Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Mechagnome]

Snipped

I've been with WoW since Jan 19, 2006. The only hate for MoP was the extensive Golden Pagoda Dailies that were hated so much, they destroyed the entire Vale and made it an entrance into SoO. Let's say for argument sake, they can easily add barber shop options and Mail gear. Call it a wash, a zero cost factor. They would still need:

- An intro story
- An opening cinematic
- new skills added to the game to make them unique
- A few new animations to provide for the unique skills
- Potential new weapons and their own animations

If nothing else comes to pass, or cost, there is still the investment and man hours of the afore mentioned. If you cannot acknowledge that these things are "likely" possible, then it is evident you are simply digging in your heels as to remain right in your mind and that no one else's opinion mattered.

[Ielenia]

Depends... did you read what I wrote?

You said that "want for pandaren monks was over 90% interest." That means 90% of the player base wanted pandaren monks.

[arkanon]

It's called approximation. It is what happens when the exact number is unavailable. Personally, I never wanted Pandas or Pandaland, I am likely the minority.

No, an approximation is nearly but not exactly correct. I ask again, what is the 90% based on? where did that number come from? Even an approximation is based on something, otherwise its just a complete guess with nothing to back it up. 90% of who?

[Mechagnome]

No, an approximation is nearly but not exactly correct. I ask again, what is the 90% based on? where did that number come from? Even an approximation is based on something, otherwise its just a complete guess with nothing to back it up. 90% of who?

Was likely a poll from this very site 11 years ago. Hard to say. I do recall a poll, and when offered a variety of options, Pandaren were the front runners. It was a long time again, and to be fair, it was likely a bit more hyperbolic and too small a sample size to even consider being a majority. So, since you are like a pitbull on a bone, I will simply state that I was mistaken and own up to my error of opinion. Have a great day and feel free to respond as much as you like. As this topic has zero bearing on my enjoyment of the game, and the Dark Ranger is more suited to D&D, there's very little productive discussion left that does not involved being told anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Take care.

[username993720]

It's better than blindly assuming that X Y Z classes will all be playable sometime in the far future.

Why is it better?

Deathwing was literally the only connection to Dragons, and he was the only reason the Aspects were involved at all. The entire theme of the expansion was Old God agents, which is why the major raids included Cho'gall and the Twilights Hammer cultists and the Elemental Lords.

Like most expansions, they aren't really just containers of one theme. They contain many themes, from which people choose to interpret what is and is not relevant.

As an argument I made before, Legion at the outset is very Demon themed, but if you actually do all the questing on Broken Isles then you'd realize that the entire Pillars of Creation storyline and all of the villains you meet on the Broken Isles are actually Old God related, not demonic. Xavius, Azshara, the Drogbar King and Deathwing's lair are all Old God themed, not Legion. The only main things demon themed are Broken Shore, the Invasions, and the mid tier and end tier raids. The actual leveling content had relatively little to do with Demons at all.

You have to distinguish between the main theme and the secondary ones.

We've known this since the first major budget cuts back in 2019. They cut out a significant percent of the WoW workforce. 800 layoffs, which included a lot of community managers, GM's and Quality Assurance people.

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/st...06632235921408

This has been an ongoing thing that has not only affected WoW, but plenty of other games as well like Heroes of the Storm and most recently, the whole WC3 Reforged fiasco.

https://www.ign.com/articles/special...t-a-crossroads

Some feel Blizzard has been on the decline over the past three or four years amid layoffs, budget cuts, and a lack of major releases.


https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...tment/947369/3

This thread, while admittedly full of speculation, pretty much captures the overall 'big picture' of what's going on. There is no concrete proof for Blizzard officially saying 'Hey we cut our budget!', nothing like this exists. Yet based on their answers to interview questions like 'We hear you and we're doing our best to get to it' and the lowered amount of content or high amount of corner-cutting in recent expansions, it's pretty clear that they don't have the 'creative freedom' that they once used to have.

I thought they were trying to maximize profits with those layoffs.

[Teriz]

Yeah, right.

I meant what I said.

Hunters can cover Dark Rangers and Tinkers.

Death Knights and Warlocks cover Necromancers.

Bards aren't necessary, since there are no Bard heroes of record in Warcraft.

In my view, new classes in WoW are done. I would be surprised if we get another one.

[Triceron]

Why is it better?

Because baseless speculation wouldn't become baseless expectation if we keep speculative discussion grounded in reality.

You have to distinguish between the main theme and the secondary ones.

