Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[Skulltaker]

Tinkers are good at fighting void and/or death because they focus on mechanical stuff that cant be corrupted or die.

Yes, fancy armour wil definitly protect the fleshy person inside from corruption. That's how it works.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

Yes, fancy armour wil definitly protect the fleshy person inside from corruption. That's how it works.

With all due respect, use your brain, or are you corrupted aswell?

They would possibly explain it with an azerite device made by Tinkers that causes immunity against their whispers.

"The last remaining sources of Azerite inside the Heart of Azeroth have been given into the smart hands of the Tinkers of Undermine, allowing them to build great devices we've never seen before to swap into the Shadowlands in a manifested form at will / block any Old God whispers to those who wield them."

Very hard to explain why we have Tinkers atm.

[Skulltaker]

With all due respect, use your brain, or are you corrupted aswell?

They would possibly explain it with an azerite device made by Tinkers that causes immunity against their whispers.

"The last remaining sources of Azerite inside the Heart of Azeroth have been given into the smart hands of the Tinkers of Undermine, allowing them to build great devices we've never seen before to swap into the Shadowlands in a manifested form at will / block any Old God whispers to those who wield them."

Very hard to explain why we have Tinkers atm.

Yeah, that's the kind of shitty writing that one would expect from Blizzard these days.

[Teriz]

BfA would have been the perfect expansion for the introduction of tinkers. It didn’t happen.

Considering that we're fighting two, (possibly three) Old Gods in this expansion, and Sylvanas was front and center throughout BFA (even on the promotional material) raising NE Dark Rangers, and having Nathanos venture around the map doing her dirty work, this expansion would actually have been the perfect time to introduce Dark Rangers or Necromancers. It didn't happen.

[meowfurion]

races for Tinker are most probably going to be:

Gnome, Goblin, Undead, Human, Orc, Dwarf

[Fetus Rex]

thats because alliance cry out loud for anything, and because they put then together with vulpera, tinker will be ok if they do it right.


dragonsworn yes, DR definitely not.

Isnt the exact reason people are so tired of reading about Tinkers on the Forums because they were so heavily demanded whenever there was a chances for a new class?

Definitely not flowing to it, nah.

I don't remember them being demanded.

I disagree. People love the furry stuff. And again, it isn't like there hasn't been popular examples of tech-saavy fox people in media before;

Even worse than girls.

much drama for barely nothing.

Next combo could be very well a reskin for horde like light undeads and a new race for alliance.

I think AR selection matters. Sure it can but so far Alliance got shit.

[Syegfryed]

I think AR selection matters. Sure it can but so far Alliance got shit.

its the payment of getting your characters dead and losing another leader, if the alliance don't pay the price they don't get those kinda of stuff

[Teaon]

assuming tinkers get added in - which races get them ? especially Horde

I mean assuming its more than just goblins & gnomes

Horde

Goblin (obviously)

Mag'har (iron horde)

Bloodelves (they have some techs, like animas and stuff)

Undead (alchemists)

Alliance

Gnome (obviously)

Dwarves (they are techs too, gyrocopters and stuff)

Draenei (cutting edge techs and titan related)

MechaGnome (obviously)

Humans (could work easily? since they ride tanks and fly airships)

[Kumorii]

You damned elf fan! I know who me and Teriz are flamethrowing first in 22 days!

I said that DR isnt unique enough to stand on its own feet right now, since it would be a unholy MM deathhunter.

Which is true.

That's how they are presented as of yet ingame due to dark ranger class not existing. However, both lore and abilities differentiate hunters and Dark Rangers.
Hunters doesn't fulfill the need for a dark ranger class. People wouldn't ask for Dark Ranger class if Hunter were...

Telling others to play hunters is thus a stupid statement. You're other argument that they aren't unique enough to stand on it's own is frankly ALSO stupid statement. Due to fact that they ain't designed yet. We can claim Tinkers aren't unique because engineering exists, but the fact remains that they are as unique as they are designed to be. Same goes for ANY class to be introduced.

You could literally take any class we currently have and make a 2.0 version of it. Warrior 2.0, Priest 2.0 etc etc... They can be introduced and be UNIQUE with new gameplay design if you design them to be. They will clash and be redundant when it comes to aesthetics, you can't however say they won't be unique when it comes to abilities and gameplay.
Since the sole reason to add them would be to add a new spin and be unique compared to previous classes.

