1. #5441
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    In other news, warlocks were central to the storyline in TFT. Without a warlock, most of TFT would not be possible.

    Warlocks were in warcraft before WoW. This is a fact.
    Ehhhh......

    Warlocks in TFT used lighting spells and summoned skeletons. Pretty sure you don't want to use the TFT version of Warlocks as your example there, buddy.
    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.

  2. #5442
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Even so, your definitions are wrong. Because we do have both vanilla and expansion classes focused on a single type, and both vanilla and expansion classes being representatives of various different types, making this a meaningless distinction between the two.


    Not really. It can be easily argued the Pandaren Brewmaster could have been picked for flavor instead of 'the base' of the class. Considering it's not the basis but just a single spec.
    You got caught up in the types word.

    Of course it is the basis of it. Chen's the representative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I do believe them, yes. You have to take into consideration the context of question and the reply.

    "Is the Tinker a class that you feel would fit into WoW? I'd love to see it"
    "Not sure. Might be a little too whimsical for WoW. Would depend on the treatment."

    He didn't say the Tinker Class is too whimsical, he posed that as something to consider of the (WC3) Tinker class concept. He does not dismiss the Tinker Class at all, he simply said 'Not sure' and 'would depend on the treatment', which actually speaks to its possibilities. Can Tinkers only be whimsical? No. But it comes into question what the design and direction of the identity should be, and for that even the community at large has very polarized opinions regarding this class. Should they go with a serious Tinker that downplays the Gnome and Goblin themes? Or double down on those themes to give us a 'silly' Class that we never had before? It's something to consider.

    And when you say it is simply PR satisfying the crowd without revealing true intentions - what exactly is this supposed to satisfy? PR speak to satisfy anti-Tinkers who think it's too whimsical? That doesn't make sense to me. If it was simply PR speak, wouldn't it be better to lay down a neutral 'We aren't considering it right now' as they did for Demon Hunters?

    I think GC was giving his down-to-earth opinion on the matter. Whether he is 'right or wrong' doesn't matter. I agree that the Tinker concept, at least as people know it from WC3, might by too whimsical. He's truthful, in that he's not sure whether it would be a good fit in WoW (at the time), and it might take more to consider how to approach its overall theme.

    What people shouldn't do is use this as 'evidence' against a Tinker class. It's not evidence of denial at all, it's simply posing a rhetorical statement which should be considered when discussing merits and potentials of a class.
    What i meant is they can't say "yes, we're working on it. Expect it to be the next class". They, always, have and, always, will be discrete about their plans.

    Sure we did. We KNEW Sargeras was going to be a thing in the future, dare I say even near future. Of course, Azshara was expected to come before that, but we knew of the Burning Legion coming back in full force. Wrathion even hinted at that happening in Mists of Pandaria. You can't say it was unexpected when we have evidence for it in the game itself.

    Death expansion was also known as soon as we knew about concrete evidence of the Shadowlands, especially it being detailed in Chronicles. That was absolutely on the table, and was being talked about as far back as ~6 years ago; if not further. Shadowlands was already established as far back as the RPG books, but it wasn't made official again until Chronicles.

    I'll give you Draenor though. WoD was a complete outsider expansion, and Blizzard could definitely give us those again. However I will say that WoD also was the expansion that gave us nothing - no new races, no new classes. And we know the details of how they came about to this - Mongrel Horde, dead Chieftains being back to life by a magical warhorn - none of this stuff can really be predicted so honestly, I'm not banking on new races and new classes being added from such an expansion coming out of left field.

    Just because 'Tinkers of Tinklandia' is possible doesn't mean I'm going to value it as a merit towards Tinkers, know what I mean? Tinkers have plenty of other factors behind it pointing to its potential. Mechagon relevance, potential of Undermine, the themes connected between Gnomes and Goblins left unexplored through a class to represent their major NPCs, the Island Expedition 'Engineers' who use abilities that Gazlowe had in HotS, etc. Plenty of actual material we can talk about without considering the 'what if'.
    Well, then another asian-themed expansion is not off the table.

    Then we're not talking about potential new classes. 4th spec and sub-spec is a different question from 'what classes do you think will potentially come', and I'm trying to stay relevant to the topic and questions asked here in this thread.
    Spec is part of a class, so it's partially relevant.

    If we have no indication of it, we have no reason to consider it. I mean, right now it's as fitting as your Slavemaster class concept. What reason do we have to say it fits? Just because you say so?

    I mean, it's as loose a connection as saying Mekkatorque would be a great Alchemist Class, because science and technology fits well with the Alchemy concept. Blizzard hasn't connected the two concepts, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that they 'fit quite well'.
    Common sense.
    Like you would combine a Tinker and an Alchemist.

    Dark Wardens could be an aspect of Dark Ranger since we have a direct connection between the two concepts.

    But it's not an Elune-derived concept. There's quite a stretch to say Elune is a Death Entity too, even if it's somewhat hinted at. The lore for that is quite obscure, and mostly being perpetrated by fan theories moreso than the game itself.
    No so far-fetched.
    Let's just say 'expect to see Tyrande in Korthia'.

    Popularity and demand.
    Arthas.
    Chen.
    Illidan.

    Easy to understand characters and concepts.

    Mekkatorque.
    Gazlowe.

    We know who represents the Tinker class, which is part of its appeal. It's easy to grasp.

    So who is this Gnome Potion Doc character we're talking about? Honestly speaking, I've never heard or seen this character.
    Popularity and demand - Chen? I think you got you marbles mixed...

    Sorry, the Alchemist, not the Potion Doc:


    Can't associate it to a well-known name, though. Except for Gribble, Krimple Proxmeasure or Peppy Wrongnozzle.

    Why would Blizzard settle on mediocre? Especially for something as big as a new class?

    We aren't getting a new class once every 2 years like some other games here. This isn't a MOBA where they can add in whatever new and crazy idea the designers come up with. This is a 1-in-4 years event, and even then they are able to *skip* that pattern when a concept doesn't jump out at them 'like the Demon Hunter did for Legion'.

    When considering this, then we have to consider that a class concept has to be strong and epic to be considered. And even then, as I said, the Dark Ranger and Necromancer didn't even make this cut. It tells me the devs are wanting something even *grander* than those concepts.
    *Looks at the Monk*

    Not everything is a hero class, you know.
    Who made you king to determine a Tinker is mediocre? or any concept, for that matter, that does not scream 'powerful and strong'?
    They can just base it on big shot characters all the time... Jeez, what happened to fun?

    Sorry if I've used confusing terminology.

    I will clarify.

    When I say Merits and Possibilities of a class, I don't mean whether the class is Possible or not to be in the game. I am talking specifically about what a class has to offer and the different possibilities that entail how they would be presented in the game. I'm talking about what form they could possibily take in the game; since there's no one direction to add a new class. Take DK for example - Blizzard could have doubled down on the Unholy themes and adding a Necromancer spellcaster spec instead of diversifying with Frost and Blood. That's a possibility, and that is still undeniably still a Death Knight concept. Or we can take a look at existing classes and see how the Warlock shifted so many times with Demonology spec; those are all different possibilities.

    I don't actually mean what classes are *possible*, because I view ALL class concepts as being possible. I don't discount any class concept. As I said, even your bogus Slavemaster concept is perfectly possible. So there is no real way to rank based on possibility.

    What my personal ranking on is what is potentially viable as the next class, based on relevance and popular demand.
    I think you're being a little too liberal here.

    Next class? could try to to guess it based on expansion speculation rather than popularity and demand.

    Same way I don't see the Night Warrior mixed with the Dark Ranger.

    Either way, all of these concepts have a 'Death' connection between them all, but it doesn't mean any of them are directly connected. It's one of the few things I didn't like about the ShadowStalker concept, that it seemingly forced Dark Ranger into it. I am all for a Shadow Hunter though.
    I do.
    Just think of a ranger that splits into different magic specializations.

    It shifted because Blizzard decided not to make a class at all this expansion.

    If I didn't predict on popularity, then I'd be predicting on Blizzard not wanting any new classes period. Is that a better alternative to you?
    That would just be wrong. There are other methods, you know.
    Try to predict the expansion, for example.

    Yes, but a ranger class has been missing from the game since Vanilla. Hunters are still the only class that uses Bows in the game.

    So why did they add 3 consecuitive melee classes in the game despite this fact? Why add a 4th Leather wearing class instead of filling out the missing 3rd Mail class gap?

    There's more to being considered here than just what fits best to what is 'lacking' in the game. If we're going by what was lacking, then a mail-wearing ranged Tinker or Ranger should have been added to the game instead of Demon Hunter, by all means.

    Reality tells a different story. What is the one thing that a Demon Hunter has advantageous over a Tinker or a Ranger? Popularity and Demand.
    That's not what was in question.
    It was the matter of combining the three.

    So here's the basis of a Dragonsworn and why it's touted.

    Blizzard made a heroic Dragon character who became very popular; Wrathion. He's popular, he's notable, he's cool.
    Blizzard has made the Aspects and Dragons like Chromie and Alexstrasza playable in Heroes of the Storm.

    The Dragonsworn is the community's collective representation of a Dragon-based class that has the powers of the Aspects. It's a concept that existed in the RPG books and is being used to closely represent any type of Dragon-themed class in the game. You'll see that most cases, people will use different names for it; Dragoon or Dragon Knight or Dragonborn. Either way it boils down to the same basic idea - playable Dragon Class.

    And with the Dragon Isles being teased, there opens up the possibility of a Dragon-related class. Dragonsworn just happens to be the collective name the community has accepted. Just like if we talk about any Tech class, it would be called Tinker, even if it could be called Artificer or Steam Knight or whatever other name Blizzard would choose. It doesn't have to be exactly the Tinker from Warcraft 3. The Dragonsworn does not have to be exactly the tabletop RPG class. These are just names for broad themes in a playable class form. This is much like how "Warrior" is a collection of many strong, melee-oriented classes like the MK and Chieftain as well as a staple RPG class; it's not just *one* concept made by Blizzard, it's a collection of themes and concepts into one.
    It is still an assortment of collections of users ideas about how the class will play. Because the RPG hasn't got much.

    And a popular character applies to almost anyone. Let alone Sylavans and Tyrande. Blizzard converted all of the WC3 heroes into HotS characters. They are no exception.

    I am Chinese, and I don't think the Pandaren Monk is strictly Chinese at all. If anything, it's simply 'derived from Chinese culture' while completely misappropriating it, as most pop-culture does with any type of Asian theme they don't have extensive knowledge of.

    RPG Monk are generally centered around the concepts of Martial Arts and Chi. Both the Pandaren Monk and D&D Monk share these qualities. Unarmed combat, use of spiritual mysticism. That's all typical of a Monk archetype.
    You don't see Monks, like Karazhim or Zenyatta for example, being embodied there.

    There's absolutely zero indication of when you're writing your reply. If you wish, you can do a reply with little text and then edit in your response so I know exactly when you've read everything and are ready for your response. Otherwise my responses are all an iterative process since communication is so fickle over the internet. I prefer to clarify a response as much as I can.
    What the problem in doing it in one take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Ehhhh......

    Warlocks in TFT used lighting spells and summoned skeletons. Pretty sure you don't want to use the TFT version of Warlocks as your example there, buddy.
    Gul'dan is, pretty much, the basis for the class.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-08 at 10:54 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.

  3. #5443
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post

    True. What's wrong with that?
    your point is "lore" but your argument have no lore, so is hypocrisy

    Nathanos-like background.
    Void elves are former High elves, so that kind of background.
    and what background of high elves necromancers of dark rangers? this completely nonsensical you are using "yep, elf elf"

    is a shit background who make no sense and you should feel bad about even saying out loud

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    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.
    oh no, i don't mind something new, or changing something to be new, what im saying is completely bullshit to change something to make it worse and elf centric, like people are saying here.

    I even said they could do something like Death knight and disponibilize to all races in undead form, which, would make way more sense than living beings being DK

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxilian View Post
    Yes they are, but again, that's because of who the served (and they even were a special force)
    they being alive completely invalidate the reason of why a dark ranger should exist in the first place

    if anything who cast a frost arrow or other shenanigans the hero in wc3 could do then you can add that as talent to normal hunters and they can RP as dark ranger with a edgy transmog.

    They could do those kind of things primarily because they were undead like Death knights

  4. #5444
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    What i meant is they can't say "yes, we're working on it. Expect it to be the next class". They, always, have and, always, will be discrete about their plans.
    I agree.

    Though if this what you mean, then what you originally brought up was a bad example, IMO. GC was neither confirming or denying the possibility, he was merely addressing a more general question of how he thinks Tinkers would fit in WoW. It's (paraphrasing) "I'm not sure. The original concept is a bit silly, so it depends on how that gets translated into WoW' which is a far more nuanced answer.

    It's far more insightful and gives us an idea that they something like silliness of an original concept does have an impact on their consideration for design.

    Well, then another asian-themed expansion is not off the table.
    Neither is an Australian-themed expansion, but until we actually hear hints of this happening there's no reason for me to put Australian-themed Boomerang Jack class on the top of my list of potential classes.

    I'm working off of 'what we know' not 'what can possibly happen'.

    Spec is part of a class, so it's partially relevant.
    Eh. Demonology Warlock having Metamorphosis is not a Demon Hunter, so this is debateable.

    Again, years of Tinker fans saying we already had Demon Hunters because of Demonology. Excuse my jadedness, but I'm not drinking that coolaid of 'spec is part of a class'. It either gets called directly by name, or it's an aspect of that original class.

    And to address the nuances of Legion examples you brought up; 'Beast Master' is a direct reference to Hunter specializations, and not the 'Beastmaster' class as we know it from Warcraft 3. Sure, WoWpedia says it can be called Beastmaster or Beast Master; but you know where that line is from? The RPG books. On top of this, Marksmanship Hunters in the same snippit are referred to as 'Marksmen', which means they're just using a short-form name to refer to the spec. It's not incorporating a separate Marksman Hero (which exists in the RPG books) that has their own abilities and themes.

    We don't have a case where the WC3 Beastmaster concept, or Rexxar himself, is directly tied to the Hunter class. Simply referring to 'Beastmastery Hunter' as 'Beast Master' is not a case of tying it to the WC3 Hero concept, as we already know they didn't set out to make Mountain King and Chieftain classes, but a general Warrior class that shares themes with those both. That doesn't completely cover those Heroes identities, since we also have direct translations of other heroes like Paladins, Demon Hunters and Death Knights. We don't actually have a playable Mountain King or Tauren Chieftain in the game, we simply have a Warrior class that emulates their abilities to varying degrees.

    Common sense.
    Like you would combine a Tinker and an Alchemist.
    Would you consider Monks as Alchemists since brewing is a significant part of Alchemy? I doubt it.
    Common sense actually tells you that these aren't the same class just because they have *similar* themes.

    No so far-fetched.
    Let's just say 'expect to see Tyrande in Korthia'.
    I'm open to ideas if Blizzard is willing to provide strong examples for it.

    I'm happy to wait and see

    Popularity and demand - Chen? I think you got you marbles mixed...
    Pandaren were one of the most asked for race in Vanilla. You and I may not agree, but this is veritable fact by now, which is why we know Pandaren were planned for TBC. We have postmortem information on this.

    Can't associate it to a well-known name, though. Except for Gribble, Krimple Proxmeasure or Peppy Wrongnozzle.
    This plays into my point. A new class isn't going to bank on something obscure in the lore or generally overlooked by the fans. They're going to use something that is iconic, familiar and easy to understand. Even if it's something new we haven't seen it before, they'll tie it into something absolutely familiar, or at least bridge something in to familiarize it to us.

    There simply are no major, well established Alchemists other than maybe Marin Noggenfogger and Putress from Wrath. As for Gnome Alchemists, there's practically no real notable names, and you'd have to dig into C-tier NPCs for any real examples. Who wants to play as Gribble or Wrongnozzle?


    *Looks at the Monk*

    Not everything is a hero class, you know.
    Not quite sure what you mean by this, since I didn't say everything is a hero class.

    There seems to be miscommunication here. I'm not quite sure what you have an issue with, since I didn't say everything should be a Hero class.

    Who made you king to determine a Tinker is mediocre?
    Miscommunication again. Where am I inferring Tinker is medioce?
    I actually meant they passed up the Dark Ranger and Necromancer concepts to wait for a better concept LIKE the Tinker, which has more merit of being made into a playable class. It's the opposite of what you may think I have said.

    I think you're being a little too liberal here.

    Next class? could try to to guess it based on expansion speculation rather than popularity and demand.
    Yes, and part of speculation involves anticipating what Blizzard would or would not pick, and analyzing why they might have internally chose X over Y.

    If we're just talking about possibility without considering certain factors, then like you said, it's as pointless as considering Slavemaster as a legitimate potential class.

    Just because it's possible doesn't mean it has merit of being chosen to be developed into a class. It's not as simple as a matter of "Well it wasn't a Warcraft 3 Hero" to downplay its merits; we also have to consider a slew of other external factors.

    That would just be wrong. There are other methods, you know.
    Try to predict the expansion, for example.
    It depends on what methods you're using.

    So what methods are you using to suggest a Blademaster class, for example? Or an Alchemist class? If 'Warcraft 3' is your answer, then you're not really predicting, you're just correlating a pattern. It's no different than if I said 'the next class will be playable by Night Elf' because the last 3 Heroes were all playable by Night Elves. That is not predicting.


    It is still an assortment of collections of users ideas about how the class will play. Because the RPG hasn't got much.

    And a popular character applies to almost anyone. Let alone Sylavans and Tyrande. Blizzard converted all of the WC3 heroes into HotS characters. They are no exception.

    ---

    Gul'dan is, pretty much, the basis for the class.
    So I tied these two together to show you exactly what I mean.

    Gul'dan is the basis for Warlocks, and you fully acknowledge this. So what abilities did Gul'dan have in the RTS games? Did he summon demons? Did he use affliction curses? Did he use fiery spells and shadow magic? No. He had zero abilities. He was represented by a WC3 Creep model that used Lightning magic and summoned Skeletons. Gul'dan was never shown to summon any demons, most of his lore portrayal involves soul-draining, sacrificial magic.

    Gul'dan was simply a character who loosely represented a collection of archetypes. He wasn't any *one* established archetype. He was simply fit for any type of Fel-related concept. In fact, his most notable accomplishment in the lore was the creation of the Death Knights, a feat of Necromancy. It's not until we had a formal Warlock class that we actually retroactively applied what Gul'dan would have been if he were a playable character in the RTS games. Heroes of the Storm Gul'dan, for example, is all based on WoW's Warlock class. We have a case of retroactive continuity.


    As for Dragonsworn, my example is Wrathion, prior to the introduction of a formal Dragon-themed class. So what does Wrathion do? Well, whatever the Dragon-themed class does, retroactively after it comes. Just like we see Arthas using Frost magic in Wrath of the Lich King even though he *NEVER* used Frost magic in Warcraft 3. We will associate those themes once they get formally added.

    You don't see Monks, like Karazhim or Zenyatta for example, being embodied there.
    Because Karazhim and Zenyatta weren't based on Pandarens. Pandarens are derived from Chinese culture, and that is the only connection the WoW Monk class has to it. Beyond that, any race can be a Monk, and they're not all tied to having to adopt Pandaren religion or culture in order to fight as a Monk. Chi is explained as an internalized form of Shamanistm, and like Martial arts it can be taught and trained, simple as that.

    We don't actually have the nuanced lore of Druids or Paladins where certain races are adopting a particular cultural faith in order to use the magic. No one is adopting Pandaren culture (ie beliefs and religion) to use Monk abilities, it's simply training in the fighting style which they developed.

    What the problem in doing it in one take?
    Sometimes what I write may not be what I mean, and I have to change some statements to clarify. English is not my first language.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-08 at 11:53 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.

  5. #5445
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Ehhhh......

    Warlocks in TFT used lighting spells and summoned skeletons. Pretty sure you don't want to use the TFT version of Warlocks as your example there, buddy.
    Didn't realize Gul'dan did those things.

  6. #5446
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    your point is "lore" but your argument have no lore, so is hypocrisy
    Because everyone can be undead? Whoopy-fucking-doo.
    It's a Dark Ranger for a reason.

    and what background of high elves necromancers of dark rangers? this completely nonsensical you are using "yep, elf elf"
    The fact that they are undead when they choose that class.
    In Necromancy background, i would lean more towards the Banshee orientation - like Elves of all sorts.

    is a shit background who make no sense and you should feel bad about even saying out loud
    A background nonetheless.
    Unlike you giving free classes, because of "reasons".
    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. #5447
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Didn't realize Gul'dan did those things.
    Oh, you're talking about Gul'dan?

    You mean the Orc who used Necromancy to create the Death Knights in Warcraft 2 then, right? Which is what Warlocks are based on, yes? Using Necromancy?

    Or the fact that Gul'dan was never actually shown in WC2 or WC3 summoning any demons?


    Warlock in WoW is a mishmash concept. It takes demon summoning from Dreadlord and Eredar, Fiery AoE and Fear abilities from Pitlord, curses from Necromancers and Warlock Creeps, Banish from Blood Mages, Life Drain from Dark Rangers. There was no one unit or hero you could equate to a Warlock class. The Warlock class is itself a collection of concepts centered on a general (and loose) concept of Fel magic. Even back then they never really tied "Fel Magic" directly to the Warlock, the traditional Green Flame variety. It was just a much more general 'Dark' magic which could have included Necromancy, Void and any number of magical subthemes that we have clearly separated now.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-08 at 11:37 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.

  8. #5448
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Oh, I see. It needs to be playable. Glad we are able to move the goalposts to suit our own needs.
    How can I be moving goalposts in a discussion you weren't even involved in? I was always talking about playable units from WC3.

    In WoW, Warlocks have a spell called "Fire Bolt" in their spellbooks. Cripple was modified to Curse of Tongues (cripple was too powerful). Now you can directly compare them at your leisure!
    So let me load up WoW and cast Fire Bolt and Cripple. Oh... wait... It's almost like it's not the Warlock that casts that at all.

    In other news, warlocks were central to the storyline in TFT. Without a warlock, most of TFT would not be possible.
    Never said or implied otherwise.

    Warlocks were in warcraft before WoW. This is a fact.
    Again, never said or implied otherwise.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    oh no, i don't mind something new, or changing something to be new, what im saying is completely bullshit to change something to make it worse and elf centric, like people are saying here.

    I even said they could do something like Death knight and disponibilize to all races in undead form, which, would make way more sense than living beings being DK
    I'm not particularly fond of Dark Rangers (I'm honestly tired of 'dark and edgy') but I do think that they absolutely could create a class out of it. Though I think it would be a mistake to make it Elf centric. We simply don't need a bevy of Elf centric classes in the game. I think going the Death Knight route would actually make the most sense, and essentially give fans of every race another solid ranged option, which is way better than just shoehorning in an exact replica of the Dark Ranger.

  9. #5449
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I agree.

    Though if this what you mean, then what you originally brought up was a bad example, IMO. GC was neither confirming or denying the possibility, he was merely addressing a more general question of how he thinks Tinkers would fit in WoW. It's (paraphrasing) "I'm not sure. The original concept is a bit silly, so it depends on how that gets translated into WoW' which is a far more nuanced answer.

    It's far more insightful and gives us an idea that they something like silliness of an original concept does have an impact on their consideration for design.
    Damn, you write fast as hell.

    'Not sure' is, exactly, what i meant. An answer which could be read by players either way. Essentially, a non-straight answer.

    Neither is an Australian-themed expansion, but until we actually hear hints of this happening there's no reason for me to put Australian-themed Boomerang Jack class on the top of my list of potential classes.

    I'm working off of 'what we know' not 'what can possibly happen'.
    The magic word is 'again'.
    If we had two death expansion, or two demonic expansions, even two off-world expansions, then a second asian-themed one is not a out of the question.

    Eh. Demonology Warlock having Metamorphosis is not a Demon Hunter, so this is debateable.

    Again, years of Tinker fans saying we already had Demon Hunters because of Demonology. Excuse my jadedness, but I'm not drinking that coolaid of 'spec is part of a class'. It either gets called directly by name, or it's an aspect of that original class.

    And to address the nuances of Legion examples you brought up; 'Beast Master' is a direct reference to Hunter specializations, and not the 'Beastmaster' class as we know it from Warcraft 3. Sure, WoWpedia says it can be called Beastmaster or Beast Master; but you know where that line is from? The RPG books. On top of this, Marksmanship Hunters in the same snippit are referred to as 'Marksmen', which means they're just using a short-form name to refer to the spec. It's not incorporating a separate Marksman Hero (which exists in the RPG books) that has their own abilities and themes.

    We don't have a case where the WC3 Beastmaster concept, or Rexxar himself, is directly tied to the Hunter class. Simply referring to 'Beastmastery Hunter' as 'Beast Master' is not a case of tying it to the WC3 Hero concept, as we already know they didn't set out to make Mountain King and Chieftain classes, but a general Warrior class that shares themes with those both. That doesn't completely cover those Heroes identities, since we also have direct translations of other heroes like Paladins, Demon Hunters and Death Knights. We don't actually have a playable Mountain King or Tauren Chieftain in the game, we simply have a Warrior class that emulates their abilities to varying degrees.
    I didn't know how you got to it from what i wrote, but okay.

    Never meant Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters in any way. Meant that a spec addition is very close in essence to a class addition. It's like Allied races - cutting down on time and effort.

    Funny how you would consider the Brewmaster as a Monk spec, but not the Beastmaster as a Hunter spec. It is, clearly, the same situation with the name (and description) implying on its origins. And yes, we have - Hearthstone and WoW. Putting Rexxar in the Hunter class order hall and as a representative. I don't know where you got the idea that he isn't one.

    Marsksmanship contained two archetypes - archer and sharpshooter. So, you can get an idea where they came from.

    There are playable Tauren chieftain and Mountain King. Not good ones, though. If you'd use your analysis skills, you'd see that.

    I think you are too afraid to label classes and specs, for some reason. Like it's not political correct or something. I can claim you can't play as a Death Knight, Monk or Demon Hunter because i don't like forced categorization. That wouldn't be true, though.

    Would you consider Monks as Alchemists since brewing is a significant part of Alchemy? I doubt it.
    Common sense actually tells you that these aren't the same class just because they have *similar* themes.
    Brews were part of the Cooking profession. Not Alchemy. Know the difference.

    I'm open to ideas if Blizzard is willing to provide strong examples for it.

    I'm happy to wait and see
    Go see my thread on the lore forum for that:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ia-and-Tyrande

    Pandaren were one of the most asked for race in Vanilla. You and I may not agree, but this is veritable fact by now, which is why we know Pandaren were planned for TBC. We have postmortem information on this.
    Then, where did the hate come from?

    This plays into my point. A new class isn't going to bank on something obscure in the lore or generally overlooked by the fans. They're going to use something that is iconic, familiar and easy to understand. Even if it's something new we haven't seen it before, they'll tie it into something absolutely familiar, or at least bridge something in to familiarize it to us.

    There simply are no major, well established Alchemists other than maybe Marin Noggenfogger and Putress from Wrath. As for Gnome Alchemists, there's practically no real notable names, and you'd have to dig into C-tier NPCs for any real examples. Who wants to play as Gribble or Wrongnozzle?
    I didn't say they were the iconic race for it. They won't even be the representative one. Noggenfogger and Goblins will. But, it will definitely be available to them.

    Not quite sure what you mean by this, since I didn't say everything is a hero class.

    There seems to be miscommunication here. I'm not quite sure what you have an issue with, since I didn't say everything should be a Hero class.
    Wanting every new class to be cool, epic and strong, like Demon Hunters and Death Knights.
    And then, there is the Monk. So, not everything has to be one.

    Miscommunication again. Where am I inferring Tinker is medioce?
    I actually meant they passed up the Dark Ranger and Necromancer concepts to wait for a better concept LIKE the Tinker, which has more merit of being made into a playable class. It's the opposite of what you may think I have said.
    You, clearly, called everything that is not cool, epic and strong mediocre. and that applied to the Tinker, which you considered comical.

    Yes, and part of speculation involves anticipating what Blizzard would or would not pick, and analyzing why they might have internally chose X over Y.

    If we're just talking about possibility without considering certain factors, then like you said, it's as pointless as considering Slavemaster as a legitimate potential class.

    Just because it's possible doesn't mean it has merit of being chosen to be developed into a class. It's not as simple as a matter of "Well it wasn't a Warcraft 3 Hero" to downplay its merits; we also have to consider a slew of other external factors.
    There's a limit to how many classes you can attribute to a certain expansion.

    It depends on what methods you're using.

    So what methods are you using to suggest a Blademaster class, for example? Or an Alchemist class? If 'Warcraft 3' is your answer, then you're not really predicting, you're just correlating a pattern. It's no different than if I said 'the next class will be playable by Night Elf' because the last 3 Heroes were all playable by Night Elves. That is not predicting.
    I don't. There aren't any expansions on the horizon that i can attribute them to.
    To the Light and Void, i can only attribute the Shadow Hunter.
    To the Dragon Isles, nothing really. Because i don't believe in Dragonsworn.
    I use a certain method to predict expansions:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ure-expansions

    So I tied these two together to show you exactly what I mean.

    Gul'dan is the basis for Warlocks, and you fully acknowledge this. So what abilities did Gul'dan have in the RTS games? Did he summon demons? Did he use affliction curses? Did he use fiery spells and shadow magic? No. He had zero abilities. He was represented by a WC3 Creep model that used Lightning magic and summoned Skeletons.

    Gul'dan was simply a character who loosely represented a collection of archetypes. He wasn't any *one* established archetype. He was simply fit for any type of Fel-related concept. It's not until we had a formal Warlock class that we actually retroactively applied what Gul'dan would have been if he were a playable character in the RTS games. Heroes of the Storm Gul'dan, for example, is all based on WoW's Warlock class. We have a case of retroactive continuity.


    As for Dragonsworn, my example is Wrathion, prior to the introduction of a formal Dragon-themed class. So what does Wrathion do? Well, whatever the Dragon-themed class does, retroactively after it comes. Just like we see Arthas using Frost magic in Wrath of the Lich King even though he *NEVER* used Frost magic in Warcraft 3. We will associate those themes once they get formally added.
    Interesting fact: Wrathion was present in BFA's beta Alliance Embassy, probably to introduce an Allied race.

    Because Karazhim and Zenyatta weren't based on Pandarens. Pandarens are derived from Chinese culture, and that is the only connection the WoW Monk class has to it. Beyond that, any race can be a Monk, and they're not all tied to having to adopt Pandaren religion or culture in order to fight as a Monk. Chi is explained as an internalized form of Shamanistm which can be taught and trained, simple as that.
    Pretty much, confirming what i said.
    And yes. Every other race that adopts the Monk learns Pandaren Martial Arts.

    Sometimes what I write may not be what I mean, and I have to change some statements to clarify. English is not my first language.
    Neither is mine, but i do small grammatical corrections, not whole paragraphs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Even back then they never really tied "Fel Magic" directly to the Warlock, the traditional Green Flame variety.


    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I'm not particularly fond of Dark Rangers (I'm honestly tired of 'dark and edgy') but I do think that they absolutely could create a class out of it. Though I think it would be a mistake to make it Elf centric. We simply don't need a bevy of Elf centric classes in the game. I think going the Death Knight route would actually make the most sense, and essentially give fans of every race another solid ranged option, which is way better than just shoehorning in an exact replica of the Dark Ranger.
    But, what about different lore background for the different race that differentiate them between one another?

    Even second generation of Human Death Knights were different from the first generation of Orc Death Knights.

    Just giving it to everyone without explanation, or a short simple one, just makes everything bland.
    Last edited by username993720; 2021-04-09 at 12:25 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.

  10. #5450
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,214
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    You got caught up in the types word.
    I'm both pointing out your misuse of it, and explaining that whichever meaning you ascribe to it, you're still wrong because the differences you claim exist between "vanilla classes" and "expansion classes" do not exist.

    Of course it is the basis of it. Chen's the representative.
    That's a non-sequitur. Chen being the "representative" of the class in the game does not mean that the WC3 unit was made as the basis for the monk class. A NPC being used as a representative for a playable class does not mean said NPC was used as a basis for said class.

    As I pointed out: a strong argument can be made that the WC3 unit was just used as flavor for the concept.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BelatedDevotedAustralianshelduck-size_restricted.gif
    That's a demon, not a warlock. All demons use demon magic (a.k.a. fel magic).
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  11. #5451
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    But, what about different lore background for the different race that differentiate them between one another?

    Even second generation of Human Death Knights were different from the first generation of Orc Death Knights.

