If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Teriz]

"Engineering upgrade increased the move speed of the Tinker in both standard and mech form" - so, why would anyone choose to be in standard form?

If Blizzard utilizes the Claw Pack, I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to employ it and make it useful. Having it work like Demonology Meta is one way to do it. Making it a cool down is another way.

Of course there’s also a possibility that they dump it entirely and just use the mech.

Yet, you're talking about having both the claw pack and a mech. If a mech is available at all times, and is better than standard form, why bother to stay in normal mode, at all? (basically, making the claw pack useless).

It could be a case like Feral and Bear form, where the Claw Pack is the DPS form, and the Mech is the tank form. Guardian and Feral can use Bear and Cat form regardless of spec. Nothing says that claw pack and Mech form couldn’t be similar.

Well, the Hunter had:
Big Game Hunter
Level 15 Beast Mastery hunter talent
Passive
Increases the critical strike chance of your auto shot and Cobra Shot by 60% on targets who are above 80% health.

A Gazlowe talent. So, it is in the class lineup, as you would call it.

Yeah, those two talents have nothing in common outside of the name.

And the Tinker does utilize robotic pets:
Deploy Spark Bot — Mekkatorque periodically calls in Spark Bot units to seek out his enemies.

That’s a summon, not pets.

[Triceron]

Yes. I really don't want a bard class.

Your words.

And you come off as too condescending and arrogant by implying you know my standing regarding the monk class, and by stating I'm arguing in bad faith (i.e. claiming I do not want a bard class).

Well you are the one of accusing of moving goalposts while arguing points out of context and taking complete tangents away from the points I make and examples I use. I see no correlation to any of the points I've presented.

That was never my argument. Which makes me feel that your accusation that I'm "arguing in bad faith" is just projection in your part.

You wouldn't be wrong here. Your argument has to the contextual relevance to the examples I've made. In effect, we aren't talking about the same things.

So was the "tank in all specs" feature of the death knight class.

Which illustrates that you don't understand my point if you think tanking was removed from the DKs gameplay.

The 3 Tank specs feature _made it into the game_

That it got changed later doesn't matter, because the DK fulfilled all the features it intended to br launched with. You seem to think a DK _needs_ to keep this, and I've explained clearly that it's about marketability and first impressions.

And I'm done discussing things with you,

That's completely your decision. I've always been content to agree to disagree with your opinions. I'm not happy that you've taken so many points out of context to make tangential arguments. As I said, there is nothing to disprove here. There is mo evidence to counter.

- - - Updated - - -

Then, you forget that WoW classes have overlapping themes and playstyles.

I didn't forget, I clearly addressed it. Why choose a class that has no identity that also overlaps playstyle for a theme that has little familiarity and association to WoW?

Demon Hunter had plenty of overlap, but it was a well known fan favourite class that has direct roots to Warcraft and a very clear identity. Bard does not.

Runemaster and Necromancer were not tossed aside. They were integrated into the Death Knight and Monk classes. If you have a future class to integrate the Bard into, please do tell me.

Like I said, I personally believe Class Skin solves all these issues.

Bard is in effect a Musical themed class that can be based on Priest gameplay. Health buffs, Fears, Mind Control, Healing abilities, Shields are all there. All you need are unique visuals.

[Unbelievable]

If Blizzard utilizes the Claw Pack, I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to employ it and make it useful. Having it work like Demonology Meta is one way to do it. Making it a cool down is another way.

Of course there’s also a possibility that they dump it entirely and just use the mech.



It could be a case like Feral and Bear form, where the Claw Pack is the DPS form, and the Mech is the tank form. Guardian and Feral can use Bear and Cat form regardless of spec. Nothing says that claw pack and Mech form couldn’t be similar.



Yeah, those two talents have nothing in common outside of the name.



That’s a summon, not pets.

If they dump it and just use a mech then, your whole argument against large races goes to the trash.

Interesting concept. But, if a mech is a tank then, its explosives are not stronger than a DPS Hunter.

Makes you wonder why they associate Gazlowe with a term that is a Hearthstone card, showcasing a Hunter:
https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Big_Game_Hunter

A WoW quest, involving Nesingwary and hunting animals:
https://classic.wowhead.com/quest=208/big-game-hunter

and is the definition of a big animal hunter:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-game_hunting

Guardian pet:
"Guardian pets are one of three types of pets that can be summoned/created."

