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

[tru]

They rely on borrowed power shit to make something seem fun. They don't focus on the base spec. Get the fundamentals right then you can toss a lil something on top of it. I don't trust them to do a new class.

[Triceron]

How about you answer my question first. It’s a simple yes or no answer.

Then based on your example, no. The Blingtron War isn't even happening on Azeroth. Tinkers have no connection to some secret war happening under the surface of Draenor.

It's the same answer I'd give if you asked me if Blizzard would be capable of adding Tinkers in Shadowlands. I would say no based on the developers themselves saying that setting and story informs the choice of a class, and what we have here is zero connection between Goblin Tinkers and the Blingtron War happening under the Molten Eternium Sea (Draenor).

Why couldn’t Tinker machines be field by Azerite, the blood of a Titan? Wouldn’t that connect Tinkers to the Titans?

That wouldn't be a Goblin Tinker from WC3.

Titans are beings made of pure Arcane energy. Azerite is Azeroth's crystalized lifeblood; basically concentrated Arcane energy in physical form. Arcane is magic. We're talking about a very different type of class if they are using concentrated Magic as the fuel for their contraptions.

Titan technology is basically magic. It is technology that has the power to create, alter and destroy life. I don't think that's the type of technology a WC3 Tinker would be themed around. I think the use of Magitech would make this a completely different class concept from the junk-and-scrap style of Tinker that we are talking about.

There are playable Necromancers in Shadowlands: Death Knights.

And we have Engineers to address any technological problems.

Again, what technological threat is so important that Engineers like Mekkatorque and Gazlowe can't handle?

[Ielenia]

There are playable Necromancers in Shadowlands: Death Knights.

It's a death knight class, not a necromancer class.

The thing is, Teriz: you define "necromancer" solely by the fact that it uses necromancy. But, as it has been explained numerous times to you already, the necromancer class concept is not just "necromancy" and nothing else.

And we fought plenty of demons without Demon Hunters and we got them anyway. We fought plenty of undead before we got Death Knights, and we got them anyway.

By that logic, we won't need tinkers to fight a technology-based menace.

[Teriz]

Mists of Pandaria was not based around Chen, and Legion was not based around Illidan, either. Of all 3 class-bringing expansions, only Wrath was based around the 'class character', i.e. the Lich King.

I said the classes, not the expansions.

It doesn't say that. That an extrapolation of what you read which is nothing but your opinion.

From the Ultimate Visual Guide:

Necromancers are practitioners of necromancy (also called the dark arts[2][3] or the black arts)[4] the study and use of magic to raise and control the dead (1).[5] Necromantic magic (or death magic) has many functions beyond simply raising the dead. Masters of this tainted field of magic can conjure festering diseases (2), harness the shadows into bolts of incendiary energy (3), and chill the living with the power of death (4). Necromancy can also be used to reconstruct the flesh of undead creatures, allowing them to function again even after the foul monsters have been destroyed (5).[6] Necromancers are the enemies of life itself, and all hands are raised against them. Some of the worst evils in Azeroth's history have been perpetrated by necromancers, and they deserve their malevolent reputation. Few things are as abhorrent and horrifying as necromancy.[5]

1. Raise Dead, All Will Serve, Frostwyrm's Fury, Apocalypse, Reanimation, Army of the Dead, Summon Abomination, etc.
2. Blood Plague, Epidemic, Frost Fever, Unholy Blight, Ebon Plague, etc.
3. Death Coil, Clawed Shadows, Death's Caress
4. Frost spec
5. Sacrificial Pact, Corpse Explosion, Bonestorm, Bone Shield

In your opinion.

See above.

Another reason to make a "covenant" system out of it.

Why? There's a necromancer class AND a necromancy-based covenant system in Shadowlands currently. Why couldn't the same be true for the Tinker class and a technology-based expansion?

Um... no? The death knight class is not even remotely related at all to the covenant system. The covenant system did not depend on the death knight class to exist. Just like the Legion's order halls did not need the demon hunter to exist. This is a wild and unsupported claim you're stating as fact, here.

