1. #5141
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    There is nothing rogues' in DR and full-fledged hunters' too, they're more of "agile mind-ed shadow mage", all its weapons are defective in themselves, but they are enchanted, magic is its weapon... but they aren't necromancers either, there are some common elements that intersect, but these are attacking and protecting spells, and not a full-fledged life/death force manipulation (for the same reason DK can't act as full-fledged necromancer). And when I mention these classes, I speak precisely for their literal mechanics, for their concept, and not for specific weapon or its use. You better forget already about these idiotic boundaries, that devs have drawn for their convenience here and there without any logic (narrow/tied scope in terms of weapons/specs'abilities/armor and other stuff, this is frank narrow-mindedness). All this was cut under auspices of balance, but in the end nothing like that happened, which indicates completely different nature of such phenomenon.
    They have elemens of all 3 if you look at all sources (WC3, WoW, HoTs and the tabletop RPGs):

    - Rogues: in the TTRPG they can stealth, they have ranged backstab, they have dodges similars to rogues. In WoW, they can stealth and disguise.
    - Hunter: ranged attacks with bows, melee attacks dual-wielding. In W3 they are a dark version of the elven rangers. In the TTRPG they have a lot of abilities similar to rangers. In WoW, they use a lot of hunter abilities
    - Necromancer: in W3 and HoTs they raise the dead, they curse and plague enemies, they posses enemies. In the TTRPG they have A LOT of necromancy spells. In WoW, is truth that we don't see DRs do a lo of necro stuff, save Sylvanas, raising dead, using Banshee stuff, etc.

    The concept I see from all media is a mix of those 3 archetypes. I think that's the idea that Blizzard has in mind. Then, they adapted it to each medium according to the gameplay.

  2. #5142
    Bloodsail Admiral Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post
    of abilities similar to
    dude, really... also previous speakers at least took the trouble to finish reading
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    ps. And here I once again draw attention to fact that I mean literal implementation of rogues' fantasy in game (whole class mechanics; dagers/bows are just tools, they don't speak for anything, direct mechanics/implementation is important; DR uses literal shadow magic, not subpar/suppositive/mimic-material), but not in some hybrid external "specializations" from other official/amateur projects.
    not that you have to read the entire discussion that follows, but still... they really don't. Read entire message, part of which I copied and may be also what is on this page above. What you're talking about doesn't apply to key class mechanics. It's like "big specialists" who called old survival and mm "too alike" because "thiy r shutng boff". They just don't. To refer personally to Sylvanas is separate topic in itself (I have provided links to pictures solely to illustrate, answer interlocutor to his literal part).
    Quote Originally Posted by monkfailz View Post
    1. A Ranged Tank.
    every time seeing this statement it touches me. It's not long to answer. Listen: to make sense of range tank, you need range boss, okay? There were several of them during entire existence of this game and for them "right away" players already found range tanks. Anything that is now "trying to run up" to tanking character, which means that even with opportunity to tank from distance, character will be forced to tank in close combat. Is this understandably? In other words, players have had range tanks for a long time, party just don't need them today, so they aren't being in use.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2021-02-23 at 12:53 PM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  3. #5143
    The Patient monkfailz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Honeydew Village.
    Posts
    283
    1. A Ranged Tank.

    Currently, all tanks are melee.

    A class that can tank the boss at ranged would be awesome.
    It's never been done before, would be very interesting.


    2. A Tinkerer class. (as everyone has said.)

    Kind of like the Engineer class in TF2.
    Set traps and gadgets to kill his enemies while he just sits back and relax.
    Last edited by monkfailz; 2021-02-23 at 12:15 PM.

  4. #5144
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,691
    Quote Originally Posted by monkfailz View Post
    1. A Ranged Tank.

    Currently, all tanks are melee.

    A class that can tank the boss at ranged would be awesome.
    It's never been done before, would be very interesting.


    2. A Tinkerer class. (as everyone has said.)

    Kind of like the Engineer class in TF2.
    Set traps and gadgets to kill his enemies while he just sits back and relax.
    The big question with ranged tanks is how are you truly ranged if the bosses are all melee based.

    I think a possible answer is an offshoot of the pet system where you launch a forcefield sort of like Orisa or Sigma from Overwatch. The forcefield follows your movements and generates threat while you stay 30-40 yds away blasting it with your mech cannons. Damage to the field causes "feedback" that in turn damages you.

    I think that's one way to do it.

    Another way would be the "faux" range tanks from SWTOR where you're using ranged weapons but you're still in melee range (5-10 yds).

  5. #5145
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    dude, really... also previous speakers at least took the trouble to finish reading
    not that you have to read the entire discussion that follows, but still... they really don't. Read entire message, part of which I copied and may be also what is on this page above. What you're talking about doesn't apply to key class mechanics. It's like "big specialists" who called old survival and mm "too alike" because "thiy r shutng boff". They just don't. To refer personally to Sylvanas is separate topic in itself.
    It's not a problem of not reading you, is a problem of not getting your point. You need to be clearer. E.g.:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    And here I once again draw attention to fact that I mean literal implementation of rogues' fantasy in game
    What is "rogue fantasy in game"?
    WoW currently have 3 rogue concepts: assassin (poisons & brute force), ninja (silent & fast), and pirate (dirty combat).

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    (whole class mechanics;
    Fantasy != class mechanics. Mechanics are just way to deliver fantasy, but theme is important too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    dagers/bows are just tools, they don't speak for anything, direct mechanics/implementation is important;
    Wrong, weapons matter too. A Dark Ranger not using a bow would be like a sniper shooting with his fingers. You can make it work, mechanically, in a videogame but it just looks wrong.
    Is like a priest healing people by hitting them with an axe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    DR uses literal shadow magic, not subpar/suppositive/mimic-material)
    So? What the point? Whta does have to do with the mechanics subject you're exposing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    , but not in some hybrid external "specializations" from other official/amateur projects.
    ????

    I think what you're trying to ask is "What makes DRs unique like a rogue?"
    That's more of a philosophical question.

    Paladins are warriors + priest, warlocks are mages with pets, druids are a 4 in 1 class, monks are stealth-less rogues with healing, etc.

    Hell, if you simplifies it more, you can say there just 4 mechanics: Health, damage, build resources, consume resources.

    For me is less of a uniqueness on single mechanics, and more on how you combine them to create a new thing.

    For example: Monk and rogue use both energy bars and combo points, but they don't play the same.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by monkfailz View Post
    1. A Ranged Tank.

    Currently, all tanks are melee.

    A class that can tank the boss at ranged would be awesome.
    It's never been done before, would be very interesting.


    2. A Tinkerer class. (as everyone has said.)

    Kind of like the Engineer class in TF2.
    Set traps and gadgets to kill his enemies while he just sits back and relax.
    Both are mechanically and technically doable, but they have problems:
    1- How you keep the enemies away? Does the thing you use stays away with the boss? Do you need to use both ranged (your body) and melee mechanics (your "tanking body") on an encounter?

    2.- That was how Shaman worked, and the problem is that by the time you deployed your turrets (totems) the combat was done and moving away. That why they are jus short CDs now, instead of permanent things planted in the ground.
    And if you make them movable, whats the difference between shaman (if make them short CDs) or a class with pets (if you make them movable permanent elements)?

  6. #5146
    Bloodsail Admiral Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post
    - snip -
    Post you first quoted has 3 links. In each of them talking about specific class. But before you go there, you must understand one simple thing that was discussed on those pages that you missed and it's formulated quite simply, I'll take a more substantive (to use words you used here) essence from another message (you can follow quote link and read entire message to understand general idea, it won't be superfluous):
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    There is no fantasy, there are only rules in form of mechanics used, realization of this basic fantasy. There are no swashbucklers, no ninjas, nothing of this kind, there are only bare "numbers". In other words, you can play as ninja or swashbuckler, but within limits of mechanic available to whole class (when I say class, I don't mean even just one class at all, you can be swashbuckler-warrior/hunter), but game has no right to impose such thing, focus on it at expense of class, it's your personal choice.
    Until you understand and accept this, it makes no sense for you to go further.

