Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[Ielenia]

People were saying that BFA was going to be about Azerite during 7.2.5? Wheres your proof?

Strawman. That is not what I said. Your strawman was even laid bare by the very part of my post that you quoted.

The real point is that if there was no Brewmaster in WC3 there wouldn't be a Monk class as it currently exists.

It would likely still exist mostly as it currently is, only without the pandaren influence. Because the basis of the class is the RPG trope of the oriental monk, and not the brewmaster. Further evidence of this is that the class' name is not "brewmaster".

It would more than likely be a Runemaster or some derivative of th.ce Paladin and Priest class.

Says you.

[Dragtox]

If, and that's a big IF dark Rangers become a spec, it would make more sense as a rogue spec. I'm still firmly in the camp that dark ranger isn't a class/spec it's merely a faction/ group. They are just undead elf farstriders which makes them mm hunters for the most part.

dark ranger makes no sense as rouge or hunter spec
dark ranger is not marksman marksman = rifleman and sniper thing
bfa are basing ability to much on ranger night elf, high elf ability meens they based on bow wich works so diffrent in warcraft universe then how a gun works
so ability like rapid fire and barrage looks really weird on gun and crossbow

i said this earlier there is a deep problem in hunter weapon is one of them
thats meens we need ranger/dark ranger/void ranger and tinker as its own class to help hunter identity

yes all those 3 rangers is a thing alleria windrunner is a void ranger at this stage

dark ranger is on the same theme as death knight wich is why it will never be a hunter or rouge
but are not the same class as death knight but dark ranger = dead person revived as banshee

sylvanas have pretty much looked for diffrent power to make herself immortal so cant base dark ranger on sylvanas fully wich meen we are back to elf locked raced like demon hunter

wich meens dark ranger needs to be based around nathanos


so argument on how simlair stuff is deeper on a problem

hunter with full of night elf bow base ability but you are playing a race like orc or dwarf its gona look really wierd

another fix is to give every class their own raced ability on all classes but that be a big change so who knows but they probly wont do it
but even changes classes to fit their race more wont fix how diffrent the ranged weapon works compare to each other
while melee weapon are to simlair
since we have not start on whip and chain on ball type of weapon to be its own weapon just a skin on the basic type of melee weapons

[Ielenia]

Yeah, if humans find that fighting with technology is the best way forward, they'll do it. They're not as intelligent as other races, so it might not be as natural of a transition, but sure. As with Blood Elves, again, if technology is what they need to survive, they'll figure it out. I don't disagree. Both of these races need a reason to look towards technology but already have established cultures and fighting styles that focus on other things. This is why it matters that vulpera are interested in everything that they find, and have been easy to take advantage of in the past. They don't have successful combat traditions and are interested in finding new ones.

The problem here is that you seem to be equating "race is viable to be tinker" = "race must be technology-focused", which is a false assumption to make. Trolls and worgen aren't nature-oriented races, and yet they can be druids. Orcs aren't an arcane-focused race, but they can be mages. Etc, etc.

Survivalists in Mad Max use loads of technology.

Apples an oranges. Mad Max' setting is in more or less the modern times after an apocalyptic event took place. Technology would be everywhere. Warcraft's setting is not the modern world, and on top of that, the desert where the vulpera are located is void of any technology.

Likewise, tinkers are combatants who use technology (as I said in the text you're responding to). You don't have to be Tony Stark to be Iron Man, you have to be Tony Stark to make Iron Man. Here is your reference:

https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2...ca-03770_r.jpg

Then the entire argument about how it should be 'goblin/gnome/vulpera' only goes right out the window since every race can and has used technology in the game.

I honestly don't think you even read what I wrote. Asking for something is not the same as wanting something.

Um... it is. How can you ask for something without wanting it, in this context? It makes no sense.

Features that are easier to implement are more likely to be added to the game. I don't see how you can find any issue with this statement unless you're trolling.

Because your statement makes no sense. All races already have aiming animations, shooting animations, throwing animations, etc... all kinds of animations that would be used by the tinker. And adapting newly created animations for the tinker class are basically easy to copy to a different race.

[Usernameforforums]

And it will be Blizzard who decides what "fits". If we have a shadow expansion and Blizzard believes that Tinkers fit in that expansion, that's just the way it is.

That said, I don't think a Gnome/Goblin centric expansion is out of the question. It's a running secondary theme in BFA.

Wow the delusions of grandeur is strong with this post. Bruh, tinker will never fit in a shadow, death, fire, or any element of the Warcraft universe. Now there is hope. There is only one way tinker can fit. Mechanical expansion. Sadly, it doesn’t look like that is the case with current events. Tinker has a very slim chance to make it.

A goblin/gnome expansion can happen, it’s not going to be this up coming expansion. I guarantee it. 10.0 or 11.0 might be the one for you tinkers. But 9.0, not gonna happen.

[Ielenia]

That said, I don't think a Gnome/Goblin centric expansion is out of the question. It's a running secondary theme in BFA.

It's more like tertiary, at best. It's not even a raid, like Eye of Eternity or Trials of Valor.

[Shiza]

This argument is pretty weak. With a sample size of 3, even assuming only a 50% chance of the outcome you describe, the probability of seeing the same outcome 3 times in a row is 12.5%. That's assuming that Blizzard isn't accounting for Edgelord class fatigue, what players are requesting most, any perceived value in matching the new class to the expansion theme, or anything else.

Let's say that matching the expansion theme is pretty important at 75% chance of determining the class theme. At this point you have a 42.2% chance of getting the same outcome 3 times in a row, and still having a 25% chance for something else the next time you roll.

Thats not math, thats you stomping with your feet because you want tinkers.

[StillMcfuu]

I'm very confused about you contradicting yourself. You say they are undead elf farstriders (which is true for the most part) which basically makes them Marksmanship Hunters, but then say they'd make more sense as a Rogue spec? I mean, once again, they're literally a subset of hunter or, even more specifically a subset of a subset of hunter.

It's not a contradiction, Hunters have just mechanically outgrown their roots over the years. But MM hunter is essentially what a Ranger would be, but that's not people want in a "Dark Ranger" they want some kind of Stealth, ranged opener, with upclose abilities as well. But unless we plan on adding stealth and multiple melee abilities to the hunter side of the house... Rogue fits the mold a lot better.

Go back to the vanilla Rogue version and the combat tree is very much meant to be an expert swordsman on the battlefield, the stealth was secondary. Which would fit the Dark Ranger better, stealth, but not full stealth like assassin or sub, all it needs is a couple of ranged abilities and could probably just rob skill out of the sub tree, bam dark ranger.

And again this is everyone elses perception, to me they are just rangers, they've never shown anything else, they haven't really even shown stealth (at least not in the rogue sense). They are Sylvanas's former battalion in life, which they still serve in death. And with the class remakes coming, MM might look even more like Ranger in the next expansion. But the hunter tree getting a major ability like stealth and then a whole slew of themed melee abilities or Rogue just getting a couple of ranged abilities makes more sense.

- - - Updated - - -

dark ranger makes no sense as rouge or hunter spec
dark ranger is not marksman marksman = rifleman and sniper thing
bfa are basing ability to much on ranger night elf, high elf ability meens they based on bow wich works so diffrent in warcraft universe then how a gun works
so ability like rapid fire and barrage looks really weird on gun and crossbow

i said this earlier there is a deep problem in hunter weapon is one of them
thats meens we need ranger/dark ranger/void ranger and tinker as its own class to help hunter identity

yes all those 3 rangers is a thing alleria windrunner is a void ranger at this stage

dark ranger is on the same theme as death knight wich is why it will never be a hunter or rouge
but are not the same class as death knight but dark ranger = dead person revived as banshee

sylvanas have pretty much looked for diffrent power to make herself immortal so cant base dark ranger on sylvanas fully wich meen we are back to elf locked raced like demon hunter

wich meens dark ranger needs to be based around nathanos


so argument on how simlair stuff is deeper on a problem

hunter with full of night elf bow base ability but you are playing a race like orc or dwarf its gona look really wierd

another fix is to give every class their own raced ability on all classes but that be a big change so who knows but they probly wont do it
but even changes classes to fit their race more wont fix how diffrent the ranged weapon works compare to each other
while melee weapon are to simlair
since we have not start on whip and chain on ball type of weapon to be its own weapon just a skin on the basic type of melee weapons

Hunters using multiple other weapons is essentially just game mechanics.

But all those characters are just rangers. Alleria was a farstrider, Nathanos is a ranger general, the dark rangers are just Sylvanas personal guard. They were rangers/farstriders in life, they still are in death.

[Teriz]

It's more like tertiary, at best. It's not even a raid, like Eye of Eternity or Trials of Valor.

Mekkatorque was a raid boss.

[tyrlaan]

Yeah, I wrote a pretty long reply to him trying to bridge common ground.

He cherrypicks 1 line out of it, makes a dismissing statement, and that was his entire reply.

He's not actively listening to any counter points, he's just looking to dismantle anything that goes against his ideas.

Indeed.

I'm done talking to him, which I'm sure he'll be happy about, but it's just not worth my time. I'd still love to understand wtf his agenda is though.

What's funny is I had really warmed to the idea of the Tinker being added, but his incessant bad faith responses for some unnecessary agenda have actually soured it for me.

[Teriz]

Wow the delusions of grandeur is strong with this post. Bruh, tinker will never fit in a shadow, death, fire, or any element of the Warcraft universe. Now there is hope. There is only one way tinker can fit. Mechanical expansion. Sadly, it doesn’t look like that is the case with current events. Tinker has a very slim chance to make it.

A goblin/gnome expansion can happen, it’s not going to be this up coming expansion. I guarantee it. 10.0 or 11.0 might be the one for you tinkers. But 9.0, not gonna happen.

And like I said many times in this thread; You have no idea what the next expansion is.

[DotEleven]

It's not a contradiction, Hunters have just mechanically outgrown their roots over the years. But MM hunter is essentially what a Ranger would be, but that's not people want in a "Dark Ranger" they want some kind of Stealth, ranged opener, with upclose abilities as well. But unless we plan on adding stealth and multiple melee abilities to the hunter side of the house... Rogue fits the mold a lot better.

Go back to the vanilla Rogue version and the combat tree is very much meant to be an expert swordsman on the battlefield, the stealth was secondary. Which would fit the Dark Ranger better, stealth, but not full stealth like assassin or sub, all it needs is a couple of ranged abilities and could probably just rob skill out of the sub tree, bam dark ranger.

And again this is everyone elses perception, to me they are just rangers, they've never shown anything else, they haven't really even shown stealth (at least not in the rogue sense). They are Sylvanas's former battalion in life, which they still serve in death. And with the class remakes coming, MM might look even more like Ranger in the next expansion. But the hunter tree getting a major ability like stealth and then a whole slew of themed melee abilities or Rogue just getting a couple of ranged abilities makes more sense.

I mean, you're talking about things that Hunter has had before the giant pruning to simplify everything.

Hunter has Camouflage (Stealth), they used to be able to use melee weapons (a plethora too. They could dual wield swords, daggers, they could use polearms or staves) They had multiple melee abilities like Wing Clip and Raptor Strike. A melee oriented defensive ability Deterrence and Counterattack.

Like, hunter HAS had exactly what people wanted in a ranger. Not to mention Rangers are still a type of Hunter anyway, shown by the fact that Blood Elf Farstriders, the Rangers of the Silver Covenant, and the Dark Rangers are ALL part of the Hunter Class Order.

