1. #6001
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Demand does not always appear in the form of criticism on the forums. I mean, how much demand do you see here for a Dragonsworn? Practically zero since it's almost never talked about, and rarely lasts discussion in this forums. Yet on reddit, a simple Dragonsworn post got 8.3k upvotes showing support for the concept. You'd never see that amount of participation here. New Class polls tend to have less than 500 participants on average.
    That gives me hope. Honestly, what intrigues me about the Dragonsworn concept the most is what a blank slate it is. The developers could make a class based on what WoW currently is, rather than something mired in expectations originating in 20 year old games. It could be literally anything - freeform development. And while I'm not the biggest fan of WoW's current iteration, I'm open to seeing the full potential of this iteration realized.

  2. #6002
    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    Agree, that being said I would play the hell out of a Dark ranger or warden.

    I dont care single bit about tinkers.
    I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.

  3. #6003
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.
    Il take it. I mean I realy like this.

    I realy like your idea of sira as a warden and not the night elf warden. I feel like 2 dps and 1 tank would be bit more suitable imo. I dont see a healing spec being very fitting here and would like the dk idea of 2 dps and 1 tank spec.
    Last edited by Alanar; 2021-04-19 at 07:09 PM.

  4. #6004
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Er, why?

    Rogues getting Glaives of Azzinoth and Warlocks geting Metamorphosis didn't scratch Demon Hunters off the list. These are effects are tied to a weapon. Weapons tend to last for maybe half an expansion, and get replaced pretty quickly by the time the next expansion arrives. These aren't even End Tier Legendary weapons, these are high-end drops for a mid-tier raid, like Druid of the Flame staff from Firelands that lets you turn into a flaming kitty. I loved that staff, but it got replaced way too quickly. Wasn't even useful by the time Deathwing raid arrived.

    I mean even if these were incorporated into actual spells in the Hunter, we might have more of a talking point. But seeing how Black Arrow and Metamorphosis were treated, I probably still wouldn't go as far as saying we have playable Dark Rangers.

    I do regard this as a much more elegant way to have Hunters be able to RP as a Dark Ranger though. If there's any way to implement Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire into the Hunter class, this is much better than just straight up shoe-horning it into the class where it doesn't really fit. As I see it, with these items it will help sate the demand for playable Dark Rangers for the duration of the expansion. I think Blizzard would have to do more to keep this relevant into the future, like with glyphs or talents to keep them in play.
    All good points, but don’t be surprised if Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire are in the Hunter class next expansion.

  5. #6005
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes, and the vast majority of people who want a new class wouldn't be coming to forums to bitch about the lack of new classes.
    No. They go to other forums for that. But you can also look at the YouTubers/Twitch Streamers (as a whole, not just Bellular, Preach, etc.)

    Forums are always going to be the echochamber of the discontent, not the wishful thinkers who wouldn't mind seeing something new and cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Blizzard's business and the marketting and sales of WoW depends on presenting new and big features for the game. Classes are going to be a part of that conversation.
    Yeah. Because it makes really good business sense to put out a product where a chunk of the features are crap. And they just so happen to be the ones you want.

  6. #6006
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    Yeah. Because it makes really good business sense to put out a product where a chunk of the features are crap. And they just so happen to be the ones you want.
    Aside from the scathing sarcasm, I agree that good business should put out a good product and not crap features.

    That being said, I don't see how that would affect new classes unless we are to automatically assume that any new class will be a crap feature. If anything, it just means Blizzard should be more careful in planning a new class so that it doesn't fall into that trap, that's all. I don't think any of the classes we have so far have been considered crap features, even with balance issues in mind.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    All good points, but don’t be surprised if Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire are in the Hunter class next expansion.
    I hope they do manage to fit it, because they sound like very promising additions. I wouldn't mind having some of the Covenant abilities we have make their way into certain classes too, albeit modified to fit the theme of the class better.
    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.

  7. #6007
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Classes are absolutely defined by their abilities.
    No, they're not. It's the other way around: abilities are defined by the classes' concepts.

