Thread: Tinker Class

Page 14 of 63 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
24
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    That.
    Is.
    Not.
    What.
    He.
    Said.

    Get it through your thick fucking skull that you cannot just put words into another person's mouth and wish it into truth.
    Is it a literal quote?

    No. Its not. By pointing out fundamental problems with the class of a degree and type more than strong enough to justify killing off the concept, however, Teriz's interpretation is how a lot of people took it. If the class concept doesn't have the design room needed, if anything they can do with it is better/more easily done with another class, then the new class is effectively not worth developing.

    Is that a straightforward no? Of course not. Blizzard can develop whatever class it wants when it wants how it wants and if it wants a DH class in game, then it's going to put one in. Leaving aside the "Put it in just for the ske of it" argument, the lack of design space issue GC brought up is a major problem that cannot be worked around without destroying the class concept. There is NO design room for the DH class in game.

    And the reason Teriz keeps "putting words in GCs mouth" is because that is how he - and others, including myself - took his remarks.

    GC asked a question about DHs and design space...to which the answer is "no...there isn't the design space available". If the design space isn't available, the likelihood of the DH class being made available drops. Sharply.

    The rebuttal should be simple. If that isn't what GC meant, then there should be some design room available that isn't filled by existing classes. If so...what is it?

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2013-09-04 at 03:04 AM.

  2. #262
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by But I Hate You All View Post
    Wait but you keep saying Tinker is based off a WC 3 unit the goblin Tinker, Now you say it just has to do with using technology
    It would be. It would also be expanded as a WoW class into the larger technology archetype, just like every other class concept that makes the WC3 to WoW transition. Brewmasters to Monks, Unholy Death Knights getting frost and blood specs. That has to happen because a WoW class requires dozens of abilities and three distinct specs.

    spirit Cloth first stat is int but it is still considered spirit cloth
    Only because cloths primary stat is INT.


    No sir you are lying once again because you can not accept what he said

    No where did he say Tinkers are coming and DH are not. In fact he neither confirmed nor disconfirmed anything. So please stop spreading lies
    He said that the Tinker's implementation depends on treatment, while the DH overlaps with too many existing classes.

    It's simple bud.

    Funny in WC3 the monk was wearing a Cloth robe, chen stormstout wears a cloth. Hell all the monk starting gear looks like cloth
    Yeah, things change when you move from a RTS to a MMORPG.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hengwulf View Post
    Can't see that happening.

    - both Alchemist and Tinker are already represented in game, through professions.
    - this game doesn't really need any more classes - balance is already impossible as it is now. 10 man guilds already have problems with comp/drops balance.
    - some of the specs that already have strong identity problems would have even bigger problems - survival hunter, for example.
    1. Professions aren't classes, and none of the Tinker's abilities exist in either Engineering of Alchemy.
    2. This game has open space for one more class, via armor and class type. That is by design.
    3. Only pure DPS classes have issue with spec identity, Hybrid classes have no such problems. Based on the final open class type, the 12th class will be a hybrid class. So spec identity won't be a problem.

  3. #263
    And here's Talen right on cue to attempt to rationalize Teriz's dishonesty with a red herring about design space.

    What somebody personally infers from Ghostcrawler's tweet does not give that person the right to attribute quotes to Ghostcrawler that Ghostcrawler never actually said. End. Of. Story.

  4. #264
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    And here's Talen right on cue to attempt to rationalize Teriz's dishonesty with a red herring about design space.

    What somebody personally infers from Ghostcrawler's tweet does not give that person the right to attribute quotes to Ghostcrawler that Ghostcrawler never actually said. End. Of. Story.
    So then answer talen's question; What design space is there for DHs that isn't occupied by the classes that GC listed?

    And please, try to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept presented in WC3, and numerous DH NPCs in WoW.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So then answer talen's question; What design space is there for DHs that isn't occupied by the classes that GC listed?

    And please, try to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept presented in WC3, and numerous DH NPCs in WoW.
    Talen's question is irrelevant to your lying bullshit.

  6. #266
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    Talen's question is irrelevant to your lying bullshit.
    If Talen is right, and the answer to GC's question is "no", then my interpretation of GC's tweet is correct.

  7. #267
    I posted this a few pages back but I will expand on it a bit more here. @Talen

    Essentially depending on where you draw the line you can question the design space for any class. Back in the day we, as a player base, were not as sophisticated (my opinion) and we did not have such an elaborate understanding of the game. However in hindsight let's look at the DK class and push forth some of the same arguments.

    Deathknights and Warriors share a lot of the same space. Both use STR weapons and STR plate armor. Both are a dual hybrid as they are tanks and melee dps classes.

