A future Turret system

[arkanon]

that thread is only four months old.

Nope, it was because the topic got too old.

What amazes me about you, is that you can make these two comments, about the same thread, one post after the other, without flinching. You posted on the main thread just 2 days before starting this thread, but that thread was "too old" but, it was also "only" 4 months old.

[Teriz]

You mean like your fantasies that DH wasn’t in TBC because vanilla had 9 classes

You’re right let’s stick to the fact the turret system would have to either operate off the pet AI which according to your posts is too much like hunter

Or it would be like a totem which is like old shaman according to your posts

Nah, it’s not like a Hunter pet because it’s ranged, mechanical, upgradable, you can summon more than two at once, and has a short duration.

It’s not like Shaman totems because you can have two or more turrets on the field attacking targets.

- - - Updated - - -

What amazes me about you, is that you can make these two comments, about the same thread, one post after the other, without flinching. You posted on the main thread just 2 days before starting this thread, but that thread was "too old" but, it was also "only" 4 months old.

Yeah, it’s called you taking quotes out of context.

[razorpax]

Nah, it’s not like a Hunter pet because it’s ranged, mechanical, upgradable, you can summon more than two at once, and has a short duration.

It’s not like Shaman totems because you can have two or more turrets on the field attacking targets.

So it’s warlock imps
Well according to you it’s too much alike and not allowed

[arkanon]

Nah, it’s not like a Hunter pet because it’s ranged, mechanical, upgradable, you can summon more than two at once, and has a short duration.

It’s not like Shaman totems because you can have two or more turrets on the field attacking targets.

Sweet, so the Necromancer just needs to summon more or less minions than a DK, and suddenly its a perfectly acceptable class concept? I mean if we use the same standard you are applying here, the Necro is suddenly a sure thing!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it’s called you taking quotes out of context.

Both quotes can be clicked by anyone to see the context, and see you have been caught in yet another lie. The context of BOTH posts was the age of the thread.

[Teriz]

Sweet, so the Necromancer just needs to summon more or less minions than a DK, and suddenly its a perfectly acceptable class concept? I mean if we use the same standard you are applying here, the Necro is suddenly a sure thing!

Nope, because turrets are not beasts. Meanwhile Necros summon undead minions just like Death Knights.

- - - Updated - - -

Both quotes can be clicked by anyone to see the context, and see you have been caught in yet another lie. The context of BOTH posts was the age of the thread.

When I’m talking about the thread getting old, I’m talking about the conversation within the thread which had exceeded 5K posts. When I was talking to Ielenia, I was talking about the actual age of the thread, which was only 4 months.

Context matters.

[cocomen2]

Nope, because turrets are not beasts. Meanwhile Necros summon undead minions just like Death Knights.

- - - Updated - - -



When I’m talking about the thread getting old, I’m talking about the conversation within the thread which had exceeded 5K posts. When I was talking to Ielenia, I was talking about the actual age of the thread, which was only 4 months.

Context matters.

"Since we already have class that uses mechanical pets we don't need another one" do i doing it right, teriz?

[arkanon]

When I’m talking about the thread getting old, I’m talking about the conversation within the thread which had exceeded 5K posts. When I was talking to Ielenia, I was talking about the actual age of the thread, which was only 4 months.

Context matters.

Maybe, just maybe, the conversation got "old" because you regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over and over again, without acknowledging any of the damning criticism your idea is receiving. You are extremely hypocritical, using the same logic to defend your tinker concept that you then use against any other ideas.

You say that proof of concept exists in 4 other classes - warlocks, hunters, druids, and shamans. Thats overlap with FOUR other classes, something you openly acknowledge. But whenever someone says they would like another concept over yours, you use "class overlap" as a reason NOT to introduce those classes.

People pointed out these are just totems with a skin, and that they tried a class with a heavy reliance on static totems, and the players didnt enjoy it, so they changed it. You responded to this by suddenly making them mobile.

People pointed out that they are now just hunter pets, and you defend this by saying "no, they attack from range"

People pointed out they are now just wild imps, and you take the conversation full circle back to the beginning.

There is absolutely nothing unique at all about your concept - it is simply a bunch of reskinned abilities other classes already have, all mashed together with a mechanical skin on it.

[Teriz]

"Since we already have class that uses mechanical pets we don't need another one" do i doing it right, teriz?

