Page 2 of 38 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    At this point a class skin or new race or even a new class for that matter will not save this game from the tailspin it is in. There has to be changes made that Bobby "nodick" Kotick will not approve of, and most of the talent has left the building. This will take Kotick leaving Activision and somebody like Ybarra taking over as CEO, then a massive talent search with big money as the prize for bringing back the cash cow known as WoW. This will take years and the game will never be the same, which means that players will have to except a different version of WoW than the one they fell in love with. Huge risk, small chance of the same big success and shareholders impatience means mediocrity for WoW is here to stay.

  2. #22
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWholeLifeIsThunder View Post
    And Spellbreakers and Blood Mages also have unique abilities that would also be suited to their own classes.
    Spell breaker and Blood Mage abilities went to Mages and Warlocks. Not the situation with the Tinker whose abilities are absent from the class lineup.

    Look, the point isn't that Tinker wouldn't make a neat class, but if that's what you wanna talk about... make a topic about that, and don't bundle it with the idea of Class Skins, which is all about not touching the gameplay and instead offering cosmetic options for more fantasy.
    I’m not the OP. I was merely pointing out that you couldn’t make the Tinker a class skin for Druids for a host of reasons.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Druid = Tinker

    Good one...
    Since it works pretty darn well, I'd say it's a good one, yeah.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Spell breaker and Blood Mage abilities went to Mages and Warlocks. Not the situation with the Tinker whose abilities are absent from the class lineup.

    I’m not the OP. I was merely pointing out that you couldn’t make the Tinker a class skin for Druids for a host of reasons.
    And again, I'm telling you that Tinker abilities aren't any more outside than other class' abilities. There's nothing intrinsic about Tinkers that makes them impossible as a class skin unlike other class skin options.

    Again, I would like if Tinkers were a class, I do believe their gameplay could be distinct and new, but my point is that both you and OP are kinda derailing a point about Class Skins with another Class you'd like, that's just incompatible.

    That's the thing, why are we talking about Tinkers unless it is in the context of Class Skins? And again, if classes like Blood Mage and Spellbreaker, that have very different concepts than the present archetypes can be made to work as class skins, so do Tinkers.

    Back to the start, it's just saying "Oh my preferred class is different, she's not like other girls"

    That's the drawback of Class Skins, a lot of people would like their preferred Class to be their own thing, but if we are going to look at class skins as a possibility, you have to be cognizant that your preferred class could also be a skin because while they could work on their own, they can just be a class skins. Like all others on the list.

    The idea that Druid could be a base for a Tinker/Artificer class skin is not new. Guardian spec is literally just the Tank mode, Restoration would be Alchemist. Moonfire and Sunfire and Starfire? Just different types of ammo. Teleport? Wormhole.

    That's the whole point of Class Skins, to make a fantasy fit on the already available classes. That's why bringing the "Tinker has to be its own class tho" to the discussion just derails the issue.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Since it works pretty darn well, I'd say it's a good one, yeah.
    The whole lunar and solar eclipse mechanic could be reskined to be Positive/Negative charge.

    Bear Form: Tank Mode
    Cat Form: Whatever the Memnis automata are.
    Moonkin Form: Demolition/Incendiary Mode
    Tree of life Form: Alchemist
    Travel Form: Motorcycle/Helicopter/Submarine

    The whole point of Class Skins is to take a lore concept and see what class would fit better for it!

  5. #25
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWholeLifeIsThunder View Post
    And again, I'm telling you that Tinker abilities aren't any more outside than other class' abilities. There's nothing intrinsic about Tinkers that makes them impossible as a class skin unlike other class skin options.
    Well right off the bat, Mechagnomes, Gnomes, and Goblins can't be druids. So are they going to get the Tinker class skin AND their own version of the Druid, or are they only going to be able to utilize the class skin? Further, will this Tinker class skin be available to ALL the current Druid races as well?

    Additionally when we observe this class skin, will it be called "Druid" or will it be called "Tinker"? Will the specs still be Resto/Balance/Feral/Guardian, or will it have completely different spec names?

    That's not even venturing into the problem with abilities. Based on HotS and Island Expeditions, Tinkers drop turrets. Druids don't drop turrets. Are we going to give Druids turrets or are Tinkers not going to have a major ability? What about abilities like Xplodium Charge or Pocket Factory? There are no existing equivalents within the Druid class. Once again are we going to purposely alter Druid design in order to accomodate this skin, or is this class skin simply not going to have a desired Tinker ability?

