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

[username993720]

Did I ever say they weren't replaceable?

Illidan isn't the actual leader of the Illidari factions. Arthas isn't the leader of the Ebon Blade. Why would I need Sylvanas or Nathanos to be the leader of the Dark Rangers?

Sylvanas holds the key to creating Dark Rangers in the lore. No other source for making Dark Rangers or new Forsaken has been introduced into the plot. Dark Rangers aren't just something you train, otherwise any Forsaken Hunter could train to be a Dark Ranger, right?

Sylvanas was turned into a Banshee by Arthas and regained her body to later on become a Dark Ranger.
Nathanos was raised as a Scourge Zombie and later on became a Dark Ranger.
Forsaken Hunters are said to be Dark Rangers under the tutelage of Nathanos.
I don't think Sylvanas is the only one capable of creating Dark Rangers or that it's an exclusive form of necromancy.

It's a dead end _right now_.

They could change the plot any time they want, but we know they just concluded it without addressing it in Shadowlands.

That's what you call a lead.

Ozumat and Neptulon. Do you not acknowledge that Blizzard is capable of abandoning plot lines?

Also, as I said. I think Dark Ranger was planned and the decision to make them playable was scrapped. Shadows Rising could have been written before they finalized a decision to scrap the Dark Ranger class, and that's why we see such a rushed ending to BFA tying up the Loyalist plotline and doing nothing else with it in Shadowlands.

The Abyssal Maw, which was supposed to resolve the plotline of Ozumat and Neptulon, was scrapped during development, not during the expansion itself:

"The second wing, known simply as Abyssal Maw, was announced at BlizzCon 2009, but BlizzCon 2010 revealed it would be released in the first major content patch of the expansion and would continue where the storyline left off in Throne of the Tides. It would have been completely set underwater and would have featured four bosses. However, it was not added in Cataclysm."

Yes, because you cherry picked everything else. It's not a pattern or a theme if I can easily break it by pointing out how flexible Cata could transition into any number of future theme expansions.

I never claimed anything in Cata led to MoP (except for the dagger questline), just like i never claimed Vanilla led to TBC or TBC to Wrath. Next time, actually use something i said to refute me, instead of something i didn't say.

A Dark Warden is not a Dark Ranger.

You acknowledge a living Warden is not a Ranger, right? Being raised as a Dark Warden in death means they are still Wardens, not Rangers.

Are you implying you think these are the same class?

I implying there's a connection being made.

I've been saying that from the start. You just kept arguing for no reason.

Notice how i said maybe.

Khadgar literally mentions Elune creating X'era during the Ordering of Light and Shadow. What exactly is your misunderstanding here? I said Elune has a connection to the Ordering of Light and Shadow because she created X'era during this time. Is that not clear?

Connection to the ordering is not interchangeable with being responsible for the ordering. You don't know what it means if tou think it is interchangeable, I am correcting you.

Next time, make your point clear. Because it sounded like you were implying she was responsible for the ordering of light and shadow. And for her to do that, she has to be a First One. For now, she can only be an Eternal One of the Light Pantheon, since we don't know where the Naaru, currently, stand in that hierarchy.

New talents.

Warrior would not have Windwalk or Mirror Image as a talent, a Hunter would not have Possession or Haunting Wave as a talent.

But we could have a Blademaster that uses Warrior abilities, and given its own Blademaster talents (with some crossover with Warrior talents). We could have a Dark Ranger with re-themed Hunter abilities, and Dark Ranger talents (with some crossover Hunter talents).

Same class gameplay, new talents, new ability names and FX, new class identity.

And yes, I agree it's a cheap solution. Exactly what I think Blizzard would do, because it's cheap.

So, you're basically agreeing with Sygfreyd and Teriz. I never thought you'd have that stance...

Gul'dan was the only link between WoD and Legion. Without Gul'dan, no return of Illidan, no demon invasion, no return of Sargeras.

The story for Legion isn't completely centered around demons - it's about exploring the Broken Isles, exploring the Artifacts, and gathering the Pillars of Creation. And who would be the big bad we have to face? What about N'zoth? Blizzard already had Old God agents and themes all throughout the Broken Isles.

- N'zoth's forces invade Broken Shore, same characters die. Vol'jin, Varian, Tirion, all victims of the agents of N'zoth.
- N'zoth's agents seek the Pillars of Creation. We are there to claim them.
- Emerald Nightmare - This could be expanded into a larger part of the expansion. This raid was already connected to N'zoth.
- Suramar plotline swaps out Sargeras for Azshara or N'zoth. Deals with a different devil.
- Azshara and the Tidestone is already featured in Legion, expand her influence. She is already an agent of N'zoth.
- Tomb of Sargeras swapped out, Nazjatar swapped in.
- Black Empire is the end raid setting instead of Argus. Just switch up BFA's ending into Legion.
- Wrathion becomes the stand-in for Illidan. Illidan was the key to defeating Sargeras, Wrathion was the key to defeating N'zoth.
- N'zoth's defeat causes Azerite to spread out in the world. Lead straight into Zandalar, Kul Tiras, and a different set of end bosses.

Instead of Demon Hunters, Wrathion creates the Dragonsworn, mortals blessed with Draconic powers.

All of the same beats of the Legion expansion. It's basically the same setting and story with a different theme. Instead of demons, we have old god shenanigans.

With a few changes, we can turn any expansion into a whole different theme. With a different theme, we can introduce a different class.

Blademasters - The return of Samuro, who has travelled to a Japanese-themed subcontinent and taught new Blademasters. Monks 2.0
Shadow Hunters - Vol'jin ascends to a Loa, who wakens dormant Loa around Azeroth and spreads their teachings to the other races.
Tinkers - The Trade Princes of Kezan have abducted you, a genius Tinker, as a slave to work on super weapons. Alliance/Horde forces attack the secret weapon facility, allowing you to escape in your secretly-built mech suit and aid them in freeing the other slaves.

The question isn't *how* Blizzard adds these classes, but if they *intend to* add them. The question of intent isn't passed off by hints in the narrative or patterns in the game, it's through meetings with rooms full of designers all brainstorming what they should do for the next expansion.

And as much fun as it is to brainstorm ideas that could happen in the game, that's not how game designers think. Game designers solve problems. Real problems that affect the game, like player interest going down, or balance issues getting out of hand, or deciding whether it's a good time to introduce a new class. If you have to ask a question like 'Why would Blizzard add Night Elf Dark Rangers and do nothing with it' then you're not actually thinking like a Game Designer. You need to recognize that designers aren't married to their ideas, and they have to make changes that fit their intentions. If they feel the game is not ready for a new class, then they will move on until there is another chance to make a new class. They don't just decide 'Dark Ranger!' and suddenly all their efforts will be focused on keeping that dream alive.

We already know what happened with the Runemaster.

Of course when you remove the main link between the two expansion then you can create whatever scenario you want. That's not what this is about. It is about giving an example of a different outcome despite of it, not by excluding it. Otherwise, we can create imaginary scenarios till the end of time.

And if it was just "simply fun brainstorming", first, they're wasting time they could be using actually doing their jobs, and second, why even mention the runemaster as a serious candidate as the Wrath expansion's class if that wasn't the case?

Because that's what sometimes happen in jobs. It's not, always, serious and productive.
It might have been a serious contender, but it sure as hell wasn't a very developed one. You know, at that point, it's just name dropping. Nothing in their statement says they were discussing abilities, talents, armor sets, storyline or customization for it.

How do you know they haven't?

They would provide it in their statement about it?

She literally used Lady Vashj's model, only with transparent/translucent textures instead. And she was set up enough. Every time she appeared, we learned a little more about her plans.

So, when was she dark? in her night elf form? I remember a black figure coming out of a cave.
Every time she appeared? other than that and the Cataclysm Darkshore quest, where else did she appear? (and not in the caverns of time dungeon).

No. She isn't. Because, unlike Garrosh, her plans are not her own. Garrosh was "his own boss", so to speak, but here we learn that Sylvanas was just an underling.

I wouldn't say so. She uses the Jailer to achieve her own means. She sided with him to break the cycle of appointing a certain afterlife to souls. She didn't do it because she was down with his conquest goals.

She's not a sidekick. She's an underling.

Not even a sidekick? that's harsh...
More reason why setting her up so much isn't worth it.

Not really. Some were, but some were just trying to go by. The forsaken "race" was not evil, by default. And no, Sylvanas didn't hate the living beforehand. This only started after she became a banshee.

Part of their culture was experimentation on living subjects. Seems kinda evil to me.
And, of course we're talking about Sylvanss post-death. It would have been silly of me to say she hated the living before that. You know, her undead state was not done recently. She was undead from WC3. No need to set her up, so much, in regard to hating the living

That's the thing: they (i.e. Garrosh and Sylvanas) weren't introduced as villains. They where introduced as good guys, or at the very least, ambivalent characters.

You said they were introduced as villains.
Nonetheless, they weren't even close to being good guys, or ambivalent much. Garrosh was mostly a murderous frick with anger issues, like almost any Orc is. And Sylvanas hated the living like most undead do. It's not by accident that the Mag'har were a threat during WoD and the dead were during WotLK. It's in their nature. You can see that in their Emote options.

If you truly think Blizzard was "successful" with Garrosh, then you haven't been paying attention to these forums. A lot of people complained about how Blizzard mishandled Garrosh and how his decent into evil in MoP was out-of-character considering the character growth he got in Cataclysm into a more honorable (if brash and hot-headed) leader.

I, personally, like it. Fits him very much. Those that claim "Shut you clever mouth, bitch" doesn't suit him are beyond mad.

But it is your opinion that this means Samuro is more important than Jubei'thos.

How so?
Blizzard acts on it. You think Samuro was chosen twice by chance?

How do you know? Have you asked Blizzard to be this sure about this statement?

"Arcanists are a type of mage casters of various races apparently capable of wielding arcane magic."
But, that's not the point. We're just making things up to shoehorn a potential class to Legion that isn't the Demon Hunter. Can't you see it?

I don't think it was considered. But I also don't think it wasn't. Because I don't know. To state either way is a fallacy because we're not privy to the contents of Blizzard's expansion design discussions.

-_-

"They considered a farting warthog class. You can't prove they didn't."

And then you would have lost it all again, if not even more so, when Shadowlands came around, since it didn't bring any class.

Only then. But, by the time it happened i would have made lots of money, considering i bet the same amount every time.

The only roleplay that MMORP games offer is the ability to play a class and race, not roleplay. It's as much as Super Mario World is an open-world game. There is no actual roleplaying in a MMORP game. I cannot haggle with the shop-keeper to get better prices. I cannot persuade a quest giver to give me a better reward than what they offer. I cannot intimidate the mob into giving me the quest item they hold. I cannot have my character switch allegiances. As a rogue, I do not have the option to pick-pocket members of my own faction. Etc, etc. Despite the name, there is no actual 'roleplaying'. To the point that "RPGs" basically became synonym with games in which you can customize your character, looks and/or abilities. There is no "interpretation of roles" in a MMORPG. At least none that you, as a player, do. The game, instead, does the "interpretation" for you.

To some extent. Again, you're taking the extreme side. You don't need to be a D&D nerd with a custom and a medieval gathering to roleplay.

"Wrongly"? And "hardcore"? Really? Read what 'roleplaying' means. What, do you call TTRPG players "try-hards" and "hardcores"?

I call roleplay gamers hardcores. That is, setting a background for your character, talking in a certain manner and sitting in Goldshire for no reason.

Why does it have to be a competition? Answer me something, please: who wins in the following 'competitions'? Arcane fire (mage), demonic fire (warlock) or elemental fire (shaman)? Arcane frost (mage) or necromantic frost (death knight)? Chi-infused water healing (monk) or elemental water healing (shaman)?

I meant on who gets included in your concept or not. Because it would, probably, exclude other types of Blood casters. Or, perhaps, combine all of them at once.

It depends of the themes of the Dragon Isles. Saying that Dragon Isles theme is "Dragons" is just to generic. All dragons? The Aspects? New dragonflights? And what about them? What's the history?
Pandaria wasn't just "panda people". It had asian influence, it talked about the damage of the war, about peace, about emotions, etc. The monk fits all those themes.
You can make Blademasters fit if you talk about perseverance, redemption, mysticism, etc.
I agree with Tinkers and DRs not fitting. In my opinion, their window of oportunity to be added just passed (BFA and SL respectively) and will need to wait to the next one.

*Cataclysm being, mainly, about dragons with some other secondary themes*

The thing is the Monk fits with the Pandaren theme of Pandaria. It wasn't added because of the damage of war, peace and emotion you mentioned.

Wut?

What's the confusion? if you want to empower female characters, you don't make them the sidekick of a big male villain. They want to show independence, don't they?

Still you need to explain it, or you end like Illidan on TBC: we went to Outland full murderhobo mode, without knowing why the hell he suddenly was bad, attacking the very place that fought to protect.

Illidan was shunned by his people for becoming demonic and allying with Kil'jaeden and the Legion. No questions needed to be asked by the players. If Maiev saw him as a villain, so did we. We didn't know, back then, he had alternative motives.

You're asuming that because they chose DK over the other 2, then that confirms that the other 2 weren't chosen becaus they didn't fit.
You're falling into a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Which happened not once, not twice, but three times already.

?

Your confusion is understandable because coming up with a class concept and shoehorning it into Legion isn't sensible.

Highly unlikely. Classes are a good box seller. Keeping them secret is just to lose sells for no reason.

True. I was just trying to expand your idea.

Just saying, it could be possible, although is very improbable.

And, hopefully, would never happen.

Where does it say Forsaken Hunters are Dark Rangers? Is there a quest or something? First time I heard it.

"Nathanos Blightcaller has recently been training a new generation of Forsaken rangers comprising of undead humans, making the undead racial composition of the order more diverse. These Forsaken hunters appear to favor the woodsman axe and the crossbow in contrast to the bow and arrow typically employed by their undead high elf counterparts. Like Nathanos, they sport a leather-looking outfit and optionally a hood and face mask."