No such thing matters. It's all about the story snd setting.

BFA's main theme wasn't technology but I'd argue a Tinker would have fit the story and setting nonetheless.

I thought they were trying to maximize profits with those layoffs.

What do you think a budget cut does? Minimize profits?

[username993720]

I meant what I said.

Hunters can cover Dark Rangers and Tinkers.

Death Knights and Warlocks cover Necromancers.

Bards aren't necessary, since there are no Bard heroes of record in Warcraft.

In my view, new classes in WoW are done. I would be surprised if we get another one.

Jesus christ, you overdosed on Evoker.

Because baseless speculation wouldn't become baseless expectation if we keep speculative discussion grounded in reality.

Expecting hard-grounded RPG classes like the Dark Ranger, Shadow Hunter and Tinker is baseless?

No such thing matters. It's all about the story snd setting.

BFA's main theme wasn't technology but I'd argue a Tinker would have fit the story and setting nonetheless.

War. It was war.
Even if you can argue it shifted into an Old God one.

What do you think a budget cut does? Minimize profits?

No. But i assumed it was driven by greed rather than lack of money.

[Triceron]

Expecting hard-grounded RPG classes like the Dark Ranger, Shadow Hunter and Tinker is baseless?

No such thing matters. It's all about the story snd setting.

Without any knowledge of what story and settings would be considered for in the near future? Yes. That is what baseless means.

It's from the story and setting where we get any new potential class.

What are the chances of a Shadow Hunter or Dark Ranger class ever being presented in Dragon Isles story and setting? You understand what I mean? We can talk about Shadow Hunter and Dark Ranger all we want, but if we don't have strong hints at a story and setting that is relevant for these classes, then there's really no reason to make the further assumption that they would become playable.

Without the story and setting known to us, the debate of what class is mostly pointless. It needs to be grounded.

War. It was war.
Even if you can argue it shifted into an Old God one.

Let's be clear. Even if you want to shift it to an Old God based expansion, do you think a Tinker could have fit into BFA's story and setting?

I would argue yes, despite being an 'Old God' or 'War' themed expansion, it could. If you're just gonna point out that it shifted to an Old God expansion, where do you stand with the possibility of a Tinker being part of that expansions Story and Setting? Would you say it wouldn't fit?

No. But i assumed it was driven by greed rather than lack of money.

Why do you think budgets are being cut? Loss prevention and risk management; which is a driven by greed.

[Ielenia]

Was likely a poll from this very site 11 years ago. Hard to say. I do recall a poll, and when offered a variety of options, Pandaren were the front runners. It was a long time again,

A poll from this website (which is not technically a representative of WoW's playerbase as a whole) from eleven years ago that you can't seem to find and, by your own admission, can't remember correctly?

Your profile says you joined 2018, which is eight years after said poll was posted. Now, it's not unfeasible that you could have been an account-less lurker for eight years, but it does does put your claims in a negative light, considering the amount of posts you have indicate you post on average at least once a day, so you are quite active. Meaning the idea that you were a quiet lurker for eight years seems a bit far-fetched, so I doubt the idea that you have seen this supposed poll eleven years ago.

[username993720]

Without any knowledge of what story and settings would be considered for in the near future? Yes. That is what baseless means.

It's from the story and setting where we get any new potential class.

What are the chances of a Shadow Hunter or Dark Ranger class ever being presented in Dragon Isles story and setting? You understand what I mean? We can talk about Shadow Hunter and Dark Ranger all we want, but if we don't have strong hints at a story and setting that is relevant for these classes, then there's really no reason to make the further assumption that they would become playable.

Without the story and setting known to us, the debate of what class is mostly pointless. It needs to be grounded.

Then, we're talking short term prediction, because we don't know what the distant future holds.

Let's be clear. Even if you want to shift it to an Old God based expansion, do you think a Tinker could have fit into BFA's story and setting?

I would argue yes, despite being an 'Old God' or 'War' themed expansion, it could. If you're just gonna point out that it shifted to an Old God expansion, where do you stand with the possibility of a Tinker being part of that expansions Story and Setting? Would you say it wouldn't fit?

Not necessasily.
War is indeed focused on combat tech and innovation in that field, but so was WoD a perfect time to introduce such a class.
Again, we know neither of these were candidates because Legion brought us the Demon Hunter.

Why do you think budgets are being cut? Loss prevention and risk management; which is a driven by greed.

I thought their new approach to the game was driven from some new kind of a strategy: less content, more microtransactions. Less gameplay, more micromanagement.