[Compact Harvest Reaper Kit]
[Gnomish Alarm-o-Bot]
[Gnomish Flame Turret]
[Mechanical Dragonling]
[Gnomish Battle Chicken]
[Goblin Bomb Dispenser]
[Mithril Mechanical Dragonling]
[Arcanite Dragonling]

Beast Mastery Hunters can summon guardian animals with the level 15 talent [Dire Beast], the level 100 talent [Spitting Cobra], and as a random chance when casting [Kill Command] with the Azerite trait [Dire Consequences].

Much like how you call a Dark Ranger's undead summon a pet (and, a beast, at that).

I didn't forget, I clearly addressed it. Why choose a class that has no identity that also overlaps playstyle for a theme that has little familiarity and association to WoW?

Demon Hunter had plenty of overlap, but it was a well known fan favourite class that has direct roots to Warcraft and a very clear identity. Bard does not.



Like I said, I personally believe Class Skin solves all these issues.

Bard is in effect a Musical themed class that can be based on Priest gameplay. Health buffs, Fears, Mind Control, Healing abilities, Shields are all there. All you need are unique visuals.

Is the question from a player perspective or from a Blizzard developer?
Why? I don't know, because people want to play one. why develop one? because of its uniqueness, maybe...? (like the Brewmaster's alcohol theme).

I, already, answered the class skins part. Do you have a known priest class/race combination that is considered a Bard? because, as it stands right now:

"The dwarves of Ironforge adopted The Holy Light from their human comrades, and most dwarven priests are members of the Church of the Light. In the wake of the discovery of evidence linking dwarves to the titans, many dwarven priests are also scholars and historians.

While a temptation to worship their potential creators might exist for some Dwarves (see Mystery of the Makers), it appears Dwarves wish to keep religious beliefs separate from historical studies, and maintain The Holy Light as the major religion amongst their society."

"The night elven priesthood is the only major priesthood in the Alliance to not follow the Light, as the night elves have been practicing their own religion since long before their contact with the races of the Eastern Kingdoms. Until recently, like the Sentinels, the priesthood was a strictly female order, who worshiped the moon goddess Elune. The night elves believe that she is the protector of all living things and helps living things grow and avoid conflict, and has helped their race thrive, grow and survive.

Though the Sisters of Elune are still the highest religious order, male priests are now trained. In both genders, the priesthood (including player characters) appears to worship Elune exclusively."

"After the Amani and Gurubashi split off from the Zandalari, other trolls came to regard the Zandalar tribe as an overarching priest caste for all trolls. The Zandalari Empire are even closer to their loa than the Darkspear, as they are able to speak- and make bargains with their loa in Zandalar. The priests of these loa thus hold a high position of power in Zandalari society. They are also sometimes known as confessors, judges who keep the soul of the Zandalari safe and pure. While all loa seem to have priests among their worshippers, a priest of Gonk is instead counted as a druid, as the Loa of Shapes allows his servants to shapeshift into different forms."

"The Kul Tiran have Tidesages devoted to the oceans. All seaworthy Kul Tiran vessels are blessed by the Tidesages, who commune with the sea to guide the nation's legendary fleet. Kul Tiras's largest ships always have a Tidesage aboard to navigate through storms, withstand heavy seas, and put wind in their sails. Most people on Kul Tiras look to the seas for guidance the same way others look to the Light, but the Tidesages have a much deeper connection with the water. They worship the Tidemother.

Light-worshipping Kul Tirans can still be found in Drustvar."

[Ielenia]

Your words.

And your quote-mining. Are you unable to detect sarcasm? Do I really need to add a "sarcasm warning"? Or did you just read those first eight words and ignored the whole rest of the paragraph?

Yes. I really don't want a bard class. That's why I have been talking about the bard class for a few years now, searched far and wide through WoW's NPCs and abilities, and have dedicated my time to write in a brief concept for a bard class.

Because I don't want a bard class. What's next? Are you going to claim I don't want a necromancer class, too? Or that Teriz doesn't want a tinker class?

Well you are the one of accusing of moving goalposts while arguing points out of context and taking complete tangents away from the points I make and examples I use. I see no correlation to any of the points I've presented.

You argued that the monk is unpopular because it has "failed design". I pointed out that his is a fallacious statement to make because it ignored all the other factors that can contribute to a class' popularity, and how other classes are still popular despite "failed designs".

Which illustrates that you don't understand my point if you think tanking was removed from the DKs gameplay.

The 3 Tank specs feature _made it into the game_

It's still "failed design" because it was removed in the very next expansion.

I've always been content to agree to disagree with your opinions. I'm not happy that you've taken so many points out of context to make tangential arguments.

Says the guy who accuses me of arguing in bad faith while at the same time misrepresenting my argument AND assuming my position regarding the monk class. Priceless.

[Triceron]

And your quote-mining.

And you said you were done talking. Are you lying then?

You argued that the monk is unpopular because it has "failed design".

Surr, and I said it was my opinion. You are trying to prove my opinion wrong and call it a fallacy when I specifically said it was opinion. I told you you are arguing for the sake of arguing

What do you fail to understand here?

If I say I think Pickle flavour Ice Cream was a failed idea because it sold poorly and most people passed it over for better flavours, then that is my opinion. You saying it's a fallacy is meaningless when I am stating it as an opinion. You saying it's not a failure because of X reasons would be your opinion, you saying 'then vinegar ice cream was also a failure because of that reason' is your own argument, your own whataboutism. I am not interested in countering _your_ opinions, and you are free to think Monks were not failed design. Those are not my opinions.

Chill out, brother.

- - - Updated - - -

I, already, answered the class skins part. Do you have a known priest class/race combination that is considered a Bard? because, as it stands right now:

A Class Skin is a completely new Class identity separate from any class. It simply uses gameplay of an existing class.

Example -. Runemaster Class Skin for Monk would be a Runemaster class identity. It has no lore connection to a Monk, but uses its abilities and core gameplay.


You seem to think a Bard class skin would still be a Priest, but what I mean is literally a new Class but without their own gameplay.

[Unbelievable]

A Class Skin is a completely new Class identity separate from any class. It simply uses gameplay of an existing class.

Example -. Runemaster Class Skin for Monk would be a Runemaster class identity. It has no lore connection to a Monk, but uses its abilities and core gameplay.


You seem to think a Bard class skin would still be a Priest, but what I mean is literally a new Class but without their own gameplay.

You have to provide a lore reason as to why a Priest is, also, a Bard, all of the sudden, or to why a Monk is a Runemaster. Otherwise, class skins would go wild.

A new class with a copy/paste gameplay is still a new class (like an allied race).

Class skins would provide the representation lacking from certain race/class combinations in game. It would, probably, be something like Guild Wars 2 specializations.

[Triceron]

You have to provide a lore reason as to why a Priest is, also, a Bard, all of the sudden, or to why a Monk is a Runemaster. Otherwise, class skins would go wild.

No you still don't understand.

Think of it as an Allied Race, but for Classes. New class 100%. It is not Transmog. It is just called Class Skin because Allied Classes sounds weird.

[Unbelievable]

No you still don't understand.

Think of it as an Allied Race, but for Classes. New class 100%. It is not Transmog. It is just called Class Skin because Allied Classes sounds weird.

I've edited my previous comment.

[Triceron]

A new class with a copy/paste gameplay is still a new class (like an allied race).

Class skins would provide the representation lacking from certain race/class combinations in game. It would, probably, be something like Guild Wars 2 specializations.

Yes, you can consider it a new class if you prefer

Most people won't though, thus Class Skin. People have been talking about this type of concept far longer than I have, with varying ideas. Some people think it should be race exclusive, some think it should only affect a Spec rather than a full class theme change. My specific idea involves being a new identity and *very minimal* gameplay differences. Something like new Talent choices or a Covenants style of new ability choice.

And yes, it would be similar to what GW2 does, though as completely new rethemes and not just a Prestige of a core class. Necromancers using Warlock gameplay would not be Warlocks, Bards are not Priests, etc. Only core gameplay is reused, with some new talent options peppered in for flavour.

[Teriz]

If they dump it and just use a mech then, your whole argument against large races goes to the trash.

Actually no, because the mechs of the larger races would have to be far larger than the Gnome and Goblin mechs, and Goblin and Gnomes inside mechs should be larger than fully armored male Draenei and Tauren. So how large should Draenei mechs be?

Interesting concept. But, if a mech is a tank then, its explosives are not stronger than a DPS Hunter.

There are several Tank abilities that deal more damage than wildfire bomb or explosive shot. Keg Smash immediately comes to mind.

Makes you wonder why they associate Gazlowe with a term that is a Hearthstone card, showcasing a Hunter:

Because in HotS Gazlowe is exceptionally good at killing creeps. That talent buffs that attribute.

Guardian pet:
"Guardian pets are one of three types of pets that can be summoned/created."

Yeah, but not all summons are guardian pets. For example, Shaman summon Totems. That doesn’t make totems pets. Priests summon Mindbenders, those ain’t pets, etc.

In the case of Tinkers, turrets would be summonables, but they wouldn’t be pets.

Beast Mastery Hunters can summon guardian animals with the level 15 talent [Dire Beast], the level 100 talent [Spitting Cobra], and as a random chance when casting [Kill Command] with the Azerite trait [Dire Consequences].

So a class based around utilizing animal pets can summon more animals to assist them. Is there a point you’re trying to make here?

