A time skip in 10.0 would make Tinkers possible.

[Florena]

It is true that they are the only ones who know, however, mecha gnomes and mechagon being in BfA, and no Tinker, i believe is quite telling.

There are also factors of timing and expansion themes. Classes before have always tied into the theme of the expansion when added. DKs for Wrath, monks for MOP, demon hunters for Legion. But while this is a pattern, it's not necessarily a set in stone rule they would have to follow. Mechagon really wasn't a tech theme for the whole expansion, it was part of one content patch.

And then there's timing. Legion had also just added a new class, and shadowladns isn't even getting a new class despite the previous pattern of every other expansion getting one.

So I don't really think Mechagon coming and going without tinkers is really any more an indication that we won't 'ever' get a tech based class than say Burning Crusade not having given us demon hunters and seeming to have wrapped up Illdan's whole story at the time.

I don't particularly want, or expect, tinkers or anything similar as a new class. But there's really zero reason blizzard can't do it if internally they want to.

[Swnem]

They aren't making Stinkers get over it.

There is an endless list of things they can/should fix with existing classes/races/lore/etc. They also just proved they are fully willing to release an xpac without a class or new race. Ending that stupid cycle of adding unnecessary content every other xpac.

Unnecessary for you, who thinks that perfect balance will ever happen and we can't have anymore nice things. How do you keep believing that after 15 years of game is beyond me.
New classes are exciting. They are certainly going to add more. Count on it.

[1know]

are lightsaber possible as well?

[Triceron]

Blizzard do ALL of the work of creating a new class, but having an added burden of making sure there is perfect balance between the two concepts. Further, this perfect balance must be maintained in future expansions to avoid balance complications in the future.

The core concepts are one and the same. Theme is immeasurably interchangeable, with any class. If Demon Hunter was built as a Warlock spec, if Paladin was a Warrior or Priest spec, if Necromancer was a Priest or Warlock or DK spec.... It would be treated no differently than Beastmaster being a Hunter spec or Brewmaster being a Monk spec. These classes would be built as part of specs, and the specs themselves are tied to the identity of the core class. Thats what happens.

You can make an argument that the DH and the Paladins and the Necromancers all deserve unique identities or you could argue they should have all just been specs, and it would be true because we have examples of both.

It's irrational to think that if Blizzard is going to make sweeping Druid changes, that they'd have to rebalance a second version that is ultimately the exact same with different ability names. I mean, I don't even understand your argument here. We could take Tinker and apply the concept to a Shaman by renaming spells and giving same new graphics and theme. The Tinker is defined by its presence, and the gameplay is just a container for that identity. Paladins aren't bound to WoW as HAVING to be their own class, just like Beastmasters and Brewmasters aren't bound as HAVING to be a Spec. If the concepts were any different, if the game was designed from the ground up, core classes and Hero classes could have been addressed differently across the board. What we have now is a system that's built on Legacy, and I that's why we won't get niche concepts like Blademasters or Chieftains as playable Heroes in WoW whearas they had a clear purpose and a clear niche within WC3, not just as 'Part of the Warrior'.

To make this worse, all that extra work would do nothing but make fans of both Druids and Tinkers angry.

What changes to the game haven't made fans angry? Eggs gotta break if you want to make an omelette. Tell me, what class has been added with universal praise amongst the fans? DK? Hell no, people complained they were OP and broken at launch, and everyone was rolling one causing a lot of stress amongst players whose characters were not being taken to raids over a DK. That shit was real. Monks? Yeah right. Demon Hunter? Popular yes, but look at all the pissed off Warlock fans. Tinker? Divisive at best! The Gnome and Goblin exclusivity speaks for itself.

If you want to talk about making fans angry and preventing that, then your only option is to not add the Tinker at all. Better left not angering fans of either side, right? Complete and utter bullshit reasoning. Eggs need to be broken. End of the day - This game will never satisfy all the fans.