    What about the Tinker claw packs? They were present in both WC3 and HotS and the table top games, indicating that they're a part of Tinker design. In both WC3 and HotS (early versions) the Claw pack could transform into a mech which the Tinker could pilot. In class form, the claw pack could deploy from a gizmo on the back of the Tinker and further transform into a mech as a cooldown or a permanent form. How would that work in the Druid class where there is no intermediate form?

    Again, I would like if Tinkers were a class, I do believe their gameplay could be distinct and new, but my point is that both you and OP are kinda derailing a point about Class Skins with another Class you'd like, that's just incompatible.
    I do believe that the OP simply mentioned that the Tinker is too unique to be placed into a class skin. Where's the derailment?

    That's the thing, why are we talking about Tinkers unless it is in the context of Class Skins? And again, if classes like Blood Mage and Spellbreaker, that have very different concepts than the present archetypes can be made to work as class skins, so do Tinkers.
    Except Blood Mages and Spellbreakers don't really have different concepts. Blood Mage is simply a corrupted fire mage, which is why you can divide it's abilities between Warlocks and Mages. Spellbreakers simply utilize control-based magic which is typically found in the Arcane school of magic. The Mage class covers that rather well.

    We're talking about Tinkers because people are believing you can attach them to the Druid class as if they're somehow related, when thematics and abilities say otherwise.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by AKCephalopod View Post
    This forum and many others have forever been filled with endless discussion over what class should be added next. At any given time, you can find at least one, if not more, thread on a concept for a new class that should be added.

    Adding a full new class takes a lot of time and effort on Blizzard's end as well as commiting to supporting and balancing that class for all future expansions. That's a lot. Add on to that the sheer number of classes that people repeatedly ask for and make concepts for, Tinker, Necromancer, Dragonsworn, and Bard all come to mind instantly, though I'm more than certain there are others.

    So I think the best idea is to add in Class Skins as a system so that Blizzard can add new classes at any time as well as a massive dump of new classes without having to commit to any additional balancing.

    How would this work exactly though?

    The idea of a class skin is that mechanically, you are still playing one of the existing classes, but your abilities have their names and visuals changed to match the theme of a new class as well as the name of the class being changed.

    For example, the Necromancer could be a skin for a Warlock where your "summon demon" spell becomes "raise undead" and your demons become various types of undead. I'd add on to this that, like allied races, each class skin should add a transmog set for the class, thus allowing you to fully immerse yourself in the fantasy of the new skin.

    Some examples of class skins for each class could include:

    Warrior -> Gladiator
    Paladin -> Spellbreaker
    Death Knight -> Mawsworn
    Hunter -> Dark Ranger
    Shaman -> Dragonsworn
    Rogue -> Ninja
    Monk -> Lorewalker
    Druid -> Druid of the Flame
    Demon Hunter -> Warden
    Mage -> Blood Mage
    Warlock -> Necromancer
    Priest -> Cultist

    Building on this idea, class skins can help to loosen the race/class restrictions. For example, Void Elves could be Paladins, but only if they use the Spellbreaker skin. Night Elves and Blood Elves could be Shamans, but only as the Dragonsworn skin. Along with this, race specific class skins could be added, allowing for more specific class fantasy. For example, Orc Warriors could be Blademasters or Night Elf Demon Hunters could be Night Warriors or Kul'Tiran Priests could be Tidesages.

    Along with this whole system, I'd also advocate that one final class be added: the Tinker. This class is the most requested one I've seen and I think people would rejoice at its introduction. And with the class skin system, I'd add that Bard be a generic skin for Tinker and Apothecary as a race specific Tinker skin for Undead.

    Overall, I think a system like this would make it much easier for Blizzard to add new classes at any time and to add a great deal more character customization to the game. Plus how big of a draw would it be if blizzard announced so many new and fan requested classes getting added to the game? I think it is a solution that can satisfy a lot of people.
    Spec skins plz. Undead and void elf priests should be able to use a shadowy spec that's literallly just a reskinned Holy.

