We don't, really, expect the Blademaster to play exactly like the RTS incarnation (or even the HotS iteration). But we do expect more than just 1 ability and a transmog set.
That's the problem with guys like you and alike. You assume people want 1-2 abilities to be able to play a certain concept. When, in reality, a class contains much more than 4 abilities. You, and others here (like the Dark Ranger deniers) lack imagination, and cannot imagine a concept that holds more than 4 abilities. That's why like-minded people here suggest a Black Arrow and transmog for Hunters, and actually expect others to be satisfied with it (like it, somehow, literally embodies an entire class).How can you "measure" their possibilities? especially in the table where giving something to the class is much more easier and simple than ripping off their things and creating a new class just to introduce those 2 skills? seems dumb.
A Demon Hunter is an example of ripping off an existing class. Yet, now that it is in the game, you guys have nothing to say about it.
A Blademaster is a samurai, in the end of the day. So, expanding it beyond the RTS is not a crime (as long as you keep faithful to that archetype)."players define who are blademasters and who aren't discarding blizzard take on this matter" more news at your favorite mmo-forums
i never disregard warcraft 3, i actually take a lot of the rts to enforce how blademasters are legendary orc warriors and that is their definition in the RTS, but seems that sometimes is nice to disregard that in your part, to show other races in the prol to give blademaster "class" to then, is a funny double standard
WC3 also describes Beastmaster, Brewmasters, Demon Hunters and Headhunters as warriors. You don't, really, view them as such, do you?
The problem is, your concept of a Warrior comes from WoW and WoW alone. So, everything that uses a melee weapon and physical damage you view as a warrior.
A Blademaster is a Blademaster, regardless of abilities, just like Dark Rangers, in-game, lack the skills of the WC3 unit. But, that doesn't make them Hunters, much like how it doesn't make Blademasters Warriors.pretty hypocrite coming from someone wh said that a blademaster is only a blademaster if he does have two skills, that is the definition of short sighted.
I've changed my mind on Dark Ranger races, due to how they handled Death Knight races. Why can't you?so you are 100% confirming you are doing this just for bait and seek confrontation, trying me to "change" my pov, sadly(or Lucky) for you, isn't gonna happen, that is not my opinion, Warriors are blademasters and blizzard made sure to not make me doubt, by doubling down on that with countless of examples in the MMO.
Lore doesn't need to be changed. Dark Rangers having Ranger in their names and using bows doesn't make them Hunters. Why can't you realize them same for Blademasters?If blizzard change that in the game and change their lore, i change pov, isn't a mmo shitposter who will do.
And you are acting like it is only Bladestorm and transmog.No, you are acting like the blademaster is just wind walk and mirror image
In WoW. It makes sense, because their agility and maneuverability is like the Japanese samurai (probably based on the Japanese demon slayer archetype).and DH ahve mroe STR and STr gain thana gility
Why consider WC3 as a legitimate source, but not HotS? it, literally, uses the same abilities and even expands upon them. I, really, don't get where you and other come from. Ridiculous skins? have nothing to do with gameplay. Wild, made-up scenarios? it is not Hearthstone. You can see how much the Heroes there are close to in-game classes. Heck, the Demon Hunter is closer to that of HotS than that of WC3. Yet, you dismiss it based on some arbitrary hatred.that is cute comign from you, who point cmoing from the hots meme game, lets just assume your giant ass post as not trolling, you are so much over your head that you are just saying nonsense if you made a "deep analyzis" of WC3 and the blademaster in general across wow the media, you would know the blademaster like mountain king and tauren chieftain are the warrior we current have, missing two skills that can easily be give to warriors.
If you, really, delved into the Blademaster concept, and not just a general outline of it, you'd see that like the Dark Ranger not being a Hunter (even though the similarity in abilities, gameplay and lore) The Blademaster isn't in the Warrior as it should be, and therefore a potential class (and before you suggest adding 2 abilities, a class is much more than just 4 abilities).
