Selective reading much? All the issues we've talked so far ever since the start of this thread. But I'll accept just the current issues, which is how a burly opaque factory would clutter and block vision for players.Such as?
Abandoned Blackwash Crate. Problem solved.
Its truly amazing how the Tinker is the only class concept with the potential to block player's vision.Selective reading much? All the issues we've talked so far ever since the start of this thread. But I'll accept just the current issues, which is how a burly opaque factory would clutter and block vision for players.
Last edited by Teriz; 2014-03-21 at 01:59 AM.
Well, your tinker is, of course. Giant, metallic, 100% opaque mecha backpack with giand, metallic, 100% opaque arms dropping giant, opaque factories.... I don't need to go on, do I?Its truly amazing how the Tinker is the only class concept with the potential to block player's vision.
Its not my Tinker, it's Blizzard's Tinker. Also none of that which you mentioned above are significant issues or problems. At least not significant enough that the art or design team couldn't work around.Well, your tinker is, of course. Giant, metallic, 100% opaque mecha backpack with giand, metallic, 100% opaque arms dropping giant, opaque factories.... I don't need to go on, do I?
Last edited by Teriz; 2014-03-21 at 02:37 AM.
Nope. It's your tinker. Because Blizzard's tinker exists only on WC3. And as far as what the design team can do, I agree, but then we would not have your tinker, which would be a really big plus for me.Its not my Tinker, it's Blizzard's Tinker. Also none of that which you mentioned above are significant issues or problems. At least not significant enough that the art or design team couldn't work around.
Ielenia wth are you even talking about? You think Blizzard couldn't design a pocket factory large enough for decent sized robots to get through, and make it so neither the PF or the arms obstructs the player's view? Using size as a reason against Tinker implementation, has to be the worst argument against a new class concept ever.
Yeah, and from where it won't ever get out of, since that tinker hero unit is not canon. Imagine that.The main source of all of WoW's classes.
- - - Updated - - -
Solution: Design a mecha backpack that fits the race carrying it. Taking special notice to make sure that the pack isn't a visual obstruction.
How is that solution unfeasible? Regardless of why it was used in WC3, the mecha backpack is a very unique mechanic that could be used to great effect in a game that sorely needs unique mechanics from a 12th class. It's like providing a mech without providing the mech. This is why I support Teriz's view that the mecha backpack would be utilized extensively throughout the class. Anything else, while thematically different, would be too similar to existing classes gameplay-wise. Gameplay is king.
The argument that the Tinker is a joke hero is another terrible argument. It was an "April Fool's Joke" by Blizzard, but so were the Pandarens, and the Pandarens are now a race in the game.
- - - Updated - - -
1) Enough people wanted to see pandaren/monk, more than people who want to see tinkers
2) Pandaren Brewmaster was actually in TFT expansion from the start, not a later addition like Goblin Tinker
3) There was a clear room for melee healer in WoW for monk class to fill, but there isn't really demand for another ranged dps and especially not for a ranged tank (that's something blue posts have said many times that they don't think ranged tanks work except for some gimmick fights).
2.The timing of the Tinker's inclusion doesn't mean a whole lot. It simply means that Blizzard came up with the idea later than other ideas. The Tinker is in HotS because it's a popular hero concept.
3. I highly disagree. After 2 new class inclusions that were entirely melee, people want a new ranged class, or at least a class that has 1 or 2 ranged DPS specs. The beauty of the mecha backpack is that it could be used for either melee or ranged. Look at the Tinker in DOTA2 for example;
That could be an example of a ranged mech backpack. Whereas the more traditional mech backpack with the hands could be used for tanking purposes.
Last edited by Rhamses; 2014-03-21 at 10:40 AM.
Death Knight was added in as an experiment to see if they could build a class with three tanking and three dps specs at the same time and using two-handed weapons. And as we all know the concept failed to deliver multiple viable tank specs. Monk is in due to popular demand and melee heal spot which is something different again.
Last edited by fixx; 2014-03-21 at 10:59 AM.
See above. It's a lot more than just three people.It doesn't count if it's the same three people over and over again like on this forum.
I understand that you dislike the concept. However, you really shouldn't spread your dislike and opinion to other people's viewpoints. Everyone has different tastes.
Again, that simply means that Blizzard came up with the concept later. If Blizzard thinks this concept is a joke, why are they making the Tinker one of the main Warcraft heroes in HotS alongside Arthas, Malfurion, and Illidan?It means everything in the context of your april fools dismissal. Pandaren Brewmaster was in WC3 intentionally from the start, tinker not.
That wasn't your initial argument. Your argument was that there isn't DEMAND for a ranged class, when clearly there is. If you doubt this, make a poll. People want a new ranged class after two new melee classes. That's just common sense.Highly disagree all you want, but Blizzard logic doesn't work that way "we had melee class last time so next one will be ranged". Nope. Instead they will look at what the game actually needs, and the thing is there isn't any really clearly defined empty spot left on the classes. Balance between melee, ranged, healers and tanks is pretty good at the moment (11, 12, 6, 5 respectively).
"Before MoP expansion came out there was two classes people where asking for Pandaren Brewmaster and Demon Hunter, nobody cared about tinkers. Pretty simple to deduct from that that more people want to see pandas than tinkers."
Last edited by fixx; 2014-03-21 at 11:23 AM. Reason: added about ten words to the end
Oh, and take a chill pill, we're having a discussion, not insulting each other's parents. You're getting worked up for no reason.
The Tinker is part of the Warcraft universe. Kerrigan isn't part of the Warcraft universe. Terrible straw man argument right there my friend.Maybe because Blizzard thinks that the tinker fits better into the more light-hearted game? By your logic there should also be Kerrigan as a class in WoW, right?
False. People don't want something new if it's not truly new. Read any new class thread on this forum or on the official forums. The main complaints against any concept is that it's too similar to existing classes. WoW players aren't drooling idiots, they want as much new and fresh content as possible. Blizzard acknowledges this as well, and their previous two class inclusions back that up.People demand something new. They don't care what it's called or what it does, as long as there's a new class.
Biased or not, that poll would give you some evidence to fall back on. All you have right now is your personal opinion, which clearly errs on the side of an irrational distaste for the Tinker concept.If you think polling the vocal minority (fan/hater site like MMOC) gives any statistically viable results you should research on how to avoid (un)intentional bias in polling and how to select actually random sample of data.
"Are now" is wrong. They always were. Waaaay back in Warcraft 3. Chen participated in the founding of Orgrimmar, remember? It wasn't something added when Mists of Pandaria went live, no. It was canon from before WoW even went into Alpha.The argument that the Tinker is a joke hero is another terrible argument. It was an "April Fool's Joke" by Blizzard, but so were the Pandarens, and the Pandarens are now a race in the game.
It's more of a profession than a class. A Tinker class with engineering profession would be one busy key binder
Last edited by saucywench; 2014-03-21 at 03:37 PM.
1. Why does that conversation need to be had? The answer: No conversations need to be had, so this isn't much of a question.
2. What's the problem? The answer: Clearly there isn't a consensus on whether tinker is suited to the game, neither among us nor among the developers. Pretending like there is is silly, so this also isn't much of a question.
So what on earth did you want answered?