Poll: Do you want Dark Rangers?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 52 of 56 FirstFirst ...
2
42
50
51
52
53
54
... LastLast
  1. #1021
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  2. #1022
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-05-30 at 02:19 AM.

  3. #1023
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Mechagnome View Post
    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.
    "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...

  4. #1024
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  5. #1025
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-05-30 at 07:19 AM.

  6. #1026
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  7. #1027
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-05-30 at 08:06 AM.

  8. #1028
    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).

  9. #1029
    I like that idea.

  10. #1030
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  11. #1031
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,821
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    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.

  12. #1032
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-05-30 at 04:26 PM.

  13. #1033
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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?

  14. #1034
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    But, it's not bringing someone back from the dead or giving a second chance to an unfathomably evil character.
    Fan service is fan service. See it however you deem fit. There's no point arguing about it.

    Old lore. You can't really expect a titan keeper to be responsible for the equivalent realm of the Shadowlands.
    If they want to retcon it they can, but until they do then we can't claim there is a hint at it being anything other than what it already is.

    Is there potential to grow the Emerald Dream? Sure there is. But not by any hint in the game of it being more than what it is right now. They had the opportunity to explain the Emerald Dream more through Shadowlands and Ardenweald, but they didn't. Right now, we have no reason to assume the Emerald Dream is somehow more ancient than being a creation of the Titan Keeper Freya. If they want to later explain that Freya didn't actually create it, then they have to seed that or outright explain it in the new expansion. Feel free to put out a theory if you want though.

    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.
    Highly reluctant. Would you say 2 specs is a normal thing? They even spoke out that Evoker could get a 3rd spec in the far future. Why not now? Well I can tell you why. It's fucking hard to fit and balance more specs. It's absolutely taxing on them.

    If Specs weren't an issue, they would have the freedom to add new classes as they please very easily. Why do you think I keep talking about Class Skins? It's the most logical and plausible solution to add more Class concepts.

    Maintaining balance is something they seem to value quite a bit. And they acknowledge the fanbase does too. I mean is it a surprise that every new Class Discussion thread always has someone interjecting a 'No new classes please, they can't even manage what's already in the game'? This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that even the Devs aren't wholly interested in adding new classes. They're going through the motions more than anything. I don't think Ion is very enthused with adding new classes at all.

    So, you can't pull a decision towards one direction, can you?
    I can't pull anything because I'm not a developer or designer who makes the decision of whether to add a new class or not. Not sure what you're really asking here.

    Why?
    What do Tinker and Bards have over the Demon Hunter?
    A theme that doesn't overlap with existing classes. Freedom to explore multiple specs and varied new gameplay/Role options.

    Demon Hunter's gameplay was pretty limited from the start. They had to gut a Warlock's most popular spec, as well as take dual wielding tanking gameplay and the Sigil/Statue system from Monks. That's saying a lot here.

    And as I said, Legion's story and setting was ripe to add POTM or Warden, since they were very prominent and also have strong reasons to become playable. Why was Demon Hunter singled out here? Because its popularity and demand far exceeded the demand for a Warden or POTM. And even now, it's even arguable whether they will ever become playable at all.

    Like the Pandaren Brewmaster?
    A totally fan favourite for many years
    Blizzard made the Brewmaster playable in WC3 because of its popularity. They were prepared to make Pandarens playable in TBC for this very reason.

    What they didn't expect was the blowback they got from the crowd who doesn't like Pandarens. I would consider that a massive eye opener, similar to the 'Don't you have Phones' Diablo Immortal fiasco.

    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.
    So you don't think Dark Rangers should be playable?

    Intentional or losses-driven?
    Is Risk Management and Loss Prevention ever unintentional? It's a precautionary action.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-05-30 at 06:57 PM.

  15. #1035
    I can’t believe the three of you are still arguing about your own head cannon for something that doesn’t exist and might never exist or it might…it’s literally not up to us and completely up to a company who will do whatever they feel and your argument here won’t change that. You’re all circling back over and over just repeating yourselves and no matter what either of you says you’re all never going to agree.

    This is really sad guys. You need to just drop it.

  16. #1036
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Fan service is fan service. See it however you deem fit. There's no point arguing about it.
    Fan service that leads to what, exactly? Cameos?

