Potential Class Hype

**Ielenia** · 2020-05-09, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Teriz

In your opinion.

Writing "in your opinion" is meaningless and does not invalidate anything that I wrote, since what you've been writing here is also "your opinion".

If the equipped weapon is increasing the Tinker’s intellect and stamina, then that would positively effect how the Tinker operates the mech. It would also allow the Tinker to create more powerful and efficient weaponry.

I can become more intelligent, stronger and/or faster, but none of those things will make my car run any faster.

And I gave you a valid explanation for a Tinker using technology to do the exact same thing. Also empowered weapons would empower the Tinker like any other character. The use of technology does not shut off a character from magical effects.

A fireball cast by a mage is amplified by the magic within the mage's staff because the fireball comes from the mage itself. A rocket fired from a tinker would not come "from the tinker" but from a device outside the tinker's person. As in, not part of the tinker's self.

That’s a nature spell. Auto-attacking isn’t a spell.

You're missing the point. It is evidence that magic does not necessarily means "magic damage".

**Teriz** · 2020-05-09, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by TheWorkingTitle

"Tinker" is just a title for an Engineer. There are plenty of Mech mounts where you can RP to your heart's content. And now you've got the Mechagnomes. It's completely covered, especially by the profession.

Except you can't even RP it because the mount vanishes when you enter an indoor space or if you run into a forest spider.

Saying that a mount covers the experience of fighting inside a mech is like saying Heart of the Nightwing covers Druidism. No one would say something so ridiculous, but here we are.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Writing "in your opinion" is meaningless and does not invalidate anything that I wrote, since what you've been writing here is also "your opinion".

Well it was your opinion about my class concept, so yes, it was most certainly in your opinion.

I can become more intelligent, stronger and/or faster, but none of those things will make my car run any faster.

If you're driving that car at maximum speed, it would increase your chances of driving the vehicle without getting into a collision. In addition, if you built that car from the ground up, you would make it go faster, because you built it to do so. In terms of a mech, you would pilot it better. You would make better decisions, not get tired as easily, and have faster reaction times. In short, those boosts make you a more effective pilot. That translates (in gameplay terms) to you dealing more damage.

A fireball cast by a mage is amplified by the magic within the mage's staff because the fireball comes from the mage itself. A rocket fired from a tinker would not come "from the tinker" but from a device outside the tinker's person. As in, not part of the tinker's self.

See the mech example. The same principle applies.

You're missing the point. It is evidence that magic does not necessarily means "magic damage".

And you're trying to muddy the waters when you well know that auto-attacks (outside of wands) are not magical.

**Whitedragon** · 2020-05-09, 11:20 PM

For me I would love to see the Tinker fully imagined, past that I always thought a dragoon type class would be cool as well.

Originally Posted by Mermeoth

Bard? This is warcraft. They have absolutely no ground for this. Adding them would be nonsense. Almost like monks.

At least with monks we had some of the base kit and ideals back in warcraft 3, and one can say the idea of fighting with ones hands isn't something withdrawn from the universe. Bards on the other hand, we have never seen any real hint of ever... like as close as we came was in MoP where you had a few song playing Pandas in the Inns and shrines, that did nothing but take requests for 1 song...

**Sagenod** · 2020-05-09, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Teriz

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this. After Shadowlands and the realignment of the DK as the Necromancer class in WoW, the thought of a Necromancer class should be dead (no pun intended).

- - - Updated - - -

Chen Stormstout helped Thrall, Rexxar, and Rokhan save Orgrimmar and Durator from Jaina's father Admiral Proudmoore.

WTF did Hearthsinger Forresten do?

Come on man I mean he has a piccolo

**FossilFree** · 2020-05-09, 11:35 PM

...

**Teriz** · 2020-05-09, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by FossilFree

I think it's quite ironic when people try to claim there's no justification in WoW for a bard. We have an entire school of sonic attacks and abilities that has no playable representation. If anything, it's the missing piece of the puzzle in damage types!

Yep, totally no precedent at all

...

And what major lore character/hero are all of these abilities attached to?

Also from the look of that list, these abilities are abilities that already exist in existing classes, they're just using screams or songs instead of spells. So if we place these abilities into a "new" class, it would just be a mishmash of the caster specs.

**Gaidax** · 2020-05-09, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by FossilFree

...

Quite frankly, it's simply the case of people reasonably expecting to get a class that is based on Warcraft franchise legacy one way or another.

So far 2 our 3 additions are nobrainer Warcraft fare - Death Knights and Demon Hunters are THE Warcraft thing. The only crapshot here was Monk almost out of blue, but that one was a child of that expansion theme.

So yeah, over the years you have so many different NPCs using so many different named abilities that you can push this quoted response for just about any class imaginable.

The bottom line is, though, that people are expecting something they know and like from Warcraft universe, because there is no shortage of stuff there - Necromancer, Warden and even Tinker. Totally no need to try and borrow D&D fare with all these Dragon Disciples, Bards and what not.