Not to mention, it's not like they wouldn't add melee abilities to hunter. They already have in Survival...

[Usernameforforums]

And like I said many times in this thread; You have no idea what the next expansion is.

Yeah and keep saying that. That’s the only saving grace for your arguement.

[Triceron]

Mechagon was a raid.

???

What?

[tyrlaan]

That is not an argument. That is your wishfulfillment and hammering down on your believe that Tinker will be the next class without any argument to support your guess.

Yup. Literally all he's been throwing at this thread for some time now.

[StillMcfuu]

I mean, you're talking about things that Hunter has had before the giant pruning to simplify everything.

Hunter has Camouflage (Stealth), they used to be able to use melee weapons (a plethora too. They could dual wield swords, daggers, they could use polearms or staves) They had multiple melee abilities like Wing Clip and Raptor Strike. A melee oriented defensive ability Deterrence and Counterattack.

Like, hunter HAS had exactly what people wanted in a ranger. Not to mention Rangers are still a type of Hunter anyway, shown by the fact that Blood Elf Farstriders, the Rangers of the Silver Covenant, and the Dark Rangers are ALL part of the Hunter Class Order.

Not to mention, it's not like they wouldn't add melee abilities to hunter. They already have in Survival...

Because hunters and rangers. Making a Dark Ranger spec doesn't make anysense, it already exists, undead hunter.

But in strict gameplay terms the concept that gets thrown around for "dark ranger" is easier to apply to the rogue class now.

[Liszt]

Because hunters and rangers. Making a Dark Ranger spec doesn't make anysense, it already exists, undead hunter.

But in strict gameplay terms the concept that gets thrown around for "dark ranger" is easier to apply to the rogue class now.

Agreed. The only thing connecting hunter to dark ranger is the weapon, the bow. Rogue, especially subtlety, is much closer to a dark ranger than any hunter spec. If they really wanted to put dark ranger in an existing class, rogue would fit much better.

[Teriz]

???

What?

My mistake.

[DotEleven]

Because hunters and rangers. Making a Dark Ranger spec doesn't make anysense, it already exists, undead hunter.

But in strict gameplay terms the concept that gets thrown around for "dark ranger" is easier to apply to the rogue class now.

If "Undead Hunter" is enough to be "Dark Ranger" (which honestly, it really is. I've said before if we called classes based on race as well, Undead Hunter would be Dark Ranger) why is it you still think it would be easier to apply to Rogue. Like, you literally say "It's the same as hunter, but would be rogue". The concept that gets thrown around is basically black arrow hunter with some melee and is undead.

Agreed. The only thing connecting hunter to dark ranger is the weapon, the bow. Rogue, especially subtlety, is much closer to a dark ranger than any hunter spec. If they really wanted to put dark ranger in an existing class, rogue would fit much better.

What do you mean it's just the weapon? Dark Rangers use hunter tactics. They are trained as hunters. They employ hunter tactics. They're undead forms of other hunters. They're in the hunter class hall. I don't get this crazy idea that the only thing that links them and hunters is "oh, they use a bow".

[jellmoo]

The real point is that if there was no Brewmaster in WC3 there wouldn't be a Monk class as it currently exists. It would more than likely be a Runemaster or some derivative of th.ce Paladin and Priest class.

The real point is that the Monk as a conceptualized class didn't exist before MoP and that the Lore surrounding it, pretty much outside of two words: Pandaren and Brewmaster, did not exist prior to MoP. To say that the class is based off of existing lore from Warcraft 3 is disingenuous at best. Esepcially when you can very clearly trace the lineage of Death Knights and Demon Hunters back. You just cannot do it with Monks. Prior to MoP, Monks were just something you found in Scarlet Monastery.

[Liszt]

Dark rangers are RANGERS, not hunters. There is a difference. And if you look at some good RPG material, you'll see that rogues and rangers are quite similar. Warcraft doesn't have much material related to these differences, though. Even the damage attributes are quite messed in WoW.