I never said it did. I'm saying that there's already a necromancer class in WoW (Death Knights) and we have a covenant system based on the theme of necromancy.

Which wasn't added in Shadowlands. This expansion has shown that it doesn't need a class or a race to be successful. The expansion seems "immersive" enough without a class.

The DK class was expanded in Shadowlands though, with Panadaren and Allied races added, exclusive weaponry, new abilities, an expansion of the Necromancer theme into all DK specs, etc. There was no new class added because there was already a death class.

[razorpax]

Tinker covenant system could work

Goblin more explosive and offensive

Gnome more defensive and CC focused

[Teriz]

Then based on your example, no. The Blingtron War isn't even happening on Azeroth. Tinkers have no connection to some secret war happening under the surface of Draenor.

Uh, you didn't read all of the messages. The Blingtron War spread to Azeroth in BFA.

It's the same answer I'd give if you asked me if Blizzard would be capable of adding Tinkers in Shadowlands. I would say no based on the developers themselves saying that setting and story informs the choice of a class, and what we have here is zero connection between Goblin Tinkers and the Blingtron War happening under the Molten Eternium Sea (Draenor).

A Tinker class being added in a technology based expansion is different than a Tinker class being added in a necromancy-based expansion.

As for Draenor, see above.

That wouldn't be a Goblin Tinker from WC3.

Sure it would. The fuel source doesn't change what the roots of the class are. Further, the Tinker would likely be a base class like the Monk, so you're probably looking at the class not even being called a Tinker, but the Tinker in of itself being entered as a specialization, just like the Brewmaster.

Titans are beings made of pure Arcane energy. Azerite is Azeroth's crystalized lifeblood; basically concentrated Arcane energy in physical form. Arcane is magic. We're talking about a very different type of class if they are using concentrated Magic as the fuel for their contraptions.

They already exist;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Azerite_Tank
https://www.wowhead.com/mission=1916...n-to-auberdine

And we have Engineers to address any technological problems.

Again, what technological threat is so important that Engineers like Mekkatorque and Gazlowe can't handle?

A technological threat that is so overwhelming that they would need more technological geniuses to help them.

Which is completely possible.

- - - Updated - - -

Tinker covenant system could work

Goblin more explosive and offensive

Gnome more defensive and CC focused

People are going to be wondering where the class is. A covenant system only lasts for an expansion, and not every class gels with a technology ability. It's not a satisfactory substitute.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a death knight class, not a necromancer class.

The thing is, Teriz: you define "necromancer" solely by the fact that it uses necromancy. But, as it has been explained numerous times to you already, the necromancer class concept is not just "necromancy" and nothing else.

What?

nec·ro·man·cer
/ˈnekrəˌmansər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: necromancer; plural noun: necromancers
a person who practices necromancy;

That's the literal definition of the word.

By that logic, we won't need tinkers to fight a technology-based menace.

No, by that logic what we beat in the past without class X has no bearing on class X appearing as a future class.

[Triceron]

Uh, you didn't read all of the messages. The Blingtron War spread to Azeroth in BFA.

And its story is pretty much a mirror of what we already got in BFA.

I don't think it's enough to warrant an entire expansion on. It remains an easter egg.

A Tinker class being added in a technology based expansion is different than a Tinker class being added in a necromancy-based expansion.

And it would be excluded for the same reasons a Necromancer class would be excluded from a Necromancy-based expansion. The connections are already tied to an existing concept that encapsulates the themes - Engineers. For all other purposes, there are Covenants to cover this.

Again, what can Tinkers actually offer that isn't already covered by Engineers and potential Covenants?

Sure it would. The fuel source doesn't change what the roots of the class are. Further, the Tinker would likely be a base class like the Monk, so you're probably looking at the class not even being called a Tinker, but the Tinker in of itself being entered as a specialization, just like the Brewmaster.

Okay, sure.

They could use Azerite to fuel their contraptions. Unfortunately Azerite does not seem very relevant to future expansions, so I'm not quite sure what the point would be. It would be like saying Tinkers could use Saronite to have a connection to Old Gods - is this really a strong setting and story to tie Tinkers to an Old God related expansion?