Bottom line - We're arguing opinion. There is no empirical truth behind the time and effort spent being wasted just because fans are angry. Look at Mechagnomes and them being Gnomes adapted with junk rather than the actual Clockwork Gnomes that people actually wanted. You could make that same argument that adding Junker Gnomes made Mechagnome fans angry and were a waste of effort. You could be right. You could be wrong. Either way it doesn't matter, cuz the fans were going to be pissed either way, even if they got the Clockwork Gnomes they wanted some other group of fans would say otherwise.

[Ielenia]

And you keep ignoring that in a fantasy setting, logic and consistency aren't the same as the real world.

Hey. Would stop acting like a knucklehead? It's written, right there: "Logic that the game itself has established." It has nothing to do with "real life".

.........

You do understand that in the real world, a dog would actually have to poo on your sidewalk, while in a magical fantasy world (created and controlled by someone), poo could literally spawn on your sidewalk right?

Please tell me you understand that.

And you do understand that, just because a game is "high fantasy", it doesn't mean free-for-all anything-goes anything-can-happen, right? It doesn't matter if a story is set in a "high fantasy" setting, a "sci-fi" setting or "modern" setting. All stories follow basic logic even if it's logic that the story itself has established. It's called "being consistent".

You want another example of your nonsense? What you're basically saying is that, in a Cyberpunk story, two 100% humans, with absolute zero cybernetic augmentations, can give birth to a baby already with a robotic arm and cybernetically enhanced eyes, just because adult humans with robotic arms and cybernetically enhanced eyes exist in the Cyberpunk setting.

And you're making an assumption. Blizzard never specifically stated that you learned individual talents from a trainer.

They also never stated, specifically or not, that you "learn them on your own". And considering the gameplay concessions that exist for the sake of fluid gameplay, it's much more obvious and logical that they learn those through their mentors.

So you're saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chris Metzen or any Blizzard developer to add in lore that the player characters were never children and create some elaborate BS on why that's the case?

I can assure you it's not.

Yes. Yes, it is impossible. It is impossible without completely breaking the internal logic consistency of the setting and retcons a lot of stuff.
• The overwhelming majority NPCs would have to completely change their attitude toward our characters, since now we're "chosen ones".
• The background for some races would have to be completely redone, since, for example, in the goblin starting zone, you're already part of "high society" and therefore a VIP.

Who just happens to be able to also cast Shadowbolt and hear demonic voices......

Because it was taught to them. And who said warlocks "hear demonic voices"? Delving further into headcanon now?

The important part is resurrecting allies, which is what the Paladin does.

No. It's not. It's resurrecting allies while in combat, which is something the WoW paladin does not have, and never had, but druids do, and druids never had a resurrect ability in WC3 to begin with.

[Teriz]

The core concepts are one and the same. Theme is immeasurably interchangeable, with any class. If Demon Hunter was built as a Warlock spec, if Paladin was a Warrior or Priest spec, if Necromancer was a Priest or Warlock or DK spec.... It would be treated no differently than Beastmaster being a Hunter spec or Brewmaster being a Monk spec. These classes would be built as part of specs, and the specs themselves are tied to the identity of the core class. Thats what happens.

You can make an argument that the DH and the Paladins and the Necromancers all deserve unique identities or you could argue they should have all just been specs, and it would be true because we have examples of both.

And now you're moving the goalposts yet again. Please settle on one concept so that we can discuss this properly; Are we talking about class skins (where there is ONLY cosmetic change), are we talking about sub classes (where there are cosmetic AND mechanical changes, but balance is a severe issue as demonstrated), or are we talking about specializations?

It's irrational to think that if Blizzard is going to make sweeping Druid changes, that they'd have to rebalance a second version that is ultimately the exact same with different ability names. I mean, I don't even understand your argument here. We could take Tinker and apply the concept to a Shaman by renaming spells and giving same new graphics and theme. The Tinker is defined by its presence, and the gameplay is just a container for that identity. Paladins aren't bound to WoW as HAVING to be their own class, just like Beastmasters and Brewmasters aren't bound as HAVING to be a Spec. If the concepts were any different, if the game was designed from the ground up, core classes and Hero classes could have been addressed differently across the board. What we have now is a system that's built on Legacy, and I that's why we won't get niche concepts like Blademasters or Chieftains as playable Heroes in WoW whearas they had a clear purpose and a clear niche within WC3, not just as 'Part of the Warrior'.

