Dragonflight Alpha/Beta General Discussion

[Das Thora]

I recall Towellie saying something a few months ago about 10.0 being "different".

I mean, that's just a fair guess given that Cata was a sort of WoW 2 and Legion set the new design and gameplay precedent for BFA and SL (1.0, 4.0, 7.0, 10.0), but that doesn't mean Blizzard is going to suddenly send us to Draenor's moon where we fight cat robots using just scissors.

[SniperCT]

I mean, that's just a fair guess given that Cata was a sort of WoW 2 and Legion set the new design and gameplay precedent for BFA and SL (1.0, 4.0, 7.0, 10.0), but that doesn't mean Blizzard is going to suddenly send us to Draenor's moon where we fight cat robots using just scissors.

What about going to the moon to work with elune to empower the lunar dragonflight

[KayRule]

I really hope it is Evoker, simply because I'd really love a massive sledgehammer to the increasingly stagnating and boring debates and arguments over what can and can't be a class.

[Hitei]

Monks are also just a standard D&D fantasy class everyone is aware of regardless of if they've played D&D or anything like it or not. Evoker is not.

Doesn't really matter? The selling point of a class isn't in the recognizability of its name, but what it actually is No one saw the recent trend of JRPGs using names like "Astrologer" and decided "wow that's awful why isn't it named 'Wizard', I'll never play that". If they added (tinker) to the game but called it "Machinist" because they didn't like how silly Tinker sounds, no one would be confused. They'd see a tech class with robots and mechsuits or whatever, and decide if they want to play it or not.

If they announce an "Evoker" and its a mail caster turning into drakes and using sand breath and other dragon shit, people will go "Oh it's like a dragon based class" and that will be that, not get hung up on the fact that Evoker isn't a base D&D class or that NPCs with that in their name haven't been dragon-based in the past.

[Cosmic Janitor]

It could just be called evoker because each spec “evokes” the power of different dragon flights. That’s how I envision it

Call it at least invoker then..
Linguistically evoke from evocare would imply something to be "called out" (not in the modern meaning of blaming afaik), wheres invoke from invocare would imply "calling up", which would fit way better with the intent of channeling the powers of the flights.

Here is the thing: Obviously Blizzard can name their stuff whatever they want, but all they'd be doing here is that they show once again that they (the current clown possy) don't remember their own lore. WoW may not be DnD, but WoW built it's magic system on the back of DnDs and therefore made that part of it it's own lore. It also doesn't make sense to name name a class after a widly known mage synonym when you could name your dragon-power-channeling class something way catchier.

I honestly wonder why people are so adamant about definding this rubbish leak so much.

[Therougetitan]

Call it at least invoker then..
Linguistically evoke from evocare would imply something to be "called out" (not in the modern meaning of blaming afaik), wheres invoke from invocare would imply "calling up", which would fit way better with the intent of channeling the powers of the flights.

Here is the thing: Obviously Blizzard can name their stuff whatever they want, but all they'd be doing here is that they show once again that they (the current clown possy) don't remember their own lore. WoW may not be DnD, but WoW built it's magic system on the back of DnDs and therefore made that part of it it's own lore. It also doesn't make sense to name name a class after a widly known mage synonym when you could name your dragon-power-channeling class something way catchier.

At the end of the day none of this matters when people see the video and get excited for the new expansion. People will stop arguing what can or cannot be a class name. No one will care it is called Evoker.

[Luck4]

1 day !!!

[ChronoSul]

What about going to the moon to work with elune to empower the lunar dragonflight

The dragon isles actually being on the moon could work since no one can find them i guess

[Shizari]

SOON

[Mferna]

Call it at least invoker then..
Linguistically evoke from evocare would imply something to be "called out" (not in the modern meaning of blaming afaik), wheres invoke from invocare would imply "calling up", which would fit way better with the intent of channeling the powers of the flights.

Here is the thing: Obviously Blizzard can name their stuff whatever they want, but all they'd be doing here is that they show once again that they (the current clown possy) don't remember their own lore. WoW may not be DnD, but WoW built it's magic system on the back of DnDs and therefore made that part of it it's own lore. It also doesn't make sense to name name a class after a widly known mage synonym when you could name your dragon-power-channeling class something way catchier.

