Thread: Tinker Class

Page 6 of 64 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
16
56
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleugen View Post
    I admit I don't frequent the forums enough to see all of this that people keep talking about. But Teriz seems to admit when he's wrong from what I have seen of him.
    Find me where. I want to print it and frame it.

    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.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukhoi View Post
    These tweets show blizzard hasnt even thought about it. Theyre not ruling it out, but i wouldnt go as far as to say theyre positive.
    No. They "imply" Blizzard hadn't thought about it. Just as Blizzard implied they only ever did Pandaren in books and comics. Given Blizzards track record, GCs tweets are relatively positive.

    EJL

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Do you guys have some sort of defect where you miss the conclusion of a statement?

    He concluded that tweet by saying It would depend on the treatment.
    Yes, after saying he's not sure if they would fit. That is not at all saying "Yes they would fit."

    He also said this;
    Which is him repeating what he said before, more or less.


    He stated that Demon Hunters overlapped too much with existing classes.
    THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. Again you are twisting his words. All he said was "Is there enough design space?" It is neither a confirmation, nor a denial, especially coming from a company that said "We don't usually treat Pandaren seriously" after the MoP trademark was found. For all we know, Demon Hunters are packaged and ready to go. Or maybe not. Only Blizzard knows. I can tell you this: they are not going to categorically rule out arguably the most popular, and almost certainly most demanded, potential class.

    However with Tinkers, he says that as long as its not done in a silly manner, it fits as a class in WoW.
    ONCE AGAIN, THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. He said he's "NOT SURE (if they would fit)." "Not sure" does not in any rational realm mean "Yes they absolutely would fit". All of his answers on the subject have been equivocating. Every single time his answer has been "I'm not sure." If he meant "They would fit if done seriously enough" he would say something like "They would fit if done seriously enough."
    Last edited by Cooper; 2013-09-01 at 12:28 AM.

  4. #104
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post

    Which means no backpacks mounting huge fists. No explosive sheep. No turning into a robot. No pocket factories which churn out little mini robots. And probably no cluster missiles. And...to keep the theme straightforward - no alchemists or apothecaries. Lets leave the magical potions to the Warlocks. If Tinkers have to heal, lets make it tech based.

    EJL
    GC mentions Lucca from Chrono Trigger as a template of how a WoW Tinker class could work.

    Lucca's set up works well with how Tinker bosses were presented in the Brawler's Guild, the Barrens, Geblin Mekkatorque, and other instances.

    So if anything, we're more likely to see this in a tinker class.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    No, he did not. At least not about Demon Hunters, I don't know about Bards. In fact, in this tweet you people claim is him ruling out demon hunters, he just asks what design room there is. That's actually less damning than "But maybe one of the designers will come up with a pitch perfect design that blows us away someday. Shrug." or "I've said before it depends on the treatment. Too easy for that class to be too wacky or precious."
    "I'm the chief game designer and neither I nor my team can see any direction we can take this class that isnt already done by an existing class" is more positive than "This would totally work if we did things THIS way!!!" ?????

    As for "someday" - given Blizzards previous track record, shouldn't the question we should be asking is "Was 'someday' last year?"

    EJL

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    If it would "depend on the treatment" then by definition, there are some treatments where it would work, would be acceptable, would not be too whimsical, would fit into the game as a player class.
    No, when taken in context with "Not sure" it means there MIGHT be a way for it to work. Not that there is absolutely a way that it would work.

    A tech based theme, whatever it is called, doesn't need to be as silly or as whimsical as the Tinker. A Gunman/Combat Medic/Steam Warrior hybrid, for example could recieve a very serious treatment. It wouldn't need to rely on Explosive Sheep but it would have Concussion Grenades, and Wrist Lasers and anti-armor missiles or use a pistol and vibro sword combo or dual pistols or a rifles or gas grenades and healing drones or whatever.
    A Space Marine would not fit into WoW at all. At. All.

    There is a great deal of room for the class to be as light hearted or as serious as you want - but I think a more serious approach, losing all/most of the little clockwork gadgets and light hearted touches would work far better for a player class than the in game Tinker.

