The apparent formula for new classes in WoW

[Teriz]

Which article? I don't recall you presenting a single article.

And one forum thread? In all of eight years? that's not evidence. If something is popular, then said something is liked and often discussed by others. And people simply did not talk about Chen Stormstout prior to MoP's announcement.

The Pandaria name may be familiar to Warcraft fans. It is the island home of the panda-like Pandaren race, first teased as an April Fools' Day joke by Blizzard. However, the Pandaren have found a following among the Warcraft fan base, such that references to the race have found their way into the games proper, most notably with a Pandaren Monk pet available for World of Warcraft players for $10.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bl.../1100-6326987/

In Warcraft lore, Pandaria is the island home of the mysterious race the Pandaren, warrior monks who just happen to be humanoid pandas. Although they make few appearances in-game (most famously as playable Brewmasters champions in Warcraft III expansions), Pandaren have a vocal fan base and a rich lore.

Rumours of Pandarens as a playable race in World of Warcraft have accompanied each expansion announcement, and this trademark is, quite naturally, setting off speculation that fans may soon have their wishes granted. We'll see what Blizzard can tell us about it.

https://www.vg247.com/blizzard-files...aria-trademark

Adding Pandarens to World of Warcraft would be a spectacular move from Blizzard given that the race was initially created as an April Fool' joke for WarCraft 3 . Since then they've become more and more popular, and have worked their way into many different aspects of WarCraft lore.

https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-reg...d-of-warcraft/

- - - Updated - - -

So what Draconic abilities from the RTS and MOBA are Pyre, Soar and the Arcane abilities coming from? Where is the Empower mechanic coming from?

You mentioned them pulling game mechanics from the RTS and MOBA, but I don't see any examples of these abilities in the RTS or MOBA. They look pretty new to me.

So are we going to acknowledge the points made earlier, or are we going to continue to bounce around all over the place?

[arkanon]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bl.../1100-6326987/



https://www.vg247.com/blizzard-files...aria-trademark



https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-reg...d-of-warcraft/

- - - Updated - - -



So are we going to acknowledge the points made earlier, or are we going to continue to bounce around all over the place?

Wait.......hold up a second.......your argument is that pandaran were really popular, that's a reason they were introduced, and to prove that, you are linking articles that came out AFTER the expansion was leaked and the name was trademarked? HAHAHAHA

If they were so popular, link me an article from BEFORE mop. Link me one from during tbc, or wrath, talking about how popular the pandaran are. Don't link me something from AFTER the trademark lol.

The funny thing is, you are doing the EXACT same thing here, which is probably why you don't recognize how idiotic it is.

[Teriz]

Wait.......hold up a second.......your argument is that pandaran were really popular, that's a reason they were introduced, and to prove that, you are linking articles that came out AFTER the expansion was leaked and the name was trademarked? HAHAHAHA

If they were so popular, link me an article from BEFORE mop. Link me one from during tbc, or wrath, talking about how popular the pandaran are. Don't link me something from AFTER the trademark lol.

The funny thing is, you are doing the EXACT same thing here, which is probably why you don't recognize how idiotic it is.

Except the expansion was not confirmed at that time, it was just a rumor and a possible leak when those articles were written. The point is that no one was confused or lost as to what a Pandaren expansion would entail or what hero that concept was attached to because it was a popular concept within Warcraft.

If the Chen or the Pandaren weren’t popular, or were obscure as a certain poster states, they wouldn’t have gotten the responses it got in those articles where they talk about the Pandaren and Chen having a strong fanbase within the WC community.

[Aydinx2]

1. A major lore figure to tie into. Death Knights have Arthas, Monks have Chen, Demon Hunters have Illidan, and it appears that Evokers have Alexstraza.

It is pretty much impossible to create a new class that isn't in any way already slightly present in the game without it coming completely out of left field.

2. A playable version in MOBA/RTS format. Blizzard seems to favor players getting a preview of future class mechanics via their MOBA/RTS games. When the new class releases, the pull abilities and mechanics from those games.

Such as? Got an example?

3. A landmass that thematically connects to the new class. DKs had Northrend, Monks had Pandaria, Demon Hunters had Broken Isles, Evokers have Dragon Isles. The next class will likely also have a landmass that matches its theme.

They literally said they only make a new class/race if it fits in the new expansion. Nothing new here

4. Abilities that don't fit in existing classes. The expansion classes house abilities that simply wouldn't work with classes that existed at the time.