[Teriz]

And its story is pretty much a mirror of what we already got in BFA.

I don't think it's enough to warrant an entire expansion on. It remains an easter egg.

And again, do you think that Blizzard couldn't produce an expansion where the main antagonist is a mechanical?

You're acting like a mechanical antagonist is something alien to popular fiction, something that Blizzard loves to pull ideas from.

Hell, they gave Mekkatorque an Arc Reactor.

And it would be excluded for the same reasons a Necromancer class would be excluded from a Necromancy-based expansion. The connections are already tied to an existing concept that encapsulates the themes - Engineers. For all other purposes, there are Covenants to cover this.

Except the Necromancer class wasn't excluded in Shadowlands. Death Knights got quite a bit of expansion in Shadowlands; Allied races, exclusive weapons, the return of 2H, new Runes, expanded Necromancer themes, some actual new abilities that weren't covenant based, etc.

Again, what can Tinkers actually offer that isn't already covered by Engineers and potential Covenants?

The exact same thing Death Knights offered players in WotLK, Monks offered in MoP, and Demon Hunters offered in Legion.

Okay, sure.

They could use Azerite to fuel their contraptions. Unfortunately Azerite does not seem very relevant to future expansions, so I'm not quite sure what the point would be. It would be like saying Tinkers could use Saronite to have a connection to Old Gods - it doesn't really make much sense.

Azerite greatly enhances the power of machines though. So that could lead to the develop of more advanced weapons that could be helpful for a variety of potential threats. Add that to some possible reverse engineering of titan technology, and the door's wide open conceptually speaking.

[Ielenia]

I said the classes, not the expansions.

Alright. The monk class was based off no existing hero, considering we had a grand total of zero monk heroes in the lore until MoP.

From the Ultimate Visual Guide:

1. Raise Dead, All Will Serve, Frostwyrm's Fury, Apocalypse, Reanimation, Army of the Dead, Summon Abomination, etc.
2. Blood Plague, Epidemic, Frost Fever, Unholy Blight, Ebon Plague, etc.
3. Death Coil, Clawed Shadows, Death's Caress
4. Frost spec
5. Sacrificial Pact, Corpse Explosion, Bonestorm, Bone Shield

I was right: all this is nothing but extrapolation out of what you read, considering at no point they call the death knights "necromancers", therefore you saying that the UVG says that death knights and necromancers are "one and the same" is nothing but your opinion.

There's a necromancer class

There is no necromancer class. The death knight class is no more a necromancer class than the paladin class is a priest class.

I never said it did.

You literally wrote, and I quote: "And Covenants only work because we have the Death Knight class." meaning you linked the existence of the covenant system to the death knight class.

The DK class was expanded in Shadowlands though, with Panadaren and Allied races added, exclusive weaponry, new abilities, an expansion of the Necromancer theme into all DK specs, etc. There was no new class added because there was already a death class.

And none of that precludes the inclusion of a necromancer class. If the current classes can share themes, then so can the death knight share its themes.

- - - Updated - - -

A technological threat that is so overwhelming that they would need more technological geniuses to help them.

And what could it possibly be? The Azeroth heroes managed to kill Titan machines left and right without the aid of engineer geniuses, so what could possibly be above the Titans' technology?

- - - Updated - - -

What?



That's the literal definition of the word.

Dictionary definitions? Alright, let's go! Let's go check what the dictionary definitions of "tinker" are:

"Especially in the past, a person who travelled from place to place, repairing pans or other metal containers"

"In former times, a tinker was a person who did not have a fixed home, but travelled from place to place mending metal pots and doing other small repair jobs."

"a mender of pots, kettles, pans, etc., usually an itinerant.
an unskillful or clumsy worker; bungler."

"a: a usually itinerant mender of household utensils
b: an unskillful mender"

So, by the dictionary definition, a tinker is less skilled than an engineer. Therefore, if engineering is just a profession, 'tinker' doesn't qualify even to that level, much less to the level of being a playable class, like you love to tout classes are superior to professions.

