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

[Syegfryed]

No, it's not. It's supposition on your part.

HAHAH, all right.

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.

It is "rooted" in factual evidence, because all races and classes are made by blizzard concept, and not by fans or anything else.

Rly, at this point i guess you are guys are just arguing for the sake of argue, which again, goes beyond the my point and my question who start this conversation.

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;

Yes it is not a fact that blizzard has to add a new class every 2nd expansions, but it is a fact that blizzarddid that, the possibility is high.

Okay. I'm done. If you don't care about having an honest conversation

so lets try this, if we are talking about "honest conversations", whats the main point of the conversation that start this mess? do you know without going back a to see, and you can answer that?

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

ah yes, the fact that the classes that blizzard added to the game are not fanmade ideas is just my "personal, subjective interpretation of what i see"

what a gold joke

[Ielenia]

It is "rooted" in factual evidence, because all races and classes are made by blizzard concept, and not by fans or anything else.

How do you know that? How do you know that none of the classes and/or races added into this game were not inspired by fan concepts?

Yes it is not a fact that blizzard has to add a new class every 2nd expansions, but it is a fact that blizzarddid that, the possibility is high.

Probability. Not possibility. Possibility is a dichotomy. It either is, or isn't.

so lets try this, if we are talking about "honest conversations", whats the main point of the conversation that start this mess? do you know without going back a to see, and you can answer that?

Your misuse of words, and you asserting your opinions as fact. Which devolved into hypocrisy from your part, as demonstrated in earlier posts.

ah yes, the fact that the classes that blizzard added to the game are not fanmade ideas is just my "personal, subjective interpretation of what i see"

what a gold joke

No. Your personal, subjective interpretation of what you see is your assertion that Blizzard will never add a class inspired from a fan concept. Your personal, subjective interpretation of what you see is your assertion that the blademaster concept is already playable in the warrior class.

[jellmoo]

HAHAH, all right.

You still don't understand what a fact is, do you? Here are some examples:

• WoW features a playable class called the Warrior. This is a fact. It's a fact because it is easily proven. Log into the game and check.
• In WoW, only one playable class, the Druid, has 4 specs for the player to choose from. This is a fact. It's a fact because it is easily proven. Log into the game and check.
• When playing WoW, you cannot create a Tauren Demon Hunter. This is a fact. It's a fact because it is easily proven. Log into the game and check.

Now here are some examples of supposition. A conclusion that somebody may come to, reasonably or not, but are not, actually, facts as they cannot be outright proven one way or another:

• Any hero class added to the game will start with the letter 'D', since all previous hero classes have started with this letter.
• Any new class added to the game in the future will have its origin in Warcraft 3, since all previously added classes came from there.
• Blizzard has never used a fan concept they've seen as inspiration for a new class since they haven't acknowledged doing so in the past.

The first group are easily proven facts. They are proven simply by logging into the game. The second group are educated guesses, supposition, and conclusions. They cannot simply be proven. You may think that your conclusion is correct, but that does not make it a fact.

Does this clear up the issue? Do you understand the difference now?

[Syegfryed]

How do you know that? How do you know that none of the classes and/or races added into this game were not inspired by fan concepts?

talking about honest conversations, who said shit about "inspired"? i said concept, once again, you are distorting things to nittpick.

Your misuse of words,

yeah, no, i ask why are people bitching about tinkers that much if "anything is possible", congrats proving my point that you just join those discutions trying to nitpick and read hearing things to be right about

No. Your personal, subjective interpretation of what you see is your assertion that Blizzard will never add a class inspired from a fan concept.

i never said they could never add a class inspired from a fan concept, i said the possibility of doing that is lower

but once again you made fun of yourself, completely missing the point

[Ielenia]

<cutting it short>

You talk about "nitpicking", yet nitpick yourself, to avoid answering the question. And people have told you you're using words like "possible" wrong. And you continue.