No class would EVER be introduced if it doesn't give anything unique with them. Which means that if Dark Rangers were to be added or if Tinkers would be added, or if Necromancers would be added, or if Shamans 2.0 would be added, they would bring unique gameplay with them. Simple as that.

Sounds to me that you think Hunters have covered literally every single base when it comes to a bow class when it comes to design, which shows your lack of imagination and interpretation of a weapon choice. We have multiple 1h users, 2h users, staves you name... all of them being shared among classes yet they are utilized differently.

Current Hunter doesn't play anything like what any of us have seen of Dark Rangers, which mostly stems from Sylvanas as the prime example. Only time they ever did was when they had black arrow, which got removed due to the fact it's horrible misplaced on the class.

I know Teriz used gazlowe from hots as an example of skills. Which is the same amount as Sylvanas. Tinker themselves don't have much abilities to stand on their own either. Most of tinkers abilities have to be CREATED and the class itself needs to be expanded on to make it a full blown class. Same goes for literally ANY other class that have ever been introduced and will be introduced in the future.
Monks are a great example of that, there wasn't much except few references to pandas and brewmaster from wc3... BOOM expanded upon into a full blown class with 3 specs and a expansion to boot.

Saying there isn't enough material atm is an argument in FAVOR of a class introduction, because that means you have some key component of the class that needs to be done right but then you have pretty much free range when it comes to design which makes it EASIER for them to be unique.
This argument is true for even Tinker. There isn't much for tinkers currently which means it's a very good class to introduce because you can truly bring something unique with them.

Can we please stop making the stupid assertions that "X class won't be unique" when the entire reason for ANY class to be unique is through how you've designed them to be. No future class have been created yet, thus we can't know if they are to be designed in a unique way or not. When blizzard design classes and heroes they go for gameplay first, if X abilitiy haven't been referenced earlier, they create it.

[Usernameforforums]

Considering that we're fighting two, (possibly three) Old Gods in this expansion, and Sylvanas was front and center throughout BFA (even on the promotional material) raising NE Dark Rangers, and having Nathanos venture around the map doing her dirty work, this expansion would actually have been the perfect time to introduce Dark Rangers or Necromancers. It didn't happen.

Mechagon and undermine(dungeon)

[Fetus Rex]

thats because alliance cry out loud for anything, and because they put then together with vulpera, tinker will be ok if they do it right.


dragonsworn yes, DR definitely not.

Isnt the exact reason people are so tired of reading about Tinkers on the Forums because they were so heavily demanded whenever there was a chances for a new class?

Definitely not flowing to it, nah.

I disagree. People love the furry stuff. And again, it isn't like there hasn't been popular examples of tech-saavy fox people in media before;

its the payment of getting your characters dead and losing another leader, if the alliance don't pay the price they don't get those kinda of stuff

It's just that Blizzard has shitty people in power. They are disconnected with playerbase or spend too much time in Goldshire.

[Life-Binder]

Horde

Goblin (obviously)

Mag'har (iron horde)

Bloodelves (they have some techs, like animas and stuff)

Undead (alchemists)

Alliance

Gnome (obviously)

Dwarves (they are techs too, gyrocopters and stuff)

Draenei (cutting edge techs and titan related)

MechaGnome (obviously)

Humans (could work easily? since they ride tanks and fly airships)

no Vulpera ?

[Teriz]

That's how they are presented as of yet ingame due to dark ranger class not existing. However, both lore and abilities differentiate hunters and Dark Rangers.
Hunters doesn't fulfill the need for a dark ranger class. People wouldn't ask for Dark Ranger class if Hunter were...

Telling others to play hunters is thus a stupid statement. You're other argument that they aren't unique enough to stand on it's own is frankly ALSO stupid statement. Due to fact that they ain't designed yet. We can claim Tinkers aren't unique because engineering exists, but the fact remains that they are as unique as they are designed to be. Same goes for ANY class to be introduced.

You could literally take any class we currently have and make a 2.0 version of it. Warrior 2.0, Priest 2.0 etc etc... They can be introduced and be UNIQUE with new gameplay design if you design them to be. They will clash and be redundant when it comes to aesthetics, you can't however say they won't be unique when it comes to abilities and gameplay.
Since the sole reason to add them would be to add a new spin and be unique compared to previous classes.

No class would EVER be introduced if it doesn't give anything unique with them. Which means that if Dark Rangers were to be added or if Tinkers would be added, or if Necromancers would be added, or if Shamans 2.0 would be added, they would bring unique gameplay with them. Simple as that.

