Anemo: traveler, Sucrose
Pyro: Yanfei, Amber, diluc, xiangling, thoma, Xinyan, Bennett
Geo: Noelle, Ningguang, Yun Jin, Gorou
Hydro: Barbara, Zingqiu, Ayato
Cyro: Shenhe, Kaeya, Chongyun, Diona, Ayaka, Rosaria
Electro: Fischl, Lisa, Miko, Kujou, Raiden, Razor
I’ve already explained why it doesn’t fit. You’re free to ignore those facts to push your agenda.
Yeah, under no circumstance is a flower the same as a building. What are we talking about here? Some super massive huge flower? Now we’re getting even more silly.Barrier = health within the mechanics of the game. Give the flower a health bar equal to the the health bar of the building and they're functionally identical in that regard.
A spore that floats towards its target and explodes is also not functionally the same as a robot that attacks its target and explodes. For example, due to it producing robots, they could upgrade to having better weaponry, produce faster, heal allies, produce scrap when they expire, etc.The spores floating vs the robots walking is functionally identical. The point is, they would both function as a summoned minion (or whatever you want to call it) with a health bar, spawning smaller homing minions that go after the target and do damage when they catch up.
Uh no, they’re fundamentally different on pretty much every level. Further we should also acknowledge that one ability actually exists in Warcraft and one does not.Arguing that they're not the same theme mechanically, or from a game play perspective then you're being intellectually dishonest. The only difference between those two abilities is the theme, their game play is identical.
If you say so.This is absurd.....
Anemo: traveler, Sucrose
Pyro: Yanfei, Amber, diluc, xiangling, thoma, Xinyan, Bennett
Geo: Noelle, Ningguang, Yun Jin, Gorou
Hydro: Barbara, Zingqiu, Ayato
Cyro: Shenhe, Kaeya, Chongyun, Diona, Ayaka, Rosaria
Electro: Fischl, Lisa, Miko, Kujou, Raiden, Razor
Spellbreaker
https://www.youtube.com/@DoffenGG
Gaming and WoW stuff
My point was that a Tinker/Artificer/Engineer/whatever you would call it class doesn't need to exclusively have the look of Gnome/Goblin technology because the warcraft universe has other forms of technology. Druid forms have the same functionality across races but have different looks, the same idea could be applied a Tinker/Artificer/Engineer/whatever class where a Gnome or Goblin would have their for instance Mech have a steampunk look, Draenei would have something akin to a lightforged warframe, Mag'har could have something akin to a miniature Iron Reaver.
If someone wanted to play Tinker for the streampunk fantasy Gnome Tinker would exist, but if someone wanted a more magitech look Draenei Tinker would exist. Same way if i wanted my Druid to turn into a dinosaur i could play Zandalari but Night Elf Druid still exist for someone who wanted their druid forms to be bears/cats/birds.
Considering that all of those are abilities that enhance the caster’s ability to perform a spell and not an example of the spell itself, I’m willing to entertain that notion.
Well your ability doesn’t exist, doesn’t really fit the spec you’re assigning it to, and it was created by you merely for contrarian purposes, so yes it’s stupid.You're not exactly a reliable barometer for what is stupid or not. And considering all you did to 'counter' my idea was to say "it's stupid", shows you don't have anything to counter it with. "Well, I think it's stupid" is the kind of response that typically comes from small children.
The point is that since those mechanics DONT exist in the class lineup, the class that introduces those mechanics to the game would have UNIQUE mechanics until another class emerges with a similar ability.Just because those mechanics don't currently exist in the current class line-up, doesn't mean they can't be added to existing classes in the future. I even gave a perfectly valid example of your "pocket factory" mechanics for the druid class.
So you’re comparing the similarity between two agility based classes with two classes that share abilities, themes, origins, and purpose. In fact they’re so similar that the concepts for the Necromancer has the same spec configuration as the existing DK class.Irrelevant. We already had a mobile, agile class in the game, but that didn't stop the monk class from being added. We already had two mobile, agile classes in the game, one of which could tank, but that didn't stop the demon hunter class from being added. And, I remind you, "necromancer" isn't a mechanic. It's a theme. And themes can be shared. Hell, even mechanics can be shared.
Amazing.
Aren’t you advocating for a poison based spec based purely on Diablo 2? Your class write definitely indicates that.And this a complete strawman, since I never said anything about "designing an entire class or spec after Diablo". I simply pointed out mechanics that look to be heavily inspired by the Diablo 2 game.
Death knights didn't have blood or frost abilities. Priests didn't have access to shadow magic. And so on and so forth.[/quote]And in Warcraft 3 mages didn't have fire abilities.Druids could only shapeshift into one kind of animal depending on the group they were part of.
And this is relevant how?
Again, if you have an example of Kelthuzad in game using fire, arcane, and Necromancy, point us to it. Until then, this is just your headcanon.The time in which Kel'Thuzad was still a human researching necromancy.
The difference being that we have multiple mechanical abilities for the Tinker class that don’t exist in the Hunter class (in fact none of the Tinker’s abilities exist in the Hunter class). However, DKs have all of the Necromancer’s abilities and there’s no Necromancer that uses poison magic.Oh, you mean that singular ability they have that deal "plague" damage? There are three things pointing to dishonesty here:
• First, it's a weapon attack. Not a magic spell. That's like saying priests cannot have holy magic because the paladin has "Hammer of Wrath".
• Second, like I pointed out, it's one single ability, and yet you use it deny a hypothetical necromancer class a poison spec because of that. But the hunters having a handful of mechanical-based skills somehow doesn't preclude a class from using the mechanical theme.
• Third, you're implying that "plague" and "poison" are the same thing because both deal nature damage. So, is "plague" the same thing as lightning, because both are "nature" magic? That plague and earth magic are the same thing because both are "nature" magic? You're basically equating that the death knight's magic is in the same ballpark as druid and shaman magic.
Hopefully you can understand the difference.
- - - Updated - - -
There is pretty much no way you could structure a technology class that encompasses those various types of tech. Further, WoW classes tend to narrow down a class to one major type and ignore variations. For example, the Monk class is based purely on Pandaren martial arts and ignores Human, Blood Elf, and Draenei variations.
In the case of Tinkers, it’d be hard to imagine an ability where Goblins and Gnomes are using flame throwers and bullets, and Draenei are using holy beams. Further, how would an ability like Pocket Factory work with Naaru crystal magic?
Last edited by Teriz; 2020-11-22 at 03:05 AM.
In no rush to get extra classes or specs into the game, we're at a high enough number as it is.
But that said, the one that immediately pops into my head is a Tinkerer\Alchemist combo.
Heal (Alchemist) with vials and elixirs and what not. Mixing liquids for different effects (heal, buff, debuff, etc).
Ranged DPS throwing bombs, using gadgets and devices. Lightning\shock stuff. Maybe use gun\shooter aswell?
Tank with a mech-suit-thingie, and oil\fire\smoke\steam stuff, with jetpack frontal rush, flamethrower, etc. (kinda like a Powertech Bountyhunter on swtor).
That said, as long as they don't make another melee class\spec, i'd be happy. Every new class had\was melee (DK, Monk, DH) and even Hunter's Survival revamp turned it into a melee... that's enough of that.
People like the concept of the necromancer, the spellcaster who can manipulate the dead and can sow death and destruction through their spells. Many people also want a new spellcaster class considering all three expansion classes we got here were melee classes.
The simple fact you're listing two classes for each example completely disproves you, because those two classes have different gameplay, despite being "the same" as you imply, since you're using them together for the same example.I have seen several necromancer topics on this forum and they always revolve around curses (shadow priest/affli warlock?) summoning (demo wrl? unholy dk army of the dead/ghoul?) and nothing really convincing why necromancer should stand out like "Tinker" (which I'm not the biggest fan of) or "Dragonsworn" < at least these 2 have their distinct identities
The whole point about necromancy is summoning undead. And if you're calling them "feeble" because they're just skeletons, or 'half-rotten', do tell me how you fared going solo against the "feeble" Lord Marrowgar back in 2010. And "stupid" and "mindless"? Are the forsaken mindless? Also, Thassarian has a companion skeleton that is quite intelligent.And I meant "feeble, stupid, mindless ghouls" because I haven't seen any cool undead monster that you could possibly summon that wouldn't be half-rotten, bad looking, pixelated undead zombie.
I don't imagine necromancer would summon undead dragons, would he?
"Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
"You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
"They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...
My hope is for a Tinker/Inventor type class.
"Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
"You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
"They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...
Once again, hunters don't exist in lore either. Nobody is lore is labeled a "hunter". Furthermore, your reasoning is exceptionally flawed because Vulpera have absolutely no technological leaning and have no lore character that is a tinker. Meanwhile, the draenei have Grand Artificer Romuul. The Nightborne have Oculeth. The sin'dorei fucking created the manaforges as well as the various automatons that patrol sin'dorei territory. But you disregard other races being tinkers by a different name in lore purely because they're not outright called tinkers. Which is probably one of the more asinine pieces of logic you use.
- - - Updated - - -
You really cannot speak for everyone when it comes to tinker. I'd like to see both magitech and steampunk. I also don't want a new class to be restricted to the literally LEAST popular races in game.
Is....this a joke?
https://www.wowhead.com/search?q=hunter#npcs
Personally i'm an advocate for more variation within classes, i want Night Elf priests to be able to have silver light for their holy spells or night warrior esque shadow spells, along with other race/theme specific spell effects such as sunlight effects for tauren paladins/priests or holy water effects for kul-tiran priests, so i'm biased when my idea for a hypthetical tinker would have such a degree of variation in it's spell effects and visuals, and i understand potential arguments about visual identification/recognizition and the amount of work that would go into giving each class unqiue visuals tied to their race.
Missiles swapped for holy bolts, flamthrower is a spray of holy fire, pocket factory deploys a crystal device that creates lightspawns and leaves behind holy energy that can be picked up to replish fuel for your warframe.
No more new classes, give Demon Hunters a ranged dps before even thinking of a new class.
And let it be death themed
If they do add a new class, I want it to have a lot of different flavor depending on faction or even race, not necessarily mechanics, but cosmetically. Like how druids and shamans have differences.
Last edited by MikeBogina; 2020-11-22 at 04:06 AM.
So what if it doesn't exist? What's the relevance, considering we were literally talking about possible future abilities to give to the present classes.
A spec that revolves around using the moon and nature to attack? I mean, by that logic, entangling roots, cyclone, force of nature, and thorns shouldn't be part of the spec. But they are. Because those abilities don't befit a "laser chicken", as you put it:doesn’t really fit the spec you’re assigning it to,
Care to explain that?
No, it was created as a counter to the claims that mechanic themes have "unique mechanics" and "unique gameplay".and it was created by you merely for contrarian purposes, so yes it’s stupid.
And that has nothing to do with the class theme. And, again, those mechanics not existing in the class lineup doesn't mean they cannot be given to the current classes as time goes on. Shadow Priests got the 'insanity' mechanic later in the game. Balance druids got the 'sun/moon' mechanic later in the game.The point is that since those mechanics DONT exist in the class lineup, the class that introduces those mechanics to the game would have UNIQUE mechanics until another class emerges with a similar ability.
You say so, but I have not seen a single concept of necromancer that has "blood/frost/unholy" as their specs, despite you claiming they're the majority, and you've failed so far to present examples. You just assert they exist.So you’re comparing the similarity between two agility based classes with two classes that share abilities, themes, origins, and purpose. In fact they’re so similar that the concepts for the Necromancer has the same spec configuration as the existing DK class.
Nope. Just because I remembered that the D2 necromancer has a poison tree doesn't mean I based my idea "purely" on it. In fact, that's all the inspiration I took from the D2 class. I didn't base a single ability I designed in the D2 game.Aren’t you advocating for a poison based spec based purely on Diablo 2? Your class write definitely indicates that.
Are you being obtuse, or something? You literally said:And this is relevant how?
There is none, though. We literally have a necromancer school in where necromancer acolytes learn alchemy from a guy who favors poison and fire. You're basically saying that a hypothetical NPC tagged "Kirin Tor apprentice" doesn't know how to cast spells because we never see the NPC casting magic, despite flavor text when you speak to him, he talks about how he finds the abjuration classes easy...The difference being that we have multiple mechanical abilities for the Tinker class that don’t exist in the Hunter class (in fact none of the Tinker’s abilities exist in the Hunter class). However, DKs have all of the Necromancer’s abilities and there’s no Necromancer that uses poison magic.
Hopefully you can understand the difference.
"Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
"You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
"They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...
So according to this hypothetical scenario the Vulpera who have only just been introduced to the Horde learn how to be Tinkers despite their prior existence being subsistence level scavenging the deserts of Vol'dun with the most advanced stuff available to them being alpaca pulled wagons because of the Goblins but the Mag'har who have been using technology introduced to them by Goblins for over 30 years can't because they're too physically inclined? too big? they can already be spellcasters who have absolutely no abilities that require physical strength or ability.