Thread: Tinker Class

Page 55 of 64 FirstFirst ...
5
45
53
54
55
56
57
... LastLast
  1. #1081
    So last night I leveled engineering, I had to buy a reagent from the ENG vendor to continue to level....we will get back to that in a moment....

    You know who buys climbing kits? Climbers.
    You who buys surgeon kits? Surgeons.

    So any way last night while I was leveling my warrior's Engineering skill I had to buy Tinkerer's kits.

    You know who buys Tinkerers kits?

  2. #1082
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    They couldn't use Black or Blue either, since Blue is essentially Mages, and Wrathion is the only Black dragon left.

    The entire concept is a mess.

    As for Rangers, there's no INT based bows in the game. Also Hunters already use magical arrows. In the end, if you remove the Pet requirement from Marksmanship, you got a Ranger. That's how close those concepts are. With the upcoming Hunter revamp, there's a good chance that you're going to see a more Ranger style stuff in the near future.
    Says you lol. Opinions bro. All you got. I think the whole tinker concepts a mess.

    And once again. Your opinion. I want to rain stars down on people. Shoot tornados. Shoot lightning from my bow. Shoot fire from my bow. Hunters cant do any of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

  3. #1083
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,009
    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    really? You guys seem to not read tweets well
    "Too easy" doesn't mean will be or is.
    "But maybe" doesn't mean never
    And "someday" could have been last year.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-16 at 04:02 AM.

  4. #1084
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    Says you lol. Opinions bro. All you got. I think the whole tinker concepts a mess.

    And once again. Your opinion. I want to rain stars down on people. Shoot tornados. Shoot lightning from my bow. Shoot fire from my bow. Hunters cant do any of that.
    Because they're AGI-based, and so are all Ranged bows and Xbows in WoW. That's part of the reason Hunters went to focus in Cataclysm, because it made no sense for them to use mana.

    Starfall went to Druids. shooting Tornados also went to Druids. Shooting lightning is the domain of Shaman. Hunters have explosive shot.

  5. #1085
    Banned But I Hate You All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The West Coast of the United States
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because they're AGI-based, and so are all Ranged bows and Xbows in WoW. That's part of the reason Hunters went to focus in Cataclysm, because it made no sense for them to use mana.

    Starfall went to Druids. shooting Tornados also went to Druids. Shooting lightning is the domain of Shaman. Hunters have explosive shot.
    and Spiting bullshit went to Teriz, Since hen do druids shoot Tornados.

    The next class will be William Wallas, he will shoot lighting bolts out of his eyes and fireballs out of his Arse

  6. #1086
    Teriz believes that the word summoning is the same as the word shooting.

  7. #1087
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because they're AGI-based, and so are all Ranged bows and Xbows in WoW. That's part of the reason Hunters went to focus in Cataclysm, because it made no sense for them to use mana.

    Starfall went to Druids. shooting Tornados also went to Druids. Shooting lightning is the domain of Shaman. Hunters have explosive shot.
    http://www.wowhead.com/spell=82169

    Weird. The original version didnt go to druids. Tornados from the naga sea witch? Not the same. What about the caster trinkets that shot lightning? And an arrow that explodes is different then shooting a arrow with fire charged on it. Tinkers wont happen. I cant wait until blizzcon. Your tears are going to be delicous. And im going to make threads pointing out you and how tinkers werent implemented. Idc if i get perma banned. Totally worth it to rub it in your face.

    Man you will stretch anything to limit an archetype huh?
    Last edited by Sukhoi; 2013-09-16 at 04:20 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

  8. #1088
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    The Illidari Demon Hunters without spectral sight are all trainees, that's why they're called 'Demon Hunter Initiates'
    And they are only ONE of the DHs we see in game. We also can look at other sources - such as the RPG from which you derive so much of their lore - to showcase Demon Hunters with no blindfolds or tattoos. Or does that source not count?

    If they were true demon hunters, I'm pretty sure they'd pose more of a threat than being regular trash mobs.
    Seriously? They ARE trash MoBs. So are many other elite skileld units. Look at the 7th Legion in Gilneas for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    Your argument is that we can't have a Demon Hunter because we have a class named "Hunter"? Bullshit. The classes are nothing alike.
    Blizzard expressed a minor concern some time ago about classes with similar names. The worry was that people new to the game would expect them to be similar, to be linked, to have some form of connection.

    Not an issue. The Death Knight had the same "issue" and it wasn't one at all.
    The DK had the same issue...and Blizzard solved it by changing the names of some spells. Again, a minor concern in most aspects. But still an issue - Blizzard did, after all, change the name.

