1. #2901
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You're missing the point. I'm telling you that abilities are derived from class concepts, which is why warriors don't have Reincarnation despite it being a 'warrior' ability in WC3, and why warriors don't have Mirror Image despite it being a 'warrior' ability in WC3.


    Mechanic- and gameplay-wise, exact same thing.


    No. Class overlap is giving a class a similar theme as another class. What you're talking about is ability overlap. Neither is an issue, though necromancers wouldn't have an ability "called 'Raise Dead' that summons a ghoul". Necromancers would have a different ability with a similar (but not exact same) effect, much like demon hunters got "blur" since rogues already had "evasion", a skill that demon hunter units had back in WC3.


    All stuff that could be done, mechanically, by the druid as well. Druids shifting out of their forms is 'eject'. They can also already 'park', it's called '/sit'. Anything else can be adapted to a nature theme.

    Which is why I keep saying that "themes" (fire, nature, tech, etc) are nothing but coats of paint. Look different, but functionally the same.


    Where's the death knight poison spec?

    - - - Updated - - -


    Objectively false.

    Name your abilities that couldn't be done in a nature theme as new abilities for druids.


    Healing with the Holy Light is healing with the Holy Light. And yet we have two classes that do that exact same thing.
    I take it you're fine with Necromancer simply being a class skin for Warlocks.

  2. #2902
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrlaan View Post
    So reductive arguments are only allowed when they support your views. Thanks for clarifying.
    Remember that argument from Teriz: "you're still summoning an undead minion when there's another class that summons an undead minion"... and yet he's completely fine with the existence of the Black Arrow ability... which summons an undead minion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Polybius View Post
    I take it you're fine with Necromancer simply being a class skin for Warlocks.
    I am 100% opposed to the entire idea of "class skins", so, no, I'm not fine with the idea of necromancers being a class skin for Warlocks.

    Class skins are a waste of potential class concepts.
    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.

  3. #2903
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Remember that argument from Teriz: "you're still summoning an undead minion when there's another class that summons an undead minion"... and yet he's completely fine with the existence of the Black Arrow ability... which summons an undead minion.

    - - - Updated - - -


    I am 100% opposed to the entire idea of "class skins", so, no, I'm not fine with the idea of necromancers being a class skin for Warlocks.

    Class skins are a waste of potential class concepts.
    Then why draw comparisons betweens between the function of a potential Tinker and mechanics of Druid? Or conflating potential Tinker mechanics with elemental themes? Or is potential irrelevant now? When it suits you?

  4. #2904
    Titan Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I mean, we can agree to disagree if you want, but what I was trying to do is get a handle on your line of thought. Because I really don't understand why it's cool for you to want a class concept to exist and continually denying others their class concept. Why is it that what other people feel makes their character fantasy work is irrelevant but what makes your character fantasy is sacrosanct?
    Because for all intents and purposes, those other class concepts already exist in the WoW class lineup. This is especially the case with the Necromancer concept.
    My comic series inspired by WoW and MMOs:

    Tinker Class Concept 2018 Dragonsworn Class Concept 2019

  5. #2905
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    "Too dumb"? Then how come many of the most accomplished mages are humans? Come on, dude, saying "humans are too dumb" is well, "too dumb".
    Right, they're not the most suited because there are other races that are smarter. I'm not suggesting that they're actually incapable, just that they're not the most capable. We've had that discussion already, right? I'm not trying to mislead anyone here, and I don't think that's a dumb statement, either. It's just true. I even put most in italics from the start, what do you want from me? D:

  6. #2906
    Quote Originally Posted by Polybius View Post
    Then why draw comparisons betweens between the function of a potential Tinker and mechanics of Druid? Or conflating potential Tinker mechanics with elemental themes? Or is potential irrelevant now? When it suits you?
    becus that is what Teriz is doing aswell with ranger and hunter therefor ranger cant be a thing or dark ranger wich has simlair story to dk abut their class but goes diffrent direction

  7. #2907
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because for all intents and purposes, those other class concepts already exist in the WoW class lineup. This is especially the case with the Necromancer concept.
    But they're not matching the class fantasy/character concept that people want, which is what they are telling you. It's like them saying you can play a Tinker with Gnome + Hunter + Mechanimal Pet + Engineering.

    You reject that because it doesn't check all the boxes of what a Tinker is to you. They reject your suggestions because it doesn't represent what the class concept is to them.

  8. #2908
    Quote Originally Posted by Polybius View Post
    Then why draw comparisons betweens between the function of a potential Tinker and mechanics of Druid? Or conflating potential Tinker mechanics with elemental themes? Or is potential irrelevant now? When it suits you?
    Because Teriz is convinced that a tech theme inherently brings "exclusive gameplay" options, and I'm trying to get it through to him that this is not the case.
    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.