    If they want to retcon it they can, but until they do then we can't claim there is a hint at it being anything other than what it already is.

    Is there potential to grow the Emerald Dream? Sure there is. But not by any hint in the game of it being more than what it is right now. They had the opportunity to explain the Emerald Dream more through Shadowlands and Ardenweald, but they didn't. Right now, we have no reason to assume the Emerald Dream is somehow more ancient than being a creation of the Titan Keeper Freya. If they want to later explain that Freya didn't actually create it, then they have to seed that or outright explain it in the new expansion. Feel free to put out a theory if you want though.
    Titans use the same word for "created" as they do for "ordered".

    Highly reluctant. Would you say 2 specs is a normal thing? They even spoke out that Evoker could get a 3rd spec in the far future. Why not now? Well I can tell you why. It's fucking hard to fit and balance more specs. It's absolutely taxing on them.

    If Specs weren't an issue, they would have the freedom to add new classes as they please very easily. Why do you think I keep talking about Class Skins? It's the most logical and plausible solution to add more Class concepts.

    Maintaining balance is something they seem to value quite a bit. And they acknowledge the fanbase does too. I mean is it a surprise that every new Class Discussion thread always has someone interjecting a 'No new classes please, they can't even manage what's already in the game'? This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that even the Devs aren't wholly interested in adding new classes. They're going through the motions more than anything. I don't think Ion is very enthused with adding new classes at all.
    I've acknowledged the spec thing. It could be a way to cut on work time and money, not necessarily balance only.
    As it stands, they do keep adding classes every other expansion or so. It's just that they changed their expansions pattern.

    I can't pull anything because I'm not a developer or designer who makes the decision of whether to add a new class or not. Not sure what you're really asking here.
    I meant the community being the arbiters of new classes.

    A theme that doesn't overlap with existing classes. Freedom to explore multiple specs and varied new gameplay/Role options.

    Demon Hunter's gameplay was pretty limited from the start. They had to gut a Warlock's most popular spec, as well as take dual wielding tanking gameplay and the Sigil/Statue system from Monks. That's saying a lot here.
    And way less familiarity. How do you determine Bards and Tinkers should have been added instead of Demon Hunters other than your own opinion?

    And as I said, Legion's story and setting was ripe to add POTM or Warden, since they were very prominent and also have strong reasons to become playable. Why was Demon Hunter singled out here? Because its popularity and demand far exceeded the demand for a Warden or POTM. And even now, it's even arguable whether they will ever become playable at all.
    Are you serious? Legion is all about fighting the Burning Legion. How can there be something any more fitting than Demon Hunter? PotMs and Wardens have nothing to do with slaying demons in particular.

    Blizzard made the Brewmaster playable in WC3 because of its popularity. They were prepared to make Pandarens playable in TBC for this very reason.

    What they didn't expect was the blowback they got from the crowd who doesn't like Pandarens. I would consider that a massive eye opener, similar to the 'Don't you have Phones' Diablo Immortal fiasco.
    Popularity of what? The concept art?
    It was one of the least known characters, appearing only in a bonus campaign for WC3.

    So you don't think Dark Rangers should be playable?
    What i think, or you think for that matter, is not what Blizzard thinks should be playable.
    You make it sound like Dark Ranger or any other class were a must and the fact that they weren't indicates that something went wrong.
    This isn't backed up by anything other than your opinion.

    Is Risk Management and Loss Prevention ever unintentional? It's a precautionary action.
    So, it wasn't an unfortunate outcome.
    They were trying to cover their asses.

  17. #1037
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbidaggy View Post
    I can’t believe the three of you are still arguing about your own head cannon for something that doesn’t exist and might never exist or it might…it’s literally not up to us and completely up to a company who will do whatever they feel and your argument here won’t change that. You’re all circling back over and over just repeating yourselves and no matter what either of you says you’re all never going to agree.

    This is really sad guys. You need to just drop it.
    Don't know how they can enjoy this. They've been passive aggressive to each other the entire time too.

  18. #1038
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Fan service that leads to what, exactly? Cameos?
    You were asking what was the point of bringing back Vol'jin or Sylvanas. They would be brought back for the sake of fan service, that's all. Otherwise there's literally no point in continuing these characters when Blizzard should really be investing in developing new characters rather than continually drawing from the pool of WC3 characters even after they've shunted them into the afterlife.