No, by that logic what we beat in the past without class X has no bearing on class X appearing as a future class.

So, by your logic, we defeating the "big bad of necromancy", i.e., the Jailer, that has no bearing on a playable necromancer class appearing in the future?

[Teriz]

Alright. The monk class was based off no existing hero, considering we had a grand total of zero monk heroes in the lore until MoP.

This is the Monk hero whom was featured on the cover of MoP;



He certainly resembles Chen Stormstout the hero unit from WC3.

I was right: all this is nothing but extrapolation out of what you read, considering at no point they call the death knights "necromancers", therefore you saying that the UVG says that death knights and necromancers are "one and the same" is nothing but your opinion.

So the fact that Death Knights can do everything that Necromancers can do and perform Necromancy doesn't make them necromancers?

There is no necromancer class. The death knight class is no more a necromancer class than the paladin class is a priest class.

How is the Death Knight not a necromancer class when it uses Necromancy? Your argument makes no logical sense.

You literally wrote, and I quote: "And Covenants only work because we have the Death Knight class." meaning you linked the existence of the covenant system to the death knight class.

Incorrect. I'm saying that if we didn't have a necromancer class and covenants full of necromancer abilities, people would be asking where's the necromancer class?

And none of that precludes the inclusion of a necromancer class. If the current classes can share themes, then so can the death knight share its themes.

The specs share themes, not the classes themselves. And as shown by the definition of the necromancer from the UVG the DK covers the entire spectrum of Necromancy in Warcraft.

And what could it possibly be? The Azeroth heroes managed to kill Titan machines left and right without the aid of engineer geniuses, so what could possibly be above the Titans' technology?

We fought watchers and constructs who were programed to protect the secrets of the facilities and guard against intruders. We never fought an enemy who was purposely utilizing titan technology and weapons to destroy us. There's a difference.

Dictionary definitions? Alright, let's go! Let's go check what the dictionary definitions of "tinker" are:

"Especially in the past, a person who travelled from place to place, repairing pans or other metal containers"

"In former times, a tinker was a person who did not have a fixed home, but travelled from place to place mending metal pots and doing other small repair jobs."

"a mender of pots, kettles, pans, etc., usually an itinerant.
an unskillful or clumsy worker; bungler."

"a: a usually itinerant mender of household utensils
b: an unskillful mender"

So, by the dictionary definition, a tinker is less skilled than an engineer. Therefore, if engineering is just a profession, 'tinker' doesn't qualify even to that level, much less to the level of being a playable class, like you love to tout classes are superior to professions.

Well as I've said many times. find the quote where Blizzard stated that they took the ideas surrounding the tinker and placed them in the engineering profession. We have that quote for Necromancers and Death Knights.

So, by your logic, we defeating the "big bad of necromancy", i.e., the Jailer, that has no bearing on a playable necromancer class appearing in the future?

We already have a necromancer class. Why do we need another one?

[Triceron]

And again, do you think that Blizzard couldn't produce an expansion where the main antagonist is a mechanical?

You're acting like a mechanical antagonist is something alien to popular fiction, something that Blizzard loves to pull ideas from.

Can't and Won't are two different things.

I don't think they can't make a Murloc the major villain of an expansion, but that they won't make one.

The exact same thing Death Knights offered players in WotLK, Monks offered in MoP, and Demon Hunters offered in Legion.

Like I said. Shadowlands has changed the precedent. If Shadowlands didn't exist, I'd be pressed to agree with you. I very much expected a new class in this expansion, and that there isn't AND that it's so far outselling every expansion before it in the past 10 years may be very telling of how things go in the future.

Azerite greatly enhances the power of machines though.

Because it was a macguffin for BFA's faction war. It practically had zero relevance by the end of BFA, and has absolutely no relevance in Shadowlands carrying forward. It's not likely to make a return except in some bare mentions in lore, much like Saronite.

[Ielenia]

This is the Monk hero whom was featured on the cover of MoP;

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91yqig7ZOdL.jpg

He certainly resembles Chen Stormstout the hero unit from WC3.

