Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[Teriz]

Because it's a found pattern that lacks any bearing. Because the game has changed so much from what was present in Warcraft 3 that holding onto it as a basis instead of following the narrative and/or needs of the game would be silly.

We may as well say that if a hero class is to be added to the game the class name has to start with the letter "D".

How does it lack bearing? All three expansion classes come from that root, and we know that the majority of classic WoW classes come from that root as well. Additionally the narrative still leads back to the WC3 units and heroes. Sylvanas for example is still haunted by what happened to her at the hands of Arthas, an event that happened in WC3. Gazlowe was easily capable of taking over the Goblin faction for the Horde because Thrall trusted him. Why did he trust Gazlowe? Because Gazlowe helped with the founding of Orgrimmar in WC3.

There would be zero reason for Blizzard to abandon the WC3 at this point, and it's laughable to think that they would. WoW will always revolve around WC3 until WC4 is released.

[Dragtox]

Because it's a found pattern that lacks any bearing. Because the game has changed so much from what was present in Warcraft 3 that holding onto it as a basis instead of following the narrative and/or needs of the game would be silly.

We may as well say that if a hero class is to be added to the game the class name has to start with the letter "D".

demon tinker death tinker sry just wanted to joke here abit but demon tinker is kinda something in wow demon makes machine aswell

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Same goes the other way. Quite high of you to assume everyone likes them, no?

Except, you know, I didn't say that. Not even once.

But hey, thanks for continuing to show the processing power of the people who do think they're opinion is the only one. <thumbs up!> Good job!

- - - Updated - - -

Ooh, look, the trend continues!

Funnily enough it's the Tinker fans pushing that narrative and wishing other people don't get their class fantasies so there's a reason they're stirring up agro as they act as if it's already confirmed, which at first I wouldnt have minded but now because of these few hardcore fans I kinda hope they don't happen.

Bzzt! Wrong.

Hint: Look at the fucking title of this thread alone.

[tyrlaan]

Again, Tinker is a gnome and goblin concept and its extremely popular. Indicating that people don't have an issue with those races in of themselves.




I didn't dodge them, I just have no desire to answer them.

You've got to be fucking kidding me with this response.

Maybe you should blog instead of post on forums.

1) Still no evidence to support your claims.
2) Peddling another opinion of yours as if it's fact does not make a different opinion of yours become fact
3) "choosing not to answer" is not "I'm not dodging"

A few random thoughts as this thread has just taken on a life of its own:

• There isn't any reason that a Tinker class would have to be Gnome/Goblin exclusive. Clever and inventive people exist in every race
• Plenty of people like Gnomes and Goblins. They are on the lower end of played races, but that still equals thousands and thousands of players
• There are a wide variety of reasons people would want any particular class, whether it be Tinker, or Bard or Necromancer or Cheese Sandwich. The reason is unimportant, they can want what they want
• In 15 years of Wow, we've had three new classes and we're closing in on 20 years since Warcraft 3. Trying to predict patterns from this and assuming that Blizzard is beholden to a near 20 year old game is silly
• We have no idea what the next expansion will be about. It may even skip the Sylvanas story line altogether to pick it up the expansion after. It may be death themed, or it may be about donuts with sprinkles. We don't know (but will find out in 2 weeks)
• People should be free to discuss what they want and don't want in a thread like this. This needn't be a Tinker circle jerk, or and anti-Tinker one.
• At the end of the day we are all fans of this game. If somebody is saying that the current classes don't let them fulfill their class concept fantasy, listen to them. Don't try and prove them wrong. This goes for people who want to play Tinkers and don;t think Hunters + mechanical pet + engineering is valid, or Necromancer fans who don't want to be a Death Knight, or Dark Ranger fans who don't want to be a Hunter.

Way too much wisdom here than this thread deserves

There's no need to be foul mouthed and the OP has posted in pages, to see if the title could be changed but it does go to show not everyone wants tinkers.

Their M.O. is over-the-top, foul mouthed arrogance. Expect nothing less.