    Also, Night Elf priests should use blue light.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Druid = Tinker

    Good one...
    It's easy. The whole piloting a mech thing is mechanically the same as just transforming into another being and using their skillset. Hence it would make sense to mofify the basic druid kit with a few different forms (per race) to resemble different mechs. The rest is mostly in the diversity of the class. You can have a melee spec, a tank spec, a ranged spec and a healer spec. Stuff like disposable minions (treants) work well as "bots", roots could be a trap launcher (single and aoe), largescale AoE works as bombardments, eclispe could be turned into polarity system etc. If you ignore the lore and such for a moment and just look at the mechanics it's fairly obvious how you could, with a few word and cosmetic changes, turn a druid into a tinkler.

    Giving those changes to druids as an option is obviously not going to work in any way, but there are more than one way to do class skins. Having a warlock pick up necromancer is also not ideal, since warlocks have nothing to do with necromancy as such. The idea here is more along the lines of having a new class that requires the same tuning as existing ones, but comes with the visual feeling of something new.
    Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2021-08-25 at 02:49 AM.
    You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWholeLifeIsThunder View Post
    The whole lunar and solar eclipse mechanic could be reskined to be Positive/Negative charge.

    Bear Form: Tank Mode
    Cat Form: Whatever the Memnis automata are.
    Moonkin Form: Demolition/Incendiary Mode
    Tree of life Form: Alchemist
    Travel Form: Motorcycle/Helicopter/Submarine

    The whole point of Class Skins is to take a lore concept and see what class would fit better for it!
    Sure. All a class really is is a combination of art + animation + mechanics. Class skins lets you piggyback the mechanics and just replace the art and animation. There's no reason that you couldn't replace the art and animation of a Druid with Tinker themed ones and easily have a class that fills the Tinker theme and identity. It's a simple way of adding a new 'class' without all of the headaches that go into balancing it.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I do believe that the OP simply mentioned that the Tinker is too unique to be placed into a class skin. Where's the derailment?
    Then what you are doing is derailing a thread that you openly admit even the OP said is NOT about tinkers. Either this concept does not work for tinkers - in which case you should not be discussing tinkers, or, the concept DOES work for tinkers, in which case you are free to continue discussing tinkers. Which is it?

    Does the concept work for tinker? Or are you derailing the thread by discussing something not relevant to the topic at hand?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyanion View Post
    In no way are you entitled to the 'complete' game when you buy it, because DLC/cosmetics and so on are there for companies to make more money
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Others, including myself, are saying that they only exist because Blizzard needed to create things so they could monetize it.

  10. #30
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    Having a warlock pick up necromancer is also not ideal, since warlocks have nothing to do with necromancy as such. The idea here is more along the lines of having a new classes that require the same tuning as existing ones, but come with the visual feeling of something new.
    Actually abilities like Deathbolt, Life Tap, Drain Life, Drain Soul, Curse of Weakness, Corruption, Soulstone, Haunt, Soul Shard, Well of Souls, Healthstones, etc. wouldn’t be out of place in a Necromancer class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Then what you are doing is derailing a thread that you openly admit even the OP said is NOT about tinkers. Either this concept does not work for tinkers - in which case you should not be discussing tinkers, or, the concept DOES work for tinkers, in which case you are free to continue discussing tinkers. Which is it?

    Does the concept work for tinker? Or are you derailing the thread by discussing something not relevant to the topic at hand?
    The concept doesn’t work for Tinkers. The problem is that others here disagree, hence why we’re having the discussion.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well right off the bat, Mechagnomes, Gnomes, and Goblins can't be druids. So are they going to get the Tinker class skin AND their own version of the Druid, or are they only going to be able to utilize the class skin? Further, will this Tinker class skin be available to ALL the current Druid races as well?

    Additionally when we observe this class skin, will it be called "Druid" or will it be called "Tinker"? Will the specs still be Resto/Balance/Feral/Guardian, or will it have completely different spec names?
    The whole idea of Class Skins goes hand in hand with the idea of opening more Class/Race combos; how to give players more lore immersive options that don't hinder their performance, and on the contrary, remove arbitrary gameplay limitations by opening the class archetypes to more combos, specially offering a fantasy that can serve an analoguous performance.

