Possible future hero classes.

[Fyersing]

How would it come across as fantastical and outlandish when there are multiple examples of characters in the game doing the same thing?

The existence of something within a story doesn't necessitate that the audience will view it as reasonable -- which is where we're having a disconnect.

It seems as if the bedrock of your position is something akin to, "it exists, therefore, it should be implemented as-is regardless of how well it will play with the broader playerbase". Which is problematic and, well, hasn't been done with any class previously added post-Vanilla. They (Blizzard) seem to always be shooting for a general appeal (as opposed to a specific appeal, or niche appeal) because that's a good business practice. No reason to assume this practice would change now.

(Edit: Which isn't to say that Tinker is in any way terrible, just that the iteration of Tinker being asked for by many of the loyal proponents is... far to niche, from a fantasy standpoint.)

Which wasn't my point. My point is that we have Gazlowe and Marin in the game piloting full mechs which have unique abilities. Gazlowe and Marin have never been depicted that way in WoW before, and both are depicted that way in Legion, for whatever reason.

Yes, I understood your point, I just don't think that the conclusion is supported.

That some previously untouched Tinker NPC's were equipped with some existing assets to imply association isn't really indicative that the FM-style Tinker is Blizzards go-to conceptualization -- especially with Gazlowe's HotS model being newer, conceptually, than Mekkatorque's. The only thing implied by this is that Blizzard wants people to recognize Gazlowe and Marin (and others) as being Tinkers, visually.

I have little doubt that Blizzard can handle the logistics of implementing this class. As I've said before, the technology for this class is already in the game, since Blizzard has been putting new mech mounts in the game in every expansion since MoP. The value is a class that is more unique than any other class concept, offers much needed lore to Goblins and Gnomes, a class that represents the theme of technology in the game, and is a class that has been requested for a very long time on multiple forums.

I wasn't really speaking to what Blizzard would/wouldn't do -- obviously, they'd be able to handle implementing whatever they wanted from a technical perspective. That said, they're almost guaranteed to never implement this class as the vocal, dozen-strong fanclub wants them to.

What I was saying is that there are obstacles to implementing the class, "as-is", and I question whether doing it would actually be a net benefit to the game. The PM-style Tinker would assuage many of the concerns (not from players who enjoy Tinkers, but from players who don't) about the game becoming too... far-fetched.

Actually no. I'm well aware that the mounts are far too large for a class. As I said, you'd probably be looking at a mech that is about as large as a fully armored tauren, or Draenei (both of which look huge in full gear, especially plate). They would have to be redesigned anyway because Blizzard would never bring in a class that fights in a combat form that looks exactly like an existing mount.

Gnomes/Gobins are slightly above the knee caps of a Draenei and Tauren, so them becoming as large (or slightly larger) as the latter is a big size increase. Becoming as big as a fully armored Tauren? Probably even more so.

It's odd that you keep saying you're disagreeing, while saying the same thing you quoted from. Not sure how to respond -- we both agree, they're never going to in enormous suits, even if they're in said suits full-time.

[Teriz]

The existence of something within a story doesn't necessitate that the audience will view it as reasonable -- which is where we're having a disconnect.

Except it exists within the story and within the game itself, and there are numerous examples of it occurring. How would the audience not view that as reasonable?

It seems as if the bedrock of your position is something akin to, "it exists, therefore, it should be implemented as-is regardless of how well it will play with the broader playerbase". Which is problematic and, well, hasn't been done with any class previously added post-Vanilla. They (Blizzard) seem to always be shooting for a general appeal (as opposed to a specific appeal, or niche appeal) because that's a good business practice. No reason to assume this practice would change now.

The Monk class is about as niche appeal as you can get.

Yes, I understood your point, I just don't think that the conclusion is supported.

That some previously untouched Tinker NPC's were equipped with some existing assets to imply association isn't really indicative that the FM-style Tinker is Blizzards go-to conceptualization -- especially with Gazlowe's HotS model being newer, conceptually, than Mekkatorque's. The only thing implied by this is that Blizzard wants people to recognize Gazlowe and Marin (and others) as being Tinkers, visually.