  9. #2909
    Looks like a lot of people are discrediting Jericho's leaks on the basis of his most recent 'Blizz is threatening legal action' comments.

    Razorpax on the other hand is confirming a Dragon class immediately, Tinker class eventually. I'm a bit torn with this because I'd love this to happen, I'm 100% behind the Dragonsworn concept, but... I don't know if I can handle another 4 years of people pining for Tinkers.

  10. #2910
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Looks like a lot of people are discrediting Jericho's leaks on the basis of his most recent 'Blizz is threatening legal action' comments.

    Razorpax on the other hand is confirming a Dragon class immediately, Tinker class eventually. I'm a bit torn with this because I'd love this to happen, I'm 100% behind the Dragonsworn concept, but... I don't know if I can handle another 4 years of people pining for Tinkers.
    That's basically my take, too. I think people have a pretty well developed idea of what a tinker looks like, such that not being able to play one starts to seem like something is missing. At least it does for me. I'd like to see classes come more frequently in general, though.

  11. #2911
    Titan Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    But they're not matching the class fantasy/character concept that people want, which is what they are telling you. It's like them saying you can play a Tinker with Gnome + Hunter + Mechanimal Pet + Engineering.

    You reject that because it doesn't check all the boxes of what a Tinker is to you. They reject your suggestions because it doesn't represent what the class concept is to them.
    I don't see how what someone "wants" is relevant to the fact that their wanted class already exists in the lineup. For example, you can say you want a Shadow Hunter, but that doesn't change the fact that the SH concept was incorporated into the Shaman class.
    My comic series inspired by WoW and MMOs:

    Tinker Class Concept 2018 Dragonsworn Class Concept 2019

  12. #2912
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I don't see how what someone "wants" is relevant to the fact that their wanted class already exists in the lineup. For example, you can say you want a Shadow Hunter, but that doesn't change the fact that the SH concept was incorporated into the Shaman class.
    Because what they want isn't in the game? Because the class concept or fantasy cannot be accurately accomplished by existing classes. The same way you feel that the Tinker concept cannot be accurately accomplished by existing classes.

  13. #2913
    Titan Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Because what they want isn't in the game? Because the class concept or fantasy cannot be accurately accomplished by existing classes. The same way you feel that the Tinker concept cannot be accurately accomplished by existing classes.
    Saying the DK isnt a Necromancer for example because it's a hybrid instead of a pure spell caster isnt the same as the class lineup completely lacking a technology class.
    My comic series inspired by WoW and MMOs:

    Tinker Class Concept 2018 Dragonsworn Class Concept 2019

  14. #2914
    Quote Originally Posted by protip View Post
    That's basically my take, too. I think people have a pretty well developed idea of what a tinker looks like, such that not being able to play one starts to seem like something is missing. At least it does for me. I'd like to see classes come more frequently in general, though.
    TBH, people have a well developed idea of what Necromancers, Bards, Dark Rangers, Wardens and Dragonsworn would look like too. It's just that not everyone shares these ideas. Same applies with Tinkers, and what people have in mind when we say it.

    All class ideas are taken with a grain of salt. When someone points out X can't happen or Y isn't possible, it really is meaningless because in the eyes of Blizzard's devs, they can make it work. If this means taking something out of a class and repurposing it, or renaming an existing ability just to avoid conflicts, or even just making something up completely out of the blue, it'll all happen for the purpose of creating a new identity.

    To me, Tinker is just another in the line of many potential classes. They don't even all need to be drawn from WC3 as a source, considering Runemaster was on the shortlist in Wrath, and that's a concept that never appeared in Warcraft before. No one really knows what a Runemaster would play like, but Blizzard took the concept far enough to build an entire resource system around, and appropriately it matched what they had settled for the Death Knight. I think when it comes to what people feel is 'missing' from the game is just a matter of perception. Truth be told, as far as RPG archetypes go, we are definitely missing a Bard class; and a lot of people really want this class to be a thing, but I personally wouldn't consider it a very 'Warcraft' class concept unless it was tied to another existing archetype.

  15. #2915
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Saying the DK isnt a Necromancer for example because it's a hybrid instead of a pure spell caster isnt the same as the class lineup completely lacking a technology class.
    I'm not saying that at all though. I'm saying that we have multiple class fantasies/archetypes that can't be satisfied by the classes as they exist. At the end of the day the situation is the same: People want to play a character concept they currently cannot play.

  16. #2916
    We already have tinkers ingame. it's called engineering.

  17. #2917
    Titan Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    TBH, people have a well developed idea of what Necromancers, Bards, Dark Rangers, Wardens and Dragonsworn would look like too. It's just that not everyone shares these ideas. Same applies with Tinkers, and what people have in mind when we say it.

