1. #2901
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    The fact that Blizzard is absolutely sidelining this aspect of the game as well as the races based on them is an argument for Blizzard not viewing it as viable. Learn to read my dude, I already pointed out how Blizzard is deliberately sidelining Gnomes and Goblins. The questline in which the Goblin leader is replaced is literally designed to be played by the smallest number of players possible.
    That aspect of the game wasn’t sidelined in WoD where a major aspect of the theme of that expansion was orcs using goblin tech instead of demonic magic. It wasn’t sidelined at the end of Legion where we were using multiple forms of lightforged tech. It wasn’t sidelined in BFA where we had Mekkatorque as a raid boss and Mechagon as a major part of 8.2.

    It’s only sidelined currently because we’re in Shadowlands.

  2. #2902
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Okay, but in the context of WoW, Dark Ranger Black Arrow isn't stronger than Hunter Black Arrow.
    I'll repeat:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Have you played with an actual dark ranger class to know how the ability can influence the class' gameplay? Do you have special insight into Blizzard's internal development builds that no one else outside the company has?

    No. No, you don't. You're just making an unfounded, baseless assertion.
    In other words: if a dark ranger class does not currently exist in playable form, how do you know it would be a "mechanical mirror" of the hunter class? That's like saying the warlock is a "mechanical mirror" of the mage class because both are spellcasters that can deal fire damage before vanilla WoW went live.
    In short: how do you know that, considering the dark ranger is not a playable class in WoW for you to compare which one is stronger or if the two have the same power?

    Except the Tinker is a hero concept, not a profession concept.
    In WC3 it's a hero unit. In WoW, it's arguable that it became the profession, just like the goblin alchemist may have been turned into the alchemy profession.

    So you're going to be dishonest and pretend that those HotS abilities don't exist because they're not in WoW, despite examples of classes in WoW taking abilities from that source.
    It's not dishonesty because it's a fact they don't exist in WoW. Non-canon sources are, surprisingly enough, not sources of canon information.

    Vereesa isn't a Hunter? Hunters didn't have Black Arrow in their spell book for almost a decade?
    I'll repeat: it does not fit the class' concept, theme and fantasy.

    Especially since the Dark Ranger class is now off the table.
    It's not off the table. You are, again, making statements of fact when you have absolutely no conclusive evidence for it.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-01-14 at 01:29 AM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  3. #2903
    Loa of Death Bwonsamdi the Dead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    De Other Side (Just kidding) Vancouver Island, BC
    Posts
    2,467
    I think if SL got a new class it would be a nightmare trying to Balance it with the Covenants and such, so they just decided not to do anything

    Another day, another Deal....

  4. #2904
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Wailing Arrows, Crash Lightning, Sunder Earth, Rock It Turret, Deth Lazor, Grav-O Bomb, Xplodium Charge, The Hunt, and other abilities originated in HotS but now also exist in WoW, so you’re quite wrong.

    Also Raynor isn’t Warcraft, he’s Starcraft, so obviously he wouldn’t appear in WoW, nor would any of his abilities.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yeah, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about here. The Warcraft characters in HotS are based on Warcraft. So obviously they’re meant to be the same characters who exist in the Warcraft games. Which is why Gazlowe in WC3:R got his claw pack from HotS. It is also why Dark Rangers in WoW started getting abilities from Sylvanas in HotS.

    If developers from WoW see an ability they like from HotS and think it would be cool to add to WoW, why wouldn’t they add it? If developers in WoW want to develop a new class and like some of the concepts from the HotS variation of the concept, why wouldn’t they take abilities and concepts from that HotS variation and add it to WoW?

    This works the other way as well, which is why Anduin looks the way he does in HotS. So again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about here.
    The point is they are not basing WoW on HotS abilities. You're the one not knowing what they're talking about. You're not one of the devs and for all you know, HotS abilities are based on spells and abilities that hadn't been implemented yet in WoW. Using HotS as a basis for how the devs design WoW classes and abilities is beyond absurd.

  5. #2905
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I'll repeat:

    In short: how do you know that, considering the dark ranger is not a playable class in WoW for you to compare which one is stronger or if the two have the same power?
    Because we have a Dark Ranger using Black Arrow, and we have a class version of Black Arrow. We can simply compare the two abilities.


    In WC3 it's a hero unit. In WoW, it's arguable that it became the profession, just like the goblin alchemist may have been turned into the alchemy profession.
    Nah, it's simply a class that hasn't been implemented yet.

    Why? Because abilities from every WC3 hero has ended up in WoW classes in some form or another. So it stands to reason that the Tinker and Alchemist's abilities will also wind up in a class at some point.


    It's not dishonesty because it's a fact they don't exist in WoW. Non-canon sources are, surprisingly enough, not sources of canon information.
    Just FYI, if one ability from WC-related HotS characters ends up in WoW, it opens the door for all WC related HotS character abilities to wind up in WoW. Lore and Canon have nothing to do with it. It's a developer decision from Blizzard.


    I'll repeat: it does not fit the class' concept, theme and fantasy.
    Which is a silly statement to make considering that Black Arrow was a Hunter ability for almost a decade.


    It's not off the table. You are, again, making statements of fact when you have absolutely no conclusive evidence for it.
    Honestly it was off the table when Sylvanas popped up in the Shadowlands announcement cinematic as a major antagonist and no DR was announced.

    I mean, just look at the 2019 Blizzcon poster right before the Shadowlands announcement;



    We know what should have been there.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    The point is they are not basing WoW on HotS abilities.
    Who said they were?

    You're the one not knowing what they're talking about. You're not one of the devs and for all you know, HotS abilities are based on spells and abilities that hadn't been implemented yet in WoW. Using HotS as a basis for how the devs design WoW classes and abilities is beyond absurd.
    And yet we have multiple points of evidence for that exact thing taking place; The Demon Hunter class being a prime example.

    I also rather enjoy Crash Lightning and Sundering on my Shaman. Two imports from HotS.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-01-14 at 02:01 AM.

  6. #2906
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Bwonsamdi the Dead View Post
    I think if SL got a new class it would be a nightmare trying to Balance it with the Covenants and such, so they just decided not to do anything
    Why? Legion added a new class AND gave artifact weapons to all classes AND specs.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because we have a Dark Ranger using Black Arrow, and we have a class version of Black Arrow. We can simply compare the two abilities.
    We cannot compare both abilities, because the dark ranger does not exist. NPCs are not accurate representatives of class ability power.

    Nah, it's simply a class that hasn't been implemented yet.
    Or, like I said, it may have been turned into the professions.

    Why? Because abilities...
    Abilities are irrelevant.

    Just FYI, if one ability from WC-related HotS characters ends up in WoW, it opens the door for all WC related HotS character abilities to wind up in WoW. Lore and Canon have nothing to do with it. It's a developer decision from Blizzard.
    And until those abilities "walk through that door", they're non-canon and therefore irrelevant.

    Which is a silly statement to make considering that Black Arrow was a Hunter ability for almost a decade.
    Which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it stayed one single alpha development stage, or nearly a decade. It still did not belong to the hunter's theme, concept and fantasy. "One of those things are not like the other. One of those things just does not belong".

    It's just like the warrior class having a holy healing spell within its repertoire wouldn't make that ability "belong" any more to the warrior theme, concept and fantasy regardless if it stayed for one single alpha stage or if it stayed nearly a decade within the class' spellbook.

    Honestly it was off the table when Sylvanas popped up in the Shadowlands announcement cinematic as a major antagonist and no DR was announced.
    No, it was not. This is nothing but your opinion. Illidan showed up in the TBC expansion and we got no demon hunter.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  7. #2907
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by razorpax View Post
    Blizzard can make the abilities fit a theme just like Druid forms
    The mech size isn’t even a possible issue because those mounts exist
    Druids don't have varying racial abilities though.

    For example, Exarch Orelis has these abilities;

    • Blinding Light - Blinds non-player enemies within 60 yards for 10 sec.
    • Prometheus Ray - Focuses a ray of Holy energies in front of the caster. Enemies caught in the ray burn for Holyfire damage.

    And Nightborne constructs have these abilities;

    • Discharge — Inflicts Arcane damage to enemies within 15 yds.
    • Mystical Blast — Inflicts Arcane damage to enemies within 5 yds of the detonation, knocking them back.
    • Trample — Inflicts Physical damage to nearby enemies.