Yet again, the fact remains that there isn't a single example of Gazlowe HotS model anywhere in WoW. The FM concept is all over the place, the PM concept is non-existent. And as I said earlier, there is the FM concept within both Tinker heroes.

Also I'm pretty sure Gazlowe's HotS model is older than Mekkatorque's. Mekkatorque's suit came out in Legion which began development around 2014, Gazlowe's suit came out in HotS which was first developed in 2012. In either case, Blizzard has continued to push full mech suits since Mekkatorque's Broken Shore cinematic appearance. Most notably the recently revealed Lightforged Warframe that appeared for 7.3.

I wasn't really speaking to what Blizzard would/wouldn't do -- obviously, they'd be able to handle implementing whatever they wanted from a technical perspective. That said, they're almost guaranteed to never implement this class as the vocal, dozen-strong fanclub wants them to.

You have yet to provide a single argument that shows why they wouldn't.

What I was saying is that there are obstacles to implementing the class, "as-is", and I question whether doing it would actually be a net benefit to the game. The PM-style Tinker would assuage many of the concerns (not from players who enjoy Tinkers, but from players who don't) about the game becoming too... far-fetched.

Again, how can it be viewed as too far fetched when there are multiple NPCs in the game itself doing the exact same thing? Players themselves even pilot mechs in quest lines throughout the Legion expansion, and Engineering can build a combat module that allows you to pilot a combat mech on broken shore.

It's odd that you keep saying you're disagreeing, while saying the same thing you quoted from. Not sure how to respond -- we both agree, they're never going to in enormous suits, even if they're in said suits full-time.

I'm disagreeing because you're using size as an obstacle and saying that a FM class would have to be in an Ironman-style suit in order to work. Like I said, a Gnome going from normal size to full-armored Tauren size in a rideable mech would work just fine because there is a massive size difference.

[Fyersing]

Except it exists within the story and within the game itself, and there are numerous examples of it occurring. How would the audience not view that as reasonable?

The same way Pandaren exist within the story and within the game itself, and there are hundreds of example of them occurring.

Taken as a group, Pandaren account for ~5.2% of the 0-100 population and only ~3.8% of the 110's in the US -- and this is combining both factions. To be considered a worthwhile addition to the game, in terms of player-derived value, they would've needed to be sitting somewhere nearer to a ~7.14% total across both factions.

You're still hung up on the part where Blizzard can and what they want. I'm not talking about anything of the sort, they can add Power Ranger Zords for all we know, what I'm asking is should they add them (in the specific manner many pro-Tinker players are asking for)? My contention is no, yours is yes. I suppose we'll see which sentiment ultimately prevails in the Blizzard officers, a business sense or a sense of "muh feels".

The Monk class is about as niche appeal as you can get.

Um, originally the only thing "Monk" referred to was an overweight Pandaren who utilized his enormous personal keg as a mount, weapon and canteen. If you can't see how "keg throwing, beer chugging, circus bear" was generalized into "martial artist", and then each specialized was inspired by absolutely conflicting real-world philosophies, that's on you.

With Tinker, what you're asking for is the equivalent of the first quoted bit but what you're likely to get is the equivalent of the second. If you can't cope with that reality, consider it's exactly how every other class was implemented, then don't cope. Simple as that.

Yet again, the fact remains that there isn't a single example of Gazlowe HotS model anywhere in WoW. The FM concept is all over the place, the PM concept is non-existent. And as I said earlier, there is the FM concept within both Tinker heroes.

You're failing to grasp how art assets are created in video games, I feel.

A retexture (i.e. Mekkatorque's Mech, or 7.3's Lightforged Warframe, take a few hours to make.
A model (i.e. Gazlowe's Mech) would take days, or weeks, depending on the workload of the person making it.

