If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Ielenia]

no, not rly, again, two different things, i didn't mind the concept, for another class, but that is not the blademaster class, because its already in the game.

Plus, that is a fanmade idea, isn't like tblizzard will get things from the fandom like that

It's still literally the exact same thing, here: your argument was "it is logical and obvious". And then on your very next post you dismiss "it is logical and obvious" arguments because "just saying so does not make it so".

This is literally you being hypocritical. No "ifs" and "buts" about it.

nope, blizzard made sure to show warriors, specific arms, as blademasters, is just a title for the existing class, among some individuals.

No, it's your opinion, and your opinion only. Until you have Blizzard saying "the WoW warrior class is the WC3 blademaster" then all you have is your opinion and nothing but your opinion.

[Syegfryed]

Except Blademasters aren't formally under the Warrior class. .

except they are, already pointed out many times with lore and gameplay, if blizzard want to retcon everything, and start introducing the same class again, but with different that is something up to then and another enire cam of worms to open and talka bout

- - - Updated - - -

It's still literally the exact same thing, here: your argument was "it is logical and obvious". And then on your very next post you dismiss "it is logical and obvious" arguments because "just saying so does not make it so".

it is more logical to expect playable classes based around blizzard ideas, not fanmade ideas, because how many fanmade concepts were added to the game? i don't remember any

This is literally you being hypocritical. No "ifs" and "buts" about it.

and you know very about hypocrisy too

No, it's your opinion, and your opinion only. Until you have Blizzard saying "the WoW warrior class is the WC3 blademaster" then all you have is your opinion and nothing but your opinion.

this is you with the absolutism fallacy once again, you want an "absolute proof" that fulfil your own personal and arbitrary metrics, We already ahve plenty of proof about the blademasters being warriors with a fancy name and some unique npc skills, like npcs get all the time

[Triceron]

except they are, already pointed out many times with lore and gameplay, if blizzard want to retcon everything, and start introducing the same class again, but with different that is something up to then

Right.

It's not impossible for reasons like they are already playable. And we know that yes, Blizzwrd can change anything, which makes nothing truly impossible.

It's not a reason to stop all discussion, its a reason not to use baseless 'facts' like Blademaster is playable as if Blizzard couldn't change that to make a new Blademaster class.

Same applies to any class concept.

This is why we suggest not using hyperbole like Can't or Impossible, because it doesn't help any argument since we collectively regard impossibilities to be untrue.

[Syegfryed]

Right.

It's not impossible for reasons like they are already playable. And we know that yes, Blizzwrd can change anything, which makes nothing truly impossible.

It's not a reason to stop all discussion, its a reason not to use baseless 'facts' like Blademaster is playable as if Blizzard couldn't change that to make a new Blademaster class.

Same applies to any class concept.

the fact that blademaster is already playable under the warrior class, because it is a fact that blademasters are warriors.

If they want to rip off and retcon their thing and do a redundant class, now that is another point, "possible"? well the possibility exist in the matter of tis there, but it will be done, or should be done is also another point.

[Ielenia]

it is more logical to expect playable classes based around blizzard ideas, not fanmade ideas, because how many fanmade concepts were added to the game? i don't remember any

Doesn't matter. The point here is that you made an argument saying "it is logical and obvious" and then on the very next post, you dismissed "it is logical and obvious" arguments because "just saying so does not make it so".

You are using double standards. You are being hypocritical.

and you know very about hypocrisy too

Of course I do. You gave me so many examples to learn from.

this is you with the absolutism fallacy once again, you want an "absolute proof" that fulfil your own personal and arbitrary metrics,

If you're going to claim something is a fact, then yes, we need "absolute proof". Because if you're going to claim as a fact that you have living pink magical unicorm in your garage, we are going to need "absolute proof" that this is a fact, and not just statements like "yeah, I heard some neighs coming from his garage".

We already ahve plenty of proof about the blademasters being warriors with a fancy name and some unique npc skills, like npcs get all the time

We don't. We really don't. We have your opinion that his is the case. Obviously some people disagree, so your opinion is not fact.

[FossilFree]

I don't think you can say a single ability (bladestorm) makes warriors blademasters. Using that line of reasoning, you could make an even stronger argument that that mages are blademasters, since they have two of their abilities (invisibility, mirror image). Blademasters are also shown wearing cloth pants, beads, and sandals. That is cloth armor, not plate like a warrior wears. Finally, mages can equip 1h swords, so it's not a stretch for them to have a melee spec that can equip 2h ones.

Do I think mages and blademasters are the same? No. But following that argument, mages are a better fit than warriors are.

