Blizz denies Tinker class... or did they?

[Sukhoi]

Its where he mentions the lack of design space, and then goes on to mention the classes that take up that design space.

He never actually says theres a lack of design space lol. Is there enough design space there not occupied by DK, warlock, hunter, warrior? Just a question.

[von Richthofen]

Someone may have said it already in this thread, but didn't Blizzard also say Mists of Pandaria was not going to be a WoW expansion or another game at all? Pretty sure I remember seeing that ages ago when the leak that it was called MoP was released.

The Mists trademark was found by the user Mynsc on August 2nd. Around August 30th, Tom Chilton and Chris Robinson were interviewed: Chilton said the speculation (about Mists being the expansion name) was, "wildly overhyped." He added, "if you look at traditionally how we've handled that race it's been in those secondary products because we haven't realized it in the world. Most of the time when we do anything panda-related it's going to be a comic book or a figurine or something like that."

[Teriz]

He never actually says theres a lack of design space lol. Is there enough design space there not occupied by DK, warlock, hunter, warrior? Just a question.

It clearly isn't just a question, because;

A. He knows the answer to the question.
B. He actually lists the classes that fill up the design space.

In short, the answer to the question is obvious to anyone and everyone.

[cuafpr]

I don't know what the next class will be, both DH or tinker or something else could be fun if done right, but if it's not a Tinker coming here to read about it will be amusing me thinks....

EDIT: IMO they need a class using Int plate other one spec for one class, I think ret should use INT plate and maybe UH or Frost DKs, my 2 copper.

[Sukhoi]

It clearly isn't just a question, because;

A. He knows the answer to the question.
B. He actually lists the classes that fill up the design space.

In short, the answer to the question is obvious to anyone and everyone.

Yet he missed the closest, rogue? Hm. Like i said. Its a question dodge. Unlike the tinker tweet where he plain says its too whimsical.

[Teriz]

Yet he missed the closest, rogue? Hm. Like i said. Its a question dodge. Unlike the tinker tweet where he plain says its too whimsical.

He doesn't really need to mention the Rogue. The classes he does mention are more than enough. Especially Warriors and DKs.

[Talen]

No, those are your words. Ghostcrawler never said any such thing and intentionally and repeatedly misrepresenting the words of another person is another reason you have no integrity.

Ghostcrawler asked a question.

As far as the DH is concerned....is there any design space not already occupied by the Warlock? The Hunter? The warrior? The Death Knight?

The answer is "no". Given the DH people want....warriors (and rogues) have the combat style. Warlocks have the theme and look and many built in abilities. DKs (and rogues) have the anti-hero vibe. Hunters have the hunting theme.

GC pointed out what is a pretty major drawback to the DH class - the lack of design space. To create that design space, you'll need to create a new class from the ground up.

GC asked a question. What's more...it was a rhetorical question, with an obvious answer.Sure...it's not a literal "No". But if you want a "yes, there is some design space not covered", perhaps you could provide a hint as to what it could be? What design space is left?

Thing is...the simple fact the question was asked is problematic. Its a question that didn't need to be asked if the answer was yes. And even if there was some design space open and free, its going to be limited. The DH has constraints because so much of its design space is already taken. Constraints other class concepts don't have, at least not to the same level

Clear to you maybe. Too whimsical is a pretty clear no to me. Its a matter of opinion which you seem to forget.

Yes. "Too whimsical" is indeed pretty clear. As is "It depends on how it is done"

Pretty obvious based on his comments you wont see a tinker anytime soon or at all, but hey who am i to pass my opinions as facts?

No...its not obvious. We may or may not get a new class this XPac. But assuming the unlikely does occur and we do get a new class this XPac...

I hope you understand the word whimsical, because its basically saying overimaginative and unrealistic. I do not understand how you still have hope after that.

Because A: That's not what Whimsical means and B: because GC stated that whether it would fit in game would depend on how it was introduced.

Depends on how its treated, doesnt mean its coming.