So... of course they're not going to implement a custom model, that is, until such a time that it's needed. It's work this way forever, literally a decade+. Not sure how this practice is shocking, again, falling back on good business practices. You don't spend thousands of man-hours and thousand of development dollars redesigning trivial things (i.e. we're not going to see Desolace randomly remade in glorious HD) until it's relevant to the new content you're trying to push.

Also I'm pretty sure Gazlowe's HotS model is older than Mekkatorque's. Mekkatorque's suit came out in Legion which began development around 2014, Gazlowe's suit came out in HotS which was first developed in 2012. In either case, Blizzard has continued to push full mech suits since Mekkatorque's Broken Shore cinematic appearance. Most notably the recently revealed Lightforged Warframe that appeared for 7.3.

As I said, almost certainly for the sake of ease. That they are choosing to re-use existing assets instead of creating brand, spanking new assets is actually indicative that Tinkers aren't even on Blizzards immediate radar.

You have yet to provide a single argument that shows why they wouldn't.

I've provided numerous, you just don't like them.

The current in-game FM-style Tinkers are in machines that are at least 18-feet tall. The pro-Tinker posse (which apparently only consists of you, right now) mention in virtually every post about the subject that they could be implemented "as they are in-game, right now" and often cite the fact that they're in-game right now as proof that we should get them (in fact, you did this in the post I'm quoting). This is an endorsement of something that will never, ever, happen.

Again, how can it be viewed as too far fetched when there are multiple NPCs in the game itself doing the exact same thing? Players themselves even pilot mechs in quest lines throughout the Legion expansion, and Engineering can build a combat module that allows you to pilot a combat mech on broken shore.

You're not understanding the difference between impossible and outlandish.

An enormous 13' Skybison, wingless by design, that can fly with ease isn't impossible within the Avatar: The Last Airbender series because we've seen it, but that doesn't mean an enormous 13' Skybison, wingless by design, is going to further envelope those watching into a sense of immersion -- actually, the opposite is likely the case.

An enormous 18' Mechsuit, equipped with saw-hands and rockets, isn't impossible in World of Warcraft because we've seen them, but that doesn't mean an enormous 18' Mechsuit, equipped with saw-hands and rockets, is going to further envelope those playing into a sense of immersion -- again, the opposite is likely the case.

I'm disagreeing because you're using size as an obstacle and saying that a FM class would have to be in an Ironman-style suit in order to work. Like I said, a Gnome going from normal size to full-armored Tauren size in a rideable mech would work just fine because there is a massive size difference.

The purpose of the War Machine imagery was for size, not for style, as I mentioned numerous time. The style is irrelevant, the size is the only limiting factor for their mech.

[Patral521]

Is Kel'Thuzad dead? I dont think we found and destroyed his phylactery or whatever the hell its called.

[Thimagryn]

An enormous 18' Mechsuit, equipped with saw-hands and rockets, isn't impossible in World of Warcraft because we've seen them, but that doesn't mean an enormous 18' Mechsuit, equipped with saw-hands and rockets, is going to further envelope those playing into a sense of immersion -- again, the opposite is likely the case.

Not sure where you're going here with this.

Why wouldn't it be more immersive? Do you not think the customizable features of a DK to make it look more undead are immersive? Likewise the customization for a Demon Hunter? What about the unique Demon Hunter forms? Or Druid forms?

What makes the Mech any different than any existing 'transformation' that we already have for classes? I'm not understanding whether your logic is applying specifically to the example of an overly-sized mech or a broad generalization of 'visuals aren't immersive'.

Even as someone who is critical of the whimsical Tinker concept, I can respect the idea that many people would find piloting a giant mech to be immersive for them. I can empathize with it because Druid forms are a large factor to why I enjoy playing a Guardian Druid. I love the idea of Druids of the Claw in Warcraft 3, and being able to play one as a character in WoW is a huge part of immersion for me. Same with Flight Form, regardless of the OP Insta-flight mechanics. There are people opposed to Flight Form because it's too special for the Druid class, what does it matter to them anyways? This is how the game works.

