Tinker Discussion Thread

[Ielenia]

Well with DHs the problem would be making Rogues and Warlocks obsolete.

Why do you think so? The only reason they would make rogues and warlocks obsolete is because you say so. Monks don't make rogues obsolete, despite being leather-wearing, energy-using, melee fighters. They even use all weapons rogues use save for daggers (which very few rogues actually use).

It's not just the alpha notes. Blizzard themselves said they're removing direct combat items.

Yet, they didn't mention any specific item, did they? It's all left for the readers' interpretation.

GC didn't say that. He said he wasn't sure. There's a difference.

If he isn't sure it means they haven't found a way to do it.

Tinkers? He said they could work if implemented correctly.

Which can be said to any class imaginable. Even Demon Hunters and Dragonsworns. And 'implemented correctly' does not equal 'guarantee it will be implemented'.

[Rhamses]

GC didn't say that

He posed a question asking if there was enough design space. He didn't say anything about having too much overlap. It's as open to interpretation as his speech about Tinkers being too whimsical. It's absolutely ambiguous.

Keep in mind, they said roughly the same thing about Pandarens before Mists of Pandaria, and tried to throw people off their tracks when Worgen and Goblin were leaked through the masks.

However, the difference is that we all agree that there is significant overlap with the DH class and existing classes. So when GC asks "Is there enough design space there not occupied by DK, warlock, hunter, warrior?" The answer is pretty clear. I don't see how you could get any ambiguity from that, unless you truly think that GC doesn't know the answer to that question.

That was followed btw by another developer saying that there's no plans for a Demon Hunter class.

Either way you cut it, the Tinker post was more favorable than both Bards and Demon Hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you think so? The only reason they would make rogues and warlocks obsolete is because you say so. Monks don't make rogues obsolete, despite being leather-wearing, energy-using, melee fighters. They even use all weapons rogues use save for daggers (which very few rogues actually use).

Because Monks don't use stealth, poisons, or surprise attacks. They're martial artists.

Demon Hunters have stealth mechanics. They use curses and marks to damage targets over time. Demon Hunters use surprise attacks.

Yet, they didn't mention any specific item, did they? It's all left for the readers' interpretation.

I don't think so. I guess we'll know soon enough.

If he isn't sure it means they haven't found a way to do it.

He then goes on to say that a Tinker class styled after Lucca from Chrono Trigger could work.

Which can be said to any class imaginable. Even Demon Hunters and Dragonsworns. And 'implemented correctly' does not equal 'guarantee it will be implemented'.

I didn't say it did. I'm simply saying that of the classes that GC discussed via tweets, the Tinker was the most favorable.

[Ielenia]

Because Monks don't use stealth, poisons, or surprise attacks. They're martial artists.

Stealth is irrelevant as it's used only in the beginning of the fight. Monks have just as much mobility as rogues. Rogues used to be the 'mobility melee', but that spot is now taken by the monks.

[quote]Demon Hunters have stealth mechanics. They use curses and marks to damage targets over time. Demon Hunters use surprise attacks.
And druids' cat form work just like a rogue. Stealth, energy, combo points, finishers, 'surprise attacks,' etc.

He then goes on to say that a Tinker class styled after Lucca from Chrono Trigger could work.

Wrong. He said he'd like something like Lucca from Chrono Trigger. He didn't say 'Lucca from Chrono Trigger would fit in WoW'. He was stating personal preference.

I didn't say it did. I'm simply saying that of the classes that GC discussed via tweets, the Tinker was the most favorable.

You never said it, in that many words, no, that's true. However, every pro-tinker is latching onto that statement as if it was a guarantee that it'll come.

[Thimagryn]

However, the difference is that we all agree that there is significant overlap with the DH class and existing classes. So when GC asks "Is there enough design space there not occupied by DK, warlock, hunter, warrior?" The answer is pretty clear. I don't see how you could get any ambiguity from that, unless you truly think that GC doesn't know the answer to that question.

Subjective. Look at the original tweet here.

DH Design Space

Now look at all the responses. Does it look like everyone agrees there's overlap? Does it look like the answer is clear?

That was followed btw by another developer saying that there's no plans for a Demon Hunter class.

Who said there are no current plans to announce anything about a Demon Hunter. Again, it's typical PR.

Either way you cut it, the Tinker post was more favorable than both Bards and Demon Hunters.

It's a twitter post humoring a fan concept, yet was still met with the same skepticism as its predecessors. Lets get facts straight - Lucca from CT is about as far removed from Gazlowe as you can get. What he suggested was a Chrono-Trigger Steampunk design, which is not replicated at all in WoW's Goblin Tinker. It would be like saying 'Yeah, Demon Hunters would work - if we used Diablo 3's design'. That's not the same as the WoW version of the class. It's a new concept entirely.