Except Hunter mechanicals are really just beasts with a mechanical skin. Further, the Tinker class concept goes quite a bit beyond mechanical pets.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe, just maybe, the conversation got "old" because you regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over and over again, without acknowledging any of the damning criticism your idea is receiving. You are extremely hypocritical, using the same logic to defend your tinker concept that you then use against any other ideas.

You say that proof of concept exists in 4 other classes - warlocks, hunters, druids, and shamans. Thats overlap with FOUR other classes, something you openly acknowledge. But whenever someone says they would like another concept over yours, you use "class overlap" as a reason NOT to introduce those classes.

People pointed out these are just totems with a skin, and that they tried a class with a heavy reliance on static totems, and the players didnt enjoy it, so they changed it. You responded to this by suddenly making them mobile.

People pointed out that they are now just hunter pets, and you defend this by saying "no, they attack from range"

People pointed out they are now just wild imps, and you take the conversation full circle back to the beginning.

There is absolutely nothing unique at all about your concept - it is simply a bunch of reskinned abilities other classes already have, all mashed together with a mechanical skin on it.

Again, I simply attached the concept to existing abilities in order to avoid detractors from claiming the concept is "OP" or "unworkable". Of course I acknowledge that when I do that, those same detractors will whip around and say that the abilities aren't different enough. Your post is an example of the type of circular argument I'm talking about.

I think we could save quite a bit of time if you simply said that you don't like the Tinker concept and avoided these types of threads.

[arkanon]

I think we could save quite a bit of time if you simply said that you don't like the Tinker concept and avoided these types of threads.

And THIS is the issue you have - you only want an echo chamber, and are not willing to accept criticism of your flawed ideas. I think it would be best if you simply said that you love the Tinker concept, and avoided creating these types of threads, since you are not open to any criticism or genuine, open discussion.

Its good that you have finally acknowledged that your (lol) concept is simply an homogenization of existing concepts. Thats a really good start - and from here, you can start working on some ideas that are unique and dont overlap with so many other classes.

The issue is, you want it both ways - and this is why you mistakenly label these comments as circular reasoning. You say that other concepts cannot exist because they overlap with existing classes, but refuse to accept that EXACT same reasoning in regard to your own concept, which you openly admit overlaps with multiple other classes.

[Ielenia]

Incorrect. It’s most damaging ability is pocket factory by far.

First: I did not say the auto-attack dealt most of its damage. Nor am I saying it doesn't, mind you.
Second: I'd like you to show me that the Pocket Factory is the source of most of the damage in the long term. In other words, do you have DPS meters for it to back up your claim?

Incorrect again. 90% of the time the tinker is in the back line letting his bits do the work. The only time see him in the front is in Robo-Goblin mode, and that’s mainly to demolish buildings. A Tinker wading into a melee fight would be dead in seconds

Show me. Show its gameplay, show me how the pros play the unit. On top of that, Goblin Tinkers have more armor than Mountain Kings, Tauren Chieftain, Crypt Lord, Dreadlord and the same armor as the Death Knight. In short, looks like he's built to survive in melee.

They were translated, just to the Warlock class instead. The DH class got the HotS version of the spell.

Except it wasn't, because we didn't get the upgrade to the Metamorphosis form.

Which means they don’t.

Exceptions don't cancel the rule, you know? And before you start with this "what rule?" nonsense again, I'm using an idiom.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...at-would-it-be

In that thread the majority of posters picked the Tinker class, and that thread is only four months old.

A thread without a poll, so we have no way of knowing for sure unless we count each and every one of its five thousand, two hundred and fifty posts? Did you do it? What's the tally?

Also, here's evidence of the decline of popularity:

So I've noticed something interesting in the links that Teriz posted here:

• The first link, from January 2018, shows the tinker with a 50% advantage over the necromancer.
• The second link, from April 2019, shows the tinker class having an incredible lead over the other class ideas.
• The third link, from October 2019, shows the tinker with a small lead over the other options.
• The fourth link, from May 2020, shows the tinker only having a marginal lead over the other options.

Why is that significant? It's showing a decrease in the tinker's popularity since the past year.

[Teriz]

And THIS is the issue you have - you only want an echo chamber, and are not willing to accept criticism of your flawed ideas. I think it would be best if you simply said that you love the Tinker concept, and avoided creating these types of threads, since you are not open to any criticism or genuine, open discussion.