Uh, Balance, Feral, and Restoration have had sweeping changes constantly throughout it's history. Further, Feral and Guardian were at one time ONE spec. Them being split into two different specs is an example of a sweeping change. Hell, at one point you couldn't use different spells from different forms (i.e. Ferals couldn't use restoration or balance spells in cat form, now they can). Now imagine those massive changes taking place with a sub class attached to it...

Also the very fact that YOU believe that Paladins don't need to be a class, yet clearly are a class shows how out of step you are with Blizzard's thinking when it comes to classes.

What changes to the game haven't made fans angry? Eggs gotta break if you want to make an omelette. Tell me, what class has been added with universal praise amongst the fans? DK? Hell no, people complained they were OP and broken at launch, and everyone was rolling one causing a lot of stress amongst players whose characters were not being taken to raids over a DK. That shit was real. Monks? Yeah right. Demon Hunter? Popular yes, but look at all the pissed off Warlock fans. Tinker? Divisive at best! The Gnome and Goblin exclusivity speaks for itself.

Divisive among who? Only about 5 people on this forum argue against it on a consistent basis, and their arguments are typically childish nonsense like "Stinkers will never happen".

That is NOTHING compared to what would happen if Druid players find out that their class has to be balanced and altered around a non-related concept like Tinkers. The number of fans saying that Blizzard is "lazy" would be off the charts.

If you want to talk about making fans angry and preventing that, then your only option is to not add the Tinker at all. Better left not angering fans of either side, right? Complete and utter bullshit reasoning. Eggs need to be broken. End of the day - This game will never satisfy all the fans.

Really? Every thread I've seen discussing the Tinker has been overwhelmingly positive. Have you been to the official forums recently? Any Tinker thread that pops up meets overwhelming support. The only people disliking it are the "no new classes" crowd.

[Triceron]

Divisive among who? Only about 5 people on this forum argue against it on a consistent basis, and their arguments are typically childish nonsense like "Stinkers will never happen".

This shows how out of step you are with the World of Warcraft community at large. Gnome and Goblin Tinkers, as an individually featured class, will be divisive at best. It's only 5 people now because the concept doesn't formally exist in the game.

How many people vocally spoke out against Pandaren prior to Mists of Pandaria? Please inform me, because I don't even think I saw 5 people doing so back then. That certainly changed after MoP was formally announced, didn't it?

Uh, Balance, Feral, and Restoration have had sweeping changes constantly throughout it's history. Further, Feral and Guardian were at one time ONE spec. Them being split into two different specs is an example of a sweeping change. Hell, at one point you couldn't use different spells from different forms (i.e. Ferals couldn't use restoration or balance spells in cat form, now they can). Now imagine those massive changes taking place with a sub class attached to it...

And... Tinker would adapt. Is it reasonable to expect such an immutable change given that there is a 'sub class' attached to the gameplay? It's no different than having to update Green Flame effects to Warlocks that got global changes to their graphics. No different from the Legion Artifact Forms that aren't being retroactively applied to the Kul Tirans and Zandalari. I can imagine it pretty well because we have examples of that right now.

As long as the Tinker has a bunch of stock effects that works for it (explosions, beams, little robot models) then it could be easily adapted to most types of gameplay in WoW. It's not like the spell effects for the latest 10 Druid abilities have been overwhelmingly unique. It all plays on the same sparkly light beams and swirling leaves effects that we've seen a billion times.

We've seen more work done for spells when they actually decide to do a graphical overhaul to modernize everything across the board. When it comes to expansion changes though, the graphical updates are done in bite-sized chunks each time; even if you consider how Feral or Boomkin has changed completely over the years all of that is literally data and numbers while the actual graphics stayed fairly consistent throughout. And if we're talking about numbers and gameplay... Tinker wouldn't be any different if its Shredder Spec focused on maintaining Buffs and Bleeds or focused on stacking Armor Penetration or focused on applying Mangle Debuffs. The theme isn't affected that greatly by the gameplay because ALL themes are adaptable.

are we talking about sub classes (where there are cosmetic AND mechanical changes, but balance is a severe issue as demonstrated), or are we talking about specializations?

