Dark Ranger Customizations (Coming in 9.2.5)!!!

[Atrea]

Well, here's the answer to your question:



Why haven't Dark Rangers been added yet? Because a supermajority of players do not want them to be.

End of discussion.

[wowrefugee]

Well, here's the answer to your question:



Why haven't Dark Rangers been added yet? Because a supermajority of players do not want them to be.

End of discussion.

This is facetious, right?

There's no way you actually believe an mmo champion poll is capable of representing something like that.

Not only that, it would imply Blizzard only does things a majority of players want. Mechagnomes?

[Triceron]

ya there is no lore at all about DK’s losing a connection to nature.

And If we are using your standard that racial’s are suppose to be lore then yes they do have a connection to nature through the Zandlari keeping there connection to the Loa (wild gods of nature) the Tauren keeping there connection to the earth mother giving them boost to herding/nature resist, and night elf’s still turning into nature sprits (wisp) on death.

Not to mention all DK's can learn to be Herbalists, which is a direct connection to Nature itself.

A shame they removed Lifeblood ability. The Haste boost was great for snapshotting DoTs and was a decent self heal to boot.

[Atrea]

This is facetious, right?

There's no way you actually believe an mmo champion poll is capable of representing something like that.

Not only that, it would imply Blizzard only does things a majority of players want. Mechagnomes?

The question gets asked elsewhere too, and the results are more or less the same.
Most players do not want them.

Blizzard doesn't always do the things that a majority of players want, but they won't do the things a majority of players don't want.

[wowrefugee]

, but they won't do the things a majority of players don't want.

Nice. Wish I was playing that version of the game.

Edit: Also, most people aren't going out of their way to say they don't want Dark Rangers.

If you asked players to list things they don't want in the game, Dark Rangers wouldnt show up.

You could've made this poll with mechagnomes and get the same poll results. Means nothing.

[pacotaco]

Well, here's the answer to your question:



Why haven't Dark Rangers been added yet? Because a supermajority of players do not want them to be.

End of discussion.

supermajority

118 (Y) vs 208 (N) from a playerbase of an estimated 4.8 million users.

OK.

[Hobbidaggy]

God this thread needs to be closed. You three need to stop arguing over pointless stuff that you are all literally speculating about

[Teriz]

J
There's nothing restrictive about a new mail wearer or a new ranged and healer class. We got 3 melee classes back to back. We got 2 leather wearers. Did the first stop them from adding more? No.

Again, the armor tables are pretty much even now, we have a pretty equal number of melee and ranged dps specs, the tanks and healers are pretty even and proportionate to their jobs in group play. That wasn't the case before the Evoker inclusion. Any future class is going to have to offer something that cannot be replicated in the existing class lineup. I DO think Tinkers have the best chance of doing that, but it really depends if Blizzard wants to do more classes. As I said, their language during the Evoker reveal really seemed like they were looking to place a cap on certain playstyles, like melee DPS.

Your belief is like the superstition that Blizzard would have stopped at level 100.

Except Blizzard never said they planned on stopping at level 100. Blizzard DID say that we had enough melee DPS and tanks.

[Kiria]

Well, here's the answer to your question:



Why haven't Dark Rangers been added yet? Because a supermajority of players do not want them to be.

End of discussion.

lol to think 326 votes equals a majority of the WoW population, I'm sorry friend but you are trolling and it's a very poor attempt at that.

God this thread needs to be closed. You three need to stop arguing over pointless stuff that you are all literally speculating about

You don't have to click on it, go do something else because you are NOT compelled to come here.

[Schlock]

Nice. Wish I was playing that version of the game.

Edit: Also, most people aren't going out of their way to say they don't want Dark Rangers.

If you asked players to list things they don't want in the game, Dark Rangers wouldnt show up.

You could've made this poll with mechagnomes and get the same poll results. Means nothing.

Be fair, the mechagnome poll would have been way more heavily skewed toward 'no'

[Hobbidaggy]

You don't have to click on it, go do something else because you are NOT compelled to come here.

No but I do have to put up with your stupid crap every day as a topic on the main page because you can’t bloody let it go. So instead of telling me to go somewhere else etc go do it yourself because we are all sick of this thread being bumped because of your stupid argument between each other over a topic you’re all making up as you go along because none of you are blizzard wow developers, so stop acting like you know what’s going on. You all know nothing and your attempts to join imaginary dots together to prove an argument is beyond pathetic.

