Thread: Tinker Class

Page 50 of 63 FirstFirst ...
40
48
49
50
51
52
60
... LastLast
  1. #981
    Banned But I Hate You All's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The West Coast of the United States
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yeah, Quilbeasts don't exist in WoW.
    Quilbeasts are a battle-trained species of boar in the servitude of the quilboar. Boars exist in wow

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Also Hunters can't summon birds that shoot lightning,
    Wind Serpent shoot lighting in wow for hunters

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    or bears that can teleport.
    http://www.wowhead.com/spell=130392

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Not to mention that these summons end after about a minute.
    called game balance. also they can summon a beast for a short amount of time http://www.wowhead.com/spell=120679/dire-beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Hunters could dual wield, but that wasn't their primary method of DPS. Also, Beast Masters didn't use ranged weapons at all.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ZeEvV5pMc

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    By the time a Hunter gets stampede, they're wearing mail armor.
    All of the beast master abilities are in the hunter class. hell they even have a spec named after it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So the fact that one is melee and one is ranged only matters when we're talking about Demon Hunters and Warlocks?
    Not what I said lets compare real quick Hunters and beast masters share 8 things and don't share 1 while locks and DH share two things and do not share 6.

    Your really trying to compare apples to oranges.

    If warlocks had all or most the abilities of the demon hunter and a spec named demon hunter I would be inclined to agree

    also look at http://www.wowwiki.com/Beastmaster Notable bm 3 AND ONLY TWO appear in game

    while http://www.wowwiki.com/Demon_hunter Notable DH 13 all 12 appear in game
    Last edited by But I Hate You All; 2013-09-14 at 05:52 AM.

  2. #982
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Because there is NO contradiction in lore.
    Because Warlocks already share a lot of the DHs design space
    Because Blizzard does not want to increase class homogeniety
    Because the design direction Blizzard has taken for the past 5 or 6 years is to merge the two class concepts into one - a move which has accelerated in MoP.
    Because a lot of the work done for the GoDH and the Warlocks history and reputation wrt to tanking means that a lot of the work to move it fully into DH territory has already been done
    Because doing this will likely help shore up the popularity Warlock class by tying it into the DH "cool" factor.
    That's great, but it's not a good case to actually do anything. When faced with any design decision, the first thing you ask is 'Why is this design necessary'. Secondly, you ask 'What will this design hope to accomplish', which covers the reasons and goals. If the intent is to bring attention to the Warlock class, then you already accomplish that by simply having a 4th spec.

    I must ask you, what do you think you accomplish by specifically using "Demon Hunter" as the Warlock 4th spec?

    It's crazy to think that attaching a highly recognized, self-sustained identity to a currently unpopular class for the sake of interest is a good idea. You have to understand what makes Demon Hunters popular in the first place, and why they are so highly regarded. When you ignore the explanations given to you by actual fans of the Demon Hunter class, you're ignoring all reasons why the concept of making it a Warlock spec is a bad idea.

    Lore is the first and biggest thing it complicates. Gameplay mechanics are another factor that comes into conflict. While gameplay is always changeable, the idea extends to a fairly big set of changes, ones that lead into changing the identity of the Warlock class from a traditional Cloth-wearing Spellcaster into one that can Melee, and therefore must be able to use Melee stats such as Parry and Expertise. The last biggest factor is ultimately class identity, because going forward, either Demon Hunters are open to anyone becoming one. The idea of Spectral Sight and Runic Tattooes, and most everything that makes a Demon Hunter unique is gone. Consider the method at which Demon Hunters are being introduced - they are cloth casters wielding Warglaives. You can't even wear the Cursed Vision of Sargeras.

    If your idea was drawn back a bit, and we simply give Warlocks a 4th Tanking (or Melee) spec, using ALL the same mechanics, abilities and allusions to Demon Hunters while keeping it ambiguous, it will work 100%. It would maintain all elements of plausibility, just as Demonology does right now without conflicting with any Demon Hunter lore. Warlocks can use Metamorphosis? Well that's because they learned it from Illidan. There's no Demon Hunter connection.

    If Blizzard said Warlocks became Demon Hunters by using Metamorphosis, that would change everything completely. Suddenly the Demon Hunter has a completely new definition. That definition becomes any Warlock (or simply character) that uses Metamorphosis is called a Demon Hunter. Out goes the ritual blinding, the use of Warglaives, the tattoes, literally EVERYTHING. Demon Hunters and Warlocks would be one and the same. And that would be a devastating retcon to everyone who recognizes the Warcraft 3 Demon Hunter.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-14 at 06:19 AM.

  3. #983
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,820
    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    Quilbeasts are a battle-trained species of boar in the servitude of the quilboar. Boars exist in wow
    Please link me to the species of boars that shoot quills at targets which the Hunter class can tame.

    Wind Serpent shoot lighting in wow for hunters
    Wind Serpents aren't birds. They're flying snakes. Hence why they're called serpents. Additionally, the Beastmaster's Hawks could turn invisible.

    Yeah, an ability to let your pets teleport behind your opponent isn't the same as having a summoned unit that can willfully teleport at will. Again, not the same ability.

    called game balance. also they can summon a beast for a short amount of time.
    Not the same ability. Dire Beast is random, the Beast Master's summons are not. Not to mention the BM could summon like 4 Quillbeasts at once.


    All of the beast master abilities are in the hunter class. hell they even have a spec named after it.
    Where's my Quillbeast, Spirit Hawk, and Spirit Bear with Blink?

    Not what I said lets compare real quick Hunters and beast masters share 8 things and don't share 1 while locks and DH share two things and do not share 6.

    Your really trying to compare apples to oranges.

    You didn't type this?

    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    lock wear leather? duel wield swords? fight in melee? have mana burn?

    only thing dh and locks have in common is the demo forum
    So again, does the melee vs ranged thing only apply when we're talking about Demon Hunters and Warlocks?


    If warlocks had all or most the abilities of the demon hunter and a spec named demon hunter I would be inclined to agree
    Hunters only have one of the Beastmaster's abilities. Warlocks have 2 of the Demon Hunter's.

  4. #984
    Banned But I Hate You All's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The West Coast of the United States
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Please link me to the species of boars that shoot quills at targets which the Hunter class can tame.
    As said before there are boars in game and if you want shooting quills http://www.wowhead.com/pet=127#abilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Wind Serpents aren't birds. They're flying snakes. Hence why they're called serpents. Additionally, the Beastmaster's Hawks could turn invisible.
    invisible. http://www.wowhead.com/spell=51753

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yeah, an ability to let your pets teleport behind your opponent isn't the same as having a summoned unit that can willfully teleport at will. Again, not the same ability.
    but once again Beast masters are covered by beast master hunters most of the abilities form Wc3 are tweaked different for wow

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Not the same ability. Dire Beast is random, the Beast Master's summons are not. Not to mention the BM could summon like 4 Quillbeasts at once.
    Same concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Where's my Quillbeast, Spirit Hawk, and Spirit Bear with Blink?
    http://www.wowhead.com/pet=46#gallery

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You didn't type this?
    OH i did and lets have the whole list leather wearer? duel wield swords ? melee dps ? Evasion (Passive) ? Mana Burn ? Night elfs can't be locks



    So again, does the melee vs ranged thing only apply when we're talking about Demon Hunters and Warlocks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Hunters only have one of the Beastmaster's abilities. Warlocks have 2 of the Demon Hunter's.
    No the concept of Beastmaster and it abilities are in the Hunter class in wow

    but as I said before


    Not what I said lets compare real quick Hunters and beast masters share 8 things and don't share 1 while locks and DH share two things and do not share 6.

    Your really trying to compare apples to oranges.

    If warlocks had all or most the abilities of the demon hunter and a spec named demon hunter I would be inclined to agree

    also look at http://www.wowwiki.com/Beastmaster Notable bm 3 AND ONLY TWO appear in game

    while http://www.wowwiki.com/Demon_hunter Notable DH 12 all 12 appear in game
    Last edited by But I Hate You All; 2013-09-14 at 06:16 AM.

  5. #985
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,820
    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    As said before there are boars in game and if you want shooting quills http://www.wowhead.com/pet=127#abilities
    I want to be able to summon four quillbeasts that can fight in range, while I'm fighting in melee. Why can't I do that on my Hunter? You told me that the Hunter had ALL of the Beast Master's abilities. What gives?

    Nice reach.

    but once again Beast masters are covered by beast master hunters most of the abilities form Wc3 are tweaked different for wow
    Except the Beastmaster doesn't tame animals. He summons them through abilities. Its a summon, not a pet. A good comparison would be the Shaman totem system. Its really nothing like the Hunter system.

    Same concept
    The same concept doesn't equal the same ability.


    No spirit hawk that shoots lightning. No Spirit Bear that teleports. Again, these are abilities. Where are they?


    OH i did and lets have the whole list leather wearer?
    Find me a level 90 Hunter wearing leather armor. Oh, and your leather-wearing Demon Hunter can wear cloth.

    duel wield swords ? melee dps ?
    See Beast Master vs. Hunter, or Shadow Hunter vs Shaman. Again, its amazing that issue only pops up when we're discussing Demon Hunters and Warlocks.

    Evasion (Passive)
    Rogues have that ability. Unless you seriously want to argue exact abilities after attempting (and failing) to try to make the case that the Hunter pet system works like the Beast Master summon system.

    Mana Burn ?
    No longer exists in WoW. Let it go.

    Night elfs can't be locks
    I can't be a half orc/ogre Hunter either.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-09-14 at 06:31 AM.

  6. #986
    Well, there goes the Tinker discussion.

  7. #987
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,820
    Tinkers:

    +Have all their WC3 abilities.
    +Have little to no overlap with existing classes.
    +Fit in the mail armor slot.
    +Are flexible enough to be a physical ranged class
    +Add lore to two underutilized races.
    +Could perform any role.

    -Need a more serious tone than previously shown


    Demon Hunters:

    +Popular among hardcore fans

    -Overlap with multiple classes
    -Possible name clash with Hunters
    -Melee only
    -Probably DPS-only with a slight chance of being tankable
    -WC3 abilities are farmed out to other classes.

  8. #988
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    That's great, but it's not a good case to actually do anything. When faced with any design decision, the first thing you ask is 'Why is this design necessary'. Secondly, you ask 'What will this design hope to accomplish', which covers the reasons and goals. If the intent is to bring attention to the Warlock class, then you already accomplish that by simply having a 4th spec.
    The intent is to bring the DH into the game.

    How is this best served? You have all the advantages and reasons I checked off before if you go with a 4th spec for Warlocks.

    Does a dedicated standalone DH class add anything over and above that? You get to be called "Demon Hunter" in blurbs is about it.

    That advantage isn't enough to justify an entirely new class deisgn. And, with the design direction Warlocks HAVE taken, and with GCs comment about design space, it can even be said bringing in such a design would HURT Warlocks.

    I must ask you, what do you think you accomplish by specifically using "Demon Hunter" as the Warlock 4th spec?
    You get the DH class into the game as a playable spec, and you potentially boost Warlocks popularity by a: tying them into the DH lore b: giving players the variety of a 4th spec and 2nd role.

    It's crazy to think that attaching a highly recognized, self-sustained identity to a currently unpopular class for the sake of interest is a good idea.
    And the alternative is to overrule 6 years of design that have effectively merged the designs and given them a great degree of overlap. That move can only hurt Warlocks and no matter how popualr DHs might be, the need and welfare of existing classes ALWAYS take precedence.

    You have to understand what makes Demon Hunters popular in the first place, and why they are so highly regarded. When you ignore the explanations given to you by actual fans of the Demon Hunter class, you're ignoring all reasons why the concept of making it a Warlock spec is a bad idea.
    No. I don't. I know the lore and story behind the class is important. I'm a lore nerd myself and I really dislike some of the creative leaps in logic Blizzrad occasionally use to jsutify their story.

    The issue is I am looking at this purely from a gameplay/class design point of view. And once you get rid of the lore based objections you bring up, we are left with a class design which has a VERY large degree of overlap. Warlocks have been given the DH look, they'bve been linekd to Illidan, they've been given the DH iconic move and so on.

    I see how close the two actually are...Warlocks can take on the look, they can sue swords, they bring the same Demon theme and they bring the magic side of the class. Alls thats mising is the melee aspect.

    And then I examine the lore. And I see that none of it - from either class - acts to exclude the other.

    And then I ask...with the classes so close to each other, with the design overlap so great, what will a standalone class brign that make sit worth developing as such?

    The answer is ....nothing.

    There's no Demon Hunter connection.
    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck.....why is it not a duck?

    Is there any reason why the explanation "Warlock magic took on a different form amongst the Night Elfs" can't do the same job?

    As for "Out goes the ritual blinding, the use of Warglaives, the tattoes, literally EVERYTHING"...what makes you think that has anythignt o do with being a Demon Hunter? With gaining a DHs power? You could just as easily say paladins aren't paladins without Librams.

    As I see, the facts are these:

    Blizzard has spent the past 6 years effectively merging the DH into the Warlock class. As a result, there is now a huge degree of overlap in look, theme, abilities. A standalone class will, by necessity either copy those, increasing homogeniety or will require the Warlock or DH to be redesigned. Neither of those is acceptable. A 4th spec, OTOH, simply requires that a players get to play DHs in a manner that would be very similar to the standalone class that they don't have.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-14 at 07:49 AM.