    Hence why people are currently writing off the Dark Ranger class because Hunters got their abilities,
    The only people fixated on abilities are the ones dismissing the concept. That says a lot, considering that's the only thing many of the anti-dark ranger can cling to, and it and shows how abilities aren't this "main pre-req" that you claim it is.

    or how Demon Hunter didn't enter the game until Warlocks lost metamorphosis.
    We can write that off as coincidence, though. For example: how do you know that the process went like this: "We are not happy with the demonology warlock." -> "we should revert it back into being a summoner spec instead of what it is today." -> metamorphosis is removed -> "The demon hunter really fits the story we're telling in this expansion." -> demon hunter is decided to become the next class -> is given metamorphosis.

    It's a fact that both warlocks and demon hunters could've had metamorphosis, considering how wildly different the two skills are. Literally their only similarity is "turn into a demon".

    Chen, Arthas, and Illidan all had unique abilities that they had BEFORE the debut of their respective classes. Why can't we do the same for the Bard concept?
    You still have to prove why it matters. We had zero runemaster abilities, and yet the concept almost became a full playable class twice.

    All of which is irrelevant.
    It's not irrelevant. You are using the TRPG as some sort of "source of inspiration" for classes in WoW, and I pointed out how the TRPG lists off the necromancer as a separate class from the death knight, which you claim to be "one and the same".

    What is relevant is that we have a history of no substantial Bard concept anywhere in Warcraft.
    Neither we have any substantial runemaster concept anywhere within Warcraft. And yet the class almost made it to become an actual, realized player class.

    The lack of Bard characters and the lack of Bard lore even in noncanonical sources is quite telling.
    And what it tells is: "all of that is irrelevant", and people have explained that to you countless times. You're deliberately ignoring the Runemaster who almost became a class not only once but twice.

    And irrelevant once again. The Runemaster was never an actual WoW class, thus what it had and doesn't have means nothing.
    It doesn't matter it was never realized into a class. And you know why? Because if all that stuff you claim are requirements for a concept to actually be a class in WoW was indeed required, then the runemaster concept would never even be considered in the first place, much less be one of the three runner-ups.

    What you're doing there is akin to a movie production company hosting a casting call for a certain role, and requiring specific characteristics-- in this example, a tall, black, thin woman-- but letting a short, white, fat man be one of the three runner-ups for the role.

    They can equip the bow and the quiver, but they won't get the Dark Ranger abilities. Only Hunters get those.

    That says quite a lot.
    Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  8. #6008
    Quote Originally Posted by draugril View Post
    That gives me hope. Honestly, what intrigues me about the Dragonsworn concept the most is what a blank slate it is. The developers could make a class based on what WoW currently is, rather than something mired in expectations originating in 20 year old games. It could be literally anything - freeform development. And while I'm not the biggest fan of WoW's current iteration, I'm open to seeing the full potential of this iteration realized.
    I'm very open to the idea of Dragonsworn because it simply makes sense. We have Dragon Isles coming up, Dragons are by far a central figure to the Warcraft lore and universe, and their powers and theme are relatively untapped by the classes.

    However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system. There are some things that I see in my mind that work better if they approached it as a Covenant system, like splitting each Dragonflight into their own subfaction instead of dividing them up into specs. It'd be difficult to explain how one class has access to all dragonflight powers without it being a case of 'borrowed power' too, since usually Dragonsworn in lore would be followers of just one Dragonflight. It's too early to tell right now, since we know nothing about what they would do with Dragon Isles and how it fits with the overall story.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-19 at 08:38 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.

  9. #6009
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That being said, I don't see how that would affect new classes unless we are to automatically assume that any new class will be a crap feature. If anything, it just means Blizzard should be more careful in planning a new class so that it doesn't fall into that trap, that's all. I don't think any of the classes we have so far have been considered crap features, even with balance issues in mind.
    They will ALWAYS fall into that trap. Otherwise Shadow Priests would not have been complaining in BfA. BM Hunters would not be complaining now. They do NOT spend the time and resources the way they should. A former employee spilled the beans on Reddit in a subreddit for a game under Microsoft. Accountants now make more than developers. Ion can plan an awesome feature with the team but the accounts can shoot it down or hobble him. Say he plans on assigning 4 devs a month to do it. He might get 2 devs and a week.

  10. #6010
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system.
    considering the amount of dragonflights we have (five of them: red, blue, green, yellow, black), realizing them into a single class would mean one or two of the dragonflights would be ignored (if the class has four or three specs) or they would end up merged together and so the specs would lose precious focus.

    IMO, while it can be done, I think it's best served as a 'borrowed power' style of Covenants. Especially when we consider the lesser/artificial dragonflights like Netherwing, Infinite, Storm, Twilight and others.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  11. #6011
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, they're not. It's the other way around: abilities are defined by the classes' concepts.
    Except we had several abilities BEFORE the classes even existed.

    In the end, you typed all of this because you have no Bard character with Bard abilities. Instead of just admitting that, you come up with irrelevant arguments in an effort to cover up that fact.

    Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.
    “Shots” refers to abilities like Arcane Shot, Chimera Shot, Cobra Shot, etc. Warriors and Rogues don’t have shot abilities.

  12. #6012
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    They will ALWAYS fall into that trap. Otherwise Shadow Priests would not have been complaining in BfA. BM Hunters would not be complaining now. They do NOT spend the time and resources the way they should. A former employee spilled the beans on Reddit in a subreddit for a game under Microsoft. Accountants now make more than developers. Ion can plan an awesome feature with the team but the accounts can shoot it down or hobble him. Say he plans on assigning 4 devs a month to do it. He might get 2 devs and a week.
    Well yeah.

    The cycle of WoW players is generally driven by a roller-coaster style system. Masses of casuals drop off after what they consider content is done, and they take big breaks and come back when there's a new expansion with shiny new features to play. Rest of the time it's the whales keeping the game alive.

    The designers have to maintain the game for both, and new classes and flashy features will be a better selling point than 'Maintains and improves Class Balance'.

    I worked at a Vivendi studio in the 2010's, when Wrath was just released and the merger happened. Activision would cancel entire nearly-completed projects if they didn't deem the game worth marketting. And the marketting budget is roughly equal to that spent on development.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-19 at 10:21 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.

  13. #6013
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except we had several abilities BEFORE the classes even existed.
    "Several"? Maybe. Maybe not. But the fact is: We don't need Warcraft 3 to know what a paladin can do. What a druid can do. What a rogue can do. What a monk can do. What a death knight can do.

    In the end, you typed all of this because you have no Bard character with Bard abilities. Instead of just admitting that, you come up with irrelevant arguments in an effort to cover up that fact.
    What I typed is fact. We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.

    “Shots” refers to abilities like Arcane Shot, Chimera Shot, Cobra Shot, etc. Warriors and Rogues don’t have shot abilities.
    No, it does not refer to those abilities only. Auto-attacks with ranged weapons are also shots. If this was supposed to proc out of specific abilities, then Blizzard would specify which abilities trigger the item's special ability.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  14. #6014
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    "Several"? Maybe. Maybe not. But the fact is: We don't need Warcraft 3 to know what a paladin can do. What a druid can do. What a rogue can do. What a monk can do. What a death knight can do.
    We don’t need WC3, yet every expansion class has heavily used WC3 abilities, design, characters, etc?

    What I typed is fact. We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.
    See above.


    No, it does not refer to those abilities only. Auto-attacks with ranged weapons are also shots. If this was supposed to proc out of specific abilities, then Blizzard would specify which abilities trigger the item's special ability.
    We’ll see soon enough. I just like to know in what scenario would a Rogue or Warrior use a bow for anything but goofing around....

  15. #6015
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.
    Warriors and Rogues can't do this any more. They used to have a 'Shoot' ability that has been since removed.

    They can equip bows, they can auto attack, but they would be using it as a melee weapon and not through the 'Shoot' function. I doubt this perk would apply outside of Hunters, otherwise they would use less specific wording.
    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.

  16. #6016
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    We don’t need WC3, yet every expansion class has heavily used WC3 abilities, design, characters, etc?
    Coincidence is a thing that exists. Plus it could be argued that the reasoning was "hey, we're making a paladin class for WoW, and we have this paladin unit in WC3. Why not use their abilities in the WoW class?" instead of "We need the WC3 paladin's units to make this WoW paladin class a reality" like you claim it is.

