Another Class idea: Tinkerer

[Teriz]

Which is what I'm saying: their technology is jewelcrafting. And as for the guns, you can easily chalk it up to Blizzard not wanting to make a new gun model exclusively to those NPCs, too.

Well that's fine. However the point is that you're just now acknowledging the fact that its technology instead of your usual "it's magic" excuse.

It's still irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? There's more bows in the game than guns, and the majority of Hunter icons are arrows. That should tell you something.

It's not personal opinion. It's what the facts tell us that I mentioned before. There is a reason why no class has stuff on their backs on a permanent basis. And even when they do, it's small and temporary, lasting a short time.

The reason is because no class needed to have anything on their backs. A mechanical device on the back of one class wouldn't have any negative impact on gameplay at all.

[Ielenia]

Well that's fine. However the point is that you're just now acknowledging the fact that its technology instead of your usual "it's magic" excuse.

I still support that the Draenei's technology is still much more like "it's magic" than "nuts'n'bolts".

How is it irrelevant? There's more bows in the game than guns, and the majority of Hunter icons are arrows. That should tell you something.

It's still irrelevant because it doesn't matter if there are more arrows than bullets. I really don't see how it affects anything.

The reason is because no class needed to have anything on their backs. A mechanical device on the back of one class wouldn't have any negative impact on gameplay at all.

A monk didn't need a barrel of beer on their back? A hunter didn't need a quiver on their back? Just as much, a tech class does not need a clunky mechanical backpack on their back.

[Supertoster]

Prepare for awesome mad paint skillz!
Thats how a backpack can look on a model.....mmm...schematically)

[Teriz]

It's still irrelevant because it doesn't matter if there are more arrows than bullets. I really don't see how it affects anything.

Because it shows that the Hunter class is more enchanted/magic/trick arrow-based than some pseudo-tech class you're trying to portray it to be.

A monk didn't need a barrel of beer on their back? A hunter didn't need a quiver on their back? Just as much, a tech class does not need a clunky mechanical backpack on their back.

Interesting you say that. Blizzard is currently working to bring back Hunter quivers. In case you had forgotten, Hunters used to have quivers on their backs.





So there goes that argument.

[Ielenia]

Because it shows that the Hunter class is more enchanted/magic/trick arrow-based than some pseudo-tech class you're trying to portray it to be.

It doesn't show anything, really. Just like a bullet can be hollow to contain a flamable oil, the arrowhead can also be hollow and contain the flamable oil. I see no real correlation that indicates hunters are magic-inclined because the combined numbers of bows+crossbows surpass the number of guns.

Interesting you say that. Blizzard is currently working to bring back Hunter quivers. In case you had forgotten, Hunters used to have quivers on their backs.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FGWESNt.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.zam.com/Im/Image/254579.jpg[img]
So there goes that argument.

Just like we were promised new dances and new hairstyles for Wrath, a whole new 'Path of Titans' progression for Cataclysm, and the aforementioned quivers that you showed which haven't been mentioned at all past WoD announcement almost two years ago. Never mentioned during Beta, and never mentioned again. I wouldn't be saying Blizzard is 'currently working' on that, since we haven't heard anything about it for almost two years.

[Supertoster]

It doesn't show anything, really. Just like a bullet can be hollow to contain a flamable oil, the arrowhead can also be hollow and contain the flamable oil. I see no real correlation that indicates hunters are magic-inclined because the combined numbers of bows+crossbows surpass the number of guns.


Just like we were promised new dances and new hairstyles for Wrath, a whole new 'Path of Titans' progression for Cataclysm, and the aforementioned quivers that you showed which haven't been mentioned at all past WoD announcement almost two years ago. Never mentioned during Beta, and never mentioned again. I wouldn't be saying Blizzard is 'currently working' on that, since we haven't heard anything about it for almost two years.

No news=/=no work. If there is no official news of the cancellation of work on feature - this feature still exist somewhere in dev`s pipeline. Thats how gamedev works.

[Teriz]

It doesn't show anything, really. Just like a bullet can be hollow to contain a flamable oil, the arrowhead can also be hollow and contain the flamable oil. I see no real correlation that indicates hunters are magic-inclined because the combined numbers of bows+crossbows surpass the number of guns.

Or because it fits the archetype. Or because the hunter icons are almost all arrows and not bullets. Because several of the Hunter's abilities are in fact magical...