[Triceron]

Then, we're talking short term prediction, because we don't know what the distant future holds.

We can absolutely make long term predictions if there is sufficient information foreshadowing it.

Light and Void expansion is a strong given. Void Lord encounter is well foreshadowed and eventual. Whether or not a new class would be tied to that expansion story/setting or not is still up to debate, but that would be something to go on. This is an example of something we know coming up, that is not just baseless speculation based on history in Chronicles or some big stretch like 'A MOP 2.0 Asian expansion that will bring in Blademasters'. Light and Void and the Void Lords is as strong of a foreshadow as it gets right now.

Not necessasily.
War is indeed focused on combat tech and innovation in that field, but so was WoD a perfect time to introduce such a class.
Again, we know neither of these were candidates because Legion brought us the Demon Hunter.

All it means is they're not interested in making a new class for each expansion, and stagger the releases with breathing room in between to clean up class balance etc.

I thought their new approach to the game was driven from some new kind of a strategy: less content, more microtransactions. Less gameplay, more micromanagement.

Yes, as a direct result of having a smaller budget to work with.

Blizzard is a corporate entity. The developers are beholden to the producers and executives. If the top execs decide to cut the budget, the development teams have absolutely no say in those decisions. It's a top level decision that affects the rest of the way the teams organize themselves.

A budget cut forces a new strategy. Less content and more microtransactions is the causation of a budget cut with investors that continue to demand profit growth.

Their primary source of profit comes from box sales, and their long-term profit is sustained through 'ingame merchandise', WoW Tokens and whatever subs they can get. Most box sales profit comes from casual players, the millions of players who literally buy the expansion, sub for a couple months, and aren't seen again till the next expansion hits. Subs themselves probably don't account for a significant amount considering WoW's playerbase generally fluxuates and stays pretty low over the 2 year span.

Casuals mostly play for the first 2-3 months and leave till next expansion, while the number of long-term players stays pretty low comparatively. That's why you see huge population spikes every expansion followed by huge dropoffs soon afterwards. These cycles are expected and factored into the business model. This factors into why they don't hire as many full-time GM employees as they used to, and why they've shifted to mostly hands-off Community Management. And they know the casuals will just leave and come back every cycle, so the Devs have little interest in making the game appeal to them with more long-lasting content. Their subs aren't missed because the whales more than make up for the long-term profit through Token sales and MTX.

The difference now is that they've gambled too hard with this expectation. What they didn't plan on is the blowback they got from too many convoluted grind/gated systems, which started to push players away from the game entirely. Even long-term casuals were getting fed up, and started adopting other games. That really put the devs on notice, which is why we are seeing a sudden shift towards trying to hype up the next expansion with 'getting back to their roots' and pushing out a new class as a main feature. If things were still going well and FF14 wasn't stealing WoW's thunder, I think they would continue to skip new classes and just keep doing more of what Shadowlands set out to do.

[username993720]

We can absolutely make long term predictions if there is sufficient information foreshadowing it.

Light and Void expansion is a strong given. Void Lord encounter is well foreshadowed and eventual. Whether or not a new class would be tied to that expansion story/setting or not is still up to debate, but that would be something to go on. This is an example of something we know coming up, that is not just baseless speculation based on history in Chronicles or some big stretch like 'A MOP 2.0 Asian expansion that will bring in Blademasters'. Light and Void and the Void Lords is as strong of a foreshadow as it gets right now.

How about Vol'jin's resurrection?
Sylvanas' redemption?
Elune and the realm of Life?

All it means is they're not interested in making a new class for each expansion, and stagger the releases with breathing room in between to clean up class balance etc.

Cataclysm could have easily been the Evoker expansion. TBC could have been the Demon Hunter one.
Shadowlands could have been the Death Knight one.
But, we know they don't work that way. There's at least 1 expansion gap between additions, if not 2.

Yes, as a direct result of having a smaller budget to work with.

Blizzard is a corporate entity. The developers are beholden to the producers and executives. If the top execs decide to cut the budget, the development teams have absolutely no say in those decisions. It's a top level decision that affects the rest of the way the teams organize themselves.

A budget cut forces a new strategy. Less content and more microtransactions is the causation of a budget cut with investors that continue to demand profit growth.

I thought it was supposed to be in-line with the future of gaming. Like, less olschool RPG, more modern facebook game.

[Triceron]

How about Vol'jin's resurrection?
Sylvanas' redemption?
Elune and the realm of Life?

