[Concept] Tinkerer Class

[Teriz]

It does make sense for the mech because, again, it falls in line with the game's established theme of technology, especially if it's a temporary ability. The cooldown timer then is the time it takes to repair itself.

Except in every cases where we've encountered a Tinker, the mech form isn't temporary. It's permanent.

A lion is still a lion even if you shave its mane and paint stripes on its body.

Which is like saying a Toyota Highlander is a Camry because it's built on the Camry's chasis.

Let's assume the tank spec goes within a mech all the time. What about those who don't like one or more of the characteristics of the gnomes and/or goblins mentioned above... but are not interested in playing tank? We're back to square one with that.

Every spec should be have a permanent mech form, and there should be a unique mech form for each spec.

- - - Updated - - -

The mech mounts also arent limited to Goblins and Gnomes. They are accessible to all races. No one would complain about mech mounts, but they would if they became exclusive to gnomes and gobbos.

Why would it suddenly become silly for Gnomes and Goblins to be inside mechs when people see squished Tauren, Draenei, Elves, etc. inside mechs?

Your argument doesn't add up.

Hunter is a popular class, but even with mech options they didnt make their populations skyrocket. They remain the least played races outside of Allied races. Look how extra customization did next to nothing to make them popular.

Yes because the Hunter class doesn't fit the Gnome or Goblin race. A class based on bows and arrows, befriending animals, traps, and using venom really doesn't mesh well with the sci-fi/industrial themes of the Goblin and Gnome races.

[Ielenia]

Except in every cases where we've encountered a Tinker, the mech form isn't temporary. It's permanent.

We already have a class with "permanent alternate forms for their specs". And if he's in a mech all the time, let me ask you this: what's the point of using weapons? Monks at least utilize their weapons every now and then, and you can make the argument that the magic within the staves and other weapons druid use empower their forms. But a technological class like the tinker? What would be the point of weapons?

Which is like saying a Toyota Highlander is a Camry because it's built on the Camry's chasis.

The example doesn't really work since the Highlander is a SUV and the Camry is just a simple sedan. The Highlander is not a "simple chasis change and paintjob". Point being is that there was a face instead of that shield on Gelbin's mech you wouldn't have any trouble calling it a "shredder".

Every spec should be have a permanent mech form, and there should be a unique mech form for each spec.

Sorry, mate. Stepping too much on the druid's toes. He's the one with the "one form for each spec" shtick. And again: the mech form being just a cooldown falls in line with how technology is portrayed in WoW. Following up on what you wrote here in response to @Directionalk9 when he mentioned Gelbin's mech malfunctioning, and you said you interpreted that as "malfunctioning because his steam armor was badly damaged"... guess what would happen to your tinker's mech as you're being beat on over and over and over and over as you tank a heavy-hitting enemy or a big group of enemies? Yeah. Your mech is going to be badly damaged.

Why would it suddenly become silly for Gnomes and Goblins to be inside mechs when people see squished Tauren, Draenei, Elves, etc. inside mechs?

Your argument doesn't add up.

And it doesn't look silly when gnomes/goblins and their mounts are enlarged when they mount up?

Yes because the Hunter class doesn't fit the Gnome or Goblin race. A class based on bows and arrows, (1) befriending animals, (2) traps, and using venom (3) really doesn't mesh well with the sci-fi/industrial themes of the Goblin and Gnome races.

(1) And guns. Which you could transmog into if you are using a bow/x-bow;
(2) And animal-shaped robots;
(3) Pretend it's acid.

[Grevmak]

I'm a big supporter of tinker as a class, but I think we could use atleast 1 spec that uses ranged weapons.

We only have 2 specs left in the game that use ranged weapons, having a 3rd atleast would be neat. Not for any logical reasons, I just like guns and Crossbows on classes, and a Machinist type RDD would be swell.

[Teriz]

We already have a class with "permanent alternate forms for their specs".

Transforming into animals =/= Piloting a mech.

And if he's in a mech all the time, let me ask you this: what's the point of using weapons? Monks at least utilize their weapons every now and then, and you can make the argument that the magic within the staves and other weapons druid use empower their forms. But a technological class like the tinker? What would be the point of weapons?

