Remarks from former WoW designer gives insight on WoW's classes

[username993720]

Neither is Anduins ability to wear plate and wield a 2H sword.

It's not an ability. You recycle the same shit over and over again.

Rule of Cool for cinematics is a thing, get used to it. They aren't archetype changes, unless you think Priests are gonna get 2H swords and Plate armor because Blizzard showed Anduin with it.

Hero characters like Tyrande aren't repping for new classes any more than Anduin's choice of gear is gonna be reflected in Priest class changes. They're just depictions of stuff that Named characters can do that make em super special in the series.

If you're going to talk seriously and not cosmetics again, let me just remind you that he casts Holy Word: Salvation.

NE Priests got a version of Starfall in Vanilla. They also got Elune's Grace.

Not in the game, pal.

It seems like the person you're responding to has an axe to grind with Dark Rangers evident in their posting history in this thread. I doubt there will be any convincing them otherwise as they appear to be adhering to some sort of bias against Dark Rangers where the "facts" they keep presenting confirm it. Just keep in mind that if this person didn't see them as a "threat" to whatever their desire is, they wouldn't spend this much time passionately trying to rule Dark Rangers out. I tend to ignore things I don't see as a threat. Just my two cents.

I don't.
I just don't like seeing people spreadin bullshit.
And the reason i appear to be defending the Dark Ranger is because that's the class brought up the most. It's not even on the top of my list.

Not really, I'm simply not a fan of the character they're based on. I look forward to seeing her gone from WoW for a very long time (if not forever) after this expansion.

The cat's out of the bag.
That is the sole reason you oppose them - your distaste of them.

Which brings me back to the point; You're not going to get Dark Rangers without Sylvanas, and this was the expansion to bring them in since Shadowlands has focused so much on her. I have often said that I would have been fine with Dark Rangers this expansion, since I would always prefer a new class to no new class.

Yea right... that's why you vigorously went out of your way to dismiss them prior to Shadowlands. At least follow what you start instead of jumping between opinions every other second.

Besides, I'm more of the mind that they'll fuse the Dark Ranger concept with another to create a new mail wearing shadow/void based class with three specs. Tank, Healer and ranged DPS.

You're close... (i'll give you a hint: one starts with a W, the other with an N or a P).

Well that isn't a Dark Ranger concept, that's some bizzaro version of Hunter that's using shadow magic.

Didn't you use to call the Dark Ranger just that? I can't with the duplicity....

Hey, I'm still going hope for Dark Rangers because that's the one thing I've always wanted in WoW. I might not live to see it, but I hope I do. Just let me hope, man. There isn't any harm in it.

Yet, i'm the one you called out? Weird...

[Teriz]

Not in the game, pal.

Irrelevant. The point is that Blizzard drew a connection between the PotM and the Priest class in WoW.

Also if you play Classic, it's in the game.

[username993720]

Irrelevant. The point is that Blizzard drew a connection between the PotM and the Priest class in WoW.

Also if you play Classic, it's in the game.

Priestesses of the Moon are as much Priests as Demon Hunters are Hunters.

[Teriz]

Priestesses of the Moon are as much Priests as Demon Hunters are Hunters.

Hunters never had DH abilities. Priests did get a PotM ability.

[Ielenia]

What is the relevancy of this? Gul'dan was not a hero character representing a future class concept. Again, if we didn't have a Warlock class, yes Gul'dan's presence in Legion would justify a Warlock class being brought into WoW.

And, as far as we know, neither is Sylvanas.

Sylvanas breaking the seal between Azeroth and Shadowlands allowed that to happen.

Not really. We already had Shadowland denizens crossing over into the material world long before Sylvanas shattering the Helm of Domination. For example: the nathrezim, and Kyrian were already making that cross to reach the planets they're supposed to retrieve souls from.

Sylvanas was the one who dominated Anduin's mind and forced him into serving the Jailer.

False statement. We never saw Sylvanas 'dominating' Anduin's mind. The last time we saw Anduin as his own person was when he 'double-dared' Sylvanas. The very next cinematic, he was already fully under the control of the Jailer. It's not Sylvanas controlling Anduin, it's the Jailer. And on top of that, the Mourne sword that Sylvanas used was crafted by the Jailer's minions, and infused with a special crystal chosen by the Jailer himself.

