1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Actually Shadow is one of the major points of the class. Priests are all about worshipping the light and/or the shadow and balancing those forces. Because of that, a Shadow spec makes sense, and shadow abilities exist in all three specs. Discipline is supposed to be the balance between the two forces.
    Right, and the Ranger class that we're talking about is not yet defined. If we have a core Ranger class that is able to tap into external powers then we can explain why they would use Sylvanas-level Necromancy, Azshara-level Storm/Sea/Arcane powers and Elune-level Moon/Light powers all in one class. The shift in power is simply a specialization.

    why do we need the new class?
    WoW doesn't need anything, so this is pointless to ask. For that matter, we don't need a Tinker either. The game has come this far without it and is still thriving strong.


    Okay, but how exactly would this be any different than how a Hunter played while utilizing Black Arrow? In that case you had a physical ranged class that could use Necromancy along with various other magical arrow abilities like Arcane and Chimera shot, and it felt no different than the typical Hunter class. In short, I'm simply not seeing how this would play any different than the existing Hunter class.
    Why would the gameplay mechanics of a different class be exactly the same as one that is existing? It's kind of pointless question here.

    A new class, no matter what it is, would have new gameplay. A Death Knight isn't just a different flavour of Paladin, a Monk isn't just a different flavour of Shaman. Why are we suddenly assuming a new class would play like a Hunter? Just because it uses a Bow?

    The way I see it, it's as different as comparing Rogues to Shamans. Just because they dual wield doesn't mean their mechanics would be the same. They have very different specs, they have very different motivations and backgrounds, they have very different gameplay. A Hunter doesn't tap into the magical powers of external forces, a Hunter doesn't cast Arcane or Divine spells. They are survivalists and beast tamers and expert sharpshooters. The Ranger class would be built around the use of magic, with the Bow simply being their weapon of choice through which they channel their magical energies. Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witches weren't mere hunters, and they don't even fit that classification. They were magic users that simply chose to use a bow as a means of attack. Sylvanas, with her extensive use of magic, has far surpassed being a mere hunter. These identities have outgrown the Hunter, and unless we're talking about changing the Hunter entirely to be a Magic-user type class, it won't be able to satisfy any of these identities properly.

    The POTM spec be built as a psuedo healer spec, perhaps similar to old Fistweaving or Discipline. Sea/Storm spec could be a caster-heavy spec that uses bow auto attacks to generate spellcasting resource. The core theme of the Ranger is the use of magical abilities supported by the use of a Bow, as the POTM and Sea Witch were; and how Sylvanas is shown now through her heavy use of magical power. Look at her fight with Bolvar where her arrows produced magical chains; that's something that doesn't fit a Hunter's kit or identity. It would fit perfectly with a core Bow user class that has strong magical aptitude and an affinity for tapping into greater sources of magical power.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-24 at 06:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  2. #482
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    You keep saying the Dark Ranger. i said a Ranger class, not a Dark Ranger class. every class has distinctive themes through their specializations. what connects all of them together is the use of bows and magical attacks.
    But the Hunter is already a Ranger. The Survival Spec is even called a Ranger in its description.

    Have you heard about transferring abilities? when the Death Knight was added, it took the Death Coil ability from the Warlock. when the Demon Hunter was added, it took the Metamorphosis ability of Warlocks.

    You just answered you own argument. if the Death Knight incorporated abilities from different warcraft 3 units, so can the Dark Ranger. in this case, the Banshee unit.
    The difference is that the Death Knight was to be the Necromancer class in WoW, so it got every Necromancer ability, and that pulled in various abilities from multiple NPCs.

    The Alchemist and Tinker were Goblin units in Warcraft 3, but it does not mean the classes are only about goblin tech or chemistry.
    Well it sort of does. If you think of WoW as a whole, technology from races tends to revolve around Goblin and Gnomish races. Goblin and Gnomish homelands are technology-based. In fact, pretty much everytime you run into a Gnome or Goblin NPC, they're using tech in some fashion. Both the Goblin and Gnome faction leaders are Tinkers also. In addition, the Tinker concept in both WC3 and HotS are based around Goblin (and Gnome) tech.