Now that i notice the wording "Ranger" instead of "Dark Ranger" (even though they are compared to high elven Dark Rangers), i am even more into the belief that they are set to be different than the Hunter class as their own class/spec.

[Ielenia]

Because that's what sometimes happen in jobs. It's not, always, serious and productive.
It might have been a serious contender, but it sure as hell wasn't a very developed one. You know, at that point, it's just name dropping. Nothing in their statement says they were discussing abilities, talents, armor sets, storyline or customization for it.

Nothing in there said they weren't, either. What we have is an interview, not a detailed report of their operations.

They would provide it in their statement about it?

Same as above. It was an interview quote, not a full, detailed progress report of their internal operations.

So, when was she dark? in her night elf form? I remember a black figure coming out of a cave.

She was darkened likely because Blizzard didn't want to give her a definitive form just yet. And her night elf form was not darkened. Look on YouTube about the Court of Farondis questline.

Every time she appeared? other than that and the Cataclysm Darkshore quest, where else did she appear? (and not in the caverns of time dungeon).

By "appearance", I meant every time she is described in the lore, be it by full appearance, by mention of other NPCs, or by the actions of her soldiers.

I wouldn't say so. She uses the Jailer to achieve her own means. She sided with him to break the cycle of appointing a certain afterlife to souls. She didn't do it because she was down with his conquest goals.

Is she, really? Because, so far, we have seen Sylvanas being nothing but subservient to the Jailer, following his every command while the Jailer casually dismisses all her concerns. It's made even clearer in the in-game cinematics, as Anduin apparently nails the situation in the head when he realizes that Sylvanas had no say at all in her current situation, in their last 'meeting' before he is converted.

Not even a sidekick? that's harsh...
More reason why setting her up so much isn't worth it.

In your opinion. Gul'dan was also just an underling, and he is still a good character. 'Good' in the sense of characterization, not alignment.

Part of their culture was experimentation on living subjects. Seems kinda evil to me.
And, of course we're talking about Sylvanss post-death. It would have been silly of me to say she hated the living before that. You know, her undead state was not done recently. She was undead from WC3. No need to set her up, so much, in regard to hating the living

"Part of the culture"? Where does it say that. And as for Sylvanas, she hasn't shown a "hatred" toward the living before Wrath (which when supposedly the Jailer forced her into servitude).

You said they were introduced as villains.

No. I said Azshara and Gul'dan were introduced as villains. Not Garrosh and Sylvanas.

Nonetheless, they weren't even close to being good guys, or ambivalent much. Garrosh was mostly a murderous frick with anger issues, like almost any Orc is.

Garrosh has shown honor in Cataclysm, when he executed a soldier who order an attack on a night elf druid school.

It's not by accident that the Mag'har were a threat during WoD and the dead were during WotLK. It's in their nature. You can see that in their Emote options.

The "undead threat" in Wrath of the Lich King were the Scourge undead, not the Forsaken.

How so?
Blizzard acts on it. You think Samuro was chosen twice by chance?

In both games that just so happen to be non-canon? And the few time a blademaster was put into prominence, they chose Lantresor (a character that didn't exist until TBC) and Jubei'thos. And, as far as I know, there is not even a single mention of Samuro in WoW. Hell, Chen Stormstout and the pandaren had more presence in WoW pre-MoP than Samuro.

"Arcanists are a type of mage casters of various races apparently capable of wielding arcane magic."

Source?

But, that's not the point. We're just making things up to shoehorn a potential class to Legion that isn't the Demon Hunter. Can't you see it?

Because you insist on the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy: "I can't see any other explanation, therefore my explanation is true".

"They considered a farting warthog class. You can't prove they didn't."

You're right. I can't. But I don't have to. Because, in this hypothetical case, you're the one making the claim that they did, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders, meaning you are the one who would have to prove that Blizzard did consider a "farting warhog class".

To some extent. Again, you're taking the extreme side. You don't need to be a D&D nerd with a custom and a medieval gathering to roleplay.

It's not "extreme" side. That is what actual "roleplay" is. In WoW, you play as a paladin, but you don't roleplay as a paladin unless you go out of your way to do so. In games like WoW, "role" is just you picking how your character looks like and the kind of graphics that will appear when you press action buttons.

I call roleplay gamers hardcores. That is, setting a background for your character, talking in a certain manner and sitting in Goldshire for no reason.

Okay. Your entire sentence is wrong, as roleplayers are not "hardcore", and "roleplaying" surely is not just "talking in a certain manner" or "sitting in Goldshire for no reason", but you're welcome to your opinion.

I meant on who gets included in your concept or not. Because it would, probably, exclude other types of Blood casters. Or, perhaps, combine all of them at once.

The question still stands: who said there is a competition? Why does this have to be a competition?

[Triceron]

Before I start, I need to clarify my position.

I have not dismissed the possibility of Dark Rangers, I have simply pointed out that there is no reason to claim Blizzard is hinting at them being made, because no hints actually exist in the game. Only possibliities.

You have claimed that hints exist that imply that Blizzard would make them playable. I am replying with the intention of debunking those claims, and pointing out that these are merely possibilities. There has been nothing you brought up that is actually considered a hint, lead or indication towards Blizzard intending to make Dark Rangers playable.

Blizzard leaves the possibility open to pursue it. Leaving a possibility open and intending it to happen are two very different things.

Sylvanas was turned into a Banshee by Arthas and regained her body to later on become a Dark Ranger.
Nathanos was raised as a Scourge Zombie and later on became a Dark Ranger.

Correct.

Dark Rangers were Rangers in life that were raised as a Scourge-turned-Forsaken, or a Ranger that became a Forsaken under the service of Sylvanas. We have not seen a Dark Ranger that was ever trained into service. We have not seen a Dark Ranger created outside of Sylvanas' service.

Forsaken Hunters are said to be Dark Rangers under the tutelage of Nathanos.

He trained 'a new generation of Forsaken Rangers'. Just being clear they have not been called Dark Ranger.

I don't think Sylvanas is the only one capable of creating Dark Rangers or that it's an exclusive form of necromancy.

Demon Hunters are only trained by Illidan or his Illidari. There is no such thing as a self-taught Demon Hunter in the game outside of Illidan, and the class is specific to this organization.

Right now in the lore, "Dark Ranger" any Undead Ranger that is serving Sylvanas or the Forsaken. There is no example of any Dark Rangers existing outside of this box.

If Sylvanas is being taken out of the picture, then we're still looking at this group still being tied to the Forsaken in the lore.

That's what you call a lead.

That's what I call a possibility.

Illidan was defeated in TBC. Implying that Blizzard could bring Illidan back from the dead is not a lead. It's a possibility. Nothing in the game indicated he would return.

The Dark Rangers remain either allied to the Forsaken or to Sylvanas. Nothing in the game indicates the Night Elf Dark Rangers are interested in joining the Alliance.

If is not a lead if there is no shown intent. Understand?

Blizzard would need to *imply intent* for it to be anything more than just mere possibility.

The Abyssal Maw, which was supposed to resolve the plotline of Ozumat and Neptulon, was scrapped during development, not during the expansion itself:

Clarify this.

If you are implying this was scrapped during development *before* the expansion came out, then I must remind you that Ozumat taking Neptulon away made it live into the game, and that cut scene still exists when you do the Heroic Dungeon.

Now to compare this to how you asked why Night Elf Dark Rangers exist - Why is the Ozumat kidnapping Neptulon cutscene still in the game if they scrapped Throne of Tides during development?

I never claimed anything in Cata led to MoP (except for the dagger questline), just like i never claimed Vanilla led to TBC or TBC to Wrath. Next time, actually use something i said to refute me, instead of something i didn't say.

I'm not debunking the exact examples you used, I am debunking the pattern those examples were used for.

I implying there's a connection being made.

It's a connection that you are implying, not Blizzard.

I've explained it clearly. A Dark Warden is not a Ranger, therefore there is no connection.

Blizzard has not shown any intent to further connect Sira Moonwarden and the Dark Rangers.

Her only connection is her servitude to Sylvanas, which is implied to any Forsaken that went through her 'conversion' process. This would have applied to Derek Proudmoore had he not been saved.

Notice how i said maybe.

And I've said it was always possible.

*Maybe* Blizzard will change that, and I agree.

And until that maybe happens, the Loyalist plot is still absent from Shadowlands, and has been abandoned by Blizzard. Again, I'm pointing this as history that happened regarding Shadowlands. It's been abandoned *in the current narrative*

Next time, make your point clear. Because it sounded like you were implying

Don't blame me for fucking up if you didn't know the actual meaning of the word 'Connection'.

I made myself clear twice before having to spelling it out for you.

So, you're basically agreeing with Sygfreyd and Teriz. I never thought you'd have that stance...

No, here is the difference.

Neither Sygfreyd or Teriz agree that Class Skins will be a thing. Sygfreyd thinks Warriors are already Blademasters, and thus would be opposed to Class Skins since it's redundant to his beliefs. Teriz agrees Class Skins could exist, but nonetheless will argue that it would never happen.

Even if we disagree, I respect your opinions as your own when regarding this conversation. I expect you to not generalize my arguments as being the same as anyone else who disagrees with you.

Of course when you remove the main link between the two expansion then you can create whatever scenario you want. That's not what this is about. It is about giving an example of a different outcome despite of it, not by excluding it. Otherwise, we can create imaginary scenarios till the end of time.

That is the point.

Blizzard can change or apply any links or themes for an expansion; to introduce any class.

You implied that Legion was the only sensible follow up to WoD, and that we would have had to have a Demon-themed Class because Legion was Demon themed.

If Gul'dan was not immediately brought back after WoD, then Blizzard could have made an Old God themed expansion out of the story we saw in Legion. I'm pointing out the reason Demon Hunters are playable is strictly tied to Gul'dan, and not because Legion *had* to follow up with a Demon invasion.

The Demon threat in Draenor was already defeated. Gul'dan was thrown into a portal with a hint that he was not finished. This simply leaves the possibility for his return in the future. There were no hints that implied it had to be followed up in the next expansion. You are implying that this was the only course of action for Legion, and I've pointed out that it is not, considering Legion could have taken up a different theme entirely.

We know Blizzard is capable of changing settings and themes because of the Mongrel Horde. If we had Mongrel Horde, then no Gul'dan, no Demon Invasion, no Demon Hunters. Does this make sense?

[username993720]

Nothing in there said they weren't, either. What we have is an interview, not a detailed report of their operations.

Because no one, probably, asked. The question is, why not mention it if it was, apparently, so far ahead?

Same as above. It was an interview quote, not a full, detailed progress report of their internal operations.

I didn't request a full detailed report of their operations. Just a mention.

She was darkened likely because Blizzard didn't want to give her a definitive form just yet. And her night elf form was not darkened. Look on YouTube about the Court of Farondis questline.

They didn't have her Naga model until BfA patch 8.2, way after Legion. There's nothing to spoil.

By "appearance", I meant every time she is described in the lore, be it by full appearance, by mention of other NPCs, or by the actions of her soldiers.

But, that's not what we were talking about. We talked about Sylvanas featuring herself, and not her soldiers mentioning her or anything like that. That's why we compared Azshara.

Is she, really? Because, so far, we have seen Sylvanas being nothing but subservient to the Jailer, following his every command while the Jailer casually dismisses all her concerns. It's made even clearer in the in-game cinematics, as Anduin apparently nails the situation in the head when he realizes that Sylvanas had no say at all in her current situation, in their last 'meeting' before he is converted.

She might not be as assertive as she would have liked to be. But, her eventual goal is to break the cycle of the afterlife because she was doomed to the Maw.

In your opinion. Gul'dan was also just an underling, and he is still a good character. 'Good' in the sense of characterization, not alignment.

Yeah, i'd take Gul'dan over Sylvanas everyday.
The point is, why use her so much without eventually introducing the Dark Ranger? such a wasted opportunity...

"Part of the culture"? Where does it say that. And as for Sylvanas, she hasn't shown a "hatred" toward the living before Wrath (which when supposedly the Jailer forced her into servitude).

Culture of conquest and warfare. Culture of blight and death. No? what about her on-click reactions? She had always seemed like a resentful character to me...
I believe she was hostile the moment she was turned into a Banshee, as can bee seen by Warbringers.

Garrosh has shown honor in Cataclysm, when he executed a soldier who order an attack on a night elf druid school.

I know. But, that was brutal in itself. Have you forgotten how he acted during 3.1 trailer? or during the shattering comic book? He was always a hotheaded. And, i think he threatened Vol'jin during Cataclysm (which, he acted on during MoP).

The "undead threat" in Wrath of the Lich King were the Scourge undead, not the Forsaken.

Undead are undead. They just don't wanna be slaves. Doesn't mean they like the living. They joined the Horde to prevent themselves from being exterminated, not because of their love for them.

In both games that just so happen to be non-canon? And the few time a blademaster was put into prominence, they chose Lantresor (a character that didn't exist until TBC) and Jubei'thos. And, as far as I know, there is not even a single mention of Samuro in WoW. Hell, Chen Stormstout and the pandaren had more presence in WoW pre-MoP than Samuro.

Lanestor and Jubei'thos are as memorable as Falric and Marwynn - meaning, not so much.
I know, we just established he wasn't in WoW. I wonder why...
Who cares if they're canon or not? They're relevant games today, not 20 years ago.

Source?

WoWpedia. Everything i quote here is from Wowpedia. Just look it up.

Because you insist on the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy: "I can't see any other explanation, therefore my explanation is true".

Because it has basis in reality, not just wild-ass pulling.

You're right. I can't. But I don't have to. Because, in this hypothetical case, you're the one making the claim that they did, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders, meaning you are the one who would have to prove that Blizzard did consider a "farting warhog class".