    Actually we got an unarmored agility class. They arbitrarily chose leather for them.
    The Monk Archetype does work with leather. You could argue cloth would be better, but leather works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    There wasn't design space for monks, but it sure worked out.
    At this point in time...I am unaware of any other Martial Artist player class in the game that would actually intrude upon the monks design space.

    That second group is just wrong- Demon Hunters at least have a melee spec, if not are a whole melee class.
    And yet, noone has come up with any better reason why Warlocks could not be given a DH based melee spec (as other casters do) other than "because I don't want them to".

    Quote Originally Posted by Haven2011 View Post
    I no I no it's fun to mess with him I kinda no where blizz going with things they have plan I no demon hunters where thought to be hero class of wraith but later drop for the dk blizz knows when to add things and what to add
    Runemasters and Necromancers were the only other classes Blizzard have admitted to considering. I'm sure there were others - including Tinker - but if DH was one of them, they decided to rip that apart for Warlocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    Most likely they would ignore the question
    They haven't in the past - remember their comments on pandaren? Vague misdirection style comments that don't rule out anything. The comments on Tinkers are seen by many in the same vein.

    r not give a huge broad answer like he did with DH answered it with a question.
    A question with limits set so there was only one possible answer. That's the problem with that question. If GC simply wanted to start a debate or be vague, he wouldn't have defined the answer so narrowly. If there is only one possible answer, then the answer isn't "broad". Its no point basing your entire point on simply the first half of a tweet and ignoring the second half.

    GC pretty much said it would be too silly depends on how it is put in game MAYBE someday one of the devs will come up with a epic development for it and they will be like oh fuck ya.
    Yes. So what if last year they decided to work on a tech themed class, looked at the Tinker, decided it was too silly and whimsical and instead whipped up a serious treatment for it.

    That class would be in development now, it wouldn't be whimsical, and everything GC stated would still be correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    I could see DH added because GC only response to DH was a dodge question
    Paraphrasing:
    Q:Will we see a DH class in game?
    A: Is there enough design space not already taken? No.

    That, IYO, is a dodge question. In mine, it's a straightforward answer pointing out a major game design issue with the class concept. One large enough to kill it off. No...it's not an explicit no. Nor is it going to be - partly because there are other avenues open to bringing DHs in. He simply framed the question so there was only that one answer. And answer that by its very nature essentially kills off a DH class.

    In comparison, the Tinker responses have been much more vague and misdirectiony.

    As it is, I don't think there is the slightest chance we'll get a DH class. Not unless Blizzard spend a few yars building up some deisgn room and splitting it form Warlocks. Something they have no reason to do. I do think that we will get DHs....but as a sub spec ofa full class, and that most likely will be Warlocks.

    As for Tinker....BIHY, I think you are wrong. GCs comments wrt the Tinker have been the same vague misdircetiony style answers we've been gioven before for stuff coming into the game. Combined with other factors such as that Steampunk group coming to Blizzcon, that steampunk ref made by GC recently....I think there is a fair chance Tinkers - or another tech class - will be announced. And I think we might even get Warlock based DHs.

    Is that certain? Far from it, as there is still a very good chance we'll get no class.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-16 at 05:11 AM.

  9. #1089
    The Tinker exchanges with GC are like straight out of the iconic "So you're saying there's a chance" Dumb & Dumber scene. Next up -- someone asks about Tinkers in some contorted way, and he vamps until landing on his third version of "maybe if someone can make it sound like a good idea (which nobody has yet)".

    I'm good with no new class, my hopes are for more race/class combos. Maybe the keys with things like Tinker or Demon Hunter or Runemasters and every other thing we see on threads would be to bring in an advanced classing system? Something between "profession" and "class" flavor?

  10. #1090
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    And they are only ONE of the DHs we see in game. We also can look at other sources - such as the RPG from which you derive so much of their lore - to showcase Demon Hunters with no blindfolds or tattoos. Or does that source not count?
    So when I source from the RPG, it's not okay. But when you source from the RPG, it's okay. Gotcha.

  11. #1091
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    So when I source from the RPG, it's not okay. But when you source from the RPG, it's okay. Gotcha.
    No. I'm pointing out that even the (non-canonical) source you draw much of your own vision of DHs from doesn't maintain that tattoos and blindfolds are part and parcel of the DH class. That there is nothing which states that one must blind oneself or tattoo oneself to be a Demon Hunter.

    Nothing to suggest that such addtions are more than choices made by individual Demon Hunters for various reasons. True, maybe that reason is to gain an ability or increase ones mystical power or to become one with the Secret Demon Hunter society, but still just a choice.

    EJL

  12. #1092
    It doesn't have to be from the RPG books. Tattooes and Blindfolds are straight out of Warcraft 3. Take away the tattooes, take away the blinding, then what do you have? A generic anything character class. These are two important parts of their identity.