    Just giving it to everyone without explanation, or a short simple one, just makes everything bland.
    My tie in would be pretty much the same as with Death Knights. They are members of all races reborn in undeath as Dark Rangers. Maybe in this case, instead of fallen heroes, they volunteer. They want the dark powers and to serve the will of the Lich King. People from all over come to Icecrown to be reforged into agents of infiltration and shadow. They now have a collective identity (like Death Knights) that resonates more than their racial one. Blizzard could create a character creation scenario like they did with Death Knights and Demon Hunters to explain the origin.

  12. #5452
    For classes left to add id say there is only 1 that will have no overlap with others: tinker.
    possible others being bard, necromancer or dragonsworn.

    Possible specs though there are a TON of potential specs that blizz could add, for example there are a ton of magical archer characters in lore, tyrande, voljin, sylvanas etc, some of the biggest names combine magic with archery and none of them would make sense as specs for hunters.

    Id like to see blizz move away from classes (3 specs bound to 1 character) and move to a more flexible system bound by schools of discipline and armor classes.

    This system would plot existing specs on a matrix of magic school and armor class and attempt to flesh out missing pieces.

  13. #5453
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Oh, you're talking about Gul'dan?

    You mean the Orc who used Necromancy to create the Death Knights in Warcraft 2 then, right? Which is what Warlocks are based on, yes? Using Necromancy?

    Or the fact that Gul'dan was never actually shown in WC2 or WC3 summoning any demons?


    Warlock in WoW is a mishmash concept. It takes demon summoning from Dreadlord and Eredar, Fiery AoE and Fear abilities from Pitlord, curses from Necromancers and Warlock Creeps, Banish from Blood Mages, Life Drain from Dark Rangers. There was no one unit or hero you could equate to a Warlock class. The Warlock class is itself a collection of concepts centered on a general (and loose) concept of Fel magic. Even back then they never really tied "Fel Magic" directly to the Warlock, the traditional Green Flame variety. It was just a much more general 'Dark' magic which could have included Necromancy, Void and any number of magical subthemes that we have clearly separated now.
    This pretty much. Warlock is mostly a stand in for the classical warlock, which usually involves some demon worship and a bit of debuffing and WoW's need to have a pet caster class that isn't necromancer, because those were simply unacceptable from a story point back then. The result is the wild hodge-podge that is warlocks in WoW. Which is also why I think the gameplay space for necromancers doesn't really exist in WoW, since most of the classical gameplay theme is already used up to make affliction and demonology warlocks.
    Last edited by Haidaes; 2021-04-09 at 01:17 AM.
    /tar Tinker-zealot /point /lol
    WoW:Shadowlands - Danuser's Divina Commedia?

  14. #5454
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    The magic word is 'again'.
    If we had two death expansion, or two demonic expansions, even two off-world expansions, then a second asian-themed one is not a out of the question.
    Sure. I mean, I really have nothing left to add here, because we're talking about repeating something that isn't really hinted at being repeated. I'm just making a note that with the other examples you pointed out, we had *direct* hints from the game (and media) hinting at it being a thing in the future. We don't need characters talking about Black Empire and Emerald Nightmare to know that we would have been going to those places, but we knew they were definitely options. If we're just talking about a general Asian-themed place with no real ties to the Blademaster class, then I don't really see the point.

    The Blademaster class itself is sourced to the Burning Blade clan, so the more obvious route to me is to explore this culture more deeply. Expand upon it the way we have Kul Tirans exploring a new connection to Druidism through the Drust or how Zandalari have opened up our knowledge of the Loa. This isn't exactly the same as how Monks and Brewmasters are inherrently connected to a specific race and culture that we haven't explored yet. We technically don't need another Asian themed expansion just to have Blademasters; yet at the same time I don't see what the catalyst would be to incorporate Blademasters properly. They're not exactly integral to any potential story the way DK's and Demon Hunters are. And yes, they can just pull a Monk and have zero connection to existing, but that's also a terrible way to introduce a class.... (Yes I think how they handled Monk class was a big mistake)

    I didn't know how you got to it from what i wrote, but okay.

    Never meant Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters in any way. Meant that a spec addition is very close in essence to a class addition. It's like Allied races - cutting down on time and effort.

    Funny how you would consider the Brewmaster as a Monk spec, but not the Beastmaster as a Hunter spec. It is, clearly, the same situation with the name (and description) implying on its origins. And yes, we have - Hearthstone and WoW. Putting Rexxar in the Hunter class order hall and as a representative. I don't know where you got the idea that he isn't one.
    So here's the thing. What makes a Brewmaster a proper representation from the Monk spec? The fact that Blizzard themselves tie Chen DIRECTLY to the Monk class. It's official, it's canon.

    It's not a case of fans just assuming there is a connection. Blizzard has officially cemented that connection.

    Now, when it comes to Beastmaster and Hunter, it's the same as (Metamorphosis) Demonology Warlocks and Demon Hunters. There is no direct connection between these classes or Heroes. There is implied connections, and we even have that explained in Warlock Green Flame quest. But Blizzard has not officially said that Rexxar's brand of Beastmaster class is a subset of the Hunter class. Again, I'm basing this on evidence from the game or from official sources, not just tying in *what I think* the Beastmaster Hero is or could be.

    If we're talking about what spec emulates and covers the theme of a Beastmaster, then yes I agree with you that a Hunter does this. But a Hunter is not a Beastmaster Hero just like a Warrior is not a Mountain King Hero or a Chieftain Hero from Warcraft 3. They're not. They simply cover the themes and emulate the gameplay, but a Warrior is itself a Warrior class and not anything beyond that.

    As I said pages ago, it's the same as us assuming that dark skinned Dwarf customization options were Dark Irons. Blizzard never officially made that connection, so all we had to go on was assuming they were the same. It wasn't until Allied Races that we could *CONFIRM* that they actually weren't the same, and that dark skin Dwarves are just dark skinned Bronzebeard Dwarf options. And the official stance is still in the air about Wildhammers, even though we have new 'Wildhammer' customization options for the basic Dwarf. We don't actually know if those are 100% Wildhammers, there is no *direct* connection (as far as I am aware, I could be wrong if there is new lore behind these customizations that I am unaware of)

    Marsksmanship contained two archetypes - archer and sharpshooter. So, you can get an idea where they came from.
    Sure, that's fine to say. There's no specific 'Marksman' Hero to apply that to, and we don't need one. The spec is just a sharpshooter archetype which you can find in any general RPG or the RTS games. There's no specific WC3 Hero being attached here, which is my point. No one is saying 'Dark Ranger is the Marksmanship class because they had Black Arrow' or "POTM is the Marksmanship Hunter because they have Trueshot" or "WC3 Campaign Ranger Class is the Marksman Hunter" There's no need to associate it directly to any particular hero. Marksmanship is a collective specialization of all of the above, applied to an Archer or Gunner ranged combat specialist.