  9. #989
    You see the Demon Hunter class or spec as a threat to Warlocks. Warlocks will be unpopular despite Demon Hunters being added, that's going to be the sad truth. The only way they could make it more interesting is if they redesigned the class or added new roles - but they should not bring down the identity of a Demon Hunter with it. I can tell you that mechanically it could all play out well, but it will harm the Demon Hunter identity, and arguably bring down its popularity. At that point, no one will feel like they're playing a Demon Hunter. They will know they are playing Warlocks with Warglaives.

    The only thing it would do is be called Demon Hunter in name.

    Now understand this. Blizzard already did that with Demonology spec. They took the most iconic spells away from a Demon Hunter and gave it to the Warlock. This didn't help Warlock popularity one bit. Fans are still asking for a real Demon Hunter. If they continue in that direction and give it all to the Warlock, including the Demon Hunter name, but leave out the important bits like the (permanent) Spectral Sight and Runic Tattooes, as well as supporting lore for this decision, then it isn't going to make any difference. It's going to bring down all Demon Hunter popularity. No matter how they dress it up, no matter what weapons or looks they give this spec, it will be Warlocks with Warglaives. It will never be what the fans actually want.

    If you want to see why, read my reason for wanting a Demon Hunter class.

    It is my personal reason for a fully fleshed Demon Hunter class. I will not accept any substitutes, and would rather never see a Demon Hunter class if they could not be implemented as one (or at the very least, as a spec for a core class that represents their identity). When you read it, you will know exactly why.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-14 at 09:04 AM.

  10. #990
    Scarab Lord Gamevizier's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, US
    Posts
    4,716


    What a Tinkerer's tier may look like. mail armor with a alot of gadgets such as clockwork motors and grenades and such.

    I got into details about Steam Warriors and their possible appearance, this one is about Clock Work Tinkerers :

    Tinkerers operate heavy machinery such as steam-powered heavy suits, mechanical armpacks powered by clockwork motors, and their third speculated spec is chemistry... which fits a rifleman perfectly (gas grenades, medical kits, toxic sprays, drugs that enhance their performance, etc.)

    Clockwork :


    Clockwork technology has allowed Tinkerers to create clockwork-powered automatons such as clockwork drones, turrets and stations.

    1) Drones : very small robots hovering above the Tinkerer and providing him with personal buffs.

    They do not attack. they can fill alot of support roles such as :

    Temporary regeneration - disease/curse/debuff removal - increase Tinkerer's ranged accuracy against the target (lazing a target for the Tinkerer.) etc.

    2) Turrets : Small easy-to-setup clockwork-powered turrets that Tinkerers drop on the ground. Turrets have alot of functions such as :

    Atacking enemies - slowing down enemies (similar to guardian drones from CoD.) - Shield Turrets that generate a temporary shield around friendly units around them (not too strong to turn them OP, not too weak to turn them useless.) - dummy turrets that generate threat and divert enemies from the Tinkerer.

    3) Stations : Clockwork-Powered Stations that are a little bit bigger than Turrets, they have very strong passive support benefits but can be consumed by the Tinkerer to use a very strong ability.

    example :

    Radar Station : Reveals enemies near the station.

    Ability : Consumes the Radar's entire power to reveal all enemies around the Tinkerer for 30 seconds.


    Medical Station : Increases the regeneration rate of Allies while they are out of combat - decreases bleeding effect damage while in combat

    Ability : Consumes the Medical Stations' power to remove up to 4 disease/curse/bleeding or other negative effects from up to 4 friendly targets.


    Clockwork Station : Creates small clock-work powered demo robots that run towards the nearest enemy. detonating themselves and inflicting X damage.

    Ability : Clockwork Station turns into a giant robot and attacks enemies for 20 seconds.

    but theres a limit to these creations.

    Innovation Points : every Clockwork Tinkerer has a total of 6 Innovation Points, maintaining each creation takes innovation points and once you have used all six points you need to disband a creation to make way for another.

    Drone takes 1 IP but you can only deploy 3 drones simultaneously. Turrets take 2 IPs and Stations take 3 IPs but you can only deploy one station at the same time.

    so depending on your preference and the situation you're in you can choose your buildup. you can either have one station one turret and one drone or have 2 drones and 2 turrets or 3 drones and one station (no turrets)

    -----------

    the origional Tinkerer did not use any weapons but my proposed model of Clockwork Tinkerer is more similar to Techmarines (Warhammer 40k) minus the badass power-armor which leaves a rifleman with a mechanical arm-pack that deploys/builds his creations.