So, I'm shutting down this conversation for good. Feel free to have the last reply. But before I go:

Probability. Not possibility. Possibility is a dichotomy. It either is, or isn't.

[Syegfryed]

You talk about "nitpicking", yet nitpick yourself, to avoid answering the question. And people have told you you're using words like "possible" wrong. And you continue.

you are literally moving goalposts and getting mad that "i didn't answer the question that you distorted" come on, comedy have limits, the question about why getting so worked over about tinker, when they indeed are a possibility, was not asnwered

[Ielenia]

you are literally moving goalposts and getting mad that "i didn't answer the question that you distorted" come on, comedy have limits, the question about why getting so worked over about tinker, when they indeed are a possibility, was not asnwered

I don't think I ever said tinkers are "not possible" without adding caveats to that statement (for example: "without changing the engineering profession"), so your question is misleading.

If you still think I ever claimed "tinkers are not possible" without adding any caveats, feel free to quote me making that statement.

[Triceron]

you are literally moving goalposts and getting mad that "i didn't answer the question that you distorted" come on, comedy have limits, the question about why getting so worked over about tinker, when they indeed are a possibility, was not asnwered

That's the problem.

You assumed others said it was not possible, but other people were talking plausibility not possibility.

Its why I said you were talking about the wrong thing since the beginning. You were using the wrong arguments, since you and the people you are talking about aren't talking about Tinkers being not possible, but rather not plausible. And plausibility doesn't need to be bound by fact, it's simply an argument or explanation of a potential outcome; an opinion of what is likely to happen based on whatever observed evidence is brought to the table.

And I even explained reasons why it was not plausible, but you kept thinking the topic was still about possibility when it never was. No one has argued that they are impossible to add. At most, people have talked about them being not plausible, with various reasons behind it.

Tinkers, like all class concepts, have pros and cons to their concept. Some people see the cons outweighing the pros, thus to them it is not a likely class to happen in the game. Reasons include Engineering taking a bunch of the theme, the lack of future expansion themes to tie them in, and the fact that even Blizzard devs considered them potentially too whimsical. Then there's the direct association to least-popular races, which is difficult to market to a wide audience. These are all things that make it less plausible, and is what people have been talking about.

You simply misinterpreted the whole thing as less possible.

[Syegfryed]

I don't think I ever said tinkers are "not possible" without adding caveats to that statement (for example: "without changing the engineering profession"), so your question is misleading.

If you still think I ever claimed "tinkers are not possible" without adding any caveats, feel free to quote me making that statement.

I also, never said, you did, it was a broad question, for the multiple pages bickering, but you jump on the gun anyway like it was meat for you, but you were just nitpicking about the "terms". And what happened to "shttuing down the conversation" and letting me "have the last reply"? you can't help yourself, right?

That's the problem.

You assumed others said it was not possible, but other people were talking plausibility not possibility.

No, not rly, i asked why people were bitching about tinker that much, regardless if they are "possible or pLauSibLe", its just does not justify all the fight.

Tinkers, like all class concepts, have pros and cons to their concept. Some people see the cons outweighing the pros, thus to them it is not a likely class to happen in the game. Reasons include Engineering taking a bunch of the theme, the lack of future expansion themes to tie them in, and the fact that even Blizzard devs considered them potentially too whimsical

And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

Also, the lack of future theme? seriously? there still the undermine all the subterranean plot with the blingtron hinting a possible enemy they can use for a next expansion, is not much but hey, what is the future theme to introduce blademasters? and i was called a hypocrite

[lazypeon100]

Tinker could be fun. Tank, heal, and a new ranged DPS spec.

I still want them to bring back an updated version of ranged survival and think it never should have been deleted in the first place. If they refuse to do a fourth spec, I think it could fit into Tinker if they were to design around the idea and maybe update some of the thematic stuff.

Healing spec could be based on a chemist. Think alchemist, but on steroids as far as potions go? Tanking you could make your mech / turrets.