    Well, people didn't believe the Demon Hunter would be added, because it resembled a Warlock in Metamorphosis or a Rogue using Illidan's Glaives. and yet, it was added in Legion, and they managed to make it distinct enough. if you gut the Hunter class of its Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Naga Sea witch abilities (and the Shaman, mage and others of theirs) then it does feel different and unique in contrast to them.

    Weapon Types: Axe, bow, Crossbow, Dagger, Scythe, Sword.

    Armor Proficiency: Leather.

    Skill(s): Archery, Necromancy.

    Every class has its representative. it's like saying Demon Hunter is just Illidan, Death Knight is just Arthas, Monk is just Chen, Druid is just Malfurion, Warlock is just Gul'dan, and Shaman is just Thrall. Based on them and them only would not constitute a class. thankfully, Blizzard can make an entire class out of one specialization (case: Monk).

    The names you've suggested are only tech-specific. nothing that points to an Alchemy. how about a Doctor?

    Eh... Blizzard couldn't make three physical ranged specs different enough in the Hunter class itself. This is why Survival became a melee spec. You honestly believe you could make a class feel different from Hunter by using discarded Hunter abilities?

  3. #483
    Old God Al Gorefiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A state of madness
    Posts
    10,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Right, and the Ranger class that we're talking about is not yet defined. If we have a core Ranger class that is able to tap into external powers then we can explain why they would use Sylvanas-level Necromancy, Azshara-level Storm/Sea/Arcane powers and Elune-level Moon/Light powers all in one class. The shift in power is simply a specialization.



    WoW doesn't need anything, so this is pointless to ask. For that matter, we don't need a Tinker either. The game has come this far without it and is still thriving strong.




    Why would the gameplay mechanics of a different class be exactly the same as one that is existing? It's kind of pointless question here.

    A new class, no matter what it is, would have new gameplay. A Death Knight isn't just a different flavour of Paladin, a Monk isn't just a different flavour of Shaman. Why are we suddenly assuming a new class would play like a Hunter? Just because it uses a Bow?

    The way I see it, it's as different as comparing Rogues to Shamans. Just because they dual wield doesn't mean their mechanics would be the same. The POTM spec could even be built as a healer spec, perhaps similar to old Fistweaving or Discipline.
    Someone who gets it. I swear half the people in threads like this have such a lack of imagination it's like discussing hypotheticals with bureaucrats.

    They can make a Barbarian class and make it play different from a Fury Warrior if they wanted to, it's a creative team of 100+ people. They can make a cloth-wearing light bending cleric class and make it play nothing like a holy priest or paladin.

    Unlikely? Duh. Impossible? Not at all.

    Considering there exists 100 different fantasy universes alongside Warcraft each with their own ideas of magic and fighting styles that Warcraft hasn't tapped into...

    A class that uses technology
    A class that uses music like a Bard
    A class that uses insects and arachnids like D&D's Blightmancer (surrounding an enemy in a swarm of biting, stinging bees and locusts)
    A class that uses blood magic
    A class that uses celestial space magic like balance druids
    A class that uses mirages and mind tricks like Mysterio
    A class that uses an unconventional weapon like a whip, flail, nunchuks etc.
    A class that uses magic through voice, like the Dragonborn of Skyrim or Black Bolt of Marvel

    Idk people who crap on Tinker in this thread are some of the same posters who crapped on Demon Hunter and Monk
    Last edited by Al Gorefiend; 2020-11-24 at 06:38 PM.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Gorefiend View Post
    Honestly I think any and all hopes for an "Alchemist" style class went to Monks. You're chugging "potions" AKA brews that briefly empower you, they even chuck explosive barrels of brew and breath fire.

    Honestly Monk is just a Pandaren-themed Alchemist class. We STILL do not have a class that uses Tech-themed abilities and the few that existed in the game and were historically given to Hunters are being removed expansion by expansion.

    And Engineering already existing is such a moot point by now... Do Engineers even craft damage consumables anymore? Things like Frost Grenades being specific to a class sounds so much better than further gutting that profession
    That's not alchemy, that's brewing (part of the cooking profession).
    Rogues can also concoct acidic poison bombs, like the warcraft 3 unit, does that make them alchemists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    But the Hunter is already a Ranger. The Survival Spec is even called a Ranger in its description.



    The difference is that the Death Knight was to be the Necromancer class in WoW, so it got every Necromancer ability, and that pulled in various abilities from multiple NPCs.