Weapons would just be stat sticks just like in the Druid class. In my class write I came up with a system called Deconstruction where Tinkers break down weapons into energy cells to power the weapon systems of their mechs. Abilities would be embedded in the forms, just like the Druid class.

The example doesn't really work since the Highlander is a SUV and the Camry is just a simple sedan. The Highlander is not a "simple chasis change and paintjob". Point being is that there was a face instead of that shield on Gelbin's mech you wouldn't have any trouble calling it a "shredder".

Toyota used the chassis from a sedan and made an suv. Mekkatorque took the designs of the shredder and made an entirely new mech.

Sorry, mate. Stepping too much on the druid's toes. He's the one with the "one form for each spec" shtick. And again: the mech form being just a cooldown falls in line with how technology is portrayed in WoW. Following up on what you wrote here in response to @Directionalk9 when he mentioned Gelbin's mech malfunctioning, and you said you interpreted that as "malfunctioning because his steam armor was badly damaged"... guess what would happen to your tinker's mech as you're being beat on over and over and over and over as you tank a heavy-hitting enemy or a big group of enemies? Yeah. Your mech is going to be badly damaged.

Yes, and if you keep taking damage, you're going to die.

And it doesn't look silly when gnomes/goblins and their mounts are enlarged when they mount up?

The Goblin or Gnome wouldn't be enlarged. They would simply be portrayed as regular sized Gnomes/Goblins atop a war frame.

(1) And guns. Which you could transmog into if you are using a bow/x-bow;
(2) And animal-shaped robots;
(3) Pretend it's acid.

Yes, a gun that utilizes abilities clearly derived from animals. And it's pretty hard to pretend that the venom is "acid" with names like Serpent Sting or Spider Venom.

The point is, when you envision a Ranger or a Hunter in the forest, you envision an Elf, a Night Elf, or Rexxar. You don't envision a Gnome or a Goblin. Thus it's not surprising that giving Gnomes Hunters didn't bump their population numbers much.

[Ielenia]

Transforming into animals =/= Piloting a mech.

Except I didn't say "transforms into animals", I said "permanent alternate forms for their specs". In this case, we could have a class based on perma-transforming into plans beings. Or perma-transforming into elementals. Or aberrations. Or demons.

The point is: we already have a class in which its 'shtick' is fighting while staying permanently in alternate forms.

Weapons would just be stat sticks just like in the Druid class.

But what would be the lore justification?

In my class write I came up with a system called Deconstruction where Tinkers break down weapons into energy cells to power the weapon systems of their mechs. Abilities would be embedded in the forms, just like the Druid class.

You cannot have a class "destroy" an item.

Toyota used the chassis from a sedan and made an suv. Mekkatorque took the designs of the shredder and made an entirely new mech.

One, it's not "entirely new" if he's using something that already exists. Second, let me ask you this: what makes a shredder... a shredder? What characteristics do one mech needs to have to be called one?

Yes, and if you keep taking damage, you're going to die.

... You completely missed (or deliberately avoided) the point...

The Goblin or Gnome wouldn't be enlarged. They would simply be portrayed as regular sized Gnomes/Goblins atop a war frame.

... You completely missed (or deliberately avoided) the point... 2.0

You said the races would have to be shrunk to fit the mechs. Guess what? They are already shrunk to fit certain mounts. Tauren, for example, have been shrunk slightly for years. And gnomes and goblins have been enlarged for years on mounts.

The point is, when you envision a Ranger or a Hunter in the forest, you envision an Elf, a Night Elf, or Rexxar. You don't envision a Gnome or a Goblin.

Funny. When I envision an archer, I imagine an elf, a human or a dwarf, wielding either a bow or a gun. Forests never enter the 'equation', for me.

Thus it's not surprising that giving Gnomes Hunters didn't bump their population numbers much.

It's also not surprising considering how a decent number of people seem to dislike the visuals (which I'm assuming include animations and voices) of the gnome and goblin races.

[Triceron]

Why would it suddenly become silly for Gnomes and Goblins to be inside mechs when people see squished Tauren, Draenei, Elves, etc. inside mechs?

Combat forms can take up larger size, slightly smaller than Warframes Id say. That would work for all races. No need to scale, just as Warframes already work.

Tauren sized mechs are too small. You know photoshop right? Im sure you can mock something up and show us all how it looks next to tauren.

