Tinker Class

[Talen]

He turned into demon. He set himself new goals. He practically stopped being one.

"Practically" stopped being one? So - this is just your opinion then. You have no actual evidence. Its just how you see things.

Wrong. There are plenty of things shared between many classes

Yes. But none of them share a theme. And while there is overlap in certain aspects, all of them also have design space available to them that doesn't overlap with other classes. One can create a DH with a unique gameplay - but the gameplay mechanics itself are independent of class. As things stand, anything the DH brings can be taken over and fulfilled by another class. And in this example, the demonic theme, stories involving the Burning Legion and so on, can be filled with the Warlock.

The fact that there is overlap between classes in various aspects does not excuse the Demon Hunters lack of design space. What room is there to actually develop or progress the class that can't be fulfilled via another class? What does the DH bring that another class doesn't? What can the DH accomplish that requires its existance? That only it can do?

Nothing. The Demon theme is filled by warlocks. Any desired playstyle or game mechanics can be assigned to any class and doesn't specifically require a DH. The Anti-heroes are taken by Death Knights. Warriors and rogues fill the anticipated playstyle. The Hunter gets the Hunting theme.

What can the DH bring to the game that cannot be filled by another class?

Wearing a set of clothes doesn't make you tattoed.

No. But it gives them what is just as important. The actual look.

Also, this set is made to look like a specific person

That person being the archetypical Demon Hunter.

This works with every class and every item in the game. Give X Y and add them to Y- type legendary.

Except only Warlocks have the demonic tattoo look, thanks to the Betrayer Set.

No lore reasons for warlocks to wear a blindfold.

No lore reason for rogues to do so either but we see them doing just that.

EJL

[Grubjuice]

*Bard probably as standalone class is that the role itself doesn't exist in WoW, so unless they are going to break the "trinity", it would be another advanced class idea.

in order to break the trinity, they would need at least four or five classes that could spec into any currently not-existing future roles, if for example a support role was created, with Bard as its exemplar, you would still need perhaps a shaman spec, or a mage spec, or a warlock or druid spec that could so what a Bard does in the support role.

i would not mind advanced class-system, but it would require the complete scrapping of the current spec system which historically has evolved by iterrating on the original form. Most likely future changes to the class/spec system will be iterrated reforms of the current system as MoP was an iterration of Cata, and Cata was an iterration of Wrath and so on.

[Stormdash]

in order to break the trinity, they would need at least four or five classes that could spec into any currently not-existing future roles, if for example a support role was created, with Bard as its exemplar, you would still need perhaps a shaman spec, or a mage spec, or a warlock or druid spec that could so what a Bard does in the support role.

Well, we're sort of back to it -- what's easier for Blizzard, knowing that they will eventually have to do at least one for as long as they are putting out expansions --

1) existing model and just keep throwing in new classes and accept the thematic and mechanical overlaps that have been well documented here
2) fourth specs all around, possibly adding a support role, but even if not, fourth specs all around
3) an advanced classing system that lets people "flavor" their "real" class with one of the popular but incomplete proposed classes like Tink, DH, Bard, etc

Think they are all pretty valid ideas, but both 2 and 3 are more interesting to me personally.

[Talen]

Well, we're sort of back to it -- what's easier for Blizzard, knowing that they will eventually have to do at least one for as long as they are putting out expansions --

1) existing model and just keep throwing in new classes and accept the thematic and mechanical overlaps that have been well documented here
2) fourth specs all around, possibly adding a support role, but even if not, fourth specs all around
3) an advanced classing system that lets people "flavor" their "real" class with one of the popular but incomplete proposed classes like Tink, DH, Bard, etc

Think they are all pretty valid ideas, but both 2 and 3 are more interesting to me personally.

The problem with (1) is Diminishing returns.
The problems with (20 and (3) is the amount of work needed to do them for all classes if nothing else is done. Blizzard can get away with 1 or 2 4th specs but an advanced class system would need something fot all classes to take part in. It would have the advantage in that it could be used to consolidate the specs but there would still be that initial hurdle to get over.

EJL

[Hengwulf]

"Practically" stopped being one? So - this is just your opinion then. You have no actual evidence. Its just how you see things.

Him turning into demon and focusing on other things than killing demons is a fact, not an opinion.

