Thread: Tinker Class

Page 43 of 64 FirstFirst ...
33
41
42
43
44
45
53
... LastLast
  1. #841
    Quote Originally Posted by Hengwulf View Post
    It would need to work with player character animations correctly, and since all races/sexes have different animations and models, it would have to be adjusted for each of them. Unless you imagine player character standing still and backpack doing all the work?
    well my idea for arms-backpack is that the player carries the backpack on it's back and the only new animation for the player is that he pressing some random buttons or pulling some lever infront of him (which is attached to the arm-pack) and the device does some "random construction animation."

    my clockwork idea is a summoner/dps kind of class (similar to engineers in TF2 and similar turret builder classes) they put small turrets operated by a clockwork-motor. and tinker uses these turrets to cast it's abilities (he himself does not cast the abilities but orders his turrets to for example cast AOE CC on X position) the tinker himself uses his equiped ranged weapon (gun prefered) and some basic ranged abilities to deal basic dmg but the majority of work is done by his small but hardy turrets. he can also build stations, (these creations are miniatore and do not take big spaces, a turret is the size of a totem and stations are a bit bigger) stations do some other stuff like allowing Tinkers to detect stealthers around him by casting "radar scans" on the position Tinkers choose. all these creations have limits of course.

    so as you can see the mechical arm does not require much animation in this model, just a construction animation (mechano arms aimlessly moving in the air and opening closing their hands) perhaps a hitting/slapping animation is also needed :P

  2. #842
    well my idea for arms-backpack is that the player carries the backpack on it's back and the only new animation for the player is that he pressing some random buttons or pulling some lever infront of him (which is attached to the arm-pack) and the device does some "random construction animation."

    my clockwork idea is a summoner/dps kind of class (similar to engineers in TF2 and similar turret builder classes) they put small turrets operated by a clockwork-motor. and tinker uses these turrets to cast it's abilities (he himself does not cast the abilities but orders his turrets to for example cast AOE CC on X position) the tinker himself uses his equiped ranged weapon (gun prefered) and some basic ranged abilities to deal basic dmg but the majority of work is done by his small but hardy turrets. he can also build stations, (these creations are miniatore and do not take big spaces, a turret is the size of a totem and stations are a bit bigger) stations do some other stuff like allowing Tinkers to detect stealthers around him by casting "radar scans" on the position Tinkers choose. all these creations have limits of course.

    so as you can see the mechical arm does not require much animation in this model, just a construction animation (mechano arms aimlessly moving in the air and opening closing their hands) perhaps a hitting/slapping animation is also needed :P
    That thing is create a new skeleton+model to be attached with a an already playable skeleton. Of course they can create that, but I don't know, it seems really different from other classes. It would be awesome if they create that class with the new models incoming, with a new equipment-slots for Tinkerer too. But doing that, they break the barrier for other classes more awesome, with new animations+new aesthetics slots+new equipment slots (DH with tattoo slots!!).

    +1 with the tinkerers backpack, work hard blizz, we want something like this!!!

  3. #843
    Quote Originally Posted by Belisaurio View Post
    That thing is create a new skeleton+model to be attached with a an already playable skeleton. Of course they can create that, but I don't know, it seems really different from other classes. It would be awesome if they create that class with the new models incoming, with a new equipment-slots for Tinkerer too. But doing that, they break the barrier for other classes more awesome, with new animations+new aesthetics slots+new equipment slots (DH with tattoo slots!!).

    +1 with the tinkerers backpack, work hard blizz, we want something like this!!!
    isn't it like how weapons are added to the model? the character has the swing, thrust, shoot animation but the weapon itself is another model "added" to your character and has it's own model and animation. so you add the model of the arm pack to the player characters back and it will have separate animations.

  4. #844
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Hengwulf View Post
    Agreed, at worst non animated backpack Forsaken Apothecary style. At best, uniformized form, maybe with some minor hopefully racial, probably faction based distinctive features.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Compare it with DKs and Monks - blue eyes, few new spell effects, few new animations for monks. Fully animated armpack would take literally hundreds of hours more work.
    Monks actually required entirely new fighting and standing animations for each character, along with the standard new spell that all new classes get. Also, it was done to every race except for Goblins and Worgen. This was done on top of adding a new race.

  5. #845
    isn't it like how weapons are added to the model? the character has the swing, thrust, shoot animation but the weapon itself is another model "added" to your character and has it's own model and animation. so you add the model of the arm pack to the player characters back and it will have separate animations.
    No. Weapons are added over the playable skeleton without any interaction or movement (no skeleton for weapons or armour). And the skeleton has an already "slot" to put this models (over the hands of the playable-skeleton). Other items like shoulders, helmets, capes, etc... function the same way.
    All the animations or movement in a weapon model are not skeleton-animations, are new glowing textures/particles/animated textures/etc... that exists in the weapon model (because they don't have any skeleton).

    For a "tinkerers-backpack" we need a new skeleton with his completely new moves, and then put over an another playable-skeleton. So, 2 independent skeletons moving at the same time at the same position (attached from their backs). Not hard, but something new in wow-terms for a playable race.

  6. #846
    Quote Originally Posted by Belisaurio View Post
    No. Weapons are added over the playable skeleton without any interaction or movement (no skeleton for weapons or armour). And the skeleton has an already "slot" to put this models (over the hands of the playable-skeleton). Other items like shoulders, helmets, capes, etc... function the same way.
    All the animations or movement in a weapon model are not skeleton-animations, are new glowing textures/particles/animated textures/etc... that exists in the weapon model (because they don't have any skeleton).

    For a "tinkerers-backpack" we need a new skeleton with his completely new moves, and then put over an another playable-skeleton. So, 2 independent skeletons moving at the same time at the same position (attached from their backs). Not hard, but something new in wow-terms for a playable race.
    aren't mounts and riders 2 different skeletons attached together and moving at the same time at the same position?

  7. #847
    Quote Originally Posted by Belisaurio View Post
    No. Weapons are added over the playable skeleton without any interaction or movement (no skeleton for weapons or armour). And the skeleton has an already "slot" to put this models (over the hands of the playable-skeleton). Other items like shoulders, helmets, capes, etc... function the same way.
    All the animations or movement in a weapon model are not skeleton-animations, are new glowing textures/particles/animated textures/etc... that exists in the weapon model (because they don't have any skeleton).

    For a "tinkerers-backpack" we need a new skeleton with his completely new moves, and then put over an another playable-skeleton. So, 2 independent skeletons moving at the same time at the same position (attached from their backs). Not hard, but something new in wow-terms for a playable race.
    There have been a fair number of weapons that used animations that an animated texture could not pull off, from the Finkle's Lava Dredger with its rotating gear all the way back in Molten Core to the current SoO weapons. Examples:

    http://www.wowhead.com/news=218616/p...er:3:125881:21
    This axe has floaty bits that wave around in the air. That's a skeleton.

    http://www.wowhead.com/news=218616/p...er:3:124225:21
    This axe has eyes on it that widen and narrow. The eyelids are not textures, they're raised from the surface, and they move. Skeleton.

    http://www.wowhead.com/news=218616/p...er:3:125122:21
    Mace with rotating drill head. The drill threads are raised. Skeleton.

    http://www.wowhead.com/news=218616/p...er:3:124557:15
    One of the bows. Like all bows it has pull and release animations. Skeleton.

    http://www.wowhead.com/news=218616/p...er:3:125384:14
    Shield with a mouth and tongue that wave around. Skeleton.

    And I can think of a few helms and shoulderpieces with obvious skeleton animations as well. Warlock tier 14, druid tier 15.
    Last edited by Drilnos; 2013-09-11 at 09:31 PM.

  8. #848
    It's possible that they would add the backpacks, but it would also conflict with capes. I guess it would be a replacement for capes then.

    Also the backpack would conflict with some mounts, such as with the flying machines. It would have to be disabled for those.

    I think it would add an interesting aesthetic to the class if they were to implement it, you would be able to immediately distinguish a Tinker from any other class. While it would definitely be cool, I can also see it being a major distraction. A whimsical distraction

  9. #849
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It's possible that they would add the backpacks, but it would also conflict with capes. I guess it would be a replacement for capes then.

    Also the backpack would conflict with some mounts, such as with the flying machines. It would have to be disabled for those.

    I think it would add an interesting aesthetic to the class if they were to implement it, you would be able to immediately distinguish a Tinker from any other class. While it would definitely be cool, I can also see it being a major distraction. A whimsical distraction
    I'm not entirely convinced about the whole backpack arm idea, but if they did it, they would probably add an aesthetic toggle spell like the Worgen Two Forms ability. Always on in combat, always disabled on mounts, you can choose to hide/show it any other time. If this was the case it would most likely fold/unfold out from the belt, like the goblin gadgets in their starting zone.
    Last edited by Drilnos; 2013-09-11 at 09:42 PM.

  10. #850
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It's possible that they would add the backpacks, but it would also conflict with capes. I guess it would be a replacement for capes then.

    Also the backpack would conflict with some mounts, such as with the flying machines. It would have to be disabled for those.

    I think it would add an interesting aesthetic to the class if they were to implement it, you would be able to immediately distinguish a Tinker from any other class. While it would definitely be cool, I can also see it being a major distraction. A whimsical distraction
    when you equip arm-packs or get inside a steam suit you will enter a "form" game-wise. like how druids enter bear forms and cat forms. in order to mount you must first leave your form.

  11. #851
    There have been a fair number of weapons that used animations that an animated texture could not pull off, from the Finkle's Lava Dredger with its rotating gear all the way back in Molten Core to the current SoO weapons. Examples:
    Non of this weapons has an animated-skeleton.
    They are created using a polygonal-model (not skeleton), and then animate some parts of the model. You can use this method using textures (eye moving from the axe), static particles (the little crystals from the yellow axe), some glowing effects (enchants), etc... but you are just "decorating" the weapon, not creating an skeleton to move some parts.
    The shoulders that has animated effects function the same way.

    But we are talking about using two skeletons in the same character. E.g: Two characters, one over the other, and move independent, but function like one character. Of course one of this characters should't have the same number of animations from the other one (because one should be the backpack, and the other one the character).

    edit:
    aren't mounts and riders 2 different skeletons attached together and moving at the same time at the same position?
    That's what I was talking. Two models that function like one.
    But with animated moves from the character's part (because he only has emotion-moves now).
    Last edited by Belisaurio; 2013-09-11 at 09:58 PM.

  12. #852
    Hey tinker fans, have any of you tried this MMO out yet? It may be right up your alley:

    Black Gold Online
    http://bg.snailgame.com/

  13. #853
    Quote Originally Posted by banestalker View Post
    when you equip arm-packs or get inside a steam suit you will enter a "form" game-wise. like how druids enter bear forms and cat forms. in order to mount you must first leave your form.
    Druids bear form doesn't exactly take up any more visual space than a tanky character in plate would. This would be visually distracting on the level of hunters using dinosaurs with a size booster. Any time you group together, you'll be seeing multiple tinkers arms all up in your face. Not saying this is a problem that can't be worked around or gotten used to, but it's still distracting.

  14. #854
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Druids bear form doesn't exactly take up any more visual space than a tanky character in plate would. This would be visually distracting on the level of hunters using dinosaurs with a size booster. Any time you group together, you'll be seeing multiple tinkers arms all up in your face. Not saying this is a problem that can't be worked around or gotten used to, but it's still distracting.
    Doubtful, since most Tinkers would be fighting from range. IMO, I believe only the Tank spec would be Melee.

  15. #855
    Even range have to move in for certain mechanics. You will always have situations where people have to bunch up. I'm pretty sure there will be more than one Tinker at a time as well.

  16. #856
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Even range have to move in for certain mechanics. You will always have situations where people have to bunch up. I'm pretty sure there will be more than one Tinker at a time as well.
    Yeah, but I don't see how a hammer tank would take up visual space. They aren't super-massive objects like the Devilsaurs. If anything, they're just an extra pair of arms sticking out of a backpack.

  17. #857
    Just look at all the links you've provided in your own examples. Every backpack is twice the size of the character itself.

  18. #858
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Just look at all the links you've provided in your own examples. Every backpack is twice the size of the character itself.
    Conceptual art says hello. I couldn't imagine the hammer tank being much larger than the Warglaives of Azzinoth on a characters back.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-09-11 at 11:28 PM.

  19. #859
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    But what exactly is the Demon Hunter's relationship with demons? Is it fundamentally the same as the Warlock's relationship with demons?

    The answer is no.
    The question is...does it really matter?

    A Warlock summons a demon , sacrifices it, absorbs its power and then fights bad guys. If Blizzard canonises the Demon Huntersa bilityt oa bsorb demon power - where is the difference?

    What's more....if Blizzard does canonise this ability, game mechanics will insist that he be able to summon a demon, will likely insist that he have a selection available to him for variety in both effect and look and will limit his selection of demons to a handful. Why? Because you can't have a meaningful buff without a way to activate it and Blizzard sure ain't going to populate every zone with demons.

    Why can not a Warlock be someone who deliberately risks his own soul to fight fire with fire by turning demon against demon? Why can a Warlock not have a branch of magic that allows him to focus all that power into melee combat.

    You see a Warlocks relationship with demons as fundamentally different from that of a Warlock.

    But that assumption is based on your own vision on how Demon Hunters act and behave. Its based on your assumption over how and why both Warlocks and Demon Hunters act and behave.

    In short, that assumption is based upon nothing more than your own personal desire as to how each class should act.

    Such assumptions, personal backstories, motivations and so on have played no role in class design before. And even if your assumptions were correct, what does it matter? How does it affect gameplay?

    It doesn't. The gameplay difference between a Warlock sacrificing a demon for power and a Demon Hunter killing one for power doesn't exist. Both are going to have to have the ability to summon a demon, both are going to have to have the ability to gain a buff through killing it.

    Now - you want to show that standalone demon hunters are plausible? You need to show a gameplay reason to justify a separate design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why would it be off the table? It gives the Tinker a visual that makes it different than other classes, its faithful to the original WC3 design, it gives you a "mecha" without having to drive around in a vehicle, and it looks cool.

    Its also perfectly within Blizzard's ability to pull off.
    Its also likely too whimsical, too silly to be popular. Its a pair of giant hands.It does not look "cool". It looks ridiculous. It's always looked ridiculous and is part of the light hearted system that Blizzard really needs to get rid of to make a tech themed class viable as a player unit.

    The class is flexible enough and has enough potential for a unique look and flavor if its own that Blizzard doesn't need to make sue of such equipment.

    EJL

  20. #860
    Without citing any source of lore or theme, please explain to be me the difference between Mages using ranged Frost spells and Death Knights using ranged Frost spells, and why they are not the same class.

    Does relationship matter? Of course it does, it is your only argument separating the difference between Warlocks and Demon Hunters. Mages and DK's use Frost spells in differently, deriving it from different sources and manipulating it in different ways. The same plausibly exists between Demon Hunters and Warlocks, since Demon Hunters do not actually summon or borrow Demonic powers, they literally absorb and redirect it. If you say that it doesn't matter, then by that same logic, Mages and Death Knights could be the same because they cast Frost spells.

Posting Permissions

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