Yes because the Hunter class doesn't fit the Gnome or Goblin race. A class based on bows and arrows, befriending animals, traps, and using venom really doesn't mesh well with the sci-fi/industrial themes of the Goblin and Gnome races.

Engineering makes techy bows and guns and Hunter is the only class that uses them. How is that not fitting?

[Teriz]

Except I didn't say "transforms into animals", I said "permanent alternate forms for their specs". In this case, we could have a class based on perma-transforming into plans beings. Or perma-transforming into elementals. Or aberrations. Or demons.

The point is: we already have a class in which its 'shtick' is fighting while staying permanently in alternate forms.

And we have multiple classes that can temporarily transform into other forms. Only Druids can transform permanently.

Also I find it odd that you view this as an issue when you were arguing for a Necromancer class earlier that could also summon undead minions just like the current DK class. At least with the Tinker the concept is different.

But what would be the lore justification?

The weapon is the mech itself.

You cannot have a class "destroy" an item.

We have a profession that does it. What's wrong with a class that does it?

One, it's not "entirely new" if he's using something that already exists. Second, let me ask you this: what makes a shredder... a shredder? What characteristics do one mech needs to have to be called one?

You mean outside of physical appearance? Shredders also utilize large buzzsaw. Gelbin's mech neither looks like a shredder or utilizes saws.

... You completely missed (or deliberately avoided) the point...


... You completely missed (or deliberately avoided) the point... 2.0

Uh huh.

You said the races would have to be shrunk to fit the mechs. Guess what? They are already shrunk to fit certain mounts. Tauren, for example, have been shrunk slightly for years. And gnomes and goblins have been enlarged for years on mounts.

I'm not seeing the relevancy of this argument. Obviously if Blizzard designs mech forms for Tinkers we'd be talking about a completely different model than the mounts. The POINT is that Gnomes and Goblins in mech form would not be small.

Funny. When I envision an archer, I imagine an elf, a human or a dwarf, wielding either a bow or a gun. Forests never enter the 'equation', for me.

Forests enter the equation for me because of the Night Elves and the animal companions.

It's also not surprising considering how a decent number of people seem to dislike the visuals (which I'm assuming include animations and voices) of the gnome and goblin races.

[/quote]

That's right, but the general WoW userbase seems to like the visuals associated with Gnomes and Goblins in mocha. Again, Mekkatorque on broken shore was well received, and is part of the reason the Tinker is the leading future class concept.

- - - Updated - - -

Combat forms can take up larger size, slightly smaller than Warframes Id say. That would work for all races. No need to scale, just as Warframes already work.

There's a hard limit to the size that a character in WoW can be. You cant make a character huge because they wouldn't be able to fit in some doors or tunnels. Again, you can make Gnomes/Goblins the size of fully armored Male Draenei or Tauren an it works because it's a significant size change.

Engineering makes techy bows and guns and Hunter is the only class that uses them. How is that not fitting?

That's fitting for Engineering. That isn't fitting for the Tinker.

[Ielenia]

And we have multiple classes that can temporarily transform into other forms. Only Druids can transform permanently.

Because that's the druid's "thing".

Also I find it odd that you view this as an issue when you were arguing for a Necromancer class earlier that could also summon undead minions just like the current DK class. At least with the Tinker the concept is different.

Apples and oranges. Your class idea not only would be doing the exact same things as the druid class (melee/ranged/tank/healer) and would also be staying in permanent forms in their specs. Literally the druid class with just a different coat of paint.

The weapon is the mech itself.

That's not what I asked. What's the lore justification for a wielding this new magic weapon that they looted from a downed enemy?

We have a profession that does it. What's wrong with a class that does it?

One: because a destroyed weapon doesn't count for your overall item level;
Two: because a destroyed weapon doesn't count for your class' overall stats;
Three: because there is no real reasoning to implement such a wasteful feature.

You mean outside of physical appearance? Shredders also utilize large buzzsaw. Gelbin's mech neither looks like a shredder or utilizes saws.

"Looks like a shredder"? Yes, it does. The overall frame shape and animations all look like one. So basically the only defining features for it to be a "shredder" is to have a saw on one of its arms?

I'm not seeing the relevancy of this argument. Obviously if Blizzard designs mech forms for Tinkers we'd be talking about a completely different model than the mounts. The POINT is that Gnomes and Goblins in mech form would not be small.

The point is that Blizzard has been enlarging/shrinking races' models to fit certain situations and mounts. There is no issue at all if larger races get shrunk a little when getting into big mounts, so there will be no issue to make the larger shrink a bit to fit in a mech.

That's right, but the general WoW userbase seems to like the visuals associated with Gnomes and Goblins in mocha. Again, Mekkatorque on broken shore was well received, and is part of the reason the Tinker is the leading future class concept.

Apples and oranges. Just because the players liked how Gelbin was presented in the spotlight, that does not mean they like gnomes and now want to play as one in a mech.

I too like how Gelbin's mech looks, and liked how he got some attention in BoD. Buuuut... I still don't like gnomes and goblins. I'd never play one because I dislike their visuals, which includes their voices and animations. And no, "being in a mech" would not fix that one bit since there'll still be a fugly midget staring right at me in the character selection screen.

[Teriz]

Because that's the druid's "thing".

Shapeshifting into animals is the Druid's thing. Piloting mechanical vehicles is not a Druid's thing. Just like Shaman transforming into Elementals does not impede on Demon Hunters transforming into demons.

Apples and oranges. Your class idea not only would be doing the exact same things as the druid class (melee/ranged/tank/healer) and would also be staying in permanent forms in their specs. Literally the druid class with just a different coat of paint.

Actually in my class idea there's only three mech based specs. Additionally the mechanical theme lends a mech based Tinker to abilities that the Druid can't do.

That's not what I asked. What's the lore justification for a wielding this new magic weapon that they looted from a downed enemy?

Who said its magic? It's technology that breaks down the magical properties of the weapon and transforms it into energy for the mech.

One: because a destroyed weapon doesn't count for your overall item level;
Two: because a destroyed weapon doesn't count for your class' overall stats;
Three: because there is no real reasoning to implement such a wasteful feature.

So you're saying that Blizzard couldn't simply allow the ability to retain the destroyed weapons item level and stats? Like for example, you deconstruct a level 300 weapon and your equip screen has the created Energy cell in your weapon slot that has the level and stats of the weapon you deconstructed. You could sell the energy cell to a vendor for the price of the destroyed weapon, and you can have multiple energy cells in your bag if you want to swap stats.

In other words, stop being silly.

"Looks like a shredder"? Yes, it does. The overall frame shape and animations all look like one. So basically the only defining features for it to be a "shredder" is to have a saw on one of its arms?

So basically in your mind every sedan is the same regardless of make and model because it has four doors, four wheels, a steering wheel, and a 4-6 cylinder engine.....

The point is that Blizzard has been enlarging/shrinking races' models to fit certain situations and mounts. There is no issue at all if larger races get shrunk a little when getting into big mounts, so there will be no issue to make the larger shrink a bit to fit in a mech.

Okay, so what does that have to do with Gnomes and Goblins not being short while riding atop of mechs?

Apples and oranges. Just because the players liked how Gelbin was presented in the spotlight, that does not mean they like gnomes and now want to play as one in a mech.

I would say the recent poll where the Tinker rolled over all other class concepts says otherwise.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

I too like how Gelbin's mech looks, and liked how he got some attention in BoD. Buuuut... I still don't like gnomes and goblins. I'd never play one because I dislike their visuals, which includes their voices and animations. And no, "being in a mech" would not fix that one bit since there'll still be a fugly midget staring right at me in the character selection screen.

And you don't speak for everyone.

[wanax]

I know personally if my character were in a mech all the time I’d at least want to see the cool weapon I picked up. There’s no reason the mechs can’t hold and use the same weapons as their heavy allies(war pal DK). So then the mech electrifies or flame coats their weapon or shield.(Honestly I’d make that effect like a stance or something for the whole class. Ex. Tank coats their shield in frost oil and it slows enemies attacks.) It makes a lot more sense than “hey Leroy here’s this Uber weapon that you’re going to make into a gem.”

[Teriz]

I know personally if my character were in a mech all the time I’d at least want to see the cool weapon I picked up. There’s no reason the mechs can’t hold and use the same weapons as their heavy allies(war pal DK). So then the mech electrifies or flame coats their weapon or shield.(Honestly I’d make that effect like a stance or something for the whole class. Ex. Tank coats their shield in frost oil and it slows enemies attacks.) It makes a lot more sense than “hey Leroy here’s this Uber weapon that you’re going to make into a gem.”

Because a weapon isn't necessary when you have weapons within the mech itself. For example, a mech could have an arm that turns into a buzz saw or a flamethrower. That wouldn't make much sense if its holding a mace.

Druid players dont mind this situation at all.

[Ielenia]

Shapeshifting into animals is the Druid's thing. Piloting mechanical vehicles is not a Druid's thing. Just like Shaman transforming into Elementals does not impede on Demon Hunters transforming into demons.

But the druid does impede on another class being in "permanent alternate forms" in their specs. The shaman doesn't impede on the demon hunter because the demon hunter is themed around turning into demons, while the Shaman only has it as a talent.

Actually in my class idea there's only three mech based specs. Additionally the mechanical theme lends a mech based Tinker to abilities that the Druid can't do.

Like what? "Firing missiles"? "Flamethrower"? "Deploying robot pets"? You know things like "missile", "robot pets", "fire ball", "shadow bolt", etc.. are all "coats of paint", right? There's no mechanical difference between "deploying robot pets" and "summoning treants". The only difference, again, is the "coat of paint".

Who said its magic? It's technology that breaks down the magical properties of the weapon and transforms it into energy for the mech.

So you're saying that Blizzard couldn't simply allow the ability to retain the destroyed weapons item level and stats? Like for example, you deconstruct a level 300 weapon and your equip screen has the created Energy cell in your weapon slot that has the level and stats of the weapon you deconstructed. You could sell the energy cell to a vendor for the price of the destroyed weapon, and you can have multiple energy cells in your bag if you want to swap stats.

I'll make your own words mine:

Sounds gimmicky and pointless tbqh.

Or is it not "gimmicky and pointless" when you're the one positing the idea? (I.E. double standards)

Okay, so what does that have to do with Gnomes and Goblins not being short while riding atop of mechs?

Ask yourself. You're the one who created the strawman.

I would say the recent poll where the Tinker rolled over all other class concepts says otherwise.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

Apples and oranges. I said that the claim that seeing Gelbin in a mech made people previously uninterested want to play a gnome tinker now. Your link does nothing to debunk or support what you said.

And you don't speak for everyone.

Unlike you, I don't act like I do.

- - - Updated - - -

Druid players dont mind this situation at all.

You love making claims based on nothing but your own biases, don't you?

[wanax]

Because a weapon isn't necessary when you have weapons within the mech itself. For example, a mech could have an arm that turns into a buzz saw or a flamethrower. That wouldn't make much sense if its holding a mace.

Druid players dont mind this situation at all.

But Druid players still mog their weapons even though you can’t see them in bear/cat. That and that was one of the perks for Artifacts for them was they got to choose a cosmetic look for their combat form.

[Teriz]

But the druid does impede on another class being in "permanent alternate forms" in their specs. The shaman doesn't impede on the demon hunter because the demon hunter is themed around turning into demons, while the Shaman only has it as a talent.

It doesnt impede on it because one is elemental and the other is demonic, and come from vastly different themes.

The same applies to Void Form, Shadow Form, and Avatar.

It should be noted again that shapeshifting into animals and piloting a vehicle are two very different themes.

Like what? "Firing missiles"? "Flamethrower"? "Deploying robot pets"? You know things like "missile", "robot pets", "fire ball", "shadow bolt", etc.. are all "coats of paint", right? There's no mechanical difference between "deploying robot pets" and "summoning treants". The only difference, again, is the "coat of paint".

Where did I say mechanical differences? I just said different abilities. Besides, we both know you'd create some nonsensical excuse as to why something mechanically different than what's currently in the game wouldn't work anyway.

I'll make your own words mine:

Or is it not "gimmicky and pointless" when you're the one positing the idea? (I.E. double standards)

The point of it is to allow Tinkers to utilize the WoW weapon system and still use the innate weapons of the mech.

Ask yourself. You're the one who created the strawman.

And you're the one who cant seem to figure out that a gnome/goblin inside a mech would be taller than a gnome or goblin outside of mech form.