    There is only class, "specs" don't exist, they were invented by Blizzard to get out of trap into which they drove themselves. They decided that this is good way to fight homogenization, but it didn't work because in the process of both getting into trap and trying to get out of it they ignored banal design rules. Strictly speaking, I have never seen such blatant negligence in details in any game with possibility of development.

    Also, monks are bad example on your part, if only because they appeared during period of that homogenization, formally they are "played" mostly in same way, difference is quite insignificant... apparently for this very reason, friend, when criticized new design, wrote "all are monks now" speaking about work of resources and mechanics. I suppose it was clearly "written in state of being angry", but still it was one of first references to "builder-spender" type of gameplay. So... what makes them different is class fantasy and therefore - fewer such elements, the worse. For their imaginary increase devs come up with "specs" idea, but they aren't able to come up with different gameplay for 36 specs, therefore they unified it as much as possible (with which, ideologically, my previous opponent doesn't want to agree). Whereas prior to this, main combat mechanics represented entire class, any direction had almost complete set of class mechanics and therefore could refer to itself as belonging to it. Of course, these (different) were required much less, which naturally led to their significant difference between classes and mostly absence between builds (which differed only in priority of mechanics, these were mostly passive talents, whose task was to modify existing toolkit). It was simple, cool and right. The END.

    This is why use of same type of armor, weapon, or magic school can't in any way be related to similarity of class fantasy.

    ps. Fearing still not to reach you, same way as character nearby (men knows), I'll say right away that I'm not going to discuss obvious for another 3 pages, so if you have problems with this, then let's finish right here and now. I see no need for a waste of time, neither mine nor yours. Moreover, with potential for swearing with someone, I'm here not for these.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2021-02-23 at 02:11 PM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  7. #5147
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,691
    Quote Originally Posted by pacotaco View Post

    2.- That was how Shaman worked, and the problem is that by the time you deployed your turrets (totems) the combat was done and moving away. That why they are jus short CDs now, instead of permanent things planted in the ground.
    And if you make them movable, whats the difference between shaman (if make them short CDs) or a class with pets (if you make them movable permanent elements)?
    One way you solve that problem is to give Tinkers the ability to pre-set the turrets and also allow them to project the turret array to a location up to 30 yds away.

  8. #5148
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Post you first quoted has 3 links. In each of them talking about specific class. But before you go there, you must understand one simple thing that was discussed on those pages that you missed and it's formulated quite simply, I'll take a more substantive (to use words you used here) essence from another message (you can follow quote link and read entire message to understand general idea, it won't be superfluous): Until you understand and accept this, it makes no sense for you to go further.

    There is only class, "specs" don't exist, they were invented by Blizzard to get out of trap into which they drove themselves. They decided that this is good way to fight homogenization, but it didn't work because in the process of both getting into trap and trying to get out of it they ignored banal design rules. Strictly speaking, I have never seen such blatant negligence in details in any game with possibility of development.

