Page 15 of 44 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
17
25
... LastLast
  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Ah, so your personal opinion on what PvP needs. Just checking.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The major lore character is Gazlowe. Skaggit contains Gazlowe's abilities from HotS, and in lore is Gazlowe's assistant.

    Truly, this isn't that hard.
    You're right, it isn't hard. You just have your nonsensical pipe dream.
    And lol, skaggit is not a major lore character by any stretch. Do you know what major means?

  2. #282
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Kehego View Post
    You're right, it isn't hard. You just have your nonsensical pipe dream.
    And lol, skaggit is not a major lore character by any stretch. Do you know what major means?
    Nonsensical would be to ignore Skaggit's connections with Gazlowe in order to extend your bad faith arguments.

  3. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Ah, so your personal opinion on what PvP needs. Just checking.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The major lore character is Gazlowe. Skaggit contains Gazlowe's abilities from HotS, and in lore is Gazlowe's assistant.

    Truly, this isn't that hard.
    I mean it is something the game wouldn't have that could have counter play against.

    Your concept just doesn't work in wow or even lol for that matter where it was also tried.

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Nonsensical would be to ignore Skaggit's connections with Gazlowe in order to extend your bad faith arguments.
    Nonsensical would be to think that a minor character, nothing more than a named npc, and trash mobs in dungeons, is enough to base a class on.

  5. #285
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Laughingjack View Post
    I mean it is something the game wouldn't have that could have counter play against.

    Your concept just doesn't work in wow or even lol for that matter where it was also tried.
    The concept works just fine in PvE, and thus it would work fine in PvP. The concept working in PvE is all that really matters. If it works in PvE all that Blizzard needs to do is tune the numbers, reduce the effectiveness of certain abilities, and give it some PvP talents.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kehego View Post
    Nonsensical would be to think that a minor character, nothing more than a named npc, and trash mobs in dungeons, is enough to base a class on.
    Er, I'm basing the class on the WC3 and HotS heroes. I'm basing a specialization on Skaggit who also happens to use those aforementioned HotS abilities.

  6. #286
    Quote Originally Posted by Casperite View Post
    How? Don't get me wrong, Tinker sounds super boring to me and I wouldn't be excited about it, but how are people that want that as a class exhibiting a "fetish"? Do you know what a fetish is?
    I'm referring to the degree to which the topic is intertwined in nearly everything they do (or in this case, post). Not the actual sexual aspect of it. Furries, specifically are exceptionally outward with their lifestyle, and it seems like people who like the idea of tinkers can't help themselves but post 10 pages of fetishism for the class concept at every opportunity.

    Also, you don't have to throw in the patronism at the end there, not really necessary.
    I think I've had enough of removing avatars today that feature girls covered in semen. Closing.
    -Darsithis

  7. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The concept works just fine in PvE, and thus it would work fine in PvP. The concept working in PvE is all that really matters. If it works in PvE all that Blizzard needs to do is tune the numbers, reduce the effectiveness of certain abilities, and give it some PvP talents.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Er, I'm basing the class on the WC3 and HotS heroes. I'm basing a specialization on Skaggit who also happens to use those aforementioned HotS abilities.
    You're trying to foist your fantasy upon a minor character and trash mobs.

  8. #288
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Kehego View Post
    You're trying to foist your fantasy upon a minor character and trash mobs.
    Nope, just disproving your notion that "Tinker lore" states that all Tinkers are melee.

  9. #289
    Someone has to catalogue Teriz descent into madness from never getting the Tinker class.

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Skaggit is fully ranged and is using HotS Tinker abilities. How is that headcanon?
    Tyrande wields a bow, shoots fire arrows and casts arcane-based spells. How is that headcanon?

    Because Paladin classes are allowed to have healing spells in Warcraft. A Hunter with Mage spells would be a bit strange in the WoW class lineup.
    Irrelevant. Your argument was "class + class combination" classes are not allowed in WoW, despite the game having examples of "class + class combination" classes, like the paladin and demon hunter.

    The fact that the Beastmaster has melee auto-attacks yet wound up in a class that was fully ranged, and the Farseer has ranged auto-attacks yet was used in a class that has a melee spec disproves your notion that auto attacks in WC3 determine the spec breakdown of an eventual class. Based on those two “exceptions” the Tinker should have no problem having a ranged spec despite it having melee auto-attacks. Skaggit in the IE teams backs that up.