I honestly wonder why people are so adamant about definding this rubbish leak so much.

Thanks for the English 101 professor

[horizon nowhere]

At the end of the day none of this matters when people see the video and get excited for the new expansion. People will stop arguing what can or cannot be a class name. No one will care it is called Evoker.

The new arguments will just be "why is x being added instead of y"

[FossilFree]

Call it at least invoker then..
Linguistically evoke from evocare would imply something to be "called out" (not in the modern meaning of blaming afaik), wheres invoke from invocare would imply "calling up", which would fit way better with the intent of channeling the powers of the flights.

Here is the thing: Obviously Blizzard can name their stuff whatever they want, but all they'd be doing here is that they show once again that they (the current clown possy) don't remember their own lore. WoW may not be DnD, but WoW built it's magic system on the back of DnDs and therefore made that part of it it's own lore. It also doesn't make sense to name name a class after a widly known mage synonym when you could name your dragon-power-channeling class something way catchier.

I honestly wonder why people are so adamant about definding this rubbish leak so much.

This is a weird thing to say when evocation comes directly from DnD.

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/wizard:evocation

[Cosmic Janitor]

This is a weird thing to say when evocation comes directly from DnD.

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/wizard:evocation

And if you'd actually read your link you would realize that evocation is simply what mages in WoW already are, because it's one of the most prevalent schools of magic being taught in dalaran. So calling something else entirely evoker would just be nonsense.

Again I ask, why are people so adamant about definding this rubbish leak?

[Hitei]

I honestly wonder why people are so adamant about definding this rubbish leak so much.

I mean... you're the one trying to apply latin definitions as some weird side argument for why it can't be used. An argument that doesn't even hold up well since calling out/forth is the logical action here for a class calling forth dragon magic. Invocare (call upon) doesn't make much sense unless your class is literally summoning dragons (i.e. calling upon them).

It's also not even a matter of defending a leak, so much as it's pointing out that people apply really faulty reasons for why a thing can't be added.

[FossilFree]

And if you'd actually read your link you would realize that evocation is simply what mages in WoW already are, because it's one of the most prevalent schools of magic being taught in dalaran. So calling something else entirely evoker would just be nonsense.

Again I ask, why are people so adamant about definding this rubbish leak?

And arcane mages are supposedly going the way of old demonology. That was part of the leak too. So yes, seeming like mages isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[m4Zzo928]

I think we’re getting baited a bit, but I do think the expansion will in some sense be dragon related, but not how we think, definitely not like that leak.

[Mferna]

I mean... you're the one trying to apply latin definitions as some weird side argument for why it can't be used. An argument that doesn't even hold up well since calling out/forth is the logical action here for a class calling forth dragon magic. Invocare (call upon) doesn't make much sense unless your class is literally summoning dragons (i.e. calling upon them).

It's also not even a matter of defending a leak, so much as it's pointing out that people apply really faulty reasons for why a thing can't be added.

Ahahahahahahahhahahaha

[Luck4]

So far the only leaked stuff that was somewhat confirmed by either data mining, strings, or a "trustworthy" leaker, was a new class, likely being the Evoker, and also the Dragonflight name. There is anything else?

I'm asking this because everyone believes that Dragon Isles as a continent is somewhat confirmed as well, but nothing is confirming it, right? No data files, strings, or even a "trustworthy" leaker, or did I lose something?

[Cosmic Janitor]

And arcane mages are supposedly going the way of old demonology. That was part of the leak too. So yes, seeming like mages isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Which is weird, because the spec is in a fairly decent place right now, certainly nowhere near as broken/boring as it has been previously.

[Mferna]

So far the only leaked stuff that was somewhat confirmed by either data mining, strings, or a "trustworthy" leaker was a new class, likely being the Evoker, and also the Dragonflight name. There is anything else?

I'm asking this because everyone believes that Dragon Isles as a continent is somewhat confirmed as well, but nothing is confirming it, right? No data files, strings, or even a "trustworthy" leaker, or did I lose something?

No, just putting two and two together about the dragon isles. Especially since it being hinted at thru BfA