Sounds to me that you think Hunters have covered literally every single base when it comes to a bow class when it comes to design, which shows your lack of imagination and interpretation of a weapon choice. We have multiple 1h users, 2h users, staves you name... all of them being shared among classes yet they are utilized differently.

Current Hunter doesn't play anything like what any of us have seen of Dark Rangers, which mostly stems from Sylvanas as the prime example. Only time they ever did was when they had black arrow, which got removed due to the fact it's horrible misplaced on the class.

I know Teriz used gazlowe from hots as an example of skills. Which is the same amount as Sylvanas. Tinker themselves don't have much abilities to stand on their own either. Most of tinkers abilities have to be CREATED and the class itself needs to be expanded on to make it a full blown class. Same goes for literally ANY other class that have ever been introduced and will be introduced in the future.
Monks are a great example of that, there wasn't much except few references to pandas and brewmaster from wc3... BOOM expanded upon into a full blown class with 3 specs and a expansion to boot.

Saying there isn't enough material atm is an argument in FAVOR of a class introduction, because that means you have some key component of the class that needs to be done right but then you have pretty much free range when it comes to design which makes it EASIER for them to be unique.
This argument is true for even Tinker. There isn't much for tinkers currently which means it's a very good class to introduce because you can truly bring something unique with them.

Can we please stop making the stupid assertions that "X class won't be unique" when the entire reason for ANY class to be unique is through how you've designed them to be. No future class have been created yet, thus we can't know if they are to be designed in a unique way or not. When blizzard design classes and heroes they go for gameplay first, if X abilitiy haven't been referenced earlier, they create it.

Let's be completely honest here; The Dark Ranger is essentially just an undead Ranger. That is literally the definition of a Dark Ranger in WoW. Thus, any Forsaken Hunter is essentially a Dark Ranger. That said, the DR is a possibility due to the popularity of Sylvanas and the strong desire of a new ranged class. However, it IS a fair argument to say that a Dark Ranger is covered by the Hunter class entirely, even without Black Arrow, because outside of Sylvanas, Dark Rangers as shown by WoW are just Hunters with Shadow-based arrow abilities. If all you need to cover a class concept is 1 or 2 basic abilities, then yes the class concept in question is shallower than a kiddie pool. I'd also be VERY surprised if Blizzard introduces yet another elf-based, shadow-based, 2 spec hero class into the game right after Demon Hunters.

Tinkers really have none of those limitations. You could make 4 Tinker specs and not even come close to themes or abilities of any existing classes. That is what makes the class so appealing to so many players. In addition, the WC3 abilities of the Tinker are untouched, and the HotS abilities are also untouched by existing classes, so the Tinker concept has FAR more abilities to work with than the Dark Ranger does. So while both classes have a chance to become a class in the next expansion, which one is better for the game? A rehash of an existing class that will struggle to create interesting and unique specs, or a wide open concept that isn't based on elves (for once) that can actually give us something NEW to play?

- - - Updated - - -

Mechagon and undermine(dungeon)

The Motherlode wasn't Undermine, just FYI.

And it's laughable that you're comparing a zone to Sylvanas being on the cover of the expansion and being the main focus of the expansion. Again, why not introduce Dark Rangers in an expansion where the 2 main characters (Sylvanas and Nathanos) are Dark Rangers, and where Sylvanas is creating new Dark Rangers?

[tyrlaan]

And it's laughable that you're comparing a zone to Sylvanas being on the cover of the expansion and being the main focus of the expansion. Again, why not introduce Dark Rangers in an expansion where the 2 main characters (Sylvanas and Nathanos) are Dark Rangers, and where Sylvanas is creating new Dark Rangers?

Because dark rangers are clearly horde only. Don't ask questions you know the answer to.

Maybe that will change next expansion (though I really don't want a dark ranger class so I don't really want to see this happen)

[Syegfryed]

I think AR selection matters. Sure it can but so far Alliance got shit.

its more like they treat wow fanbase as one, with no distinction of faction, and just shit on the game.

[Fetus Rex]

its more like they treat wow fanbase as one, with no distinction of faction, and just shit on the game.

I would agree if not the allied races and mounts for the Alliance in BFA. Awful.

[Usernameforforums]

Let's be completely honest here; The Dark Ranger is essentially just an undead Ranger. That is literally the definition of a Dark Ranger in WoW. Thus, any Forsaken Hunter is essentially a Dark Ranger. That said, the DR is a possibility due to the popularity of Sylvanas and the strong desire of a new ranged class. However, it IS a fair argument to say that a Dark Ranger is covered by the Hunter class entirely, even without Black Arrow, because outside of Sylvanas, Dark Rangers as shown by WoW are just Hunters with Shadow-based arrow abilities. If all you need to cover a class concept is 1 or 2 basic abilities, then yes the class concept in question is shallower than a kiddie pool. I'd also be VERY surprised if Blizzard introduces yet another elf-based, shadow-based, 2 spec hero class into the game right after Demon Hunters.

Tinkers really have none of those limitations. You could make 4 Tinker specs and not even come close to themes or abilities of any existing classes. That is what makes the class so appealing to so many players. In addition, the WC3 abilities of the Tinker are untouched, and the HotS abilities are also untouched by existing classes, so the Tinker concept has FAR more abilities to work with than the Dark Ranger does. So while both classes have a chance to become a class in the next expansion, which one is better for the game? A rehash of an existing class that will struggle to create interesting and unique specs, or a wide open concept that isn't based on elves (for once) that can actually give us something NEW to play?

- - - Updated - - -



The Motherlode wasn't Undermine, just FYI.

And it's laughable that you're comparing a zone to Sylvanas being on the cover of the expansion and being the main focus of the expansion. Again, why not introduce Dark Rangers in an expansion where the 2 main characters (Sylvanas and Nathanos) are Dark Rangers, and where Sylvanas is creating new Dark Rangers?

Simple question to answer. The reason why we didn’t get a new class this expansion is because of statistics. We have been getting a new class every other expansion since wotlk 100%. Every class has been tied to the expansions theme. I don’t see why you delusional people can’t see that. There’s a pattern. If we were talking about final fantasy 14 then I wouldn’t have even joined in this conversation. Why? Cuz they don’t have jobs(classes) ties to the theme of the expansion. The only exception is samurai with stormblood. But we are talking about WoW here so I digress. Why do you think tinker has the slightest chance of possibly even being considered for the next expansion with the current events of WoW. Sorry bro but you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment, it’s laughable.

Edit: my bad on my mistake on the motherlode.

[Kumorii]

Let's be completely honest here; The Dark Ranger is essentially just an undead Ranger. That is literally the definition of a Dark Ranger in WoW. Thus, any Forsaken Hunter is essentially a Dark Ranger. That said, the DR is a possibility due to the popularity of Sylvanas and the strong desire of a new ranged class. However, it IS a fair argument to say that a Dark Ranger is covered by the Hunter class entirely, even without Black Arrow, because outside of Sylvanas, Dark Rangers as shown by WoW are just Hunters with Shadow-based arrow abilities. If all you need to cover a class concept is 1 or 2 basic abilities, then yes the class concept in question is shallower than a kiddie pool. I'd also be VERY surprised if Blizzard introduces yet another elf-based, shadow-based, 2 spec hero class into the game right after Demon Hunters.

Tinkers really have none of those limitations. You could make 4 Tinker specs and not even come close to themes or abilities of any existing classes. That is what makes the class so appealing to so many players. In addition, the WC3 abilities of the Tinker are untouched, and the HotS abilities are also untouched by existing classes, so the Tinker concept has FAR more abilities to work with than the Dark Ranger does. So while both classes have a chance to become a class in the next expansion, which one is better for the game? A rehash of an existing class that will struggle to create interesting and unique specs, or a wide open concept that isn't based on elves (for once) that can actually give us something NEW to play?

*facepalm*

Why are you tinker fans so hellbent on being insufferable and obnoxious tools who tell others what they should enjoy and not.
No Hunter doesn't cover Dark Ranger because Hunters have 0 abilities that are associated with Dark Rangers.

Engineering is covering your Tinker needs. Guess we are back to kindergarten arguments as you've demonstrated in earlier discussions. As well as in your reply that's filled with assumptions and misconstrued versions of my arguments.

[tyrlaan]

*facepalm*

Why are you tinker fans so hellbent on being insufferable and obnoxious tools who tell others what others should enjoy and not.
No Hunter doesn't cover Dark Ranger because Hunters have 0 abilities that are associated with Dark Rangers.

I feel like the bolded section would be more accurate if you went with a singular instead of plural

[Russo]

I hope they announce Dark Ranger as a New Class, it will be So damn good, creating my human male dark ranger with new hair style and custimaztion options in order to create my own Natnahos Brightcaller.