[Ielenia]

What he suggested was a Chrono-Trigger Steampunk design, which is not replicated at all in WoW's Goblin Tinker. It would be like saying 'Yeah, Demon Hunters would work - if we used Diablo 3's design'. That's not the same as the WoW version of the class. It's a new concept entirely.

Exactly. It wouldn't be the WC3 tinker.

[Lunkwow]

The thread that binds the two classes that have come out as of yet and might also continue is the expansions theme WotLK the Death Knight and MoP the Monks.

This could also explain for other classes that have been suggested but then I also some flaws,baggage,sharing theme with others and much more but making a new class that don't share something with 11 others broad classes.

Demon Hunter with an expansion about the Burning Legion and probably last boss Kil'Jedan. I would call the Demon Hunter + Expansion theme strongest thanks the simplicity with demons getting hunted by a Demon Hunter. A really good fit if it was not for Demon Hunter sharing themes with many other classes like Rogue, Warlock and Warrior one of mine least probable unless the change the concept of what a Demon Hunter is.

Dragon empowered class as good possibilities for good class ability so long as it not stray to close Magic, Earth and Dream. But the Dragon theme as been going on quite a while now and has been in much the content in WoW so I have a harder timing seeing a Dragon themed expansion when since we had Cata.

Bard class feels way to alien to the Warcraft universe so I cant really see what theme to the class or the expansion will be.

Tinker as I see it relies on science (technology/chemistry and other none magic ways) and there lots of free room for the class to pick and chose his ability's from that does not have to come to the expense of two professions the class would share a link with.

One of the problem I could see is how he uses his ability's for most classes just has simple animations for casting, shooting and slashing my solutions would be the 'Claw pack' that would be an extension of the player character where the ability's that the Tinker castes, shoots and slashes comes from the two robotic arms extending from the 'Claw Pack' on his back. The arms would collapse into the 'Claw Pack' when out of combat and the arms can't be to too much in the way for the player when playing the character.
Some of the benefits is to make the character unique in how he fights and also that it could be copy to the other races without much fuss.

As far as I know there is no real Tinker in WoW but there could be lots of does that have been dabbling in what the Tinker class his like and has mastered on of the many arts of being a Tinker. Hunters there is really no named Hunter Character in WoW that has both mastered beast and ranged weapons in the same time so are the Tinker trainers also but the will teach you what the know the be best at your class like every other classes does it.

Any of does new major class lore characters that would come with the Tinker class would be newly added or ret-conned (explaining why there where not before).

The theme of the expansion would be more towards technology which also go many different paths Blizzard could go like:

-Invasion of the Naga Kingdom to stop the Old Gods (u-boats) or maybe Titan machines trying to stop the Old Gods corruption leading them to attack every living being (mechs).
The can't go overboard with all technology in one expansion for then you run the risk of alienating the more fantasy part of the WoW community.


But then that a new class much share a theme with the expansion might just be scrapped for the next expansion for all I know.

[Rhamses]

Sigh... I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you two. For you guys up is down and down is up. I'll just post each tweet and the other folks in this thread can draw their own conclusions.


Demon Hunter:

Aulpe: You've said WoW cannot support an infinite number of classes.With DK and now Monks added will we ever see a Demon Hunter class?

Ghostcrawler: Is there enough design space there not occupied by DK, warlock, hunter, warrior?

https://twitter.com/OccupyGStreet/st...11292543741952

Bards:

Matthew Burt: wondering how you feel about adding a buff/debuff class to the game a la Bard from DnD. Or would it be too hard to balance?

Ghostcrawler: A bard itself has always felt a little too... I dunno... Soft is the wrong word, but you get the idea.

Lestaril : Soft? Have you played Baldur's Gate through as a Bard? <3
p.s. Read "Order of the Stick" webcomic if you like D&D reading

Ghostcrawler: Not sure Elan is making your case.

https://twitter.com/OccupyGStreet/st...20336851365888

Tinker:

Jaime Skuse: Thanks for clarifying that. Is the Tinker a class that you feel would fit into WoW? I'd love to see it.

Ghostcrawler: Not sure. Might be a little too whimsical for WoW. Would depend on the treatment.

https://twitter.com/OccupyGStreet/st...09768888401920

Nathaniel Craver: Thoughts of a Tinker class? If not now maybe down the road?

