View Poll Results: What is the probability that the Tinker can be the next class ( IYO)

Voters
1260. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0%

    660 52.38%
  • 0-10%

    189 15.00%
  • 10-20%

    58 4.60%
  • 20-30%

    51 4.05%
  • 30-40%

    30 2.38%
  • 40-50%

    58 4.60%
  • 50-60%

    48 3.81%
  • 60-70%

    34 2.70%
  • 70-80%

    38 3.02%
  • 80-90%

    25 1.98%
  • 90-100%

    69 5.48%
  1. #2001
    I'm glad the thread has finally started being about Tinkers again, for what it's worth. But arguing that the class's mechanics would be too similar to an existing class is just plain silly. The only way Tinkers, or any new class, would have mechanics identical to an existing class is if all of the creative people in the class design department just dropped dead all at once, and the only way a person can argue that point and believe it is if he was born unencumbered by the slightest shred of an imagination.

    Now, they could indeed "reskin" a shaman and make him summon robots instead of elementals and fire his spells out of a gun. But stopping there is just being lazy. They could, in fact, "reskin" every class into some variety of Tinker. Even monks. And if and when they come up with a new class which is not a tech class, you can bet your ass it will be possible to make it into a tech class purely by changing its aesthetics. Doesn't matter what it is, or could be.

  2. #2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    How is it the same thing when the Tinker isn't a Spell-caster, cooldowns aren't based around totems, Tinkers don't have elemental-based weapon imbues, Shaman lack the Tinker ability set, Shaman aren't physical ranged, and the entire Tinker ability set is mechanical whereas the Shaman is elemental?
    ... you completely ignored the very sentence you quoted?

    Bah, who am I kidding, of course you did. It's what you do.

    And neither are Tinkers.
    Yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not? You're starting to contradict yourself, here.

  3. #2003
    I dunno about tinkers as a class, but they need to make thinkers a work position for sure.

  4. #2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Paladins and Priests? Different themes, different concepts. Different looks. They don't share abilities and even the overlap in lore and gameplay is minimal.
    So why can't you parallel this same train of thought to the Demon Hunter? I don't understand why you equate the Demon Hunter so heavily with Demons when they do not need to. You said it yourself, Demon Hunters do not need to summon Demons. They don't need to go down that Warlock path, it is purely optional even though it is represented by others.

    A Demon Hunter also has other themes and motivations to gain their powers. They have different backstory considering what we know of the Writings of the Dark Embrace, which Warlocks do not even know about. The only thing shared are a couple abilities that Warlocks were inspired by and took into their own class.

    You are saying two classes which have different design spaces equate to two classes which have a heavy overlap, where the design space of each is shared with the other.
    Yet your entire argument of 'Design Space' is vague and generalized. Paladins fight for Justice. So does that mean no other person can fight for Justice? How is this theme comparable to 'Demons' which are not an ideal, but a tangible source? A Warlock doesn't fight for 'Demons'. Justice is a motivation, just as Power-hunger would be for Warlocks and Greed would be for Rogues (Thievery). Vengeance is also not Justice, and your assertion that they are the same thing is saying the Shadow and the Light are the same.

    The latest attempt here by Thimagryn has him drop the looks, the lore, the name, the abilities, the theme, the concepts in order to bring in his "Slayer" concept.
    What I am doing is paralleling the Monk and Brewmaster's design. If you can not accept this Demon Hunter concept, then you should not accept the Brewmaster for the very same reasons. Brewmasters don't even have SEF, their ultimate ability. Brewmasters never used Martial Arts, Chi, Mistweaving or Celestial Animal stances. They are a different class, yet they are completely representable as Brewmasters by retaining only TWO abilities - Breath of Fire and 'Dizzying Haze', a renamed ability.

    I made the same parallels with the Demon Hunter. Give them back 'Mana Burn' as a direct damage spell themed to Anti-magic. Immolation returns with a slight renaming to 'Engulf', covering the player character in flames and burning all around them. Their look retains Blindfolds and Warglaives, and the armor they wear can be designed around a Demon Hunter theme considering the Slayer base class inhabits much of the same core pillars of design - Using anti-magic and slaying evil. Finally, Dark Embrace lets them take up a monstrous, form by unleashing their 'inner demon'. This ability would be MORE thematic to a Demon Hunter reaching their full potential rather than turning to 'Shadow Illidan'.

    This retains the core identity of the Demon Hunter. Lore is the ONLY thing that changes, because it is directly paralleled to the Death Knight and Monk(Brewmaster). Death Knights are no longer Champions of the Scourge. Monks are not directly from Pandaria. Demon Hunters no longer make Pacts with Demons. Other than this, what is lacking in any of the Looks, Themes or Concept? There is nothing you have brought to attention that disputes any of this.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2014-03-17 at 08:51 PM.