The problem with you is you, really, expect people to be satisfied with 3 abilities and a transmog. That's not how roleplaying works. No matter how much a Warlock tried to imitate a Demon Hunter, the feeling was not there.
Yes, it does.not being fully represented don't mean is not playable
Demon Hunter being half-assed into the Warlock is a prime example.
Never was it a form the Demon Hunter takes, in any other sources.
It isn't. It's like saying the WC3 iteration isn't a Demon Hunter because it plays differently to the WoW one.It is, though, since the two concepts have different gameplay.
Almost made the cut - regarding consideration. It wasn't near being playable in any form. Blizzard ditches concepts at 90% completion, like any gaming company, what are you talking about?Yes, it almost made the cut, i.e., was almost the one selected to become the expansion's new class. Blizzard doesn't make all the concepts into actual playable classes before deciding which one to use as the expansion's new class, so all this "did it have abilities, animations, spell effects, etc" is a meaningless argument.
More than the Runemaster, that's for sure. One, because it wasn't integrated into another thing, like it. And two, because it was introduced in Mists due to the lift of a legal ban. That's technicality, not ditching the idea.None of that proves your claim, though, that the race was "almost ready". In fact, it even disproves your claim, since it expressly says that it was changed mid-development. Unless you're one of those who think a half-finished product is a finished product, like EA and many other gaming companies?
I meant, the "Pandaren Warrior" art piece is nothing more than a Monk wielding those Ninja Turtle weapons.Probably because the warrior class was created prior to the pandarens? I mean, can you see anything "blood elf" in the warrior class? Or Worgen? Or goblin? Or draenei?
Again, disregarding reality. In the end, it lost. Just like the Necromancer, and was integrated into not one, but two classes. Ask yourself this: why everything that eventually makes it into the game is based on a Warcraft 3 Hero (and not a unit or an RPG concept).I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong, here. We don't need Warcraft 3 for new classes, period. The runemaster proves that almost as a fact. Because if we did need Warcraft 3, the runemaster concept wouldn't even be considered in the first place.
There's nothing wrong in expanding the class concept, based on other sources. Heck, even the Blademaster cannot stay true to Hero unit only. Further Samurai inspiration is required. But, at the end of the day, it is based on a WC3 Hero unit.No, we don't. Again, I don't have to point to a specific book, movie, comic or game to know that the 'drunken fight' motiff of the brewmaster came from pop culture, for example.
Read again. "For gameplay reasons". Meaning, it doesn't stun you or damages you. Same can happen with the Venthyr.
There was. It was called Mace Specialization.
Abilities don't have to work exactly like they do in WC3, as long as they are present (considering if they are still relevant today).
I can use gadgets and explosives with Engineering. That probably means i'm a Tinker (to show you how ridiculous that is).
I don't read the technical parts of patch notes. What does it say?
Neither do i.Regardless, if Blizzard officially makes a Dark Ranger class, they could choose to implement it or ignore it. That's up to them to decide.
I mean, they gave us a Demon Hunter that doesn't have a ranged Metamorphosis, and they kept with the flavour of HOTS Illidan instead as a fully melee character. As long as that satisfies the full class identity, that is what is important. I'm not going to lose any sleep over missing skeletons.
What about the Shadow Hunter? it's, pretty, unique if you ask me.Consider that the design of the last new class was also pretty shallow. 2 Specs, gutted multiple classes, and has gameplay consisting of a 2 button rotation.
I am basing these speculations on Blizzard's own trends. We're pretty much beyond the point of innovation and redemption. At most I see is a Tinker or Dragonsworn, and from there Blizzard is pretty much creatively bankrupt.
They can add a spec to the Demon Hunter. Check out my thread:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations
If manipulation was part of the Ranger it would be more accentuated. Yet, is it not part of the concept with Possession and Mind Control?
I have to agree with you on that.
Blademasters will wear full-on armor, as well, much like other samurais.
