1. #5381
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    I believe in you.
    Are you saying that you cannot provide this information?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If anything, the Warlock class is most likely based on the Warcraft 1 unit of the same name.

    Of the Cloth casters we have in the game right now, all three can be sourced to Warcraft 1. Priest is the Cleric unit, the typical healer archetype. Mage is obviously the Conjuror, the Arcane/Elemental magic specialist. Warlock is the Warlock, summoner of demons and dark magic user.

    From there they flavoured the archetypes with WC3 abilities and new ones created for the new classes.
    And I wouldn't disagree with that. Because clearly there wasn't an equivalent unit in WC3 like say the Priest, Paladin or Druid had.

  2. #5382
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Are you saying that you cannot provide this information?
    No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you are literally ignoring facts given to you and being deliberately dense so you can 'win' in your mind. You are not worth my time. You were shown the warlock, and given two links (since one wasn't enough), and now you want a third. Hilarious, even though it's disappointing.

  3. #5383
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes, because potential means viability.

    Can anyone really say *any* class is off the table? If Blizzard wanted to make Slavemaster, they could surprise us out of left field and do so. Can you say with complete certainty that they wouldn't make it? No, without any evidence against the class concept, you couldn't.
    It'll be like discussing the possibility of a flying pink elephant being behind you everytime you're not looking (that can't be captured or proved by any scientific tool). Could you say for 100% it's not there?
    Doesn't matter, the discussion is irrelevant.

    All we can discuss are the merits of the possibilities of having them. And despite what patterns you see with Themes or Gameplay or Warcraft 3 Heroes, we don't actually have insight into what they consider a viable or non-viable pick. All we have to go off of are statements the devs have made regarding post-mortem picks of classes.
    That's why it's called speculation. That is not just based on "oooh, i want that".

    Even the current PR speak they do is not reliable. When asked about a Tinker, Ghostcrawler poses whether they would be too whimsical. Well, is this denying the Tinker? Not at all, he's simply addressing part of the Tinkers merits. Or what about when a CM literally said 'No we do not have plans for Demon Hunter right now'? Well, we know in retrospect they *did* plan it, as the time of those statements would have had Legion as a potential expansion planned, with all the classes lined up on the shortlist, including the Demon Hunter. Yet they couldn't just reveal that in a twitter/blue post, so of course we can only take what they say in regards to new classes with a grain of salt. There is no reliable way to *deny* any class concept as a potential class, because every precedent that was used against Demon Hunters had been broken.
    That's the thing about PR. You have to provide an answer to appease the crowd, but not reveal anything.

    As for my own evaluations, I'm simply pointing at popularity and demand as *one of many* factors that should all be considered. They aren't designing new classes in a box where only the right Warcraft 3 hero will fit. We know for a fact that's not how they consider new classes. We know for a fact they can and will take a WC3 Hero concept and simply attribute it as a *spec* of a more broad-range class; the Brewmaster as a Monk. We know they considered the Necromancer as a different entity from the Death Knight as a class unto itself. We know they would even consider concepts outside of Warcraft itself, like Runemasters and Rogues, which have no formal equivalent in the RTS games and rather have a more generic 'RPG' archetype background.
    The Monk is still based on the Brewmaster of WC3, after all. The entire concept is chinese, there aren't any other types of Monks in it. Maybe, if there's a race name (Pandaren) before the profession (Brewmaster), it is just going to end up as a spec, inside a class. I'll have to look into that. Problem is, they changed Goblin Tinker/Alchemist to just Tinker/Alchemist and Tauren Chieftain ain't coming. Only left with the Naga Sea Witch to test this theory. We'll have to see...