  5. #2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Drilnos View Post
    I'm glad the thread has finally started being about Tinkers again, for what it's worth. But arguing that the class's mechanics would be too similar to an existing class is just plain silly. The only way Tinkers, or any new class, would have mechanics identical to an existing class is if all of the creative people in the class design department just dropped dead all at once, and the only way a person can argue that point and believe it is if he was born unencumbered by the slightest shred of an imagination.

    Now, they could indeed "reskin" a shaman and make him summon robots instead of elementals and fire his spells out of a gun. But stopping there is just being lazy. They could, in fact, "reskin" every class into some variety of Tinker. Even monks. And if and when they come up with a new class which is not a tech class, you can bet your ass it will be possible to make it into a tech class purely by changing its aesthetics. Doesn't matter what it is, or could be.

    This has more to do with the "tech class" concept being overly broad. We don't have a magic class or a physical class, we have several variations on that core concept based around focus or lore. That's why reskinning something to be tech is so effective. If you want a tech class that has a powerful robot - hunter, for turrets- shaman, for mech riding - druid. On top of that, you end up with several classes that would welcome a tech theme, that wouldn't get it if the tech theme was used to generate one single class.

    You can't squander the tech theme on something as narrow as tinkers, and you can't make it as broad as "tech class" as both have their problems; and even then you don't want to make tech so common that the game gets filthy with it as there are still some people holding on to the swords and sorcery concept over the more accurate science fantasy genre WoW has been a part of since WC2.

    Really, it's just a big pile of problems, and I don't think the solution will be appealing to everyone; particularly hardcore fans of the tinker theme.
    pre-ordering recommendations: from all over the place

  6. #2006
    I think a Tech class would differ from Shamans by being able to deploy multiple Turrets instead of just one Totem that shoots. The Turrets could also be directly affected by certain spells or abilities, making them shoot faster, shoot different projectiles or focus a target that the player chooses. This would make them good Flag defenders in PVP, but the trade off would be their mobility.

  7. #2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    I think a Tech class would differ from Shamans by being able to deploy multiple Turrets instead of just one Totem that shoots. The Turrets could also be directly affected by certain spells or abilities, making them shoot faster, shoot different projectiles or focus a target that the player chooses. This would make them good Flag defenders in PVP, but the trade off would be their mobility.
    If a tech class could drop turrets, I think they'll follow the same model the shaman does: one turret of each type. Because it'd be too powerful in PvP to just litter the arena/bg with those turrets and having to force players deal with them one-on-one, since pets/totems are immune to AoE damage. Unless, of course, said turrets are NOT immune to AoE damage, which would make them underpowered in PvE where the majority of bosses have at least one form of AoE damage...

  8. #2008
    With how many iterations totems have gone through and how many changes have gone into each of those overhauls, I don't think Blizzard is too pleased with their experience with that sort of mechanic.

    If they did have a tech class with turrets, I'd prefer if a pet picked up the turrets and planted them when the hero stopped moving while allowing some limited power while the pet was transporting them.
    pre-ordering recommendations: from all over the place

  9. #2009
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    ... you completely ignored the very sentence you quoted?

    Bah, who am I kidding, of course you did. It's what you do.
    Nope. A "tech skin" doesn't change the mechanical differences of both classes.


    Yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not? You're starting to contradict yourself, here.
    The class is based around the Hammer Tank, not turrets and pocket factory.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    This has more to do with the "tech class" concept being overly broad. We don't have a magic class or a physical class, we have several variations on that core concept based around focus or lore.
    That's what the profession is for.

  10. #2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Nope. A "tech skin" doesn't change the mechanical differences of both classes.
    Which are basically none. Stop with your 'because I said so', and give examples.

    The class is based around the Hammer Tank, not turrets and pocket factory.
    I'll just repeat myself: yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not?

  11. #2011
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Which are basically none. Stop with your 'because I said so', and give examples.
    Caster vs physical ranged is a big mechanical difference.


    I'll just repeat myself: yet you keep mentioning turrets and robots and what-not?
    At most you're probably looking at four abilities (damage, utility, healing) including Pocket Factory, depending on how extensive the turret system might be, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be very extensive.

    Meanwhile, Shaman have over a dozen different totems.

  12. #2012
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Caster vs physical ranged is a big mechanical difference.
    Mechanic-wise, not much. They're both ranged.

    At most you're probably looking at four abilities (damage, utility, healing) including Pocket Factory, depending on how extensive the turret system might be, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be very extensive.
    Meanwhile, Shaman have over a dozen different totems.
    So you're basing the whole class around something so whymsical it has almost as much chance of being made into WoW as Capcom has of making Megaman Legends 3? I.E. the "hammer tank".