Yes. But none of them share a theme. And while there is overlap in certain aspects, all of them also have design space available to them that doesn't overlap with other classes. One can create a DH with a unique gameplay - but the gameplay mechanics itself are independent of class. As things stand, anything the DH brings can be taken over and fulfilled by another class. And in this example, the demonic theme, stories involving the Burning Legion and so on, can be filled with the Warlock.

Plenty of shared themes:

Druid and hunter = animals, wilderness
druid and shaman = nature
mage and warlock = arcane knowledge
priest and paladin = holy light
warrior, paladin and dk = knights

The fact that there is overlap between classes in various aspects does not excuse the Demon Hunters lack of design space. What room is there to actually develop or progress the class that can't be fulfilled via another class? What does the DH bring that another class doesn't? What can the DH accomplish that requires its existance? That only it can do?

It doesn't have to bring anything entirely new. Monk didn't, he just does stuff other classes did before, but in unique style and flavour. Could ret pala be a spec of warrior class? Easily. Holy paladin of priest class? Warlock of mage class? Yes. Nothing really -requires- new class.

No. But it gives them what is just as important. The actual look.

It doesn't. Betrayer set doesn't look like a demon hunter.

That person being the archetypical Demon Hunter.

But the set doesn't focus on those iconic parts that make someone instantly recognizable as DH. Instead it focuses on what made Illidan demonic.

Except only Warlocks have the demonic tattoo look, thanks to the Betrayer Set.

The set does, not warlocks do. Gronn looking set doesn't make Gruul a role model for hunters. Deathwing set doesn't make warriors dragons. And so on, and so on. Looks of a set can be inspired by anything in the WoW world, without actually saying that since the set has some of the look of boss X, the class Y is boss X. Since both hunters and warriors have dragon inspired sets, it would mean they're both dragons, or what? Doesn't make any sense.

No lore reason for rogues to do so either but we see them doing just that.

Exactly. Everyone -can-wear a blindfold, but only DHS -need- to wear a blindfold. Warlocks can, but do not need to. That's why your arguement of adding cloth Blindfold is silly. That wouldn't change anything at all.

[Stormdash]

Two problems I see with an advanced classing system are a) balancing the ACs themselves, so not everybody chooses Tinker, for instance, because of min/max but also "fun" balance, too, and much harder, b) balancing the combinations, lest Lock-Bard turn into the all world combination but Paladin-Tinkers are worthless.

I like the 4th spec but don't see any point in it if they aren't adding a support role, which right away eats the 4th spec for half the classes.

[Shadowspire]

Oh dear god why can't this tinker bullshit just die...I mean really I swear everyone that likes the tinker class has been a hypocrit, that is not even funny anymore, and it's always the same bullshit that, I doubt they ever notice this, is the same bullshit they claim won't work for a demon hunter.
Also for those that say ignore it, pretty hard to do when it gets on the front page recent threads.

[Thimagryn]

I think you're overemphasising the importance of what appears to be an optional requirement that exists only in non-canonical lore and which does nothing to impede the development of Demon Hunters as a melee/tanking focussed Warlock 4th spec.

In essence - no, you don't need to ritually blinded or tattooed to be a Demon Hunter. That "lore" doesn't exist in game and is contradicted even in the RPGs. If it is non-canon...why should it count against a Warlock 4th spec? If the RPGs can show examples of DHs with no blindfolds, why assume that they are mandatory anyway?

EJL

But if a Warlock tanking spec would exist, it does not need to be a Demon Hunter spec. It can be called anything else and maintain the Demon Hunter's ambiguity in the lore, just as there is nothing specific pointing to Witchdoctors and Shadow Hunters in the Shaman, but we all know how the class takes influence from them.

Why specifically do you propose that this 4th spec must be called Demon Hunter?

[Taiknee]

I don't mind what the next class is - as long as it's a ranged support class.

[Sukhoi]

I don't mind what the next class is - as long as it's a ranged support class.

Teriz -"Tinker will play that role and be the next and final class added."

[Gamevizier]

can demon hunter fans kindly leave this thread and let us tinker fans discuss about tinkers?

you don't like this class and that's cool. but trying to shove your reasoning and speculations down our throat to prove "Demon Hunters ARE a possibility" and "The X class is more likely to happen due to these reasons." is ruining this thread.

if you really have a strong idea behind your demon hunter class then create a thread about it and discuss it in there.

[Jtree]

can demon hunter fans kindly leave this thread and let us tinker fans discuss about tinkers?

you don't like this class and that's cool. but trying to shove your reasoning and speculations down our throat to prove "Demon Hunters ARE a possibility" and "The X class is more likely to happen due to these reasons." is ruining this thread.

if you really have a strong idea behind your demon hunter class then create a thread about it and discuss it in there.

Over the last month or so, several DH focused threads were taken over by the pro-tinker forces. It's a little bit schadenfreudelicios to see the inverse happen here. I don't know why that started, but you can be sure the next DH thread will get taken over by this argument as well.

[Gamevizier]

Over the last month or so, several DH focused threads were taken over by the pro-tinker forces. It's a little bit schadenfreudelicios to see the inverse happen here. I don't know why that started, but you can be sure the next DH thread will get taken over by this argument as well.

that's up to the mods, I'm sure if OPs ask mods they'll help them save their thread from being derailed into pointless "DH vs. Tinkerer" threads which, let's face it, is pointless and will go nowhere.

[Thimagryn]

At this point, discussion on the two will be synonymous due to the history and enmity between advocates of both concepts. It's all intertwined, because even if it stops now, it only takes a mention of the other class to bring the topic back in full circle.

If you're talking about pointless threads, then yes, all 'Tinker class' threads are pointless, as are any Demon Hunter or any other Class Idea threads. We're discussing stuff that may never happen, so really, all discussion on new classes is pointless until Blizzard actually throws us a bone.

[Sukhoi]

that's up to the mods, I'm sure if OPs ask mods they'll help them save their thread from being derailed into pointless "DH vs. Tinkerer" threads which, let's face it, is pointless and will go nowhere.

If mods werent okay with it, they wouldve infracted us.

[Teriz]

People insisted Alliance would never have shaman and Horde would never have paladins
People insisted Blizzard would never do something like a Hero Class
People insisted Goblins would never be playable
People insisted Worgen would never be playable
Many times people have adamantly insisted something will never happen, and then it happens because Blizzard feels it would be a good fit.

So there you have it, DH will never be a class. Demon Hunters confirmed as next class by Teriz.

Blizzard is making a product to be sold. If they feel there is a demand for it and they feel there is a way they can do it properly ("they feel they can do it properly" by the way, not "I feel like there is no way to do it properly") they will put it in their game. This is true for Demon Hunters. This is true for Tinkers. This sadly was not true for playable Tuskarr and Nerubians, which would have made WotLK the best expansion of any game ever.

The difference between those situations, and the DH situation is that Blizzard has made a clear design decision that has been repeated over multiple expansions, and is pretty much irreversible unless they purposely gut the Warlock class. That is pretty unlikely to happen, since Blizzard has stated that one of their goals is to make the Warlock more popular. Currently, they can both bring in the Demon Hunter concept, AND make the Warlock class more interesting. Why would they deviate from that?

[Hengwulf]

The difference between those situations, and the DH situation is that Blizzard has made a clear design decision that has been repeated over multiple expansions, and is pretty much irreversible unless they purposely gut the Warlock class. That is pretty unlikely to happen, since Blizzard has stated that one of their goals is to make the Warlock more popular. Currently, they can both bring in the Demon Hunter concept, AND make the Warlock class more interesting. Why would they deviate from that?

Every design decision is valid until changed. That is not a problem at all. Also, I am sure warlocks will be gutted without their amazing acrobatic melee abilities, their iconic blindfolds and their dual wielded warglaives. Honestly, I would quit my warlock after something like that. Where is the fun in some old boring wizard summoning demons, that is clearly not what a warlock class is about.

[Teriz]

I don't mind what the next class is - as long as it's a ranged support class.

[Stormdash]

Looks like props/costume design from "Labyrinth".

[Teriz]

Every design decision is valid until changed. That is not a problem at all. Also, I am sure warlocks will be gutted without their amazing acrobatic melee abilities, their iconic blindfolds and their dual wielded warglaives. Honestly, I would quit my warlock after something like that. Where is the fun in some old boring wizard summoning demons, that is clearly not what a warlock class is about.

We both know that there's more than just that aspect of it. There's also the Demonic abilities, which is the domain of the Warlock class completely. There's also the problem of separating Metamorphosis and Immolation from the Warlock class, abilities that it has had for over half of the game's life cycle. Everything you just described is covered by Rogues. Even down to wearing iconic blindfolds and using dual warglaives.