    Typically WoW classes have a rather uniform ability set. It is doubtful that you would have holy laser beams and explosives with Lightforged Tinkers, and Shadow/Arcane laser beams and explosives with Nightborne Tinkers, and then missiles, flamethrowers, and Sticky bombs for Goblins and Gnomes.

    If I were a betting person, I would guess that the entire class is going to have Goblin and Gnome tech, unless they do a 4th spec dedicated to Artificer/titan technology, which while extremely interesting, I don't see happening.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    We cannot compare both abilities, because the dark ranger does not exist. NPCs are not accurate representatives of class ability power.
    It exists as an NPC, and frankly it also exists as a Forsaken and Void Elf Hunter.

    Or, like I said, it may have been turned into the professions.
    Again, that doesn't make sense when you consider that every other WC3 hero has had abilities in the WoW class lineup at some point or another. Tinker (and Alchemist) abilities don't exist in classes or the professions. The only logical conclusion is that they're being saved for a future class inclusion.

    Abilities are irrelevant.
    Then why are you arguing about Black Arrow?

    And until those abilities "walk through that door", they're non-canon and therefore irrelevant.
    Like I said, it's a developer decision. "Lore" has nothing to do with it. Since Blizzard clearly has no issue porting over HotS abilities, it stands to reason that any of Sylvanas' abilities are possible future inclusions.

    Which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it stayed one single alpha development stage, or nearly a decade. It still did not belong to the hunter's theme, concept and fantasy. "One of those things are not like the other. One of those things just does not belong".
    That's entirely your opinion. If Blizzard had Black Arrow in the Hunter class for that long a period of time it fits the theme of the class. Further, there is a chance for Black Arrow to return to the Hunter class at some point in the future, and no one would think twice about it.

    It's just like the warrior class having a holy healing spell within its repertoire wouldn't make that ability "belong" any more to the warrior theme, concept and fantasy regardless if it stayed for one single alpha stage or if it stayed nearly a decade within the class' spellbook.
    But warriors have never had a holy healing spell planned or implemented.

    No, it was not. This is nothing but your opinion. Illidan showed up in the TBC expansion and we got no demon hunter.
    Because Blizzard was not prepared to release a new class right after releasing 9 classes with Vanilla WoW. According to Blizzard, there was no Shadowlands class because no class fit the theme or story of this expansion....

    Which is essentially this;


  8. #2908
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It exists as an NPC,
    I'll repeat:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    NPCs are not accurate representatives of class ability power.

    and frankly it also exists as a Forsaken and Void Elf Hunter.
    Vereesa Windrunner is not a dark ranger. I will agree that Sylvanas is a dark ranger, complete with banshee powers and necromancy powers.

    Again, that doesn't make sense when you consider that every other WC3 hero has had abilities in the WoW class lineup at some point or another.
    Probably because professions aren't classes.

    Tinker (and Alchemist) abilities don't exist in classes or the professions.
    • WC3 tinkers can fight in mechs. So can WoW engineers.
    • WC3 tinkers can launch rockets. So can WoW engineers.
    • WC3 alchemists can use their concoctions to heal and deal damage. So can WoW alchemists.
    • WC3 alchemists are able to use transmutation. So are the WoW alchemists.

    The only logical conclusion is that they're being saved for a future class inclusion.
    It's not the only logical conclusion.

    Then why are you arguing about Black Arrow?
    Different arguments, Teriz. Don't conflate the two.

    Like I said, it's a developer decision.
    And until the developers make this decision, HotS abilities are non-canon and therefore irrelevant.

    That's entirely your opinion. If Blizzard had Black Arrow in the Hunter class for that long a period of time it fits the theme of the class.
    You dismiss my argument as "opinion", and then immediately state your opinion as fact.

    Further, there is a chance for Black Arrow to return to the Hunter class at some point in the future,
    Or it might never return.

    and no one would think twice about it.
    Can I have the next lotto numbers, since you apparently can see the future?

    But warriors have never had a holy healing spell planned or implemented.
    Are you somehow incapable of thinking in hypotheticals, or are you being obtuse on purpose?

    Because Blizzard was not prepared to release a new class right after releasing 9 classes with Vanilla WoW. According to Blizzard, there was no Shadowlands class because no class fit the theme or story of this expansion....
    Alright. Show me the Blizzard statement where they say that if they feature a character in the cinematic, then they must make a class out of said character, otherwise said class concept is dead forever.

    You can't. Because it doesn't exist outside your head.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  9. #2909
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Why would a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Shadow Hunter be uniquely special in contrast with a Tauren Seer or Sunwalker, Draenei Vindicator or Blood elf Blood Knight, you ask? because these 3 are Warcraft III heroes and have abilities associated with them. Unlike them, the Priestess of the Moon and and Shadow Hunter are the religions missing from the Priest class in-game and are lacking representation. So are the Dark Ranger and Sea Witch (which, are Warcraft III heroes).
    You're making the same mistake that Teriz by assuming Blizzard has some sort of sacred adherence to how classes/characters were depicted back in WC3, Blizzard draws from WC3 just as much as they ignore/retcon it.

    Elune worship & Loa Worship are not "missing" from the priest class, they're not represented visually, they gave Night Elf Priests a weaker version of Starfall (Starshards) back in vanilla & a elune themed buff, they gave Troll priests hex of weakness & shadowguard, those were removed not because Troll & Night Elf priests aren't worshipping Loa and Elune but because they were hard to balance, what the hell do you think Elune & Troll priests are worshipping? or the multiple times we've seen Troll Priests and Night Elf Priests using Light and or Shadow powers.

    In a perfect world yes Night Elf priests would have a star/moonlight based spells (like starshards or starfall) or at least the visual look to their spells and Troll priests the same but for Loa but they can't because of how balancing classes & or lack of time investment on Blizzard's part

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    It's as much Sylvanas' power as the Night Warrior is Tyrande's power. You won't consider it Elune, exclusively, power. The pact with the Jailer and Sylvanas' new abilities are just a way to expand the Dark Ranger's arsenal. If that's not indicative, i don't know what is.
    I have no idea what direction they're going with storywise with Sylvanas or Tyrande's new powers/alliegances but I somehow doubt we're getting a class based on making a pact with a character whos probably going to be dead by the time the expansion is over (the jailor) and a power thats described as nothing but self destructive to those that wield it (night warrior)

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Dark Rangers received a defined skill set like how Death Knights received a defined skill set of Warrior and Warlock abilities before Wrath of the Lich King. You wouldn't consider them Warriors or Warlocks, would you? That's how it goes with new class addition - the representation in-game uses existing abilities until the class has been added.
    Those Death Knights just use Warlock or Warrior abilities they weren't given a Death Knight or Necromantic makover, the Dark Ranger abilities we saw throughout BFA were either outright hunter abilities (disengage, multi-shoot, aimed shoots) or Hunter abilities reflavored to be necromancy themed like shot-type abilities given a shadow or plague theme (shadowburn shot, plague tipped arrows) or a revive pet ability given a necromancy flavor (dark revival), pretty different from just giving them Hunter abilities, same way Night Elf Priests might be shown casting a star or moonlight based spell while the playable version can't or a Troll priest will cast a curse or hex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    So, essentially, the Witch Doctor is all over the place in terms of representation, like how Demon Hunters had their Mana Burn in the Priest class, Immolate and Metamorphosis in the Warlock class and Evasion in the Rogue class. The Demon Hunter got added. What does it tell us?
    That under-represented classes, from Warcraft III, gets added.
    Priests did not take the Demon Hunter thematic or anything else outside of mana burn which is a fairly inconsequential part of the Demon Hunter identity and Warlocks despite a devs attempts to have them absorb the Demon Hunter identity was unsuccessful at doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    The Tidesage, on the other hand, is a new addition and is not part of the Warcraft III heroes (though, the power of the oceans can be fulfilled with a Sea Witch).
    Once again your subscribing to this idea that Blizzard has some sort of sacred mandate to hold everything true to how it was depicted in WC3 a nearly 2 decade old game they ignore/retcon just as much as they reference.

