1. #5941
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    But where are Cho and Bronzebeard's Bardic abilities? where are such abilities for Cho and Brann?
    Classes are not defined by abilities. They're defined by their concepts. Blizzard does not define their classes by specific abilities, so why do you insist otherwise?

    Yet the TTRPG had DKs, DHs, and Brewmasters/Monks....
    Repeating and emphasizing what you ignored:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Yeah. First, the TRPGs were not created by Blizzard. Second, WoW was not created inspired in the TRPGs.
    Both are instead inspired in the Warcraft franchise, but they are not related. And by the way, the TTRPG also has the necromancer and the death knight as separate classes. Food for thought.

    If someone says that every WoW expansion class has had a hero attached to it, using a class concept that was never made into a class as a counter example doesn't really work.
    Again, it works perfectly. Because, again I'll repeat because you ignored it, the runemaster was one of the three runner-ups for expansion class, meaning it beat other popular concepts like demon hunter and tinker.

    It reinforces the idea that your claim is just coincidence, especially when you consider that Blizzard took a non-monk hero and converted into a monk for the class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Their fire magic did not come from demonic sources.

    They siphon energy from demons, but back then this was implied that it was simply converted into Mana (as there was no specific Fel/Arcane magic division back then). Demons just happened to be a magical source of energy, like an elemental creature. It's kinda like how the TBC intro showed that Elf turning that mana wyrm into a little pool of mana/arcane energy.

    However the fire magic they cast is still purely arcane magic. One thing to note - Blood Elf eyes were not green in Warcraft 3. This was a TBC retcon, and even then it doesn't imply that the magic they use is Fel just because their eyes turned green. All of their racials were still Arcane based, and so are Kael's abilities in TBC.
    I'm not talking about the TBC blood elves. I'm talking about the blood mage unit from Warcraft 3.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The difference being that only Hunters can equip the bow and the quiver and use Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire.....
    And any class that can wield a bow (rogue and warrior) can also get equip the quiver AND the bow. Notice the lack of "class: hunter" requirements, so saying "only hunters can equip it" is a lie.

    Also, rogues could use Evasion which was a demon hunter ability.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  2. #5942
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    Go look at the {{ currentClassSpecPlayersAreBitchingAbout }} forums and see if your answer really is yes. I see more people wanting to developers to focus on the already too many specs in the game. Sure that complaining comes with every expansion and patch, but ever since Legion it has been A LOT louder.
    Yes, and the vast majority of people who want a new class wouldn't be coming to forums to bitch about the lack of new classes.

    Forums are always going to be the echochamber of the discontent, not the wishful thinkers who wouldn't mind seeing something new and cool.

    Demand does not always appear in the form of criticism on the forums. I mean, how much demand do you see here for a Dragonsworn? Practically zero since it's almost never talked about, and rarely lasts discussion in this forums. Yet on reddit, a simple Dragonsworn post got 8.3k upvotes showing support for the concept. You'd never see that amount of participation here. New Class polls tend to have less than 500 participants on average.

    Also, just complaining about having too many specs in the game doesn't actually negate the demand for new/more classes, any more than people saying there's too many cars on the road doesn't negate the demand for new cars. Pretty sure car companies aren't gonna stop future operations just because of the people who think there's too many cars on the road.

    Blizzard's business and the marketting and sales of WoW depends on presenting new and big features for the game. Classes are going to be a part of that conversation. Whether we get new classes in the future depends on whether Blizzard sees marketable value in pursuing. Based on their interviews for Shadowlands and why they didn't add a new class, it seems that a new class is still on the table. They said no class happened to (in their response) fit the story and setting of Shadowlands as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion. So we have a rough indication that we could get a new class if it fits the particular story and setting they want to tell in the future.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-19 at 06:15 PM.

  3. #5943
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Classes are not defined by abilities. They're defined by their concepts. Blizzard does not define their classes by specific abilities, so why do you insist otherwise?
    Classes are absolutely defined by their abilities. Hence why people are currently writing off the Dark Ranger class because Hunters got their abilities, or how Demon Hunter didn't enter the game until Warlocks lost metamorphosis. Chen, Arthas, and Illidan all had unique abilities that they had BEFORE the debut of their respective classes. Why can't we do the same for the Bard concept?


    Repeating and emphasizing what you ignored:

    Both are instead inspired in the Warcraft franchise, but they are not related. And by the way, the TTRPG also has the necromancer and the death knight as separate classes. Food for thought.
    All of which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a history of no substantial Bard concept anywhere in Warcraft. The lack of Bard characters and the lack of Bard lore even in noncanonical sources is quite telling.