[Ielenia]

I also, never said, you did, it was a broad question, for the multiple pages bickering, but you jump on the gun anyway like it was meat for you, but you were just nitpicking about the "terms". And what happened to "shttuing down the conversation" and letting me "have the last reply"? you can't help yourself, right?

Then, once again, your wording is put into question, as your post led me to believe you were complaining that I did not answer your question.

And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

It is your opinion that they're the same class, not fact. And, again, the only thing that the warriors "took" from the concept was the whirlwind ability. The other abilities are nowhere to be seen in the warrior class. Also, does "wielding a two-handed sword" equals warrior? Because, if so, someone warn Blizzard that they put two warrior classes in the game, since the paladin also wields a two-handed weapon.

[OwenBurton]

Perhaps they could do something different - or try a different class for each faction. Just like in the past with priest abilities, which were faction and race-exclusive.

The Alliance could probably get Wardens (it's been in the game for a long time), and they seem quite popular.
The Horde could get something like Spellfencers (lots of nightborne NPCs in Suramar use spellswords), an interesting parallel to the Wardens.

Perhaps they could remain locked to night elves and nightborne for one expansion or something, and then have them teach their skills to other races, or make them available to both faction eventually, after seeing how they're received?

[Nyel]

So... assuming Shadowlands is bombing as hard as WoD in the long run (which seems to be the case with content droughts already happening), do you think they'll come back with a new class in the next expansion? I mean it's the logical thing as Azerite and Covenants just failed and they need something bigger and better than that on top of the usual borrowed power system.

But what class would make sense after Shadowlands? Necromancers, aka Death Knight 2.0? Dark Ranger in reminiscence of Sylvanas? Or something completely different? I mean a Tinker makes no sense anymore.

[Syegfryed]

Then, once again, your wording is put into question, as your post led me to believe you were complaining that I did not answer your question.

once again the problem is your nittpicking and constant need for attention and be right, the proof is how you said "the conversation would end" but you are still here, doing the same

It is your opinion that they're the same class, not fact. And, again, the only thing that the warriors "took" from the concept was the whirlwind ability. The other abilities are nowhere to be seen in the warrior class.

that is much my opinion as it is a blizzard opinion putting and tagging bladmeasters as arms warriors, as warrior trainners and so on, the warrior class is a mix of blademaster, tauren chieftain, mountain king and other warrior-ish units, one of the reasons they are not carbon copies of any of those, blademaster is as much possible or PLaUsIBlE as mountain king and tauren chieftain class.

Also, does "wielding a two-handed sword" equals warrior? Because, if so, someone warn Blizzard that they put two warrior classes in the game, since the paladin also wields a two-handed weapon.

that is just your assumption and as always, over the top extrapolation trying to win the argument yet again by another fallacy, in this case, the appeal to ridicule, and you were the one talking about "honest conversations"

[Triceron]

No, not rly, i asked why people were bitching about tinker that much, regardless if they are "possible or pLauSibLe", its just does not justify all the fight.

Yes but you're already aware nothing is justified.

You arguing for dozens of pages saying Blademasters can't be playable isn't justified either when you fully recognize that Blizzard could retcon their own lore and make it happen, right? What was your justification if not your own opinion?

You are just as zealous as the rest, so if you're really criticizing people here, you're just being hypocritical about it.

I'm fully aware that there are people like this on both sides of the spectrum, and people argue in favour of what they think is true. And as I said, those matters of belief can't actually define the truth, because the only undeniable fact is that Blizzard could do literally anything and that nothing is actually impossible.

And that is where things start to get funny and biased, warriors taking a bunch of the blademaster theme(by literally being the same class) was not a problem, regardless of the warrior actually being a class, but tinker getting the theme of a profession is a problem.

