April 19 Tinker Reveal

[Teriz]

More assumptions and headcanon being pronounced as facts :P

You could balance the ability to do very little damage/healing/whatever. In fact paladins have a covenant ability much like that one. Your entire argument falls flat with that notion in mind.

No, Ashen Hollow is ground targeted ability. All a target needs to do is move out of the targeting zone to avoid damage. In the case of Locust Swarm, the field of damage follows the caster, making it far more difficult to escape. Hence why it was heavily modified.

No you didnt because you didnt read it properly and you misquoted me. Literally go back and read it. Thats embarassing.

Again, it is Blizzard who has determined that WoW expansion classes come from WC3. I cannot make it any clearer for you.

No the core concept of the ability is insects going back and forth between the caster and the target draining hp to the caster.

So once again you are wrong

Clearly you have no idea what core concept means.

Exactly the same with tinker and alchemist. Thanks

Tinkers are not giant spiders/beetles/nerubians. In fact, we have two faction leaders who are Tinkers, so clearly playable races can be Tinkers. This is yet another example of you making terrible comparisons.

[Deneios]

Bfa had your mechagnomes and that boat has sailed 2 years ago. Same for necromancers in shadowlands.

First step in healing is the acceptance of the situation.

[ClassicPeon]

SNIP

No, Ashen Hollow is ground targeted ability. All a target needs to do is move out of the targeting zone to avoid damage. In the case of Locust Swarm, the field of damage follows the caster, making it far more difficult to escape. Hence why it was heavily modified.

Mobs do not move out of damage abilities. This is a PvE game.

Again, it is Blizzard who has determined that WoW expansion classes come from WC3. I cannot make it any clearer for you.

Again you did not read what i wrote. If you are not going to go back and actually look at the difference between what i actually wrote and your quote, and understand the difference, you should just stop talking about it. Because its getting increasingly embarassing.

Clearly you have no idea what core concept means.

Once again - it doesnt fit your headcanon so everyone else has no clue.

Why dont you actually spell it out for me then?

Tinkers are not giant spiders/beetles/nerubians. In fact, we have two faction leaders who are Tinkers, so clearly playable races can be Tinkers. This is yet another example of you making terrible comparisons.

More headcanon. Does it ever stop with you? This is jsut absolutely incredible.

In your mind any correlation is causation as long as it fits with your narrative. Its like speaking to a toddler.

[Teriz]

Mobs do not move out of damage abilities. This is a PvE game.

They can if they're pulled by a higher source of threat, or flee. Further we have to consider PvP implications.

Again you did not read what i wrote. If you are not going to go back and actually look at the difference between what i actually wrote and your quote, and understand the difference, you should just stop talking about it. Because its getting increasingly embarassing.

What is embarrassing is your inability to realize that the one making the decision to connect WoW classes to WC3 is Blizzard.

More headcanon. Does it ever stop with you? This is jsut absolutely incredible.

This not being a Nerubian/Beetle/Giant Spider/Insect/etc. is headcanon?

- - - Updated - - -

Bfa had your mechagnomes and that boat has sailed 2 years ago. Same for necromancers in shadowlands.

First step in healing is the acceptance of the situation.

Uh, why would a 1/2 patch in the middle of expansion involving Cybernetic Gnomes bring in a Goblin based class?

That isn't how class inclusion works.

[Ielenia]

No, it's simple logic; Demon Hunters not having Metamorphosis alters the very concept of what they are. Having two specs does not.

And your "simple logic" would also dictate that all playable classes need at least three specs. Your "simple logic" would also dictate that all expansion classes need to be open to at least the majority of classes. The demon hunter class, again, throws your "simple logic" out the window.

Except they're not my rules, they're Blizzard's rules.

Prove it.

Fucking PROVE IT. Show me when Blizzard has ever disclosed the rules and guidelines for class creation.

You can't, because there isn't one. Because you're a liar that keeps stating their own subjective opinions as fact. You're constantly stating this as true despite the fact you have absolutely zero way to prove exists. "Your ass" is not a source, much less a reliable one.

Nothing.

Then full stop, right there. You just sank your own argument of "needs WC3 heroes" by admitting we don't need them to make new classes because Blizzard can make new heroes.

The problem is they have yet to create a Bard hero

There were zero monk heroes before the class' introductions.

Mod Edit: Don't use giant fonts in this fashion.

