1. #2001
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by StillMcfuu View Post
    I think with the realization that a 4th spec may actually be pretty possible, it lends more to a Tinker spec getting added to possibly Hunter.
    There simply isnt enough material in each class to make viable 4th specs. Also it would be a balancing nightmare, and some specs like DHs and Druids wouldn't get them.

    Also I'm pretty sure Ion said it wasn't happening.

  2. #2002
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    If 4th specs get added, Dark Ranger is much more likely as a 4th Hunter Spec than Tinker. Of course then we'll still be sighing over Hunter being 4 DPS specs and once again having 3 ranged specs.
    dark ranger is a dead person that come back to life so dark ranger wont work only ranger

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by protip View Post
    Yeah, if humans find that fighting with technology is the best way forward, they'll do it. They're not as intelligent as other races, so it might not be as natural of a transition, but sure. As with Blood Elves, again, if technology is what they need to survive, they'll figure it out. I don't disagree. Both of these races need a reason to look towards technology but already have established cultures and fighting styles that focus on other things. This is why it matters that vulpera are interested in everything that they find, and have been easy to take advantage of in the past. They don't have successful combat traditions and are interested in finding new ones.



    Survivalists in Mad Max use loads of technology. Tinkers are combatants who use technology (as I said in the text you're responding to). You don't have to be Tony Stark to be Iron Man, you have to be Tony Stark to make Iron Man. Here is your reference:




    I honestly don't think you even read what I wrote. Asking for something is not the same as wanting something. Features that are easier to implement are more likely to be added to the game. I don't see how you can find any issue with this statement unless you're trolling.
    well we already got captain america in paladin and survival hunter based on a survival movie and series so wuld not suprise me if they did this with a tinker spec

    - - - Updated - - -

    wonder when we get final girl based spec warrior or rouge

  3. #2003
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    If 4th specs get added, Dark Ranger is much more likely as a 4th Hunter Spec than Tinker. Of course then we'll still be sighing over Hunter being 4 DPS specs and once again having 3 ranged specs.
    If, and that's a big IF dark Rangers become a spec, it would make more sense as a rogue spec. I'm still firmly in the camp that dark ranger isn't a class/spec it's merely a faction/ group. They are just undead elf farstriders which makes them mm hunters for the most part.

  4. #2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    There simply isnt enough material in each class to make viable 4th specs. Also it would be a balancing nightmare, and some specs like DHs and Druids wouldn't get them.

    Also I'm pretty sure Ion said it wasn't happening.
    The beauty of it is that they don't need to balance it. Balance is what's killing the game.

  5. #2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    There simply isnt enough material in each class to make viable 4th specs. Also it would be a balancing nightmare, and some specs like DHs and Druids wouldn't get them.

    Also I'm pretty sure Ion said it wasn't happening.
    Not everyone would get them, only classes where it would make sense, shaman get shadowhunter, mage chronomancer, warrior spellbreaker, etc... druid obviously doesn't get one, I don't think paladin or priest would get one, neither would dh.

    From a purely assets stand point it would be easier to add a couple of specs vs a class because of the trainer creation, art assets, etc...

  6. #2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Let's try this again: True or False: The three expansion classes are based on WC3 heroes and units, and all contain WC3 abilities.
    True or false: three expansion classes fit to be themed around the expansion they are introduced in.

  7. #2007
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Usernameforforums View Post
    True or false: three expansion classes fit to be themed around the expansion they are introduced in.
    And it will be Blizzard who decides what "fits". If we have a shadow expansion and Blizzard believes that Tinkers fit in that expansion, that's just the way it is.

    That said, I don't think a Gnome/Goblin centric expansion is out of the question. It's a running secondary theme in BFA.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2019-10-17 at 10:34 PM.

  8. #2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    It sure is.
    I'm basing my guess and believes on current storylines, hints and guesses on what Blizzard would consider the most marketable and popular. And all of it leads to a death-themed expansion with a high focus on the Lich King, Sylvanas and a possible return of Arthas. All the hints and current plotlines point towards death and with the last rather unpopular expansion, Blizz pulled out a full fanservice heavy expansion. This are strong arguments. You on the other hand make no arguments why a tech-themed expansion which would allow a Tinker-Class is likely for 9.0. Your circle around with unfounded statements about how popular gnomes are despite being the least played race and discuss around the certainty with which I make my guess.

    So, okay. I take my former statement back and say that based on the currently running plotlines introduced in BFA, the hints introduced on BFA, the datamining and player appeal, a death-themed expansion with the Lichking and Sylvanas as core characters would be, in my opinion, highly likely. On the basis of this, I guess that the next class will be death-themed as classes so far always fit the theme of the expansions.

    So, now make your argument in favor of an expansion which would fit the Tinker class. No escape route for you, what are your arguments for a tech-themed expansion? Because looking at 11 year old trends, no tech-themed expansion, no tech-themed class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And it will be Blizzard who decides what "fits". If we have a shadow expansion and Blizzard believes that Tinkers fit in that expansion, that's just the way it is
    That is not an argument. That is your wishfulfillment and hammering down on your believe that Tinker will be the next class without any argument to support your guess.

  9. #2009
    Quote Originally Posted by StillMcfuu View Post
    If, and that's a big IF dark Rangers become a spec, it would make more sense as a rogue spec. I'm still firmly in the camp that dark ranger isn't a class/spec it's merely a faction/ group. They are just undead elf farstriders which makes them mm hunters for the most part.
    yea and tinkers are just adventurers who learn engineering and ride their robot mounts from mechagon.

  10. #2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiza View Post
    Because looking at 11 year old trends, no tech-themed expansion, no tech-themed class.
    This argument is pretty weak. With a sample size of 3, even assuming only a 50% chance of the outcome you describe, the probability of seeing the same outcome 3 times in a row is 12.5%. That's assuming that Blizzard isn't accounting for Edgelord class fatigue, what players are requesting most, any perceived value in matching the new class to the expansion theme, or anything else.

    Let's say that matching the expansion theme is pretty important at 75% chance of determining the class theme. At this point you have a 42.2% chance of getting the same outcome 3 times in a row, and still having a 25% chance for something else the next time you roll.

  11. #2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragtox View Post
    dark ranger is a dead person that come back to life so dark ranger wont work only ranger

    - - - Updated - - -



    well we already got captain america in paladin and survival hunter based on a survival movie and series so wuld not suprise me if they did this with a tinker spec

    - - - Updated - - -

    wonder when we get final girl based spec warrior or rouge
    Well, yeah, I know that. But if they're going to open it up to make it a class, I don't see why they wouldn't just make it a spec instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by StillMcfuu View Post
    If, and that's a big IF dark Rangers become a spec, it would make more sense as a rogue spec. I'm still firmly in the camp that dark ranger isn't a class/spec it's merely a faction/ group. They are just undead elf farstriders which makes them mm hunters for the most part.
    I'm very confused about you contradicting yourself. You say they are undead elf farstriders (which is true for the most part) which basically makes them Marksmanship Hunters, but then say they'd make more sense as a Rogue spec? I mean, once again, they're literally a subset of hunter or, even more specifically a subset of a subset of hunter.

  12. #2012
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    People were saying that BFA was going to be about Azerite during 7.2.5? Wheres your proof?
    Strawman. That is not what I said. Your strawman was even laid bare by the very part of my post that you quoted.

    The real point is that if there was no Brewmaster in WC3 there wouldn't be a Monk class as it currently exists.
    It would likely still exist mostly as it currently is, only without the pandaren influence. Because the basis of the class is the RPG trope of the oriental monk, and not the brewmaster. Further evidence of this is that the class' name is not "brewmaster".

    It would more than likely be a Runemaster or some derivative of th.ce Paladin and Priest class.
    Says you.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  13. #2013
    Quote Originally Posted by StillMcfuu View Post
    If, and that's a big IF dark Rangers become a spec, it would make more sense as a rogue spec. I'm still firmly in the camp that dark ranger isn't a class/spec it's merely a faction/ group. They are just undead elf farstriders which makes them mm hunters for the most part.
    dark ranger makes no sense as rouge or hunter spec
    dark ranger is not marksman marksman = rifleman and sniper thing
    bfa are basing ability to much on ranger night elf, high elf ability meens they based on bow wich works so diffrent in warcraft universe then how a gun works
    so ability like rapid fire and barrage looks really weird on gun and crossbow

    i said this earlier there is a deep problem in hunter weapon is one of them
    thats meens we need ranger/dark ranger/void ranger and tinker as its own class to help hunter identity