    Which means no backpacks mounting huge fists. No explosive sheep. No turning into a robot. No pocket factories which churn out little mini robots. And probably no cluster missiles. And...to keep the theme straightforward - no alchemists or apothecaries. Lets leave the magical potions to the Warlocks. If Tinkers have to heal, lets make it tech based.
    That is what tech IS in Warcraft: Exploding sheep and pocket factories and gnomish world enlargers. It's all silly. That is why Ghostcrawler says he's not sure a Tinker class could be made to fit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    "I'm the chief game designer and neither I nor my team can see any direction we can take this class that isnt already done by an existing class" is more positive than "This would totally work if we did things THIS way!!!" ?????
    Once again, he didn't say either of those things, and no rational person would interpret what he actually DID say in any such way.

  7. #107
    I am Murloc! Volitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Victory Road.
    Posts
    5,087
    It's just a cool concept and people grasping at straws, I honestly don't think it will ever really exist in WoW.

    As for my dream class that I know will ever exist? ALCHEMIST! WOOOOOOOYEAAAAAAAAAH.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobra View Post
    I really didn't think when I created this thread it would get so much attention lol
    Unfortunately, all threads having to do with the potential new classes blow up with both "NO IT GONNA BE X CLASS!!!!!!! DIS CLASS IDEA SUX!!!!!" or "YEAH THIS IS THE CLASS I WANT PLS BLIZZ"

    There are very few that have valid arguments about them. None of which are backed by Blizzard as solid proof, just people speculating.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    No, when taken in context with "Not sure" it means there MIGHT be a way for it to work. Not that there is absolutely a way that it would work.
    "Would it fit into the game?"
    "Depends on how it was done."

    Doesn't say a thing about it being unworkable.

    A Space Marine would not fit into WoW at all. At. All.
    http://www.wowhead.com/item=46802

    And...of course: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Tauren_marine

    Regardless.....the WoW universe is already a universe with lasers, missiles, forcefields, teleports, bombs, mines, planes and Grenades. Gnomes make use of AI, robots, lasers and even have an orbital weapons platform. Power armor isn't unknown either.

    And you object to simply incorporating these elements into one class?

    That is what tech IS in Warcraft: Exploding sheep and pocket factories and gnomish world enlargers. It's all silly. That is why Ghostcrawler says he's not sure a Tinker class could be made to fit.
    Spider tanks aren't "silly". Orbital weapon systems aren't "silly". Laser guns aren't "silly". But they are all in game.

    Why not a Tinker class that works with the non-silly elements as opposed to the elements that are?

    Once again, he didn't say either of those things, and no rational person would interpret what he actually DID say in any such way.
    If you only define a rational person as someone who agrees with you? Yes.
    However, it is a reasonable interpretation. In the first...he pointed out what is a truly major problem with the class. Its lack of unique design space. In the second, he stated that whether or not a Tinker would fit into the game would depend on how it was done.

    The former - the lack of design space - IS a killer unless other factors apply. For DHs, it would be if the class idea is so popular it'd be worth the issues and overlap. Either way, the fact GC chose to highlight this issue is a huge downer for the idea. True...it isn't a straightforward "No". Its just the next best thing. Its not even that the design space is limited; its non-existant. They can't really do anything with the class that couldn't be done better somewhere else. And the option of creating design space is simply attaching the DH title to a totally different class.

    Not enough design space is a major problem, and one that strikes not at the class mechanics - which could be worked around - but the very fundamentals of the class design which can't especially because the overlap GC talks about means it would impact on other classes.

    The latter states it would simply depend on how it was brought in. That its not ruled out means it is still very much a viable option for inclusion in the game. Much more positive statement.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-01 at 02:26 AM.

  10. #110
    All I can hope is that there are some actual rational people around here who can tell the difference between what somebody actually said, and some other party putting their own words, based on their own beliefs, into somebody else's mouth.

  11. #111
    GC on new classes. For DH, he asked us back if there is enough design space left for the class. For Tinker, he said not sure because itls might be too whimsical and it depends on implmentation. I would say both of them look like they eon't make it. He doesn't deny both though.

  12. #112
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmoon View Post
    GC on new classes. For DH, he asked us back if there is enough design space left for the class. For Tinker, he said not sure because itls might be too whimsical and it depends on implmentation. I would say both of them look like they eon't make it. He doesn't deny both though.
    Only if you're in denial.

    Given those tweets, the Tinker class has a better chance of showing up in the game than the Demon Hunter class. As Talen mentioned, massive class overlap is the death knell of any class concept.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2013-09-01 at 04:26 AM.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Only if you're in denial.

    Given those tweets, the Tinker class has a better chance of showing up in the game than the Demon Hunter class. As Talen mentioned, massive class overlap is the death knell of any class concept.
    wut? Why I have to be in denail for this? I am fine with both of them. Tinker's comment also sound like they haven't even consider it yet. You are too obsessed with the class. Don't set yourself up to be disappionted if somehow the new class is not tinker or there's not even a new class next xpac.

  14. #114
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmoon View Post
    wut? Why I have to be in denail for this? I am fine with both of them. Tinker's comment also sound like they haven't even consider it yet. You are too obsessed with the class. Don't set yourself up to be disappionted if somehow the new class is not tinker or there's not even a new class next xpac.
    Which is nonsense. Tinkers were a hero unit in WC3, and since numerous class concepts and abilities were pulled directly from that source, the Tinker would obviously have been considered as either its own class, or a part of another class a long time ago.

    The idea that Blizzard reviewed every other hero unit in WC3, yet for some reason completely ignored the Tinker hero sounds utterly ridiculous.

    As for disappointment, I won't be disappointed, merely surprised.

  15. #115
    Teriz still being acting like a 2 year old? Yep.

    End of day Blizzard isn't going to close the door on anything that could make them money.

    Neither comment was anything more than Blizzard doing their normal non-answer thing.

    Reading anymore into it is wishful thinking at best and bias slobbering gibbering gibberish, or as I like to call it "Teriz Syndrome"

  16. #116
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Teriz still being acting like a 2 year old? Yep.

    End of day Blizzard isn't going to close the door on anything that could make them money.

    Neither comment was anything more than Blizzard doing their normal non-answer thing.

    Reading anymore into it is wishful thinking at best and bias slobbering gibbering gibberish, or as I like to call it "Teriz Syndrome"
    Like I've said numerous times, if you look at past implementation, and simple logical factors, the Tinker/Technology concept is the most obvious and sensible choice for the next class.

    The fact that GC didn't mention any Engineering overlap in any of those tweets enhances that argument.

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Like I've said numerous times, if you look at past implementation, and simple logical factors, the Tinker/Technology concept is the most obvious and sensible choice for the next class.

    The fact that GC didn't mention any Engineering overlap in any of those tweets enhances that argument.
    For once, I agree with Teriz. There's really a gaping hole that needs to be filled by a Tinker class.

    Can solve Mail or Int Plate loot issue: Yes
    Can solve Ranged weapon loot issue: Yes
    Physical Ranged DPS - only occupied by one other class.
    Class overlap: Literally none. Maybe slightly with Hunters because they use traps and guns, but not even close to the level that a Demon Hunter or any other option would.

    When I look at the Demon Hunter, I feel like that's more likely to become a 4th specialization or to be included as a part of a future Rogue or Hunter spec revamp to differentiate the specs. Or, depending on how you feel, Demon Hunter is already in the game as much as it's ever going to be as a Warlock glyph.

    The only other class that has some room is the Bard, but has literally ZERO representation that I could recall in the entire history of WoW, where a Tinker is a popular WC3 unit. Not to mention how much technology is actually a part of WoW now. Level a new Goblin, check out Gnomeregan, or even just look at all the Titan technology we've seen just in the last few raids and scenarios.

    Besides, the Tinker is something I personally thought had a better shot than the Monk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Extremity View Post
    I like turtles. I would like turtle-based tier sets. I would like a turtle shell helmet, and perhaps a cheeseburger backpack and a chestpiece that simply places a red gemstone on my bellybutton.

  18. #118
    The fact that he didn't give a lengthy dissertation on the subject is probably due to the text limitations of Twitter.

    The problem isn't so much that you think GC's comments are anything but neutral with regards to the tinker class, but the same type of comments are horrible for other classes...makes you look like a joke.

  19. #119
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    The fact that he didn't give a lengthy dissertation on the subject is probably due to the text limitations of Twitter.

    The problem isn't so much that you think GC's comments are anything but neutral with regards to the tinker class, but the same type of comments are horrible for other classes...makes you look like a joke.
    Except the other class mentions weren't neutral. GC said plainly that Bards are too soft for WoW, and he said plainly that DH has too much overlap with existing classes.

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except the other class mentions weren't neutral. GC said plainly that Bards are too soft for WoW, and he said plainly that DH has too much overlap with existing classes.
    He asked if there was design space, for Demon Hunter. He also said that pandas and such would be regulated to comics and such, and well we know what happened there. The point is that Blizzard acts this was specifically to spur talk in the community. There has been nothing said that limits or blocks in Blizzard...by 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
  •