    As to what races get specific Class Skins, the decision there is entirely discretionary. Does anyone get to pick them under the conceit that your character is an outlier and can choose whatever path possible? Do these get race based locks such as Gnome/Goblin druids only be referred as "Tinkers" in game? Can a Night Elf become a Tinker? Those are immersion questions that exist separate to gameplay ones. Personally, I would go with the outlier paradigm, your character can be "anything" they wanna be that's within the gameplay possibilities and lore parameters, but in game organizations would remain following cultural trends.

    What I think it's interesting about Class Skins, is that some of them could work for entire classes, others just for certain specs. Major Fantasy divergences that deeply alter the core fantasy of the class, such as let's say "Void Knights", "Tinkers" and "Necromancers, would require all specs of Paladin, Druid, and Warlock to be reskined. Smaller fantasy divergences like "Dark Ranger", "Blood Mage" and "Spellbreaker", would more so be "Spec Skins" for MM Hunter, Destruction Warlock and Protection Paladin for example.

    That's not even venturing into the problem with abilities. Based on HotS and Island Expeditions, Tinkers drop turrets. Druids don't drop turrets. Are we going to give Druids turrets or are Tinkers not going to have a major ability? What about abilities like Xplodium Charge or Pocket Factory? There are no existing equivalents within the Druid class. Once again are we going to purposely alter Druid design in order to accomodate this skin, or is this class skin simply not going to have a desired Tinker ability?

    What about the Tinker claw packs? They were present in both WC3 and HotS and the table top games, indicating that they're a part of Tinker design. In both WC3 and HotS (early versions) the Claw pack could transform into a mech which the Tinker could pilot. In class form, the claw pack could deploy from a gizmo on the back of the Tinker and further transform into a mech as a cooldown or a permanent form. How would that work in the Druid class where there is no intermediate form?
    That's the inherent problem of Class Skins as a direction, there are abilities that simply will not have a suitable analogue, but again, that's a concern for all possibilities. You can't give spellsteal to Paladins for Spellbreakers, you can't change the type of damage a Necromancer Warlock would do, nor giving Dark Ranger Shadow damage or acually undead minions or Mind Control powers. That's the scope of Class Skins, cosmetic changes and aesthetics that DO NOT affect the gameplay of the class. As such, pretty much every concept has something that cannot be translated. That's the limitation of the Class Skin concept.

    That's why other people simple prefer new Classes over anything else, and others 4th Specs. These are just all different design choices with their pros and cons. None of them is perfect or has no downsides.


    So the claw pack would have to be the Cat Form, Robo-Goblin the Bear Form, etc. Is about making a fantasy fit a Class Archetype. Alternatively, if you think turrets are most intrinsic to Tinkers, then Shaman could be the base, with totems being the turrets -as it already is with goblin shamans- and elementals/ascendence as helper construct robots.

    I do believe that the OP simply mentioned that the Tinker is too unique to be placed into a class skin. Where's the derailment?
    The idea that Tinker is too unique to be a class skin. That's why a lot of people were quick to point that out lol.

    Except Blood Mages and Spellbreakers don't really have different concepts. Blood Mage is simply a corrupted fire mage, which is why you can divide it's abilities between Warlocks and Mages. Spellbreakers simply utilize control-based magic which is typically found in the Arcane school of magic. The Mage class covers that rather well.

    We're talking about Tinkers because people are believing you can attach them to the Druid class as if they're somehow related, when thematics and abilities say otherwise.
    You literally bring the issue with the Blood Mages. They DO exist between Warlock and Mage, so okay, which class should they be then? Spellbreakers have an entirely different concept from Paladins, as they simply do not use light, is just the mechanics that match most. Same for Necromancers, they have nothing to do with the demonology and fel usage and fire of warlocks, but being casters that can control minions is a close mechanical fit to their fantasy.

    Again that's the point, Class Skins are about making an unused fantasy fit an already existing class, but it has its drawbacks. The thing here is that Tinker is simply no more special or unique than other classes that get thrown on the idea of Class Skins.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Sure. All a class really is is a combination of art + animation + mechanics. Class skins lets you piggyback the mechanics and just replace the art and animation. There's no reason that you couldn't replace the art and animation of a Druid with Tinker themed ones and easily have a class that fills the Tinker theme and identity. It's a simple way of adding a new 'class' without all of the headaches that go into balancing it.
    Indeed. That's exactly the point of Class Skins. Of course as any design choice it has drawbacks, like some aspects of the fantasy not being able to be translated with the tools at hand.