[The Butt Witch]

I for one would love to play a Green Arrow themed ranged spec, without pet but with stealth and gadgets.
But fuck it if it's just for gnomes and goblins. I do have certain standards in playable races, and playing midgets is well below them.

[Teriz]

You've got to be fucking kidding me with this response.

Maybe you should blog instead of post on forums.

1) Still no evidence to support your claims.

Polls.

2) Peddling another opinion of yours as if it's fact does not make a different opinion of yours become fact

What the heck are you talking about?

3) "choosing not to answer" is not "I'm not dodging"

Your questions are irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

[jellmoo]

How does it lack bearing? All three expansion classes come from that root, and we know that the majority of classic WoW classes come from that root as well. Additionally the narrative still leads back to the WC3 units and heroes. Sylvanas for example is still haunted by what happened to her at the hands of Arthas, an event that happened in WC3. Gazlowe was easily capable of taking over the Goblin faction for the Horde because Thrall trusted him. Why did he trust Gazlowe? Because Gazlowe helped with the founding of Orgrimmar in WC3.

There would be zero reason for Blizzard to abandon the WC3 at this point, and it's laughable to think that they would. WoW will always revolve around WC3 until WC4 is released.

Why should they be beholden to a game that came out like 17 years ago, when they have a game world that's been living and growing over the past 15 years? Why be stuck narratively by the constraints of an old RTS game? Warcraft 3 is part of the DNA of the game, absolutely, but it's foolish to think that the 17 year old game should handcuff them. Hell, WoW has existed for almost twice the number of years that passed between the release of Warcraft and Warcraft 3.

Can you really imagine this happening:

Class Dev: Hey Ion, we put in this amazing concept for a new class called the Time Warden. Take a look!

Ion: Holy smokes guys, this is amazing! The mechanics are amazing! People will love the way this plays. The story is just perfect, it fits what we want exactly! And the art... Wow. The effects and animations are killer. I love it!

Class Dev: Amazing!

Ion: But... Wait... This wasn't a hero class in Warcraft 3, was it? Sorry guys, we have to shelve it. I know it would be awesome and would be the high point of an expansion, but we can't break the hard and fast rule of only adding new classes based on Warcraft 3 hero classes. I guess we'll have to make a Tinker...

[SirCowdog]

They joined because "Hunter" is used as an umbrella term for all bow users throughout wow history of the class... how the fuck does that relate to me finding other class halls where their class is used as an umbrella term for other sub classes? I never did a parallel for other classes that require me to confirm the existence of what happens in hunter class hall within other class halls.

Ironically just strengthening my argument, that rangers and farstriders joined the hunter class hall because it's used as an umbrella term for bow users. A problem that only exists for Hunters and difference branches of bow arts.
As I said, reread my post. You clearly just read 1 line or 2 when you started your question.

I wouldn't bother. The concept of exceedingly broad terminology appears to not be something he/she fully understands.

[Triceron]

Yes, because a mechanical pet doesn't change the other Hunter abilities, which are decidedly nature and magic based.

Meanwhile, Void Elves have access to entire specs dedicated to Shadow magic, like Affliction and Shadow.

None of which actually use Void magic. Void walkers are simply tank pets used in leveling content, you would never use this in a raid setting. Priest is the only class, and frankly the Void Elves having to identify themselves through a Holy Healer class just to have any thematic connection to the Void is a bit ridiculous. What is missing for the Void Elf is a Void-based Ranger class, and frankly all the shadow elements have been removed from the Hunter.

Truth of the matter, all classes available are tailored for each race. If you are a Mechagnome Warrior, then that is a Warrior class tailored for Mechagnome themes. The rest comes from Racials and personal customization. We don't need a Steam Knight class to justify Mechagnomes being able to fight in melee.

And frankly that's how it goes with most classes. We don't need any of them to justify what our characters do. Before Death Knights, Warlocks and Priests carried Necromancy themes in Affliction and Shadow specs. Before Demon Hunters, Rogues and Warlocks filled that niche.