    yes all those 3 rangers is a thing alleria windrunner is a void ranger at this stage

    dark ranger is on the same theme as death knight wich is why it will never be a hunter or rouge
    but are not the same class as death knight but dark ranger = dead person revived as banshee

    sylvanas have pretty much looked for diffrent power to make herself immortal so cant base dark ranger on sylvanas fully wich meen we are back to elf locked raced like demon hunter

    wich meens dark ranger needs to be based around nathanos


    so argument on how simlair stuff is deeper on a problem

    hunter with full of night elf bow base ability but you are playing a race like orc or dwarf its gona look really wierd

    another fix is to give every class their own raced ability on all classes but that be a big change so who knows but they probly wont do it
    but even changes classes to fit their race more wont fix how diffrent the ranged weapon works compare to each other
    while melee weapon are to simlair
    since we have not start on whip and chain on ball type of weapon to be its own weapon just a skin on the basic type of melee weapons
    Last edited by Dragtox; 2019-10-17 at 11:15 PM.

  14. #2014
    Quote Originally Posted by protip View Post
    Yeah, if humans find that fighting with technology is the best way forward, they'll do it. They're not as intelligent as other races, so it might not be as natural of a transition, but sure. As with Blood Elves, again, if technology is what they need to survive, they'll figure it out. I don't disagree. Both of these races need a reason to look towards technology but already have established cultures and fighting styles that focus on other things. This is why it matters that vulpera are interested in everything that they find, and have been easy to take advantage of in the past. They don't have successful combat traditions and are interested in finding new ones.
    The problem here is that you seem to be equating "race is viable to be tinker" = "race must be technology-focused", which is a false assumption to make. Trolls and worgen aren't nature-oriented races, and yet they can be druids. Orcs aren't an arcane-focused race, but they can be mages. Etc, etc.

    Survivalists in Mad Max use loads of technology.
    Apples an oranges. Mad Max' setting is in more or less the modern times after an apocalyptic event took place. Technology would be everywhere. Warcraft's setting is not the modern world, and on top of that, the desert where the vulpera are located is void of any technology.

    Likewise, tinkers are combatants who use technology (as I said in the text you're responding to). You don't have to be Tony Stark to be Iron Man, you have to be Tony Stark to make Iron Man. Here is your reference:

    https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2...ca-03770_r.jpg
    Then the entire argument about how it should be 'goblin/gnome/vulpera' only goes right out the window since every race can and has used technology in the game.

    I honestly don't think you even read what I wrote. Asking for something is not the same as wanting something.
    Um... it is. How can you ask for something without wanting it, in this context? It makes no sense.

    Features that are easier to implement are more likely to be added to the game. I don't see how you can find any issue with this statement unless you're trolling.
    Because your statement makes no sense. All races already have aiming animations, shooting animations, throwing animations, etc... all kinds of animations that would be used by the tinker. And adapting newly created animations for the tinker class are basically easy to copy to a different race.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  15. #2015
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And it will be Blizzard who decides what "fits". If we have a shadow expansion and Blizzard believes that Tinkers fit in that expansion, that's just the way it is.

    That said, I don't think a Gnome/Goblin centric expansion is out of the question. It's a running secondary theme in BFA.
    Wow the delusions of grandeur is strong with this post. Bruh, tinker will never fit in a shadow, death, fire, or any element of the Warcraft universe. Now there is hope. There is only one way tinker can fit. Mechanical expansion. Sadly, it doesn’t look like that is the case with current events. Tinker has a very slim chance to make it.

    A goblin/gnome expansion can happen, it’s not going to be this up coming expansion. I guarantee it. 10.0 or 11.0 might be the one for you tinkers. But 9.0, not gonna happen.

  16. #2016
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That said, I don't think a Gnome/Goblin centric expansion is out of the question. It's a running secondary theme in BFA.
    It's more like tertiary, at best. It's not even a raid, like Eye of Eternity or Trials of Valor.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  17. #2017
    Quote Originally Posted by protip View Post
    This argument is pretty weak. With a sample size of 3, even assuming only a 50% chance of the outcome you describe, the probability of seeing the same outcome 3 times in a row is 12.5%. That's assuming that Blizzard isn't accounting for Edgelord class fatigue, what players are requesting most, any perceived value in matching the new class to the expansion theme, or anything else.