    I mean, at this point, does Thrall really need to be back in the story at all? Was he all that important in BFA and Shadowlands? I personally didn't think so. He's there cuz the writers have no other way to make their shitty stories seem interesting or relevant otherwise.

    Titans use the same word for "created" as they do for "ordered".
    If you say so.

    I've acknowledged the spec thing. It could be a way to cut on work time and money, not necessarily balance only.
    As it stands, they do keep adding classes every other expansion or so. It's just that they changed their expansions pattern.
    Yeah, of course you can claim this in retrospect. And what if 10.0 didn't have a class? You'd still say they were just changing the pattern for future 11.0 which 'they certainly will add a class for'. Your argument is based on a belief that Blizzard will always make classes in the future, no matter what. Well, you can claim that for the unknown future all you like, everyone knows you're just guessing like the rest of us.

    I meant the community being the arbiters of new classes.
    You're misunderstanding the argument then.

    Think of this more like a Chef or Restaurant owner deciding to change and update their menu based on the tastes of the customers. The menu starts off with a wide variety of options, they get data that people really like the burgers and don't touch the pasta options at all, and over time they double down on the burgers and add more options while cutting Pasta out of the menu. This is an example of the customers influencing the menu, but it is not a direct link of the customers deciding what the menu will be or becoming 'arbiters of the menu'.

    We don't decide what classes Blizzard adds to the game. Yet the classes we get are absolutely influenced at a greater level by the overall demand for certain features. Something hotly debated like Flying at the start of an expansion is something people really want, but Blizzard has their own direction and digs their heels in on keeping Flying out of most of the expansion. With Dragonflight, they're providing Dragonriding as a compromise and as a new feature unique to the expansion. The community isn't the one deciding Dragonriding to exist, it is Blizzard working towards accomodating the fan demand in their own way.

    And way less familiarity. How do you determine Bards and Tinkers should have been added instead of Demon Hunters other than your own opinion?
    By seeing the design of Demon Hunters and how much lost potential there is in its design compared to something with much more flavour and potential gameplay exploration.

    Considering that many of these core concepts are now directly being adapted from Heroes of the Storm we can literally see what the potential gameplay could be for other class archetypes. Gazlowe in Heroes has a much wider variety of themes and gameplay to draw from that would be much more different than yet another fast-attack melee DPS which we already have multiple versions of in the game.

    This is why Alexstrasza/Chromie/Deathwing's gameplay were being pointed out as a potential new class archetype, and the Evoker is adapting those concepts into WoW.

    Are you serious? Legion is all about fighting the Burning Legion. How can there be something any more fitting than Demon Hunter? PotMs and Wardens have nothing to do with slaying demons in particular.
    Because like I said, the entire leveling experience of Legion actually had nothing to do with Demons. Broken Shore was the first and only place where we encounter demons, then as soon as we start questing on Broken Isles it's all about the Pillars of Creation and obtaining them from Old God related villains like Xavius, Azshara and the Drogbar king. And from there, we had plenty of locations that were directly tied to POTM and Wardens, like the Vault of the Wardens or the Temple of Elune in Valshara, as well as the entire Tomb of Sargeras which was formally a Temple of Elune as well.

    There were already connections deeply seeded into the story and setting. Demon Hunters and Demons and Gul'dan were literally just there for the sake of fan service. Legion itself could have been a literal Old God expansion that required the Pillars of Creation to fight N'zoth. The entire Demon theme was only relevant to the starting expansion event, and to mid-tier and end-tier content. The rest of the expansion had very little actual Demon connections to it.

    Popularity of what? The concept art?
    It was one of the least known characters, appearing only in a bonus campaign for WC3.
    I could understand your perspective on this if you were too young to have grown up with Warcraft 3 and never followed its development or been in the forums when the game was in its prime. You probably don't even recognize that the entire WC3 website and game guide is named after a Pandaren. So I can see how you can be mistaken in thinking that few people knew what Pandaren were. The WC3 fans knew, and WC3 fans were and are the core audience that Blizzard designs the entire game around. I mean, that's why we're still having this discussion on representing the Dark Ranger.