    Again, it works perfectly. Because, again I'll repeat because you ignored it, the runemaster was one of the three runner-ups for expansion class, meaning it beat other popular concepts like demon hunter and tinker.

    It reinforces the idea that your claim is just coincidence, especially when you consider that Blizzard took a non-monk hero and converted into a monk for the class.
    And irrelevant once again. The Runemaster was never an actual WoW class, thus what it had and doesn't have means nothing. The only examples that matter are the ACTUAL expansion classes, and they ALL had hero characters with unique abilities that were translated into their eventual classes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Classes are not defined by abilities. They're defined by their concepts. [URL="https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/game/classes"]Blizzard does not define their classes
    And any class that can wield a bow (rogue and warrior) can also get equip the quiver AND the bow. Notice the lack of "class: hunter" requirements, so saying "only hunters can equip it" is a lie.
    They can equip the bow and the quiver, but they won't get the Dark Ranger abilities. Only Hunters get those.

    That says quite a lot.

  4. #5944
    I mean, I don't see how there can be a debate, it should be a caster/support class of some sort. the game has enough melee classes.

  5. #5945
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    I mean, I don't see how there can be a debate, it should be a caster/support class of some sort. the game has enough melee classes.
    What about physical ranged?

  6. #5946
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    What about physical ranged?
    well I would assume the class has a DPS spec along with a healing spec.

  7. #5947
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Demand does not always appear in the form of criticism on the forums. I mean, how much demand do you see here for a Dragonsworn? Practically zero since it's almost never talked about, and rarely lasts discussion in this forums. Yet on reddit, a simple Dragonsworn post got 8.3k upvotes showing support for the concept. You'd never see that amount of participation here. New Class polls tend to have less than 500 participants on average.
    That gives me hope. Honestly, what intrigues me about the Dragonsworn concept the most is what a blank slate it is. The developers could make a class based on what WoW currently is, rather than something mired in expectations originating in 20 year old games. It could be literally anything - freeform development. And while I'm not the biggest fan of WoW's current iteration, I'm open to seeing the full potential of this iteration realized.

  8. #5948
    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    Agree, that being said I would play the hell out of a Dark ranger or warden.

    I dont care single bit about tinkers.
    I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.

  9. #5949
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    I think you could even combine Dark Ranger with Warden. Dark Ranger would need a healing or tanking spec if it ever became a class and with Sira, Dark Rangers very pretty heavily thematically linked with Dark Wardens. If a class would happen I could see three specs: One more death-magic focussed Sylvanas Spec, one more blight-focussed Nathanos Spec and probably a Sira inspired Dark Warden Tank-Spec.
    Il take it. I mean I realy like this.

    I realy like your idea of sira as a warden and not the night elf warden. I feel like 2 dps and 1 tank would be bit more suitable imo. I dont see a healing spec being very fitting here and would like the dk idea of 2 dps and 1 tank spec.
    Last edited by Alanar; 2021-04-19 at 07:09 PM.

  10. #5950
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Er, why?

    Rogues getting Glaives of Azzinoth and Warlocks geting Metamorphosis didn't scratch Demon Hunters off the list. These are effects are tied to a weapon. Weapons tend to last for maybe half an expansion, and get replaced pretty quickly by the time the next expansion arrives. These aren't even End Tier Legendary weapons, these are high-end drops for a mid-tier raid, like Druid of the Flame staff from Firelands that lets you turn into a flaming kitty. I loved that staff, but it got replaced way too quickly. Wasn't even useful by the time Deathwing raid arrived.

    I mean even if these were incorporated into actual spells in the Hunter, we might have more of a talking point. But seeing how Black Arrow and Metamorphosis were treated, I probably still wouldn't go as far as saying we have playable Dark Rangers.

    I do regard this as a much more elegant way to have Hunters be able to RP as a Dark Ranger though. If there's any way to implement Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire into the Hunter class, this is much better than just straight up shoe-horning it into the class where it doesn't really fit. As I see it, with these items it will help sate the demand for playable Dark Rangers for the duration of the expansion. I think Blizzard would have to do more to keep this relevant into the future, like with glyphs or talents to keep them in play.
    All good points, but don’t be surprised if Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire are in the Hunter class next expansion.

  11. #5951
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes, and the vast majority of people who want a new class wouldn't be coming to forums to bitch about the lack of new classes.
    No. They go to other forums for that. But you can also look at the YouTubers/Twitch Streamers (as a whole, not just Bellular, Preach, etc.)

