Sadly looking like Tinkers could become a reality.

[protip]

Being intelligent =/= quick-witted. Being intelligent is not the same thing and being smart. Think of intelligence as being a tool, and "smart" is your skill in using said tool.

What's your point?

The exact same reasoning you're using to discount blood elves also applies 100% to the vulpera: the vulpera "smarts" are more "savvy-ness" regarding survival in harsh conditions, not developing and building high-tech machinery.

They are "clever" (quick to learn), "resourceful" (creative), and are no longer forced to use their "smarts" on surviving as slaves in the desert, because they are free and have the support of the Horde. You're trying to box them in here, but their description directly contradicts your claims.

Blood Elves aren't interested in technology, because they are dependent on and surrounded by magic. For them, magical affinity is inevitable, but that is not true for vulpera. So naturally, vulpera will make the most of the tools that they can find.

Sharing a skeleton with goblins has zero weight as an argument.

It's an archetype people are familiar with that has a low production cost due to sharing animations with goblins. These are both beneficial things. Having a high production cost wouldn't count them out, but claiming that a low one doesn't improve the chances of something being implemented into the game is nonsense.

[Triceron]

Shadow magic is void magic.

So where's the Shadow Ranger class for Void Elves?

[GrimReaper673]

I know that Blizzard has always implemented the full WC3 ability list into every expansion class they've released, and they gave Demon Hunters HotS attributes.

The Tinker would be no different.

That's your theory. Unless you work on class development for Blizzard, making a declarative statement and presenting it as fact just comes off as egotistical and fanatic. Especially when you dismiss virtually any other class theory out of hand.

[Teriz]

So where's the Shadow Ranger class for Void Elves?

Wouldn't a Void Elf be a Void Ranger by default?

[jellmoo]

Well my view is backed by evidence. Your view is backed by opinion.

You're stretching the concept of a perceived pattern as evidence. It could also be a massive coincidence.

Except none of the expansion classes have just appeared with no lore to support them. Mostly due to those new classes being forced to be tied to an expansion.

Ehhh, that's really stretching it. The Monk appeared with barely anything to support it. The bulk of Monk lore was created within the same expansion that it appeared in.

The game has changed, but its still heavily grounded on its WC3 foundation. I have yet to see a future class or expansion concept on this forum that strays far away that foundation. There's a reason for that.

The reason is largely based on the fact that Warcraft is a fairly typical fantasy universe and most of the same character and class concepts apply. Whether it's Tinker, or Necromancer, or Dark Ranger or Dragonsworn or Bard, these are not particularly new concepts and exist in a wide array of stories and narratives.

[Teriz]

You're stretching the concept of a perceived pattern as evidence. It could also be a massive coincidence.

Yet it is still evidence correct? Also a coincidence happening three times? Come on.

Ehhh, that's really stretching it. The Monk appeared with barely anything to support it. The bulk of Monk lore was created within the same expansion that it appeared in.

Pandaria, Chen Stormstout, Brewmaster, and Pandaren lore all originated in WC3, and clues to its existence in WoW were dropped since Vanilla leading up to MoP.

- - - Updated - - -

That's your theory. Unless you work on class development for Blizzard, making a declarative statement and presenting it as fact just comes off as egotistical and fanatic. Especially when you dismiss virtually any other class theory out of hand.

Again it's a statement supported by evidence in WC3, HotS, WC3R, and WoW.

What are your statements based on?

[Triceron]

Wouldn't a Void Elf be a Void Ranger by default?

Where are the Void abilities? Hunter is all about nature and pets.

[jellmoo]

Yet it is still evidence correct? Also a coincidence happening three times? Come on.

It's not evidence though, it's your perception of events. It could be true and correct, absolutely, but it's still conjecture. And yes, 3 times is how you've identified a pattern. The sample size is still quite small though.

Pandaria, Chen Stormstout, Brewmaster, and Pandaren lore all originated in WC3, and clues to its existence in WoW were dropped since Vanilla leading up to MoP.

Which completely pales in comparison to the amount of background information and expousre we had to both Death Knights and Demon Hunters. The hero classes had tons and tons of representation before appearing in game, whereas Monks barely had breadcrumbs to follow.

[GrimReaper673]

Again it's a statement supported by evidence in WC3, HotS, WC3R, and WoW.

What are your statements based on?

My statement is based on the fact that you don't know anything about Blizzard's class development, and neither does anyone else here. Your statement is supported by evidence of a past pattern, and does not at all mean Blizzard has to stick to it. Which, by the way, is the EXACT argument you use for Tinkers possibly popping up without explanation in an expansion that doesn't fit them thematically.

[Dragtox]

void ranger = new thing becus we got alleria windrunner we are already stepping into alot void thing alot in both legion and bfa i think void is more likly then death based class right now

but we have people closed on no changes on not letting new classes be locked to be limited to every new 2nd expansion blizzard already changed it so we get new races in the same expansion
this is easy possible with classes aswell but we should not remove the option some classes wuld only have 1 spec

but void ranger wuld be alliance only

tinker is no problem and does not matter if it was based on gnome and goblin other race can be tinker

but god sake the the hate for those 2 race still makes no sense like how people force them selves to hate furry

but i cant really see vulpera be tinker there are other race that works as tinker but i if they use big races liken orc and draenei they need to change the machine more becus size is a issue when you are gona go inside houses even do indoor combat

[Ielenia]

i guess illidan is not a demon hunter then, uther is not a paladin and malfurion is not a druid by that logic

Illidan was a demon hunter in WC3 because his hero unit was called "demon hunter".
Uther was a paladin in WC3 because his hero unit was called "paladin".
Malfurion was a keeper of the grove in WC3, because he's a re-model of the "keeper of the grove" unit. He was changed to druid in WoW.
Same thing with Chen:
Chen Stormstout was a brewmaster in WC3, because his hero unit was called "brewmaster". He was changed to monk in WoW.

[Teriz]

Where are the Void abilities? Hunter is all about nature and pets.

Considering that Hunters had Black Arrow for years, there's a good chance they'll get it back in the next expansion.

[Dragtox]

Illidan was a demon hunter in WC3 because his hero unit was called "demon hunter".
Uther was a paladin in WC3 because his hero unit was called "paladin".
Malfurion was a keeper of the grove in WC3, because he's a re-model of the "keeper of the grove" unit. He was changed to druid in WoW.
Same thing with Chen:
Chen Stormstout was a brewmaster in WC3, because his hero unit was called "brewmaster". He was changed to monk in WoW.

you really need to stop with that argument its a argument that you dont get anything from winning and losing becus i proved pretty much the sillyness of this is as a argument it is going no direction its a loop

[Teriz]

It's not evidence though, it's your perception of events. It could be true and correct, absolutely, but it's still conjecture. And yes, 3 times is how you've identified a pattern. The sample size is still quite small though.

So you're saying that Arthas, Chen Stormstout, and Illidan didn't originate in WC3? Are you also going to say that the WC3 DK, Brewmaster, and DH abilities weren't in the DK, Monk, and DH classes?

Which completely pales in comparison to the amount of background information and expousre we had to both Death Knights and Demon Hunters. The hero classes had tons and tons of representation before appearing in game, whereas Monks barely had breadcrumbs to follow.

Yes, because those were hero classes. That doesn't change the fact that the core of the Monk class was rooted in WC3.

[Ielenia]

What's your point?

The point is that the vulpera are "unskilled" in using their "tool" to deal with technology.

They are "clever" (quick to learn), "resourceful" (creative), and are no longer forced to use their "smarts" on surviving as slaves in the desert, because they are free and have the support of the Horde. You're trying to box them in here, but their description directly contradicts your claims.

Dude, their tech levels are barely above the tauren's. It doesn't matter if they're smart and quick-witted, to say that nomads who lived in the sand, with zero technology, can suddenly become masters of technologies is a huge leap that doesn't happen in just a couple of years.

