Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[Dragtox]

I just called you a biased elf lover.

Garithos and me will squad up soon enough, just you wait for WC3 Reforged.

but elfs are trolls that meens you hate trolls

[Buliwyf the Omen]

It's more about the gameplay tbh. Sylvanas has been ruined thanks to Blizz.

She was never much more than a waifu bodypillow. They should have made her ugly and fat, I wonder how big her fanbase then would be. Looking at those Succubi Mothers from Legion as a general idea.

[DotEleven]

And HOW would these abilities be different than other abilities within the game already? That's my point. But you touched on this later anyway.



And? Warlocks have their roots as a Mage who delved too deeply into Fel magic and summoned Demons. A Warlock is literally a Mage, they just use Fel magic and demons instead of Arcane. Paladins are Priests who went through Warrior training (or vice versa). Demon Hunters could have been any number of classes prior to their conversion and Demon Hunter training.

I never said they'd be unique, they obviously would overlap with existing classes, specifically Hunter, but their additional training, completely different life situation and motivation could color their abilities and class identity and fantasy. They are similar, but they are not the same.



That's kind of the point, many of the abilities in the game are functionally identical. That's all I was trying to illustrate by saying that.

There were quests prior to Demon Hunters being implemented that allowed all classes to get the eye cover head gear, TBC allowed multiple classes to find and equip the Warglaives of Azzinoth, and Warlocks used to have Metamophosis.

All of the things you said are correct, but that doesn't mean things can't change or evolve. Dark Rangers having pretty considerable overlap with Hunters doesn't mean they're the same class, have the same identity and will continue to evolve along the same paths. There are other classes that already exist that have overlap, and it didn't stop them from existing alongside each other.



I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's similar to Mages and Warlocks here, IMO. Why can't a Warlock just stop using Fel Magic and go back to using Arcane and be a Mage again? Why couldn't Warlock have been a Mage spec? There's obviously enough to make them completely different, but there's still overlap.

As far as lore goes, the idea is that becoming a Dark Ranger isn't a reversible decision, so they're not really a Hunter who abandoned the wild and can go back to following the wild whenever they want, they're someone who was trained to be a Hunter/ Ranger who now follows a completely different path, uses necromantic/ death magic to augment their Hunter/Ranger training and have a different motivation, lifestyle and ethos.

You're right that a bit of overlap is fine. But it's a crazy amount of overlap. The entire ranger side of a Dark Ranger is hunter. If you had something like a Rogue. And you had "Rogue but uses frost magic". Would you really expect that to be a full class on it's own, or just a Rogue spec?

Because a Warlock isn't a mage. Once again, you're being too generic. You're going "These guys are casters and therefore a Warlock can be an offshoot of mage". A mage taps into the arcane energies of the world, even the frost and fire are technically using arcane. Warlocks enslave and control demonic entities and delve into dark fel magics. Shamans tap into the primal elements. So despite the fact that all 3 use fire, they're all completely different with different playstyles and different reasonings.

You're right in that right now becoming a Dark Ranger isn't a reversible decision because right now a Dark Ranger is strictly limited to a single race (which is another reason it would make a terrible class). So, if they're going to open it up lore-wise why would they go through the hassle of making an entire class that will play very similarly to another class it is based on when they could just rewrite the lore to make it a spec of that class?

Also, Although I did put "abandon the wild" in my example, the current Dark Ranger lore is actually the other way around, the Dark Ranger didn't abandon the wild, the wild abandoned it due to the fact that being reborn is itself against nature. Which is why technicially Undead Hunters are a contradiction. Really I've said it in other threads that I believe if Blizzard named classes different based on the race you chose, Undead Hunter would most likely just be called Dark Ranger tbh.

[Kumorii]

She was never much more than a waifu bodypillow. They should have made her ugly and fat, I wonder how big her fanbase then would be. Looking at those Succubi Mothers from Legion as a general idea.

As long as her gameplay doesn't change I don't care.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

As long as her gameplay doesn't change I don't care.

95% of the male fanboys would disagree with you.

But yeah, Banshee Dark Rangers is not what we are getting.

Only Dark Rangers.

"only." *barfs*

[Dragtox]

You're right that a bit of overlap is fine. But it's a crazy amount of overlap. The entire ranger side of a Dark Ranger is hunter. If you had something like a Rogue. And you had "Rogue but uses frost magic". Would you really expect that to be a full class on it's own, or just a Rogue spec?

Because a Warlock isn't a mage. Once again, you're being too generic. You're going "These guys are casters and therefore a Warlock can be an offshoot of mage". A mage taps into the arcane energies of the world, even the frost and fire are technically using arcane. Warlocks enslave and control demonic entities and delve into dark fel magics. Shamans tap into the primal elements. So despite the fact that all 3 use fire, they're all completely different with different playstyles and different reasonings.

You're right in that right now becoming a Dark Ranger isn't a reversible decision because right now a Dark Ranger is strictly limited to a single race (which is another reason it would make a terrible class). So, if they're going to open it up lore-wise why would they go through the hassle of making an entire class that will play very similarly to another class it is based on when they could just rewrite the lore to make it a spec of that class?

Also, Although I did put "abandon the wild" in my example, the current Dark Ranger lore is actually the other way around, the Dark Ranger didn't abandon the wild, the wild abandoned it due to the fact that being reborn is itself against nature. Which is why technicially Undead Hunters are a contradiction. Really I've said it in other threads that I believe if Blizzard named classes different based on the race you chose, Undead Hunter would most likely just be called Dark Ranger tbh.

not if the new lich king lore that are to maby make more dk makes dark ranger aswell that meens a dark ranger that is not loyal to sylvanas

[Teriz]

But how does a Tinker play? How will their abilities work? HOW will they be different than an existing classes game play mechanics?

How would their ranged attack be different than the other ranged attacks we have in game (Auto Shot, Aimed Shot, Fireball, etc...)? How would their energy shields be any different than the "energy" shields we have in game already (Power Word: Shield, Ignore Pain, etc...) How will their turrets be any different than the turrets we already have in game (Warlock Imps, Shaman fire totem, Druid Treants, Ranged Hunter Pets, etc...)? How will their melee attacks be any different than the dozens of other melee attacks in the game (Sinister Strike, Rising Sun Kick, Mortal Strike, Maul, etc...)?

1. Based on HotS and WC3 abilities, the ranged attacks are via devices like turrets and robotic summons, alongside energy based weaponry like Gravity Bomb and Death Lazor, and explosive abilities like Cluster Rocket and. Xplodium Charge.

2. Tinker should be able to drop multiple turrets, and upgrade the turrets either via cool down, or via passives. In HotS, the Tinker was able to upgrade their turrets in a variety of ways, and in WC3, a Tinkers had Engineering upgrade which enhanced their gadgets. They’re no reason to believe that also wouldn’t be the case in WoW. Via HitS abilities, the Tinker should be able to have his turrets focus fire, self destruct, and collect scrap from them when they expire.

3. Auto attack depends entirely on if the tinker is in a mech or outside the mech. In HotS the Tinker attacks via their half mech. In WoW mechs have ranged and melee attacks, and Mekkatorque’s mech could flip from melee to gun.

If theme is enough to warrant a new class both Tinker and Dark Ranger have enough to warrant a new class, especially since mechanics could be created that make them unique to existing classes. I'd agree that Tinker is more original specifically because we don't have a tech themes class, but that doesn't mean Dark Ranger isn't feasible or should be completely disregarded.

The Dark Ranger has enough to warrant a class, though it’d be a 2-spec class that won’t offer much different than what we’ve seen out of the Hunter class,

[Kumorii]

95% of the male fanboys would disagree with you.

But yeah, Banshee Dark Rangers is not what we are getting.

Only Dark Rangers.

"only." *barfs*

Highly doubt it. At least we agree we are getting Dark Rangers

[Buliwyf the Omen]

Highly doubt it. At least we agree we are getting Dark Rangers

Of course we are getting Dark Rangers!

I just didnt say when.

Maybe in two weeks, maybe in two weeks and two years.

[Dragtox]

1. Based on HotS and WC3 abilities, the ranged attacks are via devices like turrets and robotic summons, alongside energy based weaponry like Gravity Bomb and Death Lazor, and explosive abilities like Cluster Rocket and. Xplodium Charge.

2. Tinker should be able to drop multiple turrets, and upgrade the turrets either via cool down, or via passives. In HotS, the Tinker was able to upgrade their turrets in a variety of ways, and in WC3, a Tinkers had Engineering upgrade which enhanced their gadgets. They’re no reason to believe that also wouldn’t be the case in WoW. Via HitS abilities, the Tinker should be able to have his turrets focus fire, self destruct, and collect scrap from them when they expire.

3. Auto attack depends entirely on if the tinker is in a mech or outside the mech. In HotS the Tinker attacks via their half mech. In WoW mechs have ranged and melee attacks, and Mekkatorque’s mech could flip from melee to gun.