    There's plenty we can discuss when it comes to the merits of a class, and they aren't bound to whatever constraints you seem to be choosing to classify it all under. You've chosen to categorize certain ones that may have more merit than others, but you've gone so far down your own rabbit hole that you are regarding your own box as though everyone agrees with your standards. I'm simply bringing you back to reality and laying out the clear truth - there is no box except for what you decided to create for yourself. There are no patterns to glean which classes are 'more viable' than others. There is no evidence you have that can point to an Alchemist class being more worthy than an Apothecary.
    For the time being, there is.
    Though, they could always break it.
    When it occurs, i'll probably go silent

    All you have to base your ideas on is causation. 'The ground is wet is everytime it rains, therefore wet ground means it must have rained' only goes so far until you realize rain is not the only answer to the ground being wet. So what if Blizzard has so far only added new classes based on WC3 heroes? That doesn't mean that's the only thing they will add in the future, or the only classes they have ever had in consideration. You hadn't even considered that WC3 heroes were being picked because they were popular and in high demand. Arthas and Illidan are the two most popular characters in Warcraft, so of course they would be added. Demon Hunters were planned but simply never had the chance to appear. Pandaren were also highly in demand and were about to become playable in TBC, but were held back due to complications with China's rules around that time (https://games.no1geekfun.com/thats-w...rning-crusade/). It wasn't until MOP that they could officially make them playable, and so they packaged it all with a new Class to top it off.
    I'd agree with you on Illidan and Arthas.
    But, the Pandaren? They were, unanimously hated by the community. Unless we're considering chinese audience, as well. Because that expansion tried to cater to them, obviously.
    Even with Illidan's popularity, many were against another 'Fel and Demonic' class.

    Just because a concept didn't make it to become playable doesn't mean it's off the list. We see multiple concepts return in post-mortems. Demon Hunters, Pandarens, Runemasters; all had second chances with variable success. Some were cut, some were held back, some were changed completely; all due to different factors and none pointing directly at 'Warcraft 3 Hero' as a common reasoning. I don't see there being a point to adhering to the old, fallacious logic that new classes would only be derived from WC3.
    The only explanation i can give is Runemasters being, mostly, unknown to the community with not any known character to associate it with.

    As for Necromancer, i can only guess it was considered lesser in comparison to the Death Knight (basic vs Hero).

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    What unit are you referring to?

    So, when they decided to make World of Warcraft, they sat around and said "We need to make some classes. We can use some Hero unit as direct representation, like say, the Paladin. We can use non hero units like the Priest or the Druid to make classes too. We can invent brand new stuff that really wasn't in WC3, like the Warlock. We can mash a bunch of units together to make new, more generic classes like the Warrior and the Mage. Really, we have tons of options!"

    Later on...

    "Well now we have a series of intricate rules we have to follow when adding a new class. Obviously we can't just add what we want, or try and create something new. We need to follow the rules!"

    Really?
    Stormreaver Warlock/Eredar Warlock.

    Yes.

    When you put it like that... it sounds awful.
    But, that is, basically, my prediction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And that is moving the goalposts, considering your claim was that Blizzard "would not add a Warcraft 3 unit as a class". And they have: the rogue glass did not come from any hero unit in WC3. The druid class came from the druid units. The warlock class came from no warcraft 3 unit. All three of them just took abilities from other units and heroes, but the concept themselves did not come from the hero units.

    And then we have the runemaster concept, which did not come from anywhere in Warcraft 3, and was still one of the top 3 choices for a class in Wrath.
    What did i just say? Expansion classes, not Vanilla ones.

    By the way, there are Warlock units and Assassin creeps. But, that is not my point.

    And yet, it still wasn't added. But, was integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Okay, let me try again then.

    Here is the Priest. We can see abilities like Heal, Dispel Magic and Inner Fire which form the basis for abilities of the Priest class in WoW.
    Here is the Paladin. We can see abilities like Holy Light, Devotion Aura and Divine Shield which form the basis for abilities of the Paladin class in WoW.
    Here is the Archmage, Blood Mage and Sorceress. We can see abilities like Blizzard, Water Elemental, Flamestrike, Slow, Invisibility and Polymorph which form the basis for abilities of the Mage class in WoW.