-_-

Again with the "i can't, but i don't have to". That's just a nice way to avoid rather than admit the other side is right.

It's not "extreme" side. That is what actual "roleplay" is. In WoW, you play as a paladin, but you don't roleplay as a paladin unless you go out of your way to do so. In games like WoW, "role" is just you picking how your character looks like and the kind of graphics that will appear when you press action buttons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing

Under "Role-playing games".

Okay. Your entire sentence is wrong, as roleplayers are not "hardcore", and "roleplaying" surely is not just "talking in a certain manner" or "sitting in Goldshire for no reason", but you're welcome to your opinion.

Have you checked role-playing servers?

The question still stands: who said there is a competition? Why does this have to be a competition?

It doesn't. I'm asking you: what are your plans?

Correct.

Dark Rangers were Rangers in life that were raised as a Scourge-turned-Forsaken, or a Ranger that became a Forsaken under the service of Sylvanas. We have not seen a Dark Ranger that was ever trained into service. We have not seen a Dark Ranger created outside of Sylvanas' service.

Forsaken Hunters?
Nathanos Blightcaller?

Correct. It's special to her and the Forsaken.

He trained 'a new generation of Forsaken Rangers'. Just being clear they have not been called Dark Ranger.

Yea, i don't know why they worded it like that. They're, clearly, not rangers anymore (who, are attuned with the wilds). Makes me think even more that they're trying to separate the two classes.

Demon Hunters are only trained by Illidan or his Illidari. There is no such thing as a self-taught Demon Hunter in the game outside of Illidan, and the class is specific to this organization.

Right now in the lore, "Dark Ranger" any Undead Ranger that is serving Sylvanas or the Forsaken. There is no example of any Dark Rangers existing outside of this box.

If Sylvanas is being taken out of the picture, then we're still looking at this group still being tied to the Forsaken in the lore.

Of course it's still a forsaken thing - as long as it's not a playable class.

That's what I call a possibility.

Illidan was defeated in TBC. Implying that Blizzard could bring Illidan back from the dead is not a lead. It's a possibility. Nothing in the game indicated he would return.

You're talking about ancient times. I'm talking about recent times.

Clarify this.

If you are implying this was scrapped during development *before* the expansion came out, then I must remind you that Ozumat taking Neptulon away made it live into the game, and that cut scene still exists when you do the Heroic Dungeon.

Now to compare this to how you asked why Night Elf Dark Rangers exist - Why is the Ozumat kidnapping Neptulon cutscene still in the game if they scrapped Throne of Tides during development?

Did you not read the quote? Abyssal Maw was scrapped, while Throne of Tides remained. I guess they couldn't give up on both of them, so they stick to the one they had.

I'm not debunking the exact examples you used, I am debunking the pattern those examples were used for.

By using an example that, clearly, doesn't show any clear connections. That's not debunking the method. That's just degrading it.

It's a connection that you are implying, not Blizzard.

I've explained it clearly. A Dark Warden is not a Ranger, therefore there is no connection.

Blizzard has not shown any intent to further connect Sira Moonwarden and the Dark Rangers.

Her only connection is her servitude to Sylvanas, which is implied to any Forsaken that went through her 'conversion' process. This would have applied to Derek Proudmoore had he not been saved.

*Sigh*

Dark Warden. Dark Ranger. Not any Dark Druids, Sentinels or whatever is out there. Giving it red eyes? Darkening the armor? Only a blind man would not see the connections.

And I've said it was always possible.

*Maybe* Blizzard will change that, and I agree.

And until that maybe happens, the Loyalist plot is still absent from Shadowlands, and has been abandoned by Blizzard. Again, I'm pointing this as history that happened regarding Shadowlands. It's been abandoned *in the current narrative*

You say abandoned like it was planned before. Maybe it was the plan all along. How do we know?

No, here is the difference.

Neither Sygfreyd or Teriz agree that Class Skins will be a thing. Sygfreyd thinks Warriors are already Blademasters, and thus would be opposed to Class Skins since it's redundant to his beliefs. Teriz agrees Class Skins could exist, but nonetheless will argue that it would never happen.

Even if we disagree, I respect your opinions as your own when regarding this conversation. I expect you to not generalize my arguments as being the same as anyone else who disagrees with you.

Sygfreyed agrees to the addition of Mirror Image and Windwalk to the Warrior, like you suggest.
Teriz agrees to the addition of Dark Rangers abilities to the Hunter, like you suggest.

Dark Ranger as a Class or a Class Skin is not mutually exclusive; both are possible. I have not dismissed the possibility of Dark Rangers, I have simply pointed out that there is no reason to claim Blizzard is hinting at them being made, because no hints actually exist in the game. Only possibliities.

You need to recognize your own argument and that you have *claimed* that hints exist that point to them being made, and I am debunking every claim you've made by showing you they are all merely possibilities. There has been nothing you brought up that is actually considered a hint, lead or indication towards Blizzard intending to make Dark Rangers playable.

Blizzard leaves the possibility open to pursue it. Leaving a possibility open and intending it to happen are two very different things.

You're not debunking anything, since everything is regarded as a possibility until added. Not even your predictions are regarded as set in stone. So, no. Nothing you said debunks anything i say. We're all talking theoretical here. No one is above or beneath the other when it comes to predictions.

That is the point.

Blizzard can change or apply any links or themes for an expansion; to introduce any class.

You implied that Legion was the only sensible follow up to WoD, and that we would have had to have a Demon-themed Class because Legion was Demon themed.

If Gul'dan was not immediately brought back after WoD, then Blizzard could have made an Old God themed expansion out of the story we saw in Legion. I'm pointing out the reason Demon Hunters are playable is strictly tied to Gul'dan, and not because Legion *had* to follow up with a Demon invasion.

The Demon threat in Draenor was already defeated. Gul'dan was thrown into a portal with a hint that he was not finished. This simply leaves the possibility for his return in the future. There were no hints that implied it had to be followed up in the next expansion. You are implying that this was the only course of action for Legion, and I've pointed out that it is not, considering Legion could have taken up a different theme entirely.

We know Blizzard is capable of changing settings and themes because of the Mongrel Horde. If we had Mongrel Horde, then no Gul'dan, no Demon Invasion, no Demon Hunters. Does this make sense?

I guess you're right.
They didn't follow up with a Light and Void expansion after BfA, even though they hinted at that.
Still, did anything else match Legion, in terms of a new class?

[Ielenia]

Because no one, probably, asked. The question is, why not mention it if it was, apparently, so far ahead?

I'll repeat: it was an interview (meaning they had a set amount of time devoted to ask questions and get answers), not a detailed report of their operations.

I didn't request a full detailed report of their operations. Just a mention.

And you got your mention: the runemaster was one of the "top three class concept choices" for the Wrath of the Lich King expansion.

They didn't have her Naga model until BfA patch 8.2, way after Legion. There's nothing to spoil.

Re-read what I wrote. I never said they "didn't want to spoil anything".

But, that's not what we were talking about. We talked about Sylvanas featuring herself, and not her soldiers mentioning her or anything like that. That's why we compared Azshara.

"Actual appearances" are meaningless if it doesn't further the story. What matters is the character's involvement in the progression of the story, regardless if she is actually present on your monitor screen or not.

She might not be as assertive as she would have liked to be. But, her eventual goal is to break the cycle of the afterlife because she was doomed to the Maw.

Is that really her goal, or just what she has 'convinced' herself is her goal? We already know that Sylvanas was strong-armed (likely against her will) into this "alliance" with the Jailer.

The point is, why use her so much without eventually introducing the Dark Ranger? such a wasted opportunity...

It's not a wasted opportunity. At least not in my eyes, because I don't subscribe to this idea that, if a character in the lore is given prominence, it means we need a class based off said character. Sylvanas was given prominence because of the story Blizzard was telling, not because Blizzard was "setting up dark rangers". Which, by the way, it's been already explained is not how Blizzard hints/reveals expansions classes.

Culture of conquest and warfare. Culture of blight and death. No? what about her on-click reactions? She had always seemed like a resentful character to me...
I believe she was hostile the moment she was turned into a Banshee, as can bee seen by Warbringers.

Being resentful or hostile does not mean "hatred of the living". None of her voiced emotes when you clicked on her showed any "hatred toward the living".

I know. But, that was brutal in itself. Have you forgotten how he acted during 3.1 trailer? or during the shattering comic book? He was always a hotheaded. And, i think he threatened Vol'jin during Cataclysm (which, he acted on during MoP).

Being hotheaded and brash does not mean being dishonorable. And if you want to talk about how Garrosh treated Vol'jin, then, if memory serves, Vol'jin threatened Garrosh first, did he not?

Undead are undead.

So "orcs are orcs" and therefore all orcs in Orgrimmar should be held responsible for what the original Horde did when they invaded Azeroth? That's your logic here if you cannot see the difference between the undead of the Scourge and the Forsaken undead.

They just don't wanna be slaves. Doesn't mean they like the living. They joined the Horde to prevent themselves from being exterminated, not because of their love for them.

And that is completely irrelevant to the point since we're not talking about the reasons the forsaken joined the Horde.

Lanestor and Jubei'thos are as memorable as Falric and Marwynn - meaning, not so much.

Really? Then why was Lantresor picked as the "blademaster who wanted to bring honor back to the Burning Blade clan" back in WoD, and not Samuro?

Who cares if they're canon or not? They're relevant games today, not 20 years ago.

They're irrelevant games when we're talking about canonicity to the Warcraft lore, regardless if they were made 20 day ago or 20 years ago.

WoWpedia. Everything i quote here is from Wowpedia. Just look it up.

Link to where you found it. It's not my job to browse all of WoWpedia to find it for you. I've already asked you, more than once, to link to your sources. Since you continue to make random quotes without linking to the sources, I have no choice but to think you're doing this intentionally.

Because it has basis in reality, not just wild-ass pulling.

You call it "ass-pulling". And again, it doesn't change the fact you're engaging in an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

Again with the "i can't, but i don't have to". That's just a nice way to avoid rather than admit the other side is right.

Ask anyone. Even ask Triceron, if you value his opinion so much. I don't have to disprove you, because you didn't present any evidence for the claim, in that hypothetical scenario. Basically what you're doing here is saying "I have a magical invisible flying unicorn living in my backyard. You can't prove that I don't." If you make a claim, you're the one that has to provide evidence of it. Only after you do you due diligence, then it's my turn to analyze your evidence and show my own.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing

Under "Role-playing games".

And here you provide a link, but somehow could not provide a link for your WoWpedia article? As for your link: "A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories." The entire article agrees with my stance regarding what "roleplaying" means.

It doesn't. I'm asking you: what are your plans?

My plans for what?

[Triceron]

Correct. It's special to her and the Forsaken.

Yea, i don't know why they worded it like that. They're, clearly, not rangers anymore (who, are attuned with the wilds). Makes me think even more that they're trying to separate the two classes.

Sure, you can think that way. I wouldn't doubt you.

But just the same, it also bridges a connection between Hunters, Rangers and Dark Rangers.

Nathanos was literally a Hunter Trainer, and he trained 'Rangers' that more closely looked like a Forsaken Hunter player class than a traditional Dark Ranger.

This is why I choose not to factor them into the argument, and make a clear distinction that these are not specifically Dark Rangers. They muddle the conversation, and Blizzard has not clarified if Nathanos has actually trained a Dark Ranger out of a Forsaken.

Of course it's still a forsaken thing - as long as it's not a playable class.

Which means nothing in the narrative is hinting at it happening yet. This is all I am pointing out.

Did you not read the quote? Abyssal Maw was scrapped, while Throne of Tides remained. I guess they couldn't give up on both of them, so they stick to the one they had.

The Ozumat cinematic only appears in Heroic mode, and as a cut scene at the end of the dungeon.

My question to you is that if they planned to cut Throne of Tides, why did they keep the cutscene in the game. You are aware they have the ability to patch it out right? Just like they cut out the 'Bitch' Dialog out of Garrosh recently. They could have cut out the Ozumat scene, but they kept it in the game, and did nothing with it until Legion where we simply saw Neptulon fine.

This implies that even after Throne of Tides was cancelled, they may have planned to keep the plot open to revisit. In retrospect, it is an abandoned plot line. We reached a point in time where we know it went nowhere.

I am pointing out that in current Shadowlands narrative with Sylvanas' story being concluded next raid, the Loyalist plot has still not been used, is not indicated to be revisited (because it's pointless after Sylvanas' defeat) and can be regarded as an abandoned plot line. I am not saying their plans to make a playable Dark Ranger is abandoned, only this particular Loyalist plot line, which YOU IMPLIED is a hint towards them being playable.

By using an example that, clearly, doesn't show any clear connections. That's not debunking the method. That's just degrading it.

Then I will say you used bad examples that were already of poor quality to begin with.

Mop -> WoD because Human and Orc themes. You said this. That's just pointing out the same Alliance and Horde conflict that has existed since Warcraft 1, and was even a theme carried into BFA. That is not a pattern or a hint if it's a theme that exists in every iteration of Warcraft.

*Sigh*

Dark Warden. Dark Ranger. Not any Dark Druids, Sentinels or whatever is out there. Giving it red eyes? Darkening the armor? Only a blind man would not see the connections.

You realize that the red eyes has been used as a visual indication that these characters are loyal to Sylvanas, right?

She is a Dark Warden, because she was a Warden in life. Summermoon was a Dark Ranger, because she was a Ranger in life.

The connection is anyone ressurected by Sylvanas and forced into her service (what she tried to do with Derek) would get red eyes and blind loyalty as a result. That is what has been implied by the lore. We don't have enough examples to say she could or could not make a red-eyed Dark Druid or Dark Sentinel, because it never happened. What did happen was a Dark Warden, and so far she is the only example of a non Dark Ranger in her service. Derek Proudmoore would have been the second, but he was saved before it happened.

You say abandoned like it was planned before. Maybe it was the plan all along. How do we know?

