Potential Class Hype

[Teriz]

No, Teriz. Once again, you're wrong. Blizzard is not "required" to do anything of the sort. A tech class does not "require" a mech. A tech class does not "require" a claw pack.

And even if it did, a tech class does not "require" unique models for each race.

A mishmash tech class with no direction? No not required. A Tinker class? Yes, it is required.

This is, once again, another instance of you creating arbitrary barriers and rules and acting as if Blizzard is shackled to them, unable to stray away from your rules.

As I've said multiple times; If the Tinker is a class in WoW, Blizzard is going to do what its done with every other expansion class that has its origins in WC3. That being the case, you're going to see the mech and there's a chance you'll see the claw pack too.

It's not "impossible" or even "almost impossible". Some of its components come from raid bosses from previous expansions. It's not like you need a group of 10+ elite players to come farm this with you. You could do it by yourself. And it drops in LFR, too.

Read up on any guide on what you need to do to get the components for that module. Nearly every account says that its a complete waste of time and not worth it. Further, after you get it, you can only use it for a limited number of times, and then its gone forever. And you only use it in one area in the entire game. So yeah, definitely not a replacement for a mech-based class.

As well as "bards-as-a-profession" would replace a bard class. But, hey, double-standards are not uncommon with you.

Except there is no Bard class concept within Warcraft. There isn't even a lore character to base a Bard on, so its not a double standard.

[Ielenia]

A mishmash tech class with no direction? No not required. A Tinker class? Yes, it is required.

No. No, it's not required. Whatsoever. And "no direction" is only in your mind. There are plenty of ways to give it "direction" without forcing "unique mechs and clawpacks".

As I've said multiple times;

And as I've said multiple times: it's pure conjecture.

Read up on any guide on what you need to do to get the components for that module. Nearly every account says that its a complete waste of time and not worth it. Further, after you get it, you can only use it for a limited number of times, and then its gone forever. And you only use it in one area in the entire game. So yeah, definitely not a replacement for a mech-based class.

Ah, so now you're moving the goalposts. After you've been caught in your lie, you're going "buh-buh-but it's not worth iiiiiiit!"

Except there is no Bard class concept within Warcraft.

There is.

There isn't even a lore character to base a Bard on

There is.

so its not a double standard.

Yes, it is. And even doubly so because the "tinker" concept revolves around actually creating things: their mech, their rockets, their bombs, etc. While the "bard" concept does not revolve around "creating things".

What you're doing here is basically saying "blacksmith should be a class, but warriors would be fine being a profession."

[Teriz]

No. No, it's not required. Whatsoever. And "no direction" is only in your mind. There are plenty of ways to give it "direction" without forcing "unique mechs and clawpacks".

And as I've said multiple times: it's pure conjecture.[/quote]

So are you saying that Blizzard wouldn't use an established tech-class concept where they already have abilities, lore characters, and concepts ready to go, and instead go with a completely unrelated tech-class concept for... reasons? That makes zero logical sense.

Ah, so now you're moving the goalposts. After you've been caught in your lie, you're going "buh-buh-but it's not worth iiiiiiit!"

I didn't move goalposts. It is next to impossible to get, and a massive time sink. Saying "its not worth it" doesn't contradict that original point.

There is.

There is.

What are they?

Yes, it is. And even doubly so because the "tinker" concept revolves around actually creating things: their mech, their rockets, their bombs, etc. While the "bard" concept does not revolve around "creating things".

What you're doing here is basically saying "blacksmith should be a class, but warriors would be fine being a profession."

Actually no. The Tinker concept revolves around using technology on the class level. The Tinker building stuff is implied. Just like its implied that the Monk creates all the Kegs that it smashes, or brews that it consumes.

The Bard would work better as a profession because a class wouldn't really encompass its unique attributes, given that WoW doesn't really have room for a support class that gives out buffs. I know you like to believe that a WoW Bard wouldn't be a buff bot, but that's what Bards do in pretty much every MMO out there.

It's really sad that I need to explain this sort of stuff to you.

[Ielenia]

So are you saying that Blizzard wouldn't use an established tech-class concept where they already have abilities, lore characters, and concepts ready to go, and instead go with a completely unrelated tech-class concept for... reasons? That makes zero logical sense.

I never said they wouldn't, I said they don't have to. HUGE difference, there.

I didn't move goalposts. It is next to impossible to get, and a massive time sink. Saying "its not worth it" doesn't contradict that original point.

Yes, you did move goal posts. Because it is not "next to impossible to get", and when I proved to you that it isn't, you completely changed your tune to "it's not worth it."