**Ielenia** · 2020-05-10, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Teriz

Well it was your opinion about my class concept, so yes, it was most certainly in your opinion.

Again: it doesn't invalidate anything I wrote.

If you're driving that car at maximum speed, it would increase your chances of driving the vehicle without getting into a collision. In addition, if you built that car from the ground up, you would make it go faster, because you built it to do so. In terms of a mech, you would pilot it better. You would make better decisions, not get tired as easily, and have faster reaction times. In short, those boosts make you a more effective pilot. That translates (in gameplay terms) to you dealing more damage.

You missed the point. The point is that no matter how much I improve myself, I would still be limited by the car's own limits. If my car's top speed is 120 mph, nothing I do for myself will make my car go above 120 mph.

And you're trying to muddy the waters when you well know that auto-attacks (outside of wands) are not magical.

You know the whole point of the monk is fighting using his chi. It's heavily implied that his chi also improve his normal strikes otherwise the auto-attack would be hitting like a limp noodle.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Teriz

And what major lore character/hero are all of these abilities attached to?

That's irrelevant. It's not been shown that we need a "major lore character/hero". Once again, Teriz, you treat your own arbitrary rules as if Blizzard is shackled to them.

Also from the look of that list, these abilities are abilities that already exist in existing classes, they're just using screams or songs instead of spells. So if we place these abilities into a "new" class, it would just be a mishmash of the caster specs.

He's not saying to use those "exact same spells". He's using them to show a "proof of concept". And so what if other classes have this or that ability that shout or sing? That's not a problem in the least... otherwise the Destruction spec for the warlock would not exist. The Holy spec for the paladin would not exist. And the Frost spec for the death knight would not exist.

**Teriz** · 2020-05-10, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Again: it doesn't invalidate anything I wrote.

It does, because your belief that the concept is complex is your opinion, and irrelevant.

You missed the point. The point is that no matter how much I improve myself, I would still be limited by the car's own limits. If my car's top speed is 120 mph, nothing I do for myself will make my car go above 120 mph.

If you’re piloting a fighter jet, would enhanced intelligence, stamina, etc. improve your performance, maneuvering, aiming, reactions to stress, etc. or would it stay the same if you had no enhancements?

We both know the answer to that question.

You know the whole point of the monk is fighting using his chi. It's heavily implied that his chi also improve his normal strikes otherwise the auto-attack would be hitting like a limp noodle.

But you’re not using chi when you’re auto attacking. Also you never addressed the issue of a martial arts master never being able to use their equipped weapons while fighting.

**FossilFree** · 2020-05-10, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ielenia

That's irrelevant. It's not been shown that we need a "major lore character/hero". Once again, Teriz, you treat your own arbitrary rules as if Blizzard is shackled to them.

He's not saying to use those "exact same spells". He's using them to show a "proof of concept". And so what if other classes have this or that ability that shout or sing? That's not a problem in the least... otherwise the Destruction spec for the warlock would not exist. The Holy spec for the paladin would not exist. And the Frost spec for the death knight would not exist.

Exactly! The theme exists in WoW and its full potential is still untapped when it comes to players. The best part is, new sonic abilities had representation in 8.2 Nazjatar and Mechagon and in 8.3 Vale too. Clearly, Blizzard finds them to be fully acceptable additions regardless of what the naysayers think.

**Teriz** · 2020-05-10, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Gaidax

Quite frankly, it's simply the case of people reasonably expecting to get a class that is based on Warcraft franchise legacy one way or another.

So far 2 our 3 additions are nobrainer Warcraft fare - Death Knights and Demon Hunters are THE Warcraft thing. The only crapshot here was Monk almost out of blue, but that one was a child of that expansion theme.

So yeah, over the years you have so many different NPCs using so many different named abilities that you can push this quoted response for just about any class imaginable.

The Monk class was actually also of the Warcraft franchise. Chen Stormstout, the Pandaren on the cover of MoP was part of a WC3 campaign, and quite a bit of the Monk class was based off of the Pandraen Brewmaster hero from WC3, even down to the abilities.

The bottom line is, though, that people are expecting something they know and like from Warcraft universe, because there is no shortage of stuff there - Necromancer, Warden and even Tinker. Totally no need to try and borrow D&D fare with all these Dragon Disciples, Bards and what not.

This is true. It also makes it more likely that the next class will also be of WC3 heritage considering the origins of the previous three class inclusions. Of note, the only two WC3 heroes left without abilities in the class lineup are the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist.

**Amunrasonther** · 2020-05-10, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Polybius

Looking forward to seeing it, I enjoyed your Necro concept.

TY! That means a lot.

**Ielenia** · 2020-05-10, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Teriz

It does, because your belief that the concept is complex is your opinion, and irrelevant.

I'll repeat something I've said to you repeatedly for many years, but still ring just as true, today:

Originally Posted by Ielenia

1) My opinion is as relevant as yours are. Take that as you wish.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

I'll tell you this: my opinion, and other 'anti-tech-class' opinions are just as relevant as yours.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

And personal opinion for personal opinion, your personal opinion is just as irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

My opinion is as irrelevant to this conversation as yours is.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

And your opinion is, essentially, "I like it", which is just as irrelevant.