Chen Stormstout. Who was never a monk until MoP came along. Who has never showed up in WoW until MoP came along.

So the fact that Death Knights can do everything that Necromancers can do and perform Necromancy doesn't make them necromancers?

No more than priests doing everything paladins can makes them paladins.

How is the Death Knight not a necromancer class

The death knight class is not a necromancer class just like the paladin class is not the priest class.

I'm saying that if we didn't have a necromancer class

We don't have a necromancer class.

people would be asking where's the necromancer class?

And we are asking for a necromancer class, in case you didn't notice.

The specs share themes, not the classes themselves. And as shown by the definition of the necromancer from the UVG the DK covers the entire spectrum of Necromancy in Warcraft.

And paladins cover the entire spectrum of holy magic in Warcraft. Yet we still have priests.

We fought watchers and constructs who were programed to protect the secrets of the facilities and guard against intruders. We never fought an enemy who was purposely utilizing titan technology and weapons to destroy us. There's a difference.

Flame Leviathan, XT-002 Deconstructor, V0L-7R-0N, Fel Reaver, Doomwalker and others beg to differ.

Well as I've said many times. find the quote where Blizzard stated that they took the ideas surrounding the tinker and placed them in the engineering profession. We have that quote for Necromancers and Death Knights.

And now you're moving the goalposts. You brought dictionary definitions to this argument, therefore it's fair for me to also bring dictionary definitions for your beloved fan class concept.

We already have a necromancer class.

We don't. That's a fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it was a macguffin for BFA's faction war. It practically had zero relevance by the end of BFA, and has absolutely no relevance in Shadowlands carrying forward. It's not likely to make a return except in some bare mentions in lore, much like Saronite.

Not to mention Azerite use might end up banned in the lore considering it's the blood of the Titan the planet of Azeroth is holding, and would make the Alliance and the Horde nothing more than leeches by draining the lifeblood of the planet for their own profits. I imagine the Earthen ring would have something to say about it, and so would Magni.

Remember that our entire goal during the beginning of BfA was to close Azerite veins, i.e., wounds, and stop those who were trying to exploit the Azerite.

[Teriz]

Can't and Won't are two different things.

I don't think they can't make a Murloc the major villain of an expansion, but that they won't make one.

Is there some reason why you refuse to answer a basic question?

Like I said. Shadowlands has changed the precedent. If Shadowlands didn't exist, I'd be pressed to agree with you. I very much expected a new class in this expansion, and that there isn't AND that it's so far outselling every expansion before it in the past 10 years may be very telling of how things go in the future.

There wasn't a new class in Shadowlands because we already had a necromancer class. Again, why would we need another one?

Because it was a macguffin for BFA's faction war. It practically had zero relevance by the end of BFA, and has absolutely no relevance in Shadowlands carrying forward. It's not likely to make a return except in some bare mentions in lore, much like Saronite.

It has no relevance in Shadowlands because we're not on Azeroth. However, there's still a sword in the planet, and there's still cosmic powers vying for power over the world soul. So yeah, it's still in play. We're also only in 9.05. We should probably wait to make such major predictions until after we see previews for the future patches.

- - - Updated - - -

Chen Stormstout. Who was never a monk until MoP came along.

In your opinion.

No more than priests doing everything paladins can makes them paladins.

How is that relevant to Necromancers and DKs?

The death knight class is not a necromancer class just like the paladin class is not the priest class.

Again, how is that relevant at all?

We don't have a necromancer class.

Do we have a class that uses Necromancy in all of its specs, yes or no?

And we are asking for a necromancer class, in case you didn't notice.

A handful of people, certainly. As I said, there will always be people who want more than what's being offered, even if what they want is already in the game.

And paladins cover the entire spectrum of holy magic in Warcraft. Yet we still have priests.

Yes, because Priests balance Holy magic with Shadow magic, and is the only class to do so.

Flame Leviathan, XT-002 Deconstructor, V0L-7R-0N, Fel Reaver, Doomwalker and others beg to differ.