[Triceron]

the fact that blademaster is already playable under the warrior class, because it is a fact that blademasters are warriors.

If they want to rip off and retcon their thing and do a redundant class, now that is another point, "possible"? well the possibility exist in the matter of tis there, but it will be done, or should be done is also another point.

Yes. Which is why I've said from the very start - You should not be using the word Possibility, because you've never actually been talking about Possibility. You've been talking about Plausability, and most of the conversations I've seen based on others arguing with you is based on your own miscommunication, that you say it's *impossible* and *not possible*, even though your intention is to say it's not plausible. That you've used words like Can't when you actually mean Shouldn't. You dismiss these arguments as semantics, but I'm not sure how much you realize that 90% of your arguments here are probably rooted in you having used those exact words, which is why you get faced with people making examples of why a Blademaster could actually exist.


That you think Blizzard isn't going to go out of their way to make a concept that is already similar to Warrior is plausability. That we all know Blizzard can do whatever they want with their game is what makes anything possible. No one is under the guise that Blizzard can't change their own game.

I'd love to move the whole conversation on, but we have to be clear on the terms that are collectively being agreed upon here, and what values should be respected if and when we talk about plausability.

I mean you should already understand how frustrating it is when people come into the threads and say Tinker is not possible, or Tinker is just an Engineer and we don't need it as a class. Those aren't actually points against its possibility, and it doesn't actually affect their plausability either. Those are just matters of opinion, that someone may think that a Tinker is already playable in the game (through Engineering), even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the class itself is actually represented.

Same applies to Blademaster. Same applies to Dark Ranger.

We should address a class as a class. We should address the possibilities of Blizzard making anything happen, because that is the point of discussing 'If they made a new class in the future, what would it be'. Even if we personally do not agree something will happen, or regard something as already available in the game, we should be open enough to allow others to discuss what they personally think is viable; and if there is anything particularly disagreeable we can debate those specific points. However, if we just jump in and say 'That's not possible', then that doesn't serve any purpose at all. We already well regard that there are no impossibilities, and anyone jumping in to say that is just being ignorant to what Blizzard is actually capable of.

We can present opinions on what should be and what shouldn't be, but at no point should any of those opinions be rendered as immutable fact. It's fine if you *believe* that Blademaster is already playable, but you can not refer to it as a fact when you have absolutely zero supporting evidence, and there are people who do not regard what you've said to be undeniably true.

When I discuss with you that Blizzard could retcon the Blademaster into a playable class, I am respecting your belief that you think they are already playable, and I am presenting the possibilities that it could still be its own class despite already being playable. However, it is widely recognized by many that the Blademaster is in fact not a part the Warrior class. This needs to be regarded as factual, and should also be respected in discussion even if you don't believe it to be true. Blizzard has never officially regarded the Blademaster as part of the Warrior Player class. Otherwise we're just dragging it on needlessly just because you continue to choose to use the same bad-faith arguments that anti-Tinker people are using. We have to consider the _fact_ that Blizzard has not referred to the Warrior as a Blademaster, even if the Warrior class is capable of fully representing the concept of a Blademaster.

I don't believe two wrongs make a right. I don't believe any class should be *denied* possibility in any terms of constructive conversation. It's just going to lead to needless argument because we already know that no one prescribes to the idea that Blizzard can't change their own damned rules.

[AzureMage]

I think the Demon Hunter renders a lot of arguments about "this class doesn't have enough to it" pointless.

The iconic look of the Demon Hunter was available to Rogues (blindfold and warglaives) and Warlocks (MoP challenge set), their most (and really only) iconic ability had an entire spec designed around it in the Demonology Spec.

Any argument about redundancy or shallowness that can be applied to Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Warden and Priestess of the Moon/Night Warrior, Shadow Hunter can realistically be applied to Demon Hunters pre-legion, while I don't personally think Demon Hunter should set a precedent for class design going forward, saying any of these specific and "shallow" concepts like Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Wardens are impossible because of hunter, warrior, rogue is just ignoring the fact that if Blizzard wants to make it happen they would if they thought it would bring in new players or retain old ones.

Theres a case that a Dark Ranger class very much follows the model of the Demon Hunter class, its a overly specific concept whos existence is tied to one the the most iconic characters in Warcraft, If Blizzard saw value in making a "Sylvanas class" the same way DH was the "Illidan class" they're go for regardless of overlap in concept with existing specs/classes.

[Syegfryed]

Doesn't matter.

ah yes, for you it don't, it does not fit, tipycal

You are using double standards. You are being hypocritical.

but aren't you fighting about tinkers over and over? what makes you too? the irony is just gigantic

If you're going to claim something is a fact, then yes, we need "absolute proof".

there is proof, point.