    See above.
    We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.

    We’ll see soon enough. I just like to know in what scenario would a Rogue or Warrior use a bow for anything but goofing around....
    And now you're moving the goalposts. First your argument was "be able to use it", because you thought (erroneously) that only the hunter class could use those items. But now that you have been proven wrong, now the argument is "use it for anything but goofing around".
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  17. #6017
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Coincidence is a thing that exists.
    Except it would have to be multiple coincidences at once, since it is WC3 abilities, WC3 characters, and WC3 design all at the same time. That’s not a coincidence, that’s purposeful design.

    You are once again creating irrelevant arguments to bypass the fact that you have no hero character for a Bard with unique abilities. Meanwhile the main candidates for a future WoW class can easily meet that requirement.

    We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.
    The Runemaster never became a WoW class, and we have zero idea of what it was or based upon, so it in fact supports my argument.


    And now you're moving the goalposts. First your argument was "be able to use it", because you thought (erroneously) that only the hunter class could use those items. But now that you have been proven wrong, now the argument is "use it for anything but goofing around".
    See Triceron’s post.

  18. #6018
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except it would have to be multiple coincidences at once, since it is WC3 abilities, WC3 characters, and WC3 design all at the same time. That’s not a coincidence, that’s purposeful design.
    Not really. It's just a single time that has to be a coincidence: the concept coincide with an already existing WC3 hero. Everything else that happens is a consequence of that one coincidence. Not to mention that "WC3 hero" has been already debunked by Blizzard themselves, considering they've shown that they didn't need lore heroes for the base WoW classes, or for the expansion classes, thanks to their story about the runemaster concept.

    You are once again creating irrelevant arguments to bypass the fact that you have no hero character for a Bard with unique abilities.
    One: that is not a fact. That is an opinion
    Two: Blizzard has already stated we don't need an already established hero.
    Three: as a consequence of above, Blizzard has also shown that we don't need abilities.

    Meanwhile the main candidates for a future WoW class can easily meet that requirement.
    Runemaster proves you wrong.

    The Runemaster never became a WoW class,
    It was considered. And if it was considered, it means all those requirements you insist are factual (abilities, lore hero, etc) have been shown to be nothing but BS.

    See Triceron’s post.
    I will address it once I am able to log into the game.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  19. #6019
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Not really. It's just a single time that has to be a coincidence: the concept coincide with an already existing WC3 hero. Everything else that happens is a consequence of that one coincidence. Not to mention that "WC3 hero" has been already debunked by Blizzard themselves, considering they've shown that they didn't need lore heroes for the base WoW classes, or for the expansion classes, thanks to their story about the runemaster concept.
    It’s happened three separate times with three separate classes in three separate expansions.

    And no, Runemaster isn’t a counter example because it’s not a WoW class.

    One: that is not a fact. That is an opinion
    Two: Blizzard has already stated we don't need an already established hero.
    Three: as a consequence of above, Blizzard has also shown that we don't need abilities.
    1. If it’s not a fact, show me the expansion class without a hero character that had unique abilities applied to their eventual class.

    Please post Blizzard’s statements for 2 and 3.

    Runemaster proves you wrong.
    Post a link to the WoW Runemaster class.

    It was considered. And if it was considered, it means all those requirements you insist are factual (abilities, lore hero, etc) have been shown to be nothing but BS.
    Completely irrelevant since it never became a WoW class and we have no idea what concepts, characters, abilities, etc. were planned for it.

    You’re just ignoring facts at this point, so I’m done with this back and forth.

  20. #6020
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Blizzard is the only one that decides what classes get added to the game. If anyone is denying their possibility, it would be Blizzard, not any of the fans.

    Fans can't actually deny the possibility of anything. You can argue against a Blademaster, but you can't deny its possibility either. That ultimately comes down to Blizzard.

    I mean, look what happened at all the people who denied the possibility of Demon Hunters. They had zero power to actually deny them from existing.
    you play around but didn't answer the question

    we we have zero power to deny because we are not blizzard, might as well shut down all the forums and discussions about the game, but thats not the point, the point is tinker is likely or not, as a playable class, and they are, at least, more than the same class with another name for sure.

Posting Permissions

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