Tinkers In Our Future?

[Teriz]

Mixing things up. The new bear forms weren't given to the druids simply 'as-is'. It's because every single class in the game got shiny, impressive-looking artifact weapons, weapons that no bear or cat druid would get to enjoy in combat as their forms conceal all their gear. Hence the reason to give them new models.

Also, artifact weapons are not something that will be continued for the next expansion, so it's safe to assume the druid forms will go back to their base forms once again.

And what about Astral Form, Druid of the Flame form, Owlcat form, or Sentinel form?

But back on the tinker: again, it's unlikely that it'll be done as baseline for the tinker, especially when it's something that everyone would like to have for their class' alternate forms (DH's meta form, Druid's shapeshift forms, Shaman's ascendance, etc).

I'm not seeing anything that would disallow Blizzard from allowing Tinkers to customize or even personalize their mechs. In fact, I think it would be a very cool feature. Like imagine if you could "spray paint" images on your mech, or spray paint it a certain color?

And before you say its unlikely, keep in mind that Druids can change the color of their forms by merely getting a haircut.

I think so too. It feels to me that Teriz the reason he's doing that is to push a 'gnome/goblin-only' agenda. I mean, it doesn't feel like he's arguing for gnome/goblin because of size/silliness, but rather pushing the size/silliness argument because he wants the class to be gnome/goblin-only.

Guilty as charged.

[Deleted]

Did you tell the mecha gnomes to go back to engeering when you saw them/him/her out on the battlefield?

- - - Updated - - -

Ofcourse tinker is not a class. Because it's not made yet.

[Thimagryn]

Exactly. So we don't need a Tinkerer class with Engineering around.

We don't need a new class, period. Doesn't mean we shouldn't get one.

I'll ask again: do you even know what 'precedent' means? What a precedent is? Because your post tells me you don't. A 'precedent' is not a rule or a set of rules one must abide to. A 'precedent' is just an argument used for an action or an event. It basically goes like this: "if it happened before, it could happen again."

Which we've already established by '5 Reasons Demon Hunter won't be made' has very little influence on Blizzard making new classes.

Honestly, in context to new classes, 'if it happened, it can happen again' is just as likely as 'if it hasn't happened yet, it could happen', which means there isn't a precedent at all. A precedence is a guide or an example for future circumstances, not just a blanket 'well it happened before'. Precedence is synonym to pattern, and we could agree that there is no pattern to use to discuss future class development.

[Ielenia]

And what about Astral Form, Druid of the Flame form, Owlcat form, or Sentinel form?

In order: glyph, time-limited 'on-use' raid drop, artifact appearance (meaning it'll likely go away after this expansion, and another glyph. None are, as you claim it should be for tinkers, i.e., 'customizing yourself as you level up'.

I'm not seeing anything that would disallow Blizzard from allowing Tinkers to customize or even personalize their mechs.

I don't think I ever say anything disallows that. I'm only saying it's highly unlikely. There's a big difference.

In fact, I think it would be a very cool feature. Like imagine if you could "spray paint" images on your mech, or spray paint it a certain color?

Wouldn't it be a very cool feature, if you could customize the type of demon you could turn into, as Demon Hunter? I mean, they only had two races to work with, they could have made the demon form customizable, right?

And before you say its unlikely, keep in mind that Druids can change the color of their forms by merely getting a haircut.

So you're saying that your tinker's mech should match their haircut, and change every time the tinker gets a new haircut?

In a more serious note: it is highly unlikely that would happen. The reason the druids get such things is because, unlike the tinker, they spend the majority of their time in bear or cat mode, making it impossible to see their weapons and armor. However, since your idea of the tech class goes around in a mech with an open cockpit, you can still see your character's armor and weapon, so there is no need for such customization options.

- - - Updated - - -

Which we've already established by '5 Reasons Demon Hunter won't be made' has very little influence on Blizzard making new classes.

I don't recall ever reading those '5 reasons', but judging by the title, I imagine it's likely because the author stated the impossibility as a fact.

Honestly, in context to new classes, 'if it happened, it can happen again' is just as likely as 'if it hasn't happened yet, it could happen', which means there isn't a precedent at all.

You... stilll... don't know how precedent works, do you? What you just described is not "there is no precedent", but rather "doesn't need a precedent". And that's true. Having a precedent or not does not dictate if something can happen or not. Events don't really need a precedent to happen. However, having a precedent makes said things more likely to happen, when making predictions. Sometimes considerably so.

[Teriz]

You are narrowing things too much imo. I think Blood Elves can be made to fit as tinkers easely.