I say it's abandoned because I'm pointing at it in retrospect of the current narrative. If they pick it back up, then we can say it wasn't abandoned.

The difference here is you referred to something that hasn't happened in the lore as a hint and indication that it could happen in the future.

It is only a hint if it actually happened. I'm pointing out that no hint exists because nothing that you're suggesting has actually happened.

You specifically made a point to say the Loyalist plot line hints that they would be playable. I am pointing out that in the current narrative, the Loyalist plotline is absent, and in context to Sylvanas' defeat, suggests that it is an abandoned plot line. This specific plot line has no prupose after Sylvanas is defeated.

Sygfreyed agrees to the addition of Mirror Image and Windwalk to the Warrior, like you suggest.

I didn't suggest this.

Again, read my idea more clearly.

My example of a Class Skin is a new class that is built around existing gameplay, like a 'Cult of the Damned' Necromancer who uses Warlocks' gameplay but with different spell names and visuals, and completely new Necromancer Talents. We are not talking about a Warlock who adopts Necromancy.

A Blademaster class would have renamed Warrior abilities and new FX. Charge renamed to Advancing Strike; Thunderclap changed to Blazing Coil, Shockwave changed to Burning Blade. A Blademaster class has exclusive access to Blademaster talents, like Windwalk and Mirror Image. Understand?

Teriz agrees to the addition of Dark Rangers abilities to the Hunter, like you suggest.

Again, go back and read properly.

You're not debunking anything, since everything is regarded as a possibility until added.

Yes, and we can call them possibilities.

You went *beyond* this and called them hints

I am debunking your claim that these are hints. You understand?

There is a big difference between hint and a possibility. You should not be using these interchangebly, they are very different concepts even if you may think they mean the same thing.

I guess you're right.
They didn't follow up with a Light and Void expansion after BfA, even though they hinted at that.
Still, did anything else match Legion, in terms of a new class?

Gul'dan is the reason Demon Hunters are playable. He sets in motion a set of dominoes that all contribute to Demon Hunter being playable.

If we want to talk about other classes fitting Legion, we should talk about swapping Gul'dan out for other plot points that would make another class fit.

Examples:

Azshara is the one who causes the Demon Invasion, trying to bring Sargeras into the world a second time
- Increase the Naga influence in the expansion. More Naga instead of Nightborne in Suramar, possible bring in Nazjatar.
- Naga Rebel Faction fears the return of Sargeras and think she's gone too far, they join the Alliance and Horde.
- Introduce Sea Witch class, which has a connection to Suramar

Introduce a prophecy that 'Elune's Chosen' will rise to combat the return of the Burning Legion.
- If they planned this class in advance, then plant the Prophecy in an earlier expansion, like in Mists of Pandaria
- 'Elunes Chosen' are characters around the world who have visions to seek out the Temple of the Moon in Valsharah
- This could be set before WoD in the timeline. Gives them enough time to train and a reason why we didn't know this was happening.
- Introduce a Priestess of the Moon class to the Alliance and Horde once the Demon Invasion begins.

Wrathion prophecizes the Demon's return in MoP.
- He finds the shattered pieces of the Demon Soul, and experiments ways to transfer Dragon Powers to mortals.
- This creates the Dragonsworn, champions sworn to Wrathion who are charged with defending Azeroth.


Again, this is just a loose example that still uses the Demon Invasion example.
There's plenty of possibilities, but it's a matter of Blizzard *intending* to make Demon Hunter playable, so they tailored the story and setting as a Demon Invasion to fit a Demon Hunter.

We just have to look at possibilities that tie in other classes through other means.

[username993720]

I'll repeat: it was an interview (meaning they had a set amount of time devoted to ask questions and get answers), not a detailed report of their operations.

I'll repeat: I didn't ask for a detailed report. I asked for a tiny little itsy bitsy mention.

And you got your mention: the runemaster was one of the "top three class concept choices" for the Wrath of the Lich King expansion.

Of the way it was expressed in development. Frontrunner can still mean just the name.

Re-read what I wrote. I never said they "didn't want to spoil anything".

"They didn't want to reveal her Naga form" is pretty much that: spoiling.

"Actual appearances" are meaningless if it doesn't further the story. What matters is the character's involvement in the progression of the story, regardless if she is actually present on your monitor screen or not.

So, you're basically saying Sylvanas could have been set up just by her being mentioned here and there. Not by making an actual appearance. Which, further supports my argument of a wasteful set up.

Is that really her goal, or just what she has 'convinced' herself is her goal? We already know that Sylvanas was strong-armed (likely against her will) into this "alliance" with the Jailer.

Now you're just speculating.
Her declared goal, as far as we know, is just that - bringing down that afterlife system.

It's not a wasted opportunity. At least not in my eyes, because I don't subscribe to this idea that, if a character in the lore is given prominence, it means we need a class based off said character. Sylvanas was given prominence because of the story Blizzard was telling, not because Blizzard was "setting up dark rangers". Which, by the way, it's been already explained is not how Blizzard hints/reveals expansions classes.

Maybe. But, it is indeed a missed opportunity.

Being resentful or hostile does not mean "hatred of the living". None of her voiced emotes when you clicked on her showed any "hatred toward the living".

Xenophobic towards everyone that isn't the Forsaken. That includes every living being, and undead who belong to the Scourge. She only had love for those under her care, or those who shared a similar fate.

Being hotheaded and brash does not mean being dishonorable. And if you want to talk about how Garrosh treated Vol'jin, then, if memory serves, Vol'jin threatened Garrosh first, did he not?

He did, as a counter-offensive. Thing is, he's as dishonorable as any other Orc who, actually, believed the Horde and the Orcs had honor. Other than Thrall and the Frostwolves, they were all pretty much murderous freaks. Yes, even Saurfang, who participated in the killing of Draenei, whose corpses now line up the road of glory in Hellfire Peninsula.

So "orcs are orcs" and therefore all orcs in Orgrimmar should be held responsible for what the original Horde did when they invaded Azeroth? That's your logic here if you cannot see the difference between the undead of the Scourge and the Forsaken undead.

Yep. Same mindset, at the end of the day (excluding a few special cases, like the Frostwolves).

And that is completely irrelevant to the point since we're not talking about the reasons the forsaken joined the Horde.

If you say so.

Really? Then why was Lantresor picked as the "blademaster who wanted to bring honor back to the Burning Blade clan" back in WoD, and not Samuro?

Because he's forgettable. A half-breed who doesn't even lead the clan.
You can't say "why not Samuro" when he's not even in the game.

They're irrelevant games when we're talking about canonicity to the Warcraft lore, regardless if they were made 20 day ago or 20 years ago.

Say, Chen is the representative of the Monk class, right?
And, he was based on an old Samwise Didier sketch.
Samuro and the Blademaster are based on an old Samwise Didier sketch, why is he not the representative?

Link to where you found it. It's not my job to browse all of WoWpedia to find it for you. I've already asked you, more than once, to link to your sources. Since you continue to make random quotes without linking to the sources, I have no choice but to think you're doing this intentionally.

You just write Arcanist at the end of the wow.gamepedia.com/

You call it "ass-pulling". And again, it doesn't change the fact you're engaging in an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

It is, because we're just making up scenarios with no real connections to the Legion invasion. Were Runes used to counter the legion? by the way, Demon Hunters, already use them. They are called Sigils.

Ask anyone. Even ask Triceron, if you value his opinion so much. I don't have to disprove you, because you didn't present any evidence for the claim, in that hypothetical scenario. Basically what you're doing here is saying "I have a magical invisible flying unicorn living in my backyard. You can't prove that I don't." If you make a claim, you're the one that has to provide evidence of it. Only after you do you due diligence, then it's my turn to analyze your evidence and show my own.

So, all this time i'm just throwing things in the air without any real basis?

And here you provide a link, but somehow could not provide a link for your WoWpedia article? As for your link: "A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories." The entire article agrees with my stance regarding what "roleplaying" means.

It's roleplaying, nonetheless. Perhaps, different than real-life RP, because it's a game, but RP still.

My plans for what?

The necromancer's blood casting.

Sure, you can think that way. I wouldn't doubt you.

But just the same, it also bridges a connection between Hunters, Rangers and Dark Rangers.

Nathanos was literally a Hunter Trainer, and he trained 'Rangers' that more closely looked like a Forsaken Hunter player class than a traditional Dark Ranger.

This is why I choose not to factor them into the argument, and make a clear distinction that these are not specifically Dark Rangers. They muddle the conversation, and Blizzard has not clarified if Nathanos has actually trained a Dark Ranger out of a Forsaken.

That's falling into the same "but we have a Blademaster Warrior trainer" argument of sygfreyd.

Which means nothing in the narrative is hinting at it happening yet. This is all I am pointing out.

Nothing concrete, at least.

The Ozumat cinematic only appears in Heroic mode, and as a cut scene at the end of the dungeon.

My question to you is that if they planned to cut Throne of Tides, why did they keep the cutscene in the game. You are aware they have the ability to patch it out right? Just like they cut out the 'Bitch' Dialog out of Garrosh recently. They could have cut out the Ozumat scene, but they kept it in the game, and did nothing with it until Legion where we simply saw Neptulon fine.

This implies that even after Throne of Tides was cancelled, they may have planned to keep the plot open to revisit. In retrospect, it is an abandoned plot line. We reached a point in time where we know it went nowhere.

I am pointing out that in current Shadowlands narrative with Sylvanas' story being concluded next raid, the Loyalist plot has still not been used, is not indicated to be revisited (because it's pointless after Sylvanas' defeat) and can be regarded as an abandoned plot line. I am not saying their plans to make a playable Dark Ranger is abandoned, only this particular Loyalist plot line, which YOU IMPLIED is a hint towards them being playable.

Throne of Tides was not cancelled.

Then I will say you used bad examples that were already of poor quality to begin with.

Mop -> WoD because Human and Orc themes. You said this. That's just pointing out the same Alliance and Horde conflict that has existed since Warcraft 1, and was even a theme carried into BFA. That is not a pattern or a hint if it's a theme that exists in every iteration of Warcraft.

Like i said, trying to "diss" the method.
As for MoP->WoD, we allied with the Orcs and Draenei, yet we used Orcish and Human structures for the Garrisons. Clearly, a Warcraft 1 tribute that isn't related to the actual scenario we were in. Heck, we were stranded on Draenor, yet they saw it important enough to create a portal to Stormwind to get resources for the Garrison.

You realize that the red eyes has been used as a visual indication that these characters are loyal to Sylvanas, right?

She is a Dark Warden, because she was a Warden in life. Summermoon was a Dark Ranger, because she was a Ranger in life.

The connection is anyone ressurected by Sylvanas and forced into her service (what she tried to do with Derek) would get red eyes and blind loyalty as a result. That is what has been implied by the lore. We don't have enough examples to say she could or could not make a red-eyed Dark Druid or Dark Sentinel, because it never happened. What did happen was a Dark Warden, and so far she is the only example of a non Dark Ranger in her service. Derek Proudmoore would have been the second, but he was saved before it happened.

Anything raised in her service has red eyes and is called a Dark [previous title]?

No, that is wrong. Neither Derek, nor Lilian Voss, the Forsaken under her care or the skeletons raised during the Battle for Lordaeron, had ones. That is utter bullshit. It is not to signify a service to Sylvans. It is to imply a connection to Dark Rangers.

I say it's abandoned because I'm pointing at it in retrospect of the current narrative. If they pick it back up, then we can say it wasn't abandoned.

The difference here is you referred to something that hasn't happened in the lore as a hint and indication that it could happen in the future.

It is only a hint if it actually happened. I'm pointing out that no hint exists because nothing that you're suggesting has actually happened.

You specifically made a point to say the Loyalist plot line hints that they would be playable. I am pointing out that in the current narrative, the Loyalist plotline is absent, and in context to Sylvanas' defeat, suggests that it is an abandoned plot line. This specific plot line has no prupose after Sylvanas is defeated.

Absence does not imply on abandonment. That's is just your speculation as to what would happen after Sylvanas' defeat.

I didn't suggest this.

Again, read my idea more clearly.

My example of a Class Skin is a new class that is built around existing gameplay, like a 'Cult of the Damned' Necromancer who uses Warlocks' gameplay but with different spell names and visuals, and completely new Necromancer Talents. We are not talking about a Warlock who adopts Necromancy.

A Blademaster class would have renamed Warrior abilities and new FX. Charge renamed to Advancing Strike; Thunderclap changed to Blazing Coil, Shockwave changed to Burning Blade. A Blademaster class has exclusive access to Blademaster talents, like Windwalk and Mirror Image. Understand?

That is just sygfreyd's argument with extra steps. Instead of calling it a Warrior, you call it a Blademaster. Nothing to what you said here he objects.

Again, go back and read properly.

Again, he doesn't give a shit about the Hunter class. You could ruin it, for all he cares. He's 100% into implying a connection between the Hunter and Dark Ranger, no matter the tools being used.

Yes, and we can call them possibilities.

You went *beyond* this and called them hints

I am debunking your claim that these are hints. You understand?

There is a big difference between hint and a possibility. You should not be using these interchangebly, they are very different concepts even if you may think they mean the same thing.

Hints at a possibility. Happy now?

Gul'dan is the reason Demon Hunters are playable. He sets in motion a set of dominoes that all contribute to Demon Hunter being playable.

If we want to talk about other classes fitting Legion, we should talk about swapping Gul'dan out for other plot points that would make another class fit.