    Please direct me to the Warlock unit that does the same.
    Archimonde:
    Dark Portal (opens a portal allowing demons to step through and do Archimonde's bidding)
    Rain of Chaos (summons multiple infernals)

    Orc Warlock:
    "They have the ability to cast fire bolts, to induce frenzies on allied units and cripple enemy targets."

    Though, i never claimed WC3 units to be the inspiration for Vanilla WoW. So, i don't know why you're so hooked on that.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-07 at 09:54 PM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  4. #5384
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you are literally ignoring facts given to you and being deliberately dense so you can 'win' in your mind. You are not worth my time. You were shown the warlock, and given two links (since one wasn't enough), and now you want a third. Hilarious, even though it's disappointing.
    So your contribution here is to passive aggressively google something and provide irrelevant information for a topic I'm guessing you don't quite grasp and then peace out when you're called out on it? I very clearly pieced together the information and correlation, so I'm not quite sure why you don't get it.

    But cool. Run along then.

  5. #5385
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    It'll be like discussing the possibility of a flying pink elephant being behind you everytime you're not looking (that can't be captured or proved by any scientific tool). Could you say for 100% it's not there?
    Doesn't matter, the discussion is irrelevant.
    It doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it so you can't make bold and baseless claims like Apothecarys have more merit of being real than Alchemists because they appeared in Warcraft 3.

    I'm specifically countering your use of arbitrary patterns. But hey, if your entire argument is centered on the use of those patterns, then sure, I can see how you feel like there's no merit to discussion.

    For the time being, there is.
    Though, they could always break it.
    When it occurs, i'll probably go silent
    I don't see the point of going full tinfoil hat when it's much more sensible to, you know, use common sense and reasonable talking points.

    These patterns are correlations. The ground is wet every time it rains, but we're intelligent enough to understand the pattern isn't a rule.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-07 at 09:59 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  6. #5386
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it so you can't make bold and baseless claims like Apothecarys have more merit of being real than Alchemists because they appeared in Warcraft 3.

    I'm specifically countering your use of arbitrary patterns. But hey, if your entire argument is centered on the use of those patterns, then sure, I can see how you feel like there's no merit to discussion.
    Other way around. Or, did you mean to write less?

    There is. Just not to endless possibilities.
    I'd keep it inside Warcraft lore classes or fantasy classes, in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I don't see the point of going full tinfoil hat when it's much more sensible to, you know, use common sense and reasonable talking points.

    These patterns are correlations. The ground is wet every time it rains, but we're intelligent enough to understand the pattern isn't a rule.
    Let's just throw theories out of the window and ruin all the fun.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-07 at 10:29 PM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  7. #5387
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,206
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    What did i just say? Expansion classes, not Vanilla ones.
    You added that caveat after the fact, hence: moving goalposts.

    By the way, there are Warlock units and Assassin creeps. But, that is not my point.
    Not playable ones.

    And yet, it still wasn't added. But, was integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes.
    It doesn't matter. The fact it was one of the runner-ups is important. Because if WC3 was indeed important, the runemaster would've never been one of the top 3 choices for a new class.

    Archimonde:
    Dark Portal (opens a portal allowing demons to step through and do Archimonde's bidding)
    Rain of Chaos (summons multiple infernals)
    Archimonde is not a playable unit, though.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  8. #5388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You added that caveat after the fact, hence: moving goalposts.
    I meant it from the beginning.
    Already explained that to Triceron and Jellmoo, but you, apparently, don't read other comments.

    Not playable ones.
    Was never the point.

    It doesn't matter. The fact it was one of the runner-ups is important. Because if WC3 was indeed important, the runemaster would've never been one of the top 3 choices for a new class.
    Did you ever stop to think why it lost twice? to the Death Knight and Monk?

