A technology-themed expansion could have worked

[Ielenia]

Maybe you should. There's more than high and low and nothing in between. And even the definition on wikipedia states that it doesn't usually include the "swords and sorcery genre."

Okay, since you don't want to educate yourself, here is what "low fantasy" means a setting that involves little to no supernatural events. By definition, Warcraft is not a "low fantasy" setting, because of all the magic, demons, extraplanar dimensions, fantastical races, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Which does not work as a functioning class (items don't replace rotational abilities), or offers any of the Tinker’s established abilities.

Way to be dishonest and cut out 80% of the paragraph that gives context to that quote.

But I'm in a good mood, so I'll give you another chance to respond to it without being dishonest. Here it is again:

And you have a tinker in the hunter with mechanical pets, and engineering. The point is that none satisfy the fantasies we're looking for. Our vision of necromancer is not a heavy-armored melee fighter that fights primarily with their heavy, two-handed swords, axes or maces, and depend on runes to use our abilities. Just like the hunter/engineering combo doesn't match your vision of what a tinker should be.

[Fabled]

Not really. Technology, in an of itself, has never been a "big threat" or anything that could carry an entire expansion. We would need someone utilizing technology, and we don't have anyone. And "world-ending technology" would likely fall into the purview of Titan-level technology, which would bring us back to the "cosmic threats" kind of nonsense we're trying to get away from for at least one expansion.

The only real technology that we know of on Azeroth is the Forge of Origination that's been fought over by Deathwing and N'zoth both now, the latter being literally killed by it and a bunch of azerite. That said, yea, it'll never be a full expansion focus, but I guess we'll see with Dragonflight.

[Teriz]

Way to be dishonest and cut out 80% of the paragraph that gives context to that quote.

But I'm in a good mood, so I'll give you another chance to respond to it without being dishonest. Here it is again:

Except DKs have multiple Necromancer abilities, can wear robes, and the use of Runes in no way effects the general gameplay of a character that can raise the dead. So in the end, the only thing you're complaining about is range, and even that is a minor issue because DKs have a lot of ranged abilities.

It's akin to the difference between an Enhancement Shaman and an Elemental Shaman.

[Powerhug]

Dear lord... if players had their way with this game it would be an even bigger shitshow...

[Phob]

You don't have to any more than you have to explain why certain races are playable when they weren't before, like Dark Irons who were already part of the Alliance.

Not even remotely the same. Class doesn't equal a race. (except for evoker)

The dark irons are a people. "tinkers" are a job. (also dark irons weren't part of the alliance until recent events sooooo)

[Ielenia]

<snipped the nonsense>

No.

Try again.

And this time try to focus on the actual point of what I originally wrote. I'll even cut out the part you originally responded to to make it easier for you:

The point is that none satisfy the fantasies we're looking for. Our vision of necromancer is not a heavy-armored melee fighter that fights primarily with their heavy, two-handed swords, axes or maces, and depend on runes to use our abilities. Just like the hunter/engineering combo doesn't match your vision of what a tinker should be.

[Teriz]

And this time try to focus on the actual point of what I originally wrote. I'll even cut out the part you originally responded to to make it easier for you:

The DK not satisfying your personal necromancer fantasy is a non-issue. Blizzard already stated that they placed the necromancer concept into the DK class way back in WotLK. Shadowlands reaffirmed that design point by expanding Necromancer concepts within that class, so I really don't get what point you're trying to make here. DKs have all of the abilities of the Warcraft Necromancer, and Blizzard stated that they built the DK class off of the Necromancer concept.

[Triceron]

Not even remotely the same. Class doesn't equal a race. (except for evoker)

The dark irons are a people. "tinkers" are a job. (also dark irons weren't part of the alliance until recent events sooooo)

Dark Irons were part of the Alliance since Cataclysm, what are you talking about? That's literally 10+ years ago now.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_Iron_clan

Cataclysm - One group of Dark Irons has joined the Alliance with their leader Moira Thaurissan

There's no real explanation why they weren't playable. The recent lore in BFA was only about reuniting the Dark Irons as one clan, which doesn't exclude the fact that there was a Dark Iron clan that was already working directly under the Alliance since Cataclysm, and even partook in some Alliance assaults on Pandaria against the Horde, like at Landfall.

Why can't you just imagine the same thing happening with Tinkers? Like, we literally already have every Tech specialist represented by Engineering, while the Tinker could literally be a Combat Mechsuit specialist that has only recently joined the fight because they finished building their mech suits. Engineers versions of mechs are either non-combat or limited to non-instance content.

[Ielenia]

The DK not satisfying your personal necromancer fantasy is a non-issue.

The engineering + hunter combo not satisfying your personal tinker fantasy is just as much a non-issue. And yet that didn't stop you from trying to convince others that your non-issue an actual issue for almost ten years.

Blizzard already stated that they placed the necromancer concept into the DK class way back in WotLK.

