Thread: Tinker Class

Page 14 of 64 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
24
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Drilnos View Post
    You're twisting GC's words just as much as he is. That tweet neither confirmed nor disconfirmed anything. Claiming it as evidence for either side is equally disingenuous.
    Cooper was not twisting GC's words. He's outright saying GC neither confirmed or denied anything. He's pointing out how Teriz draws conclusions from those tweets.

    Any conclusion drawn from those tweets is all opinion.

  2. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Cooper was not twisting GC's words. He's outright saying GC neither confirmed or denied anything. He's pointing out how Teriz draws conclusions from those tweets.

    Any conclusion drawn from those tweets is all opinion.
    YAY I LOVE SMART PEOPLE!!!!

    I have been saying essentially that for however many posts I have, minus like 5 LOL!

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Cooper was not twisting GC's words. He's outright saying GC neither confirmed or denied anything. He's pointing out how Teriz draws conclusions from those tweets.

    Any conclusion drawn from those tweets is all opinion.
    I don't even care so much about the conclusions. Teriz can infer whatever he wants from Ghostcrawler's tweets.That's what makes it his opinion and speculation.

    Where I draw the line is when he misattributes his own words to Ghostcrawler; saying things like "those (Demon Hunters have significant overlap problems with other classes) were Ghostcrawler's exact words" is flat out a lie, and he continues to do it knowing full well what Ghostcrawler actually said, which means he is doing it intentionally and maliciously, which is utterly reprehensible and unacceptable.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Cooper was not twisting GC's words. He's outright saying GC neither confirmed or denied anything. He's pointing out how Teriz draws conclusions from those tweets.

    Any conclusion drawn from those tweets is all opinion.
    Yes, I went through his post history and confirmed as much. Normally I would beg pardon for the misunderstanding.

    Not this time, though.

  5. #265
    The ability to properly communicate opinions and Teriz have not been formally introduced!

  6. #266
    Can't see that happening.

    - both Alchemist and Tinker are already represented in game, through professions.
    - this game doesn't really need any more classes - balance is already impossible as it is now. 10 man guilds already have problems with comp/drops balance.
    - some of the specs that already have strong identity problems would have even bigger problems - survival hunter, for example.

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    That.
    Is.
    Not.
    What.
    He.
    Said.

    Get it through your thick fucking skull that you cannot just put words into another person's mouth and wish it into truth.
    Is it a literal quote?

    No. Its not. By pointing out fundamental problems with the class of a degree and type more than strong enough to justify killing off the concept, however, Teriz's interpretation is how a lot of people took it. If the class concept doesn't have the design room needed, if anything they can do with it is better/more easily done with another class, then the new class is effectively not worth developing.

    Is that a straightforward no? Of course not. Blizzard can develop whatever class it wants when it wants how it wants and if it wants a DH class in game, then it's going to put one in. Leaving aside the "Put it in just for the ske of it" argument, the lack of design space issue GC brought up is a major problem that cannot be worked around without destroying the class concept. There is NO design room for the DH class in game.

    And the reason Teriz keeps "putting words in GCs mouth" is because that is how he - and others, including myself - took his remarks.

    GC asked a question about DHs and design space...to which the answer is "no...there isn't the design space available". If the design space isn't available, the likelihood of the DH class being made available drops. Sharply.

    The rebuttal should be simple. If that isn't what GC meant, then there should be some design room available that isn't filled by existing classes. If so...what is it?

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-04 at 03:04 AM.

  8. #268
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    Wait but you keep saying Tinker is based off a WC 3 unit the goblin Tinker, Now you say it just has to do with using technology
    It would be. It would also be expanded as a WoW class into the larger technology archetype, just like every other class concept that makes the WC3 to WoW transition. Brewmasters to Monks, Unholy Death Knights getting frost and blood specs. That has to happen because a WoW class requires dozens of abilities and three distinct specs.

    spirit Cloth first stat is int but it is still considered spirit cloth
    Only because cloths primary stat is INT.


    No sir you are lying once again because you can not accept what he said

    No where did he say Tinkers are coming and DH are not. In fact he neither confirmed nor disconfirmed anything. So please stop spreading lies
    He said that the Tinker's implementation depends on treatment, while the DH overlaps with too many existing classes.

    It's simple bud.

    Funny in WC3 the monk was wearing a Cloth robe, chen stormstout wears a cloth. Hell all the monk starting gear looks like cloth
    Yeah, things change when you move from a RTS to a MMORPG.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hengwulf View Post
    Can't see that happening.

    - both Alchemist and Tinker are already represented in game, through professions.
    - this game doesn't really need any more classes - balance is already impossible as it is now. 10 man guilds already have problems with comp/drops balance.
    - some of the specs that already have strong identity problems would have even bigger problems - survival hunter, for example.
    1. Professions aren't classes, and none of the Tinker's abilities exist in either Engineering of Alchemy.
    2. This game has open space for one more class, via armor and class type. That is by design.
    3. Only pure DPS classes have issue with spec identity, Hybrid classes have no such problems. Based on the final open class type, the 12th class will be a hybrid class. So spec identity won't be a problem.

