adding the class to the game - REJECTED

    or

    Blizzard have considered it once or more, and REJECTED the idea.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teekey View Post
    Your logic is completely asinine. Not adding a class (yet) doesn't mean they've rejected ever adding it. That's such a ridiculous leap in logic.

    You've just dug such a dumb hole you don't know how to get yourself out of it, so you're doubling down on the stupid.
    Like the leap in logic where you claim i said it will NEVER be added, despite the fact i never said it wont ever be added?.....awkward......

  13. #373
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    To this date, right now, the Tinker class has been rejected by Blizzard. So much so that numerous other classes have been added, but still no Tinker. You agree with me in your first sentence, and dont even realize - it is not what they are looking to add right now, meaning it does not meet their threshold for adding it into the game. This really isnt difficult at all - until they do introduce it, if ever, it remains rejected by blizzard, probably multiple times.

    So either :

    Blizzard have never considered adding the class to the game - REJECTED

    or

    Blizzard have considered it once or more, and REJECTED the idea.
    No it hasn't.

    Blizzard could easily like the idea but think it's not the right time to add it in. Blizzard has monks now. Could've had it anytime. They chose when Pandaria came out. Just because they aren't using it right now doesn't mean they've rejected it.

    You seem to think it's "They either like the class and it's in or they don't and it's out", but that's not how it works. They need a timing for it.

    Monks weren't "Rejected" until MoP. DKs weren't "Rejected" until WotLK, they just didn't feel it was right to bring them out until those expacs.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Like the leap in logic where you claim i said it will NEVER be added, despite the fact i never said it wont ever be added?.....awkward......
    That's what rejecting it is. You literally used the term yourself. You brought out the definition saying you said Blizzard has rejected it and as such it has been defined as "inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty." Why would Blizzard add something they "dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.

  14. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post


    Like the leap in logic where you claim i said it will NEVER be added, despite the fact i never said it wont ever be added?.....awkward......
    Oh god, you're doing mental gymnastics now and arguing semantics of the meaning of words. This conversation is beyond pointless, but I'll give it one last shot...

    I'll try and make this simple for you. Your logic ONLY makes sense if you presuppose that Blizzard is, at all times, looking to add any and every class possible. Only then could you suggest that them not adding a class might mean they've rejected the idea.

    The problem is that we obviously know that's not true.

  15. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    No it hasn't.

    Blizzard could easily like the idea but think it's not the right time to add it in.



    That's what rejecting it is. You literally used the term yourself. You brought out the definition saying you said Blizzard has rejected it and as such it has been defined as "inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty." Why would Blizzard add something they "dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.
    See how that works? See how it fits the definition perfectly?

  16. #376
    The Lightbringer Issalice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    US Wyrmrest Accord
    Posts
    3,134
    I didn't like how the focus on spec dismantled so many classes to the point that some specs almost felt like a totally different class. One of my largest gripes with the game is the constant changing of classes, my pally hasn't been my pally for a very very very long time and I really miss it.

    I'm happy to see them return more to a class identity over spec personally, I like the abilities that are going to be class wide, I think it's a good move.

  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Teekey View Post

    The problem is that we obviously know that's not true. In fact, it's been explicitly said that there's A LOT of factors that go into deciding whether a class will be added.
    Im glad we agree - to this date, the Tinker concept has been rejected because it fails to meet the standard, or, 'factors' they use to decide if a class should be added.

  18. #378
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    See how that works? See how it fits the definition perfectly?
    That has nothing to do with the inadequacy or unacceptable traits of the class. That's a timing thing. That means they have approved the class, they're just waiting for the right timing. See how you're full of shit?

  19. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Im glad we agree - to this date, the Tinker concept has been rejected because it fails to meet the standard, or, 'factors' they use to decide if a class should be added.
    It may have not been considered because it didn't match the expansion theme, etc. But we have no idea whether it was "rejected", and it's ridiculous to claim so absent more information.

  20. #380
    I sort of liked spec identity, but in some cases it just changes classes too much.

    Class abilities should be the foundation, specs should further enhance the class to become whatever spec you decide to pick.

    Also too many classes can just do the same things now.
    Draenor EU: Archavious - Level 120 Warlock ; Loaen - Level 120 Demon Hunter ; Arathia - Level 120 Paladin ; Mitosis - Level 110 Priest ; Toreck - Level 110 Hunter ; Aeralinde - Level 110 Mage ; Crikey - Level 110 Warrior

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •