1. #5801
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You said that hunters are heavily related to Shadowlands because of Sylvanas, despite the class' lore and theme having zero to do with the setting and story being told.

    By that logic, hunters are also heavily related to BfA and warriors are heavily related to Pandaria, because of Sylvanas and Garrosh, respectively.
    And by that logic that would explain why multiple expansions based around Sylvanas yielded no Dark Ranger class; Sylvanas would be viewed as a Hunter/Ranger variant. Since we already have a Hunter class, no new class is required.

  2. #5802
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So why can't we simply place those Dark Ranger concepts into the Hunter class? Marksmasnship for example could use some interesting abilities, and has housed Dark Ranger concepts before.
    Because playing Sylvanas Windrunner in World of Warcraft is probably more profitable marketing for an expansion than playing what weirdo you want to base a class on. And thats how marketing for new classes work, that you basically can be like Illidan Stormrage or Arthas Menethil. Guess why Monks created barely any hype?

    [quote]Because the Dark Ranger concept offers nothing new to the class lineup.[/quote}

    We already established as a community that you don't know anything about how this games and how classes work, so how can you say that? Otherwise, it offers an additional mail class and an additional class utilizing ranged weapons, which is something the game currently lacks, while being based on the most popular character who hasn't her own class yet. In terms if class mechanics, they can basically do anything with Dark Rangers. Dots, casts, direct dps, pet gameplay or instead summoning, Banshee form being one heavy burst CD like Metamorphosis or avenging wrath or utilizing similar mechanics as old shadow priest or old Demonology Warlock.

    Machinist is far from the bottom of the list in FFXIV.
    The only less popular classes are healers, ninja and Dancer.

    As for GW 2, according to this, Engineers are 8%, and lag behind the bottom tier and middle of pack by a few percentage points.
    https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

    That one is even better, as it actually shows engagement, as I noticed. So, the playerbase decided that Engineers are the least engaging free to play class to them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And by that logic that would explain why multiple expansions based around Sylvanas yielded no Dark Ranger class; Sylvanas would be viewed as a Hunter/Ranger variant. Since we already have a Hunter class, no new class is required.
    Probably because Legion already had Demon Hunters, BfA had allied races and a Dark Rangers class would most likely include a starting zone in which we operate under Sylvanas Windrunner, which would give away informations Blizzard consciously wants to keep a mystery during the release of the expansion. Especially since they don't need to include Dark Rangers during Shadowlands, Legion and Demon Hunters made the case of letting a class introduction scenario play during the timeline of past expansions and then include a timejump. Especially since Blizz already teased that time in the Shadowlands moves differently than it moves on Azeroth.

  3. #5803
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Because playing Sylvanas Windrunner in World of Warcraft is probably more profitable marketing for an expansion than playing what weirdo you want to base a class on. And thats how marketing for new classes work, that you basically can be like Illidan Stormrage or Arthas Menethil. Guess why Monks created barely any hype?
    By what measure would you state that Monks generated barely any hype? When they were announced they generated a great deal of hype. The problem is that Blizzard never made them OP like they did with DKs and DHs, and unlike those other two classes, Monks had to start at level 1 BEFORE Blizzard provided level boosts.

    As for Sylvanas Windrunner heading an expansion, that happened in both BFA and Shadowlands. Where's the Dark Ranger class?

    Because the Dark Ranger concept offers nothing new to the class lineup.[/quote}

    We already established as a community that you don't know anything about how this games and how classes work, so how can you say that? Otherwise, it offers an additional mail class and an additional class utilizing ranged weapons, which is something the game currently lacks,
    Hunter class.

    while being based on the most popular character who hasn't her own class yet.
    Irrelelvant.

    In terms if class mechanics, they can basically do anything with Dark Rangers. Dots, casts, direct dps, pet gameplay or instead summoning,
    You've just mentioned about the majority of the class lineup.

    Banshee form being one heavy burst CD like Metamorphosis or avenging wrath or utilizing similar mechanics as old shadow priest or old Demonology Warlock.
    "Banshee form" in its current WoW form simply allows flight. It should be noted that Metamorphosis held a variety of abilities even in WC3.


    The only less popular classes are healers, ninja and Dancer.
    And Gunbreaker, and Astrologian, and Blue Mage;

    https://ffxivcensus.com/

    That one is even better, as it actually shows engagement, as I noticed. So, the playerbase decided that Engineers are the least engaging free to play class to them.[/QUOTE]

    And like I said, that's largely due to poor decisions on the developer's part and not the class in of itself.

  4. #5804
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And by that logic that would explain why multiple expansions based around Sylvanas yielded no Dark Ranger class; Sylvanas would be viewed as a Hunter/Ranger variant. Since we already have a Hunter class, no new class is required.
    That... is asinine logic at best, completely illogical at worst:
    • First, we had zero expansions "based around Sylvanas".
    • Second, none of that means "Sylvanas would be viewed as a hunter". That's like saying Illidan should be viewed as a "rogue variant" since the expansion actually centered around him, TBC, yielded no demon hunter class.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  5. #5805
    I am Murloc! KOUNTERPARTS's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)
    Posts
    5,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumorii View Post
    Friendly reminder, Dark Ranger is the correct choice!

    it gonna be tinkers doe

  6. #5806
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Probably because Legion already had Demon Hunters, BfA had allied races and a Dark Rangers class would most likely include a starting zone in which we operate under Sylvanas Windrunner, which would give away informations Blizzard consciously wants to keep a mystery during the release of the expansion. Especially since they don't need to include Dark Rangers during Shadowlands, Legion and Demon Hunters made the case of letting a class introduction scenario play during the timeline of past expansions and then include a timejump. Especially since Blizz already teased that time in the Shadowlands moves differently than it moves on Azeroth.
    You would sort of need to release Dark Rangers in Shadowlands, since Sylvanas is playing a massive part in this expansion, and it is doubtful she will play a massive role in the next expansion. It'd be pretty hard to introduce a Dark Ranger class based on Sylvanas if Sylvanas has nothing to do with that expansion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    That... is asinine logic at best, completely illogical at worst:
    • First, we had zero expansions "based around Sylvanas".



    Why are we currently in Shadowlands?

    • Second, none of that means "Sylvanas would be viewed as a hunter". That's like saying Illidan should be viewed as a "rogue variant" since the expansion actually centered around him, TBC, yielded no demon hunter class.
    Except TBC came right after Vanilla. Shadowlands came in the traditional time frame for a new class.

  7. #5807
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You would sort of need to release Dark Rangers in Shadowlands, since Sylvanas is playing a massive part in this expansion, and it is doubtful she will play a massive role in the next expansion. It'd be pretty hard to introduce a Dark Ranger class based on Sylvanas if Sylvanas has nothing to do with that expansion.
    How so? Blizz seems to be kinda set on having her be a main character over multiple expansions? We have already her being a central character in the past 3 expansions and expansion cinematics, so what makes you assume they change and instead make this one character you like nobody even knows about the main character?

  8. #5808
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    How so? Blizz seems to be kinda set on having her be a main character over multiple expansions? We have already her being a central character in the past 3 expansions and expansion cinematics, so what makes you assume they change and instead make this one character you like nobody even knows about the main character?
    Yeah, no, Blizzard will not have Sylvanas be a central role for a third expansion. They were pushing it with this expansion, which is probably why she has a high likelihood of biting the big one in the next raid. I would argue that a vast swath of the WoW community despises her at this point.

  9. #5809
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yeah, no, Blizzard will not have Sylvanas be a central role for a third expansion. They were pushing it with this expansion, which is probably why she has a high likelihood of biting the big one in the next raid. I would argue that a vast swath of the WoW community despises her at this point.
    On what do you base this? Your own bias, like how everyone wants to have a technology classes when they tend to be not that popular in games and the one game not having one still is the most profitable and successful MMO in the market?

  10. #5810
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Sorry are you saying my argument or others. I see no reason you can make that claim that nightborne 'should' be more popular than vulpera. I disagree, I would argue the uniqueness and 'cuteness' of the Vulpera is uniquely attractive to a large portion of WoW's playerbase and it was expected for it to be massively popular as an allied race.

    Again are we talking my argument or others because there's absolutely no way you can make that claim about my argument. I said that BELF are by far the most popular race in WoW and that a small percentage of belf players would be willing to pay/put/in the effort to swap to nightborne, or choose them over belf for a new char. How are you arguing that nightborne should be more popular than belf, that would never happen.

    No allied race will ever be more popular than human/nelf/belf.
    Yeah, I never argued that NB would be more popular than BELF. I said that based on the argument here, NB should be the most popular AR on the Horde.

    That's not the case.


    Sorry I wish I could use a laughing emoji here and I don't mean to be rude, but you literally just completely proved yourself wrong hahahaha. You just explained how other characters actually are major/iconic unlike gazlowe, mekkatorque etc.

    Sorry what about the other 20 lesser known chararacters I mentioned, id actually love you to go on because we both know 1/2 of those characters are not significant yet still show up before Mekkatorque/gazlowe. Here ill make it easier for you.

    Medivh, 'Goblin', Durotan, Lothar, Saurfang, Doomhammer, Grom, Turalyon, Aegwynn, Cairne, Vereesa, Antionidas, Baine, Chen, Yrel, Draka, Onyxia, Garona, Magni, Alleria, Blackmoore, Lorthermar, Med'an, Valeera, Mannoroth, Kargath, Taran Zhu.

    Sorry please explain to me about these ones, half of these characters have no major role in the story/lore.
    You can apply what I said earlier largely to those characters as well. I'm not going to go over each and every one of them for you.

    Im showing that I can actually debate in a fair constructive manner and listen to the other side of the argument to understand their POV. I would probably enjoy that content, but gazlowe, mekkatorque and undermine are by no means iconic, and I doubt Blizzard would focus an entire expansion on it, its too 'thin' and polarising. You're making claims like mekkatorque and gazlowe are super popular and iconic as a means to support your argument for this content when they arent. If you were arguing that you think its cool, and you think others would find it cool, sure ill support you, but not when you're trying to prop up your argument with some wildly popular claims that I cannot agree with.
    Again, view the response to the Undermine April Fool's post. No one said that expansion didn't fit WoW. No one said that WoW shouldn't do that expansion. The vast majority of responses to that concept was that Blizzard should do it, and that its better than the content we have now.

    Well I don't agree, half of the original warcraft videos showed gnome mages, gnomes have appeared in many fantasy universe as iconic wizards and blizzard played into this. I just don't think they're that popular, if people liked them so much, they'd play them regardless. Would they get more popular with a class to fit their own, YES. But whats your point.
    Can you name a prominent Gnome Mage hero character in Warcraft?

    If they made a blademaster spec for warrior, orc would get more popular.

    If they made a necromancer class, undead would get more popular.

    Whats your point?
    The point is that every race has a class that matches their race's prominent characters except for Goblins and Gnomes. Orcs for example already have Thrall who is a Shaman, Garrosh and Saurfang who were Warriors, and Gul'dan who was a Warlock. Prominent Goblin characters are Helix Blackfuse, Gazlowe, and Gallywix. ALL of them pilot robots into battle.


    I mean I agree with you here, but then we got mechagnome and a huge piece of tech content and no mention of making tinkers playable so...

    If they intended on doing an entire expansion for gnomes/goblins/tech, wouldn't they have saved that content?
    BFA wasn't about Mechagon. Mechagon was mid-expansion content that was welcome, but totally not what the expansion was about. Heck, Goblins and Gnomes didn't even appear in the opening cinematic of BFA.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    On what do you base this? Your own bias, like how everyone wants to have a technology classes when they tend to be not that popular in games and the one game not having one still is the most profitable and successful MMO in the market?
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ed-to-the-game
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...-in-9-0/page37


    Polls like that for starters.

  11. #5811
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why are we currently in Shadowlands?
    Why did we go to Outlands, back in TBC? Why did we go to Pandaria?

    Except TBC came right after Vanilla. Shadowlands came in the traditional time frame for a new class.
    Irrelevant. There was no apparent "pattern" established so we could technically have a class in the first expansion. Or a class AND races. Or nothing.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  12. #5812
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Why did we go to Outlands, back in TBC? Why did we go to Pandaria?
    So are you arguing that this expansion is NOT about Sylvanas, despite Sylvans being the reason we're in this expansion in the first place, and is pretty much driving it's events?

    Irrelevant. There was no apparent "pattern" established so we could technically have a class in the first expansion. Or a class AND races. Or nothing.
    Blizzard stated that no new class concept fit the setting, story, or theme of Shadowlands.

    If we had an expansion involving Technology with Gazlowe initiating the entire storyline and driving the overarching narrative, yet there was no Tinker class, and Blizzard said that no new class concept fit the setting, story, or theme of the expansion, I'd be writing off the Tinker class as a future class concept at this point.

  13. #5813
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Well I expected vulp to be more popular, and zandalari, but NB are where I expected. Somewhat popular against their BELF counterpart.
    Okay, but what you personally expected isnt the point of the discussion. The point is that Elves shouldn't be considered the main determining factor of future content simply because BEs are wildly popular.


    Okay but Teriz don't you see that you're contradicting yourself at this stage. You've just given 3 examples for 3 characters in the list, and why they are iconic and relevant, as a means of explaining why they are in the list.
    I've already answered this question.

    Again, I'm sure if you wrote up 10 ideas for expansions involving existing Azeroth lore, a large majority would gain positive responses. People are excited by expansion talk.
    You asked me to give an example of WoW players desiring a WoW underground expansion, I give you that example, and now you're arguing that any expansion idea would garner desire from WoW players? Then what was your point in the first place?

    Millhouse manastorm, but that's about it. But I'm not denying that, I said in fantasy and in promotion material, and I believe gnomes/goblins are not of any major important anyway.
    They are of major importance, as a technology-based pair of races. The problem is that there are no technology classes in the game, thus people wanting to play those races as the technology-based races they are pushed as have no way to immerse themselves in that fantasy.

    It would be like if we had Orcs being shown as savage warriors and brutes, with the leaders being shown as such with huge axes, bloodstained armor, and spikes all over the place, but the only class options were fairy and lollipop, and you had to dress the orcs up in dresses and they had rainbow and candy powers. In that game, not many people would roll the Orcs.


    Dude..................... I AGREE with you, I've tried to make that clear so many times. But as I've said in so many posts, I think the devs are afraid of having tons of robot soldiers running around wow, and making it feel super technological as it would errode the fantasy feel for a lot of players. I don't think gnome/goblin related content is particularly attractive to most people too, compared to other alternatives they have.
    Yeah, they're not afraid, or else we wouldn't have gotten what we got in BFA. They're simply waiting for the appropriate expansion to release the class in. They made that quite obvious in the Shadowlands announcement.

  14. #5814
    If they add another class and it isn't 3 ranged specs, then they're doing it wrong.

  15. #5815
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwimmerlaik View Post
    If they add another class and it isn't 3 ranged specs, then they're doing it wrong.
    I think the DPS specs will be ranged, but if there’s a tank spec, it’ll be melee (though it would awesome for Blizzard to attempt a ranged tank).

  16. #5816
    Quote Originally Posted by KOUNTERPARTS View Post
    it gonna be tinkers doe
    But that's not correct!
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  17. #5817
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So are you arguing that this expansion is NOT about Sylvanas, despite Sylvans being the reason we're in this expansion in the first place, and is pretty much driving it's events?
    This expansion is not about Sylvanas, just like Legion was not about Gul'Dan, and WoD was about Garrosh.

    Blizzard stated that no new class concept fit the setting, story, or theme of Shadowlands.
    Wrong. They never said that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    Please stop using this 'personal opinion' thing as a form of countering arguments, I see this all the time on MMOC, and its so so unintelligent as a form of argument.
    He'll never stop doing that. He acts like everything he posts is absolute, objective fact, despite more often than not posting his own personal opinions, and dismisses everything people say as "personal opinions", even when facts are provided, if they go against his own personal opinions.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  18. #5818
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    This expansion is not about Sylvanas, just like Legion was not about Gul'Dan, and WoD was about Garrosh.


    Wrong. They never said that.

    - - - Updated - - -


    He'll never stop doing that. He acts like everything he posts is absolute, objective fact, despite more often than not posting his own personal opinions, and dismisses everything people say as "personal opinions", even when facts are provided, if they go against his own personal opinions.
    Isn't he also engaging in railing back the discussion to a topic which had been forbidden earlier?

  19. #5819
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,804
    Quote Originally Posted by JavelinJoe View Post
    You were using that some thread about undermine was popular, thus its something the players want. I argued that this logic is a fallacy. Because most expansion ideas grounded in the existing lore, would be popular to a large percentage of players. So it doesn't prove anything.
    I said that WoW players have shown a desire for an underground expansion based on Undermine, you didn’t believe that, and when I showed the evidence you immediately switched to “Well all expansion concepts based on WoW lore are popular”. Like I said, I don’t see the point of your original question.


    But again, you fail to understand that a large percentage of WoW's playerbase are here because of the traditional fantasy aspect, you know LOTR has been accredited for a lot of WoW's success by the devs themselves?
    And yet in multiple polls over multiple years, the Tinker is consistently ranked at or near the top of most desired classes, easily beating out the traditional fantasy options.

    Most players accept technology as part of this specific fantasy, but that doesn't mean they like it, many are neutral, I consider myself neutral, I don't mind, I kinda like it and I kinda dislike it. I find all this spaceship shit cringe and not the reason I fell in love with Warcraft. I find the tinker thing a cool boss to fight, but I don't like the idea of everyone being able to be one. You're failing completely to understand that just because something exists in small pockets doesn't mean that the developers want to spread it amongst the entire world and make it commonplace. I think there's a reason Blizzard originally created engineering as a profession instead of a class, because I don't think they want everyone running around in terminator suits.
    Yeah, see above. As for the profession, it has nothing to do with the Tinker hero concept.

    I understand you and others who like that fantasy feel like you're getting screwed, but until you understand the logical reasoning behind why it might be a bad idea to make it possible to play as a rocket firing mechasuit wearing grenade tossing ironman a playable class in a game where most of the heroes use magic swords, bows and primitive guns, then you wont ever be able to support a logical argument about the topic.
    If Goblins and Gnomes are shown doing nothing but riding around in mech suits, why would it be illogical for Gnome and Goblin players to also be riding around in mech suits?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Isn't he also engaging in railing back the discussion to a topic which had been forbidden earlier?
    I’m not the one bringing up the topic.

  20. #5820
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I said that WoW players have shown a desire for an underground expansion based on Undermine, you didn’t believe that, and when I showed the evidence you immediately switched to “Well all expansion concepts based on WoW lore are popular”. Like I said, I don’t see the point of your original question.




    And yet in multiple polls over multiple years, the Tinker is consistently ranked at or near the top of most desired classes, easily beating out the traditional fantasy options.



    Yeah, see above. As for the profession, it has nothing to do with the Tinker hero concept.



    If Goblins and Gnomes are shown doing nothing but riding around in mech suits, why would it be illogical for Gnome and Goblin players to also be riding around in mech suits?
    Isn't the topic of Tinkers forbidden in that threat?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I’m not the one bringing up the topic.
    You are. Absolutely. Already with your talk about mechanical classes you moved the goalpost back to the topic.

Posting Permissions

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