Also, the lack of future theme? seriously? there still the undermine all the subterranean plot with the blingtron hinting a possible enemy they can use for a next expansion, is not much but hey, what is the future theme to introduce blademasters? and i was called a hypocrite

Again, you are talking plausibility here, not possibility. No one has said Tinkers were not possible. And you forget that no one in the Blademaster thread actually argued that Blademaster was a high plausibility, everyone was _denying your claims_ that they can not exist as a class, because you specifically said it was _not possible_. Had you simply said they were unlikely to happen, everyone would have likely agreed with you. Most people talking in the thread simply regarded the concept as something that could be made, not that it necessarily would be made. You came in and tried to shut those opinions down completely, stirring the hornets nest with bad faith arguments that it was impossible.

As I said, Blademasters ARE unlikely to happen, and that is different from saying they are _impossible_ to happen. No one has said a Blademaster was more likely than a Tinker, so I don't know why you think this. I feel like you are equating two things that are unrelated

Someone arguing that a Blademaster is possible (can factually exist) and that a Tinker is not plausible (not likely to exist) does not mean they think Blademasters are more likely to happen than Tinkers. That someone argues you that Blademaster can exist does not mean they should or have a good chance for it to exist.

As I said, you were using the wrong words and because you did, you are conflating different arguments together just because you see people resisting your own beliefs on what you think is not plausible, even though you dun fucked up and said 'not possible' instead. That got everyone explaining why it _is possible_, but you think they are all arguing why that class would be _likely_. This is because you think possibility just means likelyhood, while everyone arguing against you was not talking about a high or low chance, but the simple argument that you shouldn't be considering anything as 'not possible'.

You messed up what you intended to say by using the wrong words. If you had used the right words and right meaning at the start, you'd see that no one is actually denying the possibility of a Tinker while arguing that Blademasters are possible. You're lacking consistency in your argument because you don't realize that if you said Tinkers were impossible, the same people arguing against you about Blademaster would do the same for Tinker, saying that nothing is actually impossible and that the argument is wrong.

If you had stuck to plausibility, most people discussing Blademaster openly regard the chances of it happening are pretty low, and agree with that. As I said myself, I would agree with you if you were talking about plausibility, but you continue to say possibility instead and you keep defending yourself kn using the wrong terminology.

Tinker and Blademaster are _equal_ in possibility, because there are no facts that suggest one being _more_ possible than the other. Both are WC3 concepts, both have themes and gameplay existing in the game through Warriors or Engineering. These are plain facts, and possibility doesn't care whether one is a class and one is a profession because either way Blizzard can retcon anything to make it work, which is why the possibilities are the same.

Plausibility is what we should discuss, and a Tinker is more plausible than a Blademaster for many of the reasons you have mentioned. Not possibility, plausibility

[Syegfryed]

Yes but you're already aware nothing is justified.

You arguing for dozens of pages saying Blademasters can't be playable isn't justified either when you fully recognize that Blizzard could retcon their own lore and make it happen, right? What was your justification if not your own opinion?

nah, you want to make those things equal, but they are as different as oil and water, and most what i did was to say blademaster are already a thing, and people coming with pichforks saying it wasn't, cause the "real blademaster" is from hots and all other bullshit nonsense, that is beyond their hability or capability of retconing stuff, which i never said was not possible.

You are just as zealous as the rest, so if you're really criticizing people here, you're just being hypocritical about it.

seems like im pointing ou the double standards and you are just "no u"

Again, you are talking plausibility here, not possibility. No one has said Tinkers were not possible. And you forget that no one in the Blademaster thread actually argued that Blademaster was a high plausibility, everyone was _denying your claims_ that they can not exist as a class, because you specifically said it was _not possible_.

Incorrect, people are "denying my claim" saying bullshit like: 1- blademasters are not warriors, 2-Warrior class have nothing to do with blademasters 3-warriors and blademasters have different themes, fantasy and even skills, 4- blademaster is a monk spec. (all of those points are false btw corrected many times)

i never said it was "impossible" that blizzard did some nonsensical and utterly bullshit thing to just retcon their game and add the same class again under another name with HOTS skills, this is you assuming that.