Examples:

Azshara is the one who causes the Demon Invasion, trying to bring Sargeras into the world a second time
- Increase the Naga influence in the expansion. More Naga instead of Nightborne in Suramar, possible bring in Nazjatar.
- Naga Rebel Faction fears the return of Sargeras and think she's gone too far, they join the Alliance and Horde.
- Introduce Sea Witch class, which has a connection to Suramar

Introduce a prophecy that 'Elune's Chosen' will rise to combat the return of the Burning Legion.
- If they planned this class in advance, then plant the Prophecy in an earlier expansion, like in Mists of Pandaria
- 'Elunes Chosen' are characters around the world who have visions to seek out the Temple of the Moon in Valsharah
- This could be set before WoD in the timeline. Gives them enough time to train and a reason why we didn't know this was happening.
- Introduce a Priestess of the Moon class to the Alliance and Horde once the Demon Invasion begins.

Wrathion prophecizes the Demon's return in MoP.
- He finds the shattered pieces of the Demon Soul, and experiments ways to transfer Dragon Powers to mortals.
- This creates the Dragonsworn, champions sworn to Wrathion who are charged with defending Azeroth.


Again, this is just a loose example that still uses the Demon Invasion example.
There's plenty of possibilities, but it's a matter of Blizzard *intending* to make Demon Hunter playable, so they tailored the story and setting as a Demon Invasion to fit a Demon Hunter.

We just have to look at possibilities that tie in other classes through other means.

Again, No!
With Gul'dan in mind, not without Gul'dan.
How many times must i repeat that?
You're just creating imaginary expansions that are not Legion. I'm, specifically, referring to Legion itself as we know it.
Are there any other classes fitting?

[Teriz]

Just to clarify; My stance on class skins is that they can be utilized to bring some "popular" concepts into the game like Dark Rangers (Hunters) and Necromancers (Warlocks). In those cases, all you really need is a graphical change on a few abilities, like a glyph. Pretty much what they're doing with that bow and quiver from Sylvanas.

Other concepts like Dragonsworn (as seen via HotS) simply can't be accomplished with that method, because they require different mechanics.

[lolmmofuture]

Tinker
Bard

[Ielenia]

I'll repeat: I didn't ask for a detailed report. I asked for a tiny little itsy bitsy mention.

And you already got that "little itsy bitty mention" when the runemaster class was mentioned as one of the top three ideas for Wrath's expansion class.

Of the way it was expressed in development. Frontrunner can still mean just the name.

And the runemaster idea was supposed to be a melee class that would augment its own power by through the application of runes: "It was envisioned as a rogue- or monk-type melee class who wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers."

"They didn't want to reveal her Naga form" is pretty much that: spoiling.

No. No, it doesn't only mean "pretty much that". It can also mean that they were thinking in changing her model but didn't want to decide on what form to give her just yet, one expansion prior to one in which she would be very prominent. Especially since this is how she looked in Darkshore, during the Cataclysm expansion:

So, you're basically saying Sylvanas could have been set up just by her being mentioned here and there. Not by making an actual appearance. Which, further supports my argument of a wasteful set up.

No. No, that is not what I said, at all. And even if it was, it still wouldn't support your argument.

Now you're just speculating.
Her declared goal, as far as we know, is just that - bringing down that afterlife system.

Why is it speculation? Anduin literally tells that to her face (that she was strong-armed into helping the Jailer) during one of the in-game cutscenes you get while going through Torghast.

Maybe. But, it is indeed a missed opportunity.

Perhaps. Doesn't mean it's wasteful, though.

He did, as a counter-offensive. Thing is, he's as dishonorable as any other Orc who, actually, believed the Horde and the Orcs had honor. Other than Thrall and the Frostwolves, they were all pretty much murderous freaks. Yes, even Saurfang, who participated in the killing of Draenei, whose corpses now line up the road of glory in Hellfire Peninsula.

You do know that "honor" is not an objective concept, right? Not to mention, during the "Path of Glory" days, the orcs were overtaken by their bloodlust because of the demon blood they were tricked to drink?

If you say so.

It is so.

Because he's forgettable. A half-breed who doesn't even lead the clan.
You can't say "why not Samuro" when he's not even in the game.

If Lantresor is "forgettable", why was he picked twice to be of prominence (in TBC and then again in WoD) and Samuro is only ever mentioned in the lore in Warcraft 3?

Say, Chen is the representative of the Monk class, right?
And, he was based on an old Samwise Didier sketch.
Samuro and the Blademaster are based on an old Samwise Didier sketch, why is he not the representative?

That's not exactly a valid example considering Chen was never a monk until the monk class was created, and the character was "retconed" into being a monk, since in WC3 Chen was just an avid lover of alcoholic drinks, and his entire purpose in the lore, his voice lines, etc, in WC3 was to gather herbs to make more drinks and drinking more ale.

You just write Arcanist at the end of the wow.gamepedia.com/

Now you're just intentionally playing dumb.

It is, because we're just making up scenarios with no real connections to the Legion invasion. Were Runes used to counter the legion? by the way, Demon Hunters, already use them. They are called Sigils.

You do know you're agreeing with me here, right? After all, runes were used to seal the Tomb of Sargeras, originally, and now demon hunters use sigils. In short: runes could be used against the Burning Legion. Against anyone, really.

So, all this time i'm just throwing things in the air without any real basis?

You do every time you make claims such as "this class concept was never considered" or "this class concept was rejected because of this reason", etc.

It's roleplaying, nonetheless. Perhaps, different than real-life RP, because it's a game, but RP still.

It's not.

The necromancer's blood casting.

What "plans" are you talking about. Be clear.

[Triceron]

That's falling into the same "but we have a Blademaster Warrior trainer" argument of sygfreyd.

Possibilities should be updated to reflect Blizzard's changes to the lore. New possibilities can open up if they allow for it. Possibilities also can be lowered if their story concludes (ie character deaths)

We had a Warrior trainer who was a Blademaster, and I would say that it was more likely that Blizzard was directly connecting the class to the warrior.

And then they *removed* Rokanada's Warrior Trainer title.

The possibility for Blademaster as its open class is greater now because the connection was severed, where it was not before.

Sygfreyd pointing at Blademaster being a Warrior Trainer is old lore. It's not a hint that Warrior and Blademaster are the same class.
Username993720 pointing at Night Elf Dark Rangers possible for the Alliance is old lore. It's not a hint that Night Elf Dark Rangers would be playable on Alliance.

We shouldn't jump the gun and assume latest lore is irrelevant just because it can be changed.

Throne of Tides was not cancelled.

Abyssal Maw Raid I meant.

Like i said, trying to "diss" the method.
As for MoP->WoD, we allied with the Orcs and Draenei, yet we used Orcish and Human structures for the Garrisons. Clearly, a Warcraft 1 tribute that isn't related to the actual scenario we were in. Heck, we were stranded on Draenor, yet they saw it important enough to create a portal to Stormwind to get resources for the Garrison.

Are Garrisons only applicable to WoD?

You're telling Blizzard couldn't allow Garrisons to be built on Azeroth? Or any other location in the world?

That this could only work for WoD because this is the only expansion that could have Stormwind style Keeps and Orgrimmar style Strongholds?

Anything raised in her service has red eyes and is called a Dark [previous title]?

So far only the Dark Ranger and Dark Warden. No other examples exist, and none other will since she's going to be defeated by next Raid.

No, that is wrong. Neither Derek, nor Lilian Voss, the Forsaken under her care or the skeletons raised during the Battle for Lordaeron, had ones. That is utter bullshit. It is not to signify a service to Sylvans. It is to imply a connection to Dark Rangers.

I didn't say Derek or Lilian or the Forsaken under her care had them.

Absence does not imply on abandonment. That's is just your speculation as to what would happen after Sylvanas' defeat.

I'm fine with waiting for the next raid, the end of the expansion, the expansion after that even.

If you don't think it's abandoned yet, then I'm fine with that, but it doesn't change the fact that right now Blizzard *has abandoned the plot line for Shadowlands up to this point in time*. If they show no intent to continue it, then the plot can be considered abandoned right now. That's the meaning of the word. They have ceased to support the Loyalist plotline in Shadowlands.

That is just sygfreyd's argument with extra steps. Instead of calling it a Warrior, you call it a Blademaster. Nothing to what you said here he objects.

You need to realize that Sygfreyd's argument isn't actually wrong.

His flaws are in that he is not open to the possibility of a separate Blademaster class. But his views that a Warrior can be given Blademaster abilities is just as valid as a possibility.

A Class Skins possibility is based on what Blizzard could likely do, because it's a means of adding new classes without adding more specs to the game to balance.

Hints at a possibility. Happy now?

Yes, I'd be fine with that. Because that just means having a possibility.

As I said, a possibility is all we should regard these as, and not as *hints that they will happen*

Again, No!
With Gul'dan in mind, not without Gul'dan.
How many times must i repeat that?
You're just creating imaginary expansions that are not Legion. I'm, specifically, referring to Legion itself as we know it.
Are there any other classes fitting?

Even with Gul'dan in the story, all of the examples I presented fit in with the story.

Priestess of the Moon and Sea Witches have connections to the Suramar setting. The Tomb of Sargeras was the Temple of Elune in Suramar, while Suramar itself was the seat of power of Azshara and the Naga. What doesn't fit?

Wrathion is devoted to protecting Azeroth against any world threat. What exactly is in conflict here? What doesn't fit?

I was considerate to your question with the assumption you were not aware of other possibilities, and hoped to broaden your scope. If you're just going to dismiss with no intention to address my examples, then shame on you for wasting my time. I honestly hope you did not intend to use a bad faith argument and asking for examples just for the purpose of dismissing them.

[username993720]

And you already got that "little itsy bitty mention" when the runemaster class was mentioned as one of the top three ideas for Wrath's expansion class.

Does it imply on abilities, talents, armor sets, customizations and such being in development?

And the runemaster idea was supposed to be a melee class that would augment its own power by through the application of runes: "It was envisioned as a rogue- or monk-type melee class who wrote runes on their bodies to give them different physical powers."

I know that. It was, already, established in their RPG lore.

No. No, it doesn't only mean "pretty much that". It can also mean that they were thinking in changing her model but didn't want to decide on what form to give her just yet, one expansion prior to one in which she would be very prominent. Especially since this is how she looked in Darkshore, during the Cataclysm expansion:

What's wrong with keeping her old model? many characters go through several model iterations and updates.

No. No, that is not what I said, at all. And even if it was, it still wouldn't support your argument.

That's what you, basically, said with Azshara. That hinting at her is sufficient enough.

Why is it speculation? Anduin literally tells that to her face (that she was strong-armed into helping the Jailer) during one of the in-game cutscenes you get while going through Torghast.

Is it her intention? or, is it a means to an end?

Perhaps. Doesn't mean it's wasteful, though.

If they don't act on it, eventually, it is.

You do know that "honor" is not an objective concept, right? Not to mention, during the "Path of Glory" days, the orcs were overtaken by their bloodlust because of the demon blood they were tricked to drink?

Yea, that was debunked with the WoD expansion, showing that they were, always, bloodthirsty maniacs, even as Mag'har. They, always, had natural Bloodlust to them. It was only amplified with the demonic blood. Warfare was, always, part of their culture: "War... it is the lifeblood of this world. We are its children. Soon, its masters".

If Lantresor is "forgettable", why was he picked twice to be of prominence (in TBC and then again in WoD) and Samuro is only ever mentioned in the lore in Warcraft 3?

Because he's a known figure like Mankrik. Nothing substantial like a major character.

That's not exactly a valid example considering Chen was never a monk until the monk class was created, and the character was "retconed" into being a monk, since in WC3 Chen was just an avid lover of alcoholic drinks, and his entire purpose in the lore, his voice lines, etc, in WC3 was to gather herbs to make more drinks and drinking more ale.

"And martial arts". You forgot to mention that. Because unlike the profession Brewmasters, Pandaren brewmasters combine it with martial arts.
As for him not being called a Monk, the brewmaster doesn't account for mistweaving and windwalking. The same can happen with the Blademaster (being called something else, eventually), but i highly doubt it as it is not a racial class like the Pandaren Brewmaster.

Now you're just intentionally playing dumb.

Do you, really, need help with that?
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Arcanist

You do know you're agreeing with me here, right? After all, runes were used to seal the Tomb of Sargeras, originally, and now demon hunters use sigils. In short: runes could be used against the Burning Legion. Against anyone, really.

Sealing a tomb is not like slaying demons.
Its a small part of the Demon Hunter. Do you, really, think it could account for all the demonic-countering? Nothing major was used, in terms of runes, to counter the legion in that expansion. If it had something like the Army of Light, you'd have a point.

You do every time you make claims such as "this class concept was never considered" or "this class concept was rejected because of this reason", etc.

"This class concept was never considered" - if you can't give an example of a warthog class being considered, then we can just claim everything and everyone was considered. That would get us nowhere in discussion.
"this class concept was rejected because of this reason" - i can only speculate since they didn't state why they did so. But, it's not like i'm saying "they did it cuz i don't like it".

It's not.

Are you for real right now? I just provided you with a wikipedia page. Ask anyone and everyone if WoW is roleplaying or not and what MMORPG means. See what they say.

What "plans" are you talking about. Be clear.

Does it encompass all types of blood casters out there, or just the blood trolls type of blood casting?

Possibilities should be updated to reflect Blizzard's changes to the lore. New possibilities can open up if they allow for it. Possibilities also can be lowered if their story concludes (ie character deaths)

We had a Warrior trainer who was a Blademaster, and I would say that it was more likely that Blizzard was directly connecting the class to the warrior.

And then they *removed* Rokanada's Warrior Trainer title.

The possibility for Blademaster as its open class is greater now because the connection was severed, where it was not before.

Sygfreyd pointing at Blademaster being a Warrior Trainer is old lore. It's not a hint that Warrior and Blademaster are the same class.
Username993720 pointing at Night Elf Dark Rangers possible for the Alliance is old lore. It's not a hint that Night Elf Dark Rangers would be playable on Alliance.

We shouldn't jump the gun and assume latest lore is irrelevant just because it can be changed.

What do you think would happen if they get added? remain a Horde option? you'd have night elf Dark Rangers walking around Orgrimmar?