Apples and oranges. I said that the claim that seeing Gelbin in a mech made people previously uninterested want to play a gnome tinker now. Your link does nothing to debunk or support what you said.

It shows that the Tinker is by far the most popular future class concept. It wouldn't have that status if people thought it was silly, unplayable, or not worth doing.

Unlike you, I don't act like I do.

Your quoted comment says otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

But Druid players still mog their weapons even though you can’t see them in bear/cat. That and that was one of the perks for Artifacts for them was they got to choose a cosmetic look for their combat form.

And Blizzard could implement a deeper, yet similar system that customizes your mech in place of a weapon transmog.
For example, you could change the appearance of your Buster Cannon, or Arm Blade depending on your weapon's item level or some other stat.

If it's truly that big of a deal, then the Tinker can retain the weapon and just use it as a stat stick.

[Ielenia]

It doesnt impede on it because one is elemental and the other is demonic, and come from vastly different themes.

The same applies to Void Form, Shadow Form, and Avatar.

Void form is spec-restricted.So is shadow form. Avatar is not a transformation, just making the character larger.

It should be noted again that shapeshifting into animals and piloting a vehicle are two very different themes.

No, "theme" alone does not seem to be enough warrant its own class, considering all classes are mechanically different from each other.

Where did I say mechanical differences? I just said different abilities.

"Abilities" can only be different from each other in two ways: mechanically, and thematically (i.e. 'coat of paint').

The point of it is to allow Tinkers to utilize the WoW weapon system and still use the innate weapons of the mech.

Still too "gimmicky and pointless" considering the other possible alternatives.

And you're the one who cant seem to figure out that a gnome/goblin inside a mech would be taller than a gnome or goblin outside of mech form.

I'm not. You're just confusing me with your strawman.

It shows that the Tinker is by far the most popular future class concept.

Which is irrelevant considering your original claim, that people want to play gnome tinkers "because they saw Gelbin in a mech".

Your quoted comment says otherwise.

Oh, you mean the quote where I speak for myself and only myself? After all, this is what you quoted:

I too like how Gelbin's mech looks, and liked how he got some attention in BoD. Buuuut... I still don't like gnomes and goblins. I'd never play one because I dislike their visuals, which includes their voices and animations. And no, "being in a mech" would not fix that one bit since there'll still be a fugly midget staring right at me in the character selection screen.

[Fabinas]

Not again......

[Teriz]

Void form is spec-restricted.So is shadow form. Avatar is not a transformation, just making the character larger.

Ascendance, Metamorphosis, and SFE forms are also spec restricted. Avatar literally has the word "transform" in the description, and you change into a stone-like version of your character.

No, "theme" alone does not seem to be enough warrant its own class, considering all classes are mechanically different from each other.

How are they mechanically different from each other when you just argued that every ability within every class are just graphical swaps of each other?

"Abilities" can only be different from each other in two ways: mechanically, and thematically (i.e. 'coat of paint').

And a Tinker's abilities would be both mechanically and thematically different than a Druid's.

Still too "gimmicky and pointless" considering the other possible alternatives.

You're welcome to your opinion.

I'm not. You're just confusing me with your strawman.

I'm sorry that a Goblin or a Gnome being higher up while riding a mech is too complicated for you to understand.

Which is irrelevant considering your original claim, that people want to play gnome tinkers "because they saw Gelbin in a mech".

And I've already explained how it's relevant.

Oh, you mean the quote where I speak for myself and only myself? After all, this is what you quoted:

If you're only speaking for yourself, then the comment is irrelevant. Good to know.

[Ielenia]

Ascendance, Metamorphosis, and SFE forms are also spec restricted. Avatar literally has the word "transform" in the description, and you change into a stone-like version of your character.

Ascendance and metamorphosis are available to all specs of the shaman and demon hunter. Shadow and Void form are restricted to the shadow priest spec only.

How are they mechanically different from each other when you just argued that every ability within every class are just graphical swaps of each other?

I didn't. Your strawman did, though.

And a Tinker's abilities would be both mechanically and thematically different than a Druid's.