    When you talk about Demon Hunters and why people want to play this class so badly, it's all about the full package. We want to play a badass, not just a dude who melees with demon fire. But you don't understand that, and you think Warlocks with Warglaives would be a good replacement when it's nothing close to what we actually want.

    It's pretty much the same case with the Death Knight. You could take all its mechanics and throw it at the Warrior class, and it wouldn't be anywhere near the same thing as an actual Death Knight class. Knowing you were once a champion of the scourge? Knowing your character was betrayed by the Lich King? That your character has redeemed themselves beyond death to find their place within the Alliance or Horde? This is all luscious backstory that really cements the Death Knight as a hero class. You wouldn't be able to do any of that if it was made as a Warrior spec. You couldn't even make the character undead, since it would be a stretch for all Warriors to suddenly become undead; or for your character to 'come back to life' if they changed their spec.

    This is essentially what we want for the Demon Hunter. We want their own story to be told, and that would never happen if they were simply an extension of the Warlock class. I don't understand why you think we want any sort of substitute, as though you believe gameplay is the only reason for a Demon Hunter class to exist.

    The only way that this would be satisfied with Warlock lore, is if all Warlocks became permanently blind and recieved arcane tattooes to reflect taking the step to become Demon Hunters. This means even Affliction and Destruction Locks would gain the same awesome powers as Demon Hunters. Then they would all become one and the same, and it would make sense to switch between specs. But really, do you think this would happen? I don't, therefore I deny the assumption that making Demon Hunters a Warlock 4th spec would fit.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-16 at 06:47 AM.

  13. #1093
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    It doesn't have to be from the RPG books. Tattooes and Blindfolds are straight out of Warcraft 3. Take away the tattooes, take away the blinding, then what do you have? A generic anything character class. These are two important parts of their identity.
    To you. Yes, they are part of the look. And the tattoos have been given to Warlocks as part of the Betrayer set.

    That leaves the blindfold. Which, like tattoos, appears to be optional. A ritual belonging to NElf DHs in order to emulate Illidan and gain Spectral Sight....aka Sense Demons.

    When you talk about Demon Hunters and why people want to play this class so badly, it's all about the full package. We want to play a badass, not just a dude who melees with demon fire.
    And how will linking it as Warlock stop that?

    We want their own story to be told, and that would never happen if they were simply an extension of the Warlock class.
    And if their story is that they ARE a Warlock?

    As it is, you keep coming back to the same point - Warlocks can't be DHs not because of any issues with lore or gameplay...but because you don't want them to be.

    EJL

  14. #1094
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    No. I'm pointing out that even the (non-canonical) source you draw much of your own vision of DHs from doesn't maintain that tattoos and blindfolds are part and parcel of the DH class. That there is nothing which states that one must blind oneself or tattoo oneself to be a Demon Hunter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alliance Player's Guide
    Enlightenment (Su): As part of the ceremony to become a demon hunter, the initiate burns out her eyes with a magic blade to entrap a demonic essence within her body. Most demon hunters then bind their mutilated eyes with strips of cloth.

    In return for this sacrifice, the demon hunter gains the ability to see the world without vision — creatures are visible as dimly glowing forms against a gray and murky background. Demonic energy blazes like burning pitch in the night; the demon hunter sees and recognizes it easily.
    Nothing, huh?

  15. #1095
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    To you. Yes, they are part of the look. And the tattoos have been given to Warlocks as part of the Betrayer set.

    That leaves the blindfold. Which, like tattoos, appears to be optional. A ritual belonging to NElf DHs in order to emulate Illidan and gain Spectral Sight....aka Sense Demons.
    I don't want to see that as an option, because it suggest that is optional. Really, spectral sight is one of the things that should be intrinsically tied to the class and not an option, just as permanent undeath is a characteristic of all Death Knights. It is not an option to not be an undead version of your character class.

    And how will linking it as Warlock stop that?
    What do Warlocks have to do with Demon Hunters being badass? Nothing. It's a different class that has its own identity and its own reasons for being awesome. Having spectral sight and runic tattooes? Not a part of the Warlock identity, and doubtful to ever become it.

    And if their story is that they ARE a Warlock?
    Then they wouldn't have a story at all. It would be a Warlock story, not a Demon Hunter story. You understand how that's a conflict of interest, right? Oh, you don't? That's because you don't give a fuck about character class identity.

    As it is, you keep coming back to the same point - Warlocks can't be DHs not because of any issues with lore or gameplay...but because you don't want them to be.
    Never said can't be. Always saying shouldn't be. Can't implies impossibility, and I don't believe anything is impossible. I'm saying it shouldn't be, because no one who actually wants to play as Demon Hunters would ask for them to become 4th spec. If they can not be implemented as a class, they should never be in the game, period.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-09-16 at 08:03 AM.

  16. #1096
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    They couldn't use Black or Blue either, since Blue is essentially Mages, and Wrathion is the only Black dragon left.

    The entire concept is a mess.
    Gotta disagree here. While the Blue Flight is tied to magic, that doesn't mean a blue Dragonsworn would be "essentially a mage". Hypothetically, Blizz would make such a class/spec play wildly differently to justify its existence. As for the Black flight, I see a case to be made that Wrathion's bodyguards and other followers are Black Dragonsworn. He has no flight, so he needs others to carry out his will.

    To an extent, we players are right now Black Dragonsworn. His whole legendary questline in MoP has had us carrying out his will, to earn tokens of power from him. In the future, Blizzard could decide to take that idea a step further and create an actual class with Wrathion as its figurehead.

    Not that I'm saying this will happen, but it could.

  17. #1097
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    http://www.wowhead.com/spell=82169

    Weird. The original version didnt go to druids.
    That's not Starfall.

    Tornados from the naga sea witch? Not the same.
    Cyclone, Typhoon, Ursol's Vortex, and similar abilities are Druid.

    What about the caster trinkets that shot lightning?
    Trinkets aren't class abilities.

    And an arrow that explodes is different then shooting a arrow with fire charged on it.
    Explosive Shot does fire damage, and has a fiery effect. What's the difference?

    You're really advocating an entirely new class because you can't perform Searing Arrow?

    Tinkers wont happen. I cant wait until blizzcon. Your tears are going to be delicous. And im going to make threads pointing out you and how tinkers werent implemented. Idc if i get perma banned. Totally worth it to rub it in your face.
    Just FYI; I never said for sure that they're coming next expansion. I said for sure that they'll be the next class. So if there's no class next expansion, you'll just be getting perma banned because of your trolling. Nothing more, nothing less.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    The Tinker exchanges with GC are like straight out of the iconic "So you're saying there's a chance" Dumb & Dumber scene. Next up -- someone asks about Tinkers in some contorted way, and he vamps until landing on his third version of "maybe if someone can make it sound like a good idea (which nobody has yet)".
    How do you know that nobody has come up with a good idea yet? As Talen said, "someday" could have been last year.

    Additionally, if you look at GC's tweets he gives a blueprint on how to make a Tinker class not "whimsical" (Lucca from Chrono Trigger, Steampunk vibe).
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-09-16 at 10:45 AM.

  18. #1098
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtree View Post
    In the future, Blizzard could decide to take that idea a step further and create an actual class with Wrathion as its figurehead.

    Not that I'm saying this will happen, but it could.
    I'm about halfway done a class concept that is just this. I hope I finish it soon, but excuses...

  19. #1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That's not Starfall.



    Cyclone, Typhoon, Ursol's Vortex, and similar abilities are Druid.



    Trinkets aren't class abilities.



    Explosive Shot does fire damage, and has a fiery effect. What's the difference?

    You're really advocating an entirely new class because you can't perform Searing Arrow?



    Just FYI; I never said for sure that they're coming next expansion. I said for sure that they'll be the next class. So if there's no class next expansion, you'll just be getting perma banned because of your trolling. Nothing more, nothing less.

    - - - Updated - - -



    How do you know that nobody has come up with a good idea yet? As Talen said, "someday" could have been last year.

    Additionally, if you look at GC's tweets he gives a blueprint on how to make a Tinker class not "whimsical" (Lucca from Chrono Trigger, Steampunk vibe).
    An underwater xpac is the onky chance I can see them coming. You think tinkers would come in a burning legion xpac? Wake up.

    Stop limitting classes. Its not your game. You have no say in how or what class is made. I love having this argument over you.

  20. #1100
    Can everyone just report teriz for spamming? Maybe the mods will fonally catch on to his nine threads about this shit.

    I don't beleive there will be any more classes. Everything is covered.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    So last night I leveled engineering, I had to buy a reagent from the ENG vendor to continue to level....we will get back to that in a moment....

    You know who buys climbing kits? Climbers.
    You who buys surgeon kits? Surgeons.

    So any way last night while I was leveling my warrior's Engineering skill I had to buy Tinkerer's kits.

    You know who buys Tinkerers kits?
    TINKERS! And engineers..? The same?
    Last edited by Sukhoi; 2013-09-16 at 12:40 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simulatio View Post
    A handful of people nut-busting about it on various forums does not equal popularity, and popularity does not equal good design.

Posting Permissions

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