That is the textbook definition of "moving the goalposts".

What are they?

Russell Brower, Hearthsinger Forresten, Lorewalker Cho, Brann Bronzebeard.

Actually no. The Tinker concept revolves around using technology on the class level. The Tinker building stuff is implied. Just like its implied that the Monk creates all the Kegs that it smashes, or brews that it consumes.

That is "grade A bullshit" right there. "On the class level" is nothing but another of your arbitrary caveats.

The Bard would work better as a profession

By any and all metric, it wouldn't. Because "bards", unlike "tinkers", do not revolve around creating things. Again: you're basically want the blacksmith to be a class, but the warrior to be a profession.

It's really sad that I need to explain this sort of stuff to you.

What is sad is that you apparently seem to believe your own bullshit.

[Newname1234567890]

I quite like the idea of a new class that is actually a race and your "selected" race is a disguise. Like a Dreadlord or Dragon Class. Be a unique way to approach it.

A lorewalker/Tortiallian Seeker style class that uses scorlls and relics could be awesome!

[TheRevenantHero]

And as I've said multiple times: it's pure conjecture.

So are you saying that Blizzard wouldn't use an established tech-class concept where they already have abilities, lore characters, and concepts ready to go, and instead go with a completely unrelated tech-class concept for... reasons? That makes zero logical sense.




I didn't move goalposts. It is next to impossible to get, and a massive time sink. Saying "its not worth it" doesn't contradict that original point.



What are they?



Actually no. The Tinker concept revolves around using technology on the class level. The Tinker building stuff is implied. Just like its implied that the Monk creates all the Kegs that it smashes, or brews that it consumes.

The Bard would work better as a profession because a class wouldn't really encompass its unique attributes, given that WoW doesn't really have room for a support class that gives out buffs. I know you like to believe that a WoW Bard wouldn't be a buff bot, but that's what Bards do in pretty much every MMO out there.

It's really sad that I need to explain this sort of stuff to you.[/QUOTE]

If you think the Bard doesn't have any unique attributes then you have NEVER played D&D and have obviously refused to pay attention to the abilities of lore NPCs that are Bards. They use magic that is essentially songweaving that buffs allies, heals allies, and debuffs enemies. They also do plenty of damage with their abilities since their power is arcane in nature. So saying a Bard would be better off as a profession despite it having unique characteristics but Tinker is wholly unique despite them essentially being Engineers is a ridiculous double standard.

[Trazzle]

These threads are fun to read until Ielenia pipes up.

[Teriz]

I never said they wouldn't, I said they don't have to. HUGE difference, there.

By saying they "don't have to", you're implying that they wouldn't. So, for what reason would they not use the tech class concept they've already established?

Yes, you did move goal posts. Because it is not "next to impossible to get", and when I proved to you that it isn't, you completely changed your tune to "it's not worth it."

That is the textbook definition of "moving the goalposts".

Ever stop to consider that the reason it's "not worth it" is BECAUSE its "next to impossible to get", and when you get it, its garbage?

Russell Brower, Hearthsinger Forresten, Lorewalker Cho, Brann Bronzebeard.

A spoof/homage character that has priest abilities, a random NPC in stratholme, a character with no abilities nor connections to the other characters you listed, and an archeologist.

Quite a lineup...

That is "grade A bullshit" right there. "On the class level" is nothing but another of your arbitrary caveats.

I have to make that distinction since individuals like yourself seem to have some difficulty differentiating between a class and a profession.

By any and all metric, it wouldn't. Because "bards", unlike "tinkers", do not revolve around creating things. Again: you're basically want the blacksmith to be a class, but the warrior to be a profession.


What is sad is that you apparently seem to believe your own bullshit.

So are Monks, Rogues, and Warlocks professions since they craft/create items?

- - - Updated - - -

If you think the Bard doesn't have any unique attributes then you have NEVER played D&D and have obviously refused to pay attention to the abilities of lore NPCs that are Bards. They use magic that is essentially songweaving that buffs allies, heals allies, and debuffs enemies. They also do plenty of damage with their abilities since their power is arcane in nature. So saying a Bard would be better off as a profession despite it having unique characteristics but Tinker is wholly unique despite them essentially being Engineers is a ridiculous double standard.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't D&D. WoW classes tend to be well established in Warcraft lore BEFORE they become classes.

[TheRevenantHero]

By saying they "don't have to", you're implying that they wouldn't. So, for what reason would they not use the tech class concept they've already established?



Ever stop to consider that the reason it's "not worth it" is BECAUSE its "next to impossible to get", and when you get it, its garbage?