No, it doesn't. A new class being announced in 9 weeks or so isn't that likely, IMO.

A dh implementation would depend on the treatment.

Yes. And it would also depend on Blizzard finding some design space to build it around.

The sheer popularity of, and demand for, a Demon Hunter class means it will never be out of contention. Blizzard is a business.

I'd agree. Except I think there's a fair chance one of the announcements at Blizzcon will be a DH - as a 4th spec for Warlocks instead of having it as a standalone class.

You dont need to remove anything. There wasnt design room for monks or death knights and they both happened lol.

Monks: Martial Artist
Death Knight: Undead Mastery and disease.

Also a need and desire to add plate/leather armor, and tie players into the relevant XPac.

DHs bring nothing unique. They don't use mail armor, their demon theme, looks and story tie-ins are filled by Warlocks. Warriors and rogues have their fighting style. Whats left would be specific abilities and a combat system that any class can bring. Essentially, anything you want to add to DHs can be added to an existing class already and not be out of place.

Overall, Blizzard can add whatever class it wants, when it wants. But a class being too "whimsical" is a lot easier to fix than a class with no design room.

EJL

[Mormolyce]

They say the screenshot is fake, and yet as usual sidesteps any questions over whether there is a 4th spec planned since they had tri-spec in the works on one PTR test.

Well you're just not keeping up because they have straight up stated that the tri-spec was just a test and not supposed to be anything at all, and that if anything they regret dual spec. I can't remember the exact post but they have also indicated that fourth specs would be way more difficult than new classes (also doubt they'd consider it since they have enough trouble with the existing number of specs).

And of course they don't give you a straight answer, if they wanted to announce the new expansion now they would. They are clearly planning to announce it at Blizzcon. Just wait until Christmas morning to open your damn presents!

[Stormdash]

Well, however you feel about Demon Hunters as an idea, you can't say that they won't instantly clear the field of "ties players into the relevant expansion" the very first time the Burning Legion shows back up.

[Cooper]

Yet he missed the closest, rogue? Hm. Like i said. Its a question dodge. Unlike the tinker tweet where he plain says its too whimsical.

Why would he even list hunter, beyond the name? And fury warrior? Fury warriors are basically plate-wearing berserkers that dual-wield two-handed weapons, whereas Demon Hunters rely on agility to avoid damage and fight with fast weapons. Rogues? Dual-wielding and agility based, sure, but Rogues fight dirty and Demon Hunters are far more up-front and tanky. Warlock? Caster versus Melee, different attitudes towards demons - not even close. Death Knight? Potentially problematic as a class that combines melee and magic, but it's different schools, and DKs are (again) a strength based, plate-wearing class. Also very different lore-wise, with a potentially interesting dichotomy: DKs were forced into their life as outcasts, Demon Hunters are outcasts by choice.

That leaves basically Monks as the closest - which he didn't even name. Lightly armored, agility-based, can tank... but unarmed combat, no relation to demons, little if any magic. Nor did he name enhancement shamans, who might be a fair argument.

So out of the three that are actually somewhat similar (Rogue, Monk, Shaman), he didn't name a single one, and did name one that is just completely out of left field (hunter).

[Mormolyce]

He says that DHs won't happen because there's not enough design space for the class.

I think his exact words were more like "is there enough design space for a DH not occupied by other classes?", ie posing a question. I'd say that's open ended, albeit obviously not encouraging if you're hoping for a DH in the near term.

Similarly he made a comment like "is the Tinker too whimsical for Warcraft?".

In neither case has he outright said they won't do them. Or that they aren't considering options. I'd put my money on neither of them being the plan for next expansion (probably no new class, too soon after Monks IMO), but maybe them or other options being on the table for future expansions. People also probably overestimate how fixed Blizzard's plans are, they often change their minds behind the scenes when they don't like an idea or get a better one. Didn't they say they were halfway through building an expansion when they scrapped it for MoP instead?

