Thread: Tinker Class

Page 57 of 64 FirstFirst ...
7
47
55
56
57
58
59
... LastLast
  1. #1121
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Yes...nothing. First - its lore. Second - it's non-canonical lore. Thirdly - it grants the Sense Demons Ability. It only explains "HOW". Fourthly - the RPG itself contradicts your assertion. Fifthly - as does the game itself.
    LOL, that is from the RPG, you douchebag zealot moron.

    You can't even fucking admit when you're wrong when proof is staring you right in your worthless fucking face. Let's review what you wrote, because you're too fucking stupid to cop to it.

    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.

    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.
    And let's review what the World of Warcraft RPG, which came out AFTER World of Warcraft, states:

    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.
    Guess what, zealot? That's not the only ability trapping a demonic essence gives demon hunters in the rpg:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliance Player's Guide
    Warblade (Su): The demon hunter can channel the chaos energy within her into a melee weapon to increase its powers.
    or how about

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliance Player's Guide
    Improved Warblade (Su): At 5th level, the demon hunter becomes more proficient in channeling demonic energy into her weapons. Any melee weapon she wields is considered magic and gains an additional +2 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (This ability cannot increase a magic weapon’s enhancement
    bonus beyond +5.) In addition, on command, any melee weapon she wields is sheathed in green-yellow flames. These flames deal an additional +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.
    Or how about what the Warcraft RPG before "World of Warcraft" said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliance & Horde Compendium
    To become a demon hunter, a hero must find a demon hunter who is willing to lead her through a series of complex rituals. These rituals involve capturing a demon and sacrificing it in order to bind a portion of its spirit inside the hero. The ritual requires that the hero burn out her eyes with a magically-heated blade in order to contain the demon spirit.
    This has been the lore for as long as there have been demon hunters in Warcraft. The Leotheras the Blind encounter in Serpentshrine Cavern is derived from these very concepts. You will, of course, ignore these facts and continue to argue that Demon Hunters are Warlocks because you are just another addle-brained zealot who does not care what the truth actually is. You are a worthless human being.

    Infracted. Flaming is not tolerated here
    Last edited by Darsithis; 2013-09-17 at 02:27 PM.

  2. #1122
    Immortal Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    7,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Warlocks really are badass, just really not in the way DHs are, you don't seem to get that that's why no one but you thinks they're the same, Talen.
    Evidence seems to show that Blizzard also thinks they're the same.

    This btw showcases why DHs will never be a class in this game; They bring nothing new to the class lineup, and the only reason people like yourself want them in the game is because you want them in the game. It has nothing to do with bringing something new or interesting. You just wish to play as a shirtless elf twirling warglaives. Something another class can do already.

    Meanwhile. a technology class brings a theme that is expressed throughout the game world, but not in the classes. It would be like no other class currently in the game.
    It would also shine some much needed light on two very neglected classes.

    Demon Hunters simply can't say the same. Their story has already been told, and their legacy is expressed through Warlocks and Rogues.

  3. #1123
    High Overlord Lor_Azut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Korriban
    Posts
    153
    I'd rather see a Spell Breaker, Warden or Dark Ranger than a Demon Hunter or Tinker/SteamWarrior.. But that's just me (:

  4. #1124
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Evidence seems to show that Blizzard also thinks they're the same.

    This btw showcases why DHs will never be a class in this game; They bring nothing new to the class lineup, and the only reason people like yourself want them in the game is because you want them in the game. It has nothing to do with bringing something new or interesting. You just wish to play as a shirtless elf twirling warglaives. Something another class can do already.

    Meanwhile. a technology class brings a theme that is expressed throughout the game world, but not in the classes. It would be like no other class currently in the game.
    It would also shine some much needed light on two very neglected classes.

    Demon Hunters simply can't say the same. Their story has already been told, and their legacy is expressed through Warlocks and Rogues.
    No. You should know by now that I'm pretty indifferent to Demon Hunters as a class. I wouldn't roll one, certainly not as a main. However, I do think they can easily be distinctive enough to stand alone as a class. As could Tinkerers, I'd just find those very likely to be disruptive to the game world.