    Now Deathknights also wield magic in melee combat, different than warrior, however in almost the same way that Retribution Paladins augment their attacks. Retribution Paladins had become viable in TBC, so this certainly encroached into their newly found space. The fact that they were tanks as well further muddies the waters.

    Beyond that Deathknights also had some overlap with Warlocks, outside of the Death Coil conversation, both had specs that heavily relied on a summoned creature and used shadow magic etc. While there was no direct gearing or primary functional (ranged vs melee) overlap there certainly was indirect overlap as another "evil" magic user who is shunned by the general public etc like the Warlock (and possibly shadow priest).

    So what was the difference?

    Well Death Knights had a wholly different resource system for one. Also Death Knights had a STRONG identity with ties to Arthas, which were immediately capitalized on from the very first time you logged on as a Death Knight. Blizzard made sure that you knew you were not just a warrior, that you were different than a Warlock (who chooses to use "evil" magic versus a Death Knight who was forced to be what they are) and that Death Knights were the anti-thesis of Paladin. All it took was a new resource system, and a strong story and/or reason for being.

    So regardless of proposed class (however I will use Demon Hunter as it is appropriate for this group), let's say Blizzard creates a new playstyle/resource system for Demon Hunter and then ties it to an aggressive story/identity (like the did with Death Knight). Certainly Demon Hunter is ripe for it, since one could argue that Illidan and Arthas are two (if not the two) of most iconic of the WarCraft lore characters.

    Now Teriz will come with "Illidan is already the new token Warlock lore character". I disagree but for sake of argument lets run this gauntlet. Everything I say next is pure speculation, however it took me all of 5 minutes to come up with what I think is fairly plausible.

    So Draenei (didn't expect to see me start there!) have been languishing in lore hell for many expansions now. They have been "saved" for the Army of Light story. Now when this happens Velen (and presumably Anduin) will lead the Army of Light. This makes sense for Paladins, Priests, and maybe Druids. You could probably shoehorn in Warriors, Mages, Shaman, Hunters, Monks, etc. with vary degrees of "making sense". However it would be odd for the group to openly except large amounts of Warlocks, Death Knights, Rogues etc.

    Also there is a noticeable nostalgia for TBC in the community.

    Everyone remember the Aldor versus the Scryers?

    Now I doubt that Blizzard would put a "game restriction" based on class, however lore wise it could play.

    Velen leads the Army of Light, while a returned Illidan leads the Army of Shadow (cheesy name got it!). Demon Hunters are added as Illidan's shock troops with their artillery being the Warlocks etc etc. Army of Light will win this war with the Burning Legion using their undying will and outright refusal to lose to darkness, Illidans army will use whatever it needs to win and do all the dirty thing a war requires that the Army of Light would shy away from.

    As I said it took 5 minutes, but with a proper resource system (playstyle) and a strong story, Blizzard can add anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So then answer talen's question; What design space is there for DHs that isn't occupied by the classes that GC listed?

    And please, try to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept presented in WC3, and numerous DH NPCs in WoW.
    Uhm Teriz...man you did it again.

    Ok...so DH folks have to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept, but you do not have to stay "in the spirit" of the Tinkerer concept. Cause if you do, I hear, just maybe...that it might be too whimsical. Just what I heard man.
    Last edited by kensim; 2013-09-04 at 04:07 AM.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If Talen is right, and the answer to GC's question is "no", then my interpretation of GC's tweet is correct.
    No, that's what you inferred from it, based on your own personal biases. Shoving what you inferred into Ghostcrawler's mouth and then attributing those words to Ghostcrawler is nothing but a lie.

    You can say, "I don't think there is enough design space." You cannot with any honesty or integrity whatsoever say "Ghostcrawler said there is not enough design space."

  9. #269
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    No, that's what you inferred from it, based on your own personal biases. Shoving what you inferred into Ghostcrawler's mouth and then attributing those words to Ghostcrawler is nothing but a lie.

    You can say, "I don't think there is enough design space." You cannot with any honesty or integrity whatsoever say "Ghostcrawler said there is not enough design space."
    Actually I can, since we both know that GC knows the answer to his rhetorical question. In other words, he asked a stupid question to make a point. He listed the classes that consume the DHs design space to further that point. The fact that you don't get it is irrelevant. GCs motives and purpose in that tweet was obvious.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Actually I can, since we both know that GC knows the answer to his rhetorical question. In other words, he asked a stupid question to make a point. He listed the classes that consume the DHs design space to further that point. The fact that you don't get it is irrelevant. GCs motives and purpose in that tweet was obvious.
    How do you know he knows the answer?

  11. #271
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Uhm Teriz...man you did it again.

    Ok...so DH folks have to stay true to the spirit of the DH concept, but you do not have to stay "in the spirit" of the Tinkerer concept. Cause if you do, I hear, just maybe...that it might be too whimsical. Just what I heard man.
    No, because Tinkers belong to a larger archetype than Demon Hunters.

    Which is is why I can use Tinker, Inventor, Mechanic, Artificer, Mekgineer, Machinist, Siegecrafter, Technician, and Engineer interchangeably for a technology class, and it all means pretty much the same thing.

    What else can you call a Demon Hunter class?

    Warlock?

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Furthermore, how does he know that the answer is the same answer that he personally believes? But what does it matter? He's actually arguing that he gets to intentionally and maliciously misattribute quotes to people because of what he personally inferred from things those people actually did say.

    Rational thought and honest discourse are things not just entirely foreign to him, they are things he actively opposes.

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No, because Tinkers belong to a larger archetype than Demon Hunters.

    Which is is why I can use Tinker, Inventor, Mechanic, Artificer, Mekgineer, Machinist, Siegecrafter, Technician, and Engineer interchangeably for a technology class, and it all means pretty much the same thing.

    What else can you call a Demon Hunter class?



    Warlock?
    Warlock? They don't really hunt demons or even really focus on battling demons.

    Nice try though.

    Anywho...

    You are the one that keep playing the WC3 "Hero Class" game. Here is the pickle you are in...

    Classes in WoW have WC3 inspirations.
    Tinkerer is not represented in WoW currently as an archetype (Your opinion, I don't agree but whatever)
    Tinkerer from WC3 may be too whimsical for WoW
    By Tinkerers you actually mean technology however based on the above it must be based on WC3 Tinkerer because all classes have WC3 inspirations.
    Blizzard could expand on them and implement them much like WindWalkers and MistWeavers came from Brewmaster to create Monk.

    HOWEVER....based on the same logic why can't Blizzard just expand on Demon Hunter like they did Death Knight or Monk?

    You can't really have one be true without the other?

  14. #274
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Because he goes on to list the classes that fill the design space.

    He essentially answered the question while he asked it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    Warlock? They don't really hunt demons or even really focus on battling demons.

    Nice try though.

    Anywho...

    You are the one that keep playing the WC3 "Hero Class" game. Here is the pickle you are in...

    Classes in WoW have WC3 inspirations.
    Tinkerer is not represented in WoW currently as an archetype (Your opinion, I don't agree but whatever)
    Tinkerer from WC3 may be too whimsical for WoW
    By Tinkerers you actually mean technology however based on the above it must be based on WC3 Tinkerer because all classes have WC3 inspirations.
    Blizzard could expand on them and implement them much like WindWalkers and MistWeavers came from Brewmaster to create Monk.

    HOWEVER....based on the same logic why can't Blizzard just expand on Demon Hunter like they did Death Knight or Monk?

    You can't really have one be true without the other?
    You can. The problem is that expansion slides into the design space of other classes. Hence GCs statements. Push the Melee aspect too far, you got a DK. Push the demonic side too much, and you got a Warlock.

  15. #275
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    And here's Talen right on cue to attempt to rationalize Teriz's dishonesty with a red herring about design space.

    What somebody personally infers from Ghostcrawler's tweet does not give that person the right to attribute quotes to Ghostcrawler that Ghostcrawler never actually said. End. Of. Story.
    So - what design space is there? It's a simple question. If you think Teriz's interpretation is wrong...what design spce is there?

    It's easy to simply say "He's wrong". Can you show it? Can you provide the existing Illidan DH with enough design space to warrant development as a player class?

    The answer is "None". You need to rebuild the class entirely from the ground up to give it that design space...and in that case, you don't have a DH. Blizzard could easily ignore that if it chose, but then we'd need to suppose it doesn't mind the various overlaps that woudl constrain the design of both it and other classes.

    EJL

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because he goes on to list the classes that fill the design space.

    He essentially answered the question while he asked it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You can. The problem is that expansion slides into the design space of other classes. Hence GCs statements. Push the Melee aspect too far, you got a DK. Push the demonic side too much, and you got a Warlock.
    Or he gave us insight into what they talk about at meetings with regards to the integration of a Demon Hunter class and what the greatest challenge is of doing so? Same with the whimsical nature of the Tinkerer? See the fact is that he is intentionally vague and you are guessing.

    Push melee too far and you have Warrior, push the dark magic summoner thing too far and you have Warlock. Somehow Death Knight still made it in.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    So - what design space is there? It's a simple question. If you think Teriz's interpretation is wrong...what design spce is there?

    It's easy to simply say "He's wrong". Can you show it? Can you provide the existing Illidan DH with enough design space to warrant development as a player class?