For reference think of the Warrior archetype, you could be really narrow and just think or a barbarian-like image of a character with large muscles weilding large weapons. But then it can also be a knight wearing a shiny set of plate carrying a shield. This partly the aesthetic Blizzard uses for warriors in wow. The two are very different but no one can say that they don´t fit the warrior archetype.

Tinkers can be design in the same way. On the one hand you could have the mech bound goblins and gnomes that use all kinds of machines and on the other hand you could use Belfs and Draenei tinkers that take a different approach. Remember that Blood Elfs are less "nature friendly" than night elfs and that draenei come from a more "technological" world (in their own way and still bound by fantasy tropes).

I trust Blizzard to come up with an awesome design for tinkers that fits perfectly within the game and that is more that just goblins and gnomes (without excluding them). The issue would be having a compelling story to bring them in an organic and meaningful way.

Regardless of what they do, the forums will claim to know better.

Three things:

1. Warrior is a pretty broad archetype. Tinker is a much narrower archetype. In Warcraft "Warrior" has always meant a pretty wide swathe of characters. Tinker in the same universe has always meant a Gnome or Goblin that fights with their inventions.

2. While Draenei and Blood Elves have shown to have access to some tech, the expansion classes have tended to be fairly cohesive. The Tinker class is more than likely only going to deal with Goblin and Gnome tech. If the expansion leak is to be believed, then the class will be of Gnomish tech modified by the Goblins.

3.Blizzard tends to use things established in the game for class introductions. We fought Death Knights in Naxx, we've run across various types of Monks throughout Azeroth, and we fought Demon Hunters in the Black Temple. The only tech warriors we've seen with any consistency are Gnomes and Goblins riding in mechs.

- - - Updated - - -

In order: glyph, time-limited 'on-use' raid drop, artifact appearance (meaning it'll likely go away after this expansion, and another glyph. None are, as you claim it should be for tinkers, i.e., 'customizing yourself as you level up'.

Don't you need to achieve a certain level to obtain some of those glyphs?

Anyway, I'm completely fine with making all the appearance changes glyph-based.

Wouldn't it be a very cool feature, if you could customize the type of demon you could turn into, as Demon Hunter? I mean, they only had two races to work with, they could have made the demon form customizable, right?

Demon Hunters have other customizable options, such as horns, tattoos, eye coverings, etc. They're pretty much an entirely different race from standard BEs and NEs.

So you're saying that your tinker's mech should match their haircut, and change every time the tinker gets a new haircut?

In a more serious note: it is highly unlikely that would happen. The reason the druids get such things is because, unlike the tinker, they spend the majority of their time in bear or cat mode, making it impossible to see their weapons and armor. However, since your idea of the tech class goes around in a mech with an open cockpit, you can still see your character's armor and weapon, so there is no need for such customization options.

Except the customization goes beyond their combat forms. Even their travel forms have customizations.

Additionally, a Gnome in a mech would only see their armor, not their weapon, and when you're actually playing, you're only going to be seeing the back of the mech, nothing else.

[Inay]

I would rather take dark ranger as a new class and wouldn't even care how they would spin them to be playable by alliance too. Just my opinion, not really into the tinker idea.

[Ielenia]

1. Warrior is a pretty broad archetype. Tinker is a much narrower archetype. In Warcraft "Warrior" has always meant a pretty wide swathe of characters. Tinker in the same universe has always meant a Gnome or Goblin that fights with their inventions.

You're making up this last part. The only "official" tinker that fights is Mekkatorque, and even then his title is simply political than a real representation of "player class". Hell, Blackfuse is even described as "engineer", not tinker.

3.Blizzard tends to use things established in the game for class introductions. We fought Death Knights in Naxx, we've run across various types of Monks throughout Azeroth, and we fought Demon Hunters in the Black Temple. The only tech warriors we've seen with any consistency are Gnomes and Goblins riding in mechs.

Blizzard doesn't base new classes solely on hostile NPCs. There are many engineers of other races that are friendly to us that could be used as base, as well.

Don't you need to achieve a certain level to obtain some of those glyphs?

You need a profession to make those glyphs first. They're not inherent to the class.

Demon Hunters have other customizable options, such as horns, tattoos, eye coverings, etc. They're pretty much an entirely different race from standard BEs and NEs.

Race customization is not the same as 'class' customization. A similar comparison was if tech characters could select cybernetic limbs for their characters.

Except the customization goes beyond their combat forms. Even their travel forms have customizations.

Again: glyphs and other outside sources. Not inherent to the class itself.

Additionally, a Gnome in a mech would only see their armor, not their weapon, and when you're actually playing, you're only going to be seeing the back of the mech, nothing else.

Again, using Mekkatorque's mech as an example, you'll be easily able to see the character's back.