  11. #991
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Tinkers:

    +Have all their WC3 abilities.
    +Have little to no overlap with existing classes.
    +Fit in the mail armor slot.
    +Are flexible enough to be a physical ranged class
    +Add lore to two underutilized races.
    +Could perform any role.

    -Need a more serious tone than previously shown
    -What's a Tinker?
    -Conflicts with a profession theme.
    -Robotic Arms obscure 3rd person camera views and conflict with mounts
    -Also conflicts with animations such as somersaults, raising arms, or doing anything in general
    -Class name conflicts with Engineering-only enchantments - also called Tinkers
    -Class based on April Fools joke, a mildly recognized class from Warcraft 3
    -Designed for Goblins and Gnomes. Unofficially dubbed the 'Forever Alone' class

    Demon Hunters:

    +Popular among hardcore fans and casuals alike
    +Most recognized Hero that is not yet made into a playable Class
    +Fits in theme with the inevitable Legion expansion
    +Provides a unique fighting style not yet utilized by any class
    +Exclusivity to use Warglaives (as transmogs)
    +Chicks dig Tattooes
    +When Illidan returns, he will personally train you.

    -Overlap with multiple classes
    -Possible name clash with Hunters
    -Melee only
    -Probably DPS-only with a slight chance of being tankable
    -WC3 abilities are farmed out to other classes.
    -Makes every other class wish they were Demon Hunters too
    Just cleaned that up a bit.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-14 at 09:38 AM.

  12. #992
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    You see the Demon Hunter class or spec as a threat to Warlocks.
    A threat? Not really. I see them as not possible as a standalone class because Blizzard isn't going to hurt Warlocks that way.

    Warlocks will be unpopular despite Demon Hunters being added, that's going to be the sad truth.
    Perhaps. It's unlikely to hurt though. Adding DHs as a standalone however will.

    The only way they could make it more interesting is if they redesigned the class or added new roles
    You mean like - oh, tanking?

    but they should not bring down the identity of a Demon Hunter with it.
    Blizzard started doing away with the DH as a separate class 6 years ago and sine then they've only taken more and more from the DH class to add to Warlocks. It is too late to worry about bringing down the identity of a DH. If that was a concern, then the time to start developing the theme and identity of the DH as a distinct entity was 6, 7 years agos. It is too late to separate them them now.

    I can tell you that mechanically it will all play out well, but it will harm the Demon Hunter identity
    DHs have no in game identity to harm. Warlocks do. Ergo...Warlocks win.

    At that point, no one will feel like they're playing a Demon Hunter. They will know they are playing Warlocks with Warglaives.
    Being fair -I don't think most players will care beyond "Oh, look!!! Demon Hunter!!!" Being fairer, it is ridiculously easy to merge the two lorewise and themewise; they were never ever that far apart.

    The only thing it would do is be called Demon Hunter in name.
    If Blizzard states Illidan was a Warlock who focussed his powers into melee, thats what he'll be. Thats what DHs will be if Blizzard says so. As I said, it is easy to link the two in lore. Its not an explanantion you like, but it is an explanantion.

    Fans are still asking for a real Demon Hunter.
    And there is nothing to stop Blizzard finally delivering that via a Warlock 4th spec if they so choose.

    If they continue in that direction and give it all to the Warlock, including the Demon Hunter name, but leave out the important bits like the (permanent) Spectral Sight and Runic Tattooes
    Important bits - like the totally irrelevant cosmetic tattoos and Sense Demon ability?

    It will never be what the fans actually want.
    I suspect the key question Blizzard will ask is not whether the DH fans will be upset that the class will be represented in game as a Warlock 4th spec, but rather whether bringing in a 4th spec will count as one of those changes that existing Warlock players won't like.

    It is my personal reason for a fully fleshed Demon Hunter class. I will not accept any substitutes, and would rather never see a Demon Hunter class if they could not be implemented as one (or at the very least, as a spec for a core class that represents their identity). When you read it, you will know exactly why.
    That you think it'd make a nice opposite for the DK? As for a class that represents their identity....what identity? A class that uses demonic power is as good an identity as any and one that fits. Anything else is lore and you can make up any story for your character that you want.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-14 at 09:36 AM.

  13. #993
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Blizzard started doing away with the DH as a separate class 6 years ago and sine then they've only taken more and more from the DH class to add to Warlocks. It is too late to worry about bringing down the identity of a DH. If that was a concern, then the time to start developing the theme and identity of the DH as a distinct entity was 6, 7 years agos. It is too late to separate them them now.
    I would believe that most of those changes were done by the Warlock class designer, who at the time was known for radical changes. He doesn't work there any more. Illidan is also dead, and by fan decree, that is likely to be reversed. I believe 'too late' is an overstatement.

