Thread: Tinker Class

Page 15 of 64 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
17
25
... LastLast
  1. #281
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    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 - what design space is there? It's a simple question. If you think Teriz's interpretation is wrong...what design spce is there?

    It's easy to simply say "He's wrong". Can you show it? Can you provide the existing Illidan DH with enough design space to warrant development as a player class?

    The answer is "None". You need to rebuild the class entirely from the ground up to give it that design space...and in that case, you don't have a DH. Blizzard could easily ignore that if it chose, but then we'd need to suppose it doesn't mind the various overlaps that woudl constrain the design of both it and other classes.

    EJL

  2. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because he goes on to list the classes that fill the design space.

    He essentially answered the question while he asked it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    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.
    Or he gave us insight into what they talk about at meetings with regards to the integration of a Demon Hunter class and what the greatest challenge is of doing so? Same with the whimsical nature of the Tinkerer? See the fact is that he is intentionally vague and you are guessing.

    Push melee too far and you have Warrior, push the dark magic summoner thing too far and you have Warlock. Somehow Death Knight still made it in.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    So - what design space is there? It's a simple question. If you think Teriz's interpretation is wrong...what design spce is there?

    It's easy to simply say "He's wrong". Can you show it? Can you provide the existing Illidan DH with enough design space to warrant development as a player class?

    The answer is "None". You need to rebuild the class entirely from the ground up to give it that design space...and in that case, you don't have a DH. Blizzard could easily ignore that if it chose, but then we'd need to suppose it doesn't mind the various overlaps that woudl constrain the design of both it and other classes.

    EJL
    Design space? Well considering Blizzard determines the "space" part of it themselves they can really do whatever they want.

    What if they go back and try a combo based (not combo points) twitchy implementation closer to some GW2 classes with the resource being a mild form of timing and stringing together different abilities to produce separate outcomes etc. No idea really they are the professionals. I would find it hard to replace the engine on a Ferrari but I bet a Ferrari tech would find it pretty easy. Same thing.

    Tack on a strong reason for being and story and they can do basically anything. In my opinion that is how we ended up with DK.

  3. #283
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Largely because he listed many - not even all, but many - of the classes which do have a design space overlap with the DH.

    He asked a question and then listed four classes that together took up the DHs entire design space.

    Warlock get the look, demon theme and casting abilities.
    DKs get to be the anti-hero
    Hunters get the theme of hunting down a prey
    Warriors get the DW fighting style.

    He asked a question and within the next few words provided a list that guaranteed a "no" answer. Do you think he can do that and still not know the answer to the question?

    EJL

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Regardless of whether one interprets the question as an honest one or a rhetorical one, both explanations involve him admitting that he doesn't see where the design space is. If it was an honest question, which I think is likely, he was asking for an answer. That implies that he can't see, on his own, where a demon hunter would be able to carve a niche - and he's sitting in front of an entire creative team who can't see it either. If it was a rhetorical question, as Teriz believes, it means the same thing. The only difference is whether he intended to start a debate among the fans and spur a round of suggestions, or not. I think he probably did, personally. They're always looking for suggestions.

    There is, of course, also the off chance that he was ducking the issue because he already has some sort of demon hunter plan fulminating and wants us to stew over it. Honestly though, I don't believe that. Looking at all the lore, aesthetics and mechanics warlocks have been getting this expansion, it is literally impossible for me to conclude that they've been planning a standalone demon hunter class this entire time. It is unthinkable to me. Maybe as a fourth spec, with the glyph as a sort of testbed. Maybe. Other people disagree with me. That's their prerogative.

  5. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Largely because he listed many - not even all, but many - of the classes which do have a design space overlap with the DH.

    He asked a question and then listed four classes that together took up the DHs entire design space.

    Warlock get the look, demon theme and casting abilities.
    DKs get to be the anti-hero
    Hunters get the theme of hunting down a prey
    Warriors get the DW fighting style.

    He asked a question and within the next few words provided a list that guaranteed a "no" answer. Do you think he can do that and still not know the answer to the question?

    EJL
    See above, I was able to come up with a completely plausible manner in which the question could have been asked that has nothing to do with GC knowing the answer at all, that in fact being the point. End of the day all guesses. Sorta rude to tell someone what their intent was.

    Also warriors get the DW style? What about rogues, DKs, monks, shaman? Did I miss any? Not really a "thing" for a class.

    Warlocks, Death Knights, and Shadow Priests all use Shadow Magic and Summoning stuff...no real monopoly there...