Much like how you call a Dark Ranger's undead summon a pet (and, a beast, at that).

I would definitely consider Nathanos’ two undead hounds pets. I would also consider the ability to control undead beasts to be a form of Necromancy.

[Ielenia]

And you said you were done talking.

This is whataboutism. You literally quote-mined me, and instead of facing the accusation, you decide to try to make as if I'm in the wrong, here.

Surr, and I said it was my opinion.

And then you repeatedly failed to acknowledge all the other possibilities for why the monk class would be unpopular when I pointed them out to you.

Chill out, brother.

It's hard to "chill out" when the other poster misrepresents your arguments, quote-mines you and falsely accuses you.

[Triceron]

And then you repeatedly failed to acknowledge all the other possibilities for why the monk class would be unpopular when I pointed them out to you.

Why do I need to acknowledge it?

No other possibilities matter to me, because I'm not looking to be convinced that the Monk design didn't fail to capture the wide market appeal that I think it could and should have. In my opinion, Blizzard has made a great Monk concept out of Diablo 3, and it was done right. In my opinion, the WoW Monk failed to make its mark and it is relatively unappreciated.

I don't have to consider any other possibilities. I don't have to consider your argument. You are simply arguing for your own sake, trying to prove my reasons wrong.

It's hard to "chill out" when the other poster misrepresents your arguments, quote-mines you and falsely accuses you.

Then maybe you should stop accusing people of not holding their opinions to your personal standards. I hope you understand that I'm tired of your rhetoric and tired of playing your games. You don't actually want to know the reasons for my opinion. You want to regard them as if I were trying to PROVE something and to call em out ss fallacies, and I've told you time and time again I only reply to you with examples to try and explain my opinion.

You have your own convictions, your own standards. I'm not interested in convincing you anything. I'm not misrepresenting _your_ opinions because the context of discussion has been _explaining mine_ to you.

I don't have any problem if you think DKs design is a failure because they had 3 tank specs and it changed, but this is NOT RELEVANT to my reasons for why Monks failed to appeal to a wide market. If you want to express your own opinion, you are free to do so. I fully accepting and aware of anyone who has a different opinion, but I won't stand for anyone saying my opinions are 'fallacies' as though I need to prove them to anyone. I don't have to consider other reasons that you personally liked out of the Monk class or disliked out of the DK class.

I can say Monk in WoW was a failed design. I can say it could have been better if Blizzard kept out Auto Attacks. I can say Pickle Ice Cream also sucks. Deal with it.

[Ielenia]

No, you are looking for reasons to dismiss.

The only one doing so here is you, as you literally quote-mine me after you falsely accuse me of not wanting a bard class and claiming I'm just arguing for argument's sake. You literally tried to dismiss my arguments by claiming that I "don't really want a bard class".

I will simply ask one question - can you accept that someone has an opinion that the Monk's design failed to popularize itself despite you personally disagreeing with the opinion and the reasons. Are you personally able to accept someone else having a different opinion on this than you, for whatever reasons you may disgree with.

And I'll respond with another question: do you acknowledge that there are other factors that may or may not be more influential to the monk class' lack of popularity than your perceived "failed design"? Especially since we do have classes that are popular despite their "failed design".

I don't have any problem if you think DKs design is a failure because they had 3 tank specs and it changed, but this is NOT RELEVANT to my reasons for why Monks failed to appeal to a wide market.

How is it not relevant considering you literally used the monk's so-called "failed design" as the reason for their lack of popularity?

[Triceron]

do you acknowledge that there are other factors that may or may not be more influential to the monk class' lack of popularity

When have I not acknowledged other factors?

Did I ever say there was only one reason they were unpopular? No.

You assumed I am denying other factors when truth is I never made such claims. Read the post history.

I even said this in the last page

(No Auto Attacks) was a listed feature of the (Monk) class that was a significant part of its appeal. Let us not confuse this with being the ONLY factor of appeal;

This is exactly what I said in the post you seemed to have the biggest problem with:

"I consider the class a failed experiment. It was designed with no auto-attacks, originally designed to be a 'Combo Fighter' ala Street Fighter within WoW. The idea couldn't get past alpha stage and the concept was dropped"