    DHs have no in game identity to harm. Warlocks do. Ergo...Warlocks win.

    Being fair -I don't think most players will care beyond "Oh, look!!! Demon Hunter!!!" Being fairer, it is ridiculously easy to merge the two lorewise and themewise; they were never ever that far apart.
    If DH is the reason people flock to Warlocks, it can have a massive negative impact on the existing Warlock community. Suddenly you have a slew of 'Demon Hunters' taking spots in raids, rolling on Warlock loot. They might not be taking your role, but they're definitely taking your gear. If they were actually given armor-type appropriate specs and a new class, they would at least be on a different token, sharing appropriate gear with classes that would befit their role.

    If Blizzard states Illidan was a Warlock who focussed his powers into melee, thats what he'll be. Thats what DHs will be if Blizzard says so. As I said, it is easy to link the two in lore. Its not an explanantion you like, but it is an explanantion.
    If Blizzard says so, then that's what it'll be; but do you really think that all comes without any negative impact? The one class that Demon Hunters will be compared to are Death Knights, since that was their polarized opposite from Warcraft 3 TFT. Knowing how Blizzard was able to build an entire storyline and questing hub, given unique mounts, given their own starter zone and even have unique looks at character creation, the Demon Hunter as a Warlock spec would pale in comparison. You can't have any of that because it's all tied to Warlocks. Specs don't get special priveldges that actual classes do.


    Important bits - like the totally irrelevant cosmetic tattoos and Sense Demon ability?

    I suspect the key question Blizzard will ask is not whether the DH fans will be upset that the class will be represented in game as a Warlock 4th spec, but rather whether bringing in a 4th spec will count as one of those changes that existing Warlock players won't like.
    I would suspect there are more Demon Hunter fans than Warlock players. I'm sure a majority won't even care about the subject if it happens, but that doesn't excuse the fact that this would be a massive retcon. The Demon Hunter image may not yet exist in WoW, but as soon as you give that title to a Warlock, they're going to be doing irreversible damage. It's best left ambiguous, where it hurts absolutely no one.

    That you think it'd make a nice opposite for the DK? As for a class that represents their identity....what identity? A class that uses demonic power is as good an identity as any and one that fits. Anything else is lore and you can make up any story for your character that you want.

    EJL
    Illidan and Arthas were arch enemies. They are the representatives of their respective classes, the Death Knight and Demon Hunter. We have one Hero class in the Death Knight, and even since TBC, people have been expecting a Demon Hunter Hero class. Demon Hunter was a wildly asked for class even back then; despite knowing Warlocks are demon-users too.

    The idea of Demon Hunters as a hero class balances out the Death Knight without need of adding any more Hero class ever again. Those classes are arguably the most recognize classes in Warcraft due to the strong storyline from The Frozen Throne.

    Beyond that, the Demon Hunter has history with other classes. Demon Hunters and Druids, the classic Heroes of the Night Elves. Demon Hunters and Warlocks, the masters of fel magic. Demon Hunters and Rogues, the shadowy warriors. This is something that it doesn't really stand out as if it was all regulated to a Warlock spec, since the identity is still just a Warlock.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-14 at 10:23 AM.

  14. #994
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Illidan and Arthas were arch enemies. They are the representatives of their respective classes, the Death Knight and Demon Hunter. We have one Hero class in the Death Knight, and even since TBC, people have been expecting a Demon Hunter Hero class. Demon Hunter was a wildly asked for class even back then; despite knowing Warlocks are demon-users too.

    The idea of Demon Hunters as a hero class balances out the Death Knight without need of adding any more Hero class ever again. Those classes are arguably the most recognize classes in Warcraft due to the strong storyline from The Frozen Throne.
    Lots of this.



    I'm working on a DH class concept that I hope will show how much room there is to create unique new specs and playstyles out of the concepts of WC3 and BC. I won't post until I feel it is solid, but I do think I have a few new ideas that would be fun to play. Maybe I should save it for that possible Teriz/DonQ design competition, show em both up.

  15. #995
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    I would believe that most of those changes were done by the Warlock class designer, who at the time was known for radical changes. He doesn't work there any more.
    Yes. And guess what? He worked as part of a team. And his work needed to be signed off on. He did NOT have carte blanche. Those changes went through not because he liked them and thought them appropriate...but because BLIZZARD thought they were approrpriate.

    If they didn't, they would never have gone through. Thats made doubly clear by the fact that it was GC who commented on the nature of warlocks and tanking, as well as the Green Fire quest which established yet another link between the two classes AFTER the designer in question left.