What else do you think a "NEW" class is?

[Triceron]

So are we going to acknowledge the points made earlier, or are we going to continue to bounce around all over the place?

What is there to acknowledge?

My question is what would you consider an original ability that isn't sourced from the RTS and MOBA? You point out Tranquility and Rejuvination, sure. Those are obviously going to be borrowed from WC3 itself. Evoker does not draw from WC3 at all, so you have to then point at a completely, non-canonical source for your gameplay explanation. I could say the same and that you're bouncing around from RTS to MOBA to suit your argument, and it'd be only time until Blizzard comes out with a completely new concept that isn't from either, like how Runemaster was conceptually known about and had never appeared in the series before.

I don't think the concepts are rooted in RTS or MOBA mechanics at all, and they merely draw inspiration from there because of shared interest and familiarity of mechanics. Same way many of WC3's concepts and abilities came from D2, like Auras, Curses/DoTs, Whirlwind/Bladestorm, Shapeshifting and more. They seem to take as much from their own games as they do from games from other companies. Much of WoW's original gameplay was copied over from Everquest. Guild Wars 2 remains a pretty significant influence over WoW's design over the years, like Warlock Metamorphosis (Necromancer Death Shroud), all the jumping puzzles, and the upcoming Dragonriding mechanics.

I mean we can point at all the mechanics that source back to Warcraft, and that's because this is ultimately a Warcraft game. There are still just as many concepts in play that never came from Warcraft at all, and are a direct result of copying some other source, or something entirely new. Yet you're prioritizing these connections to other Warcraft related games because of a handful of abilities that are intentionally being homaged to foster some semblance of familiarity, even when the concept itself may be new to the series.

[Lahis]

Let me guess - Tinker do or will somehow fulfill all the supposed requirements.

#1 Gazlowe, Mekkatorgue, Mechagnomes in general.

#2 Gazlowe in HOTS

#3 Kezan and Undermine, new Uld-whatever. The Blingtron underground war.

#4 Well yeah, no other class rides mechs in combat.


And there we have it. All of OPs points for Tinkers.

[arkanon]

Except the expansion was not confirmed at that time, it was just a rumor and a possible leak when those articles were written. The point is that no one was confused or lost as to what a Pandaren expansion would entail or what hero that concept was attached to because it was a popular concept within Warcraft.

If the Chen or the Pandaren weren’t popular, or were obscure as a certain poster states, they wouldn’t have gotten the responses it got in those articles where they talk about the Pandaren and Chen having a strong fanbase within the WC community.

I have not read all articles, so by all means link the part where they talk about how popular they are. This is all i found:

"The Pandaria name may be familiar to Warcraft fans. It is the island home of the panda-like Pandaren race, first teased as an April Fools' Day joke by Blizzard. However, the Pandaren have found a following among the Warcraft fan base, such that references to the race have found their way into the games proper, most notably with a Pandaren Monk pet available for World of Warcraft players for $10. "

Amber Heard has "a following". Amber Heard "may be familiar". That doesnt make her popular. Like I said, some players might have been vaguely aware of the character, IF they had played games from a decade ago, but there was almost ZERO discussion about them until AFTER the leaks and trademark, and then the announcement. This came AFTER those things, not before.

Why cant you link any articles discussing the pandas popularity before these reveals, leaks, trademarks and announcements?

[Teriz]

You are being pointlessly obtuse, are we to spend the next 12 posts quibbling over the exact ways they are and are not the same? Broad strokes they're clearly aping PnP monks. Which btw is just a loose collection of east Asian mysticism and semi-fictitious characterisations of actual monks, I'm not suggesting DnD owns the idea of monks, there's just no reason to even argue this.

I'm saying that the WoW Monk class is heavily derived from the Pandaren Brewmaster. Granted it has staples of the standard Monk class, but the class is loaded with abilities, concepts, and flavor from the WC3 hero. Saying that it's simply a Pathfinder or DnD styled Monk is disingenuous.

Fair enough, I'll cop that. It would seem blizzard's definition of hero class is now boutique starting experience and starting at a higher level, which again, monks do not have. Also now you're saying Deathwing, in the op you said alexstrasza so perhaps, again, not so directly tied as you first intimated.

I was talking about lore. Mechanically it is mainly based on Alexstraza from HotS.