[Kiria]

No but I do have to put up with your stupid crap every day as a topic on the main page because you can’t bloody let it go. So instead of telling me to go somewhere else etc go do it yourself because we are all sick of this thread being bumped because of your stupid argument between each other over a topic you’re all making up as you go along because none of you are blizzard wow developers, so stop acting like you know what’s going on. You all know nothing and your attempts to join imaginary dots together to prove an argument is beyond pathetic.

If it's constantly being bumped then it's still of an interest to people, This is after all a "discussion" forum, to tell people to stop talking about something because you don't like it is on you, go elsewhere for your own sake.

[Ghanir]

And there's no reason to build any new class based on their archetypes either, considering the majority of their gameplay is covered by Hunters and other classes, whether we're talking about dual wielding shadow gameplay covered by Rogues or Faith-based healing that is covered by Priests or Paladins.

Although I agree that Malfurion is pretty much just a druid with a unique character model and shapeshifting models I can def. see the glaive-wielding priest/hunter combo be turned into a spec or its own class type.

Like I pointed out before, Blizzard had provided Verdant Sphere customizations to both Mage and Warlock. Two classes representing the same Blood Mage archetype.

A blood mage, or whatever anyone wants to call it in order for it to feel more unique, is quite the unique type of magic school that only the Death Knight utilizes atm afaik. This could def. be expanded upon as a spec, or it's own class type.

- - - Updated - - -

No but I do have to put up with your stupid crap every day as a topic on the main page because you can’t bloody let it go. So instead of telling me to go somewhere else etc go do it yourself because we are all sick of this thread being bumped because of your stupid argument between each other over a topic you’re all making up as you go along because none of you are blizzard wow developers, so stop acting like you know what’s going on. You all know nothing and your attempts to join imaginary dots together to prove an argument is beyond pathetic.

If you are so picky when it comes to topics then only go to each sub-section you like and only click on the topics you wanna participate in. You are bringing nothing to the discussion nor do you have the rights to demand others to drop it.

[Triceron]

Although I agree that Malfurion is pretty much just a druid with a unique character model and shapeshifting models I can def. see the glaive-wielding priest/hunter combo be turned into a spec or its own class type.

Doubtful as a spec, considering it's racially tied to Night Elves and would be weird as fuck becoming an open option to every Hunter or Priest race. You have to realize a spec represents the class, not just any particular race combo that you think would make sense. And glaive wielding gnomes and tauren still don't make much sense. Kinda like saying Warriors can get a spec that wields giant Totem weapons to help represent Tauren. Well, as a spec that would also mean every race gets Totems since every race can be a Warrior. Totem weapons are more of a Tauren thing than they are a Warrior thing.

It would be best left as a racially exclusive cosmetic option if anything.

A blood mage, or whatever anyone wants to call it in order for it to feel more unique, is quite the unique type of magic school that only the Death Knight utilizes atm afaik. This could def. be expanded upon as a spec, or it's own class type.

We are talking about Kael'thas and the Blood Mage of Warcraft 3, which doesn't actually use 'Blood' or vampirism as a spell theme. They are Fire and Arcane (possibly also Fel) mages that have Verdant spheres. We aren't talking about Mages that use DK Blood themes.

[Diaphin]

Didn't Blizz kinda hint at them possibly introducing Dark Rangers as a class skin for hunters, similar to green fire?

[Ghanir]

Doubtful as a spec, considering it's racially tied to Night Elves and would be weird as fuck becoming an open option to every Hunter or Priest race. You have to realize a spec represents the class, not just any particular race combo that you think would make sense. And glaive wielding gnomes and tauren still don't make much sense. Kinda like saying Warriors can get a spec that wields giant Totem weapons to help represent Tauren. Well, as a spec that would also mean every race gets Totems since every race can be a Warrior. Totem weapons are more of a Tauren thing than they are a Warrior thing.

It would be best left as a racially exclusive cosmetic option if anything.

That, however, doesn't exclude it potentially being formed into a new class.

We are talking about Kael'thas and the Blood Mage of Warcraft 3, which doesn't actually use 'Blood' or vampirism as a spell theme. They are Fire and Arcane (possibly also Fel) mages that have Verdant spheres. We aren't talking about Mages that use DK Blood themes.

