yeah anyone who wasnt braindead that plays a priest and has had to deal with shadow and disc being maximum retarded.
yeah anyone who wasnt braindead that plays a priest and has had to deal with shadow and disc being maximum retarded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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 - - -
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.
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?
Because everyone but you can see you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
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 - - -
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......
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 - - -
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.
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.