"Turning into a bear" is not mechanically different than "piloting a mech". Both are mechanically identical: a new "permanent-until-toggled-off" form for your character.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Considering you think that having your mech explode and deal damage when the ability timer runs out is "too gimmicky and pointless" but think that "destroying weapons to power up your abilities and creating an "energy cell" in its place" is not "too gimmicky and pointless"...

I'm sorry that a Goblin or a Gnome being higher up while riding a mech is too complicated for you to understand.

Please stop intentionally "mistaking" me with your strawman, Teriz. You're literally making shit up and putting words in my proverbial mouth, here.

And I've already explained how it's relevant.

No, you went off on an irrelevant tangent. Nothing you said or linked to even comes close to back your claim that "seeing Gelbin in a mech made more people want to play a gnome tinker."

If you're only speaking for yourself, then the comment is irrelevant. Good to know.

It's not. You're just dodging the issue here, that you're acting as if you speak for everyone.

[Teriz]

Ascendance and metamorphosis are available to all specs of the shaman and demon hunter. Shadow and Void form are restricted to the shadow priest spec only.

Ascendance and Metamorphosis have different forms and different attributes/abilities per their respective specs.

I didn't. Your strawman did, though.

So you didn't just say that abilities like Fireball and Shadowbolt are just "coats of paint"?

"Turning into a bear" is not mechanically different than "piloting a mech". Both are mechanically identical: a new "permanent-until-toggled-off" form for your character.

They're only mechanically identical because I chose to use the Druid shapeshifting mechanic for the Tinker class to avoid trolls like yourself from saying that it isn't viable. Blizzard could obviously find a different way to mechanically implement the concept. If they DO choose to go the easy route and just copy the Druid mechanic, there's still abilities like Self-Destruct, Pocket Factory, Protective Frenzy, Salvager, etc. that would be mechanically different than what's in the Druid class.

Considering you think that having your mech explode and deal damage when the ability timer runs out is "too gimmicky and pointless" but think that "destroying weapons to power up your abilities and creating an "energy cell" in its place" is not "too gimmicky and pointless"...

I think having a Cooldown for a mech when the concept calls for a permanent mech form is gimmicky and pointless. It's a problem that doesn't exist and doesn't need to be solved. The Tinker having to utilize the WoW weapon system while being a class that uses Mechs as weapons is a dilemma that needs to be solved and deconstruction solves that dilemma quite well.

Please stop intentionally "mistaking" me with your strawman, Teriz. You're literally making shit up and putting words in my proverbial mouth, here.

So now you're saying that you're NOT confused about Goblins and Gnomes being higher up while piloting a mech? Please make up your mind.

No, you went off on an irrelevant tangent. Nothing you said or linked to even comes close to back your claim that "seeing Gelbin in a mech made more people want to play a gnome tinker."

I think the fact that the Tinker, (a concept that revolves around a Goblin or Gnome piloting a robot suit) is more popular than Necromancers and Dark Rangers backs up my claim quite well.

It's not. You're just dodging the issue here, that you're acting as if you speak for everyone.

So now what you personally like or dislike is relevant in a discussion about a potential future WoW class? Okay......

[wanax]

It doesnt impede on it because one is elemental and the other is demonic, and come from vastly different themes.

The same applies to Void Form, Shadow Form, and Avatar.

It should be noted again that shapeshifting into animals and piloting a vehicle are two very different themes.




Where did I say mechanical differences? I just said different abilities. Besides, we both know you'd create some nonsensical excuse as to why something mechanically different than what's currently in the game wouldn't work anyway.




The point of it is to allow Tinkers to utilize the WoW weapon system and still use the innate weapons of the mech.


And you're the one who cant seem to figure out that a gnome/goblin inside a mech would be taller than a gnome or goblin outside of mech form.



It shows that the Tinker is by far the most popular future class concept. It wouldn't have that status if people thought it was silly, unplayable, or not worth doing.



Your quoted comment says otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -



And Blizzard could implement a deeper, yet similar system that customizes your mech in place of a weapon transmog.
For example, you could change the appearance of your Buster Cannon, or Arm Blade depending on your weapon's item level or some other stat.

If it's truly that big of a deal, then the Tinker can retain the weapon and just use it as a stat stick.

So stuck as a gnome or goblin. No weapon to worry about and no way to customize your mech you’re stuck in. Cool. Sounds awful.