Would you consider Gnome and Goblin Hunters as a sub class because they have exclusive access to Mecha pets? Your argument is akin to saying 'If they change the Chicken Model, they have to change the Robot Chicken models too! Too much work!' Well yeah if they're gonna update graphics for one aspect that affects Hunters then it's fair reason to update it equally. It's not like if they're going to update a Druid form they would only do it for the Bears now and leave the Kul Tirans and Zandalari out of the picture. It all has to be updated because they chose to diversify away from being Bear-only.

That's one way of looking at Class Skins. Whatever graphical Druid changes or additions should factor in Tinkers too, unless it's an expansion-specific thing like what they did with Artifact Forms and not passing those updates over to future additions. It's a case-by-case scenario when we already have examples of Classes that already have graphical diversity. Paladin Mounts are another example of this. What if they decide to change the Hippo Model? Well Lightforged Paladins will have a graphically superior looking Class mount to the others then; or they could have an unchanged model for the sake of consistency with the rest. Either way it's never been a big issue.

[Teriz]

Hey. Would stop acting like a knucklehead? It's written, right there: "Logic that the game itself has established." It has nothing to do with "real life".

And the game has never established that a people in Azeroth CANNOT learn abilities without the help of a trainer. In fact, our own characters learned abilities without going to a trainer even in classic WoW.

And you do understand that, just because a game is "high fantasy", it doesn't mean free-for-all anything-goes anything-can-happen, right? It doesn't matter if a story is set in a "high fantasy" setting, a "sci-fi" setting or "modern" setting. All stories follow basic logic even if it's logic that the story itself has established. It's called "being consistent".

So you're saying that in a land of magic and sorcery, objects can't materialize out of thin air?

You want another example of your nonsense? What you're basically saying is that, in a Cyberpunk story, two 100% humans, with absolute zero cybernetic augmentations, can give birth to a baby already with a robotic arm and cybernetically enhanced eyes, just because adult humans with robotic arms and cybernetically enhanced eyes exist in the Cyberpunk setting.

Yeah, that isn't even close to a valid example. Again look at other fantasy media. In the Marvel universe, mutants like Wolverine and Storm are born with powers. In Harry Potter, the main character is born with an affinity to magic. In Avatar the Last Airbender, people are born with the ability to bend the elements.

The fact that you can't grasp this is utterly hilarious, and really not worth my time to argue with you about.

- - - Updated - - -

This shows how out of step you are with the World of Warcraft community at large. Gnome and Goblin Tinkers, as an individually featured class, will be divisive at best. It's only 5 people now because the concept doesn't formally exist in the game.

Not as divisive as purposely tying the Druid class to the Tinker concept. At least with Tinkers being a separate class, people who want the Tinker will be happy.

Also in all seriousness, who would be angry? People who don't want ANY new classes in the game? Who cares.

[Triceron]

Not as divisive as purposely tying the Druid class to the Tinker concept. At least with Tinkers being a separate class, people who want the Tinker will be happy.

Also in all seriousness, who would be angry? People who don't want ANY new classes in the game? Who cares.

1- Players who want a Playable Tinker for another Race, they want a Tinker but would greatly prefer X race
2- Players who want any other class other than Tinker, arguing grass is greener with X class
3- Players who don't want any new class, their opinions might not mean much but like the Pandaren Hate crowd, they could be very vocal
4- Players who don't like Gnomes or Goblins and feel slighted at having a new Class that is not 'accessible' to them. Similar to 1 but with actual complaint
5- Players who don't like the 'forced' Mechanical theme of the expansion that ushers in the Tinker, anti-Pandaria syndrome 2.0
6- Players who want a serious new class option. We haven't actually gotten a whimsical class in the game, this would be the first.