Without Sylvanas' actions in BFA and Shadowlands, would we be fighting the Jailer in the Shadowlands? Simple yes or no answer.

It's the same answer to this question: "without Gul'dan's actions in WoD and in Legion, would we be fighting the Burning Legion in Legion?"

Read my concept again. The scenario for the Dark Rangers begins in BFA and ends with the beginning of the Shadowlands after Sylvanas opens the rift. Both Demon Hunter and Death Knight class scenarios also took place before their actual expansion, so this wouldn't be unprecedented.

Once again you're completely ignoring the expansion itself, and the way Blizzard has decided on how to tell the expansion's story. Do you see any way to shoe-horn in a whole faction, interactions with said faction, and a class' story in Shadowlands? There is none, considering the story is about the player character venturing alone through uncharted lands with zero Horde or Alliance presence whatsoever.

These are more irrelevant caveats. Simply because Sylvanas' focus is different

And now you're moving the goalposts. Because first you said that Sylvanas' situation is "typical", and now you claim Sylvanas' situation is "different"?

And like I said earlier in this post, you must not have read my Dark Ranger scenario.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the story of Shadowlands, as it is being told, has zero room to add a second faction, a new class, and another storyline involving said faction in the story.

[username993720]

Hunters never had DH abilities. Priests did get a PotM ability.

Track Demons. BAM! They're Demon Hunters.

[Teriz]

And, as far as we know, neither is Sylvanas.

Based on the fact that we have an expansion that revolves around her character and no Dark Ranger class, that would be a fair observation.

So why are we having this discussion?

Not really. We already had Shadowland denizens crossing over into the material world long before Sylvanas shattering the Helm of Domination. For example: the nathrezim, and Kyrian were already making that cross to reach the planets they're supposed to retrieve souls from.

But the Jailer was seemingly never powerful enough to do what he did without Sylvanas constantly feeding souls into the Maw and rupturing the barrier between Shadowlands and Azeroth.

False statement. We never saw Sylvanas 'dominating' Anduin's mind. The last time we saw Anduin as his own person was when he 'double-dared' Sylvanas. The very next cinematic, he was already fully under the control of the Jailer. It's not Sylvanas controlling Anduin, it's the Jailer. And on top of that, the Mourne sword that Sylvanas used was crafted by the Jailer's minions, and infused with a special crystal chosen by the Jailer himself.

Chains of Domination

In the end, Sylvanas made the choice to forcibly dominate Anduin and turn him into the Jailer's vessel.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Sylvanas_Windrunner

It's the same answer to this question: "without Gul'dan's actions in WoD and in Legion, would we be fighting the Burning Legion in Legion?"

How is that relevant to the discussion? And the answer is no. Gul'dan is essential to the Legion storyline just like Sylvanas is essential to the Shadowlands storyline.

Once again you're completely ignoring the expansion itself, and the way Blizzard has decided on how to tell the expansion's story. Do you see any way to shoe-horn in a whole faction, interactions with said faction, and a class' story in Shadowlands? There is none, considering the story is about the player character venturing alone through uncharted lands with zero Horde or Alliance presence whatsoever.

I've already explained this; The Dark Ranger scenario begins during Battle of Azeroth where Sylvanas raises undead Blood Elf and Night Elf rangers as Dark Rangers. Manipulates them during a few missions, and then abandons them when she goes to the Shadowlands. The scenario ends with the Dark Rangers deciding to go after Sylvanas in the Shadowlands as any other class would.

And now you're moving the goalposts. Because first you said that Sylvanas' situation is "typical", and now you claim Sylvanas' situation is "different"?

I said "Typical" as in a major lore figure being the center of an expansion. I never said that the way they make that lore figure the center of a storyline is "typical".

And you continue to ignore the fact that the story of Shadowlands, as it is being told, has zero room to add a second faction, a new class, and another storyline involving said faction in the story.

See above.

- - - Updated - - -

Track Demons. BAM! They're Demon Hunters.

Not a Demon Hunter ability.

[Ielenia]

Based on the fact that we have an expansion that revolves around her character and no Dark Ranger class, that would be a fair observation.

So why are we having this discussion?

The point flew right over your head, it seems. In other words: no NPC represents a "future class concept" until this concept is realized into an actual playable class. Because by that logic, every NPC in the game represents a "future class concept". Sylvanas does not represent a "future dark ranger class", just like Chen Stormstout never represented a "future monk class" and Arthas didn't represent a "future death knight class" until their respective classes were added.

But the Jailer was seemingly never powerful enough to do what he did without Sylvanas constantly feeding souls into the Maw and rupturing the barrier between Shadowlands and Azeroth.

If you believe that the Jailer needed souls only from Azeroth, you're naive at best, deluded at worst.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Sylvanas_Windrunner

I noticed the lack of reference tags, meaning this is just the interpretation of the one who wrote that article, meaning it's not official info.

How is that relevant to the discussion? And the answer is no. Gul'dan is essential to the Legion storyline just like Sylvanas is essential to the Shadowlands storyline.

And, just like Legion was not centered around Gul'dan despite of the importance of his actions, so is Shadowlands not centered around Sylvanas despite the importance of her actions.

I've already explained this;

And I've already explained how your explanation is bogus because if fails to take into account the fact our character has zero interactions with any Azerothian faction, barely interacting with Bolvar as it is, meaning there's no room to introduce a new Azerothian faction, the playable class associated with said faction, and tell said faction's story.

I said "Typical" as in a major lore figure being the center of an expansion. I never said that the way they make that lore figure the center of a storyline is "typical".

And in TBC we had Illidan, no demon hunters. And in Cataclysm we had Deathwing, and no dragonsworn. And in WoD we had Archimonde, no demon hunters. And in BfA we had Old Gods, and no void class. Etc, etc, etc.

[Teriz]

The point flew right over your head, it seems. In other words: no NPC represents a "future class concept" until this concept is realized into an actual playable class. Because by that logic, every NPC in the game represents a "future class concept". Sylvanas does not represent a "future dark ranger class", just like Chen Stormstout never represented a "future monk class" and Arthas didn't represent a "future death knight class" until their respective classes were added.

It isn't based on a typical NPC, it's based on the RTS heroes from which all WoW classes are based upon.

If you believe that the Jailer needed souls only from Azeroth, you're naive at best, deluded at worst.

The story plainly says that Sylvanas started the Fourth War in order to empower both the Jailer and herself.

And, just like Legion was not centered around Gul'dan despite of the importance of his actions, so is Shadowlands not centered around Sylvanas despite the importance of her actions.

Legion wasn't centered around Gul'dan because he died by 7.1. Shadowlands is centered around Sylvanas because it began and will end with Sylvanas.

And I've already explained how your explanation is bogus because if fails to take into account the fact our character has zero interactions with any Azerothian faction, barely interacting with Bolvar as it is, meaning there's no room to introduce a new Azerothian faction, the playable class associated with said faction, and tell said faction's story.

Let's try this one more time;

Level 45: You start out as an Alliance or Horde character during the battle of Darkshore. Horde fights for Sylvanas, Alliance fights against Sylvanas. You die in battle, and Sylvanas raises you back to life as a Dark Ranger.
Level 46-49: You start with a couple of Dark Ranger abilities and you do quests for Sylvanas and Nathanos gaining multiple Dark Ranger abilities as you level.
Level 50: Sylvanas duels with Saurafang and abandons the Horde along with Nathanos. The Dark Rangers are adrift and decide to join the alliance or horde. The scenario ends right at level 50 with the player ready to start the Shadowlands expansion.

Please explain how there's no room to introduce this in the Shadowlands expansion.

And in TBC we had Illidan, no demon hunters. And in Cataclysm we had Deathwing, and no dragonsworn. And in WoD we had Archimonde, no demon hunters. And in BfA we had Old Gods, and no void class. Etc, etc, etc.

This is all entirely irrelevant.

[She of Three Faces]

It's not an ability. You recycle the same shit over and over again.



If you're going to talk seriously and not cosmetics again, let me just remind you that he casts Holy Word: Salvation.



Not in the game, pal.



I don't.
I just don't like seeing people spreadin bullshit.
And the reason i appear to be defending the Dark Ranger is because that's the class brought up the most. It's not even on the top of my list.



The cat's out of the bag.
That is the sole reason you oppose them - your distaste of them.



Yea right... that's why you vigorously went out of your way to dismiss them prior to Shadowlands. At least follow what you start instead of jumping between opinions every other second.



You're close... (i'll give you a hint: one starts with a W, the other with an N or a P).



Didn't you use to call the Dark Ranger just that? I can't with the duplicity....



Yet, i'm the one you called out? Weird...

I was talking about Teriz that's why he responded to me.

[Ielenia]

It isn't based on a typical NPC, it's based on the RTS heroes from which all WoW classes are based upon.

... Are you really calling Arthas and Chen "typical NPCs" and implying that Sylvanas has more importance and notoriety in the lore than those two? Are you going to throw Illidan in that mix, as well?

The story plainly says that Sylvanas started the Fourth War in order to empower both the Jailer and herself.

And? That in no way counters what I said. Yes, the Jailer needed souls, and yes, Sylvanas acted on his orders to start the Fourth Wall, but that in no way means that the Jailer needed souls only from Azeroth. For all we know, he likely also had agents in other words doing the exact same thing Sylvanas was doing.

Legion wasn't centered around Gul'dan because he died by 7.1. Shadowlands is centered around Sylvanas because it began and will end with Sylvanas.

Shadowlands is not centered around Sylvanas. That is a fact. Just like WotLK wasn't centered around Darion Mograine, how MoP wasn't centered around Chen, and how Legion wasn't centered around Illidan. I don't know what kind of feelings you may have toward Sylvanas, but to insist that Shadowlands is centered around Sylvanas is just plain wrong.

Let's try this one more time;

And, once again, you completely fail to understand the issue. After that proposed scenario of yours? Nothing changes in what I said: how there is absolutely no room for a new Azerothian faction to be introduced, along with a playable class and the story said class and faction have to tell, in the way the Shadowlands' story is structured.

This is all entirely irrelevant.

Is that your new tactic, now? When your argument is shown to be bogus, you claim the counter-argument used is "irrelevant"? Literally hand-waving away the opposition and ignoring facts that go against your narrative.

[username993720]

Not a Demon Hunter ability.

Of course it is. They are Demon Hunters.

[Teriz]

... Are you really calling Arthas and Chen "typical NPCs" and implying that Sylvanas has more importance and notoriety in the lore than those two? Are you going to throw Illidan in that mix, as well?

What are you even talking about here? Arthas, Chen, and Illidan are all major WC lore heroes, just like Sylvanas. Like those heroes, Sylvanas has the same pedigree to base a class upon, which is why players desire a Dark Ranger class based on her.

And? That in no way counters what I said.

It does because you're purposely trying to downplay Sylvanas' role for purely argumentative purposes.

Shadowlands is not centered around Sylvanas.

That is your opinion, and pretty much everything going on in Shadowlands shows this opinion to be wildly incorrect.

And, once again, you completely fail to understand the issue. After that proposed scenario of yours? Nothing changes in what I said: how there is absolutely no room for a new Azerothian faction to be introduced, along with a playable class and the story said class and faction have to tell, in the way the Shadowlands' story is structured.

Again, just like Demon Hunters before it, you simply have their story start BEFORE the expansion you're introducing the class in. During Legion, the Demon Hunters' scenario began in Outland. In Shadowlands, the Dark Ranger's scenario could have easily began in BFA. That gives the concept plenty of "room" to build up their backstory and whatever else they need to be fully functional in the lore. As I said before, DKs and especially Demon Hunters have already set the precedent.

Is that your new tactic, now? When your argument is shown to be bogus, you claim the counter-argument used is "irrelevant"? Literally hand-waving away the opposition and ignoring facts that go against your narrative.

Nope, just pointing out that you're deflecting and bringing up irrelevant points over and over again without addressing anything that I brought up. Anyway, I feel this has gone on long enough. The point remains the same: With Sylvanas gone after this expansion, the future of the Dark Ranger class concept is highly in doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is. They are Demon Hunters.

Feel free to link us to the Demon Hunter ability called "Track Demons".