    All class ideas are taken with a grain of salt. When someone points out X can't happen or Y isn't possible, it really is meaningless because in the eyes of Blizzard's devs, they can make it work. If this means taking something out of a class and repurposing it, or renaming an existing ability just to avoid conflicts, or even just making something up completely out of the blue, it'll all happen for the purpose of creating a new identity.

    To me, Tinker is just another in the line of many potential classes. They don't even all need to be drawn from WC3 as a source, considering Runemaster was on the shortlist in Wrath, and that's a concept that never appeared in Warcraft before. No one really knows what a Runemaster would play like, but Blizzard took the concept far enough to build an entire resource system around, and appropriately it matched what they had settled for the Death Knight. I think when it comes to what people feel is 'missing' from the game is just a matter of perception. Truth be told, as far as RPG archetypes go, we are definitely missing a Bard class; and a lot of people really want this class to be a thing, but I personally wouldn't consider it a very 'Warcraft' class concept unless it was tied to another existing archetype.
    Blizzard typically telegraphs their future classes. A Dragonsworn class would be a pretty huge departure from how they typically release classes.
    My comic series inspired by WoW and MMOs:

    Tinker Class Concept 2018 Dragonsworn Class Concept 2019

  18. #2918
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    TBH, people have a well developed idea of what Necromancers, Bards, Dark Rangers, Wardens and Dragonsworn would look like too. It's just that not everyone shares these ideas. Same applies with Tinkers, and what people have in mind when we say it.

    All class ideas are taken with a grain of salt. When someone points out X can't happen or Y isn't possible, it really is meaningless because in the eyes of Blizzard's devs, they can make it work. If this means taking something out of a class and repurposing it, or renaming an existing ability just to avoid conflicts, or even just making something up completely out of the blue, it'll all happen for the purpose of creating a new identity.

    To me, Tinker is just another in the line of many potential classes. They don't even all need to be drawn from WC3 as a source, considering Runemaster was on the shortlist in Wrath, and that's a concept that never appeared in Warcraft before. No one really knows what a Runemaster would play like, but Blizzard took the concept far enough to build an entire resource system around, and appropriately it matched what they had settled for the Death Knight. I think when it comes to what people feel is 'missing' from the game is just a matter of perception. Truth be told, as far as RPG archetypes go, we are definitely missing a Bard class; and a lot of people really want this class to be a thing, but I personally wouldn't consider it a very 'Warcraft' class concept unless it was tied to another existing archetype.
    Here's hoping they've figured out classes and bring in at least 2 new ones. There have been "leaks" mentioning classes as the new Allied Races. They can cut down on time depruning by drawing from previous class iterations.

  19. #2919
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    TBH, people have a well developed idea of what Necromancers, Bards, Dark Rangers, Wardens and Dragonsworn would look like too. It's just that not everyone shares these ideas. Same applies with Tinkers, and what people have in mind when we say it.

    All class ideas are taken with a grain of salt. When someone points out X can't happen or Y isn't possible, it really is meaningless because in the eyes of Blizzard's devs, they can make it work. If this means taking something out of a class and repurposing it, or renaming an existing ability just to avoid conflicts, or even just making something up completely out of the blue, it'll all happen for the purpose of creating a new identity.

    To me, Tinker is just another in the line of many potential classes. They don't even all need to be drawn from WC3 as a source, considering Runemaster was on the shortlist in Wrath, and that's a concept that never appeared in Warcraft before. No one really knows what a Runemaster would play like, but Blizzard took the concept far enough to build an entire resource system around, and appropriately it matched what they had settled for the Death Knight. I think when it comes to what people feel is 'missing' from the game is just a matter of perception. Truth be told, as far as RPG archetypes go, we are definitely missing a Bard class; and a lot of people really want this class to be a thing, but I personally wouldn't consider it a very 'Warcraft' class concept unless it was tied to another existing archetype.
    the bard thing it kinda depends aswell i am not sure it is a good idea to base it on other bards from other mmorpg concepts
    more clever to go into technology to help make sound wave based weapon and you know i think people wuld prefer it to go the direction of rock guitar
    ofc they can also base guitar string based attack with the pandaria stuff wich is maby for the better so that ranger or wich version of ranger can be a class

  20. #2920
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Looks like a lot of people are discrediting Jericho's leaks on the basis of his most recent 'Blizz is threatening legal action' comments.

    Razorpax on the other hand is confirming a Dragon class immediately, Tinker class eventually. I'm a bit torn with this because I'd love this to happen, I'm 100% behind the Dragonsworn concept, but... I don't know if I can handle another 4 years of people pining for Tinkers.
    I messaged him about the class theme and told me it will be a "dragon knight" closer to the Titans than anything. Nothing too othewordly or Shadow/Void based. To me, that sounds very straightforward and boring.

Posting Permissions

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