Yeah, let's ignore the facts and simply dwell further and further into your head canon.

Just like we were promised new dances and new hairstyles for Wrath, a whole new 'Path of Titans' progression for Cataclysm, and the aforementioned quivers that you showed which haven't been mentioned at all past WoD announcement almost two years ago. Never mentioned during Beta, and never mentioned again. I wouldn't be saying Blizzard is 'currently working' on that, since we haven't heard anything about it for almost two years.

Actually it was less than a year ago;

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/141...ries-5-20-2014

So its still on the way.

[Thimagryn]

Not really, because an undead warrior does not have the power of the deathknights. He can't reanimate dead and conjure unholy energy. It's just an undead without unholy power.

Right, and a Hunter and DK are not Dark Rangers. Dark Ranger is a title granted specifically for that class. It doesn't matter if Hunters and DK's can be similar to Dark Rangers, it doesn't mean they're Dark Rangers.

Dark rangers are once banshee, so we can assume that they have banshee powers :
-charm (DR) is an upgrade of possession (Banshee), control undead (DK) is a form of charm
-black arrow (DR) is a curse on an arrow, silence (DR) is a curse, and who has curse? That's right! banshee has curse! strangulate (DK) may not be a curse per se, but works much like a curse.
-life drain (DR) = death syphon (DK)
-anti magic shell (banshee) = AMS (DK)
Therefore, DK = undead warrior empowered by liches (frost), banshee+necromancer (unholy). Now that he has banshee powers, he only need to be able to curse and carry a bow.

Charm works on the living as much as the dead. Life Drain is not on the DK. Black Arrow is not on the DK, nor is there any analog to it. Army of the Dead is quite a different spell, based on Reanimate Dead. Finally there's the entire lore thing which you're completely ignoring.

The point is, a Dark Ranger is a title used for a specific type of character, one that is not playable. You can create analogs like you did for any WC3 hero, but it doesn't actually make a Death Knight a 'Lich' or a 'Dreadlord' for having Frost and Blood magic. You need to have a phylactery to be a Lich, you need to be a Nathrezim to be a Dreadlord. Furthermore, when you play Frost or Blood specs, do you believe you are playing a Lich or a Dreadlord? No, because you know you're playing a specialized Death Knight who simply has some abilities of other heroes. You're still a Death Knight, and your identity hasn't changed at all from that.

Would you call Sylvanas a Death Knight?

[Ielenia]

Or because it fits the archetype. Or because the hunter icons are almost all arrows and not bullets. Because several of the Hunter's abilities are in fact magical...
Yeah, let's ignore the facts and simply dwell further and further into your head canon.

You are the one saying that just because it deals elemental damage it must be magical. Especially when the tooltip doesn't even mention 'magic' at all.

Actually it was less than a year ago;
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/141...ries-5-20-2014
So its still on the way.

'Path of Titans' was announced around the last quarter of December 2009, with screencaps of the feature shown. On October of the next year, Cataclysm launched without it. They haven't given us a single update on those quivers now for a long time. If they are still working on it, most likely has been pushed to the next expansion, or more likely scrapped like the new dances/hairstyles/path of titans.

[Teriz]

'Path of Titans' was announced around the last quarter of December 2009, with screencaps of the feature shown. On October of the next year, Cataclysm launched without it.

You do realize that all of that is irrelevant right? The very fact that they are planning this shows that they have no issue with stuff on the character's backs, contradicting your argument entirely.

Also Path of Titans was announced to be cancelled before Cataclysm released. This feature has not been.

They haven't given us a single update on those quivers now for a long time. If they are still working on it, most likely has been pushed to the next expansion, or more likely scrapped like the new dances/hairstyles/path of titans.

They said that it wouldn't be available until well after WoD's launch. Since WoD has only been out for 2 months, its a bit early to say that they've completely given up on the project don't you think?

[Ielenia]

You do realize that all of that is irrelevant right? The very fact that they are planning this shows that they have no issue with stuff on the character's backs, contradicting your argument entirely.

Also Path of Titans was announced to be cancelled before Cataclysm released. This feature has not been.

Or maybe then they realized their mistake and stopped talking about it, hoping people forget about it? It could be.

They said that it wouldn't be available until well after WoD's launch. Since WoD has only been out for 2 months, its a bit early to say that they've completely given up on the project don't you think?

What happened with the announced 'new dances' for the characters? They were never announced to be scrapped. The devs just allowed it ot fade into obscurity, only commenting on them when someone finally decided to ask about them, almost year after Wrath launched.

[Teriz]

Or maybe then they realized their mistake and stopped talking about it, hoping people forget about it? It could be.

More likely it's arriving in a subsequent WoD patch, as indicated in the article....

The point is, characters can have class-specific things on their back.

[BedlamBros]

'Path of Titans' was announced around the last quarter of December 2009, with screencaps of the feature shown. On October of the next year, Cataclysm launched without it. They haven't given us a single update on those quivers now for a long time. If they are still working on it, most likely has been pushed to the next expansion, or more likely scrapped like the new dances/hairstyles/path of titans.

LoL! That has to be one of the worst counter-arguments ever. The fact that you got the date of the announcement wrong just makes your argument worse.

[Ielenia]

LoL! That has to be one of the worst counter-arguments ever. The fact that you got the date of the announcement wrong just makes your argument worse.

I don't see how me getting the announcement date wrong invalidates the whole argument, in all honesty. But if you'd like to correct me, go ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

More likely it's arriving in a subsequent WoD patch, as indicated in the article....

The point is, characters can have class-specific things on their back.

And next you're going to compare the size and weight of a quiver to a huge machine, and somehow come to the conclusion that both weight the same?

[BedlamBros]

I don't see how me getting the announcement date wrong invalidates the whole argument, in all honesty. But if you'd like to correct me, go ahead.

Your argument is invalid because its dumb.

Your argument: You can't have things on your back.

Blizzard announces stuff you can place on your back.

Your argument: Blizzard doesn't release everything it announces.

You really don't see how dumb that argument is?

[Ielenia]

Your argument is invalid because its dumb.

Your argument: You can't have things on your back.

Blizzard announces stuff you can place on your back.

Your argument: Blizzard doesn't release everything it announces.

You really don't see how dumb that argument is?

So, because you can't counter the last part, that Blizzard don't release everything they announce... my argument is dumb?

Also, it kind of strengthen the idea that classes cannot have clutter on the characters' backs: so it has room for such stuff that you can use on your back such as vanity items, and those achievement-related quivers/librams/etc that they announced they may implement.

[Teriz]

And next you're going to compare the size and weight of a quiver to a huge machine, and somehow come to the conclusion that both weight the same?

Yeah, that's pretty irrelevant as well.

Your entire argument was that Blizzard would never allow a non-weapon or non-cape on the back of a character because of "reasons". That's been proven utterly false.

[BedlamBros]

So, because you can't counter the last part, that Blizzard never release everything they announce... my argument is dumb?

Your argument is dumb because a.The fact that they announced it at all counters your entire argument. b.You don't know if its been cancelled or not. You HOPE its been cancelled. c. We used to have quivers in WoW, so your argument was countered before any of this anyway.

Also, it kind of strengthen the idea that classes cannot have clutter on the characters' backs: so it has room for such stuff that you can use on your back such as vanity items, and those achievement-related quivers/librams/etc that they announced they may implement.

Class-specific stuff. A Tinker could have a bag on his/her side, or a utility belt, along with the mecha arms.

[Teriz]

Class-specific stuff. A Tinker could have a bag on his/her side, or a utility belt, along with the mecha arms.

Yeah, every class isn't going to have stuff on their back. Another fail for Ielenia.

Utility belt would be awesome btw.

[Ielenia]

Your entire argument was that Blizzard would never allow a non-weapon or non-cape on the back of a character because of "reasons". That's been proven utterly false.

It hasn't. Blizzard has simply put forth the idea of more cosmetic customization, which, again, would require a character's back to be unobstructed.

- - - Updated - - -

Your argument is dumb because a.The fact that they announced it at all counters your entire argument. b.You don't know if its been cancelled or not. You HOPE its been cancelled. c. We used to have quivers in WoW, so your argument was countered before any of this anyway.

a) doesn't counter at all. If anything, only makes the argument stronger; b) never claimed it was canceled. I just pointed out it hasn't been talked about again ever since, so there's a great chance that, like 'new dances', it could have faded into obscurity; c) we don't anymore, right? If I'm not mistaken, it was around the same time Blizzard started putting forth vanity items that spawned an object on your character's back, right?