  13. #2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    If those is the only things you see, then I am right. You've convinced yourself that Demon Hunters cannot exist that you are unwilling to see anything in any other light than your own.
    And yet noone has ever shown Demon Hunters don't have an overlap problem. Indeed, they can't. Even Blizzard has commented on it a tie or two.

    I'll paraphrase GCs challenge here for you.

    Is there any design space not taken up by existing classes?

    My answer is no. The class concept of "a deal ith the devil" is the same as Warlocks. The class theme of Demons is covered by Warlocks. Class lore shows differences in the specifics, but both DH and Warlock lore cover Demons, the BL, Sargeras and Illidan. The iconic look for DHs is used for Warlocks. The iconic moves and aspects of gameplay for DHs are also used by Warlocks.

    What difference of you speak of? What is there? If you wna the answer to be "yes - there is room" where is going to come from? What is it? Gameplay is the area where DHs have some room for development, but it's largely separate from the rest.

    Quite the opposite, in fact. Again, you are just unwilling to see the whole picture by any different light than your own.
    And yet the main aspect of similarity that you keep coming up to show this is "they use the same school of magic" with the occasional diversion into "some of the original paladins were priests".

    When you can't sustain your own argument pure repetition, it's gard to atke seriously

    If you truly believe that the Paladin and priest have the smae degree of overlap in their design space....show us.

    Whats aspect of the Priest them covers Justice? What Priest set looks like a Paladins suit of armor? Which abilities do they share? If you saw a priest could you ever mistake one for a Paladin? What class themes are shared between the two?

    And so on. Don't just tell us the design spaces overlap to the same degree. Show us. Point it out. They share a school of magic? Yes. And the lore that goes with that? Yes. And were some of the original Paladins priests? Yes. And beyond that, similarities get hard to point out. Ranged vs melee. Justice vs Faith and Spirit. The Light vs Heaven and Angels.

    EJL

  14. #2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    If a tech class could drop turrets, I think they'll follow the same model the shaman does: one turret of each type. Because it'd be too powerful in PvP to just litter the arena/bg with those turrets and having to force players deal with them one-on-one, since pets/totems are immune to AoE damage. Unless, of course, said turrets are NOT immune to AoE damage, which would make them underpowered in PvE where the majority of bosses have at least one form of AoE damage...
    There'd be mechanics involved to make it not abusable. You could have it so they could only shoot a targetted enemy in range, say with a debuff that the Tinker places on a character. They would focus fire one target at a time depending on which targets get that debuff. This wouldn't affect PVE, since the player would always be shooting at their targets, while in PVP it forces them to stay on a target and draw them into the turrets, else find new targets who get into range.

    Of course they would also have abilities to make the Turrets seek any random closest target, but it'd be more of a cooldown ability rather than have Turrets auto-lock anything and everything all the time.

  15. #2015
    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post

    This has more to do with the "tech class" concept being overly broad. We don't have a magic class or a physical class, we have several variations on that core concept based around focus or lore. That's why reskinning something to be tech is so effective. If you want a tech class that has a powerful robot - hunter, for turrets- shaman, for mech riding - druid. On top of that, you end up with several classes that would welcome a tech theme, that wouldn't get it if the tech theme was used to generate one single class.

    You can't squander the tech theme on something as narrow as tinkers, and you can't make it as broad as "tech class" as both have their problems; and even then you don't want to make tech so common that the game gets filthy with it as there are still some people holding on to the swords and sorcery concept over the more accurate science fantasy genre WoW has been a part of since WC2.

    Really, it's just a big pile of problems, and I don't think the solution will be appealing to everyone; particularly hardcore fans of the tinker theme.
    I see it as a big pile of opportunities, myself. There isn't anything they could ever do or add that would appeal to everyone. That can't be a deterrent for doing or adding things. Now if they did want to do this reskin thing, as much as I hate to misuse the word so, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, as they would have essentially added eleven tech classes and I would have a veritable smorgasboard of aesthetic and lore choices. If they went the option of making it a new class, they could compress the most iconic of the ideas that go into combat engineers in the lore into one place and make the techiest tech class possible, which I would reroll in a fricking heartbeat.

    Now as to which option I would prefer, that would be the class, for a couple reasons. First, classes get tier sets, and the current choices engineers get for transmog are, in a word, godawful. Second, it would give engineering a chance to actually focus on creating gear for one armor type, and make it synergistic with a class besides hunters, which I would regard as a major positive step for the profession. If they didn't go this route, however, I wouldn't consider the tech theme squandered.