I know you are talking about Kael'thas, but you mentioned the blood mage archetype and I commented on that specifically as you can read in my original response.
I understand that the blood mage unit from WC3 and a blood mage could be misinterpreted as the same thing, but when you say "blood mage archetype" my thoughts go to the concept of a mage that utilize blood.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Blizz kinda hint at them possibly introducing Dark Rangers as a class skin for hunters, similar to green fire?

They have paved the way for something related to Dark Rangers and Darkfallen with some questlines that were recently datamined.

[Triceron]

That, however, doesn't exclude it potentially being formed into a new class.

I mean, if we're getting into technicalities, what can actually get excluded from being potentially formed into a new class? By all means a Janitor class could exist and there's nothing to exclude the possibility either. This is a non argument.

There's no way to exclude a speculative possibility of anything. Even a 'Fighter' that does the exact same thing as a Warrior could be argued as being potentially a new class too, because we're literally wildly speculating while there are no tangible rules that define what can or can not be made into a class.

What I am talking about is how these concepts do not align with what Blizzard has traditionally intended of player classes. At no point am I excluding anything, nor do I think that exclusion is even possible. I can't argue against a Janitor class being fully realized and made playable if it were to ever happen. All I can really say is that it doesn't make sense to add one, and that the possibility is highly unlikely.

I know you are talking about Kael'thas, but you mentioned the blood mage archetype and I commented on that specifically as you can read in my original response.
I understand that the blood mage unit from WC3 and a blood mage could be misinterpreted as the same thing, but when you say "blood mage archetype" my thoughts go to the concept of a mage that utilize blood.

Right, and that would still be pulling my quotes out of context if that's what you wish to talk about, considering I am clearly stating I am not talking about any type of mage that uses Blood Magic.

[username993720]

Yes, it could have. And if Blizzard decided at that point in time that Hero Class should be a title granted to existing classes like Warriors being able to gain Blue Eyes and Runeblades, that would have been the definition of a Death Knight.

You could say that about any potential class.
That's easy to say in hidsight, now that you have that class playable. But, we know that's not how Blizzard operates.

We see that Blizzard decided not to go in that direction with Death Knights, and instead give them a very specific origin and a very specific way to connect them back into the Alliance and Horde.

Like every new class addition. You can't say that before their addition. So, why are apying that to any potential ones? Did you know how a Dragonsworn like class, like the Evoker, would be introduced and join the factions? You didn't. You speculated at best.

Where do we see that happening for Dark Rangers? The vast majority of them do not have unique backgrounds, do not perform anything particularly different from what a Hunter is able to learn or train, and otherwise are already folded back into the factions through Calia.

Like any Death Knight and Demon Hunter before their addition. I don't get it. You did not judge the possibility of Death Knights and Demon Hunters based on some shitty NPCs who used 2-3 Warrior and Warlock abilities, so why do you apply the same standard for other classes?

And, they did not join the factions, they joined a faction - the Horde. That does not imply playability, even as a customization, because that means only one faction would get to play it.

And there's no reason to build any new class based on their archetypes either, considering the majority of their gameplay is covered by Hunters and other classes, whether we're talking about dual wielding shadow gameplay covered by Rogues or Faith-based healing that is covered by Priests or Paladins.

Are you trolling me right now?
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...pecializations
No class does the things Sylvanas and Tyrande do.

You don't need to combine them to have them represent a class archetype.

Hunter does it fine. Look at all the people who have directly replied in this thread literally stating how Hunters would be a fine representative for Dark Rangers.

Like I pointed out before, Blizzard had provided Verdant Sphere customizations to both Mage and Warlock. Two classes representing the same Blood Mage archetype.

Then, so would a Warlock with Metamotphosis. And, we know that isn't true.

They had a specific origin that involved them gaining powers that were unique from Paladins, so there is enough distinction to warrant there being a difference.

Do you know what the lore of the newly risen Dark Rangers is? They're literally just raised Hunters and Rangers who continue to do the same thing in death as they did in life. I mean they're using the same dark magic that was available to the Hunter class for many years, considering Hunters had full access to abilities like Black Arrow.

Then, you don't know much about their lore. Because Hunters do not use the dark magic Sylvanas uses. They might retain the agility and marksmanship of the Hunter. But, the magic is completly new.

Being an Alchemist is not mutually exclusive from being a Rogue. Romuul is an Artificer who is also a Holy Paladin. Not quite sure why you even bother bringing this up.

Misrepresentation.
We already know Deathstalkers and Apothecaries are two different organizations.