    Hunters are "nature" combatants, semi-ranger-ish (Teriz actually agrees with this) and Demon Hunters are anything but natural.

    Why would DK get to be the only "Anti-Hero"? Wait Illidan is an anti-hero right? But wait Teriz and others think that Warlocks are now his lore class (or something) so now Warlocks are anti-heroes? Did someone tell Death Knights?

    Oh wait seems like none of that makes sense or in some cases appear to matter.
    Last edited by kensim; 2013-09-04 at 04:53 AM.

  6. #286
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    Drunken Masters don't actually fight drunk, they fight LIKE they're drunk. The premise of the style is deception and erratic movement. They don't get loaded on Whiskey and start throwing beer kegs at people.

    Jesus Christ.
    While the actual Drunken Masters do merely imitate being drunk since trying to fight in that style while intoxicated would actually be extremely dangerous.

    You still aren't correct, Monk Brewmasters are Zui Quan. In a very literal fantastical sense.

    Jackie Chan has even done a couple of older movies 'Drunken Masters' which is based off a literal version of Drunken Boxing(IE his character becomes a better drunken boxer the more boozed up he is.).

    The reason why Bremasters practice Zui Quan by actually getting drunk in game instead of just practicing the style?
    Because it makes for a more fun class and adds in more diversity rather than just all their moves being kicks and punches and chi blasts that are reminiscent of mages. Now they can also throw in bashing people with Kegs, slipping them up with Booze, lighting booze on fire while breathing it on people.

    And I dare say it makes monks more....whimsical? >.>

  7. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by Tazkar View Post
    While the actual Drunken Masters do merely imitate being drunk since trying to fight in that style while intoxicated would actually be extremely dangerous.

    You still aren't correct, Monk Brewmasters are Zui Quan. In a very literal fantastical sense.

    Jackie Chan has even done a couple of older movies 'Drunken Masters' which is based off a literal version of Drunken Boxing(IE his character becomes a better drunken boxer the more boozed up he is.).

    The reason why Bremasters practice Zui Quan by actually getting drunk in game instead of just practicing the style?
    Because it makes for a more fun class and adds in more diversity rather than just all their moves being kicks and punches and chi blasts that are reminiscent of mages. Now they can also throw in bashing people with Kegs, slipping them up with Booze, lighting booze on fire while breathing it on people.

    And I dare say it makes monks more....whimsical? >.>
    Cheeky bastard!

  8. #288
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    What if they go back and try a combo based (not combo points) twitchy implementation closer to some GW2 classes with the resource being a mild form of timing and stringing together different abilities to produce separate outcomes etc.
    That's a resource and control system...which can be added to any class. Completely independent of the actual class.

    No idea really they are the professionals. I would find it hard to replace the engine on a Ferrari but I bet a Ferrari tech would find it pretty easy. Same thing.
    Then do what noone else has done and point out the design space DHs have available to them.

    Tack on a strong reason for being and story and they can do basically anything. In my opinion that is how we ended up with DK.
    And again, that CAN be given to other classes. Which will make THEM stronger. There isn't anything the DH has that can't be done by another class, no story another class can't drive forward.

    Is there any design space left for the DH? No. Is that a guarantee we'll never see it as a class? no...it just means very unlikely.

    EJL

  9. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    That's a resource and control system...which can be added to any class. Completely independent of the actual class.



    Then do what noone else has done and point out the design space DHs have available to them.



    And again, that CAN be given to other classes. Which will make THEM stronger. There isn't anything the DH has that can't be done by another class, no story another class can't drive forward.

    Is there any design space left for the DH? No. Is that a guarantee we'll never see it as a class? no...it just means very unlikely.

    EJL
    Talen where did I say any of that HAD to be given to DH. Death Knight didn't have a true niche either not already filled. They gave it a unique resource system and a good story. I am pretty sure a few posts up I stated that it could be applied to ANY new class. I was pretty clear. Why the focus on Demon Hunter?

    I just created space, they have a unique playstyle, they would "feel" different (much like Frost Dks, Rogues, and Fury Warriors feel different) and story wise would be their own background/reason for being.

    Again that is essentially (in my opinion) what they did with DKs.

