Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Sukhoi]

If you honestly believe that Blizzard would hand off the DH design space only to eventually create a DH class using the design space they've already used....

Then sure, why not?

Watch the video again. Im gonna use that to explain it from now on. Im guessing you just heard blank space during that part.

[Ielenia]

http://www.wowwiki.com/The_Schools_of_Arcane_Magic_-_Enchantment
That guy would disagree.

Of course, you read what interests you and then dismiss all the rest. You clearly didn't read the part that almost no mages master all eight schools. Enchanters are masters of the enchanting school. Mages? Mages are not.

All is not required. For example Cluster Rocket and Healing Spray have already made it in, and they just appeared in MoP.
Who knows what's next?

Your argument is: exists in WC3, then it must exist in WoW. For that argument have any solidity whatsoever, then it must be true to everything WC3. If it doesn't, then the argument is baseless.

Also, cluster rocket and healing sprays exist in MoP, whereas until now you cried again and again to the high heavens that they didn't exist in WoW? Contradiction much?

Or simply designed to jut out from the sides like the Warlock's wings currently do.

Except that said arms will also strike forward. And block. And shoot missiles, and do all kinds of stuff according to your whymsical ideas, which shoots your own argument off the left field.

[Skayth]

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=114175/demonic-slash

And its for what? A glyph. You do not use demonic slash for anything other than with a glyph.

Does it exist? yes. But do we use it? no.

It comes from this ability; http://www.wowhead.com/spell=104379

Which comes from Illidan Stormrage.

"Illidan shrouds himself in magical flames" a Direct quote
And the warlock: "Ignites the area surrounding the caster"

well shit, since they have that what about hunters. They have Immolation trap >.>When triggered, it does the same thing as a warlocks immolation aura =D

I hope you see the difference, if you dont, then, you are blinder than a blind man.

The glyph having no "lore impact" would be your opinion. I was merely pointing out that you can do almost exactly what Dark was attributing to the DH.

My Opinion? No, its not just my opinion. Its also blizzard's with them saying that glyphs are just FOR FUN.

So we should create an entirely new class because the demon forms have different hues?

No, I am pointing out that each and every demon hunter has a different demonic form. You have the generic Demon form for all the generic demon hunters, And illidan gets his own, because we already know what he looks like as a demon. Do all the night elf one look similar? Probably, with Blood Elves not that far off. So, why would my Female Orc Warlock transform into a hulking purple Night Elf Male demon? right because lore tells us that we basically copied Illidans corrupted form. Thats it.

I do believe his argument was that Metamorphosis could only do Shadow and Fire damage. I was simply correcting his mistake. Besides, Destruction already has Chaos Bolt.

There was a reason why I called it Bolts of Chaos, and not Chaos bolt. Chaos bolt does straight shadow damage (gameplay mechanics), but this is for destruction, and clearly is not the meteors the Demon Hunters were shooting out in wc3. Nor are they the blue firebolts that illidan was using in Black temple. We have yet to get the bolts that they were using, so, we never got them.

Meta has 3 schools. Shadow, fire, and Physical (chaos wave).

Whether or not it maxes DPS damage doesn't change the fact that you CAN sacrifice your Fel/Wrathguard and gain a charge ability.

Yes you can, and its meant for pvp, at that, or during alpha and beta when they were considering making demonology a tank spec. With it, you stick to the healer/caster w.e., but even then its terrible when you can have a two felguards doing the same thing and having an extra stun.

Plus, if you try to say that pursuit is like a demon hunter, then you clearly think warriors are demon hunters with charge. its the same mechanic. -.-

Since this seems to go above your head, let me help you out some;

Darklance= Shadowbolt
Aura of Immolation= Immolation Aura
Demon Rush= Pursuit
Gift of Sargeras= Grimore of Sacrifice
Taunt= Provocation

http://www.wowhead.com/npc=55532#abilities

darklance can be mind spike as well. Oh right. But since it has a projectile its automatically shadowbolt, since its shadow damage. Its Different projectile art, and sound. go look it up. I did. So what you are saying Incinerate=fireball then, since incinerate is firedamage and so is fireball. Oh wow, same school of magic casts.