These are common arguments made in the poll threads, in the Tinker threads. You might be conveniently ignoring them and dismissing the opinions, but as someone who has been looking at it more objectively, there's a reason why I conclude that offering a bunch of new Class Skin options would ideally work better than just introducing a singular divisive option. Consider that criticism on Mechagnomes is not as harsh as it could be. Imagine if Mechagnome was the only new Race featured in BFA. It doesn't matter how much effort Blizzard put in making Mechagnomes even more customizable or visually appealing if they poured all their resources into this one race, it would still be criticized for not being X Race option or being too forced in having Mechagon be a significant part of the expansion, or literally just for being a Gnome off-shoot 'which no one asked for'. Right now we don't have those issues because we have SO MANY Allied Race options to choose from that Mechagnomes fit in as one of the bunch, rather than singled out for not being some other, popular Race option.

[Teriz]

1- Players who want a Playable Tinker for another Race, they want a Tinker but would greatly prefer X race
2- Players who want any other class other than Tinker, arguing grass is greener with X class
3- Players who don't want any new class, their opinions might not mean much but like the Pandaren Hate crowd, they could be very vocal
4- Players who don't like Gnomes or Goblins and feel slighted at having a new Class that is not 'accessible' to them. Similar to 1 but with actual complaint
5- Players who don't like the 'forced' Mechanical theme of the expansion that ushers in the Tinker, anti-Pandaria syndrome 2.0
6- Players who want a serious new class option. We haven't actually gotten a whimsical class in the game, this would be the first.

Players who fall under #1 will get over it quickly, since their end goal is to play a technology class.

Also, the Pandaren Monk smashes endless kegs of beer on the heads of people. How is that not whimsical?

[ReVnX]

There is no time skip happening

[Triceron]

Also, the Pandaren Monk smashes endless kegs of beer on the heads of people. How is that not whimsical?

Because it's literally one ability out of one spec out of one class.

Tinkers? You're literally making an argument for a Gnome and Goblin exclusive class. Tiny people in giant mechs. That is the literal core theme of the class, of all specs, as a part of every ability. The races they are mutually exclusive to are whimsical by nature.

Being whimsical is not the problem, it's the fact that it isn't a choice. I can play a Gnome Death Knight who picks flowers, and that's my choice. DK's aren't exclusive to Gnomes and Herbalism, it's not a whimsical class even if it can be played in that way. With Tinkers, if Gnomes and Goblins are the only playable races and there's no alternative, then we're talking about a whimsical class, we're talking about a big ol' target for criticism. This is even worse considering we're pushing into 5-6 years without a new class this cycle, and expectations are going to run high.

Not everyone shares your 'I have no reason to play Gnomes because they don't have a class to represent themselves' attitude. That's the first thing you need to realize.

[Ielenia]

but no oneis talking about tecnology, we are talking about a proper tinker class, youa re just making just a simplification of a tinker is/could be, donwgrading then to mere "tecnology users" ignoring all other examples

and show me a night elf tinker, cause i never saw one.

We have actual examples of human and night elf tinkers. Tinkmaster Overspark says: "I hand-picked these tinkologists myself! They're the best and the brightest!" Skip to 2:42:

Humans and night elves. And before you say anything about the word "tinkologist": "Tinkers (or tinkerers and tinkologists)"

sine they are not called "tinker" they are not tinkers

So Siegecrafter Blackfuse is not a tinker? Sicco Thermaplugg is not a tinker, either? Is Varian not a warrior because he is never called one, specifically? Is Shaw not a rogue because he is never called one, specifically?

your entire premise is based around your idea of "tinker = tech users" and just that, and its where you are failing, cause your premise is false

It's not false. Because to be a tinker you need to be a tech user. Because tinkers are tech users. Otherwise, that's like saying you don't need faith to be a paladin. Humans and night elves (for example) can learn engineering, and create the same things a tinker can: mechs, guns, bombs, missiles, etc.

if this is tru they could ahve opened the DH class to more races, so A LOT MORE people would play that class

Blood elves already comprised of 33% of the Horde's entire population, and night elves were 22% of the Alliance's population by January 2nd, 2016 which is before Demon Hunters were available for those who pre-ordered Legion. So, no. There was no need to heavily alter the demon hunter lore to fit more races into the class because the two races that were already part of it were already very popular races.