    Was there anything else?
    • The beastmaster hero unit may be melee, but all the other units the class was based from are ranged. Whereas all the concepts from WC3 you're using (Tinker and Alchemist) are melee units, throwing in the melee Gazlowe from HOTS being melee too, for good measure. On top of that, it's a case of part of the sources not being represented. What you're asking for is to ask for something that does not exist in WC3 (or HOTS, for that matter) to be created.
    • The WoW shaman is the only exception here, but, again, by nature of it being an exception, it means you can't use it to justify your creations. Exceptions don't make rules.
    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.

  11. #291
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Tyrande wields a bow, shoots fire arrows and casts arcane-based spells. How is that headcanon?
    What is your point here? That there isn't a class that uses bows and uses arcane based spells? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing here?

    Irrelevant. Your argument was "class + class combination" classes are not allowed in WoW, despite the game having examples of "class + class combination" classes, like the paladin and demon hunter.
    How is that irrelevant? Paladins have always had healing spells in just about every game they have appeared in. Are you arguing that there is a situation where Blizzard could have introduced a Paladin class WITHOUT healing spells?

    Also Demon Hunters are a complete invention of Blizzard, thus they could be anything Blizzard wanted them to be.


    • The beastmaster hero unit may be melee, but all the other units the class was based from are ranged. Whereas all the concepts from WC3 you're using (Tinker and Alchemist) are melee units, throwing in the melee Gazlowe from HOTS being melee too, for good measure. On top of that, it's a case of part of the sources not being represented. What you're asking for is to ask for something that does not exist in WC3 (or HOTS, for that matter) to be created.
    Oh, I thought we were only talking about heroes here. Well if you want to bring units into the picture, there's the Siege Tank, the Mortar Team, and the Gyrocopters. Those are also all ranged.

    As for your assessment on Gazlowe from HotS, that just shows you never played the character on a serious level. Depending on talent choice, you can either play Gazlowe as a melee hero or a ranged hero. If you don't take Robo Goblin, Gazlowe will get murdered by any melee in the game. Again, that reinforces the hybrid nature of the Tinker concept as created by Blizzard themselves.

    • The WoW shaman is the only exception here, but, again, by nature of it being an exception, it means you can't use it to justify your creations. Exceptions don't make rules.
    There's only an exception if there's a rule in place. Considering that we have two classes that contradict your rule, I'm not seeing how you can call those examples "exceptions". In short, if Shaman and Hunters buck your "rule", why can't Tinkers?
    Last edited by Teriz; 2020-04-18 at 06:59 PM.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    What is your point here? That there isn't a class that uses bows and uses arcane based spells? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing here?



    How is that irrelevant? Paladins have always had healing spells in just about every game they have appeared in. Are you arguing that there is a situation where Blizzard could have introduced a Paladin class WITHOUT healing spells?

    Also Demon Hunters are a complete invention of Blizzard, thus they could be anything Blizzard wanted them to be.




    Oh, I thought we were only talking about heroes here. Well if you want to bring units into the picture, there's the Siege Tank, the Mortar Team, and the Gyrocopters. Those are also all ranged.

    As for your assessment on Gazlowe from HotS, that just shows you never played the character on a serious level. Depending on talent choice, you can either play Gazlowe as a melee hero or a ranged hero. If you don't take Robo Goblin, Gazlowe will get murdered by any melee in the game. Again, that reinforces the hybrid nature of the Tinker concept as created by Blizzard themselves.



    There's only an exception if there's a rule in place. Considering that we have two classes that contradict your rule, I'm not seeing how you can call those examples "exceptions". In short, if Shaman and Hunters buck your "rule", why can't Tinkers?
    you brought units into it when you brought skaggit and trash mobs into the equation, but whatever.
    skaggit is about as lore relevant as naisha

  13. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    What is your point here? That there isn't a class that uses bows and uses arcane based spells? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing here?
    You pointed at Skaggit as an example of NPC that "breaks the apparent rules" and therefore it should affect class design, and I pointed at Tyrande as another example of NPC that "breaks the apparent rules" but doesn't affect class design.