* This was an explanation of opinion using one example to contextualize my reasoning. Opinion, not evidence or proof.
* Failed experiment is in context of failing to implement a feature that the Monk was marketted around
* The No-Auto Attack feature was what made Monks unique from every other class. Removing this feature at launch means the class failed to meet this expectation
* This was just one example of the myriad of factors that contributed to their lack of popularity
* There are many factors to why they lacked popularity, yet you chose to focus on discussing this one in particular. No other examples were asked for, but that does not mean other factors were not considered. You seemed laser focused on arguing this one point.
* I did not attribute the Monk's lack of popularity to any changes in gameplay design; their gameplay was absolutely fine
* 'Failed design' is in context to the Monk's lack of wide-spread appeal. This as opposed to, for example, the Diablo 3 Monk, which (IMO) more than achieved a compelling Monk design and presentation.
* Failure is applied subjectively, to indicate my personal views of the performance of the class. It is not an objective statement

I simply gave *a singular* reason that significantly contributed it to failing to meet expectations. This is not a failure in terms of being broken or unplayable. This is a failure of implementing a (as in, one of many) feature that could capture the wide-spread interest of the player base. If you had asked for more examples, I would have provided. You never asked. You simply assumed.

And the entire time I've been explaining this, you're still dead-set on your own argument that the 3-Spec change for DK's is the same thing. No, it's not the same thing, because the game launched with 3-Tank spec DK's and people got to play that for 2 whole years. The design didn't fail to meet expectations, the gameplay hooks were all in tact. You could res your buddy in combat as a Ghoul. It was a stupid mechanic, but it was a *very* marketable feature that got people interested in playing a DK. This is why I say your examples *are not relevant* to the context of my argument.

This is what you said earlier-

"You called the monk a "failed design" because it went through massive changes. I simply pointed out that a famous class today, the death knight, also went through such big changes."

I wasn't talking about failed design in terms of gameplay. I did not say the Monk is a failed design because it went through massive changes.

"Failed design" is in context of failing to achieve wide-market appeal and interest.

Monk design failed to have wide-spread marketting appeal, and I cited the No Auto Attacks as *a* (as in, one of many) reason for this. Going through massive changes is *not* specific to a failure of design; it is just a necessary change to be made. And for the Monk, adding Auto Attacks back in was a necessary change to be made that unfortunately made it less appealing at launch(less marketable)

Keep in mind, I have never said the Monk had bad gameplay or was unbalanced. I specifically said the context of 'failed design' was specific to its market appeal at launch; its first impression. There is more than one type of design, and design doesn't just mean gameplay. Visual design, Sound design, Gameplay design, Technical design; there are MANY aspects of design and I have consistently said I was talking about its Marketting appeal at launch.

How is it not relevant considering you literally used the monk's so-called "failed design" as the reason for their lack of popularity?

Because I don't believe the Death Knight's design ever failed to be marketable.

The changes you are talking about happened over 2 years after they were already highly popularized, and was not any reason for anyone to *stop* playing a DK. The design change didn't affect the marketability of the DK at launch.

[Ielenia]

I simply gave *a singular* reason that significantly contributed it to failing to meet expectations.

And you have failed to show that this reason had any impact on the "expectations". much less a significant one. You just asserted it did.

As I mentioned: the reason the class started at level one while the other expansion classes started at much later levels could very well have had a much bigger impact to the class' popularity. Or the fact it's the one "whimsical" class amidst two other classes which are "dark and edgy". You have failed to demonstrate why this reason of yours could surpass the other possible reasons.

[Triceron]

And you have failed to show that this reason had any impact on the "expectations".

Which is fine if you disagree.

Again, I asserted it because it was my opinion. You are just explaining that you're not convinced of my reasons, and that's fair. You don't have to be.

If you feel differently, be honest and simply express it so. You telling me that 'I failed to show this reason' only tells me you aren't interested in a conversation, and not actually interested in my opinion on the matter.

And I think I'm pretty clear that I'm not interested in disproving discussing yours either. As I said, I'm done with your rhetoric. I'm fine with simply agreeing to disagree.

Cheers.

[Unbelievable]

Yes, you can consider it a new class if you prefer

Most people won't though, thus Class Skin. People have been talking about this type of concept far longer than I have, with varying ideas. Some people think it should be race exclusive, some think it should only affect a Spec rather than a full class theme change. My specific idea involves being a new identity and *very minimal* gameplay differences. Something like new Talent choices or a Covenants style of new ability choice.

And yes, it would be similar to what GW2 does, though as completely new rethemes and not just a Prestige of a core class. Necromancers using Warlock gameplay would not be Warlocks, Bards are not Priests, etc. Only core gameplay is reused, with some new talent options peppered in for flavour.

You can check out my Class Skins thread:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...20-Class-skins

But, i see you already did.

Actually no, because the mechs of the larger races would have to be far larger than the Gnome and Goblin mechs, and Goblin and Gnomes inside mechs should be larger than fully armored male Draenei and Tauren. So how large should Draenei mechs be?