Abyssal Maw Raid I meant.

So, what's the problem? that they kept Throne of Tides? they decided on it before implementation. Not during the expansion, like you suggest.

Are Garrisons only applicable to WoD?

You're telling Blizzard couldn't allow Garrisons to be built on Azeroth? Or any other location in the world?

That this could only work for WoD because this is the only expansion that could have Stormwind style Keeps and Orgrimmar style Strongholds?

Never said so.
We're not speculating what could have been.
I'm telling you what, eventually, ended up happening.

So far only the Dark Ranger and Dark Warden. No other examples exist, and none other will since she's going to be defeated by next Raid.

Pretty much confirming you have nothing of worth to say and that i was right.

I didn't say Derek or Lilian or the Forsaken under her care had them.

No shit.
You said it was a sign of service to Sylvanas. Which, was proved wrong.

I'm fine with waiting for the next raid, the end of the expansion, the expansion after that even.

If you don't think it's abandoned yet, then I'm fine with that, but it doesn't change the fact that right now Blizzard *has abandoned the plot line for Shadowlands up to this point in time*. If they show no intent to continue it, then the plot can be considered abandoned right now. That's the meaning of the word. They have ceased to support the Loyalist plotline in Shadowlands.

-_-

The illidari were abandoned after TBC, only to appear once again in Legion.
Knights of the Ebon Blade lost their prominence after WotLK, only to appear again in Legion and Shadowlands.
Wrathion was missing from WoD, the expansion he worked to bring about. He then appeared again in BfA. No sign of him in Shadowlands. I guess he won't appear anytime soon, right? (*ahem* Dragon Isles *ahem*)
The dragonflights lost their powers in Cata, only to appear again in Legion and BfA. i guess they won't make an appearance any time soon.
Thrall was put on the back burner during Legion. Did he not appear again?
We were certain Grommash was dealt with and was done for good. Guess where he's at.
Kelthuzad appears for the 3rd time, already, as a raid boss.
And there are many other examples i can't yet recall.
Point is, you eulogizing them because they don't appear in Shadowlands is short-sighted, to tell you the truth. You can't see beyond what's, currently, going on.

You need to realize that Sygfreyd's argument isn't actually wrong.

His flaws are in that he is not open to the possibility of a separate Blademaster class. But his views that a Warrior can be given Blademaster abilities is just as valid as a possibility.

A Class Skins possibility is based on what Blizzard could likely do, because it's a means of adding new classes without adding more specs to the game to balance.

I see...
*disappointed look on face*

Yes, I'd be fine with that. Because that just means having a possibility.

As I said, a possibility is all we should regard these as, and not as *hints that they will happen*

Yet, you take Dragons Isles and Light/Void as valid hints, not just as a possibility. Why treat one a certain way and the other another way? I could say these were, already, dealt with before and are not currently relevant to the story (like Wrathion).

I see this as an argument in bad faith. It just looks like you are fishing for answers that you could dismiss as imaginary.

What exactly are you asking for if you're implying Legion 'as we know it'? Legion as we know it has playable Demon Hunters, so anything that changes this is not Legion as we know it. You need to clarify your stance on what you're looking for, and how flexible you consider the plot changing to reflect a new class. Because 'Legion as we know it' means Demon Hunters being playable. They had their own class hall and a starting zone that involves them escaping Vault of the Wardens and going to Mardum. Does this all still need to be regarded to exist if we're talking about a different new class?


I gave you a solid bunch of examples, and you dismissed them all as being imaginary. If you were considerate, I'd expect you to address any of them and pick out what conflicts with your interpretation of 'Legion as we know it'. You didn't even bother to specify why they wouldn't fit, you just said they're all imaginary.

I was considerate to your question with the assumption you were not aware of other possibilities, and hoped to broaden your scope. If you're just going to dismiss with no intention to reach a middle ground, then shame on you for wasting my time.

Because they didn't include Gul'dan. That would create endless possibilities and would get us nowhere.

What i mean is replacing the Demon Hunters and adjusting, slightly, the storyline to accommodate for a different class (you know, a group that counters the Legion, basically). Have any?

P.S. - you changed your reply in the middle of me replying to you.

[pacotaco]

Sylvanas was turned into a Banshee by Arthas and regained her body to later on become a Dark Ranger.
Nathanos was raised as a Scourge Zombie and later on became a Dark Ranger.
Forsaken Hunters are said to be Dark Rangers under the tutelage of Nathanos.
I don't think Sylvanas is the only one capable of creating Dark Rangers or that it's an exclusive form of necromancy.

Do they really say that Forsaken Hunters are Dark Rangers somewhere? As far as I understood is that previous Dark Rangers are training Forsaken into the Hunter ways because they (the DRs) were that before being undead.

*Cataclysm being, mainly, about dragons with some other secondary themes*

The thing is the Monk fits with the Pandaren theme of Pandaria. It wasn't added because of the damage of war, peace and emotion you mentioned.

Cataclysm was about Old Gods. Dragons were a secondary theme, as well as change, lost and discovery.
Monk fit does themes too, it's the rose-tinted glasses presentation of martial arts, the phiilosophy that they wrap them with: "to protect, to maintain peace, to keep emotions (and inner demons) at bay".

What's the confusion? if you want to empower female characters, you don't make them the sidekick of a big male villain. They want to show independence, don't they?

She's not a sidekick, she's an accomplice. And she chose to. That's, IMO, the empowering. She was not forced, she is doing what she does because she thinks it's the best she can. She doesn't need to be the big boss, the best of the best or a good girl to be empowered.

Illidan was shunned by his people for becoming demonic and allying with Kil'jaeden and the Legion. No questions needed to be asked by the players. If Maiev saw him as a villain, so did we. We didn't know, back then, he had alternative motives.

I disagree. Just because some characters present him as a villain doesn't make him a villain, specially after showing the player actions that question that presentation.
It's like what happens with Grommash at the end of WoD. He spends all expansion being a warmonger trying to invade Azeroth and crushing any opposition. Then sudenly helps vs the Legion after we rescue him, and now he suddenly is a hero? WTH happened there?

Which happened not once, not twice, but three times already.

So what? You're just making a pattern with partial information after the fact.
It's like trying to guess what polygon I'm going to draw, and when I finish you say "I knew it was going to be a square just right after you draw the 2nd line".

"Nathanos Blightcaller has recently been training a new generation of Forsaken rangers comprising of undead humans, making the undead racial composition of the order more diverse. These Forsaken hunters appear to favor the woodsman axe and the crossbow in contrast to the bow and arrow typically employed by their undead high elf counterparts. Like Nathanos, they sport a leather-looking outfit and optionally a hood and face mask."

Now that i notice the wording "Ranger" instead of "Dark Ranger" (even though they are compared to high elven Dark Rangers), i am even more into the belief that they are set to be different than the Hunter class as their own class/spec.

Rangers as in scout/archer. Like elven rangers (the Farstriders or the archer Sentinel), but human (or undead human in this case).

[Triceron]

What do you think would happen if they get added? remain a Horde option? you'd have night elf Dark Rangers walking around Orgrimmar?

Context:

I am regarding this particular argument: Night Elves Dark Rangers is a hint towards playable Dark Rangers

- The Night Elf Dark Rangers in the lore do not wish to be part of the Night Elves, and see themselves as Forsaken.
- There are no current ways in the lore to create new Dark Rangers.
- It is possible for Blizzard to create Dark Rangers for the Alliance if they introduce a new method to raise Dark Rangers in the lore. It is not dependant on Night Elf Dark Rangers existing in the lore.

This shows the information we have in the game, and the possibilities of the future do not support the idea that Night Elf Dark Rangers existing in the lore as legitimate hint towards playable Dark Rangers.

This particular story point had been concluded, and the possiblities of the future are not dependant on them using the Night Elf Dark Rangers that were raised in BFA to have a playable Dark Ranger class.

We can regard that this *was* a hint of a playable class, but with its story resolution at the end of BFA, it is no longer a hint. There was no move to have them join the Alliance, meaning we're talking about a whole different possibility to consider.

Your example above is a new possibility that has nothing to do with the Night Elf Dark Rangers that are working with Calia now. As I said, these specific Night Elves consider themselves Forsaken, not Alliance.

So, what's the problem? that they kept Throne of Tides? they decided on it before implementation. Not during the expansion, like you suggest.

Context

You said Blizzard does not abandon plot lines midway through an expansion.

Throne of Tides Heroic contains a scene that has Ozumat take Neptulon away for the purpose of leading into Abyssal Maw. Abyssal Maw was cut, but the cutscene in ToT Heroic was never changed or addressed. In Legion, Neptulon is shown perfectly fine, having no explanation of his whereabouts or how he was freed.

This is an example of a plot line that made it into the game, and was abandoned. You claimed that Blizzard doesn't abandon things the put in the game, this is one example of something IN THE GAME that was abandoned, and not taken out or addressed. And we know they can make changes and simply cut out Ozumat taking Neptulon away, because this cutscene does not even exist in the Normal Mode version of the dungeon encounter; only Heroic. And it's still in the game!

The illidari were abandoned after TBC, only to appear once again in Legion.
Knights of the Ebon Blade lost their prominence after WotLK, only to appear again in Legion and Shadowlands.
Wrathion was missing from WoD, the expansion he worked to bring about. He then appeared again in BfA. No sign of him in Shadowlands. I guess he won't appear anytime soon, right? (*ahem* Dragon Isles *ahem*)
The dragonflights lost their powers in Cata, only to appear again in Legion and BfA. i guess they won't make an appearance any time soon.
Thrall was put on the back burner during Legion. Did he not appear again?
We were certain Grommash was dealt with and was done for good. Guess where he's at.
Kelthuzad appears for the 3rd time, already, as a raid boss.
And there are many other examples i can't yet recall.
Point is, you eulogizing them because they don't appear in Shadowlands is short-sighted, to tell you the truth. You can't see beyond what's, currently, going on.

My point is there is nothing in the lore before those happened that you can point to and call a *hint* that it WILL happen.

My whole argument is specific to say you can't just call things hints just because you think it's possible. A hint implies something they *will* address in the future, even if they choose not to do it right away or they end up abandoning it.

Example - Gul'dan at the end of WoD is banished through the portal, Archimonde dies, Grom announces that Draenor is free. Yet Khadgar mentions that he thinks it's not over, and implies that Gul'dan could return again some day.

THIS is a hint, because it's an indication of something that WILL happen in the future. It's not a question of whether it is possible, it's a question of when it will happen.

Do you understand the difference I'm pointing out? Of all the examples you pointed out, none were actively *hinted* at returning. The closest I would say is Kel'thuzad since we know his Phylactery was missing, but that is still not a *hint* that he would return, just a possibility.

The others could not be predicted at all with anything in the narrative indicated that any of them would return in the story.

Does this make sense?

You can't just assign something as a hint because it seems convenient to your own Theory that something can happen. A Hint is an intentional indicator of something that WILL happen. Otherwise you'd have to be clear of calling it a *hint at a possibility*, which I'd be absolutely fine with since we're just talking about possibilities.

Yet, you take Dragons Isles and Light/Void as valid hints, not just as a possibility. Why treat one a certain way and the other another way? I could say these were, already, dealt with before and are not currently relevant to the story (like Wrathion).

Context.

A hint is an indication of something Blizzard intends to make happen. A hint does not *always* have to happen though, since changes in plans can get in the way and make the hint irrelevant.

One example is Varian Wrynn and the Missing Diplomat questline. This whole quest line was a *hint* towards us finding his whereabouts and potentially saving him. Unfortunately this went nowhere, and he just appeared back into the story. We can call this a hint because Blizzard *intended* to explore this possiblity, and otherwise did nothing to dissuade or conclude it prematurely.

The Dark Ranger Loyalist situation is different in that they did hint on a playable Dark Ranger, but they tied up most of those loose ends by having all relevant Dark Ranger main characters be re-associated with the Forsaken, and left the Loyalist scattered to the wind. With Shadowlands not having followed up on any of the plot and Sylvanas being defeated by next raid, there is no purpose left for the Loyalist plotline.

Just as Varian returned without addressing the Missing Diplomat storyline, Sylvanas being defeated does not address the Loyalist plot line. Both can be considered hints that were (or are being) abandoned.

As for Dragon Isles and Light vs Void - nothing has changed and we are still edging towards them as Blizzard progresses the lore. No other lore contradicts or diminishes their possibilities.

Because they didn't include Gul'dan. That would create endless possibilities and would get us nowhere.

What i mean is replacing the Demon Hunters and adjusting, slightly, the storyline to accommodate for a different class (you know, a group that counters the Legion, basically). Have any?

P.S. - you changed your reply in the middle of me replying to you.

What do you mean 'have any'? You literally quoted huge chunks of examples.

Elunes Chosen.

Wrathion's Dragonsworn.

Rebel Naga and Sea Witches.

I'll even add:

Vol'jin's death ushering in Shadow Hunters

Vault of the Wardens invasion freeing demons that open up playable Wardens.


There's plenty of examples and you've addressed none of them. I have little incentive to give you more indepth explanations when you've outright dismissed them.

Because they didn't include Gul'dan. That would create endless possibilities and would get us nowhere.

I want to emphasize this because if we're talking about future playable classes, we *are* talking about endless possibilities.

If we're talking about plausability, then everyone has their own individual idea of what is and is not plausible, and we are free to agree or disagree with anyone else on the opinions. However it's usually the *misuse of evidence* to support an argument that I do not take lightly.

I have literally no problem with discussing opinions. I'm opposed to people try to support their argument with anything they can consider 'facts', because there aren't actually any facts that would ever make something more or less possible, or even plausible. I mean, the only thing I consider a factor in any class being more or less plausible is what the Designers actually think should be made. So if a Designer comes out and says 'I like Bards, I think they could be awesome!' then I consider that more relevant plausability than someone who might argues that new classes have to be from WC3 because the others were. My personal opinion here.

I've remained consistent on debunking the existence of Night Elf Dark Rangers in game as a hint that they would be playable because of this plot point. I'd be fine if you just said you think they should be playable because we have examples of an Alliance race being a Dark Ranger. But the Night Elf Dark Rangers in BFA can't be used to support that argument because the lore has concluded them as being part of the Forsaken. Blizzard would have to change that lore in order for it to be usable as supporting evidence.

[Ielenia]

Does it imply on abilities, talents, armor sets, customizations and such being in development?

We're going in circles here. First you act like you want a "full progress report", wanting to know "abilities, talents, armor sets, customization and more" for the runemaster concept. And when I call you out on that, you say you just wanted a "tiny little itsy bitsy mention", which you already got when Blizzard mentioned the runemaster as one of the prime candidates, for Wrath. Then you go back full circle to wanting a "full progress report". In short: it doesn't matter. Blizzard has considered the runemaster concept a valid candidate as Wrath's expansion class. That is all that matters.

What's wrong with keeping her old model? many characters go through several model iterations and updates.

That is a question to ask Blizzard, not me. I unfortunately wasn't present when they decided to change Azshara's model. I missed my plane.

That's what you, basically, said with Azshara. That hinting at her is sufficient enough.

No. It wasn't. And Azshara was never "hinted". She already existed, since the game's inception. We had her troops carrying her orders. To "hint" at something is to give vague information that may or may not be associated with said something. Azshara was never 'hinted' at.

Is it her intention? or, is it a means to an end?

I'm assuming by "intention" you mean Sylvanas looking guilty when trying to get Anduin to "accept his fate". That said, I say it was neither, that her reaction was genuine, that she was forced into her position, because after Anduin was already converted, attacked the Archon, and returned to the Jailer with the first key, Sylvanas looked at the possessed Anduin with a look that could be interpreted as pity, guilty, and/or remorse.

If they don't act on it, eventually, it is.

Not really. Because, again, I don't subscribe to the idea that if a character is prominently featured then it means we have to have a playable class based off said character. Especially since this is not how Blizzard releases classes. Arthas/Lich King had zero prominence during vanilla WoW and TBC. Chen had zero prominence from vanilla to Cataclysm. Illidan's only prominence was as a BBEG that died at the end of TBC.

Yea, that was debunked with the WoD expansion, showing that they were, always, bloodthirsty maniacs, even as Mag'har. They, always, had natural Bloodlust to them. It was only amplified with the demonic blood. Warfare was, always, part of their culture: "War... it is the lifeblood of this world. We are its children. Soon, its masters".

Which is what I said. They were overtaken by their bloodlust. A bloodlust that was made stronger due to the demonic blood they consumed.

Because he's a known figure like Mankrik. Nothing substantial like a major character.

And yet, Lantresor was picked as THE prominent blademaster not just once, but twice. While Samuro was left apparently forgotten. Again. I fully expected to see Samuro in WoD, after I heard that the big orc figureheads would be prominently featured. Instead we got Lantresor. Again.

"And martial arts". You forgot to mention that.

No. Because there was zero martial arts in Warcraft 3. No animations, no abilities, no voice lines.

Do you, really, need help with that?
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Arcanist

No. I don't need help with that. But it shows how immature you were being since you never link to your sources, despite being asked several times already, and when I insist on the link, you play cute with your "add 'name' in front of web address".

Sealing a tomb is not like slaying demons.
Its a small part of the Demon Hunter. Do you, really, think it could account for all the demonic-countering? Nothing major was used, in terms of runes, to counter the legion in that expansion. If it had something like the Army of Light, you'd have a point.

Because Blizzard opted to not make runes the major thing against the demons in the Legion expansion. It would be counter-productive to the demon hunter class being added, who was announced as "fighting fire with fire" in the expansion's announcement.

"This class concept was never considered" - if you can't give an example of a warthog class being considered, then we can just claim everything and everyone was considered. That would get us nowhere in discussion.

We could, yes. But here is the thing with claims: you have to show actual, tangible evidence that supports your claim. And me not having evidence to counter your claim does not automatically means your claim is true. You want to claim that Blizzard has considered "farting warhog" as a potential class? Cool. Show us evidence that Blizzard might have considered it, first.

"this class concept was rejected because of this reason" - i can only speculate since they didn't state why they did so. But, it's not like i'm saying "they did it cuz i don't like it".

Except you technically kind of are. You are stating that the runemaster concept was rejected because it didn't match the expansion theme, despite having absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up. In fact, you have as much evidence of it as you have evidence of "they did it cuz I don't like it". All we know is that the runemaster concept lost to the death knight, in the end. Why it lost, we have absolutely zero clue.

Are you for real right now? I just provided you with a wikipedia page. Ask anyone and everyone if WoW is roleplaying or not and what MMORPG means. See what they say.

Except you don't roleplay in the actual sense of the term. The "roleplay" only comes from picking and choosing how your character looks (race/class) and what graphic effects will play when you push buttons (class). There is no actual interpretation of roles in WoW, since the game offers little to no options for your character. And when they do, the choices amount to nothing of value and are reset by the end (like the loyalist/rebel options for the Horde in BfA).

Does it encompass all types of blood casters out there, or just the blood trolls type of blood casting?

The ones who are not part of the Scourge, really.

[Triceron]

Except you technically kind of are. You are stating that the runemaster concept was rejected because it didn't match the expansion theme, despite having absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up. In fact, you have as much evidence of it as you have evidence of "they did it cuz I don't like it". All we know is that the runemaster concept lost to the death knight, in the end. Why it lost, we have absolutely zero clue.

I have to agree with this.

Of everything we know about the Runemaster, the choice to reject the concept was not on the basis of not matching the expansion theme. If anything, it was simply regarded that the Necromancer and Death Knight had a better fit to the expansion theme, but this was not actually used to dismiss the Runemaster itself. It was a culmination of different factors, and the Runemaster was put on the short list because it had some interesting mechanics to explore.

"And martial arts". You forgot to mention that."
No. Because there was zero martial arts in Warcraft 3. No animations, no abilities, no voice lines.

Funny enough, the Runemaster was planned with Martial Arts in mind.

http://xelnath.com/2016/09/

'They went briefly into the pitches for each. The Death Knight would basically be Arthas, but with a focus on tanking magical damage. The Rune Master would be a leather wearer who has a unique power source where different runes could activate different abilities and empower martial arts moves. The Necromancer would raise the undead and send them at enemies like waves.'

"[Xelnath]: “Sure. I think DK and Necromancer fit the expansion, but I wouldn’t let the potential for an awesome game mechanic get passed up. Put my vote down as Rune Master.”

"A few weeks later, they called the team together for a few announcements. First off, the new class was going to be “Death Knight” – it would be using a Rune-Based power system, raised ghouls as minions – and that new promoted Cory Stockton would be taking point on the new class."

[Teriz]

I have to agree with this.

Of everything we know about the Runemaster, the choice to reject the concept was not on the basis of not matching the expansion theme. If anything, it was simply regarded that the Necromancer and Death Knight had a better fit to the expansion theme, but this was not actually used to dismiss the Runemaster itself. It was a culmination of different factors, and the Runemaster was put on the short list because it had some interesting mechanics to explore.



Funny enough, the Runemaster was planned with Martial Arts in mind.

http://xelnath.com/2016/09/

'They went briefly into the pitches for each. The Death Knight would basically be Arthas, but with a focus on tanking magical damage. The Rune Master would be a leather wearer who has a unique power source where different runes could activate different abilities and empower martial arts moves. The Necromancer would raise the undead and send them at enemies like waves.'

"[Xelnath]: “Sure. I think DK and Necromancer fit the expansion, but I wouldn’t let the potential for an awesome game mechanic get passed up. Put my vote down as Rune Master.”

"A few weeks later, they called the team together for a few announcements. First off, the new class was going to be “Death Knight” – it would be using a Rune-Based power system, raised ghouls as minions – and that new promoted Cory Stockton would be taking point on the new class."

That blog is interesting, especially how he brings up the belief that the Necromancer would encroach on the Warlock class, and how DKs also endangered Warlock gameplay.

That said, I still have major doubts that a Runemaster class was ever a serious consideration.

[Triceron]

That blog is interesting, especially how he brings up the belief that the Necromancer would encroach on the Warlock class, and how DKs also endangered Warlock gameplay.

Because he was the Warlock class designer, and a zealous one at that, haha

As much as he had concerns about the endangered Warlock gameplay, they went ahead and gave Summoner gameplay to the DK anyways. I figure this played into reasons why Xelnath decided to shift Demonology towards a different mechanic like Metamorphosis.

That said, I still have major doubts that a Runemaster class was ever a serious consideration.

Not sure why you'd doubt it. It's been covered by at least 3 different developers now, each having mentioned Runemasters in various descriptions and forms and giving ample reason why others were chosen over it. It didn't make the cut out of circumstance more than anything, simply being a very strong pick but not enough to beat out something else. Something I'm sure the Tinker has in common.

[Teriz]

Because he was the Warlock class designer, and a zealous one at that, haha

As much as he had concerns about the endangered Warlock gameplay, they went ahead and gave Summoner gameplay to the DK anyways. I figure this played into reasons why Xelnath decided to shift Demonology towards a different mechanic like Metamorphosis.



Not sure why you'd doubt it. It's been covered by at least 3 different developers now, each having mentioned Runemasters in various descriptions and forms and giving ample reason why others were chosen over it. It didn't make the cut out of circumstance more than anything, simply being a very strong pick but not enough to beat out something else. Something I'm sure the Tinker has in common.

Mainly because it’s a departure from the class implementation model that we’ve seen since the DK inclusion. If you think about it, having a legacy from WC3, a major lore character to embody the concept, and massive lore ties to an expansion theme really benifitted DKs, Monks, and DHs. Runemasters had none of those benefits.

For example, a Dark Ranger is a stronger class concept because you can attach it to Sylvanas and the history and lore surrounding that character. It even has iconic abilities like Black and Wailing Arrow.

On the other hand, a Bard class has no connection to anything in WoW. No legacy, no major character that embodies the concept, and no iconic abilities to define the concept.

It’s like asking if WoW players would rather play a Demon Hunter class based on Illidan, or a Fighter class based on D&D tropes. Demon Hunter wins that contest every time, and even possesses some concepts from the other concept.

So why would you ever consider bringing in the generic fighter class when you can essentially have your cake and eat it too with the DH?

[username993720]

Do they really say that Forsaken Hunters are Dark Rangers somewhere? As far as I understood is that previous Dark Rangers are training Forsaken into the Hunter ways because they (the DRs) were that before being undead.

It was said that Nathanos is training a new generation of Dark Rangers. It has since been retconned to Rangers only.
More likelihood for a Dark Ranger.

Cataclysm was about Old Gods. Dragons were a secondary theme, as well as change, lost and discovery.
Monk fit does themes too, it's the rose-tinted glasses presentation of martial arts, the phiilosophy that they wrap them with: "to protect, to maintain peace, to keep emotions (and inner demons) at bay".

Not really. They were behind the scenes. Especially N'zoth. His servant, Deathwing, was the main theme of the expansion.
Those are traits of the Pandaren culture.

She's not a sidekick, she's an accomplice. And she chose to. That's, IMO, the empowering. She was not forced, she is doing what she does because she thinks it's the best she can. She doesn't need to be the big boss, the best of the best or a good girl to be empowered.

She needs to be on her own. Otherwise, if you need a man beside you, you are not a strong, independent woman.

I disagree. Just because some characters present him as a villain doesn't make him a villain, specially after showing the player actions that question that presentation.
It's like what happens with Grommash at the end of WoD. He spends all expansion being a warmonger trying to invade Azeroth and crushing any opposition. Then sudenly helps vs the Legion after we rescue him, and now he suddenly is a hero? WTH happened there?

He's being appreciative?
He hated Gul'dan from the get-go. He just didn't know that he would usurp him.

So what? You're just making a pattern with partial information after the fact.
It's like trying to guess what polygon I'm going to draw, and when I finish you say "I knew it was going to be a square just right after you draw the 2nd line".

If you draw the same one everytime, i have a pretty good notion of what your tendencies are.

Rangers as in scout/archer. Like elven rangers (the Farstriders or the archer Sentinel), but human (or undead human in this case).

Which is weird. It used to say Dark Rangers in the past. We were led to believe they are undead Rangers and therefore, Dark Rangers. Now, it is changed. More chance for it to be added

Context:

I am regarding this particular argument: Night Elves Dark Rangers is a hint towards playable Dark Rangers

- The Night Elf Dark Rangers in the lore do not wish to be part of the Night Elves, and see themselves as Forsaken.
- There are no current ways in the lore to create new Dark Rangers.
- It is possible for Blizzard to create Dark Rangers for the Alliance if they introduce a new method to raise Dark Rangers in the lore. It is not dependant on Night Elf Dark Rangers existing in the lore.

This shows the information we have in the game, and the possibilities of the future do not support the idea that Night Elf Dark Rangers existing in the lore as legitimate hint towards playable Dark Rangers.

This particular story point had been concluded, and the possiblities of the future are not dependant on them using the Night Elf Dark Rangers that were raised in BFA to have a playable Dark Ranger class.

We can regard that this *was* a hint of a playable class, but with its story resolution at the end of BFA, it is no longer a hint. There was no move to have them join the Alliance, meaning we're talking about a whole different possibility to consider.

Your example above is a new possibility that has nothing to do with the Night Elf Dark Rangers that are working with Calia now. As I said, these specific Night Elves consider themselves Forsaken, not Alliance.

So much blabbering with not much content.
There are no ways to create Dark Ranger? are you sure? because as far as i know, all it probably takes is a powerful form of necromancy, like Val'kyr.
The story has been concluded? are you certain? because as far as i know the Calia and Derek storyline is far from over and therefore, so is the fate of her followers.
They could introduce a new Alliance Dark Ranger race, but not those who are currently part of the forsaken? Seems rather dubious. "while there will be Night elf Dark Rangers in the Alliance, some of their brethren will stay in the Forsaken" -_-. Do you, really, believe that?

Once again, you spew things as if they are absolute facts that are set in stone, according to your view, because you simply cannot see beyond present time. Heck, we haven't got the first patch yet, and yet you seem to know if something is done for or not. You are, clearly, rushing to make conclusions.

Context

You said Blizzard does not abandon plot lines midway through an expansion.

Throne of Tides Heroic contains a scene that has Ozumat take Neptulon away for the purpose of leading into Abyssal Maw. Abyssal Maw was cut, but the cutscene in ToT Heroic was never changed or addressed. In Legion, Neptulon is shown perfectly fine, having no explanation of his whereabouts or how he was freed.

This is an example of a plot line that made it into the game, and was abandoned. You claimed that Blizzard doesn't abandon things the put in the game, this is one example of something IN THE GAME that was abandoned, and not taken out or addressed. And we know they can make changes and simply cut out Ozumat taking Neptulon away, because this cutscene does not even exist in the Normal Mode version of the dungeon encounter; only Heroic. And it's still in the game!

*sigh*

You have been explained that Abyssal Maw was cut Before the expansion launched, yet you assume it happened throughout it due to a cutscene remaining? I don't know the reason behind the cutscene remaining, and neither do you. Perhaps it takes a lot of coding to remove and perhaps it doesn't. Point is, the decision wasn't made whilst the expansion was running, it was made before it. You will be wise to realize that.

My point is there is nothing in the lore before those happened that you can point to and call a *hint* that it WILL happen.

My whole argument is specific to say you can't just call things hints just because you think it's possible. A hint implies something they *will* address in the future, even if they choose not to do it right away or they end up abandoning it.

Example - Gul'dan at the end of WoD is banished through the portal, Archimonde dies, Grom announces that Draenor is free. Yet Khadgar mentions that he thinks it's not over, and implies that Gul'dan could return again some day.

THIS is a hint, because it's an indication of something that WILL happen in the future. It's not a question of whether it is possible, it's a question of when it will happen.

Do you understand the difference I'm pointing out? Of all the examples you pointed out, none were actively *hinted* at returning. The closest I would say is Kel'thuzad since we know his Phylactery was missing, but that is still not a *hint* that he would return, just a possibility.

The others could not be predicted at all with anything in the narrative indicated that any of them would return in the story.

Does this make sense?

You can't just assign something as a hint because it seems convenient to your own Theory that something can happen. A Hint is an intentional indicator of something that WILL happen. Otherwise you'd have to be clear of calling it a *hint at a possibility*, which I'd be absolutely fine with since we're just talking about possibilities.

So, you're basically dividing between a hint that is directly refered to via text and one that isn't. If Khadgar wouldn't have said that line, then Gul'dan is not relevant, but a possibilty? because his masters don't, necessarily, require him. You need to understand that Blizzard is keeping hints and leads in the game to be used later on. Rarely do they abandon it. Most of the abandoned things are concepts that are scrapped while developing an expansion (Garrosh's Mongrel Horde). Even Neptulon's disappearance was, probably, resolved with a quest text, rather than being shown. You see, they tend to present a lot of things off-screen, through books, novels and comics. Not everything appears in game. Even Kel'thuzad's third appearance was left open through his phylactery not being destroyed. No one, actively, stated that he's going to return. Heck, they even retcon lore to reintroduce characters into the game. Nothing is beyond them if that's what they truly desire. Remember how you said their decisions are based on popularity? if all of the sudden Bards would be a popular concept, you can bet your ass off they would do something about it, even without hinting at it whatsoever. Look at how they tried to cater to the chinese audience with MoP, which came out of nowhere and felt disconnected. In the end of the day, money talks.

Context.

A hint is an indication of something Blizzard intends to make happen. A hint does not *always* have to happen though, since changes in plans can get in the way and make the hint irrelevant.

One example is Varian Wrynn and the Missing Diplomat questline. This whole quest line was a *hint* towards us finding his whereabouts and potentially saving him. Unfortunately this went nowhere, and he just appeared back into the story. We can call this a hint because Blizzard *intended* to explore this possiblity, and otherwise did nothing to dissuade or conclude it prematurely.

The Dark Ranger Loyalist situation is different in that they did hint on a playable Dark Ranger, but they tied up most of those loose ends by having all relevant Dark Ranger main characters be re-associated with the Forsaken, and left the Loyalist scattered to the wind. With Shadowlands not having followed up on any of the plot and Sylvanas being defeated by next raid, there is no purpose left for the Loyalist plotline.

Just as Varian returned without addressing the Missing Diplomat storyline, Sylvanas being defeated does not address the Loyalist plot line. Both can be considered hints that were (or are being) abandoned.

As for Dragon Isles and Light vs Void - nothing has changed and we are still edging towards them as Blizzard progresses the lore. No other lore contradicts or diminishes their possibilities.

Varian still appeared, at the end of the day, even if it wasn't shown how in-game. That is not called abandonment. That is called lack of investement. You see, they don't have to show you how a Dark Ranger is, suddenly, playable in-game. They can do it via outside sources. You seem to be a guy who believes that if you don't see something with your own eyes, then it doesn't exist.

Loyalist plotline is not the exclusive way of introducing a Dark Ranger. I don't know why you're so hanged on it. It can come from any other Dark Ranger source, be it forsaken, Sylvanas' followers or something new entirely.

*sigh*

You are yet to know what will happen with Sylvanas, yet you rush to reach conclusions. That's like declaring Illidan or Garrosh would never appear again because they are datamined as raid bosses or that they would certainly die for good if they are ones.

Nothing contradicts or diminishes? you are dismissing something based on the absence of some characters this expansion, yet you don't apply it to Wrathion missing from Shadowlands. That is a double-standard. If your standard for something being abandoned is that it doesn't appear in current expansion, then your method is, clearly, flawed.

What do you mean 'have any'? You literally quoted huge chunks of examples.

Elunes Chosen.

Wrathion's Dragonsworn.

Rebel Naga and Sea Witches.

I'll even add:

Vol'jin's death ushering in Shadow Hunters

Vault of the Wardens invasion freeing demons that open up playable Wardens.


There's plenty of examples and you've addressed none of them. I have little incentive to give you more indepth explanations when you've outright dismissed them.

Elune wasn't relevant when coming into Legion.
Wrathion didn't even appear that expansion.
You'd have to introduce playable Nagas for that. And they don't have a reason to counter the Legion as they like the destruction they cause.
Vol'jin's death happened at the Broken Shore, not in a pre-patch, if i remember correctly. Thing is, Shadow Hunter are not experts at slaying demons.
The only reasonable thing you suggested is the Warden. Point is, while they do track and hunt down their prey, it isn't demon-exclusive but rather any criminal that poses a threat to the Night elven empire.
Again, we could come up with endless possibilities if we just broaden our criteria.

I want to emphasize this because if we're talking about future playable classes, we *are* talking about endless possibilities.

If we're talking about plausability, then everyone has their own individual idea of what is and is not plausible, and we are free to agree or disagree with anyone else on the opinions. However it's usually the *misuse of evidence* to support an argument that I do not take lightly.

I have literally no problem with discussing opinions. I'm opposed to people try to support their argument with anything they can consider 'facts', because there aren't actually any facts that would ever make something more or less possible, or even plausible. I mean, the only thing I consider a factor in any class being more or less plausible is what the Designers actually think should be made. So if a Designer comes out and says 'I like Bards, I think they could be awesome!' then I consider that more relevant plausability than someone who might argues that new classes have to be from WC3 because the others were. My personal opinion here.

I've remained consistent on debunking the existence of Night Elf Dark Rangers in game as a hint that they would be playable because of this plot point. I'd be fine if you just said you think they should be playable because we have examples of an Alliance race being a Dark Ranger. But the Night Elf Dark Rangers in BFA can't be used to support that argument because the lore has concluded them as being part of the Forsaken. Blizzard would have to change that lore in order for it to be usable as supporting evidence.

One dev claiming he likes something doesn't mean all other devs agree about it.

Heck, Calia and Derek were thought to be part of the Alliance until they changed them to the Horde. This could be reasoned by the fact that they have special models that can be used for an allied race. What excuse do Dark Rangers have? nothing is unique about their model and they certainly don't help expand a playable class right now. I don't have a reason to not believe that it will be like the Death Knight situation. undead Alliance races to the Alliance and undead Horde races to the Horde. If we think about it, Void elves were part of the Horde and did not have a reason to join the Alliance. They came up with void teachings and being exiled so they could introduce a "high elven" race to the Alliance. What's preventing them from doing that with the Night elf Dark Rangers? nothing. Most, if not all classes have counterparts in both factions. There was never a faction-exclusive class (aside from the Shaman and Paladin) that was added into the game with an expansion.

We're going in circles here. First you act like you want a "full progress report", wanting to know "abilities, talents, armor sets, customization and more" for the runemaster concept. And when I call you out on that, you say you just wanted a "tiny little itsy bitsy mention", which you already got when Blizzard mentioned the runemaster as one of the prime candidates, for Wrath. Then you go back full circle to wanting a "full progress report". In short: it doesn't matter. Blizzard has considered the runemaster concept a valid candidate as Wrath's expansion class. That is all that matters.

-_-

Meaning, i don't wanna know what they do or what they look like, just them being mentioned - which, never happened.

That is a question to ask Blizzard, not me. I unfortunately wasn't present when they decided to change Azshara's model. I missed my plane.

Yet, you had the audacity to claim they did that in order to not reveal her appearance.

No. It wasn't. And Azshara was never "hinted". She already existed, since the game's inception. We had her troops carrying her orders. To "hint" at something is to give vague information that may or may not be associated with said something. Azshara was never 'hinted' at.

Neither did she play a major role. Hinting is referring to her being made into having a major role, not that she exists.

I'm assuming by "intention" you mean Sylvanas looking guilty when trying to get Anduin to "accept his fate". That said, I say it was neither, that her reaction was genuine, that she was forced into her position, because after Anduin was already converted, attacked the Archon, and returned to the Jailer with the first key, Sylvanas looked at the possessed Anduin with a look that could be interpreted as pity, guilty, and/or remorse.

No, what i meant is "are her intentions the Jailer's intentions? Because one seems to have one goal, while the other also seeks domination over all of Azeroth.

Not really. Because, again, I don't subscribe to the idea that if a character is prominently featured then it means we have to have a playable class based off said character. Especially since this is not how Blizzard releases classes. Arthas/Lich King had zero prominence during vanilla WoW and TBC. Chen had zero prominence from vanilla to Cataclysm. Illidan's only prominence was as a BBEG that died at the end of TBC.

True. But, it is just such a wasted potential...

Which is what I said. They were overtaken by their bloodlust. A bloodlust that was made stronger due to the demonic blood they consumed.

Which, didn't require much because they always were bloodthirsty maniacs. Are demonic-corrupted Orcs that much different from non-corrupted Orcs? not really... just a little bit more out of control.

And yet, Lantresor was picked as THE prominent blademaster not just once, but twice. While Samuro was left apparently forgotten. Again. I fully expected to see Samuro in WoD, after I heard that the big orc figureheads would be prominently featured. Instead we got Lantresor. Again.

I wouldn't call him prominent. Azuka Bladefury might be. He isn't. Thing is, they might be saving Samuro for the addition of playable Blademasters. That would make the most sense, because i don't see a reason to make him the face of the class in two other famous and popular games, yet do nothing about it in WoW.

No. Because there was zero martial arts in Warcraft 3. No animations, no abilities, no voice lines.

Brawl (passive)
Storm, Earth and Fire.
If he would just be making drinks, like a brewmaster vendor, he wouldn't be fighting.

No. I don't need help with that. But it shows how immature you were being since you never link to your sources, despite being asked several times already, and when I insist on the link, you play cute with your "add 'name' in front of web address".

Because it's so god damn easy.
Never mind...

Because Blizzard opted to not make runes the major thing against the demons in the Legion expansion. It would be counter-productive to the demon hunter class being added, who was announced as "fighting fire with fire" in the expansion's announcement.

In any expansion? or in lore? in anything, at all?

We could, yes. But here is the thing with claims: you have to show actual, tangible evidence that supports your claim. And me not having evidence to counter your claim does not automatically means your claim is true. You want to claim that Blizzard has considered "farting warhog" as a potential class? Cool. Show us evidence that Blizzard might have considered it, first.

-_-

The farting warthog was cynicism, you know.
And, if one side just claims it can't counter the other side, and that is doesn't have to, that side has pretty much lost the argument.

Except you technically kind of are. You are stating that the runemaster concept was rejected because it didn't match the expansion theme, despite having absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up. In fact, you have as much evidence of it as you have evidence of "they did it cuz I don't like it". All we know is that the runemaster concept lost to the death knight, in the end. Why it lost, we have absolutely zero clue.

Stating? no. Suggesting. Neither i nor you know why it lost. We can only assume. And that's what i've been doing.

Except you don't roleplay in the actual sense of the term. The "roleplay" only comes from picking and choosing how your character looks (race/class) and what graphic effects will play when you push buttons (class). There is no actual interpretation of roles in WoW, since the game offers little to no options for your character. And when they do, the choices amount to nothing of value and are reset by the end (like the loyalist/rebel options for the Horde in BfA).

-_-

Even D&D have some rules to follow. You can't just decide you're shooting laser beams out of your ass as an attack. Point is, roleplaying is not a free for all thing. It works under the constraints of the genre you are in. If you're playing a certain fantasy game, you abide to its rules and roleplay accordingly. If you play a sci-fi game, you abide to its rules and roleplay accordingly, and so on. There's never 100% freedom to do what you want to do, unless you roleplay by yourself at home.

The ones who are not part of the Scourge, really.

And, why is that?