    I do believe that Tinkers could be a very interesting Class, but when we talk about new classes we HAVE to consider all the development issues and game balancing that entails, as well as the necessity of a context that would make Tinkers thematic of the expansion that would introduce them. And right now, the only way I can see Tinkers being relevant on an expansion wide thematic level is if they get bundled with Artificers and we are looking at a more cosmic based/spaceship travel expansion.

    With how much of a hassle balancing is, a new Class HAS to be relevant to the expansion itself to be worth it, this has been true for all 3 classes added post Vanilla.

  12. #32
    character visuals and aesthetics have never been a draw for me. content and gameplay has.
    cant see just some character models bringing players back when the game sucks in all other forms.
    not to mention that i play with my camera out so far it basically looks like the RTS, so character models are moot.

    you are only ever looking at the back of your toon, unless in your character screen, but alas transmog is pretty popular so what do i know

  13. #33
    Scarab Lord Polybius's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Under Your Bed
    Posts
    4,405
    If we’re basing if off what players have requested, Dragonsworn, and especially Necromancer and Tinker wouldn’t work.

    With Dragonsworn you need a Tank spec. Necromancer a healer spec, and Tinker minions. In theory some of these can work as reworks and 4th specs (looking at Necro since it’s closest to Unholy Death Knight minus melee spells), but you’d still need decent reworks like in Legion.

  14. #34
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,799
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWholeLifeIsThunder View Post
    The whole idea of Class Skins goes hand in hand with the idea of opening more Class/Race combos; how to give players more lore immersive options that don't hinder their performance, and on the contrary, remove arbitrary gameplay limitations by opening the class archetypes to more combos, specially offering a fantasy that can serve an analoguous performance.
    Yeah, but the fundamental problem here is that a Tinker is not a Druid. The two are fundamentally different, and the only reason people think this idea would work is because of a possible link in the shapeshifting mechanic and the Tinker's ability to pilot a mech.

    On the other hand, a Dark Ranger IS a Hunter, since a Hunter is another word for Ranger. Additionally, Hunters have had multiple Dark Ranger abilities throughout their history in WoW.

    As to what races get specific Class Skins, the decision there is entirely discretionary. Does anyone get to pick them under the conceit that your character is an outlier and can choose whatever path possible? Do these get race based locks such as Gnome/Goblin druids only be referred as "Tinkers" in game? Can a Night Elf become a Tinker? Those are immersion questions that exist separate to gameplay ones. Personally, I would go with the outlier paradigm, your character can be "anything" they wanna be that's within the gameplay possibilities and lore parameters, but in game organizations would remain following cultural trends.
    You really didn't answer my question though; Is this a Tinker or a Druid? If this is a class skin for the Druid class, then every Druid race should be able to utilize it. However if that's the case, then it really isn't a Tinker, it's just a Druid with a mechanical theme, which really makes no sense. In addition, how deep into the ability alterations do we go? Are we going to change every Druid ability into something that works for a Tinker, or are we going to retain the Druid's abilities and just alter the forms? What about the names? Bristling Fur or Ferocious Bite doesn't really work if we're talking about mechs.

    The point is this; If we're talking about altering the forms, names, animations, and the actual mechanics of the Druid class, then you're going quite a bit beyond simply a skin and you're actually creating a new class.

    What I think it's interesting about Class Skins, is that some of them could work for entire classes, others just for certain specs. Major Fantasy divergences that deeply alter the core fantasy of the class, such as let's say "Void Knights", "Tinkers" and "Necromancers, would require all specs of Paladin, Druid, and Warlock to be reskined. Smaller fantasy divergences like "Dark Ranger", "Blood Mage" and "Spellbreaker", would more so be "Spec Skins" for MM Hunter, Destruction Warlock and Protection Paladin for example.
    The smaller fantasy divergences is more likely. When you start altering the entire class, you're doing a lot more work, and again once you reach that point you should simply create a stand alone class.

