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

Voters
1260. This poll is closed
  • 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. #2341
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Why is that a conversation that needs to be had? People already think the Tinker is cool. Interesting, and suited for the setting. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be in WC3 in the first place, and it wouldn't be in HotS. Clearly its cool, interesting, and fitting for the setting for Blizzard, so what's the problem?
    Most conversations don't need to be had. Talking about how a tech like class would be realized in WoW could be an entertaining conversation to see what ideas came out of it. Talking semantics, or arguing about how much a priority tinkers are, or comparing their likelihood of being added to other classes is a much less interesting conversation; one that also doesn't need to be had.

  2. #2342
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Here's the thing: I don't doubt Blizzard could design a good tinker class if it really wanted to. However, Teriz's tinker idea is just simply unfeasible due to the way he idealizes this class. Look at the mecha backpack: it's easy two or even three times the size of the goblin that is using it. The reason it had that in WC3 is two fold: one, it's a joke hero; two, it was so this unit could be easily seen amidst all the units you are working with, since goblins are naturally small. Same thing for the Goblin Alchemist: riding atop an ogre so it could be easily identifiable in the battleground.
    Problem: Backpack is too large.

    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    Most conversations don't need to be had. Talking about how a tech like class would be realized in WoW could be an entertaining conversation to see what ideas came out of it. Talking semantics, or arguing about how much a priority tinkers are, or comparing their likelihood of being added to other classes is a much less interesting conversation; one that also doesn't need to be had.
    You didn't answer the question.

  3. #2343
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    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.
    There's three important differences though:

    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).

  4. #2344
    Quote Originally Posted by fixx View Post
    There's three important differences though:

    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).
    1.And what are you basing this on? There's a new Tinker class thread on the official forums about every month or so. Also Tinkers entered WC3 by popular demand in the first place.

    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.

  5. #2345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    1.And what are you basing this on?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    There's a new Tinker class thread on the official forums about every month or so.
    It doesn't count if it's the same three people over and over again like on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    2.The timing of the Tinker's inclusion doesn't mean a whole lot.
    It means everything in the context of your april fools dismissal. Pandaren Brewmaster was in WC3 intentionally from the start, tinker not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    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.
    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).

    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.

  6. #2346
    Quote Originally Posted by fixx View Post
    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.
    If you look at the poll a few threads down, Tinker's came in second only to Demon Hunters as what people wanted the next class to be. The idea that "nobody cares about Tinkers" isn't supported by evidence.

    It doesn't count if it's the same three people over and over again like on this forum.
    See above. It's a lot more than just three people.

    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.


    It means everything in the context of your april fools dismissal. Pandaren Brewmaster was in WC3 intentionally from the start, tinker not.
    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?

    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).
    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.

  7. #2347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    If you look at the poll a few threads down, Tinker's came in second only to Demon Hunters as what people wanted the next class to be. The idea that "nobody cares about Tinkers" isn't supported by evidence.

    See above. It's a lot more than just three people.
    Since you seem to have problems understanding what I wrote above, I'll just quote myself and add emphasis where needed. Hopefully you get it this time
    "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."

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    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?
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    That wasn't your initial argument. Your argument was that there isn't DEMAND for a ranged class, when clearly there is. People want a new ranged class after two new melee classes.
    People demand something new. They don't care what it's called or what it does, as long as there's a new class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    If you doubt this, make a poll.
    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.
    Last edited by fixx; 2014-03-21 at 11:23 AM. Reason: added about ten words to the end

  8. #2348
    Quote Originally Posted by fixx View Post
    Since you seem to have problems understanding what I wrote above, I'll just quote myself and add emphasis where needed. Hopefully you get it this time
    I got it the first time. You're still wrong. Plenty of players have wanted to see a Tinker class for several years.

    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.

    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?
    The Tinker is part of the Warcraft universe. Kerrigan isn't part of the Warcraft universe. Terrible straw man argument right there my friend.

    People demand something new. They don't care what it's called or what it does, as long as there's a new class.
    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.



    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.
    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.

  9. #2349
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Problem: Backpack is too large.
    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?
    Remember this: it must also have rocket launchers, be able to create big structures that will build walking bombs, and then completely wrap around the wearer to become some sort of mech.

    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.
    "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.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  10. #2350
    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.

  11. #2351
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post

    You didn't answer the question.
    You asked two questions.

    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?

  12. #2352
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Remember this: it must also have rocket launchers, be able to create big structures that will build walking bombs, and then completely wrap around the wearer to become some sort of mech.
    All of that is possible in the Warcraft universe, and the design team can overcome any issue with size or space. What's the problem?

    "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.
    Then the issue isn't that it was an "April Fool's joke". The issue with you is that it wasn't part of the WC3 campaign. That isn't really a big problem since they've appeared in HotS and are talked about in WoW.

  13. #2353
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    All of that is possible in the Warcraft universe, and the design team can overcome any issue with size or space. What's the problem?
    There is no 'small backpack that changes into big mech' anywhere in Azeroth.

    Then the issue isn't that it was an "April Fool's joke". The issue with you is that it wasn't part of the WC3 campaign.
    Yes, therefore are not canon, and cannot be considered as such.

    That isn't really a big problem since they've appeared in HotS
    HotS is not Azeroth, or WoW, or even remotely in-game connected in any sort of way to even be considered as 'canon'. Otherwise, like Fixx said, 'Kerrigan' or 'Diablo' class could exist.

    and are talked about in WoW.
    Titles. Goblins simply call their engineers 'tinkers', just like Draenei call their paladins 'Vindicators' and their priests 'Anchorites, and how Blood Elves call their paladins 'Blood Knights'.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  14. #2354
    Quote Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
    It's more of a profession than a class. A Tinker class with engineering profession would be one busy key binder
    Not any moreso than any other class that takes the engineering profession. Tinker abilities would not be attached to worn gear. Like a shaman's totems or a warlock's demonic gateway, their gadgets would exist outside the inventory and be used only as part of ability animations.