Ghostcralwer: I've said before it depends on the treatment. Too easy for that class to be too wacky or precious. (Source)
A more steampunk vibe sounds cool to me. A dude in a mech having misfires that poop out springs and gears less so. (Source)
I don't know. Lucca from Chrono Trigger could work. A little bit of gnomish (tee hee) world enlarger goes a long way IMO.(Source)
But maybe one of the designers will come up with a pitch perfect design that blows us away someday. Shrug. (Source)

https://twitter.com/DreyfussFrost/st...84992358883328

If you ask me, the Tinker tweet looks the most favorable. However, I'm sure plenty here will feel differently.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a twitter post humoring a fan concept, yet was still met with the same skepticism as its predecessors. Lets get facts straight - Lucca from CT is about as far removed from Gazlowe as you can get. What he suggested was a Chrono-Trigger Steampunk design, which is not replicated at all in WoW's Goblin Tinker. It would be like saying 'Yeah, Demon Hunters would work - if we used Diablo 3's design'. That's not the same as the WoW version of the class. It's a new concept entirely.

Okay, so it wouldn't have WC3's design? What's the issue? It would be a Tinker with a ray gun, or similar ranged weapon. There's plenty of lasers, rays, blasts, beams, bolts, and other weapons in the WoW technology theme. You could pretty easily make a WoW class that takes design cues from Lucca CT.

[Ielenia]

Demon Hunter with an expansion about the Burning Legion and probably last boss Kil'Jedan.

Exactly. And there will be a Burning Legion-themed expansion, thanks to the heavy foreshadowing given to us thanks to Wrathion. He knows the Burning Legion will come. Though not too soon, though, as he comments on how the war between the Horde and the Alliance would go if Varian didn't choose the high road, with a war against the Tauren being the most taxing, but the Alliance would have recovered enough to fight against the Burning Legion. That implies a long time.

[Thimagryn]

Speculation swirled recently regarding Blizzard's decision to trademark "Mists of Pandaria," as many thought it may indicate the name of the next World of Warcraft expansion. Pandaria, in Warcraft lore, refers to the home of the Pandaren, basically humanoid war pandas you may remember making an appearance as neutral heroes in Warcraft III. Chilton said the speculation was, "wildly overhyped." He added, "if you look at traditionally how we've handled that race it's been in those secondary products because we haven't realized it in the world. Most of the time when we do anything panda-related it's going to be a comic book or a figurine or something like that."

Don't be drinking the Kool-aid.

Okay, so it wouldn't have WC3's design? What's the issue? It would be a Tinker with a ray gun, or similar ranged weapon. There's plenty of lasers, rays, blasts, beams, bolts, and other weapons in the WoW technology theme. You could pretty easily make a WoW class that takes design cues from Lucca CT.

Nothing's wrong with it, but it's not the 'Tinker'. It's a new Tech class concept. As a Warcraft fan, I can easily see this does not resemble the Tinker. You should be able to see the differences as well.

This would be like saying we can have a Demon Hunter class that doesn't turn into a Demon, uses Bows/Xbows, can set down Sentry turrets and has Ferrets and Bats as companions. It's not going to be the same as a WoW Demon Hunter as people know it though, and that's the difference. This is a completely separate class concept.

Nothing wrong with a steampunk Tech class, but it's not the same one being discussed with Taleriz. The one we're discussing is the Goblin Tinker, with the Claw Pack in tact. Lucca doesn't have a Claw Pack, doesn't use Pocket Factory, and doesn't pilot a mech suit. It's a much more tangible concept, but one that is very different to the one we're actively discussing.

[Ielenia]

Sigh... I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you two. For you guys up is down and down is up. I'll just post each tweet and the other folks in this thread can draw their own conclusions.

You're wrong. You're the one saying up is down and down is up. All that was pointed out here is that those posts are as ambiguous as the tinker post you linked.

Okay, so it wouldn't have WC3's design? What's the issue? It would be a Tinker with a ray gun, or similar ranged weapon. There's plenty of lasers, rays, blasts, beams, bolts, and other weapons in the WoW technology theme. You could pretty easily make a WoW class that takes design cues from Lucca CT.

But it wouldn't be the WC3 tinker, would it? No claw pack, no 'pocket factories', all that stuff you all have been trying to shove down everyone's throats as will be a 'tinker ability.'

[Lunkwow]

Exactly. And there will be a Burning Legion-themed expansion, thanks to the heavy foreshadowing given to us thanks to Wrathion. He knows the Burning Legion will come. Though not too soon, though, as he comments on how the war between the Horde and the Alliance would go if Varian didn't choose the high road, with a war against the Tauren being the most taxing, but the Alliance would have recovered enough to fight against the Burning Legion. That implies a long time.

An expansion that will be about the Burning Crusade is one of the most likely expansion to come out sometime in the future but most likely towards the end of WoW.