    That's the inherent problem of Class Skins as a direction, there are abilities that simply will not have a suitable analogue, but again, that's a concern for all possibilities. You can't give spellsteal to Paladins for Spellbreakers, you can't change the type of damage a Necromancer Warlock would do, nor giving Dark Ranger Shadow damage or acually undead minions or Mind Control powers. That's the scope of Class Skins, cosmetic changes and aesthetics that DO NOT affect the gameplay of the class. As such, pretty much every concept has something that cannot be translated. That's the limitation of the Class Skin concept.
    And that's my point; In order to make the Tinker into a workable class skin, you'd have to fundamentally alter the Druid class. Which simply doesn't seem feasible if the goal is to AVOID the work required to make a class. The point of class skins is to offer players the chance to play different variations of EXISTING class. Like Dark Rangers and Hunters or Dark Shaman and Shaman, or Necromancers and Warlocks.

    So the claw pack would have to be the Cat Form, Robo-Goblin the Bear Form, etc. Is about making a fantasy fit a Class Archetype. Alternatively, if you think turrets are most intrinsic to Tinkers, then Shaman could be the base, with totems being the turrets -as it already is with goblin shamans- and elementals/ascendence as helper construct robots.
    The issue with that is once again the abilities. The Claw Pack's abilities from both WC3 and HotS are entirely ranged. Feral is mainly melee. In addition, the Tinker enters mech mode from the claw pack, not the caster. Druids can change into Bear or Cat from caster, again there is no in-between form. So we're talking about a different mechanic here.

    You literally bring the issue with the Blood Mages. They DO exist between Warlock and Mage, so okay, which class should they be then?
    Both, since the hero is a corrupted fire mage. It's rather obvious that some abilities would go to mages (Flame Strike, Phoenix) and others would go to Warlocks (Banish, Drain Mana).

    Spellbreakers have an entirely different concept from Paladins, as they simply do not use light, is just the mechanics that match most. Same for
    Which is why Spellsteal went to Mages.

    Necromancers, they have nothing to do with the demonology and fel usage and fire of warlocks, but being casters that can control minions is a close mechanical fit to their fantasy.
    But they have plenty to do with the Shadow magic and Curses found in Affliction and the life manipulating abilities found in both Affliction and Demonology.

    Again that's the point, Class Skins are about making an unused fantasy fit an already existing class, but it has its drawbacks. The thing here is that Tinker is simply no more special or unique than other classes that get thrown on the idea of Class Skins.
    Actually the Tinker is far more unique since no class shares it's themes or abilities. Hence why it simply doesn't work as a class skin.

  15. #35
    Welp, another thinly veiled Tinker thread that is going to end up as dozens of pages of a certain individual doing mental gymnastics to justify tinker being a new class. I like the idea of class skins. It could be interesting but I feel like even that is too much work for Blizzard. They'd rather make systems that will die at the end of an expansion than create something that can last the rest of the game's lifespan.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yeah, but the fundamental problem here is that a Tinker is not a Druid. The two are fundamentally different, and the only reason people think this idea would work is because of a possible link in the shapeshifting mechanic and the Tinker's ability to pilot a mech.

    On the other hand, a Dark Ranger IS a Hunter, since a Hunter is another word for Ranger. Additionally, Hunters have had multiple Dark Ranger abilities throughout their history in WoW.

    You really didn't answer my question though; Is this a Tinker or a Druid? If this is a class skin for the Druid class, then every Druid race should be able to utilize it. However if that's the case, then it really isn't a Tinker, it's just a Druid with a mechanical theme, which really makes no sense. In addition, how deep into the ability alterations do we go? Are we going to change every Druid ability into something that works for a Tinker, or are we going to retain the Druid's abilities and just alter the forms? What about the names? Bristling Fur or Ferocious Bite doesn't really work if we're talking about mechs.

    The point is this; If we're talking about altering the forms, names, animations, and the actual mechanics of the Druid class, then you're going quite a bit beyond simply a skin and you're actually creating a new class.
    I did answer. No, a Tinker is not a Druid in the same way a Necromancer is not a Warlock. The whole point is to use the gameplay of one class to represent another fantasy. That's the whole issue as I presented it, yes, some would kinda work as "Spec Skins" because they could be fantasies that can be made to fit another class, but others are solely about taking the closest gameplay and completely reskining it.

    As I said, you change every spell to fit the same theme. Bristling Fur is just a rage increase CD, you can literally give that any name, like "Overcharge". It's literally just about changing the name and icon to fit a theme. "Overcharge: Overcharge your capacitors, causing you to generate Rage based on damage taken for 8 sec."