Let's see, shall we?Is not hard to understand we have that, we don't have the entirety of the abilities neither the exact same playstyle, true, because its impossible to put the same playstyle from a RTS to a MMORPG, others don't have it too, a DH in WoW don't play exact the same like in the RTS, asking for another DH class because is not the same is as much nonsensical
Demon Hunter
Metamorphosis ✓
Immolation Aura ✓
Blur ✓
Mana Rift ✓
Warlock (WotLK to WoD)
Metamorphosis✓
Immolation Aura ×
Evasion ×
Mana Burn ×
You see how the Warlock scenario matches what we have with the Blademaster right now?
Samuro is more iconic than Jubei'thos (serving as the art concept for the entire class idea).And for one who have it, ten don't, like i said, pretty bad job if it is to show this is a key factor to then if blizzard almost never put on then
Spell reflection is nothing deceptive. It used to raise your shield and reflect direct, incoming, spells - it is a very common fantasy and trope.They have spell reflection to highlight a "deceptive", since it is directly a damage redirection mechanic.
Like i said, yes, they don't have 100% the blademaster spells, but does not mean they aren't, and does not mean they can't change those abilities to fit the MMO mechanics, They did that with Avatar and Stormbolt, it would be the easiest thing to do,but trying to make up a entire different class that would dilute and rip off the warrior? to justify two spells? and with more than one spec? is just nonsensical
They can, literally, do that with every class. So, does that mean no new classes? just add a few abilities to an existing one?
Nothing dilutive or ripping off from the Warrior. The Warrior is, hardly, the Samurai archetype.
This solution can be applied to any class and is a cheap one, as we've seen with the Metamorphosis in the Warlock.
There are more than 2 abilities. That's what you don't grasp. You can't see the bigger picture. A whole class contains much more than 4 abilities.
At least there is the Demon Hunter class, which you can't say about the Blademaster. They could add a ranged specialization to that class, because it's not a play pretend like with the Warlock.
Can you play the Hero unit of WC3, or Samuro in HotS, without those abilities? you should ask yourself that... Because it would massively minimize the gameplay.
You didn't even try to match the looks with those Demon Hunter pictures. (biased much?)
And, by the way, Demon Hunters have Metamorphosis, Immolation Aura, Blur and Mana Rift. So everything is accounted for.
And you can with Bladestorm only?No they aren't, again, go play with a blademaster in the RTS and try to win the game by going for trickery and "stealth", you will lose hard
Ask yourself this: can a Demon Hunter get along with Metamorphosis only? Can a Dark Ranger get along with Black Arrow only? can a Brewmaster be one with Storm, Earth and Fire only?
There are tons without Bladestorm, either. Yet, you keep forgetting to mention them, on purpose.They are not, rly, stop, Blizzard already made sure of that but not giving much shit about it with tons of blademasters in wow not having that nither being part of their lore across the years
They can't, really. You're just playing "imagine" with your character. That's like RPing a Warlock with Metamorphosis as a Demon Hunter. Heck, people used to wear the Dreadgear armor in vanilla, as Warriors, and pretend that they are Death Knights.
A Blademaster is a Blademaster no matter the abilities. That comes to show you how irrelevant in-game NPCs are, because there is no consistency.Because that would imply a warrior/blademaster is only a blademaster if it have those two skills, in this case, if blizzard give then windwalk/mirror image in someway, and that is false, because a blademaster/warrior still is a blademaster even without those skils.
The problem with you is you're taking examples from non-representative NPCs. If any of them were important to the class, they'd get a Hero representation in HotS. But, it is not the case. Samuro is. Thrall and Anduin are, actually, representatives of their classes. Armor and weapons don't, really, matter. That's a matter of transmog. But, when it comes to abilities and gameplay, you can clearly see that Anduin is a Priest and Thrall is a Shaman.For someone who entire basis of argument is false equivalence, you don't get to say that, even because NPCS are direct representation the blademasters we have, we are not talking about one, particular NPC, one who run from the rule, like shaman thrall and anduin priest using plate armor, we are talking about several npcs, several appearances and mentions in the game and lore, we spend months in old draenor, learning about the clan and no focus on mirror image neither windwalk,