    Tidesages visually, thematically and gameplay wise incorporate elements of Mages, Shamans and Priests (use of arcane, water elementals, communion with the elements, clerical, religious order, use of shadow-based powers) Tidesages absorb and incorperate elements of multiple classes and therefore cannot be accurately depicted by any singular one of them, they are a unique archetype in-universe but said archetype is split between multiple classes available to us.

    for comparison Witch Doctors (and Shadow Hunters by extension) visually, thematically and gameplay wise incorporate elements Shamans, Warlocks and Priests (wards/totems, spiritual abilities, hexes/curses and light/shadow powers), they cannot be accurately represented by any one of them because while they are a unique archetype in-universe said archetype is split conceptually between multiple classes

    The point is that NPC classes that are combinations of multiple classes available to us or use abilities we can't use are nothing new, we've had them since the beginning of the game and continue to have new ones added (like tidesages), Dark Rangers, Witch-Doctors, Shadowhunters, Priestess of the Elune, Tinkers and Alchemists are not special because they come from WC3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    The same would be applied with the Hunter and the Dark Ranger. While the Hunter would be the Beastmaster, Sapper and Headhunter the Ranger would be Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch.
    What does the archetype of a sapper/explosives expert have to do with the themes of a Hunter which is about mastery of wilds, beasts, "hunting weapons" (i.e spears and bows), tracking and traps, explosives are a minuscule part of the Hunter identity, currently what do hunters have in terms of "explosives" are explosive shot and wildfire bomb? (and wildfire bomb evokes more of an alchemical type explosive, not to mention "wilfire" is a type of fire causes by combustable vegetation so it still relates back to the "wilds" theme of Hunters). "explosives expert" is the last thing i think when i think "Hunter".

    What do the archetype of a Dark Ranger (a fallen ranger who uses necromancy) a Priestess of Elune (chosen worshippers of a moon goddess) and a Sea Witch (witches of the magic of the sea) have to do with eachother beyond the fact that they used bows and (different) types of magic and before you say "but Rangers" let me clear something up a Ranger as a fantasy class/archetype are not about "bows and magic" it's always been defined as about Woodlore, Wilderness survival, Beast mastery, tracking and are commonly associate with nature magic and "practical" combat skills i.e archery/marksmanship, axeplay and spearplay the "Ranger" archetype already exists in WoW are was turned into the Hunter class

    Let me just go over a couple of classes and how their themes inform and relate back to their specs while still keeping a thematic whole that makes a class what they are regardless of spec.

    Rogues: opportunistic and underhanded fighters, Masters of poison (assassination), stealth (subtlety), quick bladework (outlaw)
    Warriors: masters of arms & armor who fuel their rage into a flurry of raging strikes (Fury), heavy and decisive blows (arms) or protection of their allies (protection)
    Paladin: Holy Warriors who use holy magic and weaponry to punish their foes (retribution), heal their allies (holy) or protect themselves and their allies.
    Hunter: Master of the Wilds who uses tamed beasts (beastmastery), marksmanship (marksmanship) or venoms and traps (survival) to bring down their foes
    Priest: Wielders of light & shadow magic who use holy light to heal (holy), shadow powers to harm (shadow) or balances the two to harm and heal (discipline)
    Warlock: Dark Spellcasters and Summoners who use fel & shadow magic to curse and drain life (affliction), eradicate with chaotic and destructive pwoer (destruction) or uses an small army of demonic servants (demonology)

    Notice how despite the differences between specs all of them still relate back to their core thematic identity of their parent class meanwhile what does your Ranger have as a thematic idenity? a master archer who uses necromancy or holy moon magic or ocean magic? how do those magic relate to eachother? what does being an archer have to do with using those forms of magic? "Bow + Magic" is not a thematic identity nor is being an Elf, by this logic Paladin, Death Knight and Spellbreaker can all be made into the same "Knight" class because all 3 use melee weapons + magic or Warlock, Mage and Priest can all be one class due to all being "spellcasters" you're hyperfocusing on the most superficial aspects of Priestess of the Moon, Dark Rangers and Sea Witches that their weapon type and using (different forms of) magic, instead of the themes of what a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch are a Fallen Ranger, a chosen of a moon goddess and a Ocean witch, 3 concepts which have no relation to eachother beyond the superficial (bows, using different types of magic and being/formerly being elves).

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    You push for a Necromancer class, while we have Death Knights but, you reject Dark Rangers, Priestesses of the Moon, Sea Witches, Shadow Hunters, Blademasters and Wardens as nothing more than visual class skins?
    Don't you see the hypocrisy in that?
    It wouldn't call it pushing so much as musing/thoughts on ways a Necromancer class could be added in such a way that it wouldn't be thematically/visually overlapping with Death Knights by giving them others themes that don't interfere with what DK's do DK's would still be about Blood, Frost and Unholy while a Necromancer could be themed around around insects/spiders/nerubians, poison, corpses, constructs, bone and other aspects of the scourge/necromancy not currently represented well by the DK class.

    I've "rejected" your concepts because of instead of suggesting ways Dark Rangers, Priestess of the Moon, Sea Witches, Shadow Hunters, Blademasters and Wardens could be expanded to make them more distinct from Hunters, Priests, Shamans, Warriors or Rogues, you instead just took already existing abilities, themes and visuals from Classes that exist, essentially doing what happened with Demonology and Demon Hunters on a far larger scale and doing it do themes and abilities that are core aspects of those classes identities instead of what was a single spec that was using a thematic (turning into a demon) that was ill fitting of them and was ultimately the result of a single overzealous dev. Or you mashed unrelated concepts together into a "class" that would be a thematic and visual mess.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-01-14 at 07:57 AM.

  10. #2910
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I'll repeat:

    Vereesa Windrunner is not a dark ranger. I will agree that Sylvanas is a dark ranger, complete with banshee powers and necromancy powers.
    Nice try, but I didn't pull that version of Black Arrow from Vereesa. I pulled it from a Dark Ranger NPC.


    Probably because professions aren't classes.
    Which makes them unsuitable to house hero concepts. Which explains why none of the Tinker's or Alchemist's abilities exist in those areas.

    It's not the only logical conclusion.
    It would have to be, since again every other WC3 hero has had its abilities transferred to the class lineup in one form or the other.


    Different arguments, Teriz. Don't conflate the two.
    It's the same argument. If you say abilities don't matter, then why are you arguing about Black Arrow?

    And until the developers make this decision, HotS abilities are non-canon and therefore irrelevant.
    Except for the HotS abilities already in WoW right?


    You dismiss my argument as "opinion", and then immediately state your opinion as fact.
    Except it's not an opinion. If a class has an ability for that stretch of time, it's rather obvious that it did in fact fit the theme of the class. It's kind of silly to argue otherwise.

    Or it might never return.
    The very fact that you acknowledge it has a chance of returning to the Hunter class invalidates your argument that it doesn't fit thematically. You do realize that right?


    Can I have the next lotto numbers, since you apparently can see the future?
    Why do you view that as a prediction? Again, Hunters had that ability for the majority of WoW's lifespan. Why do you believe they would view it as being out of place? You're making zero sense here.


    Are you somehow incapable of thinking in hypotheticals, or are you being obtuse on purpose?
    You're comparing a hypothetical ability that has zero chance of ever appearing in the Warrior class with an ability that was a Hunter mainstay from WotLK until BFA, and you're using that bizarre comparison in an argument about abilities matching the theme of classes.

    Alright. Show me the Blizzard statement where they say that if they feature a character in the cinematic, then they must make a class out of said character, otherwise said class concept is dead forever.

    You can't. Because it doesn't exist outside your head.
    I never made that argument. I said that the theme and story of the expansion revolves around the major Dark Ranger lore figure Sylvanas and there's no Dark Ranger class to be found. Unless you think the next expansion is also going to revolve around Sylvanas and her machinations, I would say that's a wrap for the Dark Ranger class concept. Frankly it makes sense because the Dark Ranger concept is mainly a customization of the Hunter class at its core. There was never enough material to make a viable class out of it.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-01-14 at 05:12 AM.

  11. #2911
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Nice try, but I didn't pull that version of Black Arrow from Vereesa. I pulled it from a Dark Ranger NPC.
    I meant Alleria, since she is a void elf. Which NPC are you talking about them? Show your sources.

