Tinker Class

[But I Hate You All]

You thought wrong. GC's tweets were just icing on the cake.

Oh but I did not! Because he NEVER confirmed Tinkers

[Pigglix]

I said pure DPS melee class. for that we only have 1. Rogue.

What happens if a DK/Paladin/Monk/Druid/Warrior start to do the same DPS as a rogue? Q_Q My rogue can only dps while the others can either tank or heal or do both, its not fair!

So....yeah, IMO we need another one.

[Teriz]

I said pure DPS melee class. for that we only have 1. Rogue.

What happens if a DK/Paladin/Monk/Druid/Warrior start to do the same DPS as a rogue? Q_Q My rogue can only dps while the others can either tank or heal or do both, its not fair!

So....yeah, IMO we need another one.

Well you're certainly welcome to that opinion. I'm just pointing out that its unlikely due to there being so much melee in the game already. Of course the class could have melee elements, but I doubt its going to be only melee. The last two new classes have been melee.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh but I did not! Because he NEVER confirmed Tinkers

Where did I say that GC confirmed Tinkers?

[Beergod]

Tinkers will never happen. They just won't.

[Rhamses]

Tinkers will never happen. They just won't.

Why not? It seems pretty likely given the tinker-sized hole in the class lineup.

[Beergod]

Why not? It seems pretty likely given the tinker-sized hole in the class lineup.

You ever get those feelings where you feel you know something because you just feel you know it? That's how I feel.

[Friskyrum]

Tinker class? what the heck, that honestly doesn't sound that entertaining, I'll stick with my Enhance shaman for life.

[But I Hate You All]

Where did I say that GC confirmed Tinkers?

Hmm here

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22174491
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22175794
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22175839
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22270373
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22176082
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22269983
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22112775

right after GC said his tweet you went on about how he was downplaying it

[Etrigan]

I've only made about 5 threads. Its not my fault that people find the topic interesting and agree with my PoV.

The evidence simply backs a Tinker/technology class inclusion. That isn't my doing, it's Blizzard's.

Pretty sure Blizzard already denied Tinkers with a twitter post. At the very least they hinted at Tinkers NOT being the next class.

Think you really really wanting to play a tinker class is clouding your judgement.

[Deleted]

Taking tweets out of context debunks nothing.

Oh, hey Teriz. Can't counter an arguement again? Pffft.

[PowerOfTwo]

tweets aside, there is one BIG reason i don't see tinkers being implemented unfortunately. The past two classes have been very... "in-tune" with the whole xpac they were introduced in. Dk - scourge, undeath etc, Monks - brewmasters, oriental theeme, emotional turmoil, mind over matter etc. What expansion can you build around a tinker? :S

[Thimagryn]

Kezan, Undermine and the South Seas. That's the best bet for Tinkers to be implemented. I feel that if they don't get introduced in the South Seas expansion, they won't have any other real chance. Connections to a Legion expansion or any other concept is just too limited. The idea of a completely mech-related expansion is out of the question, there simply isn't enough vested interest for that.

[Dreadlack]

tweets aside, there is one BIG reason i don't see tinkers being implemented unfortunately. The past two classes have been very... "in-tune" with the whole xpac they were introduced in. Dk - scourge, undeath etc, Monks - brewmasters, oriental theeme, emotional turmoil, mind over matter etc. What expansion can you build around a tinker? :S

A racecar expansion with vehicles shooting rockets.

[Talen]

I'm not writing anything off. I'm pointing out one of the core differences between Engineering and a potential Tinker class. One makes useless toys, cool mounts, and entertaining battle pets. The other would be a class that could perform roles (tank/heal/DPS)

What would be the main difference between a gun using Hunter throwing a grenade and a gun using Tinker throwing a grenade?

Yet he only needed one tweet for Bards and DHs. What makes Tinkers so special that he requires a lot more to make one point?

You are suggesting that commenting a couple of times is somehow important?

Let me ask you a question though - do you seriously expect GC to list each and every design point, every pro and con for every class concept he is asked about?

And that there's no significant overlap between Engineers and Tinkers.

There's overlap. Whether it ends up being significant or depends solely on the nature of the tech class that would be designed.

Let me know when the next DH tweet rolls in.

You seem to find the number of tweets has some hidden significance. The point is you are reading too much into them. Worse - you are putting words into GCs mouth. Attributing to him stuff he never said, nor which could even be reasonably interpreted from his tweets. And you are doing so despite being told that is what you are doing.

You are using GCs absence of tweets as proof. "If he didn't say A, that must be because he means B" doesn't ever work. It really reflects badly upon you that you feel the need to put words into GCs mouth, words he never said nor wrote, words that can't even be a reasonable interpretation of what he has written, words that are effectively just made up to support your own pet theories.

Which is a pity - because the Tinker concept doesn't need such support. It has enough merit to stand on its own. But that doesn't appear to be good enough for you...you simply appear to want to be able to bash any other concept. You want you Tinker class to be the one and only possible choice and anything anyone says against it has to be wrong.

He pretty clearly said that Bards would be too soft for WoW. No "it depends on treatment" was given.