But we still have N'Zoth to 'beat' to cap of all the Old Gods and the whole Naga raid that was cut from Cata could maybe serve as an expansion.

[Rhamses]

\
Nothing's wrong with it, but it's not the 'Tinker'. It's a new Tech class concept. As a Warcraft fan, I can easily see this does not resemble the Tinker. You should be able to see the differences as well.

This would be like saying we can have a Demon Hunter class that doesn't turn into a Demon, uses Bows/Xbows, can set down Sentry turrets and has Ferrets and Bats as companions. It's not going to be the same as a WoW Demon Hunter as people know it though, and that's the difference. This is a completely separate class concept.

Nothing wrong with a steampunk Tech class, but it's not the same one being discussed with Taleriz. The one we're discussing is the Goblin Tinker, with the Claw Pack in tact. Lucca doesn't have a Claw Pack, doesn't use Pocket Factory, and doesn't pilot a mech suit. It's a much more tangible concept, but one that is very different to the one we're actively discussing.

Well I'm not them. I just think a technology class makes the most sense as a next class. As to what type of tech class that would be, I have no idea. Whether it has a claw pack, or uses something else entirely, I have no idea. But, if GC is saying that a move away from the WC3 concept is the most favorable, then I don't see what the problem is.

I also think the Tinker has a lot more wiggle room for class creation than a Demon Hunter does. Illidan's association with that class concept is just way too strong. Meanwhile, a technology class could be the WC3 Tinker, Siegecrafter Blackfuse in a mech suit, a Lucca/Ko'Kron sharpshooter clone with guns, or that Artificer class that Teriz came up with a few months ago. I think if you deviate from Illidan's DH theme too much, DH fans wouldn't be happy. Fans of a technology class don't care what you do, as long as the tech theme is intact.

[Therougetitan]

I'm surprised the tinker discussions are still going around, figured they would have died down after WoD. Note I am in the Tinker camp for the next playable class.

But not much point now, not until the expansion after WoD draws near its announcement to see if gets a playable class or not and that's a long ways off.

[Rhamses]

I'm surprised the tinker discussions are still going around, figured they would have died down after WoD. Note I am in the Tinker camp for the next playable class.

But not much point now, not until the expansion after WoD draws near its announcement to see if gets a playable class or not and that's a long ways off.

Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm stepping out of this thread as well. I'll be sure to book mark it though for when the next expansion is announced.

Someone's going to be eating a lot of crow.

[Thimagryn]

Well I'm not them. I just think a technology class makes the most sense as a next class. As to what type of tech class that would be, I have no idea. Whether it has a claw pack, or uses something else entirely, I have no idea. But, if GC is saying that a move away from the WC3 concept is the most favorable, then I don't see what the problem is.

Yet you're taking what is being said out of context. GC's quotes don't indicate any class as being likely or unlikely to happen, he just amuses the ideas with ambiguity. He says Tinkers are possible, then promptly provides a class concept that is nothing like the Tinker.

I also think the Tinker has a lot more wiggle room for class creation than a Demon Hunter does. Illidan's association with that class concept is just way too strong. Meanwhile, a technology class could be the WC3 Tinker, Siegecrafter Blackfuse in a mech suit, a Lucca/Ko'Kron sharpshooter clone with guns, or that Artificer class that Teriz came up with a few months ago. I think if you deviate from Illidan's DH theme too much, DH fans wouldn't be happy. Fans of a technology class don't care what you do, as long as the tech theme is intact.

I agree with some of your points, though I don't personally interject any 'likelyhood' into my own stance on what classes will or will not be. In my own preference, I care nothing about Dragonsworn or Bards, but will bring them up in equal favour to Tinkers and Demon Hunters, because I believe they all have the same chances of happening. When it comes to Blizzard, it's all rolling the dice. Doesn't matter if we're talking about the next Class, next Race or the next Expansion, there is equal chance of anything happening.

What were the chances Blood Elves and Draenei were going to be the first races added to Alliance and Horde? High Elves for Alliance and Ogres for Horde would have been the obvious first choices. Ogres are still an obvious choice, yet Goblins and Pandarens have both beaten them. What were the chances Worgen were going to be a part of the Alliance? Fairly low, unless you already knew about the Gilneas rumors from pre-TBC theorycraft days.

What is the next expansion? South Seas and Emerald Dream have been pushed by fans from the beginning, yet we've had Cataclysm, Mists of Pandaria and now Warlords of Draenor - expansion material that covers almost nothing of what we expected to get. No one could even fathom how Warlords of Draenor fits in, and the idea of a 'Time travel/Alternate dimension' expansion that had nothing to do with Caverns of Time was simply not on anyone's mind.