Demon Rush= Charge oh shit
Aura of Immolation= IMMOLATION from wc3.
Gift of sargares= METAMORPHOSIS, not grimore of sac
Taunt= Taunt. Provocation cant even taunt Mannoroth

Let's not. You clearly dislike the glyph. It doesn't change the fact that the glyph exists, was designed by Blizzard, and for all intents and purposes makes you a Demon Hunter.

Because it does not make you a demon hunter at all. If they make a 4th spec for warlocks where I can be demon hunter, then fine. if they revamp Demonology to tank spec demon hunter, then fine. But a damn glyph that has no canon behind it attempting to be board and sword for a warrior, and even fails at that, has no reason to be in game. The truth behind the glyph is that it was the tank spec, and you were permanent meta form, but since they cleared away from it, it got shelved, and when the designer was asked what he wanted to add to the glyphs, he gave them a pocket tank, that got nerfed into nothingness. The fact of the matter is, it has nothing canon to it, and some wackjob spec a, now, ex designer made, and blizzard dont even talk about it. The glyph gives you nothing a demon hunter is, and is basically an afk form. If you try to say its canon, then you are saying all the wacky and silly glyphs out there that are clearly not canon, are canon.

Feel free to have the last word on this. I'm not interested in restarting this "debate" in a thread about Tinkers.

How does it feel when you do the same to demon hunter threads?

[Teriz]

Of course, you read what interests you and then dismiss all the rest. You clearly didn't read the part that almost no mages master all eight schools. Enchanters are masters of the enchanting school.

And an Enchanter is synonymous with Mage.

Your argument is: exists in WC3, then it must exist in WoW. For that argument have any solidity whatsoever, then it must be true to everything WC3. If it doesn't, then the argument is baseless.

Or it just means that Blizzard that Blizzard hasn't gotten around to adding it in WoW yet.

Also, cluster rocket and healing sprays exist in MoP, whereas until now you cried again and again to the high heavens that they didn't exist in WoW? Contradiction much?

They were both added in 5.4. Where's the contradiction? My main argument has always been that they don't exist within the classes or Engineering.

Except that said arms will also strike forward. And block. And shoot missiles, and do all kinds of stuff according to your whymsical ideas, which shoots your own argument off the left field.

Nah, they can still do all that stuff and jut out to the sides, just like this one;

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...blintinker.jpg

Point is that design-wise, Blizzard has plenty of options.

- - - Updated - - -

Watch the video again. Im gonna use that to explain it from now on. Im guessing you just heard blank space during that part.

Go ahead. Doesn't change the underlying problem with a Demon Hunter class.

[Sukhoi]

Go ahead. Doesn't change the underlying problem with a Demon Hunter class.

So what did you even think during that part? That this guys an idiot but redeems himself when talking about tinkers?

The double standard is incredible.

[Teriz]

So what did you even think during that part? That this guys an idiot but redeems himself when talking about tinkers?

The double standard is incredible.

Why would I think he's an idiot? He has a right to his opinion.

Also what double standard? The Tinker simply has the strongest shot at being a future WoW class.

[Sukhoi]

Point is that design-wise, Blizzard has plenty of options.

For any class. Yes. Youre right. Not just the tinker.

[fixx]

And an Enchanter is synonymous with Mage.

What's synonymous with a mage without enchanting profession or a monk with enchanting profession?


Sticking to semantics is a sign of your arguments having no real merits.

[Ielenia]

And an Enchanter is synonymous with Mage.

As much as 'nurse' is a synonym with 'surgeon'. [sarcasm off]

Or it just means that Blizzard that Blizzard hasn't gotten around to adding it in WoW yet.

And, until then, your argument is baseless, therefore invalid.

They were both added in 5.4. Where's the contradiction? My main argument has always been that they don't exist within the classes or Engineering.

The Contradiction? The contradiction is you saying, in this very thread, that those don't exist in WoW.

Nah, they can still do all that stuff and jut out to the sides, just like this one;
[url]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061224095210/wowwiki/images/2/27/Goblintinker.jpg[url]
Point is that design-wise, Blizzard has plenty of options.

Oh, they do. Except you don't give them options. You want that freaking huge mecha-backpack that can become a piloted golem. The backpack in that fanart? Can't do that.

[Sukhoi]

Why would I think he's an idiot? He has a right to his opinion.

That's weird. Im surprised you didnt comment on the youtube video telling him why is opinion is wrong.

[Teriz]

Sticking to semantics is a sign of your arguments having no real merits.

Does that also apply to your Tinker=Engineering statements?

[Deleted]

Wouldn't that ruin the engineering proffession?

[Teriz]

As much as 'nurse' is a synonym with 'surgeon'. [sarcasm off]

Does that also apply to Tinkers and Engineers?

Again, the thesaurus is your friend.

And, until then, your argument is baseless, therefore invalid.

The base of my argument is that WoW classes come from WC3 heroes and units. This has been proven true multiple times.

The Contradiction? The contradiction is you saying, in this very thread, that those don't exist in WoW.

Link.

Oh, they do. Except you don't give them options. You want that freaking huge mecha-backpack that can become a piloted golem. The backpack in that fanart? Can't do that.

As long as its a hammer tank strapped on its back, and has the majority if abilities from WC3, HotS, and WoW, things will be just fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't that ruin the engineering proffession?

A Tinker raiding in a group has no effect on an Engineer creating a pair of googles.

[fixx]

Does that also apply to your Tinker=Engineering statements?

Pretty pathetic evasion there. I'd still like to hear some synonyms that get you out of the corner you painted for yourself.

The base of my argument is that WoW classes come from WC3 heroes and units. This has been proven true multiple times.

That does not automatically mean all WC3 units would be converted into WoW classes. On the contrary most will not.

Does that also apply to Tinkers and Engineers?

Again, the thesaurus is your friend.

Current meaning of tinkerer is a hobbyist/amateur engineer, especially an amateur repairer/modder of things.

Pick up any dictionary and be amazed to have that confirmed and having learned something new today.

[Ielenia]

Does that also apply to Tinkers and Engineers?
Again, the thesaurus is your friend.

Nope, not in WoW. Technology is technology. If you deal with technology, you are an engineer, no matter what title you give to yourself: tinker, siegecrafter, technician, etc.

The base of my argument is that WoW classes come from WC3 heroes and units. This has been proven true multiple times.

An argument that you elaborate many times saying the classes are 'faithful' copies from WC3 unit, an argument that has been proven wrong many times, citing mages, shamans, death knights and monks. An argument that was countered many times by statements saying that if the 'tinker' class is made into the game, it'll be heavily altered, just like all the aforementioned classes would, and whymsical elements will be removed.

As long as its a hammer tank strapped on its back, and has the majority if abilities from WC3, HotS, and WoW, things will be just fine.

Which you know it won't. Too whymsical to be taken seriously.

[Teriz]

Pretty pathetic evasion there. I'd still like to hear some synonyms that get you out of the corner you painted for yourself.

There is no evasion. The point is that profession and class thematic overlap means nothing.

That does not automatically mean all WC3 units would be converted into WoW classes. On the contrary most will not.

Actually almost all have. The ones who haven't have becomes aspects of existing WoW classes. The only ones who haven't participated in this process are the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist. The last WC3 hero unit who was in a similar position: The Brewmaster.

Current meaning of tinkerer is a hobbyist/amateur engineer, especially an amateur repairer/modder of things.

Pick up any dictionary and be amazed to have that confirmed and having learned something new today.

1. A traveling mender of metal household utensils.
2. Chiefly British A member of any of various traditionally itinerant groups of people living especially in Scotland and Ireland; a traveler.
3. One who enjoys experimenting with and repairing machine parts.
4. A clumsy repairer or worker; a meddler.
v. tin·kered, tin·ker·ing, tin·kers
v.intr.
1. To work as a tinker.
2. To make unskilled or experimental efforts at repair; fiddle: tinkered with the engine, hoping to discover the trouble; tinkering with the economy by trying various fiscal policies.
v.tr.
1. To mend as a tinker.
2. To manipulate unskillfully or experimentally.

I do believe that Tony Stark in Iron Man 3 referred to himself as a "tinker". The Tinker can be anything from an inventor to a person who fiddles with machines. The moniker fits IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, not in WoW. Technology is technology. If you deal with technology, you are an engineer, no matter what title you give to yourself: tinker, siegecrafter, technician, etc.

Engineer in that sense is no different than calling anyone who swings a weapon as a warrior. However its pretty clear that even though the Paladin is a "holy warrior", its not the same as the Warrior class.

An argument that you elaborate many times saying the classes are 'faithful' copies from WC3 unit, an argument that has been proven wrong many times, citing mages, shamans, death knights and monks. An argument that was countered many times by statements saying that if the 'tinker' class is made into the game, it'll be heavily altered, just like all the aforementioned classes would, and whymsical elements will be removed.

You mean like the whimsical element of throwing barrels of beer at people from the Brewmaster hero?

Which you know it won't. Too whymsical to be taken seriously.

If its serious enough for WC3, its serious enough for WoW.

[Ielenia]

Engineer in that sense is no different than calling anyone who swings a weapon as a warrior. However its pretty clear that even though the Paladin is a "holy warrior", its not the same as the Warrior class.

Hah. Nice wordplay. In your context even a mage and a priest can be called 'warriors', because they fight in wars. But no. You want to deal with tech in WoW? You study engineering and become an engineer.

You mean like the whimsical element of throwing barrels of beer at people from the Brewmaster hero?

Nowhere near as whymsical as your humongous, screen-cluttering, does-all-fixes-all mecha-backpack.

If its serious enough for WC3, its serious enough for WoW.

Nope. Because in WC3 it was added simply for laughs, for an April Fools joke, not part of canon. Remember: in WC3 two goblins are a single unit. You don't see that in WoW, do you?

[Teriz]

Hah. Nice wordplay. In your context even a mage and a priest can be called 'warriors', because they fight in wars. But no. You want to deal with tech in WoW? You study engineering and become an engineer.

Its not wordplay at all.

war·ri·or [wawr-ee-er, wawr-yer, wor-ee-er, wor-yer] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier.

Blizzard calls the Enhancement Shaman a totemic "warrior". Does that mean that Warriors and Shaman are the same? Is Shaman simply a "title" for a Warrior?

Nowhere near as whymsical as your humongous, screen-cluttering, does-all-fixes-all mecha-backpack.

Which is simply your opinion.

Nope. Because in WC3 it was added simply for laughs, for an April Fools joke, not part of canon.

So were Pandaren.

What was the name of that race added in MoP again?

[Ielenia]

Its not wordplay at all.

You just proved my point.

Which is simply your opinion.

It's not opinion. It's a fact. Giant mecha-backpack that can throw rockets, shoot lasers and sawblades, drop robo-goblin factories and even transform into a golem with the wearer inside piloting it is way more whymsical than a guy throwing beer on their adversaries to make them drowsier and set them on fire.

So were Pandaren.
What was the name of that race added in MoP again?

Which were made into canon before vanilla WoW was even live, unlike the tinker which remains out of continuity, out of canon.

[Teriz]

You just proved my point.

So is an Enhancement Shaman a Shaman, or is it a Warrior?

It's not opinion. It's a fact. Giant mecha-backpack that can throw rockets, shoot lasers and sawblades, drop robo-goblin factories and even transform into a golem with the wearer inside piloting it is way more whymsical than a guy throwing beer on their adversaries to make them drowsier and set them on fire.

Nope, that's just your opinion. Plenty of people would say the exact opposite.

Which were made into canon before vanilla WoW was even live, unlike the tinker which remains out of continuity, out of canon.

Yet they're mentioned throughout WoW, which indicates that they are cannon.

Your denial of basic facts that have been proven to you over and over again is truly astonishing.