No the DH 'version' (whatever that means) meta is based on Illidan in TFT. I'm tempted to say there's a dev interview somewhere saying the RoC/multi-player meta was a result of them running out of time to make the model but I can't be bothered to look it up for internet arguments so I'll leave that unsubstantiated.

Meta in WC3 was ranged. Meta in HotS was melee, just like the WoW version.

Also, I have no idea where you're getting the evoker abilities from but wing buffet has been in WoW since Vanilla. Further, to that point Frost wyrms fury is arguably from hots but the spell in itself is a reference to the wrath cinematic (to the extent Arthas plunges frostmourne into the ground when you cast it). When we're at the point where inspiration and design are so incestuous it's not really able to support your original point, it seems more the case blizzard is jsut happy to copy from itself.

The point with the Evoker abilities is that Abundance and Wing Buffet comes from Alexstraza HotS. Blessing of the Bronze has also been mentioned as a future Evoker ability, and it comes from Chromie HotS. This indicates that Blizzard is pulling abilities from HotS to fill the Evoker class, which is similar to what they have done in previous classes with WC3 and HotS.

My point was you can easily apply it to the base classes, ergo your point can be applied so loosely it loses worth as a tool for categorization.

Which is fine, since the base classes also have a similar formula at work. I was saying that in this thread we can use this formula to predict future classes.

1. I accept your concession on the meta point
2. It was called death coil (which btw is also knick from old PnP rulesets), it uses the WCIII DC icon. Unless you wish to contend these were accidental or coincidental on blizzard's behalf (or explain why the name was changed) you don't have a leg to stand on to argue they're different spells.

Warlock Death Coil was a fear that did shadow damage and healed the caster. DK/WC3 Death Coil was a ranged attack that damaged living units but healed undead units. Again, it isn't the same ability, mainly because Warlocks did not deal with the undead.

- - - Updated - - -

I have not read all articles, so by all means link the part where they talk about how popular they are. This is all i found:

"The Pandaria name may be familiar to Warcraft fans. It is the island home of the panda-like Pandaren race, first teased as an April Fools' Day joke by Blizzard. However, the Pandaren have found a following among the Warcraft fan base, such that references to the race have found their way into the games proper, most notably with a Pandaren Monk pet available for World of Warcraft players for $10. "

Amber Heard has "a following". Amber Heard "may be familiar". That doesnt make her popular. Like I said, some players might have been vaguely aware of the character, IF they had played games from a decade ago, but there was almost ZERO discussion about them until AFTER the leaks and trademark, and then the announcement. This came AFTER those things, not before.

VG article:

In Warcraft lore, Pandaria is the island home of the mysterious race the Pandaren, warrior monks who just happen to be humanoid pandas. Although they make few appearances in-game (most famously as playable Brewmasters champions in Warcraft III expansions), Pandaren have a vocal fan base and a rich lore.

PC gamer article:

Adding Pandarens to World of Warcraft would be a spectacular move from Blizzard given that the race was initially created as an April Fool' joke for WarCraft 3 . Since then they've become more and more popular, and have worked their way into many different aspects of WarCraft lore.

Article before MoP trademark (Endgadget);

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the pandaren is the origins of the race. Of all the races in Azeroth, the pandaren are the least well known but one of the most beloved of many players of the original Warcraft games. The pandaren first showed up in Warcraft III, and from there, the loveable race of humanoid pandas grew exponentially in popularity.

https://www.engadget.com/2010-10-03-...-pandaren.html

Why cant you link any articles discussing the pandas popularity before these reveals, leaks, trademarks and announcements?

I've done so.

[Ielenia]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bl.../1100-6326987/

https://www.vg247.com/blizzard-files...aria-trademark

https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-reg...d-of-warcraft/

Did you really not realize that all those three articles are not talking about the pandaren because of any popularity whatsoever, but because of the 'Mists of Pandaria' trademark that Blizzard filed?

In other words, if it wasn't for people finding out about Blizzard making said trademark, those articles wouldn't exist. Wow, way to be blind.

Also: "the pandaren have worked their way into many different aspects of Warcraft lore". Yeah. Five total mentions of the pandaren in eight years. Wooo...

[arkanon]

I'm saying that the WoW Monk class is heavily derived from the Pandaren Brewmaster. Granted it has staples of the standard Monk class, but the class is loaded with abilities, concepts, and flavor from the WC3 hero. Saying that it's simply a Pathfinder or DnD styled Monk is disingenuous.