  15. #2355
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    I got it the first time. You're still wrong.
    I said more people wanted pandaren brewmaster than goblin tinker and proved it afterwards. How I'm wrong in this? Are we in mirror universe suddenly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    The Tinker is part of the Warcraft universe. Kerrigan isn't part of the Warcraft universe. Terrible straw man argument right there my friend.
    HotS isn't part of warcraft universe. Also with your logic we could just as well get Illidan, Malfurion, Arthas or Diablo as a class since those are part of warcraft universe and present in HotS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    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.
    Vocal minority crying on forums want boring stuff repeated (like demon hunters or tinkers) and would immediately afterwards cry "rehash!" while the majority is happy with just anything new content.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    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.
    Biased data is just as valuable as any one person's opinion, for example mine. And that value is exactly zero. That's why Blizzard doesn't read or do forum polls but are actually doing it right (sending polls to a statistically significant random portion of all of their subscribers instead of hater site like MMOC).

    I simply don't care about the tinker concept because just like all other fanmade class and race concepts presented on this forum it's simply bad from game design perspective, and none of them make much sense with stupidly overpowered abilities or half of the spells overlapping with already existing classes or professions. What I am against instead is the circular logic, semantics and strawman arguments that people use to defend their pet project classes that clearly have no viable design space in WoW as it stands today.

  16. #2356
    Next class will be a ranged weapon user with agility mail armor to fill the itemization gap, it is the only logical choice for them to make.
    Lead Game Designer

    YouTube Channel

    https://www.youtube.com/@Nateanderthal

  17. #2357
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Then the issue isn't that it was an "April Fool's joke". The issue with you is that it wasn't part of the WC3 campaign. That isn't really a big problem since they've appeared in HotS and are talked about in WoW.
    You keep to continually confuse WoW with Heroes, which is a game that allows whimsical concepts such as Lumber Jack Uther, ETC and Chef Stitches. WoW would not be the same game if our player classes were forced to play as Lumber Jacks, ETC and Chef-looking Abominations.

    This isn't a case of choosing to look like a Tinker, this is a case of playing a class that would have to look whimsical in order to represent the Warcraft 3 identity.

    This is why many of us are suggesting to toss away that identity and bring in a new Steampunk one. This includes tossing the use of Pocket Factory, which makes no sense in a MMORPG. It would make more sense to have it work like Army of the Dead, where robots simply spawn out of nowhere (parachute in, drill up from underground, 'materialize' in). Hammer Tank form is also awkward to implement, and it'd be much easier to stick with something more practical, like a simple mech suit.

    The War3/Heroes Tinker visual design is a hard sell for an MMO class.

  18. #2358
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,817
    Quote Originally Posted by fixx View Post
    HotS isn't part of warcraft universe. Also with your logic we could just as well get Illidan, Malfurion, Arthas or Diablo as a class since those are part of warcraft universe and present in HotS.
    We already have all of their classes in there.

    Malfurion=Druid
    Arthas=Death Knight
    Illidan= Warlock

    Also fyi, Diablo is part of the Diablo universe.


    I simply don't care about the tinker concept because just like all other fanmade class and race concepts presented on this forum it's simply bad from game design perspective, and none of them make much sense with stupidly overpowered abilities or half of the spells overlapping with already existing classes or professions. What I am against instead is the circular logic, semantics and strawman arguments that people use to defend their pet project classes that clearly have no viable design space in WoW as it stands today.
    Which clearly shows that you have no idea what design space in WoW actually is. There's no technology class in the game. There's technology in the game world, there's a technology-based profession, and we battle against technology NPCs. There's a lot of design space for a technology class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    You keep to continually confuse WoW with Heroes, which is a game that allows whimsical concepts such as Lumber Jack Uther, ETC and Chef Stitches.
    Weren't you just using the Heroes version of Illidan as a possible way Blizzard could implement the Demon Hunter class in WoW?

  19. #2359
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    We already have all of their classes in there.
    Malfurion=Druid
    Arthas=Death Knight
    Illidan= Warlock
    Also fyi, Diablo is part of the Diablo universe.
    So what? If you're going to imply HotS is canon-wise connected to WoW to use the Gazzlowe hero as canon in WoW, then Diablo, Kerrigan and all the other heroes of HotS are also connected to WoW since they are in HotS. You cannot have it both ways.

    Which clearly shows that you have no idea what design space in WoW actually is.
    Actually, you're the one with little to no idea of what 'design space' is, with all the hypocrisy and semantics you keep using in favor of your ideas, and against other people's ideas.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  20. #2360
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Weren't you just using the Heroes version of Illidan as a possible way Blizzard could implement the Demon Hunter class in WoW?
    Yes, and none of it has conflict with the issues I've brought up. Illidan in Heroes is not whimsically designed, not in conflict with MMORPG design (ie has no pathing blockers) and he retains the identity of the Demon Hunter of Warcraft 3 without relying on abilities used by the Warlock, including a new Metamorphosis. Heroes like Muradin and Uther would work the same way if translated to WoW (as they are already represented by Warrior and Paladin classes)

    The Tinker from Heroes faces the same problems as implementing characters like Kurdran or Mechatorque, who have designs that aren't fitting for a WoW class. Gazlowe's abilities in Heroes would be acceptable, but his 'look' is intrusive to MMORPG visual design.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2014-03-21 at 06:44 PM.

Posting Permissions

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