When you attack an ability as overpowered before you realize it has the same mechanic as an existing ability simply because you despise the idea, how can we have genuine open discussion? How is that logical or intelligent criticism? All it really is is hating on a concept because you simply don't like it. We could actually have open, intelligent conversation if you would simply admit that, instead of floating this BS that you're being objective and fair.

Its good that you have finally acknowledged that your (lol) concept is simply an homogenization of existing concepts. Thats a really good start - and from here, you can start working on some ideas that are unique and dont overlap with so many other classes.

And here is yet another example of you being dishonest. I've mentioned several mechanical differences between the Tinker and existing concepts. You simply ignored them.

The issue is, you want it both ways - and this is why you mistakenly label these comments as circular reasoning. You say that other concepts cannot exist because they overlap with existing classes, but refuse to accept that EXACT same reasoning in regard to your own concept, which you openly admit overlaps with multiple other classes.

Nah, I label them as circular because you outright ignore the evidence that counters your narrative and you simply repeat yourself over and over again. You'll go away for a few days, and then come right back and bring up the same tired, disproven argument all over again.

- - - Updated - - -

First: I did not say the auto-attack dealt most of its damage. Nor am I saying it doesn't, mind you.
Second: I'd like you to show me that the Pocket Factory is the source of most of the damage in the long term. In other words, do you have DPS meters for it to back up your claim?

1. Basic attack in WC3 would be the auto attack.
2. You can look at the ability statistics and realize that Pocket Factory is the most damaging ability. Not only does it rapidly produce minions that have a basic attack, but they also explode at the end of their duration and do AoE damage.

Show me. Show its gameplay, show me how the pros play the unit. On top of that, Goblin Tinkers have more armor than Mountain Kings, Tauren Chieftain, Crypt Lord, Dreadlord and the same armor as the Death Knight. In short, looks like he's built to survive in melee.

Again, just look at the stats and the abilities because it's right there in your face. Yeah the Tinker has higher base armor, but it has lower average attack, and it has ZERO abilities to support fighting in melee.

The closest comparison is the Dreadlord, but it has a vampiric aura that heals it when it deals damage, and if an enemy starts to overwhelm it, it can put them to sleep and get away. That said, it STILL does more base damage with its basic attack than the Tinker.

Except it wasn't, because we didn't get the upgrade to the Metamorphosis form.

Yeah, there was no way DHs were going to get permanent demon form. That would contradict the purpose of the class.

Exceptions don't cancel the rule, you know? And before you start with this "what rule?" nonsense again, I'm using an idiom.

We have multiple exceptions to this "rule", so yeah the rule is meaningless.

A thread without a poll, so we have no way of knowing for sure unless we count each and every one of its five thousand, two hundred and fifty posts? Did you do it? What's the tally?

You don't have to read all 5k posts. Just read the first few hundred. It's obvious where it was trending towards. Heck, it was trending that way so overwhelmingly that a poster began to complain about so many people wanting a Tinker class.

Also, here's evidence of the decline of popularity:

Last I checked, this poll;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

Had the most options and the most votes. The results are pretty overwhelming. With Shadowlands not providing a Necromancer or Dark Ranger class, I imagine the Tinker to be even more dominant.

[arkanon]

When you attack an ability as overpowered before you realize it has the same mechanic as an existing ability simply because you despise the idea, how can we have genuine open discussion? How is that logical or intelligent criticism? All it really is is hating on a concept because you simply don't like it. We could actually have open, intelligent conversation if you would simply admit that, instead of floating this BS that you're being objective and fair.

And here is yet another example of you being dishonest. I've mentioned several mechanical differences between the Tinker and existing concepts. You simply ignored them.

First off, no, you havnt - Many of us have shown evidence that Blizzard do not like the idea of a class dealing a significant portion of its damage through a mostly passive "turret". This is a style of gameplay they actively avoid, to the point were more than one similar concept in different Blizzard games were entirely reworked AWAY from this style, as it was not well received by the player base, both playing as said character, or against.

The only one using circular reasoning is you - when they were stationary, they are no different to a totem. So you changed the argument to say they could move - congrats, now they are hunter pets. To which you said no, they attack from range, and move when out of range - well done, now they are a warlock pet.

When you have done this full loop, you say "no, they are completely different because they are mechanical", but you dont explain HOW that differentiates them beyond a simple skin. I mean even when it is pointed out that hunters can already tame mechanicals, you just gloss over it.