If you’re piloting a fighter jet, would enhanced intelligence, stamina, etc. improve your performance, maneuvering, aiming, reactions to stress, etc. or would it stay the same if you had no enhancements?

And none of that would make the plane go any faster or make any sharper turns than the fighter jet is designed to make.

But you’re not using chi when you’re auto attacking.

How do you know that?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Amunrasonther

The Bard naysayers are making me happy. I'm currently deep in a WoW class concept for them (thanks Corona quarantine), and I look forward to convincing them otherwise.

I will admit, it's a lot more difficult than my Necromancer concept (see sig), where ideas poured in very easily.

Dude. When you make your bard concept, I'll love to read it. Drop me a message when you post it, just in case I miss it, please.

**Shiza** · 2020-05-10, 01:52 AM

I think it is safe to say that Tinker is the least likely new class to be introduced due to there being absolutely no possibility that Blizz would fuck up that badly to make a Gnome and Goblin themed expansion.

**korijenkins** · 2020-05-10, 01:55 AM

None because this game genuinely does not need more classes. Every role is filled.

**Teriz** · 2020-05-10, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ielenia

I'll repeat something I've said to you repeatedly for many years, but still ring just as true, today:

Uh huh.

And none of that would make the plane go any faster or make any sharper turns than the fighter jet is designed to make.

"Faster" and "sharper" as opposed to what? The point is that an advanced/expert/enhanced pilot would push the vehicle to its technical limits, and get more performance out of it than a standard or inexperienced pilot. In terms of gameplay, as the Tinker gains experience and his/her stats increase, they become better and better pilots to the point where they're more devastating on the battlefield. They could even get more powerful mechs as they level. It's no different than any other class.

How do you know that?

Because they don't use chi when they auto attack. They would also be the only class in the game who have a magical auto attack.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by korijenkins

None because this game genuinely does not need more classes. Every role is filled.

There isn't a class that represents the technological side of WoW. We have a pretty substantial tech theme in the game. We also have three races that are highly technological in nature, and don't really have a class that matches their theme in the class lineup.

And of course we could use a third class that uses mail armor.

**FelPlague** · 2020-05-10, 02:52 AM

Tinker is the only class i can see ever coming to the game.
Other then that, there is countless i could see come in the "class skins" or "fourth spec"
But tinker is theo nly one unique, and unused enough that i feel it could be a new class.

**Ielenia** · 2020-05-10, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Teriz

Uh huh.

Dismissing my opinions for being opinions is to dismiss your own opinions as well, since they are-- shock of all shocks-- also opinions. Your opinion is not more valid than mine, and vice-versa.

"Faster" and "sharper" in opposed to what? The point is that an advanced/expert/enhanced pilot would push the vehicle to its technical limits, and get more performance out of it than a standard or inexperienced pilot.

Yeah. But here's the thing: this "vehicle" was built by the pilot himself when he was just a novice.

Because they don't use chi when they auto attack.

How do you know that?

They would also be the only class in the game who have a magical auto attack.

It's not "magical auto attack".

**Amunrasonther** · 2020-05-10, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Dude. When you make your bard concept, I'll love to read it. Drop me a message when you post it, just in case I miss it, please.

Absolutey!

**Teriz** · 2020-05-10, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Dismissing my opinions for being opinions is to dismiss your own opinions as well, since they are-- shock of all shocks-- also opinions. Your opinion is not more valid than mine, and vice-versa.

Except it wasn't my opinion, it was my class concept that you were offering your opinion on.

Yeah. But here's the thing: this "vehicle" was built by the pilot himself when he was just a novice.

I don't see how that is relevant at all. As he gains experience through the game he'll build better and better mechs.

How do you know that?

Because Monks use Chi as a resource. No Chi is used when I'm auto-attacking.

Recent Blue Posts

Limited PvP -> PvE Free Character Transfers

The Cataclysm Classic Pre-Expansion Patch Arrives April 30

The Cataclysm Classic Pre-Expansion Patch Arrives April 30

The Cataclysm Classic Pre-Expansion Patch Arrives April 30

Season of Discovery Hotfixes - April 23

Season of Discovery Hotfixes - 23 April

WoW Hotfixes - 25 April

Recent Forum Posts

An Update on This Year’s BlizzCon and Blizzard’s 2024 Live Events

Season 4... Just old dungeons and new ilvl?

Dragonflight and Season of Discovery Hotfixes - April 25, 2024

Do you consider the Horde to be "the bad guys" or is it more complex?

Why is it so hard to find a Mythic raiding guild that isn't full of toxic people?

Did Blizzard just hotfix an ilvl requirement onto Awakened LFR?

What's the state of PvP like today?

Poll: Which class are you most hoping to see in WoW?

Thread: Potential Class Hype

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions

Social Media

Services

Resources

Our Communities

MOBAFire Network