    Which makes them unsuitable to house hero concepts.
    Who said anything about hero concepts? I'm just talking about concepts.

    Which explains why none of the Tinker's or Alchemist's abilities exist in those areas.
    They exist, only with not the exact same names and exact same functionality. I detailed a few of them.

    It would have to be, since again every other WC3 hero has had its abilities transferred to the class lineup in one form or the other.
    No. It wouldn't. It is not a "logical conclusion" to assert that they are "saving abilities for later".

    It's the same argument. If you say abilities don't matter, then why are you arguing about Black Arrow?
    Separate arguments, Teriz. The discussion about the Black Arrow ability is how its concept does not fit the hunter theme and fantasy.

    Except for the HotS abilities already in WoW right?
    Exactly. Except for the HotS abilities already in WoW. Otherwise everything HotS is canon to WoW, including Tracer, Deckard Cain and Kerrigan.

    Except it's not an opinion. If a class has an ability for that stretch of time, it's rather obvious that it did in fact fit the theme of the class. It's kind of silly to argue otherwise.
    If you have to say "it's obvious", then you're confirming that it's an opinion. Facts are not facts because they're asserted by saying "it's obvious". Facts are demonstrable. And it is demonstrable that a necromantic ability does not fit the hunter class' fantasy and theme.

    The very fact that you acknowledge it has a chance of returning to the Hunter class invalidates your argument that it doesn't fit thematically. You do realize that right?
    Who said I admitted to that possibility? I am of the opinion that it will not return, because it doesn't fit the theme and fantasy of the class, just like an arcane spell would not fit the warrior class, or a holy spell would not fit a necromancer class.

    Why do you view that as a prediction?
    Because, unless you have a quote from Blizzard clearly stating "we will do X" or "we will not do Y", any claims that they will do X or not do Y are predictions.

    You're comparing a hypothetical ability that has zero chance of ever appearing in the Warrior class with an ability that was a Hunter mainstay from WotLK until BFA, and you're using that bizarre comparison in an argument about abilities matching the theme of classes.
    I'll repeat: are you somehow unable to think in hypotheticals, i.e. mentally conceive hypothetical scenarios, or are you being obtuse on purpose? The above quote makes me think it's the latter rather than the former.

    I never made that argument.
    You argument was: "we have a cinematic involving Sylvanas, and no class based on Sylvanas, therefore dark rangers will not happen anymore":
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Especially since the Dark Ranger class is now off the table.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Honestly it was off the table when Sylvanas popped up in the Shadowlands announcement cinematic as a major antagonist and no DR was announced.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  12. #2912
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I meant Alleria, since she is a void elf. Which NPC are you talking about them? Show your sources.
    https://www.wowhead.com/spell=225289/black-arrow

    There's quite a few.

    Who said anything about hero concepts? I'm just talking about concepts.
    I did, since that's what the WC3 heroes were. Again, ALL of them had their abilities used for classes except for the Tinker and the Alchemist.

    They exist, only with not the exact same names and exact same functionality. I detailed a few of them.
    If they don't have the same name or same functionality, they're not the same ability nor are they derived from that ability.

    Separate arguments, Teriz. The discussion about the Black Arrow ability is how its concept does not fit the hunter theme and fantasy.
    But since abilities don't matter, then this argument doesn't matter.


    Exactly. Except for the HotS abilities already in WoW. Otherwise everything HotS is canon to WoW, including Tracer, Deckard Cain and Kerrigan.
    Which is a straw man. The HotS abilities that have migrated to WoW are all from Warcraft characters in HotS, and this back and forth revolves around abilities associated with Sylvanas, who is a Warcraft character. Again, the point is if some abilities from Warcraft characters in HotS have entered WoW, ALL of the abilities from Warcraft characters in HotS have the potential to enter the game.

    If you have to say "it's obvious", then you're confirming that it's an opinion. Facts are not facts because they're asserted by saying "it's obvious". Facts are demonstrable. And it is demonstrable that a necromantic ability does not fit the hunter class' fantasy and theme.
    Then why was there a Necromantic ability in the Hunter class for years?

    Who said I admitted to that possibility? I am of the opinion that it will not return, because it doesn't fit the theme and fantasy of the class, just like an arcane spell would not fit the warrior class, or a holy spell would not fit a necromancer class.
    But you can't say for certainty that there's NO chance for Black Arrow to return to the Hunter class. Meanwhile it's certain that the Warrior class will never get a holy based healing ability. Clearly you can't see the difference.

    I'll repeat: are you somehow unable to think in hypotheticals, i.e. mentally conceive hypothetical scenarios, or are you being obtuse on purpose? The above quote makes me think it's the latter rather than the former.
    You're ridiculous.

    You argument was: "we have a cinematic involving Sylvanas, and no class based on Sylvanas, therefore dark rangers will not happen anymore":
    No, actually it was this;

    Honestly it was off the table when Sylvanas popped up in the Shadowlands announcement cinematic as a major antagonist and no DR was announced.

    I mean, just look at the 2019 Blizzcon poster right before the Shadowlands announcement;



    We know what should have been there.
    Then it was this;

    Because Blizzard was not prepared to release a new class right after releasing 9 classes with Vanilla WoW. According to Blizzard, there was no Shadowlands class because no class fit the theme or story of this expansion....

    Which is essentially this;

    But anyway, feel free to have the last word on this. I have no interest in further discussing the very dead Dark Ranger class concept.

    Pun intended? Maybe.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-01-14 at 06:57 AM.

  13. #2913
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That aspect of the game wasn’t sidelined in WoD where a major aspect of the theme of that expansion was orcs using goblin tech instead of demonic magic. It wasn’t sidelined at the end of Legion where we were using multiple forms of lightforged tech. It wasn’t sidelined in BFA where we had Mekkatorque as a raid boss and Mechagon as a major part of 8.2.

    It’s only sidelined currently because we’re in Shadowlands.
    Dude? Mechagon was side content. It had no relevance to the overall story of the expansion and not even a single proper cutscene. Or did you play a super secret dev only version of the game where it was actually King Mechagon who made deals with Sylvanas and freed N'zoth, leading both into 8.3 and Shadowlands? I bet you didn't Also, did you actually played the raid? Mekkatorque had one slapstick comedy scene and was some mid raid boss comparable to monkey guy or monk guy or paladin gal, but Jaina was the one who ended up killing King Rastakhan, moved the plot forward and served as the final boss of the raid.

    And what has Shadowlands to do with the fact that the replacement of the Goblin Leader is designed to be played by the smallest minority of players possible? If Goblins were important, wouldn't a big moment in their lore like replacing their leader with a new one be something front and center which all players are supposed to play through? Like how when Garrosh was replaced, it was an entire raid tier? Or how Sylvanas leaving was the end of the expansion spanning war campaign? Or how Varians death was dealt with as the grand finale of the legion introduction scenario? Even Tyrande becoming the Night Warrior despite not having a proper cutscene was something you had to play through as a requirement to play the warfront. Fucking alternative Velen dying had its own cutscene which you had to play through for the Shadowmoon valley questchain. And, like Magnis and Baines death were at least dealt with as major plot beats in novels which introduced readers into the Cataclysm expansion.

    Also curious how all the examples of tech being included in the main storyline of an expansion is other races instead of Gnomes and Goblins using technology. Isn't that basically an argument against your headcanon of a Gnome and Goblin only Mech-based class, when technology is only seen front and center, when it is utilized by races other than gnomes and goblins with even the design being centered around the racial themes of those races instead of typical gnome or goblin design elements? Hell, even the Gunship and Airship which is the most important piece of technology in many story moments is designed with a human or orc aesthetic in mind, not a gnome or goblin one.

  14. #2914
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Dude? Mechagon was side content. It had no relevance to the overall story of the expansion and not even a single proper cutscene. Or did you play a super secret dev only version of the game where it was actually King Mechagon who made deals with Sylvanas and freed N'zoth, leading both into 8.3 and Shadowlands? I bet you didn't Also, did you actually played the raid? Mekkatorque had one slapstick comedy scene and was some mid raid boss comparable to monkey guy or monk guy or paladin gal, but Jaina was the one who ended up killing King Rastakhan, moved the plot forward and served as the final boss of the raid.