We encountered the first 4 inside titan facilities. Fel Reavers and Doomwalkers had nothing to do with the Titans. I'm talking about an entity that takes Titan technology and proceeds to attack us with it without us venturing into those facilities. In other words, if you stay out of titan facilities, you won't have to fight VOL-7R-ON. However, what if an antagonist changed that, and V0L-7R-0N is attacking Stormwind? That's what I'm talking about.

And now you're moving the goalposts. You brought dictionary definitions to this argument, therefore it's fair for me to also bring dictionary definitions for your beloved fan class concept.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that if you believe the argument that the Tinker is just an engineer, then back it up with evidence like I have with the necromancer and DK.

We don't. That's a fact.

Again, do we have a class that is utilizing Necromantic magic in all of its specializations? Yes or no.

[Revamp Man]

Uh, you didn't read all of the messages. The Blingtron War spread to Azeroth in BFA.



A Tinker class being added in a technology based expansion is different than a Tinker class being added in a necromancy-based expansion.

As for Draenor, see above.



Sure it would. The fuel source doesn't change what the roots of the class are. Further, the Tinker would likely be a base class like the Monk, so you're probably looking at the class not even being called a Tinker, but the Tinker in of itself being entered as a specialization, just like the Brewmaster.



They already exist;

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Azerite_Tank
https://www.wowhead.com/mission=1916...n-to-auberdine



A technological threat that is so overwhelming that they would need more technological geniuses to help them.

Which is completely possible.

- - - Updated - - -



People are going to be wondering where the class is. A covenant system only lasts for an expansion, and not every class gels with a technology ability. It's not a satisfactory substitute.

- - - Updated - - -



What?



That's the literal definition of the word.




No, by that logic what we beat in the past without class X has no bearing on class X appearing as a future class.

but that wouldnt happen with a dragon class being turned into covenant style system

choke on hypocrisy

- - - Updated - - -

Can't and Won't are two different things.

I don't think they can't make a Murloc the major villain of an expansion, but that they won't make one.



Like I said. Shadowlands has changed the precedent. If Shadowlands didn't exist, I'd be pressed to agree with you. I very much expected a new class in this expansion, and that there isn't AND that it's so far outselling every expansion before it in the past 10 years may be very telling of how things go in the future.



Because it was a macguffin for BFA's faction war. It practically had zero relevance by the end of BFA, and has absolutely no relevance in Shadowlands carrying forward. It's not likely to make a return except in some bare mentions in lore, much like Saronite.

also azerite can go dormant as well

the topper of gallywix's staff has always been made of azerite but it wasnt special until after daddy sargeras penetrated her desert hole with his sword

[Teriz]

but that wouldnt happen with a dragon class being turned into covenant style system

choke on hypocrisy

No, because the entire point of your concept is a mortal swearing loyalty to a dragon or a dragon flight. When the expansion is over, why would the dragon or the flight need you anymore? How would you maintain your connection to dragons from expansion to expansion? Would Blizzard give you special missions from individual flights to keep the lore going?

A far simpler solution is if you're a Paladin and you enter a Dragon Isles expansion, during that expansion you work with and swear loyalty to various flights in order to beat the big bad of that expansion. Once the expansion ends, you go back to just being a Paladin again, and the dragons take their abilities back from you. Just like the covenant system.

Where's the hypocrisy?

[Revamp Man]

No, because the entire point of your concept is a mortal swearing loyalty to a dragon or a dragon flight. When the expansion is over, why would the dragon or the flight need you anymore? How would you maintain your connection to dragons from expansion to expansion? Would Blizzard give you special missions from individual flights to keep the lore going?

A far simpler solution is if you're a Paladin and you enter a Dragon Isles expansion, during that expansion you work with and swear loyalty to various flights in order to beat the big bad of that expansion. Once the expansion ends, you go back to just being a Paladin again, and the dragons take their abilities back from you. Just like the covenant system.