Now compare to Gnome and Goblins and Mechagnomes numbers today: gnomes and mechagnomes together comprise of a meager 6% of the total Alliance population, and goblins comprise of only 4% of the Horde's total population. So, no. There is no need to heavily alter the tinker lore to fit less races into the class because the two races that you want it to be restricted to are very unpopular races.

And again, there is lore to expand and lock then.

Lore to expand? Of course. Lore to lock? Of course not.

if blizzard wan to do an expansion around tinker fantasy, and focus more on those races, they can do that, one could argu that is a good strategy to lock tinker to few races - at first - so people can play something different and more thematic.

Again, you don't work at blizzard, you don't know how they will do, for certain

and i didn't, are youe ven trying? you are do one claiming ideas as fact LUL, you said with all the letters "blizard can't, its impossible, blablabla"

Except... it's not me. You are:

first, you prove if they are slaves, second, it doesn't matter, Illidan nailed then all, regardless of the race, so the illidan racism is a piss-poor retcon

Looks like someone is "claiming ideas as fact", there. I offered a possibility (the concubines could be for the blood elf council, not Illidan) but you are claiming a fact (Illidan nailed them all).

in this case is a completely valid argument

It's not. Saying "Blizzard can break the lore if they want to" is a non-argument because it holds no value when we're discussing the lore how it is currently presented.

This is your argument:
Someone: "Superman is weak against green kryptonite! That's a fact! So a sword blade made of kryptonite can kill Superman!"
You: "It doesn't matter. DC can make Superman immune to green kryptonite if they want."

no one is talking about retcons but simple expansion of the lore, meaningless is your rant thinking you are always right

Restricting 'tinker' to just gnomes and goblins is not an 'expansion' of the lore. It's a retraction. It is a retcon. Because we have tinkers of other races in the lore.

and this is just more of your attempts of nonsense, back there we still had all the classes we have today except monks and Death knights, yous aid Illidan tried everything(without proof)

This has nothing to do with "class availability". I'm saying no one was taking the demons as seriously as Illidan wanted them to. Which is why he joined the Legion to work to dismantle them from within.

Cause by your logic, Illidan tried to create an order of paladins, and that is bogus

Wow. You just did a leap of logic so immense with that misrepresentation that you could go from America to Europe in a single jump.

it is? where is stated that?

... Really? That's the BS you're going with? You're going to challenge that notion that one needs to know technology to become a tinker? That's the hill you wish to die on? What's next, you're going to challenge the notion that one needs to know magic to become a mage?

no its not, right now, only goblins, gnomes, and a dwarf are proper called tinkers, so isn't a retcon.

Objectively false.

my argument is based around the possibility of a route being take with precedence in lore and in previous interactions(DH)

The "precedence" does not fit, as explained before.

- - - Updated - - -

And the game has never established that a people in Azeroth CANNOT learn abilities without the help of a trainer.

That's not how it works, Teriz. If you want to state as a fact that something is a certain way, then you need to prove that it IS that "certain way" and absolutely not any other way. Our characters start as an adult with the the most basic, bare-bones abilities of their class because it would be incredibly boring to start our characters as a baby, having to learn how to walk, talk, go to school, etc, all the way to adulthood.

To claim that our characters "are born knowing stuff" just because we start the game with those abilities is undeniably stupid.

So you're saying that in a land of magic and sorcery, objects can't materialize out of thin air?

False equivalence. What you're basically saying is "murlocs can breathe underwater indefinitely, so humans can breathe underwater indefinitely". Again: the story has to be logically consistent.

Yeah, that isn't even close to a valid example.

It is a perfect example because it is exactly what you're implying with your claims.

Again look at other fantasy media. In the Marvel universe, mutants like Wolverine and Storm are born with powers.

And it is explained that mutants are born with a gene that mutated in a certain way (called the X-gene) that gives them mutant abilities, and that's why only certain humans have powers, and not all of them. That's called "internal logic" and being consistent to that logic.

In Harry Potter, the main character is born with an affinity to magic.

Because he was the son of powerful wizards. The affinity to magic is a hereditary trait.

In Avatar the Last Airbender, people are born with the ability to bend the elements.