    Did you miss BlizzCon 2018? Mechagon was one of the major announcements for WoW, and considered a big part of 8.2;

    http://warcraft.blizzpro.com/2018/11...blizzcon-2018/

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/blizzar...eres-find/amp/

    As for the overall purpose and impact of Mechagon for the game, who knows what it will be. We don’t know what Blizzards ultimate purpose for Mechagon was. It certainly wasn’t just to unite the Gnomes and introduce the Mechagnome race. Blizzard made a rather huge deal of it when they announced it. Perhaps that’s something we’ll learn more of in the next expansion, or maybe even later in this one.

    And what has Shadowlands to do with the fact that the replacement of the Goblin Leader is de to be played by the smallest minority of players possible? If Goblins were important, wouldn't a big moment in their lore like replacing their leader with a new one be something front and center which all players are supposed to play through? Like how when Garrosh was replaced, it was an entire raid tier? Or how Sylvanas leaving was the end of the expansion spanning war campaign? Or how Varians death was dealt with as the grand finale of the legion introduction scenario? Even Tyrande becoming the Night Warrior despite not having a proper cutscene was something you had to play through as a requirement to play the warfront. Fucking alternative Velen dying had its own cutscene which you had to play through for the Shadowmoon valley questchain. And, like Magnis and Baines death were at least dealt with as major plot beats in novels which introduced readers into the Cataclysm expansion.
    I mentioned Shadowlands because running around the realm of death probably isn’t going to have a lot of Goblin and Gnome based content. As for Gazlowe replacing Gallywix, you got a bit of that content during the battle of Daza’alor raid, and of course the aftermath of that eventually leads to Mechagon.

    That said, I will agree that Blizzard needs to do a better job of spreading attention to more races. Mechagon and having Mekkatorque as a raid boss was a start, but they should definitely do more.

    Also curious how all the examples of tech being included in the main storyline of an expansion is other races instead of Gnomes and Goblins using technology. Isn't that basically an argument against your headcanon of a Gnome and Goblin only Mech-based class, when technology is only seen front and center, when it is utilized by races other than gnomes and goblins with even the design being centered around the racial themes of those races instead of typical gnome or goblin design elements? Hell, even the Gunship and Airship which is the most important piece of technology in many story moments is designed with a human or orc aesthetic in mind, not a gnome or goblin one.
    Well it’s not headcanon, since the Tinker hero is the Goblin Tinker, so it stands to reason that a class based on that hero would be centered around Goblins and Gnomes. I think your observations are rather skewed here, so I’m not going to spend time diving into them. If Blizzard makes a tech-themed expansion, I’m fully aware that you will not be happy about it.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-01-14 at 12:51 PM.

  15. #2915
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Did you miss BlizzCon 2018? Mechagon was one of the major announcements for WoW, and considered a big part of 8.2;

    http://warcraft.blizzpro.com/2018/11...blizzcon-2018/

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/blizzar...eres-find/amp/

    As for the overall purpose and impact of Mechagon for the game, who knows what it will be. We don’t know what Blizzards ultimate purpose for Mechagon was. It certainly wasn’t just to unite the Gnomes and introduce the Mechagnome race. Blizzard made a rather huge deal of it when they announced it. Perhaps that’s something we’ll learn more of in the next expansion, or maybe even later in this one.
    Because it was the mega dungeon of the expansion. Still, in the actual game it was side content with no relevance to the main plot of the expansion, be it the war campaign or the Nyalotha plotline. It barely had any story.

    I mentioned Shadowlands because running around the realm of death probably isn’t going to have a lot of Goblin and Gnome based content. As for Gazlowe replacing Gallywix, you got a bit of that content during the battle of Daza’alor raid, and of course the aftermath of that eventually leads to Mechagon.

    That said, I will agree that Blizzard needs to do a better job of spreading attention to more races. Mechagon and having Mekkatorque as a raid boss was a start, but they should definitely do more.
    The Kyrians are kinda heavy on technology, so thats that. Blizz just seems less interested in putting technology in the spotlight when they have to deal with gnomes or goblins, looking at how the big tech expansion was centered around Orcs. And even then, they changed the story midway to make it all about the Legion. Also doesn't change the fact that major story beats of the Goblin Race are gated behind quests which are designed for the tiniest minority of players to play it. Compare that to Varian Wrynn dying, which you had to play through to even access the expansion.

    Well it’s not headcanon, since the Tinker hero is the Goblin Tinker, so it stands to reason that a class based on that hero would be centered around Goblins and Gnomes. I think your observations are rather skewed here, so I’m not going to spend time diving into them. If Blizzard makes a tech-themed expansion, I’m fully aware that you will not be happy about it.
    Its your headcanon, since you think Blizz would throw in an expansion feature for the least popular races, which is kind of delusional. And in which way are my observations skewed? Objectively, nearly all of the time when technology is prominent, it is utilized by other races and designed after their racial aesthetic instead of gnomish or goblin ones, even if it is gnome or goblin technology. The Iron Star technology is aesthetically highly distinct from other Goblin technology and made to fit the racial aesthetics of Orcs. The Airship and Gunship are designed to fit the racial aesthetic of orcs and humans. I bet most players won't even know that these are not created by Orcs and Humans, as they have no goblin or gnome design elements. The one time we even get to play with a Mech, it was Draenei technology. Looking at the actual game, its pretty clear that Blizz has little interest in having gnomes and goblins in a position of spotlight which would be necessary for an expansion. Gnomes actually only receive some new content focussing on them once in ten years and then it is side content with no connection to the plot of an expansion.

  16. #2916
    Bloodsail Admiral Kagdar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    QC! but mostly in my head
    Posts
    1,066
    Didn't keep up with the conversation so i don't know if it was mentioned but:

    Spolier alert from Ardenweald story :

    In the story in order to save Tyrande from the Night Warrior power you have to find old Night Warriors in order to "split" the power of the NW into multiple beings.

    Am i the only one that totally read this as a way of introducing Night Warriors as a class? Ardenweald citizens are mostly supposed to be reborn at a later date, that's kinda the life cycle of the ArdenWeald in Shadowland.

  17. #2917
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Because it was the mega dungeon of the expansion. Still, in the actual game it was side content with no relevance to the main plot of the expansion, be it the war campaign or the Nyalotha plotline. It barely had any story.
    It wasn't just a mega dungeon though, and again it was a major part of the content in Patch 8.2. Was it pivotal to the story? No. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was major content and pushed heavily by Blizzard.

    The Kyrians are kinda heavy on technology, so thats that. Blizz just seems less interested in putting technology in the spotlight when they have to deal with gnomes or goblins, looking at how the big tech expansion was centered around Orcs. And even then, they changed the story midway to make it all about the Legion. Also doesn't change the fact that major story beats of the Goblin Race are gated behind quests which are designed for the tiniest minority of players to play it. Compare that to Varian Wrynn dying, which you had to play through to even access the expansion.
    WoD was cut short because of Blizzard's plan of annual expansions falling apart, and them not being able to get the content out in time. Sorry, it wasn't because Blizzard hates technology, or because they have some axe to grind against Goblins.

    Its your headcanon, since you think Blizz would throw in an expansion feature for the least popular races, which is kind of delusional. And in which way are my observations skewed?
    Yes, because you don't base a class' future popularity on the current population of its associated races, that line of thinking is rather asinine. The goal of a new class population-wise isn't to shift existing players over to the new class, the goal of a new class population wise is to bring in new and former players. In other words, the goal of a Tinker class for Blizzard wouldn't be to move Goblin and Gnome players to the new class even if those two races were the most popular races in WoW. The goal for them would be to bring in former players who want to try out the new class, and to bring in new players who might not have been interested in existing classes, but would be interested in a technology-based class.

    And btw, that's another reason why Blizzard would choose the Tinker over other class concepts like Necromancer or Dark Ranger.



    Objectively, nearly all of the time when technology is prominent, it is utilized by other races and designed after their racial aesthetic instead of gnomish or goblin ones, even if it is gnome or goblin technology. The Iron Star technology is aesthetically highly distinct from other Goblin technology and made to fit the racial aesthetics of Orcs.
    Yeah, I gotta disagree with that one. The Iron Star matches the general aesthetic of Blackfuse's technology like the Iron Juggernaut.