Wrong. They said they put the ideas that they were going to use into the DK class. They didn't say a single word about "concepts".

Shadowlands reaffirmed that design point by expanding Necromancer concepts within that class, so I really don't get what point you're trying to make here.

By that logic, Blizzard has been reaffirming the idea of "engineering profession = tinker concept" expansion after expansion by expanding tinker concepts into the profession.

DKs have all of the abilities of the Warcraft Necromancer, and Blizzard stated that they built the DK class off of the Necromancer concept.

As much as you try to insist, this isn't about specific abilities, but about concepts.

[datguy81]

The DK not satisfying your personal necromancer fantasy is a non-issue. Blizzard already stated that they placed the necromancer concept into the DK class way back in WotLK. Shadowlands reaffirmed that design point by expanding Necromancer concepts within that class, so I really don't get what point you're trying to make here. DKs have all of the abilities of the Warcraft Necromancer, and Blizzard stated that they built the DK class off of the Necromancer concept.

engineering not satisfying your personal Tinker fantasy is a non-issue.

[Phob]

Dark Irons were part of the Alliance since Cataclysm, what are you talking about? That's literally 10+ years ago now.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_Iron_clan

Cataclysm - One group of Dark Irons has joined the Alliance with their leader Moira Thaurissan

There's no real explanation why they weren't playable. The recent lore in BFA was only about reuniting the Dark Irons as one clan, which doesn't exclude the fact that there was a Dark Iron clan that was already working directly under the Alliance since Cataclysm, and even partook in some Alliance assaults on Pandaria against the Horde, like at Landfall.

Why can't you just imagine the same thing happening with Tinkers? Like, we literally already have every Tech specialist represented by Engineering, while the Tinker could literally be a Combat Mechsuit specialist that has only recently joined the fight because they finished building their mech suits. Engineers versions of mechs are either non-combat or limited to non-instance content.

We didn't have dark irons becuse we didn't need them. They only became a thing because of allied races.

And do you really think "them being gone working on their mech suits" still works when we literally have tons of mech suits out here and the iron horde perfected one of the goblins suits only to be annihilated by us. Same with black fuse and king mekkatorque.

It doesn't really help your case when we have titles like "high tinker" and such in the game aswell. It's just not a class thats meant to be in the game as playable.

Also we do have mech suits in game as mounts and you can't really have a Combat Mechsuit being big and slow in combat or have a whole class running at mount speed 100% of the time. And if it's a cool down what's the niche they fill out of the suit? Is it bombs?(surv hunter) is it mech minions? (Demo warlock) is it guns?(hunters) they wouldn't bring anything to the game that we don't have. Goblins and gnomes are also some of the least played races and if tinkers don't do anything unique to the game then it's a waste of time for the developers.

[Nachtigal]

And what about the actual Mega-Dungeon?

Yeah not really a fan, though I did enjoy the last boss fight. I’m just not really entertained by the gnome/goblin tech we see so much. I also dread doing the tech part of de other side, because the enemies are just so bland and boring to me.

[Triceron]

We didn't have dark irons becuse we didn't need them. They only became a thing because of allied races.

And do you really think "them being gone working on their mech suits" still works when we literally have tons of mech suits out here and the iron horde perfected one of the goblins suits only to be annihilated by us. Same with black fuse and king mekkatorque.

It works as much as "We didn't need their mech suits. Tinkers only became a thing because of Reasons explained in a future expansion."

You're literally implying double standards here :P

It's just not a class thats meant to be in the game as playable.

If this were one month ago, would you say Evokers were meant to be playable? Probably not too. If you're just looking at current lore as a reason to dismiss something as being playable, then there's no way you can actually come to the conclusion that Evoker would be a new playable class.

[cparle87]

Okay, since you don't want to educate yourself, here is what "low fantasy" means a setting that involves little to no supernatural events. By definition, Warcraft is not a "low fantasy" setting, because of all the magic, demons, extraplanar dimensions, fantastical races, etc.

I'll try one more time since people don't seem to be reading what I'm saying. People believe Warcraft was high fantasy in the earliest RTS games and that is has strayed too far from its roots by becoming a kitchen sink of all kinds of genres. It wasn't. It was low fantasy/sword and sorcery that later became kitchen sink.

Low fantasy does not have to exclude all magic and be a purely mundane experience in a fantasy world.

"An alternative definition, common in role-playing games, rests on the story and characters being more realistic and less mythic in scope. Thus, some works like Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian series can be high fantasy according to the first definition but low fantasy according to the second.[3] With other works, such as the TV series Supernatural, the opposite is true."

The first games were one kingdom and later an alliance of kingdoms fighting an invasion of bad guys. There were no world ending plots, no gods, no huge mystical scope to qualify as high fantasy.

[Phob]

It works as much as "We didn't need their mech suits. Tinkers only became a thing because of Reasons explained in a future expansion."

You're literally implying double standards here :P



If this were one month ago, would you say Evokers were meant to be playable? Probably not too. If you're just looking at current lore as a reason to dismiss something as being playable, then there's no way you can actually come to the conclusion that Evoker would be a new playable class.

Evoker brings something new to the game. A mechsuit doesn't. There is a reason no one would have been able to see it coming as it's completely fresh. It also fills different niches.

And again on the Dark Irons, they are a race not a class its not a double standard to say we didn't need them playable in the game until allied races came out as you are trying to get a class (that the best engineers have failed countless times) in. If HIGH TINKER Mekkatorque can't make a functional mechsuit that can withstand us in 15 years of trying how is minor tinker Peabody going to make one that's better than his? You can't make it make sense.

[Triceron]

Evoker brings something new to the game. A mechsuit doesn't.

Why? Because you say so?

Do we have a class that can use technological mech suits in combat right now? No? Then it's something new.

Like you said, we already have Mekkatorque showing it's possible. How is that not new if implemented as a class?

If HIGH TINKER Mekkatorque can't make a functional mechsuit that can withstand us in 15 years of trying how is minor tinker Peabody going to make one that's better than his? You can't make it make sense

It makes no less sense than us Jaina being able to raise a giant Battleship that fires Arcane Cannonballs, but Arcane mages can't. We don't have to aspire to being Named Character power levels.

You're shifting the goalposts quite a lot here.

[Teriz]

The engineering + hunter combo not satisfying your personal tinker fantasy is just as much a non-issue. And yet that didn't stop you from trying to convince others that your non-issue an actual issue for almost ten years.

Except Blizzard never established that the Tinker concept was rolled into the engineering profession or the Hunter class.

They did state rather plainly that they put the Necromancer concept in the DK class.

Wrong. They said they put the ideas that they were going to use into the DK class. They didn't say a single word about "concepts".

Idea is a synonym of concept.

By that logic, Blizzard has been reaffirming the idea of "engineering profession = tinker concept" expansion after expansion by expanding tinker concepts into the profession.

You mean like increasingly showcasing goblins and gnomes piloting robotic mech tanks, yet not having a buildable mech of any use in Engineering since MoP?

As much as you try to insist, this isn't about specific abilities, but about concepts.

And the Tinker concept has a possible expansion location, original abilities currently not attached to existing classes, and multiple lore heroes that can be Tinkers.

Unfortunately other class concepts can't say the same.

- - - Updated - - -

engineering not satisfying your personal Tinker fantasy is a non-issue.

Why would a profession satisfy a class fantasy? That isn't what professions are designed to do.

[Phob]

Why? Because you say so?

No because it's not new to the game when it's in the game

Do we have a class that can use technological mech suits in combat right now? No? Then it's something new.

The tinkers that we have in game do and fail every time.

Like you said, we already have Mekkatorque showing it's possible. How is that not new if implemented as a class?

Again High Tinker Mekkatorque and Blackfuse has failed and every mechsuit in combat has aswell.

It makes no less sense than us Jaina being able to raise a giant Battleship that fires Arcane Cannonballs, but Arcane mages can't. We don't have to aspire to being Named Character power levels.

Jaina is the best of her class and she shows it as does High Tinker Mekkatorque but only one of them is a Tinker that fails when he is combated.

You're shifting the goalposts quite a lot here.

I haven't shifted anything unfortunately you just bring up redundancies and I just want a clear explanation on how a Tinker can make it in the game (its already in the game and fails every time it's brought up)

[Triceron]

Again High Tinker Mekkatorque and Blackfuse has failed and every mechsuit in combat has aswell.

What does this have to do with anything?

We've beaten Arthas, greatest Death Knight known in the world. We've beaten every evil Death Knight that ever existed under him. Arthas failed. All his Death Knights failed. So would you equate the playable Death Knight class as a failure too?

We beat Illidan too. We beat all his Illidari in TBC. We beat every single one of them and literally dismantled the Illidari organization in TBC. Does that mean Demon Hunters are failures?

Like, what is this argument even?

[Phob]

What does this have to do with anything?

We've beaten Arthas, greatest Death Knight known in the world. We've beaten every evil Death Knight that ever existed under him. Arthas failed. All his Death Knights failed. So would you equate the playable Death Knight class as a failure too?

We beat Illidan too. We beat all his Illidari in TBC. We beat every single one of them and literally dismantled the Illidari organization in TBC. Does that mean Demon Hunters are failures?

Death Knight and Demon Hunters shouldn't be playable because their leaders failed and got beaten by the player?

The difference between DK/DH and a Tinker is that the dks/dhs can not choose to become anything else as they are either dead or consumed a demon. A Tinker has to make their contraptions and if the best contraption maker fails then why try to make your own? Tinkers have a choice to be useless or become a hunter and actually contribute to something.

Edit: also more redundancy.