    What i think, or you think for that matter, is not what Blizzard thinks should be playable.
    You make it sound like Dark Ranger or any other class were a must and the fact that they weren't indicates that something went wrong.
    This isn't backed up by anything other than your opinion.
    Then start asking yourself what Blizzard actually thinks should be playable, like I have been trying to focus my arguments to pointing out.

    My argument is already backed up by everything we saw in Shadowlands, in the Sylvanas novel, and in the 9.2.5 datamines which we will literally see today. None of it points at an intention of representing Dark Rangers as a potential standalone class for the future.

    So, it wasn't an unfortunate outcome.
    They were trying to cover their asses.
    The execs cut budgets to save money and redirect it to other projects which they deem profitable. This is business.

    I've worked at a Vivendi studio and saw first hand the Activision merger. Our company had 4 running projects, and slowly they got cut if they were 'deemed not worth spending the marketting budget on'. Big name franchises that got the can, while Activision execs were doubling down on more Guitar Heroes and more Modern Warfare. I know first-hand how Activision works.

    Blizzard has slowly been affected by those same corporate standards over the years, which is why they have been taking less risks and trying to capitalize on monetization rather than on gameplay. They used to have complete free reign on development when they were still a Vivendi company. When Blizzard made big bucks, everyone saw a share of it. I literally saw an $8k bonus when Blizzard released Wrath of the Lich King, for not even working at Blizzard. You won't ever see that same happening today. Most of those perks have been cut out completely, and I can confidently say it was not because of 'unintentional loss prevention'
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-05-31 at 03:51 PM.

  19. #1039
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You were asking what was the point of bringing back Vol'jin or Sylvanas. They would be brought back for the sake of fan service, that's all. Otherwise there's literally no point in continuing these characters when Blizzard should really be investing in developing new characters rather than continually drawing from the pool of WC3 characters even after they've shunted them into the afterlife.
    Again with the 'should'. What you think they should is not what they do in reality.

    I mean, at this point, does Thrall really need to be back in the story at all? Was he all that important in BFA and Shadowlands? I personally didn't think so. He's there cuz the writers have no other way to make their shitty stories seem interesting or relevant otherwise.
    You compare Thrall to the situation? He can't bring a new class into the table, he isn't reincarnated nor redeemed. He's just there to be a token character. Like the rest of the gang (Baine, Bolvar, Jaina).

    If you think they would resurrect Vol'jin or redeem Sylvanas just so they can deliver some lines, you are mistaken.

    If you say so.
    A blizz dev says so.

    Yeah, of course you can claim this in retrospect. And what if 10.0 didn't have a class? You'd still say they were just changing the pattern for future 11.0 which 'they certainly will add a class for'. Your argument is based on a belief that Blizzard will always make classes in the future, no matter what. Well, you can claim that for the unknown future all you like, everyone knows you're just guessing like the rest of us.
    I don't know beyond 13.0.
    But, since TBC and Cataclysm didn't add a new class, we know that Legion and Dragonflight will.

    You're misunderstanding the argument then.

    Think of this more like a Chef or Restaurant owner deciding to change and update their menu based on the tastes of the customers. The menu starts off with a wide variety of options, they get data that people really like the burgers and don't touch the pasta options at all, and over time they double down on the burgers and add more options while cutting Pasta out of the menu. This is an example of the customers influencing the menu, but it is not a direct link of the customers deciding what the menu will be or becoming 'arbiters of the menu'.

    We don't decide what classes Blizzard adds to the game. Yet the classes we get are absolutely influenced at a greater level by the overall demand for certain features. Something hotly debated like Flying at the start of an expansion is something people really want, but Blizzard has their own direction and digs their heels in on keeping Flying out of most of the expansion. With Dragonflight, they're providing Dragonriding as a compromise and as a new feature unique to the expansion. The community isn't the one deciding Dragonriding to exist, it is Blizzard working towards accomodating the fan demand in their own way.
    I get that. But, does it mean that the recent forum talk about a Dragon class is what soldified Evoker as the new class?

    By seeing the design of Demon Hunters and how much lost potential there is in its design compared to something with much more flavour and potential gameplay exploration.