[Varx]

And your "simple logic" would also dictate that all playable classes need at least three specs. Your "simple logic" would also dictate that all expansion classes need to be open to at least the majority of classes. The demon hunter class, again, throws your "simple logic" out the window.


Prove it.

Fucking PROVE IT. Show me when Blizzard has ever disclosed the rules and guidelines for class creation.

You can't, because there isn't one. Because you're a liar that keeps stating their own subjective opinions as fact. You're constantly stating this as true despite the fact you have absolutely zero way to prove exists. "Your ass" is not a source, much less a reliable one.


Then full stop, right there. You just sank your own argument of "needs WC3 heroes" by admitting we don't need them to make new classes because Blizzard can make new heroes.


There were zero monk heroes before the class' introductions.

My dude you need to chill, lol.

Like obviously and the end of the day, me and Teriz don't know if tinker is coming in 10.0 since we clearly don't work there.

That being said, anyone that sees the writing on the wall will tell you the same thing. Based on everything we've said, Tinkers will most likely 99.9 chance be wows next class.

There is nothing else that can take it's place. Like bard don't have shit in warcraft lore, at least monks had chen in w3. Bard have nobodies as reps.

Lack of classes in SL killed Necro or DR for 10.0.

Every other possibility like blade master , shadow hunter, warden, priests of the moon (lol), just don't have as much back up as tinker. At most they're possible skins.

But Ultimately, gobs and gnomes need a class they can fully emerse themselves in. Nearly every heavy lore gnome or gob is a tinker. Yet players can't make them. And tech combat is an archetype that's extremely popular in RPGs and is yet to be represented in wow.

Even ff14, wows main competitor, has a tech class.

And as a bonus, we know gallywix is plotting with brokers and Undermine has yet to be brought into wow and can easily serve as the hub city for 10.0.

So you see? Tinkers will be the next class, because if you take all that and combine it with the fact that wow needs a new class to stay alive amid SL and everything that's happened, well it's just common sense.

[Lolites]

Tinkers are the only thing left in WC3 that aren't playable

thats simply not true...
alchemist, sea withc, dark ranger, shadow hunter, warden... just from the top of my head

[Teriz]

And your "simple logic" would also dictate that all playable classes need at least three specs. Your "simple logic" would also dictate that all expansion classes need to be open to at least the majority of classes. The demon hunter class, again, throws your "simple logic" out the window.

Uh no. Number of specs and available races has nothing to do with WC3. Again, those elements are completely arbitrary. Meanwhile, a Demon Hunter class needs Metamorphosis.

Prove it.

Fucking PROVE IT. Show me when Blizzard has ever disclosed the rules and guidelines for class creation.

You can't, because there isn't one. Because you're a liar that keeps stating their own subjective opinions as fact. You're constantly stating this as true despite the fact you have absolutely zero way to prove exists. "Your ass" is not a source, much less a reliable one.

Behold, WoW's expansion classes;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml

I wasn't aware that Blizzard, the very company that makes Warcraft was my ass....

Then full stop, right there. You just sank your own argument of "needs WC3 heroes" by admitting we don't need them to make new classes because Blizzard can make new heroes.

If you feel that "sinks my argument" that's completely your prerogative.

There were zero monk heroes before the class' introductions.

And you're free to believe that nonsense as well....

[cocomen2]

No, it's simple logic; Demon Hunters not having Metamorphosis alters the very concept of what they are. Having two specs does not.

What if DH would be stuck in permanent Demon Form just like their idol, you know Illidan? yeah?; so there was a chance to get Demon Hunters that not having Metamorphosis, and just change texture of Warlock Metamorphosis to not look like shadowy Illidan.

Every thing is easy if you can think outside of "boX", and not being old boomer naysayer.

[Teriz]

thats simply not true...
alchemist,

Likely tied to the Tinker class.

sea withc,

Abilities went to Hunters, Shaman, and Mages.

dark ranger,

Mainly Hunters. Abilities also went to Warlocks and Priests.

shadow hunter,

Shaman

warden...

Rogues.

[Lolites]

The problem is they have yet to create a Bard hero

thats... not a problem at all...

and even if/when they do that, it's going to take years for that hero to build up enough lore to have a class or expansion behind them.

why would it take years?
monk (actualy one of its specs) was literaly in few missions in w3, and then NOTHING until it was added in pandaria...
hell give the new class starting zone like old DK have and thats already more lore than anything monk had before mop...

[Teriz]

What if DH would be stuck in permanent Demon Form just like their idol, you know Illidan? yeah?; so there was a chance to get Demon Hunters that not having Metamorphosis, and just change texture of Warlock Metamorphosis to not look like shadowy Illidan.

Then that would be a demon, not a demon hunter. A Demon Hunter is an elven warrior who can transform into a demon. That's sort of the point of the class.

- - - Updated - - -

thats... not a problem at all...

Considering that classes require relevant expansions, it definitely is a problem to have a class that has no major characters in its lore that can drive a plot.

why would it take years?
monk (actualy one of its specs) was literaly in few missions in w3, and then NOTHING until it was added in pandaria...
hell give the new class starting zone like old DK have and thats already more lore than anything monk had before mop...

A lot of Pandaren lore was added in the RPG books in the years following WC3. Much of that lore was used for MoP.

[Varx]

thats simply not true...
alchemist, sea withc, dark ranger, shadow hunter, warden... just from the top of my head

4 of those are race restricted..... They're just vague racial flavor classes at most. Tinkers have robost lore that stretches among many races that have shown an affinity to tech. Forsaken, magahar, belves, dalwarves, draenie off the top of my head.

[shoc]

Tinker, Bard, and Dragonsworn are all viable potential classes for WoW, none are perfect but with some imagination, they could all work perfectly.

And consider the three that we've got post-launch are Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter. There are a million reasons that could have disqualified the ones we got, but we got them anyway. DKs serve the Lich King and are undead, Monks have no prior background in the lore, Demon Hunters can only be Night Elves and Blood Elves. It is no use getting caught up in the little details, the story is infinitely flexible to serve gameplay needs.

[Varx]

What if DH would be stuck in permanent Demon Form just like their idol, you know Illidan? yeah?; so there was a chance to get Demon Hunters that not having Metamorphosis, and just change texture of Warlock Metamorphosis to not look like shadowy Illidan.

Every thing is easy if you can think outside of "boX", and not being old boomer naysayer.

Because illidan is a special lore figure.

Perma stuck in meta would practically make them a different race.

[Ielenia]

Uh no. Number of specs and available races has nothing to do with WC3.

But they follow your logic of "class creation rules": "all expansion classes have done so, therefore all others will do so as well."

Again, those elements are completely arbitrary.

So is the warcraft 3 hero element.

Behold, WoW's expansion classes;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml

I wasn't aware that Blizzard, the very company that makes Warcraft was my ass....

A whole lot of nothing. As another poster pointed out, all you have is three datapoints that in no way, shape or form proves what you're trying to claim is true.

If you want to prove your subjectively arbitrary rule is, indeed, an actual rule in Blizzard's class creation process, you need to prove it with with a statement from Blizzard itself. Your "it is that way because I say it is that way" claims are not valid arguments when one is talking about facts.

If you feel that "sinks my argument" that's completely your prerogative.

It's a fact, though: you do sank your own argument.

And you're free to believe that nonsense as well....

That is also a fact. There were no monk heroes in Warcraft until MoP came along.

- - - Updated - - -

Like obviously and the end of the day, me and Teriz don't know if tinker is coming in 10.0 since we clearly don't work there.

You are honest enough to admit to that. Teriz, on the other hand, like the dishonest hack he is, still keeps repeating the same debunked fallacies and dishonest statements over and over.

That being said, anyone that sees the writing on the wall will tell you the same thing. Based on everything we've said, Tinkers will most likely 99.9 chance be wows next class.

This "writing on the wall" that said tinkers were WoW's next class... yet we got monks? This "writing on the wall" that said tinkers were WoW's next class, then we got demon hunters? This "writing on the wall" that said tinkers were WoW's next class... yet we got nothing in Shadowlands?

Call it "writing on the wall", call it "reading tea leaves", call it however you want: it's nothing but wishful thinking.

[Varx]

Tinker, Bard, and Dragonsworn are all viable classes, consider the three that we've got post-launch are Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter. There are a million reasons that could have disqualified the ones we got, but we got them anyway. DKs serve the Lich King and are undead, Monks have no prior background in the lore, Demon Hunters can only be Night Elves and Blood Elves.

Tinker yes, dragonsworn maybe (will prob be covenants 2.0) and bards are a freaking joke with next to zero lore or development in warcraft lore outside of a few nobody npcs and items in bastion.

[Recovery]

Then it will evolve into its coming in next patch or next xpac. It’s honestly a deeply disturbing obsession some have with it

Honestly, I wish Blizz would introduce tinker... Except, dont do it anything like the fanboys want it to be. Make it terrible. Practically unplayable.

Id love to relish in the salty tears of all of the obsessionists.

[Varx]

But they follow your logic of "class creation rules": "all expansion classes have done so, therefore all others will do so as well."


So is the warcraft 3 hero element.


A whole lot of nothing. As another poster pointed out, all you have is three datapoints that in no way, shape or form proves what you're trying to claim is true.

If you want to prove your subjectively arbitrary rule is, indeed, an actual rule in Blizzard's class creation process, you need to prove it with with a statement from Blizzard itself. Your "it is that way because I say it is that way" claims are not valid arguments when one is talking about facts.


It's a fact, though: you do sank your own argument.


That is also a fact. There were no monk heroes in Warcraft until MoP came along.

- - - Updated - - -


You are honest enough to admit to that. Teriz, on the other hand, like the dishonest hack he is, still keeps repeating the same debunked fallacies and dishonest statements over and over.


This "writing on the wall" that said tinkers were WoW's next class... yet we got monks? This "writing on the wall" that said tinkers were WoW's next class, then we got demon hunters? This "writing on the wall" that said tinkers were WoW's next class... yet we got nothing in Shadowlands?

Call it "writing on the wall", call it "reading tea leaves", call it however you want: it's nothing but wishful thinking.

What?? Anyone who was convinced tinker was coming in mop, legion, or SL without a doubt is a troll.

Now it's different. Now there is nothing standing in the way of Tinkers. This is why I say nothing has priority over them.

I'm sorry man but SL killed any chance of necros and DRs, you know this... Why would they not introduce either one in an expansion about death and sylvanas of they ever intended to make them a class? The answer is simple...

Bards, as much as you like to compare to monks, don't hold a real sturdy place in wow lore, even monks had chen at least. They're just a bunch of npcs thrown in as atmospheric flavor.

MAYBE down the line they could be another class or spec or even professor. But you can't tell me with a straight face that bards would be higher on the list for wow.

You need to think of gobs and gnomes too. They're a huge part of the game and supply much to both their factions. Yet players aren't able to create their quintessential class.

Like we can make orc warlocks, human DK, forsaken hunters, draenie priests, belf mages, panda monks, nelf DHs.

Yet we can't make a goblin, gnome, or freaking MECHAGNOME, tinker?????

Like that's what almost every racial rep for those guys are full fledged Tinkers, not engineer wannabes.

We can't go into combat as a meched out goblin like gazlowe or blackfuse or mekkatorque.

Don't you see the sin in that???

On top of the fact that wow needs a new class to bring back players and attract new players. You have to see that this writing is full proof.

[Teriz]

But they follow your logic of "class creation rules": "all expansion classes have done so, therefore all others will do so as well."

No, the argument is that since all three expansion classes have come directly from the WC3 heroes, then the next WoW class will follow suit. What happens to that concept once it enters WoW is a completely different argument, and also completely arbitrary.

So is the warcraft 3 hero element.

All three classes used the WC3 heroes rather extensively. Everything from abilities to general appearance to armor concepts.

A whole lot of nothing. As another poster pointed out, all you have is three datapoints that in no way, shape or form proves what you're trying to claim is true.

My argument is that Blizzard utilizes WC3 heroes to construct WoW expansion classes. In 2008, 2012, and 2016 Blizzard did exactly that. How does that "in no way shape or form" prove what I'm talking about?

If you want to prove your subjectively arbitrary rule is, indeed, an actual rule in Blizzard's class creation process, you need to prove it with with a statement from Blizzard itself. Your "it is that way because I say it is that way" claims are not valid arguments when one is talking about facts.

It's the way it is because we have multiple points of evidence showing that to be the case.

It's a fact, though: you do sank your own argument.

Saying that Blizzard is capable of doing something in no way invalidates what Blizzard has done. This is like me saying that Blizzard is likely going to make 11.0, and you say that Blizzard could cut off WoW before that happens. They definitely could, but that in no way invalidates the argument that there is very likely going to be an expansion after the next one.