Just because you don't like, or don't acknowledge then, or is not enough for your standarts, it does not mean we don't have it.

Yes. Which is why I've said from the very start - You should not be using the word Possibility, because you've never actually been talking about Possibility.

no, not rly, possibility can totally be usable in this circumstance, like saying some classes are more possible than others, because they have more factors to their likelihood compared to others

That you think Blizzard isn't going to go out of their way to make a concept that is already similar to Warrior is plausability. That we all know Blizzard can do whatever they want with their game is what makes anything possible. No one is under the guise that Blizzard can't change their own game.

not just "plausability", but the possibility to a new class is higher than the possibility of a reharsed class IE a class that is already in the game by changed a little

just like the possibility to a fanmade concept is also next to zero

I'd love to move the whole conversation on, but we have to be clear on the terms that are collectively being agreed upon here, and what values should be respected if and when we talk about plausability.

we will be moving this conversation because i rly don't like discusing this pointless stuff that is going on at atempts of gotcha and fictional highground in the conversation.

im gonna just throw out, again that comparing blademaster to dark rangers or other more fleshed out classes is a false equivalence, and they are akin to far seers, tauren, chieftain and mountain king, and the possibility of those classes is lower(to not say zero for you guys don't come with torches and pitchforkes) than other classes period.

[Triceron]

no, not rly, possibility can totally be usable in this circumstance, like saying some classes are more possible than others, because they have more factors to their likelihood compared to others

That usage of the term requires facts to base a probability. To define a high or low possibility requires a standard of factual evidence.

Like if we say what are the chances a pineapple tree will grow in the arctic, we have to measure the evidence to conclude a probability. It is a low possibility because we know they grow in warm climates and don't do well in cold climates. The factors that define this are verifiable to conclude this outcome. This probability is based on evidence we can verify.

When regarding a work of _fiction_ that has creators behind it, there is no measurable standard of factual evidence to quantify any measurable probability. There is no evidence that can _measure the likelyhood_ that Blizzard couldn't or wouldn't take a fan's idea and make it playable. There is no available data that defines the likelyhood that they would not take a concept that is closely associated to an existing class and retcon it to make it playable. There is no standard to actually measure a high or low possibility if Blizzard is not following any hard rules on the matter.

It is just a matter of opinion that any of those factors have a high or low possibility. There is no factual data behind that measurement of _possibility_. It's only your opinion that it is low, your opinion that it is unlikely. If a person says Blizzard has never added a Fan created claas in the game so it's a low possibility, there is no evidence to prove that statement to be true of even likely to be true. 'It's never happened before' isn't a reliable way to measure Blizzards future actions. Correlation and observation is not evidence of what is and isn't possible, and are absolutely subject to individual biases.

And as I've explained, no one should talk about possibility because this word is ultimately based on whether something can factually happen, but has no measureable standard for likelyhood because we are talking about fictional creation. Even if something is deemed unrealistic, there's actually no standard to prove that it is actually unrealistic. If we want to refer to it being an unrealistic outcome, then we should be talking about the plausibility.

[Ielenia]

ah yes, for you it don't, it does not fit, tipycal

I literally explained it. It doesn't matter what you were responding to with that argument, because I'm talking about your argument itself. I'll repeat: you used "it is obvious and logical" as argument:

lets just say it is something logical and/or obvious.

But then, in your very next post, you dismiss "it is obvious and logical" arguments by saying "just because you say so, doesn't make it so":

your point is based around wrong community take? just because some people said it does not mean it was "obvious and logical" DH were always a possibility.

That is literally you dismissing your own argument.

but aren't you fighting about tinkers over and over? what makes you too? the irony is just gigantic

That's a weird segue to a completely unrelated subject. Care to elaborate on the connection?

there is proof, point.

Just because you don't like, or don't acknowledge then, or is not enough for your standarts, it does not mean we don't have it.

Your word is not proof of anything. You haven't given a single piece of conclusive evidence (i.e. "proof") that the warrior class is the definitive, be-all-end-all blademaster class. All you have given is your opinion.

not just "plausability", but the possibility to a new class is higher than the possibility of a reharsed class IE a class that is already in the game by changed a little

How do you know that? Let me guess: "it is logical and obvious", despite you literally having dismissed such arguments?

[HansOlo]

But it is both realistic and ideal. Everything a bard needs to be realized already exist in the game. And bards do exist in the game:
""Words and Music by Russell Brower the Bard and <name> the <Class>."

That's got a nice ring to it."


It does work in the game, though. The problem is that people like you equate the bard concept as "is support and only support never anything more than support". Which is a false statement support.