All a new class does is allow us to explore new identities. Period. Exploring a new identity is not a necessity to this game. It's a very good nice-to-have.

But of course, you already know this. You acknowledge it. You just won't ever recognize it in your argument because you have an agenda to promote the Tinker into existence for whatever personal reasons (or conditions?) you have. We can reach common ground, you simply choose not to.

[Kumorii]

I wouldn't bother. The concept of exceedingly broad terminology appears to not be something he/she fully understands.

Don't worry, he apparently put me on ignore, so I don't have to even make a choice

[SirCowdog]

To be honest even I wouldnt mind a 4th spec for hunter being a ranger type as long as it was done properly and not half arsed.

Neither would I. But apparently the only way this discussion can resolve is if we all unanimously agree that DotEleven is correct, and Dark Rangers can't exist. :/

[kaminaris]

Why should they be beholden to a game that came out like 17 years ago, when they have a game world that's been living and growing over the past 15 years? Why be stuck narratively by the constraints of an old RTS game? Warcraft 3 is part of the DNA of the game, absolutely, but it's foolish to think that the 17 year old game should handcuff them. Hell, WoW has existed for almost twice the number of years that passed between the release of Warcraft and Warcraft 3.

Can you really imagine this happening:

Class Dev: Hey Ion, we put in this amazing concept for a new class called the Time Warden. Take a look!

Ion: Holy smokes guys, this is amazing! The mechanics are amazing! People will love the way this plays. The story is just perfect, it fits what we want exactly! And the art... Wow. The effects and animations are killer. I love it!

Class Dev: Amazing!

Ion: But... Wait... This wasn't a hero class in Warcraft 3, was it? Sorry guys, we have to shelve it. I know it would be awesome and would be the high point of an expansion, but we can't break the hard and fast rule of only adding new classes based on Warcraft 3 hero classes. I guess we'll have to make a Tinker...

You put too much faith in blizzard creativity. They are going to reuse what was already in game and we all know that. Like in every new class, part of their spells were already in game long before they were introduced.

Just because you don't care for consistency doesn't matter nobody does.

New class will 99% sure be:
1. Something we have already seen either in WoW or W3
2. Some spells already existing in game
3. Had part in lore already
4. Is somewhat tied to recent events.

Thus tinkers are most logical choice. Every "fake" leak reached similar conclusion. Funny how all of them mentions it.

[Teriz]

Why should they be beholden to a game that came out like 17 years ago, when they have a game world that's been living and growing over the past 15 years? Why be stuck narratively by the constraints of an old RTS game? Warcraft 3 is part of the DNA of the game, absolutely, but it's foolish to think that the 17 year old game should handcuff them. Hell, WoW has existed for almost twice the number of years that passed between the release of Warcraft and Warcraft 3.

That's your view of it. They could very well view it as WC3 giving them a guidebook to add content to the game, and that guidebook has an established fanbase that allows them to create classes that not only relate to WoW, but also caters to an existing set of fans. It should be noted that the best expansions (TBC, WotLK, MoP, and Legion) all had their foundations from events and characters that first appeared in WC3.

Can you really imagine this happening:

Class Dev: Hey Ion, we put in this amazing concept for a new class called the Time Warden. Take a look!

Ion: Holy smokes guys, this is amazing! The mechanics are amazing! People will love the way this plays. The story is just perfect, it fits what we want exactly! And the art... Wow. The effects and animations are killer. I love it!

Class Dev: Amazing!

Ion: But... Wait... This wasn't a hero class in Warcraft 3, was it? Sorry guys, we have to shelve it. I know it would be awesome and would be the high point of an expansion, but we can't break the hard and fast rule of only adding new classes based on Warcraft 3 hero classes. I guess we'll have to make a Tinker...

I would imagine Ion would put those concepts into the Mage class instead of creating a class that is so close thematically to something that already exists.

That's something else as well; The WC3 heroes and concepts allows Blizzard to create distinct classes.