As for people who don't care, this class feature isn't important to them anyways. As far as I see it, someone else having a special class feature (that I don't care about) isn't going to affect my personal immersion in the game, and it's not something that I'd be opposed to simply because it doesn't appeal to me. Honestly, that's how I feel about everyone who hates Pandarens for whatever reason. You don't like em, you don't have to play them.

[Fyersing]

What makes the Mech any different than any existing 'transformation' that we already have for classes? I'm not understanding whether your logic is applying specifically to the example of an overly-sized mech or a broad generalization of 'visuals aren't immersive'.

I'm only referring to the size of the Mech.

Even as someone who is critical of the whimsical Tinker concept, I can respect the idea that many people would find piloting a giant mech to be immersive for them. As for people who don't care, this class wouldn't really be that important anyways. As far as I see it, someone else having a special class mount (that I don't care about) isn't going to affect my personal immersion in the game,and it's not something that I'd be opposed to simply because it doesn't appeal to me.

It's only an issue insofar as how disruptive it is for other players -- which is my only real concern, as I don't really have an issue with the concept of hyper-curious engineers weaponizing their creations. The two hot-button issues, for me and likely for many of those who're disinterested in Tinkers generally, are a) their size and b) their flashiness.

The people who tend to be pro-Tinker often suggest that any implementation be a more-or-less copy/paste of Gelbin or Siegemaster Blackfuse and both of them are cause for concern for people who are worried about both of those aforementioned issues.

[Kathranis]

Actually, I just wanted to point this out: the tabletop RPG games were not designed by Blizzard. They only licensed the Warcraft name to other companies like White Wolf.

They didn't design it but they did have a hand in developing the setting details, and a lot of stuff that premiered in the tabletop game made it into WoW (off the top of my head, every single zone of Northrend, the Elemental Planes, and Bilgewater Port).

[Teriz]

The same way Pandaren exist within the story and within the game itself, and there are hundreds of example of them occurring.

They are now, they werent before they were introduced to WoW in MoP. In fact, the playerbase was so ignorant to WC3 Brewmaster that many thought Blizzard had ripped off Kung Fu panda.

Taken as a group, Pandaren account for ~5.2% of the 0-100 population and only ~3.8% of the 110's in the US -- and this is combining both factions. To be considered a worthwhile addition to the game, in terms of player-derived value, they would've needed to be sitting somewhere nearer to a ~7.14% total across both factions.

You have any quotes from Blizzard to back up your notion that the Pandaren race was a failure? Ive never heard Blizzard ever comment about it in that fashion.

You're still hung up on the part where Blizzard can and what they want. I'm not talking about anything of the sort, they can add Power Ranger Zords for all we know, what I'm asking is should they add them (in the specific manner many pro-Tinker players are asking for)? My contention is no, yours is yes. I suppose we'll see which sentiment ultimately prevails in the Blizzard officers, a business sense or a sense of "muh feels".

No, I'm hung up on your notion that a concept that is shown throughout WoW is somehow a crazy or outlandish concept.

Um, originally the only thing "Monk" referred to was an overweight Pandaren who utilized his enormous personal keg as a mount, weapon and canteen.

Actually thats false. Originally WoW monks were NPCs from a variety of races that used melee weapons and various melee abilities. They had nothing to do with Pandarens or the WC3 Brewmaster.

If you can't see how "keg throwing, beer chugging, circus bear" was generalized into "martial artist", and then each specialized was inspired by absolutely conflicting real-world philosophies, that's on you.

How exactly is a beer-chugging kung fu panda NOT a niche concept in a game with Death Knights, Druids, and Mages?

You're failing to grasp how art assets are created in video games, I feel.

A retexture (i.e. Mekkatorque's Mech, or 7.3's Lightforged Warframe, take a few hours to make.
A model (i.e. Gazlowe's Mech) would take days, or weeks, depending on the workload of the person making it.

Except I'm not making an argument about which one is easier to create, *I'm* saying that one is very present in the game world and the other is completely absent.

As I said, almost certainly for the sake of ease.

And Gelbin appearing in a cinematic?

That they are choosing to re-use existing assets instead of creating brand, spanking new assets is actually indicative that Tinkers aren't even on Blizzards immediate radar.

Or, for the sake of getting people used to the idea of gnomes and goblins riding in mecha.

I've provided numerous, you just don't like them.

Where? The only thing you've said is that they're too outlandish or out of place. An argument that makes no sense because you see the concept throughout the game through multiple expansions. The trend intensified in Legion (for whatever reason).

The current in-game FM-style Tinkers are in machines that are at least 18-feet tall. The pro-Tinker posse (which apparently only consists of you, right now) mention in virtually every post about the subject that they could be implemented "as they are in-game, right now" and often cite the fact that they're in-game right now as proof that we should get them (in fact, you did this in the post I'm quoting). This is an endorsement of something that will never, ever, happen.

Where did I say that? I've consistently said that the size would need to be modified, and I've used Tauren and Draenei as a good size compromise for a class. I dont know why you continue to ignore this I have no idea.

You're not understanding the difference between impossible and outlandish.

Outlandish means "out of the ordinary". Gnomes and Goblins piloting mechs is not out of the ordinary in WoW.

The purpose of the War Machine imagery was for size, not for style, as I mentioned numerous time. The style is irrelevant, the size is the only limiting factor for their mech.

A 8-10 ft mech can still be considered a war machine.

[Shadowsgrace]

Battlemages... they have been in game for so damn long... and we need another Caster.

[Ielenia]

They didn't design it but they did have a hand in developing the setting details, and a lot of stuff that premiered in the tabletop game made it into WoW (off the top of my head, every single zone of Northrend, the Elemental Planes, and Bilgewater Port).

No, they haven't. They just licensed the brand. They have a pretty much hands-off approach to let the White Wolf company have free reign into how they'll design both the mechanics and the stories, which is why the games have a bucket load of classes (and even prestige classes, I was told. Don't own any of the books, so can't confirm), hence why the RPG books are considered non-canon.

- - - Updated - - -

They are now, they werent before they were introduced to WoW in MoP. In fact, the playerbase was so ignorant to WC3 Brewmaster that many thought Blizzard had ripped off Kung Fu panda.

Off the top of my head, there was Chen Stormstout's empty keg quest in pre-Cataclysm Barrens, as well as the kid in Stormwind who mentioned the Pandaren every now and then, before MoP.

[Thimagryn]

Off the top of my head, there was Chen Stormstout's empty keg quest in pre-Cataclysm Barrens, as well as the kid in Stormwind who mentioned the Pandaren every now and then, before MoP.

TBH those references are so obscure that no one except the most knowledgeable of Warcraft fans would ever clue in that Pandaren were even going to be a thing in WoW.

I mean should we be taking in the one easter egg of a Pandaren saying he wants to be a Demon Hunter as a sign that we were getting playable Demon Hunters? Even in retrospect, it still only exists as an obscure homage.

Not to mention, we had the quest in Cataclysm that had us find instructions on how to become a Demon Hunter. They weren't even a reference point for the current Demon Hunters, and much of that was effectively ignored through their current backstory. The current DH don't even reference the Dark Herald afiak.

[Ielenia]

TBH those references are so obscure that no one except the most knowledgeable of Warcraft fans would ever clue in that Pandaren were even going to be a thing in WoW.

Those weren't indicators that the pandaren would become a playable race. Just that the pandaren existed in the universe of Warcraft.

I mean should we be taking in the one easter egg of a Pandaren saying he wants to be a Demon Hunter as a sign that we were getting playable Demon Hunters? Even in retrospect, it still only exists as an obscure homage.

There's a difference, I believe, between mentions that the pandaren exist in the world, and saying that we will one day get pandaren DHs because one pandaren wants to become one.

(Also... really? A pandaren NPC said that? Who? Never seen it.)

