What's wrong with expressing my opinion? That is the point of discussion no?
That's regardless of the point though. Characters aren't brought into the story for the sole purpose of bringing any class to the table. Like honestly speaking, what does Chen have to do with the Monk Class? Nothing. He wasn't the one who introduced Monks to the Alliance and Horde, and wouldn't have been necessary for that at all.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).
So if we're talking about Sylvanas, Tyrande and Vol'jin, we're literally just talking about them as characters. Whether they get more story or not is merely fan service and Blizzard's own interest in furthering their stories. It has nothing to do with a new classes becoming playable. Like you said, Thrall doesn't introduce a new class. Well neither did Chen, Arthas or Illidan. We have DK's, Monks and DH playable for very different reasons that aren't solely tied to major lore characters.
They would ressurect or redeem them to further their character stories, that's it. Same with Thrall being brought back into the story. What is his real purpose? Not much, I can tell you that.If you think they would resurrect Vol'jin or redeem Sylvanas just so they can deliver some lines, you are mistaken.
To be honest, we don't know beyond 10.0 either. We're all equally speculating on anything after Dragon Isles.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.
Like, what if they decide 11.0 will have 3 new 'Allied Classes'? Or Hero Talents that provide existing classes some options to expand into an actual Hero concept? Patterns only work so far until Blizzard decides to completely change up their systems. Just look at how Races stopped following any tangible pattern. Would 11.0 have No new races? Or more Allied Races? Or 1 new race? No one would really know, and Race patterns are practically meaningless moving forward.
Who says anything about forum talk solidifying into a new class? I'm talking about people being able to realistically speculate a Dragon-themed class whereas people using patterns like you would have completely dismissed them as ever being an option. Patterns told us Dragon themed class was never in Warcraft 3, right? Clearly, those patterns are wrong. What worked instead? Speculation on the upcoming story and setting possibilities, and connecting a Class to it.I get that. But, does it mean that the recent forum talk about a Dragon class is what soldified Evoker as the new class?
Yet here you are arguing for a 3-spec Ranger/Dark Ranger class?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.
If Gnomes and Goblins were not so universally unpopular and the concept wasn't so silly, sure. As I said, if you're going to take Popularity out of the equation, then yes, Tinker would be easily on the short list. The reality is that popularity IS a factor, one which heavily affects the reason why we don't have a Tinker class already.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."
If you aren't willing to actually look into stuff we're talking about, then it doesn't matter if there is or isn't. Like, I asked you multiple times, have you read the Sylvanas Novel? Have you read through the entire Danuser twitter interview? No? Then no point asking for proof when you're only interested in confirming your own bias rather than objectively assessing the situation in a logical way. The fact that Danuser did not outright deny Dark Ranger as a customization option is very telling of what they actually think about it. They could have easily said something like 'We have no plans right now for Dark Rangers' and they didn't. He literally humors it being possible as a customization.Is it? Any statement that they were intending but gave up on it?
- edit -
Looks like it's confirmed. Do you now see the actual connections between this and the evidence I pointed out? Novel. Interviews. Datamines. All pointed at this one customization event which was very clearly being hinted at.
TBH, I don't care much about the mobile game, but I don't see it being bad at all. I just see it as another side thing like Hearthstone.Like the new Warcraft mobile game. *disgust*
This is definitely not the old Blizzard.