Story and setting for an expansion is usually something much more broad than what you're pointing out. Like, if we look at the story and setting of MoP, it's about the exploration of Pandaria and focusing on the purposes of the Horde and Alliance war. That is the story and setting. Anduin's personal story is intertwined with the Story and Setting, not the other way around. Same can be said with Garrosh, who is even the main big bad of the expansion. It's not an Anduin expansion or a Garrosh expansion. It's a Pandaria expansion.

Sylvanas, Tyrande and Vol'jin's story are their own personal journeys. Even the devs already stated that Tyrande will be a major focus character in Dragonflight. It doesn't mean this is a 'Tyrande centric' expansion.

As for Elune, I understand that she's a major factor to potential future exploration, but there's no real story or setting set to explore that unless we get more hints to tie her to a specific unexplored location or cosmic realm in the future. Shadowlands opened up some tangible connections to the cosmic realms, but we still don't really know which and where. And I doubt it would be 'Zin Azshari of the past/AU'. My bet is something cosmic in the future, since they've hinted at her connections to the Winter Queen and Zovaal speaking of uniting the cosmic powers. Zin Azshari and Nazjatar is more of an Azshara-centric setting.

Cataclysm could have easily been the Evoker expansion. TBC could have been the Demon Hunter one.
Shadowlands could have been the Death Knight one.
But, we know they don't work that way. There's at least 1 expansion gap between additions, if not 2.

Which makes it very slim to expect there being room for dozens of different classes like Shadow Hunters, Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Wardens and more. Blizzard is likely going to pick the one class that helps them promote the expansion they need players to come back for. And sadly, there's getting fewer and fewer big pull concepts that really get players interested.

I doubt Evoker would have ever been in consideration for Cataclysm. Dragonsworn only got a lot of attention recently on reddit, showing some significant interest in the concept. 8k upvotes, the highest amount of traction I've seen for any class concept in one place. And that could only really get that much interest and attention after Demon Hunters were already added; otherwise the Demon Hunter would have remained the top-most anticipated Player Class that people wanted added to the game. A big part of the interest in Dragonsworn is also from the lack of strong alternatives. Dark Rangers and Necromancers are cool, but people start feeling like there's too many Edgy class options and want something different. Bard and Tinker generally aren't taken very seriously, both by the playerbase and by the Devs themselves, who feature them both in April Fools content multiple times and openly question whether they can be done seriously.

And I would love for them to tackle on a concept like Shadow Hunter as a new class, but I have my doubts that they have confidence to prop it up as a major expansion feature considering Shadow Hunters aren't terribly popular to begin with. Hell, Heroes of the Storm didn't even get a chance to implement one, and they have added multiple WoW Shamans, Paladins, Mages and Warriors and even WC2 style Gryphon Riders, Berserkers and Ogre Mages before we even get to see any Shadow Hunter.

I thought it was supposed to be in-line with the future of gaming. Like, less olschool RPG, more modern facebook game.

If that's the case, then they should be adding a new class every expansion, unlocked exclusively through the Real Money store.

If they did that, then I'd be in full support of all your theories for Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Wardens, Night Warriors and more being playable. The reality is, they aren't doing this at all, and classes remain something we see once every 4+ years, if we're lucky.

[Nymrohd]

I honestly wonder given cross faction play if certain class concepts could just be added as additional, race-specific specs to existing classes. So you could have a Priestess of the Moon spec for Night Elf Priests only. Or a Shadow Hunter spec for Darkspear (and Zandalari?) shaman. And yes, Dark Ranger as a Hunter spec for Forsaken (and Darkfallen elves if we get them).

[Hawg]

I like that idea.

[username993720]

Story and setting for an expansion is usually something much more broad than what you're pointing out. Like, if we look at the story and setting of MoP, it's about the exploration of Pandaria and focusing on the purposes of the Horde and Alliance war. That is the story and setting. Anduin's personal story is intertwined with the Story and Setting, not the other way around. Same can be said with Garrosh, who is even the main big bad of the expansion. It's not an Anduin expansion or a Garrosh expansion. It's a Pandaria expansion.

Sylvanas, Tyrande and Vol'jin's story are their own personal journeys. Even the devs already stated that Tyrande will be a major focus character in Dragonflight. It doesn't mean this is a 'Tyrande centric' expansion.

I realize that.
But, what would be the reasoning behind resurrecting Vol'jin? Or redeeming Sylvanas?