So everything you've said may be true to you, but I don't subscribe to that train of thought. It's way too simple. You have to think like Blizzard. You need to break down how and why they came to the decisions to make Cataclysm, to make Mists of Pandaria, and to make Warlords of Draenor. You have to break down how they formed the Death Knight and Monk classes, which is not as simple as Teriz's explanation of 'They came from Warcraft 3'. We know of the Necromancer and Runemaster concepts. We know the Monk and Martial Arts has never existed in Warcraft lore prior to Mists.

Everything we know about WoW has to be thrown out when considering any new expansion or class, because that is exactly how Blizzard designs new content. No pre-existing knowledge has ever come into conflict with their design decisions. They are able to retcon Blood Elves into the Horde and Draenei as descendants of the Eredar race. All they need to do to make any new class is seed the concepts. This is why the Timeless Isles exist in Pandaria - the Timewalkers and Kairoz will act as a bridge to Warlords of Draenor - a possibility that would have not existed outside the Caverns of Time.

[Talen]

Tinkers would be cool if themed with Titan stuff such as Mimiron, evolved from tinkering lowly machines and gadgets like professional engineers. There aren't any other classes that are purely titanic themed, are there?

So far, the Titan theme is being explored via the Titanic races...Gnomes, Dwarves, Humans, Vrykul and Mogu.

I think tinkers should be combined with alchemists into a single class for wow, it would be much more interesting.


My suggestion for such a class in the signature below:

It could work, but the Alchemist link is really weak, IMO. And being honest...Alchemy and since don't really mix. Alchemy has too much association with magic. What they would need to do to make this work is tie it into a Chemist. You'd probvably keep the Alchemist name, but emphasise the non-magical aspects of the profession much more.

And yes, you should ignore some details to allow things to be similar but not identical. That's the whole point and the distinction between those two terms you still have problems with.

No....I can show a Mouse and a Whale are similar if I ignore aspects of it. The abilities have similarities within the game, but does that make them equivalent? No. And an Engineering skill can never ever duplicate a Tinkers abilities because they lack those apsects you want me to ignore. An Engineering item can never ever get the same level of interaction with a class that a class ability can. Even were the effect to be duplicated across both, that interaction - that inconvenient interaction which you want to ignore because it destroys your point - makes a class ability very different from the profession ability.


You are trying to prove that Engineers and Tinkers are the same? You don't need to. WHile Blizzard doesn't have to write them or introduce them that way, they very likely would do so, because it is how Tinkers are seen in WoW and other games. That stereotype is something to be embraced by game deisgners in many cases and it is unlikely Blizzard would do things differently.


You want to show that the profession eclipses the class concept? That can't be done. A class and a profession sereve two very different roles in game.They are there for two different purposes. They have very different design spaces. They do different things in different ways for different reasons. And you can't get around all that simply by stating it. Sure...an Engineer can build all sorts of Engineering marvels. But he won't ever compete with the Tinker class....who will simply see his abilities tuned for viability around a satisfactpory rotation, with those abilities interacting with each other and the class as a whole. And the Tinker won't ever be able to build any of the Engineering toys unless he learns the profession.


Neither can do what the other would. The overlap is in theme, but that by itself isn't enough to scupper the class concept. One could make the argument that a Tinker should be able to build these toys without the profession. And one can counter it by pointing out that 1)Enchancting and Mages are in the same boat 2) You seriously lack imagination if you can't thhink of a backstory that would explain this discrepancy 3) Gameplay over lore so even if you can't come up with a reason the gameplay value of a unique Tinker class outweighs the minor lore issues of why can the little tyke not build this toy? and 4) this is not an issue any games designer would ever worry about - one is a class, the other a profession and that in itself provides a major differentiation.


Either way, the point that you can show that Tinker abilities and Engineerign abilities are "similar" if we get rid of everything that makes them different is noted, is technically correct and yet somehow I feel that it is still the case that you just don't get it. Those little attributes you want me to ignore are important.

Every single ability of the "official" tinker of this thread bears very strong resemblance to existing engineering stuff or "toy" items that are already in the game.

Claw Pack is not an item currently in game. Nor is anything like it.
The pocket factory is not in game. The closest item we have is the Town-in-a-Box. Not available to players.
The robo-Goblin is not in game. Nor is there anything remotely similar available to the players.
The closest we have to Cluster Rockets are fireworks or missiles.


And even were you correct, the simpe, fact is that a Tinker abilities would belong to a class...and thus have the same interaction with class resources and other abilitiess and would be tuned into treu lastign vaiability.


The two aspects complement each other. They are not mutually exclusive.