Except monk. Most of the monk did not exist in the previous warcraft games. At best, we had a drunkard chinese pandaren in WC3.

I'm just so curious how you would work out the technicals.

Are you seriously considering the classic D&D bard in this game?

[Triceron]

I'm just so curious how you would work out the technicals.

Are you seriously considering the classic D&D bard in this game?

What technical stuff needs to be worked out, exactly?

[Ielenia]

I'm just so curious how you would work out the technicals.

Are you seriously considering the classic D&D bard in this game?

First, as Triceron said: what "technicals", exactly, are you talking about?

And second, I don't think I ever clamored for the D&D bard specifically to be brought into WoW. I only used it as examples of bards in gaming media.

[Syegfryed]

That usage of the term requires facts to base a probability. To define a high or low possibility requires a standard of factual evidence.

i know that, and thats why im saying the word

When regarding a work of _fiction_ that has creators behind it, there is no measurable standard of factual evidence to quantify any measurable probability. There is no evidence that can _measure the likelyhood_ that Blizzard couldn't or wouldn't take a fan's idea and make it playable.

Why makes you think that? becaue there is, things that happened before are things to measure in the future upcoming, if we see a pattern the possibility to continue the patter is just obivious.

By example, blizzard always made new classes and new races about their own ideas, there was no fan idea or concept put into the game in those things, the possibility to the later happen is little.

- - - Updated - - -

I literally explained it. It doesn't matter what you were responding to with that argument, because I'm talking about your argument itself. I'll repeat: you used "it is obvious and logical" as argument:

Again, you "explaining" why does nto work for you, is an entire different point, you always confuse your personal view with the facts anyway

But then, in your very next post, you dismiss "it is obvious and logical" arguments by saying "just because you say so, doesn't make it so":
That is literally you dismissing your own argument.

I am pretty sure that made totally sense in your head, but no, just not rly

Your word is not proof of anything.

g to the other topic, you will find enough proof

How do you know that?

by blizzard never adding the same class changed a little, and always adding a new class all together

but hey, thats does not count for you am i right

[Ielenia]

Again, you "explaining" why does nto work for you, is an entire different point, you always confuse your personal view with the facts anyway


I am pretty sure that made totally sense in your head, but no, just not rly

It's basic argumentation skills. You can't use an argument, then on the very next post dismiss that very same argument when used against you, and still want to be taken seriously and not be called dishonest.

g to the other topic, you will find enough proof

"Other topic", but no link to said topic? It's not like the only two threads in this entire forums are this one and this "other topic".

by blizzard never adding the same class changed a little, and always adding a new class all together

In other words, nothing but your own personal opinion, your own personal, subjective interpretation of what you can see?

[Syegfryed]

It's basic argumentation skills.

my dude, your basic argumentation skils revolve around red hearing and nitpicking until the conversation goes entirely of the trails and does not even resemble the main point anyore, and you are just doing it, since the main point is not even in the late comments anymore, is just you trying to find something to be right about it.

"Other topic", but no link to said topic? It's not like the only two threads in this entire forums are this one and this "other topic".

you know very well what the "other topic" is, otherwise would you not know how i "dismissed" the "blademaster concept"? just, stop.

In other words, nothing but your own personal opinion, your own personal, subjective interpretation of what you can see?

those are facts, blizzard never made a fan idea into the game in adding new races and classes department, that is no subjective, is a fact, the likelihood of a new class being like the other is higher than a fanmade idea/concept, this is not "my own personal" interpretation

[Triceron]

i know that, and thats why im saying the word


Why makes you think that? becaue there is, things that happened before are things to measure in the future upcoming, if we see a pattern the possibility to continue the patter is just obivious.

By example, blizzard always made new classes and new races about their own ideas, there was no fan idea or concept put into the game in those things, the possibility to the later happen is little.

The difference is the patterns you are talking about are not rooted in any standard of factual evidence relating to the future outcome. Patterns, in context of Blizzard choosing classes, are simply observations and correlations; explanations for what we think happened and will happen again in the future. It's not evidence that it will happen again in the future. These type of patterns are used to indicate plausibility.

One example is that we get a new class every 2nd expansion. That is a pattern. Yet it's not a factual event that Blizzard has to release a new class every 2nd expansion; there is no verifiable way to determine this until it happens (and it did with Shadowlands). Patterns are simply observations. How would we calculate possibility? We would need factual evidence that verifies that Blizzard intends to add a new class every 2 expansions. Here is the key difference to using past patterns - there is no way of verifying *Blizzard's intent* simply by pointing at any pattern. We have no information that relates to *future possibility*.