I was talking about lore. Mechanically it is mainly based on Alexstraza from HotS.



Meta in WC3 was ranged. Meta in HotS was melee, just like the WoW version.



The point with the Evoker abilities is that Abundance and Wing Buffet comes from Alexstraza HotS. Blessing of the Bronze has also been mentioned as a future Evoker ability, and it comes from Chromie HotS. This indicates that Blizzard is pulling abilities from HotS to fill the Evoker class, which is similar to what they have done in previous classes with WC3 and HotS.



Which is fine, since the base classes also have a similar formula at work. I was saying that in this thread we can use this formula to predict future classes.



Warlock Death Coil was a fear that did shadow damage and healed the caster. DK/WC3 Death Coil was a ranged attack that damaged living units but healed undead units. Again, it isn't the same ability, mainly because Warlocks did not deal with the undead.

- - - Updated - - -



VG article:



PC gamer article:


Article before MoP trademark (Endgadget);



https://www.engadget.com/2010-10-03-...-pandaren.html



I've done so.

Discussing their existence in lore is NOT discussing their popularity. You have failed to provide any evidence at all that your claim they were popular is true.

You linked multiple articles, all after the leak, trademark, or announcement, and one before - showing a few Easter eggs showing they exist, and nothing more.

[Ielenia]

Except the expansion was not confirmed at that time, it was just a rumor and a possible leak when those articles were written.

Blizzard filed that trademark. That was verified. And it was also near the time where expansion speculations started. So the idea that the next expansion would be titled "Mists of Pandaria" was a strong one.

[Teriz]

It is pretty much impossible to create a new class that isn't in any way already slightly present in the game without it coming completely out of left field.

Tell that to Bard fans.

Such as? Got an example?

DK:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

Monk:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml

DH:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml
https://heroesofthestorm.com/en-gb/heroes/illidan/

- - - Updated - - -

Did you really not realize that all those three articles are not talking about the pandaren because of any popularity whatsoever, but because of the 'Mists of Pandaria' trademark that Blizzard filed?

In other words, if it wasn't for people finding out about Blizzard making said trademark, those articles wouldn't exist. Wow, way to be blind.

Also: "the pandaren have worked their way into many different aspects of Warcraft lore". Yeah. Five total mentions of the pandaren in eight years. Wooo...

Feel free to read the Engadget article I just linked.

Still no counter-evidence from you. Not surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

Discussing their existence in lore is NOT discussing their popularity. You have failed to provide any evidence at all that your claim they were popular is true.

You linked multiple articles, all after the leak, trademark, or announcement, and one before - showing a few Easter eggs showing they exist, and nothing more.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the pandaren is the origins of the race. Of all the races in Azeroth, the pandaren are the least well known but one of the most beloved of many players of the original Warcraft games. The pandaren first showed up in Warcraft III, and from there, the loveable race of humanoid pandas grew exponentially in popularity.

The above isn't discussing their popularity?

- - - Updated - - -

What is there to acknowledge?

My question is what would you consider an original ability that isn't sourced from the RTS and MOBA? You point out Tranquility and Rejuvination, sure. Those are obviously going to be borrowed from WC3 itself. Evoker does not draw from WC3 at all, so you have to then point at a completely, non-canonical source for your gameplay explanation. I could say the same and that you're bouncing around from RTS to MOBA to suit your argument, and it'd be only time until Blizzard comes out with a completely new concept that isn't from either, like how Runemaster was conceptually known about and had never appeared in the series before.

Except said MOBA has been used multiple times for ability sourcing in WoW since Legion.

I don't think the concepts are rooted in RTS or MOBA mechanics at all, and they merely draw inspiration from there because of shared interest and familiarity of mechanics. Same way many of WC3's concepts and abilities came from D2, like Auras, Curses/DoTs, Whirlwind/Bladestorm, Shapeshifting and more. They seem to take as much from their own games as they do from games from other companies. Much of WoW's original gameplay was copied over from Everquest. Guild Wars 2 remains a pretty significant influence over WoW's design over the years, like Warlock Metamorphosis (Necromancer Death Shroud), all the jumping puzzles, and the upcoming Dragonriding mechanics.