Given ghostcrawler straight up said he thought it didn't fit

That was the Bard. He essentially said the Tinker risked being too whimsical if the design wasn't handled correctly but that he considered it possible someone coulf come up with a knock out take on it. In short - you'd ned to design a Tinker class or any Tech class as a serious undertaking, and not treat it as the source of humour and jest a lot of tech (not all, but a lot) has ben subjected to. If it was whimsical (always a danger) then it'd have been done wrong.

Emerald Flame, Breath of Ysera and Dreamer's Touch. Kalec's Wisdom, Power Sparks, and Azure Storm. Wyrm Strike, Elemental Breath, Dragon Tail, Wings of the Aspects. Leap Attack, Power Surge, Spineshatter could all be Dragoon-based attacks.


Mechanics-wise, they can all be generic spells. Aesthetically, they are all Draconic themed.

Yes...and that's all gameplay. Taht's the easy part.

Of course the class they talk about in that RPG is sworn only to one Dragonflight, and designed for pen and paper, but the core concept is there.

The core concept essentially describes a faction.


What you are talking about is a mortal who isn't a Dragon but who wields the powers of the Dragonflights. How do you square that when you realise that the power of the Dragonflights is largely in the hands of mortal already? What makes the Dragons special is their greater Mastery through age and experience, their bodies and spirtual essence which are stronger, etc and ther Blessing they reieved from the Titans.


A Dragonsworn who learns from the Blues how to manipulate the arcane is a Mage. He might have different spell selection...but he is a Mage.
A Dragonsworn who learns from the Greens how to manipulate the magic of Nature and to protect the Emerald Dream..is a Druid.
A Dragonsworn who learns from the Bronzes how to manipulate the magic of Time...is a Mage. A Dragonsworn who learns from the Bronzes to protect the Timeways...is a member of the Timewalker faction and a member of an existing class.

What is the difference between this class and Mages and Druids? Everything, considering Dragonsworn would be using fighting tactics and abilities derived from their Draconic training, rather than what they were formally taught before. This is what makes a Dragonsworn. I've listed many abilities above in this post, and you can easily see none of them are Mage or Druid abilities.

You've listed a lot of abilities that would be arcane/time/druid based and therefore within the realm of existing classes. And are gampelay and so don't get around the existing problems with thematic crossover. It's lesser, it's indirect but it is still there. Blues deal with the Arcane...Mages. Bronzes deal with Time..Mages and Timewlakers. Greens deal with Nature and the Emerald Dream...Druids.


Again, there are stories that could diminish those links in some way, and indirect of this sort are always easier to work around. But woudl a Dragonsworn not work to protect the Timeways? Would he not seek to aid the Emerald Dream?


Dragonsworn would work as a faction, just as Timewalkers appear to be. Then, you could be a member of the faction, learn their secrets and some abilities. Join the Timewalkers and if you get Exalted, you can learn to enter the portal to whenever. Join the Dragonsworn and you learn to do secret move A, B and C. And so on.


Dragons would work as a race. That is, after all, what they are.


But a Dragon themed class would - to many - be a player who for soem reason is able to wield the power of the Dragons. Skyrims Dragonborn would probably be an ideal model here. Your player is simply a being who has the blood of Dragons running through his veins. He isn't trained as any particular class, doesn't hold to any particular ideal, isn't sworn to any particular Flight and his levelling experience is him gaining a mastery of his powers; he simply shows an uncanny ability to mimic Dragon abilities and spells. But even that class idea has issues in that there probably isn't going to be a lot of Horde represnetation.

Isn't that your entire argument for Mages and Druids tapping into the same sources as Dragons?

No...it isn't.

Now look at all the responses. Does it look like everyone agrees there's overlap? Does it look like the answer is clear?

There were perhaps 2 out of all those whose tweets indicated that Design Space wasn't a major issue...because gameplay could be adjusted. If only it were that simple.

The problem is simple...as Blizzard has developed the Demon Hunter, it has morphed into a class that is effectively a Meleeing Warlock who dual wields. Give Netherkurse a second weapon and you have a traditional DH. It's not that Blizzard can't create a DH class...it's that it'd be adding to the game what already exists.

It's a twitter post humoring a fan concept, yet was still met with the same skepticism as its predecessors. Lets get facts straight - Lucca from CT is about as far removed from Gazlowe as you can get. What he suggested was a Chrono-Trigger Steampunk design, which is not replicated at all in WoW's Goblin Tinker. It would be like saying 'Yeah, Demon Hunters would work - if we used Diablo 3's design'. That's not the same as the WoW version of the class. It's a new concept entirely.