    Archimonde is not a playable unit, though.
    Again, doesn't matter.
    The claim was not that classes were based on playable units, but existing ones.
    Though, i didn't claim it, either. People just assumed i'm talking about Vanilla WoW classes, and for some reason, are still talking about it.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  9. #5389
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Let's just throw theories out of the window and ruin all the fun.
    If patterns are the only way you can legitimately discern theories, then yes, throw them out the window. There are far more reasonable ways to have a discussion without cherry picking Warcraft 3 heroes as the be-all end-all.

    I don't see how you equate that to ruining all the fun since you were completely able to address the Runemaster and Necromancer above without haphazardly equating them to having to be sourced from Warcraft 3 heroes.

    A completely agree that the Runemaster is a relatively unknown concept to most people, making it more difficult for it to be fully considered when put up against stronger thematic concepts like a Death Knight and Necromancer, which were actual units we've seen in the RTS games.

    I agree that the Necromancer lost out to the Death Knight if you're talking about a Basic class vs a Hero class. There's far more potential in exploring the Hero class variant of the DK, and giving it a unique starting zone and backstory and everything to go with it.

    As for a more nuanced response, I'd say the Runemaster and Necromancer concepts still have potential in regards to Class skins purely because they are already a core influence on existing class design. There's potential to explore these identities again. And this isn't just a 'what I want' response, it's based on what we've seen with Allied Races bridging in sub-race options as their own races rather than just being sub-options for existing races. We also have Covenants showing that they're slowly opening up to the idea of classes having customizable, deviating gameplay options. This is beyond 'what I want', since I'd much rather have a new class instead of a regurgitation of existing classes; but beggars can't be choosers when Blizzard hasn't added a new class in over 6+ years, and did a pretty half-ass job at the last one.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-07 at 11:11 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  10. #5390
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,206
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I meant it from the beginning.
    Already explained that to Triceron and Jellmoo, but you, apparently, don't read other comments.
    But like I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And also: it has never been demonstrated that class design rules for expansion classes are any different than the class design rules for the original vanilla classes.
    So trying to separate vanilla classes from expansion classes is meaningless until you can demonstrate their design processes are different.

    Did you ever stop to think why it lost twice? to the Death Knight and Monk?
    Yeah, I did. For a moment. Then I realized it was a futile thing that was considering we're not privy to the reasons as to why it "lost" twice, and any and all affirmations one make regarding said reasons are nothing but pure speculation.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  11. #5391
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,074
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Giving everyone Death Knight is wrong.
    Giving everyone Monk is wrong.

    according to who? you? who barely know the game and often bring shenanigans of other games?

    who do you think you are trying to make your opinion as facts? you do not get to decide what people can or can't roleplay, if a tauren player want to be a dark ranger there is no problem on that, if they are training new races
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2021-04-07 at 11:04 PM.

  12. #5392
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Stormreaver Warlock/Eredar Warlock.

    Yes.

    When you put it like that... it sounds awful.
    But, that is, basically, my prediction.


    Archimonde:
    Dark Portal (opens a portal allowing demons to step through and do Archimonde's bidding)
    Rain of Chaos (summons multiple infernals)

    Orc Warlock:
    "They have the ability to cast fire bolts, to induce frenzies on allied units and cripple enemy targets."

    Though, i never claimed WC3 units to be the inspiration for Vanilla WoW. So, i don't know why you're so hooked on that.
    I think ultimately that the human brain looks for patterns everywhere and that's why you're hung up on the notion of rules for expansion classes. Blizzard has produced classes from a wide variety of sources within their universe. I think that they've shown both the capacity to be super specific about them, but also very general, mostly as an effort to maximize the number of character concepts that people are able to create.

    When it comes to expansion classes, I think we still see a pretty wide variance. The Death Knight is a very specific class where they took inspiration mostly from two WC3 units. The Demon Hunter as well is super specific, taking inspiration almost exclusively from a single WC3 unit.