    The answer is "None". You need to rebuild the class entirely from the ground up to give it that design space...and in that case, you don't have a DH. Blizzard could easily ignore that if it chose, but then we'd need to suppose it doesn't mind the various overlaps that woudl constrain the design of both it and other classes.

    EJL
    Design space? Well considering Blizzard determines the "space" part of it themselves they can really do whatever they want.

    What if they go back and try a combo based (not combo points) twitchy implementation closer to some GW2 classes with the resource being a mild form of timing and stringing together different abilities to produce separate outcomes etc. No idea really they are the professionals. I would find it hard to replace the engine on a Ferrari but I bet a Ferrari tech would find it pretty easy. Same thing.

    Tack on a strong reason for being and story and they can do basically anything. In my opinion that is how we ended up with DK.

  17. #277
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Largely because he listed many - not even all, but many - of the classes which do have a design space overlap with the DH.

    He asked a question and then listed four classes that together took up the DHs entire design space.

    Warlock get the look, demon theme and casting abilities.
    DKs get to be the anti-hero
    Hunters get the theme of hunting down a prey
    Warriors get the DW fighting style.

    He asked a question and within the next few words provided a list that guaranteed a "no" answer. Do you think he can do that and still not know the answer to the question?

    EJL

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by kensim View Post
    How do you know he knows the answer?
    Regardless of whether one interprets the question as an honest one or a rhetorical one, both explanations involve him admitting that he doesn't see where the design space is. If it was an honest question, which I think is likely, he was asking for an answer. That implies that he can't see, on his own, where a demon hunter would be able to carve a niche - and he's sitting in front of an entire creative team who can't see it either. If it was a rhetorical question, as Teriz believes, it means the same thing. The only difference is whether he intended to start a debate among the fans and spur a round of suggestions, or not. I think he probably did, personally. They're always looking for suggestions.

    There is, of course, also the off chance that he was ducking the issue because he already has some sort of demon hunter plan fulminating and wants us to stew over it. Honestly though, I don't believe that. Looking at all the lore, aesthetics and mechanics warlocks have been getting this expansion, it is literally impossible for me to conclude that they've been planning a standalone demon hunter class this entire time. It is unthinkable to me. Maybe as a fourth spec, with the glyph as a sort of testbed. Maybe. Other people disagree with me. That's their prerogative.

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Largely because he listed many - not even all, but many - of the classes which do have a design space overlap with the DH.

    He asked a question and then listed four classes that together took up the DHs entire design space.

    Warlock get the look, demon theme and casting abilities.
    DKs get to be the anti-hero
    Hunters get the theme of hunting down a prey
    Warriors get the DW fighting style.

    He asked a question and within the next few words provided a list that guaranteed a "no" answer. Do you think he can do that and still not know the answer to the question?

    EJL
    See above, I was able to come up with a completely plausible manner in which the question could have been asked that has nothing to do with GC knowing the answer at all, that in fact being the point. End of the day all guesses. Sorta rude to tell someone what their intent was.

    Also warriors get the DW style? What about rogues, DKs, monks, shaman? Did I miss any? Not really a "thing" for a class.

    Warlocks, Death Knights, and Shadow Priests all use Shadow Magic and Summoning stuff...no real monopoly there...

    Hunters are "nature" combatants, semi-ranger-ish (Teriz actually agrees with this) and Demon Hunters are anything but natural.

    Why would DK get to be the only "Anti-Hero"? Wait Illidan is an anti-hero right? But wait Teriz and others think that Warlocks are now his lore class (or something) so now Warlocks are anti-heroes? Did someone tell Death Knights?

    Oh wait seems like none of that makes sense or in some cases appear to matter.
    Last edited by kensim; 2013-09-04 at 04:53 AM.

  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    Drunken Masters don't actually fight drunk, they fight LIKE they're drunk. The premise of the style is deception and erratic movement. They don't get loaded on Whiskey and start throwing beer kegs at people.

    Jesus Christ.
    While the actual Drunken Masters do merely imitate being drunk since trying to fight in that style while intoxicated would actually be extremely dangerous.

    You still aren't correct, Monk Brewmasters are Zui Quan. In a very literal fantastical sense.

    Jackie Chan has even done a couple of older movies 'Drunken Masters' which is based off a literal version of Drunken Boxing(IE his character becomes a better drunken boxer the more boozed up he is.).

    The reason why Bremasters practice Zui Quan by actually getting drunk in game instead of just practicing the style?
    Because it makes for a more fun class and adds in more diversity rather than just all their moves being kicks and punches and chi blasts that are reminiscent of mages. Now they can also throw in bashing people with Kegs, slipping them up with Booze, lighting booze on fire while breathing it on people.

    And I dare say it makes monks more....whimsical? >.>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •