Which is him repeating what he said before, more or less.He also said this;
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.He stated that Demon Hunters overlapped too much with existing classes.
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."However with Tinkers, he says that as long as its not done in a silly manner, it fits as a class in WoW.
Last edited by Cooper; 2013-09-01 at 12:28 AM.
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.
As for "someday" - given Blizzards previous track record, shouldn't the question we should be asking is "Was 'someday' last year?"
A Space Marine would not fit into WoW at all. At. All.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.
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.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.
- - - Updated - - -
There are very few that have valid arguments about them. None of which are backed by Blizzard as solid proof, just people speculating.
"Depends on how it was done."
Doesn't say a thing about it being unworkable.
http://www.wowhead.com/item=46802A Space Marine would not fit into WoW at all. At. All.
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?
Spider tanks aren't "silly". Orbital weapon systems aren't "silly". Laser guns aren't "silly". But they are all in game.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.
Why not a Tinker class that works with the non-silly elements as opposed to the elements that are?
If you only define a rational person as someone who agrees with you? Yes.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.
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.
Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-01 at 02:26 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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"
The fact that GC didn't mention any Engineering overlap in any of those tweets enhances that argument.
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.
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.