- - - Updated - - -

None of which actually use Void magic.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Void

The Void (also referred to as Shadow)[1][2][3] and the Light are the most fundamental forces in existence

Shadow magic is void magic.

[jellmoo]

You put too much faith in blizzard creativity. They are going to reuse what was already in game and we all know that. Like in every new class, part of their spells were already in game long before they were introduced.

Dude, just about *everything* is already in the game. We can create an ability called Laser Blast for Tinkers, Death Blast for Necromancers or Shadow Arrow for Dark Rangers and it's all just Fireball.

And I have some faith in Blizzard because they *have* done some great work. If they hadn't, I wouldn't be playing this game for 15 years. Not everything is a home run, but they have had hits.

Just because you don't care for consistency doesn't matter nobody does.

And you can be consistent within the realms of a 15 year old game. You don't need to go to another even older game for more source material.

New class will 99% sure be:
1. Something we have already seen either in WoW or W3
2. Some spells already existing in game
3. Had part in lore already
4. Is somewhat tied to recent events.

Why? No really, you say it's 99% certain that any new class contains the above. Why?

Thus tinkers are most logical choice. Every "fake" leak reached similar conclusion. Funny how all of them mentions it.

I'm supposed to take fake leaks as a source of information for a new class? Really?

Look, if it's Tinker then cool! I'm happy. I'd love to play a Tinker. But it's just silly to think it has to be a Tinker because it fits a set of arbitrary criteria you made up.

[Shiza]

How does it lack bearing? All three expansion classes come from that root, and we know that the majority of classic WoW classes come from that root as well. Additionally the narrative still leads back to the WC3 units and heroes. Sylvanas for example is still haunted by what happened to her at the hands of Arthas, an event that happened in WC3. Gazlowe was easily capable of taking over the Goblin faction for the Horde because Thrall trusted him. Why did he trust Gazlowe? Because Gazlowe helped with the founding of Orgrimmar in WC3.

There would be zero reason for Blizzard to abandon the WC3 at this point, and it's laughable to think that they would. WoW will always revolve around WC3 until WC4 is released.

All three expansion classes were related to the theme of the expansion they were introduced in. Death Knights came with the Lichking Northrend Expansion, Monks came with the Pandaria Expansion, Demon Hunters with the Illidan and Burning Legion one. All the hints for the future storyline go in a death-related direction. BFA was unpopular and Blizzard will likely need to make a fanservice expansion again, with the only real Fanservice Characters left being the Lichking and Sylvanas, both death related and Sylvanas plotline still going on and leading into a death-themed direction. Death Magic got generally an insane amount of build up during this expansion, when it was before never really defined. I mean, before it was kind of a mix between arcane and shadow, then it was depicted as void related with Ner'zhul and WoD and now it got hughly build up at its own thing. So this will likely the thematic core of the next expansion.

Not to forget that Necromancer would be an easy way to introduce Dark Ranger as well. They would likely get corrupted necromancer skins to begin with, which could allow Blood Elves and Night Elves to copy Sylvanas Style and introduce an archer spec with a focus on utilizing the banshee form, casting black arrows and summon plague dogs. Another goot opportunity would be to introduce a dark healer. So far, all the healing classes are light or nature focussed, so having a dark healer would be something new. And it fits the likely death theme of the next expansion, especially since there is no hint for any mechanical threat in the main storyline so far. Mechagon is fully resolved and the Goblin Storyline came to a conclusion with the heritage armor quest, so there is no real event that could focus the gnomes and goblins, while death is everywhere in bfa and rather open ended.

I mean, for quite some time there were always hints or related storylines which lead from one expansion to another. The timeless isles and Garrosh to WoD. The Burning Legion and Gul'dan were present over all of WoD. Hostilities between the factions raising, the small hint of Kul Tiras and Zandalari in Azsuna and the whole conflict around Sylvanas in Stormheim. And Legion puts this to eleven with its hints on death, even introducing the fucking Lich Kings daughter. So where are your arguments that the next expansion will focus on gnomes and goblins?

[jellmoo]

That's your view of it. They could very well view it as WC3 giving them a guidebook to add content to the game, and that guidebook has an established fanbase that allows them to create classes that not only relate to WoW, but also caters to an existing set of fans. It should be noted that the best expansions (TBC, WotLK, MoP, and Legion) all had their foundations from events and characters that first appeared in WC3.

It's absolutely my view of it, just like your view is so closely tied to Warcraft 3. It doesn't make either viewpoint right or wrong though. But I would honestly be very curious as to how much of the player base currently active have played Warcraft 3, and how much that will change with the remaster coming out.

I would imagine Ion would put those concepts into the Mage class instead of creating a class that is so close thematically to something that already exists.

But who says that the class is anything remotely similar to a Mage? Maybe it's a melee class. Maybe it is a healer. Maybe the class uses guns.

That's something else as well; The WC3 heroes and concepts allows Blizzard to create distinct classes.

It absolutely did, no doubt. But 15 years have passed since then, and the game world has changed remarkably. Characters, nations and stories have come and gone. I mean, we vanquished the biggest big bad in the last expansion. We're starting to hit uncharted territory in the narrative.

[Teriz]

All three expansion classes were related to the theme of the expansion they were introduced in. Death Knights came with the Lichking Northrend Expansion, Monks came with the Pandaria Expansion, Demon Hunters with the Illidan and Burning Legion one. All the hints for the future storyline go in a death-related direction. BFA was unpopular and Blizzard will likely need to make a fanservice expansion again, with the only real Fanservice Characters left being the Lichking and Sylvanas, both death related and Sylvanas plotline still going on and leading into a death-themed direction. Death Magic got generally an insane amount of build up during this expansion, when it was before never really defined. I mean, before it was kind of a mix between arcane and shadow, then it was depicted as void related with Ner'zhul and WoD and now it got hughly build up at its own thing. So this will likely the thematic core of the next expansion.

Again, you don't know what the next expansion will be so you can't make that argument.

- - - Updated - - -

It's absolutely my view of it, just like your view is so closely tied to Warcraft 3. It doesn't make either viewpoint right or wrong though. But I would honestly be very curious as to how much of the player base currently active have played Warcraft 3, and how much that will change with the remaster coming out.

Well my view is backed by evidence. Your view is backed by opinion.

But who says that the class is anything remotely similar to a Mage? Maybe it's a melee class. Maybe it is a healer. Maybe the class uses guns.

Except none of the expansion classes have just appeared with no lore to support them. Mostly due to those new classes being forced to be tied to an expansion.

It absolutely did, no doubt. But 15 years have passed since then, and the game world has changed remarkably. Characters, nations and stories have come and gone. I mean, we vanquished the biggest big bad in the last expansion. We're starting to hit uncharted territory in the narrative.

The game has changed, but its still heavily grounded on its WC3 foundation. I have yet to see a future class or expansion concept on this forum that strays far away that foundation. There's a reason for that.

[GrimReaper673]

Again, you don't know what the next expansion will be so you can't make that argument.

If he can't make that argument, your entire Tinker concept goes out the window. Because you don't know Blizzard would pull from HotS even if they did release a Tinker class. You don't know anything about how they'd implement them, weapons, CDs, armor, etc. You have theories, nothing more.

[Kumorii]

New class will 99% sure be:
1. Something we have already seen either in WoW or W3
2. Some spells already existing in game
3. Had part in lore already
4. Is somewhat tied to recent events.

Thus tinkers are most logical choice. Every "fake" leak reached similar conclusion. Funny how all of them mentions it.

You know that applies to plenty of classes, right?
And how the heal are fake leaks an indication of anything?

[Teriz]

If he can't make that argument, your entire Tinker concept goes out the window. Because you don't know Blizzard would pull from HotS even if they did release a Tinker class. You don't know anything about how they'd implement them, weapons, CDs, armor, etc. You have theories, nothing more.

I know that Blizzard has always implemented the full WC3 ability list into every expansion class they've released, and they gave Demon Hunters HotS attributes.

The Tinker would be no different.