[Teriz]

You're making up this last part. The only "official" tinker that fights is Mekkatorque, and even then his title is simply political than a real representation of "player class". Hell, Blackfuse is even described as "engineer", not tinker.

I said "Warcraft universe" that includes WC3 and Heroes of the Storm.

Blizzard doesn't base new classes solely on hostile NPCs. There are many engineers of other races that are friendly to us that could be used as base, as well.

Yes I know, but based on previous class inclusions, the class in question has always had some level of representation in WoW before entering as a class. The only consistent tech-themed character we've encountered has been a Gnome and Goblin driving a mech suit.

You need a profession to make those glyphs first. They're not inherent to the class.

Aren't all of those glyphs "Druid-only"?

Race customization is not the same as 'class' customization. A similar comparison was if tech characters could select cybernetic limbs for their characters.

Actually in the case of DHs those are class customizations. A non-DH NE or BE doesn't have access to those customizations, which means that those customizations are class-specific.

Again, using Mekkatorque's mech as an example, you'll be easily able to see the character's back.

No you can't. You could barely see the top of his head.

[Ielenia]

I said "Warcraft universe" that includes WC3 and Heroes of the Storm.

HE never appears in any of the campaigns of the game, and Heroes of the Storm is not part of the Warcraft universe.

Yes I know, but based on previous class inclusions, the class in question has always had some level of representation in WoW before entering as a class. The only consistent tech-themed character we've encountered has been a Gnome and Goblin driving a mech suit.

Of course, we don't even know if a tech class will have a mech, at all, but as per your M.O., you just assume it as fact, eh?

Aren't all of those glyphs "Druid-only"?

Irrelevant. They're on inherent to the the class. It belongs to a profession.

No you can't. You could barely see the top of his head.

Take a good look at the last picture. The only one with Mekkatorque inside. Look how there's nothing behind his head, neck and half the shoulders. So, unless you keep your camera directly behind the characters head or below the neck, yes, you won't see his back. But, if like most people, you keep your camera above the shoulders, or even at bird's eye view, as how a lot of raiders do, then you can easily and clearly see the character's back.

[Teriz]

HE never appears in any of the campaigns of the game, and Heroes of the Storm is not part of the Warcraft universe.

The Goblin Tinker appears in WC3, so it exists.

Gazlowe represents the Warcraft universe in HotS. Further, HotS abilities have been transferred to WoW.

Of course, we don't even know if a tech class will have a mech, at all, but as per your M.O., you just assume it as fact, eh?

Well, the Goblin Tinker, Gazlowe's Tinker, and various Gnome and Goblin characters in WoW have all piloted mechs in a variety of ways. Thus it stands to reason that a Tinker class is going to involve a mech of some type. Additionally there is the expansion leak (though that isn't verified).

Irrelevant. They're on inherent to the the class. It belongs to a profession.

Yet it still represents a form of class customization.

Take a good look at the last picture. The only one with Mekkatorque inside. Look how there's nothing behind his head, neck and half the shoulders.

Except that large ridge between the shoulders that would obscure the back of the character.

So, unless you keep your camera directly behind the characters head or below the neck, yes, you won't see his back. But, if like most people, you keep your camera above the shoulders, or even at bird's eye view, as how a lot of raiders do, then you can easily and clearly see the character's back.

The majority of people don't raid though.

[Alydael]

- - - Updated - - -



I disagree. As I pointed out to someone else, Engineering and Tinkering have almost NOTHING in common. It's like comparing a bicycle to a car. Both have moving parts and tires, but the car is VASTLY superior with speed, power, tinsel strength and more. Same is said of the Mech Suits for tinkers. Tinkers (playable) should exist because of Engineering, and not in place of it.

I said to remove the engineering prof because it is struggling as a prof already- if tinkerers are added, it will just be redundant.

I don't think they will add tinkerers anytime soon. If they do, it will be with an x-pac that matches the theme- like the dk, monk and dh.

[Rhamses]

I said to remove the engineering prof because it is struggling as a prof already- if tinkerers are added, it will just be redundant.

I don't think they will add tinkerers anytime soon. If they do, it will be with an x-pac that matches the theme- like the dk, monk and dh.

Honestly, if they don't add Tinkers in an Azshara/N'Zoth expansion, I doubt they'll ever be added. That's the only expansion I could realistically see them added. You're simply not going to see an expansion revolving only around Gnomes and Goblins.

[Ielenia]

The Goblin Tinker appears in WC3, so it exists.

I don't remember seeing it anywhere in the official campaigns, therefore you can't claim it "exists" just because of that.

Gazlowe represents the Warcraft universe in HotS. Further, HotS abilities have been transferred to WoW.

Correlation does not imply causation. HotS is not canon to WoW.