Nitpicking doesn't work too well in many cases. It **ALWAYS** depends on the treatment. If Blizzard wanted a Bard class brought in, they'd bring in a Bard class and by golly, it won't BE soft when they do.

It also doesn't help that bards have no connection to Warcraft, and wouldn't fit at all.

There are Bards in game right now. And Bards will ALWAYS fit a fantasy game.

Design space goes along with fitting. You need space for something to "fit" after

Demons Hunters fit the game very well. What they don't have is a unique space to actually design a class around.
Conversely, Tinkers have plenty of design space...but there is a big question over whether they'd fit as a player class in a game thats largely fantasy based.

I have no reason for the third plate and leather class either. The only reasoning I have is that Blizzard wants all four armors to have equal representation.

Well, thats an assumption on your part. Even were you corrcet, your are still making a major asusmption on how importnat that is to them.

That argument is supported by the evidence.

No, it isn't. DKs always wore plate and had Necromancers and Runemasters being considered as well. Monks work just as well themtically with leather as cloth and leather usage didn't require the addition of AGI cloth.

What you have is a theory that isn't contradicted by anything - so long as we assume Necromancers were going to end up with a non-cloth set up that is.

Actually no. I've also included the Alchemist hero, Siege tank, gyrocopters, and mortar team units.

So your solution would be to use a non-tech hero class to provide a tech based unit with abilities? And then look at VEHICLE units? And then grab an ability that already exist in engineering?

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just add the third mail class? Why go through all of that insanity when you can just use mail armor?

Blizzard wants to overhaul the profession system anyway, and it wants a solution to the problems it ahs with variosu outlier gear pieces. Further, a new starting scenario and hero class isn't unprecedented. So, in essence, you are objecting at Blizzard doing work it looks like it is already going to be doing anyway.

Nope, just like the plate wearing Tank/DPS Warrior doesn't overlap with the plate wearing tank/DPS DK.

Now...wasn't that a much better answer than "No, there isn't any overlap"?

A tinker class wouldn't need to do any of those things.

No, it wouldn't. But if it doesn't use the tech available in game....

I'm pretty sure it is.

Yeah...you and Jessicka both share a certain penchant for overly creative interpretation of Blizzards tweets. Perhaps you can provide the quotes?

Really? Come up with three specs for the Cleric that don't overlap majorly with Paladins. Good luck with that.

Whats your point? That you want to compare role to a point made about a class' theme and flavor?

Just because you view it as silly, doesn't mean that Blizzard does. Sorry.

This would be the same Blizzard that recently described the Tinker as "whimsical"?

EJL

[enchanted]

Copied my response from another thread which had a tinker argument:

While I do respect your opinion on the whole: "Tinkers should become the next WoW class" I must say I find this not fitting in WoW. I played all of the wc3 campaign and rarely did I see references to "tinkers" or engineers but again, look at pandaren how they were unexpected but atleast they have more lore than the whole tinker class itself. Besides that I always thought that warcraft was more of a medieval-ish RPG styled game so we should be raising swords and bows not machine guns and rocket launchers.

I do understand there is a use for technology in warcraft but I don't think it should also be a class and if it were to be then It should be made available to gnomes and goblins only since the other races really don't know much about their technologies.

This post was aimed for teriz ^.

[Hengwulf]

An opinion clearly not shared by Blizzard.

Could you be so kind and link me some quote from Blizzard on overlap between Tinker and Engineer? No, you can't. Blizzard never said anything on the topic. That means yours "an opinion clearly not shared by Blizzard" is either a lie or extreme case of fallacious reasoning.

"GC never mentioned he's against Hitler, that clearly makes him a nazi". Stop doing that. I refuse to believe you can't see the idiocy of such arguments, you are beind deliberately obtuse.

Again, GC said might be too whimsical. He went on to say that Tinkers would be viable if treated in a more serious tone.

Bards? He just considered them soft, and left it at that. The lack of Warcraft-style bards in WC3 and WoW backs that up.

He said that bard always -felt- a little too soft. Not that it is too soft, but that it felt that way. That is not a big difference from might be.

Btw, that's a funny tweet I found when googling for the exact bard quote: https://twitter.com/Ghostcrawler/sta...61906262106112

Then we'll leave it at that. However, given past implementations, the next armor implementation is most likely Mail.

You are being shown what kind of error you are making, yet you still can't drop it. Do you love your patterns so much, that you can't move away even when proven wrong? It will be mail only if the class decided on will fit mail armor best.

- - - Updated - - -

What would be the main difference between a gun using Hunter throwing a grenade and a gun using Tinker throwing a grenade?

Why, Hunter would have a monkey pet, and Tinker would have a ROBOT monkey pet, of course.

[mannenabo]

really interesting thread, thank you all for your contribution

[Teriz]

What would be the main difference between a gun using Hunter throwing a grenade and a gun using Tinker throwing a grenade?

You mean other than the fact that Hunters don't throw grenades?

You are suggesting that commenting a couple of times is somehow important?

Let me ask you a question though - do you seriously expect GC to list each and every design point, every pro and con for every class concept he is asked about?

I expect GC to list a major issue like overlap when questioned about whether or not a class fits in WoW. Overlap is a pretty big issue, if it exists.

Nitpicking doesn't work too well in many cases. It **ALWAYS** depends on the treatment. If Blizzard wanted a Bard class brought in, they'd bring in a Bard class and by golly, it won't BE soft when they do.

If it depended on treatment, GC would have mentioned it. The problem with Bards is that they are a support class in a game that doesn't have support classes. And yes, a character singing and dancing while fighting a raid boss simply doesn't fit in WoW. We know it doesn't fit because nothing like that exists in the Warcraft universe. Sure there are Bard NPCs, but they're quest givers.

Demons Hunters fit the game very well. What they don't have is a unique space to actually design a class around.
Conversely, Tinkers have plenty of design space...but there is a big question over whether they'd fit as a player class in a game thats largely fantasy based.

I don't see how they wouldn't fit, considering that the game world is filled with technology.

Well, thats an assumption on your part. Even were you corrcet, your are still making a major asusmption on how importnat that is to them.

An assumption backed by evidence.

So your solution would be to use a non-tech hero class to provide a tech based unit with abilities? And then look at VEHICLE units? And then grab an ability that already exist in engineering?

Again, one of the Alchemist's abilities has already been turned into a tech ability. Vehicle units had potent abilities, such as barrage, and shrapnel passives. Both of those abilities could work in conjunction with a potential technology class.

Blizzard wants to overhaul the profession system anyway, and it wants a solution to the problems it ahs with variosu outlier gear pieces. Further, a new starting scenario and hero class isn't unprecedented. So, in essence, you are objecting at Blizzard doing work it looks like it is already going to be doing anyway.

I'm objecting to the notion that Blizzard would do all of that looney stuff you're mentioning over simply making the next class use Mail armor.

No, it wouldn't. But if it doesn't use the tech available in game....

There's plenty of tech to go around from WC3 and WoW, not to mention outside sources.

Whats your point? That you want to compare role to a point made about a class' theme and flavor?

Merely pointing out that Clerics are already in the game as Paladins.

This would be the same Blizzard that recently described the Tinker as "whimsical"?

EJL

I'm pretty sure the actual quote was might be too whimsical. Also we all have different opinions on what is and what isn't whimsical.

- - - Updated - - -

While I do respect your opinion on the whole: "Tinkers should become the next WoW class" I must say I find this not fitting in WoW. I played all of the wc3 campaign and rarely did I see references to "tinkers" or engineers but again, look at pandaren how they were unexpected but atleast they have more lore than the whole tinker class itself. Besides that I always thought that warcraft was more of a medieval-ish RPG styled game so we should be raising swords and bows not machine guns and rocket launchers.

There's plenty of lore with Mekkatorque, the fall of Gnomeragan, Undermine, the Tinker unions, the Trade Princes, etc.

I do understand there is a use for technology in warcraft but I don't think it should also be a class and if it were to be then It should be made available to gnomes and goblins only since the other races really don't know much about their technologies. If you want a tinker styled class with modern combat then why not give swtor a try?

I somewhat agree with that assessment. I would be fine with a Goblin/Gnome only class. A class based on Gnomes and Goblins only would allow the class to have attributes it couldn't have if it was spread to multiple races. However, based on GCs tweets, if this class is implemented, it would probably go in a more "man at arms" route where you can use a variety of weapons and technology at one time.

Something like the Engineering class in Torchlight 2.

[PowerOfTwo]

I have no idea how anything is to "whimsical" at this point (wth does that even mean?...), might i point out we just had a panda expansion? sure alot of ppl will go , "well pandas are just an analogy for oriental culture and the story is actualy very dark"... Mostly true AND YET we have valley of the four winds, a place where the bgm beign the looney tunes theme wouldn't be out of place... giant rabit / chinchila hybrids, beer monsters, party monkeys... yet a tinker is "whimsical" , dafuq?

ow and blizzard poking fun AT THEIR OWN DAMN RECENT GAME with Li Li....

[Teriz]

I have no idea how anything is to "whimsical" at this point (wth does that even mean?...), might i point out we just had a panda expansion? sure alot of ppl will go , "well pandas are just an analogy for oriental culture and the story is actualy very dark"... Mostly true AND YET we have valley of the four winds, a place where the bgm beign the looney tunes theme wouldn't be out of place... giant rabit / chinchila hybrids, beer monsters, party monkeys... yet a tinker is "whimsical" , dafuq?

ow and blizzard poking fun AT THEIR OWN DAMN RECENT GAME with Li Li....

I think what GC was referring to is things like Mechs failing, or you use a device and get launched 50 feet into the air, or exploding sheep. Things like that. He is correct that there's a great deal of risk for such a class to be too wacky and crazy. The good news is that technology can also be extremely serious and even dark.

I think the Monk is the last (and only) light-hearted class you're going to see. I think Blizzard wants to make the next class as serious as the other classes, which it could totally do with a tech class.