    How is that irrelevant? Paladins have always had healing spells in just about every game they have appeared in. Are you arguing that there is a situation where Blizzard could have introduced a Paladin class WITHOUT healing spells?
    It doesn't matter, because it's an inescapable fact that paladins are a combination of priests and warriors.

    Also Demon Hunters are a complete invention of Blizzard, thus they could be anything Blizzard wanted them to be.
    "Special pleading" fallacy.

    Oh, I thought we were only talking about heroes here. Well if you want to bring units into the picture, there's the Siege Tank, the Mortar Team, and the Gyrocopters. Those are also all ranged.
    Siege tanks and gyrocopters became vehicles and mounts, but I'll concede on the mortar team.

    There's only an exception if there's a rule in place.
    So it's only a rule, if you say it's a rule? Double-standards much? Because you keep making up rules when it suits you, like when you always claim that all WoW classes have to be based on WC3 units, and using it to bash any class concept that dares bring something outside Warcraft 3, despite Blizzard never ever stating that it is a rule.

    But when "rules" are used against you, now Blizzard must openly state that those are actual rules?
    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.

  14. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by Wangming View Post
    Half the website will tell you that WoW is still the most successful MMO ever and will continue to be so. Just figured I should warn you.

    But yeah. If we don't count Feral splitting into Guardian and Feral, we had Eight specs added to the game, and all are melee.
    FFXIV also added 8 and 5 are ranged.
    ESO added the Necromancer with the last expansion.
    GW2 ads new specs all the damn time.

    I guess it is still better than SWTOR where no class or spec has been added since release.
    Considering there is no evidence to suggest it isn't still number 1, and considering Blizzard are making more bank than any of their competitors - I'd say the people saying that have good justification to

    - - - Updated - - -

    Not only have we never had a new ranged class, we've also lost one and had it replaced with a god awful melee spec that should never have made it past a scribble on a whiteboard

  15. #295
    Warchief Wangming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Not Azeroth
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    Considering there is no evidence to suggest it isn't still number 1, and considering Blizzard are making more bank than any of their competitors - I'd say the people saying that have good justification to
    Which is why I don't think we should say things like wow needs this or that to become successful again.

  16. #296
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You pointed at Skaggit as an example of NPC that "breaks the apparent rules" and therefore it should affect class design, and I pointed at Tyrande as another example of NPC that "breaks the apparent rules" but doesn't affect class design.
    Skaggit doesn't break the rules. Skaggit is merely proof of concept of a ranged Tinker spec. If you're saying that the "rule" is that a class has to follow the auto attack of a WC3 unit that it is based on, Shaman and Hunters already proved that rule invalid.

    Tyrande has absolutely nothing to do with any of that, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.


    It doesn't matter, because it's an inescapable fact that paladins are a combination of priests and warriors.
    You didn't answer the question; In what scenario does Blizzard create a Paladin class for a MMO that does NOT have healing spells?

    I also should mention that this is also irrelevant to the point of this discussion.

    Siege tanks and gyrocopters became vehicles and mounts, but I'll concede on the mortar team.
    Siege Tanks and Gyrocopters could be used as abilities by a potential Tinker class.

    So it's only a rule, if you say it's a rule? Double-standards much? Because you keep making up rules when it suits you, like when you always claim that all WoW classes have to be based on WC3 units, and using it to bash any class concept that dares bring something outside Warcraft 3, despite Blizzard never ever stating that it is a rule.

    But when "rules" are used against you, now Blizzard must openly state that those are actual rules?
    It's only a rule if there are no exceptions, or Blizzard openly says its a rule. We have two huge examples here that show that auto-attacks from the WC3 heroes have nothing to do with the spec configuration of a WoW class, so this "rule" you keep harping on about is invalid and nonexistent. Again, if Shaman can have a melee spec (enhancement) despite the Farseer being a ranged hero, why can't the Tinker have a ranged spec despite it being a melee hero (albeit a melee hero with an entire repertoire of ranged abilities)? Where's the double standard?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kehego View Post
    you brought units into it when you brought skaggit and trash mobs into the equation, but whatever.
    skaggit is about as lore relevant as naisha
    Skaggit isn't a unit from WC3.

    Anyway, the argument was that if a hero in WC3 has melee auto-attack, then the eventual WoW class it is based on will also be entirely melee (and vice versa for ranged auto-attack). The Shaman and the Hunter class disprove that argument completely, so I would consider this discussion closed.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2020-04-18 at 10:50 PM.

  17. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Skaggit doesn't break the rules. Skaggit is merely proof of concept of a ranged Tinker spec. If you're saying that the "rule" is that a class has to follow the auto attack of a WC3 unit that it is based on, Shaman and Hunters already proved that rule invalid.

    Tyrande has absolutely nothing to do with any of that, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.




    You didn't answer the question; In what scenario does Blizzard create a Paladin class for a MMO that does NOT have healing spells?

    I also should mention that this is also irrelevant to the point of this discussion.



    Siege Tanks and Gyrocopters could be used as abilities by a potential Tinker class.



    It's only a rule if there are no exceptions, or Blizzard openly says its a rule. We have two huge examples here that show that auto-attacks from the WC3 heroes have nothing to do with the spec configuration of a WoW class, so this "rule" you keep harping on about is invalid and nonexistent. Again, if Shaman can have a melee spec (enhancement) despite the Farseer being a ranged hero, why can't the Tinker have a ranged spec despite it being a melee hero (albeit a melee hero with an entire repertoire of ranged abilities)? Where's the double standard?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Skaggit isn't a unit from WC3.

    Anyway, the argument was that if a hero in WC3 has melee auto-attack, then the eventual WoW class it is based on will also be entirely melee (and vice versa for ranged auto-attack). The Shaman and the Hunter class disprove that argument completely, so I would consider this discussion closed.
    You would, but you're here desperately digging for a W.
    Rexxar *and* tyrande are hunters.
    Hunters have both melee *and* ranged specs (even vanilla sv had melee elements)

    KK. anyway keep trying.

  18. #298
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Kehego View Post
    You would, but you're here desperately digging for a W.
    Rexxar *and* tyrande are hunters.
    Hunters have both melee *and* ranged specs (even vanilla sv had melee elements)

    KK. anyway keep trying.
    Hunters have a melee spec NOW. They didn't have a melee spec from Vanilla all the way to Legion, which is 12 of the 15 years WoW has been in existence. Further, the spec that is based on Rexxar (Beast Mastery) is still a ranged spec.

    And of course we still have Shaman. ALL of the heroes and associated units in WC3 were ranged. Thus using your argument, Enhancement shouldn't exist.

  19. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Hunters have a melee spec NOW. They didn't have a melee spec from Vanilla all the way to Legion, which is 12 of the 15 years WoW has been in existence. Further, the spec that is based on Rexxar (Beast Mastery) is still a ranged spec.

    And of course we still have Shaman. ALL of the heroes and associated units in WC3 were ranged. Thus using your argument, Enhancement shouldn't exist.
    Survival had a ton of melee talents, though, and effectively boosted your melee attacks to a significant degree. Actually, every survival talented ability was a melee ability. Counterattack, lacerate. Hunters were (capable of) dual wielding and getting in the thick of things too (theoretically). Melee huntard 15 years ago absolutely was a thing.
    And yes, enhancement shouldn't exist, I agree. But then again, enhancement shaman had 1 melee ability total, so, yeah. Hunters had more melee abilities than enhancement shaman and ret paladins.
    Last edited by Kehego; 2020-04-19 at 01:26 AM.

  20. #300
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Kehego View Post
    Survival had a ton of melee talents, though, and effectively boosted your melee attacks to a significant degree. Actually, every survival talented ability was a melee ability. Counterattack, lacerate. Hunters were (capable of) dual wielding and getting in the thick of things too (theoretically). Melee huntard 15 years ago absolutely was a thing.
    Quick question; Was Survival from Vanilla to Legion a ranged spec, or a melee spec?

    And yes, enhancement shouldn't exist, I agree. But then again, enhancement shaman had 1 melee ability total, so, yeah. Hunters had more melee abilities than enhancement shaman and ret paladins.
    Yet Enhancement does exist, so there goes you and @Ielenia's argument right down the toilet.

Posting Permissions

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