    Illidan is also dead, and by fan decree, that is likely to be reversed. I believe 'too late' is an overstatement.
    Lore is easy to change. Game mechanics are not. It is too late to undo the design decisions of 6 years ago, especially when they now are seen as so important to the class.

    If DH is the reason people flock to Warlocks, it can have a massive negative impact on the existing Warlock community. Suddenly you have a slew of 'Demon Hunters' taking spots in raids, rolling on Warlock loot.
    What you'll have are Warlocks rolling on Warlock loot. Somehow, I don't see that as a problem. Just as I don't see an arms warrior taking loot a Fury warrior can use as an issue.

    They might not be taking your role, but they're definitely taking your gear. If they were actually given armor-type appropriate specs and a new class, they would at least be on a different token, sharing appropriate gear with classes that would befit their role.
    This argument is really weak. If you implement Demon Hunters as a Warlock subspec - they will be warlocks and fully entitled to roll on Warlock gear. They will even be expected to roll on Warlock gear. Just as Guardian Druids are fully entitled to roll on Druid gear.

    That's not to discount the possibility of an overall negative impact. But thats something neither you nor I can judge. And in that case, the most likely alternative is no DH class at all.

    The one class that Demon Hunters will be compared to are Death Knights, since that was their polarized opposite from Warcraft 3 TFT.
    I do not understand - polarised opposite?

    You can't have any of that because it's all tied to Warlocks. Specs don't get special priveldges that actual classes do.
    Monks didn't get those perks either. And they are a full class. And I'm not even counting the Warlocks fel steed.

    But is your objection now going to be you don't want Warlokcs to be DHs because now you won't get a cool class mount? Granted, thats not as lame as the "I don't want Warlocks taking Warlock gear" objection you used above but still....

    that doesn't excuse the fact that this would be a massive retcon.
    Big problem...lore nerd that I am....I don't see a retcon. I see an expansion of Warlock lore and story to encompass the DH. And I see enough overlap in theme and enough room in the lore of BOTH classes that Blizzard can get away with such a merger with no difficulties.

    What seems to be the big issue is not what is changed in the actual lore; what seems to be the issue is that you can't see Warlocks as good guys, can't accept DHs may be evil. Your objections don't seem to be centered on the lore of the classes but more on how you think DH should look, how you think DHs and Warlocks should act, what you think the motivations and aims and goals of bother classes should be.

    You think DHs have tattoos and blind themselves...but don't seem willing to ask - are these actually necessary to be a DH? Can you be a Demon Hunter who isn't tattooted? Who isn't blinded?

    The answer is yes. Illidari DHs are neither tattooed nor blinded. Nor did anyone question whether they were or were not DHs until they were used as an example to show how you and some others were wrong in how you saw DHs.

    And thats where we appear to be.

    At a stage where you object to the idea that the DH class can be appended to Warlocks ina convincing manner because:
    Illidan wasn't a Demon Hunter
    Warlocks will steal Warlock loot
    Those Demon Hunters with no tattoos or blindness? They aren't Demon Hunters.
    DHs won't get a cool class mount if they are a Warlock sub spec

    Of course, the most important one is "Warlocks as Demon Hunters does not match how I see Demon Hunters". Thats actually a very valid point. It is, however, a point that is all but destroyed by 6 years of class design convergence.

    EJL

  16. #996
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,820
    Quote Originally Posted by banestalker View Post
    [
    the origional Tinkerer did not use any weapons but my proposed model of Clockwork Tinkerer is more similar to Techmarines (Warhammer 40k) minus the badass power-armor which leaves a rifleman with a mechanical arm-pack that deploys/builds his creations.
    I like this concept as well. It would be interesting to see a ranged technology class that uses guns that can heal, tank, or DPS. SWOTR showed how a tanking class could use ranged weapons. I don't see why WoW couldn't do the same.

    So in essence, we have your concept, which uses guns and turrets. You have my concept of the Hammer Tank (robotic arms), we have the concept from Alesueis(sp?) that merges Tinkers with potion style alchemy, and we have the concept from Drilnos (I think) that involved spider tanks and sky golems.

    Many directions Blizzard could go. I think the chances for this class to be implemented gets higher and higher as the days go by. Might not make it into e next expansion, but I can't really imagine another class that has a better shot.

  17. #997
    Scarab Lord Gamevizier's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, US
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I like this concept as well. It would be interesting to see a ranged technology class that uses guns that can heal, tank, or DPS. SWOTR showed how a tanking class could use ranged weapons. I don't see why WoW couldn't do the same.