    Well it sort of does. If you think of WoW as a whole, technology from races tends to revolve around Goblin and Gnomish races. Goblin and Gnomish homelands are technology-based. In fact, pretty much everytime you run into a Gnome or Goblin NPC, they're using tech in some fashion. Both the Goblin and Gnome faction leaders are Tinkers also. In addition, the Tinker concept in both WC3 and HotS are based around Goblin (and Gnome) tech.




    Eh... Blizzard couldn't make three physical ranged specs different enough in the Hunter class itself. This is why Survival became a melee spec. You honestly believe you could make a class feel different from Hunter by using discarded Hunter abilities?
    Survival Hunter old description: "A rugged tracker who favors using animal venom, explosives and traps as deadly weapons." - which, basically, fits what they are now - Headhunters using Spears:
    "These cunning warriors are trained from birth to hunt, track and trap the most dangerous beasts in the wilds".

    Demonology description from Mists of Pandaria:
    "a master of demonic magic who transforms into a demon and compels demonic powers to aid him". how times have changed, ah?

    But, you also mentioned Liches, Frost Wyrms, Abominations, Dreadlords, Banshees and other undead units. and the Death Knight wasn't meant to be any of them.

    Again, you only mentioned Goblins. now you decide to mention Gnomes. their approaches are quite different. just like there isn't only the Goblin Alchemist way. there is also the Troll Witch Doctor way and the Forsaken Apothecary way.

    Yes, i do believe. old Survival was melee as well, don't forget it. and it's not just Hunter discarded abilities, its also mage and shaman. did you believe they could make a Demon Hunter, and give it two specs at that? no one did before legion. everyone was skeptic about it. you focus too much about gameplay. there's the fantasy urge that needs to be satisfied as well, that the hunter does not deliver.
    Last edited by username993720; 2020-11-24 at 06:49 PM.

  5. #485
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Right, and the Ranger class that we're talking about is not yet defined. If we have a core Ranger class that is able to tap into external powers then we can explain why they would use Sylvanas-level Necromancy, Azshara-level Storm/Sea/Arcane powers and Elune-level Moon/Light powers all in one class. The shift in power is simply a specialization.
    The Hunter is already the Ranger class in WoW though. Also it doesn't really help matters that every Dark Ranger outside of Sylvanas is just a Forsaken Hunter.

    WoW doesn't need anything, so this is pointless to ask. For that matter, we don't need a Tinker either. The game has come this far without it and is still thriving strong.
    Actually we do. Goblins, Mechagnomes, and Gnomes really don't have a class that fits their racial lore. Also its rather off-putting encountering the glut of technology in WoW and having no class to represent than aspect of the game.

    Why would the gameplay mechanics of a different class be exactly the same as one that is existing? It's kind of pointless question here.

    A new class, no matter what it is, would have new gameplay. A Death Knight isn't just a different flavour of Paladin, a Monk isn't just a different flavour of Shaman. Why are we suddenly assuming a new class would play like a Hunter? Just because it uses a Bow?
    It would, but I'm asking based on the likely abilities of a Dark Ranger that we have now. Black Arrow is the signature ability of the class and it was a Hunter ability for a very long time. Unlike Metamorphosis, Black Arrow never significantly altered Hunter gameplay, and nothing suggests that it would alter gameplay in a new class.

    The way I see it, it's as different as comparing Rogues to Shamans. Just because they dual wield doesn't mean their mechanics would be the same.
    That's not really the same though, because Rogues never had elemental abilities. Hunters had Black Arrow for a very long time.

    The POTM spec be built as a psuedo healer spec, perhaps similar to old Fistweaving or Discipline. Sea/Storm spec could be a caster-heavy spec that uses bow auto attacks to generate spellcasting resource. The core theme of the Ranger is the use of magical abilities supported by the use of a Bow, as the POTM and Sea Witch were; and how Sylvanas is shown now through her heavy use of magical power. Look at her fight with Bolvar where her arrows produced magical chains; that's something that doesn't fit a Hunter's kit or identity. It would fit perfectly with a core Bow user class that has strong magical aptitude and an affinity for tapping into greater sources of magical power.
    Uh, PotM was never shown to be a healer, and Hunters have Binding shot.....

