Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[Teriz]

Teriz. You absolutely moved the goal posts. First you said:

And then when you were shown you were wrong (as you often are), you moved the goal posts (as you often do):


And by the way, Teriz, keep this in mind: you shouldn't go around telling other people that their class idea "works best as a profession", because the same thing could be said about your class idea. Which is only made worse since your class idea already is a profession in the game.

Uh, my class idea is based on the Tinker hero from WC3 and now HotS. Saying that the Engineering profession is the same as the Tinker class simply shows your ignorance of how WoW classes work.

[GenericDragon]

Russell Brower, a homage character based on WoW's sound designer.

So? He still exists in game with spells of his own, him being an homage doesn't make a damn bit of difference in this context. Especially since he could have just played music without said music being magical. And even then, nothing stops Blizzard from making up new lore on the spot. Am I saying it's likely to happen? No, I don't think it is, because there are other classes that have more to work from to be introduced before Bard. But that doesn't mean there isn't precedence within game for them to make their own version of the class.

[Teriz]

All of this sounds hugely hypocritical coming from you who use a "isn't WoW and definitely isn't canon" source: Heroes of the Storm.

And on top of that, you say BS like:


"The Hearthstone stuff could actually be a hint to the next WoW expansion."

Taking quotes out of context really doesn't help your point here. For example, saying that Blizzard could take ideas from Hearthstone for an expansion is far different than saying that Lorewalkers have abilities because of a Hearthstone card.

- - - Updated - - -

So? He still exists in game with spells of his own, him being an homage doesn't make a damn bit of difference in this context. Especially since he could have just played music without said music being magical. And even then, nothing stops Blizzard from making up new lore on the spot. Am I saying it's likely to happen? No, I don't think it is, because there are other classes that have more to work from to be introduced before Bard. But that doesn't mean there isn't precedence within game for them to make their own version of the class.

Yeah it won't happen, so why are we even wasting time discussing it? Half of Brower's abilities are Priest abilities from Cataclysm.

[jellmoo]

Several. Mainly because those HotS abilities are now in WoW.

So, just to clarify your stance:

Because an NPC in WoW has the abilities of a unit in HotS, that makes it a valid basis for a WoW class.

And

Monks are a valid basis for a class because the Brewmaster had 3 active abilities for a base, but next to no lore. Lorewalkers have a ton of lore, but since there are no active abilities they cannot be the basis for a class.

[Teriz]

So, just to clarify your stance:

Because an NPC in WoW has the abilities of a unit in HotS, that makes it a valid basis for a WoW class.

When that NPC is the same character as the HotS character, yes.

And

Monks are a valid basis for a class because the Brewmaster had 3 active abilities for a base, but next to no lore. Lorewalkers have a ton of lore, but since there are no active abilities they cannot be the basis for a class.

Actually coming off of WC3 the Brewmasters had quite a lot of lore;

Hailing from the secretive Pandaren Empire, the mighty brewmasters travel the world in search of exotic ales and the finest brewed spirits. These affable warriors rarely seek out danger or trouble, preferring instead to spend their time concocting new and tasty beverages for any brave enough to imbibe them. However, if attacked, the laughing brewmasters bring all of their pandaren agility and ferocity to bear! They are peerless warriors and world class drinkers all in one!
The Brewmasters of Pandaria have emerged from the bamboo forests of their ancestors to bring their unique fighting style (and robust ales) to the highest bidder. Attacks land units.

That's definitely quite a bit more than "next to nothing".

[jellmoo]

When that NPC is the same character as the HotS character, yes.

So a class based on Sylvanas would make sense?

Actually coming off of WC3 the Brewmasters had quite a lot of lore;



That's definitely quite a bit more than "next to nothing".

Compared to the lore we got in MoP? It is absolutely next to nothing. And remember, a metric ton of the Warcraft 3 lore regarding Pandaren was retconned.

[Ielenia]

Uh, my class idea is based on the Tinker hero from WC3 and now HotS.

So you admit the hypocrisy. People cannot mention other Warcraft franchise games not connected to Warcraft canon for their class idea, but you have no issues doing it yourself for your class idea.

Saying that the Engineering profession is the same as the Tinker class simply shows your ignorance of how WoW classes work.

Yeah, this bears repeating:

You're no one to tell others about "how classes work", Teriz.

Or even how Blizzard operates.

You've shown, time and again, how little you know about Blizzard's design processes and decisions.

And those threads I linked are nothing but the ones shown on the first page of search results.

You've learned nothing from your mistakes. You argued "class overlap" against the demon hunters, and you are doing it again, against class ideas such as bard, dark rangers and necromancers.

I simply mentioned the "tinkers as engineer profession" simply to show off your hypocrisy: "saying a bard "profession" is the same as a bard class simply shows your ignorance of how WoW clases work."

- - - Updated - - -

Taking quotes out of context really doesn't help your point here. For example, saying that Blizzard could take ideas from Hearthstone for an expansion is far different than saying that Lorewalkers have abilities because of a Hearthstone card.

They're not out of context, and it's the exact same thing. Because it shows how some other bardic abilities could work.

[Teriz]

So a class based on Sylvanas would make sense?

Relevance?

Compared to the lore we got in MoP? It is absolutely next to nothing. And remember, a metric ton of the Warcraft 3 lore regarding Pandaren was retconned.

We got the lore in MoP from the Brewmaster hero. Loremasters were part of that lore. Again, the issue isn't if there's lore surrounding loremasters, the issue is that there's no Bard lore or abilities to show a connection with other so-called "Bards".

- - - Updated - - -

So you admit the hypocrisy. People cannot mention other Warcraft franchise games not connected to Warcraft canon for their class idea, but you have no issues doing it yourself for your class idea.

The HotS abilities are canon. Please keep up.

[Ielenia]

The HotS abilities are canon. Please keep up.

Nope. Nothing in Heroes of the Storm is canon, because the game's lore is not canon to the Warcraft franchise's canon lore. Just because some characters and/or abilities may have similarities does not mean they're canon.

[GenericDragon]

Yeah it won't happen, so why are we even wasting time discussing it? Half of Brower's abilities are Priest abilities from Cataclysm.

Why not discuss it? Just because I don't see it happening doesn't mean I think it doesn't fit, which is the point: that it COULD become a thing.

And you mean Wedding Hymn = Divine Hymn? Maybe. Maybe it's mechanically a priest ability, but if priests have the ability to use soothing sounds to heal, then doesn't that prove the point even further that a class based entirely around magical sounds could potentially be a thing? With some tweaking, of course. His other abilities are a frostbolt generated from music (mechanically a mage ability, but conjured in a different way) and a blast of spellstorm generated from music (mechanically a druid ability in starsurge).

The difference here is aesthetic, which happens with other classes plenty. Conflagrate and Fire Blast are essentially the same spell (both are instant cast fire spells, they even share the same icon), but they come from different classes. Magical aptitude overlaps in a lot of classes, but the difference is in how they play. And the Bard fantasy hasn't yet been covered in WoW, so it very easily could be picked up in the future.

[Teriz]

They're not out of context, and it's the exact same thing. Because it shows how some other bardic abilities could work.

So now you're so desperate that we're going to pretend that a Hearthstone card is a WoW ability?

Laughable. I remember you said that Hearthstone wasn't canon. Talk about hypicrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, that is "next to nothing" lore. Actually, it's less than that. It's actual zero lore about the MONK class.

- - - Updated - - -


Nope. Nothing in Heroes of the Storm is canon, because the game's lore is not canon to the Warcraft franchise's canon lore. Just because some characters and/or abilities may have similarities does not mean they're canon.

Yeah, they're the same abilities from HotS, on the same character (Gazlowe), and they're actually in WoW. Unlike that Hearthstone card you're trying to push as the foundation for Lorewalker Bards.

[jellmoo]

Relevance?

We have abilities seen in HotS reflected in game.

We got the lore in MoP from the Brewmaster hero. Loremasters were part of that lore. Again, the issue isn't if there's lore surrounding loremasters, the issue is that there's no Bard lore or abilities to show a connection with other so-called "Bards".

Except we received Brewmasters (well, Monks) before we saw that Lore. Now we've seen and experienced that lore. And there wasn't any lore connecting Brewmasters to a Monk class before it happened. I don't see why that couldn't be the same with Lorewalkers and a Bard class.

[Ielenia]

So now you're so desperate that we're going to pretend that a Hearthstone card is a WoW ability?

Laughable. I remember you said that Hearthstone wasn't canon. Talk about hypicrisy.

I'm not saying it is. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in using non-canon sources as "sources of canon lore". You berated the other poster for him pointing out Cho's card in Hearthstone as an example of what bards could do, when you have been using Hearthstone and HotS to back up your tinker.

Yeah, they're the same abilities from HotS, on the same character (Gazlowe), and they're actually in WoW.

Still non-canon.

Unlike that Hearthstone card you're trying to push as the foundation for Lorewalker Bards.

And strawman. Absolutely no one is saying to use Cho's HS card as "foundation". This is just you lying through your teeth, because you'd have no arguments whatsoever if you accurately represented other people's opinions and posts.

[Teriz]

We have abilities seen in HotS reflected in game.

Well yes. I have always supported a class based on Sylvanas' HotS incarnation.

Except we received Brewmasters (well, Monks) before we saw that Lore. Now we've seen and experienced that lore. And there wasn't any lore connecting Brewmasters to a Monk class before it happened. I don't see why that couldn't be the same with Lorewalkers and a Bard class.