Well, the Goblin Tinker,

Likely non-canon to the Warcraft story since he never appeared on any storyline.

Gazlowe's Tinker,

As far as I know he's just an enginner, and never rode any mech.

and various Gnome and Goblin characters in WoW have all piloted mechs in a variety of ways. Thus it stands to reason that a Tinker class is going to involve a mech of some type.

No, it doesn't. At best, opens up the possibility.

Except that large ridge between the shoulders that would obscure the back of the character.

Only if you situate your camera behind the character and looking up. The normal camera position easily allows to see the character's back.

The majority of people don't raid though.

Still it's a camera mode a huge lot of people use.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, if they don't add Tinkers in an Azshara/N'Zoth expansion, I doubt they'll ever be added. That's the only expansion I could realistically see them added. You're simply not going to see an expansion revolving only around Gnomes and Goblins.

The "only expansion they could realistically be added"... is an expansion which its main theme has nothing to do with technology at all. Amazing.

[Rhamses]

The "only expansion they could realistically be added"... is an expansion which its main theme has nothing to do with technology at all. Amazing.

Technology? No. However there would be a sizeable Goblin sub-theme.

[Thimagryn]

I don't remember seeing it anywhere in the official campaigns, therefore you can't claim it "exists" just because of that.

Firelord didn't appear in the official campaigns and exists in WoW despite any of that. Tinker isn't non-canon just because he's not in the official campaigns, that's not how it works. That's like saying Demon Hunters other than Illidan don't exist because they aren't in the campaign. Completely untrue.

[Ielenia]

Firelord didn't appear in the official campaigns and exists in WoW despite any of that.

You're getting it backwards. I'm not saying that just because the tinker didn't appear in the official campaigns of WoW and so is not canon, it doesn't mean he can never be made canon by Blizzard later. I'm just saying it's not canon right now. It doesn't stop it from becoming canon later.

[Theoris]

Hell yeah! Just look at the Tinkerer in Warcraft 3 (or Gazlowe in Heroes). If it's a hybrid class with where you don a mech suit (claws/chainsaws and lasers for dps and a heavy mech suit for tanking) I'd create one in a heartbeat.

[Elestia]

4th spec is more likely... Chronomancer mage (healer), Sanguine warlock (melee), Cleric priest (rdps), Ranger rogue (..rdps), Sensei monk (rdps), Ravager dh (melee dps), Earthwarden shaman (tank), Naturalist hunter (healer), Necromancer dk (rdps), Gladiator warrior (melee dps), shockadin paladin (rdps).

1:1:1:1 Jacks: Monk Sham Druid Paladin
2:11) Dual Option: Dk, Dh, Priest, Hunter
3:1 Specialists: Mage, Warlock, Warrior, Rogue

10/12 ranged
10/12 melee
7/12 tank
7/12 heal

[Rhamses]

4th spec is more likely... Chronomancer mage (healer), Sanguine warlock (melee), Cleric priest (rdps), Ranger rogue (..rdps), Sensei monk (rdps), Ravager dh (melee dps), Earthwarden shaman (tank), Naturalist hunter (healer), Necromancer dk (rdps), Gladiator warrior (melee dps), shockadin paladin (rdps).

1:1:1:1 Jacks: Monk Sham Druid Paladin
2:11) Dual Option: Dk, Dh, Priest, Hunter
3:1 Specialists: Mage, Warlock, Warrior, Rogue

10/12 ranged
10/12 melee
7/12 tank
7/12 heal

While I think that's awesome, I don't think it's "more likely". Adding specs to every class is like adding 4 classes to the game at once!

[Thimagryn]

You're getting it backwards. I'm not saying that just because the tinker didn't appear in the official campaigns of WoW and so is not canon, it doesn't mean he can never be made canon by Blizzard later. I'm just saying it's not canon right now. It doesn't stop it from becoming canon later.

They are literally represented by any Goblin/Gnome engineer NPC we have. The only difference is the archetype is not yet a playable class. Honestly, they're in the same boat as any Demon Hunter or Death Knight before they were introduced as a class. They exist in the world and have existed since Warcraft 3. The only thing that is missing is their formal introduction to the game; otherwise they are absolutely canon to the universe as Firelords or Pandaren.

Honestly, what do you even think Sicco Thermaplugg's class is? I'll give you a hint - the area you fight him in is called the Tinker's Court. Once the Tinker is announced and some backstory is given to both sides, we'll simply look back at characters like Thermaplugg and Blackfuse and say 'Oh right, they were there all along!'. They're literally under your nose, left waiting to be given a formal welcome as what we already know they are. Just because Blizzard hasn't outright named the classes of these NPCs (which is common) doesn't mean they are something completely different.