    Considering that many of these core concepts are now directly being adapted from Heroes of the Storm we can literally see what the potential gameplay could be for other class archetypes. Gazlowe in Heroes has a much wider variety of themes and gameplay to draw from that would be much more different than yet another fast-attack melee DPS which we already have multiple versions of in the game.
    With Blizzard's new lazy approach, a Tinker class would have been a 2 spec class as well.
    You think it could have been better, but the fact is that we don't know.
    There's a big gap between what you and i envision and what Blizzard is envisioning.

    This is why Alexstrasza/Chromie/Deathwing's gameplay were being pointed out as a potential new class archetype, and the Evoker is adapting those concepts into WoW.
    Yet, we ended up with a 2 spec class, restricted to one race, that bears similarity to the mage class.
    Therefore, we can determine it has nothing to do with the class being added, but the developers themselves.

    Because like I said, the entire leveling experience of Legion actually had nothing to do with Demons. Broken Shore was the first and only place where we encounter demons, then as soon as we start questing on Broken Isles it's all about the Pillars of Creation and obtaining them from Old God related villains like Xavius, Azshara and the Drogbar king. And from there, we had plenty of locations that were directly tied to POTM and Wardens, like the Vault of the Wardens or the Temple of Elune in Valshara, as well as the entire Tomb of Sargeras which was formally a Temple of Elune as well.

    There were already connections deeply seeded into the story and setting. Demon Hunters and Demons and Gul'dan were literally just there for the sake of fan service. Legion itself could have been a literal Old God expansion that required the Pillars of Creation to fight N'zoth. The entire Demon theme was only relevant to the starting expansion event, and to mid-tier and end-tier content. The rest of the expansion had very little actual Demon connections to it.
    Again, you fail to distinguish between main theme and secondary ones. Have you seen the cinematic trailer? Are you aware of the expansion's name? Its story and threat? Did you see the box cover? It's Legion.

    I could understand your perspective on this if you were too young to have grown up with Warcraft 3 and never followed its development or been in the forums when the game was in its prime. You probably don't even recognize that the entire WC3 website and game guide is named after a Pandaren. So I can see how you can be mistaken in thinking that few people knew what Pandaren were. The WC3 fans knew, and WC3 fans were and are the core audience that Blizzard designs the entire game around. I mean, that's why we're still having this discussion on representing the Dark Ranger.
    Mojo Stormstout?
    By that standard, Tinkers should be playable as well:
    "On April 1, 2004 Blizzard Entertainment announced the goblin tinker as a new neutral hero, that would be available in the next patch. A day later, Blizzard revealed that the tinker was merely an April Fools’ joke. However, the tinker became subject to many forum posts and petitions that wanted the tinker to be a playable hero. On April 14, Blizzard announced the tinker to be added in patch 1.15."

    Then start asking yourself what Blizzard actually thinks should be playable, like I have been trying to focus my arguments to pointing out.
    Those that fit their expansions, i guess.
    Less so those that fit fans.

    My argument is already backed up by everything we saw in Shadowlands, in the Sylvanas novel, and in the 9.2.5 datamines which we will literally see today. None of it points at an intention of representing Dark Rangers as a potential standalone class for the future.
    Is it? Any statement that they were intending but gave up on it?

    The execs cut budgets to save money and redirect it to other projects which they deem profitable. This is business.

    I've worked at a Vivendi studio and saw first hand the Activision merger. Our company had 4 running projects, and slowly they got cut if they were 'deemed not worth spending the marketting budget on'. Big name franchises that got the can, while Activision execs were doubling down on more Guitar Heroes and more Modern Warfare. I know first-hand how Activision works.

    Blizzard has slowly been affected by those same corporate standards over the years, which is why they have been taking less risks and trying to capitalize on monetization rather than on gameplay. They used to have complete free reign on development when they were still a Vivendi company. When Blizzard made big bucks, everyone saw a share of it. I literally saw an $8k bonus when Blizzard released Wrath of the Lich King, for not even working at Blizzard. You won't ever see that same happening today. Most of those perks have been cut out completely, and I can confidently say it was not because of 'unintentional loss prevention'
    Like the new Warcraft mobile game. *disgust*
    This is definitely not the old Blizzard.

  20. #1040
    Dark rangers should be added as a class but only if the only race they can be is Tuskarr

Posting Permissions

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