    It's all about just changing the cosmetics of the abilities, which would all remain the same in mechanic terms. Entirely cosmetic. It's the same druid class, the only thing that would change is Spell Name, Description and Animation. That's the whole point of a Class Skin.



    The smaller fantasy divergences is more likely. When you start altering the entire class, you're doing a lot more work, and again once you reach that point you should simply create a stand alone class.

    And that's my point; In order to make the Tinker into a workable class skin, you'd have to fundamentally alter the Druid class. Which simply doesn't seem feasible if the goal is to AVOID the work required to make a class. The point of class skins is to offer players the chance to play different variations of EXISTING class. Like Dark Rangers and Hunters or Dark Shaman and Shaman, or Necromancers and Warlocks.
    But again, the altering is completelly cosmetic. Spell Name, Description and Animation That's it, not at all that different from HotS, the difference is just the scope, like how some skins were Rares and other Legendaries, with legendaries completely reworking the animations and concept, but the effects are entirely the same. That's the whole point of a class, a completely new gameplay experience. Class Skins are literally ONLY cosmetic.



    The issue with that is once again the abilities. The Claw Pack's abilities from both WC3 and HotS are entirely ranged. Feral is mainly melee. In addition, the Tinker enters mech mode from the claw pack, not the caster. Druids can change into Bear or Cat from caster, again there is no in-between form. So we're talking about a different mechanic here.
    And again, that's simply the limitation of Class Skins as a concept, some things will simply not translate. But if Survival went from ranged to melee, The claw pack could also be made mele to work with feral, and the Balance spec could be reskined to be about distance bomb throwing/electricity. Again, the point is to give Druid abilities a Tinker thematic.

    If that wouldn't be enough for you that's entirely okay, this IS a subjective issue. My problem with your posture is that you seem to want to separate Tinker from other fantasies that could be made into Class Skins, when truth is Tinker wouldn't be as different as other options such as Necromancer and Void Knight.



    Both, since the hero is a corrupted fire mage. It's rather obvious that some abilities would go to mages (Flame Strike, Phoenix) and others would go to Warlocks (Banish, Drain Mana).
    So you say then both Warlocks and mages should get a Blood Mage skin? That's just inneficient, the opposite of the point of Class Skins.


    Which is why Spellsteal went to Mages.
    And what else about the Spellbreaker fantasy fits Mages? I feel you are missing the point of Class Skins at this point, which is to reskin a class abilities to resemble another fantasy.

    But they have plenty to do with the Shadow magic and Curses found in Affliction and the life manipulating abilities found in both Affliction and Demonology.
    See that's the thing about your bias here, because in what part do Necromancers have life manipulating abilities? They have death controlling abilities. The similarity is that you can frame their curses as poisons and diseases. It's literally the same that framing Driuid shapeshifting as different mechanical forms. Of course there are limitions because you won't be able to have ever raise an undead mob as a Necromancer, and won't be able to set turrets as a Tinker.

    Actually the Tinker is far more unique since no class shares it's themes or abilities. Hence why it simply doesn't work as a class skin.
    I think you just don't really get the point of Class Skins and are only seeing this as far as Spec Skins.

  17. #37
    Banned docterfreeze's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Finding a stranger in the alps.
    Posts
    3,872
    Cosmetics wont save the classes

  18. #38
    Should just rename the website to tinker-champion. Every thread about classes is a very thinly veiled plea for a class that has no business ever being implemented.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except it would only be "textbook" confirmation bias if I fully believed that a third spec was actually coming.

  19. #39
    Class skins aren't new classes. It's as it says it is, skins... That's like saying mobas, like dots, lol and even hots have new classes /heroes when a new skin releases. It's still the same hero and class from a gameplay perspective...

    If you want a new class, skins won't do...
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Welp, another thinly veiled Tinker thread that is going to end up as dozens of pages of a certain individual doing mental gymnastics to justify tinker being a new class. I like the idea of class skins. It could be interesting but I feel like even that is too much work for Blizzard. They'd rather make systems that will die at the end of an expansion than create something that can last the rest of the game's lifespan.
    Just report em for derailing the thread till the mods ban and lock the thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •