Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[ReD-EyeD]

Gnome/Goblin aesthetic isn't appealing.

That's extremely subjective.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

There is no "except" anything, here.

Saying "existing class A" would lose "X ability" to "new class B" is a fallacy and nothing more than your wishful thinking. The sole example you have of this is warlocks and metamorphosis, and that, in itself, is a unique occurrence since it was a class-defining feature of the demon hunter.

Hunters would lose nothing if dark rangers came to be, since Black Arrow is no longer part of their repertoire. They can't "lose" something they already no longer possess. And that's assuming the dark ranger needs Black Arrow to begin with.


Even the vanilla classes had loads of overlaps with themes within their concepts. Paladins and priests, warlocks and mages, warlocks and shadow priests, etc, etc.


That's solely because you adamantly refuse to apply even a modicum of imagination into the concept. And we know you're capable of doing so, since you have two class concepts linked in your sig. And I'm not the first one to point that to you.


If "popularity" had any influence over Blizzard's decisions on which class to implement, tinkers and demon hunters would have been the first two classes added. But that is not what happened, was it?

With absolutely no offense in this sentence but your Necromancer concept for WoW is utter poop.

What you clearly want is a D2/D3 Necromancer, in WoW, for whatever reason. And you tried to squeeze in a blood healing spec just for the sake of having a healing spec.

[Sharby]

That's extremely subjective.

And? You asked why people would be against a class centered around them.

[Katchii]

Tbh i do not see mounts as relevant for anything. Hell we get Deathwing as a mount soon... That is just cosmetic stuff that has no consequenze for ingame events lore or anything else.

Excluded maybe the Class Mounts from classic and Legion.

I'm just saying the game is already full of stuff like this. It's already in game. Adding a class that uses this stuff as part of it's mechanics doesn't change that or all of a sudden take it over the edge. The idea that a Tinker class would make WoW too techy when WoW is already full of it is just a bit ridiculous to me.

[Ielenia]

Well to be fair, a class based on this;

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20180803215621

To say the dark ranger is based on Nathanos is as false as saying the tinker class is based on the profession trainer you meet at level 5.

No one wants the dark ranger based on Nathanos. They all want it based on Sylvanas, which is a fact you keep obtusely ignoring.

[ReD-EyeD]

And? You asked why people would be against a class centered around them.

I mean it isn't really an aesthetic exclusive to gnomes and goblins even tho being mostly connected to them.
And I'm fairly sure clowny kungfu pandas got more hate than any possible amount of tinker-like classes combined.

[Katchii]

In order to make a tinker work though you'd have to fully gutt engineering as a profession and it's already a shit profession with barely any uses.

Also there is hate when I dare to question the class you want when 5 or 6 of you are constantly jumping at me with BUT NO!!!!

Why would you need to gut the profession?

[Teriz]

Again, I just said they make sense for RTS/HoTs. If it wasn't clear already, Death Knights are not same shit as Monks and Monks are not same shit as Demon Hunters or any other combination in between and surely Tinkers are not same as any of them 3.

And again, the DK, Monk, and DH class all pulled abilities from WC3, and those abilities formed the foundation of those respective classes. There's no reason to believe that Tinkers would be any different, especially with the added benefit of HotS and now WC3R to pull concepts from.

Do you believe that Tinkers can be just a bombers spec in Raid and PvP environment?

Why would I believe that? Their abilities go well beyond simple bombs and explosives. Robo-Goblin alone forms the basis of a Tanking spec. Pocket Factory, Deth Lazor, Cluster Rockets, Xplodium Charge, Salvager, and Rock-it Turret forms the basis of a great ranged DPS spec. This is even before Blizzard adds custom abilities for the class.

[Sharby]

I mean it isn't really an aesthetic exclusive to gnomes and goblins even tho being mostly connected to them.
And I'm fairly sure clowny kungfu pandas got more hate than any possible amount of tinker-like classes combined.

https://www.worldofwargraphs.com/global-stats/classes


And that's why it is one of the least played classes in the game. If not the least played.

We really don't need another class that almost no one would play. The only way I'd see that could make Tinker more palatable is to separate it from Gnome and Goblins who are both widely unpopular races. I'd totally give it a shot if it was similar to machnist in FFXIV but if its just HotS Gazlowe but in WoW not only would I not play it but it'd also be an eyesore whenever I see it.

[Teriz]

That's VERY interesting.

I wonder if Blizzard is considering adding the claw pack to a Tinker class (if they are considering the class).

Also that's very clearly Gazlowe. So yeah, Blizzard just brought it back full circle to show that Gazlowe was a Tinker in WC3 as well.

[ReD-EyeD]

https://www.worldofwargraphs.com/global-stats/classes


And that's why it is one of the least played classes in the game. If not the least played.

We really don't need another class that almost no one would play. The only way I'd see that could make Tinker more palatable is to separate it from Gnome and Goblins who are both widely unpopular races. I'd totally give it a shot if it was similar to machnist in FFXIV but if its just HotS Gazlowe but in WoW not only would I not play it but it'd also be an eyesore whenever I see it.

And DH is one of the most played. What's your point? Aesthetics alone doesn't make a whole class.

[Katchii]

To say the dark ranger is based on Nathanos is as false as saying the tinker class is based on the profession trainer you meet at level 5.

No one wants the dark ranger based on Nathanos. They all want it based on Sylvanas, which is a fact you keep obtusely ignoring.

Except they're both Dark Rangers?

I don't disagree, but Sylvanas is more than just a Dark Ranger, she's also a Banshee and has apparently developed OP Death powers that can kill an Orc in one hit. So basing a class off of her wouldn't really be possible.

It would be like basing the Priest class off of Anduin.

If Dark Ranger was going to be based on an in-game character it SHOULD be Nathanos, as he's the more grounded option.

[Teriz]

To say the dark ranger is based on Nathanos is as false as saying the tinker class is based on the profession trainer you meet at level 5.

No one wants the dark ranger based on Nathanos. They all want it based on Sylvanas, which is a fact you keep obtusely ignoring.

It'd be more like basing the Tinker class on Mekkatorque instead of Gazlowe, since Nathanos is also considered a Dark Ranger.

[jellmoo]

"River Song" is from "Firefly/Serenity" One of my all time favorite shows/movies so AGAIN you are generalizing me and I don't appreciate that but you are guilty of being a denier out of selfish reasons along with the other one.

This is soooo incredibly off topic, but isn't River Song from Doctor Who? From Firefly/Serenity wouldn't it be River Tam?

-> And more on topic, I agree. There is plenty of room for people to disagree. I don't necessarily agree with your thoughts on Tinkers and technology within WoW, but you've been very reasonable and polite in your arguments.

[Sharby]

And DH is one of the most played. What's your point? Aesthetics alone doesn't make a whole class.

Except the success of DH's proves my point entirely.


DH's are centered around a popular aesthetic and are only playable by two of the most popular races in addition to being lead by one of the most popular characters of this franchise.

Tinkers would be the exact opposite, even more so if only Gnomes and Goblins could play as them. It wouldn't be successful at all.

Dark Rangers with Sylv at the helm and Necros with Bolvar would be vastly more popular because each of their respective class themes as well as potentials races are much more appealing holistically.

People are free to like Tinkers and continue to make design ideas, nothing wrong with that. But I'm telling you why I personally don't like them and why I don't think they would be good to introduce at all based on the last time we got a class centered around and unpopular race.

[Teriz]

Except the success of DH's proves my point entirely.


DH's are centered around a popular aesthetic and are only playable by two of the most popular races in addition to being lead by one of the most popular characters of this franchise.

Tinkers would be the exact opposite, even more so if only Gnomes and Goblins could play as them. It wouldn't be successful at all.

Dark Rangers with Sylv at the helm and Necros with Bolvar would be vastly more popular because each of their respective class themes as well as potentials races are much more appealing holistically.

People are free to like Tinkers and continue to make design ideas, nothing wrong with that. But I'm telling you why I personally don't like them and why I don't think they would be good to introduce at all based on the last time we got a class centered around and unpopular race.

Yeah, but DH players complain constantly about wanting a third spec, and that their class is shallow and needs more "meat" to it. That's a direct result of it being too close to existing class concepts to have more than 2 specs. So while it's a popular class, there's no reason to believe that's always going to be case going forward. Especially as DHs are more and more out of place in the game since we're no longer fighting demons.

Death Knights used to be one of the most popular classes in the game. Look where they are right now in that link you posted.

[Kumorii]

Not really. Wouldn't "be a traitor" means he was a paladin?

Which is what I said you have to be part of something to be a traitor.

[Buliwyf the Omen]

https://www.worldofwargraphs.com/global-stats/classes


And that's why it is one of the least played classes in the game. If not the least played.

We really don't need another class that almost no one would play. The only way I'd see that could make Tinker more palatable is to separate it from Gnome and Goblins who are both widely unpopular races. I'd totally give it a shot if it was similar to machnist in FFXIV but if its just HotS Gazlowe but in WoW not only would I not play it but it'd also be an eyesore whenever I see it.

Monk is the least played class because it is the biggest issue design wise.

Brewmaster? Completly ruined.

Windwalker? Very unfun thanks due to Mastery and in comparance to MoP.

Mistweaver? Literally always been in a weird spot since they wanted it to be a healer who deals damage to heal.

Not to mention they had absolutely no clue what to do with Monks in the first place during MoP design times.

I remember them having this extremely odd chi system with black and white orbs and having no white autohits in the first place.

[Teriz]

It should also be mentioned that a Tinker wouldn't end up like the Monk class. Monks really didn't bring anything show-stopping to the table. Unarmed combat, while interesting isn't really a "wow factor" kind of deal. Not only were they immediately compared to Rogues, but DHs also took a lot of their design space as well.

The Tinker being the "vehicle combat class" would be an entirely different story, and I think being able to pilot a mech into combat would appeal to a LOT of players, despite those pilots being Gnomes and Goblins.

[ReD-EyeD]

Except the success of DH's proves my point entirely.


DH's are centered around a popular aesthetic and are only playable by two of the most popular races in addition to being lead by one of the most popular characters of this franchise.

Tinkers would be the exact opposite, even more so if only Gnomes and Goblins could play as them. It wouldn't be successful at all.

Dark Rangers with Sylv at the helm and Necros with Bolvar would be vastly more popular because each of their respective class themes as well as potentials races are much more appealing holistically.

People are free to like Tinkers and continue to make design ideas, nothing wrong with that. But I'm telling you why I personally don't like them and why I don't think they would be good to introduce at all based on the last time we got a class centered around and unpopular race.

I honestly don't know where you get that idea of tinkers being extremely unpopular, especially after so many polls favoring them, except you being biased as you just said.
But once again, aesthetics alone doesn't make a class, it's just one of the MANY aspects. DHs are popular because they're extremely fun to play with so much mobility and stuff, and only second because of their over the head edginess.
I, for one, absolutely despise monks aesthethics in WoW and you can even track my previous posts hating on them, but guess what, I'm playing monk myself. Not because I love those stupid comical stuff, but because I love all 3 specs gameplay which is more important than anything else.