    Also, monks are bad example on your part, if only because they appeared during period of that homogenization, formally they are "played" mostly in same way, difference is quite insignificant... apparently for this very reason, friend, when criticized new design, wrote "all are monks now" speaking about work of resources and mechanics. I suppose it was clearly "written in state of being angry", but still it was one of first references to "builder-spender" type of gameplay. So... what makes them different is class fantasy and therefore - fewer such elements, the worse. For their imaginary increase devs come up with "specs" idea, but they aren't able to come up with different gameplay for 36 specs, therefore they unified it as much as possible (with which, ideologically, my previous opponent doesn't want to agree).

    ps. Fearing still not to reach you, same way as character nearby (men knows), I'll say right away that I'm not going to discuss obvious for another 3 pages, so if you have problems with this, then let's finish right here and now. I see no need for a waste of time, neither mine nor yours. Moreover, with potential for swearing with someone, I'm here not for these.
    OK, I think I get what you're saying now: that Dark Rangers can't be a spec of rogues because they are fundamentally too different from what a rogue conceptually is.
    I agree. Adding them as a spec of rogues it would be like adding paladin as a spec of warrior.
    Dark Ranger are suficiently different from rogues on their current game implementation to be a spec.
    They're closer to hunter, and it would be also very difficult thematically.

  9. #5149
    A ranged tank simply doesn't work with the encounter design in WoW unless it is a pet tank and those have so many issues in games like WoW that they are rarely ever used because they aren't reliable (unless they are simply broken OP). In general it's not so much tank as a ranged doing kiting or CCing anyway if you want to fully realize it, otherwise it's just what we already have in high m+ keys. To begin with, the concept of kiting is causing issues as it is in WoW's tank scene, so going a step further solidifying the role seems to be rather counter intuive to current design goals.
    /tar Tinker-zealot /point /lol
    WoW:Shadowlands - Danuser's Divina Commedia?

  10. #5150
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    A ranged tank simply doesn't work with the encounter design in WoW unless it is a pet tank and those have so many issues in games like WoW that they are rarely ever used because they aren't reliable (unless they are simply broken OP). In general it's not so much tank as a ranged doing kiting or CCing anyway if you want to fully realize it, otherwise it's just what we already have in high m+ keys. To begin with, the concept of kiting is causing issues as it is in WoW's tank scene, so going a step further solidifying the role seems to be rather counter intuive to current design goals.
    Yeah, like I said, if they ever went for it, it'd be a faux ranged tank like they had in SWTOR. There were aspects of that concept in the Glyph of Demon Hunting that Warlocks had in MoP.

  11. #5151
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The big question with ranged tanks is how are you truly ranged if the bosses are all melee based.

    I think a possible answer is an offshoot of the pet system where you launch a forcefield sort of like Orisa or Sigma from Overwatch. The forcefield follows your movements and generates threat while you stay 30-40 yds away blasting it with your mech cannons. Damage to the field causes "feedback" that in turn damages you.

    I think that's one way to do it.
    That whole thing defeats the purpose of a "ranged tank" if the boss is still "melee'ing" you through your shield. Might as well just be melee. The whole point of being ranged is that you're not supposed to be in melee range of your opponents, but that entire thing is negated with the "shield" thing. I mean, how useful would a "pet tank" be if the warlock and hunters took 100% of the damage their pets take?

    Not to mention it makes things more complicated for the tank because it not only has to worry about positioning of his shield (and constantly repositioning it in fights like Sire Denathrius and Sludgefist) but also have to worry about his own positioning as well. Imagine dodging Sire Denathrius' "Massacre" ability during phase 3? The tank would have to constantly reposition himself and his shield, both at the same time.

    Another way would be the "faux" range tanks from SWTOR where you're using ranged weapons but you're still in melee range (5-10 yds).
    Then might as well just make the tank melee, right?
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-02-23 at 05:55 PM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  12. #5152
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I think you should give up on the necromancer class. If it were going to be a class, this would be the expansion to do it. The next expansion isn't going to be another death expansion.

    Infinite Pirate Dragon is definitely a tantalizing clue, and Dragon isles are definitely a possibility. However does Blizzard really want to go with Cataclysm 2.0 right after WotLK 2.0? Even if they go with Dragon Isles, there might not be a class next expansion either. They might be saving the next class for the 20th anniversary of the game.
    You mean like how TBC was, according to the devs, the perfect time for DH? Because they had another theme that fit and tossed it in there

    What do you mean by cata 2.0? Is it because the dragon enemies??