Not a single core mechanic you have described doesnt already exist in one way or another with an existing class, you have taken (A) from one spec, and (B) from another spec, and claimed you have created something new.

The funny thing is, it is only YOU that has this huge issue with "class overlap", most of the comments I see from others, they dont really have an issue with it, but YOU are passionately against class overlap, and yet you (LOL) concept relies almost entirely on existing mechanics and themes from other classes.

[Teriz]

First off, no, you havnt - Many of us have shown evidence that Blizzard do not like the idea of a class dealing a significant portion of its damage through a mostly passive "turret". This is a style of gameplay they actively avoid, to the point were more than one similar concept in different Blizzard games were entirely reworked AWAY from this style, as it was not well received by the player base, both playing as said character, or against.

Yet, Demonology and Beastmaster Hunters deal a significant portion of their damage through their mostly "passive" turrets.

The only one using circular reasoning is you - when they were stationary, they are no different to a totem. So you changed the argument to say they could move - congrats, now they are hunter pets. To which you said no, they attack from range, and move when out of range - well done, now they are a warlock pet.

Actually they were different than totems even when they were stationary. Again, you simply ignored the mechanical differences (per usual).

When you have done this full loop, you say "no, they are completely different because they are mechanical", but you dont explain HOW that differentiates them beyond a simple skin. I mean even when it is pointed out that hunters can already tame mechanicals, you just gloss over it.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Beast
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Demon
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Mechanical
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Undead

Have fun.

Not a single mechanic you have described doesnt already exist in one way or another with an existing class, you have taken (A) from one spec, and (B) from another spec, and claimed you have created something new.

Do you have any examples of pets or minions leaving behind resources when they die? Any example of a pet or minion combining with player character to form a new weapon? Any example or two pets or minions combining to become a new pet or minion? Any examples of multiple pets/minions upgrading at the same time? etc.

The funny thing is, it is only YOU that has this huge issue with "class overlap", most of the comments I see from others, they dont really have an issue with it, but YOU are passionately against class overlap, and yet you (LOL) concept relies almost entirely on existing mechanics and themes from other classes.

Ever stop to wonder why the Necromancer class tends to do worse than expected in polls like this and this? Ever stop to wonder why very few people mentioned Necromancer as the class they wanted in that huge thread, but mentioned the Tinker class over and over again?

It's because of the class overlap.

[Chaelexi]

Uh, where’s the technology-based class? Pretty much every MMO with a steam-punk element has one, and there’s obviously a group of players who like to play such classes. We also have three classes that feel a bit out of place because there’s no technology-based class.

Also what about a third class that wears mail? What about another physical ranged class to compete with Hunters for bows/guns?

Stop trying to feed your steampunk into a the fantasy game we have. A tinker in Warcraft lore has never been ranged. You basically want to break lore to fit your poor design into a game that does not need it.

And making something look different but it has the same general mechanics does not make something different. A turret = totems. We already have 3 pet classes no need for another one.

[Teriz]

Stop trying to feed your steampunk into a the fantasy game we have. A tinker in Warcraft lore has never been ranged. You basically want to break lore to fit your poor design into a game that does not need it.

So out of 9 abilities between HotS and WC3, the following are ranged;

-Pocket Factory
-Cluster Rocket
-Rock it Turret
-X-plodium charge
-Deth Lazor
-Grav-O-Bomb 3000

The last 3 are Engineering Upgrade: A passive that enhances all of your abilities, and 2 versions of Robo Goblin which essentially turns you into a mech pilot, or enhances the mech on your back.

So when 6 out of 9 abilities (honestly 6 out of 8) are ranged, how are we not talking about a ranged character?

And making something look different but it has the same general mechanics does not make something different. A turret = totems. We already have 3 pet classes no need for another one.

This is yet another example of simply ignoring previous posts. The differences between totems and turrets have been discussed numerous times. Please go back to the earlier portion of this thread and catch up.

[arkanon]

Do you have any examples of pets or minions leaving behind resources when they die? Any example of a pet or minion combining with player character to form a new weapon? Any example or two pets or minions combining to become a new pet or minion? Any examples of multiple pets/minions upgrading at the same time? etc.
.

Yes, imps provide resources when they die.

Yes, BM hunters have attacks that empower each other - you added the "new weapon" crap because you most likely know this. But obviously this is just a form change, EXACTLY like all druid specs.