    The Airship and Gunship are designed to fit the racial aesthetic of orcs and humans. I bet most players won't even know that these are not created by Orcs and Humans, as they have no goblin or gnome design elements. The one time we even get to play with a Mech, it was Draenei technology. Looking at the actual game, its pretty clear that Blizz has little interest in having gnomes and goblins in a position of spotlight which would be necessary for an expansion. Gnomes actually only receive some new content focussing on them once in ten years and then it is side content with no connection to the plot of an expansion.
    That's an interesting argument to make considering the amount of the development resources they put into Mechagon.

  18. #2918
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That aspect of the game wasn’t sidelined in WoD where a major aspect of the theme of that expansion was orcs using goblin tech instead of demonic magic. It wasn’t sidelined at the end of Legion where we were using multiple forms of lightforged tech. It wasn’t sidelined in BFA where we had Mekkatorque as a raid boss and Mechagon as a major part of 8.2.

    It’s only sidelined currently because we’re in Shadowlands.
    You can't use Mekkatorque as an example if you don't consider him an official Tinker with official Tinker abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It exists as an NPC, and frankly it also exists as a Forsaken and Void Elf Hunter.

    Again, that doesn't make sense when you consider that every other WC3 hero has had abilities in the WoW class lineup at some point or another. Tinker (and Alchemist) abilities don't exist in classes or the professions. The only logical conclusion is that they're being saved for a future class inclusion.

    If Blizzard had Black Arrow in the Hunter class for that long a period of time it fits the theme of the class.
    You gotta stop with the Void elf Hunter thing. It does not make you look very intelligent.

    "Because abilities from every WC3 hero has ended up in WoW in some form or another":

    Clockwork Gnome
    Item Level 1
    Binds when picked up
    Use: Teaches you how to summon this companion

    Cluster Rocket Recipes
    Binds when picked up
    <Right Click to Open>
    Requires Engineering (225)

    Reaves Module: Piloted Combat Mode
    Item Level 42
    Use: Teach Reaves how to enter Piloted Combat Mode.
    /
    G.M.O.D.
    Item Level 50
    Binds when picked up
    Unique
    Mount (Account-wide)
    Use: Teaches you how to summon this mount.
    Requires Level 50
    Requires Apprentice Riding

    Renewing Mist
    2.2% of base mana 40 yd range
    Instant 9 sec recharge
    1 Charges
    Requires Monk (Mistweaver)
    Requires level 18
    Surrounds the target with healing mists, restoring (225% of Spell power) health over 20 sec.

    Bloodlust
    21.5% of base mana
    Instant 5 min cooldown
    Requires Shaman
    Requires level 48
    Faction: Horde
    Increases haste by 30% for all party and raid members for 40 sec.

    Corrosive Vial
    40 yd range
    Instant
    Splash your enemy with corrosive fluid, dealing [Attack power * 1.8 * 1 * (1 + Versatility)] Nature damage.
    /
    Poison Bomb
    Talent
    Requires Rogue (Assassination)
    Requires level 50
    Envenom and Rupture have a 4% chance per combo point spent to smash a vial of poison at the target's location, creating a pool of acidic death that deals [(11% of Attack power) * 4] Nature damage over 2 sec to all enemies within it.

    Transmutation Master
    Instant
    Allows an Alchemist to sometimes get greater results when transmuting materials.

    "If Blizzard had Metamorphosis in the Warlock class for that long a period of time it fits the theme of the class."

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    You're making the same mistake that Teriz by assuming Blizzard has some sort of sacred adherence to how classes/characters were depicted back in WC3, Blizzard draws from WC3 just as much as they ignore/retcon it.

    Elune worship & Loa Worship are not "missing" from the priest class, they're not represented visually, they gave Night Elf Priests a weaker version of Starfall (Starshards) back in vanilla & a elune themed buff, they gave Troll priests hex of weakness & shadowguard, those were removed not because Troll & Night Elf priests aren't worshipping Loa and Elune but because they were hard to balance, what the hell do you think Elune & Troll priests are worshipping? or the multiple times we've seen Troll Priests and Night Elf Priests using Light and or Shadow powers.

    In a perfect world yes Night Elf priests would have a star/moonlight based spells (like starshards or starfall) or at least the visual look to their spells and Troll priests the same but for Loa but they can't because of how balancing classes & or lack of time investment on Blizzard's part



    I have no idea what direction they're going with storywise with Sylvanas or Tyrande's new powers/alliegances but I somehow doubt we're getting a class based on making a pact with a character whos probably going to be dead by the time the expansion is over (the jailor) and a power thats described as nothing but self destructive to those that wield it (night warrior)



    Those Death Knights just use Warlock or Warrior abilities they weren't given a Death Knight or Necromantic makover, the Dark Ranger abilities we saw throughout BFA were either outright hunter abilities (disengage, multi-shoot, aimed shoots) or Hunter abilities reflavored to be necromancy themed like shot-type abilities given a shadow or plague theme (shadowburn shot, plague tipped arrows) or a revive pet ability given a necromancy flavor (dark revival), pretty different from just giving them Hunter abilities, same way Night Elf Priests might be shown casting a star or moonlight based spell while the playable version can't or a Troll priest will cast a curse or hex.



    Priests did not take the Demon Hunter thematic or anything else outside of mana burn which is a fairly inconsequential part of the Demon Hunter identity and Warlocks despite a devs attempts to have them absorb the Demon Hunter identity was unsuccessful at doing so.



    Once again your subscribing to this idea that Blizzard has some sort of sacred mandate to hold everything true to how it was depicted in WC3 a nearly 2 decade old game they ignore/retcon just as much as they reference.

    Tidesages visually, thematically and gameplay wise incorporate elements of Mages, Shamans and Priests (use of arcane, water elementals, communion with the elements, clerical, religious order, use of shadow-based powers) Tidesages absorb and incorperate elements of multiple classes and therefore cannot be accurately depicted by any singular one of them, they are a unique archetype in-universe but said archetype is split between multiple classes available to us.

    for comparison Witch Doctors (and Shadow Hunters by extension) visually, thematically and gameplay wise incorporate elements Shamans, Warlocks and Priests (wards/totems, spiritual abilities, hexes/curses and light/shadow powers), they cannot be accurately represented by any one of them because while they are a unique archetype in-universe said archetype is split conceptually between multiple classes

    The point is that NPC classes that are combinations of multiple classes available to us or use abilities we can't use are nothing new, we've had them since the beginning of the game and continue to have new ones added (like tidesages), Dark Rangers, Witch-Doctors, Shadowhunters, Priestess of the Elune, Tinkers and Alchemists are not special because they come from WC3.



    What does the archetype of a sapper/explosives expert have to do with the themes of a Hunter which is about mastery of wilds, beasts, "hunting weapons" (i.e spears and bows), tracking and traps, explosives are a minuscule part of the Hunter identity, currently what do hunters have in terms of "explosives" are explosive shot and wildfire bomb? (and wildfire bomb evokes more of an alchemical type explosive, not to mention "wilfire" is a type of fire causes by combustable vegetation so it still relates back to the "wilds" theme of Hunters). "explosives expert" is the last thing i think when i think "Hunter".

    What do the archetype of a Dark Ranger (a fallen ranger who uses necromancy) a Priestess of Elune (chosen worshippers of a moon goddess) and a Sea Witch (witches of the magic of the sea) have to do with eachother beyond the fact that they used bows and (different) types of magic and before you say "but Rangers" let me clear something up a Ranger as a fantasy class/archetype are not about "bows and magic" it's always been defined as about Woodlore, Wilderness survival, Beast mastery, tracking and are commonly associate with nature magic and "practical" combat skills i.e archery/marksmanship, axeplay and spearplay the "Ranger" archetype already exists in WoW are was turned into the Hunter class

    Let me just go over a couple of classes and how their themes inform and relate back to their specs while still keeping a thematic whole that makes a class what they are regardless of spec.