[Teriz]

Off the top of my head, there was Chen Stormstout's empty keg quest in pre-Cataclysm Barrens, as well as the kid in Stormwind who mentioned the Pandaren every now and then, before MoP.

Yeah, but there wasnt "hundreds of examples of them occurring" until MoP. Before that, Pandaren in WoW were legend and rumor, with tiny hints laying around here or there. There were no Pandaren NPCs anyehere in the game until MoP (unless you count the pet).

Not even close to the level of DKs before WotLK, or DHs before Legion.

[Teriz]

The two hot-button issues, for me and likely for many of those who're disinterested in Tinkers generally, are a) their size and b) their flashiness.

So essentially your issue is that Tinkers are too "awesome"?

Again, size issue isnt a problem: The Tinker form can be the size of a fully geared Tauren or Draenei. For Goblins and Gnomes that is a significant size increase.

[vertigo12]

http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/u...owhunter.shtml

Shadow Hunter is more or less a troll shaman with a spear/daggers? combined with rogue. Which, I would furking love but for some reason we got enhancement shaman instead. Would LOVE to play something like what shadow hunter was in WC3.

No, Sylvanas is not WC3 shadow hunter, I believe :S

But it makes sense to check the old WC3 hero list.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get why some classes have went so far from their WC3 counterparts. I mean where's arms warrior's Blademaster stuff like Mirror Image :O Why did we get enhancement shaman and not shadow hunter?

Also, a lot of the WC3 heroes are a combination of several classes. Like Priestess of the Moon is basically balance+marksman. But balancing that in WoW would be a nightmare.

Shadow hunters are voodoism based and are headhunters. They use glaives as well a new weapon type which is newly introduced.

A shaman based on wc3 has lightning shield purge and blood lust

Shaman is an existing class with various wc3 spell. Same as what they did with priest with mana burn but wasn't implemented on DH. Or Demonologu warlock with meta.

Another shhadow hunter can bethe scout version or the dark ranger version of sylvanas and void alleria. Take note that vol'jin stated that the black arow will get Garrosh without him being aware of it.

[Fyersing]

They are now, they werent before they were introduced to WoW in MoP. In fact, the playerbase was so ignorant to WC3 Brewmaster that many thought Blizzard had ripped off Kung Fu panda.

You're missing the point.

Something can exist, it can be real, within the structure of a story and still be absolutely terrible -- it doesn't matter if that thing was new or old, well-known or obscure, it can still be received terribly. My contention is that Pandaren were old, obscure and not well-received, and that despite being old and well-known, for other reasons your iteration wouldn't be well-received.

You have any quotes from Blizzard to back up your notion that the Pandaren race was a failure? Ive never heard Blizzard ever comment about it in that fashion.

Are you really one of those people who won't accept a statistical reality until some arbitrary power-holder spells it out for you? A statistic doesn't lie -- it may mislead, it may prompt misdiagnosis, but it doesn't lie.

No, I'm hung up on your notion that a concept that is shown throughout WoW is somehow a crazy or outlandish concept.

As I've repeatedly stated, simply existing doesn't make something not silly. There's stories about Carebears and Power Rangers, Dora the Explorer and Captain Underpants -- they exist, they're shown. They're also crazy and outlandish.

Actually thats false. Originally WoW monks were NPCs from a variety of races that used melee weapons and various melee abilities. They had nothing to do with Pandarens or the WC3 Brewmaster.

So let me get this straight.

You're going to try and tell me, the world and God that the Monk implemented in World of Warcraft (c. September 2012) was the original incarnation of Monk, and the "Monk" from WC3 (c. July 2002) drew it's inspiration from the former? I just want this on record.

(Note: You think that the WC3 Brewmaster (which was a Pandaren) was completely, undeniably, separate from the Brewmaster Monk of WoW, which launched alongside Pandaren? Color me shocked.)

How exactly is a beer-chugging kung fu panda NOT a niche concept in a game with Death Knights, Druids, and Mages?

It is. The fact that this was your response that what I said shows me that either a) you're not actually reading what I'm writing or b) you're reading it, but don't understand basic concepts.

Except I'm not making an argument about which one is easier to create, *I'm* saying that one is very present in the game world and the other is completely absent.

We're clearly not on the same page, in terms of fluid intelligence.

The absence of something from the game, provided it exists within the story/franchise, is absolutely meaningless -- and, for the most part, so is it's presence. There weren't any Blood Elf models before 2007, meant little to nothing insofar as what can/will be added -- conversely, they've remade Vrykul models several times and yet that's absolutely not a guarantee that we'll be seeing playable Vrykul.

Neither position is relevant to what I posited, namely that we see Tinkers in FM-style not because that's guaranteed or likely to be how they'd be presented as a class, but because the assets already existed (and, therefore, take no work to create). It doesn't mean anything, there is no underlaying purpose, it's business.

And Gelbin appearing in a cinematic?

Yes, using a retextured model from 2004. You're not grasping that Blizzard choosing to utilize the existing FM-style in-game is primarily a business decision, and should in no way be taken to mean that all Tinkers are guaranteed to use the FM-style nor should it be taken to mean that efficiency is the only reason they've done it (i.e. nor should it suggest that PM-style is guaranteed, because it's not). There's no hidden meaning, just a company using as little time as possible designing things that they're not currently ready/willing/able/interested in implementing.

Or, for the sake of getting people used to the idea of gnomes and goblins riding in mecha.

That's your interpretation, and it's fine. It's simply likely that you're reading more into that there is.

Where? The only thing you've said is that they're too outlandish or out of place. An argument that makes no sense because you see the concept throughout the game through multiple expansions. The trend intensified in Legion (for whatever reason).

I won't even address this because it's been addressed above, twice. If you can't grasp it, you can't be reached.

Where did I say that? I've consistently said that the size would need to be modified, and I've used Tauren and Draenei as a good size compromise for a class. I dont know why you continue to ignore this I have no idea.

And then you follow it up with, "they're in the game, look at them, let's be just like them".

You can't make a point and then contradict it continually, either they'll be as they are in-game (enormous, 18' robogods) or they won't be like that at all (more humanoid in size). My contention is the latter, as yours sometimes seems to be.

Outlandish means "out of the ordinary". Gnomes and Goblins piloting mechs is not out of the ordinary in WoW.

Then fantastical is a better descriptor. It doesn't sit easy with people who're trying to play a game intended to be set in a fantasy setting -- the same reason Legion has gotten gripe for all the spaceships.

A 9-10 ft mech can still be considered a war machine.

War Machine is the name of the Marvel Superhero I linked a picture of, hence the capitalization of the words. He's man-sized.

So essentially your issue is that Tinkers are too "awesome"?

Again, size issue isnt a problem: The Tinker form can be the size of a fully geared Tauren or Draenei. For Goblins and Gnomes that is a significant size increase.

I wouldn't call it an issue, because I recognize that Blizzard wouldn't ever implement it with excessive flashiness or size.

The same way I didn't expect that DK's would be able to have 1,000 pets and be able to 1v50 other players (despite this being fairly accurate, in terms of the story). I'm just trying to help you and the loyal posse of Tinker Gals understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable expectations.

[Thimagryn]

Those weren't indicators that the pandaren would become a playable race. Just that the pandaren existed in the universe of Warcraft.

I don't know. Homages are just filler. Do we want to go that route and start taking Night Elf Mohawks into canon because they did that one event? I'm not discounting the examples you brought up, but just saying that using them to confirm canon/existence is a very iffy subject. We know Pandaren existed since Warcraft 3, I think that's more than enough evidence regardless of not having seen them in WoW other than their easter eggs. I wouldn't take the easter eggs themselves as canon, otherwise we're beholden to every joke item they put in the game as being a part of canon.

There's a difference, I believe, between mentions that the pandaren exist in the world, and saying that we will one day get pandaren DHs because one pandaren wants to become one.

(Also... really? A pandaren NPC said that? Who? Never seen it.)

Master Cheng

http://wow.gamepedia.com/Master_Cheng

I just used him as an obscure-yet-relevant example of a tiny throwaway line being used in retrospect as evidence for a future class. His line was a nod to the all the Demon Hunter talk that was going on after Cataclysm, mainly the ones that happened here. It wasn't really pointing towards a playable Demon Hunter since a Blue confirmed that they had no current plans for a DH class at that time. I doubt this was related to playable Demon Hunters at all.

[Ielenia]

I don't know. Homages are just filler. Do we want to go that route and start taking Night Elf Mohawks into canon because they did that one event? I'm not discounting the examples you brought up, but just saying that using them to confirm canon/existence is a very iffy subject. We know Pandaren existed since Warcraft 3, I think that's more than enough evidence regardless of not having seen them in WoW other than their easter eggs. I wouldn't take the easter eggs themselves as canon, otherwise we're beholden to every joke item they put in the game as being a part of canon.

Those weren't easter eggs. An easter egg, for example, is the flower girl in old Dalaran and the same flower girl and her bodyguard in new Dalaran, a reference to Final Fantasy 7's Aerith and Cloud. Another easter egg is the reference to the movie Bambi with the fawn critter Bambina and Mother of Bambina that roam round Grizzly Hills. You can't call it an "easter egg" when you find something that references something that belongs to the canon universe, unless you think that any and all mentions of Kul'Tiras are easter eggs as well? ... Do you think Jaina is an easter egg?

Master Cheng

http://wow.gamepedia.com/Master_Cheng

Cool.

[Thimagryn]

Those weren't easter eggs. An easter egg, for example, is the flower girl in old Dalaran and the same flower girl and her bodyguard in new Dalaran, a reference to Final Fantasy 7's Aerith and Cloud. Another easter egg is the reference to the movie Bambi with the fawn critter Bambina and Mother of Bambina that roam round Grizzly Hills. You can't call it an "easter egg" when you find something that references something that belongs to the canon universe, unless you think that any and all mentions of Kul'Tiras are easter eggs as well? ... Do you think Jaina is an easter egg?

As far as pre-MoP and the fate of all Pandaren is concerned, they were easter eggs to Warcraft 3. Chen himself could be considered an easter egg considering he was an optional follower in Rexxar's campaign, and that is as canonical as the Alliance/Horde separate endings in Warcraft 1 and 2. The empty keg itself was a nod to the character, not a confirmation of future appearance.

Moving the goalpost to talk about Kul'Tiras and Jaina is only strawmanning the conversation here. It's clear that Chen's Keg was an homage to Chen's appearance in Warcraft 3. It was not an indicator that he would even appear in WoW. As for confirming his existence, we knew he exists because he was in Warcraft 3. However, he's gone through many retcons since then and his backstory was changed to come from the Wandering Isle, making WC3's version of Chen non-canonical. What this means is Chen's Empty Keg was an (unintentional?) easter egg towards a non-canonical character, who was later taken and written into the lore (with full ties to Thrall/Rexxar/Vol'jin) with a new backstory.

TLDR; it was totally an easter egg up until it was removed from the game.

[Ielenia]

As far as pre-MoP and the fate of all Pandaren is concerned, they were easter eggs to Warcraft 3. Chen himself could be considered an easter egg considering he was an optional follower in Rexxar's campaign,

He's not any less canon just because he's an optional companion.

The empty keg itself was a nod to the character, not a confirmation of future appearance.

I'm not saying it is. I just said it was confirmation of existence.

Moving the goalpost to talk about Kul'Tiras and Jaina is only strawmanning the conversation here. It's clear that Chen's Keg was an homage to Chen's appearance in Warcraft 3. It was not an indicator that he would even appear in WoW.

I'm not saying it was a confirmation that it would one day appear, only a confirmation that they existed, and were canon to the Warcraft universe and not just a "easter egg".