  13. #5153
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,691
    Quote Originally Posted by razorpax View Post
    You mean like how TBC was, according to the devs, the perfect time for DH? Because they had another theme that fit and tossed it in there

    What do you mean by cata 2.0? Is it because the dragon enemies??
    The Devs weren't ready to introduce a new class in TBC, so they introduced races instead. So in the second demonic expansion, they introduced the DH after they had some experience with the DK and the Monk, and there was some space between the DH and the Monk class.

    We're currently in the second death expansion, and we've had some space since the DH introduction (the same amount of space as between the DH and the Monk), and there's no Necromancer or Dark Ranger class in sight. It's time to move along.

  14. #5154
    why would there be a 3rd death themed expansion?
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  15. #5155
    Quote Originally Posted by The Council View Post
    why would there be a 3rd death themed expansion?
    Depending on how you count what force each expansion is themed around had we've had 3 fel/burning legion expansions (BC, WoD, Legion) and 3 Void/Old God expansions (Cata, MoP, BFA), 3 death expansions is not out of the question, especially given we don't know how Shadowlands is necessarily going to end.

    We also have no idea what will necessarily come after Shadowlands, signs are pointing to either an expansion about the First Ones or a Light/Void expansion but we don't know how exactly Shadowlands will end while everything that's been raised could get resolved (Scourge rampaging, Sylvanas, Anduin, the Jailor, the machine of death being broken) some parts could be left hanging same way the Burning Legion was still around at the end on BC, Garrosh was alive at the end of MoP and Gul'dan was alive at the end of WoD.


    Personally I think we'll probably get a Light and Void expansion next, Light and Void are the only two forces left that are antagonistic (well sorta antagonistic in the case of the Light with the Lightbound) and haven't been rendered non-threats like the Burning Legion means a clash between the two is the only real course the plot could go, after that it will probably be a First Ones themed expansion since they've just been introduced as the new tier above the the regular godlike entities like the Titans, Naaru, Eternal Ones, ect. Since we already have multiple classes or specs that deal with Light and Void/Shadow and the First Ones are too vaguely defined at this point I doubt we're getting a class for either of those two.

    I've seen a few suggestions for how a void-class could go but it seems to either a "Void Knight" or a "void ranger" but both have issues, "Void Knight" sounds like another flavor of "anti-paladin" which is an archetype that's already represented in the class lineup by the Death Knight class (and i guess Tyrant Velhari is another example of a fel-variant of an Anti-Paladin concept), Void Ranger runs into similar issues with Dark Ranger is that it's a very specific archetype whos building blocks are spread out among other classes (in this case Sub Rogue + Shadow Priest + Marksmanship Hunter), guess it sucks that Void/Shadow as a cosmic power gets spread out so much among the class and doesn't have a class to itself.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-24 at 01:15 AM.

  16. #5156
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    Depending on how you count what force each expansion is themed around had we've had 3 fel/burning legion expansions (BC, WoD, Legion) and 3 Void/Old God expansions (Cata, MoP, BFA), 3 death expansions is not out of the question, especially given we don't know how Shadowlands is necessarily going to end.

    We also have no idea what will necessarily come after Shadowlands, signs are pointing to either an expansion about the First Ones or a Light/Void expansion but we don't know how exactly Shadowlands will end while everything that's been raised could get resolved (Scourge rampaging, Sylvanas, Anduin, the Jailor, the machine of death being broken) some parts could be left hanging same way the Burning Legion was still around at the end on BC, Garrosh was alive at the end of MoP and Gul'dan was alive at the end of WoD.

    Personally I think we'll probably get a Light and Void expansion next, Light and Void are the only two forces left that are antagonistic (well sorta antagonistic in the case of the Light with the Lightbound) and haven't been rendered non-threats like the Burning Legion means a clash between the two is the only real course the plot could go, after that it will probably be a First Ones themed expansion since they've just been introduced as the new tier above the the regular godlike entities like the Titans, Naaru, Eternal Ones, ect. Since we already have multiple classes or specs that deal with Light and Void/Shadow and the First Ones are too vaguely defined at this point I doubt we're getting a class for either of those two.

    I've seen a few suggestions for how a void-class could go but it seems to either a "Void Knight" or a "void ranger" but both have issues, "Void Knight" sounds like another flavor of "anti-paladin" which is an archetype that's already represented in the class lineup by the Death Knight class (and i guess Tyrant Velhari is another example of a fel-variant of an Anti-Paladin concept), Void Ranger runs into similar issues with Dark Ranger is that it's a very specific archetype whos building blocks are spread out among other classes (in this case Sub Rogue + Shadow Priest + Marksmanship Hunter), guess it sucks that Void/Shadow as a cosmic power gets spread out so much among the class and doesn't have a class to itself.
    MoP and BFA were faction war themed.
    WoD was time travel/AU
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  17. #5157
    Quote Originally Posted by The Council View Post
    MoP and BFA were faction war themed.
    WoD was time travel/AU
    Yet MoP and BFA had void/old gods elements throughout (The Sha, Mantid, G'Huun, Tidesages, Naga) while they did initially start as more mundane affairs (alliance and horde fighting over new territory/resources) i doubt anyone went into BFA thinking that the Sylvanas would be the main threat and it was clear another foe was likely to usurp the main villain role (which happened with Azshara/N'Zoth).

    WoD was similar Gul'dan was prominent in the cinematic, was prominent in the intro scenario and there were hints of shadow council/burning legions activities throughout (with the Sargerai and other demons) and they eventually usurped the main villain role.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-24 at 01:25 AM.

  18. #5158
    For ranged tank to work, you'd have to do an Eyes of the Beast type deal where you swap minds with your pet and control it directly. Of course, it would be awkward because you'd have to constantly swap out with your toon so you can move them out of fire or whatever.

  19. #5159
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    Yet MoP and BFA had void/old gods elements throughout (The Sha, Mantid, G'Huun, Tidesages, Naga) while they did initially start as more mundane affairs (alliance and horde fighting over new territory/resources) i doubt anyone went into BFA thinking that the Sylvanas would be the main threat and it was clear another foe was likely to usurp the main villain role (which happened with Azshara/N'Zoth).

    WoD was similar Gul'dan was prominent in the cinematic, was prominent in the intro scenario and there were hints of shadow council/burning legions activities throughout (with the Sargerai and other demons) and they eventually usurped the main villain role.
    The point remains though, we're probably going to be staying on Azeroth for the next expansion. Which is what the community seems to want. People don't want to spend multiple expansions on other planets fighting gods in a medieval RPG.

  20. #5160
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The Devs weren't ready to introduce a new class in TBC, so they introduced races instead. So in the second demonic expansion, they introduced the DH after they had some experience with the DK and the Monk, and there was some space between the DH and the Monk class.

    We're currently in the second death expansion, and we've had some space since the DH introduction (the same amount of space as between the DH and the Monk), and there's no Necromancer or Dark Ranger class in sight. It's time to move along.
    and theres 2 death themed class archetypes in warcraft

    i mean you can keep denying the possibility of them bringing it in but until you are the head of blizz you cant say "necromancer wont happen"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by The Council View Post
    why would there be a 3rd death themed expansion?
    because blizz is like disney when it comes to reusing story

    classic: factions
    Wrath: there was a patch and raid with faction undertones
    cata: also had faction garbage
    MoP: faction war as underlying theme
    WoD: rediscovering the origin of faction races
    Legion: finally factions unite against a common enemy...except for a few pvp areas and a zone
    BfA: remember how we teamed up?? ya no faction war

    depending on how far we go in 9.2 and 9.3 there can still be death stuff we dont know about

Posting Permissions

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