What i said is: it is highly unlikely that they do that, because warriors are blademasters and already share theme and fantasy(because again, same class), and, is way more likely, aka more possible, to simple give the arms spec more blademaster-ish features or even add a 4th spec to warriors.

in return what i got is that was not enough because, of course, the 4 points i mentioned early, i literally had people saying they cannot give warriors mirror image and wind walk because ~~reasons~~, when they actually not just can but did similar skills before.

Plausibility is what we should discuss, and a Tinker is more plausible than a Blademaster for many of the reasons you have mentioned. Not possibility, plausibility

I will still die ont he hill saying one is more possible than the other, period, because of the factiors already discussed, regards of the mental malabarisms you are coming up with.

[Ielenia]

that is much my opinion as it is a blizzard opinion putting and tagging bladmeasters as arms warriors, as warrior trainners and so on, the warrior class is a mix of blademaster, tauren chieftain, mountain king and other warrior-ish units, one of the reasons they are not carbon copies of any of those, blademaster is as much possible or PLaUsIBlE as mountain king and tauren chieftain class.

I have not found a single warrior trainer named or titled "blademaster". Also, what exactly to you mean by "tagging blademasters as arms warriors"? I don't think blizzard tags NPCs with "specializations" or even "classes". They just give them abilities that abilities that fit their concept, using abilities from classes when they are "close enough" (like giving Fireball to a tinker) or creating new ones when what they have are not good enough. Again, same link.

I mean, we even have Blademasters with mana. The warrior class doesn't use mana.

that is just your assumption and as always, over the top extrapolation trying to win the argument yet again by another fallacy, in this case, the appeal to ridicule, and you were the one talking about "honest conversations"

I asked you if that is what makes one an "arms warrior" in your eyes, because you didn't specify what makes a NPC an "arms warrior". Yes, I'm assuming, because you, as always, don't provide enough information.

[Syegfryed]

I have not found a single warrior trainer named or titled "blademaster".

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster_Ronakada

he was a warrior trainer before he retired

Also, what exactly to you mean by "tagging blademasters as arms warriors"?

tagging then as such in things like mission tables, garrison tables.

Lantressor of the blade is a blademaster and is called a arms warrior in the game:


But of course, this will not matter, i can already see you saying how those examples means nothing, are not enough, yada yada, is like a deja vu, so please, do what you said you were going to do and end this already.

I asked you if that is what makes one an "arms warrior" in your eyes, because you didn't specify what makes a NPC an "arms warrior". Yes, I'm assuming, because you, as always, don't provide enough information.

"since you didn't specify what makes i will proceed to make an dumb extrapolation", we always end up with you assuming and making that, weird hun?

[Triceron]

I will still die ont he hill saying one is more possible than the other, period, because of the factiors already discussed, regards of the mental malabarisms you are coming up with.

And that is why you will always see people push back on any of your statements. Because you are literally dying on a hill vocally and unreasonably so.

[Ielenia]

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Blademaster_Ronakada

he was a warrior trainer before he retired

So you have one example? One single example does not a rule make.

tagging then as such in things like mission tables, garrison tables.

Lantressor of the blade is a blademaster and is called a arms warrior in the game:
http://wowimg.zamimg.com/uploads/guide/images/4500.jpg

The mission tables don't exactly match what the characters' classes actually are. They are given "player classes" and "player specs" for ease of understanding and to make the list more concise, as far as I can tell. After all, we have some "Rangaris" being hunters, and others being rogues. And draenei cannot be rogues. And then we have robots without two-handed weapons who are "arms warriors". Then we have Arakkoa being druids despite their lore not exactly fitting the druid thematic. And then we have "fury warriors" wielding a single weapon.

"since you didn't specify what makes i will proceed to make an dumb extrapolation", we always end up with you assuming and making that, weird hun?

Perhaps if you were upfront with the information we wouldn't have to extrapolate and waste time. Again, you could have easily provided source links for your vague claims. But you haven't, forcing me to guess what you actually meant.