Not true at all. Allied Races exist because Races don't encompass all their variations, otherwise Dark Iron would have remained a customization option alongside Wildhammers. Or Human doesn't encompass the Kul Tirans or Gilneans even though they are also Human. Or Forsaken doesn't encompass all the Death Knight racial variants that we have.

I said "unless they are a different race". In that case, Allied races. Do you think we'd get San'layn and Darkfallen separately? Because then, there's absolutely no reason to tie them together as one in the Sylvanas book.

Except Dark Rangers have no way of becoming Wardens. None of them ever had Warden training, none of them learned Warden techniques, and the only known Dark Warden is a completely deranged villain with no redeeming qualities.

Dark Rangers don't need to become Wardens. They only need to share the same dark magic.

again not how bow’s work but at this point your just being willfully ignorant on that as well.

For christ sake, drop the bow argument.
I'll give you an example:

Master of Anatomy
Passive
Skinning all those dead animals has broadened your anatomical knowledge, increasing your critical strike rating by X.

If you know where to strike, you'll do more damage. In this case, the Hunter's sharp eyesight allows it to hit crucial parts in the body, therefore increasing his damage.

ya there is no lore at all about DK’s losing a connection to nature.

And If we are using your standard that racial’s are suppose to be lore then yes they do have a connection to nature through the Zandlari keeping there connection to the Loa (wild gods of nature) the Tauren keeping there connection to the earth mother giving them boost to herding/nature resist, and night elf’s still turning into nature sprits (wisp) on death.

You're talking about races.
We're talking about a class. Which, you failed to provide an example.

Not to mention all DK's can learn to be Herbalists, which is a direct connection to Nature itself.

A shame they removed Lifeblood ability. The Haste boost was great for snapshotting DoTs and was a decent self heal to boot.

Not a representation of the class, but a gameplay option.
Tauren can be Engineers. Doesn't mean they're tech-oriented.

Blizzard doesn't always do the things that a majority of players want, but they won't do the things a majority of players don't want.

Really?
They didn't do borrowed power the last 3 expansions?
Pathfinder flying?
Alt-unfriendliness?

Again, the armor tables are pretty much even now, we have a pretty equal number of melee and ranged dps specs, the tanks and healers are pretty even and proportionate to their jobs in group play. That wasn't the case before the Evoker inclusion. Any future class is going to have to offer something that cannot be replicated in the existing class lineup. I DO think Tinkers have the best chance of doing that, but it really depends if Blizzard wants to do more classes. As I said, their language during the Evoker reveal really seemed like they were looking to place a cap on certain playstyles, like melee DPS.

Who says there need to be a balanced amount of classes? Again, it's a superstition just like how level 100 looks perfect for ending leveling.

Except Blizzard never said they planned on stopping at level 100. Blizzard DID say that we had enough melee DPS and tanks.

No, they meant it's time to change a bit because all they've been adding are melee classes.

[xVicarious]

Why are these even wanted so badly? yall hate Sylvanas but beg for her clone as a playable class?

[Ghanir]

Right, and that would still be pulling my quotes out of context if that's what you wish to talk about, considering I am clearly stating I am not talking about any type of mage that uses Blood Magic.

When you mention "blood mage archetype" you are. That is most likely what most people would think when you specifically use the term "blood mage archetype".

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, if we're getting into technicalities, what can actually get excluded from being potentially formed into a new class? By all means a Janitor class could exist and there's nothing to exclude the possibility either. This is a non argument.

There's no way to exclude a speculative possibility of anything. Even a 'Fighter' that does the exact same thing as a Warrior could be argued as being potentially a new class too, because we're literally wildly speculating while there are no tangible rules that define what can or can not be made into a class.

What I am talking about is how these concepts do not align with what Blizzard has traditionally intended of player classes. At no point am I excluding anything, nor do I think that exclusion is even possible. I can't argue against a Janitor class being fully realized and made playable if it were to ever happen. All I can really say is that it doesn't make sense to add one, and that the possibility is highly unlikely.

The Demon Hunter was never a necessity for the game either, but it is heavily based on Illidan.
People are sitting here arguing that if classes can take most, if not all, of its inspiration from one character, then why can't they do so with Tyrande if they can with Illidan? This isn't speculation but the desires of one part of the fanbase.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are these even wanted so badly? yall hate Sylvanas but beg for her clone as a playable class?

A character with poorly written lore can still look badass, amirite?