1. #6161
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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?

  2. #6162
    Quote Originally Posted by HansOlo View Post
    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?
    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.

  3. #6163
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by HansOlo View Post
    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.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  4. #6164
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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

  5. #6165
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  6. #6166
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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

  7. #6167
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-23 at 11:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  8. #6168
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  9. #6169
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.

  10. #6170
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    No, it's not. It's supposition on your part.
    HAHAH, all right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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

  11. #6171
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-04-24 at 06:14 PM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  12. #6172
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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?

  13. #6173
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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

  14. #6174
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    <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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Probability. Not possibility. Possibility is a dichotomy. It either is, or isn't.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  15. #6175
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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

  16. #6176
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-04-25 at 05:17 PM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  17. #6177
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-25 at 05:02 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.

  18. #6178
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    12,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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

  19. #6179
    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.

  20. #6180
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

Posting Permissions

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