Actually if you check out Warcraft RPG the Brewmaster was heavily tied to the concept of martial arts long before MoP.

[GenericDragon]

Well yes. I have always supported a class based on Sylvanas' HotS incarnation.

Isn't she essentially a Dark Ranger?

[Teriz]

I'm not saying it is. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in using non-canon sources as "sources of canon lore". You berated the other poster for him pointing out Cho's card in Hearthstone as an example of what bards could do, when you have been using Hearthstone and HotS to back up your tinker.

More lies and half-truths. Why am I not surprised?

Still non-canon.

Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys and the Island Expeditions aren't canon? Interesting take.

And strawman. Absolutely no one is saying to use Cho's HS card as "foundation". This is just you lying through your teeth, because you'd have no arguments whatsoever if you accurately represented other people's opinions and posts.

Jellmoo did, and you backed him up.

But by all means, feel free to have the last word on this conversation where you make up stuff and then deny everything is boring.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't she essentially a Dark Ranger?

"Essentially" is the key word. She's a Dark Ranger plus a banshee, and none of the other Dark Rangers are like that.

[Absintheminded]

What a shitshow of a thread. Jesus Christ people, go outside.

[GenericDragon]

"Essentially" is the key word. She's a Dark Ranger plus a banshee, and none of the other Dark Rangers are like that.

I was just wondering since you previously seemed against a Dark Ranger class. Does that mean you support a Dark Ranger that iterated on Sylvanas' current abilities, since she seems to be getting some new tricks from whomever she's serving now?

[Ielenia]

More lies and half-truths. Why am I not surprised?

That's not my M.O., Teriz. That's yours. You've been caught on your hypocrisy several times, already. You attack others for mentioning out-of-canon sources, but you have no problem doing it for your own gains. You attack others by accusing them of "not knowing how Blizzard design classes", when you've demonstrated you don't know the first thing about Blizzard's class design rules processes.

You're nothing but a poser, acting high and mighty, bullshitting away and hoping no one finds out how little you actually know, only to double-down on your nonsense after you get exposed.

Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys and the Island Expeditions aren't canon? Interesting take.

Oh, my god, Teriz. Please stop the blatant strawman and misrepresentation. I said HotS is not canon.

Jellmoo did, and you backed him up.

No, he said to use Lorewalker Cho, the character that exists in Warcraft lore, as a basis. He simply pointed at the HS card as an example of abilities he could have.

But by all means, feel free to have the last word on this. This conversation where you make up stuff and then deny everything is boring.

This is highly ironic coming from the guy being a hypocrite and can't argue against other people without resorting to strawmans.

[tyrlaan]

We're talking about Warcraft, not D&D.

No, we're talking about the bard. Try to keep up.

Russell Brower, a homage character based on WoW's sound designer.

And Pandaren started as an April Fool's joke. You have no point here.

Weren't those just Drums? You could move the drums over to the "bard" profession and add some more instruments to it.

Why do you insist on thinking a bard is just about playing instruments? Do you not know what a bard is?

One Brewmaster hero and the entire lore of Pandaria from which that Brewmaster came from that you can base an expansion around. Neither exists for the Bard.

Ironically, a lot of bardic inspiration could come from the expansion you mention here. I suspect you missed that because I don't you understand what a bard is.

And zero connections between any of those characters.

Indeed there is. The connection is that they are all bards.

The Loremaster would need some abilities in order for it to be the basis of a class spec.

That's where the Blizzard design team would come in. You seem to presume if it doesn't already exist in game then it can't exist in the future. That's really odd and limiting.

Yeah it won't happen, so why are we even wasting time discussing it?

Interesting. Do you have inside info that we lack such that you can say this like it's fact rather than your opinion?

Actually coming off of WC3 the Brewmasters had quite a lot of lore

A couple brief paragraphs is "quite a lot" of lore? Lol.

I guess than an entire Pandaren organization steeped in lore plus a smattering of other examples throughout the game is a a metric ton of lore.


---

Let's cut through the crap, shall we? If it doesn't start with Tink- and end in -er, you will argue against it. Like somehow people being interested in another class concept or demonstrating its viability suddenly makes the Tinker less likely to become reality. Like if you can't shoot all the other ideas down, then maybe Tinker won't happen (skipping past the fact that you've been predicting it for at least 6 years now).

You don't like other class concepts? That's fine. You don't need to shoot them down just because you don't like them. Their discussion does no harm to you, except to your credibility as you flail against them with every fallacy, goal post shift, and hypocritical argument you can imagine. The level of bad faith posting on your part is off the damn charts.

I'd be happy if we get a Tinker (or just about any other class tbh), but holy hell man, this is ridiculous.

We should all just stop engaging with you because you've given us no reason to give you our time and you surely don't deserve the audience.