[Ielenia]

What are you even talking about here? Arthas, Chen, and Illidan are all major WC lore heroes, just like Sylvanas. Like those heroes, Sylvanas has the same pedigree to base a class upon, which is why players desire a Dark Ranger class based on her.

First off: I mentioned those characters in my original post and you dismissed them as "typical NPCs". And second, this "pedigree" is something that exists only in your mind.

It does because you're purposely trying to downplay Sylvanas' role for purely argumentative purposes.

Dude. Think about it for a moment. The Shadowlands takes souls from everywhere in the cosmos, not just Azeroth. And even if we assume that the Shadowlands don't take souls from other dimensions, even if Sylvanas tripled the amount of people dying per year in Azeroth, the amount of extra souls the Jailer would get is basically very very small.

That is your opinion, and pretty much everything going on in Shadowlands shows this opinion to be wildly incorrect.

No, what I said is pretty much a fact, just like Legion wasn't centered around Gul'Dan, and BfA was not centered around Azshara.

Again, just like Demon Hunters before it, you simply have their story start BEFORE the expansion you're introducing the class in.

For fuck's sake, it's like you're being denser than lead on purpose, here. It doesn't matter that the "hero class" story starts before the expansion's story begins. That's a given. The problem here is after the introduction questline ends. And, like I've pointed out numerous times and you've ignored it every single time: there is no room for a story to be told during the Shadowlands' story.

Nope, just pointing out that you're deflecting and bringing up irrelevant points over and over again without addressing anything that I brought up.

Dude, you're not "pointing out" anything. "This is all entirely irrelevant" is literally just hand-waving. That's all you wrote.

The point remains the same: With Sylvanas gone after this expansion, the future of the Dark Ranger class concept is highly in doubt.

A point that you haven't made until now, mind you. Also, "Sylvanas gone"? Is she going to die? Do you know something the rest of us mortal do not? Also, tell me how much did Illidan's death in TBC affected the future of the demon hunters.

[Uncia Amethice]

You wanted a Headhunter. Survival should be it.

That was one of a number of examples I gave, and the only one you commented on besides all the ones being just as relevant. And yes - I fully admit that I shouldn't have used the word Headhunter there, because I haven't touched WC3 in enough years to no longer connect that concept with the unit type - consider my use of the word "Headhunter" there to be shorthand for "A troll whose skillset comes from sneaking around in the jungle with a pair of axes for close-combat and throwing", such as a character I had played in WoW since vanilla and no longer can because in order to do that I need to either delete the character and all of it's no longer in-game history items and remake it as a warrior or something (since hunters can't viably dual wield anyway), or my troll needs to suddenly be a pirate calling in cannon strikes and rolling dice.
Essentially, I had several characters who no longer fit their in-game skillset to their character because Blizzard decided that the only rogue who doesn't use a dagger is a Disney-style pirate.

[username993720]

"A troll whose skillset comes from sneaking around in the jungle with a pair of axes for close-combat and throwing"

Headhunters do not sneak around. And what you describe is an axethrower.

Essentially, I had several characters who no longer fit their in-game skillset to their character because Blizzard decided that the only rogue who doesn't use a dagger is a Disney-style pirate.

They aren't supposed to be Rogues, despite the old time glyph. They're more of a Hunter.

[Uncia Amethice]

Headhunters do not sneak around. And what you describe is an axethrower.

What I'm describing is a basic character archetype. Okay, skip the goddamn "Headhunter" word. I'm not describing a damn RTS unit. Are you telling me that there are NO CHARACTERS possible in Azeroth that use paired one-handed non-dagger weapons in combat, wear light armour, and are stealthy? Unless they are pirates and carry around flintlock pistols. What I'm describing is a Combat rogue, that existed in WoW for at least six years before they killed it off for absolutely no reason except lol pirates.

[username993720]

What I'm describing is a basic character archetype. Okay, skip the goddamn "Headhunter" word. I'm not describing a damn RTS unit. Are you telling me that there are NO CHARACTERS possible in Azeroth that use paired one-handed non-dagger weapons in combat, wear light armour, and are stealthy? Unless they are pirates and carry around flintlock pistols. What I'm describing is a Combat rogue, that existed in WoW for at least six years before they killed it off for absolutely no reason except lol pirates.

A scoundrel, i guess.