    Forums are always going to be the echochamber of the discontent, not the wishful thinkers who wouldn't mind seeing something new and cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Blizzard's business and the marketting and sales of WoW depends on presenting new and big features for the game. Classes are going to be a part of that conversation.
    Yeah. Because it makes really good business sense to put out a product where a chunk of the features are crap. And they just so happen to be the ones you want.

  12. #5952
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    Yeah. Because it makes really good business sense to put out a product where a chunk of the features are crap. And they just so happen to be the ones you want.
    Aside from the scathing sarcasm, I agree that good business should put out a good product and not crap features.

    That being said, I don't see how that would affect new classes unless we are to automatically assume that any new class will be a crap feature. If anything, it just means Blizzard should be more careful in planning a new class so that it doesn't fall into that trap, that's all. I don't think any of the classes we have so far have been considered crap features, even with balance issues in mind.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    All good points, but don’t be surprised if Wailing Arrow and Withering Fire are in the Hunter class next expansion.
    I hope they do manage to fit it, because they sound like very promising additions. I wouldn't mind having some of the Covenant abilities we have make their way into certain classes too, albeit modified to fit the theme of the class better.

  13. #5953
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Classes are absolutely defined by their abilities.
    No, they're not. It's the other way around: abilities are defined by the classes' concepts.

    Hence why people are currently writing off the Dark Ranger class because Hunters got their abilities,
    The only people fixated on abilities are the ones dismissing the concept. That says a lot, considering that's the only thing many of the anti-dark ranger can cling to, and it and shows how abilities aren't this "main pre-req" that you claim it is.

    or how Demon Hunter didn't enter the game until Warlocks lost metamorphosis.
    We can write that off as coincidence, though. For example: how do you know that the process went like this: "We are not happy with the demonology warlock." -> "we should revert it back into being a summoner spec instead of what it is today." -> metamorphosis is removed -> "The demon hunter really fits the story we're telling in this expansion." -> demon hunter is decided to become the next class -> is given metamorphosis.

    It's a fact that both warlocks and demon hunters could've had metamorphosis, considering how wildly different the two skills are. Literally their only similarity is "turn into a demon".

    Chen, Arthas, and Illidan all had unique abilities that they had BEFORE the debut of their respective classes. Why can't we do the same for the Bard concept?
    You still have to prove why it matters. We had zero runemaster abilities, and yet the concept almost became a full playable class twice.

    All of which is irrelevant.
    It's not irrelevant. You are using the TRPG as some sort of "source of inspiration" for classes in WoW, and I pointed out how the TRPG lists off the necromancer as a separate class from the death knight, which you claim to be "one and the same".

    What is relevant is that we have a history of no substantial Bard concept anywhere in Warcraft.
    Neither we have any substantial runemaster concept anywhere within Warcraft. And yet the class almost made it to become an actual, realized player class.

    The lack of Bard characters and the lack of Bard lore even in noncanonical sources is quite telling.
    And what it tells is: "all of that is irrelevant", and people have explained that to you countless times. You're deliberately ignoring the Runemaster who almost became a class not only once but twice.

    And irrelevant once again. The Runemaster was never an actual WoW class, thus what it had and doesn't have means nothing.
    It doesn't matter it was never realized into a class. And you know why? Because if all that stuff you claim are requirements for a concept to actually be a class in WoW was indeed required, then the runemaster concept would never even be considered in the first place, much less be one of the three runner-ups.

    What you're doing there is akin to a movie production company hosting a casting call for a certain role, and requiring specific characteristics-- in this example, a tall, black, thin woman-- but letting a short, white, fat man be one of the three runner-ups for the role.

    They can equip the bow and the quiver, but they won't get the Dark Ranger abilities. Only Hunters get those.

    That says quite a lot.
    Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  14. #5954
    Quote Originally Posted by draugril View Post
    That gives me hope. Honestly, what intrigues me about the Dragonsworn concept the most is what a blank slate it is. The developers could make a class based on what WoW currently is, rather than something mired in expectations originating in 20 year old games. It could be literally anything - freeform development. And while I'm not the biggest fan of WoW's current iteration, I'm open to seeing the full potential of this iteration realized.
    I'm very open to the idea of Dragonsworn because it simply makes sense. We have Dragon Isles coming up, Dragons are by far a central figure to the Warcraft lore and universe, and their powers and theme are relatively untapped by the classes.

    However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system. There are some things that I see in my mind that work better if they approached it as a Covenant system, like splitting each Dragonflight into their own subfaction instead of dividing them up into specs. It'd be difficult to explain how one class has access to all dragonflight powers without it being a case of 'borrowed power' too, since usually Dragonsworn in lore would be followers of just one Dragonflight. It's too early to tell right now, since we know nothing about what they would do with Dragon Isles and how it fits with the overall story.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-19 at 08:38 PM.