    The only thing which would make me think they were squandering the tech theme would be if they continued to represent it entirely through the profession system. Which means business as usual. Any integration with the class system is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    With how many iterations totems have gone through and how many changes have gone into each of those overhauls, I don't think Blizzard is too pleased with their experience with that sort of mechanic.

    If they did have a tech class with turrets, I'd prefer if a pet picked up the turrets and planted them when the hero stopped moving while allowing some limited power while the pet was transporting them.
    That or a "planting" mechanic, such that turrets and some other robots have mobile and immobile modes, and can only attack or otherwise act at full strength while stationary. For an example, the siege engines in Tol Barad. Then the player could order them to uproot and follow him to his new position, or proceed to a targeted location, for replanting.

  16. #2016
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    How is it the same thing when the Tinker isn't a Spell-caster, cooldowns aren't based around totems, Tinkers don't have elemental-based weapon imbues, Shaman lack the Tinker ability set, Shaman aren't physical ranged, and the entire Tinker ability set is mechanical whereas the Shaman is elemental?
    Gameplay wise, you could easily turn a Shaman into a Tech based class. Rename the abilities and give them suitable graphics. And in doing so, you'd need to give them a suitable lore and background and identity.

    But you could make mages a Tech based class. Warriors. You could reskin Warriors into a caster class.

    This particular argument serves little purpose. Gameplay is important, but gameplay alone isn't enough to define a class. Indeed, in many ways, its the least important aspect because it is so readily swapped out.

    When creating an actual class, other elements are more important. They define what the class is. They define its theme. Its look. They define the place it has in the gameworld. And they define the look and names of the class abilities.

    So yes...you could take the gameplay for any class and attach it to the Tinker. And it'd be a Tinker....not a Shaman. Not a Warrior. Even were the gameplay to be the same, it shoudl woudln't be those classes just as a Guardian isn't a warrior, nor a feral a Rogue.

    EJL

  17. #2017
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Mechanic-wise, not much. They're both ranged.
    You're kidding right? Casters are mana based, have cast times, usually have to stand still while casting, can be interrupted, can have their attacks reflected, etc. Physical ranged is completely different from that.


    So you're basing the whole class around something so whymsical it has almost as much chance of being made into WoW as Capcom has of making Megaman Legends 3? I.E. the "hammer tank".
    I never thought I'd see beer tossing Pandaren in WoW as a class either. The Monk inclusion taught me that everything from WC3 has a chance of making it into the game. Especially since Blizzard (and other game makers) appears to like the concept.

  18. #2018
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Caster vs physical ranged is a big mechanical difference.
    So big difference that hunters happily used mana for years. You have a depleting resource bar and you shoot at things from range. From game design perspective it's the same thing with different flavor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You're kidding right? Casters are mana based, have cast times, usually have to stand still while casting, can be interrupted, can have their attacks reflected, etc. Physical ranged is completely different from that.
    Most casters are too mobile today. Still the same thing.


    Thematically tinker class overlaps too much with engineering skill and those two will never co-exist. You can have one but never both at the same time in WoW.

  19. #2019
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by fixx View Post
    So big difference that hunters happily used mana for years. You have a depleting resource bar and you shoot at things from range. From game design perspective it's the same thing with different flavor.
    So out of all those differences I mentioned, you decided to focus on the fact that all resources deplete upon use?

    Again, Casters are mana based, have cast times, usually have to stand still while casting, can be interrupted, can have their attacks reflected, etc. Physical ranged is completely different from that.

    Most casters are too mobile today. Still the same thing.
    You need to keep up on the WoD patch notes. Caster mobility is being severely reduced in WoD. When asked if Hunters were also going to get their mobility reduced, Blizzard replied that Hunter mobility will still the same. Again, caster vs physical ranged.

    Thematically tinker class overlaps too much with engineering skill and those two will never co-exist. You can have one but never both at the same time in WoW.
    Enchanting and Mages co-exist just fine. A profession and a class don't exist within the same design space. Additionally, crafting mounts and toys has no effect on a class tanking or healing a raid.

  20. #2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    And yet noone has ever shown Demon Hunters don't have an overlap problem. Indeed, they can't. Even Blizzard has commented on it a tie or two.
    No pro-'Demon Hunter' is denying there are overlaps. But just like there are overlaps with Priests and Paladins, that didn't stop them from being their own class, why should it stop the Demon Hunter?

    I'll paraphrase GCs challenge here for you.
    Is there any design space not taken up by existing classes?
    I'll quote Ghostcrawler: "It depends on the tone." and "would depend on the treatment." all are very applicable here.

    And yet the main aspect of similarity that you keep coming up to show this is "they use the same school of magic" with the occasional diversion into "some of the original paladins were priests".
    I never said 'paladins used to be priests'. I was drawing a comparison.

Posting Permissions

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