A spoof/homage character that has priest abilities, a random NPC in stratholme, a character with no abilities nor connections to the other characters you listed, and an archeologist.

Quite a lineup...




I have to make that distinction since individuals like yourself seem to have some difficulty differentiating between a class and a profession.




So are Monks, Rogues, and Warlocks professions since they craft/create items?

- - - Updated - - -



In case you haven't noticed, this isn't D&D. WoW classes tend to be well established in Warcraft lore BEFORE they become classes.

Ah yes let's move them goalposts. Not sure you realize this but all the classes in WoW were inspired by D&D. And Bards are absolutely in lore whether you want to accept it or not. You were given a handful of Bard lore characters and you chose to invalidate it with your incredibly biased an honestly ignorant opinion. Just because you don't want to accept that those lore characters are Bards doesn't mean they AREN'T Bards.

[Teriz]

I quite like the idea of a new class that is actually a race and your "selected" race is a disguise. Like a Dreadlord or Dragon Class. Be a unique way to approach it.

A lorewalker/Tortiallian Seeker style class that uses scorlls and relics could be awesome!

Check out my Dragonsworn concept and let me know what you think.

[Trazzle]

What LORE characters are bards? Sure bards exists in the game, just as music exists in general. Might as well call them buskers or minstrels.

[Teriz]

Ah yes let's move them goalposts. Not sure you realize this but all the classes in WoW were inspired by D&D. And Bards are absolutely in lore whether you want to accept it or not. You were given a handful of Bard lore characters and you chose to invalidate it with your incredibly biased an honestly ignorant opinion. Just because you don't want to accept that those lore characters are Bards doesn't mean they AREN'T Bards.

At the very base level, yes WoW classes come from D&D, after decades of getting the "Warcraft treatment" and becoming decidingly Warcraft classes. A Warcraft Paladin for example is heavily steeped in WC lore, to the point where you can tell a Warcraft Paladin from a Paladin in other games. Then you have wholly original Warcraft concepts like the Demon Hunter, which is distinguished by its Warglaives and half-demon/half elf appearance. Again, a Warcraft Demon Hunter is completely different from a Diablo Demon Hunter. The Warcraft Tinker as well has very unique attributes that have actually began filtering into other games because it works extremely well for a tech based class. However, you would never confuse a Warcraft Tinker for tech classes in Torchlight, Final Fantasy Online, Ragnarok Online, Guild Wars, etc.

Which brings us to the Bard.... Where is it in Warcraft outside of random NPCs in Order halls or disparate NPCs that happen to have a "musical" ability?

Take the "Bard" that Ielenia likes to bring up; "Hearthsinger Forresten". Here is his lore;

The Culling of Stratholme claimed the lives of innumerable people whose only crime was being in the doomed city. A traveling singer and piccolo player named Forresten was one such victim. He continues to wander the city in death, unable to accept his tragic fate.

That's it. His abilities are a Hunter ability, a Warrior ability, and a spell that puts people to sleep.

Yeah, let's base a class on that guy.

- - - Updated - - -

What LORE characters are bards? Sure bards exists in the game, just as music exists in general. Might as well call them buskers or minstrels.

None with any significant lore beyond a paragraph. I suppose there's Lorewalker Cho, but I'd hesitate to call him a Bard. At least in the sense that someone could base a recognizable class upon.

[TheRevenantHero]

At the very base level, yes WoW classes come from D&D, after decades of getting the "Warcraft treatment" and becoming decidingly Warcraft classes. A Warcraft Paladin for example is heavily steeped in WC lore, to the point where you can tell a Warcraft Paladin from a Paladin in other games. Then you have wholly original Warcraft concepts like the Demon Hunter, which is distinguished by its Warglaives and half-demon/half elf appearance. Again, a Warcraft Demon Hunter is completely different from a Diablo Demon Hunter. The Warcraft Tinker as well has very unique attributes that have actually began filtering into other games because it works extremely well for a tech based class. However, you would never confuse a Warcraft Tinker for tech classes in Torchlight, Final Fantasy Online, Ragnarok Online, Guild Wars, etc.

Which brings us to the Bard.... Where is it in Warcraft outside of random NPCs in Order halls or disparate NPCs that happen to have a "musical" ability?

Take the "Bard" that Ielenia likes to bring up; "Hearthsinger Forresten". Here is his lore;



That's it. His abilities are a Hunter ability, a Warrior ability, and a spell that puts people to sleep.

Yeah, let's base a class on that guy.