Where's the hypocrisy?

why would the flight take the power away??
did DKs lose their power when they went against the LK???

the hypocrisy is how you can literally use the tinkers as a covenant system in the same way but you say "no because theres no tech class"

[Triceron]

Is there some reason why you refuse to answer a basic question?

? I answered you pretty clearly.

No, Blizzard would not make a mechanical main antagonist.

Could they make it? Yes, just as much as they could make a Murloc main antagonist, we have zero control over what they can make.

Would they make it? No, because bo mechanical major villain has been hinted at that has a connection to the main plot. The Blingtron War is little more than an easter egg and there are no known mechanical major villains out there, hinted or otherwise.

Mechanical villains sure, we had Mechagon with one. Expansion main villain no, because the major villains aren't your typical 'Villain of the week' variety, they are all established and have strong roots to the Warcraft universe and main plot. Illidan, Kil'jaedan, Arthas, Deathwing, Garrosh, Gul'dan, Archimonde, Sargeras, N'zoth and now Sylvanas and the Jailer who masterminded the Lich King. We know we have Void Lords to address in the future, as well as potential villainous Army of the Light. Each of these major villains has deep roots in the ongoing major narrative.

Let's take a look at MoP, which introduced a new continent and new threat races like Mogu and Mantid, but no major villain that was tied to Pandaria. Lei Shen wasn't even the major villain of Pandaria, Garrosh was. Lei Shen had no roots to the main narrative, wheras Garrosh was a deeply established figure and everyone knows who Garrosh compared to a new threat like Lei Shen, even if he's an 'ancient threat' jn the narrative

A mechanical major villain has no roots to the ongoing plot. There are no ties to the major themes and encounters we've had or will have in the future.

Where is there any refusal to answer? I've been blatantly clear here. Can't and Won't are two different things, and it won't happen because a new mechanical threat is not major threat material.

Again, why would we need another one?

We don't need another anything. Shadowlands has shown that they are successful without any new classes.

What they would consider is if a class happens to jump out at them that fits with the setting and story of their upcoming expansions and the Necromancer only fits 1/4 of the expansion's setting.

It has no relevance in Shadowlands because we're not on Azeroth. However, there's still a sword in the planet, and there's still cosmic powers vying for power over the world soul. So yeah, it's still in play. We're also only in 9.05. We should probably wait to make such major predictions until after we see previews for the future patches.

It was a macguffin for Alliance and Horde to fight each other, and now the Horde and Alliance are both focused on taking down Sylvanas and the Jailer. We're in the Shadowlands so I doubt previews for future patches would deal with Azerite again. I mean, what's the point of even bringing it back into the story?

[Teriz]

why would the flight take the power away??

Because they only give that power through your service to them. If you're not serving them, why would they keep giving you power?

did DKs lose their power when they went against the LK???

Why would they? Nothing indicated that they would lose power after being abandoned by the Lich King.

the hypocrisy is how you can literally use the tinkers as a covenant system in the same way but you say "no because theres no tech class"

Except you can't. Players would be wondering why there's no technology class in the game in an expansion based on technology. Covenants don't properly cover the technology theme for the player, and it will make the player feel generally disconnected from the theme of the expansion. A technology class changes that because it gives the player an opportunity to delve deeper into the expansion's theme.

Frankly the same would have been said about a death class in Shadowlands if we didn't already have a Death Knight class.

- - - Updated - - -

? I answered you pretty clearly.

No, Blizzard would not make a mechanical main antagonist.

Could they make it? Yes, just as much as they could make a Murloc main antagonist, we have zero control over what they can make.

Would they make it? No, because bo mechanical major villain has been hinted at that has a connection to the main plot. The Blingtron War is little more than an easter egg and there are no known mechanical major villains out there, hinted or otherwise.

Wouldn't those encrypted messages be an example of a hint of a major incoming plot, especially since they occur over multiple expansions?

Mechanical villains sure, we had Mechagon with one. Expansion main villain no, because the major villains aren't your typical 'Villain of the week' variety, they are all established and have strong roots to the Warcraft universe and main plot. Illidan, Kil'jaedan, Arthas, Deathwing, Garrosh, Gul'dan, Archimonde, Sargeras, N'zoth and now Sylvanas and the Jailer who masterminded the Lich King. We know we have Void Lords to address in the future, as well as potential villainous Army of the Light. Each of these major villains has deep roots in the ongoing major narrative.