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Gorefiend View Post
    Considering there exists 100 different fantasy universes alongside Warcraft each with their own ideas of magic and fighting styles that Warcraft hasn't tapped into...

    A class that uses technology
    A class that uses music like a Bard
    A class that uses insects and arachnids like D&D's Blightmancer (surrounding an enemy in a swarm of biting, stinging bees and locusts)
    A class that uses blood magic
    A class that uses celestial space magic like balance druids
    A class that uses mirages and mind tricks like Mysterio
    A class that uses an unconventional weapon like a whip, flail, nunchuks etc.
    A class that uses magic through voice, like the Dragonborn of Skyrim or Black Bolt of Marvel

    Idk people who crap on Tinker in this thread are some of the same posters who crapped on Demon Hunter and Monk
    This has always been my perspective. I don't think there's any actual limitation on what can be made, only a limit of design intent and
    gameplay balance on behalf of the dev team.

    We will get classes that fit their parameters of design and balance for any given expansion. If it doesn't fit; as per their plans in Shadowlands; then we will not get a new class. I don't think it speaks against any certain theme or archetype, given that we've gotten plenty of expansions where entire specs were gutted and changed entirely and the game hasn't become worse for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  7. #487
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Which is false. Pocket Factory is a WC3 ability and we have multiple examples of WC3 abilities being translated 1:1 into WoW.
    One: Warcraft 3 is not WoW. And two, I can give you a long list of abilities that did not get translated "one to one" into WoW.

    There's a difference between Death Knights being created by the Lich King thus being lined up for Frost powers,
    There's no difference. You haven't even proved that the Lich King had frost powers in Warcraft 3. You're making connections flimsier than what you accuse mine to be.

    Where did I say that? I just said that via chaos magic they can deal holy damage.
    You are equating one weapon strike that also deals nature damage to magic spells. If you see a difference between "dealing X type damage" and "casting X type spell", then you shouldn't be denying the hypothetical necromancer class a poison spellcaster spec because the death knights have one strike ability that deals nature damage.

    The fact that the Lich King was shown to use frost powers in WotLK
    What happens in the Wrath of the Lich King expansion and onwards are irrelevant, because the death knight was already created. You have to show me death knights using frost magic before Wrath. You're basically justifying demon hunters having a wing glide ability because all demon hunters in the Legion expansion have a wing glide ability.

    Uh, the Lich King turned Arthas into a Death Knight. Lich King Arthas in turn created his own cadre of Death Knights. There is no direct connection between Professor slate and any Necromancers.
    There is a direct connection, and I've pointed that out to you countless times.

    I never said that. What I said is that in the case of WoW, the Scourge (and the Forsaken) used alchemy in order to create plagues based around poison and toxins. When DKs came on the scene, it simply made more sense for the DK to use magic-based diseases and plague instead of the DK tossing vials of chemicals around.
    The Plague was never poison or toxin, or even "based around" those. It was literally a disease.

    The nonsense you and others push as Necromancers don't even make sense lore wise. For example, a Necromancer wouldn't use a spray gun or toss vials of poisons at people. That's a mad-scientist, not a necromancer.
    Just like it's not like a necromancer to wear plate armor and a two-handed sword.

    A Necromancer can't enter and leave Lich form.
    And demon hunters in the lore could not enter and leave the demon form. It was something permanent until Legion. Case in point: in the official WC3 campaign, Illidan could never transform until he consumed the Skull of Gul'dan, and then it was a permanent transformation. In WoW, the only demon hunter that could switch back and forth was Leotheras the Blind, but considering he's the only one, and the fact he's also mad, it could be mentioned that it's the result of a constant struggle between Leotheras himself and his inner demon, considering this happens when Leotheras and his demon separate:

    Leotheras the Blind yells: No... no! What have you done? I am the master! Do you hear me? I am... aaggh! Can't... contain him.
    Shadow of Leotheras yells: At last I am liberated. It has been too long since I have tasted true freedom!


    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Jesus christ, lelenia. You have a knack for being anti all the time.
    I just don't like seeing people spreading misinformation.

    as for your idea of cosmetic classes, like Shaman and Druid being able to fill the role of a Tinker:
    MY idea of 'cosmetic classes'? Excuse me?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  8. #488
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Survival Hunter old description: "A rugged tracker who favors using animal venom, explosives and traps as deadly weapons." - which, basically, fits what they are now - Headhunters using Spears:
    "These cunning warriors are trained from birth to hunt, track and trap the most dangerous beasts in the wilds".
    ...... Why are you using the old description? Use the current description, since Blizzard redesigned the spec.