They'd both be tech based and tech using classes. About the one aspect that might be missed would be the ClawPack. Blizzard could work around that loss. But then, I'm not married to Teriz's idea that WC3 moves and abilities are important. There are very few that Blizzard couldn't do away with with little problem because most of them simply don't have the same iconic status as meta. There are advantages to using them as it unifies a gameworld, but they're skippable. If a DH class could survive losing Meta, a Tinker can survive without the CP.

EJL

[Thimagryn]

What you are talking about is a mortal who isn't a Dragon but who wields the powers of the Dragonflights. How do you square that when you realise that the power of the Dragonflights is largely in the hands of mortal already? What makes the Dragons special is their greater Mastery through age and experience, their bodies and spirtual essence which are stronger, etc and ther Blessing they reieved from the Titans.

And what you are gaining is training based on all that age and experience. What you're being blessed with is a part of the essence that was in part given to them by the Titans. They are an inverse of Death Knights, who were 'cursed' with powers of Darkness, yet they are no different in being originally described as a 'Faction' of adventurers who all became unwilling champions of the Scourge. Here, a choices was given, and the player character was blessed with powers.

Yet that is all one example. The Dragon Blessing is not a necessity, and it could be just as easily explained as powers derived purely through knowledge and training. The Dragons have ancient knowledge that many mortals do not yet grasp, and because of that knowledge they are able to perform feats that mortals are not yet able to. The Dragonsworn class would be the closest thing to unlocking those powers, yet would not outright be a Dragon or Aspect himself.

Korialstrasz was able to breathe life into Anveena, shaping the energy of the Sunwell into a human form. Chromie and all the Bronze drakes can jump in and out of different points in time. Deathwing was able to change the very landscape itself just from waking from slumber. The Dragonsworn class could have abilities themed on all of this, derived from the knowledge of the dragons. Could other classes mimic this using their own abilities? Sure they can! And what's the problem there?

A Dragonsworn who learns from the Blues how to manipulate the arcane is a Mage. He might have different spell selection...but he is a Mage.
A Dragonsworn who learns from the Greens how to manipulate the magic of Nature and to protect the Emerald Dream..is a Druid.
A Dragonsworn who learns from the Bronzes how to manipulate the magic of Time...is a Mage. A Dragonsworn who learns from the Bronzes to protect the Timeways...is a member of the Timewalker faction and a member of an existing class.

You're ignoring the class concept and making into a faction of Mages and Druids, then pointing out that it makes no sense as a class.

Would be no different if I said Warlocks are a faction of Mages in a secret society. It's taking the core class concept into a broad generalization, and a tangent of what the identity really is.

You've listed a lot of abilities that would be arcane/time/druid based and therefore within the realm of existing classes. And are gampelay and so don't get around the existing problems with thematic crossover. It's lesser, it's indirect but it is still there. Blues deal with the Arcane...Mages. Bronzes deal with Time..Mages and Timewlakers. Greens deal with Nature and the Emerald Dream...Druids.

It's all connected because it all derives back to the Titans. Arcane Magic was provided by the Well of Eternity. Nature magic was provided by Eonar, blessing the world with life, just as she gifted the Red and Green dragons over that very same power. Yet it's all branched off from there, and Mages and Druids have specialized in their own forms, while Dragonsworn combines it all into one as the 'Power of Creation'. They would be more akin to Shaman, who wield all 4 elements instead of just one or two as Mages do. The difference is the Dragonsworn would be able to combine these abilities in new ways. We've seen druids control plant life, but what if a Dragonsworn creates plantlife through... fire? What if he creates sentient energy that seeks out enemies? This is the kind of unique hook that the Dragons of Warcraft have.

Again, there are stories that could diminish those links in some way, and indirect of this sort are always easier to work around. But woudl a Dragonsworn not work to protect the Timeways? Would he not seek to aid the Emerald Dream?

Depends on the story involved. If they remained loyal to the Alliance and Horde, they are simply using their powers to champion their original factions. Their autonomy could be their final gift from the Dragons, and we see them as special agents that the Dragonflights trust to protect the world. Just as the Council of Tirisfal entrusted the Guardian to safeguard the world, which worked well all up until Medivh's corruption.

Dragonsworn would work as a faction, just as Timewalkers appear to be. Then, you could be a member of the faction, learn their secrets and some abilities. Join the Timewalkers and if you get Exalted, you can learn to enter the portal to whenever. Join the Dragonsworn and you learn to do secret move A, B and C. And so on.

Again, you're making a complete side tangent. I could say Death Knights worked being kept separate as the Knights of the Ebon Blade. But it remains that we have playable Death Knights in Alliance and Horde. Please elaborate why this is an exception to the rule.

[Raiju]

That was the Bard. He essentially said the Tinker risked being too whimsical if the design wasn't handled correctly but that he considered it possible someone coulf come up with a knock out take on it. In short - you'd ned to design a Tinker class or any Tech class as a serious undertaking, and not treat it as the source of humour and jest a lot of tech (not all, but a lot) has ben subjected to. If it was whimsical (always a danger) then it'd have been done wrong.

too whimsical is synonymous with doesn't fit. Stop trying to dance around that.

I would love an artificer-esque class, or similar to the engineer class in aion. That is a serious tech class and ticks all of teriz' boxes while also being a 'serious' tinker. The problem for WC tinker fans is its not a tinker at all, the only point of comparison is they both use technology.

And that's EXACTLY what people dislike when people suggest the diablo demon hunter as a class, because it's using a name that in wow means a very different thing, and effectively bastardizing it by being something different.

And yes, having completely different things be called death knights is stupid too.

[Rhamses]

too whimsical is synonymous with doesn't fit. Stop trying to dance around that.

GC said might be too whimsical. Stop trying to dance around that.

I would love an artificer-esque class, or similar to the engineer class in aion. That is a serious tech class and ticks all of teriz' boxes while also being a 'serious' tinker. The problem for WC tinker fans is its not a tinker at all, the only point of comparison is they both use technology.

A serious technology class isn't necessary. In fact, I think I'd prefer a more light-hearted take on technology, which is why I find the WC3 Tinker so appealing. If Blizzard did go with something more serious, I'd be perfectly fine with it. However, the Goblin and Gnomish tech is light-hearted by nature, and I would be surprised if they didn't use that as the basis for a tech class.

Besides, we have DKs, Rogues, and Warlocks. That's more than enough "dark" classes.

[Ielenia]

So far, the Titan theme is being explored via the Titanic races...Gnomes, Dwarves, Humans, Vrykul and Mogu.

Dwarves are not titanic races. Get it through your head.

You are trying to prove that Engineers and Tinkers are the same? You don't need to. WHile Blizzard doesn't have to write them or introduce them that way,

They have to. If a tinker is not distinguised from engineers AT ALL, then the class cannot exist. It's design 101. Get the concept and theme sufficiently diferentiated from everything else in the game enough to make it feel unique. So far, the only 'unique' thing about the tinker is the name.

The pocket factory is not in game. The closest item we have is the Town-in-a-Box. Not available to players.

Goblin Bomb Dispenser. Does the exact same thing: dispenses walking bombs that head in the direction of your target and explode.

The robo-Goblin is not in game. Nor is there anything remotely similar available to the players.

If by 'robo-goblin' you mean its tank form, you have the Sky Golem. If by robo-goblin you mean the walking bombs made by pocket factory... there's the GBD above, and the explosive sheep.

And even were you correct, the simpe, fact is that a Tinker abilities would belong to a class...and thus have the same interaction with class resources and other abilitiess and would be tuned into treu lastign vaiability.

Which is meaningless. It doesn't matter if they have 'the same interaction with class resources' or not. A class not distinguished in lore, concept and theme from everything else available for the players is unable to exist.

He essentially said the Tinker risked being too whimsical if the design wasn't handled correctly but that he considered it possible someone coulf come up with a knock out take on it. In short - you'd ned to design a Tinker class or any Tech class as a serious undertaking, and not treat it as the source of humour and jest a lot of tech (not all, but a lot) has ben subjected to. If it was whimsical (always a danger) then it'd have been done wrong.

And the 'claw pack' and 'pocket factory', despite being iconic to the WC3 tinker, are exactly that: source of humor and silliness.

A Dragonsworn who learns from the Blues how to manipulate the arcane is a Mage. He might have different spell selection...but he is a Mage. - No, he isn't. If differentiated in lore and in gameplay, he won't be a mage.
A Dragonsworn who learns from the Greens how to manipulate the magic of Nature and to protect the Emerald Dream..is a Druid. - Except they don't have to protect the emerald dream.
A Dragonsworn who learns from the Bronzes how to manipulate the magic of Time...is a Mage. A Dragonsworn who learns from the Bronzes to protect the - No, no they are not. 'Time' is not a big part of the mage's repertoire to be called 'part of its theme.'

And just to add: a Dragonsworn of the Red Dragonflight would be a healer whose entire healing spec is about fire. Or Dragonfire, if you will.

Dragons would work as a race. That is, after all, what they are.

Dragons are a race, yes. But Dragonsworns can be a class.

There were perhaps 2 out of all those whose tweets indicated that Design Space wasn't a major issue...because gameplay could be adjusted. If only it were that simple.

Adjusting gameplay is an issue... yet finding a distinction in lore between engineers and tinkers (something none of you managed to do) is a 'no-brainer' for Blizzard? Heh.