    The Monk is more general and represents a wider variety of concept. Also, the class isn't named after a WC3 unit, taking the name as one of the class specs. And when it comes to abilities, it has the most "outside the box" thinking as they added a healing spec to it that really never existed.

    If we look at what they've done so far, I think it's really hard to predict what Blizzard could do in the future. The could directly adapt another WC3 Hero unit, like the Tinker or Dark Ranger. Or they could adapt a regular unit like the Necromancer. They could take inspiration from multiple units to make an amalgamated class, say a "Science" class based on the Tinker and Alchemist. They could do none of the above and make something that wasn't really present in WC3. They've done all of the above already. I think the problem with looking for patterns to determine what they do next is that they also tend to break patterns. Their design methodlogy needs to be more robust than satisfying perceived patterns, otherwise they are limiting what they can do, and that would be a very bizarre design methodology for a game team to take.

  13. #5393
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If patterns are the only way you can legitimately discern theories, then yes, throw them out the window. There are far more reasonable ways to have a discussion without cherry picking Warcraft 3 heroes as the be-all end-all.

    I don't see how you equate that to ruining all the fun since you were completely able to address the Runemaster and Necromancer above without haphazardly equating them to having to be sourced from Warcraft 3 heroes.
    I'd like to hear your theory as to the next possible classes and why.

    For consideration, not addition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    But like I said:

    So trying to separate vanilla classes from expansion classes is meaningless until you can demonstrate their design processes are different.


    Yeah, I did. For a moment. Then I realized it was a futile thing that was considering we're not privy to the reasons as to why it "lost" twice, and any and all affirmations one make regarding said reasons are nothing but pure speculation.
    Addition patterns are not demonstrations?

    Speculation are all we've got, at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    according to who? you? who barely know the game and often bring shenanigans of other games?

    who do you think you are trying to make your opinion as facts? you do not get to decide what people can or can't roleplay, if a tauren player want to be a dark ranger there is no problem on that, if they are training new races
    Cheapening the race/class combos, that's why.
    You no longer have to attribute any special lore.
    Just slap a "raised into it" or "taught it" and you're done.

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I think ultimately that the human brain looks for patterns everywhere and that's why you're hung up on the notion of rules for expansion classes. Blizzard has produced classes from a wide variety of sources within their universe. I think that they've shown both the capacity to be super specific about them, but also very general, mostly as an effort to maximize the number of character concepts that people are able to create.

    When it comes to expansion classes, I think we still see a pretty wide variance. The Death Knight is a very specific class where they took inspiration mostly from two WC3 units. The Demon Hunter as well is super specific, taking inspiration almost exclusively from a single WC3 unit.

    The Monk is more general and represents a wider variety of concept. Also, the class isn't named after a WC3 unit, taking the name as one of the class specs. And when it comes to abilities, it has the most "outside the box" thinking as they added a healing spec to it that really never existed.

    If we look at what they've done so far, I think it's really hard to predict what Blizzard could do in the future. The could directly adapt another WC3 Hero unit, like the Tinker or Dark Ranger. Or they could adapt a regular unit like the Necromancer. They could take inspiration from multiple units to make an amalgamated class, say a "Science" class based on the Tinker and Alchemist. They could do none of the above and make something that wasn't really present in WC3. They've done all of the above already. I think the problem with looking for patterns to determine what they do next is that they also tend to break patterns. Their design methodlogy needs to be more robust than satisfying perceived patterns, otherwise they are limiting what they can do, and that would be a very bizarre design methodology for a game team to take.
    I'm hung up on it because i want my theories to turn out being right
    You can attribute it to the the male ego

    As for the 2 Monk specs, they were created out of nothing. But, the inspiration for the Monk, clearly, came from the Pandaren Brewmaster.