    Demonology description from Mists of Pandaria:
    "a master of demonic magic who transforms into a demon and compels demonic powers to aid him". how times have changed, ah?

    But, you also mentioned Liches, Frost Wyrms, Abominations, Dreadlords, Banshees and other undead units. and the Death Knight wasn't meant to be any of them.
    The Death Knight was meant to be the Necromancer class for WoW, so yes it was meant to have attributes from all of those units.

    Again, you only mentioned Goblins. now you decide to mention Gnomes. their approaches are quite different. just like there isn't only the Goblin Alchemist way. there is also the Troll Witch Doctor way and the Forsaken Apothecary way.
    Actually Goblin and Gnome tech is quite similar. Though Goblin tech tends to be a bit more "junky" you have some outstanding inventors like Helix Blackfuse.

    Yes, i do believe. old Survival was melee as well, don't forget it. and it's not just Hunter discarded abilities, its also mage and shaman. did you believe they could make a Demon Hunter, and give it two specs at that? no one did before legion. everyone was skeptic about it. you focus too much about gameplay. there's the fantasy urge that needs to be satisfied as well, that the hunter does not deliver.
    Here's the thing though; Metamorphosis was a gameplay shifting ability. It completely altered the way Warlocks played their class, and it was so pivotal they created an entire spec around it and Demon Hunters couldn't exist in WoW without it.

    Black Arrow is not that type of ability. It didn't alter Hunter gameplay at all, and because of that there's no indication that it would make Dark Rangers play any differently from the existing Hunter class.

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    MY idea of 'cosmetic classes'? Excuse me?
    Yes. your idea. you've been arguing about it for over 20 pages. how these classes can, mechanically, fill the role of a tinker. "just make shaman totems turrets and druidic forms mechanical" reminds you something?

  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The Hunter is already the Ranger class in WoW though. Also it doesn't really help matters that every Dark Ranger outside of Sylvanas is just a Forsaken Hunter.
    There is no Ranger class in WoW. That's the point.

    We only have a Hunter class, and it does Hunter things.

    Actually we do. Goblins, Mechagnomes, and Gnomes really don't have a class that fits their racial lore. Also its rather off-putting encountering the glut of technology in WoW and having no class to represent than aspect of the game.
    They have Engineering.

    Anything else is just icing on the cake. There are thousands of Gnome and Goblin players right now who are playing them without a Tinker class. So like I said, WoW doesn't need anything. It's like saying the game needs Naga playable; it doesn't need that either. It'd be great to have, but if we're talking about what the game needs then no, it doesn't.

    What it comes down to is what you *want*. And if we're gonna ask why we should have a Ranger class that separately incorporates those Dark Ranger themes instead of the Hunter, it's because players *want* a class that is able to satisfy the fantasy of a Dark Ranger; not just a couple abilities or gameplay mechanics. Look at how the Warlock failed to satisfy the demand for Demon Hunters despite incorporating its Metamorphosis gameplay. This is what we're talking about. Class Fantasy.

    It would, but I'm asking based on the likely abilities of a Dark Ranger that we have now. Black Arrow is the signature ability of the class and it was a Hunter ability for a very long time. Unlike Metamorphosis, Black Arrow never significantly altered Hunter gameplay, and nothing suggests that it would alter gameplay in a new class.
    No, you're actually asking why a Hunter couldn't be something it isn't already. And the answer to that is pretty clear - it can be anything it wants to be given that Blizzard goes ahead and changes the Hunter class to absorb other themes; just as the Warlock had Metamorphosis.

    Black Arrow is just one ability, and username explained it the best:

    "It's not so much about gameplay, but the fantasy they fulfill. having only 1-2 abilities within a class does not satisfy the fantasy of playing a dark ranger. Look at all of Sylvanas' abilities and talents in heroes of the storm. how many of them does the Hunter class have?"

    That's not really the same though, because Rogues never had elemental abilities. Hunters had Black Arrow for a very long time.
    And Black Arrow doesn't define the entire Dark Ranger theme. I don't know how you are suddenly equating this when you even stated above that the theme isn't about just one or two abilities, it's about the fantasy.