There are several Tank abilities that deal more damage than wildfire bomb or explosive shot. Keg Smash immediately comes to mind.



Because in HotS Gazlowe is exceptionally good at killing creeps. That talent buffs that attribute.



Yeah, but not all summons are guardian pets. For example, Shaman summon Totems. That doesn’t make totems pets. Priests summon Mindbenders, those ain’t pets, etc.

In the case of Tinkers, turrets would be summonables, but they wouldn’t be pets.






So a class based around utilizing animal pets can summon more animals to assist them. Is there a point you’re trying to make here?



I would definitely consider Nathanos’ two undead hounds pets. I would also consider the ability to control undead beasts to be a form of Necromancy.

Do i really need to post about Orcs using normal sized mechs in Siege of Orgrimmar, again?

Kor'kron Machinists are orcs seen in the Siege of Orgrimmar. Kor'kron Shredders are shredders that are used by Kor'kron Machinists in Siege of Orgrimmar.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Kor%27kron_Machinist
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Kor%27kron_Shredder

Who do you think pilots the Warframes? midget Draenei?:


"Lightforged Warframes are Lightforged draenei in warframes located on Krokuun."

"Warframes (sometimes called battlesuits) are mechanized armor suits (Vindicaar Matrix Core interface: Warframe: Selecting this allows use of the Lightforged Warframe mechanized armor suit while on Argus.)".

"The Lightforged conduct quick, brutal hit-and-run attacks on the Burning Legion using these agile war machines".

The only size-changing mounts are those of the Tauren (who, will never be Tinkers).

Well, not in all cases:

Keg Smash
40 Energy 15 yd range
Instant 8 sec recharge
1 Charges
Requires Monk (Brewmaster)
Requires level 21
Smash a keg of brew on the target, dealing (85.995% of Attack power) damage to all enemies within 8 yds and reducing their movement speed by 20% for 15 sec. Deals reduced damage beyond 5 targets.

Grants Shuffle for 5 sec and reduces the remaining cooldown on your Brews by 3 sec.

Explosive Shot
Talent
20 Focus 40 yd range
Instant cast 30 sec cooldown
Requires Hunter (Marksmanship)
Requires level 25
Requires
Fires an explosive shot at your target. After 3 sec, the shot will explode, dealing (188.5% of Attack power) Fire damage to up to 6 enemies within 8 yards.

But, you're right. It is stronger than Hi-Explosive Trap and Wildfire Bomb (57.33% of Attack power & 45% of Attack power).

It uses that attribute, perhaps:
Increase maximum Scrap by 2. Dealing damage with Basic Attacks to enemy Heroes, Mercenaries or Monsters reduces the cooldown of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by 1.5 seconds.

I don't know if it buffs it.
It's like saying Tyrande's talents:
Ranger
Sentinel pierces the first hero hit. Its width is increased by 25% and deals up to 250% more damage based on distance traveled.

Ranger's Mark
Basic Attacks reduce the cooldown of Hunter's Mark by 1 second. Basic Attacks against marked targets reduce the cooldown of Lunar Flare by 3 seconds.

Aren't indicative of her being a Ranger.

I, literally, linked you a Turret Guardian pet:
[Gnomish Flame Turret]

"Many other classes can summon temporary combat pets - priests have the [Shadowfiend]".

Totems work much like a Turret so, they fall into the same category.

The point is not all pets are considered permanent or, under the control of the caster.

Nathanos' two undead hounds? His current hounds are labeled as beasts, not undead, and he didn't raise them from the dead. His former hounds he fed Coagulated Rot (still not necromancy).

Much like how i would consider controlling Mechanical Beasts a form of Tinkering. It's nice and all but, Sylvanas (nor Nathanos) raise undead Beasts with Black Arrow (Dark Minion) or Banshee Wave.

[Teriz]

Do i really need to post about Orcs using normal sized mechs in Siege of Orgrimmar, again?

Kor'kron Machinists are orcs seen in the Siege of Orgrimmar. Kor'kron Shredders are shredders that are used by Kor'kron Machinists in Siege of Orgrimmar.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Kor%27kron_Machinist
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Kor%27kron_Shredder

Shredders are Goblin built machines though.

Who do you think pilots the Warframes? midget Draenei?:


"Lightforged Warframes are Lightforged draenei in warframes located on Krokuun."

"Warframes (sometimes called battlesuits) are mechanized armor suits (Vindicaar Matrix Core interface: Warframe: Selecting this allows use of the Lightforged Warframe mechanized armor suit while on Argus.)".

"The Lightforged conduct quick, brutal hit-and-run attacks on the Burning Legion using these agile war machines".

The only size-changing mounts are those of the Tauren (who, will never be Tinkers).

Thing is, Draenei are pretty huge. Gnomes for example come up below the hips of male Draenei. If Gnome Tinkers inside mechs are slightly larger than male Draenei, than Draenei inside mechs would be by all accounts massive. Far more massive than any doorway, staircase, dungeon tunnel, etc. In that case we're talking huge issues with clipping, taking up visual space in raids, etc. However, a smaller race like Gnomes, Mechagnomes, Vulpera, etc. could be about the size of plate-armored male tauren and still give the effect of a character piloting a large machine in combat.

Let's be serious; It would be strange if you have a Draenei Tinker entering mech form, and they're almost the same size as a Draenei outside of mech form. That would immediately kill the immersion and look silly to boot.

Well, not in all cases:

Keg Smash
40 Energy 15 yd range
Instant 8 sec recharge
1 Charges
Requires Monk (Brewmaster)
Requires level 21
Smash a keg of brew on the target, dealing (85.995% of Attack power) damage to all enemies within 8 yds and reducing their movement speed by 20% for 15 sec. Deals reduced damage beyond 5 targets.

Grants Shuffle for 5 sec and reduces the remaining cooldown on your Brews by 3 sec.

Explosive Shot
Talent
20 Focus 40 yd range
Instant cast 30 sec cooldown
Requires Hunter (Marksmanship)
Requires level 25
Requires
Fires an explosive shot at your target. After 3 sec, the shot will explode, dealing (188.5% of Attack power) Fire damage to up to 6 enemies within 8 yards.

But, you're right. It is stronger than Hi-Explosive Trap and Wildfire Bomb (57.33% of Attack power & 45% of Attack power).

Yeah, we were talking about Wildfire Bomb.

I, literally, linked you a Turret Guardian pet:
[Gnomish Flame Turret]

"Many other classes can summon temporary combat pets - priests have the [Shadowfiend]".

Totems work much like a Turret so, they fall into the same category.

The point is not all pets are considered permanent or, under the control of the caster.

I think the more important point is that they're not pets. Also we were talking about Hunter pets. What you're doing here is playing semantics.

Nathanos' two undead hounds? His current hounds are labeled as beasts, not undead, and he didn't raise them from the dead. His former hounds he fed Coagulated Rot (still not necromancy).

Much like how i would consider controlling Mechanical Beasts a form of Tinkering. It's nice and all but, Sylvanas (nor Nathanos) raise undead Beasts with Black Arrow (Dark Minion) or Banshee Wave.

Semantics again.

Here's the point; We have Hunters that can shoot poison arrows and use undead beasts. We even have Void Elves who have a few Shadow racials that can thrown in the mix and even appear undead in appearance. To top it all off, Void Elves get Entropic Embrace which has a chance to give their attacks additional Shadowfrost damage for 12 seconds. So as a Hunter, you have a 33% chance with each attack to enter this state and you'll be shooting shadow arrows for 12 seconds. They also get a shadow-based teleport.

IMO, you got your Dark Ranger. Like seriously, what are you missing?

[Unbelievable]

Shredders are Goblin built machines though.



Thing is, Draenei are pretty huge. Gnomes for example come up below the hips of male Draenei. If Gnome Tinkers inside mechs are slightly larger than male Draenei, than Draenei inside mechs would be by all accounts massive. Far more massive than any doorway, staircase, dungeon tunnel, etc. In that case we're talking huge issues with clipping, taking up visual space in raids, etc. However, a smaller race like Gnomes, Mechagnomes, Vulpera, etc. could be about the size of plate-armored male tauren and still give the effect of a character piloting a large machine in combat.

Let's be serious; It would be strange if you have a Draenei Tinker entering mech form, and they're almost the same size as a Draenei outside of mech form. That would immediately kill the immersion and look silly to boot.



Yeah, we were talking about Wildfire Bomb.



I think the more important point is that they're not pets. Also we were talking about Hunter pets. What you're doing here is playing semantics.



Semantics again.

Here's the point; We have Hunters that can shoot poison arrows and use undead beasts. We even have Void Elves who have a few Shadow racials that can thrown in the mix and even appear undead in appearance. To top it all off, Void Elves get Entropic Embrace which has a chance to give their attacks additional Shadowfrost damage for 12 seconds. So as a Hunter, you have a 33% chance with each attack to enter this state and you'll be shooting shadow arrows for 12 seconds. They also get a shadow-based teleport.

IMO, you got your Dark Ranger. Like seriously, what are you missing?

And that is a problem because? we didn't debate on whether it was an Orc mech or not. The debate was whether Orcs can use one. And they can.