    You're right.
    I, believe, for that matter, that combining the Dark Ranger, Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witch is the most logical thing to do, as they are all bow-wielding heroes with magical abilities and arrows. Basically, Elven rangers who split up to different groups.
    So are the Tinker and Alchemist. They could be a possible scientist class. They were, both, Goblin Hero units, after all.
    As for the Necromancer, i'm a little more skeptic. It had its chance in Wrath of the Lich King and some would say in Shadowlands.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-07 at 11:20 PM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  14. #5394
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,206
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Addition patterns are not demonstrations?
    Correct. Because vanilla classes also have additions. Basically all classes in the game have "additions" from other WC3 units, hero or not.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  15. #5395
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,074
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Cheapening the race/class combos, that's why.
    You no longer have to attribute any special lore.
    Just slap a "raised into it" or "taught it" and you're done..
    You are not the person to cry over lore when you are literally asking to change the lore in the blademaster topic, this high hypocrisy.

    First of all if we go by lore, only undeads could be dark rangers, so this already bite your behind about "lore"

    If they are teaching other races, other races can be dark rangers, simple as that. Because what is the special "lore" of void elves or humans dark rangers? there is none, is a bs argument.

  16. #5396
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    I'd like to hear your theory as to the next possible classes and why.

    For consideration, not addition.
    Not quite sure what you mean 'for consideration, not addition'. I'm not sure if I can respond correctly without some elaboration.


    However, I did address this in a previous post

    "I personally value the Dragonsworn higher than the Tinker, since we know Dragon Isles are an upcoming place to explore. I think the Tinker has more merit of becoming playable because it has more general demand surrounding it, but I find it difficult to see Blizzard working them into any particular expansion theme. And of course, my 'exception to the rule' for all of this would be Class Skins, since I personally think they could insert a half-dozen class concepts together regardless of any expansion theme the same way Allied Races aren't tied to any specific BFA theme; they're just there to participate in the Horde/Alliance war for 'reasons'."


    I think Tinker is the strongest concept so far for next class, since it is a very open concept with deep roots in the Warcraft universe. We've had Gnomish Inventors and Goblin Alchemists as far back as Warcraft 2 making use of tech and explosives. A Tinker is absolutely thematic to Warcraft, to the point where I'm almost surprised that we still don't formally have a Tinker class yet. However, I do see problems with the marketting behind it, since Gnomes and Goblins are also the least-played races in the game, and the 'comic relief' image they have is both a blessing and a curse. It's great as a part of the ensemble, but questionable if it could lead the forefront of its own expansion from a marketting perspective. To me, they're like the Jawas or Droids in Star Wars. They're a cool part of the universe, but it's not Movie or TV Series material, even if we have some outstanding fan-favourites. They're best used as supporting characters. So the trick with Tinker is - how will Blizzard actually add Tinkers to the game? We have yet to see.

    Dragonsworn is another potential class I see being added. Dragon themes are strong and widely recognized by fans. We have hints of the Dragon Isles returning in the future. We have plenty of unresolved Dragon plot lines in the game. A Dragon-themed class is completely open for exploration. Even though there's no core concept behind this class, we have an idea of what it could be based on RPG archetypes and Heroes of the Storm. There's a reddit thread about Dragonsworn that has 8.3k upvotes, so we're not exactly talking about a completely unknown concept; there is definite interest in this class. The problems with Dragonsworn is that it doesn't actually formally exist, so everyone has their own idea of what it would actually be. Some people would even argue it's not a class, but just a race. Or there might be lore conflicts for how a Dragonsworn actually obtains their powers; and people seem generally disinterested in the idea of more 'borrowed power'. The Dragon theme is ripe for exploration, and it all depends on what direction Blizzard would choose to take it. It's arguably going to be one of the more complicated concepts to tackle.

    Bard has potential as a class, but I don't find much merit in its addition. The problem I have with this concept is that WoW simply isn't designed with a 'Support' role in mind, and the whole archetype of a Bard is centered around being Support. Any other translation into WoW mechanics and role would simply make it into a typical Music-themed Hybrid, and that alone isn't strong enough to go and make a new class out of IMO. I'd much rather see Music be turned into a Profession theme, and allow people to roleplay as the Bard they see fit.

    And most other B-tier concepts like Necromancers, Runemasters, Dark Rangers, Wardens, Blademasters and so forth all have potential to be classes too, but they don't really hold a strong position compared to the two main classes above. I've yet to see individual concepts that are as strong as those two and as relevant to future expansion material. I think Blizzard could definitely address these concepts through Class Skins.


    And overall, I feel like the biggest potential outlier is - No new class at all. Covenants have been so effective that I can see Blizzard deferring to this system in the future. What need is there for a Dragonsworn Class if we can have Dragon powers given to every class? What reason do we need a Tinker class if every class can suit up in their own variation of Mech suit? I'm not one who would have agreed with the idea of giving everyone Necromancy powers, but seeing how effective Covenants have been, I honestly can't say it's a bad idea. I don't like the concept of sharing these integral Class Themes to all other classes, but I absolutely see the merit in how it has opened up customizations and expansion-themed gimmicks without having to divert all the attention to a new class. That will always be something that needs to be considered.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-07 at 11:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  17. #5397
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    You are not the person to cry over lore when you are literally asking to change the lore in the blademaster topic, this high hypocrisy.

    First of all if we go by lore, only undeads could be dark rangers, so this already bite your behind about "lore"

    If they are teaching other races, other races can be dark rangers, simple as that. Because what is the special "lore" of void elves or humans dark rangers? there is none, is a bs argument.
    To be fair, Death Knights were dead Orcs in dead humans, then dead Paladins, and now dead anythings. I don't see why they couldn't change Dark Rangers to be something new, whilst keeping the core idea alive.

    Imagine a new Lich King, after the events of SL realizes that Death Knights aren't equipped to handle every type of situation and wants to create a group of dedicated infiltration agents. This makes a new generation of Dark Rangers. similar in theme and powerset to the previous one, but of a wider variety of base races, now undead, just like Death Knights.

  18. #5398
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Correct. Because vanilla classes also have additions. Basically all classes in the game have "additions" from other WC3 units, hero or not.
    We're talking expansion classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    You are not the person to cry over lore when you are literally asking to change the lore in the blademaster topic, this high hypocrisy.
    How?

    First of all if we go by lore, only undeads could be dark rangers, so this already bite your behind about "lore"
    True. What's wrong with that?

    If they are teaching other races, other races can be dark rangers, simple as that. Because what is the special "lore" of void elves or humans dark rangers? there is none, is a bs argument.
    Nathanos-like background.
    Void elves are former High elves, so that kind of background.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Not quite sure what you mean 'for consideration, not addition'. I'm not sure if I can respond correctly without some elaboration.
    Oops. That line was meant to answer your second paragraph in your last comment.

    However, I did address this in a previous post

    "I personally value the Dragonsworn higher than the Tinker, since we know Dragon Isles are an upcoming place to explore. I think the Tinker has more merit of becoming playable because it has more general demand surrounding it, but I find it difficult to see Blizzard working them into any particular expansion theme. And of course, my 'exception to the rule' for all of this would be Class Skins, since I personally think they could insert a half-dozen class concepts together regardless of any expansion theme the same way Allied Races aren't tied to any specific BFA theme; they're just there to participate in the Horde/Alliance war for 'reasons'."


    I think Tinker is the strongest concept so far for next class, since it is a very open concept with deep roots in the Warcraft universe. We've had Gnomish Inventors and Goblin Alchemists as far back as Warcraft 2 making use of tech and explosives. A Tinker is absolutely thematic to Warcraft, to the point where I'm almost surprised that we still don't formally have a Tinker class yet. However, I do see problems with the marketting behind it, since Gnomes and Goblins are also the least-played races in the game, and the 'comic relief' image they have is both a blessing and a curse. It's great as a part of the ensemble, but questionable if it could lead the forefront of its own expansion from a marketting perspective. To me, they're like the Jawas or Droids in Star Wars. They're a cool part of the universe, but it's not Movie or TV Series material, even if we have some outstanding fan-favourites. They're best used as supporting characters. So the trick with Tinker is - how will Blizzard actually add Tinkers to the game? We have yet to see.

    Dragonsworn is another potential class I see being added. Dragon themes are strong and widely recognized by fans. We have hints of the Dragon Isles returning in the future. We have plenty of unresolved Dragon plot lines in the game. A Dragon-themed class is completely open for exploration. Even though there's no core concept behind this class, we have an idea of what it could be based on RPG archetypes and Heroes of the Storm. There's a reddit thread about Dragonsworn that has 8.3k upvotes, so we're not exactly talking about a completely unknown concept; there is definite interest in this class. The problems with Dragonsworn is that it doesn't actually formally exist, so everyone has their own idea of what it would actually be. Some people would even argue it's not a class, but just a race. Or there might be lore conflicts for how a Dragonsworn actually obtains their powers; and people seem generally disinterested in the idea of more 'borrowed power'. The Dragon theme is ripe for exploration, and it all depends on what direction Blizzard would choose to take it. It's arguably going to be one of the more complicated concepts to tackle.

    Bard has potential as a class, but I don't find much merit in its addition. The problem I have with this concept is that WoW simply isn't designed with a 'Support' role in mind, and the whole archetype of a Bard is centered around being Support. Any other translation into WoW mechanics and role would simply make it into a typical Music-themed Hybrid, and that alone isn't strong enough to go and make a new class out of IMO. I'd much rather see Music be turned into a Profession theme, and allow people to roleplay as the Bard they see fit.

    And most other B-tier concepts like Necromancers, Runemasters, Dark Rangers, Wardens, Blademasters and so forth all have potential to be classes too, but they don't really hold a strong position compared to the two main classes above. I've yet to see individual concepts that are as strong as those two and as relevant to future expansion material. I think Blizzard could definitely address these concepts through Class Skins.


    And overall, I feel like the biggest potential outlier is - No new class at all. Covenants have been so effective that I can see Blizzard deferring to this system in the future. What need is there for a Dragonsworn Class if we can have Dragon powers given to every class? What reason do we need a Tinker class if every class can suit up in their own variation of Mech suit? I'm not one who would have agreed with the idea of giving everyone Necromancy powers, but seeing how effective Covenants have been, I honestly can't say it's a bad idea. I don't like the concept of sharing these integral Class Themes to all other classes, but I absolutely see the merit in how it has opened up customizations and expansion-themed gimmicks without having to divert all the attention to a new class. That will always be something that needs to be considered.
    So, basically, what T eriz wants.

    Dragon Isles is, probably, coming. Alongside a possible Light/Void expansion. Though, i doubt a Dragonsworn class would be introduced. Maybe a Draconic race.

    I agree with the Tinker. A possible option.

    The Bard, although interesting and unique, is indeed unlikely.

    Why is everything else B-tier?
    Have you seen my concepts? Are they, really, that bad?

    Necromancers and Runemasters had their chance, so again - I'm skeptic.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-08 at 12:16 AM.
    Read First! (Very Important)
    Dear Scrapbot or Moderator:
    Before you, recklessly, hand out an infraction - if i, accidently, broke the rules without being aware, i would very much appreciate a warning first, in the manner of a green text/edit or a private message.
    Thank you in advance.

  19. #5399
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,206
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    We're talking expansion classes.
    And I've pointed out that "additions" is not something that separates vanilla and expansion classes. If you cannot show any real, tangible difference between vanilla classes and expansion classes, then saying "we're talking expansion classes only" is just an arbitrary, needless distinction.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  20. #5400
    The Lightbringer Maljinwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    3,724
    Steam Warrior
    This world don't give us nothing. It be our lot to suffer... and our duty to fight back.

Posting Permissions

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