The Dark Ranger has enough to warrant a class, though it’d be a 2-spec class that won’t offer much different than what we’ve seen out of the Hunter class,

thats why i say dark ranger s more 1 spec wich is fine but if it help people we can call it sub class since it only got 1 spec atleast people get their dark ranger

[Kumorii]

Of course we are getting Dark Rangers!

I just didnt say when.

Maybe in two weeks, maybe in two weeks and two years.

ahem... classes are every 4 years!

[Buliwyf the Omen]

ahem... classes are every 4 years!

Oh, right.

Well, lets hope it is Tinkers. Otherwise I purchase a physical copy of BfA to flush it down the toilet.

[TigTone]

Really hoping for a curve ball; Two new classes!

[Teriz]

• HotS is not canon to Warcraft.

Yet Blizzard has used the HotS version of Gazlowe for WC3R.

• Gazlowe has yet to be referenced as a tinker in WoW.
• The WC3 Reforged goblin tinker model that was leaked is, until proven wrong, used solely for the WC3 goblin tinker unit. You have to wait until someone plays the "Founding of Durotar" bonus campaign to find out if Gazlowe's model has been replaced from Goblin Sapper to Goblin Tinker. Only then you'll have a point.

LoL! If you really think Gazlowe is going to be a sapper again, you’re fooling yourself.

[Kumorii]

Yet Blizzard has used the HotS version of Gazlowe for WC3R.

Source please!

[Buliwyf the Omen]

Really hoping for a curve ball; Two new classes!

And imagine then its Necromancers and Dark Rangers.

I would purchase a BlizzCon Ticket for next year just to toss rotten vegetables on Stage if that happens.

[Teriz]

thats why i say dark ranger s more 1 spec wich is fine but if it help people we can call it sub class since it only got 1 spec atleast people get their dark ranger

LoL! A 1 spec class would be worthless.

- - - Updated - - -

Source please!

It’s posted in this thread. Look for it.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

LoL! A 1 spec class would be worthless.

I have heard some rumors by Ion.

They said "If Teriz stays calm until BlizzCon we add Tinkers in 9.0 instead of Necromancers!"

Lets brood in silent excitement!

There you go dearest @Kumorii!

Thats the one you ment, right Teriz?

[Katchii]

1. Based on HotS and WC3 abilities, the ranged attacks are via devices like turrets and robotic summons, alongside energy based weaponry like Gravity Bomb and Death Lazor, and explosive abilities like Cluster Rocket and. Xplodium Charge.

How would the turrets or robotic summons be different, game play mechanics wise, from Warlock Imps, a Hunter pet with ranged attacks, or Shaman Totems (do they even still have a totem like this anymore? I don't remember)?

How would Gravity Bomb and Death Lazor and the explosive abilities be different than Explosive Trap, Frozen Orb, Earthquake, Rain of Fire?

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just reiterating that theme is not game play.

As fun as it would be to have a Tinker class, if the game play doesn't differ enough from current classes it wouldn't be all that interesting to play, IMO.

2. Tinker should be able to drop multiple turrets, and upgrade the turrets either via cool down, or via passives. In HotS, the Tinker was able to upgrade their turrets in a variety of ways, and in WC3, a Tinkers had Engineering upgrade which enhanced their gadgets. They’re no reason to believe that also wouldn’t be the case in WoW. Via HitS abilities, the Tinker should be able to have his turrets focus fire, self destruct, and collect scrap from them when they expire.

These all sound very similar to existing mechanics other classes have. Warlocks can have multiple imps that can self destruct on command, Druids can summon multiple Treants on cooldown, Hunters can change their pet specialization, BM Hunters have Bestial Wrath to "upgrade" their pet for a limited time, Shamans have powerful totems on cooldowns.

3. Auto attack depends entirely on if the tinker is in a mech or outside the mech. In HotS the Tinker attacks via their half mech. In WoW mechs have ranged and melee attacks, and Mekkatorque’s mech could flip from melee to gun.

So, just a mech suit paint job on auto-attacking or auto shot depending on which mode you were in, melee or ranged?

Not denying that would be cool to see, just saying it's just a paint job on an existing ability. To call it "overlap" would be an understatement.

The Dark Ranger has enough to warrant a class, though it’d be a 2-spec class that won’t offer much different than what we’ve seen out of the Hunter class,

At least you acknowledge that much.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "much different than what we've seen," in what way? Theme or mechanics? Because based on the abilities you're suggesting I'm not seeing how Tinker would be bringing something much different to the table vs what we've already seen aside from a mech suit/ Tinker paint job.

[Futhark]

ahem... classes are every 4 years!

I know, its like a bad dream that keeps coming back. At least posts will be Tinker free for another three years, then all the old posters will come back and it starts all over again...