    There are playable Tauren chieftain and Mountain King. Not good ones, though. If you'd use your analysis skills, you'd see that.
    In about the same way that there are playable Blademasters, if you use those same analysis skills.

    In about the same way those analysis skills had Tinker fans saying Demonology Warlock was already a Demon Hunter. It's all based on generalizing gameplay of existing classes as being a Hero, even though it's not. We acknowledge there are differences. That acknowledgement should stay consistent to apply to all Heroes that have a different name or title than any current existing class.

    I think you are too afraid to label classes and specs, for some reason. Like it's not political correct or something. I can claim you can't play as a Death Knight, Monk or Demon Hunter because i don't like forced categorization. That wouldn't be true, though.
    It's because we can easily head-canon any existing class as being or representing something that's not playable, given there is enough 'roleplay' involved. And why is this bad? Because the only reason to label a class is to dismiss it as not being worth considering as their own class.

    Why would someone say Dark Ranger is already a Hunter? To dismiss the Dark Ranger as a potential class. Why would someone say Blademaster is already a Warrior? To dismiss the Blademaster as a potential class. Why would someone say Warlock is already a Demon Hunter? To dismiss the Warlock as a potential class.

    Nothing *good* comes out of New Class discussion by appropriating any WC3 Hero or RPG class archetype to an existing class. Why bother with labels when they only serve the purpose of denying their possibility as a new class?

    What would be the positive purpose of labeling the Tinker class as an Engineer? There is none. It only complicates the discussion for Tinkers being their own independent class.

    Go see my thread on the lore forum for that:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ia-and-Tyrande
    I have taken some time to read through this thread, and the comments within. I value your interpretation, but I agree with many posters there that this is too much of a stretch.

    I agree with one of the comments that if Blizzard wanted to make this connection, they would make it *painfully* obvious, and without doubt. They wouldn't just tie in some obscure reference that someone with in-depth knowledge of Sumerian gods would be able to connect. On top of that, Korthia doesn't really have any connection to Kur other than two letters.

    It's a nice theory, but until Blizzard actually ties it together unambiguously, I see no connection.

    Then, where did the hate come from?
    It came *AFTER* they announced it.

    This is the first real time that they ever faced a popular and in-demand concept being made into reality, with the full package, as being a complete misstep to understanding what *other* fans might actually want or like. This is the first time real time when any Race/Class addition had real controversy behind it.

    And yes, I know Draenei had its love-hate fans, and Blood Elves also get shat on for being on the Horde sometimes, but it wasn't literal 'I'm cancelling my WoW sub!' levels of vitriol.

    I don't agree with any of the hate. I don't understand the arguments that it's a 'Furry game' since we already had Tauren and Worgen years before. I don't know where the hate actually comes from, but knowing it's there is something to consider.

    And that same level of 'hatred' exists against Gnomes too. I don't know why people hate them, but we know there are haters and they're vocal about it.

    I honestly don't think Blizzard wants to do a repeat of Pandaren 2.0. This contributes to why Pandaren are barely in the story any more. Blizzard kind of just wants to quietly sweep it all under the rug, like Warcraft 3 Reforged. They're not gonna cancel or remove it, but they'll just silently pay no attention to it when they don't have to.

    I didn't say they were the iconic race for it. They won't even be the representative one. Noggenfogger and Goblins will. But, it will definitely be available to them.
    What relevance does Noggenfogger have to the story as a whole? Do you see him coming to the forefront of the story? If anything, we have stronger Goblin representatives to take up that role. Why pick Noggenfogger if we already have Gazlowe? Gazlowe is the stronger character overall. And in recent lore, he's actually being given a much larger role, since he's taking Gallywix's place as Racial Leader.

    There's little reason to pass up Gazlowe and Mekkatorque and a Tinker class to pursue Noggenfogger and an Alchemist class. I'm not saying this as a definitive, I'm saying this as reasonable, logical, common sense.

    Wanting every new class to be cool, epic and strong, like Demon Hunters and Death Knights.
    And then, there is the Monk. So, not everything has to be one.
    Monk is arguably the least played class in the game, and I personally view it as a failure. Not the best example to me, IMO.

    If it were so easy to add a new class, then there's no reason why Shadowlands shouldn't have a class. Wouldn't you agree? We should have had at least one new class this expansion, right? Doesn't matter if it's a Dark Ranger or Necromancer or Shadow Hunter or Blademaster; there should have been *something* given to us right?

    And I don't think it's a matter of just lacking resources, because we see how much resources they have devoted to creating the Covenant system. Dozens of new abilities for each class, dozens of customization options, whole bunch of traits and more.

    You, clearly, called everything that is not cool, epic and strong mediocre. and that applied to the Tinker, which you considered comical.
    Is it me who considers it comical, or is it Blizzard? Ask yourself this.

    Am I the one preventing Tinker from being added to the game? Am I the one who decided Demon Hunter should be added before a Tinker class in WoW? Am I the one who chose Shadowlands to be made as the new expansion theme instead of Undermine or a follow-up to Mechagon in BFA?

    I'm not the one to blame here. Doesn't matter what *I* consider them to be if I'm pointing out the problem that *Blizzard* has to deal with.

    Again, the Pandaren hate ties in to Gnome (and lesser, Goblin) hate, which ties in to approaching Tinkers with a bit more careful consideration. Otherwise I see no problem with a Tinker class if they threw in Blood Elf and Draenei Mech suits; it's just not the same class that many other TInker fans (like Teriz) would be expecting from Blizzard. And ultimately, it's not *my* decision for whether the Tinker will be playable or not, it's Blizzard's, right?

    There's a limit to how many classes you can attribute to a certain expansion.
    I disagree if we consider the potential of Class Skins (New Class Identities built over top existing class mechanics; like Paladin to Spellbreaker or Warlock to Necromancer; no lore relation to the original class) or Prestige Classes (Evolutions of existing classes, like Druid to Archdruid, Warrior to Mountain King/Chieftain/Warlord/Highlord; similar to Guild Wars 2 Paths system)

    Interesting fact: Wrathion was present in BFA's beta Alliance Embassy, probably to introduce an Allied race.
    I mean, what *race* could he even add? The Black Dragons aren't actually high in number or under Wrathion's direct control. The only resurgence of Black Dragons we know of are from the Island Expeditions stuff that includes Chromatic Dragons; just rogue Black Dragons that aren't under Wrathions' wing.

    Pretty much, confirming what i said.
    And yes. Every other race that adopts the Monk learns Pandaren Martial Arts.
    Sure.