    Please though for the love of all that is holy, just stop making every thread on the matter into a choice between the two. Its distracting to the real discussion of tinkerers as a class.

  5. #1125
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    This btw showcases why DHs will never be a class in this game
    People insisted Alliance would never have shaman and Horde would never have paladins
    People insisted Blizzard would never do something like a Hero Class
    People insisted Goblins would never be playable
    People insisted Worgen would never be playable
    Many times people have adamantly insisted something will never happen, and then it happens because Blizzard feels it would be a good fit.

    So there you have it, DH will never be a class. Demon Hunters confirmed as next class by Teriz.

    Blizzard is making a product to be sold. If they feel there is a demand for it and they feel there is a way they can do it properly ("they feel they can do it properly" by the way, not "I feel like there is no way to do it properly") they will put it in their game. This is true for Demon Hunters. This is true for Tinkers. This sadly was not true for playable Tuskarr and Nerubians, which would have made WotLK the best expansion of any game ever.
    "What do you consider your greatest fault?"
    "Honesty."
    "I don't think honesty is a fault."
    "I don't care what you think."

  6. #1126
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Evidence seems to show that Blizzard also thinks they're the same.

    This btw showcases why DHs will never be a class in this game; They bring nothing new to the class lineup, and the only reason people like yourself want them in the game is because you want them in the game. It has nothing to do with bringing something new or interesting. You just wish to play as a shirtless elf twirling warglaives. Something another class can do already.

    Meanwhile. a technology class brings a theme that is expressed throughout the game world, but not in the classes. It would be like no other class currently in the game.
    It would also shine some much needed light on two very neglected classes.

    Demon Hunters simply can't say the same. Their story has already been told, and their legacy is expressed through Warlocks and Rogues.
    Evidence shows that Blizzard acknowledges there is a problem with possible future impementation of DH class. Nothing more than that.

    Return of the Burning Legion would be actually best opportunity to introduce DHs as class, and it didn't happen yet. Warlocks and Rogues didn't take from DHs what is most powerful and iconic about their image and lore, so there is still a lot left to make use out of.

    But indeed Tinker, at least in my opinion, would have much more potential for new mechanics and fresh, new image. But that doesn't mean DH is impossible, or there aren't any more candidates.

  7. #1127
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    So do you believe Warlocks can make the transition to all permanently blind themselves, gain ritualistic tattooes? Or do you believe that Demon Hunters do not need any of that to function as a Warlock spec?
    I think you're overemphasising the importance of what appears to be an optional requirement that exists only in non-canonical lore and which does nothing to impede the development of Demon Hunters as a melee/tanking focussed Warlock 4th spec.

    In essence - no, you don't need to ritually blinded or tattooed to be a Demon Hunter. That "lore" doesn't exist in game and is contradicted even in the RPGs. If it is non-canon...why should it count against a Warlock 4th spec? If the RPGs can show examples of DHs with no blindfolds, why assume that they are mandatory anyway?

    EJL

  8. #1128
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    109
    The lore can change. remember the first gen of Death Knights and what we have now.

    IF Blizz decide to make the DH playable, hell, they can make their eyes glow green, more greenie than the Belves eyes instead of making them using the blindfold and burning their eyes.

  9. #1129
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    I think you're overemphasising the importance of what appears to be an optional requirement that exists only in non-canonical lore and which does nothing to impede the development of Demon Hunters as a melee/tanking focussed Warlock 4th spec.

    In essence - no, you don't need to ritually blinded or tattooed to be a Demon Hunter. That "lore" doesn't exist in game and is contradicted even in the RPGs. If it is non-canon...why should it count against a Warlock 4th spec? If the RPGs can show examples of DHs with no blindfolds, why assume that they are mandatory anyway?

    EJL
    Dhs in WC3 and WoW have blindfolds, glaives and tatoos as something visually distinctive for them. It is not optional, it is visually defining DHs. That is why warlocks have -nothing- from DH look, because warlocks are not and aren't meant to be DHs.