    Rogues: opportunistic and underhanded fighters, Masters of poison (assassination), stealth (subtlety), quick bladework (outlaw)
    Warriors: masters of arms & armor who fuel their rage into a flurry of raging strikes (Fury), heavy and decisive blows (arms) or protection of their allies (protection)
    Paladin: Holy Warriors who use holy magic and weaponry to punish their foes (retribution), heal their allies (holy) or protect themselves and their allies.
    Hunter: Master of the Wilds who uses tamed beasts (beastmastery), marksmanship (marksmanship) or venoms and traps (survival) to bring down their foes
    Priest: Wielders of light & shadow magic who use holy light to heal (holy), shadow powers to harm (shadow) or balances the two to harm and heal (discipline)
    Warlock: Dark Spellcasters and Summoners who use fel & shadow magic to curse and drain life (affliction), eradicate with chaotic and destructive pwoer (destruction) or uses an small army of demonic servants (demonology)

    Notice how despite the differences between specs all of them still relate back to their core thematic identity of their parent class meanwhile what does your Ranger have as a thematic idenity? a master archer who uses necromancy or holy moon magic or ocean magic? how do those magic relate to eachother? what does being an archer have to do with using those forms of magic? "Bow + Magic" is not a thematic identity nor is being an Elf, by this logic Paladin, Death Knight and Spellbreaker can all be made into the same "Knight" class because all 3 use melee weapons + magic or Warlock, Mage and Priest can all be one class due to all being "spellcasters" you're hyperfocusing on the most superficial aspects of Priestess of the Moon, Dark Rangers and Sea Witches that their weapon type and using (different forms of) magic, instead of the themes of what a Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch are a Fallen Ranger, a chosen of a moon goddess and a Ocean witch, 3 concepts which have no relation to eachother beyond the superficial (bows, using different types of magic and being/formerly being elves).



    It wouldn't call it pushing so much as musing/thoughts on ways a Necromancer class could be added in such a way that it wouldn't be thematically/visually overlapping with Death Knights by giving them others themes that don't interfere with what DK's do DK's would still be about Blood, Frost and Unholy while a Necromancer could be themed around around insects/spiders/nerubians, poison, corpses, constructs, bone and other aspects of the scourge/necromancy not currently represented well by the DK class.

    I've "rejected" your concepts because of instead of suggesting ways Dark Rangers, Priestess of the Moon, Sea Witches, Shadow Hunters, Blademasters and Wardens could be expanded to make them more distinct from Hunters, Priests, Shamans, Warriors or Rogues, you instead just took already existing abilities, themes and visuals from Classes that exist, essentially doing what happened with Demonology and Demon Hunters on a far larger scale and doing it do themes and abilities that are core aspects of those classes identities instead of what was a single spec that was using a thematic (turning into a demon) that was ill fitting of them and was ultimately the result of a single overzealous dev. Or you mashed unrelated concepts together into a "class" that would be a thematic and visual mess.
    Blizzard has been, consistently, adding classes from Warcraft 3. The Death Knight, the Pandaren Brewmaster (Monk) and the Demon Hunter. You just don't seem to notice it. When they break that pattern, you'd have a point.

    They are missing from the Priest, not only visually but, also name-wise abilities, which might have associated them with Moon or Loa worshipping. The Priest racials have been absent from the game since Cataclysm. Moreover, those priest NPCs fill the same role as Demonology and Affliction Warlocks did for the Demon Hunter and Death Knights. They supplemented the Metamorphosis and necromantic themes, until the addition of those classes.

    Then, you don't read between the lines. Showing Tyrande with new weapon types (Glaives) and Sylvanas using daggers, chains, Banshee form, Blast, vault and invisibility are there to hint at, potential, Dark Ranger and Priestess of the Moon abilities/weapon types and hype us up.

    Summon Skeleton — Summons 1 Skeleton to aid the caster in battle for 30 sec.
    alongside:
    Drain Life — Drains health from an enemy over 5 sec., transferring it to the caster.
    Shadow Bolt — Hurls a bolt of dark magic at an enemy, inflicting Shadow damage.

    So, yeah. They were trying to imply Death Knights as being some kind of Warlocks.
    You, also, have to take into consideration that the times are different. They might have just re-used abilities back then, but now they also give it flavorful names.

    If Mana Burn is inconsequential and the absorption of Demon Hunter identity into the Warlock was unsuccessful then, having Black Arrow once was inconsequential and the absorption of Dark Ranger into the Hunter is unsuccessful.

    Tidesages are a recent addition. They haven't been a part of the lore as long as the other classes mentioned. However, i wouldn't mind them actually being incorporated into the game, gameplay-wise. I think the addition of a Sea Witch would contribute a lot to that aspect.

    Yes, you can have Witch Doctors playable, if they incorporate those aspects into a Shadow Hunter class. Just like the Demon Hunter had to incorporate aspects of the Warlock, Rogue and Priest.

    The Hunter had much more "explosive expert" identity in Legion, when they based the Survival spec on Guerilla warfare (which, is what Junkrat, basically, is). Having abilities like Wildfire Bomb, Hi-explosive Trap, Explosive Shot, Dragonsfire Grenade, Sticky Bomb, Steel Trap, Caltrops and more. What i'm suggesting is moving it to the Marksmanship spec.

    "Elven rangers are elite archers turning to nature for aid, befriending animals. Some of them possess minor druidic abilities, as Vereesa Windrunner was able to use the "language of the trees, of all plants", and sense a plant's emotions and history through touch".

    The Ranger is the basic, nature aspect of the three classes. While Dark Rangers lost their ability to commune with nature, using necromancy instead, Priestess of the Moon use lunar aspects, given their worship of Elune, and Sea Witches use the sea, due to their transformation into nagas. Priestess of the Moon can still be seen using Spirit beast (owl) and the Dark Ranger replaced this aspect with undead creatures. As you can see, there's a magical aspect to the Ranger, as Vereesa could use nature magic. Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that the Ranger abilities and appearance were distributed to those 3 classes, exactly:
    Scout, Trushot Aura and Starfall were given to the Priestess of the Moon, and Cold Arrows were given to the Sea Witch, while the appearance was given to Sylvanas. Why give them the Ranger abilities and appearance if they have nothing in common with it?
    The Dark Ranger has the Ranger name in it, Tyrande has these talents in HotS:
    Ranger
    Sentinel pierces the first hero hit. Its width is increased by 25% and deals up to 250% more damage based on distance traveled.

    Ranger's Mark
    Basic Attacks reduce the cooldown of Hunter's Mark by 1 second. Basic Attacks against marked targets reduce the cooldown of Lunar Flare by 3 seconds.

    so, if you missed them in my last comments, here they are. There's absolutely, no reason to associate her with Ranger talents if she's no Ranger at all. So, now that you see that Priestess is just in name, the Sea Witch, also knows as Priestess of the Tides, is a Ranger as well.

    Currently, the basic Ranger might be in the Hunter class. But, i'm suggesting they remove it in favor of a Ranger class (containing the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch) and redesigning the Hunter as Beastmaster, Sapper and Headhunter. That way, there's no overlap.

    Let me show you how the Ranger divide into these 3 specs is like other classes in game:
    Base class: Ranger (magic-using bow wielder)
    Specializations: Necromancy, Lunar, Water.
    Mage: Magic user.
    Specializations: Arcane, Fire, Frost.
    Death Knight: Death magic user.
    Specialization: Blood, Frost, Death.
    Druid: Nature class.
    Specializations: celestial, physical, plant.
    Monk: Martial Artist.
    Specializations: alcohol, Mists, Physical.

    At the base, it will still be a Ranger: Master Archer. The difference between the ridiculous examples you've given with the Paladin and Death Knight and Spellbreaker, or the Mage, Priest and Warlock is that they are not different types of each other. A Paladin's variations are Vindicator, Blood Knight and Sunwalker. a Spellbreaker is a type of Blood elven Warrior. Mage's variations are Archmage, Blood Mage and Arcanist. A Priest's variations are Cleric, Anchorite and Cultist. On the other hand, the Ranger's variations are exactly what i pointed out: the Dark Ranger (a Ranger delving into necromancy), Priestess of the Moon (a Ranger using Lunar magic), and a Sea Witch (a Ranger using sea magic). at the base, they are all Rangers. They are just delving into different types of magics (different specializations, like the Mage's 3 magic schools).

    That's being hypocritical. You are just a Teriz 2.0, pushing your Necromancer class (instead of a Tinker) and dismissing other ideas.