    So how is that different from D&D where a Monk adopts Martial Arts and Chi, which are Chinese-culturally derived concepts? I mean, you were trying to say one is Chinese based and the other isn't, but in both settings the whole concept of Martial Arts and Ki comes from a more pop-culture influenced interpretation of Chinese culture. Unarmed combat specialization, monastic and spirutual connections, deadly use of inner spiritual energy; we're talking about the same cultural sources that inspire this RPG archetype.

    Neither is mine, but i do small grammatical corrections, not whole paragraphs.
    More power to you.

    *Kiljaeden gif*
    Demons use Fel magic. We see this from the Pit Lord and from Demons like Kil'jaedan, that's well understood.

    No mortal Warlock unit in WC3 uses green flame. Warlock class itself didn't get green flame until Cataclysm. All we know is Demons used Green Flame, not Fel magic users.

    Kael'thas was a Blood Elf who got empowered by Fel magic, sucking life force of Demons. All his flame spells are still red, and his Verdant Spheres in lore aren't directly connected to Fel magic (Legion even gives them to the Mage class). Chaos Orcs who drank Mannoroth's blood all got infused with fel magic, yet none of the spellcasters used Green Flame fel magic. Fel Green Flame was not associated with Warlocks directly until Cataclysm. Before that, it was just implied that they used 'Dark magic'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-09 at 02:02 AM.
    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.

  15. #5455
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodmoth13 View Post
    Id like to see blizz move away from classes (3 specs bound to 1 character) and move to a more flexible system bound by schools of discipline and armor classes.

    This system would plot existing specs on a matrix of magic school and armor class and attempt to flesh out missing pieces.
    You mean like this? (that many to balance .... maybe in 2050)
    I want these classes in new x-pac Necromancer,RuneMaster,Warden,BladeMaster,DarkRanger,Dragonsworn,Alchemist,Bard,Spellbreak er

  16. #5456
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    You mean like this? (that many to balance .... maybe in 2050)
    Sort of. Basically slotting existing specs into a grid like that but divided by magic school and armor/weapon class and being able to choose any 3 specs from either column or row.
    The magic schools i can think of now are the 6 major powers, 4 elemental and then basic military.

    So i would try divide each magic school into several disciplines that go something like this:
    Light melee (rogue/demon hunter/monk)
    Heavy melee (enhance shaman, arms warrior, unholy DK)
    tank (current tank classes)
    archer (currently only BM and MM, this area needs the most expansion)
    mage (all caster specs, this is currently VERY well fleshed out)
    healer (healing specs)

    So for example, Fel magic school has light melee (havoc DH), mage (demo, destro, aff), tank (vengeance DH) but is missing archer (fel hunter?), healer (some issues with that) and heavy melee (fel knight?)

    Light has 3 healer (holy pr, disc, holy pal), heavy melee (ret) tank (prot) and is lacking light melee (zealot?) mage (inquisitor?) and archer (sort of like priestess of the moon?)

    void is severely lacking, it has mage (shadow priest, kinda aff?) healer (half of disc i guess) and thats it. Sub rogue could kind of get slotted as a filler since they are very shadow based if they felt like fleshing out lower level non-void god cthuluesque shadow magic

    Military has light melee (3 rogue specs) heavy melee (arms/fury) tank (prot war) and archer (marksman) and is understandably missing mage and healer
    Death has tank (blood) heavy melee (unholy) and is missing mage (necromancer) archer (dark ranger) healer (blood based healer?) and light melee (cultist?)

    I think death is a great example for a magic school missing specs that would be great additions. For example dark ranger and necromancer are both very popular options for players but frankly i dont think either would make sense as a cohesive class, but as individual specs that arent forced together i think they would be amazing additions.

    So overall most existing classes would fit snuggly into and flesh out my concept of a new character customization system. Not all customization options would need to exist (like military healer, medic maybe? bit of a stretch) but it would be a good way to introduce new specializations to the game that dont overlap with others without the necessity of adding in unneeded extra specs. Some existing classes could be reworked into new ones, like sub fitting into the shadow school instead of being military.
    Other ideas were like making 'fury warrior' a fire heavy melee spec and having the options through talents to have more fiery visuals or regular weapon ones. That allows an existing spec to fill in a missing slot reducing the need for more classes. frost DK could be the frost heavy melee spec, bring back glad war spec for earth heavy melee and make a blademaster spec for heavy wind.

    I think the system has merit. The goal isnt to remake everything from the ground up but to allow more character customization (even without my proposed new specs) for example i could pick a outlaw, marksman and prot warrior for one character.

  17. #5457
    Titan Maxilian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Dominican Republic
    Posts
    11,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    they being alive completely invalidate the reason of why a dark ranger should exist in the first place

    if anything who cast a frost arrow or other shenanigans the hero in wc3 could do then you can add that as talent to normal hunters and they can RP as dark ranger with a edgy transmog.

    They could do those kind of things primarily because they were undead like Death knights
    Well yes being undead was the reason of their creation, but unlike DK powers, living beings can wield the shadows.

    Though yeah, i do agree that they could easily just do as they did in Legion, and add Dark Ranger style abilities to the Hunters and be done with it (or maybe even create a whole spec based on them)

  18. #5458
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Demons use Fel magic. We see this from the Pit Lord and from Demons like Kil'jaedan, that's well understood.

    No mortal Warlock unit in WC3 uses green flame. Warlock class itself didn't get green flame until Cataclysm. All we know is Demons used Green Flame, not Fel magic users.

    Kael'thas was a Blood Elf who got empowered by Fel magic, sucking life force of Demons. All his flame spells are still red, and his Verdant Spheres in lore aren't directly connected to Fel magic (Legion even gives them to the Mage class). Chaos Orcs who drank Mannoroth's blood all got infused with fel magic, yet none of the spellcasters used Green Flame fel magic. Fel Green Flame was not associated with Warlocks directly until Cataclysm. Before that, it was just implied that they used 'Dark magic'.
    Do you mean the green fire scenario quest? That was Mists. Or did you mean that instant cast spell Fel Flame?
    Expansion leak claiming Legion is the last expansion
    Quote Originally Posted by golds
    NO it will be me laughing at how you doubted this....
    Quote Originally Posted by golds
    I was right

  19. #5459
    Quote Originally Posted by Calfredd View Post
    Do you mean the green fire scenario quest? That was Mists. Or did you mean that instant cast spell Fel Flame?
    Ah, thank you for the correction. Yes i meant green fire quest from MoP
    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.

  20. #5460
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Ah, thank you for the correction. Yes i meant green fire quest from MoP
    Think that actually makes your point stronger. Warlocks didn't get green fire until halfway through WoW's 4th expansion.
    Expansion leak claiming Legion is the last expansion
    Quote Originally Posted by golds
    NO it will be me laughing at how you doubted this....
    Quote Originally Posted by golds
    I was right

Posting Permissions

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