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Why the focus on Demon Hunter?
    Because these people believe this is some sort of first-past-the-post race where if one class makes it in, others never will. With this viewpoint, the popularity of Demon Hunter makes it the biggest threat to keep Tinker out of the game. Therefore, they must vehemently deny any possibility of Demon Hunter ever happening. It becomes "My team is better than your team" soccer hooliganism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazkar View Post
    Jackie Chan has even done a couple of older movies 'Drunken Masters' which is based off a literal version of Drunken Boxing(IE his character becomes a better drunken boxer the more boozed up he is.).
    I think it's fair to say that Brewmaster (and the original Warcraft 3 unit) is probably inspired by those movies. I don't think it's fair to say that Brewmaster is based on the actual, real-world martial art.
    Last edited by Cooper; 2013-09-04 at 05:16 AM.

  11. #291
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    See above, I was able to come up with a completely plausible manner in which the question could have been asked that has nothing to do with GC knowing the answer at all
    No, you didn't.


    Also warriors get the DW style? What about rogues, DKs, monks, shaman? Did I miss any? Not really a "thing" for a class.
    140 characters when all he has to do is provide one example. Any would do to show the DW overlap. And we aren't really talking about monopoly either. As existing classes show, some overlap is always going to be there.

    But the DH has none of its own, nothing that can develop into a DH class, nothing that doesn't overlap with someone else.

    EJL

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by miffy23 View Post
    There has been NOTHING from Blizzard in any way or form to suggest a tinker class. When it was brought up recently it was acknowledged, but kind of dismissed for the moment.

    The tinker is a steampunk dream for a vocal few, I personally don't believe it will ever find it's way into WoW. It's just way too niche-y, it screams goblin. And frankly even for WoW it's a bit too steampunky, at least for my taste. I certainly do not want a player next to me in a future raid having steam and metal clanging sound effects going on, that annoyed all of us enough in Gnomeregan.

    Then again the monk is a class that screams Pandaren, so meh.

    There are two reasons you won't see it anytime soon imo: one, there won't be a new class in the coming expansion, i'm darn sure of it. And two, when they introduce another class it will be something that appeals to more people. Both DK and Monk are concepts that immediately connect with people and pose a viable argument for buying the expac. The Tinker...not so much. Think more along the lines of the often speculated and "creamed-my-pants-thinking-about-this" topic of teenage threads: The Demon Hunter.

    Most people on these forums just keep harping on about the Tinker because he's one of the few class concepts left from the original Warcraft games that hasn't been exploited as a class in WoW yet, and since Monk was last they jump to this. I still think it's very very unlikely. And I personally wouldn't want that class either.
    The thing is death knights and monks were unique enough and filled a missing armor slot. I'm not saying tinker is 100% gonna be the next class, it's just the logical when you look at the classes that were added before. And I'm sure people will get excited about it if they ever do it. Personally I think if they do ever add another class it will be tinker or something not previously ever in lore or they'll have the class out of nowhere pop up in books and what not. Or if they ever do support classes they could add a bard.

    - - - Updated - - -

    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.
    It is mostly opinion but saying do demon hunters have enough design space seems pretty clear. And there were some tweets from GC on tinkers that I think a lot of people missed basically saying it couldn't be like the wc3 tinkers but a more steampunk one which seems weird considering all the goofy stuff that's already in wow.

  13. #293
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Talen where did I say any of that HAD to be given to DH. Death Knight didn't have a true niche either not already filled.
    Undead theme
    Link to the XPac.
    Mastery over disease based combat.

    DH brings none of that. Even with a BL XPac, we already have Warlocks. Whatever story they could tell with DHs, they can tell with Warlocks. Whatever combat style or mechanics they can give DHs, they can give Warlocks. If you want to deal with an anti-hero vibe of some sort, you have DKs.

    Why the focus on Demon Hunter?
    Because thats the class this particular tweet was about.

    I just created space, they have a unique playstyle, they would "feel" different (much like Frost Dks, Rogues, and Fury Warriors feel different) and story wise would be their own background/reason for being.
    You listed four classes with a different feel, theme, look and playstyle, with each having its own design space. A description which doesn't apply to Demons Hunters. Each of thoise has some overlap, but each also has unique elements the others don't have. The DH doesn't have that.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-04 at 07:09 AM.

  14. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Largely because he listed many - not even all, but many - of the classes which do have a design space overlap with the DH.

    He asked a question and then listed four classes that together took up the DHs entire design space.

    Warlock get the look, demon theme and casting abilities.
    DKs get to be the anti-hero
    Hunters get the theme of hunting down a prey
    Warriors get the DW fighting style.

    He asked a question and within the next few words provided a list that guaranteed a "no" answer. Do you think he can do that and still not know the answer to the question?