  15. #5955
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That being said, I don't see how that would affect new classes unless we are to automatically assume that any new class will be a crap feature. If anything, it just means Blizzard should be more careful in planning a new class so that it doesn't fall into that trap, that's all. I don't think any of the classes we have so far have been considered crap features, even with balance issues in mind.
    They will ALWAYS fall into that trap. Otherwise Shadow Priests would not have been complaining in BfA. BM Hunters would not be complaining now. They do NOT spend the time and resources the way they should. A former employee spilled the beans on Reddit in a subreddit for a game under Microsoft. Accountants now make more than developers. Ion can plan an awesome feature with the team but the accounts can shoot it down or hobble him. Say he plans on assigning 4 devs a month to do it. He might get 2 devs and a week.

  16. #5956
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    However I still see it being a concept so open that I'm unsure whether Blizzard will pursue it as a class, or treat it like another 'borrowed power' Covenant system.
    considering the amount of dragonflights we have (five of them: red, blue, green, yellow, black), realizing them into a single class would mean one or two of the dragonflights would be ignored (if the class has four or three specs) or they would end up merged together and so the specs would lose precious focus.

    IMO, while it can be done, I think it's best served as a 'borrowed power' style of Covenants. Especially when we consider the lesser/artificial dragonflights like Netherwing, Infinite, Storm, Twilight and others.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  17. #5957
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, they're not. It's the other way around: abilities are defined by the classes' concepts.
    Except we had several abilities BEFORE the classes even existed.

    In the end, you typed all of this because you have no Bard character with Bard abilities. Instead of just admitting that, you come up with irrelevant arguments in an effort to cover up that fact.

    Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.
    “Shots” refers to abilities like Arcane Shot, Chimera Shot, Cobra Shot, etc. Warriors and Rogues don’t have shot abilities.

  18. #5958
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    They will ALWAYS fall into that trap. Otherwise Shadow Priests would not have been complaining in BfA. BM Hunters would not be complaining now. They do NOT spend the time and resources the way they should. A former employee spilled the beans on Reddit in a subreddit for a game under Microsoft. Accountants now make more than developers. Ion can plan an awesome feature with the team but the accounts can shoot it down or hobble him. Say he plans on assigning 4 devs a month to do it. He might get 2 devs and a week.
    Well yeah.

    The cycle of WoW players is generally driven by a roller-coaster style system. Masses of casuals drop off after what they consider content is done, and they take big breaks and come back when there's a new expansion with shiny new features to play. Rest of the time it's the whales keeping the game alive.

    The designers have to maintain the game for both, and new classes and flashy features will be a better selling point than 'Maintains and improves Class Balance'.

    I worked at a Vivendi studio in the 2010's, when Wrath was just released and the merger happened. Activision would cancel entire nearly-completed projects if they didn't deem the game worth marketting. And the marketting budget is roughly equal to that spent on development.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-19 at 10:21 PM.

  19. #5959
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except we had several abilities BEFORE the classes even existed.
    "Several"? Maybe. Maybe not. But the fact is: We don't need Warcraft 3 to know what a paladin can do. What a druid can do. What a rogue can do. What a monk can do. What a death knight can do.

    In the end, you typed all of this because you have no Bard character with Bard abilities. Instead of just admitting that, you come up with irrelevant arguments in an effort to cover up that fact.
    What I typed is fact. We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.

    “Shots” refers to abilities like Arcane Shot, Chimera Shot, Cobra Shot, etc. Warriors and Rogues don’t have shot abilities.
    No, it does not refer to those abilities only. Auto-attacks with ranged weapons are also shots. If this was supposed to proc out of specific abilities, then Blizzard would specify which abilities trigger the item's special ability.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  20. #5960
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    "Several"? Maybe. Maybe not. But the fact is: We don't need Warcraft 3 to know what a paladin can do. What a druid can do. What a rogue can do. What a monk can do. What a death knight can do.
    We don’t need WC3, yet every expansion class has heavily used WC3 abilities, design, characters, etc?

    What I typed is fact. We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.
    See above.


    No, it does not refer to those abilities only. Auto-attacks with ranged weapons are also shots. If this was supposed to proc out of specific abilities, then Blizzard would specify which abilities trigger the item's special ability.
    We’ll see soon enough. I just like to know in what scenario would a Rogue or Warrior use a bow for anything but goofing around....

Posting Permissions

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