Not sure what you are referring to regarding multiple pets "combining"? However this is what Demo locks did - their tyrant consumed the imps.

Yes, both BM and Warlocks have times where their pets all upgrade at the same time.

[Teriz]

Yes, imps provide resources when they die.

Explain.

Yes, BM hunters have attacks that empower each other - you added the "new weapon" crap because you most likely know this.

Explain again.

Not sure what you are referring to regarding multiple pets "combing"?

2 Turrets combining to form a more powerful turret, or a completely different mechanical device.

Yes, both BM and Warlocks have times where their pets all upgrade at the same time.

So which ability has a BM pet transform into a more powerful version of the BM pet? For example, you have a Tiger, and the BM Hunter transforms it into something that resembles Xuen with lightning shooting out from its body.

Just curious.

[arkanon]

Explain.



Explain again.



2 Turrets combining to form a more powerful turret, or a completely different mechanical device.



So which ability has a BM pet transform into a more powerful version of the BM pet? For example, you have a Tiger, and the BM Hunter transforms it into something that resembles Xuen with lightning shooting out from its body.

Just curious.

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=267102/demonic-core

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=19574/bestial-wrath

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=63560/dark-transformation

[Teriz]

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=267102/demonic-core

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=19574/bestial-wrath

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=63560/dark-transformation

I'll give you demonic core.

Bestial Wrath is just a power-up. Not really what I'm talking about.

Dark Transformation isn't BM Hunter. That said, yes it is an example of what I was talking about, however I said multiple minions/pets upgrading at the same time. Also where's the examples of the pet/minion merging with another pet/minion to form a new one? Also where's the example of a pet/minion merging with the player character to create a new weapon?

[Ielenia]

1. Basic attack in WC3 would be the auto attack.
2. You can look at the ability statistics and realize that Pocket Factory is the most damaging ability. Not only does it rapidly produce minions that have a basic attack, but they also explode at the end of their duration and do AoE damage.

So you're making a claim of which you have no idea to back up and don't want to back up?

Again, just look at the stats and the abilities because it's right there in your face.

And speaking of stats that are "right there in your face", there is one that says that the goblin tinker is a melee unit.

The closest comparison is the Dreadlord, but it has a vampiric aura that heals it when it deals damage, and if an enemy starts to overwhelm it, it can put them to sleep and get away. That said, it STILL does more base damage with its basic attack than the Tinker.[/quote]
Same damage as the demon hunter and warden.

Yeah, there was no way DHs were going to get permanent demon form. That would contradict the purpose of the class.

Why would it, if it's an actual demon hunter ability in HotS? That's like saying the "Mecha-Lord" or "Bomb Toss" contradict the purpose of the tinker class.

Not to mention that is basically what Illidan is: permanent demon form.

We have multiple exceptions to this "rule", so yeah the rule is meaningless.

"One" is hardly "multiple".

You don't have to read all 5k posts. Just read the first few hundred. It's obvious where it was trending towards.

Which would basically be mostly the same people talking about it. You want to make the claim, Teriz, then you have to put the work for it, considering you didn't put the effort.

Last I checked, this poll;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

Had the most options and the most votes. The results are pretty overwhelming.

So what? What matters are the percentages. It also makes me wonder: why did the tinker fans did not go to vote "en masse" on all those other threads, then, if it's such a popular and desired concept? I mean, the fourth link in my quote shows roughly the same rate of engagement as your chosen thread (54 vs 56 pages).

With Shadowlands not providing a Necromancer or Dark Ranger class, I imagine the Tinker to be even more dominant.

That is a non-sequitur. Blizzard has nothing to do with popularity polls, and they certainly do not add classes into WoW in accordance to popularity polls. Otherwise we would have the tinker by now, if it's as popular as you claim it is, don't you think?

- - - Updated - - -

So out of 9 abilities between HotS and WC3, the following are ranged;

-Pocket Factory
-Cluster Rocket
-Rock it Turret
-X-plodium charge
-Deth Lazor
-Grav-O-Bomb 3000

The last 3 are Engineering Upgrade: A passive that enhances all of your abilities, and 2 versions of Robo Goblin which essentially turns you into a mech pilot, or enhances the mech on your back.

So when 6 out of 9 abilities (honestly 6 out of 8) are ranged, how are we not talking about a ranged character?

Because it's auto-attack is melee. Simple as that.