    EJL
    It's still neither a confirmation nor a denial, therefore you can not conclude it as a denial of anything. It's not substantial evidence, yet those opposed to the Demon Hunter class are using it as such. It is not the argument itself that is wrong, it's that opinions based on GC's tweet are being presented as facts to further these arguments.

    Think of it this way - if his answer was a guaranteed 'No', then he would have answered 'No'.

  15. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It's still neither a confirmation nor a denial, therefore you can not conclude it as a denial of anything. It's not substantial evidence, yet those opposed to the Demon Hunter class are using it as such. It is not the argument itself that is wrong, it's that opinions based on GC's tweet are being presented as facts to further these arguments.

    Think of it this way - if his answer was a guaranteed 'No', then he would have answered 'No'.
    He answered no by laying out all the demon hunters abilities occupied by other classes showing that there was no space for them without completely redesigning what a demon hunter is.

  16. #296
    The point is, it is still not confirmation.

    If someone stated "Ghostcrawler said Demon Hunters will not happen", whether you agreed or disagreed would not change the fact that the statement is wrong. It is wrong because he did not say that. It may be inferred, but it was not what was said.

    There are people are using that very statement as 'factual proof' in their arguments. They are not presenting their opinions, they are making claims for what is otherwise untrue. It's not the argument that is wrong, it is their proof, or lack thereof.

  17. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It's still neither a confirmation nor a denial, therefore you can not conclude it as a denial of anything. It's not substantial evidence, yet those opposed to the Demon Hunter class are using it as such. It is not the argument itself that is wrong, it's that opinions based on GC's tweet are being presented as facts to further these arguments.

    Think of it this way - if his answer was a guaranteed 'No', then he would have answered 'No'.
    His answer wasn't a no, it was a question. People ask questions because they don't know the answers. GC listed four classes that have bits and pieces of the demon hunter's look and feel. They have these bits and pieces because they were deliberately given to them. By, by and large, the guy asking the question, and the team under him.

    Now if I were a demon hunter supporter, which I am not, but if I was, I would have immediately set about trying to answer that question, and not by feebly trying to set up meaningless lore differences with existing classes, but by finding three or more gameplay nooks that are not taken already and fitting the known aspects of the demon hunter into those nooks. Propose resource systems. Rotations. Describe it as its own entity, not x class + y class. What, in other words, does this class do that nobody else does? Every class, every spec that's ever made it into the game can answer that question. Handily.

    This was done to an extremely limited degree, but most of the feedback consisted of opinions like "it would be cool" or "it's easy, just cross a warlock with a rogue" or even "they're professionals, they can figure out the details." These do not serve to answer the question that was asked.

    The only person here in this thread that I know of who did any of that was Teriz. But that's neither here nor there.

    At this point they're years deep into working on the expansion after Mists, and the class therein, if there is one, might as well be chiseled in granite at this point. If it's demon hunters, GC has no use for a broad brush outline of niches and playstyles a demon hunter can deliver. He's got that already. He wouldn't have needed, in other words, to ask the question. Is it confirmation? No. Is it a denial? Not really. This is true enough.

    But the difficulty the community of demon hunter supporters had in coming up with a response to the question at hand, an actionable response, speaks volumes. If it's that hard for a group of passionate people to come up with a workable concept for three specs that may overlap, but don't clash with existing classes - if it's that hard for the people who give a damn, to do it, how hard must it be for the people who already made the decision to chop the class and sell its parts to five or six other classes to do it?

    With that said, it's all speculation. But it's hardly fair to blame the demon hunter's problems on the supporters of another class concept.
    Last edited by Drilnos; 2013-09-04 at 06:30 AM.

  18. #298
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It's still neither a confirmation nor a denial, therefore you can not conclude it as a denial of anything. It's not substantial evidence, yet those opposed to the Demon Hunter class are using it as such. It is not the argument itself that is wrong, it's that opinions based on GC's tweet are being presented as facts to further these arguments.

    Think of it this way - if his answer was a guaranteed 'No', then he would have answered 'No'.
    Its not a guaranteed no and it never will be. Why? Because designers and creators will NEVER box themselves in that way. Especially in a way that will come back to bite them from people who misunderstood what is being said.

    Look at the bruhaha that occurred with Beta access from the Annual pass for example.

    Now - was GCs tweet a denial? No...it wasn't. Was it a guaranteed no? No...it wasn't.

    What it was was a simple question.

    Does the design space, as GC calls it, exist for a WoW style DH? Can you design a WoW style DH without getting an overlap? Can you create a WoW style DH that has some unique quality of its own?