You say Blizzard has never used a fan concept as a Class? That is plausibility, because you are formulating an argument that could be true. This is absolutely valid to say, because the likelyhood of that happening based on it never happening before would suggest that it won't likely happen. That is not *possibility*, that is 100% plausibility.

If we are formulating an argument that Blizzard is likely to add a new class every 2nd expansion and is likely to add one in Shadowlands, then we are talking about plausibility.

Those patterns are not evidence regarding future outcomes. If you based an argument of 'that shows a high possibility' then you're actually using the wrong word; you actually intend to say 'that shows a high plausibility because you're using these patterns to formulate and present an argument.

If we talk about what the possibility is of a meteor hitting the earth, then we can only calculate the possibility using what we know of meteors that are potentially going to hit the earth. The likelyhood that it will hit the earth based on what we know of cosmic bodies in space and their trajectories towards earth. If we are predicting that likelyhood based on how many times meteors have already hit the earth, then we are talking about plausibility; the likelyhood that something will happen again because it's already happened before.

If we are talking _possibility_ of a new class, we are talking about whether it can factually be created. Something like a rights issue or a lawsuit; like "Jedi" appearing as a class in WoW; that can be considered having a low possibility due to the existence of legal copyrights associated to that name. This should not be confused with 'that's obvious, because Star Wars Jedi would never be in Warcraft'; since that is an opinion, and that is plausibility. This example is strictly on the basis of whether it's *possible* for Blizzard to even use the Jedi name for WoW, and we can verify that it is not because there are copyright laws that would deny it from happening. Of course; Blizzard could just as easily make a new name and class that is a 'Jedi', and that would still be fine :P Or there could be a 1-in-a-trillion chance that Blizzard gets the rights to it, so it can never truly be impossible.

When we're talking about patterns like Blizzard picks WC3 heroes for new classes, we can not say there is a high possibility that a new class will be based on WC3 Heroes. Patterns are not verifiable facts that Blizzard can only pick WC3 heroes to make a new class out of. We know this isn't true because Blizzard themselves put Runemasters on the shortlist in Wrath of the Lich King; and even then it is not a fact that pertains to their actions in the future. It's not a real restriction, only a correlation. We can say it's highly plausible that they would pick another WC3 hero, and that would be completely valid. That is the difference between plausibility, and possibility.

[Ielenia]

my dude, your basic argumentation skils revolve around red hearing and nitpicking until the conversation goes entirely of the trails and does not even resemble the main point anyore, and you are just doing it, since the main point is not even in the late comments anymore, is just you trying to find something to be right about it.

Okay. I'm done. If you don't care about having an honest conversation, and keep denying that you did not engage in double-standards despite it being explained and shown to you, and are going to shift the blame on me, then we're done here.

those are facts,

Except none of that is "fact" like you're using the word. You just have a personal, subjective interpretation of what you see, and none of that makes "fact" in the way you're implying it does. Seeing a man only use his right hand does not mean it is a fact he is not ambidextrous. Seeing a bird only sing when it's perched on a tree does not mean it's a fact the bird is incapable of singing while flying. Likewise, "seeing Blizzard never implement a fan concept into the game" does make a fact that Blizzard does not, and will never add a fan concept into the game.

More than once you've been called out on the way you word your arguments, and how you argue. And not just here, but I'm not going to dredge up a discussing that happened 526 days ago. If you're just going to plug your ears and ignore everything that you don't like, supplanting actual facts for your own subjective interpretations, and this isn't even your first time, then there is nothing more to be discussed here.

[jellmoo]

those are facts, blizzard never made a fan idea into the game in adding new races and classes department, that is no subjective, is a fact,

No, it's not. It's supposition on your part. You have no idea where Blizzard derived inspiration for each of the classes they added to the game after launch. For all you know, they saw a fan concept online and that's how we got the Mistweaver and Windwalker specs for the Monk. You're calling something a fact that is simply a conclusion you've drawn.

the likelihood of a new class being like the other is higher than a fanmade idea/concept, this is not "my own personal" interpretation

Again, this is your own conclusion that you've reached. It is not, a fact. You have taken the information available and reached a conclusion. That's cool. That doesn't make it a fact. Unless you happen to be sitting in with the dev team and know the ins and outs of what they are discussing, you can't know this for certain. That's why this isn't a fact.

You keep using words incorrectly and that's causing the overwhelming amount of strife currently in the thread. You need to stop digging in your heels and realize that when everyone is pointing out your mistakes, the problem is almost certainly on your end. I get that English isn't everyone's first language, but if people are giving you points on how to better frame your arguments in order to generate a better discussion, try listening. It's bound to improve things for how people perceive your contributions.