TLDR: we don't actually KNOW anything until they announce it. Blizzcon (probably).

- - - Updated - - -

Well, however you feel about Demon Hunters as an idea, you can't say that they won't instantly clear the field of "ties players into the relevant expansion" the very first time the Burning Legion shows back up.

They could always design an entirely new class from scratch and tie it into whatever the next expansion is. Shrug.

It would be the first time a class doesn't have some kind of basis in the RTS (well actually, Rogues are mostly new to WoW) but hey, they can't keep drawing on the RTS forever, WoW has to make its own path.

[Teriz]

Why would he even list hunter, beyond the name?

Because Hunters also hunt demons via their "track demon" ability. And yeah, also the name.

And fury warrior? Fury warriors are basically plate-wearing berserkers that dual-wield two-handed weapons, whereas Demon Hunters rely on agility to avoid damage and fight with fast weapons. Rogues? Dual-wielding and agility based, sure, but Rogues fight dirty and Demon Hunters are far more up-front and tanky.

Merely pointing out the overabundance of dual wielding melee already in the game.

Warlock? Caster versus Melee, different attitudes towards demons - not even close.

There isn't much difference between utilizing demonic magic to dominate demons, and utilizing demonic magic to destroy demons.

Death Knight? Potentially problematic as a class that combines melee and magic, but it's different schools, and DKs are (again) a strength based, plate-wearing class. Also very different lore-wise, with a potentially interesting dichotomy: DKs were forced into their life as outcasts, Demon Hunters are outcasts by choice.

DKs and Warlocks both use Shadow Magic. Shadow Magic is a school within demonic magic.

That leaves basically Monks as the closest - which he didn't even name. Lightly armored, agility-based, can tank... but unarmed combat, no relation to demons, little if any magic. Nor did he name enhancement shamans, who might be a fair argument.

Monks being added to the game makes a DH introduction even more doubtful.

[Jerakal]

Ghostcrawler making a half-statement that could be interpreted multiple ways? Well I never!

In other news, some guy made another Tinker thread.

[Cooper]

They could always design an entirely new class from scratch and tie it into whatever the next expansion is. Shrug.

That would be a horrible mistake on Blizzard's part. If they want to keep subs from bleeding off into other MMOs, they have to make World of Warcraft more unique - you know, further develop the qualities that separate Warcraft from other fantasy - not make it more generalized. Brand recognition and all that.

[Rhamses]

If anything, Blizzard should add a tech class just because it would make sense for Gnomes and Goblins. It just seems weird that those two races can't be a tech class. Just seems weird that their racial identity is based around technology, and neither race has a class that reflects that identity.

[Sukhoi]

If anything, Blizzard should add a tech class just because it would make sense for Gnomes and Goblins. It just seems weird that those two races can't be a tech class. Just seems weird that their racial identity is based around technology, and neither race has a class that reflects that identity.

It's weird the night elves cant be demon hunters. Their racial identity cant be reflected. This thread should be closed.

[Shinagami091]

No, they didn't deny it. If anything, that tweet gives it a very good chance of appearing in the game.

[Deleted]

That answer was obvious no and no

[Rhamses]

It's weird the night elves cant be demon hunters. Their racial identity cant be reflected. This thread should be closed.

You're being silly man. Demon Hunters are shunned from NE society, and have nothing to do with NE racial identity. If anything, they're a fluke mostly spear-headed by Illidan. Nothing more, nothing less.

Night Elves are mostly Sentinels (Hunters), and Druids. That's their racial identity, and they have classes available to them that reflect that.

[Sukhoi]

You're being silly man. Demon Hunters are shunned from NE society, and have nothing to do with NE racial identity. If anything, they're a fluke mostly spear-headed by Illidan. Nothing more, nothing less.

Night Elves are mostly Sentinels (Hunters), and Druids. That's their racial identity, and they have classes available to them that reflect that.

Theyre pretty iconic to nes. I dont think thats silly.