  10. #1130
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It would also shine some much needed light on two very neglected classes.
    I'm sure you meant races. It's okay though; confusing classes with races or professions is a common mistake.

  11. #1131
    Quote Originally Posted by Lor_Azut View Post
    I'd rather see a Spell Breaker, Warden or Dark Ranger than a Demon Hunter or Tinker/SteamWarrior.. But that's just me (:
    I personally think youre going to see that. Spell breaker is elvish, as is dark ranger, so theres a strong possibility of a ranger class. Wardens sadly are being funneled into rogues.

    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.

  12. #1132
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    LOL, that is from the RPG,
    The non-canonical RPG. None of the info there is valid anymore. What we have is a look that can be attached to Demon Hunters but which doesn't exclude the possibility to them being a Warlock subspec.

    There is no current lore forbidding it.
    The RPG lore doesn't even really forbid it because the same RPG which provided those quotes also gave examples of Demon Hunters which contradicted the assertion such acts were necessary to be a DH. Your "ritual" appears to be nothing more than a membership rite so NElfs DHs will accept you as one of their own.

    The only concern anyone has ever raised it that it simply doesn't meet their own personal idea of what a DH stands for. And that is a reason that has zero impact on class design.

    I can take the Demonology spec and with relatively little work turn it into a fully fledged, fully viable melee tanking spec called "Demon Hunter". Blizzard has enough experience to do it better than I, with more balance and polish.

    It wouldn't change or later the lore of either class to do so, nor affect the identity or theme or look or flavor of either class.

    Why does the game need a DH class when this is possible? When a DH would simply retrace a lot of ground already taken up by the Warlock? When Blizzard wants to avoid issues such as homogeniety as much as possible?

    The privilege of being called "Demon Hunter" in quest texts simply isn't worth that. And THAT would be the main benefit of a dedicated DH class.

    The DH needs to bring more to the game than another way to play a class with a theme centered around Demons. Especially a class that has already been stripped of its look, its moves, its flavor for the benefit of other classes.

    This is where the Tinker concept shines. The tech theme is one which hasn't been mined yet. There is no crossover with existing specs or classes. It is flexible enough so it can take on any role...even spell DPS via the TechnoMage concept. And it can act as a vehicle through which the Gnomes story can potentially be advanced.

    The downsides? Flavor. Tech in a fantasy style game? Might be offputting. Representation. The Alliance is FAR more tech orientated than the Horde. Whimsical. The implementation of the Tinker in the WC3 game is far too whimsical, far too silly, far too ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hengwulf View Post
    Dhs in WC3 and WoW have blindfolds, glaives and tatoos as something visually distinctive for them. It is not optional, it is visually defining DHs. That is why warlocks have -nothing- from DH look, because warlocks are not and aren't meant to be DHs.
    Betrayer Regalia? They have the look of the most infamous Demon Hunter of them all.

    EJL

  13. #1133
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Betrayer Regalia? They have the look of the most infamous Demon Hunter of them all.
    Betrayer Regalia look like demon Illidan, not like demon hunter Illidan. Both warlocks and demon hunters are about demons, but you don't need Betrayer Regalia to know that.

    Glaives, blindfolds, tattoos - locks got none of those. For a warlock to look like a demon hunter, they both need to metamorphose. If you consider those three things optional, what is left really?

  14. #1134
    Quote Originally Posted by Hengwulf View Post
    Betrayer Regalia look like demon Illidan, not like demon hunter Illidan.
    What makes you think Illidan stopped being a Demon Hunter?

    Both warlocks and demon hunters are about demons, but you don't need Betrayer Regalia to know that.
    And that one fact alone is enough to kill the class...Blizzard doesn't need to have two classes cover the same ground. Any story you can tell with a DH, can be told with a Warlock.

    Glaives, blindfolds, tattoos - locks got none of those.
    You know what it'd take to get those into the game for Warlocks?

    Tattoos? Already in via the Betrayer regalia.
    Glaives? Give Warlocks Dual wielding and add them to the Glaives.
    Blindfold? Create a cloth Blindfold.

    In other words...purely cosmetic options that are very easy for Blizzard to add. Or, in the case of tattoos, already have.

    For a warlock to look like a demon hunter, they both need to metamorphose. If you consider those three things optional, what is left really?
    The actual class itself is left. Looks are important in many ways...but the looks here are extremely easy to add.

    Try this, for example:

    http://www.wowhead.com/compare?items...21;45479:4+0:0

    Its what you'd get with DW and a blindfold.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-17 at 03:52 PM.

  15. #1135
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    What makes you think Illidan stopped being a Demon Hunter?



    And that one fact alone is enough to kill the class...Blizzard doesn't need to have two classes cover the same ground. Any story you can tell with a DH, can be told with a Warlock.



    You know what it'd take to get those into the game for Warlocks?

    Tattoos? Already in via the Betrayer regalia.
    Glaives? Give Warlocks Dual wielding and add them to the Glaives.
    Blindfold? Create a cloth Blindfold.

    In other words...purely cosmetic options that are very easy for Blizzard to add. Or, in the case of tattoos, already have.



    The actual class itself is left. Looks are important in many ways...but the looks here are extremely easy to add.

    Try this, for example:

    http://www.wowhead.com/compare?items...21;45479:4+0:0

    Its what you'd get with DW and a blindfold.

    EJL
    Jesus christ give warlocks a fourth spec and dual wield passive and int to ap conversion

    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.

  16. #1136
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    Jesus christ give warlocks a fourth spec and dual wield passive and int to ap conversion
    The issue with this is Hit/Expertise.

  17. #1137
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    The issue with this is Hit/Expertise.
    Spirit = expertise. Their gear has hit rating anyway. Dude im a demon hunter fan too. The chance for them is slim.

    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.

  18. #1138
    The Lightbringer Grubjuice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The Dog Park
    Posts
    3,968
    true story, if you put arguments in bold, or color them red, or make the font larger, those arguments are more true.

    - - - Updated - - -

    they can give AP, Hit and exp to any intellect class if they can give AP, hit and exp to Mistweavers

  19. #1139
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    What makes you think Illidan stopped being a Demon Hunter?
    He turned into demon. He set himself new goals. He practically stopped being one.
    And that one fact alone is enough to kill the class...Blizzard doesn't need to have two classes cover the same ground. Any story you can tell with a DH, can be told with a Warlock.
    Wrong. There are plenty of things shared between many classes, and it works just fine. Your statement can be paraphrased changing the name of classes, and it'll still remain true. So, not a factor.
    You know what it'd take to get those into the game for Warlocks?
    Yes. Change warlocks into something what they are not.
    Tattoos? Already in via the Betrayer regalia.
    Wearing a set of clothes doesn't make you tattoed. Also, this set is made to look like a specific person, the fact that person at some stage of his life was a demon hunter and kept some of the look, doesn't mean the demon hunter look is meant for warlocks. Would be very easy to incorporate blindfold as part of this set, didn't happen. Maybe for a reason.
    Glaives? Give Warlocks Dual wielding and add them to the Glaives.
    This works with every class and every item in the game. Give X Y and add them to Y- type legendary. The fact it is possible isn't a reason to do it.
    Blindfold? Create a cloth Blindfold.
    No lore reasons for warlocks to wear a blindfold.
    In other words...purely cosmetic options that are very easy for Blizzard to add.
    It is very easy to swap mage look with rogue look. Mage looking like a rogue will still be a caster, and rogue looking like a mage will still be melee. Same case here. If you want to swap abilities too, then grats, you came up with how to replace warlocks with demon hunters.

  20. #1140
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    Spirit = expertise. Their gear has hit rating anyway. Dude im a demon hunter fan too. The chance for them is slim.
    Why this insane need to pile up special rules on special rules? Just make a new goddamn class.

Posting Permissions

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