    Insects, Corpses, Constructs and Bone are already represented in the Death Knight:

    Unholy Blight
    Level 56 death knight talent
    1.5 min cooldown
    Instant
    Surrounds the Death Knight with a vile swarm of unholy insects for 10 sec, stinging all enemies within 10 yards every 1 sec, infecting them with Blood Plague and Frost Fever.

    Raise Dead
    30 yd range
    Instant 2 min cooldown
    Requires Death Knight
    Requires level 12
    Raises a ghoul to fight by your side. You can have a maximum of one ghoul at a time. Lasts 1 min.

    Control Undead
    1 Rune / -10 Runic Power 30 yd range
    1.5 sec cast
    Requires Death Knight
    Requires level 37
    Dominates the target undead creature up to level 38, forcing it to do your bidding for 5 min.

    Apocalypse
    Melee Range
    Instant 1.5 min cooldown
    Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
    Requires level 19
    Requires Melee Weapon
    Bring doom upon the enemy, dealing (50% of Attack power)% Shadow damage and bursting up to 4 Festering Wounds on the target.

    Summons an Army of the Dead ghoul for 15 sec for each burst Festering Wound.

    Dark Transformation
    100 yd range
    Instant 1 min cooldown
    Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
    Requires level 32
    Your ghoul deals (44.73% of Attack power) Shadow damage to 5 nearby enemies and transforms into a powerful undead monstrosity for 15 sec.

    Granting them 100% energy and the ghoul's abilities are empowered and take on new functions while the transformation is active.

    Army of the Dead
    1 Rune / -10 Runic Power
    Instant cast 8 min cooldown
    Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
    Requires level 44
    Summons a legion of ghouls who swarms your enemies, fighting anything they can for 30 sec.

    Reanimation PvP Talent
    Tank Specs – Row 1 PvP Talent
    1 Rune / -10 Runic Power 40 yd range
    Instant cast
    Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
    Requires level 20
    Reanimates a nearby corpse, summoning a zombie with 5 health for 20 sec to slowly move towards your target.

    If it reaches your target, it explodes stunning all enemies within 6.5 yards for 3 sec and dealing 10% of enemies health in Shadow damage.

    Raise Abomination PvP Talent
    Tank Specs – Row 1 PvP Talent
    Replaces Army of the Dead
    40 yd range
    Instant 1.5 min cooldown
    Requires Death Knight (Unholy)
    Requires level 45
    Raises an Abomination for 25 sec which wanders and attacks enemies near where it was summoned, applying Festering Wound when it melees targets, and affecting all those nearby with Virulent Plague.

    Bonestorm
    Talent
    10 to 100 Runic Power
    Instant cast 1 min cooldown
    Requires Death Knight (Blood)
    Requires level 50
    A whirl of bone and gore batters up to 8 nearby enemies, dealing (19.65% of Attack power) Shadow damage every 1 sec, and healing you for 3% of your maximum health every time it deals damage (up to 15%). Lasts 1 sec per 10 Runic Power spent.

    Bone Shield
    Instant
    Requires Death Knight
    Requires level 23
    Surrounds you with a barrier of whirling bones, increasing Armor by (70 * Strength / 100)

    Each melee attack against you consumes a charge. Lasts 30 sec or until all charges are consumed.

    Yet, my ideas are bad and unoriginal?
    You don't even have anything other than Poison and spiders (which, can be a glyph).

    I guess you didn't see my Hunter, Shaman, Warrior and Rogue class concepts, resolving the issues of borrowing abilities:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...e/page111#2202

    You just took half of the abilities that define a Death Knight and put them in your Necromancer concept. Talking about irony...
    You're quick to criticize other class ideas and dismiss them, while your own are half-assed, stolen from another class and aren't even that detailed or impressive.
    Nice to see that, now that the Demon Hunter is in game, the Warlock's Metamorphosis wasn't fitting. How convenient...

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Unless you think the next expansion is also going to revolve around Sylvanas and her machinations, I would say that's a wrap for the Dark Ranger class concept. Frankly it makes sense because the Dark Ranger concept is mainly a customization of the Hunter class at its core. There was never enough material to make a viable class out of it.
    No one said it is, necessarily, next expasion. You think we are in some kind of a competition on who's gonna get what first. That's not what this thread is about. It's about possible future classes - at any given point in time. The Dark Ranger has enough material for a spec, alongside a Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch, which constitute a class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    But anyway, feel free to have the last word on this. I have no interest in further discussing the very dead Dark Ranger class concept.

    Pun intended? Maybe.
    Of course you don't. You just want to advance your Tinker obsession.
    What i don't get is what was the point of alienating me? I could have been a strong ally in your advocacy for Tinkers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And btw, that's another reason why Blizzard would choose the Tinker over other class concepts like Necromancer or Dark Ranger.
    Alongside the Dark Ranger and other concepts. This is not a competition. You can have your Tinker class first if it gives you your drug dose and calms you down.
    Last edited by Unbelievable; 2021-01-14 at 03:07 PM.

  19. #2919
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    None of those are a void elf dark ranger.

    I did, since that's what the WC3 heroes were. Again, ALL of them had their abilities used for classes except for the Tinker and the Alchemist.
    And, as I argued and demonstrated, those abilities could have been transformed into the engineering and alchemy professions.

    If they don't have the same name or same functionality, they're not the same ability nor are they derived from that ability.
    As I pointed out, they have similar functionalities.

    But since abilities don't matter, then this argument doesn't matter.
    Separate arguments, Teriz. Separate discussions. Stop conflating the two.

    Which is a straw man.
    It's not a strawman. What you're doing is cherry-picking. You cannot pick and choose what parts of HotS are canon to WoW and which aren't. Either it all is, or none of it is. You cannot use HotS as a source of canon information.

    Then why was there a Necromantic ability in the Hunter class for years?
    Ask Blizzard. But it's a fact that a necromantic ability does not fit the theme and fantasy of a hunter of the wilds, much like an arcane spell would not fit the theme and fantasy of a weaponmaster, or how a holy spell would not fit the theme and fantasy of a necromancer.

    But you can't say for certainty that there's NO chance for Black Arrow to return to the Hunter class.
    Neither can you say for certain that there IS a chance for Black Arrow to return to the hunter class.

    Meanwhile it's certain that the Warrior class will never get a holy based healing ability. Clearly you can't see the difference.
    ... Are you somehow incapable of thinking in hypotheticals, or are you being obtuse on purpose?

    You're ridiculous.
    And you're projecting. The one being ridiculous here is you by repeatedly avoiding having to address a hypothetical scenario.

    No, actually it was this;

    Then it was this;
    Your argument literally translates to "we have Sylvanas in the cinematic and no dark ranger class, therefore the dark ranger class is gone forever".
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  20. #2920
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    You can't use Mekkatorque as an example if you don't consider him an official Tinker with official Tinker abilities.
    I was using Mekkatorque as an example of the tech themed being used in WoW.

    You gotta stop with the Void elf Hunter thing. It does not make you look very intelligent.
    Like I said, I no longer have any desire to talk about invalid future class concepts.

    "Because abilities from every WC3 hero has ended up in WoW in some form or another":
    Yeah, when I say in some form or another, it'd be like the Crypt Lord's Locust Swarm ability turning into Insect Swarm in the Druid class. Not utter nonsense like saying Cluster Rockets which is an item that shoots fireworks into the air is a substitute for an AoE damage ability that stunned.

    "If Blizzard had Metamorphosis in the Warlock class for that long a period of time it fits the theme of the class."
    Metamorphosis DID fit the theme of the Warlock class. There was even lore to support its existence among Warlocks.

    Blizzard has been, consistently, adding classes from Warcraft 3. The Death Knight, the Pandaren Brewmaster (Monk) and the Demon Hunter. You just don't seem to notice it. When they break that pattern, you'd have a point.
    And the abilities of the PotM, Sea Witch, and the Dark Ranger have already been distributed to the class lineup.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And, as I argued and demonstrated, those abilities could have been transformed into the engineering and alchemy professions.
    But they weren't, that's the point.

    Also the WoW professions are based on the item system of WC3, not the heroes or the units. If you look at the items in WC3, they align almost perfectly with the available professions.

Posting Permissions

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