I never watched Avatar, so I will refrain from commenting. But I will assume, based in your previous examples, that you're ignoring key facts about how things are in that universe.

The fact that you can't grasp this is utterly hilarious, and really not worth my time to argue with you about.

The only hilarious thing is your projection.

[Teriz]

Tinkers? You're literally making an argument for a Gnome and Goblin exclusive class. Tiny people in giant mechs. That is the literal core theme of the class, of all specs, as a part of every ability. The races they are mutually exclusive to are whimsical by nature.

It would only be whimsical if its something unheard of in WoW. Since the concept of a Gnome or Goblin piloting a mech is commonplace in WoW, it isn't considered all that whimsical. Further, Mekkatorque got a pretty good reception from the community when he appeared in his mech suit in Broken Shore, and I don't remember anyone saying that Helix Blackfuse was "silly" in SoO.

Being whimsical is not the problem, it's the fact that it isn't a choice. I can play a Gnome Death Knight who picks flowers, and that's my choice. DK's aren't exclusive to Gnomes and Herbalism, it's not a whimsical class even if it can be played in that way. With Tinkers, if Gnomes and Goblins are the only playable races and there's no alternative, then we're talking about a whimsical class, we're talking about a big ol' target for criticism. This is even worse considering we're pushing into 5-6 years without a new class this cycle, and expectations are going to run high.

Not everyone shares your 'I have no reason to play Gnomes because they don't have a class to represent themselves' attitude. That's the first thing you need to realize.

Again, look at what you're saying. A Gnome Death Knight is silly because its out of place and a contradiction. That's what makes it silly. A Gnome inside a mech isn't considered that way because that's how its been presented in WoW for years now so the community is used to it. Part of the backlash the Monk class experienced was that it seemingly came out of nowhere.

[Triceron]

It would only be whimsical if its something unheard of in WoW. Since the concept of a Gnome or Goblin piloting a mech is commonplace in WoW, it isn't considered all that whimsical. Further, Mekkatorque got a pretty good reception from the community when he appeared in his mech suit in Broken Shore, and I don't remember anyone saying that Helix Blackfuse was "silly" in SoO.

Er, that's not what whimsical means if you think being commonplace means it's not whimsical.

Try again.

Again, look at what you're saying. A Gnome Death Knight is silly because its out of place and a contradiction. That's what makes it silly. A Gnome inside a mech isn't considered that way because that's how its been presented in WoW for years now so the community is used to it. Part of the backlash the Monk class experienced was that it seemingly came out of nowhere.

Hmm. It looks like you're trying to argue the definition of 'Whimsical' in terms of being capricious and surprising; ie 'on a whim'. Yet the more applicable meaning of the word for Gnomes, Goblins and Tinkers is 'playful or fanciful in an amusing manner'.

Gnomes have existed since WC2, and even throughout the WC2 setting they are not depicted as whimsical (playful). They have a steampunk aesthetic, and while they do have a degree of whimsy to them, it all represents a reasonable application of steampunk aspects in a high-fantasy setting. Gnomes and Goblins riding giant mech suits is simply there out of comedic relief. The Tinker was an April Fools joke, let's be very frank here. It was whimsical back in Warcraft 3, was whimsical in WoW when Gnomes came back and we got Gnomeregan, it was whimsical when Greg Street pointing it out, and it remains whimsical today. It's all playfully amusing, even if you personally regard it seriously.

I mean just because we have Darkmoon Faire since TBC appearing monthly doesn't mean it's not whimsical either.

If you want to argue a non-whimsical Tinker concept, then we open it up to other race options and focus the class on more practical applications of Steampunk; stuff that doesn't involve comedic relief or playfully amusing elements as you'd see in Engineering.

[cocomen2]

They aren't making Stinkers get over it.

There is an endless list of things they can/should fix with existing classes/races/lore/etc. They also just proved they are fully willing to release an xpac without a class or new race. Ending that stupid cycle of adding unnecessary content every other xpac.

Because it played out so well with WOD...
wait a minute

I bet people who wait to play new class or race , with each expac, would not be okay with that claim.