As for Elune, I understand that she's a major factor to potential future exploration, but there's no real story or setting set to explore that unless we get more hints to tie her to a specific unexplored location or cosmic realm in the future. Shadowlands opened up some tangible connections to the cosmic realms, but we still don't really know which and where. And I doubt it would be 'Zin Azshari of the past/AU'. My bet is something cosmic in the future, since they've hinted at her connections to the Winter Queen and Zovaal speaking of uniting the cosmic powers. Zin Azshari and Nazjatar is more of an Azshara-centric setting.

What do you mean what location? The realm of life (i.e. - the Emerald Dream)

Which makes it very slim to expect there being room for dozens of different classes like Shadow Hunters, Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Wardens and more. Blizzard is likely going to pick the one class that helps them promote the expansion they need players to come back for. And sadly, there's getting fewer and fewer big pull concepts that really get players interested.

It's only 4.

I doubt Evoker would have ever been in consideration for Cataclysm. Dragonsworn only got a lot of attention recently on reddit, showing some significant interest in the concept. 8k upvotes, the highest amount of traction I've seen for any class concept in one place. And that could only really get that much interest and attention after Demon Hunters were already added; otherwise the Demon Hunter would have remained the top-most anticipated Player Class that people wanted added to the game. A big part of the interest in Dragonsworn is also from the lack of strong alternatives. Dark Rangers and Necromancers are cool, but people start feeling like there's too many Edgy class options and want something different. Bard and Tinker generally aren't taken very seriously, both by the playerbase and by the Devs themselves, who feature them both in April Fools content multiple times and openly question whether they can be done seriously.

So, addition is based on interest?
Because that can be rigged.

And I would love for them to tackle on a concept like Shadow Hunter as a new class, but I have my doubts that they have confidence to prop it up as a major expansion feature considering Shadow Hunters aren't terribly popular to begin with. Hell, Heroes of the Storm didn't even get a chance to implement one, and they have added multiple WoW Shamans, Paladins, Mages and Warriors and even WC2 style Gryphon Riders, Berserkers and Ogre Mages before we even get to see any Shadow Hunter.

Again, is popularity the determining factor?
Because with all of Teriz's shenanigans, he could have made it look like the Tinker is more popular than it is.
Moreover, why would the "vocal" ones get to decide what class should be added next?

If that's the case, then they should be adding a new class every expansion, unlocked exclusively through the Real Money store.

If they did that, then I'd be in full support of all your theories for Dark Rangers, Blademasters, Wardens, Night Warriors and more being playable. The reality is, they aren't doing this at all, and classes remain something we see once every 4+ years, if we're lucky.

No. Those kind of games never go big. That's why you have store mounts. And they do release them every tuesday. So, that is indeed their vision.
It's the equivalent of DLCs instead of completely new games.

[Teriz]

Again, is popularity the determining factor?
Because with all of Teriz's shenanigans, he could have made it look like the Tinker is more popular than it is.
Moreover, why would the "vocal" ones get to decide what class should be added next?

I love how people think I was the cause for the Tinker doing well on these forum polls.

The simple reality is that if you really think about it, the Tinker is a very strong class concept that hits all the buttons for a lot of people. Its only real weakness is that it requires a pretty specific expansion.

Ranged DPS, Potential healing spec, potential tanking spec, unique concept, roots in old school warcraft, etc. Some people simply despised the idea of it, without considering its merits as a concept. This is why the vocal people constantly shitted on the Tinker, yet the concept handily won pretty much every class-based poll on this forum.

Anyway, yes Blizzard pays attention to popularity. Triceron is correct that the dragon-class idea was huge on Reddit, and I have little doubt that Blizzard was aware of it. MMOC caught on to it a bit later, but just like the Tinker concept, if you really think about a class based on characters like Deathwing, Alexstraza, and Wrathion, it's really a no-brainer for Blizzard. The Dracthyr Evoker has a lot of potential for WoW and Blizzard.

[Triceron]

I realize that.
But, what would be the reasoning behind resurrecting Vol'jin? Or redeeming Sylvanas?

Simple fan service and lack of ability to tell new stories with new characters. Honestly, there was no reason to have Thrall and Draka in Shadowlands. But they're there because Blizzard wants to represent the Orcs and Horde through familiar faces in a positive way in an otherwise dark and alien realm of death.

What do you mean what location? The realm of life (i.e. - the Emerald Dream)

Emerald Dream is neither a realm of life nor a connection to Elune. Unless they retcon it again, the Emerald Dream is merely a spirit realm created by Freya meant to be a mirror of Azeroth.

It's only 4.