Are you blind? enlarge the Warframe picture i posted. There's a Draenei inside.

No. We were talking about explosives in general.

Yes, they are pets. They just don't fall into the category of what you consider a pet (permanent combat pet).

You want a mechanical guardian pet? tame a mechanical pet and use glyph of the dire stable:

Glyph of the Dire Stable
Requires Hunter
Your Dire Beast often calls forth dire versions of your stabled pets.

Once again, being a comedian.
Void elves, Beasts and Poison, clearly, have nothing to do with Undead and Dark Ranger themes. You're just reducing them to such, to make them look like they are. You have no better demagogy, so you use these arguments as a last resort.

Good to see it's your opinion. My opinion would be for you to use a Gnome/Goblin Hunter with Engineering. You get all the tech themes you need. What else is missing?

"Here's the point; We have Hunters that can use explosives and tame mechanical beasts. We even have Gnomes/Goblins who have a few Technology racials that can thrown in the mix and even appear Tinkerish in appearance. To top it all off, Goblins get Rocket Barrage and Rocket Jump which use technology to fire a rocket or launch you forward. So as a Hunter, you can use those to roleplay as a Tinker. You, also, get an Engineering upgrade as a Gnome, so you can use Engineering to put Goggles on, make a tech gun, use explosives, summon mechanical pets and employ an arrange of devices for all sorts of technological effects."

What am i missing? Everything the Dark Ranger and Sylvanas can do in WC3 and Heroes of the Storm and we haven't, even, seen her abilities as a boss in Shadowlands, yet.

[Teriz]

And that is a problem because? we didn't debate on whether it was an Orc mech or not. The debate was whether Orcs can use one. And they can.

Because Clipping is a huge problem, as are very large objects blocking visibility. This is especially the case in tight interior spaces where people need visibility to properly target their spells.

Further, Orcs inside mechs would have the same problem as Draenei inside mechs.

Are you blind? enlarge the Warframe picture i posted. There's a Draenei inside.

Did you actually read what I posted? Can you imagine standing next to a Draenei inside a mech and a Draenei outside a mech, and they're being pretty much the same size overall?

No. We were talking about explosives in general.

Okay, and there are tank abilities more powerful than Explosive Shot as well.

Yes, they are pets. They just don't fall into the category of what you consider a pet (permanent combat pet).

You want a mechanical guardian pet? tame a mechanical pet and use glyph of the dire stable

Again, Tinkers have nothing to do with mechanical pets. And no, a Turret is not a Pet like a Hunter or a Warlock pet. Stop being obtuse.

Once again, being a comedian.
Void elves, Beasts and Poison, clearly, have nothing to do with Undead and Dark Ranger themes. You're just reducing them to such, to make them look like they are. You have no better demagogy, so you use these arguments as a last resort.

Good to see it's your opinion. My opinion would be for you to use a Gnome/Goblin Hunter with Engineering. You get all the tech themes you need. What else is missing?

"Here's the point; We have Hunters that can use explosives and tame mechanical beasts. We even have Gnomes/Goblins who have a few Technology racials that can thrown in the mix and even appear Tinkerish in appearance. To top it all off, Goblins get Rocket Barrage and Rocket Jump which use technology to fire a rocket or launch you forward. So as a Hunter, you can use those to roleplay as a Tinker. You, also, get an Engineering upgrade as a Gnome, so you can use Engineering to put Goggles on, make a tech gun, use explosives, summon mechanical pets and employ an arrange of devices for all sorts of technological effects."

What am i missing? Everything the Dark Ranger and Sylvanas can do in WC3 and Heroes of the Storm and we haven't, even, seen her abilities as a boss in Shadowlands, yet.

Yeah, there's no mech to fight inside. That's the entire point of the Tinker. Not to mention none of the Tinker's abilities exist in the Hunter class, not even an approximation of the Tinker's abilities. Saying that an underpowered rocket on a 90 second cool down makes up for the lack of tech abilities in the Hunter class is laughable.

Meanwhile, the entire point of a Dark Ranger is a Shadow-based Ranger. Void Elves get a passive ability that will allow ALL of a Hunter's attacks to become Shadow-Based, and that's essentially what Black Arrow does in HotS. You have a 33% chance every time you attack to proc this passive ability, and it will make your attacks have Shadow damage for 12 seconds. You can even toss a Shadow laced blade via Chakrams and can Shadowport. Why aren't you a Dark Ranger at this point?

Most importantly, you can even LOOK like an undead high elf. Your comparison is laughable. You have the look, you have the abilities, you even have additional abilities that add to the entire concept. Why should we bring this class into the game when it's completely covered by a racial choice and an existing class?