Personally for me as pvp player , new classes is gasp of fresh air. (How to beat new class , how to counter them)

New races is way to get some cool and funny racials ,to have joy while lvling alts.

[Teriz]

Er, that's not what whimsical means if you think being commonplace means it's not whimsical.

Try again.




Hmm. It looks like you're trying to argue the definition of 'Whimsical' in terms of being capricious and surprising; ie 'on a whim'. Yet the more applicable meaning of the word for Gnomes, Goblins and Tinkers is 'playful or fanciful in an amusing manner'.

Gnomes have existed since WC2, and even throughout the WC2 setting they are not depicted as whimsical (playful). They have a steampunk aesthetic, and while they do have a degree of whimsy to them, it all represents a reasonable application of steampunk aspects in a high-fantasy setting. Gnomes and Goblins riding giant mech suits is simply there out of comedic relief. The Tinker was an April Fools joke, let's be very frank here. It was whimsical back in Warcraft 3, was whimsical in WoW when Gnomes came back and we got Gnomeregan, it was whimsical when Greg Street pointing it out, and it remains whimsical today. It's all playfully amusing, even if you personally regard it seriously.

I mean just because we have Darkmoon Faire since TBC appearing monthly doesn't mean it's not whimsical either.

If you want to argue a non-whimsical Tinker concept, then we open it up to other race options and focus the class on more practical applications of Steampunk; stuff that doesn't involve comedic relief or playfully amusing elements as you'd see in Engineering.

Here's the thing, Ghostcrawler said that he wasn't sure, and that the Tinker class might be "too whimsical" for the game, and it would depend on how they're designed. He made those comments BEFORE Helix Blackfuse, Mekkatorque in his mech on Broken Shore, Gazlowe piloting a mech, Gallywix piloting a mech, Marin piloting a mech, Razdunk piloting a mech, the Gob Squad piloting a mech, Mech Jockeys, multiple mech mounts, and Mechagnomes.

In short, it's pretty hard to argue that something is "too whimsical" for the game when it's all over the game.

[Triceron]

In short, it's pretty hard to argue that something is "too whimsical" for the game when it's all over the game.

No, it's actually very easy.

Gnomes in WoW have been designed as comic relief. Gnomeregan, the Deeprun Tram and all the latest Mechs we see are all silly and amusing. That's not a bad thing, but you can't say just because we're used to seeing whimsical stuff front and center that it's suddenly no longer whimsical.

Tinker was an April Fools Joke. That design carried over into other games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm; both games where whimsical art is ever-present in the game and don't take themselves seriously. When addressing bringing that back into WoW as a playable class, you have to consider the context of the (whimsical race exclusive) class being added in to the game which moderately takes Playable classes seriously.

Just because there is more whimsical stuff in WoW doesn't mean adding a class built around comic relief is suddenly less whimsical.

[Teriz]

No, it's actually very easy.

Gnomes in WoW have been designed as comic relief. Gnomeregan, the Deeprun Tram and all the latest Mechs we see are all silly and amusing. That's not a bad thing, but you can't say just because we're used to seeing whimsical stuff front and center that it's suddenly no longer whimsical.

Tinker was an April Fools Joke. That design carried over into other games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm; both games where whimsical art is ever-present in the game and don't take themselves seriously. When addressing bringing that back into WoW as a playable class, you have to consider the context of the class being added in to the game which moderately takes itself seriously.

Just because there is more whimsical stuff in WoW doesn't mean adding a class built around comic relief is suddenly less whimsical.

This argument would make sense if a goblin and gnome in a mech wasn’t all over the game at this point, and weren’t part of the narrative of the game. Heck, the racial leaders both pilot mechs, and you have a cybernetic Gnome race. Again, the question was would such a class fit WoW. It’s pretty hard to argue that a class based on goblins/gnomes riding mechs doesn’t fit in a game that features goblins/gnomes riding mechs. If that is a whimsical concept, than WoW itself is whimsical because it prominently features it.

And as you stated, that concept has been a mainstay within Warcraft for decades now.

[Ethas]

This game don’t need tinkers thats why. They done survey and no one wants them apart from few people on mmoc. So no, you won’t get them.