Garrosh didn't appear in WoW until TBC. We just learned about the Jailer in Shadowlands, and the only reason he has deep roots is because of Sylvanas' actions. Once again we're just in 9.02. Whose to say Blizzard won't continue seeding this villain in upcoming patches?

Let's take a look at MoP, which introduced a new continent and new threat races like Mogu and Mantid, but no major villain that was tied to Pandaria. Lei Shen wasn't even the major villain of Pandaria, Garrosh was. Lei Shen had no roots to the main narrative, wheras Garrosh was a deeply established figure and everyone knows who Garrosh compared to a new threat like Lei Shen, even if he's an 'ancient threat' jn the narrative

A mechanical major villain has no roots to the ongoing plot. There are no ties to the major themes and encounters we've had or will have in the future.

Where is there any refusal to answer? I've been blatantly clear here. Can't and Won't are two different things, and it won't happen because a new mechanical threat is not major threat material.

And like I said, it's all a matter of seeding this villain in upcoming patches and possibly expansions. Why would Blizzard be incapable of doing that? You continuously act like a simple process is some major roadblock when most of it simply comes down to writing.

We don't need another anything. Shadowlands has shown that they are successful without any new classes.

Again, only because we already had a class that fit the theme of the expansion.

What they would consider is if a class happens to jump out at them that fits with the setting and story of their upcoming expansions and the Necromancer only fits 1/4 of the expansion's setting.

Actually 3/5s. Revendreth is the birthplace and origin of Blood magic. The Maw also fits strongly with the Death Knight's theme of death and torment. The only aspects that are outside of the Death Knight concept is Ardenwald and Bastion.

It was a macguffin for Alliance and Horde to fight each other, and now the Horde and Alliance are both focused on taking down Sylvanas and the Jailer. We're in the Shadowlands so I doubt previews for future patches would deal with Azerite again. I mean, what's the point of even bringing it back into the story?

Because it's an energy source that isn't going away given how it's described in BFA. Also I'm sure fans would appreciate a major aspect of a previous expansion carrying over to future expansions. Something major like Azerite should change how the world operates, especially given it's established effect on machinery. Technology-wise, Azerite should cause some form of industrial revolution on Azeroth. This should especially be the case among Goblins and Gnomes given that Gazlowe now leads the Goblins and Mekkatorque has united the Gnomes.

[Polybius]

I'm surprised they didn't make a Necromancer in Shadowlands even though we have too many dark-themed classes. Instead they baked potential spells into Covenants. I hope they ditch it to expand the Talent system to accomodate system spells, or to focus on a new class and keep the balance of classes.

Assuming the Dragon Isle is the next story focus, Dragonsworn is a strong candidate. It may end up as a character system instead. They really need to realize players want archetypes and not borrowed powers.

[Teriz]

I'm surprised they didn't make a Necromancer in Shadowlands even though we have too many dark-themed classes. Instead they baked potential spells into Covenants. I hope they ditch it to expand the Talent system to accomodate system spells, or to focus on a new class and keep the balance of classes.

I'm really not surprised. Blizzard stated years ago that they baked the Necromancer into the Death Knight class and people simply ignored it, pushing their own views on what a Necromancer should be instead of simply accepting Blizzard's interpretation of a Necromancer class. I just hope that Blizzard doesn't view the expansion of the DK class as a substitute for a new class.

Assuming the Dragon Isle is the next story focus, Dragonsworn is a strong candidate. It may end up as a character system instead. They really need to realize players want archetypes and not borrowed powers.

Whether the next expansion is Dragon Isles, or Undermine, or something else, there needs to be a new class. Six years without a new class is a long time, especially when games like FFXIV bring out new classes every expansion. Sometimes two at the same time. Granted FF classes aren't nearly as deep as WoW classes, but 3 new classes in 20 years is a little ridiculous.