    Let's say that matching the expansion theme is pretty important at 75% chance of determining the class theme. At this point you have a 42.2% chance of getting the same outcome 3 times in a row, and still having a 25% chance for something else the next time you roll.
    Thats not math, thats you stomping with your feet because you want tinkers.

  18. #2018
    Quote Originally Posted by DotEleven View Post
    I'm very confused about you contradicting yourself. You say they are undead elf farstriders (which is true for the most part) which basically makes them Marksmanship Hunters, but then say they'd make more sense as a Rogue spec? I mean, once again, they're literally a subset of hunter or, even more specifically a subset of a subset of hunter.

    It's not a contradiction, Hunters have just mechanically outgrown their roots over the years. But MM hunter is essentially what a Ranger would be, but that's not people want in a "Dark Ranger" they want some kind of Stealth, ranged opener, with upclose abilities as well. But unless we plan on adding stealth and multiple melee abilities to the hunter side of the house... Rogue fits the mold a lot better.

    Go back to the vanilla Rogue version and the combat tree is very much meant to be an expert swordsman on the battlefield, the stealth was secondary. Which would fit the Dark Ranger better, stealth, but not full stealth like assassin or sub, all it needs is a couple of ranged abilities and could probably just rob skill out of the sub tree, bam dark ranger.

    And again this is everyone elses perception, to me they are just rangers, they've never shown anything else, they haven't really even shown stealth (at least not in the rogue sense). They are Sylvanas's former battalion in life, which they still serve in death. And with the class remakes coming, MM might look even more like Ranger in the next expansion. But the hunter tree getting a major ability like stealth and then a whole slew of themed melee abilities or Rogue just getting a couple of ranged abilities makes more sense.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragtox View Post
    dark ranger makes no sense as rouge or hunter spec
    dark ranger is not marksman marksman = rifleman and sniper thing
    bfa are basing ability to much on ranger night elf, high elf ability meens they based on bow wich works so diffrent in warcraft universe then how a gun works
    so ability like rapid fire and barrage looks really weird on gun and crossbow

    i said this earlier there is a deep problem in hunter weapon is one of them
    thats meens we need ranger/dark ranger/void ranger and tinker as its own class to help hunter identity

    yes all those 3 rangers is a thing alleria windrunner is a void ranger at this stage

    dark ranger is on the same theme as death knight wich is why it will never be a hunter or rouge
    but are not the same class as death knight but dark ranger = dead person revived as banshee

    sylvanas have pretty much looked for diffrent power to make herself immortal so cant base dark ranger on sylvanas fully wich meen we are back to elf locked raced like demon hunter

    wich meens dark ranger needs to be based around nathanos


    so argument on how simlair stuff is deeper on a problem

    hunter with full of night elf bow base ability but you are playing a race like orc or dwarf its gona look really wierd

    another fix is to give every class their own raced ability on all classes but that be a big change so who knows but they probly wont do it
    but even changes classes to fit their race more wont fix how diffrent the ranged weapon works compare to each other
    while melee weapon are to simlair
    since we have not start on whip and chain on ball type of weapon to be its own weapon just a skin on the basic type of melee weapons
    Hunters using multiple other weapons is essentially just game mechanics.

    But all those characters are just rangers. Alleria was a farstrider, Nathanos is a ranger general, the dark rangers are just Sylvanas personal guard. They were rangers/farstriders in life, they still are in death.

  19. #2019
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It's more like tertiary, at best. It's not even a raid, like Eye of Eternity or Trials of Valor.
    Mekkatorque was a raid boss.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2019-10-18 at 12:15 AM.

  20. #2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yeah, I wrote a pretty long reply to him trying to bridge common ground.

    He cherrypicks 1 line out of it, makes a dismissing statement, and that was his entire reply.

    He's not actively listening to any counter points, he's just looking to dismantle anything that goes against his ideas.
    Indeed.

    I'm done talking to him, which I'm sure he'll be happy about, but it's just not worth my time. I'd still love to understand wtf his agenda is though.

    What's funny is I had really warmed to the idea of the Tinker being added, but his incessant bad faith responses for some unnecessary agenda have actually soured it for me.
    Last edited by tyrlaan; 2019-10-17 at 11:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

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