- - - Updated - - -



None with any significant lore beyond a paragraph. I suppose there's Lorewalker Cho, but I'd hesitate to call him a Bard. At least in the sense that someone could base a recognizable class upon.

You want Tinkers super bad despite them basically doing everything engineers do already but somehow a Bard is too far. Do you actually know you're spouting a double standard or do you just make comments like this, not caring if it's a double standard?

[Teriz]

You want Tinkers super bad despite them basically doing everything engineers do already but somehow a Bard is too far. Do you actually know you're spouting a double standard or do you just make comments like this, not caring if it's a double standard?

Can engineering allow me to raid while piloting a mech?

[TheRevenantHero]

Can engineering allow me to raid while piloting a mech?

Irrelevant since there is absolutely no guarantee a Tinker class would let you do that either. You can use conjecture all you want but this is also Blizzard we're talking about. Death Knights were mounted units in WC3 and that's where they were strongest yet you don't ride an undead horse into battle in WoW.

[Teriz]

Irrelevant since there is absolutely no guarantee a Tinker class would let you do that either. You can use conjecture all you want but this is also Blizzard we're talking about. Death Knights were mounted units in WC3 and that's where they were strongest yet you don't ride an undead horse into battle in WoW.

The Tinker had a mech in WC3, and HotS. Both "Tinker teams" in Island Expeditions had mechs. Gazlowe and Mekkatorque also have mechs, so it stands to reason that the Tinker would also have a mech. Also DKs (and Shaman) riding a mount wasn't an ability. Robo Goblin was an ability, and an Ultimate ability at that.

So where's my mech for raiding?

[TheRevenantHero]

The Tinker had a mech in WC3, and HotS. Both "Tinker teams" in Island Expeditions had mechs. Gazlowe and Mekkatorque also have mechs, so it stands to reason that the Tinker would also have a mech.

So where's my mech for raiding?

There are DK enemies that battle you on horseback too. The Four Horsemen in Naxxramas and Baron Rivendare of Stratholme come to mind. So once again, 100% conjecture. You can apply NPC logic and abilities to PCs all you want but Blizzard has shown numerous times that NPCs play by ENTIRELY different rules.

[Teriz]

There are DK enemies that battle you on horseback too. The Four Horsemen in Naxxramas and Baron Rivendare of Stratholme come to mind. So once again, 100% conjecture. You can apply NPC logic and abilities to PCs all you want but Blizzard has shown numerous times that NPCs play by ENTIRELY different rules.

DKs (and Shaman) riding a horse wasn't an ability. Robo Goblin was an ability, and an Ultimate ability at that. So yeah, it stands to reason why DKs riding horses wouldn't be an ability in WoW.

[TheRevenantHero]

DKs (and Shaman) riding a horse wasn't an ability. Robo Goblin was an ability, and an Ultimate ability at that. So yeah, it stands to reason why DKs riding horses wouldn't be an ability in WoW.

I really don't know why I bother. I could post everything in the world that disproves your comments and you will never accept it. You don't care that DKs were a 100% mounted unit in WC3 because that destroys your point. You would rather believe your own conjecture as 100% fact despite Blizzard likely not giving those things to players. I can't see Blizzard giving players access to a mech constantly. As a matter of fact, I can absolutely see them pulling a quel'dorei and saying "If you want a mech, just jump in one of the mech mounts." You are putting FAR too much faith in Blizzard to give you what you want and are just setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Teriz]

I really don't know why I bother. I could post everything in the world that disproves your comments and you will never accept it. You don't care that DKs were a 100% mounted unit in WC3 because that destroys your point. You would rather believe your own conjecture as 100% fact despite Blizzard likely not giving those things to players. I can't see Blizzard giving players access to a mech constantly. As a matter of fact, I can absolutely see them pulling a quel'dorei and saying "If you want a mech, just jump in one of the mech mounts." You are putting FAR too much faith in Blizzard to give you what you want and are just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Except it doesn't destroy my point. Archmages and Farseers also were mounted, but that never translated over to WoW as a permanent mount form. Why would it? Having a character permanently on horse or wolf back would make zero sense for a character class. However, we're not talking about a mount with a Tinker, we're talking about an ability, and as an ability, there's no reason for why it wouldn't be brought over into WoW as a class ability.

Also why would Blizzard not give players the Tinker ultimate ability if;

A. Every other expansion class has gotten their Ultimate ability from WC3.
B. Blizzard has shown multiple characters in WoW riding mechs.
C. It would require something as simple as utilizing Druid mechanics to implement.

in short, the only reason YOU think a Tinker in a mech is a nonstarter is because it destroys your argument that engineering "does everything a Tinker would do".