Blood Elves aren't interested in technology, because they are dependent on and surrounded by magic. For them, magical affinity is inevitable,

But are the vulpera? Best I recall they're not interested in technology, just in surviving the harsh desert and surviving against the seth'rak faithless.

but that is not true for vulpera. So naturally, vulpera will make the most of the tools that they can find.

Still doesn't mean they can become "masters of technology". It's downright amazing how people, in the same breath, can dismiss races that have actually dealt with technology, like humans, dwarves, forsaken and orcs, "because they're not tech-oriented", but then go and say that vulpera can be tinkers, despite being the least technology-oriented race after the tauren and night elves.

It's an archetype people are familiar with that has a low production cost due to sharing animations with goblins. These are both beneficial things.

Which has zero bearings in deciding if said race can have the option to pick a given class. Otherwise, where are my void elf paladins, since they share the blood elf skeleton?

Having a high production cost wouldn't count them out, but claiming that a low one doesn't improve the chances of something being implemented into the game is nonsense.

"Nonsense" is your argument. Goblins and gnomes don't have "exclusive" animations regarding technology, this "production cost" argument holds no water. Production costs are not addictive. You won't have the exact same work and cost to add a new race option to a class that you had when the class was created.

[Triceron]

Considering that Hunters had Black Arrow for years, there's a good chance they'll get it back in the next expansion.

Just one ability that isn't even Void related? Black Arrow is a Necromantic ability.


Where are the Void abilities?

[DotEleven]

Hahah! Oh I'm getting it. We're saying pretty much the same thing anyway. Why do you think I keep bringing up 4th spec? It's because Dark Ranger is so close to Hunter.

Well yeah, I've never said it wouldn't work as a spec. If they're going to add a Dark Ranger it's more than likely going to be as a hunter spec or a spec skin (since having 4 dps specs for a single class would be ridiculous). If you follow all the way back to the start of our conversation, I never argued that it couldn't be a hunter spec but that the comparison of Warrior and DK is nothing like Hunter and Dark Ranger because a Death Knight isn't a Warrior, a Dark Ranger IS a hunter.

[Teriz]

Just one ability that isn't even Void related? Black Arrow is a Necromantic ability.


Where are the Void abilities?

Actually the Survival version of Black Arrow was very similar to Void Arrow.

[Ielenia]

New class will 99% sure be:
1. Something we have already seen either in WoW or W3
2. Some spells already existing in game
3. Had part in lore already
4. Is somewhat tied to recent events.

The monk class fails items #1, #2 and #3:
• The monk concept did not exist in any Warcraft game;
• Their abilities did not exist in the game, as far as I know;
• Monks had zero lore in Warcraft (Chen was not a monk in WC3).

It fails item #4 as well, depending on what you meant with "recent events":
• If by "recent events" you mean the events pre-MoP, then Monks had zero ties.
• But if you mean as the events of the current expansion that introduces them, then no, they did not fail that point.

Thus tinkers are most logical choice.

Not really.

Every "fake" leak reached similar conclusion. Funny how all of them mentions it.

Because every "fake" leak is 100% real, and not just a list of stuff with often little cohesion, mish-mashed together by putting together topics that are the most popular to get people to talk about them. Right?

Leaks aren't about the truth. Leaks, 99% of the time, are just bait to get people to talk about them, and what better bait there is than putting the most popular class concept, the Tinker, in it?

[DotEleven]

I wouldn't bother. The concept of exceedingly broad terminology appears to not be something he/she fully understands.

The term hunter isn't broad though. It's broad the way that person is using it to say "anyone who wields a bow". But hunters themselves are as stated about scouting, trapping, tracking, while surviving in the wild. They also deflty flit about the battlefield keeping opponents at an optimal distance.

Once again, I like how "Hunter" is somehow this broad crazy umbrella term because this person decided to use it that way, while terms like "Warrior" which could literally just means a fighter and "mage" which can literally just mean anyone who use magic aren't.