    So in essence, we have your concept, which uses guns and turrets. You have my concept of the Hammer Tank (robotic arms), we have the concept from Alesueis(sp?) that merges Tinkers with potion style alchemy, and we have the concept from Drilnos (I think) that involved spider tanks and sky golems.

    Many directions Blizzard could go. I think the chances for this class to be implemented gets higher and higher as the days go by. Might not make it into e next expansion, but I can't really imagine another class that has a better shot.
    more importantly it shows that Tinkers have alot of design space compared to other proposed classes. the aspect of "technology" is not used by any class, and if you look back you see both DK and Monk had the same situation (allthough Warlocks had DC but they were in no way associated with undeath.)

    DK = undeath magic
    Monk = inner power/martial arts
    Tinkerer = Technology

  18. #998
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,820
    One of the issues you need to resolve though is the lack of INT guns/bows/xbows. This is why I veered towards the Hammer Tank setup. If the Tinker's primary method of combat is coming through the tank, then there's no need to worry about equipped weapons, they would just provide stats. However in your case, you need to find an alternative solution for the INT spec.

  19. #999
    Scarab Lord Gamevizier's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, US
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    One of the issues you need to resolve though is the lack of INT guns/bows/xbows. This is why I veered towards the Hammer Tank setup. If the Tinker's primary method of combat is coming through the tank, then there's no need to worry about equipped weapons, they would just provide stats. However in your case, you need to find an alternative solution for the INT spec.
    If Tinkerer enters a "tanking form" then a stat converter can be created which converts each +INT points to hitpoints/armor once the Tinkerer is in tanking form. so Clockwork Tinkers who use the "armpack form" become kinda squishy compared to Steam Warrior/Hammer Tank Tinkers who use "Tank Form".

    as for the Clockwork issue : while the Tinker DOES deal damage with rifles he has only a few shooting abilities. those abilities deal additional damage based on Tinkerer's INT, however gun abilities and auto-fires are only 35% of the damage Clockworks should bring, and the rest of the damage is dealt by his turrets and the Tinkerer's general grenade abilities...drones can also help increase Tinkerer's gun damage by lazing any enemy the Tinker orders them to, which increases their dmg output on that target.

    in my model of Clockwork Tinkerers , they are quite dependant on their creations (like dealing damage). that's why most of their "clockwork excluse" abilities (this means abilities that Clockwork Tinkerers can use while they are in Clockwork form) are in-fact orders issued by them and carried out by their creations.

    Clockworks deal most of their damage and deliver most of their abilities via their turrets/stations/drones. whch means for example instead of -casting- AoE rocket barrage by themselves (like the vanila Tinker in W3) they order their turret to do so if the specified turret is deployed. so depending on their buildup (what turrets they have out) they can use (or can't use) certain abilities.

    the general idea for Clockworks is that while they have alot of useful abilities in their sleeve these abilities are directly linked to their specific turrets, and because Tinkerers are limited in the number of turrets they can deploy at the same time they can't use all their neat utilities. it does not hamper with their DPS but in PVP for example it can provide them with some obstacles.

    for example a Tinker fighting a ranged class may need dps turrets/interrupt turrets while a Tinker who's fighting a rogue/warrior may need turrets that slow down enemies around them or shield turrets to boost their melee defense.

    ----this may turn Clockworks a tad little complicated. ----
    Last edited by Gamevizier; 2013-09-14 at 03:34 PM.

  20. #1000
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,820
    Quote Originally Posted by banestalker View Post

    ----this may turn Clockworks a tad little complicated. ----
    LoL, I was thinking the same thing. I do believe you're on the right track though.

    If you're going to use a turret system, you should definitely divide them up based on jobs. For example, in my concept, I utilized Pocket Factory to do something different for each spec. Like tanking PF sends out repair bots to help your hammer tank from failing. Healing PF sends out robots that heal you and allies. DPS PF produces robot mines that seek out targets and explode. I think you did that already with yours though.

    I don't think you need to worry about stat conversions with Tanking. Your ranged tank can work just fine as an agility tank, and a DPS spec works fine with agility as well. The issue is with a healing spec. You're going to need a way to convert your AGI guns into INT weapons. There's a couple of ways you can get around that problem though;

    1. Give the healing spec a custom ranged weapon that is used for healing.
    2. Allow your Tinker to construct their own guns from existing ranged weapons (i.e. : taking a bow or crossbow and constructing a gun out of it.).
    3. Have your INT spec focus on robotics and healing, but use INT Melee weapons instead of ranged.

Posting Permissions

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