I mean we can point at all the mechanics that source back to Warcraft, and that's because this is ultimately a Warcraft game. There are still just as many concepts in play that never came from Warcraft at all, and are a direct result of copying some other source, or something entirely new. Yet you're prioritizing these connections to other Warcraft related games because of a handful of abilities that are intentionally being homaged to foster some semblance of familiarity, even when the concept itself may be new to the series.

It's fair to say that if we have a Shaman class in WoW loaded with abilities from WC3 (Chain Lightning, Healing Wave, Feral Spirit, Lightning Shield, etc), it's fair to say that said class came directly from the units of WC3. Wouldn't you agree?

[8bithamster]

So after the Evoker, it appears that this is required for new WoW expansion classes;

1. A major lore figure to tie into. Death Knights have Arthas, Monks have Chen, Demon Hunters have Illidan, and it appears that Evokers have Alexstraza.

2. A playable version in MOBA/RTS format. Blizzard seems to favor players getting a preview of future class mechanics via their MOBA/RTS games. When the new class releases, the pull abilities and mechanics from those games.

3. A landmass that thematically connects to the new class. DKs had Northrend, Monks had Pandaria, Demon Hunters had Broken Isles, Evokers have Dragon Isles. The next class will likely also have a landmass that matches its theme.

4. Abilities that don't fit in existing classes. The expansion classes house abilities that simply wouldn't work with classes that existed at the time.

Obviously, none of this is set in stone, and Blizzard can do whatever they want, but at this point this appears to be the keys for future class implementation. If you look at the recent DR implementation, they seem to fail at #3 and 4, which partially explains why they weren't implemented.

You were wrong every time so far and refused to admit it. So why should we believe you now?

[arkanon]

Tell that to Bard fans.



DK:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

Monk:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml

DH:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml
https://heroesofthestorm.com/en-gb/heroes/illidan/

- - - Updated - - -



Feel free to read the Engadget article I just linked.

Still no counter-evidence from you. Not surprised.

- - - Updated - - -





The above isn't discussing their popularity?

- - - Updated - - -



Except said MOBA has been used multiple times for ability sourcing in WoW since Legion.



It's fair to say that if we have a Shaman class in WoW loaded with abilities from WC3 (Chain Lightning, Healing Wave, Feral Spirit, Lightning Shield, etc), it's fair to say that said class came directly from the units of WC3. Wouldn't you agree?

Correct, it is not evidence, it's an opinion without evidence.

[Teriz]

You were wrong every time so far and refused to admit it. So why should we believe you now?

Uh, what stops them from becoming a class? They have unique abilities, unique mechanics, and the three playable dragons in HotS can easily be placed in tanking/healing/RDPS. Further, they can take the form of mortals (which allows them to be any playable race), and their unique ability mechanics allow players to shapeshift in and other of dragon form similar to druids or old Demonology.

It makes sense mechanically. It makes sense business-wise (characters like Wrathion and Alexstraza are enormously popular), it makes sense for the class lineup (players want a new healer and RDPS), and it makes sense lore-wise. So why can't they become a class?

Where was I wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Correct, it is not evidence, it's an opinion without evidence.

So articles from the time period in question are not evidence?

Since when?

[arkanon]

Where was I wrong?

- - - Updated - - -



So articles from the time period in question are not evidence?

Since when?

Since just like you, they don't provide ANYTHING to support their claim - just a random, baseless comment.

[Teriz]

Since just like you, they don't provide ANYTHING to support their claim - just a random, baseless comment.

Except multiple articles from reputable media, and a thread from this forum.

What counter-evidence have you provided?

[arkanon]

Except multiple articles from reputable media, and a thread from this forum.

What counter-evidence have you provided?

Those articles came out AFTER the trademark or the announcement itself. We have been through this.

[Teriz]

Those articles came out AFTER the trademark or the announcement itself. We have been through this.

Uh, no, ALL of those articles came out before MoP was officially announced, and one article predates the MoP TM leak.

Counter-evidence?

[arkanon]

Uh, no, ALL of those articles came out before MoP was officially announced, and one article predates the MoP TM leak.

Counter-evidence?

So you agree, all but one article came out AFTER the trademark, like I have said multiple times. Thanks for finally admitting it.

Let me ask you this - if their popularity was anywhere near as high as you claim, why are they the lowest represented full race? And it's not even close. Other full races that were introduced after launch have huge player numbers, but pandas are right at the bottom for both horde and alliance.

That might have changed since I last looked, but I highly doubt it.