Were there actually people who didn't like spec identity?

[ZazuuPriest]

yeah anyone who wasnt braindead that plays a priest and has had to deal with shadow and disc being maximum retarded.

[arkanon]

I don't believe it. On the opposite, I literally called it outlandish. You literally can't comprehend a single argument can you?

You argue that all classes are rejected. Then when brought up how ridiculous that sounds you try to counter with this stupid Bubble Fairy and Honda claim. You've BEEN EXPOSED for the terrible logic you have. Just admit it and go away.

- - - Updated - - -



Then why can't we discuss Tinkers as a class. How have they been "rejected" if the possibility they could be a class exists?

You must have like a 2nd graders reading comprehension, honestly.

Oh dear god... Your argument is that the tinker could still be added - that goes for literally anything - including a bubble fairy. I am providing you HARD PROOF that blizzard have rejected the idea of a tinker in wow, and until proven otherwise, thats the facts we are dealing with - it has not met the threshold required by blizzard to be added to the game - thats assuming they have even considered it.

[DotEleven]

Oh dear god... Your argument is that the tinker could still be added - that goes for literally anything - including a bubble fairy. I am providing you HARD PROOF that blizzard have rejected the idea of a tinker in wow, and until proven otherwise, thats the facts we are dealing with - it has not met the threshold required by blizzard to be added to the game - thats assuming they have even considered it.

The bubble fairy has no lore. Hondas as well, have no lore. Your outlandish strawman is ridiculous. It's funny for how much you claim to know about it and say others do it, you use it a lot.

The Tinker does. They haven't rejected the idea any more than any actual class that currently exists that's not playable. Rejecting is something like playable High Elves where they've specifically stated "We're not doing High Elves". The only "Proof" you have is bullshit and saying that every class has been Rejected and thus we aren't getting any more.

[Kemsa]

Dont worry depruning doesnt mean Spec identity its lost, its more of the CLass overral phantasy + spec phantasy.
All rogues will have poisons, as base.
But only Outlaws will have Rolling Dice and the talents regarding the dices.
While Assassin no longe will be the only one with poison, but vendetta and poison bomb are going to still be just for Assassin
And Sub will work better now that poisons are back to their roster

So dont worry about it. Its just returning that "class flavor" that was removed on Draenor/Legion.

[arkanon]

The bubble fairy has no lore. Hondas as well, have no lore. Your outlandish strawman is ridiculous. It's funny for how much you claim to know about it and say others do it, you use it a lot.

The Tinker does. They haven't rejected the idea any more than any actual class that currently exists that's not playable. Rejecting is something like playable High Elves where they've specifically stated "We're not doing High Elves". The only "Proof" you have is bullshit and saying that every class has been Rejected and thus we aren't getting any more.

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.

[DotEleven]

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

[arkanon]

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.

[DotEleven]

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"

[arkanon]

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.

[DotEleven]

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"

[zhero]

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

[Teekey]

^ 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.

[DotEleven]

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.

[arkanon]

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 - - -

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.

[DotEleven]

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?

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.

[Teekey]

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.

[arkanon]

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 - - -

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......

[DotEleven]

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 - - -

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.

[Teekey]

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.

[arkanon]

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?