And you know this how exactly? Because you personally view the Tinker concept as "silly"?
I never said that your stats were wrong, I'm saying that you don't know how Blizzard interpreted those stats. For all we know, they may view a new race with 3-5% of the population playing it as a success. Again, unless you have a statement from Blizzard saying that the Pandaren were a failure, you're just stating meaningless conjecture.Are you really one of those people who won't accept a statistical reality until some arbitrary power-holder spells it out for you? A statistic doesn't lie -- it may mislead, it may prompt misdiagnosis, but it doesn't lie.
And again, simply because YOU view something as silly doesn't mean that it is universally viewed as silly.As I've repeatedly stated, simply existing doesn't make something not silly. There's stories about Carebears and Power Rangers, Dora the Explorer and Captain Underpants -- they exist, they're shown. They're also crazy and outlandish.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying that before MoP most people viewed a "monk" in WoW as something more akin to the Auchenai Monk, or the Scarlet Monk. The introduction of the Pandaren-based Monk caught a lot of people off guard, and as I stated, there were WoW players who weren't aware of the old Pandaren Brewmaster hero it was largely based on.So let me get this straight.
You're going to try and tell me, the world and God that the Monk implemented in World of Warcraft (c. September 2012) was the original incarnation of Monk, and the "Monk" from WC3 (c. July 2002) drew it's inspiration from the former? I just want this on record.
(Note: You think that the WC3 Brewmaster (which was a Pandaren) was completely, undeniably, separate from the Brewmaster Monk of WoW, which launched alongside Pandaren? Color me shocked.)
Then you admit that you were wrong when you stated this earlier;It is. The fact that this was your response that what I said shows me that either a) you're not actually reading what I'm writing or b) you're reading it, but don't understand basic concepts.
You seriously have no meaningful argument against the Tinker class.I won't even address this because it's been addressed above, twice. If you can't grasp it, you can't be reached.
Your argument that they'd be too big is ridiculous because Blizzard could simply make them a desirable size. I say Tauren or Draenei size works just fine. Your response? Nothing.
Your argument that they'd be "too flashy" makes no sense because there's multiple iterations of technology abilities and none of them are flashy.
Your argument that they'd be "too outlandish/fantastical" is stupid because technology is a fairly common theme in WoW, and it's not out of the ordinary to see a Goblin or Gnome pilot a mech.
Your argument that they'd be "too silly" is simply your personal opinion, and pretty much meaningless.
Did I miss anything?
Where did I say they were guaranteed? I said that there's a higher chance for something to be implemented if it already exists in the game world. Certainly there's a chance that if a Tinker class is implemented, it would resemble the old WC3 iteration, but that's doubtful because no iteration of Tinker in WoW has displayed the mechanical back-pack set up.We're clearly not on the same page, in terms of fluid intelligence.
The absence of something from the game, provided it exists within the story/franchise, is absolutely meaningless -- and, for the most part, so is it's presence. There weren't any Blood Elf models before 2007, meant little to nothing insofar as what can/will be added -- conversely, they've remade Vrykul models several times and yet that's absolutely not a guarantee that we'll be seeing playable Vrykul.
Neither position is relevant to what I posited, namely that we see Tinkers in FM-style not because that's guaranteed or likely to be how they'd be presented as a class, but because the assets already existed (and, therefore, take no work to create). It doesn't mean anything, there is no underlaying purpose, it's business.
Additionally, if we're concerned about something looking silly, the mechanical backpack iteration looks far sillier than the full mech iteration.
FYI: The model is from 2013. Please try harder.Yes, using a retextured model from 2004.
Again, where did I say there was a "guarantee"? I said they're more likely to use the FM iteration because its actually been shown in the game world.You're not grasping that Blizzard choosing to utilize the existing FM-style in-game is primarily a business decision, and should in no way be taken to mean that all Tinkers are guaranteed to use the FM-style nor should it be taken to mean that efficiency is the only reason they've done it (i.e. nor should it suggest that PM-style is guaranteed, because it's not).
As for your "ease of development" argument, if they're goal was to do as little as possible in regards to Gelbin, why would you go through all the trouble of designing a mech suit for him? You do know that it costs Blizzard money to hire artists to design stuff right? Why not simply show him riding a mechanostrider as usual, since Gelbin has never been portrayed riding a humanoid mech.
There's no hidden meaning, just a company using as little time as possible designing things that they're not currently ready/willing/able/interested in implementing.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that for sure. Again we have you pushing your opinion as a fact.
You've clearly never heard of proof of concept.And then you follow it up with, "they're in the game, look at them, let's be just like them".
Why would it have to be either or? Why must the size be either gigantic or the size of a human? What's wrong with it simply being the size of a full-armored Tauren/Draenei?You can't make a point and then contradict it continually, either they'll be as they are in-game (enormous, 18' robogods) or they won't be like that at all (more humanoid in size). My contention is the latter, as yours sometimes seems to be.
"Fantastical" doesn't work either, since technology is all over the game world. You even have two races that live in futuristic cities, and one alien race that arrived on an inter-dimensional spaceship.Then fantastical is a better descriptor. It doesn't sit easy with people who're trying to play a game intended to be set in a fantasy setting -- the same reason Legion has gotten gripe for all the spaceships.
If you have issues with technology in a high-fantasy setting, you're playing the wrong game. Technology is a consistent and widespread theme in the game itself. It's always been that way.
Again, who exactly is advocating for a Tinker to be utilizing excessive flashiness or size? Saying that the mech should be the size of a fully armored Tauren or Draenei, and possessing abilities that aren't uncommon to the Tinker concept (guns, flamethrowers, charges, lasers, turrets, etc.) is in no way excessive and brings it in line with other classes.I wouldn't call it an issue, because I recognize that Blizzard wouldn't ever implement it with excessive flashiness or size.
The same way I didn't expect that DK's would be able to have 1,000 pets and be able to 1v50 other players (despite this being fairly accurate, in terms of the story).