It's all about Specs. Each class adds 2-3, and it gets increasingly more difficult for them to maintain balance of each and all of them. That is why they are so reluctant to add classes.

So, addition is based on interest?
Because that can be rigged.

It's based on what Blizzard thinks will draw the biggest crowd back to WoW, what the Designers want to make, what story and setting they wish to tell, etc. It's all of the above.

Again, is popularity the determining factor?

Determining? No. Highly influencing? Yes.

If gameplay or lore was the only reason, then Tinkers or Bards or something with much more creative freedom should have been playable before Demon Hunters in 7.0 expansion. But we got DH because Blizzard wanted a BIG draw for 7.0.

As I argued before, Potm and Wardens fit Legions story and setting too. DH was made playable instead.

Because with all of Teriz's shenanigans, he could have made it look like the Tinker is more popular than it is.
Moreover, why would the "vocal" ones get to decide what class should be added next?

Yes but I'm not talking about the perception of popularity and making an argument of what is better. I am making an argument that if Bkizzard doesn't recognize it as strong enough interest, or feel it won't draw a big enough crowd, it will influence their decisions to not run with the concept.

This is what ultimately worked against a Runemaster in retrospect. It was internally well received and had multiple chances of becoming playable. Yet the classes we have are based more in familiar and highly demanded class concepts. Basically, fan service.

Yet you are operating on a twisted version of my argument . I said popularity influences choice, nit determines it. And there are other factors Blizzard must address with concepts, like whether they feel it has room to be expanded in gameplay or whether the concept is serious or cool enough.

Dark Ranger ahould be playable, right? Yet it is not playable. We must be able yo openly assess why not, and not merely excuse it as 'well it just never had the chance yet' or 'it still gas tome in the future'. Yeah, if someone has a miscarriage then they still have chances in the future for a baby, but it's important to assess why it happened as well.

No. Those kind of games never go big. That's why you have store mounts. And they do release them every tuesday. So, that is indeed their vision.
It's the equivalent of DLCs instead of completely new games.

Which doesn't change what I've said about budget cuts.

[username993720]

Simple fan service and lack of ability to tell new stories with new characters. Honestly, there was no reason to have Thrall and Draka in Shadowlands. But they're there because Blizzard wants to represent the Orcs and Horde through familiar faces in a positive way in an otherwise dark and alien realm of death.

But, it's not bringing someone back from the dead or giving a second chance to an unfathomably evil character.

Emerald Dream is neither a realm of life nor a connection to Elune. Unless they retcon it again, the Emerald Dream is merely a spirit realm created by Freya meant to be a mirror of Azeroth.

Old lore. You can't really expect a titan keeper to be responsible for the equivalent realm of the Shadowlands.

It's all about Specs. Each class adds 2-3, and it gets increasingly more difficult for them to maintain balance of each and all of them. That is why they are so reluctant to add classes.

But, they do add them. Reluctant? They are still adding classes according to their designated expasions. It's just that every expansion is now split into two. The only issue is with them lowering the standards with fewer specs.

It's based on what Blizzard thinks will draw the biggest crowd back to WoW, what the Designers want to make, what story and setting they wish to tell, etc. It's all of the above.

So, you can't pull a decision towards one direction, can you?

Determining? No. Highly influencing? Yes.

If gameplay or lore was the only reason, then Tinkers or Bards or something with much more creative freedom should have been playable before Demon Hunters in 7.0 expansion. But we got DH because Blizzard needed a BIG draw for the game.

Why?
What do Tinker and Bards have over the Demon Hunter?
I'd say they're much less prominent than Illidan.

Yes but I'm not talking about the perception of popularity and making an argument of what is better. I am making an argument that if Bkizzard doesn't recognize it as strong enough interest, or feel it won't draw a big enough crowd, it will influence their decisions to not run with the concept.

Like the Pandaren Brewmaster?
A totally fan favourite for many years

Dark Ranger ahould be playable, right? Yet it is not playable. We must be able yo openly assess why not, and not merely excuse it as 'well it just never had the chance yet' or 'it still gas tome in the future'. Yeah, if someone has a miscarriage then they still have chances in the future for a baby, but it's important to assess why it happened as well.

Should? Who determines that it should? This is all just forum users' opinion. There is no obligation for any class to be added. You're just looking for reasons for why something wasn't added when there isn't. They only explained their reasoning for Runemasters and Necromamcers. So, everything you come up with is your own headcanon.

Which doesn't change what I've said about budget cuts.

Intentional or losses-driven?