    A Ranger class that is built around the use of magical abilities and channeling those powers through the use of a Bow/arrows is what we've seen lately of Sylvanas, and what we've seen in Warcraft 3 with Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witches. That is the fantasy.

    Besides, when was the last time we even saw Sylvanas use Black Arrow? I think porting her Chain Arrows ability would be even cooler.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-24 at 07:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  11. #491
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    One: Warcraft 3 is not WoW. And two, I can give you a long list of abilities that did not get translated "one to one" into WoW.
    One; Both games are made by Blizzard. Two: I can give you a long list of abilities that did get translated one to one into WoW.


    There's no difference. You haven't even proved that the Lich King had frost powers in Warcraft 3. You're making connections flimsier than what you accuse mine to be.
    Why would Blizzard call a character a Lich and that character no have frost powers?

    You are equating one weapon strike that also deals nature damage to magic spells. If you see a difference between "dealing X type damage" and "casting X type spell", then you shouldn't be denying the hypothetical necromancer class a poison spellcaster spec because the death knights have one strike ability that deals nature damage.
    I'm denying the Necromancer having a poison spell caster because nothing indicates that Necromancers use poison-based magic. An alchemist tossing vials full of poison at people is not a Necromancer using poison-based magic.

    What happens in the Wrath of the Lich King expansion and onwards are irrelevant, because the death knight was already created. You have to show me death knights using frost magic before Wrath. You're basically justifying demon hunters having a wing glide ability because all demon hunters in the Legion expansion have a wing glide ability.
    What happened in WotLK is quite relevant. Blizzard wouldn't have given those characters frost abilities if it didn't think it fit their concept. Look at the proposed healing spec for Demon Hunters.

    There is a direct connection, and I've pointed that out to you countless times.
    Entirely in your head (canon).

    The Plague was never poison or toxin, or even "based around" those. It was literally a disease.
    Thank you. That makes whatever Professor Slate was doing even less of a Necromancer ability. Also a single Warlock swinging around some swords really doesn't help your case either. A mad scientist is a mad scientist, and a Necromancer is a Necromancer.

    And demon hunters in the lore could not enter and leave the demon form. It was something permanent until Legion. Case in point: in the official WC3 campaign, Illidan could never transform until he consumed the Skull of Gul'dan, and then it was a permanent transformation. In WoW, the only demon hunter that could switch back and forth was Leotheras the Blind, but considering he's the only one, and the fact he's also mad, it could be mentioned that it's the result of a constant struggle between Leotheras himself and his inner demon, considering this happens when Leotheras and his demon separate:

    Leotheras the Blind yells: No... no! What have you done? I am the master! Do you hear me? I am... aaggh! Can't... contain him.
    Shadow of Leotheras yells: At last I am liberated. It has been too long since I have tasted true freedom!
    Actually various members of the Illidari could enter and exist Metamorphosis. The Demon Hunter hero from WC3 could also do it. That just appears to be junky lore that doesn't match the gameplay.

  12. #492
    The Undying Slowpoke is a Gamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    World of Wisconsin
    Posts
    34,729
    Whatever it is it'll be story-relevant to the expansion. So speculation is moot without establishing a theme for the expansion first.
    Legion made WoD's mistakes into traditions. It is my belief when all is said and done we will regard Legion as the beginning of the end.
    Classic - Bloodsail Buccaneers (A) | FFXIV - Crystal Datacenter

  13. #493
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There is no Ranger class in WoW. That's the point.

    We only have a Hunter class, and it does Hunter things.
    Blizzard disagrees;

    Survival
    An adaptive ranger who favors using explosives, animal venom, and coordinated attacks with their bonded beast. Preferred Weapon: Polearm, Staff
    https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...unter/survival

    They have Engineering.
    Which is like saying Enchanting covers Magic in WoW.

    No, you're actually asking why a Hunter couldn't be something it isn't already. And the answer to that is pretty clear - it can be anything it wants to be given that Blizzard goes ahead and changes the Hunter class to absorb other themes; just as the Warlock had Metamorphosis.