  9. #269
    And here's Talen right on cue to attempt to rationalize Teriz's dishonesty with a red herring about design space.

    What somebody personally infers from Ghostcrawler's tweet does not give that person the right to attribute quotes to Ghostcrawler that Ghostcrawler never actually said. End. Of. Story.

  10. #270
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    And here's Talen right on cue to attempt to rationalize Teriz's dishonesty with a red herring about design space.

    What somebody personally infers from Ghostcrawler's tweet does not give that person the right to attribute quotes to Ghostcrawler that Ghostcrawler never actually said. End. Of. Story.
    So then answer talen's question; What design space is there for DHs that isn't occupied by the classes that GC listed?

    And please, try to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept presented in WC3, and numerous DH NPCs in WoW.

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So then answer talen's question; What design space is there for DHs that isn't occupied by the classes that GC listed?

    And please, try to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept presented in WC3, and numerous DH NPCs in WoW.
    Talen's question is irrelevant to your lying bullshit.

  12. #272
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    Talen's question is irrelevant to your lying bullshit.
    If Talen is right, and the answer to GC's question is "no", then my interpretation of GC's tweet is correct.

  13. #273
    I posted this a few pages back but I will expand on it a bit more here. @Talen

    Essentially depending on where you draw the line you can question the design space for any class. Back in the day we, as a player base, were not as sophisticated (my opinion) and we did not have such an elaborate understanding of the game. However in hindsight let's look at the DK class and push forth some of the same arguments.

    Deathknights and Warriors share a lot of the same space. Both use STR weapons and STR plate armor. Both are a dual hybrid as they are tanks and melee dps classes.

    Now Deathknights also wield magic in melee combat, different than warrior, however in almost the same way that Retribution Paladins augment their attacks. Retribution Paladins had become viable in TBC, so this certainly encroached into their newly found space. The fact that they were tanks as well further muddies the waters.

    Beyond that Deathknights also had some overlap with Warlocks, outside of the Death Coil conversation, both had specs that heavily relied on a summoned creature and used shadow magic etc. While there was no direct gearing or primary functional (ranged vs melee) overlap there certainly was indirect overlap as another "evil" magic user who is shunned by the general public etc like the Warlock (and possibly shadow priest).

    So what was the difference?

    Well Death Knights had a wholly different resource system for one. Also Death Knights had a STRONG identity with ties to Arthas, which were immediately capitalized on from the very first time you logged on as a Death Knight. Blizzard made sure that you knew you were not just a warrior, that you were different than a Warlock (who chooses to use "evil" magic versus a Death Knight who was forced to be what they are) and that Death Knights were the anti-thesis of Paladin. All it took was a new resource system, and a strong story and/or reason for being.

    So regardless of proposed class (however I will use Demon Hunter as it is appropriate for this group), let's say Blizzard creates a new playstyle/resource system for Demon Hunter and then ties it to an aggressive story/identity (like the did with Death Knight). Certainly Demon Hunter is ripe for it, since one could argue that Illidan and Arthas are two (if not the two) of most iconic of the WarCraft lore characters.

    Now Teriz will come with "Illidan is already the new token Warlock lore character". I disagree but for sake of argument lets run this gauntlet. Everything I say next is pure speculation, however it took me all of 5 minutes to come up with what I think is fairly plausible.

    So Draenei (didn't expect to see me start there!) have been languishing in lore hell for many expansions now. They have been "saved" for the Army of Light story. Now when this happens Velen (and presumably Anduin) will lead the Army of Light. This makes sense for Paladins, Priests, and maybe Druids. You could probably shoehorn in Warriors, Mages, Shaman, Hunters, Monks, etc. with vary degrees of "making sense". However it would be odd for the group to openly except large amounts of Warlocks, Death Knights, Rogues etc.

    Also there is a noticeable nostalgia for TBC in the community.

    Everyone remember the Aldor versus the Scryers?

    Now I doubt that Blizzard would put a "game restriction" based on class, however lore wise it could play.

    Velen leads the Army of Light, while a returned Illidan leads the Army of Shadow (cheesy name got it!). Demon Hunters are added as Illidan's shock troops with their artillery being the Warlocks etc etc. Army of Light will win this war with the Burning Legion using their undying will and outright refusal to lose to darkness, Illidans army will use whatever it needs to win and do all the dirty thing a war requires that the Army of Light would shy away from.

    As I said it took 5 minutes, but with a proper resource system (playstyle) and a strong story, Blizzard can add anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So then answer talen's question; What design space is there for DHs that isn't occupied by the classes that GC listed?

    And please, try to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept presented in WC3, and numerous DH NPCs in WoW.
    Uhm Teriz...man you did it again.

    Ok...so DH folks have to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept, but you do not have to stay "in the spirit" of the Tinkerer concept. Cause if you do, I hear, just maybe...that it might be too whimsical. Just what I heard man.
    Last edited by kensim; 2013-09-04 at 04:07 AM.

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If Talen is right, and the answer to GC's question is "no", then my interpretation of GC's tweet is correct.
    No, that's what you inferred from it, based on your own personal biases. Shoving what you inferred into Ghostcrawler's mouth and then attributing those words to Ghostcrawler is nothing but a lie.

    You can say, "I don't think there is enough design space." You cannot with any honesty or integrity whatsoever say "Ghostcrawler said there is not enough design space."

  15. #275
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    No, that's what you inferred from it, based on your own personal biases. Shoving what you inferred into Ghostcrawler's mouth and then attributing those words to Ghostcrawler is nothing but a lie.

    You can say, "I don't think there is enough design space." You cannot with any honesty or integrity whatsoever say "Ghostcrawler said there is not enough design space."
    Actually I can, since we both know that GC knows the answer to his rhetorical question. In other words, he asked a stupid question to make a point. He listed the classes that consume the DHs design space to further that point. The fact that you don't get it is irrelevant. GCs motives and purpose in that tweet was obvious.

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Actually I can, since we both know that GC knows the answer to his rhetorical question. In other words, he asked a stupid question to make a point. He listed the classes that consume the DHs design space to further that point. The fact that you don't get it is irrelevant. GCs motives and purpose in that tweet was obvious.
    How do you know he knows the answer?

  17. #277
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Uhm Teriz...man you did it again.

    Ok...so DH folks have to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept, but you do not have to stay "in the spirit" of the Tinkerer concept. Cause if you do, I hear, just maybe...that it might be too whimsical. Just what I heard man.
    No, because Tinkers belong to a larger archetype than Demon Hunters.

    Which is is why I can use Tinker, Inventor, Mechanic, Artificer, Mekgineer, Machinist, Siegecrafter, Technician, and Engineer interchangeably for a technology class, and it all means pretty much the same thing.

    What else can you call a Demon Hunter class?

    Warlock?

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Furthermore, how does he know that the answer is the same answer that he personally believes? But what does it matter? He's actually arguing that he gets to intentionally and maliciously misattribute quotes to people because of what he personally inferred from things those people actually did say.

    Rational thought and honest discourse are things not just entirely foreign to him, they are things he actively opposes.

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No, because Tinkers belong to a larger archetype than Demon Hunters.

    Which is is why I can use Tinker, Inventor, Mechanic, Artificer, Mekgineer, Machinist, Siegecrafter, Technician, and Engineer interchangeably for a technology class, and it all means pretty much the same thing.

    What else can you call a Demon Hunter class?



    Warlock?
    Warlock? They don't really hunt demons or even really focus on battling demons.

    Nice try though.

    Anywho...

    You are the one that keep playing the WC3 "Hero Class" game. Here is the pickle you are in...

    Classes in WoW have WC3 inspirations.
    Tinkerer is not represented in WoW currently as an archetype (Your opinion, I don't agree but whatever)
    Tinkerer from WC3 may be too whimsical for WoW
    By Tinkerers you actually mean technology however based on the above it must be based on WC3 Tinkerer because all classes have WC3 inspirations.
    Blizzard could expand on them and implement them much like WindWalkers and MistWeavers came from Brewmaster to create Monk.

    HOWEVER....based on the same logic why can't Blizzard just expand on Demon Hunter like they did Death Knight or Monk?

    You can't really have one be true without the other?

  20. #280
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Because he goes on to list the classes that fill the design space.

    He essentially answered the question while he asked it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Warlock? They don't really hunt demons or even really focus on battling demons.

    Nice try though.

    Anywho...

    You are the one that keep playing the WC3 "Hero Class" game. Here is the pickle you are in...

    Classes in WoW have WC3 inspirations.
    Tinkerer is not represented in WoW currently as an archetype (Your opinion, I don't agree but whatever)
    Tinkerer from WC3 may be too whimsical for WoW
    By Tinkerers you actually mean technology however based on the above it must be based on WC3 Tinkerer because all classes have WC3 inspirations.
    Blizzard could expand on them and implement them much like WindWalkers and MistWeavers came from Brewmaster to create Monk.

    HOWEVER....based on the same logic why can't Blizzard just expand on Demon Hunter like they did Death Knight or Monk?

    You can't really have one be true without the other?
    You can. The problem is that expansion slides into the design space of other classes. Hence GCs statements. Push the Melee aspect too far, you got a DK. Push the demonic side too much, and you got a Warlock.

Posting Permissions

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