    GC compared it with four classes....four classes which just happen to overlap with the DH to the degree that the only answer to his question is "No".

    As it is, my own feeling is that there is a fair chance we will see DHs as playable. But, with design space being an issue, I expect we'll see it as a Warlock sub spec. Blizzard will finalise the design merger thats been going on for the past few years and bring back the tanky feel of the Warlock they've tried to restore.

    Why did GC not give a straightforward "No"? Because there is (IMO) a very good chance DHs WILL be playable; just not the way some people want them to be. He's not going to box himself in with a "no" if that remains even a slight possibility for the future

    Does all this mean we'll never ever get a standalone DH class? No, Blizzard could surprise us. Just because there isn't any design room also doesn't mean Blizzard has to follow that constraint. But...it has not reason no to and anything it does for the DH will weaken other classes as a consequence...largely because that overlap exists. Blizzard WON'T weaken an existing class for the sake of a hypothetical.

    In other words...AFAICS, the concept for a standalone DH class is dead. The chances for a standalone class are next to zero.

    Why do I think DHs are NOT a likely candidate for a new class?

    Because of the lack of design space. Its all taken. DHs bring nothing unique, no hook
    Because they've been broken up for parts for years. There's nothing left
    Because Warlocks got their armor design - seriously, if DHs were even twinkling in Blizzards eye, NOONE would have gotten the DH look.
    Because GCs tweet suggests they HAVE discussed it....and came up with a fundamental flaw in the design.

    Any one would be a problem. All of these and other? Naw...DH class isn't happening.

    Getting back on track with the Tinker?
    I think its feasible....if done right. Its a flexible idea, with no overlap, plenty of design space and enough examples in lore and the RPG to allow it to fill a number of roles in a variety of ways and....nice bonus...it offers a possible pathway to explore the Gnomes.

    Having said that - it does have some issues.

    The Tinker class itself is whimsical, too silly. IMO, there is NOTHING of the WC3 hero class that can be saved. Nor deserves to be.
    The Alchemist which is often paired with it isn't really a tech class - you'd have two themes. And thats complicated by the way Warlock have been grated onto the Forsaken alchemical Apothecaries.
    The Engineering Profession does allow other classes access to tech themed abilities
    The Mage T13 and T16 armor does have a techy feel. Especially T13.
    The Tech theme itself may not fit in that well with WoW...which is still largely a fantasy environment.
    The Tinker itself can arguably be reworked from existing classes. A "Shaman" which uses turrets instead of totems, lightning guns instead of magic, summons Mecha instead of Elementals and so on.
    It does have competition in available themes....the Bounty Hunter/Warden; Illusionists; a Sound based class; a Dragon themed class. And others, especially if Blizzard DO develop a 4th role of some sort.

    Overall....I think the Tinker class (i.e. a tech themed class) has a VERY good chance of being the next class introduced. I just don't think Terizs assertion no other is likely is true and I feel some of his arguments are rather weak, even destructive to his position.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-04 at 07:31 AM.

  19. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Its not a guaranteed no and it never will be. Why? Because designers and creators will NEVER box themselves in that way. Especially in a way that will come back to bite them from people who misunderstood what is being said.
    Then you clearly recognize that Ghostcrawler's statement is left ambiguous for the reasons you state above.

    Cooper was addressing how Teriz presents opinions as 'what Ghostcrawler said'. Take note that he is not making any argument against the statement itself, only of Teriz's use of it.

    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.
    Then you replied with:

    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    So - what design space is there? It's a simple question. If you think Teriz's interpretation is wrong...what design spce is there?
    There is no debate on design space here. You brought that up on your own. You assumed too much when Cooper said Teriz was wrong, and took it completely out of context.


    TL,DR Cooper was not making any argument about Ghostcrawler's statements on design space. He pointed out Teriz's bullshit on claiming that GC confirmed no Demon Hunters. There is no confirmation, the end.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-04 at 07:43 AM.

  20. #300
    Talen we have no idea what demon hunter would bring to the game since 90% of demon hunter abilities would be created at the time of implementation. Remember there was no mist weaver or wind walker in WC3. Same with Tinkerer btw. I am psyched for any good add to the game. The problem isn't Tinkerer vs Demon Hunter, but the fact that folks like Teriz cannot seem to grasp some simple concepts.

    Also we can debate this back and forth, end of day give demon hunters a new resource system and an awesome story and I am in. That is the space that is needed for me. Others may differ, which is cool too.

Posting Permissions

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