    Black Arrow is just one ability, and username explained it the best:

    "It's not so much about gameplay, but the fantasy they fulfill. having only 1-2 abilities within a class does not satisfy the fantasy of playing a dark ranger. Look at all of Sylvanas' abilities and talents in heroes of the storm. how many of them does the Hunter class have?"

    And Black Arrow doesn't define the entire Dark Ranger theme. I don't know how you are suddenly equating this when you even stated above that the theme isn't about just one or two abilities, it's about the fantasy.

    A Ranger class that is built around the use of magical abilities and channeling those powers through the use of a Bow/arrows is what we've seen lately of Sylvanas, and what we've seen in Warcraft 3 with Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witches. That is the fantasy.

    Besides, when was the last time we even saw Sylvanas use Black Arrow? I think porting her Chain Arrows ability would be even cooler.
    So are we talking about a Ranger class or a Dark Ranger class. The two are not the same thing, and really aren't compatible. In the end, you're looking for a class that shoots magical arrows. Hunters have multiple abilities that revolve around shooting magical arrows, and they already incorporate aspects of PotM, Sea Witch, and Dark Rangers.

    They also already have a "chain arrow" ability like Withering Arrow, it's called Barrage. The real question is how will this play differently than what we already have, and if this was in the cards, why doesn't the lore support it, and why wasn't it introduced as a class in Shadowlands?

  14. #494
    i will never understand why Ielenia hates Tinkers so much.
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  15. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    ...... Why are you using the old description? Use the current description, since Blizzard redesigned the spec.



    The Death Knight was meant to be the Necromancer class for WoW, so yes it was meant to have attributes from all of those units.



    Actually Goblin and Gnome tech is quite similar. Though Goblin tech tends to be a bit more "junky" you have some outstanding inventors like Helix Blackfuse.



    Here's the thing though; Metamorphosis was a gameplay shifting ability. It completely altered the way Warlocks played their class, and it was so pivotal they created an entire spec around it and Demon Hunters couldn't exist in WoW without it.

    Black Arrow is not that type of ability. It didn't alter Hunter gameplay at all, and because of that there's no indication that it would make Dark Rangers play any differently from the existing Hunter class.
    To show you how a spec can change, accordingly. if they added a Ranger class, they would change the description.

    So the Dark Ranger is meant to have attributes from Banshees. see? i can use that argument as well. being a necromancer have nothing to do with Lich, Abomination, Frost Wyrm, Dreadlord or Banshee abilities. the Necromancer unit has its own abilities: "Cripple, Raise Dead, Unholy Frenzy; Shadow Bolt and Death Coil in lore". it does not encompass the other units abilities.

    The whole point of their rivalry is to distinguish between these two approaches. heck, even the engineering profession has you choosing between Gnomish or Goblin proficiency.

    There are other abilities than just Black Arrow. stop being so hung up on that. you want to tell me that Silence/Wailing Arrow, Life Drain, Charm/Possession/Mind Control, Withering Fire, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Scout/Sentinel, Searing Arrows, Trueshot Aura, Starfall, Hunter's Mark, Light of Elune, Lunar Flare, Shadowstalk, Elune's Chosen, Forked Lightning, Frost Arrows, Mana Shield and Tornado would not make a difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    They have Engineering.

    Anything else is just icing on the cake. There are thousands of Gnome and Goblin players right now who are playing them without a Tinker class. So like I said, WoW doesn't need anything. It's like saying the game needs Naga playable; it doesn't need that either. It'd be great to have, but if we're talking about what the game needs then no, it doesn't.
    I can't agree with you on Engineering satisfying the Tinker class.
    Last edited by username993720; 2020-11-24 at 07:30 PM.

  16. #496
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    To show you how a spec can change, accordingly. if they added a Ranger class, they would change the description.

    So the Dark Ranger is meant to have attributes from Banshees. see? i can use that argument as well. being a necromancer have nothing to do with Lich, Abomination, Frost Wyrm, Dreadlord or Banshee abilities. the Necromancer unit has its own abilities: "Cripple, Raise Dead, Unholy Frenzy; Shadow Bolt and Death Coil in lore". it does not encompass the other units abilities.

    The whole point of their rivalry is to distinguish between these two approaches. heck, even the engineering profession has you choosing between Gnomish or Goblin proficiency.

    There are other abilities than just Black Arrow. stop being so hung up on that. you want to tell me that Silence/Wailing Arrow, Life Drain, Charm/Possession/Mind Control, Withering Fire, Shadow Dagger, Haunting Wave, Scout/Sentinel, Searing Arrows, Trueshot Aura, Starfall, Hunter's Mark, Light of Elune, Lunar Flare, Shadowstalk, Elune's Chosen, Forked Lightning, Frost Arrows, Mana Shield and Tornado would not make a difference?
    So again, are we talking about a Dark Ranger or a standard Ranger class? Outside of straight magical abilities like Life Drain, Mana Shield, and Forked Arrow, those abilities have all been in the Hunter class at one point or another. So what are we asking for here? A Hunter that can cast magical spells?

    I mean, if we can put 80% of those abilities in the existing Hunter class, why do we need to create a new class? For the 20% that exists in Mages, Warlocks, Priests, and Shaman? That don't make sense.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Slowpoke is a Gamer View Post
    Whatever it is it'll be story-relevant to the expansion. So speculation is moot without establishing a theme for the expansion first.
    Speculation is the best part.

  17. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I can't agree with you on Engineering satisfying the Tinker class.
    I didn't say it would.

    I said WoW doesn't need the Tinker class at all. WoW can go on perfectly to its final end without having a Tinker class in the game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So are we talking about a Ranger class or a Dark Ranger class. The two are not the same thing, and really aren't compatible.
    You think a Hunter class is compatible with a Dark Ranger, yet a Ranger class wouldn't be compatible with Dark Ranger? Explain. This is especially confusing considering you are making an argument that the Hunter IS already a Ranger class.

    The real question is how will this play differently than what we already have, and if this was in the cards, why doesn't the lore support it, and why wasn't it introduced as a class in Shadowlands?
    Same questions can be applied to asking why Tinker isn't already playable, or why Demon Hunters weren't introduced back in TBC. Because the Dev team doesn't want to bloat the current class design with another class, simple as that. Covenants were already a reason the game was delayed to now. We can see how much strain there is on class design that makes it unlikely that there would be any new class at all.

    Like I've always said, this is why I think Class Skins are a more plausible idea. The design team simply isn't flexible when it comes to adding new classes. We at most got one every 4 years, and this time they even skipped it.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-24 at 07:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  18. #498
    ignoring that MM hunter is suppose to the the ranger architype.

    How would you realistically make a ranger class?
    how many specs? what would those specs cover spell/ability wise?
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  19. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Yes. your idea. you've been arguing about it for over 20 pages. how these classes can, mechanically, fill the role of a tinker. "just make shaman totems turrets and druidic forms mechanical" reminds you something?
    To clarify this statement. That's not at all what @Ielenia was saying.

    The discussion at the time was specifically about how theme does not translate directly to unique game play mechanics and the theoreticals brought up at that point were to show that you could design abilties with completely different themes that had identical game play mechanics. Such an ability based on the Druid/Nature theme that had the same mechanics as a Tinker ability based on the Tinker/mechanical theme. Like how from a game play mechanic, a Tinker "changing forms" by putting on mech suit to unlock different abilities is the same game play mechanic as a Druid shapeshifting, or how a Shaman totem that spit out fire balls is identical as far as game play mechanics go, as a goblin gun turret shooting bullets.

    No one involved in that discussion was advocating against the idea of a Tinker being implemented and using the mechanical theme, it was entirely based on the separation of THEME and GAMEPLAY.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by General Zanjin View Post
    i will never understand why Ielenia hates Tinkers so much.
    They don't, they hate Teriz. It's the same for me.

  20. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Yes. your idea. you've been arguing about it for over 20 pages. how these classes can, mechanically, fill the role of a tinker. "just make shaman totems turrets and druidic forms mechanical" reminds you something?
    I really hope you trolling now, since it was THE Teriz who comes to any thread and says "You have your Necromancer already, just put robe and stave on DK and done ; You have your dark ranger already, you remember how hunter was having DARK ARROW ability" and while people reply to him like "You have tinker already in game , just use engineering as hunter" and then Teriz goes all REEEEEEEEEEEE.
    I want these classes in new x-pac Necromancer,RuneMaster,Warden,BladeMaster,DarkRanger,Dragonsworn,Alchemist,Baker,Bard

Posting Permissions

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